Friday, 29 August 2014


The portrayal of prejudice as a pathology, something grounded in the psychological dysfunction of the perceiver, rather than the real-world behaviour of the prejudice's target, is now standard in our culture. "Islamophobia" is just one example of this. But where did the idea come from? First explored by Sigmund Freud, it was later followed up and established definitively by the Institute of Social Research, popularly known as the "Frankfurt School". Most right-wing "dissidents" have now heard of the Frankfurt School. Breivik included some discussion of it in his manifesto, although he did not author the material himself. In all its essentials, he copy-pasted the text from the American writer William Lind. Breivik and Lind do not mention the fact that virtually all of the Frankfurt school members were Jewish, although Lind has very occasionally, and very tentatively, mentioned it elsewhere. While not exactly a mainstream commentator, Lind does seem at least to be employed by publications and organisations that aspire to mainstream respectability. Thus, he would undoubtedly invite professional ruin by drawing attention to the Jewish aspect of this.

Nonetheless, the fact that most of the Frankfurt school authors were Jewish is, by now, fairly well known. Less well known is that their "research" was financially sponsored by the American Jewish Committee. This is made clear in the following excerpts from the book "Jews Against Prejudice - American Jews and the Fight for Civil Rights" by Stuart Svonkin. It's worth pointing out that Svonkin's account is far from critical. It is not some angry, right-wing tirade against Jewish conspiracising. On the contrary, he clearly approves of the Jewish role in "combating prejudice".








The "prejudice as pathology" model ultimately went mainstream in elite circles and established  the now taken-for-granted assumption that Europeans who simply wish to do what every other people on earth wishes to do - that is enjoy their own culture and their own traditions living among their own kind - are somehow intellectually deficient, morally impaired or psychologically dysfunctional: in simple terms, mad, bad or stupid. The acceptance of this idea by those in positions of power has made it, in practice, impossible for Europeans to defend the integrity of their way of life. This ideational construct has acted as the metaphorical breach in the wall through which the Muslim hordes have come streaming. 

As the extracts from the book make clear, the construct originated with Jewish "social scientists" of the Frankfurt School, relying on the theories of the Jewish pseudoscientist Karl Marx ("scientific socialism") and the Jewish pseudoscientist Sigmund Freud, all financed by the American Jewish Committee with the goal of combating anti-semitism. All of them claimed to be scientists yet, in truth, were nothing of the kind. For them, the mantle of "science" was like the exotic garb a "wizard" might don in olden days to awe the peasants he played his tricks upon. In every case, whether this was consciously intended or not, the ideas espoused by these Jewish pseudoscientists were congruent with Jewish ethnic interests and adverse to European ethnic interests. 

Jewish culture and religious doctrine, like its wayward Islamic offspring, has a long tradition of conceptualising the outgroup as "impure". Nor is this "impurity" thought of as being merely metaphorical or spiritual. The goyim, or the kuffar, are seen, very literally, as a physically contaminating presence. For example, Jews were not allowed to eat food that had been prepared by goyim, even if it was kosher in every other respect. The sense of members of the outgroup being "tainted" is very strong in the core teachings of both Judaism and Islam. It seems to me that the doctrines of Marx, Freud and the Frankfurt School could be seen simply as modern secularisations of this long and ignoble tradition. Each of their ideational frameworks pathologises Europeans and their culture as it has traditionally existed. Europeans are depicted as being afflicted by impurity and "disease" and in desperate need of the redemptive cure offered by the Jewish "healers".  

The element of Jewish culpability in what is happening to Europe and the European diaspora societies being subjected to islamisation through colonisation by Muslim immigrants is clear and irrefutable. Anyone in the "Counterjihad" movement who cannot admit it after seeing the evidence presented so conclusively is simply not an honest person and is pursuing some agenda other than that of resisting Islam.

If you haven't already, please read parts 1, 2, and 3 of this ongoing series.

2 comments:

  1. Looking forward to reading these, as I look forward to examining your recent post on London Jews which I have only skimmed through.

    Just today i highlighted Svonkin's books in the bibliography of CoC by Macdonald. The Longbeach professor uses his works extensively,and I'm thinking about buying a copy. I don't mind a Jew writing something from a Jewish perspective, as long as they provide facts. I get the feeling you have only started on your journey towards a ''Macdonaldian'' level of knowledge on the Jewish political culture, and I appreciate you sharing the gems you find along the way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's an example of the "prejudice as pathology" model gone mainstream.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ferguson-wasnt-black-rage-against-copsit-was-white-rage-against-progress/2014/08/29/3055e3f4-2d75-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html

    Carol Anderson is an associate professor of African American studies and history at Emory University and a public voices fellow with the Op-Ed Project. She is the author of “Bourgeois Radicals: The NAACP and the Struggle for Colonial Liberation, 1941-1960.”

    Ferguson isn't about black rage against cops. It’s white rage against progress.
    ....
    [conclusion of this piece]

    think of a recent study by Stanford University psychology researchers concluding that, when white people were told that black Americans are incarcerated in numbers far beyond their proportion of the population, “they reported being more afraid of crime and more likely to support the kinds of punitive policies that exacerbate the racial disparities,” such as three-strikes or stop-and-frisk laws.

    Only then does Ferguson make sense. It’s about white rage.

    ReplyDelete