Further Thoughts on the Jewish Question

Almost a year to this day I wrote a brief article titled “My take on the Jewish Question” about the Jews as a group and the relation of Jewishness with civilisational decline. In that article nothing overly noteworthy was said, aside from the distinguishing of myself from the torrent of vulgar anti-Semitism which permeates a portion of the discourse in white nationalist spheres, et cetera. I made it clear — and I will make it moreso in the following article — that the definition of “Jewishness” which deserves attention is more a spiritual orientation than a phenotype, biological creature or even a “race” in the normal sense of the word.

The main inspiration for this approach to the question is the racial theory of late esotericist Julius Evola. Mark Citadel, writing for Social Matter, exposed this theory in excellent detail, and I have referenced it many times. Moreover, the late philosopher Otto Weininger — himself Jewish — aids us in understanding Jewishness as a spiritual archetype as he himself saw it in such terms. I have mentioned Otto Weininger before, or, rather, I treated him as a case-study courtesy of traditionalist Anthony Ludovici’s words about him, in my article about antinatalism earlier this year. There I laid-out a brief outline of the man’s character epitomised by his suicide as means of him “overcoming” his Jewish life — a mistake, I must add, which I will explain shortly — following very logically from his extremely pessimistic philosophy.

Weininger was amid the “Holy Damned Ones” Evola saw as his main inspirations (the others being Otto Braun and Carlo Michelstaedter — another Jewish man who committed suicide), meaning a man unequal to the strength of his thoughts. One needn’t look far into the philosophies of any of these men to see where they run parallel to Evola. Weininger, writing in Sex and Character, claimed, quote;

Our age, which is not only the most Jewish, but also the most effeminate of all ages; the age in which the arts are only a rag for wiping its moods, and which attributes the artistic urge to animal games; the age of the most gullible anarchism; the age without a sense for the state and justice; the age of sexual ethics, the age of the most shallow of all historical methods (historical materialism); the age of capitalism and Marxism; the age in which history, life, and science are reduced to economics and technology.

One could easily mistake this as a quote from a man like Corneliu Codreanu or even Benito Mussolini. What is fascinating about a Jew like Weininger is his profoundly un-Jewish sensibility, something in life he tried to circumnavigate by converting to Christianity (Protestantism) among other things, which all ultimately proved futile. His suicide, however, being nearly the most honest and pure act he could ever achieve, is profoundly — as an act by itself — un-Jewish. Indeed, only Evola’s racial theory, which distinguishes between body, spirit and soul, can explain this phenomenon. A Jew with the soul of an Aryan, an Aryan with the soul of a Jew — such possibilities are found clearly manifest in our age of Kali Yuga. For why are most Westerns alive right now? Because they have nought to die for. An existence which equates to a kind of slumber, shuffling through life’s shopping malls and television screens, beholden to the basest instincts and their perpetual pleasing via money and nothing but money.

Because it is useless to try to hide it from oneself, people today are often wondering if the Jew isn’t ultimately a kind of scapegoat. The cases are so frequent in which the characteristics that our doctrine attributes to the Jews are fully and brazenly exhibited by “Aryan” speculators, profiteers, upstarts, and — why not — even by journalists, who do not hesitate to use the most twisted and disloyal means for polemical ends. ~ Evola, The Misunderstanding of Scientific Racism

This is the root of traditionalist dissatisfaction with much white nationalism; in such spheres there is not enough focus upon the character of a people. Being “white” is not enough, it is the quality of the man which matters. For if he is truly European — in a three-dimensional fashion, not a two-dimensional fashion — then that transcends his genes, his “matter.”

Evola believes that race is spiritual as well as physical. If a man comes to you and says, “Oh, I’m White! You should be looking after me, mate!” he would say “What is your intellect? What is your quality? What is your moral sense? What do you know about your civilisation? How far are you prepared to fight for it? What pain can you endure? Have you had understanding of death in your family and in life? Are you a mature and profound human being or are you part of the limitless universality (although you were born in a particular group which I respect and come from myself)?” — that’s the sort of principle that he would have. ~ Jonathan Bowden

Evola explains this well himself in his work, Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem:

Are “rationalism,” and “calculation” purely Jewish phenomena? If one wanted to answer “yes,” one would also be forced to believe that the first anti-traditional, critical, antireligious, and “scientific” upheavals of ancient Greece had also been introduced and supported by Jews; that therefore Socrates was a Jew, and that not only the medieval nominalists, but also Descartes, Galileo, Bacon, etc., were Jews. … Even if the passion for the lifeless number and abstract reason is an outstanding characteristic of the Semites … it nevertheless seems clear that one can speak of a Jewish spirit in this regard only if it destroys everything through rationalism and calculation, if it leads to a world that consists only of machines, objects, and money instead of persons, traditions, and fatherlands, and if one uses the expression “Jewish” in a symbolic sense, without necessarily referring to the race. In the concrete development of modern civilisation, the Jew can be seen as a force that worked together with others for the proliferation of the “civilised,” rationalised, scientific, mechanistic, modern decadence. But he certainly cannot be singled out as the single, far-seeing cause. It would be nonsense to believe anything of the kind. The actual truth is that one would rather fight against personalised forces than against abstract principles and general phenomena, because the former can also be attacked in a practical manner. And so people have turned against the Jew to the degree that he seems to embody a type that is also present in other areas, and even in nations that have been virtually unaffected by Jewish immigration.

The “Eternal Jew” easily becomes a bogeyman to the materialist constantly looking for something external to react against, leaving them vulnerable themselves to fall prey to this spiritual sickness characterised by the traits of this archetypical “platonic” Jew. For if one neglects the spiritual needs, they will be sated by filth and dirt. Indeed, this is something Evola warns us of in the introduction to his translation of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion:

We want to mention right away that we personally cannot follow a certain fanatical anti-Semitism that sees the Jews everywhere as deus ex machina and finally ends in a kind of ambush itself. [René] Guénon himself has referred to the fact that one of the means used by the masked forces to defend themselves consists of directing the entire attention of their enemies in a tendentious way toward those who are only partially the real cause of certain upheavals. Once they have created a scapegoat in this manner, which suffers the full brunt of reaction, they themselves are free to continue with their intrigues. In a certain way, this is also true of the Jewish question.

And also in his Notes on the Third Reich, speaking about Nazi Germany, Evola explains the problem with Hitlerian anti-Semitism:

For Hitler, the Hebrew is the mortal enemy of the Aryan race, in particular of the German people. He is the bearer of a force that acts in a destructive sense, the subversive contaminator in the bosom of the cultures and societies within which he seeks, on the other hand, to assure himself power and influence. We should recognise that in Hitler anti-Semitism played the role of a true idée fixe, of which, in this almost paranoid aspect, it is not possible to completely explain its origins and which had tragic consequences. In his writings and speeches, Hitler over and over again attributes to the Jew the cause of every evil. He truly believed that the Jew was the only obstacle to the creation of an ideal German national society, and he made this obsession an essential ingredient in his propaganda. Apart from Marxism, for Hitler all Bolshevism has been the creation and tool of Judaism. The same holds true for Western “capitalist plutocracy” and the Masons. These are all theses of which he should have recognised the one-sided character early on. We may wonder whether Hitler, in his “fixation,” was not the victim of one of the tactics of what we have elsewhere called the “occult war,” a tactic consistent with turning all our attention to concentrate on only one particular sector where the fighting forces are acting, while distracting our attention from other sectors where their activity can continue almost undisturbed. When I say this, we do not mean that there is no Jewish problem… As Hitler professed it, however, displaying attitudes that had long been part of the so-called “German Movement,” anti-Semitism had the character of an obsessive fanaticism. It was the sign of a lack of inner control, and it is because of it that there is a stain that is difficult to remove from the Third Reich. The common error that racism and anti-Semitism are regarded by many people as synonyms also has its principal origin in Hitlerism.

Weininger, too, again in his Sex and Character, has words on this topic more generally:

One is not dealing with a race or a people, and even less with a legally acknowledged profession. One can only define it as a spiritual attitude, a psychic constitution, which offers an opportunity for all men and which merely found its most grandiose realisation in historical Jewry. Nothing proves the veracity of this statement more than anti-Semitism. The truest, most Aryan of Aryans, certain of their Aryanness, are no anti-Semites; they cannot even fathom hostile anti-Semitism, … on the other hand, one can always detect certain Jewish traits in the aggressive anti-Semites … It would be impossible for this to be any other way. As one loves only those traits in the other which one would wholeheartedly embrace oneself, yet can never fully attain, so one hates in the other only that which one never wants to be, yet which one partially retains. One does not hate something with which one has nothing in common.

It is a strange irony that much discourse on this topic is mired with fanaticism. Perhaps it speaks of our age which, as Weininger has said, is “the most Jewish.” This style seeps into all, whilst playing the part of a bogeyman, of an external enemy, it renders it actually invisible to those who’re under the spell. This idea of platonic Jewishness is the real enemy which acts as a destructive force; the Jewish (or more properly, Hebrew) people merely act as a conduit for this force.

To answer the question of why Weininger’s suicide was a mistake, I must draw the reader’s attention to one question: Which was his suicide closer to, or motivated by; Being or Non-Being? Clearly the latter. It was not a triumphal overcoming of his perceived inherent wickedness, but, rather, an undercoming; a submission to it; letting it consume him. One finds a similar idea, this undercoming of struggle, in antinatalism. Instead of the overcoming of life’s hardships one submits to them and allows them to wash over oneself — a sort of anti-Baptism plays-out in service to the Below. This idea of undercoming, of service to the Below, is found manifest in Jewishness in its own particular way — as Evola said in regard to “a world that consists only of machines, objects, and money instead of persons, traditions, and fatherlands…” and how these things are achieved via usury, ideology, and degeneracy Jews have been so prone to emitting for many centuries, something powered by their high I.Q.s and social roles as members, generally-speaking, of the higher bourgeoisie. That is not to say that Jewishness is bourgeois, but bourgeois sentiment, as opposed to heroic sentiment, is found amid the Jews disproportionately so. But this is, reader, a spiritual orientation; an attitude; a “psychic constitution,” as Weininger says. This undercoming, which runs in a foul, dark direction, which Weininger submitted to, which antinatalists submit to, which Jews as a group tend to perpetuate, which our modern world leans towards and is driven by, could be said to be Kali’s influence. I cannot think of another term or idea which quite captures this darkness. I can visualise it, but I do not believe the English language can adequately describe it.

Finally, I wish to propose a distinction inspired by a friend of mine, himself Jewish, between the Jewish and the Hebraic. The former is this particular darkness manifest through the lens of the Hebrew, where it finds its place amid moral corruption, subversion, etc., whilst the latter is the foundational identity, of three-dimensional being represented by the early Hebrew kingdoms and their people, as a place and form in space and time. My friend suggests that one of the particular and most important causes of the Hebraic mutating into the Jewish is the fact of diaspora, which facilitates the Jews’ place in the higher bourgeoisie and compels them to act in a divisive and manipulative way (such an idea is also found in Kevin MacDonald‘s work, The Culture of Critique). It is not that the Jews are the root cause of such things, but they are acting upon pre-existent fissures in the Western soul, like salt to a wound. Jews did not begin the present degeneration, but they have influenced it, irritated it, and the degeneration acts through them in an almost surgical way. The biggest victims, then, are not so much the “victims” of Jewry — they were victims of something evil before that — but Jews, Hebrews, themselves who, by some awful fate, have come to serve as a vessel for an un-Godly force. As for the answer to this madness, my friend says that the Jews must become a civilisation again; with a society, a homeland, a history, a religion, a purpose. This would close Pandora’s Box, so to speak, eliminate diaspora, remove Jews from the Western intelligentsia and elsewhere, and so on.

To close, I must remind the reader that the darkness manifest within Jewishness can and will manifest elsewhere. As the crusaders understood, there is the internal battle and the external battle; so it is with spiritual deterioration and political deterioration. The soul is the starting-point, the beginning. If it is clean and radiant, its light shines, like a sun, upon the golden plains and illuminates all. However, it doesn’t matter how many candles there are to illuminate the plains, for the light will flicker and dwindle if the sun itself is forever absent.


20 thoughts on “Further Thoughts on the Jewish Question

  1. Good article, but people reading it and others in the same vein may become susceptible to the so-called Nirvana Fallacy: had the Jews not promoted Marxism which decimated 150 million people, someone else would’ve done it. The Jews merely “happen” to engage in these bloody endeavors, but if not them, the platonic, ubiquitous “Jewish Spirit” would take hold of someone else, maybe the Finns or the Eskimos. I mean, you perceive the Jews as (acting on behalf of) a Grand Force of Nature while the racialist anti-Semites simply perceive Jews as a dangerous biological enemy; so it’s actually your attitude, not the anti-Semites’, that attributes unrealistic prowess to the Jews. A “vulgar” racialist would say “get the niggers, spics, ragheads, gooks, and kikes outta my country” but you ascribe a profound spiritual role to international Jewry which seems to obfuscate the very specific state of affairs on the ground.

    1. I’m not claiming that, I’m claiming that the Jewish spirit came to Marxism, for example, due to the former’s inherent properties (preference for materialism, quantity over quality, bourgeois egalitarianism, etc.), but this Jewish spirit itself is driven by something deeper and darker which is indeed evidenced elsewhere with other groups (European nihilism, positivism, individualism, etc.). The Hebrews as a people have fell particularly prone to this darkness because of diaspora as well as possible theological and philosophical reasons in relation to their culture, and so on and so forth.

      My criticism of the “vulgar nationalist” is that whilst the Jews, darkies, etc. should indeed be removed, what of himself? A morally upright white society will not have the problems a morally corrupt white society will have — they’re both white, but one will be more susceptible to external evils than the other. This is a fact which, in my opinion, is often overlooked and “left for later,” when in fact its importance renders it needing to be absolutely immediate.

  2. E. Michael Jones has hit the nail on the head regarding Jewishness, at least from a Christian perspective. The whole identity of Rabbinic Judaism is built on rejecting Christ. Since Christ is the “Word made flesh,” this means that it is fundamentally a rejection of Logos. The reason that Jews are such a chaotic force is because they refuse to conform to universal Order, and can only do so by accepting Christ. To translate this to the modern world, the “Jewishness” that pervades our culture is a result of the West’s desertion of Natural and Divine Law as well as their Author; we have abandoned God and are paying the price. I have more observations on the topic, but I’ll wait until Ed writes that article (if he ever does).

    Evola’s note on the confusion with racism and anti-Semitism is quite apt. It’s ridiculous how Liberals want to crucify men like G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc because they wrote on the dangers of “Jewishness” in Europe, which is, to the left, the equivalent of (supposedly) advocating for genocide.

  3. “As the crusaders understood, there is the internal battle and the external battle; so it is with spiritual deterioration and political deterioration.”

    Great quote. Excellent piece once again Adam.

  4. It strikes me that, where Jews have been an amplifying/accelerating vector of degeneracy, they play that role par excellence at the onset of emerging trends towards degeneracy of various sorts. At the same early point of onset of the trend where an ordinary bourgeois-type person would react with disgust or contemptuous dismissiveness, this sort of Jew seems to, in respective place of each of these reactions, experience titillating arousal and perceive an enormous emerging opportunity to be exploited for personal gain. He enthusiastically jumps into it at the ground floor and assumes a leadership role more or less by default of the more self-consciously respectable bourgeois who either want nothing to do with the trend or simply refuse to acknowledge it. You can see the pattern repeating itself over and over again in the history of everything from revolutionary Socialism to rap music.

    I think the error of vulgar anti-Semitism lies in misinterpreting this Jewish ability to read pernicious trends, and eager willingness to ride them, as an ability to *create* those same trends as though out of nothing. One might as plausibly explain the existence of the forest by the activity of the logger.

  5. Fascinating article.

    “This idea of platonic Jewishness is the real enemy which acts as a destructive force…”

    In a Christian sense: a Satanic energy.

    It’s a presence one cannot ignore, yet it would be rash to pin all the problems on one group, and it would undermine our own agency whilst conferring on the Jew subterranean power. The more plausible explanation being, they have a extreme in group loyalty, and they like anyone else don’t want to give up power. The Satanic forces remain however.

    There is a need to look inside oneself to find what is missing rather than an externalising of problems. Of course – as you say – the latter is an easy thing to do whereas the former is immeasurably more difficult.

  6. Seems to me there are two basic questions. One, each group needs the ability to exclude all other groups because groups have contrary interests to one another. Second, there needs to be strong hierarchy to keep idiots from having power, because idiots are easily swayed by whatever silliness is afoot out there in intellectual-dom where ideas are sold like commercial products.

  7. This article seems like only a slightly less of a simplification than “vulgar anti-Semitism.”

    Jews as a people within Christendom were the only ones allowed to engage in usury and given that they were frequently subjected to violent persecution, this made them be concentrated in more legal related professions where there might be at least some hope of legal recourse or protection.

    They also became even more anti-Christian than they might otherwise have been. Thus, it would be no surprise that Jews would come to be involved in causes which are not inherently Semitic. Anti-clerical thought among Europeans really only began with the first French revolution and that movement was not Jewish in anyway.

    It’s also unpopular among Christian reactionaries to say this but it’s true that much of egalitarianism originated in Christian doctrine. One can readily see this in the writings of early English and American socialists. It’s something that Nietzsche frequently pointed out as well.

    Anti-Semitism and racism are crutches that too often prevent rational thought.

    1. How unique were the Jews in being a minority group ill-served by a government and mainstream culture? Not unique at all, it’s an inevitability of minority status. What makes them unique is that their minority status has been a permanent condition for them due to not creating a society of their own (the one they have now created is utterly dependent on the blessing and protection of the oh so evil and oppressive christendom), which became a part of their underdog self-concept. . This may explain the consistently negating, transgressive, “deconstructive” character of Jewish influence in various societies. This is exactly what the article describes, and I see nothing simplistic about that, in fact I’d bet many Jews could agree to it although with a more positive attitude toward such facts. Such analysis is practically a defense of Jews as it at least allots them a historical context if not justification for the development of common Jewish traits, something I think you attempted to do by simply invoking Jewish usury, which isn’t the best argument (Jews were the only ones allowed to fuck over the majority Christian populace in their own society in this specific way and they faced retribution for it, therefore it’s fair for Jews to despise Christians, but not the other way around!).

      Furthermore none of your arguments address comtemporary, outrageously disproportionate Jewish involvement in various forms of pornography, loosening of sexual mores, and high level political/media agitation on behalf of progressive politics throughout the entire western world. Without this reality I doubt anyone would be discussing Jewishness today at all. Is it simply too appallingly racist to notice these things, to take an interest in the forces shaping the world? As the article explicitly states, Jews are not to blame for European problems, but they play an enormous role in our societies and it can’t hurt to understand it.

  8. “Jews as a people within Christendom were the only ones allowed to engage in usury…”

    I don’t think you understand the gravity of this fact. Since Biblical times only Jews could practice usury, and even then, only on Gentiles. I find this dynamic extremely suspicious in itself in that it grants the Jews with considerable and conspicuous leverage over their gentile counterparts. Pardon me if I’m wrong, but you seem to view this circumstance as a random phenomenon of the surrounding”culture”, and the persecution of Jews in modern history as simply a “societal accident” in which Christians share much of the blame. If this is the case, I don’t think thats entirely accurate.

    Consider, one of the main pillars of Christian morality is charity and universal brotherhood–not just between fellow Christians but between all people and groups (parable of the good samaritan; anyone of any group who accepts christ gains the kingdom etc.). This ethic is not one shared by the Jews. Again, consider their usury laws. If they Jews practice usury with the Gentiles why not practice it amongst themselves? (If you honestly don’t agree with the common sense answer to that question, then I’d suggest researching the Talmud) Also remember that the Jews are “the chosen people” of their God. Much of their belief system and ethics is built upon the distinction. They very deliberately segregate between they the chosen, and everyone else (Gentile, Goyim).

    Also note how the God in their Bible is a very irrational and frequently unfair one. When Moses requests his name there is much subterfuge and mystery in the answer. Its important that his name translates into “I am that I am”: its almost as if to say, “I am whoever the heck I say I am! Don’t ask too many questions!”

    I also think your view of Christian egalitarianism is misguided. Yes charity and universal brotherhood are core values of christianity. But the Christian God is one strongly identified with Logos. Both God and therefore his son Jesus seem to follow a universal standard which in its transcendence from man allows all men to be judged equally by it. It is important that he is outside time, and thus history (“in the world but not of it”). Again, this cannot be said of the Jewish God. The Jewish God often interferes or creates history, often “picking sides” at a whim. This depiction of God is closer to the materialist-Marxist-battle-of-opposing-forces-egalitarian view that the majority of traditional thought despises.

    Again think about the usury laws, and about the main pillars of the Jewish God opposed to the Christian God. Think about it for a long time.

    1. Don’t be taken in by the theft of ancient text by the Hittites who one day would lose it to the ‘jews’ who would be recognised as the world’s greatest liars, but somehow hold the title of “judean,” and be unquestionably the authors and owners of sacred text. Next time you hear a lazy worthless Christian say ” Jesus was a Jew ” slap that cheek and demand the other as well

  9. Thanks for looking in at the Orthosphere today, and for taking the time to read my short post. I followed your link back to this site and learned something from this interesting post. It is actually very helpful to something I’m writing about archetypes as spiritual types, with particular reference to the three sons of Noah and Noah’s grandson Nimrod. To my mind, reaction grounded in naturalism is bound to fail. One cannot urge transcendence while denying that there is anything transcendent. I’ve got you bookmarked and will stop by again.

  10. I feel that where Jews are the world prospers, but the whole world must be fully connected first before all Jews reside mainly in Israel (safely). It is currently too many eggs in one basket. So the surrounding populations have to be equally neutered. This won’t happen any time soon! China is currently stronger than America economically! This is a long way to go. But the world is getting connected better and better, like a giant spider web! Just like anti-semites used to illustrate in Nazi Germany. Then everything is interdependent. But if Jews fully leave an area where they have long resided then there is a “brain drain”; the life reverts to being more ideal or animal like, perhaps as you’d prefer. Pagan!

    1. What on Earth are you babbling about? Jews belong in their homeland with their traditions; otherwise, their culture coupled with diaspora causes them to act as a cancer, destroying that which is around them and parasitising the native populations which welcome them. Jews overwhelmingly lean Left politically, support and encourage moral relativism, modernism, progressivism, etc., erode established cultural norms which support civilisation, and so on and so forth. Although, judging by your comment and its tone, I assume that you’re Jewish yourself, or at least a rather repugnant philo-Semite.

      “Brain drain”… good grief. Jews succeed in mathematics and finance, but find me a Jew equal to Dante or Shakespeare, equal to Alfred the Great or Charles Martel. The potential of the Jewish people to flourish as a mystical and profound people is held back by modern dullards like you who refuse to see glory and beauty, and who’d sooner burn the whole Earth in the name of progress than allow a people as confused and lonely as the Children of Israel a chance to find themselves and again fall beneath God’s favour.

  11. It will take time to cure the wound, and it absolutely needs time. And it would be much more manageable if the salt were removed.

    The existing ills of civilization is that of the civilization. No peoples will ever be spiritually aligned so much so that they can exist harmoniously for more than so many generations. Time and change is too chaotic and unyielding. Forces of nature and biology are too uncaring and unpredictable. Conflict is unstoppable.

    The cut will always reopen and will be better managed if the society can be left to cure it. Through care and spirituality or fire and brimstone it must be allowed to do it on it’s own. The salt poured on the wound…would it not be better to remove it completely? To wash it away in a great cleansing flood? As one of your commenters states that simply removing the problem will leave you open to others who will in turn do the same…..I disagree.

    No other group could possibly attain the same level of destruction, nor would it have the ability to so easily sow it’s seeds in our societies. Jews have had too much time in our lands, they have been a guest for far too long.
    And it would be far too deterministic to claim that we would eventually invite our own destruction again at the hands of some others.

    Thinkers in these circles too often take to criticize the self because they are powerless of external forces.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s