Professor Oliver P. Revilo: The “Righteous Racism” of Jews (1987), “The Jewish Strategy” & Extermination of Aryans/Goyim


by Professor Revilo P. Oliver (Liberty Bell, July 1987) (

I OCCASIONALLY RECEIVE inquiries from persons who have come across some writing of mine and ask why I invariably refer to the Jews as constituting a race, although Americans have always been taught that the Chosen People are only a religion, venerable because they discovered monotheism, which is a superior form of religion because they discovered it.

I try to answer such questions concisely, listing what seem to me to be the most important points as simple statements, which I elaborate a little in inset paragraphs to provide a minimum documentation. You may find this elementary outline useful. I accordingly reproduce it here.

1. By the orthodox Jewish definition, only the children of Jewesses are genuine Jews; the race of the father is irrelevant. This is the official and legal definition of Jews in Israel today.

This use of matrilinear descent to determine race is extremely significant in a people so patriarchal as the Jews, and even more telling is the indifference to the race of the father, so that we have “Italian” Jews, “German” Jews, “Chinese” Jews, etc. — even nigger Jews! I have repeatedly urged that the Jews must know something about genetics that we do not know, and that the problem most urgently calls for the scientific research that the Jews forbid the lower races to undertake. In the Jews’ recently acquired “homeland” and their many colonies, the children of male Jews by women of another race are accepted as useful and treated as Jews by courtesy, but, according to such information as we can obtain, are never permitted to attain positions of real authority within Jewry.

2. The haematological research of Professor A. E. Mourant shows that all Jews throughout the world, with the exception of some small, semi-barbarous, and insignificant tribes of “converts” here and there, belong to the same race, having an admixture of at least 5% to 10% of Congoid blood. If there is a Khazar element in some Jews, it is too small to be detected by the analytic techniques now available.

See his The Genetics of Jews (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1978). — This disposes of the story about “converted” Khazars, which, we must remember, depends on only a few Jewish sources of late date, and it must be an axiom in historical research that nothing in Jewish sources may safely be believed if it is not attested by trustworthy historical evidence or has a very high degree of intrinsic probability (i.e., conforms to what we know to be likely in the given circumstances). The Jews are a race that instinctively uses deceit as a weapon, as witness their innumerable hoaxes, from the tales about a military conquest of Canaan in the Jew-Book to the Holohoax they are now trying to force their prey to believe. What is probable is that when the kingdom of the Khazars was very prosperous, there was a huge influx of Jews (as in the United States today), and that when the kingdom lost its commercial advantages and declined, the Jews in it naturally headed northwest in search of richer prey. They were “Khazars” just as Jews migrating from Germany used to call themselves “Germans.”

3. Dr. Alfred Nossig was a very learned Jew and a biologist of note, and while our geneticists reject his conclusions, we should give the most earnest consideration to what he (writing for his fellow Jews) reports, not as an hypothesis, but as an ascertained fact: that even “a few drops” of Jewish blood suffice to alter permanently the mental processes of persons of other races.

See his Integrales Judentum (Vienna, Berlin, New York, 1922). — It is noteworthy that if we may draw inferences from silence, Nossig seems to regard descent from male Jews as being as poisonous as descent from Jewesses to the racial mentality of other races; he asserts that Aryans whose heredity was contaminated by a Jewish ancestor, even centuries ago, are mentally preconditioned to serve Jewish purposes by accepting Jewish fictions (e.g., the “One World” hokum) as self-evident “ideals.” In the present state of our biological knowledge what Nossig reports seems improbable, but it would explain the otherwise strange tropism that makes many of our race so susceptible to the Marxist religion and hallucinogenic talk about “all mankind.”

4. Professor W. L. Horowitz was an anthropologist; although he seems to have been discredited by his messianic agitation and had to publish his own writings, and even though his anthropological doctrine is suspect as an attempt to include some famous Semites (e.g., Hammurabi) in his own race, it should be noted that he regards race as determining all psychological characteristics.

See especially his little booklet, now quite rare, La race heberite et ses peuples (Paris, s.a. [1922?]).

5. Although the Jews pose as a religion to conceal their racial identity, especially when they first invade a country, the claim is clearly false because seemingly irreconcilable differences in religion do not impair their racial unity.

(a) The basic cosmological and theological conceptions of the Talmuds and of the Kabbala are at many points antithetical, but do not split Jewry into hostile camps, as Protestantism split Christianity. The differences between the two Jewish cults are much greater theologically than the difference between Catholics and Protestants, who disagreed about interpretation of the holy book they had in common. But the Zohar, for example, differs from the Talmuds as much as Christianity differs from Buddhism, i.e., if one is true, the other must be false. Violent dissension among Jews is not over theological questions, but over who shall rule their world-wide but clandestine empire.

(b) Atheists remain Jews. Maurice Samuel, a Jew for whom I have the highest respect, specifically reports that the atheism of a Jew is utterly unlike the atheism of our race, and that for the Jewish atheist “to be one with his people is to be thereby admitted to the power of enjoying the infinite.” To the mentality of our race, that statement is paradoxical or simply unintelligible, but it certainly is a proof of a vast and innate racial difference. He also specifically affirms that religion is racial and cannot be changed by “conversion”: “You do not make a gentile out of a Jew by baptizing him any more than you would make an Aryan of a negro by painting him with ochre.” Samuel’s book [You Gentiles — Ed.] should be studied closely by everyone interested in understanding Jews (so far as our race can understand an alien mentality).

6. In their holy books, they regard themselves as Jews by heredity, i.e., as a race.

For example, in the “Old Testament” Yahweh specifically declares (Exod. 4.22) “Israel [=the Jews collectively] is my son, my firstborn,” and one of the writers of Psalms (22.23) defines Jews as the descendants of Jacob, the descendants of Israel (=the eponymous ancestor of the race). When Yahweh calls his tribe of predators “my people,” the word translated ‘people’ is the Hebrew ‘M, ‘kindred, ation,’ i.e., people of a common descent, of the same racial stock. Even in the “New Testament,” the Jews are to ethnos, ‘the nation,’ i.e., the [great] people descended from a common ancestor, while non-Jews (including converts to the Jews’ Christian cult) are ta ethne, ‘the [other] nations,’ a pejorative term usually translated ‘gentiles,’ i.e., civilized peoples who have families and family names. Theologians naturally twist these words to fit whatever pitch they are making to the yokels.

7. Until recently the pretense they were a religion not only served as cover for the Jews but was strategically necessary to permit their Marranos to penetrate, paralyse, and capture the natives’ institutions and culture. At the same time, the Jews’ contempt for and hatred of our race could ostensibly be directed at Christianity (which they had invented!). Today, when the Christian evangelists have become some of the Jews’ most effective agents of subversion, it would be awkward to channel hatred against the religion, and now that Yahweh’s Master Race, by brandishing its crude Holohoax as a bogle, has established or is establishing its supremacy over our race everywhere and looks forward to ruling it by open terrorism, the racial antagonism is being more and more overtly avowed.

I have reported instances of this more open contempt and hatred from time to time in various notes and articles. In Germany, where the Aryan curs now cower before their Yiddish masters, the Jews exhibit their contempt for us implicitly or explicitly in all their writings that are not merely soporific propaganda for the stupid goyim. As a neat example, one may cite Dr. Nahum Goldman, founder of the World Jewish Congress, who, in Das jüdische Paradox (Cologne, 1978), p.25, roundly proclaims that the Jewish mind, sublimely confident of its vast and innate superiority, has always regarded Aryans “als eine minderwertige Rasse.” [Meaning “as an inferior race.” — Ed.]

The foregoing, I am sure, is ample to prove that the Jews are and have always believed themselves to be a physically, genetically, and psychically unique race, different from, and genetically superior to, all others. They regard Semites and Aryans as vastly inferior beings, who, like dogs, are by their own nature destined to serve their divinely or biologically ordained masters; therefore dogs who defy their masters are mad and should be killed.

If the Aryans had developed the same confidence in their own worth, or even a tenth as much racial sense as the Jews have, they would now own the planet. They, however, preferred to induce pleasant hallucinations with Christian opium and to slobber with imbecilic love, hoping thus to get a pat on the head from the ferocious old Jew-God’s son when their spooks floated up to the clouds. That is why they will vanish from the earth.


Revilo P. Oliver, Late Professor of Classics at the University of Illinois at Urbana

This hypothesis is open to the objection that, so far as we can tell, a distinct change has taken place in the Jews’ activity in this century and at approximately the time of the “Protocols.” Before this, the aliens seem to have been content to exploit the Aryans and, in biological terms, feed on them; the present objective is obviously extermination of our species through mongrelization and massacres, so that it would seem that the organization and domination of the Jewish colonies by the Zionists produced a change in purpose that must, to a large extent at least, have been consciously determined and planned.

This implies some measure of rule by some kind of directorate that has the ability and power to set objectives for the race. The alternative is to explain the change as a natural result of the progressive weakening of our race by less direct attacks during the past thousand years or more, comparable to the change in the activity of a wolf pack when it senses that the harried caribou are nearing exhaustion.

Whatever the explanation, the Jews’ determination to exterminate the Aryans is not unreasonable.

One may see a good analogy in the cattle that are raised in the southwestern part of the United States. For a long time, the favorite breed was the ‘Texas Long-horn,’ which was hardy, able to fight off coyotes and other predators, and to survive in the wilds until it was rounded up by the cowboys for a long drive to the market, but it was also a dangerous animal that would attack its owners when provoked. It is now virtually extinct, having been replaced on the ranches by more docile breeds, such as the ‘Black Angus,’ since the predators have been exterminated and the cattle now graze within fences or are simply fattened on corn provided for them, and the vigor of the potentially dangerous ‘Longhorn’ is no longer needed, while the more docile and sluggish animals yield more tender meat.

Early in the Twentieth Century, Aryans had, for all practical purposes, subjugated the entire world and made it everywhere both safe and convenient for the Jews, whereas events in Germany in the 1930s proved that Aryans could be dangerous to the Master Race, if they got out of control. Elimination of the species seems therefore a logical step for the self-styled ‘God-people.’

The Jewish Strategy


Box 762 Earlysville Virginia 22936 U.S.A.

Copyright ©2002 Kevin Alfred Strom

FIRST EDITION third printing, June 2005

The publication of this book is made possible in part through the generosity of the late William Gayley Simpson and Harriet Simpson,

ISBN 0-97159990-4

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means — electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other — except for brief quotations in reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Kevin Alfred Strom

Publishers and Booksellers

Box 762, Earlysville, Virginia 22936, United States of America


Revilo: Autobiographical Note

I was born near Corpus Christi, Texas, on 7th July, 1908.

My first name, an obvious palindrome, has been the burden
of the eldest or only son for six generations.

I was sent to a high school in Illinois. After two years of it,
including an extraordinarily severe winter that landed me in a
hospital for one of the first mastoidectomies performed as more
than a daring experiment, I decided that the one insoluble histor¬
ical problem was why anyone had taken the Midwest away from
the Indians, and so I went to California. There I entered what
everyone knew was the best high school in the country because
the equipment for dramatic productions on the stage cost more
than had been spent for such essentials elsewhere. The “educa¬
tors” there had already made great progress in sabotaging educa¬
tion, so, just to have something to occupy my mind, I began the
study of Sanskrit, using Max Muller’s handbooks and Monier
Williams’ grammar.

I did feel the need for some tuition, however, and by the most extraordinary good luck I found a Hindu who really knew Sanskrit. He was a missionary who, although he never quite admitted as much to me, had come to the United States to ease the financial burdens of dowagers who had more money than they could spend. He told them that, with proper care and nourishment of their beautiful souls, they would, in
their next incarnation, certainly become as lithe as, and certainly
even more fetching than, Greta Garbo, so I am sure he gave them
their money’s worth. At this period in my adolescence, I also
amused myself in my spare time by going around to watch the
holy men and holier females pitch the woo at the simple-minded,
and I learned much from the many performances I attended,
from Aimee Semple McPherson’s shows for the masses in the
theatre called Angelus Temple to Katherine Tingley’s select enter¬
tainments for high-brow suckers on her then elegant estate near
San Diego.

I entered Pomona College in Claremont, California, when I
was sixteen.

I married Grace Needham in 1930. Whatever I may have
achieved, I owe entirely to the sustaining power through all subse¬
quent years of an unfailing devotion for which I cannot rationally

As a result of the preparations, begun in the late autumn of
1929, for the election of Roosevelt in 1932, I spent several years
in a small publishing business, learning that I was not destined to
become a financial giant.

I began graduate study at the University of Illinois under
Professor William Abbott Oldfather, whom many considered the
most distinguished Classical Philologist in this country. My first
book was a parergon, a critical and annotated translation from
the Sanskrit of The Little Clay Cart , published in 1938.

I received the degree of Philosophiae Doctor in 1940. I may
add that, given the great fear of “inbreeding,” I am the only per¬
son to receive the degree in Classics at the University of Illinois
whom the Department determined to retain permanently. I
began teaching graduate classes immediately after receiving the
degree. For a considerable number of years I also gave graduate
courses in the Renaissance, which put me also in the Department
of Spanish and Italian, of which my good friend, Professor John
Van Horne, was the head.

At the suggestion of a military friend, I agreed, sometime in
1941, to join a secret subsidiary of the War Department, and did
so as soon as my academic responsibilities would permit, in 1942,
remaining there until the autumn of 1945. By good luck, I found
myself in charge of a rapidly expanding department, and soon
advanced from Analyst to Director of Research, finding myself
responsible for the work of c. 175 persons. The work was harrow¬
ing, for various reasons, but extremely instructive. I learned, for
example, the ultimate secret of Pearl Harbor, which was evidently
unknown to Admiral Theobald and which was not disclosed in
print until 1981 (in my America s Decline , page 7).

I returned to the University in 1945 as an Assistant Profes¬
sor, became an Associate Professor in 1947, and Professor in
1953. I held a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1946-47, and a Ful-
bright (Italy), 1953-54. I retired as Emeritus in 1977. (Two days
after my retirement, I was amazed to discover from events that
then began that the Administration, which has hated me cor¬
dially, was also sufficiently afraid of me to defer an attack on the
Department’s scholarly standing until after my retirement. I
don’t mean that I had been able to keep it near the distinction it
had under Oldfather — I knew that couldn’t be done when I
resigned in disgust as departmental office boy — and thought it
had sadly deteriorated; that was because I had not estimated how
much worse things could become.)

Strange as it must now seem, I left the District of Corrup¬
tion in 1945 with the firm conviction that the unbearable stench
of that vast cesspool could not long be confined, and that when
the facts of the Crusade to Save the Soviet and other operations
became known, as they inevitably must, the indignation of the
American people would produce a reaction of such vehemence
and violence that it could never be forgotten in history. That con¬
fidence was not shaken until 1954. In the following year, my
friend, Professor Willmoore Kendall, who had long desiderated a
“conservative” antidote to the New Republic , etc., and had had
among his pupils at Yale a bright and wealthy young man, Will¬
iam F. Buckley, Jr., discussed with me plans for the journal,
which was eventually called National Review and was then
intended to be approximately what Instauration now is, with, how¬
ever, the significant difference that Instauration was not able to
start with the expectation of losing $2,000 a week for three years.
When Kendall told me that he had not been able to find a single
university professor who dared to join him in writing for the pro¬
jected weekly, I accepted the challenge. That is how I began to
write on political subjects. That was certainly a grave mistake
from the standpoint of my career and the comfort of my wife;
whether it was from other standpoints, I have never quite
decided. What happened to National Review after it began publi¬
cation, and particularly after Kendall was shouldered out by a
gang of “professionals” who assured young Buckley that he was
the Messiah, would be a long and depressing story.

In 1958 Robert Welch convinced me of his bona fides and
induced me to join in founding the John Birch Society. I have
never quite been able to make up my mind as to whether he coz¬
ened me from the first (which my vanity makes me reluctant to
admit) or sold out later.

In 1958 I still believed that there was a significant intellec¬
tual difference between the American bourgeoisie and the cattle
that one sees peering between the slats of large trucks as they con¬
tentedly munch hay on their way to the abattoir.

Since severing my connections with the Birch hoax, I have
chosen to write with utter frankness on the dire plight of our race
and the civilization we created. The reader has been warned.

Revilo P. Oliver

Table of Contents

I. The Plight of Western Man .1
II. A Realistic Appraisal of the Jews: Their Unparalleled Achievements
III. The Jewish Strategy at Work: Ancient Alexandria .17
IV. Survival of the Fittest .25
V. The Jewish Strategy Itself: In Their Own Words .35
VI. A Unique Mentality …39
VII. The Jewish Religion .45
VIII. Conspiracy or Instinct? .55
IX. Extermination .57
X. Genetic ‘Integration .59
XI. Religiosity .61
XII. Christianity .63
XIII. The Doom of Nations .81

Dedicated by the publisher to George R Dietz without whom many of Dr. Olivers works would never have been written.



IT IS A GRIM AND TERRIBLE FACT that most of the members of our own race have had their minds so deformed by centuries of cunning Jewish propaganda that they have been conditioned, as effectively as well-trained dogs, to snarl and bite when their Jewish masters utter certain key-words, such as “fascist,” “racist,” and the like, which take the place of the “sic ’em” to which dogs respond. They are, furthermore, so emotionally addicted to narcotic fantasies that many of them are both unwilling and unable to endure the distress of looking at the real world about them and thinking rationally about it. They understand¬
ably prefer to close tightly the eyes of their minds and live in the
dream-world of pleasurable fairy tales, such as they heard in the
childhood to which they subconsciously long to regress. As
Kipling neatly characterized them, “If they desire a thing, they
declare it is true. If they desire it not, though that were death
itself, they cry aloud, ‘It has never been!’”

It is a tragic and potentially disastrous fact that any candid
and reasonably comprehensive analysis of our present plight not
only exposes its author to surreptitious or open reprisals, but also
alienates many members of our befuddled and perhaps doomed
race, making them snarl and want to bite the man who would
make them face an unpleasant reality. Many more are so timo¬
rous that even a hint of disrespect for Jews sends them running
for cover, like frightened cats, lest the Jews punish them for hav¬
ing listened to impious words.


Many members of our race, to be sure, secretly resent their
covert overlords and sometimes venture, when alone with trusted
friends, to make jests or give other hints that, deep in their
hearts, they do not venerate the Jews. And if we observe our com¬
patriots, we eventually come to know of many, often persons of
very considerable wealth, who would gladly read forbidden publi¬
cations, but do not dare subscribe to them, not even through
post office boxes and under assumed names, lest the Jews dis¬
cover their secret disaffection and punish them for their
thoughts. A tiny minority of our people, it is true, most com¬
monly the comparatively poor, who think themselves protected
by their obscurity, more or less openly resent the Jewish domin¬
ion and, by a nice irony, call themselves “anti-Semitic,” thus
thoughtlessly using the nonsense word that strident propaganda
has implanted in their minds. Some have sufficiently escaped the
contemporary thought-control to dare to use the word Aryan,
which is the only convenient and approximately accurate designa¬
tion of our race, although the Jews forbid us to utter it. But even
these bold spirits are usually ill-informed and prone to strong
emotions, sometimes seething with a frustrated hatred of the
international race.

Although they are few in number, the Aryans who feel real
hatred disturb the complacency of some Jews, even in this country, where their increasingly open control seems absolute. A rabbi, for example, in his column in the Chicago Sun-Times , while not disavowing the great Jewish hoax about the “six million” who were supposedly exterminated by the Germans (and then crawled into the United States), quite clearly warned his compatriots that their clamors about a “holocaust” might give ideas to the goyim and result in the operation of real gas-chambers and in a real purge, if the Aryans got out of control in the United States. The rabbi is probably an alarmist, but it is true that the ever more blatant arrogance and terrorism of the Jews is arousing hatred in their serfs. It may have been indiscreet of them to erect a monumental “menorah,” thirty feet high, in front of the American White House as a symbol of their ownership at the very time that they deny to the cringing Americans (who once had a country of
their own) the right to display a Christmas tree on public property. And instead of quietly abandoning the absurd hoax about the “six million,” which was devised to pep up the Aryan cattle they stampeded into Europe in 1941, and which has netted them many billions of dollars from the swindled Germans and much more from the rest of the world, they are demanding that the lie be forcibly injected into the mind of every American child. That is certain to increase resentment, as is, for example, their recent attempt to murder a man in Chicago, which, when he was merely grievously injured, they explained by claiming they had mistaken him for a man they intended to murder, it being assumed that since the victim was merely an Aryan dog, that explanation
should be sufficient comfort for the other dogs.

Open terrorism, whether violent or pseudo-legal, arouses in some Americans an indignant perception of their formerly concealed servitude. I am reliably informed that a young man in the northeastern (and most corrupted) part of the United States recently read Professor
Arthur Butz’s definitive expose of the “six million” hoax 1 and
promptly resigned his membership in one of our minuscule National Socialist organizations on the grounds that Professor Butz had convinced him that Hitler not only did not kill six million Jews, but did not even try .

1. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century , Institute for Historical Review, RO.
Box 2739, Newport Beach, California, 92659, U.S.A.


Passionate hatred of the Jews is almost certain to be futile,
for violent emotions prevent rational thought. Berserkers are
excellent shock troops, if they are under competent command,
but in all wars, victories are won by generals who lucidly and
objectively study the capacities and resources of the enemy and as
objectively measure their own.

If our race is ever to be liberated from its present masters,
our independence will not be won by tirades against the Jews,
wild declamations about their wickedness in serving their own
interests instead of ours, idle and tautological boasts of our supe¬
riority in terms of our own values, or frantic diatribes about a
“synagogue of Satan” and a hope that some supernatural power
will kindly do for us what we refuse to do for ourselves. We must
begin with a rational understanding of our own situation and of

We must, first of all, understand that in the real world the
only test of biological superiority is the ability of a species to sur¬
vive and extend its power, necessarily at the expense of other spe¬
cies. It thus becomes immediately apparent that the international
race has very solid grounds for its confidence that it is vastly superior to all other races. Despite the obscurity of their racial origins, it is certain that at one time the Jews must have been a small tribe of barbarians, practicing disgusting sexual mutilations and cus¬
toms, observing strange taboos, and otherwise resembling mere
savages. But that seemingly despicable tribe, by arduous, intelligent, and indefatigable work for more than twenty-five centuries, has, through its own efforts, made itself the major world power today and is not far from its great objective, total ownership of the entire globe. History provides no parallel for that stupendous accomplishment. It must be regarded with respect, even awe.

When we consider this prodigious achievement, this astounding triumph over seemingly insuperable weakness, we must recognize that it was made possible only by that race’s cohesion, a biological virtue that I wish our race could emulate, even though the Jews forbid us to do so. The Jews have won through their intense racial consciousness and effective solidarity. It is true that there have been violent dissensions among them when their leaders struggle for power, and that in those civil contentions the various factions have often enlisted goyim against each
other, but their most violently antagonistic factions have always
been united in an underlying hatred of those goyim.

When, for example, Jesus ben Simon was slugging it out with his brother, Onias, for the high priesthood in Jerusalem, the capital of their ubiquitous race, both tried to make use of the gullible Seleucids, but there can be no doubt that each regarded the stupid goyim as mere tools, to be broken and discarded when they had served
their purpose. There is still today a certain tension between the
avowed Zionists and a minority of Jews who prefer to exploit the
subject races tranquilly, and who fear that too blatant assertions
of Jewish superiority may make the goyim react, but it is a dispute
over means, not ends, and it is noteworthy that the minority is
rapidly dwindling as the craven submission of Aryans to even
such flagrant outrages as the bombing and strafing of the U. S. S.
Liberty gives assurance that the beasts of burden can always be
harnessed to work for their masters, no matter how much they
may be beaten and kicked.

This virtually perfect cohesion, by the way, must in large
measure account for the intellectual superiority of which the Jews
boast and which, I fear, we must concede when we consider the
race as a whole, although it is denied by many of our people, who
personally only know Jews who, apart from their undoubted cleverness in making money out of the natives, seem stupid, or who ingratiate themselves with the Aryans among whom they have chosen to reside by blandly professing participation in our culture (and I do not mean that all such professions are necessarily hypocritical). But, for all practical purposes, the race is today, as Josephus boasted it was in his time, a unit, and it is somehow very ably directed in its predatory operations against other races.

How much of this highly intelligent strategy is instinctive and
how much is planned by a supreme command, I shall not try to
determine; the available evidence is conflicting and not conclusive.

The racial solidarity of the Jews, furthermore, includes such
complete subordination of the individual to the race, whenever
the welfare of the race is concerned, that it suggests an hyperbolical comparison with the social organization of certain insects,
especially some species of ants and bees, in which the individual
is virtually a tentacle of a large organism, and it also reminds one
of Roderick Seidenberg’s hope, expressed in his Post’Historic Man
and Anatomy of the Future (Chapel Hill, 1950 & 1961), that all
human species (except the “administrators,” i.e., Jews) can be
reduced to mindless automata that operate by reflexes without
thought or consciousness, like cockroaches, for example. These
comparisons are, of course, extravagant, but may not be entirely

A most impressive example of this racial solidarity is
the fact that, as was revealed by a Jew who resided in Germany, J.
G. Burg (Schuld und Schicksal, Munich, 1962, with photographs of
corroborating documents), the Zionists, after the election of an
independent German government under Hitler, tried to incite
pogroms and large-scale massacres of the Jews in Germany for the
purpose of facilitating the stampeding of Aryan cattle from Brit¬
ain and the United States to punish the Germans for trying to
have a country of their own. The Germans refused to be incited
and the Jewish efforts to procure pogroms were unsuccessful, so
it was necessary for them to start the desired war in other ways,
and after that war, to devise the “holocaust” hoax. The remark¬
able thing is that, so far as I know, no Jews anywhere (except
Burg) seem at all offended by Weizmann’s admission that he
thought the “annihilation of the Jews in Germany” a small price
to pay for a Jewish seizure of Palestine. This is really remarkable
in a race so conscious of its solidarity and superiority.

It is true, of course, that the British and Americans know that their great War Criminals, Churchill and Roosevelt, deliberately contrived the death of many thousands of Englishmen and Americans to please
their Jewish masters and get the Crusade Against Western Civilization under way, and show no resentment of such bloody treason, but they are Aryans, who have been so cowed that they seem to accept their status as an inferior and expendable species. But when Jews accept a proposal to massacre large numbers of their own people for the benefit of their race, that is significant.

If we are to be rational, the racial solidarity of the Jews forces
on us a most humiliating confession of our own inferiority. Our
impassioned “anti-Semites” depict the Jews as not only vulgar and
barbarous (i.e., with manners that we so consider), but also as
treacherous and greedy; but, as a matter of fact, we cannot identify with confidence a single Jew who betrayed his race for profit or any other consideration, while we know that most Aryans will cheerfully betray their race for a few hundred dollars — say, five hundred, to allow for high ideals — or even for a pat on the head and a prospect of future profit. The number of Aryans who have even recognized the common interest of their race, although they know it to be a small and hated minority among the prolific and invidious races who form the bulk of the planet’s population, is extremely small. One exception to the rule was Commander Josiah Tattnall of the U.S. Navy, who, in 1859, led the American squadron in China to the assistance of the British gunboats that were trying to force a passage of the Chinese forts at the mouth
of the Pei-ho, quoting the once proverbial expression, “Blood is
thicker than water.”

It is significant that, if I have been correctly informed, his statue in the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis has been removed, since he was so wicked as to think that Aryans are fit to live. Americans, it seems, have been so well trained by the Jews that they now accept a status as taxpaying animals that exist so that all the vermin in the world can eat and excrete on them. It is noteworthy that during the “war” in Vietnam, when packs of febrile and neurotic young Americans (incited and led, of course, by Jewish agitators) formed mobs to scream protests, they howled about the suffering of the sweet Mongoloid Vietnamese, but never mentioned the young Americans who had been sent into that racial cesspool to be killed or infected with Oriental diseases for the purpose of further advertising the degradation and impotence of their nation and of providing a pretext for sucking more
blood from the imbecile taxpayers.

The death of American soldiers was not even considered by the screeching agitators, evidently on the assumption that that was what Americans were for, and, as a matter of fact, an American lieutenant, a commissioned officer in the Army, was later convicted and imprisoned because he had killed some Vietnamese, instead of letting himself be
killed by them, as an Aryan should. And when it was thought
that the United States had been sufficiently disgraced and made
contemptible in the eyes of all its enemies, a “peace” was
arranged by one of the Jewish masters; the stupid American tax¬
payers were further afflicted with “reparations” to compensate
their enemies, and several hundred young American soldiers,
prisoners of the enemy, were gladly abandoned to be kept in
cages or tortured to death, as might most please their captors.

They were just Aryan curs, after all, and therefore obviously
expendable. To such self-imposed debasement our race has come,
and it is not, perhaps, remarkable that Aryans employed by the
Jews in the press and television gladly cooperate in the offensive
against their own nation and race in return for the salary paid
them and the approval of their masters.

In sharp and terrible contrast to our race’s suicidal mania,
the Jews could legitimately boast that no Jew has ever knowingly
betrayed his race. It is true that they do not avail themselves of
that proof of superiority, but instead wail about betrayals, but
that so corresponds to the standard and inveterate Jewish tech¬
nique of making themselves seem “persecuted” that one is
inclined to question every instance of supposed “betrayal” that
they adduce.

One hears most often Jewish execration of Pfefferkorn, the
Jew who, having had himself sprinkled with the Christians’
magic water, became a Dominican and disclosed to the goyim
some of the contents of the Babylonian Talmud. No one can now
ascertain what was in Pfefferkorn’s mind, but if we view him his¬
torically, it is obvious that he, knowingly or unwittingly, played a
very important and possibly crucial role in inciting the great reli¬
gious schism in Europe in the early Sixteenth Century and thus
performed a great service for his compatriots, inciting the goyim
to butcher one another for centuries and to devastate their own
countries, to the great profit, as well as the spiritual satisfaction,
of the Jews then residing in Europe.

The Jews speak bitterly of Henry Klein, a Jewish attorney
who, during the premature Jewish Terror in the United States in
1944, did not betray his American clients, as a good Jewish lawyer
should, but defended them before the Jewish Federal judge who
had been appointed by our great War Criminal to destroy them
and thus terrorize all American curs who dared not to lick the
boots of their masters. The Jews so persecuted Klein that he
denounced the Zionists (e.g., in his booklet, Zionism Rules the
World, 2 which he had printed at his own expense in 1955) before
he was hounded to suicide. But, nota hene, he denounced the
Zionists, not his own race, and it is only reasonable to believe that
he, however mistakenly, believed that he was protecting his com¬
patriots in the United States, not harming them. It must be
remembered that even in 1944, the Americans were not so pros¬
trate and cowed as they now are. In 1939-40, for example, it was
possible for an American, Paul Beshers, who had enjoyed a brief
season of political prominence a few years before, to assure his
Jewish friends, “If you drive us into a war against Germany, it will
not be long before Americans are shooting Jews on Michigan
Avenue [in Chicago] without a hunting license.” Some Jews were
(he says) impressed by that prediction in 1940, and quite a few
well-informed Americans, including officers in the armed ser¬
vices’ intelligence corps, during the war of 1941-45, expected very
drastic reprisals against the Jews after that war. It is against such a
background that Klein’s supposed “betrayal” of his race must be

The majority of Jews hate Benjamin Freedman, who quoted
a few well-known passages in the Talmud and other Jewish writ¬
ings that the lowly goyim should not be permitted to see in his
books Facts Are Facts and The Hidden Tyranny. 3 Freedman, unlike
the many Jews who had themselves sprinkled with holy water and
worked themselves up to positions of power in the various Chris¬
tian churches during the Middle Ages and in the time of the Ref¬
ormation and Counter-Reformation, incurred the venomous
hatred of many Jews. When I met him many years ago, he told
me — I assume truthfully — that when he and his wife were in an
elevator of the very expensive apartment building in New York
City in which he then lived, and the very rich Jews who lived in
the same building entered the same elevator, they would spit all
over his and his wife’s clothing to show their disapproval by a typ¬
ical Jewish gesture. Freedman, however, did not intend to betray
his race; on the contrary, he was convinced (it seems, mistakenly)
that he was racially a real Jew, whereas most Jews were Turko-
Mongolians who had disguised themselves as Jews and cunningly
come to dominate the Jewish race, which he certainly did not
intend to depreciate, much less betray. On the contrary, he imag¬
ined that he was, at great self-sacrifice, protecting his own people
from the reprisals that might someday fall upon them.

The clearest example of the betrayal of the Jews by a Jew
would be the famous “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” if, as is
maintained in some accounts of their publication, that document was sold by a Jew to the Russian intelligence services for a fee. The Jews, however, vociferously claim that the “Protocols” are a forgery. This allegation was long accepted, on the grounds that it was extremely unlikely that Jews would rashly put in writing so candid a statement of their purposes, and it was generally believed that the document was forged by a white man who had a phenomenal knowledge of the Jews and an astounding ability to predict what they would do in subsequent decades. Recent exhibitions of Jewish arrogance and contempt for the Aryan mentality suggest, however, a reconsideration of the problem. It may be
doubted whether any man of our race could have so perfectly
anticipated and described in the last years of the Nineteenth
Century the policies that the Jews put into effect in the Twentieth, down to the present time. But however that may be, we can¬
not regard the “Protocols” as proof that a Jew betrayed his own

Jews often denounce as a “traitor” Benjamin D’Israeli, who,
in his Cortingsby (1844) and many speeches and books down to
his E ndymion (1880), candidly told the British that the only real
issue was that of race and further told them that all the govern¬
ments of Europe were really controlled by Jews, who operated
behind the scenes and dictated the policies of the ostensible rul¬
ers, whether monarchs or elected officials. Some of our people,
including the late Douglas Reed in his posthumous Controversy of
Zion , think that D’Israeli was trying to warn the British about the
power and purposes of “Zionists.” I do not profess to know what
was in D’Israeli’s mind — I would not presume to guess that, even
if he had been a member of our race, instead of belonging to a
race whose mentality is so different from our own that we can
only make conjectures about its processes — but I observe that he
could have issued the supposed “warnings” with the assurance
that the Anglo-Saxons were too stupid to understand them, and
that his pronouncements on that subject, like his unconventional
behavior and garish clothing, served so to advertise him that he
attained political power in Britain, became the first admittedly
alien Prime Minister of the British Empire and the first undis¬
guised Jew to enter the House of Lords as the Earl of Beacons-
field. In 1858, Lord Harrington, commenting on the
international race’s parasitic plundering of all nations through
international finance, control of the press, and revolutionary agi¬
tation, pointed out that Jews acquire “citizenship” in a nation
only to sabotage it. He was supported by Lord Galloway, who
remarked that if Jewish subversion of Great Britain were not
checked, the time might come when a corrupt Prime Minister
could be bribed to have a title of British nobility conferred on
one of the aliens. Ten years later, Disraeli became the Prime
Minister of the British Empire, and in 1876, he became the Earl
of Beaconsfield, while Jews throughout the world snickered at
another proof that goyim never learn.

How great was the corrosion of English character in those
years may be estimated from a single datum. One of the foremost
British novelists, Louise Ramee (“Ouida”), in her Strathmore
(1865), casually mentioned in a descriptive passage “the vampires
of Israel, who, like their forefather and first usurer, Jacob, know
well how to deal with the famished, and sell us our mess of pot¬
tage at no smaller price than our birthright.” No one was per¬
turbed by her passing reference to what everyone knew, but less
than a century later such a reference by a novelist would have
been suicidal audacity. Her publishers would have been at once
driven into bankruptcy; her book, however praiseworthy for its
literary qualities, would not have been mentioned by any
reviewer; she would have been defamed in all the newspapers as a
“Nazi”; and all well-trained English nitwits would have shrunk in
loathing from the contamination of her presence. The Anglo-Sax¬
ons not only cower before the Jewish Terror, but pride themselves
on their servitude.

It is not a mere coincidence that Strathmore was published
three years before a Jew became the Queen’s Prime Minister, thus
climaxing a prolonged and patient subversion of the upper
classes by usury, bribes, and the technique of marrying Jewesses
with large dowries to the sons of avaricious noblemen or mem¬
bers of the landed gentry.

The Jews complain bitterly of certain members of their tribe
who published in the United States in the 1930s indiscreetly can¬
did comments on the innate differences between Jews and our
race. The worst offender was probably Samuel Roth, who, having
been repeatedly swindled by Jews and told that he must suffer in
silence for the sake of racial solidarity, published his Jews Must
Live 4 in 1934, writing in “an agony of spirit” to describe conduct
and habits that were, in any case, apparent to any careful observer
of what another Jew boastfully called the “nation within” the
United States. I do not question Roth’s sincerity, but did his
comment on “the hideous swamp the Jews have made of Western
Civilization” impair the power of the ubiquitous tribe from
which he defected? The answer is obvious. Two years before Roth
wrote, the German people, on whom the Jews had fed for centu¬
ries before D’Israeli specifically noted that, whatever the stupid
Germans might imagine, their nation was really governed by Jew¬
ish financiers, made a courageous effort to acquire control of
their own country and become an independent nation. The
result we all know. The Jews, through their control of the press
and of numerous hirelings, of whom Winston Churchill and
Franklin Roosevelt are merely the most loathsome specimens,
stampeded great hordes of crazed Aryans from Britain, France,
and the United States into Germany to commit outrages that for¬
ever forfeited their claim to be civilized men, thus giving to the
world an unforgettable lesson of what happens to Aryan dogs
who dare to disobey their divinely-appointed masters. Does any¬
one wonder that the Jews feel a sovereign contempt for cattle that
are so easily herded? And can a rational observer fail to ask
whether that contempt is not amply justified, and whether the
Suicide of the West is not proof of a biological inferiority in our
own race?


In the early years of our era, the Jews were then (as now)
busy selling religion and revolution to the natives, and that is
undoubtedly what the Emperor Claudius meant in 41 A.D.
when, in his letter of warning to the Jews in Egypt (preserved in a
papyrus now in the British Museum, R Lond. 1912), he described
them as “the fomenters of a universal plague.”

Claudius’ phrase is the best description of the biologically
innate nature of Jews that I have seen. I hope this does not startle
you; if it does, I recommend a little objective observation of Jews
engaged in collective action.

The publication of these papyri in the British Museum
stopped with Volume V, just short of the group of papyri, begin-
ning with #1912, that deal with Jews and Christians in Egypt.
These, however, were edited in a separate volume by H. Idris Bell,
London, 1924, which can be found under his name in any good
library. Why the official series stopped where it did (and has
never been continued), I do not know. One suspects there was a
Jew in the woodpile.

P. Lond. 1912 is a long papyrus fragment excellently pre¬
served. It is a private copy of an edict by Claudius that was posted
in public places in Alexandria in 41 A.D. and is complete. It is in
Greek, not Latin, because in Egypt every literate person (Greeks,
Jews, Egyptians, and the comparatively few Romans who were
there as governors and military commanders) knew Greek,
whereas only the Roman officials knew Latin at all. Bell believes
that our Greek text was translated from Claudius’s Latin, but I
am certain that the text is what Claudius himself dictated to a
secretary in Greek. Like every educated Roman of his day, Clau-
dius spoke and wrote Greek fluently, and furthermore he was
something of a scholar and wrote his two major historical works
(now lost) in Greek. This Greek text contains stylistic peculiari¬
ties that are characteristic of Claudius’s mentality, but would
probably have been smoothed away by a translator.

Claudius, who was born in 10 B.C., was the son of the male
child with whom Livia was pregnant at the time that Augustus
married her. If that child was legitimate, it was the son of Livia’s
first husband and the younger brother of the Emperor Tiberius.
If the child was illegitimate, as many suspected, Augustus was
probably the father, but never acknowledged the paternity. Clau¬
dius’s mother was the daughter of Mark Antony. Claudius in
infancy suffered from poliomyelitis or a similar disease that left
him with a partly paralysed foot, some impediment in his speech,
and muscles of the face and neck subject to spastic contractions.
Regarded as unfit for public life, he devoted himself to historical
and antiquarian studies, becoming both erudite and pedantic.
He was quite intelligent, but timorous, excitable, and gullible,
especially toward persons who showed him some attention and
professed friendship during the first fifty-one years of his life,
when he was regarded as an awkward and ridiculous political nul¬
lity, the butt of his nephew Caligula’s wit. Among those who thus
acquired his gratitude and confidence were a number of clever
Jews of great wealth and influence in Rome. Among these was
Marcus Julius Agrippa (note the purely Roman name; a grandson
of the Herod who appears in many versions of the Christ story),
who, when the barbarian mercenaries rioted after the assassina¬
tion of Caligula and, while plundering the palace, found old
Claudius hiding in a closet and dragged him out to proclaim him
emperor, by subtle and crafty machinations and bribery managed
to get Claudius installed and recognized as emperor by the Sen¬
ate. Claudius rewarded him generously, and was always under the
influence of the prominent Jews in Rome. That is what makes his
pronouncement so significant.

Alexandria was, of course, founded by Alexander the Great
as a Greek city in conquered Egypt, and it became under his
Greek successors, the Ptolemies, the capital of that country. Its
position as the only real harbour in Egypt added to its great pros¬
perity, and naturally Jews came streaming in from their colonies
all over the civilized world. Alexandria became the New York of
the ancient world, i.e., the largest Jewish city. The Jews took over
two of the five quarters of the city for their ghettoes, from which
they unofficially but effectively excluded white people, but natu¬
rally insisted on pushing their way into all the other quarters of
the city and making themselves obnoxious in their normal ways.
Jews always betray the countries in which they are feeding on the
natives, so naturally, when Augustus attacked Egypt, the Jews nat¬
urally betrayed the Greeks, who remained loyal to Cleopatra, the
last of the Ptolemies. Augustus punished the Greeks for their loy¬
alty by depriving them of their local self-government, and
rewarded the Jews for their treason with many special privileges,
including the right to have a kind of Jewish government of their

The Jews, now riding high, naturally pushed the Greeks
around more than ever, thrusting themselves into the gymnasia
and other Greek institutions that were traditionally for Greeks
only and inciting riots whenever they were so “persecuted” that
the Greeks did not recognize them as a vastly superior race. The
result was an endless series of civil disturbances that the Romans
were powerless to prevent because no government dared to
revoke Augustus’s grant of special privileges to the Jews. In the
second year after Claudius became emperor, there was another
one of the perennial riots in Alexandria that became virtual civil
wars in the city, which was the most populous in the ancient

The Greeks of Alexandria despatched an embassy of their
leading citizens to Claudius to request restoration of their local
government and explain the cause of the riots, and the Jews, of
course, sent an embassy of their own to snivel and whine about
being “persecuted” by the wicked goyim .

The edict of Claudius of which the papyrus is a copy is
addressed to the Greeks of Alexandria and announces his deci¬
sion concerning the requests made by their envoys.

There is (1) a preamble by the Roman prefect who had cop¬
ies of the edict displayed in public places, (2) a section listing the
titles of Claudius and the names of the Greek envoys, (3) permis¬
sion to hold public celebrations of Claudius’s birthday and to
erect statues in his honor, etc., (4) confirmation of the Greeks’
right to have a Greek educational system qualifying them for
Alexandrian citizenship, (5) granting requested changes in the
appointments to certain temple offices and other minor offices,
(6) a promise to take under advisement the Greeks’ request for a
restoration of their local government (Claudius never granted
that: the Jews would have had fits if so “persecuted”), and, (7) a
pronouncement about the recent riots and a warning against rep¬
etition of them (which, so far as we know, kept the peace for
eleven years). It is this last section which is of interest to us.

Here is the text of the concluding part of the edict. I repro¬
duce it from N. P. Charlesworth’s Documents Illustrating the Reigns
of Claudius and Nero (Oxford, 1936). The text is here presented
with modern capitalization, punctuation, and separation of
words; anyone who knows Greek should be able to read it off¬

od/c A dyftv, on Se dm tojp vpd dpov ‘Eefdaarddv ovk e tyere

oa7TOS fits’
dpyTjv St/catav pcrafifjSXrjpdpos. Atorrep €Tt /cat vuv Stapaprupopm
IVa ’AAe^arSpets piy npaews Kal (juXapOpatmos TrpootfUpwvrai
9 Iot’Satot? rots rr)f adn^r iroAtv e/c ttoXAqjp ypoviov oIkovgl /cat
prjdkv rcuv TTpos 0p7] Sta/cauaa? a/x<£oTepv 7Tpor€pov eay^ou
7rep tepy a £ficr$ at prjhe toarrfp dp Sucre 7rdAfi<7tv KaroiKoOvras Suo Trpeofiflas dKTrdpTTfiv tov Xotwov, d p-rj TTporepop ttot€ dv-payOr], jtti^Se eVe terra lVlv yvpvaaLapytKQts 7) Koap7)TLKoI$ nyedert , /caprrou- pdvov$ pfp rd ot/ceta aTroXavovras 6k dv aAAorpta TrdAet mptovota? d66vojp dyaOddv , pT)6k eVdye cr#at 17 TTpocaecrdat arrd Ei/ptas* 7}
AtyuTTTOU /caraTrAeovTas ’IouSatouj, od p^tCoraj dTrototas 1 ai/ay-
/ca0^ XapfiavfLV * et Se prj, ndvra rporrop adrod? 1 crre^eAeu-
oopai KaOaTTfp Kounrjv riva rrjs otKovpeprjs iwoop €^€y€tpovras.
’Eav tovtojp (iTTOUTdvTfS dpuf>OT€poi pcTa Trpa6np~os Kal tXav-
0puj7TLas rijs 7rpoy aAATjAous 1 t,Tjv idfXiqcrrp’e, /cat dyco 7Tp6vOi&v ttj?
TToXftus TTorjdopai tt)p di’cvTarco KaO amp fK Trpoyovojp ouccta? rjpiv
VTrapyovurp . HapfltXAu) Tty dpxp draypm paprvpw a«t npovoiav
vpajp Trap* epol noLOVpdptp, 09 Kal vvv Trdcrrj StXortpia Trtpl rov
aywva tov vrrkp vpa>p Kfxp r i rai > Ka ‘ L Ti/ffepuu KAauStcu ’Apyt^uy
tuj tpo j cTatpto . v Eppait 70 e. Pap. Lond. 1912, H. 14—108.

The original papyrus (with which I compared this text years
ago, so I can guarantee the accuracy of this transcription) is in
majuscules without separation of words and has other graphic
peculiarities which might trouble anyone who has not worked
with Greek papyri. The section about the riots, which I am going
to translate, begins in the sixth line.

This must have been translated into English at least once,
but I do not know where such a translation has been published,
so, to save time, I will translate here. Words within parentheses
are my explanatory additions. If you want a version to compare
with mine, I think it likely that this papyrus may have been
included in the two or three volumes of “Select Papyri” in the
Loeb series, which I do not have at hand. (If this one is not
included in what purports to be a selection of the more interest¬
ing papyri, that fact will be significant in itself.) I shall try to make the English reflect a little of Claudius’s peculiar style:

As for who were responsible for the outbreak and insurrection,
or rather, if we must designate it correctly, for the wars against the
Jews, although your envoys and especially Dionysius son of Theon dis¬
tinguished themselves in argument when confronted with their (Jew¬
ish) adversaries, I nevertheless decided not to investigate the matter
thoroughly, and I entered in the ledgers of my mind a ruthless indig¬
nation against whichever people recommences hostilities; I now
emphatically give warning that if the two peoples do not desist from
their disastrous and contumacious hatred of one another, I shall be
compelled to show what a benevolent ruler can be when he is roused
to righteous anger. Therefore, I now most solemnly conjure the Alex¬
andrians to behave with forbearance and kindness toward the Jews
who have for a long time lived in the same city, and not to obstruct
any of their customary rites in the cult of their god, but to permit
them to observe the customs they followed in the time of the Divine
Augustus, which I now sanction, after hearing both sides of the case.
On the other hand, I now order the Jews not to agitate for more priv¬
ileges than those they have long enjoyed, and not again to have the
unprecedented insolence of sending out their own ambassadors as
though they were living in a separate state, and furthermore (I order
them) not to force their way into the games and contests held by the
gymnasiarchs and cosmetae (officers who presided over the physical
and intellectual education of Greek youths and held exhibitions that
were open only to citizens of Alexandria) while they (the Jews) reap
the profits of their own special privileges 5 and, living in a city that is not their own, enjoy all the bountiful advantages of that city; furthermore (I order the Jews) not to import or bring in (i.e., into Alexandria) by ship Jews from Asia Minor or Egypt (from which Alexandria was administratively separated), a procedure which must necessarily excite in me the gravest suspicions. Otherwise (i.e., if the Jews do not obey), I will by all means take vengeance on them as being the fomenters of what is a universal plague throughout the civilized world.

If both peoples, desisting from these practices, are willing to live
together with tolerance and kindness toward one another, I, for my
part, will show the utmost concern for the prosperity of the city (Alexandria) as being one joined to us in friendship from the time of our ancestors.

I assure you that my friend, (Tiberius Claudius) Barbillus (one of
the six Roman citizens among the twelve envoys from Alexandria),
has always shown solicitude for your welfare whenever he appeared
before me, and he now championed your cause with great zeal and
distinction, and the same goes for my friend, Tiberius Claudius
Archibius (another one of the envoys). Farewell.

5. Alexandrian citizens paid heavy local taxes and additional taxes were levied on residents (including Egyptian natives) who were not citizens, but, as we now learn from a papyrus in Berlin (#8877), one of the privileges of which the Jews boasted was exemption from all such taxes. Naturally, they did not want to become citizens of the city!

The translation could be polished a bit, but it will show the
meaning. The sentence in which we are particularly interested,
delineated in detail, reads:

But if (they do) not, I shall in every way wreck vengeance
upon them inasmuch as (=on the grounds that) they are persons
who foment (=incite, propagate) a universal (=ubiquitous, found
everywhere) disease (=pestilence, plague) of the oecumerte (i.e., the
settled and inhabited world, as distinct from jungles, steppes, and

You will have noticed that Jews were behaving normally in
Alexandria, not only whining about being “persecuted” because
of their Love of God while pushing their way into every place
where the despised goyim hope to have a little privacy from them,
but even illegally importing fellow parasites to prey on the white
cattle, just as the Jews are constantly importing thousands of
their congeners into the United States, not only across the border
from Canada, but by ships that land thousands of the dear crea¬
tures at Red Hook on Long Island, whence they are carried by
limousine to the New Jerusalem commonly called New York City,
in open defiance of the immigration officers, who know about it
but dare not intervene.


The few Aryans who dare to criticize the Jews are wont to
wax indignant over the methods by which the aliens acquire con¬
trol, which, to be sure, are immoral according to our own
accepted standards of civil behavior within one of our own societ¬
ies. But let us be fair and, what is more important, objective.

The survival of the fittest always has been, and always will
be, the immutable law of life on this planet. Mammals that do
not depend on sheer fecundity to preserve their kind (e.g., rab¬
bits, lemmings) have but two resources in themselves: strength
and stealth, the latter compensating for deficiencies in the
former. Even the male lion, whom we have taken as the symbol of
courage, depends for much of his sustenance on prey that his
females take by leaping from ambush. The elephant is a noble
animal and a symbol of strength, but he falls prey to the cunning
of weaker species, such as tigers and men.

It is a peculiarity of our race — and one that the Jews regard
as especially childish and fatuous — that we have an ideal of vic¬
tory obtained only in a fair fight. Our racial mentality is domi¬
nated by the sentiment that finds expression in our cherished
picture of Mediaeval knights, equally matched, meeting in the
lists or in the storied adventures of King Arthur’s Round Table.
But even in our romances, the fair fight is an ideal only as
between individuals of our own race, who observe our racial stan¬
dards of personal honor; and in practice our race has accepted
modifications of it that seem odd to us today: for example, in the
family feuds of Iceland it was considered proper to kill a man by
striking from ambush, provided that one boasted of the deed and
thus averted an imputation of cowardice by indicating to the vic¬
tim’s kinsfolk on whom they should revenge his death.

In war, even between nations of our race, our ideal of a “fair
fight” is disregarded as irrelevant, unless we hold that “fairness”
includes not only physical courage, but also intelligent fore¬
thought and planning, which can be described as cunning. We
admire strategy as much as courage. In the proverbial story of the
Trojan Horse, we do not reprehend the deception practiced by
Sinon, but rather the superstition and credulity of the Trojans,
who fell victim to the Greeks’ ruse; and while we may feel com¬
passion for certain individual Trojans who suffered for their peo¬
ple’s folly, we feel no pity for that people as a whole, unless we
attribute their gullibility to a force outside themselves and think
that their minds were darkened by the supernatural power of
some god or gods. All the great generals of history have achieved
their victories, not by the indispensable courage of their men, but
by strategy, i.e., their ability to outwit their enemies by a form of
deception. We even have an aphorism that affirms that “all is fair
in war,” and we take it for granted that the physically weaker
party must rely on superior cunning, if it is not to succumb.
When Europeans first settled in the Western Hemisphere, they
were few in number — so few that even their superiority in arma¬
ment and discipline over the aborigines did not cancel their
numerical weakness — and they did not hesitate to use some
Indian tribes to defeat and destroy others, often exciting and
always profiting from the internal dissensions of a race whose
continent they intended to take from them. Such expedient
deception we have always considered justified as a weapon of
physical weakness against physical strength. 6

Now the Jews have always been physically (i.e., numerically)
a weaker people. Wherever they have lodged themselves, they
have been a small minority among the goyim. Even in the United
States today, where the largest fraction of their race now resides,
reasonable estimates of their number do not exceed twenty mil-
lions. Estimates must necessarily be uncertain, for when the cen¬
sus was taken ten years ago, the Jews forbade the “American”
government to ascertain the number of Jews who openly profess
their alien status by publicly practicing their religion. The Jews’
own reports of their numbers in religious terms are, as Mark
Twain observed long ago, utterly preposterous, although some
persons charitably claim that the figures are obtained by counting
only male heads of households and reporting these as a total pop¬
ulation, it being the fault of the stupid goyim that they assume
that the statistics were compiled in the same terms as their own,
which include women, children, and dependents in the total. In
any event, even an accurate count of the aliens who attend syna¬
gogues would be inconclusive, since one would still have to guess
the number of Marranos. A large part of the Jewish force in every
country consists of Marranos, Jews who, using the chameleon¬
like ability of their species, effectively disguise themselves. I have

6. It is true that the absolute rule is modified by disapproval of treachery, i.e., the violation of an explicit or implied agreement between persons who presumably recognize and accept our standards of honor, but even here the distinction is fluid. Although Americans resent being reminded of it, their history as an independent nation begins with the act of treachery by which they (as a whole, regardless of the intentions of certain individuals) induced General Burgoyne and his army to surrender by solemnly pledging that the defeated army could
return to Britain, and then violated that agreement by confining the
cozened troops in conditions of such hardship and severity that many
of them, even among the officers, perished before the end of the war.
For such treachery no apology can be offered in terms of the stan¬
dards of our race (although it would have been merely normal for
most other races), but gentlemen among the Americans probably
salved their consciences by telling themselves that they, the rebels,
were weak while Great Britain was strong. The disgraceful episode,
however, should check any tendency of Americans to a Narcissistic
doting on their own virtues.

often glanced through the lists of births reported by the Jews in
their own Detroit Jewish News , and I could not but notice that on
many days there was no name that betrayed the race of the child.
The personal names of the parents and children were all “Chris¬
tian” names, with some preference for names that are tradition¬
ally Scottish, and the family names all suggested British, French,
or sometimes Slavic, ancestry. Those instances of the Jews’ mas¬
querading under assumed names, it should be remembered, are
all of Jews who, by inserting such announcements in their own
newspapers, confess their race. Many Marranos eschew such
indiscretion, and some are so adept at disguise that their acquain¬
tances and associates are astonished when some accident or indis¬
cretion discloses the race of a person who seemed to be an
American, Englishman, South African, German, Frenchman, or
other member of our own race. But even when we make every
allowance for the Jews’ mastery of disguise, we must admit that
they are still a minority in the United States, where they are
surely outnumbered by the Aryans, who are probably still an
absolute majority in their own country and outnumber the total
of all the aliens in their midst, Jews, Congoids, mulattoes, mesti¬
zos, Mongolians, and the like. If the feeble-minded Aryans,
instead of subsidizing the prodigious breeding and proliferation
of their domestic enemies and even importing hordes of others
from Vietnam, Haiti, and elsewhere as “refugees” for the eventual
extermination of the Aryans’ own children, were sufficiently
intelligent and resolute, they would still have the power to expel
or otherwise eliminate all of their alien parasites, among which
the Jews are a small, though prepollent, minority.

Throughout history, the Jews have everywhere been a minor¬
ity in the countries into which they have intruded themselves,
and they have necessarily employed the weapons of the physically
weak against the physically strong. The Jews have never captured a
territory by open warfare and invasion: they have never been suf¬
ficiently numerous and strong to attempt an open conquest, even
if they had been so temerarious as to waste their own lives to
attain what they could more easily and safely attain by deceit.

It is true that the Jews’ myths include two claims of open
conquest, but both of these are indubitably fictitious.

One of those stories is well known, since it is found in the
collection of Jewish tales commonly called the “Old Testament”
by our people. According to that myth, the Jews (with the help of
their tribal deity) openly invaded the land of Canaan, ruthlessly
butchered all the inhabitants and even the inhabitants’ domestic
animals, and then appropriated the country they had made a
bloody desert. The tale, even when divested of such nonsense as a
claim that the Jews’ god stopped the sun and moon, luminous
disks that were floating in the atmosphere at an altitude of about
50,000 feet, and held them stationary for a time to facilitate the
rapine, is utterly incredible and no reputable historian, not even
among those who profess to be Christians, pretends to believe it.
The tale of armed conquest is intrinsically so incredible that
Philo Judaeus, one of the ablest of the Jews’ apologists and propa¬
gandists, who, in the early years of the First Century, tried to con¬
vince intelligent Greeks and Romans that the Jews were not a
menace to civilization, had to admit ( Hypoth . 6.5-8) that the story
was preposterous and that what must have happened was that the
Canaanites voluntarily permitted the Jews to penetrate their
country peacefully and set up synagogues and the rest of the Jew¬
ish racial organization, after which the Jews, of course, took over.
Philo candidly admits that when the Jews peacefully penetrate a
country to despoil it, they, in their own minds, naturally regard
the inhabitants as enemies, but he seems to hesitate between
alternative explanations of the Canaanites’ suicidal folly in per¬
mitting the Jewish immigration: the stupid Canaanites were
either impressed by the holiness and superiority of their covert
invaders or had their minds befuddled by the Jews’ god.

It is true that the Jews at some time obtained control of the
territory that was thereafter known as Judaea, but there is no way
of determining what part of the population was composed of
racial Jews as distinct from the subjugated and mongrelized
descendants of the original inhabitants, who, despite the Jews’
boasts, were not exterminated in war. It is possible, of course,
that some nucleus of truth may underlie the Jews’ story that they
captured city after city of the Canaanites, butchered all the men,
butchered all the women, butchered all the children, butchered
all the oxen, butchered all the sheep, butchered all the donkeys,
and then relaxed in blissful contemplation of their own holiness
(e.g., Jos . 6.21). There is archaeological evidence of the destruc¬
tion of cities by war as well as by earthquakes in or near the time
of the supposed conquest, but from what we know of the Jews’
racial habits, we may guess that after their “peaceful” immigra¬
tion, they promptly started subversion and civil wars and were
soon able to use one army of stupid goyim against another army of
stupid goyim , so that the natives slew one another and destroyed
themselves, while the Jews egged on the contestants and rubbed
their hands gleefully together, much as recently they stampeded
their British and American cattle into Germany to facilitate their
pious appropriation of the earth that their tribal god contracted
to give them.

The second story of armed conquest comes from another Jewish propagandist, Josephus, who was a little younger than Philo, and whose story (Cont. Ap. 1.75-94, 224) of a conquest of Egypt by the Hyksos long imposed on historians who did not take into account the Jews’ racial genius for forgery and deception, which is now so vividly illustrated by such hoaxes as “Anne Frank’s Diary” and the nonsense about the “six millions” of God’s Race that the Germans supposedly killed before the six million crawled into the United States and other Western nations. Whether Josephus forged the passage that he claims to
quote from Manetho or utilized the work of some earlier Jew is
uncertain; he relies heavily on the Jewish forgers of earlier centu¬
ries, especially the ones who assumed Greek names, much as Jews
now masquerade under such names as Ashley Montagu, Lyle Stu¬
art, and Craig Schiller, so that Josephus can pretend that they
were Aryans who testified to the vast superiority of God’s Race.
What is certain is that there was no conquest of Egypt by the

It is now known (see Cambridge Ancient History , Vol. II, 1, pp.
54-64, 288-296; and especially the definitive work on this subject,
The Hyksos , by John Van Seters, Yale University Press, 1966) that
the “Hyksos” were peoples, probably of several different tribes
that spoke Semitic languages, whom the Egyptians indiscrimi¬
nately described as “Asiatics,” and who infiltrated Egypt by grad¬
ual immigration across the Sinai peninsula, and probably never
were numerous enough to form a very large fraction of the popu¬
lation; they were clever enough, however, to spread sedition and
incite civil wars until they attained a rule over the entire nation,
placing as governors in each district tributaries and stooges, many
of whom were certainly or probably native Egyptian traitors, and
using an uncertain proportion of Egyptians in the troops by
which they maintained their dominion for almost two centuries.
An Egyptian revolt finally succeeded in overthrowing the alien
rulers and expelling many of them (for we may be sure that some
of the aliens managed to blend themselves into the native popula¬
tion and escape notice). But during their control of Egypt, the
immigrants incited massacres of the upper classes and promoted
the mongrelization that the stupid Egyptians had themselves
begun by importing black slaves from the south, and they left the
nation genetically impoverished by a great infusion of both black
and Semitic blood, from which Egypt never recovered.

There are some indications that the “Asiatic” immigrants
came from the regions that are now Syria and Palestine, and the
methods they employed to ruin Egypt make us consider seriously
Josephus’s claim that they were Jews and that when they conde¬
scended to leave Egypt, they built Jerusalem as the capital of the
region they then occupied. Unfortunately, there is no evidence
(other than the remarkable similarity of methods) to confirm or
refute a conjecture that the “Hyksos” were organized and directed
by Jews. In the past century, before the Jews’ habitual duplicity
and mendacity were generally recognized by historians, Jose¬
phus’s story was rejected because the enemy aliens brought with
them into Egypt a god named Set (Seth), whom they regarded as
the enemy of the Egyptian gods, although they also talked about
religious toleration when it suited their purposes in keeping their
stupid subjects bemused. They evidently proselytized for their
patron deity so effectively that he remained in the huge crowd of
Egyptian gods after the end of their rule, although he was then
most commonly represented as the diabolic assassin of Osiris and
other native deities.

So long as it was supposed that the Jews were uniquely
devoted to a tribal god whom they called Yahweh or Ya’o (who is
designated in the “Old Testament” by a wide variety of names
that have been concealed by the translators, who, beginning with
the Septuagint, use a word meaning ‘Lord’ to translate a number
of different names), it was thought axiomatic that the worship¬
pers of Set could not be the holy Jews; but it is now known that
the Jewish colony at Elephantine, which was regarded as perfectly
orthodox in Jerusalem, had five gods in a pantheon of which Ya’o
was merely the chief, and that the Jews worked any convenient
religious racket, for example, claiming in Egypt that the Egyptian
god Osiris, the greatest of all gods, had inspired Moses and the
“prophets of Israel” and had chosen the Jews as his special pets.
(A translation of the late papyrus, which dates from about 100
B.C., may most conveniently be found in E. A. Wallis Budge’s
Egyptian Magic, London, 1901 (= New York, 1971), p. 176, with a
reference to the publication of the original.) There is, further¬
more, the distinct possibility — some Egyptologists would say cer¬
tainty — that Set was originally a name or epithet of an Egyptian
god and was applied by the cunning invaders to their own deity
to deceive the natives. (The name may be older than the “Hyk-
sos,” and if it was Egyptian in origin, it becomes less remarkable
that after the dominion of the execrated “Hyksos” had been bro¬
ken, Set, despite his generally evil reputation, found votaries
among the Egyptians, including some Egyptian kings.) So, in the
present state of knowledge, we must leave it an open question
whether or not the enemy immigrants into Egypt were led by
Jews; if they were, the Jews were at work as early as c. 1760 B.C.; if
not, we have no certain historical trace of the race before more
than a thousand years later.


The origin of the Jews as a race is unknown, but there are
indications that they early began to exploit the superstitions of
the populations on which they fastened themselves. The Jews
have a tale that their ancestor, named Abraham, came from Ur in
Sumeria (with mortgages on half the Sumerians’ real estate in his
pocket?), and some scholars, not highly regarded today, have sug¬
gested that some of the Semitic-speaking peoples with whom the
Sumerians foolishly tried to coexist meddled extensively with the
Sumerian religion and perhaps even had an influence on the
white, pre-Aryan civilization of the Indus Valley. There is a firmer
basis for a conjecture — but only a conjecture, mind you — that
would explain one of the oddities of the “New Testament,” which
was assembled by a Christian sect that professed a religion that
was obviously a Judaized form of Zoroastrianism. Everyone has
noticed the curious detail that in the story about the birth of the
christ named Jesus which gives the earlier date for the event, the
nativity is said to have been attended by Zoroastrian priests, who
were said to have been guided to the spot by an obliging star or
planet that floated in the atmosphere at an altitude no greater
than that of cumulus clouds to show them the way. It is possible
that the Magi, the professional holy men of the religion that was
spread through the old Persian Empire, were Jews. The Jews have
a tradition (IV. Reg. 17.6; 18.11) that there were colonies of Israel¬
ites in Media (in the cities, naturally!), and the Magi not only
claimed to come from Media, but were a closed caste racially and
(like the Jews) propagated themselves through the female line,
often obtaining pure offspring by impregnating their sisters or
mothers. It is now virtually certain that at least the greater part of
the extant holy books of the supposedly “Aryan” religion,
although now in an odd dialect of Old Persian, were translated
from a Semitic language. Diogenes Laertius (1.9) mentions in
passing unnamed Greek geographers who thought that the Magi
were early Jews, but since those works are now lost, we cannot say
whether that opinion was based on more than the fact that after
the fall of the Persian Empire, many of the Magi who peddled
their cult in other lands were known to be Jews. Herodotus’s
description (III.79) of the Magophonia, the Persian reaction
when one of the Magi attempted a particularly outrageous fraud,
sounds very much like a racial outbreak, and How and Wells in
their commentary on Herodotus (ad 1.101) suggest that the Magi
may have been “non-Aryan.” From these and a few minor traces
one can construct an hypothesis that would be highly significant,
if there were any real proof of it.

Whatever their origin, there cannot be the slightest doubt
about the method that the Jews have always regarded as ideal in
capturing control of a country: it is set forth clearly and explicitly
in the “Old Testament” (Gen. 47.L27). The hero of this tale is a
Jew named Joseph, who is said to have been brought to Egypt as a
slave, but who cleverly wriggled upward in Egyptian society until
he was in a position to prey upon the good nature and supersti¬
tions of the Egyptian king, whom he first manipulated to permit
an influx of Jews, who somehow take possession of the best land
in the nation; then he uses the king’s authority to corner the
grain market and is thus able to take from the Egyptians all their
money, all their cattle, and then all their land, so that he has all
the Egyptians (except the Egyptian priests, with whom he evi¬
dently maintains a prudent but odd alliance) at his mercy, forces
the famished wretches to sell themselves into slavery, and then
shrewdly transports groups of the slaves from one end of the
country to the other, mixing up the population so thoroughly
that all his victims find themselves among strangers with whom
they would scarcely dare to concert an effective protest — and the
Jews, no doubt snickering in private, annexed property and “mul¬
tiplied exceedingly.” Joseph used the Egyptian king as a conve¬
nient puppet in this operation, and the tale implies, of course,
that he enjoyed the cooperation of his tribe’s special god, at least
when he was operating as a fortune-teller on his way up. It is hard
to say how much fact may underlie the story, which is obviously
an exposition of the Jews’ ideal methods. Some kings of Egypt
appear to have been feeble-minded, and there is even a record
that one of them admitted some desert nomads who put up a pit¬
eous plea that their pastures had dried up, but the principal fea¬
tures of the tale more probably reflect Jewish ambitions than
actual events. However that may be, the tale certainly sketches an
ideal modus operandi for subjugating the goyim. And the Jews of
today will surely not have the audacity to claim that that descrip¬
tion of their methods was forged by the secret police of Russia
under the Czars!

The Jews claim that the so-called “Protocols of the Elders of
Zion,” which were certainly published as early as 1904 and
reportedly much earlier in books that were destroyed when the
Jews seized Russia in 1917, are a “forgery,” as, indeed, they may
be, although they describe in detail and with complete accuracy
the methods that the Jews have consistently used throughout this
century to subvert our civilization and destroy our race. But Ary¬
ans who wish to understand the Jewish mentality need not rely
on that document: they have only to read the “Old Testament”
with minds that are not immobilized in a fog of superstitious
awe. There is scarcely a chapter of that pseudo-historical narrative
that is not highly revealing; for example, there never was a Persian
king named Ahasuerus (Assuerus; Christian holy men usually
claim that the name is a “mistake” for Artaxerxes!), but the fic-
tion about Esther is an inspirational apologue to remind Jewesses
that while they may find it expedient to marry a male of the lower
races, they must always remember their duty to manipulate the
stupid goy to exploit him for the advantage of their Master Race.


The racial mentality of the Jews is so different from our own
that we can only draw inferences from observation of their con¬
duct and such of their statements as appear more or less candid
and worthy of belief (e.g., Maurice Samuel’s excellent You Gen¬
tiles , 7 New York, 1924), but we must remember that all forms of
life instinctively and necessarily make the preservation and
increase of their species their highest purpose, and if vampire
bats were capable of reason, they would undoubtedly describe
their furtive blood-sucking as a righteous exercise and identify as
diabolically evil the various animals (including men) who in one
way or another interfere with their noble exercise of their god-
given right. No species could think of itself as evil. As an ex-Com-
munist once reminded me, “You must remember that when
Communists betray a nation or murder innocent people by the
thousands, they think of themselves as highly moral individuals
who righteously obey a higher purpose.” We may be absolutely
certain that whatever the Jews do as a race, no matter how vile
and dastardly it may seem to us who suffer its effects, seems to
them just and righteous — as indeed it is, if we consider it objec¬
tively in terms of the biological law that makes survival and
increase the highest law of every species. 8

The great strength of the Jews and the bond of their racial
cohesion is their religion, which, in the widest sense, is an unlim¬
ited faith in the absolute superiority of their race, for, as Maurice
Samuel reminds us, Jewish atheists, who deride a belief in super¬
natural beings, worship the Immortal Jewish People. Beyond this,
we cannot be definite, for doubtless there always has been the
widest gamut of personal belief, and there is every evidence of
wild and grotesquely emotional fanaticism among the lower
classes, as among the rabble that was stirred up by the numerous
goetae and self-appointed christs in the first century B.C. and the
First Century of our era with perennial outbreaks of insane vio¬
lence; and many Jewish sects have bizarre notions that must be

8. The Aryans are an apparent exception, since everywhere, and most
conspicuously in the United States, Britain, and now South Africa,
they are evidently driven by a subconscious death-wish. The species
may be biologically degenerate or, as the Jews believe, inferior and
innately stupid, easily herded by its credulity and cupidity. Some optimists believe that the species could recover its will-to-live and become viable again, if it were somehow to escape the control of its Jewish herdsmen.

Before the political murder of Dr. Verwoerd, many rational Ameri¬
cans saw in South Africa a bright hope for our ill-starred race and
regarded the Afrikaners as conspicuously intelligent and uncorrupted
members of it, attributing their prudence to the fact that they were
separated by only a generation from the pioneers who fought an
heroic war for independence, and perhaps also to some peculiar integ¬
rity in the Dutch Reformed Church, which appeared to have retained
some belief in the traditional Christianity of the West at a time when
churches elsewhere had been bought and converted into mere instru¬
ments of subversion.

Since the murder of Dr. Verwoerd, which was made to seem fortu¬
itous to persons who do not understand the rule of cui bono ?, it has
become painfully apparent that the Afrikaners are as gullible and
venal, as befuddled and stultified, as the majority of British and Americans; that what we mistakenly attributed to a people was only the
genius of one man, whose achievements remind one of Philipoemen,
who led the Greeks in their last stand for independence and to whose
influence over his decadent and demoralized people Baudelaire paid
tribute in the memorable lines of his earliest poem:

Cum te mirantur , ad alta
se credunt genitos…

sincerely entertained, as, for example, by the Polish Hasidim , who
mated their male and female children as soon as they were puber-
ate to raise the birthrate to the maximum for the express purpose
of exhausting God’s stock of good Jewish souls as soon as possi¬
ble and thus forcing him to bring the world to an end sooner
than he intended. But such vagaries among the excitable and irra¬
tional lower classes have really little significance for the racial
faith. On the other hand, when one turns to the literate Jews,
one cannot confidently distinguish between what they believe
and what they deem expedient to profess. Fighting between vari¬
ous Jewish sects has often been violent, bloody, and viciously
inhuman, but seems not to have been so much over doctrinal dif¬
ferences as over the ambitions of leaders who were ruthlessly slug¬
ging it out for power and wealth and used a religious peculiarity
to recruit and excite their private armies. And at the limit, we
have no assurance that the psychological process that we call
‘belief,’ and distinguish from hypocrisy and mendacity, occurs in
the Jewish mind, which may not distinguish between truth and
falsity in terms of some objective reality, as Aryans do even when
the reality is merely a product of their imaginations; so far as we
can tell, indeed, the racial mentality of this alien species may, by a
psychological process beyond our understanding, think only in
terms of what is good for the Jewish People, the Divine Race, and
may only simulate, in discourse with our species, our distinction
between what is objectively true and what is not, much as we
train animals by teaching them lessons in terms of their mental
conformation . 9

Our minds boggle when we try to understand such state¬
ments as Rabbi Solomon Goldman’s “God is absorbed [sicl in the
nationalism of Israel… He [God] creates the world [sic] in the
Hebrew language,” Dr. Joseph Kastein’s “It was not God who
willed these people [the Jews]… It was this people [the Jews] who
willed this God,” or any one of a hundred comparable state¬
ments, which seem to us to be the ravings of madness, but are
only typical of the Jewish mind, which, we must remember, has
regularly, throughout history, outwitted our race. We, of course,
often remark that men create God in their own image, thus stat¬
ing a psychological and anthropological truth, and what we mean
by that statement is that gods do not exist, but are mere figments
of the imagination, and if a man of our race, having thus
affirmed his atheism, were then to profess belief in the divinity
and reality of a god or gods, we should rightly adjudge him
insane; but it is obvious that the Jewish mind sees no illogic in
worshipping a god it has knowingly created — in worshipping its
own image in a mirror. That is insanity — we cannot honestly call
it anything else in our terminology — but it is the insanity of a
species that has successfully preyed on all others for millennia
and is now achieving ownership of the entire earth.
9. Or superstitious human beings; Ivor Benson gave an example when
he wrote: “In North Africa during the last World War, one of our
tasks was to teach raw Negroes from the jungle to drive three-ton
trucks. Problem No. 1 was how to explain the gears. Common sense
produced the answer. Engaging the first gear, the recruits were told,
harnessed ‘the spirit of the elephant’ — slow but very strong, just the
sort of power needed to pull a truck up a steep hill or out of mud. The
second gear meant ‘the spirit of the horse’ — a power faster but not as
strong as that of the elephant. And moving into top gear, it was ‘the
spirit of the antelope’ which was harnessed — very fast, but not of
much use in heavy going.

“Now, insofar as this mythology worked with these Blacks it can be
said to have been true, or at any rate to have an element of the truth
which could not be conveyed to these primitive minds in any other

“So far as religious myths are concerned, we are, of course, all in the
condition of those African savages.”

If we are to be both fair and objective, we must bear in mind
the difference — perhaps an enormous difference — between the
Jewish mentality and our own . 10 When we consider the Jews’ reli¬
gion and describe it in our terms, we attribute to them, explicitly
or by implication, such hypocrisy as we see in our clergymen
today, and we are tempted to convict them of a conscious dissim¬
ulation that is odious to us, but we must remember that what
seems repugnant to us seems good and righteous to their peculiar

10. There can be no doubt, I think, but that Jews perceive the physical
world about us quite differently from our perception of it. Since Jews
communicate with our race in Indo-European languages and in the
West even use those languages to communicate with each other
(although probably attaching different meanings to many key words)
or distort Indo-European languages into special dialects of their own,
such as their variety of the Greek koine in Antiquity and Ladino and
Yiddish in more recent times, the vast psychological difference may be
most clearly seen when one examines Hebrew, a dialect they formed
from Western Semitic (Phoenician) and impressed with their own
mentality, since it has many peculiarities not found in other Semitic
languages. These are set forth by Dr. Thorleif Boman in his Hebrew
Thought Compared with Greek (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1960),
a work that deserves the most careful study by Aryans. Dr. Boman is a
Christian and thus obligated himself to find a “moral” value in the
radically different Jewish mentality, and a comparable study by an
unprejudiced philologist is greatly to be desired. It is entirely possible that the schizophrenic daubs that are peddled to the boobs as “modern art” actually correspond to the Jewish perception of reality and instinctive hatred of what seems beautiful and noble to us, and should not therefore be regarded as merely a means of corrupting our culture and displaying contempt for us.


While it is scarcely possible that Jews do not know they are
practicing deceit and fraud when they cozen goyim , it is likely that
they feel much as do members of our race when they shoot deer
or ducks from blinds, but we can only make precarious guesses
about their own feelings about their religion. What is clear is its
usefulness to them in their attacks on other races.

(1) The religion is the perfect cover for the Jews’ racial arro¬
gance. If they claimed on any other grounds to be the Master
Race and proclaimed that the members of other races were so
inferior that they were little, if at all, better than swine, the Jews
would arouse resentment from persons who were unwilling to
accept that status. But peoples that have emerged from barbar¬
ism, even if still deeply imbued with superstitions themselves,
have learned to be tolerant of many strange superstitions and
strange gods and know that there is virtually no limit to what
votaries can believe. The Jews further disarm resentment by pro¬
fessing to share their status as a Master Race with any ‘convert’
and profess to be eager proselytizers, but have taken the precau¬
tion to impose on proselytes sexual mutilations that alone suffice
to exclude virile men and grotesquely barbarous taboos that are
certain to repel every goy except a few females who are so light¬
headed that they will make useful puppets. Their faith in their
innate superiority is thus shrewdly disguised.

(2) The religion is a perfect cover for conspiracy. When the
Jews invade a country, they normally make themselves inconspic¬
uous by infiltrating, a few at a time, and planting a few of their
number in every city, town, or even village where there is money
to be made by exploiting the stupid natives. If the scattered
groups of invaders maintained a close liaison with other mem-
bers of their race both within and without the nation they are
attacking and claimed to do so on the basis of any common inter¬
est except religion, they would soon be identified as an alien and
enemy conspiracy, but by claiming that they have a common
interest in the worship of some god, they persuade the citizens to
think of them as merely the votaries of some absurd, but harm¬
lessly foolish, cult, and to overlook the real solidarity of the invad¬

(3) The religion is the perfect means — and this is most
important — the perfect means of making certain that Jews will
be persecuted. It must be realized that the Jews’ success depends on
their cunning in having themselves “persecuted.”

By perpetually whining that they are a poor, helpless, perse¬
cuted minority, they effectively disguise their real power and their
success in wrapping their tentacles about their victims, and by
exciting the pity of soft-hearted and soft-headed goyim , they can
use those goyim as weapons against the others.

By establishing a reputation for being persecuted for their
religion by awfully wicked pagans, they can make it seem that
they, poor innocents, are suffering for their piety whenever their
depredations and malevolence have so exasperated their victims
that the latter try by legislation or violence to free themselves
from the aliens who are exploiting and oppressing them.

(4) The religion is perfect camouflage, whether or not it was
consciously designed for that function. First of all, it enjoins on
the race practices so barbarous and taboos so absurd and incon¬
venient that members of other races can not believe that any
rational beings would voluntarily submit themselves to what the
Jews call their “Law” and therefore assume that the Jews do so
only from a slavish fear of their capricious and ferocious deity:
that convinces the goyim that the Jews never dare to disobey the
supposed will of their god. The Jews have equipped themselves
with holy books containing specific regulations, such as the so-
called Ten Commandments, which were, of course, designed
only to promote solidarity within the race and to apply only to
members of it, but which can be represented to the stupid “Gen¬
tiles” as governing the Jews’ conduct toward them. Thus have the
Jews enveloped themselves in a reputation for so fearing their
deity that they obey his written instructions punctiliously, even in
their relations with other races. So thoroughly have the Jews
implanted this notion in our people that many Aryans, even if
they have no religious preconceptions, almost automatically exon¬
erate Jews from charges that are supported by evidence that
would suffice to convict members of any other race. The testi¬
mony of eye-witnesses who entered the inner sanctum of the tem¬
ple in Jerusalem is rejected out of hand: the pious Jews wouldn’t
have had such a shrine. Strong circumstantial evidence of ritual
murders is simply disregarded: the God-fearing Jews wouldn’t
indulge in human sacrifice. Every nation on which the Jews have
fastened themselves since they first appear in history has been
destroyed by internal subversion and corruption, but no one
inquires to what extent the alien body lodged within the nation
was responsible for its disintegration and final doom: the high-
minded Jews would not harm their hosts. And so it goes. Our
people have been conditioned automatically to accord to the Jews
an exemption from the rules of evidence that we observe among
ourselves. So far as I know, no Aryan charged with theft or mur¬
der has even thought of proving his innocence by asserting he is a
Christian and producing his Bible as proof that Christians can¬
not steal or murder. No one has ever claimed that the Thirty
Years’ War must be an invention by pagan historians to slander
Christians, since it is unthinkable that two sects of gentle, loving,
lamb-like Christians would have so barbarously slaughtered one

(5) The religion provides a means of penetrating even the
inmost circles of nations and societies of credulous goyim. A Jew
has only to claim that he rejects the religion and to have himself
sprinkled with holy water to make Christians fancy that he has
been miraculously transformed and is no longer a Jew; non-
Christians are as gullible, for if a Jew does not observe some of
the taboos and is seen to eat pork, and if he affects adherence to
their culture, they accept him as one of themselves. The Jewish
religion could have been designed to facilitate the planting of
Marranos in the heart of invaded nations.

(6) Their reputation as being on intimate terms with super¬
natural beings gives the Jews a great advantage in peddling sor¬
cery and similar hokum in societies marked by a high level of
ignorance. In the Middle Ages, for example, and even during the
Renaissance and Reformation, the practice of magic to bilk the
credulous and to impose even on the rulers of states and learn
their secrets was almost as useful to the Jews as usury and com¬
mercial fraud in subverting European society. A quick glance at
any grimoire of the time or at the summary in Arthur E. Waite’s
Book of Ceremonial Magic (London, 1912; New York, 1961) will
suffice to show that both terminology and practices come from
Jewish sources, especially the Kabbalah, adapted to impose on
the goyim .

(7) Their expertise in superstition has always given the
“God-people,” as the Jews like to call themselves, the ability to
influence and divert native religions for their own benefit. Since
such work is done covertly through Marranos and dupes, we can
only suspect Jewish influence in many religious civil wars without
being able to prove it. It is, for example, historically certain that
when Cyrus the Great undertook the conquest of the Babylonian
Empire, the Jews in that nation operated, as they always do, as
agents of subversion to weaken and betray their hosts, and that
after Cyrus captured Babylon without a prolonged siege and
fighting, he repaid the Jews for their good work, which had
spared the lives of many of his soldiers, and (as many another
conqueror was to do later) rewarded them for their betrayal of his
enemies with special privileges. The Jews, according to their tradi¬
tions, flattered the triumphant goy by calling him their christ, and
probably rubbed their hands together in glee as they prepared to
use those privileges to exploit the natives of various regions in the
expanding Persian Empire, including eventually the native Egyp¬
tians, as we have learned from the Jewish papyri found at Ele¬
phantine. We may reasonably infer that the Jews stealthily
opened the gates of Babylon to the Persians, so that Cyrus could
take the strongly walled city without fighting, but we can only
conjecture what contributions they made to the agitation and
demoralization of the Babylonians that weakened the Empire
before the Persians invaded it. The tale of the fall of Babylon in
the Jews’ story-book is, of course, an impressive fiction, probably
composed almost four hundred years after the event by an author
who did not even know the name of the last king of Babylon,
who was Nabonidus (= Nabu-na’id), and evidently a great bene¬
factor of the Jews, 11 who naturally knifed the sucker in the back
when they had a chance to do so. There may be some truth, how¬
ever, in the Jews’ tradition that their hatred of the Babylonians
was given a religious coloring, and the ranting attributed to Isa¬
iah as well as parts of the tale called “Daniel” may preserve a
memory of religious agitation carried out by the Jews in Babylon.
Now one major cause of Nabonidus’s difficulties was what
amounted to a religious civil war in his domains, ostensibly
between votaries of Sin and the votaries of Marduk, carried out
with a ferocious fanaticism that seems strange among peoples
long accustomed to polytheism, even though some of them are
Semitic by race. And there is evidence that some (we know not
whether few or many) of the votaries of Marduk were peddling a
kind of monotheism, claiming that he was the only (good?) god
and that other gods were merely aspects of him. The Jews, of
course, never hesitate to promote whatever god is useful to them
(e.g., Sebazius in Rome and Osiris in Egypt during the second
century B.C.) in manipulating goyim , and we may suspect that
they were meddling with the Babylonian religion as well as con¬
tributing in all probability to the economic depression and infla¬
tion in Nabonidus’s realm — but, so far as I know, we have no
proof. The same is true of many later events in history.

Although a few obscurities remain, the origin and evolution
of Christianity is now well known, but the subject is far too com¬
plex for full exposition here. We may note, however, one stage in
that evolution, the Protestant Reformation, which was, if consid¬
ered historically, a terrible calamity that drenched the streets and
fields of Europe with much of the best blood of our race, impov¬
erishing it genetically, while the Jews watched gleefully and prof¬
ited enormously from both sides and, with the fragmentation of
Protestantism, all sides. Now many causes contributed to that

11. It is virtually certain that Nabonidus gave the Jews possession of the strategic oases that controlled trade routes to southern Arabia (Arabia Felix), which were still in Jewish hands in the time of Mahomet and long thereafter; see, e.g., Chapter V of Professor H. W. F. Saggs’ The Greatness That Was Babylon (New York, 1962; 1968). Even after the
Persian conquest, Babylon continued to swarm with Jews, and, in the
time of the Roman Empire, was the capital of their international
nation and the residence of their chief ( Reshgalutha ), who may have
directed the great Jewish Conspiracy of 117.

disaster, but if we try to identify one single incident that triggered
the explosion, we must fix on the cleverness of the Jews in Flo¬
rence, when, in 1485, they bamboozled and exploited Giovanni
Pico, Count della Mirandola and titular Prince of Concordia,
extracting enormous sums from the too wealthy young man while
filling his vigorous, but adolescent, mind with Kabbalistic hocus-
pocus, telling him it was the true essence of Christianity. From
Pico the clue leads directly to Reuchlin, Pfefferkorn, Luther (who
was tactfully guided by his helpful Jewish friends until late in his
life, when he perceived how they had used him), Ulrich von Hut-
ten, and the ghastly Wars of Religion that convulsed Europe for
three centuries. It would be absurd to claim that the catastrophe
was the result of a Jewish plot, but it is legitimate to pose the
question to what extent Jewish intrigues and manipulations con¬
tributed to it. That is a problem that could be the Hauptwerk of a
diligent and objective historian willing to devote his life to the
requisite research.

(8) The Jews’ religion, which, as presented to the goyim ,
seems to validate their boasts of a peculiar “righteousness,”
makes possible the greater part of their secular (i.e., economic
and social) subversion and eventual destruction of the nations
they invade. It must be remembered that the Jews operate by dis¬
covering and exploiting causes of dissent within nations, inciting
classes and comparable groups within the nation to reciprocal
antagonism, and exacerbating the rivalries to the point of civil
war, until the nation is paralyzed and reduced to masses of indi¬
viduals who no longer feel they have anything in common except
the geographical territory they inhabit. The Jewish technique, as
was too candidly explained by the notorious agitator, Herbert
Aptheker, consists in finding large groups of goyim who can be
isolated from the rest of the society on the basis of some eco¬
nomic, occupational, regional, cultural, sexual, or racial interest
they have in common, persuading them that they are “oppressed”
by the wicked society, inciting them to hatred of their “oppres¬
sors” and making them greedy for the profits they think they can
gain by “demanding their rights,” and thus setting each group
against all others until the nation is paralysed by pseudo-legal
contention that may hopefully be expected to eventuate in civil
wars, massive massacres, and a reversion to total barbarism. The
Jews, who are always careful to wail that they are a “persecuted
minority” with a passion for godly “justice,” are thus ideally pre¬
pared to incite the “underprivileged” to outbreaks for “social jus¬
tice,” and it is, of course, well known that all of the multiple
forms of subversion are directed by Jews, often quite openly,
although they usually try to associate with them some hired or
light-headed members of each group they are inciting to what will
be, in the end, self-destruction.

(9) The same parade of religiosity facilitates the other princi¬
pal offensive against the occupied nation, if it belongs to our
race, which is morbidly susceptible to rhetorical appeals to senti¬
mentality and “ideals,” i.e., fancied changes of the real world to
make it more pleasant, usually by some magical transformation of
human nature. Aryans, especially females, are easily intoxicated
by rhapsodic talk about “all mankind,” “the brotherhood of
man,” “world peace,” “equality of races,” “all men are born
equal,” and similar nonsense. That adult Aryans believe in such
things without help from lysergic acid or even alcohol is simply
proof of Kipling’s observation that “Words are the most powerful
drugs used by mankind.” The Jews cannot be held responsible for
the mental weakness they exploit, nor even for their success in
exploiting it. In the United States, for example, they have for
decades been openly inciting the Congoids to plunder, beat,
rape, and murder their white “oppressors,” and the white Ameri¬
cans are not only so craven and masochistic that they submit
themselves and their children to the savages’ outrages, but so fat¬
uous that they believe the Jews’ pretense that they are acting out
of concern for the “underprivileged” savages rather than out of
hatred for the Aryans as well as to profit from the misfortunes of
the modern Canaanites, whose country they have effectively
occupied. The Jews’ contempt for their befuddled and spineless
victims is probably justified, but I think it obvious that their suc¬
cess was made possible in the United States, as, according to
Philo, it was in Canaan, by the awe excited by their religious pro¬
fessions in the minds of the unwitting enemies whose country
they invaded.


This summary of the Jews’ most useful devices leaves us, of
course, with the question how it is possible for the dispersed and
widely scattered members of the race to act with what amounts to
unanimity and perfect coordination. It is scarcely credible that so
large a number of individuals, many of them showing a low order
of intelligence, could carry out such operations according to a
consciously formed plan on which they have all previously
agreed. The great mass of Jews seem to be, almost without excep¬
tion, under the tight control and discipline of their fairly numer¬
ous leaders, who could, in turn, be equally subject to the orders
of a supreme and secret directorate, which plans and directs a
conscious strategy as set forth in the famous “Protocols.” This is
possible, although Aryans are apt to think most unlikely an oper¬
ation of which they would be utterly incapable — of which they
are, we must believe, genetically incapable, since their earliest
records, in the Homeric traditions, the Norse legends, and even
the Vedas, attest the great difficulty of maintaining an effective
consensus within even compact and comparatively small bands
for specific, immediate, and limited ends. It is a pernicious and
perhaps fatal error, characteristic of our race, to assume that
other races have approximately the same nature as ours, so that
argument against a conscious and concerted conspiracy must be
discarded. The alternative to that theory, so far as I can see, can
be only an hypothesis that the Jews are directed by instinct, at
least to a large extent. They may represent a complex and highly
advanced form of the biological phenomenon of which a simple
manifestation is seen in mammals that hunt in packs or bands.
As is well known, wolves and African wild dogs, for example,
hunt in organized packs and stalk and bring down their game by
a kind of strategy that is carried out by the pack as a unit but with
each individual in it having a definite function and adapting him¬
self to the needs of a specific situation. This activity we attribute
to instincts operating entirely below the level of real conscious¬
ness. African baboons form bands that are really small tribes hav¬
ing an oligarchic government, and their survival under very
adverse conditions is proof that they adapt their presumably
instinctive methods to new conditions, and that they learn by
experience and observation. It is assumed, however, partly from
the structure of the baboon’s brain and the absence of a real lan¬
guage, that the species is not capable of conscious thought. On
the other hand, we are aware that, although we may, on strictly
objective grounds, identify our race as having a peculiar capacity
for objective thought, many of our actions are determined by
instinctual and subconscious reactions (e.g., our perception of
beauty, fear of death, reaction to odors and sounds, etc.), how¬
ever much we may consciously try to rationalize them or to alter
them by efforts of the will that are likely to produce schizophre¬

It is entirely possible, therefore, that a species could have
been formed by biological selection that automatically preys on
our species as instinctively as wolves prey on caribou, although, of
course, with much greater cunning and versatility.


This hypothesis is open to the objection that, so far as we
can tell, a distinct change has taken place in the Jews’ activity in
this century and at approximately the time of the “Protocols.”

Before this, the aliens seem to have been content to exploit
the Aryans and, in biological terms, feed on them; the present
objective is obviously extermination of our species through mom
grelization and massacres, so that it would seem that the organiza¬
tion and domination of the Jewish colonies by the Zionists
produced a change in purpose that must, to a large extent at least,
have been consciously determined and planned.

This implies some measure of rule by some kind of director¬
ate that has the ability and power to set objectives for the race.
The alternative is to explain the change as a natural result of the
progressive weakening of our race by less direct attacks during the
past thousand years or more, comparable to the change in the
activity of a wolf pack when it senses that the harried caribou are
nearing exhaustion.

Whatever the explanation, the Jews’ determination to exter¬
minate the Aryans is not unreasonable.

One may see a good analogy in the cattle that are raised in
the southwestern part of the United States. For a long time, the
favorite breed was the Texas Long-horn,’ which was hardy, able
to fight off coyotes and other predators, and to survive in the
wilds until it was rounded up by the cowboys for a long drive to
the market, but it was also a dangerous animal that would attack
its owners when provoked. It is now virtually extinct, having been
replaced on the ranches by more docile breeds, such as the ‘Black
Angus,’ since the predators have been exterminated and the cat¬
tle now graze within fences or are simply fattened on corn pro-
vided for them, and the vigor of the potentially dangerous ‘Long¬
horn’ is no longer needed, while the more docile and sluggish
animals yield more tender meat.

Early in the Twentieth Century, Aryans had, for all practical
purposes, subjugated the entire world and made it everywhere
both safe and convenient for the Jews, whereas events in Ger¬
many in the 1930s proved that Aryans could be dangerous to the
Master Race, if they got out of control. Elimination of the species
seems therefore a logical step for the self-styled ‘God-people.’


I shall add a disquieting consideration that, so far as I know,
no other Aryan has taken into account. It is based on the work of
Dr. Alfred Nossig, whose manual of advice to his race on the best
means of expeditiously taking possession of the entire planet,
published simultaneously in Austria, Germany, and the United
States (Integrates Judentum; Vienna, Berlin, New York, 1922), must
once have been widely distributed, but has now become
extremely rare, so that I had to search for years before finding
even a battered copy of it. Most of what he says is, of course, mere
commonplace to anyone who has observed the Jews’ techniques,
but there is one claim which, if true, explains much and leaves us
with little or no hope, no matter what may happen in the future:
he boasts of a genetic infiltration of our race that probably renders
us helpless.

According to Dr. Nossig, any taint of Jewish blood ( a ein ein-
ziges judisches Bluttropfchen”) will so alter the brain cells
(“Gehirnganglien”) of many subsequent generations of an appar¬
ently pure Aryan family that the descendants will be susceptible
to Jewish propaganda and can readily be mobilized against their
own race. What is more, Dr. Nossig seems to reject the usual Jew¬
ish view that the genes of Jewishness, like haemophilia, are trans¬
mitted only through females, so that only the offspring of
Jewesses, regardless of the race of their father, are real Jews. (This,
of course, explains such varied phenomena as the degeneration
of the British aristocracy, which some observers trace partly to
the common practice of covetous or necessitous Britons of marry¬
ing their sons to Jewesses who were provided with fat dowries and
often dunked in holy water to make them more acceptable, and
the kidnapping of male German infants in 1944*45, who were
taken to Israel as breeding stock to improve the physique of the
race.) Dr. Nossig, astonishingly, seems to believe that the heredity
is transmitted by Jews of either sex. This means that, for example,
if a Jew in 1800 seduced and impregnated an Aryan matron, her
descendants, even today after many generations (which would
still be less than “eine lange Reihe von Generationen”) of mar¬
riages to pure Aryan stock, would all have the Jewish tumor in
their brains and be subject to control through it. And when one
tries to guess in how many nests the invading cuckoos may have
laid their eggs through the centuries, one shudders.

Dr. Nossig is obviously convinced that the genes of Jewish¬
ness are not only dominant, but have a power of dominance
greater than is attested for the genes of any physical trait. That
does not conform to the theories held by most modern geneti¬
cists, but I can find no scientific corroboration or refutation of
the claim, and I need not point out the methodological obstacles
in the way of determination of the inheritance of specific mental
traits in individuals, even if research on that subject were freely


The current intensive promotion of occult hocus-pocus,
which so generally afflicts the young who have been intellectually
disinherited and sabotaged in the public boob-incubators, seems
to indicate that many people who have no religion have an
instinctive appetite for some substitute for it. A few highly intelli¬
gent members of our race, including some I have observed in the
graduate schools, men as well as members of the religious sex,
who are, of course, too intelligent to practice witchcraft or drug
themselves with mescaline or lysergic acid to “get in touch with
the infinite,” want to believe in metempsychosis (an old Aryan
faith, at least!) and in some cosmic intelligence roughly compara¬
ble to the Hindu Brahma (neuter) that governs the universe in
conformity with some Higher Purpose.

A certain religiosity, a desire or need to believe in magic and
miracles (which, of course, imply the existence of a praeterhuman
power capable of producing them), may be biologically innate in
all races and perhaps even in some species of mammals that are
not anthropoid. That, at least, is an hypothesis that I have often
considered. Many readers probably know Eugene Marais’ major
work, The Soul of the Ape (i.e., baboons — I am told that the mis¬
nomer comes in the translation from the Afrikaans, in which the
title has a word that designates both apes and the larger mon¬
keys), but may not have seen his earlier and much shorter work
which was translated and published shortly after his death under
the title My Friends , the Baboons . In it Marais reports that when he
and his assistant were observing a colony of baboons and had suc¬
ceeded in establishing friendly relations with them, they were
awakened one night by an unprecedented visit from the domi¬
nant males who were the oligarchs of the baboon troop. They
finally understood that they were being invited to visit the lair of
the troop, and following those leaders they were conducted to the
troop’s sleeping place, where they found a number of females
mourning over offspring that had apparently died of some epi¬
demic disease. So far as Marais could determine, he had been
invited in the hope that he could and would resurrect the dead
baboon-children and restore them to life. There was sadness and
howling when he departed without having performed the desired
miracle. Anatole France has written a very plausible essay on
dogs, who regard men as their gods with a piety which, France
hints, does not essentially differ from the religious piety of
human beings except that the dogs can see and touch their dei¬
ties and so know that they exist, whereas human beings have to
content themselves with figments of their imaginations.

We must consider the possibility that our race, though dis¬
tinguished, of course, for its unique ability for scientific research,
may also have a particular (and possibly related) tendency toward,
or desire for, religious belief. This makes us vulnerable to numer¬
ous hoaxes and impostures, particularly the kinds typically, per¬
haps instinctively, created by Jews. There is, I think, a great deal
of truth in Spengler’s identification and description of the Faus¬
tian soul of our civilization with its yearning for the infinite as its
idee maitresse . Infinity can be temporal as well as spatial, and it is
easy to see that this tendency of the racial mentality would natu¬
rally produce a very strong and intense desire for immortality. As
Nietzsche said in his midnight hymn, “Doch alle Lust will
Ewigkeit, — will tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit!”


In the preceding pages I have avoided specific consideration
of Christianity, although, so far as I can judge from experience
with my own writings, about 15% of the Christians are alert
enough to see my implications.

I think I have a greater sympathy for Christianity than my
readers imagine, for I not only recognize it as a belief that was for
a long time part of our civilization and produced such splendid
monuments as the great cathedrals, but I also regard it as having
been a consolation and boon to the great majority of our own
people and one that I am sorry so many must now do without.
(This is something quite different from the social utility of super¬
natural sanctions that may be the indispensable basis of a gener¬
ally accepted and observed morality.) My feeling for Christianity
is, I think, expressed by what I consider one of the best poems of
Sir William Watson, “The Churchyard.”

I wandered far in the wold,

And after the heat and glare,

I came at eve to a churchyard old:

The yew-trees seemed at prayer.

And around me was dust in dust;

And the fleeting light; and Repose;

And the infinite pathos of human trust
In a God whom no man knows.

It is that infinite pathos that touches me deeply. Sunt lacrv
mae rerum , if you remember your Vergil.

Before we consider Christianity vis a vis the Jewish survival
strategy, let me first make two generalizations:

(1) The power and value of a religion has nothing to do with
the personality or probity of its founder. The best example of that
is provided by the Mormons, who are today the most solid and
stable cult in the United States, and who successfully resisted
longer than any other large church the contagious decay that
quickly reduced all others, with the exception of some small, scat¬
tered, and discordant Fundamentalist churches and some pock¬
ets of Traditionalist Catholics, to the contemptible quackery of a
“social gospel” and hypocritical irrationality. This really astonish¬
ing and massive religious edifice was founded by one Joseph
Smith, a petty swindler who began his career by fleecing suckers
by means of a magic stone through which he could see treasure
buried in the earth, but after he was arrested and got off with a
promise not to do it again, turned to the safer and much more
lucrative racket of swindling suckers with religion. He founded a
great church, but there is reason to believe that he didn’t give a
damn what happened to it after he was dead and probably didn’t
expect it to last. Smith, of course, was a man about whom we
have a great deal of information, both about his life and about
his doctrines, whereas we know nothing whatsoever about Jesus
except the myths associated with his name, and these are so vari¬
ous, contradictory, and late that he is, for all practical purposes, a
mythical figure, like Adonis or Mithra, even if there was a man by
that name (as is likely) about whom the myths were assembled. If
it were possible to ascertain who he was and what he did, it
would not in the least matter if he were found to be a character
no more admirable than Joseph Smith.

(2) The Jesus-cults that existed in the Roman Empire are
connected with Western Christianity only in that some of them
provided a pseudo-historical story that was accepted by the West
(our ancestors simply ignored the parts that our minds found dis¬
tasteful), and a confused metaphysical doctrine expressed in
words that our people misunderstood and progressively reinter¬
preted until the original meaning was completely forgotten. This
is true not only of the rank jungle of Jesus-cults that flourished in
the Second Century and thereafter, but also of the “orthodox”
Christianity which came into being under the successors of Con¬
stantine. As Spengler points out in the second volume of the
Untergang , even the “orthodox” Christianity of the last days of the
Roman Empire was still essentially a Magian cult and, as such,
was unintelligible to the Faustian mind, and he observes that
Augustine, though revered by the Western church, would have
regarded the Christianity of Anselm or St. Thomas or Luther as
an abominable and incomprehensible heresy — and so would the
other supposed “Fathers of the Church.” They were fathers his¬
torically, of course, but had they known the Christianity of Medi¬
aeval Europe, they would indignantly have repudiated it as a
bastard with whom they had no connection.

There was no such thing as an ‘orthodox’ Christianity
before the last two decades of the Fourth Century, when one
bunch of holy men got hold of Theodosius (by explaining to him
how advantageous it would be for him to cooperate with them)
and so were able to use the police power of the state to repress
and kill their competitors, the Arians, who had been the officially
sanctioned brand of Christians (and so “orthodox”!) before that
time. (The Arians, now called ‘heretics’ retrospectively, were
guilty of being sufficiently logical to claim that a father was neces¬
sarily older than his son, and they naturally regarded as very stu¬
pid heretics the mystery-mongers who claimed that a father and
his son had been born at the same time. The latter, however, were
clever enough to back Theodosius before he pushed his way to
the throne and to back Gratian against his father, and once they
got their hands on the imperial power, they were clever enough to
prevent potential competitors from muscling them out.) The neat
trick that holy men use today is to describe as ‘heretics’ the innu¬
merable Christian sects that did not have doctrines that can con¬
veniently be twisted into conformity with what became
‘orthodox’ by decree of Theodosius in 381, thus leading the
unwary layman to suppose that there was an ‘orthodox’ Chris¬
tianity before that time. They also conceal the fact that if the
brand that got power in 381 is orthodoxy, then all Western Chris¬
tianity is a heresy, and they themselves are, by that definition,

The only honest thing to do is to apply the term ‘Christian’
to all the sects that claimed to be followers of a Jesus entitled
‘Christus,’ who was really or supposedly executed in Judaea in
the time of Tiberius or thereabouts. When Christians become
conspicuous, late in the Second Century, most of them were
Jews, and it is probable that the numerous letters of Paul, includ¬
ing both those that were incorporated in the “New Testament”
anthology when it was put together and those that were excluded
for some reason, were manufactured at this time by Jews who
wanted to take in goyim on easy terms. (These fabrications proba¬
bly included the forged correspondence of Seneca with Paul,
which seems to have been known to Tertullian.) This was a prin¬
cipal difference among the numerous Christian sects. The Naza-
renes, whose holy book was a “Gospel According to the
Hebrews,” of which fragments survive, and who spoke only Ara¬
maic in their rites, held that only Jews by race could be Chris¬
tians, since Christ, when he returned to butcher the hated goyim ,
naturally wanted only Jews to rule the world. A compromise was
made by the Ebionites, who had, inter alia , a “Gospel of Mat¬
thew” that was certainly older than the diluted rifacimento that
got into the “New Testament,” and who preached a perfect com-
munism, with all property and women to belong to everyone in
common; they held that goyim , if they were circumcised and went
through ceremonies to purge them of their native vileness, could
become Christians second-class, as I will show below. The Carpo-
cratians, who seem to have been a numerous and powerful sect in
their day, admitted goyim on equal terms, since Salvation was for
all those who had been ‘redeemed by Christ’ from servitude to
man-made laws and materialism. Christ had come to free man¬
kind from oppression and to bestow on the righteous a new free¬
dom: what matters is spiritual salvation, and we must show our
emancipation from material things by recognizing no human law
whatsoever and by feeling free to indulge any lust and perform
any act to which the spirit may move us. Like the Ebionites, the
Carpocratians preached a total communism, with all property
and women to be for the use of everyone. They admitted women
for the sake of general promiscuity in the modern manner, and
although they had no objection to homosexuality, they thus dif¬
fered from some other brands of Christians, who excluded
females as “unworthy of the Kingdom of God” and practiced
only male homosexuality. There were many other Christian sects,
each with its own revelations from God via Jesus, such as the
Naasenes, who worshipped snakes as symbols and incarnations of
divine power because snakes shed their skins periodically and so
are born again and live forever; the Adamites, whose specialty was
going nude in public to show that they had been redeemed by
Christ from original sin and were thereby emancipated from all
the laws of sinful man; and scores of others.

My guess is that the Carpocratians and similar canaille were
the dominant sects of Christianity until the persecutions by the
wicked pagan emperors in the Third Century made those forms
of Christianity unpopular because likely to be unhealthy. The
tales of the martyrs are all fiction, of course, (Jerome, in a letter
that was included, doubtless by oversight, in the official collec¬
tion of his correspondence, boasts of his skill in inventing martyr-
stories to edify the faithful), but some Roman emperors did make
systematic attempts to enforce respect for law and accepted moral¬
ity by trying to excise the Christian tumor on the state, and I
think it likely that these persecutions were sufficiently successful
to leave the Gospel-business open to sects that at least professed
the relatively innocuous doctrines that finally became “ortho¬

Our holy men try to dodge the facts of early Christianity by
calling “gnostic” all the sects that weren’t “orthodox” by stan¬
dards that were not devised before the Fourth Century. This, of
course, is sheer dishonesty. A “Gnosticism” is a religious sect that
claims to have a gnosis, a knowledge of supernatural things,
revealed to them by some Savior who was either an incarnate god
or a divinely-inspired superman. Obviously, all Christian sects are
Gnostic in that sense, because they all claim to be based on reve¬
lations made by Christ, who, in the various sects, was regarded as
having been either an incarnation of a god or a man whom John
the Baptist or some other prophet had pumped full of Holy
Spirit. In the first four centuries A.D. the world was full of Gnos¬
tics peddling special revelations, and, of course, Christ was only
one of the Saviors: others were Baruch, Gamaliel, Tat (= the
Egyptian god Toth), Seth (Egyptian god), Balaam, Ezechiel, Adam
(whose books had just been discovered), Moses, Enoch, Mar-
sanes, Nicotheus, Phosilampes, Mithra, Zoroaster, Zervan, et ah,
et al. In the early centuries of our era, the Near East was a Bed¬
lam filled with the insane ravings of fakirs peddling their Saviors
and their forged Gospels, and at this distance it is impossible to
tell the difference between madmen, hallucines who got visions
of god from eating the sacred mushroom, Amanita muscaria , and
shysters fleecing the yokels with mystic gabble. One cannot read
much of the gibberish without feeling queasy and dizzy, but for a
quick survey of the stuff that our holy men want to sweep under
the rug, see Jean Doresse, Les livres secrets des Gnostiques d’Egypte,
Paris, 1959, which surveys the books found at Chenoboskion a
few years before. The one significant thing is that the peddlers of
all forms of Gnosticism (including Christian cults before the
Third Century) were almost all Jews. If you will look in your Scien¬
tific American for January 1973, pp. 80-87, you will note that the
author has to admit that “it becomes increasingly evident that
much of Gnosticism is probably of Jewish origin.” He is naturally
cautious, wary of offending God’s Peculiar People. Although I
admit that one cannot identify the race of some of the more
prominent Salvation-hucksters, I think it significant that those
whom one can identify racially always turn out to be Jews, and I
would delete “much of’ and “probably” in the author’s state¬

There can be no question but that Christianity was origi¬
nally a Jewish promotion, and it is noteworthy that the Christians
who try to make their cult respectable in the Third Century
claim that they repudiate the Jews. One of the earliest to do this
was Tertullian, a Carthaginian shyster, whose Apologeticum , a
defense of Christianity, was written at the very beginning of the
Third Century. He asserts that Christianity is not a conspiracy of
revolutionaries and degenerates, as was commonly believed, and
claims that it is an association of loving brothers who have pre¬
served the faith that the Jews forsook — which has been the com¬
mon story ever since. Our holy men salvage Tertullian by
claiming that he was “orthodox” in his early writings, but then,
alas! became a Montanist heretic, poor fellow. Tertullian is the
author of the famous dictum that he believes the impossible
because it is absurd ( credo quia absurdum ), so he is naturally dear
to the heart of the pious. How much Jerome and other saints
have tampered with the facts to make Tertullian seem “orthodox”
in his early works has been most fully shown by Timothy Barnes
in his Tertullian (Oxford, 1971), but even he spends a hundred
pages pawing over chronological difficulties that can be recon¬
ciled by what seems to me the simple and obvious solution: Ter¬
tullian, who was evidently a pettifogging lawyer before he got into
the Gospel-business, had sense enough to eliminate from his
brief for the Christians facts that would have displeased the
pagans whom he was trying to convince that Christians repre¬
sented no threat to civilized society; he accordingly concealed in
his apologetic works the peculiar doctrines of the Christian sect
to which he had been originally “converted,” but he naturally
expounded those doctrines in writings intended, not for the eyes
of wicked pagans, but for other brands of Christians, whom he
wished to convert to his own sect, which was that of Montanus, a
very Holy Prophet (divinely inspired, of course) who was a Phry¬
gian, not a Jew, and who had learned from chats with God that
since the Jews had muffed their big opportunity at the time of
the Crucifixion, Jesus, when he returned next year or the year
after that, was going to set up his New Jerusalem in Phrygia after
he had raised hell with the pagans and tormented and butchered
them in all of the delightful ways so lovingly described in the
Apocalypse, the Hymn of Hate that still soothes the souls of “fun¬
damentalist” Christians today. If, in his Apologeticum and similar
works, Tertullian had told the stupid pagans that they were going
to be tortured and exterminated in a year or two, they might have
doubted that Christians were the innocent little lambs that Ter¬
tullian claimed they were.

Tertullian writes semi-literate bombast. The first Christian
who can write decent Latin is Minucius Felix, whose Octavius ,
written in the first half (possibly the first quarter) of the Third
Century must have done much to make Christianity respectable.
He concentrates on ridiculing pagan myths that no educated
man believed anyway and on denying that Christians (he means
his kind, of course!) practice incest (a favorite recreation of many
sects that had been saved by Christ from the tyranny of human
laws) or cut the throats of children to obtain blood for Holy
Communion (as some groups undoubtedly did). He argues for a
monotheism that is indistinguishable from the Stoic except that
the One God is identified as the Christian deity, from whose
worship the sinful Jews are apostates, and insists that Christians
have nothing to do with the Jews, whom God is going to punish.
What is interesting is that Minucius has nothing to say about any
specifically Christian doctrine, and that the names of Jesus or
Christ do not appear in his work. There is just one allusion: the
pagans say that Christianity was founded by a felon (unnamed)
who was crucified. That, says Minucius, is absurd: no criminal
ever deserved, nor did a man of this world have the power, to be
believed to be a god ( erratis , qui putatis deum credi aut meruisse noxium aut potuisse terrenum ). That ambiguous reference is all that he
has to say about it; he turns at once to condemning the Egyptians
for worshipping a mortal man, and then he argues that the sign
of the cross represents (a) the mast and yard of a ship under sail,
and (b) the position of man who is worshipping God properly,
i.e. standing with outstretched arms. If Minucius is not merely
trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible pagans, it cer¬
tainly sounds as though this Christian were denying the divinity
of Christ, either regarding him, as did many of the early Chris¬
tians, as man who was inspired but was not to be identified with
God, or claiming, as did a number of later sects, that what
appeared on earth and was crucified was merely a ghost, an
insubstantial apparition sent by Christ, who himself prudently
stayed in his heaven above the clouds and laughed at the fools
who thought they could kill a phantom. Of course, our holy men
are quite sure that he was “orthodox.”

Whether the Christians, of whom there is no certain histor¬
ical trace before c. 112, were simply a modified or disguised con¬
tinuation of the Chrestiani (i.e., the followers of a Jewish christ
who, under the assumed name of Chrestus, evidently persuaded
at least the rabble of the huge Jewish colony planted in Rome
that the time to start butchering the goyim had come) cannot be
determined. The word that Tacitus used, as shown by the original
reading of the Medicean manuscript (which can still be seen
beneath the erasure and “correction” by a later hand) was Chres¬
tiani (“quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat”),
and the accuracy of that spelling is guaranteed by the fact that
Tertullian complains in 197 A.D. and later that the members of
his sect are called Chrestiani by the wicked pagans, which isn’t
right at all, because the correct word is Christiani .

This is significant because %pr|GT6(; [Chrestus], ‘useful, ser¬
viceable, good,’ is a common Greek word and was a name fre¬
quently given to slaves of Oriental origin (retained by them as a
cognomen when they were emancipated) and was also commonly
taken as a name by persons of the lower classes in Asia Minor
who wanted to be known by an intelligible Greek name in place
of the outlandish Semitic or other native name that was properly
theirs (much as Chinese in this country call themselves ‘Charlie’
or ‘Mike’). Cicero’s friend, Curio, for example, had a slave or
freedman named Chrestus, whom he employed as a kind of jour¬
nalist to draw up summaries of daily events in Rome for transmis¬
sion as news to his friends who were out of Italy. Many persons of
that name are known. One of them was a Jewish revolutionary
agitator, Chrestus, who was regarded as the leader of one of the
big Jewish outbreaks in Rome, which, as we know from Sueto-
nius (Claud. 25.4), was accompanied by rioting and outrages so
gross that Claudius ran all the Jews (except, of course, those who
had bought citizenship) out of the city. (It did not work, of
course, for while he was having one thrown out of the front door,
two were probably crawling in the back windows, and a few years
later Rome was more crowded with Jews than ever, and Claudius,
when they again made themselves more obnoxious than usual,
decided they were too numerous and too deeply entrenched in
the economic life of the city to be expelled, and tried to control
them by suppressing their synagogues in the city (Cassius Dio ,
LX.6.8). The date of the particular outbreak of which Chrestus
was the leader is uncertain. It is assigned to 49-50 A.D. by Koes-
termann, who has a good article on this subject in Historia , XVI
(1967), 456-469, but it could have been an outbreak of Jews six or
seven years earlier. Accepting Koestermann’s date, it occurred
between fourteen and fifteen years before the burning of Rome
in 64 A.D., for which Nero blamed the Chrestiani , who were cer¬
tainly regarded as a gang or rather horde of Jews who were trying
to destroy civilization in the manner of Chrestus, whom they may
have venerated as their Karl Marx or Trotsky (Bronstein).

What happened to Chrestus is not known, but it is not
impossible he hid to avoid arrest, got out of Rome, and went
back to Judaea, if he had been there before, or, if he had not,
chose it as a good place to stir up more trouble for civilized men.
If so, he could have been arrested and executed there by the
Roman authorities. If so, he could have been the basis on which
the later myths about Jesus (a very common Jewish name, which
could well have been his) were constructed. It is a curious fact
that one of the earliest Christian forgeries, known already to Ter-
tullian and antedating most or all of the New Testament, is a sup¬
posed letter from Pontius Pilatus describing the Crucifixion, and
exists in two versions that are addressed to Claudius as well as in
the standard versions in which the reigning emperor is Tiberius.
It is hard to see why any Christians should have seen an advan¬
tage in placing the Crucifixion so late, but it would be under¬
standable if the story originally concerned Chrestus and the date
was moved farther back when it was decided that it would be bet¬
ter to change the name to Christus and pretend that there was no
connection. A change from Chrestus to Christus would have
been easy to put over by the end of the Second Century, when
the increasing itacism in Greek pronunciation gave eta and iota
the same sound in popular speech. There would be the further
advantage that the new name would be unique and unprece¬
dented as a personal name, instead of being a very common
name among the lower classes.

The word JCpiOTOC^ [Christus], ‘salve, ointment,’ was natu¬
rally never a name given to persons, but in contemporary Yiddish
(i.e., the Jewish dialect of Greek) it was for some reason used as
an epithet applied to the Jewish kings who appear in stories in
the Old Testament, implying that they had been ‘anointed’ and
so were legitimate. It does occur in the Septuagint. It thus
acquired among Jews a connotation that would have made it a
logical title to be assumed by a revolutionary agitator who
claimed to be a legitimate king of the Jews and also the Messiah
whom the Jews had long been awaiting with the expectation that
his supernatural powers would enable them to butcher the hated
Indo-Europeans without fear of reprisals. It is entirely possible
that there was such an agitator, distinct from Chrestus, in the
time of Tiberius and that he was executed by the Roman gover¬
nor of Judaea at that time. You will notice that the stories in the
New Testament contain clear vestiges of a claim to be the ‘King of
the Jews,’ which the authors of the stories find it necessary to
explain away. In the absence of any historical record one can only
speculate, of course, but on the whole I think it more likely that
there was an agitator or thaumaturgist named Jesus (i.e. Yeshua ’, a
common contraction of Yehoshua’, like Jake for Jacob) in the time
of Tiberius than that the whole story was reconstructed from the
career of Chrestus. Palestine was full of goetae , fakirs, peddling
miracles and revelations to the multitude, and it would not be at
all astonishing if one of them tried to set himself up in competi¬
tion to the established Jewish priests with fatal results or even
started a revolutionary movement of some sort that the Roman
government nipped in the bud.

The foregoing will explain why it is nearly certain that the
Chrestiani executed by Nero in 64 A.D. were a mob of Jewish rev¬
olutionaries, followers of the notorious Chrestus, who had led
the destructive outbreak fourteen or more years before. There is
thus no historical evidence for the existence of Christians at so
early a date. (The term ‘Christian’ should obviously be applied
only to sects that claim to be derived from a Christus distinct
from Chrestus.) For further information on this subject, see the
article by Koestermann cited above.

Pliny’s letter is our earliest historical evidence for Christians.
Pliny was in Bithynia in 112 A.D., and at that time the Christians
probably had not yet concocted any ‘gospels,’ although it is possi¬
ble, of course, that they had some in secret and were able to con¬
ceal them from him. (There is a translation with the text of the
letter in the Loeb series.) They convinced Pliny that they were just
a bunch of ignorant and superstitious, but innoxious, fanatics,
and, as is evident from the letter, Pliny was really astonished to
find no evidence that they were guilty of the crimes (such as ritual
murders) and anarchistic subversion that he naturally associated
with the name. Since his is the only historical evidence for Chris¬
tians at so early a date, we have no means of knowing whether he
confused Christiani with Chrestiani (who may still have been active
at that time — the Jews were always conspiring against civilization
and may have kept the name) — a confusion that was particularly
easy because a Roman would have thought it unlikely that a
group would call itself The people of the salve/ which is all the
name would mean to anyone who was not a Jew — or there were
Christians (i.e., persons who claimed to be followers of a Chris¬
ms, not Chrestus) who did practice ritual murders and the like.
There were such later.

It is certain that the earliest known sects of “Christians,”
i.e., followers of one or another of the agitators named Jesus,
were enemies of, and probably conspirators against, the Graeco-
Romans. The Nazarenes admitted only Jews; the Ebionites, in
conformity with the doctrine stated explicitly in the “New Testa¬
ment” (Marc. 7.27-29), although most Christians are too stupid to
understand what they read, admitted goyim to the status of “whin¬
ing dogs,” provided they had themselves circumcised and obeyed
their divinely-appointed masters, promising them that when
Jesus returned with celestial reenforcements and inflicted on the
hated Greeks and Romans all the slaughter and torment that is
so enthusiastically described in the apocalypse that was included
in the “New Testament,” the proselytes would be permitted to lie
on the floor behind the tables at which the triumphant Jews ban¬
quet and to eat the table scraps thrown to them. This promise,
however, understandably failed to attract large numbers of goyim ,
and the superstition got under way only when its doctrines had
been modified to facilitate the “conversion” of large numbers of
the mongrelized inhabitants of the once-Roman Empire. Many of
the early Christian sects disclaimed in various ways a connection
with the Jews, and it can scarcely be doubted that the anti-Jewish
passages in the “New Testament” were designed to facilitate com¬
petition with those sects. It is, I think, most significant that the
Christian sect which shrewdly made a deal with the despots of
the decaying Roman Empire and thus acquired the legal and mil-
itary power to exterminate its competitors was one which had
assembled a hastily collected and slovenly edited anthology of a
few of the numerous gospels and called it a “New Testament,” so
that it could carry with it an “Old Testament” of Jewish tales to
prove that the Jews were the Chosen Race of the tribal deity
whom the Jews had impudently identified with the animus mundi
of Stoic monotheism as well as with the Ahura-Mazda of the
Zoroastrian cult. It may also be significant that the Christians
have always used the normal Jewish techniques of fraud and forg¬
ery, most obviously when they concocted gospels that purport to
have been written by eyewitnesses of miraculous and impossible
events. The evidence does not permit us to affirm that Christian¬
ity was cunningly invented by the Jews as a means of paralysing
the healthy instincts of other races, but we can affirm that if the
Jews did set out to devise a mental poison that would eventually
be lethal to our race, they could have concocted no drug that was
more efficacious in the circumstances.

I emphatically call your attention to the obvious fact that the
primitive Christian doctrine is a specific demand for the suicide
of our race, which survived from the end of the Roman Empire
to the present only because our ancestors, of fresh barbarian
stock, simply ignored in practice a large part of the pernicious
doctrine, especially in northern Europe under essentially aristo¬
cratic regimes. Until the disintegration of Protestantism made it
possible for any ambitious tailor, clever confidence man, or dis¬
gruntled housewife to have “revelations” and pitch the woo at
lower classes to make themselves important or fleece the suckers,
the professional holy men either contented themselves with tell¬
ing our people they were “sinful” or used the common devices of
theologians to conceal the import of the holy book. (Even so,
however, the Catholic dervishes are obviously responsible for the
eventual dominance of mestizos in “Latin” America, and many
similar misfortunes.)

For the deplorable acceptance of Christianity by the igno¬
rant barbarians of our race, I have tried to account in my book,
Christianity and the Survival of the West . I would now change noth¬
ing in that discussion except to make it more emphatic, for in the
years since I wrote it, I have come to the conclusion that, with
only numerically insignificant exceptions, the Christians are use¬
less in any effort to preserve our race, and that our domestic ene¬
mies are, from their standpoint, well advised to subsidize, as they
are now doing, the ranting of evangelical shamans and the revival
of menticidal superstitions by every means, including the hiring
of technicians who can pose as “scientists” and “prove,” by subtle
or impudent tricks, the “truth” of the flimsiest hoaxes and the
most preposterous notions. The development of Christianity in
all the sects of the Western world during the past two centuries
has been the progressive elimination from all of them of the ele¬
ments of our natively Aryan morality that were superimposed on
the doctrine before and during the Middle Ages to make it
acceptable to our race and so a religion that could not be
exported as a whole to other races. With the progressive weaken¬
ing of our racial instincts, all the cults have been restored to con¬
formity with the “primitive” Christianity of the holy book, i.e., to
the undiluted poison of the Jewish originals. I should, perhaps,
have made it more explicit in my little book that the effective
power of the alien cult is by no means confined to sects that
affirm a belief in supernatural beings. As I have stressed in other
writings, when the Christian myths became unbelievable, they
left in the minds of even intelligent and educated men a residue,
the detritus of the rejected mythology, in the form of supersti¬
tions about “all mankind,” “human rights,” and similar figments
of the imagination that had gained currency only on the assump-
tion that they had been decreed by an omnipotent deity, so that
in practical terms we must regard as basically Christian and reli¬
gious such irrational cults as Communism and the tangle of fan¬
cies that is called “Liberalism” and is the most widely accepted
faith among our people today. I am a little encouraged that today
some of the more intelligent “Liberals” are at last perceiving that
their supposedly rational creed is simply based on the Christian
myths they have consciously rejected. I note, for example, that
Mary Kenny, who describes herself as “a former radical” (The Sun¬
day Telegraph , 27 January 1980, pp. 8-9), has come to the realiza¬
tion that “so many of the [“Liberals’”] political ideas… are
religious at root. The search for equality in the secular sense is a
replacement of the Judaeo-Christian idea that God loves every
individual equally. …The feelings of guilt or, indeed, pity, which
once went into the religious drive, are being transferred to secular
ideas to the ultimate destruction of our civilisation.”

So far as there is hope for us, it lies, I think, in this belated
tendency to take account of biological realities.


In the foregoing pages I have tried only to suggest what seem
to me to be the most important phenomena that must be taken
into account in forming an objective estimate of the Jews and in
considering dispassionately the present plight of our race and the
doom that seems to hang over our children and over ourselves,
unless we are individuals who have already come prope ad ipsos
exactae aetatis terminos .

I do not know what, if anything, can be done to preserve a
species that some judicious observers believe to be driven by a
largely subconscious, but irresistible, death-wish. In 1914,
although we had the Jews on our backs, we were indubitably the
dominant race on earth; we are now a despised and degraded spe¬
cies of anthropoids on whom all other species, including the very
lowest and most brutish, joyously feed. When I see that our peo¬
ple are either too doltish to perceive their degradation or too cra¬
ven to care, I am close to despair. Even a few decades ago, I
should not have believed it possible that here in the United
States Aryans would willingly see their children hauled to
“schools” to be defiled by enforced association with savages and
to be robbed, beaten, raped, and mutilated by the animals. Even
today, I am almost incredulous when I hear chiefs of police on
the radio urging the white rabbits to minimize the chances that
they will be mauled or killed by the savages whom they tax them¬
selves to nourish and whom they subsidize to breed faster: in the
jungles that were once our large cities, the cringing white inhabit¬
ants are told they should not venture out of doors after dark,
should walk only in the middle of sidewalks so that Congoids are
less likely to pounce on them from doorways or from automo¬
biles in the street, and must not show themselves in large areas of
their own cities. Are creatures that accept such degradation capa¬
ble of survival or even fit to live? Is it only that they have been
enslaved by foul superstitions, or have their brains been so clot¬
ted by centuries of systematic poisoning that they have been ren¬
dered permanently and irremediably imbecile?

When the Jews invade a nation, their first concern is, as pru¬
dence demands, to acquire control over the minds of their vic¬
tims. In the middle of the Nineteenth Century, Lord Harrington
told Parliament that the Jews already controlled “a large portion”
of the British press, and, of course, in other Aryan countries they
had been equally or more successful. Less than a century later,
their control over all the means of communication within every
Aryan nation had become virtually absolute, although a few
small journals are still permitted to publish some articles that the
occupying power has not approved. In this connection, it is well
to remember the dictum of Dzhugashvili (alias Stalin) that a peri¬
odical with a circulation of 10,000 or less was not worth captur¬
ing or suppressing. It is also true that the Jews need to have a
little open opposition to maintain the fiction that they are “perse¬
cuted,” and it is possible that they have encouraged on a small
scale the more absurd and impractical forms of “anti-Semitism”
for precisely that purpose. But they seem now to feel that they
may safely exhibit their arrogance and to have resolved that no
Aryan cur shall be permitted to bark at his owners or even to
whimper audibly.

For all practical purposes, the natural aristocracy of our
race, which once gave it some sense of direction, has been totally
destroyed, by revolutionary massacres, by contrived wars for hal¬
lucinatory ends, by economic looting under the guise of “democ¬
racy,” by internal corruption through the fostering of its vices,
and by miscegenation. We are left with what is, on the whole, an
Aryan proletariat, differentiated only by income, and, especially
if the income is somewhat above average, willing to submit to
anything and even to do anything for a few additional dollars,
pounds, or rand. Our entire population, with almost no signifi¬
cant exceptions, is now at the mercy of, and therefore enslaved
by, the economic pressures which the Jews exert at the first signs
of disaffection. Our race’s traditional suspicion of “tradesmen”
was only realistic. The man whose income depends on vending to
the masses is always subject to temptations to profit that are likely
to be stronger than any moral restraints he may theoretically
acknowledge, and today he is no more than a slave at the mercy
of his masters. Even more precarious is the status of those who
have no material goods to sell, such as authors, journalists, actors,
clergymen and other soothsayers, salesmen, advertising agents,
teachers, and the like, whose livelihood depends entirely on the
sale of words, mere sounds whether spoken or written, to masses
whose tastes have been formed by the formidable machinery that
controls their minds. These facts of economic enslavement lead
many acute observers to the conclusion that our race’s only
chance of survival lies in the chance that the Jews, blinded by
their own arrogant confidence in their absolute superiority, will
permit or precipitate a total collapse of organized society into the
anarchy in which the strong and resolute will again survive at the
expense of the weak and foolish.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *