PAGE - 14 JEWISH EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY CLAIMS OF JEWISH SUPERIORITY I dedicate this work to Dr. Israel Shahak, a Jewish holocaust survivor and Israeli citizen who showed the moral and intellectual courage to challenge the Jewish Supremacism that endangers both Jews and Gentiles.

David Duke You can purchase a handy little copy of David Duke's original PDF book here - Just 3.26 Mb 368 pages - plus illustrations. At $15 it's an essential buy !!

In the early 1970s, a period of rampant egalitarianism, I read the Geography of Intellect608 by Jewish partisans Nathaniel Weyl and Stephan Possony, and also a popular book called The Jewish Mystique 609 by Ernest Van Den Haag. They claimed outright that Jews were genetically, culturally, and morally superior. They said brazenly what the mainstream Jewish histories had implied. In 1969 popular British scientist-turned-novelist C. P. Snow gave a speech to Hebrew Union College in which he claimed that because of “inbreeding” Jews were “superior to all other living peoples.” 610 Then as now, in explaining Jewish success, some Jewish authors suggest that the structure of Judaism had a positive genetic effect on intelligence. Assertions of Jewish genetic superiority enjoy a warm reception by the same media that caustically condemn as immoral and evil what they call “the theory of Caucasian genetic superiority.” Weyl argued persuasively that Jewish traditions had a eugenic effect, citing the fact that the most successful Jewish scholars and thus the most intelligent in the Jewish community, the rabbis, were supported by their fellow Jews in having the largest families. He compared the high rabbinic birthrate to the celibacy of the Catholic clergy, which he felt had a dysgenic effect among Gentiles. I could certainly see how such reproductive patterns would be beneficial to Jewish intelligence, and I was certainly willing to acknowledge that Jews are intelligent. What struck me then was Weyl’s thesis that Jewish social patterns and practices could affect their intelligence. I had long believed that both intelligence and behavioral tendencies have an important genetic component, but for the first time I began to think seriously about the underlying differences between Jews and Gentiles. Were they cultural-religious or genetic in origin? To get to the bottom of it, I looked at applications of evolutionary biology to the development of the Jewish people.

Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species611 dealt with the effects of natural selection on the individual, but even more importantly, on the selection process involving species and subspecies (races). He studied the origin of groups of genetically related individuals and studied their fitness to survive in their respective environments. The subtitle of his masterpiece reads, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Few understood the mechanism of group selection in regard to human evolution. Perhaps the best early exposition of it was Sir Arthur Keith’s dynamic 1948 book A New Theory of Human Evolution.612 Keith explained that just as individuals are subject to evolutionary pressures, so are competing groups. In the early 1960s, researcher W. D. Hamilton and others began the modern inquiries into the genetic basis of social behavior, now referred to as sociobiology.613 The principles of sociobiology, first propounded by G. C. Williams in the 1960s, became scientifically embedded in the principles of behavioral genetics and in the landmark work of Dr. Edward Wilson in his seminal Sociobiology: A New Synthesis. 614 I read Wilson’s book just a few months after it came out and found it magnificent. Although Wilson deftly sidestepped the application of his theories to the human races, he offered powerful evidence that behavior in the most elementary creatures such as ants had a biological basis driven by the urge to preserve the genotype. Genetic kinship turned out to be a powerful factor in evolution and behavior. In such a context, group loyalty and altruism become understandable from an evolutionary perspective in that the individual may sacrifice his life and his individual reproduction to ensure the survival of those who are genetically similar to him. Richard Alexander, J. Phillippe Rushton, D. S. Wilson, Kevin MacDonald, Edward Wilson, Edward Miller, and many others over the next two decades pushed the envelope further. They showed that human groups differing in their genetic makeup experience similar social pressures to those experienced by competing animal species or subspecies. The new scientific discipline called Behavioral Genetics and Evolutionary Psychology continues to break new ground, showing the intimate relationship between heredity and human behavior on both the individual and the group level. The insights of sociobiology and behavioral genetics greatly increased our understanding the development of racial differences. It is easy to understand the evolutionary impact of the harsh northern climate on more than 5,000 generations of Europeans and the effects of the milder climate of Africa on the Black race. In addition, the social taboos, customs and social organization of human beings since the beginnings of civilization can also have an obvious impact on reproductive patterns and genetic makeup.

Since the relatively recent domestication of the dog, mankind has produced, through selective breeding, hundreds of breeds that differ as much as the St. Bernard, the hairless Chihuahua, the German Shepherd, and the Pug. All come from one original species, and all are genetically capable of interbreeding. Here is how Grolier’s Encyclopedia characterizes the varieties of dog and how selective breeding has affected both appearance and temperament: Dogs vary more in outward appearance than in anatomical structure. An adult dog may weigh 2 to 99 kg (4 to 220 lb.), depending on the breed, and range in height from 12.5 to 90 cm (5 to 35 in.) at the shoulder. Other differences in conformation include length of leg; length of muzzle; size and attitude of ears; length, shape, and carriage of tail; and length, density, color, and character of hair. Over time, the various breeds were also selectively bred to produce temperaments suited to the tasks they performed.615 In the same way that people could selectively breed genetically different breeds of dogs, certain social structures and policies can affect human evolution. Social structures, especially those that influenced marriage patterns, could have a dramatic impact on survival and reproduction rates. They could certainly affect human temperament and behavior in the same way that dog breeders have created breeds as stoic as the St. Bernard or as hyperactive as the Pekinese. We all know people who are naturally as aggressive as a Pit Bull, or as friendly as a Labrador Retriever. Is the Jewish behavioral pattern a product of cultural institutions such as Judaism and its secular offspring, Zionism, or is there something in their genotype that inclined them to the consistent behaviors that they have exhibited across greatly differing cultures over three millennia? I wondered how the structure and nature of Judaism across the centuries may have affected the genetic characteristics of the Jewish people. Just as two species of animals occupying a particular geographic area naturally develop a group evolutionary strategy to compete for resources, so human groups can do the same thing — even in the civilized societies. They can develop certain behavioral traits that give them competitive advantages and greater reproductive success. In human societies, when genetically distinct groups interact, they can assimilate and lose their genetic distinctions, or they can develop ethnocentric ideologies and behavior that favor the distinct characteristics of their own gene pool. An ethnocentric group could even develop a religion that rationalizes its evolutionary response to other groups.

I wondered if the Jews had become genetically distanced from the other peoples of Europe and, if so, how deep the divide was. Had their supremacist and ethnocentric tendencies become ingrained in their genetic code, or were they simply a result of the cultural attitude of their religion and the separate societies they created? Did genetic impulses create the ideology of Judaism that reinforced and intensified the Jewish genotype? Years later, in the 1990s, the same Jewish-dominated anthropology that rejected the importance of European racial consciousness and sense of identity has reasserted Jewishness and the “Jewish identity.” In “Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology,” in The American Anthropologist, Jewish writer Gelya Frank celebrates American Boasian antiracist anthropology as “Jewish history.” 616 She points out that the central Jewish role was intentionally whitewashed for fear that Gentiles would realize that Jews had a radical agenda. There has always been a lively, if sometimes hushed, in-house discourse about American anthropology’s Jewish origins and their meaning. The preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian Anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations have been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline… This essay brings together strands of these various discourses on Jews in anthropology for a new generation of American anthropologists, especially ones concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism…. There has also been a whitewashing of Jewish ethnicity, reflecting fears of anti-Semitic reactions that could discredit the discipline of anthropology and individual anthropologists, either because Jews were considered dangerous due to their presumed racial differences or because they were associated with radical causes. –Gelya Frank Now, with the political and cultural dominance of racial pluralism over European solidarity, Frank discloses that Jewish anthropologists are reasserting their Jewish ethnicity and group identity. Any number of scholars are reasserting Jewishness in the academy, simultaneously attempting to discover and define what Jewish identity can mean in that most universalist of institutions. Some relevant examples from the long and growing list of sources, in addition to several already cited, include: Behar 1996; Boyarian 1992, 1996; Eilberg-Schwartz 1990, 1992, 1994; H. Goldberg 1987, 1995; Kleebatt 1996; Nochilin and Garb 1995; Prell 1989, 1990, 1996; Robin-Dorsky and Fisher Fishkin 1996; and Schneider 1995. The reappearance of Jewish difference(s) raises the stakes for Jewish anthropologists engaged in multiculturalist discourses.617

The article floored me. The same Jewish-driven anthropology establishment that tells Europeans that there is really no such thing as race and that racial identity is silly at best and a moral evil at worst, quietly promotes Jewish “differences” and “ genetic identity.” Frank’s article goes on with unrestrained praise of the Jewish pride in the writing of Barbara Meyerhoff in Number Our Days.618 All of this in the premier magazine of Anthropology, one that has repeatedly ridiculed the idea of race and ethnic pride for Europeans. When I first looked into the issue of Jewish genetic relatedness, I did not have the benefit of Frank’s article. At that time, I thought that the best way to investigate the issue was to see how similar the geographically separated Jewish populations are to each other and to the Gentile populations among whom they live. Do Jews differ from the other Europeans the same way that, say, an Englishman differs from a Frenchman or a German from a Russian? Or are they altogether different from all European subraces? Substantial work had been done on the issue, much of it from Jewish researchers who were busily studying their own people’s genetic makeup. Over the years, they enlightened me on this subject in much the same way that I had gained an interesting perspective on Jewish history from Jewish chroniclers. The first thing I found was information on the set of genetically borne diseases that occur almost exclusively in the Jewish community, such as Tay-Sachs disease. Their presence certainly indicated a genetic variance specific to the Jewish population and illustrated a genetic difference from the Gentiles. Soon I found scientific papers dealing precisely with the issues I sought. 619 620 Genetic researchers Sachs and Bat-Miriam discovered amazing similarity between the Jewish populations of nine countries of North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Europe. Conversely, they found sharp differences between Jews and non-Jews from those same countries. 621

In studying blood group data, Mourant, Kopec, and Domaniewska- Sobczak wrote in a book called The Genetics of the Jews that it may be said that, in general, blood group data…support the relative homogeneity of the main historical Jewish communities.622 Now, here we have mainstream Jewish anthropologists and geneticists — the same groups who chronically preach to us that there are no great differences between Blacks and Whites — boldly assert that the Jewish people are genetically distinctive and relatively homogenous! They argue that some differences exist between the Ash kenazim and the Sephardim (the main ethnic division among Jews), but that essentially Jews are a single people with a limited genetic resemblance to the European populations among whom they dwell. 623 • In blood group data, two major studies, one in 1977 by Bonné- Tamir, Ashbel, and Kenett and one by Karlin, Kenett, and Bonné- Tamir in 1979, found when using fourteen polymorphic loci, no significant difference in Jewish populations from Iraq, Libya, Germany, or Poland. They estimated that the genetic distance between Gentiles and Jews living in the same area is three to five times greater than for Jews living in the different nations studied. In the 1977 study, the researchers state “not much admixture has taken place between Ashkenazi Jews and their Gentile neighbors during the last 700 years or so.” 624 625 • Mille and Kobyliansky discovered in studies of dermatologlyphic data that Ashkenazim (Eastern European Jews) are much more similar to Shephardim (Middle-Eastern and European Jews) than they are to the non-Jewish Eastern Europeans. 626 • Kobyliansky and Livshits in using cluster analysis on 25 morphological characteristics, estimated that Jews in Russia were six times more distant from Russians than Russians were from Germans. They also found the Jews to be completely separate from the twenty-four other ethnic groups studied in Russia, Germany, and Poland. 627 • Another study compared modern Jews and those of 3,000-yearold Jewish skeletons discovered in the Middle East. Sofaer, Smith, and Kaye studied dental morphology from Morocco, Kurdish Iraq, and Eastern European countries. They found more likeness between the widely scattered Jewish populations than for the Gentile groups living near them. The ancient Jewish skeletal group turned out to be far more similar to the three Jewish populations than for every non-Jewish group studied except for one, an Arab Druse group from the 11th century. 628 One researcher summed up the overall genetic differences by saying that there was probably at least three times more genetic difference between an average Jew in France and his Gentile Frenchman neighbor than between an average French Jew and a Jew living in Russia or the Middle East.

The Jewish studies amazed me. I would not have guessed that Jews were that genetically different from all Europeans. I knew a few Jews who were indistinguishable from the potpourri of other European- Americans. From their appearance, it seemed impossible that there was three times more genetic difference from us than from Jews in remote regions of the world. But, the research proved that a wide genetic difference existed between Jew and European. I wondered why they did not seem that dramatically different in their appearance. Fritz Lenz suggested back in the 1930s that Jewish resemblance to the European populations did not mean that their genes were similar.629 He suggested that their similar external resemblance could have emerged from the natural selection of genes within the Jewish gene pool. These genes could simply be a small cluster of genes that lay dormant in the Jewish pool or that were introduced by limited genetic mixture with Gentiles, and which then were selectively favored by the social environment. Genes that caused a greater corporeal resemblance to that of the Gentile host could have favorable results in acceptance, accumulation of wealth, and social advancement and thus on reproductive success. By a somewhat similar process, distinct species of butterflies not closely related, come to resemble one another without narrowing their genetic distance. A very small set of genes influencing appearance within the Jewish population could thus be favored, causing a greater similarity of appearance to the Gentile population while not narrowing their overall genetic alienation from their host population. Over many generations the external resemblance to Gentiles could increase while the parts of the brain that affect behavioral tendencies and abilities could be unaffected. According to evolutionary genetics, it is possible that Jews have come to more resemble their hosts in their external appearance while at the same time becoming even more distant in their mental and behavioral characteristics. Whatever the questions of physical appearance, there seemed little doubt that Jews are indeed very different from Europeans and that they had maintained that genetic difference for a very long time.

I also ran across a number of popular sources arguing that high Jewish-Gentile intermarriage rates would end their genetic distinctiveness from European Gentiles. As in so many other matters dealing with the Jews, there is a wealth of information on the issue, an underlying reality that is very different from popular perceptions. Will Intermarriage End Jewish Supremacism? It is often said that the high rates of intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, especially in the United States, will diminish ethnocentrism and cause assimilation of the Jewish population into the Gentile gene pool. That contention is made in the highly publicized and promoted book The Myth of the Jewish Race by Ralph and Jennifer Patai. They suggest that Jewish intermarriage has steadily increased since the Enlightenment. 630 It is true that many Jewish groups and leaders have raised a great commotion about the dangers of intermarriage. Major Jewish publications often have articles and even ads decrying intermarriage and im ploring Jews to marry only other Jews. Steve M. Cohen writes the following in The Jewish Family: Myths and Reality: Vigorous effort by organized Jewry to try to halt or reverse recent demographic changes . . . to get large numbers of Jews to change their family-related decisions — that is, to marry young, marry each other, stay married, and have many children. 631 Pinches Stolper writes of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America promoting only strong pure Jewish marriages. In describing the threat of a beautiful Gentile girl living just a few houses away, he asserts: Intermarriage is a tragedy the Jewish people cannot tolerate. The person who marries out of the faith has turned his or her back on the Jewish people. Our tradition regards such a person as spiritually dead, and the family sits shiva [observes a period of mourning] for him or her. Such marriages rarely work, even when accompanied by a socalled conversion to Judaism, and certainly can never work when the Jewish partner is seriously concerned with his or her Jewishness. For the families involved, the result is heartbreak and tragedy, and for the children, a life of frustration, conflict, and strain. 632

David Landau shows that Jewish fundamentalism is rapidly increasing in the Diaspora. He quotes one of the opponents of a mild change in Reform law allowing tracing of genealogy through the father rather than the mother as “one of the most evil crimes, almost akin to Hitler. It destroyed the integrity of the Jewish People." 633 Rising fundamentalism has also meant a rise in birthrates among the most committed Jews. In an essay in the book The Jewish Family: Myths And Reality, Cohen notes that through high birthrates and by “using insulating mechanisms, the Hasidim have achieved a high degree of success in offsetting the assimilative tendencies of the larger society.” 634 Therefore, it can be seen that organized Jewry has made a concerted effort to encourage endogamy among Jews. Orthodox groups are certainly those most extremely opposed to intermarriage, but even the newspapers and magazines published by Reform groups strongly discourage it. The Jewish researcher Ellman comments in the journal Jewish Social Studies that the only ethnic or religious community in the United States that continues to attempt to limit and discourage conversions and intermarriage is the organized Jewish community. But Ellman — along with a number of other authors who are strongly opposed to intermarriage — also believe that the seemingly high rates of intermarriage are no real threat to the Jewish heritage. He suggests that it strengthens the traditional Jewish culture and genotype by eliminating those Jews who have assimilationist tendencies. 635 Ellman points out that intermarriage has little effect on the core of Judaism. He points out that intermarriage is far more frequent for second and subsequent marriages in which the couples are unlikely to have children. He also cites the much higher rates of divorce in intermarriage. More than 90 percent of intermarriages results in nonconversion and thus the intermarried do not become part of the Jewish community. Only a small percentage of children of intermarriage are raised as Jews, and more than 90 percent of them do not marry Jews. Ellman also reports that Jews of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to marry other Jews, thus the community will continue to be dominated by a pure Jewish elite core while lower-class Jews, who do not represent the desired traits of ethnic solidarity, are much more likely to marry outside and leave the community. Barry Kosmin and other Jewish researchers, in Highlights of the CJF 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, found that 91 percent of intermarriages were made up of nonconversionary couples, that only 28 percent of the children of such couples were raised as Jews, and that even this small minority’s descendants would not be likely to marry Jews. 636 Not only are intermarried Jews far more prone to leave the Jewish circle, evidence suggests that they often encounter hostility in Jewish society. Jewish authors such as Michael Meyer 637 and C. Waxman638 cite “tacit rejection” of the mixed couples. All these factors indicate that mixed marriages have little effect on the Jewish gene pool other than affecting the overall number of Jews. Higher rates of intermarriage will probably have the long-term effect of strengthening traditional Jewish genetic characteristics. Jewish elements prone to assimilation are being removed while at the same time there is a resurgence in Jewish orthodoxy and high birthrate among the most committed of the Jewish elements such as the Hasidim. Additionally, religious Jews in Israel are almost all Orthodox, and there is almost no intermarriage in the world nexus of Jewry — the nation of Israel.

Perhaps the best way to describe the Jewish community is how the distinguished Jewish writer Daniel Elazar does in Community and Polity: Organizational Dynamics in American Jewry. 639 He proposes a model of concentric circles. The inner circle is a hard core of about 5 to 8 percent who lead what he calls “fully Jewish lives.” Next are 10 to 12 percent of Jews whom he calls “participants.” They are often em ployed in “Jewish civil service,” working tirelessly for Jewish causes. Third, he identifies 25 to 30 percent of Jews whom he calls “contributors and consumers.” These make regular contributions to Jewish causes and make use of the Jewish community for things such as weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. Elazar calls his last group the “peripherals and repudiators.” They make no contributions to Jewish causes, but sometimes the inner circles pull them in to participation or they are peeled off, leaving the Jewish core at the center and the whole of Jewry more committed than ever. 640 Because of copious publicity of high rates of Jewish intermarriage, some Gentiles may come to believe that Jews are becoming less ethnocentric. But in reality the opposite is true. Those Jews left at the core are even less disposed to assimilate. At the same time, the outmarrying Jews who are amenable to Gentile values also serve an important role in causing Gentiles to believe the Jewish group is more similar to them than it actually is. More importantly, some Jewish researchers see a degree of intermarriage as having a functional value in Gentile environments. Mark Zborowski and Elizabeth Herzog say that it serves as a bridge to the Gentile community, but one that does not threaten the Jewish core. The peripheral area which serves as a bridge to the surrounding cultures fills several functions. It is an avenue to invasion, a buffer and a source of renewed vigor. Each impact that chips at the outer edge may serve simultaneously to strengthen the core. 641 Lieberman and Weinfeld, in their article “Demographic Trends and Jewish Survival,” view relatively high levels of intermarriage as a successful strategy in securing greater support from the Gentile community for their political and social goals such as political support for Israel.

The successful exercise of influence is best achieved in a community with a large subset of members interacting with politicians and opinion leaders. Through intermarried Jews themselves, and certainly through their social networks involving Jewish family and friends who may be closer to the core of the community, Jewish concerns, interests, and sensibilities can be articulated before a wider, more influential audience. In a recent interview, Presidential aide Robert Lipshutz traced the origin of Jimmy Carter's concern for Israel to his close friendship with a first cousin, an Orthodox Jew (Carter's aunt married a Jewish man, and their two children were raised as Jews). Intermarrying Jews, while perhaps diluting the community in one sense, perform compensating strategic functions in another. 642 Obviously, if intermarried Jews serve as a “bridge to the Gentile community,” those who are outside of the Jewish community but are conscious of Jewish blood will often have warm feelings toward that heritage and be well disposed to Jewish interests. They will also express less solidarity with European issues and interests. Far from solving the Jewish-Gentile conflict, intermarriage only tends to reinforce the core Jewish genotype and nurture more extreme political and cultural solidarity. By sending their allies into our culture and body politic, they are better able to secure Jewish interests. Among Gentiles intermarriage has the opposite effect. Because they are absorbed almost wholly into our society, our own solidarity is weakened while giving the appearance that the Jewish community is less impenetrable and ethnocentric. There is no real threat to the Jewish genotype; if anything it becomes more “Jewish” with each new generation.

Once I learned that Jews had a different genetic heritage than Europeans and that this difference was intensifying, I wanted to understand what that could mean in terms of Jewish behavior and evolutionary strategy.

An Historical Summary

This book has so far shown that Jewish history, from the earliest periods recorded in the Bible up to the present tribal jingoism of Israel, has been a long story of supremacism and ethnocentrism. Jews learned to thrive as a distinct minority in overwhelmingly non-Jewish nations, and they learned to preserve both their cultural and genetic heritage in the face of often intense pressures toward assimilation from the host societies. To avoid the process of assimilation that swallowed every other people living as a minority in ancient nations, they nurtured an ideology of intense inward group loyalty and love, and outward ethnocentrism and hatred. Through their sojourn as a powerful minority in Egypt early in their history, they created a strategy of survival and racial purity. Later, in a region composed of many distinct peoples, they refined their ethnocentric policy and created the mythology that this policy was decreed by God. It is a strategy that finds its purest expression in Judaism, a this-worldly religion that promises dominion and power for the Jewish people rather than personal reward of an afterlife to deserving individuals.

To resist assimilation by the much larger societies in which they lived, Jews developed a theology that fostered the belief that they were a superior people “chosen by God” and made “separate from other peoples” with a divinely-ordained right to rule the world, accompanied by a sacred obligation to keep both their culture and geno type pure. Non-Jews were characterized as unclean inferiors and even as murderous foes determined to destroy them either by extermination (as commemorated annually in Passover and Purim) or by assimilation (as commemorated in Hanukkah). To survive as a minority in other nations — often as newcomers with little or no land and a religious-cultural disdain for physical labor, they needed to develop skills in other areas. They became proficient at usury, finance and administration, and legal as well as criminal forms of enterprise. They discovered that with an altruistic team effort they could come to dominate important areas of Gentile social structure. It also became apparent that it was in their interest to maintain an ethnocentric “team strategy” and at the same time to weaken Gentile solidarity. They also developed complex strategies to hide their hostility from their Gentile hosts. By the end of their Babylonian captivity, a period of hundreds of years during which they flourished as a powerful minority in an alien nation, their Judaic strategy had developed to a fine art, which they codified in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and ultimately the Talmud. Jews developed distinct cultural, dietary, and ritual traditions to keep them separate from Gentiles. Distinct from the other two major world religions, Judaism sought no converts and, although ostensibly permitting conversion, erected barriers making conversion difficult. The Jewish community did not fully accept converts or even their descendants. (Many rabbis in Jewish scripture say it takes ten generations or more in the Jewish community to be fully accepted, and Jewish law refers to offspring of the converted as “bastards.”) The vast majority of Jews who out-married did so with nonconverted Gentiles, and thus were expelled from the Jewish community. In other words he was deprived of civil and political rights to which every Israelite had claim, even those such as bastards who were of seriously blemished descent. 643 As a cohesive minority in Gentile nations, Jews needed to hide their true ethnocentric beliefs. One aid to that process was their maintenance of the Hebrew language among their scholars and their limiting of translations of their texts into Gentile languages. (As documented in my Jewish Supremacism chapter, in modern times they even developed code words to disguise the more hateful anti-Gentile quotations in their Talmud and rituals — even to the extent of publishing companion guides to the Talmud showing Jewish students the real anti-Gentile meaning of the disguised terms.) 644 Jews also learned to make themselves as politically cryptic as possible, often content to direct policies from behind the scenes so as not to awaken Gentile ire.

In these endeavors they often failed to restrain their rapaciousness, sometimes leading to violent anti-Semitic reactions. The Judaic community has historically emphasized education and highly praised Jewish scholarship of the Talmud, rewarding such scholarship with prestige and economic security. Such policies had a profound impact on their genotype. Just as favoring the best scholars favored those with high verbal IQs, so a number of other aspects of their social structure favored other traditional Jewish characteristics. J. Philippe Rushton, in his groundbreaking 1995 book Race, Evolution, and Behavior,645 has shown in studies of data dealing with twin research, that even tendencies toward group altruism and ethnocentrism have strong genetic components. Jewish law has for hundreds of generations expelled Jews who have assimilated with Gentiles, thus removing them from their gene pool. Such policies would certainly strengthen any Jewish predisposition to ethnocentrism by removing those who had a more conciliatory attitude or even attraction to Gentile aesthetics or values. As the Jews became more proficient at usury, monopolistic business practices, tax collecting, criminal enterprises and acting as oppressive intermediaries or the administrators of occupational governments, Gentile reactionary Anti-Semitism reinforced the siege mentality of Jews. Their antipathy toward their Gentile hosts encouraged Jewish communities to support foreign military incursions and occupation of the nations in which they lived. Such actions in turn spawned greater animosity toward Jews, deepening the vicious cycle that continues to the present day. Jews reacted to the threat of assimilation by becoming more ethnocentric. In sharp contrast, living in their mostly homogeneous communities in the heart of Europe, our ancestors never developed the siege mentality of the Jews. As trade, slavery and foreign immigration increased into Europe, most European communities were ill prepared for the introduction of powerful, ethnocentric minorities within their borders. Gentile societies of the ancient world often permitted varied religious expression, including tolerance of the Jewish faith, whereas the Jewish people demanded strict adherence to their faith within the confines of their society. The Jewish community has continued through the centuries as an authoritarian society that has continually and consciously promoted Jewish cohesion. Even through the Middle Ages, many Jewish communities exercised the death penalty for those Jews deemed to have betrayed Jewish interests.

The execution of Jesus is a perfect example of the eradication of one who they felt was a threat to their homogeneity. Other historic tools used to maintain their ideological and genetic purity were excommunication and expulsion. While Europeans coming from a less competitive, homogenous society endorsed a live-and-let-live, more individualistic ethic, Jews maintained an intense collectivism. In modern times, Jews have strengthened their networks of communication and solidarity, while supporting the fragmentation of Gentile values and societies. To thrive as a small minority in an alien society also requires a talent for deceit. In Christian Spain of the Middle Ages, Jews responded to demands for Christian conversion by becoming Marranos, supposed converts to Christianity who secretly practiced Judaism. They developed elaborate schemes of deception that have lasted for centuries. Many secret Jews successfully deceived their Gentile hosts as to their true anti-Christian beliefs. The most convincing Marranos thrived and prospered, while those less skilled in such duplicity often suffered or perished in the Inquisition and other persecutions. Jews developed patterns of dual morality: one morality for themselves and their kin and another for their Gentile hosts. Conversely, Gentiles in the homogeneous societies of Europe tended to develop a single morality that favored assimilation when alien populations immigrated to their lands or when they conquered other nations. Ancient Greece exemplified that tradition by carrying a doctrine of universalism to their conquered lands. Some of the same values of within-race altruism that Jews revered for themselves also existed among European populations. However, because no non-European races were present, there was no need to develop intricate competitive or deceptive group strategies so characteristic of the Jews. In the dayto- day commerce and social interaction of Europe, truthfulness was honored as a standard for daily life. In times of war a more dual type of morality arose differentiating the interests of one’s own people from that of the enemy. Yet, the normal course of affairs involved interchange and commerce primarily among one’s own kind rather than among alien people. Thus our people never learned well the art of dual morality except in the exigencies of war. The migration and presence of alien Jewish elements contributed greatly to the modern development of European racial consciousness.

The Present State of Jewry

Churchill put it succinctly in 1920 when he described the Jewish takeover of Russia as having “gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and become the masters of this enormous empire.”646 In the last decade of the 20th century, they grip America in the same way.

They thoroughly dominate the news and entertainment media in almost every civilized nation; they control the international markets and stock exchanges; and no government can resist doing their bidding on any issue of importance. They can coalesce against any state that resists their power, such as they did in the economic extortion of a billion dollars from Switzerland or the way they orchestrated violent carpet bombing of Iraq. The cohesion of the Jewish people is indeed the context of the New World Order, and under its auspices they are attempting to extend their totalitarian denial of free speech from Europe and Canada to the nation that was once the most free in the world: the United States. Those who state the facts of Jewish power are called believers in “The Jewish Conspiracy,” as if to conjure the ridiculous image of Jews in caftans and yarmulkes, peering from behind their earlocks at a candle-lit globe as they plot world domination. But it is not the fanciful Learned Elders of Zion we have to fear. It is those who wield Jewish power today, ever more brazenly. There is no conspiracy, at least not in the usual sense of the term. There is not even much secrecy about it. Jewish power is ubiquitous. Every politician is so aware of their power that he knows he cannot dare mention it! Jewish organizations, Jewish media, and Jewish political agents ruthlessly advance their agenda remorselessly and without introspection. Just as they single-mindedly once orchestrated the Russian Revolution, they now coordinate their world power. No Jewish leader needs to direct his minions to seek political control over Gentile nations; they do it as naturally as the blue jay appropriates another bird’s nest. Jewish media bosses and government bureaucrats don’t have to be told to destroy Gentile pride, heritage, honor, loyalty, tradition, while simultaneously defending their own. There is no necessity of a master plan to corrupt Gentile sexual mores, family structure and religious beliefs. Freud and his intellectual descendants and media purveyors have certainly needed no plan, they just do what comes natural to them. No Learned Elder of Zion has to tell the Jewish bureaucrats to open America’s and Europe’s borders to the wretched refuse of the Third World; they know almost instinctively that in a nation of diversity, they can dominate. They also know that if they can destroy our genetic integrity and racial solidarity, there will be no one with the capacity to challenge their rule.

No, it is not an intricate conspiracy. It is simply two nations — Jew and Gentile — in a state of ethnic war. Of course, most Jews and Gentiles do not even realize that we are at war. But while we Gentiles are unknowingly taught cultural and political suicide, Jews are taught allegiance to their kind and hatred and mistrust of us. Only a small portion of Jews are on the cultural and political frontlines, but through many Jewish organizations, the homefront supports its storm troops. Of course, there have been Jews who have decried the hypocrisies of the supremacists. Some have even risked their own lives to warn Gentiles about the Zionist danger. Such men include Noam Chomsky, Benjamin Freedman and Alfred Lilienthal, three men of Jewish descent who realize that Zionist extremism can lead them to disaster. The peace movement in Israel harbors many such Jews. Some Jews, while still desiring preservation of their own genotype, seek a policy of peaceful separation and coexistence rather than Zionist absolutism. They realize that Jewish Supremacism may eventually destroy them. Although we understand the Jewish supremacist character of both Judaism and Zionism, we do acknowledge that there are individual Jews who embrace neither doctrine and who are not engaged in any kind of activity to corrupt or destroy Gentile institutions. A good example is Israel Shahak, a Jewish survivor of Nazi concentration camps and a professor in Israel who suffered greatly for daring to speak out about Zionism and Talmudic Judaism. He told the world about the Jewish misanthropy not only on behalf of justice for Gentiles but also to save his people from the consequences of their actions. Jews such as Israel Shahak offer hope of a mutually beneficial resolution of the Jewish-Gentile conflict. But Shahak and those like him remain a despised, tiny minority among their brethren. Fair resolution of the conflict can surely never come from Jewish hegemony. Only after we depose Jewish power in our own nations can we negotiate with them successfully. At this point in the conflict, although an ethnic peace conference would be the best solution for all parties, history tells us that it is unlikely to occur. Tyrannies defer only to greater power.

If they truly represented what is noble in man, perhaps it would be in the order of Nature to have our people replaced by the Jewish prototype. However, history reveals that in the sweep of history Jews have far more often been harbingers of darkness than of light. This is revealed in the tragic implementation of the doctrines of the three most influential Jews of the 19th and 20th centuries: Marx, Freud and Boas. These three Jews came to debase mankind, not to ennoble it. Jews have enormous power — power born of talent coupled with unscrupulousness. They are strengthened by that which weakens us. Our power can reassert itself only from dedication to truth and jus342 tice, from expressions of courage and nobility. When we violate our own morality, we grow weakened and exploitable, as we are now. Somewhere in our genotype stirs our genes for survival, and those genes are now expressing themselves in a new awakening. I see this awakening wherever our people are. It is especially strong in our young. It is a vision that persecution and hatred cannot destroy. Somewhere, at this moment, another fair baby sleeps peacefully in his cradle, unaware of the great battle now raging for his right to grow up and live in his own land and by the values of his own people.

Are Jews Superior?

What about intelligence, how do Jews compare to Europeans as a whole and to select European groups? There has been a fair amount of study on the issue, primarily by Jewish researchers. They show a higher general IQ for Jews. But the difference comes almost exclusively from the verbal parts of IQ tests. Most studies show that Jews have a markedly higher verbal IQ, but Europeans often score higher on the more abstract and spatial components of IQ. Brown found Jewish children higher in verbal IQ and Scandinavian children higher in visio-spatial IQ. Levinson found the same thing among Jewish and Gentile children in a 1960 study, and Backman shows significantly higher verbal IQs and significantly lower IQs for Jews on visio-spatial reasoning. 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 That Jews seem to be superior in the verbal mental skills seems perfectly consistent with their evolutionary strategy. Verbal skills are obviously important for communication, commerce, teamwork, administration, and mediation, all of which were vitally important in the societies in which they prospered. Werner Mosse, a celebrated historian of European Jewish history, has even suggested, citing studies from Germany early in the century, that Gentile manufacturers tend to be artisans whereas Jewish manufacturers tend to be from trading or banking families. He argues that the character of Jewish involvement in manufacturing in Germany of the 19th century was: less in outright innovation or invention than in a special aptitude for economic “mediation” in the forms of the export of German goods, of “secondary innovation,” technology transfer through the introduction into Germany of processes and methods observed abroad, and new techniques for the stimulation of demand. 654 Richard suggests that visio-spatial abilities and verbal abilities are negatively correlated and that more of the cerebral cortex is devoted to either one set of abilities or the other. Another researcher, Richard Swartzbaugh, in his book The Mediator,655 suggests that Jews are natural mediators in a multiethnic, multireligious, multinational environment, that the natural clashes between the antagonistic groups produces a tremendous demand for mediation. Such mediation finds expression in law, negotiation, arbitration, stock exchange, and government administration — all of which are responsive to Jewish verbal skills and intelligence.656 657 658

Jews have received a disproportionately large percentage of awards for scientific and cultural enterprise. From Academy Awards to Pulitzers to Nobel Prizes, the significant Jewish presence is striking. Disproportionate Jewish success in winning scientific and cultural awards is a reflection of both their abilities and their team strategy. Both the Academy Awards and the Pulitzer Prizes have a large contingent of Jewish voters who have from an early age been taught to favor their own. As mentioned in my chapter on ZOG, Jews are especially prone to join the governing bodies of any social organization in which they participate, and thus would tend to increase their ability to recognize and reward their own in their respective professions. Additionally, the Jewish-dominated news and entertainment media consistently elevate their own for praise and recognition. Barbara Streisand may not have been the best pop singer in the country, but she certainly remains so in the Jewish press. Schindler’s List may not have been the best movie made in 1993, but it meshed perfectly with Jewish social and political objectives. The appalling choice of Jewish terrorist Menachem Begin for a Nobel Peace Prize depended on the groundwork laid by the Jewish press around the world. Even in the scientific sphere, in an era of tremendous scientific advancement and great numbers of deserving researchers, publicity and media promotion of a scientist’s work is now probably just as critical for the earning of a scientific award as the work itself. In this arena, Jewish scientists have a built-in promotional advantage. Even today, with geneticists and psychologists rapidly proving the crucial role of heredity and race in intelligence and behavior, the Jewish media continue to tout the behavioral environmentalist viewpoint. The media give fringe egalitarians such as Lewontin, Kamin, and Gould preference over the quieter but more cogent scientists. As I pointed out earlier, the three most influential Jews of the 19th and 20th centuries were Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Franz Boas. All three were intelligent men, yet each had a catastrophic effect on European society. Karl Marx laid down the foundations for the most destructive and murderous ideology of all time. Sigmund Freud undermined the foundations of the family and European values. Franz Boas was the anthropologist father of the egalitarian movement that now seeks nothing less than the destruction of our genotype and every genotype on the planet except that of the Jews

The Ultimate Gauge

Even the so-called moderate wing of Judaism preaches a Jewish supremacy of morality and intellect. In an article in Reform Judaism titled “Relax. It’s Okay to be the Chosen People,” Arthur Hertzberg (the editor) and Aron Hirt-Manheimer discuss their victimization as youngsters at the hands of Christians. They assert the specialness of the Jews, even of those liberal Jews who don’t want to admit it. In the article they quote the words from the founder of the Israeli state, David Ben-Gurion. My concept of the messianic ideal and vision is not a metaphysical one but a socio-cultural-moral one… I believe in our moral and intellectual superiority, in our capacity to serve as a model for the redemption of the human race. This belief of mine is based on my knowledge of the Jewish people, and not some mystical faith; the glory of the divine presence is within us, in our hearts, and not outside us.659 (emphasis mine) It would be interesting to see the reaction if the President of the United States made a statement that he believed in the moral and intellectual superiority of the White race. Not only does the Ben-Gurion statement show a supremacist attitude, it also shows that his sense of Jewish superiority is not born out of believing they are “chosen by God” but arises simply from a self-chosen egotism. Before self-proclaimed assertions of Jewish superiority can be taken seriously, it is important to remember that the ultimate gauge of worthiness is creative achievement and historical performance. The European record is magnificent. Caucasians laid the foundations of astronomy, physics, mathematics, engineering, biology, geology, and Western medicine. It was our Egyptian ancestors who designed the pyramids, our forefathers who built the Parthenon and the Pantheon. It was our Greek ancestors who wrote the first novel, developed drama as an art form, and gave the world the philosophy of Socrates and Plato. It was our race that unlocked the secrets of the Copernican universe, our folk who built the Roman Re public and who wrote the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Our people created the great art of ancient Greece and unleashed the beauty of the Renaissance. Michaelangelo had our blood in his fingers as he reached out to God on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel; and in Leonardo’s hands our blood and unique DNA pulsed as he created from cold stone the warm beauty of The Madonna and Child.

From our genes came the compositions of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner. Our people invented the automobile, the airplane, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, the electric light, telephones, radios, and cameras — and even the powerful tools now used as weapons against us: the motion picture camera and television. Men of our heritage gave us the building blocks of the computer age: the semi-conductor, the transistor and the integrated circuit. Our people developed the math and physics and the chemical propulsion that enabled us to leave our footprints on the moon. I could go on and on recounting the great achievements of our European heritage. In the greatness of the Egypt of Ramses II, the Greece of Pericles, or the Rome of Caesar, or the England of Shakespeare there was almost no Jewish influence. Western civilization would still have scaled the heights without them. But, would we have plumbed the depths of Marxism, Freudianism and Boasian egalitarianism without them?

The difference between Jews and Gentiles finds expression in the kind of films made by Walt Disney and the type made by the current Jewish head of Disney Studios, Michael Eisner. While both Disney and Eisner made technically proficient films, Disney made films accenting the beauty and nobility in man and the wonders of Nature. Eisner steered Disney away from the Nature-film business and toward degenerate films such as The Crying Game and The Priest, two films wallowing in sexual deviance and depravity, films that Walt Disney would not have even watched — much less produced. While the Classical Greeks and the Europeans of the Renaissance were producing great art and sculpture celebrating the ideal beauty of the human form, Jews rejected art as “graven image.” Now they sponsor and promote degenerate art that prizes the misshapen and the weird over the well formed, noble, and heroic. And they dominate the pornographic rackets that explore the lowest depths of human degradation. While the European’s Faustian spirit has penetrated the deepest oceans and the highest mountains and even ventured into space; the Jews have seldom been pioneers. While we revere the soil, the Earth, the very natural world by which most Europeans and the rest of the people of the earth have gained their daily bread until very recent times, the Jews have, for two thousand years, sucked their sustenance from the golden calf of a soulless and parasitic urban life. While Freud held up the genital and excretory organs as the keys to the meaning of life, the Gentile Carl Jung dismissed Freud and developed the concept of the racial soul. While Jews still enshrine the dictum of an eye for an eye, the Europeans embrace, perhaps dangerously, the doctrine of “turn the other cheek.”

In terms of intelligence, Jewish supremacists have the verbal dexterity to have earned Jesus Christ’s referral to them as the great masters of the lie. But in the spatial skills that give us our sense of art and farsightedness, that give us balance and wholeness, we excel. They are a fast-talking, clever people well versed in the arts of manipulation and mediation. But they are certainly not superior in the qualities of character that have created the greatness and sublimity of our people. The Jewish genotype has certainly been resilient and adaptive, and they may yet, if we allow it, inherit our Earth as their dominion. The contest, though, is far from over. There is a wealth of wonderful genetic material in our people that shall yet prove itself worthy of survival. When our people awaken and apply our genius, our idealism, and our courage to the struggle for our survival, victory will be possible.

Jews have adapted to the vagaries of their surroundings while preserving their own genotype. But while they have adapted, we have created. We have created both technology and art. We have found great beauty in both the body and the soul. We have embraced both God and Nature; science and religion. We have learned how to balance both government and freedom.