[Luke Ford, an Australian living in the USA, who “converted” to Judaism in 1993, interviews Tanstaafl from the Age of Treason blog on the subject of the Jewish Question, aka, Jewish Problem.
Watch the video here:
Streamed live on Mar 27, 2018
Jonny Anomaly writes: On the alt-right, it has become fashionable over the last few years to recycle a trope from 1930s Germany: “The Jewish Question” (to which the Holocaust was supposed to be “The Final Solution”).
The contemporary version of the question concerns why Jews have so much influence in cognitively demanding occupations, including science, medicine, law, and politics. Although the “JQ” (as alt-righters call it) has a mundane answer, many subscribe to elaborate theories to account for the fact that most Jews don’t conform to the stereotype alt-righters expect them to.
For example, when a scholar documents the fact that 4 out of the 10 speakers at an inaugural white nationalist conference were Jewish, along with a vast array of other evidence that conflicts with alt-right dogma, the predictable response by people in the grip of an ideology is that Jews do this to create a smokescreen: it provides cover for all of the other Jews who plot against white nationalists.
Age of Treason
Ford: Hey, I’m Luke Ford. I’m here with the Age of Treason blogger, Tanstaafl. Tan, you’ve been blogging for quite a long time. Tell me about your evolution, in particular on the JQ.
Tan: Sorry let me mute that.
Ford: And here with Tanstaafl*, so we are going to get that microphone problem taken care of, and then we are going to discuss Nathan Cofnas’ critique [of Kevin MacDonald’s book “The Culture of Critique”].. So Tan, take it away! Tell me when you started blogging. Tell me about the evolution of your journey on the JQ.
[* A pseudonym using the acronym for “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch“. The phrase and the acronym are central to Robert Heinlein’s 1966 science-fiction novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.]
Tan: Right. I started in 2005. I started blogging, and that was after I had spent about twenty years, maybe, of not paying attention, being fed up with politics, mainstream politics, and ignoring it, focusing on my career. But in 2005, I think, it was Hurricane Katrina that triggered me, the racialization of that. It was sort of a “Trayvon Martin” experience that many people experienced years later. I experienced during the Katrina thing.
And so I started blogging. I had been talking to friends before that privately, and I just basically took it public. And moved through pretty quickly neo-conservative thought, which attracted me at first, because it seemed like a more serious approach to politics, than plain old conservative politics. And then I ran into someone named Lawrence Auster. You might be familiar with [him] — that might have been where I came across you.
And it was really Lawrence Auster, reading Lawrence Auster, that made me aware that there was something going on with the jews. Auster himself was a jew, was a convert to Christianity. But what I noticed over time with him was that he was hyper-sensitive to criticism of the Jews. He indulged in it himself, but it was always from the point of view of “What’s good for the jews?” He thought that the jews, in various ways, he criticized them for not doing what was best for themselves.
From there — let’s see, trying to run through it — there was Steve Sailer. I became interested in Jared Taylor. And this is where I don’t recall exactly when I came across Kevin MacDonald’s work, but it was somewhere in there. Probably, it might have been Lawrence Auster who mentioned MacDonald.
As I mentioned in my Cofnas piece, there were several other jews, later on, years later, that I noticed their allergic reaction to Kevin MacDonald. That they had a visceral negative reaction to MacDonald, that seemed irrational to me. But by that point, I was already aware of the jews, and aware of the harm they were causing.
Back when I was first paying attention to Lawrence Auster, I wasn’t so aware. And so it probably came across to me as:
“Oh! This guy is ‘bad think’. I shouldn’t pay attention to him!”
So, it was probably years later before I really started, actually reading and listening to what Kevin MacDonald had to say. This is about, I think it was 2007, when I came across Lawrence Auster, and started, over time, becoming critical of him. It was probably around 2009 that I started becoming critical of the jews explicitly. I made a post called, I think, “Committing the Most Mortal Sin”*, or something like that.
[* “Committing PC’s Most Mortal Sin”, Sep 28, 2007]
Because I still understood things from a very “politically correct” point of view. But I understood that I was violating the primary rule of political correctness, which is really, “semitical-correctness” which is, you know, it’s a jew Sharia.
I didn’t realize that at the time, but I knew instinctively that any criticism of the jews was radioactive. Was going to make me a radioactive person.
And then it was 2010, I think, that I realized that my wife, whose father was jewish, that this was something that was important. That, I mean, I realized it was important as soon as I started questioning the jews. But I realized it was important for me to be straight about that with people who were reading and interacting with me online. And so I divulged it.
I forget what I called that post. But, “A Personal Disclosure” I think is what I called it. And so, but I didn’t become less critical of the jews after that. I became more critical. I became more, I started to understand more about the history, and more about race.
In 2012 through 2014, I partnered up with Carolyn Yeager and produced radio shows for The White Network. Which was a collaborative effort. And that ended in early 2014.
And then since then I continued podcasting for another year, maybe two, or year and a half, and then ultimately I petered out even with podcasting. And today I continue blogging, but at a reduced rate. So that’s where we are.
Ford: Now, it seems like there was some dark nights of the soul there in your journey, you must, I mean, particularly the personal disclosure.
Tan: That was one! That was hard to do. But I also felt better about doing it, because I had come clean about it. And from that point on I could talk honestly, basically. And it got darker later on when I realized just how deep this problem goes! I wouldn’t call it the “jewish Question”, it’s “the jewish Problem”! And it’s a big problem! And it’s been a big problem for a long, long, time. It’s an existential problem for White people.
And as I realized that, I realized I’m doomed personally! I, you know, no matter what I do. I’m compromised! So I’m not going to, … if White people survive I won’t! My line won’t! And if the jews win, likewise! I’m not going to join them. So, either way I’m screwed!
But that just freed me to keep digging and keep talking.
Ford: What were the consequences for your marriage?
Tan: None! My wife, I have I am very frank with her. I talk with her about what I’m thinking, and she is well aware of why I think what I think. And she agrees with what I think.
She does not identify as a jew So she’s never had this visceral reaction as a jew that she’s just loses her cool about any criticism of jews. Her father was a full-blown jew, but married out. Married a woman who was not at all a jew. And was kind of the black sheep of his family for doing that. And died when my wife was only ten years old, so they never really gave her any indoctrination as a jew.
So, she’s never felt defensive about my criticism of the jews. And she identifies herself, you know, as being part White. She has sympathy for White people as well.
Ford: And have you had jewish friends?
Tan: In the past I have. There were people in school, at university, and people at work. But I never got along with them. They always struck me as odd people. I mean, from the time I was in grade school, in New York City, the jewish kids always struck me as different. And it wasn’t something I could put my finger on. But they were not the same as the Italian kids, or the Irish kids. So anyway, that’s all I thought of them.
Ford: You grew up in New York, so it is that we had abundant real life experience with jews.
Tan: Not abundant. No, because I went to a private Catholic high school. I was in public school through junior high school, through eighth grade. And then when I went to high school, I went to a private high school. And it was a college preparatory high school, that’s why. And then I went to college, studied mathematics, computer science, and didn’t meet too many of them there, either.
It’s strange, the guys I did get to know well and become friends with, none of them were jews, my close circle of friends. That wasn’t a conscious thing, but it was just what happened. And there were people who were jewish. My wife who I met at that time in college, had jewish girlfriends. And there was a circle of jews, that in retrospect, I see that they all knew who the jews were and who the non jews were. And they were hyper aware of it! And there were several comments that in retrospect, once I became aware of jews as distinct and as an enemy, I started to realize that some of these things that they had said, should have clued me in! If I had been more aware I would have recognized them as being shit tests, or what’s the other word for it, just probes, you know.
I remember when I first met, I was well aware too that her father had been jewish, and when before we were going to get married, toward the end of school, I went and met her grandparents. It was funny, it was at a golf, country club that was jewish. I didn’t know that at the time, but in retrospect, again. And this old man, who was pleasant enough, nice guy to me, the grandfather. His friend came over, also an old man, an old jew. And he looked me head to toe, and he goes:
“Oh boy! It doesn’t get much more goy than this!”
And I just thought:
“‘Goy’, what’s the hell is that?”
Even though I had been around them through grade school, and through college, I didn’t know the yiddish terms for things, including the word “goy”. So I just thought:
You know, I took it as in stride, because, well, this is my future grandfather-in-law, and this is one of his friends. So, I’m not going to take offense at that, even though I don’t know what it means.
But it was a test, basically. It was a probe! Is this kid, who I can see is a “Nazi”, basically, is he really a Nazi? Does he know he’s a Nazi? Does he know what jews are? How’s he going to react, if I poke him in the face, like this? And since I didn’t even know what he was talking about, I didn’t respond at all. Just sort of smiled stupidly, and went on with my life.
And it wasn’t until many years later, like I said, with reading Lawrence Auster, that I became aware of just how active jews were in politics. And then, of course, after my eyes were opened. Then I was able, in retrospect, to realize all of these things that had happened in the past politically, that I had been dimly aware of, it involved jews.
Things like Henry Kissinger being in the White House. Being, you know, one of the primary advisors to Richard Nixon. And, not so much with the Reagan, but, although now I know the details and the shadows behind him, there was definitely a jewish, a strong jewish hand. And lots of other things like that, that I only realized in retrospect.
Ford: So Hitler struggled with his thinking about jews. He thought that most anti-semitism was primitive and stupid. He thought religious anti-semitism was stupid. He struggled for about ten years before he finally came down and said:
“The jews are not just a problem. But the problem!”
How long did you struggle?
Tan: About six months, maybe nine months. Once I had been exposed, … And something had set me up for that I feel, I didn’t mention, was that for a while as I think even before I became interested in what Lawrence Auster was saying. I was interested in what the counter jihad, or what I would call today the “jewhadis”. What they were saying critical of Islam, opened my eyes to criticizing non-Whites, criticizing non-Westerners. And seeing them do that, kind of laid out the steps that I was able to follow later, in saying:
“Well, why can’t the jews be criticized in the same way?”
And today I would realize and say that jews can be criticized in virtually every way that Muslims are criticized, jews can be criticized, just as well.
Tan: For the same things. I mean, for being outsiders, for having alien ways, for having negative attitudes toward their hosts. They go about it in different ways. There are different tactics that they use, the halal, the kosher. jew Sharia versus Muslim Sharia. Takkiya, the Muslims their code of being able to lie to infidels, and the jews basically have that dual morality, as well, that goes much deeper.
And so a lot of that research and time that I had spent reading and thinking up my own critiques of Muslims. I was very easily able to map it into, okay, well now do the same thing to jews. So that’s why it was partly, it was almost like a rubber band snapping in my head, once I realized that race was important.
Which had to do with a Muslim protest, it was some nationalists in Belgium, or something, were getting beaten by the cops. These were White cops beating White politicians that were anti-Muslim. It snapped in my head that this is crazy! That White people are beating each other up over aliens! And I realized that I’m a White man and I’m against this. This is insanity! And I wanted to understand it more. And it was several months later that I realized this has to do with the jews. This is all about the jews!
Ford: Were you circumcised at birth?
Tan: I was. Yeah.
Ford: How do you feel about that?
Tan: I resent it. [Ford laughs] I’m angry about it! And I’m angry that it happens to other kids. In fact, my boys are circumcised, because I was not aware what it was all about, when that came up. It was like:
“Oh well, you know, you get circumcised”.
It’s just the thing that people do. I didn’t realize that there was a jewish aspect to it at all.
Ford: So what was your first Kevin MacDonald book that you ever read?
Tan: I’ve never read any of have MacDonald’s books, cover to cover. I have all three of his major trilogy. But, what I’ve read of Kevin MacDonald are pieces here and there. I have Mein Kampf too! [laughing] But I’ve never read that cover to cover, either! I used to read voraciously. I have a bookshelf full of books that, by the time I became active on the internet I was doing almost all of my reading on the internet in electronic form. So I really had stopped reading books. And also I had lost interest in the kind of books I was reading. I used to read history of science, and science fiction type books.
So I’ve never read those books all the way through. But I’ve read the whole chapter on immigration, the chapter on, I think it was the Frankfurt School, he goes into. And there’s another one, Freud.
A lot of that I really dug into when I was doing the White Network podcasts. I was basically digging in-depth into every subject that was related to race and jews, for two, almost three years, I think. Every week, to put together a thirty minute summary of what I had learned.
And, you know, you were in one of those as well, probably around the middle of the body of podcasts that I did. I did a whole series on jewish crypsis. Which was inspired largely, … That’s one of the main things that I got from MacDonald, besides the jewish intellectual movements, was this idea of “crypsis”. Which I had never heard of before, but which fit into their behavior, and explained to me, … What I saw it was, was an element of what I later realized was “parasitism”. That it’s really the best way “biologically” to describe the relationship between jews and Whites is “parasitism”. They’re the parasites, and we’re the hosts.
Ford: How did you find support during your journey into the JQ? Did you find it online, did you find it in real life?
Tan: I didn’t need any support. I didn’t feel the need for any support. I was basically curious about these things, curious enough to start blogging, and then, once I started blogging, I just kept following the bread crumbs back to where they led. I followed the dots. I connected the dots. And there were several places, I’ve already mentioned Auster, and Sailer, and there was a forum called “Majority Rights” that was important to me for a while. There were a group of people there that I thought were speaking the truth. They were, you know, arguing with each other, but that’s where a lot of Kevin MacDonald’s work and Lawrence Auster were criticized.
Think that’s pretty much it. Other than my own blog. And I had people coming to my blog criticizing me, and I would answer them. And I would, you know, do more research. I was a blogger for a long time, for several years, before I ever started podcasting, and now I’ve gone back to being more of a blogger than a podcaster.
Ford: So there are a lot of Alt-Right blogs, and there are a lot of JQ writings on-line. Could you tell me about the things that distinguish your work?
Tan: I don’t know. I lot of people have complimented me and said that I really “get it”, and that they don’t know of anyone who does a deeper, better job of it. And I’m proud of that. I like, … I’m pretty thorough, and I also think I’m pretty reasonable, maybe too reasonable. In fact, my criticism, and I have criticism for other people who have worked on this problem, is and for my race as a whole, is that we’ve been too reasonable! We’ve been too fair-minded!
And I try not to do that. I try not to be fair-minded. I try to be partisan. I take the side of White people, unashamedly, unabashedly, and unreservedly! Without any, you know, I’m not put off by people who call me names, or try to question my sanity, or call me stupid, or whatever.
The typical academic type, and I think of Kevin MacDonald, and Andrew Joyce as the two premier academic critics of jews. They seem, well, [laughing] I don’t to be too critical, because they have been very, very good! They are good. And their work is very, very, solid! But, at a certain point and intellect, somebody who puts stock in being seen, as somebody who’s, you know, smart, and intelligent, and makes well-reasoned arguments, I think puts too much stock in that. And so they are a little bit too affected by critics who try to get at them that way. That try to erode their confidence. And I think Andrew Joyce, in particular, has made great strides. He’s now much more of a “shit-lord”, at least on Twitter. And has taken more of a fighting attitude.
And MacDonald’s has moved along in the last few years and become more serious. Although even recently with this Cofnas thing, my criticism of him, is that he seemed a little too willing to — this has to do with his academic attitude and identity — of playing the game the way the jews want to play it.
And I’m not interested in playing the game. I’m interested in identifying the game that they’re playing! Calling it out, exposing it for what it is. And that it’s not really a game. To call it a game is wrong, because as I said, earlier on, it’s an existential threat! It’s a problem. It’s not a game, it’s not a question. And so, what I do, the work I do, the research I do, the summaries I provide of what I’ve learned, are aimed at White people to try and jump White people ahead of where I started. And to wake them up. To give them the information that they need.
And for that, I value what MacDonald did, even though I’m not an academic and I wouldn’t taken his approach, and I wouldn’t phrase certain things the way he does. His work is great, because of the way he did it. So I can respect it. But I can’t be that. I don’t think we necessarily need more academic work. Because it’s not a question, anymore. The question has pretty much been resolved. Every day you can go on Twitter and you can see the jewish journalists talking to each other in a way that we couldn’t see before, where they were able to talk privately. And now it’s in our face every day.
Ford: Do you differ in any way from the ideological foundations of Mein Kampf?
Tan: Well, I can’t say that, because I don’t know what the full thing is. I don’t understand entirely, the entirety of National Socialism. But from what I understand of National Socialism, I think Hitler was right. I think the National Socialists were right. And although the situation has changed since then, so there may be some things on which, you know, they’ve been proven insufficient, or that they didn’t address, or whatever that might have to be addressed. But in every experience that I’ve had in reading what is available to read of them — and this is another problem is that some of it was destroyed deliberately. It was obscured. So we’ll never really know what they, what it was all about.
[Image] A Short Sketch of His Life.
But from what I’ve looked into about it, they were definitely doing the right thing, the right way. And I don’t fault them for anything. Hitler did nothing wrong!
[Ford bursts out laughing]
And I don’t mean that ironically. I mean, that utterly soberly.
Ford: [happily amused] You know what is really cool about talking to you? You don’t use irony!
Tan: I hate sarcasm and irony.
Ford: Yeah! Yeah. It just makes, just makes it so much easier, just to talk to you. I mean, you’re not playing any games.
Tan: No I’m not.
Ford: So, talk to me about “crypsis” and why this is a problem for White people.
Tan: Well it’s very important.
Crypsis is an indication of bad faith. Crypsis is the, just to describe it for people might not have heard of it before. It’s a biological thing, where a predator, or a parasite, will use camouflage to disguise themselves, in order to give them an advantage they may not otherwise have, over an organism that’s bigger, stronger, or has some other advantage. So crypsis is a tactic of warfare, or of competition, of biological competition.
And the jewish crypsis that MacDonald introduced me to was basically things like in Spain when there was the Reconquista* and the jews were compelled — I’m skipping a lot of history here — but they were compelled by the Spaniards who had reconquered their territory, to either convert to Christianity, or get out!
[* The Reconquista (Spanish and Portuguese for the “reconquest”) is a name used to describe the period in the history of the Iberian Peninsula of about 780 years between the Umayyad conquest of Hispania in 711 and the fall of the Nasrid kingdom of Granada to the expanding Christian kingdoms in 1492. The Reconquista was completed just before the Spanish discovery of the Americas—the “New World”—which ushered in the era of the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires.
Probably equal numbers of them left, or converted to Christianity. But the conversion was insincere, as it had to be. Because, you know, jewishness is not what’s in your head so much, as it is what’s in your genes. It’s a biological, genetic trait. It’s not purely a religion. The religion comes into it, but it’s a amplifying effect. A reinforcing effect. It’s an adaptive, it’s a jewish “survival strategy” in Kevin MacDonald’s terms.
But in Spain — and what I found out is that this has happened many times, in many different places — those jews who had converted, they remained jews, they remained aware themselves as jews, they maintained their rituals, and they married within other [jews]. They were called “Marrano”*, those new Christians. Crypto jews. And this had a dramatic impact on how the New World unfolded. Especially south, in central and southern America.
[* Marranos, now considered an offensive term for which the academic term “crypto-Jews” substitutes, were jews living in Iberia who converted, or were forced to convert to Christianity yet continued to practice Judaism in secret. The term specifically refers to the accusation of Crypto-Judaism, whereas the term converso was used for the wider population of jewish converts to Catholicism whether, or not they secretly still practised jewish rites. Converts from both Judaism, or Islam were referred to by the even broader term “New Christians”.
The term “marrano” came into later use in 1492 with the Castilian Alhambra Decree, which outlawed the practice of Judaism in Spain and required all remaining jews to convert, or leave. By then, the large majority of jews in Spain had converted to Catholicism and conversos numbered hundreds of thousands. They remained under the watchful eye of the Spanish Inquisition subject to suspicions of secret practice of Judaism by formal Catholics, also known as “Marranism”.
Source: https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano]
There were times when “Portuguese” was a sort of slang term for “jew”, because there were so many Portuguese jews who had converted to Christianity and tried — basically didn’t like having to pretend, so they wanted to go to the New World, where they wouldn’t have to pretend. But although even there, they were still compelled to a certain extent, to pretend that they were Christians. This insincerity was noticed by the Christians. And this is something when you read jewish sources about all of this history that I’m recounting, it’s entirely from a jewish sympathetic point of view. That the poor jews were compelled to either leave, or convert.
But the fact is, that they could have left, if they really wanted to be honest about it. But they saw the advantage of sticking around, even to the point of having to pretend to be something that they weren’t. And that is really the crux of it! That this crypsis that jews do, it’s multifaceted, and it has to do with them not really wanting to change who they are, but wanting other people to think that they’re not jews!
So in modern-day times, it’s things like, changing their name to something that doesn’t sound jewish. Getting plastic surgery, so that they don’t have the identifiably jewish face. Things like that. Not telling people that they’re jewish. This is very important, because when you, well from a very simple point of view, if you have a competition, you have two teams. And one team has players on the other team! And the other team doesn’t know it! Who do you think is going to win the competition? Who’s going to win the game?
This is very bad for Whites! And this is throughout history. I mean, when you’re talking in this debate between MacDonald and Cofnas about the harm that the jews have caused Whites, we don’t even know the half of it!
Because, an unknown amount of it was done without even being attributable to the jews! We don’t even know! And that’s part of what MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” the third volume in the series. He focuses on this very damaging, very recent, in the last century, these aggressive movements that were identifiably jewish. But they were kind of playing games with identity. They were trying not to be identifiably jewish. They weren’t wearing their jewishness on their sleeves.
I distinguish between jews, two different branches of jews. I call them the “in your face jews” who openly identify themselves as jews. And then there’s the “down-low jews” that are basically engaging in crypsis, in one form, or another. They’re trying to pretend that they’re not jews. And there’s other facets, other ways you can see distinctions between jews, but that’s sort of one dimension of it.
And as an example you’ve got an organization like the ADL, which is “in your face jews”. Being jews, openly jews, and openly jewing! What they’re doing is openly pursuing jewish interests. But then you’ve got groups like the SPLC, that are supposedly not a jewish organization. They don’t identify themselves openly as jews. But they get a lot of their funding from jews. They get a lot of support from jews. They get support from the jewish media. And there are a lot of jews on the staff. So they follow basically the guide, or the line set down by the ADL.
And that’s the other thing, to mention the ADL and the SPLC, is that jews organize as a group. And [have] many, many, organizations. Whereas Whites have been brow beaten into thinking that’s basically bad! That’s racist! That’s being a Nazi! To organize, to even think about your own group and what’s best for your group is wrong!
Ford: Let me bounce off you my criticism of critics of jews, and you tell me if there’s any value in my critique.
Ford: My critique of “Mein Kampf”, and probably most of the Alt-Right’s reaction to jews, is that they simple mindedly want a “magic key” to unlock history! So Hitler wanted a magic key to unlocking history! He thought he found it in jewish perfidity*, so he attributed Germany’s loss in World War one to the jews! For which there’s very little in empirical evidence. And so, most criticism of jews is that kind of simple-minded, conspiracy mongering. You know, what’s the “magic key” to unlock history, which is a childish desire that we can do a shortcut on understanding how the world works.
The Backstabbing of World War I refers to the series of events which took place pertaining to Jewry and Germany during the First World War. It is commonly referred to in Jewish propaganda as the “Stab-in-the-back myth” (German: Dolchstoßlegende). Jews had encouraged and financed Prussian participation in the war, primarily as a means to destroy Russia which was then under Tsar Nicholas II and to insert Bolshevism in that country. Once the Russians had been defeated and signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, more Imperial German Army troops were freed up for the Western Front, with victory in sight, organised Jewry bribed the British Empire to turn the tide.
Tan: It isn’t childish at all!
Tan: There’s a principle called “Ockham’s Razor”. There’s a principle of science that sometimes critiqued, or criticised for being reductionist. That’s a term I’ve often heard applied to biology generally, or people who believe in science, or, …
But there’s no nothing childish about wanting to understand what is really the most important thing about a complex world. It’s one thing to, … And I consider myself a realistic person. I look at reality as it really exists. I’m not running away from complexity, but I am trying to identify what is really the power structure here? What is really going on here? And is it possible for it to happen?
And a lot of times, I’m led to investigate something, or I was curious about something, because it seemed impossible! It seemed, the analogy that I often think of, is like a boulder just floating in mid-air! Which doesn’t comport with how I understand reality is supposed to work! And when you see a boulder floating mid-air, or rolling uphill, there must be some force. Maybe that you don’t see. Some string holding up the boulder, or pushing it up the hill! But my goal has always been to find those forces and identify them. And this goes hand in hand with the jews trying to disguise what they do. It’s not an oversimplification to say, “It’s the jews!” Most of the time it’s true! The jews have a role in what’s going on.
Now, you know, Ken MacDonald uses the phrase, something like it’s a “necessary condition”. Which is kind of for mathematics. This distinction between “necessary” and “sufficient” conditions. But in plain English, sometimes things really are actually simple. And in the case of the jews they oftentimes try to make things more complicated than they are. They make things appear more complicated than they really are! They obfuscate. It’s part of the camouflage, it’s part of the crypsis to confuse the goyim.
And then this is where “gaslighting” * comes in. The psychological effect of basically telling people:
“You’re crazy! The jews don’t have anything to do with this!”
It makes you question your own sanity. And that again is another, to me, it’s an indication of bad faith! They are not being honest!
[* Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target’s belief.
Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. The term owes its origin to a 1938 play Gas Light and its 1944 film adaptation. The term has been used in clinical and research literature, as well as in political commentary.
The term originates in the systematic psychological manipulation of a victim by the main character in the 1938 stage play Gas Light, known as Angel Street in the United States, and the film adaptations released in 1940 and 1944.In the story, a husband attempts to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating small elements of their environment and insisting that she is mistaken, remembering things incorrectly, or delusional when she points out these changes. The original title stems from the dimming of the gas lights in the house that happened when the husband was using the gas lights in the attic while searching for hidden treasure. The wife accurately notices the dimming lights and discusses the phenomenon, but the husband insists that she just imagined a change in the level of illumination.
The term “gaslighting” has been used colloquially since the 1960s to describe efforts to manipulate someone’s perception of reality. In a 1980 book on child sexual abuse, Florence Rush summarized George Cukor’s Gaslight (1944) based on the play and wrote, “even today the word [gaslighting] is used to describe an attempt to destroy another’s perception of reality.“
Also see: http://age-of-treason.com/?s=gaslighting
In this thing with Nathan Cofnas, for instance, they got into a bit of a back and forth on “ad hominem”. MacDonald said I’m not going to address Cofnas’ ad hominem. Cofnas then countered, and said:
“Oh no! Kevin MacDonald is the one committing ad hominem! He called me, he said I’m doing what I’m doing, because I’m a jew!”
It’s important, you know, the fact that he’s a jew is important! And he’s basically trying to obscure that fact, and make it about some technical details, as if Kevin MacDonald did something wrong “technically” with his paper. If Kevin MacDonald had written a paper and had it published in a sociological journal, or had these textbooks considered sociology rather than evolutionary biology, or evolutionary psychology, there would be a lot less grounds for this “scientific criticism” of them, because sociology is all bull shit! It’s all just people’s opinion about what they think about what’s going on.
And it’s mostly jews criticising White people!
You know when Whites criticize jews it’s called “anti-semitism”, and when jews criticize Whites it’s called “sociology”, or “psychology”. They’ve set things up such that, they’re the authorities, they’re the experts, and they spew off all kinds of nonsense, all kinds of alternative explanations to keep us confused! And it’s really not so difficult. They are the enemy! It’s that simple! They don’t have our interests in mind. They have their own identity. They play games with:
“Who’s White?” “Who’s a jew?” “What does it mean anti-semitism?” “Everything is anti-semitism.”
You talk about simplification. Anytime you’re critical of even a single jew, that has anything to do with their jewishness, the defense is:
“Oh, that’s anti-semitism!”
They immediately turn it into a group thing! And every criticism of anything, I mean, you criticize Soros, criticize globalists, the jewish organizations come out and call it anti-semitism! Because they realize it is simple! They’ve got to defend! They’ve got to circle the wagons and defend themselves.
Ford: So my critique was, I thought it was childish to think that there’s a “magic key” to unlock history. And my summary of your answer now is, it’s not childish, it’s reality.
Tan: Yes. Yes.
Ford: That’s excellent! Yeah I mean, we really just boiled it down right there!
Tan: Yes, sorry I went on so long.
Ford: No, no! It was great! It was great! But I mean, that’s what it comes down to. I see you, not you personally, but your type of critique is childish. You know, there’s a magic key that unlocks history and that magic is jewish perfidity. And you say:
“No Luke! That jewish perfidity, that is real, and it is, if not, … “
You’d probably say it is the “key” to unlocking modern history in the Western world. Correct?
Ford: I mean, that’s awesome! Like we’ve like boiled it down!
Tan: Look, another way of putting it is that you can’t really understand what’s happened for the last two, three thousand years without accounting for what the jews have been up to. And my other point, that I mentioned even before we got into this, is that you can’t account for what the jews are doing, because they try to hide what they’re doing!
And it’s not just the act of hiding that they do, at the time they’re doing it. It’s the “after the fact” hiding. Sometimes they’ll come out and they’ll say:
“Oh yeah! We had a role in this!”
The secret jewish role in “Peeps”, was the latest article I saw on a Tablet, or Forward. And the secret jewish role in this, or that, is the kind of article they come up with on a regular basis! Revealing what their secret machinations were. Long after it’s safe to do that. But just as often they omit it from history. They blot it out, so that it’s never discussed. Their role in slavery, for instance, is one of those things that has been mostly blotted out.
Ford: I’m thinking for a second.
Was your respect for Kevin MacDonald at all diminished by the Cofnas critique?
Tan: No! Not at all! It was raised! I thought his response was a bit wordy but then again he was trying to respond in academic fashion to a supposedly academic critique of his work, of his academic works. So he was staying in character. And he ultimately, I saw when he was talking to you, he realized that there was no substance to Cofnas’ critique. And so, he gets it. He knows.
I just wonder sometimes, some of the things he says, that whether he even understands the depth of what his own work implies? You know, I think have reduced it, or called it “an indictment of the jews” an “indictment of jewing”. He’s done a thorough job of documenting, quite enough. I mean, there’s plenty more that you could dig into in a similar fashion, and write book, after book, after book, about the things that they’ve been involved with — in the same fashion that a MacDonald, or Joyce [Andrew Joyce, a contributor to “The Occidental Observer“] would do. But at a certain point you don’t need to see any more of it! That’s why I never felt compelled that I had to read all three of his volumes, cover to cover. I read enough of it. Okay, I get it! I understand this.
Ford: So, it doesn’t bother you that Cofnas shows that the examples that MacDonald used to exemplify his Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, were actually counter examples?
Tan: No. I didn’t think that they were counterexamples. I thought it was, first of all, he was trying to disprove something, a large number of examples that demonstrated basically a rule, by citing some exceptions to the rule. Rather than providing his own exhaustive list of counterexamples, which would have been a better way to go about it, if he was actually sincere in what he was trying to do.
But I thought, basically, his critique was: Here are some jews that I think aren’t jewing as well as I think, or the way I think, that they should be jewing! And so therefore that counters what Kevin MacDonald thinks about jewing, what he documented about jewing. It was a very weak, lame argument, from my point of view.
I’m biased, and unapologetically biased in favor of Whites! I think that, you know, MacDonald comes at it from a kind of “above it all” academic, you know, I’m going to be objective about this, I’m going to write a book. His first book about how the jews do their jewing. And I’m going to write a book about what the European reaction to that jewing was — “anti-semitism”.
And I don’t like the fact that throughout that volume he uses the term “anti-semitism” un-ironically, without, apparently, any awareness of the built-in anti-White, anti-European meaning that it’s loaded with. And then he wrote a third book where he basically laid it out as — in what I think is closer to the real partisan point of view of — these jews are warring on us! And he gave examples of these jewish intellectual movements that have been doing this in the past century, and that it predates “Mein Kampf”, it predates the rise of National Socialists in Germany.
Ford: So you could you find any factual errors in what Nathan Cofnas wrote?
Tan: Factual errors? No, I didn’t have any factual errors that I found. Let me see, I wrote some notes here about the argument itself. You know, I went into lots of different points about his argument, my own critique of his critique.
Let’s see, I’ll just go through them here from the beginning.
Yeah, what I thought with the basic structure of Cofnas’ complaint was, that MacDonald is biased himself. And that he made mistakes, he made “scientificky” mistakes, and these logical mistakes, supposedly. The “cherry picking” and the, what was the other phrase that he used? I can’t recall now. I’ll get to it further down in the list here. “cherry picking” and “misrepresentation”. That he misrepresented sources.
Okay, but basically it all amounted to, he was trying to excuse the jews, Cofnas’ was. And he was trying to blame Kevin MacDonald for being biased and being a bad person, for even making these books critical of jews.
Ford: Can I stop you right there?
Tan: Yeah, sure.
Ford: Thank you. Okay you just said he tried to accuse Kevin MacDonald of being a bad person. Can you read to me, or reference me where Cofnas does that, because I believe that your accusation is completely false.
Tan: It was more of an implication, than it was an outright, spelled out, accusation against MacDonald. It was in the way he phrased things. It was in the pieces that I snipped out and quoted in my blog post on it. I’m scrolling now to see it.
The terms like “cherry picking”, “misrepresenting sources”. And that he said that was, … he used a modifier and said, … made it sound like that’s all Kevin MacDonald’s work was! That he cited a few things that he said were the those things. But then he basically used that as an excuse to say that the whole work was that. And it wasn’t just that his original critique it was the Quilette piece that he did, that published it about the same time. It was in some of his statements he need to you then, on the podcast.
Ford: Okay, you said that Nathan Cofnas accused MacDonald of being a “bad person”, …
Ford: I asked you for something to back that up, …
Tan: Yeah, let me read, …
Ford: … and you got to be honest, there is nothing in what Cofnas has written that says MacDonald’s a “bad person”. It says he does “bad scholarship”.
Tan: That’s my interpretation of it. That’s my characterization of it.
Ford: Well no, you can’t, … you need to, …
Tan: Sure I can! [laughing] Here’s a sentence toward the end of his conclusion. He says:
“But misrepresenting sources and distorting history are not part of the methods of evolutionary psychology, or any other legitimate academic discipline.”
He was implying with that, that Kevin MacDonald is not doing legitimate academic work. That he’s not a good evolutionary psychologist. And that his work is all about misrepresenting sources and distorting history! And that is, what I think Kevin MacDonald himself was referring to, when he said that was what he meant by Cofnas making ad hominem. And that was the part he was going to ignore in his own response to Cofnas.
Ford: Okay. I’m just going to boil down, in my own words, a synthesis of what I think you just said in response to my challenge. My understanding of your synthesis is that if one person criticizes a scholar for doing bad scholarship, they’re saying that, that scholar is a bad person. And I just think that’s a completely absurd accusation!
Tan: No! I think between academics that actually respect each other, and that are actually trying to do good academic work, that they are a lot more circumspect than Cofnas was. That they don’t just provide a couple of examples, and then say things, sweeping things, like he said. That MacDonald was misrepresenting sources and distorting history. They leave it for the reader to come to that conclusion on their own. They might hint at it. They are more circumspect.
And that’s partly why I’m not an academic, and I don’t take an academic approach, because I can’t control myself like that. I just want to say what I think about it.
Now MacDonald himself characterized it as “ad hominem”. That’s all I’m saying, is that it’s an attack against MacDonald. And I think it was an attack. MacDonald used the term properly, that it was basically an attempt to distract from the argument and focus it instead on the man. That the man himself did bad science, that was Cofnas’ basic claim!
Ford: Do you want to walk back your claim that Cofnas accused MacDonald of bing a bad person?
Tan: He didn’t literally say MacDonald is a bad person! But that was the thrust of his critique! Yeah, I stand by that.
Ford: [in a tone of disbelief] The thrust of the Nathan Cofnas’ critique is that Kevin MacDonald is a bad person!?
Tan: Yes! And that the jews “didn’t du nuffin”! Yeah! That’s what I wrote in my blog post and I stand by that.
Tan: From a twenty thousand foot level, that’s basically what was going on, from my point of view.
Ford: So, from your point of view you can never criticize a scholar for making mistakes in a scholarship, without “that is a personal attack”? There’s just no separation? You criticize someones scholarship, that’s a personal attack.
Tan: It’s kind of interesting why you generalize it to any criticism of any scholar, any academic That’s not what I’m saying. I’m talking about this case of Cofnas versus MacDonald, That’s all I’m talking about. Not academics in general. And I think that’s what happened.
And I think when you criticize jews, generally the response is “Oh! That’s anti-semitism!” and that’s the end of the discussion! There is no Cofnas thing.
Now Cofnas is trying to follow the right channels, or at least put on the right appearance, that he’s making an academic critique of an academic work. And so he’s been very careful not to just screech “anti-semitism” about everything. And he’s been careful not to just say:
“Well, Kevin MacDonald is a stupid, crazy, evil monster, who wants to gas six million jews!”
He’s been careful not to do that. But it’s been a very careful thing that he’s done. And it shows. He is actually concerned about “anti-semitism”! He’s concerned about “what’s best for the jews”. And that’s what gets lost in this debate. The way I summarize it, from the twenty thousand foot level, is what’s really important about this. It’s a guy who says in his own paper. In the introduction. That he’s doing this, because he’s concerned about the negative consequences of not having been done yet!
And what are those negative consequences? It’s implied that there are negative consequences for jews! It’s resulting in, … MacDonald’s work appeals to “anti-semites”! What’s an “anti-semite”? Everybody just knows that it’s somebody that the jews don’t like! It’s painted as the opposite by the jews, that it’s somebody for irrational reasons, for childish reasons, hates the jews! And thinks that they will solve all the problems of the world if they just get rid of all the jews!
But that’s not exactly what’s going on. The main conflict, I thinks between the point of view! It’s not something you can just stand above and outside, and look at it objectively. White people, if they’ve done anything wrong the last two, three thousand years, it’s been to not take their side hard enough! And to allow the jews to take their own side to the detriment of Whites. And that’s something that, I’m not going to make that mistake!
Ford: Okay, so I read your blog post on Cofnas, and I asked you again tonight. You don’t have any factual errors in your critique.
Tan: Yes. Well here it is in the Quilette piece further on toward the bottom of my blog post. And to I get into more criticisms of Cofnas’ attack in the comments. But, just in the opening salvo, I said, I pointed out his conclusion toward the end of his “What the Alt-Right gets wrong about the jews” piece. He says:
“We don’t think MacDonald will be able to rescue his hypothesis. Built as it is on misrepresented sources and distortions.”
He didn’t prove that case. He didn’t even come close! And MacDonald got upset about this too, because he was just exasperated that the Cofnas had provided just a handful of examples and then declared, basically, all of his work “null and void”.
Ford: Okay, You said a couple minutes ago that Cofnas did not just “screech anti-semitism”. Okay, is there anywhere where Cofnas “screeches anti-semitism”?
Tan: I think it was in the original piece.
Ford: So, in your original piece you’re saying he’s “screeching anti-semitism”
Tan: No he doesn’t! I said he doesn’t “screech anti-semitism”!
Ford: You said he doesn’t, … he could not just “screech anti-semitism”. So you’re saying he doesn’t “screech” at all?
Tan: He does appeal to the term “anti-semitism”. He includes them in his papers.
Ford: And does he accuse Kevin MacDonald of “anti-semitism”?
Tan: No, not directly.
Tan: No, he does it indirectly by saying that what Kevin MacDonald writes, appeals to “anti-semites”. That it’s popular with “anti-semites”. And it begs the question, you know, what the hell is an “anti-semite”? And why are “anti-semites” like inherently wrong? What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with being critical of jews? What’s wrong with opposing the jews for wanting to kill your people?
Ford: So, Cofnas doesn’t, …
Tan: No he doesn’t. But that is all packed into the word “anti-semitism”.
I always write the word “anti-semitism” with sneer quotes around, because I don’t accept the jewish definition of that term! I don’t accept that term! It’s just another word for jewing! It’s their word for when people react negatively to their jewing! They go “Oy Vey! Anti-semitism!”
And they expect, … it’s a two-pronged thing. It’s like a calling out for their own tribe to come and target this person. And it’s also serves, and I don’t think they intended to do this, but it has served, as basically, as a Pavlovian signal to the people so targeted, they start shaking in their boots, because they know what it means! Once you’re called an “anti-semite” your career is over! Generally. And that’s why people like me don’t even come out. And use my real name, you know. I don’t want to lose my job. But I do want to oppose this!
Ford: So are there any logical errors in Cofnas’ critique? And if you’re were just to pick one, which one would you, …?
Tan: I said no. Well actually, you know, that’s not quite right. “Logically” I did accuse him of a lie further on, having to do with the ad hominem thing. Let me see if I can scroll down to that.
Ford: Yeah, Cofnas says:
“I never made any ad hominem attack.”
And you say that’s a lie. So on what basis do you say that’s a lie? Well, I guess you’ve already answered that so people can decide for themselves.
Tan: People can read, … I urge people to read my blog post and the many comments that I made afterwards. He is maybe a strong word, because it implies that he is consciously telling an untruth and knowing it is. But, I’m not going to be charitable with jews.
Ford: You said a little earlier:
“White people, if they have done anything wrong, it’s they haven’t taken their own side hard enough.”
Is that accurate?
Tan: Yes! Yes.
Ford: So basically, you’re saying White people are the one people in the world who haven’t done anything wrong, beside from not taking their side hard enough?
Tan: Luke! I can’t understand how you can argue so well like a jew, since you’re not biologically a jew! That is how jews argue! If you argue that Whites are not one hundred percent responsible for what’s going on, it’s like, “well you think the jews are one hundred percent responsible!” It’s like, all, or nothing!
And that serves them very well, actually. That they don’t take any shit whatsoever! No criticism, whatsoever, is tolerable to them! And good for them! That’s the way, that’s adaptive behavior, from a biological point of view, at least until the point they piss people off that won’t take that any more!
But, no! You’re putting words in my mouth!
Ford: No, no, wait! You didn’t say that White people, if they have done anything wrong, they haven’t sufficiently taken their own side?
Tan: That’s my main criticism of Whites as a group. Yeah, historically speaking.
Ford: So I didn’t invent your words? I accurately quoted back your words.
Tan: No! You said that it implies somehow that I think that White people aren’t to blame for anything.
Tan: I don’t remember the exact words you said, but, ..
Ford: You don’t think White people are to blame for anything?
Tan: I don’t know how you can take a statement where I’m saying that I think White people have done something wrong, and say that I don’t blame White people for anything.
Ford: I said, “aside from not taking their own side sufficiently”.
Tan: Yes. Well there’s probably other things that they’ve done wrong too! , but that’s the main thing vis-a-vis jews. When it has to do with the jews, and the existential threat that the jews pose, yeah! Not recognizing that existential threat and doing something about it, yeah, that’s the big mistake! It’s going to be an existential mistake, the way things are shaping up.
The lie, by the way, just to go back, because I think it’s important. It has to do with this ad hominem thing, and the fact that when he came on with you Cofnas, what Cofnas described as an ad hominem, was the fact that MacDonald, toward the end of his response, had noted that Cofnas was basically behaving like a jew. That he was doing “cognitive group, conscious cognitive thinking”, or something. I forget what the term was exactly. But then Cofnas turned around, and said “that’s ad hominem!”
No! First of all that’s something he admitted himself! That his attitude about MacDonald, and his work, changed. He originally had an a positive attitude, and this is when he was talking to you, and then when he became more involved with Judaism and the jewish community, as he put it, that’s when his attitude changed. Because, according to him, he said, “then he saw that it was different”, or that it didn’t agree with the way MacDonald described things.
But the second way it was a lie, I say, to call it “ad hominem” is that’s what MacDonald’s work is all about! Is understanding jew psychology, and understanding jew tactics, and strategy, and what they do! How they do it!
So, you know, pointing to that and saying it’s “ad hominem”, as if MacDonald is trying to distract from the argument by calling attention to Cofnas’ jewishness, no! It’s Cofnas that’s trying to escape attention as a jew! That, what he’s doing as a jew fits the very thing that MacDonald has been writing about!
Ford: Is Judaism a “group evolutionary strategy”?
Ford: What does that mean?
Tan: It means it’s an adaptive thing that they do. That help them survive. Helps them thrive. And there’s many other examples.
Ford: Okay, so in the United States, at least sixty percent of jews are marrying non-jews. Is that part of their “group evolutionary strategy”?
Tan: In a way it is. First of all, I think I’ve actually blogged on this Pew poll that I think that number is based on. And that’s the jew spin on the poll, that “Oh Vey”, you know, jews are marrying out. The jews are going to disappear, it’s a second “Holocaust”!
And what they gloss over is the fact that jews are not going to disappear, because there’s all these ultra orthodox jews that have lots and lots of kids. So for every jew that’s marrying out, there’s three jews that are Orthodox jews, that are the jewishy jews, the most conscious jews of their jewishness.
But it also goes to this point I made earlier about there’s two kinds of jews. And they work together. They’re maybe not consciously, or directly linked to each other, but their actions reinforce each other. And that is, the jews that are marrying out tend to be these “down-low jews”. The jews who are in one way, or another, moving away from the core of the jewishy jews, of the ultra orthodox, Haradim jews.
Who are going the opposite direction which is, you know, basically insulating themselves from everyone else. But this is the basic mechanics of their form of parasitism. That the jews that marry out, they don’t forget that they’re jews, they don’t totally leave behind their jewishness. It informs their politics, and what they do in the world, and what they tend to do in the world. And White racialists have known, have recognized this for a long time. Is that somebody who’s part jewish tends to take the jew side in any sort of conflict. They side with the jews, they argue in favor of the jews, and they generally tend to undermine Whites who are trying to stay White and do things the White way.
And that’s the effect of this marrying out that, you know, you’re deploring from a jewish point of view, that it means the jews are going to go extinct in time, when it’s not, because there’s plenty of jews who don’t marry out. And the second thing is the great harm that it causes. Every jew that marries out into the non jew world becomes an agent for jewry, and then redirects resources from the non jew world toward the jews, that are staying jews.
Ford: So jews marry out as part of the group evolutionary strategy, and if jews marry in, it’s part of the group evolutionary strategy. So whatever the jews do, it’s just part of this group evolutionary strategy?
Tan: Yes, this is the kind of, … talk about simplistic childish arguments. The jews do it all! Yeah! And I’m criticizing both aspects of it and explaining how it works together in favor of the jews as a group.
And you’re saying, oh that somehow I’m being silly, because I’m basically, that I’m making a tautology out of it. No matter what the jews do it’s wrong! Well in a sense that’s actually right! Whatever the jews do, because they’re a distinct group of people and they see Whites as their enemy, they’re a parasitic group and that they harm my group. Yeah! Everything that the jews do is wrong! No matter what they do.
[Ford starts laughing]
A jew can kill themselves and I’m going to say:
“Yeah they were just doing that to get sympathy, or something!”
I could find some way to figure how it is best for the jews. Now I want you to admit something here! And this is one of the key things about the Cofnas thing that was lost in the scuffle between the two of them. Is this “good for the jews thing”.
That underneath, … the way I put it, is I take these this these two jewish sayings that, you know, “two jews, three opinions!” and I say:
“Two jews, three opinions about what’s best for the jews!”
That’s the key! They are arguing with each other and taking different routes to doing things, but it’s always with the underlying idea that it’s best for the jews. They’ll have knockdown, drag out, fights with each other about this, or that aspect, of how they should go about their jewing. But in the end, the premise that both sides, or all sides, of the jewish argument have, all the different facets of their jewing, is what’s best for the jews?
The Zionist jews are saying;
“This is what’s best for the jews!”
The anti-Zionist jews are saying:
“No! No! This is what’s best for the jews!”
The communist jews are saying:
“This is what’s best for the jews!”
The anti-communist jews, the same thing! I mean, that’s what’s at the root, and that’s how you understand what the jews are doing! And to reduce that down to: [in a mocking whiny jew tone of voice]
“Well you’re just criticizing the jews, no matter what they do! If they say black, or if they say White, whatever, …”
Yeah, it is that simple! But it’s not, because I’m crazy! It’s not, because I’m imagining things. I’m explaining to you that’s what’s going on. They explain it! They use this phrase, one of the articles about you is:
“Is Luke Ford Good for the jews?” This is not some phrase that Hitler invented! This is not some phrase that “anti-semites” invented. This is the question that they ask themselves! This is the way they justify trying to pursue their interests. It’s a sort of key phrase, that when you see it, it means they’re trying to pursue their interests.
And that’s another key phrase that comes up in this context is “monolith”. “The jews are not a monolith!” is what you constantly hear. And anybody who thinks the jews are a monolith is crazy! , because the jews:
“Look! The jews are arguing with each other all the time! There are jews that do the complete opposite of what another group of jews are doing!”
Yeah, well, but they’re still jews aren’t they? Even the statement “The jews are not a monolith” is a silly statement. Because it’s basically saying this category, this group, “the jews” which implicitly by calling them “the jews” are saying they’re a monolith, is categorically not a category! It’s ridiculous! It’s a ridiculous statement! But people don’t generally take things apart! They don’t look at it that way. I’m a computer programmer. I work on abstractions and solving problems, so I know how to take things, logical statements like that, and reduce them down to the essence of what they’re saying. And I point those things out. And it always surprises me. I say something like that, like:
“Jews are not a monolith! Well yeah, the category is not categorically a category and that’s nonsense!”
And people go:
“Wow! Gee! I never even thought about that!”
And I sometimes think it’s too simple even to write!
Ford: Okay, you said a lot there. What was it that you wanted me to admit? I didn’t quite follow.
Tan: Admit that at the root of the jewing is: “Is it good for the jews?” This question that all the jews, of all the different stripes, ask each other. And that’s the root of all their debates, is they disagree on what’s best for the jews, which is a fundamental agreement.
Tan: It appears that they’re not monolithic. It appears that they’re disagreeing with each other. But it’s really just all about, what’s best for themselves as a group.
Ford: No. I think that’s ridiculous! And I tell you why. Many people find the most powerful chapter [Chapter 7] in Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” is the chapter on immigration.
And Kevin MacDonald has absolutely no doubt that non-White immigration is a very important threat to, you know, Whites sovereignty in their own lands! As Kevin MacDonald writes in his response to Cofnas:
“Ethnic displacement is like reducing an extended family, or other lineage. It’s a drastic loss of fitness! And really no different from displacement on one’s species, or subspecies, by another, in the natural world. This is natural selection in action as the gene frequency, genetic combinations, and bio-culture’s characteristics of other peoples increased relative to those of the indigenous peoples of Western European countries, as well as their descendants in North America, Australia, and New Zealand.”
So, in his response to Nathan Cofnas, Kevin MacDonald is very clear that ethnic displacement is just an absolute disaster for the people being displaced! So, when you have jews who are lobbying for and pushing the displacement of jews in the jew state of Israel, they are doing the very thing that Kevin MacDonald says is a disaster! So, you have all these jewish intellectuals who Kevin MacDonald sites as evidence of Judaism’s group evolutionary strategy, who are promoting Arab immigration to Israel! Who are promoting African immigration to Israel! Who are essentially promoting open borders for Israel! Who are promoting the end of Israel as a jewish state! But they are promoting ethnic displacement, and that is a widespread theme in the jewish left!
Tan: Are you saying that they’re doing it, because they want to destroy the jews?
Ford: I’m saying that your point doesn’t make any sense, because these left wing jews are pushing the very ethnic displacement that MacDonald says is an absolute disaster for the people being displaced. Jews are pushing the displacement of their own kind, obviously they’re not acting in Jewish interests!
In Kevin MacDonald’s own logic.
Tan: It’s based on the premise that jews and Whites are very similar to each other. Which is wrong. The jews are a people that have lived as a minority amongst other peoples, their whole history. And so even if you were to flood Israel, and jews were to become a minority in Israel, it wouldn’t be a real existential threat to the jews. They’ve lived that way in diaspora forever!
And they live that way in the United States. So let’s take the United States, which is what I really care about. I don’t give a shit about what happens in Israel! Open borders for Israel is my attitude!
But in the United States, what’s going to happen, is there’s going to be different outcomes. I know Steven Steinlight and his attitude is:
“Oh my God! It’s going to be a disaster! We’re going to a whole bunch of people who are going to believe in the “Holocaust”” like the current White Americans do.
But, what’s actually going to happen, is it’s going to lead to the mixing out of the White population of America, in much the same way as happened in Brazil, or any of the former White countries, anywhere. Because Whites don’t have this strong and long history of identifying as a group, and fighting consciously against other groups.
I mean, there was when the country was founded, Whites had a stronger identity when they were conquering the North American continent. But that’s been psychopathologised, and demonized in Whites. And Whites are cowed, whether it will kick in again when the existential threat becomes clear, is, … I think it will eventually, but whether it’s going to be too late, or not, I don’t know. Whites will already be reduced to a small minority by then. And they don’t do well.
We’re seeing what’s happening in South Africa with a small White minority. That will not happen to the jews! The jews already run the country. And they’ll continue to run the country, no matter how fractured it becomes ethnically. And, in fact, it’ll become easier for them to run, because they’ll have even more players that they can set at each other. The “let you and him fight” tactic that they use. The “divide and conquer” will become all the easier, because the people are already divided. They’ve imported all sorts of different types of people that they can create strife between.
So they’re not threatened in the United States, and I don’t think that they’re threatened in Israel for the same reason. That they’ll still be able to maintain control. They have colonies all over the world, that they can always go to. They’re not threatened, and I don’t give a shit anyway, if they were threatened! But I’m pointing out to you that it’s simplistic, at the very least, you’re being naive to argue as if they are the same as Whites! As if the threat from immigration is the same to jews as it is to Whites. Because it isn’t!
Ford: So, how did the jewish tactic of “divide and conquer” work for them in World War Two?
Tan: I think it worked very well! Millions and millions of Europeans killed each other.
Ford: How many jews do you think died in World War Two?
Tan: Not enough! And not many. Certainly not the magical six million that they always quote.
Ford: How many would you expect?
Tan: I don’t know. I have no idea. But it was nothing [?] really.
Ford: So you think the jewish strategy really worked really well for them in World War Two?
Tan: Let me put it in jewish terms. One jewish life isn’t, or one European, one White life, is not worth a million, six million jewish lives! So I don’t care how many jews died in World War Two. I don’t care!
I appreciate how open and honest you are. And so, I think you said earlier if jews kill themselves you see that as pursuing jewish interest. Was that sarcastic, was that ironic, or was the how you really feel?
Tan: No. I think I could actually find literally a way to see how, … Well I would find the evidence. You know, that I’m evidence based. If you’ve ever read my blog, you know, I don’t just make shit up out of nowhere! I find people what people have actually written, I go to pains to quote it. I don’t just write about it, and misrepresent it. I snip it out with context. I give links to what I write, and then I explain, this is the way I see it.
And I think to the extent I appeal to any of my readers, it’s, because I do that. It’s, because I lay it out very clearly! I’m not just making stuff up.
In that case I was speculating, that if a jew killed themselves, that I could probably, I would look for evidence that they were doing it for some advantage to the jews, or some way to harm Whites. Yes for sure.
Because that’s what I do in general with anything that happens. An example is the school shooting in Florida, you know, how the jews, … The first thing I heard about it was that some White supremacist shot up a school in Florida. And that’s all I heard. But when you dig into it you find out the kid is half jewish. At least. The jewish media didn’t report that, except sort of as a detail buried in some other story that portrayed him as a racist.
And the other thing about it is that the school is something like forty percent jewish, which explains why the jews were so up in arms about it from the get go! Because they all knew that it was a heavily jewish County, and a heavily jewish school. And the funny thing about that is that less than forty percent of the victims were jewish, but they never talk about that. They just jump to the conclusion right away, there’s a shooting at a school in a jewish area, it’s got to be a White supremacist that did it! They found, some idiot gave them a tip, that turned out to be false. That it was a White supremacist and they ran with it! And for a day that was the what the narrative was in the cycle. They never corrected it. Never paid any price for it.
Yeah. So that’s the kind of thing I do. I look at what’s going on in the world, what are people excited about, and what’s the jewish angle to it. And if I find a jewish angle I write about it, and I talk about it.
Ford: So does the model of judaism as a group evolutionary strategy have predictive value?
Tan: Predictive? In a couple of ways, yeah. First of all I think when something happens it’s probably involves the jews. And there’s probably some hidden angle to it that involves the jews. So it’s predictive in that way. It’s predictive in the way I said about immigration. That we kind of know what’s going to happen when the country is flooded with that with non-Whites. It’s not going to harm the jews, they’re used to living that way.
Ford: So I just want to point out a couple of ways that you are significantly different from Kevin MacDonald. Kevin MacDonald says explicitly that Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, does not have any predictive value. And he also says that once intermarriage rates start climbing north of sixty percent, that for those jews who are out-marrying, that’s no longer a model of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. So, you and Kevin differ.
Tan: Yeah. He’s never made the point, … Yeah, about the out-marriage thing, I don’t know of anybody really who’s looked at it and talked about it the way I have. That it’s actually the other half of the parasitism. That it facilitates, … I reduce the parasitism to “infiltration, manipulation, and exploitation”. And it kind of goes in that sequence. That first the jews infiltrate your society as jews, or maybe in secret. But part of that infiltration is intermarrying with the host population. And they do that maybe not consciously, but it ends up working to their, in fact, and they go to pains to indoctrinate their children not to marry out.
The other remarkable thing about the out-marriage. The stink the jews make about all the out-marriage, is that it’s in spite of the fact that they consciously, explicitly, tell their kids that’s not what they want them to do! They want them to find a good jewish boy, or a good jewish girl, to marry. But despite that, some still marry out. But it still ends up working to their advantage. For the point that I’ve made. That it helps them to infiltrate. It helps them to further manipulate the host population, so that they can exploit the resources of the host population for the benefit of the jews who remain jews!
Ford: Right. So, when jews marry out, that’s part of that group evolutionary strategy, and when they marry in, that’s part of their group evolutionary strategy! [Tan starts laughing] When they promote immigration restriction that’s part of their group evolutionary strategy! When they promote immigration expansion, that’s part of their group evolutionary strategy! When they promote the Republican Party, …
Tan: Yes! Whatever is good for the jews, Luke. We’ve already covered this. It’s situational. And I think that’s the point that MacDonald was making. I don’t think he said that, … I don’t remember him saying that it’s not “predictive”, his Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.
Ford: You’ll find that on Twitter. He said that it doesn’t have any predictive value.
Tan: What I remember him, … the point he emphasized a lot, is that the jews adapt their strategy. That it doesn’t stay constant over time. That they adapt to the changing environment around them. And that is a good indication that they are active, conscious, … What is it, … they have agency. And a lot of the arguments that you’re from jews, in defense of their jewing, is this pretense that the jews don’t have agency.
And that’s another thing MacDonald has never talk about that, I don’t think. But that’s one of the ways that I analyze what’s going on. That, this idea of “agency”, about being in control. Being, first of all, conscious of yourself as a group, and then exerting what power you have over the reality around you, to change it. And that the jews, … I agree with MacDonald that the jews don’t just consistently follow one strategy, that they change. They morph, they sometimes go back and forth between the out-marriage in and the staying insular. It goes back and forth.
The genetic evidence, for instance, shows that the Ashkenazi jews, at some point in the past, took European wives. But then that stopped. And for many generations then, they just were endogamous. They married within their population. And that’s what’s remarkable about Ashkenazi jews. It’s not the fact that they lived in Europe, but the fact that they’ve stayed jews! That they’ve stayed an insular, identifiably different, distinct population. And they’ve resisted mixing with Europeans. They’ve mixed a little bit, but not as much as other groups of Europeans have mixed together and blend.
Ford: Okay, so I want to respond to something you said.
You said jewish strategy is situational, but the essence of the Cofnas critique, and what I’m saying, is that the examples of jewish disagreement that are given in the Cofnas critique and what I gave, are not comparing jews at different historical periods. They are comparing jews in the very same period, in the very same place.
So I’m talking about in the United States of America. You are saying when jews marry out it’s “group evolutionary strategy” and when they marry in it’s “group evolutionary strategy“.
United States of America, when they promote immigration restriction, that’s part of the jewish “group evolutionary strategy“. When they promote immigration expansion, it’s part of the “group evolutionary strategy“. If jews kill themselves as part of the jewish “group evolutionary strategy“. [Tan starts laughing] Like whatever jews do, … So your theory cannot, …
Tan: Luke, I’ve already commented to that! Yeah, whatever jews do is bad! Yeah! That’s, because they’re the enemy!
So, from my point of view, … I didn’t start out with that point of view, but over time I’ve realized it’s pretty fruitless to argue with the jew, about what they’re doing wrong. Because they’re not going to stop it. They’re going to come up with arguments like what you’re coming up with. Which is that:
“I’m the problem! That I’m imagining! That no matter what jews do, it’s a problem!”
Yes! It is!
And I think I’ve been reasonable. I’ve explained how it’s different. And you, you know, this, to different jews at the same time, are doing different things. Yeah, well, did it occur to you that maybe those two different jews disagree about what they think is best for the jews?
But the point is that they’re both trying to pursue what they think is best for the jews, or at least they say that. At least that’s their act. I grant that some of them may do what they want to do and that their excuse is:
“Well it’s best for the jews!”
But I think Whites aren’t even doing that! So, we’d be a lot better off if we were pursuing a strategy like that, “What’s best for the Whites”. And even if some of them would were not sincere, if at least some of them were, we would have a better chance of thriving, than we are now, where basically, Whites are demoralized, disorganized, and dying.
Ford: Though White people have agency?
Tan: Yes they do!
Ford: They’re responsible for the societies that create?
Ford: So then the jewish question isn’t really that big?
Tan: Yes it is, actually. Because it has to do with control. Who actually has control at this moment? And it’s pretty obvious to me that the jews have control, maybe not absolute control. There are things that they can’t control. The Internet is one, for instance. The fact that I can publish my thoughts on the internet. But they’re working to change that! And they will eventually succeed. We know from history, in the Soviet Union they made “anti-semitism”, air quotes, a crime! They made it a capital crime. You paid with your life!
Ford: How do you think someone who doesn’t know either of us, and doesn’t have a strong opinion either way on the JQ. When they hear you say anything jews do is for jewish interests. How do you think they hear that?
Tan: I think the they’ll hear that you’re playing games! That you’re smart enough to realize that the arguments you’re making are not honest arguments, are not valid arguments. I’m upfront about my bias. I’m biased in favor of Whites. I see it jews as the enemy of Whites. And that’s where everything that I’m saying springs from. But that doesn’t mean I’m making stuff up, out of nowhere. It doesn’t mean that I’m being irrational! So, I trust that will come through to any White person who listens to this. And I don’t have any, … I wouldn’t be talking to a “jew jew” to begin with. I’m not interested at all in saying anything that appeals to them.
Ford: So you said the arguments I mentioned are dishonest. So could you restate in your own words what are my arguments, and why they’re dishonest, or just pick one.
Tan: No. I don’t have a photographic memory, and you would then pick nits with “I got some word wrong” about what you said. I’m confident that if somebody listens to this, if I listen to this afterward, I’ll be happy with the arguments that I made. And I’ll be happy, I think, that people whose opinions I care about, will hear the way that you’re arguing. It’s not like the first time I’ve heard these kinds of arguments made. The intermarriage argument, or the “immigration is also bad for the jews”. These are not important to me. I don’t care!
Ford: So would you describe jews as ethno-centric?
Tan: Absolutely! They are probably, the most ethnocentric people that there! The most a ethnocentric group, the most powerful group. They are the most hyper conscious of themselves as a group.
Ford: So jews are the most ethnocentric people there are, yet they marry out of a sixty percent, while there are plenty of other groups that rarely marry out. But somehow jews who are marrying out in the majority are more ethnocentric than groups that don’t marry out?
Tan: I’ve already explained how the marrying out actually ends up helping them as a group. And that the ones that don’t marry out, reproduce at very high rates. And so there’s no threat to their survival. And that I think I’ve made that case, repeatedly So, if you are to continue to characterize it as somehow wrong, I’m not going to repeat myself on that point.
Ford: I didn’t characterize it. Anyway, I just asked you a question.
Tan: Okay. Next question.
Ford: Okay. So when we have jews who are over-represented among the leadership of violently opposing movements, this does not seem to fit in any obvious way with MacDonald’s theory which is, … the essence of at least one of MacDonald’s theories in “Culture of Critique”, is that jews push the opposite on non-jews, that they seek for themselves.
So, on non-jews they push multiculturalism, multiracialism, while they seek to conserve the benefits of cohesion and exclusion for their own group.
Tan: I think that’s just normal behavior. I would term it and explain it in a different way, or describe it in a different way. It’s just what you do to your enemy.
If you have a rifle and your enemy has a rifle, you try to take your enemy’s rifle away. If you can do it by talking nonsense to him, getting him to think that holding a rifle is wrong, morally, well that’s great! That’s what the jews do, in fact!
A lot of what they do is just moralizing! That’s what they’ve been doing the longest. They convince people that doing what’s good for the jews, is good! And doing what’s good for themselves is bad! It’s really that basic! And they’ve been doing that since Christ, and probably before, into the dim traces of history. We have a less complete understanding of, …
Ford: So the examples that Kevin MacDonald uses to back up their assertion, actually turn out to be counterexamples, so, …
Tan: I don’t agree with that. That’s Cofnas’ characterization of it. And I don’t agree with that.
Ford: Okay. So I’ll just give one of his arguments and you can point out where it’s factually, or logically incorrect.
Ford: So Kevin MacDonald notes that in a 1974 article of the top twenty one intellectuals in the United States, that fifteen with jews and MacDonald’s notes that eleven them were New York jews. All who were at one point, or another, this is MacDonald’s exact phrasing:
“Significantly influenced by Freudian theory.”
Ford: So! When you examine these fifteen jews, they are: Daniel Bell, Noam Chomsky, Irving Howard, Norman Mailer, Robert Silvers, Susan Sontag, Lionel Trilling, Hanna Arendt, Saul Bello, Paul Goodman, Richard Hofstadter, Irving Crystal, Herbert Marcuse, Norman Podhoretz, and David Reinsman.
Only one of these intellectuals actually exemplifies his theory. That Norman Podhoretz, who pushed immigration restriction for Israel and, you know, immigration expansion for the United States. So the very example that MacDonald uses to try to make his case that judaism is a group evolutionary strategy, actually turns out to be a counterexample, because so many of these names were pushing the very same thing for Israel, as they were pushing for the United States. So, that seems to me, a substantial challenge to MacDonald scholarship. What do you think?
Tan: I think MacDonald has to defend himself on that point, if that’s the way he chooses to argue it. Then he’s got to defend his approach to arguing it.
I would argue it as it’s not, … I would simply say the jews are the enemy. And so that’s, you know, jews, jewing freely like they were. Some of those names, Marcuse, and Sontag. I mean, these were virulently, in the true sense of the word “virulence“, virulent anti-White jews! They were enemies of White people! They were explicit about it! And that’s what’s important about those jews from my point of view. Not that they were part of a jewish intellectual movement that was intellectually consistent, or not.
In the case of the Freudians they were just fraudulent! So, you know, the fact that some of them were, this list of jews was supposedly Freudians and that was supposed to prove something. The fact that they’re jews. And the fact that some of them, two of them, at least off the top of my head, if you read that list again I could probably name another one, or two, that I know for sure have been anti-White. Hofstadter is the other one I can remember. He was the one who wrote the about the conspiratorial mind of the right wing, or something stupid like that. He was a half jew too, Richard Hofstadter, if I’m correct.
They were basically at war with the Whites in America! And the Whites in America didn’t recognise it as warfare!
The jews understood it as warfare! They saw themselves as a group — opposed to the Whites who still had control over some parts of the levers of power in America — and they worked as a team in different ways, doing different things. So you’re going to be able to find examples where this jew argued for this and this jews argued for the exact opposite, but they consciously saw themselves as being on a team, and as being opposed to those other people, the White people in America. And that they were in a struggle for control over America. And they won, in the end. They have control today. More control than they had, back when they were working!
Ford: So in 1948 when Hannah Arendt along with Sidney Hawk and twenty four other prominent jews signed a letter to the New York Times describing the political party of Menachem Begin as closely akin in it’s organization, methods, and political philosophy, to the Nazi Party, is out also part of the jewish group evolutionary strategy, where they call their own major political party in the jewish state, as akin to Nazi Parties?
Tan: I could see how it could be. Just to make the point, the Nazis were reacting to jewing, and in some ways you could say that what they were doing was trying to meet the jews, using the same tactics. So it’s not a surprise when even jews recognize that Israelis are behaving like Nazis, or that jews are behaving like Nazis. The jews to the extent they can, have tried to forbid anyone from saying such a thing. That’s the most, that’s the strongest form, of quote, unquote, “anti-semitism” that there is, according to jews. To call jews a “Nazi”, because, you know, they would want Nazi to mean the exact opposite of jews. That “jew” means good, and right, and righteous! And “Nazi” is wrong and evil!
But the fact is, if you look at it objectively, and I’m not even looking at it objectively, you can see the similarities.
It’s about being conscious of yourself as a group and being ruthless about pursuing your interests as a group. And I’m not surprised at all that there are some jews who say as a jew:
“I think it’s bad for the jews, if jews act like Nazis!”
That’s pretty much how they put it! I wouldn’t be surprised at all if you could find that in this statement, whatever this document is that you’re citing, that you find what they’re arguing is that it would be bad for the jews, if people got the perception the jews were acting like Nazis! Because they are sensitive to the fact that White people don’t like hypocrisy!
They don’t like when people, like jews, say this is not good you shouldn’t do this! You shouldn’t organize! You shouldn’t be tribal! You know, this tribalism is bad! Some tribalist jew is, … I see this on a daily basis in the jewish media. Some jew, who is basically pretending not to be a jew, most of the time, or at least not openly identifying themselves as a jew, writing a an op-ed about how bad “tribalism” is for democracy.
That’s hypocrisy! Right? And so when a White person points out, or notices on their own, that this is a tribalist jew saying it’s bad, that tribalism is bad, a White person gets upset about that. A White person resents that!
So there are jews who are sensitive to that, and want to head that off before it happens. They want to get out in front of it.
That’s something I wanted to bring up about this, you know, jews taking supposedly opposite positions.
A good example with Cofnas, is Cofnas is part of the upstart reaction to the dominant jewing which is going on right now, having to do with race. The “anti-racism jewing”, I call it. The prevailing opinion about race, is that it’s just a “social construct”, there’s no biological founding to it. And jews like Cofnas which I identify as say, “race realist” jews, they’re pushing back against this. It’s something, it’s a phenomenon I call “intersectional jewing”. Where there’s some jewing that’s going on, and it goes on so hard, and so long, and so deep that it’s starting to, maybe impinge on other jews and their jewing! What they want to do! They maybe working in biology, there maybe working in DNA research, and there uncovering stuff that’s being somehow impinged on by this anti-racist jewing. So they start to push back, like Cofnas is part of this movement. Pinker and David Reich.
But then it’s not like those are the only two opinions. You’d think it, because those two jewish groups, they point at the other as the enemy, and they start fighting and it’s a big fake fight! They never identify the jewish core at the heart of both of the groups! And they’re pushing, they’re stealing the air from anyone else! The “racists”! I mean, this is something I need to write about still. This thing that’s going on with Pinker and Reich in the paper that Cofnas, is like a just a sideshow to. He’s part of it, but they don’t want MacDonald to be better known.
But they’re putting Reich and Pinker out front with their new books. All about this anti, this pushback against the “anti-racist” jewing that’s been going on since the end of World War Two. Because science, there’s evidence for race in science! They’ve never been able to destroy it. And it’s bubbling up again! It can’t be, the truth about that can’t be suppressed.
But they are basically, in their papers, Reich and Pinker both, what they share in common, is they’re both saying:
“Look! We’ve got to confront this truth! We’ve got to confront this reality! Because otherwise my six million, the ‘Holocaust‘, these bad people, the racists, the Nazis, are going to be talking about it. And they’re going to be boosted by the fact that they’re actually talking about the truth, and we aren’t!”
So this is the phenomena. It’s not as simple as just the jews do, some jews walk on the Left, and some jews walk on the Right, and those are the only two ways. That’s a false dichotomy! The jews steal the air! They have both the dominant position, and the challenge to the false opposition to the dominant position. And they squeeze the air out of the room, so nobody else, so no true opposition can arise.
Ford: Why are Whites unable to overcome that?
Tan: Well the first part of it. Millions of White people died in that war [WWII], and why people are hesitant to go to war again over this kind of issue. So, I think, that at a very primal level it’s just bad “juju”.
That’s not a pun, it’s just bad! You know, at a subconscious level, I think White people just realize there’s, … first of all on an individual level, a White person thinks:
“Hey, I don’t like what’s going on, and, you know, it seems to have something to do with the jews. I better shut my mouth. Just keep my mouth shut!”
So White people tend to be kind of individualistic. They’re encouraged to be individualistic, either that, or humanistic. Definitely nothing having to do with race! And so it sort of squeezes out, this pressure from the media, pressure from the government, pressure from all the authority figures, that says:
“Don’t think about race! Don’t think about your own kind! That’s evil!”
And so Whites tend to think individually:
“What do I have to do to survive on my own?”
“How do I join some foreign legion, or some other larger group that seems to care about all of humanity?”
And that’s why it doesn’t happen. It wasn’t always like this! A hundred years ago, before the war, there was a vibrant and growing awareness. Maddison Grant is a good example. That came up in Cofnas’ paper. Maddison Grant’s “Passing of the Great Race” was a popular book. It was a bestseller! It was these ideas, were being presented to White people, and White people were beginning to understand, and beginning to accept them.
Ford: Let me read some super chats and I’ll pause after each one. If you want to comment, just jump in and comment, or just say “pass”.
“Luke, thanks for having Tan on the show. Could you ask him what young White guys should do to spread awareness of the jewish problem?”
Tan: Talk about it. Don’t let it slide!
And talk about it seriously! I mean, there’s a value to the memes. I understand the whole, you know, let’s joke about it. Let’s make it ironic and all that. And we can slide in under the radar that way.
But, talk seriously about it, too, and think seriously about it. One of the things that I’d like people to do, is to not take away from the example I set. Is don’t think that anything that I’m doing, says, or implies that I think it’s okay, to get married to somebody who’s jewish, or somebody who’s half jewish. I don’t! Part of why I do what I do as unapologetically and as unrelenting as I do, is I don’t want other White kids, White boys to make the same mistake, or White girls for that matter.
I don’t, you know, I chalk it up partly to my own bad instincts that it happened to me. But also I was in a society that didn’t teach about the jews. Didn’t, there was no, nothing bad could be said about the jews. It’s still true to a certain extent today, although we have on the Internet the freedom to start talking to each other. And that’s why there is hope now. And it’s better.
But, you know, keep your head low, too! Don’t do anything stupid, I would advise young White guys. Keep your powder dry. The kind of silly way of putting it, that old men usually put it! But it’s coming! And they’ll be a time to act. And just wait for that time. Be a leader. We need leaders too! Not everybody needs to be a leader, but we’re still waiting for a good leader to come forth.
Ford: Are you a leader?
I recused myself. First of all, it’s not in my personality, even if I wanted to be a leader, I wouldn’t be a good leader. I’m too, … I don’t know how to describe it. Basically I refuse to do it. And I’m not cut out for it. I’m damaged goods, I’m compromised. So, there’s no way I could be one.
Ford: Okay, I’m going to read three comments by the same jew, and again you’re welcome to comment, or say “pass”. One:
“My father is a military officer and a NRA member. Strategy?
Tan: I don’t know what that means.
Ford: Okay. Second comment:
“Ask this guy, if all jews are in on it?”
Tan: No. I don’t think all jews understand things the way I understand it. But they certainly, and this goes along with the most ethnocentric group, they are the most aware. The largest percentage of their population is aware of themselves as jews, and unapologetically pursues the interest of the jews, what’s best for the jews. Ask him back, does he know the statement “What’s good for the jews”? Can he acknowledge that?
Ford: I’m sure he does.
Tan: So he’s in on it! Yes!
Tan: He’s in on it!
And then he also writes:
“Tell Tan that many jews are screwed over by jewish power. I am one of them.”
Tan: Take it up with the jews!
“They ruin society in general. I’m not elite, I am just as screwed.”
Tan: I don’t care! He should take it up with the jews then, just like I am.
Tan: That’s his business. It’s between him and his own people. Go move to Israel and vote for open borders.
Ford: OK. Randolph write:
“Is monomania on JQ better than White improvement?”
Tan: [laughing] Yeah, well, I’ve already addressed that. But “monomania” is one of those things, that’s one of the psychopathologizing words, that if you talk too much about the jews — which is easy to do, because not many people talk about the jews — that it can be characterized that as “monomania”.
I’ve been accused of “monomania” by other people who supposedly are not just White racialists, but are critical of jews themselves. They think I go too far! That I talk only about the jews! And they call it “monomania”. Which is basically just following the jewish pattern of criticizing people who are critical of jews. I dismiss it!
If anything, Whites are not critical enough of jews. Imagine jews criticizing other jews for being too monomaniacal about “anti-semitism”. I’m sure that there are some that do. I don’t really care that they do, but it’s not a problem that jews have. jews complain plenty about “anti-semitism”. That’s their number one concern, they’re obsessed with it. They’re obsessed with their own interests. And so I would see, I would say that this my concern about the jews, which is being characterized as “monomania”, is nothing but concern for my own people. I wouldn’t care at all about the jews, if they were living on the other side of the planet and had no impact on White people.
“Do jews control the weather?”
Tan: You know what was interesting about that the black guy who said that, he said the Rothschilds. That was immediately interpreted by the jews media, as the jews! That’s the first thing about that. And the second thing about that, is the jews do control what that black guy says, because as they came down on him like a ton of bricks, and he immediately apologized, and explained that:
“Oh no! I’m sorry, the jewish people are such, …”
I don’t even know what he said, but it was just grovelling. It was grovelling. And so the jews do have power where it counts, which is making people who are critical of them, either shut up, or grovel, and, or both!
So that’s what’s that’s the interesting thing about that “jews control the weather” thing.
Ford: Okay. Fortress comments:
“Nathan Cofnas wrote: ‘there are outliers therefore Kevin MacDonald is now disproven’. Kevin responds: ‘I never said that at all’. So, how are Whites to speak on jewish influence without ‘anti-semite’ being shrieked?”
Tan: It won’t. It will be shrieked, and Whites just have to grow a thicker skin. I interpret it as bad faith, to put it mildly. Like hiding who they are, pretending not to be jews. That it’s the kind of action that an enemy makes. When they screech “anti-semitism”, because George Soros is being criticized, or, because the Rothschilds are being criticized, because globalists are being criticized, they’re basically announcing that they’re the enemy! So if anything, I think considerate helpful.
Ford: Your model that jews are the enemy, is there any way of falsifying that model?
Tan: It’s not a model! It’s an attitude!
Ford: Okay, is it way of falsifying that attitude?
Tan: No! I don’t think there is!
Tan: I’m not an academic. I’m not trying to prove some thesis.
Ford: So, you believe jews are the enemy, no matter what they do?
Tan: I believe the jews are the enemy based on what they’ve done. And I believe it won’t change, no matter what I do. No matter what I say. So, that’s my answer to that.
Ford: So, are some jews more of the enemy than other jews?
Tan: I think they’re active at different levels, and in different ways, yeah. You know, like the “in your face jew” versus the “down-low jews”, that I mentioned.
Ford: Okay. I don’t think that answered the question Are all jews equally the enemy, or some jews more the enemy than others?
Tan: All jews, equally? No. I’d say no, not “equally enemies”. It’s like some of them are generals, and some of them are privates, and some of them aren’t participating at all, actively.
Ford: So, are a significant number of jews who are, in effect, not the enemy?
Tan: Not that I’m aware of. That’s the old “good jew”, the search for the “good jew”, that White people tend to fall into the trap of trying to name jews that they think are doing a good thing, and doing the right thing, and “more jews should be like this jew”. I don’t engage in that nonsense.
Ford: So, do you think Steven Miller is anti-White?
Tan: No, I think Stephen Miller is against immigration, because he thinks America is a good thing, much like Lawrence Auster. These are jews who basically, I know in Lawrence Auster’s case, he said explicitly, you know, basically “America is good for the jews”! America as it was. But all these Muslims coming in is going to be bad for the jews. And that’s why he was basically against immigration.
And Steven Miller, I assume is similar. His particular thing was Mexicans in California, and then later I think he was critical of Muslims too. I’ve never really analyzed him too closely. I’ve watched a few of his things, his activism in high school and college.
But, I don’t care! I mean, the jews, as a group, don’t get a pass, or don’t get any sort of credit from me, because of what Steven Miller has done.
Stephen Steinlight’s another example of a jew who is critical of immigration, and even the jewish role in immigration. But, it’s, because, he says, he thinks it’s bad for the jews. It’s not, because he feels sorry for White people. It’s not, because he gives a, he cares at all about White people! It’s only, because he cares about jews, that he’s against immigration.
And I wouldn’t say that I know that about Steve Miller, but I would guess that’s the most likely explanation for Miller’s behavior, as well.
Ford: So there’s some people in chat who say Tan is just an unhappy guy. Are you an unhappy guy?
Tan: [laughing] No. Personally, I’m very happy! My family situation is great! I mean, other than the jew thing, which is as I said, “dooms” me. [Ford laughs]
That is looming always in the back of my mind, so maybe that does make me unhappy. But, in every other respect, I’m well off. I live in a nice place. Partly because I was racially conscious enough to pick a nice place. And my family situation is good. I have nothing to complain about. When people say, “Hey! How you doing?” I have nothing to complain about, except the jews! What’s going on in the world outside and long term is not good. That concerns me, yeah. But my personal situation is not bad at all.
Ford: So, obviously, as you picked up, some people think you have a “monomania”. I was wondering if you could expand and talk about the things that make you happy?
Tan: Makes me happy?
Well for many years I poured my attention, and got happiness from my career, my profession as a computer programmer. And I still get that. When I get a little bit too angsty about the stuff that I’m dealing with, this sewage that I have to wade through. When I look into what the jews are up to, or have been up to in the past, I often retreat back into my work and I just program for a while. Solve abstract problems with things that have nothing to do with human beings.
And that makes me feel good.
Ford: What about music? Does music make you happy?
Tan: I’m not musically inclined at all. I’ll just leave it there. My kids are, but I attribute that to the jewish side of the family thing, more than me.
Ford: Okay, So there are two critical super chats, I think I’d be more honorable if I read them, while you’re here rather than wait until the end of the show, so, …
Tan: I don’t care about criticism. I do have a thick skin. I don’t care what people have to say about me, and I’ll answer it honestly, to the extent I can. Shoot.
Ford: Rondo says:
“Too many White advocates fall into this monomania.”
Tan: And I say exactly the opposite, not enough do.
Ford: Okay, and Jake the jew says:
“The fundamental point is that being jewish is a crime.”
Tan: The fundamental point is that being a jew, means you’re the enemy. And I don’t give a shit, what you think anyway!
Ford: Okay, so I want to give you five, ten minutes, however much, or two minutes, whatever time you want to take, to just reflect on our dialogue, and at times, debate, and do you think I was fair to you? Do you think I was unfair? Do you think I was playing dirty pool?
Tan: Well at times, … yeah. No thanks for hosting this conversation.
There’s no technical obstacle to me doing podcasts, but it’s hard. The kind of podcast I like to do, are packed with information and insights, and it’s hard to sit down and discipline myself to do them. So, I enjoy these opportunities to just sort of, off the cuff, talk about issues.
And I think for the most part you were fair, or at least you asked questions that got to the root of things, you know, prompted me to get to the important points I wanted to make. And I think I got to all of them. If I didn’t though, I’ll make notes and comments on my own blog post about this. Things I forgot to mention. But, in the middle there you got a little bit, you know, tedious with that childish argument about over simplifying things, to reduce it all to the jews, by continuing to go back to that. That was annoying. But otherwise, I thought that you’re fair when it comes to dealing with the jews. You’re biased in favor of them, because you have joined them!
You know, you basically, you’re a White guy who like what you saw and you decided to join their religion, because you thought it was just about a religion. And you even have shown some signs, I thought, some of the stuff I read years ago that you had written, that you realized that it’s not just a religion! That you realize that there is a racial aspect to it. So before I go I did want to get to you on that, you know, ask you, how do you feel about the relationship between genetics, race, and jews, and jewish identity? And what it means to be a jew?
Ford: Well, I’m glad you asked. I think genes are here [putting his hand up high] and I think everything else is downstream from genes. So I think religion is downstream from genetics. I think culture is downstream from genetics. I think politics is downstream from culture, religion. You know, genetics are up here and everything else flows from genetics.
Tan: Is what you’re doing a personal survival strategy? That you think you join the jews, because you’re joining the winning team?
Ford: Not consciously. When I converted I did it, because I thought it was the best way to make a better world. I thought it, …
Tan: A better world for yourself? Or for a better world for somebody else?
Ford: Better world for everyone. I saw it judaism as a step, by step, detailed system for making a better world.
Tan: Now that seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of judaism.
Because they, I know that’s the rhetoric. But that’s not what jews really pursue. They pursue their own interests. And you can understand the double talk as:
“Well, to them, human, you know, jew is all they mean when they talk about humanity.”
They’re talking about jewry! When they talk about God, they’re talking about jewry! When they talk about, in universalist terms, they’re talking about the universal group of jews, not everybody! But they also, they’re smart enough to realise that other people are misled by this kind of rhetoric, and think that they’re talking about everybody. So, now you’ve been in it for years, and you’ve stuck with it! So have you fallen for that? Or do you want to disagree with me and tell me that:
“Oh no! jews really do, … the jewishy jews, the Orthodox jews, really believe that they’re doing the best thing for all of humanity, including the goyim?”
[Ford pauses for a moment]
Ford: I’m thinking. I don’t have an immediate response. I would say that the primary focus of judaism, and of jews, is on the best interests of jews.
Ford: Not on preaching a moral message to the world. But it’s pragmatic, primarily. What’s in the best interests of jews.
Tan: Yeah. The way I’ve put it, is it’s “particularism”. And that’s one of the hypocrisies that they preach “universalism”, or talk in “universalist” rhetoric to other people, and encourage other people to think in universalist terms, but they think in “particularist” terms themselves. That’s their morality, it’s about themselves. They define themselves, what’s good and bad, in terms of themselves.
That led me to a deeper understanding of what morality actually is. That you can have an individualist morality where good and bad are defined in you in terms of what’s good, or bad for you personally, or you can have a tribal morality, like the jews do, were good and better defined in terms of your limited group, or you can have a universalist, you know, closer to Christianity, Christianity is closer to that morality, where you think in terms of universal good and bad. That something is good, or bad based on some abstract understanding that involves, that applies equally to everyone.
Ford: So do you believe in universal morality?
Tan: No! And I don’t believe in individual morality, either. I don’t really think in moral terms. I understand when people struggle and talk about morality though, I decode what they’re saying by understanding it in this way, I’ve just described. I try to understand, are they talking from a individual point of view, maybe even without being conscious of it themselves.
And that’s what I’m getting at with you. Is when you decided to become an Orthodox jew, was it, because you had just been, you know, through hell in being involved with porn, and there were lots of jews involved in that. You, like Madonna style, thought:
“Oh, I think I’ll just get into this thing that all these jews are talking about!”
And that you did it, because you saw it as a way of cleaning up your life. You describe it that way, don’t you? That at one point some rabbi advised you to like, scrub all the porn stuff off of your personal domain, and you did that. And so it seems to me like that’s probably subconsciously why you gravitated toward it. You saw it as a way of basically cleaning up your life.
Ford: Yeah and I mean, that started many years before I had anything to do with the porn industry. I fell in love with jews and Judaism in the late 1980s.
Tan: Oh! And then you went to porn? I got it backwards?
Ford: And so for me I first consciously met openly identifying jews at UCLA in 1988. And I was blown away by how smart they were. How articulate they were. The supreme quality of their family life. And I was fascinated, and at the same time I was going through, what turned into six years of bedridden illness! And so my life it just completely fallen apart. I was sick every day, for six years on end!
[Image] UCLA in the 1940s.
And so I was desperately looking for something to inspire me, and to anchor me, and to, you know, just help me get up in the morning. I was just trying to survive! And it was my passion for judaism, and my passion passionate attachment to some individual jews, who I met, who I found just so impressive, that enabled me to overcome those six years of chronic illness. And I’m not sure that a Darwinian approach to life would have enabled me to survive that.
Tan: So, does it bother you at all, and this is something that when I was talking about and researching crypsis and half jews. It occurred to me that a lot of these jews, they complain, some of them complained about the fact that jews tend to push away half jews especially the ones whose, they’re only jewish to their father. But they don’t really seem to resent the jews for that.
Not to the extent that, say Whites. When Whites try to be exclusive to the extent they are and it’s a lot less than jews. Whites seem to incite this deep hatred in people, you know, who aren’t pure White, because when Whites say:
“You know, you’re not White, you’re half something else.”
They get very upset about it. But they don’t seem to get upset with jews in the same way, even though jews are basically more so. They’re maybe more sneakier, quiet about it, the way they say it, but that never caused any resentment from you that you meet these jews who basically look down their nose and don’t accept you, because you’re not really a jew?
Ford: Sure. I have emotions. I was even emotionally affected by some of the things you said tonight. So, …
Tan: I hope as a White man, not as a jew! This imaginary identity you’ve accepted, this identifying with a group that’s not your own. I hope it was because I said something that made you feel shame about your duty to your own people!
Ford: It’s hard to disentangle emotions. So I won’t try, …
Tan: What did I say that upset you?
Ford: I’m not sure, but I’ll admit I noticed my voice cracked at one point. So, I’ll just admit that. You know, I really wish it hadn’t. [laughing] I really wish that I’d be totally beyond that, but I got to be honest at one point my voice cracked! I just got to admit that.
But as far as jews not regarding me is jewish. Only only one woman said that to me seriously. She said:
“I don’t believe anyone can convert to Judaism.”
It did take me aback. And also I kind of disliked it for it. [laughing] And I still have a very clear picture of her face. I know who she is. She’s prominent in the jewish community, and I still remember her name. So I have a, …
Tan: She was the only one that was honest with you. Because that’s actually the predominant view amongst the Orthodox, and beyond, the ultra Orthodox.
Ford: Okay. But if that is the predominant view, then why did they invite me to their homes? My perception, … But wait, let me finish.
Okay, So obviously my perceptions, you know, may be somewhat removed from reality. But my experience of Orthodox judaism is that overall I have been welcomed, according to my merits. Now, I’m a pretty messed up guy in many, many ways. So whatever community I was going to join, I was going to have a lot of problems, because I’m very, I have a lot of problems. But jews bring me into their homes for meals. Jews set me up on dates with other jews. Jews have offered me jobs. Jews have steered me towards good doctors, or good psychotherapists, or a good psychiatrists, or, …
They have they have trusted me to drive their children to school, to pick that children up from school. There is nothing, of which I’m aware, that the jews have not, you know, trusted me with. So I’m not saying every jew, but overall, if you look at my life, my participation in orthodox judaism, there’s no area of orthodox judaism where you’d say:
“Well, he clearly doesn’t belong.”
For example, one of the most clear signs that you’re a part of the community is that they set you up. It’s called a “shidduch”, a “match” and that’s happened to me repeatedly. So why would orthodox jews set me up on matches with women who are born jewish, if they don’t accept me? It wouldn’t make sense. Now I’m sure some of them do not accept me. And much of that has to do with my own problems as a human being, but I’m sure also some of them do except me, because I’m a convert.
Ford: I could be mis-reading reality. Like I might be completely delusional.
Tan: And you might be. I’m surprised, frankly I’m surprised to hear that, but I’m glad I asked. And I’m not ashamed when I’m wrong about something, or wrong in assuming something so. But, there was something I noticed on Twitter, I don’t have an account on Twitter, an active account, I have a read only account on Twitter, which enables me to create lists.
And I have various lists for different topics. I follow biologists, and scientists in one list. And one of my main lists, and one of the main reasons I rejoined Twitter just to do this, was so that I had a list of these, mostly Jews journalists. And I call it the “echo chamber”. And the funny thing about that, is whenever I find a new one that I haven’t followed yet, and haven’t added to the list, is it will list out, … I know I got a live one, because that’ll show me the ones that I’m already following, that follow that one. And [laughing] I noticed when I went to your Twitter, is you’ve got the “(((echo parentheses)))” and everything.
Tan: But there’s no jews following you! None of the hundreds of jews that I’m following, all the jewishy jews, all the most toxic jews on Twitter.
Tan: You haven’t fooled any of them. There’s Nathan Cofnas us who I just followed recently, and added to my list.
But, here’s, I think there might have been one other, but I was struck by that! There’s not a whole bunch of jews that think what you’re saying is, …
I don’t want to, that’s too harsh to put it, but they don’t seem to include you in their circle of other jews.
Tan: Like I see, it’s a very tight cluster. You find one jew journalist you immediately find a zillion others. And they’re all following each other on Twitter.
Ford: Yeah. I don’t know if you’re what your experience of grade school was like, but I didn’t start school until second grade. And I quickly encountered that there was this like, “cool circle”, you know, …
Ford: Their parents were cool, they did cool things, they hung out with each other. And whenever. I tried to join that circle, sometimes they’d be forced by parents getting together, they always let me know that I was not welcome. And so that exclusion is like such a painful thread in my life, that my therapist said I should call my memoir “The Uninvited”. And so what you’re touching on there is something very real. I’ve always been excluded by the cool crowd!
[Image] “The Uninvited?” The Uncensored Memoirs of Luke C Ford 😉 click image to enlarge)
Tan: Well maybe that’s why you fell in with the jews, ultimately. Because as a race, as a tribe, that would describe the jews. Although part of it is just part of the parasitism. They are so upset about exclusion, they get so, you know, angry about exclusion they psychopathologize it to anyone who tries to do it. Because it doesn’t serve their interests. Any group of people that excludes them, recognizes them as different and keeps them out, is basically a threat to their survival, because they need a host to feed on.
I don’t get that sense from you, personally. And I never had that problem in grade school myself. I saw cool crowd sometimes I was part of them, sometimes I wasn’t. By the time I got to high school, I was doing my own thing. I had my own thoughts. I had a few close personal friends, but I wasn’t part of any cool circle, and I didn’t care.
In 2007 I was featured in a cover article of “The jewish Journal of [Greater] Los Angeles”. And the journalist who wrote it, just got so much abuse from fellow jewish journalists, who pretty much all had the attitude that this guy, Luke Ford is like “dirt under my shoe”! Like how could you put this creep on the cover of your publication!
Tan: Is that because of the exposé you had done about jews in porn?
Ford: I’m sure that didn’t help. It was just kind of part and parcel. Yeah I mean, that was unbelievably creepy to, you know, any normal Jews. And then I, mean, other exposes I did about Rabbi child molesters. Like “The jewish Journal of Los Angeles” was angry, because I keep breaking these stories of scandals in the jewish community. And then they’d be forced to go cover them. And they’d rather not do that, because that just creates division, and it loses advertising in it. And it just makes your life very uncomfortable to write negative things about your own community. But, because I kept breaking these stories on my blog, I was forcing them to do things that they didn’t want to do. And so they really hated me for it. And they made sure that I looked like an idiot in their, …
Tan: “Most hated blogger!” Yeah, I remember that phrase.
Yeah, well I attributed to the fact that you’re not really a jew.
Tan: And that’s what did those things. And that’s why you didn’t get more of a devastating withering attack on you, from the jews, I don’t know. But then again, I don’t know exactly what they did, or didn’t do to you, anyway. But I would be interested to read about it. If you ever wrote your memoirs and told the truth.
Lawrence Auster, you’re familiar with Lawrence Auster?
Ford: Yes, of course.
Tan: Did, you know, that at the end of his life he had this unpublished work, that he published in the last months, or weeks, of his life. And it basically revealed that, yeah, he knew that the jews were responsible for the open borders in the US. And by that point I had already realized he was, you know, an ethnic partisan. And I didn’t like him. But I thought at least he came clean at the end with that book.
Ford: Yeah, you’ll see, I mean, I don’t expect you to watch my streams, but pretty much every stream I rail that every single major American jewish organizations supports immigration amnesty! Which from my perspective is the equivalent of wanting to fill my bedroom with poisonous snakes! So the way that I react to the organized jewish community, these major jewish organizations, is the very same way I’d react to someone trying to fill my bedroom with poisonous snakes!
I hate these organizations and these people! At least in this respect, with an absolute passion! Because they’re trying to pour poison into the bloodstream of my country! And so, I hate them!
Tan: Yeah! Yeah, well it’s ethnic warfare. And it’s got a long history amongst the jews. I remember when I first started to become critical of the jews I was looking around for information and found out. I read, it was some jewish site where they talked about how the jews themselves had been subjected to this open borders treatment back in ancient history, when the Babylonians, or it was either the Assyrians, or the Babylonians.
Maybe both of them and had taken different approaches. And the one, I’m probably mis- remembering here, but the Assyrians had conquered the northern half of Israel at the time. And opened the borders and flooded them with non-jews. And they basically killed the jews in that part of their country. And in the other half they were taken into captivity.
And you know, I long ago realized that a lot of what the jews say about their history has to be interpreted, not just with big grains of salt but is the opposite of what they say. You know, that the Exodus story being a good example. Where, you know, according to the jews they were enslaved, and they escape the evil Pharaoh. It’s more likely based on what you see they’ve been doing within recorded history, that they were victimizing the Egyptians. And they were finally, for one reason, or another, they were expelled, or left, because they had sucked all the blood out of Egypt, worn out their welcome.
Ford: Great. So we’re coming to the two hour mark. I just want to throw it open to you. I’m sure you don’t trust me, but, on the other hand, you don’t completely dismiss everything I say. So is there anything that you’re curious about us up on who’s obviously a gentile in their genetics, obviously gentile in their mannerisms, obviously gentile in their looks, and yet is still to some degree and in the middle of orthodox Judaism. Have also been around the porn industry, which is heavily jewish. And I’ve also written a book on Hollywood. Is there anything that you’re curious about from secular jewish pornographers, to secular Hollywood movie producers, to the most fanatical the orthodox jews. My lived experience, I just want to throw it out to you to in case you anything you’re curious about?
Tan: No. No. I asked the main question about your experiences.
Tan: I think I’ve said it all. I’m talked out.
Ford: Great! Great! So I just want to read the chats rather than have you leave and then read them, because they are critical so you can feel free to ignore them. But I’d rather do it while you’re here. They’re all from Jay the jew. He says:
“The WASPs invented universalism, not jews.”
“I grew up orthodox. jews are convert according to jewish law are absolutely jews. Luke’s issues are issues with himself. He is accepted.”
And Jake says, presumably to me:
“This guy’s trying to get into your head!”
So those are all the super-chats. Any final words?
Tan: Yeah, I am trying to get into your head. I’m trying to understand your head. And, I am trying to get into it. But, you know, you invited me to come talk to you, so I’m talking to you.
Tan: I wouldn’t of talk to “Jake the jew”. I’m not interested at all in what Jake the jew has to say about anything.
Ford: So, I’m just curious, … I am lying, because I know I got one more question! When I tried to describe the world as I see it, and as I experience it, you think I’m ten percent delusional, do you think I’m fifty percent delusion, or do you think that I’m making a sincere effort to describe the truth as I see it. What’s your read?
Tan: I get the impression from you, that you’re a White guy. Just, because you are fairly straightforward and honest, in most respects. And I also see the effect though, that identifying with the jews has had on you. And that it’s not good. And I don’t like that part of it. But, yeah, that’s what I think about that.
I think you’re pretty, … you don’t have the same reaction to hearing this criticism of jews, that a jew does. “Jake the jew” is a good example, or the other jews, in my experience, that are confronted with the criticism that Kevin MacDonald has made.
They can’t control themselves! And they just have this irrational hatred of him! They haven’t read his work, but they know they don’t like him! And they really don’t, what they really don’t like, is that he appeals to White people. That White people read his stuff and go, “yeah this guy has a point.” that really really frightens them!
And I think that is what’s going on with Cofnas. I think that’s his thing.
Ford: Okay, great. You think, possibly, you might come back one day?
Tan: If there’s something substantial to talk about, yeah. I don’t generally like these long rambling conversations, but hopefully some of the people listening to me will enjoy hearing what I have to say. And I think I’ve said some new things that I haven’t said before.
So, this was good overall, I think.
Ford: I find when I talk to someone, it always helps me get clarity, or it always helps me come out with ideas that I would not of had, or at least the way I express them, if I hadn’t had the conversation.
Tan: Yep. I just want to leave you with one more thought to get inside your head. Is, be more critical of jews! Blow the whistle on them some more!
If, for some reason White people are, and this is one thing that I didn’t like about MacDonald’s work when I first, not at first, but after I had come to understand the jews, I was like:
“Can’t we make our own criticism of the jews? Why do we have to quote the jews to have some sort of sound, something that appeals to White people?”
Do you understand what I’m saying?
Tan: We seem to have this need to hear from the jews themselves, these things. That we don’t believe other White people when they say it. And in that respect, you could help, because you have basically an insider’s knowledge about what’s going on. How they do what they do. And you could blow the whistle, like you did, to a certain extent, with porn and the child molestation. I wasn’t aware of that, that you had uncovered that too. Publicize that stuff more!
And I think what you’re doing too in talking to jew critics, in the end, is good for White people as well. Even though, you’ve come at it from an adversarial point of view, you’ve joined with this alien tribe against us. You put the questions fairly enough, and you give us the time to talk about, explain how we think about things. And I think that it will come across to the White people who stumble across this, as, they’ll side with me. They’re not going to take your side.
Ford: Okay. Excellent Tan! And your blog is Age of Treason. So Age of Treason, you’ll find it online: age dash of dash treason dot com. And it goes back for thirteen years. So thank you so much! And I’m going to say good night everybody. Take care man.
Tan: All right, good night.
After a year’s break from blogging and interviews TANSTAAFL returns with this interview with John Friend at his The Realist Report site. I consider TANSTAAFL to be one of the most insightful commentators on the jewish problem, and in this interview he doesn’t disappoint with his take on what’s being going on in our movement to expose and rid ourselves of the organized evil jewish cabal that dominates our societies.
Topics include; the ongoing jew war on Whites, the meaning of “conspiracy theory”, kikeservatives, Twitter, the jewsmedia, Trump, Bannon, (((the echo meme))), Alt-Right, Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor, Hitler and National Socialist Germany, and White racial consciousness — KATANA.
On this edition of The Realist Report, we’ll be joined by Tanstaafl of Age of Treason. Tanstaafl is one of the most knowledgeable and insightful commentators in the alternative, independent media today. In this podcast, we discussed the jewish problem and Jewish parasitism, the root cause of so-called “pathological altruism” prevalent in the White race today, the 2016 president campaign, and related matters.
Tanstaafl blog post on this interview with Luke Ford.
Version 1: April 22, 2018
* Total words = 24,843
* Total images = 17
* Total A4 pages = 124
Click to download a PDF of this post (4.0 MB):
Version 15: Feb 1, 2022 — Added See Also links.
Version 14: Jun 8, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Corrected minor errors. Added “Top” links to each heading.
Version 13: Apr 22, 2018 — Added PDF of post for download.
Version 12: Apr 21, 2018 — Added link to Age of Treason’s blog post on this interview.
Version 11: Apr 15, 2018 — Added links to previous interviews with Age of Treason.
Version 10: Apr 14, 2018 — Completed adding entries to list of Contents with links.
Version 9: Apr 13, 2018 — Added more entries to list of Contents with links.
Version 8: Apr 8, 2018 — Started on adding a list of Contents with links.
Version 7: Apr 5, 2018 — Added image “The Uninvited“.
Version 6: Apr 3, 2018 — Added 39 minutes of transcript. Total completed = 140 mins. TRANSCRIPT TEXT NOW COMPLETE!
Version 5: Apr 2, 2018 — Added 30 minutes of transcript. Total completed = 101 mins.
Version 4: Apr 1, 2018 — Added 19 minutes of transcript. Added 3 images. Total completed = 71 mins.
Version 3: Mar 31, 2018 — Added 22 minutes of transcript. Added 2 images. Total completed = 52 mins.
Version 2: Mar 30, 2018 — Updated cover image. Added request for volunteers. Added 20 minutes of transcript. Added 4 images. Total completed = 30 mins.
Version 1: Mar 29, 2018 — Published first 10 minutes of transcript.