America after the Holy War, part 11

part 1 • part 2 • part 3 • part 4 • part 5 • part 6 • part 7 • part 8 • part 9 • part 10

by Revilo P. Oliver

IN THE LAST QUARTER of the nineteenth century, conservatives who hoped to free their nations from Jewish infiltration and stealthy control, based their opposition on specifically Christian premises. The most brilliant critic of the Jews, however, was Edouard Drumont, who, in his masterly La France juive, was able to take Catholic Christianity for granted, avoid all doctrinal and Scriptural questions, and take his position on the solid ground of French history, from the Middle Ages to his own time, to draw up a damning and irrefragable inventory of the baleful results of Jewish intrigues and influence.

So cogent was his work that the Jews were able to neutralize it only by means of the Dreyfus affair. But when Protestants, less sagacious and learned than Drumont and perhaps influenced by their own tradition, tried to oppose the Jews, they did not emulate his discretion and so, abandoning the solid ground of racial realities, they jumped into the quagmire of Biblical quotations and theological disputation. From that bog there is no escape.

Christians are committed to endorsement of the Jews’ great hoax about God’s People, and particularly to the notion, thoughtfully inserted in the doctrine of the sect that prevailed in the fifth century, that Yahweh, although he might spank the Jews a little for killing his son, was certain to arrange everything for the eventual “conversion” of the superior race to which he had for centuries ruthlessly sacrificed all others. And when Christians, who have to believe some parts of their holy book, although I should suppose that none of them now believes all of it, try to wriggle out of that dilemma with theological twists about Satan etc, they merely sink deeper into the morass. It would be an unpardonable waste of time even to mention typical specimens of the innumerable (and often almost unreadable) polemics in which contemporary Christians explain how God’s People became the Devil’s People. And I do not have the heart to comment on the brave fellows who wade through the mephitic swamps of the Talmuds, the Shulhan ‘Aruk, the Zohar, and the like, to dredge up statements that, to be sure, are shockingly immoral by our standards, but merely corroborate what is patent in the Old Testament, which the laborious searchers resolutely ignore. There seems to be an underlying assumption that the Jews are deliberately perverse and evil, and it seems to occur to no one that they cannot in their own minds regard as immoral or improper conduct that violates our moral instincts and standards.

Here, too, we find the cultural phenomenon of the residue. Many men who regard the Bible as mythology, nevertheless regard the Jews as a uniquely gifted people who invented a particularly admirable religion. The real basis of this odd belief is, of course, the respect and even nostalgia with which cultivated men must regard the religion into which our people transmuted during the Middle Ages the cult they had inherited from the dying Roman Empire. It is impossible not to revere the faith that created our great cathedrals, from Cologne to Salisbury, from St. Peter’s to St. Paul’s, and a thousand churches, some of them in humble towns, that are “prayers in stone” — the faith that glows in more than half of all our great paintings, that soars heavenward in so much of our music, that inspired some of our magnificent literature and is implicit in almost all of the rest of it, including even the poetry of unbelievers.

But with those wonderful creations of our culture — of what we may, with Spengler, call the Faustian soul — the Jews have nothing to do; they are so alien to it that they can regard it only with covert or open contempt. But, nevertheless, they are credited with having invented monotheism and a wonderful system of ethics.

The idea that monotheism is an improved form of religion is highly debatable — a monotheism always founders on the impossibility of constructing a logical theodicy — but is irrelevant. In its great age and even with many believers today Christianity retained and retains its Zoroastrian basis, considering the world as the battleground of a great struggle between good and evil, the good championed by a good God, while evil is championed by an anti-God (Ahriman or Satan); the two gods fight for men’s souls, whence the Zoroastrian (and later Christian) idea of “conversion,” a change of allegiance from one monarch to the other, and the ancillary idea of the equality of races, since, as in the significant story that Zoroaster’s first convert was a Turanian (i.e., a Turko-Mongolian was spiritually transformed into an Aryan), the only important thing was recruitment to the army of either good or evil. As for monotheism, a reading of the Old Testament (except the very late apologue called Job) suffices to show that the Jews were not monotheists, but instead believed that they had made a bargain with a tribal god, Yahweh, who would, when necessary, beat up the gods of other nations, and who, in the much-touted Commandments, specifically recognizes the existence of the other gods over whom Jews are to give him precedence in their own rites. The Jews did not become monotheists until they saw the benefits they would derive from appropriating the real monotheism of the Graeco-Roman Stoics.

The attribution of an ethical superiority to the Jews is even more fantastic. The converse is true. The Graeco-Roman and Germanic peoples thought of morality as inherent in the very nature of society, since without established and accepted codes of conduct, peaceful association and cooperation of individuals would be impossible.

And, as a matter of fact, Christianity, except in certain sexual relations (to which it gave cardinal importance), added nothing to practical morality — to the prohibition of theft, murder, rape, adultery, perjury, fraud and the like — that had been commonplace in the laws of all the Greek and Roman states, in the laws of the Germanic tribes that invaded and dismembered the rotted Empire, in the laws of ancient Egypt, and, indeed, in the laws of all organized societies known to history. The conception of morality as a necessary regulation of intercourse between individuals (and therefore to be observed by gods, as well as men, in their relations with one another) is not perfect, but I fail to see any improvement in the Jewish conception of practical morality as rules laid down by the caprice of a deity shortly before he exposed his buttocks for the admiration and veneration of Moses. In fact, the Judaic notion of morality as a body of rules, including prohibition of theft etc. among members of the tribe, circumcision, and intricate regulations about diet, physical functions, and the like, imposed by their tribal deity as a condition on which he was prepared to fight off other gods and help his Chosen People plunder other tribes and seize their territory — all that seems to me a distinct regression, when considered from the standpoint of our own morality, which, of course, must not be thought of as binding on other races.

Now a rational consideration of the Jews — which would require a volume, not a paragraph — would have to begin with a candid recognition that, as the learned and candid Maurice Samuel told us, there is an insuperable biological difference between their race and ours. Neither can have the instincts of the other, and if one emulates the outlook and standards of the other, that can be done only by simulation, whatever the motive. Further, we must understand that, in the absence of the Stoics’ animus mundi or a creator who for some reason made most of his products inferior, no race can be thought of as having a morality and instincts that are good from any point of view but its own, while the corresponding qualities of other races are intrinsically bad. The question that Blake asked of the tiger when he admired its fearful symmetry, “Did He who made the lamb make thee?” embarrasses theologians, but not biologists: The tiger’s morality is excellent by its own standards, though deplorable by the lamb’s.

We must further understand that all races naturally regard themselves as superior to all others. We think Congoids unintelligent, but they feel only contempt for a race so stupid or craven that it fawns on them, gives them votes, lavishly subsidizes them with its own earnings, and even oppresses its own people to curry their favor.

We are a race as are the others. If we attribute to ourselves a superiority, intellectual, moral, or other, in terms of our own standards, we are simply indulging in a tautology. The only objective criterion of superiority, among human races as among all other species, is biological: The strong survive, the weak perish. The superior race of mankind today is the one that will emerge victorious — whether by its technology or its fecundity — from the proximate struggle for life on an overcrowded planet.

(to be continued)

part 1 • part 2 • part 3 • part 4 • part 5 • part 6 • part 7 • part 8 • part 9 • part 10

* * *

Source: America’s Decline