Atzmon also ends this piece with a quote from Sai Baba and a poor one at that, it being littered with myopic inaccuracies. Races exist and do so for a reason. Men are born unequal, live unequal lives and die unequally. The same applies to races. That said, Mr Atzmon raises some good points that expand the view considerably.

Two days ago I referred to a critique of ‘The Wandering Who’ written by Mark Gardner. Gardner is a rabid Zionist and Jewish supremacist who tends to conflate Jewish Nationalism (Zionism) with Jewish ethnicity. However, Gardner’s criticism of my book was, in the main, intelligent and fair, though certainly not free of error.

Yesterday, I found out that The Occidental Observer, a White Supremacist magazine, also published a lengthy review of ‘The Wandering Who’ written by Prof. Kevin MacDonald. Like Gardner, MacDonald also conflates Jewish ideology and culture with ethnicity. His most controversial claim is that a suite of traits that he attributes to Jews, including higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentrisms, have eugenically evolved to enhance the ability of Jews to outsmart non-Jews in the competition for resources while, at the same time, undermining the power and self-confidence of the white majorities in Europe and America who, he insists, Jews seek to dispossess. Just like Gardner, MacDonald produced an interesting text, though Macdonald’s was somewhat more scholarly.

Although both are supremacist and ethnocentric thinkers, Gardner and MacDonald seem to be in a kind of dispute. Zionist Gardner insists that ‘The Wandering Who’ contains elements of ‘cultural racism’ though he fails to inform his readers what ‘cultural racism’ is. As far as I’m concerned, cultural racism is a misnomer. Criticism grounded in the racial origin of a group is, quite simply and obviously, racist. But criticism levelled at the culture or the politics of a certain group is not. It is simply and literally political or cultural criticism. I suspect that Gardner attributed the notion of ‘cultural racism’ to my work because he could not find a single ‘racist’ element in my book or in any of my writing.

MacDonald however, is actually frustrated with the lack of any biological determinist or racist reference in my work.

“Atzmon completely avoids any mention of modern population genetic studies that show conclusively that Jews are indeed an ethnic entity and that widely dispersed Jewish groups are more similar to each other than to the peoples they have lived among for hundreds or thousands of years. Instead he relies on Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People to argue that Jewish peoplehood is an invention of the 19th century resulting from the influence of German nationalism.”

MacDonald is right. ‘The Wandering Who’ is a study of Jewish identity politics and Jewish culture, it is not concerned with Jewish ethnicity or racial origins. In fact I don’t agree that Jews form an ethnic or racial continuum. But I would agree that, though Jews do not from a racial continuum, Jewish culture, politics and ideology are all racially oriented .

In ‘The Wandering Who’ I contend that there is enough in Jewish culture and ideology to explain the devastating continuum between hardcore Zionism, Israeli crimes and worldwide Jewish institutional support of these crimes. There is also enough in Jewish culture to explain why the Jewish ‘left’ is engaged in constant gate-keeping of the Palestinian solidarity movement and the anti Zionist discourses. The issue resides in the culture, not in the genes.

I believe that my writing produces a satisfactory critical argument of any form of Jewish politics, both Zionist and anti Zionist. But….it is done without a single reference to Jewish ethnicity, race or origin.

Yesterday evening I stumbled across these beautiful lines by Indian Guru Satya Sai Baba. If you really want to know what I think about race, ethnicity and origin, let Satya Sai Baba speak on my behalf.

“There is only one RACE

The race of humankind

There is only one religion

The religion of LOVE

There is only ONE language

the language of the HEART”

Sri Satya Sai Baba

 

Pressman’s Comment: Here at The OFP we provide links to the websites of both Gilad Atzmon and Kevin MacDonald. This review by MacDonald of Atzmon’s recently released book “The Wandering Who?” provides an excellent introduction into the salient points raised by Atzmon and faced by the people’s of the West for many hundreds if not thousands of years. As a primer for this most challenging of topics, it is of the first rank.

Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics (Winchester, UK and Washington, DC: Zer0 Books, 2011, 202 pp.)

Gilad Atzmon is one of those rarest of all birds—the sort of person who would be called a “self-hating Jew” by Jewish activists. Except that he doesn’t really hate himself and really doesn’t have much of a Jewish identity at all. He is an honest leftist who happens to be of Jewish origin; or perhaps one should label him a liberal devoted to the values of the Enlightenment, without the typical Jewish blinders. Although he has a few blinders of his own, he sees quite clearly the incompatibility of Zionism with post-Enlightenment Western civilization.

For Atzmon, Zionism is all about Judaism as racial identity politics, ethnic cleansing, and manipulating Western governments via the Israel Lobby. As a child growing up in Israel, “supremacy was brewed into our souls, we gazed at the world through racist, chauvinistic binoculars. And we felt no shame about it either” (p. 2). He began his journey of embracing the West as a result of immersion in jazz. Eventually, “I somehow already yearned to become a Goy or at least to be surrounded by Goyim” (p. 7).

For Atzmon, the racialism so fundamental to Zionism is an aberration from Judaism the religion. He has no problem with people who “regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish origin.” The problem arises with “those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all other traits” (p. 16). This sort of Jewish essentialism was central to Zionism from the beginning, often with strong racialist overtones. Quoting Vladimir Jabotinsky, the father of the Israeli right:

A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German customs, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish because his blood, his body, his physical racial type are Jewish.

Atzmon reviews the data showing that Zionism began out of a concern that Jews would lose their racial distinctiveness by assimilation (see also here, p. 152ff)—a “tribal preservation project” p. 70). “Separation is a strategy of ghetto-building, and Zionists have followed this strategy since the late nineteenth century” (p. 41). This is certainly true, but Atzmon seems unaware that in this regard, Zionism was simply building on traditional Jewish separatism. Indeed, early Zionists were well aware of this. As the early Zionist Elias Auerbach phrased it, “Zionism would return Jews ‘back into the position they enjoyed before the nineteenth century—politically autonomous, culturally whole, and racially pure’” (Ibid, p. 158). The original enemy of the Zionists was the Enlightenment and the assimilationist tendencies of Western civilization.

True Zionists are therefore Jews first and foremost—to the point that they put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the countries they live in. Atzmon thus cites the work of Victor Ostrovsky, the former Mossad agent who described the huge network of Sayanim ready to help the cause of Israel by aiding the Mossad. This of course is exactly the type of behavior that has led to the loyalty issue of anti-Jewish attitudes throughout history. Atzmon is quite clear that the loyalty issue applies in spades to the neoconservatives and the rest of the Jewish establishment with their constant drumbeat of wars for Israel—“the neocons transform the American army into an Israeli mission force” (p. 70). Paul Wolfowitz (a central focus of Atzmon’s ire) as a Sayan.

Atzmon is quite aware that if anti-Semitism didn’t exist, strongly identified Jews would have to create it: “Zionism is maintained by anti-Semitism” (p. 33). The perception of anti-Semitism creates a bunker mentality that justifies everything.

Atzmon has a nice chapter on the deceptive self-images of liberal secular Jews who spout phrases of universalist humanism but in their innermost beings are anything but universalist or humanist. This is indeed the central masquerade of Jews in the post-Enlightenment West, what he calls “the Jewish tribal left” p. 72). He traces this stance to the very origins of the European Enlightenment when Moses Mendelssohn advised Jews to “live in a dual, deceptive mode, if not practically in a state of schizophrenia. … He must have realised that universalism and tribalism are opposing categories. … This solution led to false and deceptive behaviour. … This behavioural code, though very pragmatic, happens to be non-ethical by definition. It is based on deception—both self-deception and deceiving the other” (pp. 55, 57).

The result is that Jewish identity in the Diaspora is what Atzmon terms a “negative identity”:

Rather than understanding who you are, one invests some effort in differentiating oneself from the other and from the universal. Rather than listening to one’s conscience and engage in an authentic ethical judgment, the negating subject sets his or her relationships with his or her surrounding environment, based on pragmatic and practical decision-making and exchange. At most one may present a pretence of ethical thinking, but no more than that. (p. 63).

Prime examples of this pragmatic veneer of ethics are neocon ideologues who “always present a seemingly ‘ethical’ argument. They employ what looks like a moral excuse in order to introduce a pretext for a war. … Clearly the Palestinians and the Iraqis are paying a heavy price as victims of the politics of negation, politics that convey a deceitful image of righteousness” (p. 64).

Although Atzmon is quite aware of the deceptiveness of the secular Jewish left, noting that the Israeli left, like its Diaspora counterparts, has eagerly endorsed all of Israel’s wars (p. 79). Unfortunately, he thinks of Jewish socialism and Jewish progressive activism” only as “integral parts of the Zionist network[;] they are concerned with the future of the Jewish secular tribe — they are there to collect the lost souls amongst the humanist Jewish, to bring them home for Hanukkah” p. 76).

Would that that was the whole story. Atzmon fails to go beyond Zionism in his analysis of the Jewish left in the Diaspora in the West. The reality is that the Jewish left has been the most important force in the dissolution of the West as an ethno-cultural entity while tenaciously holding onto its own ethno-culture. The Jewish left has been the backbone of the left throughout the West since early in the 20th century, and it has been by far the most important component of the Jewish Diaspora community in Western nations throughout the 20th century into the 21st century. Prior to WWII, the Jewish left used its influence to support international socialism and the USSR, and since WWII it has had a critical influence promoting massive non-White immigration, multiculturalism, and the displacement of the traditional people and culture of the West.

It is this assault by the Jewish tribalist left masquerading as enlightened universalists that was a major source of anti-Semitism during and preceding the National Socialist era in Germany. For example, in Mein Kampf Hitler wrote of the liberal Jew “while he seems to overflow with ‘enlightenment,’ ‘progress,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘humanity,’ etc., he himself practices the severest segregation of his race ” (see here, p. 150). Similarly, Atzmon notes “emancipated Jews insist on celebrating the fruits of enlightenment; they celebrate their right to determine who they are. On the other hand, Jewish politics is tribal, it is intolerant of Jewish dissidence or any form of self-determination that may oppose what it regards as Jewish political or tribal interests” (p. 105).

The only “ethical” principle is what’s good for the Jews: “both Judaism and ‘Jewish ideology’ are devoid of universal ethics” (p. 113). Both the Israeli left (Matzpen) and the neocons (Wolfowitz) use Western rhetoric “to justify the Jewish right to self-determination and the destruction of Arab regional power and Islam. For the Matzpenist, to liberate Arabs is to turn them into Bolsheviks; the neocon is actually slightly more modest — all he wants is for Arabs to drink their Coca-Cola in a Westernised democratic society. Both Judeocentric philosophies were doomed to failure, because the notion of self-determination is overwhelmingly Eurocentric” (p. 109.; italics in text).

In the long run, I predict that the Diaspora strategy of the Jewish mainstream will lead to a resurgence of racial identity in the West as Whites realize that they and their culture are under assault by massive non-White immigration and multiculturalism. Judaism is indeed incompatible with Western culture, and as its influence grows, the West will inevitably be Balkanized into competing ethnic/racial groups—precisely the population structure that inevitably results from a powerful strategizing group in a Diaspora context, exacerbated now by the massive immigration and multiculturalism unleashed by Jewish intellectual and political movements.

Throughout history, Jews have always been an elite, typically making alliances with non-Jewish elites and often collaborating in oppression of the peoples dominated by the elites. Here Atzmon traces the Jewish preoccupation with making alliances with the powerful to the Book of Esther, where Mordecai schemes to influence the king on behalf of the Jews. Atzmon describes several modern examples, most interestingly Rabbi Joachim Prinz’s 1934 letter to the NSDAP where he affirms the idea that Jews are a race committed to maintaining racial purity, while seeking common ground with the dominant power, the German government.

But it was an alliance based on interests, not principle. Later, after emigrating to America, Prinz as head of the American Jewish Congress, became the quintessential liberal. According to Atzmon, the only consistency was his realization that “whatever is good for Jews is simply good” (p. 164). Similarly, Jewish organizations have treated the Armenian genocide not as a historical narrative, but have solely been concerned about how it affects the interests of Israel. For Jews, there are no principles, only interests.

In the contemporary West, Jews have expanded on the historical Diaspora strategy of making alliances with elites to focus on three ways of obtaining influence, citing a comment of über-Zionist Haim Saban: Donations to political parties, establishing think tanks, and controlling media outlets. Right. This is not the place to recount Jewish media domination and political influence, but it is worth noting that Saban has practiced what he preaches: Saban controls Univision, the Spanish language network and led a group that bought Kirsch Media Group, a German media conglomerate; he has contributed millions of dollars to Democratic political causes and lesser amounts to Republicans; and he funded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution to the tune of $13 million. This strategy, which ultimately stems from Jewish wealth and active engagement in the political process, has given Jews influence far beyond their numbers.

Atzmon at times gets a bit off the rails. For example, he proposes that Alan Greenspan engineered the housing bubble in order to distract people from the war in Iraq. A definitive account of the Jewish role in the greatest elite fraud in history remains to be written. And it is certainly true that Greenspan, along with Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, bears responsibility for de-regulating the financial markets and enabling the housing bubble. However, Atzmon doesn’t provide any evidence for his view, and it would seem that simple greed seems at least as likely an explanation.

Atzmon creates a narrative in which traditional Jews living in European societies “saw themselves as American, British or French people who happened to be Jewish,” but then Zionists came along and eventually convinced most Jews that they were Jews first and foremost — “the birth of Zionist separatism” (p. 39). In general, Atzmon is far too eager to paint Zionism as the original sin of Judaism. While it’s true that this is a good description of what one might call the official public ideology of Judaism in post-Enlightenment European societies, in fact the loyalty issue long pre-dates Zionism. In fact, Jews have always had strong international connections and interests that transcended where they happened to live. Perhaps the most historically important example of this was the worldwide campaign of the organized Jewish community against the Russian government from the late 19th century up to the Bolshevik Revolution—a campaign that at times opposed the national interests of the countries where they lived (see here, p. 67ff).

Another one of Atzmon’s blinders relates to the racial/ethnic component of Judaism. He notes some of the passages in the Old Testament where God commands slaughter and genocide, but fails to note in the same passages that the whole point of this violence is to prevent intermarriage with the victims. Dead people can’t be marriage partners; they can’t pollute the gene pool. Thus he quotes Deuteronomy 7: 1–2: “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations … you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.” But he leaves out the next line: “You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons” (Deut. 7:3). For the Jews, the God of the Old Testament is nothing more or less than the racially pure Jewish gene pool.

Indeed, Atzmon completely avoids any mention of modern population genetic studies that show conclusively that Jews are indeed an ethnic entity and that widely dispersed Jewish groups are more similar to each other than to the peoples they have lived among for hundreds or thousands of years. Instead he relies on Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People to argue that Jewish peoplehood is an invention of the 19th century resulting from the influence of German nationalism.

Part of Sand’s argument is that the events described in the Bible are imaginary. This may or may not be true, but the point is that the events illustrate the mindset of the authors, and that mindset is decidedly on the racialist/ethnocentric side. There is a deep concern with intermarriage in multiple passages in many books of the Old Testament, all with the drumbeat that intermarriage is the ultimate form of Jewish apostasy. Moreover, this concern with intermarriage was characteristic of historical Jewish Diaspora communities. Intermarriage not only removed one from the Jewish community but was a stain on the entire family, thus damaging the marriage prospects of relatives into future generations (A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Ch. 3 & Ch. 4). The historical data are quite clear that the Jewish people are an ethnic entity, and these results are highly compatible with contemporary genetic evidence.

Moreover, there is no evidence to support the Khazar hypothesis—also adopted by Sand and Atzmon — that Ashkenazi Jews have no genetic connection to the Middle East or to other Jewish groups but rather stem from a conversion event of a Turkic people in the Middle Ages. Again, the contemporary population genetic evidence is incompatible with this account.

Atzmon comments: “Many Jews, even secular ones, continue to regard mixed marriage as the ultimate threat.” Right. And the fact that these concerns go back to the origins of Diaspora Judaism is exactly why Judaism remains an ethnic entity.

Atzmon is at his best in dealing with the culture of the Holocaust. In Chapter 16 (“Trauma queen”) he dismisses the reality of Jewish Holocaust trauma among Jews who never actually went through the experience, noting that whatever feelings they have are manufactured by what he calls the “Pre-Traumatic Stress Syndrome” — where Jews are manipulated into feeling trauma by media images of imminent destruction and by being transported to Auschwitz for the purpose of “maturing into traumatised Jewish adults” (p. 131), thereby suppressing any possible empathy for the Palestinians. “The well-established Judeo-centric tendency to interpret almost any political and ideological criticism as a declaration of impending Judeocide is a severe form of collective Pre-TSS” (p. 131). There is always a “Shoah to come” (p. 132) lurking around the corner, likely to be set off by any criticism of Jews, no matter how rationally based (see also here, pp. 11–12).

Atzmon notes that the Holocaust cult has all the features of a religion and none of the features of a historical narrative:

It has priests (e.g., Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt) and prophets (… those who warn of the Iranian Judeocide to come). It has commandments and dogmas (‘Never Again’) and rituals (memorial days, pilgrimage to Auschwitz, etc). It has an established, esoteric symbolic order (kapos, gas chambers, chimneys…). It also has a temple, Yad Vashem, and shrines — Holocaust museums in capital cities worldwide. The Holocaust religion is also financed by a massive global financial network …. This new religion is coherent enough to define its ‘antichrists’ (Holocaust deniers) and powerful enough to persecute them (through Holocaust-denial and hate-speech laws). (pp. 148–149)

The Holocaust has therefore achieved “meta-historical status” — beyond factual inquiry, its “’factuality’ sealed by draconian laws, and its reasoning secured by social and political institutions” (p. 149). It is a powerful political force on behalf of Jewish interests—e.g., it “is touted as a pretext for nuking Iran” (p. 152).

Many of these points have also been made by Peter Novick his The Holocaust in American Life. Novick adds that the culture of the Holocaust was promoted as the main source of Jewish identity and in the effort to combat assimilation and intermarriage among Jews. An important lesson is that “tolerance and diversity [are] good; hate [is] bad, the overall rubric [being] ‘man’s inhumanity to man’” (pp. 258-259). The Holocaust has thus become an instrument of Jewish ethnic interests as an instrument to silence opponents of high levels of multi-ethnic immigration into Western societies. And, regarding the metaphysical uniqueness of the Holocaust, it would be hard to improve on Abe Foxman’s comment, cited by Novick (p. 199) that the Holocaust is “not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God himself.”

Atzmon makes the interesting point that the Holocaust religion is simply another version of age-old Jewish fear — the pre-traumatic stress syndrome discussed above. It is a bunker mentality of impending doom that rationalizes even the most extreme actions to prevent it. One might also note that it functions as a modern version of Jewish chosenness — that Jews are a special people whose sufferings are unique.

Atzmon is not so much a Holocaust denier as someone who denies the metaphysical status that the Holocaust has achieved—its uniqueness, its being beyond questioning, and its historical transcendence—all of which have made it into an enormously powerful weapon for achieving Jewish interests and in particular for making Israel’s behavior beyond reproach. Thus, he does not deny that his great-grandmother died in WWII, but he refuses to give her death any special status: Her death “was indeed bad and tragic, but not that different from the fate of millions of Ukrainians, on learning the real meaning of communism. … [Her fate] was not so different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in deliberate, indiscriminate bombing, just because they were Germans” (p. 175).

Famously (due to its being quoted in a hit piece by former IDF prison guard now Zionist media hack Jeffrey Goldberg), Atzmon writes the following, with differences in Goldberg’s version in red:

I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start asking questions [to ask the necessary questions]. We should ask for [some conclusive] historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the Holocaust [holocaust] of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place.

Adding the word ‘conclusive’ seems particularly malicious. Goldberg’s real aim in quoting this passage and several others is to tarnish John Mearsheimer who endorsed Atzmon’s book. Atzmon therefore becomes a pawn in the larger game of de-legitimizing the most effective critique thus far of the Israel Lobby—effective because Mearsheimer and his co-author Stephen Walt are elite academics in the area of foreign policy. If Mearsheimer had not provided this opening, Atzmon’s book would doubtless have gotten the silent treatment—a very common and effective Jewish strategy in dealing with uncomfortable realities.

Immediately after the above passage, Atzmon truly crosses the line—to go where few, if any, Jews dare to go:

65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should be able to ask — why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their neighbors? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history. … Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask what purpose Holocaust denial laws serve? What is the Holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionist lobbies and their plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. (pp. 175–176)

The question why Jews have been hated in so many times and places is indeed the fundamental question one has to ask. Atzmon merely poses the question without any attempting to provide a theory for understanding historical anti-Semitism. (My version is that all the important historical outbreaks of anti-Semitism are due ultimately to real conflicts of interest.) But he is quite clear that the ideology that anti-Semitism is an “’irrational’ social phenomenon that erupts ‘out of nowhere’” is a non-starter, since it implies that a very large percentage of the human population is “potentially mad” (p. 182).

The closest Atzmon comes to answering the question is to ask another one: “Can Israeli behavior throw light on the events that led to the Holocaust, or other instances of persecution of Jews?” (p. 182). Again, he doesn’t really try to answer this question, but I will give it a shot. Historical anti-Semitism involves a variety of conflicts of interest (e.g., loyalty issues, economic domination, and, since the Enlightenment, the construction of culture), and here there is the obvious conflict between the legitimate interests of the Palestinians in retaining control over an area they had settled for centuries.

However, another common denominator between important examples of historical anti-Semitism and the behavior of Israel is Jewish aggressiveness. From its beginnings in 1948, Israel has consistently pushed the envelope, beginning with the expulsion of the Palestinians, wars of territorial expansion, with some of the more nationalist elements in Israel openly advocating Jabotinsky’s call for a Jewish state extending from the Nile to the Euphrates, thereby fulfilling God’s promise in Genesis. There is also the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, the erection of an apartheid state, and the constant beating of the war drums, first against Iraq and now against Iran.

Similarly, beginning with the Enlightenment, Jews have aggressively sought to refashion European societies to suit their interests. Atzmon asks why America closed its doors to further mass Jewish immigration with the Immigration Law of 1924. The reason is simple: Jewish immigrants were prone to leftist political radicalism bent on reshaping the entire society in ways that were foreign to traditional American culture. The organized Jewish community had already launched successful campaigns to get Christianity out of the public square facilitated by Jewish economic success in the big cities. There was also deep concern about the effects on public morals of Jewish control of the movie industry. (These are all themes of Henry Ford’s International Jew which was quite influential during this period.) In later decades Jewish groups would aggressively campaign for massive non-White immigration and they would aggressively establish alliances with non-White ethnic groups, both actions that will ultimately dispossess the traditional people and culture of America and force White Americans to confront a hostile non-White majority, doubtless dominated by the organized Jewish community. Such actions are quite different, for example, from the behavior of Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia: remaining in the background and content to form a business elite with little involvement in politics or the construction of culture.

To conclude, Atzmon has written a daring book and one that is sure to result in his being ostracized by the Jewish community. While he has a few blinders of his own, the book is an invaluable account by someone who clearly understands the main symptoms of Jewish pathology.

DOWNLOAD THIS LENGTHY ARTICLE IN PDF FORMAT HERE

Chapter I
The Pathology of the Female-headed Family

Like hemophilia, crime is manifested in males but carried and transmitted by females–or rather by single females.

Most criminals come from female-headed families. Most gang members come from female-headed families. Most addicts come from female-headed families. Most rapists come from female-headed families. Most educational failures come from female-headed families. Every presidential assassin before Hinckley came from a female-headed family or one in which he had an impossibly bad relationship with his father. Most illegitimate births occur to females who themselves grew up in female-headed families.

What is happening to our society is that it is discarding patriarchal sexual regulation and reverting to the primeval mammalian pattern of a reproductive unit consisting of the mother and her offspring, the male putting in an appearance to perform his minuscule sexual function and then disappearing or being hauled away to the sausage factory or being reduced to the role of stud who can be discarded when his female tires of him.

“Men and women,” rejoices feminist-anthropologist Helen Fisher, “are moving toward the kind of roles they had on the grasslands of Africa millions of years ago..”

It was the creation of [the role of the father]–only a few thousand years ago–which made patriarchal civilization possible. Prior to that, mankind had to muddle through the million years of the Stone Age with the female-headed reproductive arrangements of the ghetto, the barnyard and the rain forest.

There exists [and can be consulted on pages in the Annex of the original article ] proof that the high-crime, low- achieving areas of society are those with the greatest numbers of families headed by women and that the low-crime, high-achieving groups in society are those with stable, patriarchal families–that the feminist/sexual revolution and its attempt to impose a social organization based on female kinship is a failure and that it is necessary to return to a social organization based on male kinship.

Chapter II
The Once and Future Matriarchy:
The Stone Age, the Ghetto, and the Promiscuity Principle

In the Matriarchal System the reproductive unit consists of the mother and her offspring, the father playing a marginal role, wandering into and out of the “family,” subject to dismissal at the mother’s bidding. The central fact about this kind of family is its naturalness. Roman jurists spoke of maternity as a natural fact, “natura verum,” and of paternity as merely a matter of civil law. “In all but a few species,” writes Sarah Hardy, “females are permanent residents in social groups, males mere transients.” This is the reproductive arrangement of all lower mammals. It has been the reproductive arrangement of the human race itself until recently. Its biological backup is awesome–what Margaret Mead meant by saying the female role is a “biological fact.”

It is the reproductive pattern that re-emerges in times of social catastrophe…When ghetto males sit on curbsides and gets stoned, ghetto females and children stay home and watch T.V. The matriarchal family may result from catastrophe, but it may also result from doing nothing, from biological and social drifting. It is always on standby, always waiting to resurface and re-establish itself. It is what society lapses into when the upkeep and maintenance of the patriarchal system is neglected. It is the pattern which is re-emerging at the present time under the aegis of the feminist/sexual revolution.

“Originally,” writes W. Robertson Smith, “there was no kinship except in the female line and the introduction of male kinship was a kind of social revolution which modified society to its very roots.” “

Kinship through females,” says John McLennan, must be a more archaic system of relationship than kinship through males….”Wherever non-advancing communities are to be found,” he informs us, “–isolated in islands or maintaining their savage liberties in mountain fastnesses–there to this day exists the system of kinship through females only.”

That term [family] stands, in the tradition of civilised societies, for a group centering round the interests, activities, and authority of a dominant male. The husband is the head of the family; the other members of the group, wife and children, are his dependents and subordinates. The corresponding group arising out of the reproductive functions among animals presents no trace of that constitution. It consists of the mother and her offspring. The male, instead of being the head and supporter of the group, is not an essential member of it, and more often than not is altogether absent from it.

“In the great majority of uncultured societies,” writes Arthur Evans, “women enjoy a position of independence and of equality with the men and exercise an influence which would appear startling in the most feministic modern civilized society.” “Women,” he adds,
had a very high status in the Stone Age, as we have seen. Archeology, myth and comparison to still existing nature societies all point to their dominant position.

Jacquetta Hawks: “Indeed, it is tempting to be convinced that the earliest Neolithic societies throughout their range in time and space gave woman the highest status she has ever known”

The matriarchal family pattern is being restored….

Elizabeth Nickles and Laura Ashcraft say, “The Matriarchal woman who finds that her relation with a man is undermining her sense of self-esteem will not consider it necessary to cling to the relation for the traditional reasons, and she will have the self-sufficiency to stand on her own.”

Because “the Matriarchal woman” can afford it, she reverts to the mammalian/matriarchal family pattern.

“In the coming matriarchy,” continue Nickles and Ashcraft “We may see the advent of the rotational family, in which there is no single, stable cast of characters for a lifetime, but rather a series of individuals–male and female- -who will be added to or phased out of a continually reconstituted family unit as the needs, interests, and emotional commitments of the couple, individual, or group dictate. The first five years of a woman’s adult life may be spent living with male and female roommates; the next five years with a male mate; the next five with a husband and a child; the next three with two female friends, and so on. This pattern is already emerging, but when it occurs on a large scale, we will see the rotational family replacing the nuclear family as the status quo.”

It is the pattern of the Hopi Indians.The household revolves about a central and continuing core of women; the men are peripheral with divided residences and loyalties.

It is the pattern of the ghettos, where illegitimacy now exceeds 50 percent and where men and boys grow increasingly roleless and violent–and where women live in poverty and complain of their insufficient subsidization.

The promiscuity which characterizes the matriarchal system denies men a secure role within families and the motivation provided by that secure role. The absence of that motivation is why the ghettos are the mess they are–why the women of the ghettos enjoy the “freedom to follow their personal inclinations in sex relations[.]”

Once women get the freedom to make the marriage contract non-binding, then they may suppose they have the “option” of either remaining for life with one husband or of not so remaining, but since the husband has no comparable option–the woman’s freedom includes the freedom to throw the man out and take his children from him (and in the American matriarchy to take part of his paycheck as well)–the man is forced to share the woman’s view of the marriage as non-binding. He becomes roleless and de-motivated, likely to become a drifter or a disrupter of society, likely to be regarded by women as poor marriage material, to be pointed to by feminists as proving the anti-sociality of males and the need for more feminism.

Feminists believe that the patriarchy ought to subsidize its own destruction by paying women to create fatherless families. According to Martha Sawyer, a Ph.D candidate at Howard University, the costs of these fatherless families should be paid by “the most advantaged category, monied white men.” Paid, that is, by men who retain a niche in the patriarchal system which creates the wealth.

Feminists Monica Sjoo and Barbara Mor, [tell us] “we have to comprehend the first law of matriarchy: Women control our own bodies. This would seem a basic premise of any fully evolved human culture; which is why primate patriarchy is based on its denial”

The most significant thing about this statement of “the first law of matriarchy” is that it is asserted categorically, without reference to the marriage contract. It assumes without even bothering to assert it, that marriage confers no rights on husbands.

It must be obvious to most men–though it is clearly not obvious to these women–that this female sexual autonomy rules out the possibility of using the family as a system for motivating males. Such is the state of things. said (correctly) by Sjoo and Mor to have existed prior to the creation of patriarchy a few thousand years ago, and such is again becoming the state of things as patriarchy melts away. It was to prevent this state of things that patriarchy was created, a central feature of it being society’s guarantee of the Legitimacy Principle–every child must have a father. The present situation, which has created the Garbage Generation, results from society’s delinquency in refusing to implement this guarantee

The Welfare State has teamed with the feminist/sexual revolution to replace the patriarchal family with the older matrilineal unit. The ghettos provide the textbook example[.]

The first law of matriarchy has deprived these men of families and therefore of the motivation which would keep them working.

The Promiscuity Principle entitles her to paternity suit income. It is her right to control her own sexual behavior–including the right not to use contraceptives–and to impose the economic costs upon one of her sex partners–if the District Attorney can round up her playmates, compel them to take blood tests, and identify the lucky one. Then her sexual irresponsibility will pay off and reinforce society’s acceptance of the first law of matriarchy, otherwise known as the Promiscuity Principle. The identified boyfriend will be reduced to years of involuntary servitude for the benefit of another person–slavery.

Patriarchy divides women into good and bad, those who accept the Sexual Constitution (sexual law-and-order, monogamy, the Legitimacy Principle, the double standard, etc.) and those who reject it. {A] woman rejects it, and she is “bad” because she denies to a man the possibility of having responsible sex with her even if he wants to. Her unchastity deprives her child of a father and deprives men of the possibility of being a father to her children. She can have a sexual relationship only with a man as irresponsible as herself. She is a sexual Typhoid Mary who has inflicted illegitimacy upon a child and seeks to ameliorate what she has done by demanding to be paid for it. She will plead as justification that “there is no such thing as an illegitimate child,” signifying there is no such thing as an unchaste woman.

The workability of the patriarchal system requires the regulation of female sexuality, including the enforcing of the double standard. In no other way can men participate meaningfully in reproduction. A woman violates the Sexual Constitution by being promiscuous. A man violates it by refusing to provide for his family. The new feminist sexual order proposes that women shall be free to be promiscuous and that the social disruption thereby created shall be made tolerable by compelling men to provide for non-families.

Patriarchy holds a man responsible only for the subsidization of a wife, a “good” woman who accepts the Sexual Constitution and her obligation under it to bear only legitimate children.

James Shelby Downard termed it a cryonic process, free/thaw. He taught that in the age of the Revelation of the Method, a conspiracy is first presented according to an infallible official version in which doubt is banished, skeptics are mocked and everyone is expected to believe what they have been told by “the authorities.”

He predicted that years later, through a series of episodic revelations from the authorities themselves, the official story would be slowly revealed to have been not as air-tight as first presented by the government and its mouthpiece media. Inconvenient, indeed even highly contradictory facts subversive of the initial “infallible” account, are then publicly “thawed,” and over the years it is gradually revealed to the nation that lies were told and truths withheld. Evidence for a conspiracy slowly leaks into the national psyche like acid from an old battery.

Today in the pages of the New York Times we see Mr. Downard’s thaw in action:

Newly Published Audio Provides Real-Time View of 9/11 Attacks
New York Times, Sept. 8, 2011, p. A1 (Excerpt)

“The story of the day, of 9/11 itself, is best told in the voices of 9/11,” said Miles Kara, a retired Army colonel and an investigator for the commission who studied the events of that morning. At hearings in 2003 and 2004, the 9/11 Commission played some of the recordings and said civil and military controllers improvised responses to attacks they had never trained for. At 9 a.m., a manager of air traffic control in New York called Federal Aviation Administration headquarters in Herndon, Va., trying to find out if the civil aviation officials were working with the military.

“Do you know if anyone down there has done any coordination to scramble fighter-type airplanes?” the manager asked, continuing: “We have several situations going, going on here, it is escalating big, big time, and we need to get the military involved with us.”

One plane had already crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. Another had been hijacked and was seconds from hitting the south tower. At F.A.A. headquarters, not everyone was up to speed.

“Why, what’s going on?” the man in Herndon asked.

“Just get me somebody who has the authority to get military in the air, now,” the manager said.

The account published this week is missing two essential pieces that remain restricted or classified, according to Mr. Kara. One is about 30 minutes of the cockpit recording of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into the ground after passengers tried to storm the cockpit as hijackers flew across Pennsylvania toward Washington, D.C. Families of some of those onboard have objected to the release of that recording, Mr. Kara said.

The other still-secret recording is of a high-level conference call that began at 9:28 and grew, over the course of the morning, to include senior figures like Mr. Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers. The recording was turned over to the National Security Council. The 9/11 Commission was not permitted to keep a copy of it or of the transcript, Mr. Kara said, and investigators were closely monitored when they listened to it. (End quote from the New York Times)

What’s the point of this cryonic processing? It’s a type of occult nose-thumbing which breeds psychological defeat in target populations. A decade later and the Establishment is admitting what “conspiracy nuts” have been saying for years: that America’s formidable air defense network stood down on 9/11.

They’re still playing us for suckers, however — after all, it has only been ten years and we could still convene grand juries and bring the actual 9/11 conspirators to justice. Therefore, in 2011, they’re still insulting our intelligence and retailing patent nonsense. The New York Times says, “…civil and military controllers improvised responses to attacks they had never trained for.”

In 2001 America’s air defense command “had never trained for” airplane hijackings, or the use of a hijacked plane as a missile, including in the air space over the Pentagon?

In the next ten years they’ll drop that laughable story and reveal more of the truth. The question is, why do “we the people” have to wait for our overlords to reveal hidden truths about the most egregious terror attack on American soil in our history? Where are our representatives in Congress, our national print and broadcast journalists, our retired air force and intelligence officers when it comes to investigating what really happened behind the smokescreen?

These people are in the place where fallen human nature has always been, worshipping an idol, in this case, as David Ray Griffin states in his new book, 9/11 Ten Years Later, the American religion of adoration of the government when it is cloaked in a policeman, fireman or soldier’s uniform. Moreover, our elected representatives, along with our ex-military brass, don’t want to be libeled in the press or share the fate of Mary Pinchot Meyer, Dorothy Kilgallen, and the other witnesses and investigators who sought the radical truth about who killed JFK, and were themselves killed.

9/11 as Psy War

The Cryptocracy’s aims extend far beyond the gradual imposition of a national security police state and the erosion of our immemorial liberties, which George W. Bush’s Justice Department torture advocate, John Yoo, recently said in the Wall Street Journal never happened. Their end goal is beyond conditioning us for Stalinist cattle car shakedowns at airport security, or warrantless eavesdropping on phone conversations, and sneak-and-peak home invasions.

Their highest objective is the murder of our minds by inculcating in us amnesia, apathy and abulia (loss of will). “Skynet” military robots — now rolling off the assembly line — will be too powerful for any citizen armed with a shotgun or AR-15 to be able to resist. Spiders are being genetically crossed with goats, and pigs with humans, while almost every corn and soy crop in the United States is now genetically modified. There’s nary a peep or a whimper from “we the people” as these horrors are slowly imposed through our hypnotic acquiescence to their “inevitabilist” script.

Our industry has been dismantled and our jobs shipped overseas, while big business and the Obama administration call for amnesty for illegal immigrants and the importation of more executive-level aliens from India and China to manage what’s left of American enterprise. (General Electric, headed by President Obama’s “jobs’ adviser,” is moving its large medical device manufacturing unit to Communist China).

The yeomanry of America have never been more compromised or confused. On Sept. 7 it was revealed by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, that presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann, one of the yeomanry’s war-Zionist heroines, is a disciple of Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto, a Kabbalist practitioner. Pinto is the nephew of the late Kabbalist con-man, Rabbi “Baba” Elazar Abuhatzeira with whom readers of Revisionist History newsletter no. 58 will be familiar. Kabbalists engage in Babylonian sorcery, astrology and the dispensing of magic amulets and evil eye curses. Rabbi Pinto has tens of thousands of superstitious followers around the world, and one of them wants to be President of the United States, with the help of America’s unemployed carpenters, welders, steelworkers and home-schooling moms.

These bipolar contradictions and free/thaw revelations are tearing at the psyche of America to a degree that no one can truly estimate. We’re been prepared to think of “The End” of the American dream in terms of instant atomic incineration of our great cities. Actually, our rot is much less dramatic and much more profound. Benjamin Jowett, the Oxford classicist, in his introduction to his translation of Plato’s Republic, wrote, “The lie in the soul is a true lie.”

The American yeomany are encouraged to wave their flags and believe they live in the “freest and greatest country on earth.” In the midst of this blather, Americans see their homes being foreclosed, their jobs sent to China and the national treasury and blood of their youth wasted in two foreign wars. Under such pressures, where no one with national standing will lead them to march on Washington and New York and bring Pharaoh’s treasonous business to a halt, they do what every oppressed slave has ever done: they turn on each other.

From coast to coast random shooters are gunning down their fellow Americans and then committing suicide in record numbers. On Sept. 6, near Morgantown, West Virginia, a 22-year-old shot and killed five people including a pregnant woman, before turning his gun on himself. The very next day, Sept. 7, in a breakfast joint in Carson City, Nevada, a 32-year-old man killed four people and wounded five before taking his own life.

Nothing justifies these heinous acts. But these rage-filled gunmen in many cases can no longer subsist on “the lie in the soul” that is our national propaganda story. Called “mentally imbalanced,” they may see and feel more intensely what the rest of us suppress and experience as ulcers, heart attacks and divorce. At some inchoate level they know they’ve been robbed by Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, politicians sold on perpetual war for perpetual peace, and an unending flood of illegal immigration. “True lies,” among them the cryonic 9/11 tale, nag at the sub-cellar of their minds until they drive them mad.

The “God bless America” crowd will dismiss my views as unpatriotic defeatism from a conspiracy nutjob. I don’t mind. I’ve seen it before. I was a kid when President Kennedy was murdered. Who today believes he died solely at the hands of one man and one very talented rifle bullet? Let’s see what the true believers will have to say in the Sept. 11 thaw that will seep into what’s left of our Republic in the year 2021, which just happens to be a sigificant number in the Babylonian numerology of Michelle Bachmann’s rabbi.

Hoffman is the author of Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare and executive editor of Revisionist History newsletter.

. . . And Below Is A More Recent Audio Interview With John From Project Camelot

Please note that Gaddafi is/was NOT in cahoots with the global central banking scammers. Hence the reason for his vilification in the western press. All countries that do not play ball with the Central Bank, IMF, BIS extortionists are vilified and turned into the enemy of freedom, democracy etc. See Germany, Japan and Italy in WW2 and now Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria et al.

Gaddafi’s revealing, brief and to the point “Little Green Book” can be seen HERE