Notes on Spencer Quinn's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: A Review(of Israel Shahak's Book)" — Problem with Kevin MacDonald's Theory of Northern European Individualism

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/01/05/jewish-history-jewish-religion-a-review/

This book review leaves the impression that the problem is less with Jews than with idiot goyim who allowed themselves to be played.

Jewish ethnocentrism is problematic for being extroverted than introverted. If Jews want a world of their own, fine. The problem is they also want the whole world as their empire, an ambition that can be realized only by Palestinianizing World Goyim. To create the Jewish State, there had to be Nakba against the Palestinians. Tragic, but if Jews had stopped there, no big deal to the rest of the world. But what is now happening in the West is White Nakba, and it's largely engineered by Jews who've gained control of white elites via bribery, brainwashing, and browbeating.

But then, maybe Jews wouldn't have turned out this way if Europeans had just left them alone. If Rome hadn't invaded Judea and pushed them into exile, Jews might not have spread all throughout Europe, which might have remained gloriously pagan. Also, the European spirit of discovery and world conquest didn't originate with Jews who nevertheless were useful as money-lenders and investors in the vast enterprises. So, Jews got a taste of World Power via Europeans.

In the Ancient World, Southern Europeans, esp. the Greeks and Romans, were most aggressive and adventurous. Later, it was the Northern Europeans, without whom Jews wouldn't have gained World Hegemony. Shahak's book details how Jews threatened by fellow Jews sometimes sought refuge in the world of kinder white Gentiles governed by more enlightened values and more humane application of the law.
On the other hand, these very goyim also recklessly drove Europe over the edge in World War I. Some will say the Jewish Hand played a role in the Great War, and I'm sure that was true, but whites often had a compunction to slaughter one another over what now seems like trifles. Granted, some historians say this was the reason for European advancement. Unlike most parts of the world that either remained sparsely populated or came under overwhelming imperial power, rough parity ruled among the European kingdoms/states, and this led to many more wars that fostered innovation in warfare and various technologies; it's like warring Japan was most open to new ideas when each clan sought superior weapons from European traders. But it also means Europeans got into the habit of treating war as some kind of sports. Most of these wars were resolved quickly, but when the warring parties were well-matched, things got awfully bloody like the matches between Ali and Frazier.

Kevin MacDonald argued that Jews gained over Anglos and other Europeans because the latter are more individualistic, but I'm not so sure. While modern concepts of individuality and liberty were advanced in the Anglo world(and Netherlands), those societies weren't governed or defined by principles of individualism but by class, obedience, respect, and conformism. For all practical purposes, individualism had significance only for certain thinkers, adventurers, innovators, and the like. Most people were concerned with fitting in, being approved, seeking validation. Northern Europeans weren't as clan-based or kinship-oriented as the Greeks and Southern Italians, but they still thought socially and communally than as individuals. If they served as a crew member on a ship, they did as the captain ordered. They were loyal to the firm they worked for, like Bob Cratchit to Ebenezer Scrooge in A CHRISTMAS CAROL. And they were mindful of the class they belonged to. And they were anxious about their respectability and standing in society. Thus, individualism in the Anglo World was rather constricted. Given liberty and individuality's tendency toward social chaos, social discipline and fear of disapproval were paradoxically the necessary conditions for the increase in freedom. The anarchic urge within liberty had to be tempered by manners and rules. In other words, individuality and liberty had to be merited by a sign of superiority, intelligence, wit, and/or skills.
Thus, individualism was essentially elitist, and most people, deemed mediocre and uninspired, were expected to just fall in line and conform, do what was necessary to gain approval and avoid opprobrium. The end result was a society where a relative few were deemed superior and worthy of admiration; they deserved more 'social credit' in liberty and individuality; the rest should just shut up, fall in line, and obey, which was pretty much the rule in British boarding schools.

Of course, Britain eventually loosened up, especially with the rise of Youth Culture popularized by the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and the like. Later, there was the explosion of Punk culture that took it to a whole new (lower)level, especially appealing to Brit youths eager to smash the remaining vestiges of class culture. But, old habits refused to die. Anglo-Britain(and Canada and Australia) remained very much places where most people remained deferential to authority as the best and 'expert'. Of course, authority came to wear the face of 'liberal democracy' and even came to be associated with hipness. It presented itself as 'lightened up', disdainful of old hierarchies and snobberies. After all, the Establishment embraced the Beatles, the Royal Family opened up to vulgar celebrities, and the ruling class came to indulge in the same popular culture as the hoi polloi. Still, the formula still remained, "the Best know and the Rest follow".

Now, what would constitute the Best? When UK was ruled by awesome race-ists(as the Best of the nation), most Brits fell in line and supported the racial-national agenda. But, if the Best were altered, the Rest would naturally fall in line PRECISELY BECAUSE most Brits never had real individuality of their own — and even popular culture, which felt so joyous and liberating, fostered collective emotions and 'thought', the crowd mentality that could be shepherded by the Power; it was more about mass idolatry of godlike celebrities than autonomy of the individual. Is it then surprising that New Britain was hardly more individualistic than Old Britain and in some ways even less so?

Just look at the rise of 'woke' culture and Covid-mania in the UK. A truly individualist society wouldn't get so crazy. People would ask questions and show some skepticism. But when the Best say so-and-so in the UK, most people just follow along like sheep. They lack the pride and confidence of individuality. What is truly insidious about 'woke' ideology or political correctness is it gives the false impression that it's about the voice of the People and the Powerless. Thus, the brainwashed sheep being led by the nose are fooled into believing they're struggling against the system. Wow, they knocked down a bloody statue of some past figure who sold slaves! What awesome rebellion against tyranny!
In truth, UK is now ruled by Jews who, via financial and media control, define what is Best. Jews push 'wokeness' to weaken white pride, resolve, and autonomy, all the better to make whites serve ANOTHER power. But because 'woke' ideology creates the illusion that 'white supremacy' still rules or infests the West, the idiot mobs think they're fighting the Power by vandalizing old statues. It's like the moronic Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution who were led to see themselves as rebels when, in truth, Mao merely used them as shock troops to get rid of his political rivals. Contra Kevin MacDonald, individualism wasn't the dominant mindset among Anglos and Northern Europeans. Rather, it was the individuality of the Best that was respected and rewarded while the Rest were pressured to obey and follow along.

In contrast, while it's true Jews have been profoundly tribal, their power also derived from a strong sense of personal individualism, i.e. self-centered pride of individuality has been more common among Jews than among Anglos. While Anglos were into 'Yes, sir' and 'No, sir' before their superiors, Jews were more likely to be distrustful of their own kind, evento the point of irreverence. It could be Jews were sometimes overzealous to kill/murder other Jews precisely because too many Jews were overly defiant and strong-minded; it's like, for all the black bitching about 'racism', they are most prone to beat up or kill other Negroes cuz the only thing black egomania fears is an ass-whupping.

It's also worth noting that Jewish Tribalism wasn't based on loyalty to a clan leader but to God. Tribalism based on leadership crumbles along with it. It's about follow-the-leader, so when the leader goes, so does the tribalism. In contrast, tribalism based on the Covenant means everyone within the Tribe is equally blessed by God or some great force; it's a matter of blood and spirit regardless of who is leader. Anglo tribalism was based on leadership. So, if the leadership lost prestige(with the fall of empire) or cucked to a foreign entity(the Jews or whatever), the whole system came to be fatally compromised. As for Christianity, a universal faith, it wasn't something the Anglos could claim for themselves. It was only a matter of time before other peoples invoked the Christian God and Jesus to throw back the sermons at the British Imperialists.

Shahak begins by demonstrating how the Jewish state of Israel exists to serve the interests of Jews first and foremost.

Well, a Jewish State should serve Jews first and foremost.

He also describes the financial incentives Israel provides for its Jewish citizens to return to Israel after they leave, while not making similar offers to its non-Jewish citizens in similar circumstances.

Nothing wrong with that.

Shahak connects this double standard to the closed society many religiously zealous Jews want Israel to be.

Jewish problem is less about double standards than duplicitous standards. Every national entity must have double standards. If Japan is to remain Japan, it must favor Japanese over others. Still, a principled people would not only use double-standards in their favor in their own domain but respect similar practices by other peoples in their own domains. So, if Japanese use double-standards to favor Japanese in Japan while respecting Iran's use of double-standards to favor Iranians in Iran, there's no real problem.

But, Jews play a different game. For some reason, not only should Jews use double-standards in favor of Jews in Israel but THE WHOLE WORLD must be made to endorse such behavior, all the while pledging to favor the Other(especially Jews) over their own kind in their own countries. So, while Hungary must praise Israel for being an ethnocentric Jewish State, it mustn't favor Hungarians in Hungary; Hungarians must abandon any notion of a historical homeland with deep roots and meanings for Hungarians.

Imagine that. Hungarians have no global ambition and merely want to preserve Hungary as their little nation. In contrast, Jews not only have Israel but use neo-imperialism to smash neighboring Arab nations. Jews also control US and EU and use them as goy attack dogs against Russia, China, and Iran. And yet, these Jews are lecturing the Hungarians about decency and morality. It's like a billionaire gangster lecturing about the evils of greed to a peasant with a plot of land. Jews want all the goy world to be blackrocked. Jewish supremacists are cretins through and through, but no less disgusting are the goy cucks who grovel at their feet.

One of Shahak’s main contentions regarding classical Judaism is its totalitarian nature. He mentions how eighteenth-century Jews burned books, persecuted dissidents, banned non-Jewish education, and were absorbed in mysticism.

I wouldn't hold this against Jews of that period. We shouldn't judge past peoples and cultures with today's values. Were things any more enlightened among Hindus, Muslims, Chinese, Japanese, Ottomans, and etc.? Back then, censorship and authoritarian measures were de rigueur all throughout Europe. Besides, Jews couldn't have survived for so long as a culture and people without certain restrictions, be they legal, cultural, spiritual, racial, and/or spiritual. Japan was an isolated island-nation but, prior to the arrival of Commodore Perry's black ships, had done everything to keep Japan sealed tight. Such isolationism kept Japan from progress but also preserved and fostered a unique culture.

He states bluntly that when Jews were liberated or emancipated throughout the nineteenth century, they were in many case freed from “the tyranny of their own religion” rather than from any gentile oppression.

Nothing unique in history. Roman Empire was brutal and ruthless but also created Pax Romana in which many people lived in relative peace & prosperity and also gained freedoms and privileges under Roman military and legal protection. It's like that MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN scene about "What did the Romans ever do for us?"

Empires can be liberating on some level. A people may be free of foreign rule but found themselves under crushing autocracy. North Korea is politically independent whereas South Korea is a US satellite, but it's far more repressive. Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997, but it was freer there than in Mao's China, which was liberated from foreign rule but crushed under the Chairman's fat arse. Western Imperial rule over the Muslim World was much resented but also led to modernization. Hindus no doubt gained a lot under British Imperialism. And American Indians(victims of 'genocide') and American blacks(shackled under slavery) gained access to ideas and things they never would have on their own. Black moral rage about slavery, for instance, is an adoption of white values as black African culture never had a moral issue with bondage. Also, Jews will say Palestinians shouldn't complain so much because, all said and done, Arabs living in Israel are better off materially than most Arabs in Arab-ruled countries. Palestinians get less than Jews but still get more than most Arabs elsewhere.

We can understand why many Jews felt liberated from their own tradition by the Emancipation, but I can also understand why conservative Jewish elements among tried to keep the tradition and community together. After all, no matter how rich and free one becomes, a Jew is no longer Jewish without a powerful sense of blood and culture. Indeed, this is borne out by what's happened to the white race. Whites got rich and comfy. They came to favor materialism and hedonism as the two pillars of their existence. Result has been utter deracination and decadence. Whites are now so without an identity or loathe the one they have that they pledge fealty to other identities, especially Jewish or Black. Some pretend to be 'American Indians'. For others, racial self-flagellation is a kind of anti-identity. White 'conservatives' prefer to label themselves as Christians, Civil Nationalists, or Libertarians. They are afraid to be True Race-ists, the only way to be free.

Shahak characterizes pre-emancipated Jewish societies as “sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism and ignorance” and describes how in the first Hebrew work on geography (published in 1803), the authors complained about how a great many rabbis were still denying the existence of America.

Purely from a scientific point of view, this would be true enough. After all, certain Christian folks who still reject evolution and insist the world is 10,000 yrs old come across as ridiculous. But, a culture isn't only about objective truth but a sense of soul, myth, roots, and cosmology. Culture is essentially irrational and if a people were to totally reject their culture for its irrationality while wholly embracing science/rationalism, they would be lost because humans are more than walking calculators. Worse, even though science is an infinitely superior means for man to reach the moon or cure some disease, it too is the tool of power, evinced by the Covid regimen. Science is a great tool but not The Answer. Also, it doesn't define a people. It's agreed that the world is round in Syria, Russia, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, Yemen, Iran, and etc. It's agreed by all peoples that aspirin reduces pain. But what does that have to do with their sense of who they are as a people and culture? The law of gravity or the chemistry of Vitamin C doesn't make Jews distinct from Turks or Turks distinct from Iranians.

Shahak describes how before emancipation, rabbis continually subverted Christian censorship whenever Christians became aware of virulently anti-gentile passages in the Talmud and other writings.

From the perspective of free speech and honesty, that's bad stuff. But Jews were hardly alone in that kind of censorship. Through much of US history, most people didn't know of all the racy and controversial things said by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. In the public lore, Jefferson was Mr. Enlightenment who said 'all men are created equal'. And Lincoln was portrayed as the Great Emancipator. Most didn't know what Lincoln really felt about blacks. Historians used to focus on Woodrow Wilson the Progressive, or Mr. Democracy, than on Wilson the 'racist' — he was indeed awesomely race-ist. A lot of people don't know about what Winston Churchill said of the various non-white races and even about Jews(before they bought him off). So much has been bowdlerized or airbrushed out of history. Jews were surely no different. But given Jewish activism in Free Speech and Civil Liberties Movement of the 50s and 60s, Jews do come across as a bunch of lowlife hypocrites and cretins.

And as for anti-gentile language, there is a lot of it, and not just in the Talmud.

This is what kills me. The white/Christian world came up with tons of epithets for Jews and nonwhites but in the vernacular, not in canonical writings. In contrast, the sacred texts of Judaism are filled with slurs as if Don Rickles wrote them. Imagine opening up some Christian text and reading stuff like, "you know them Christ-killing money-changing kikes are up to no good", "we gotta get the ni**ers to believe in Christ as a means to suppress their jungle jiggity uga-buga nature", or "we need more missionaries in China to convert the lot of them slanty-eyed yellow bastards". Christian texts might put down other peoples as 'heathens' but on the basis of their ignorance, not on their blood. If white Christians said unkind things about nonwhites, it was outside the context of religion. But it seems Jewish sacred texts were into racial name-calling. The Talmud must be full of stuff like, "Get a load of them dumb Polacks. Let's go exploit them and screw their shikse bimbo whores."

In Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed, Blacks and some other nomadic races are likened to “mute animals” and “are not on the level of human beings.”

Maybe Maimonides wasn't all bad.

There is a morning prayer in which Jews thank God for not making them gentiles.

That doesn't bother me. I think Jewish men also had a practice of thanking God for being men than women... though with tranny business these days, maybe some new passages have been added to the New Talmud that says, "Thank you for removing my balls and giving me a fake 'vagina'." If Jews felt pride in being born Jewish, nothing wrong with that.

they pressured the Catholic Church during the mid-20th century to remove the line about God forgiving Jews in one its Good Friday prayers

Catholic Church complied, so who is the cuck? We can't blame Jews or any people for acting in their self-interest, but we can blame whites/Christians for cucking time and time again in the hope that they will be forgiven and loved by Jews. White dummies or whummies need to wake up. If they won't or can't, they are beyond hope.

On the proscription against milking cows on the Sabbath, Shahak writes—hilariously—that according to Zionist rabbis:

Jewish Logic is pretty ridiculous, but there is something to be said in its favor. First, it is for Jewish interest as they do get the milk on the Sabbath. Also, given the ridiculousness of Sabbath rules to begin with — one isn't allowed to milk the cow even? — , it seems Jews needed to concoct some ingenious means to circumvent the law. In other words, if the law itself is ridiculous, come up with counter-ridiculous ways to go around it. Now, why couldn't Jews just do away with the law? It was ordained by God.

In our time, what is most appalling isn't the Jewish abuse of laws or legalism to get what they want. It's vile and rotten, but at the very least, it's a case of Jews messing with laws to their advantage. Their self-interest makes it somewhat rational.
What is truly astounding is that so many white goyim go along with it even though it does nothing for the white race. Jews milk 'ridiculousness' to get the cream. Whites go along to emerge empty-handed. Granted, we can understand why white cuck elites choose to collaborate. They are taken care of, like the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the world. But what about all those white 'deplorables' who get NOTHING out of this? Why are they so into "Muh Israel" and "We Luv Jews, Jews, Jews"? Jews are bad, but whites must be DUMB, like Lone Star.

Jew-on-Jew murder is a capital sin, but Jew-on-gentile murder is not, and is therefore not punishable by any Jewish court

This wasn't much different from the racial laws in the American South. White killing a white was a big deal and a Black killing a White was a very big deal, but white killing a black, not so much. And in the West, Whites had to kill Indians to make way for civilization. Of course, today things are reversed. Blacks killing whites or non-blacks(excluding Jews) is no big deal, but whites killing a precious black is a big big deal. The only acceptable murder of a black is by another black, apparently because it's all in the family. Likewise, the reason why Jews reacted so hysterically to the cases of Leo Frank and the Rosenbergs was they simply couldn't abide by the notion of inferior goyim killing Jews. In the American South, it was a taboo for even a good black to kill a bad black. Blacks simply weren't allowed to kill whites. Jews feel likewise about goyim. They feel as the massuhs while all goyim are really a bunch of schvartzes of various colors. But just like blacks once internalized their own inferiority and dutifully served at the feet of the white massuh, it appears so many white goyim internalized their inferiority as well vis-a-vis Jews. To most white Americans, it's perfectly okay for Jewish Power to use the US military to smash the skulls of millions of Arabs/Muslims, but how dare anyone touch a hair on a single Jew!

One thing for sure, most whites/Christians believe Jews/Zionists have every right to slaughter Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims, but heaven forbid any Jew get killed by a non-Jew. Zionists killing 100,000s of Arabs is just 'Israel defending itself', but if some Muslim kills a Jew in Europe, it is ANTISEMITISM.

In some ways, things have changed a great deal since the time of Woodrow Wilson. But structurally speaking, not much changed. It's not that the US is less 'racist' but that it's 'racist' about other things. Back in Wilson's day, it was okay to be 'racist' against blacks and even let the KKK march in DC. Today, when Robert E. Lee monuments are being removed in Southern States, a KKK march would be unimaginable. BUT, it's okay to allow BLM thugs burn down entire parts of DC, vandalize, loot, and randomly attack people. Ostensibly, it's in the name of 'anti-racism', but it's really an expression of black savage-supremacism with the blessing of Jewish Supremacist Elites who use blacks as the bullwhip against whites emotionally and physically. Use black muscle to intimidate whites, use black narrative to guilt-bait whites. But it's really about Jewish supremacism and black supremacism working hand in glove. So, the current US is really just as 'racist' as it was a hundred years ago. The content is different but the structure is the same.

https://mondoweiss.net/2022/01/pompeo-at-zoa-gala-israel-is-not-an-occupier/

And consider US foreign policy. US military is given green light to drop bombs on the Middle East and kill countless 'sand-ni**ers' at the behest of Jewish Supremacism, the new ideology of America. While apartheid in South Africa was deemed an absolute evil, Jim Crowitz policies in West Bank must either be supported or ignored. So, the US didn't go from 'racism' and 'imperialism' to 'anti-racism' and 'anti-imperialism' but to 'neo-racism' and 'neo-imperialism' with new saints and monsters. In 2020, invoking 'George Floyd' gave blacks a free pass to rob, loot, burn, and murder. They could act 1000x worse than the KKK ever did, but as Jewish Supremacists rule America and as Jews need blacks to guilt-bait whites, black supremacist savagery is A-Okay.

For example, a Jew would not be allowed to shove a gentile down a crevice, but if the gentile is already in the crevice, the Jew is under no obligation to pull him out.

That's not a bad rule. It's like the US shouldn't go around hurting other nations, BUT it is not the role of US to save or bail them out. Let them fix their own problems. The problem is the US goes around the globe claiming to help other peoples while actually causing them great harm, especially in the Middle East and places like Ukraine.

One crass and recurring example of this was how Jewish doctors would be encouraged to treat wealthy gentiles, including kings, nobles, lords, and the like. But poor gentiles, never.

But there's a LOL case. Some Jewish doctor treated Adolf Hitler's mother, and Hitler was thankful later in life and allowed the doctor safe passage.

According to one of greatest Jewish scholars of all time, a Jew has license to murder, rape, and molest children as long as the victim is a gentile.

That's terrible but Japanese are worse. Even a cursory look at Japanese culture suggests that Japanese regard other Japanese as prostitutes and toy-like playthings. Jews treat goyim as whores, whereas Japanese treat their own kind as whores.

Gentiles are forbidden to bear testimony in rabbinical courts, since all gentiles are presumed liars.
Jews must not offer gifts to gentiles.
Jews must exact interest when lending money to gentiles.
Jews must never return items lost by a gentile.
Jews shall not deceive other Jews in business, but may practice “indirect deception” when doing business with a gentile.
Jews shall not steal without violence from anyone, gentiles included. However, there are certain circumstances under which they may steal with violence from gentiles under their control.
Jews are forbidden to sell unmovable property (i.e., structure and land) to gentiles in Israel.

You know, those would be perfectly good laws for whites if 'Jews' were replaced by 'whites' and 'gentiles' were replaced by 'non-whites', especially Jews and blacks. Whites need to learn from Jews. Whites need the White Talmud. If any Jew complains about it, just tell him, "We drew inspiration from YOUR culture, and we're acting just like you."

Shahak states further that Judaism is imbued with both hatred and ignorance of Christianity, and that this is largely independent of any Christian persecution of the Jews.

Jews are right to abhor Christianity as it blasphemes Judaism. What's rather sad is whites failed to develop their own religion and mythology upon the fall of Rome. They had to rely on heretical Jews. In the long run, Christianity turned out to be an albatross around the white neck. Time has come to move beyond it, especially when a total creep like Devil Pope Francis can rise to the highest authority.

West Alarmed as US Prepares for Key Talks with Russia With No Negotiating Strategy & Divided Allies by Alexander Mercouris