The Right loves Jews. The mainstream Right, in an attempt to pander to their Christian Libertarian base, talk up Israel as the location of the final battle and “rapture.” The underground Right blame Jews, the smartest and most longstanding diversity, for all of the problems of the West.
Not surprisingly, this has gone nowhere because both factions have ceded control to a mythical figure. The mainstream Right wants Jesus to save them by destroying the world, and the dissident Right believes The Jews™ control the world and must be overthrown for us to fix anything.
Fred Nietzsche took an interesting view of the Jewish population. He saw them as essentially a shadow population of Europe which was so talented in commerce and providing crowd-pleasing theories that it would always dominate.
His analysis went as follows in part:
Among the priests, everything simply becomes more dangerous — not only the remedies and arts of healing, but also pride, vengeance, mental acuity, excess, love, thirst for power, virtue, illness — although it’s fair enough also to add that on the foundation of this fundamentally dangerous form of human existence, the priestly, for the first time the human being became, in general, an interesting animal, that here the human soul first attained depth in a higher sense and became evil — and, indeed, these are the two basic reasons for humanity’s superiority, up to now, over other animals! . . .
You will have already guessed how easily the priestly way of evaluating can split from the knightly-aristocratic and then continue to develop into its opposite. Such a development receives a special stimulus every time the priestly caste and the warrior caste confront each other jealously and are not willing to agree amongst themselves about the winner. The knightly-aristocratic judgments of value have as their basic assumption a powerful physicality, a blooming, rich, even overflowing health, together with those things required to maintain these qualities — war, adventure, hunting, dancing, war games, and, in general, everything which involves strong, free, happy action. The priestly-noble method of evaluating has, as we saw, other preconditions: these make it difficult enough for them when it comes to war! As is well known, priests are the most evil of enemies — but why? Because they are the most powerless. From their powerlessness, their hate grows among them into something huge and terrifying, to the most spiritual and most poisonous manifestations. The really great haters in world history and the most spiritual haters have always been priests — in comparison with the spirit of priestly revenge all the remaining spirits are generally hardly worth considering. Human history would be a really stupid affair without that spirit which entered it from the powerless. Let us quickly consider the greatest example. Everything on earth which has been done against “the nobility,” “the powerful,” “the masters,” “the possessors of power” is not worth mentioning in comparison with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people, who knew how to get final satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical transformation of their values, that is, through an act of the most spiritual revenge. This was appropriate only to a priestly people with the most deeply repressed priestly desire for revenge. In opposition to the aristocratic value equations (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = fortunate = loved by god), the Jews, with a consistency inspiring fear, dared to reverse things and to hang on to that with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless), that is, to “only those who suffer are good; the poor, the powerless, the low are the only good people; the suffering, those in need, the sick, the ugly are also the only pious people; only they are blessed by God; for them alone there is salvation. — By contrast, you privileged and powerful people, you are for all eternity the evil, the cruel, the lecherous, the insatiable, the godless; you will also be the unblessed, the cursed, and the damned for all eternity!” . . . We know who inherited this Judaic transformation of values . . . In connection with that huge and immeasurably disastrous initiative which the Jews launched with this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I recall the sentence I wrote at another time (in Beyond Good and Evil, section 195) — namely, that with the Jews the slave rebellion in morality begins: that rebellion which has a two-thousand- year-old history behind it and which we nowadays no longer notice because it — has triumphed. . . .
But you fail to understand that? You have no eye for something that needed two millennia to emerge victorious? . . . That’s nothing to wonder at: all lengthy things are hard to see, to assess. However, that’s what took place: out of the trunk of that tree of vengeance and hatred, Jewish hatred — the deepest and most sublime hatred, that is, a hatred which creates ideals and transforms values, something whose like has never existed on earth — from that grew something just as incomparable, a new love, the deepest and most sublime of all the forms of love: — from what other trunk could it have grown? . . . However, one should not assume that this love arose essentially as the denial of that thirst for vengeance, as the opposite of Jewish hatred! No. The reverse is the truth! This love grew out of that hatred, as its crown, as the victorious crown unfolding itself wider and wider in the purest brightness and sunshine, which, so to speak, was seeking for the kingdom of light and height, the goal of that hate, aiming for victory, trophies, seduction, with the same urgency with which the roots of that hatred were sinking down ever deeper and more greedily into everything that was evil and possessed depth. This Jesus of Nazareth, the living evangelist of love, the “Saviour” bringing holiness and victory to the poor, to the sick, to the sinners — was he not that very seduction in its most terrible and most irresistible form, the seduction and detour to exactly those Judaic values and innovations in ideals? Didn’t Israel attain, precisely with the detour of this “Saviour,” of this apparent enemy to and dissolver of Israel, the final goal of its sublime thirst for vengeance? Isn’t it part of the secret black art of a truly great politics of vengeance, a farsighted, underground, slowly expropriating, and premeditated revenge, that Israel itself had to disown and nail to the cross, like some mortal enemy, the tool essential to its revenge before all the world, so that “all the world,” that is, all Israel’s enemies, could then swallow this particular bait without a second thought? On the other hand, could anyone, using the full subtlety of his mind, even imagine in general a more dangerous bait? Something to match the enticing, intoxicating, narcotizing, corrupting power of that symbol of the “holy cross,” that ghastly paradox of a “god on the cross,” that mystery of an unimaginable and ultimate final cruelty and self-crucifixion of god for the salvation of mankind? . . . At least it is certain that sub hoc signo [under this sign] Israel, with its vengeance and revaluation of the worth of all other previous values, has triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals.
— But what are you doing still talking about more noble ideals! Let’s look at the facts: the people have triumphed — or ‘the slaves,’ or ‘the rabble,’ or ‘the herd,’ or whatever you want to call them — if this has taken place because of the Jews, then good for them! No people ever had a more world-historical mission. ‘The masters’ have been disposed of. The morality of the common man has won. We may also take this victory as a blood poisoning (it did mix the races up together) — I don’t deny that. But this intoxication has undoubtedly been successful. The ‘Salvation’ of the human race (namely, from ‘the masters’) is well under way. Everything is visibly turning Jewish or Christian or plebeian (what do the words matter!). The progress of this poison through the entire body of humanity seems irresistible, although its tempo and pace may seem from now on constantly slower, more delicate, less audible, more circumspect — well, we have time enough. . . From this point of view, does the church today still have necessary work to do, does it generally still have a right to exist? Or could we dispense with it? Quaeriturnot its poison. . . . Apart from the church, we even love the poison. . . .
— This is the epilogue of a “free thinker” to my speech, an honest animal, as he has richly revealed, and in addition he’s a democrat. He listened to me up to this point and couldn’t bear to hear my silence — since for me at this juncture there is much to be silent about.
The slave revolt in morality begins when the ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of those beings who are prevented from a genuine reaction, that is, something active, and who compensate for that with a merely imaginary vengeance. While all noble morality grows out of a triumphant affirmation of one’s own self, slave morality from the start says “No” to what is “outside,” “other,” to “a not itself.” And this “No” is its creative act. This transformation of the glance which confers value — this necessary projection towards what is outer instead of back onto itself — that is inherent in ressentiment. In order to arise, slave morality always requires first an opposing world, a world outside itself. Psychologically speaking, it needs external stimuli in order to act at all — its action is basically reaction. The reverse is the case with the noble method of valuing: it acts and grows spontaneously. It seeks its opposite only to affirm its own self even more thankfully, with even more rejoicing — its negative concept of “low,” “common,” “bad” is merely a pale contrasting image after the fact in relation to its positive basic concept, thoroughly intoxicated with life and passion, “We are noble, good, beautiful, and happy!” When the noble way of evaluating makes a mistake and abuses reality, this happens with reference to the sphere which it does not know well enough, indeed, the sphere it has strongly resisted learning the truth about: under certain circumstances it misjudges the sphere it despises, the sphere of the common man, of the low people. On the other hand, we should consider that even assuming that the feeling of contempt, of looking down, or of looking superior falsifies the image of the person despised, such distortions will fall short by a long way of the distortion with which the suppressed hatred, the vengeance of the powerless man, assaults his opponent — naturally, in effigy. In fact, in contempt there is too much negligence, too much dismissiveness, too much looking away and impatience, all mixed together, even too much of a characteristic feeling of joy, for it to be capable of converting its object into a truly distorted image and monster. — Friedrich W. Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, §§ 6-10 (pp. 31-39), trans. Walter Kaufmann, Random House (1967, written 1887)
Begging his pardon, it seems to me that life is much simpler than our theorists want. In fact, if you read this site you will find it has little in common with contemporary theory, but a lot in common with how the ancients wrote and thought: clear paths of causality related to a natural whole.
When societies succeed, they lose purpose because they have attained their initial goal. They need to state another one, which means not just ambitions like conquest of space, but a future for themselves. They need some unattainable perpetual quest to get better at but never complete.
Once they lose purpose, they cannot any longer have ends-over-means thinking, or goal-based attainment that allows unmanaged individuals to achieve success at the goal. Instead, the false goal becomes unity and managing the herd as it rages out of control.
Ideology attempts to be a substitute for a goal but it is an inward-looking, means-over-ends goal. In clear thinking, you struggle to attain a goal and worry about losses later; in means-over-ends, you try to avoid methods where anyone might be hurt or die as your highest ambition.
Our societies needed something else to strive for which was not materialistic like technology or emotional like humanism. They needed to aim for an ultimate good, a heroic ideal, but instead they found foreign religions and ideologies which made the population easier to manage.
People read too much into The Jews.™ A saner Darwinistic look sees them simply as a mixed-race population that has struggled with stability because of its mixed-race origins. They are not capable of greatness, but are very capable at material sciences and commerce as a result of that origin.
Their religion is merely a restatement of the Greeks, their culture is based around labyrinthine rules, and their behavior reflects the chaos of race-mixing followed by bottlenecking. They are a group to be respected and for which we can have compassion.
Attributing all of our problems to them misses out on the fact that we began failing from lack of a goal, and everything we have done since like democracy and Christianity has merely tried to fill that gap. Until we get back on the path to sanity, we will continue falling.
Was this “priestly” revenge on the heroic spirit? More likely, bourgeois middle classes demanding that we stop trying to solve hard problems and start focusing instead on individualism so that everyone can pursue the lifestyle convenient for them.
Like all breakups, this means everyone moving in a different direction, working against the interests of the civilization. Diversity came in at that point and has accelerated the decline, which was spurred by our encounters with foreign invaders, but is not the cause.
We need a goal of establishing an order of good, not an order of pity for the weak, which means we have to think outside human concerns and look toward what is beautiful. A great civilization is not one that subsidizes its failures, but one that supports its greatest successes.
Obsession with Jewish people simply leads us away from that realization.