Michael Collins Piper:

In 1932, Michael Higger, Ph.D.,assembled a remarkable book entitled The Jewish Utopia, which he dedicated to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which he described as [the] “symbol of the Jewish Utopia.” Higger’s volume is a remarkable document which the late Robert H.
Williams, an American nationalist writer of the 1950s and 1960s, described as a compendium of the philosophy behind what Williams called “the Ultimate World Order”—that is, the New World Order.

What is remarkable about Higger’s book is that the copy that Robert H.Williams first discovered and then popularized among American nationalists was found at the Abraham I.Schechter Collection of Hebraica and Judaica of the Texas University Library, donated by the Kallah of Texas Rabbis. So Higger’s book was no mere “think piece” by one isolated writer. The organization of rabbis in Texas thought so highly of the work that they donated that copy to the state university’s library.

Dr.Higger’s book was a compilation of Higger’s study of what Williams described as“the sum total of the prophecies, teachings and plans and interpretations of the foremost Jewish rabbis and tribal leaders over a period of some 2,500 years,” since the time of the oral law and the beginning of the Babylonian Talmud, in which could be found what Williams described as a “double standard for Jews and non-Jews and its nationalistic, militaristic interpretation of the Torah” (the Torah, of course, being the first five books of the OldTestament—the so-called “Five Books of Moses”).

The books talked of “the righteous”vand “the non-righteous.” In the end, according to Higger’s interpretation of Jewish tradition, the“non-righteous” shall perish.” Higger wrote:

To understand the rabbinic conception of an ideal world, it will help us if we imagine a hand passing from land to land, from country to country, from the Indian Ocean to the North Pole, marking “righteous” or “wicked” on the forehead of each one of the sixteen hundred million inhabitants of our earthly globe.We should then be on the right road toward solving the major problems that burden so heavily the shoulders of suffering humanity.

For mankind should be divided into two—and only two—distinct and unmistakable groups, namely, righteous and wicked.To the righteous would belong all that which God’s wonderful world is offering; to the wicked would belong nothing.

In the future, the words of Isaiah, in the language of the rabbis, will be fulfilled:

“Behold, My servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry. Behold, My servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; Behold, My servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed.”

This is the force of the prophecy of Malachi, when he said, “Then shall ye again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not.”

And it is clear, throughout Higger’s writings (based on his analysis of the works of the great rabbis and Jewish spiritual leaders) that the “righteous” shall be the Jews and those who choose to align themselves as servants of the Jews and the“wicked” will be those who are perceived by the Jews to be standing in opposition to their interests!

Higger cites the words of theTalmud: “It is a heritage for us [the Jews], not for them [that is, everyone else—every other human being on the face of the entire planet].”

Higger goes on to point out that under this New World Order (what he calls “The Jewish Utopia”):

“All the treasures and natural resources of the world will eventually come in possession of the righteous.” This, he said, would be in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah:

In her gain and her hire shall be holiness to the Lord; it shall be not treasured nor laid out, for her gain shall be for them that dwell before the Lord, to eat their fill and for stately clothing.

But that wasn’t all.The Jews and their hirelings would have even more riches under the Jewish Utopia.Higger noted that: “Similarly, the treasures of gold, silver, precious stones, pearls and valuable vessels that have been lost in the seas and oceans in the course of centuries will be raised up and turned over to the righteous ….”Higger added:

In the present era the wicked or ordinary rich, have many comforts in life, while the righteous are poor, missing the joys of life. But in the ideal era, the Lord will open up all the treasures for the upright and the unrighteous will suffer.

God, the Creator of the world …will be happy, so to speak, only in the era to come when the world will be governed by the doings and actions of the upright.

Here is the amazing summary of it all by Higger:

In general, the peoples of the world will be divided into two main groups: the Israelitic and the non-Israelitic.The former will be righteous; they will live in accordance with the wishes of one universal God, they will be thirsty for knowledge and willing to the point of martyrdom to spread ethical truths to the world.

All the other peoples, on the other hand, will be known for their detestable practices: idolatry and similar acts of wickedness. They will be destroyed and will disappear from earth before the ushering in of the ideal era.

In short, this is effectively discussion of massive extermination of those who stand up to the Jewish Utopia—the NewWorld Order. It continues:

All of these unrighteous nations shall be called to judgment before they are punished and doomed.The severe sentence of their doom will be pronounced upon them only after they have been given a fair trial when it will become evident that their existence would hinder the advent of the ideal era.

Thus, at the coming of the Messiah, when all righteous nations will pay homage to the ideal righteous leader and offer gifts to him, the wicked and corrupt nations, by realizing the approach of their doom, will bring similar presents to the Messiah.

Their gifts and pretended acknowledgment of the new era will be blunted rejected, for the really wicked nations, like the really wicked individuals must disappear from the earth before an ideal human society of righteous nations can be established.

And when one considers the fact that the Jewish concept of the Messiah is often reckoned to be that the Jewish people themselves are “the Messiah,” what Higger has described takes on even more consequence.

What of Armageddon? This is stuff of which legends are made.

Armageddon, in Jewish tradition, is the final battle in which the Jews will once and for all establish their absolute rule over the earth. According to Higger’s analysis of the Jewish teachings in this regard:

Hence, Israel and the other righteous nations shall combat the combined forces of the wicked, unrighteous nations under the leadership of Gog and Magog.

Assembled for an attack on the righteous nations in Palestine near Jerusalem, the unrighteous will suffer a crushing defeat and Zion will thenceforth remain the center of the kingdom of God.
The defeat of the unrighteous will mark the annihilation of the power of the wicked who oppose the Kingdom of God, an establishment of the new ideal era.

Note the use of the term“ new ideal era.”

It is no coincidence that the terminology is reflective and reminiscent of the term “NewWorld Order” for that is precisely what the Jewish Utopia— this “new ideal era”—happens to be.This struggle will not just be a struggle of Israel against her “national enemies” but the climax of the struggle between the “righteous” and “unrighteous.” So say the Jewish sages.

Who are the “wicked”? Higger explained that “wickedness” is “an obstruction to the Kingdom of God.” He said that “no exact definition” can be formulated, but that there were rabbinic passages dealing with the subject giving a general idea of the meaning of “wicked” and “wickedness” so far as a Jewish Utopia was concerned. And note that he does specify that these terms are defined in terms of a Jewish Utopia.Higger asserted:
First, no line will be drawn between bad Jews and bad non-Jews.

There will be no room for the unrighteous whether Jewish or non-Jewish in the Kingdom of God. All of them will have disappeared before the advent of the ideal era on this earth. Unrighteous Israelites will be punished equally with the wicked of other nations. All the righteous, on the other hand, whether Hebrew or Gentile, will share equally in the happiness and abundance of the ideal era.

In contrast to what the average American Christian would think about all of this, or perceive in the context of his Christian faith, which looks forward to a universal kingdom of God in Heaven, the paradise referred to throughout The Jewish Utopia describing the “new ideal era”—the New World Order—is “a universal paradise of mankind . . . established in this world,” with no reference to the future world whatever.

Who will rule this NewWorld Order? According to Higger’s assessment of the Jewish tradition: “He will be a descendant of the House of David.”

Higger advises us that Talmudic tradition says that “a descendant of the House of David will appear as the head of the ‘ideal era’ only after the whole world will have suffered, for a continuous period of nine months, from a wicked, corrupt government like the historically traditionally wicked Edom.”

(Note: Today there is a formally organized international Jewish organization, Davidic Dynasty, openly working to track down and reunite all of the descendants of the House of David.This is no “conspiracy theory.” It is fact.

Knowing what the Talmud teaches about who shall rule the globe, we can perhaps understand the motivation of this group.) And, Higger proclaimed, the whole world will “gradually come to the realization that Godliness is identical with righteousness,” and that God “cleaves to Israel and that Israel is the ideal righteous nation.”

According to these rabbinic teachings which are the foundation for the age-old Jewish dream of the establishment of the NewWorld Order, the peoples of the earth will then proclaim to the Jewish rulers: “We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”

So it is that, as the rabbis proclaim: “The people of Israel will conquer spiritually the peoples of the earth, so that Israel will be made high above all nations in praise, in name and in glory.”

Note the concept of “conquer”—as in battle.Note the concept of Israel raised above all others—as in supremacy and superiority. Violence and racism toward the non-Jews: as simple as that.
It is no coincidence that many other Jewish writers and philosophers of consequence have said that there will eventually be a global religion and, in fact,we have seen efforts (by Jewish elements) to infiltrate and alter all of the religions of the world, to move them closer to one another, and this, Higger related, has been part of the prophecy: “The nations would first unite for the purpose of calling upon the name of the Lord to serve him.”

In other words, there would be a world government and one global religion, and as Higger and others have noted, that international religion would be Judaism.That would be the “spiritual conquest” of the world.

What about gold? What about wealth? According to Higger, although gold played a part in the conquest by the righteous, to whom it was given by God, in the new ideal era “gold will be of secondary importance in the new social and economic order. But the City of Jerusalem will possess most of the gold and precious stones of the world . . .The depreciation of the importance of gold and its like does not necessarily imply the introduction of a system of common ownership of property.”

In other words, the Jews will have control of it all and since the Jews— via the City of Jerusalem—will be in control of the gold, it really will not be of any consequence in the New World Order in which the Jews rule.

Higger added: The secondary importance given to gold in the new social order will be for two main reasons:

1)The equal distribution of private property and other necessities of life will automatically depreciate the importance of gold and other luxuries;

2) The people will be trained and educated to differentiate between real, spiritual values and material values.

Indeed, it will be the Jewish power, seated in Jerusalem, headed by a descendant of the House of David—referred to as “the Holy One”—who will divide up the property of the world.

Who will get this property? The answer, as defined by rabbinic authority:“To the righteous will belong all the wealth, treasures and industrial gains and other resources of the world.To the unrighteous will belong nothing.”

The unrighteous nations“ will not share in the ideal era.” Their rule will be destroyed and disappear before the ushering in of the NewWorld Order. The “wickedness” of these nations will consist mainly in accumulating money belonging to“the people” and of oppressing and robbing “the poor.”

Although Higger does not state this emphatically, those familiar with Talmudic tradition, logic and reasoning, the “people” and the “poor” are the Jews: TheTalmud teaches that only Jews are humanity and all others are animals, thus, of course, only Jews can be “people.” The “poor” are—of course—the Jews who have forever painted themselves as the victims and the oppressed—as in“the poor,persecuted Jews.”

Another group of the “wicked” nations will suffer the same fate as the first: “Their unrighteousness will be characterized by their corrupt govern-ments and by their oppressions of Israel.”

In other words, any government that stands against the Jews will thus be considered to be wicked and unrighteous if it dares to challenge the Jewish global agenda: the New World Order.
In the end, ultimately, according to Higger, the motto of this overarching Jewish demand for a Utopia of their vision and dream will be this—and note it carefully: “Righteous Unite! Better Destruction of theWorld Than a Wicked World.” That’s right: the Jewish philosophy is that the world is better off destroyed unless, of course, the“righteous”—that is, the Jews and those who worship them—prevail over the“wicked,” that is, the non-Jews who dare to challenge Jewish power.

This is frightening indeed, particularly since the Jewish Power Elite in the United States are a preeminent power over the American system: its treasury, its military, its nuclear arsenal.Then factor in the ugly reality that even “tiny Israel” is said to be one of the globe’s five great nuclear powers.

And in relation to Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal, bear in mind the critical fact that Israel’s own geopolitical strategy, the foundation of its national defense structure, has been—from the outset—based on its pursuit, ultimately successful, of a nuclear arsenal. (…)

And one of Israel’s leading geopolitical and military “thinkers,” Dr.Martin van Crevald of Hebrew University in Jerusalem has echoed these ugly and murderous sentiments. He wrote:

We [Israelis] possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force. Our armed forces are not the 30th strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capacity to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.

So the Goyim—the “wicked”—have been warned.

from the book The New Babylon Those Who Reign Supreme, a Panoramic Overview of the Historical, Religious and Economic Origins of the New World Order by Michael Collins Piper

Despite their frequent superficial morphological distinctions, there is a singular uniformity and standardization in the behaviour and activities of the Jewish communities of all countries, and the fact that in the history of the last four thousand years they have provoked remarkably similar reactions among the different peoples with whom they have come into contact is a sufficient demonstration of the regularity of their habits of mind and character, and of the latter’s social expression.

Possessed by a people less energetic, less ambitious, less determined, it is possible that their peculiar psychological qualities might have been overlooked, and that their influence upon the customs, institutions and policies of the nations among whom they settled might have been negligible. But correlated, as they are, with a will to ascendancy and power, probably unequalled by any other ethnic type, their peculiar psychological qualities naturally become the object of attention and study; and it is for this reason that in ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, medieval Europe, and modern Europe and America there has always been a “Jewish question”, and that it is considered legitimate to discuss the influence of the Jews.

*

Now, one of the strangest phenomena of modern times is the fact that in most discussions about the Jew in his relation to Western culture and institutions this consideration of his essentially Oriental character and type should almost without exception have been sedulously overlooked. It is as if the belief in the independence of mind and body, of soul and physique, had been so profoundly inculcated upon modern man as to make it impossible for him to see the absurdity of regarding character and mental and emotional constitution as unrelated to, or unconditioned by, their physical correlatives. For if the Jew is essentially an Asiatic, then his mental and characterological features must have an Asiatic colour and quality. If he is really an Oriental, he cannot think and feel as a Westerner.

*

Not once did it occur either to a member of the Lower House or to a peer taking part in that controversy that, if Englishmen were reputed to have behaved in a certain fairly standardized manner in all the circumstances of home and public life, the peculiar type recognized as English must be in some way correlated with their characteristic behaviour and psychology — in fact, with any expression of their personality in legislation, administration, etc. And that, consequently, if English legislation and administration were to remain true to type, it was essential that no un-English type should mingle his influence with that of Englishmen.

Had such a thought occurred but once to any of the debaters, they must have seen that English customs and institutions could hardly retain their identity unless the type which had hitherto been responsible for them remained exclusively in control.

To introduce into the administration and public life of the country a psychology correlated with another type must necessarily modify, if not imperil, those very aspects of it which theretofore had depended for their peculiar form and character on the fact that they were the social expression of Englishmen.

It was not a question of whether it was “cricket” or “kindly” or “gentlemanly” to exclude the Jews with other aliens from Parliament. It was a question of whether England did or did not wish to continue her national life as an expression of her national type.

*
Anyone wishing to convince himself of the levity and fantastic levels maintained by the debates should read, not only Macaulay’s Statement of the Civil Disabilities and Privations Affecting the Jews In England, [2] but also the reports of the relevant debates in both Houses. [3] He will then be able to appreciate more fully than from anything that can be said here the lamentable superficiality of most of what was thought and said on both sides. And nothing that has been thought and said since has added one iota of wisdom to the frivolities of our nineteenth-century ancestors.

Maybe the Asiatic outlook, the Asiatic way of solving English problems, was thought definitely desirable by the advocate of Jewish emancipation. They may have imagined that English public business and administration could only be improved by the addition of Asiatic elements both to the electorate, the legislature, the Civil Service and the Bench. But if so, why did not they frankly come out with this plea?

Why did they not declare their conviction that we needed this new element in our national life in order to carry on more successfully?

Why, like medieval prelates and monks, were they content to argue as if the one difference between Englishman and Jew was religion, and that, if the Jew undertook not to undermine Christianity, the last remaining objection to his emancipation would be removed?

Did they perhaps think that he had so deeply influenced the life of the nation already, since his readmission under Cromwell, that to raise barriers to his now confirming by legislation the radical modifications he had brought about amounted to straining at a gnat after swallowing a camel?
Much might be said in support of this point of view had it ever been advanced. It might have been argued, for instance — though no one did argue in this way [4] –that since the first half of last century, not only England, but her House of Commons and her House of Peers, was full of men who were not only practising Jewish methods in business, finance, general trading and manufacture, but were also convinced of the soundness of these methods, what difference could it make if the Jews themselves were represented on our public and administrative bodies?

*

It might have been argued that since, very often, legislation merely regulates methods and practices already established by custom, how could the admission of Jews into the electorate and Parliament affect our lives, except perhaps by merely hastening a process which was in any case inevitable — namely, the legalization of Jewish customs and usages already well established in the country?

For, truth to tell, the process of change ever since the seventeenth century, whether wholly influenced or merely speeded up by the readmission of the Jews, had been characterized chiefly by the Judaization of the productive and business life of the country. True, certain fatal steps towards capitalism — the institution peculiar to the Jewish genius, as Werner Sombart has so ably shown [5] — had been taken before even the Jews were readmitted. But it is legitimate to ask whether such fatal steps might not perhaps have been retraced, or whether they would have been allowed to culminate so logically and rapidly in the modern capitalistic state, had the Jews never settled in this country.

*

As an Oriental, as a descendant of a race inured in the desert to an existence which, though precarious, was certainly neither industrious nor laborious, [6] and, ever since his abandonment of the nomad’s life, attracted to and becoming more and more occupied in trade and general trafficking, the Jew, not only in his own community, but also as an influence outside his community, was bound to promote and cultivate precisely that kind of culture — which, for the lack of a better name, we may call ‘black-coated’ — in which clean, easy and quick paths to wealth, or at least to self-support, are preferred to strenuous, slow and clothes-soiling paths, in which a love of the work as such, apart from the profit it brings, may be a motive for choosing and clinging to it. [7] Owing to his age-long connexion with civilization, urban life and trade, the Jew was bound to promote and develop the culture which is built upon a vast expansion of urban rather than of rural habits and occupations. For men invariably tend to choose and foster the conditions in which their peculiar mastery is best displayed. A swordsman does not choose pistols for a duel.

Finally, by his congenital proclivity to traffic with the products of other men’s labour rather than to be a producer himself, the Jew was bound to favour all those activities which we now know as speculating, forward buying, forestalling, regrating and the promotion of every variety of agency and middleman function until, in the whole of the labour and products of the nation he influenced, there was nothing that remained immune from the ‘rake-off’ of the purchaser with the capital to anticipate a demand.

*

One of the outstanding features in the growth of modern capitalism has been the gradual transformation of the notion of property as involving privilege plus duty and responsibility into a notion of property as free and devoid of any responsibility whatsoever. In fact, it is impossible to conceive of modern capitalism as not forestalled by this significant transmutation of values.

Property, as involving privilege plus obligation and responsibility, presupposed certain ties and stakes in the land, certain relations to dependents, assistants and equals, and certain obligations to the community as a whole for its incessant contribution to all forms of property, which were possible only to a legal denizen with traditions and contacts in his locality and usually his soil. This being so, however, no alien, no “freelance” sojourner, wishing to settle in this country and to accumulate property could do so unless the very notion of property became suitably modified.

Before thus modifying it, no one, however, once paused to consider whether property as such could possibly continue to be defended or justified. Apart from the Jew’s ancestral inability to understand the gregarious view of property, the desire naturally was to divorce it from obligation and responsibility, particularly that kind of obligation which was implicit in the ancient usages of the country, and which prescribed duties that none but a man of property with a certain traditional status could discharge. What did it matter if, by divorcing it from such obligations, property must cease from having any meaning?

Thus, all notion of responsibility and duty which, from the beginning of settled life in England, had been inseparable from ownership, was allowed to drop out of the institution of property, as if for all the world such a modification made no difference to its odour, its philosophic justification and its function in the theory of the English realm.

It was a change eminently favourable to the Jew as a congenital particularist and a freelance aspirant for property and power in a foreign land. And although in the history of the divorce of property from obligation, as a development of capitalism, certain fatal steps were undoubtedly taken before the resettlement of the Jews in England, it would be daring wholly to exclude Jewish influence from the drastic reforms which secured the establishment of free and irresponsible ownership (really a contradiction in terms) after the Grand Rebellion, and which ultimately culminated in the institution which we know as modern capitalism.

*

Thus, if in such a society the Jew was to persist in his ambition to acquire power that had no insuperable limitations, it meant that, willy-nilly, he must give the weight of his support in influence and money to all those tendencies in the land which were aiming at destroying these peculiar and unpurchasable forms of power, and at dismantling the political framework into which they fitted.
Whether the political incompetence of the occupants of these seats of power, or their stupidity or their gross neglect of their duties played into the hands of those elements in the nation which were anxious to displace them is a question which need not be gone into here. Suffice it to say that, from the most humble squire to the most exalted member of the nobility, there were throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a sufficiently high proportion of unworthy men of privilege and power in the country abundantly to equip the arsenal of any section of the nation which happened to be determined upon their destruction.

But what is important is the fact that, no matter how virtuous or efficient they might have been, and no matter how exemplary might have seemed their administration and their leadership in the eyes of the masses, the Jew could not logically have acted otherwise than he did; for he was by the very nature of his position committed to siding with their political critics and opponents.

Fundamentally, there is no reason –no fact in the past history of the Jews — which would justify us in assuming that, had the privileged rulers of this country satisfied all the demands of the nation, the Jews, as inveterate strangers, knowing only their own ethnic and spiritual solidarity, would have allowed the efficient performance of their functions by the privileged classes to weigh against the more pressing desideratum of opening up all avenues to power for themselves.

Conclusion

WE HAVE SEEN that there are no reasons, either anthropological or historical, for considering the Jews as other than a definite, highly specialized type of humanity.

From their bedouin ancestors they have inherited certain characteristics, of which some have been retained to a notable extent unaltered to this day. Their retention of these ancestral traits has been favoured partly by the circumstances of their history as a people and partly by the original momentum possessed by the traits themselves.

Among the more salient of these traits we may name:

(a) The non-territorial sense of nationality and ethnic unity, which makes the Jews prone to disperse by choice and prone to suffer compulsory dispersion kindly. This trait, which has a nomad origin, also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them ever to feel rooted in an ancestral soil as the territorial national feels.

(b) The inability to grasp or accept an institution of property, in which mutual obligation is implicit, in which privilege is proportionate to responsibility, and in which the contribution of the community, either present or past, has made it impossible to isolate property as a possession to be enjoyed individually or divorced from all ties or limitations. The nomad may know of a family contribution, but not of a communal contribution, to his property, and when he packs up his tent and his household goods, and drives his flock before him to a new pasture or a fresh oasis, he can recognize obligations to no man.

(c) A distaste for those forms of gaining a livelihood, or of sustaining themselves and families, which involve manual or generally physical labour. The bedouin is at bottom the antithesis of the horny-handed son of the soil, and his tastes differ accordingly.

(d) A capacity for hardness both to themselves and others. An individualistic existence like that of the nomad necessarily involves periods of privation, hardship and lonely struggle often against equally individualistic rivals.

(e) A latent tendency to a democratic and liberal outlook, which becomes active and militant when Jews are faced with the problem of establishing themselves among a conservative people. This democratic and liberal tendency has two possible roots –the habit of individual freedom and of owing obedience to no man in a nomad state; and the recognition by the Jews, when they find themselves faced by a conservative people or a people organized on aristocratic lines, of the usefulness of siding with and supporting all those elements in the land which are undermining the conservative and aristocratic traditions.

(f) A seniority over all those types of mankind which have had a relatively much shorter connexion with civilized and urban life. This has endowed the Jews with a superior shrewdness regarding all the circumstances and problems that are likely to arise in closely herded urban communities. (The psychological insight and the intelligence of the Jews may be merely other aspects of this seniority.) This trait, as we have seen, springs from the Jew’s millennial association not only with civilization but also a civilization of trading and urban centres.

Further traits which manifest themselves as the result of the above innate tendencies, when Jews find themselves among a people more recently civilized than themselves or organized on an aristocratic, feudal and mutualistic institution of property, are:

(1) A general intolerance of all the restrictions imposed on a free use of property, on a free use of business shrewdness. For instance, an intolerance of any laws or regulations which may exist against regrating, forward buying, cornering markets, concentrating large fortunes in single hands, etc., all of which practices our Tudor and Stuart sovereigns did their utmost to suppress.

(2) A general intolerance towards all purely hereditary titles, honours or privileges which have their root in custom, ancient usage, above all in the soil, and which cannot be bought. Hence Jewish radicalism.

(3) A tendency to convert a society based on a mutualistic conception of property, and on a system of graded service with protection of the subordinate in return for his obedience, into a society in which the population is atomized, in which each man’s interests and hand are against his neighbour’s, and which is characterized by a bellum omnium contra omnes — in fact, modern capitalism.

(4) A general feeling of intolerance towards the territorial national, which, as the result of the phenomenon known as over-compensation, forces their natural will to ascendancy to inordinate levels when they are among territorial nationals.

(5) A late and ultimate tendency to meet the general break-up of capitalism and the society built upon it — a society which necessarily proves incapable of enduring owing to the faulty foundations on which it rests — by siding with those elements which desire to hasten and consummate its break-up. The tendency of the Jew in decadent Europe may be due to his recognition of the fact that the system he has created, capitalism, is inevitably doomed, and to his desire to secure himself a modicum of control, if not of leadership, in the new system which is socialism or communism. For it must be remembered that the Jew is congenitally incapable of visualizing or framing a system of gregarious life based on the old ideas of limited property with responsibility and mutuality, and, therefore, when capitalism fails, he can see no other alternative than socialism or communism.

Now, every one of these characteristics, far from having been modified or eradicated, has been rather confirmed and intensified by the events in the Jews’ long history, and as throughout this history the Jews have been subjected to a constant process of rigorous selection by which only those who were most true to type have been able to survive, they now represent a highly specialized group of human beings, with all the limitations and all the highly developed gifts imparted to them by their unique destiny.

We have seen that it is not historically correct to regard any of the characteristics by which they are generally recognized as created in them by circumstances comparatively so recent as the treatment they received at the hands of the medieval European peoples, among whom they sojourned after the Roman Dispersion.

We have seen, moreover, that this applies even to their indomitable desire for ascendancy, which is making them strive everywhere for the strategic positions from which modern civilized states may be directed or controlled, and to their notorious predilection in favour of trade, finance and all those occupations which, while being what is known as ‘clean’, secure those who pursue them a share in the productive labour of others.

Having, moreover, recognized these facts and established them on what appears to be irrefutable data, the question is, what should be the attitude of the territorial nationals in any modern state to the Jews sojourning among them?

From the purely anthropological standpoint, it may be concluded right away that anything in the nature of mixed marriages with the Jews, particularly on the part of English people, cannot fail to introduce into pure English stocks many ethnic elements which are not merely foreign to the English as a people, but the absence of which from English strains constitutes one of the principal claims to the specific character of the English as a particular people in northwestern Europe.
Mixture with the Jews through marriage must, therefore, seriously modify the English strain. And all those who any longer wish those specific elements in civilization which are commonly regarded as English, and which are but the external expression of the English type, to be retained as an essential part of the English nation will, therefore, naturally avoid mixed marriages with the Jew.

As a colonizing people which has come into contact with all sorts and varieties of races and types, and kept singularly free from intermarriage with them, this, to the English, should not be a difficult form of abstention, and apart from the English peerage there is little evidence that mixed English and Jewish marriages are much in favour.

With regard to the attitude of the English to the Jews in social and political life, however, the position is not so simple.

There can be no doubt that, from the standpoint of a strictly conservative attitude, the Jew should be precluded from too much control over our institutions and customs because, as they are not an external expression of his type, his intervention as a power over them cannot fail to modify them in an un-English way.

Prudence would, therefore, seem to dictate a policy of exclusion both of the Jew and his influence from all those departments of English life in which his influence may so alter the character of the nation as to make it lose all its specific qualities.

Thus it would seem hardly needful to state, if we desire to preserve that character and those qualities, that the Jew should be excluded from all those positions in which the chance or opportunity occurs of fundamentally modifying the character and customs of the nation. For, whether intentionally or not, it would seem as if the Jew could not help modifying these national features in a non-Occidental direction.

On the other hand, there are grave logical objections to these apparently obvious policies:

(a) For instance, our data above have shown that ever since 1655 English life has undoubtedly become more and more Judaized — that is to say, that the people of this country and the life they lead have tended to approach more and more to Jewish standards or to standards under which the Jewish character flourishes.

Would there be any sense in now excluding the ethnic Jew, when his Gentile counterpart, his Gentile pupil and slavish imitator is everywhere enthroned by his side, and in greater numbers than the Jews themselves? Is there any sense in excluding the creator of a culture if you retain his values? Modern English life is bristling with evidence of the victory of the Judaized Englishman and of Jewish values. What sense, then, would there be in so empty a gesture as excluding the ethnic Jew and retaining his Gentile understudy? What purpose would be served in excluding the Jew and in continuing to worship at the shrine of his idols?

No exclusion of the Jews from the administrative or cultural life of England, therefore, could be more than a piece of shallow, hysterical patriotism if it did not contemplate and include the far more fundamental but infinitely more difficult task of freeing the country of its wrong values. And all bodies of Englishmen who seriously wish to recover English civilization at this stage cannot be regarded as any more than emotional and hysterical flag-wavers if they do not see the compelling need of that infinitely difficult task — the task of accompanying any gesture of organized reform by a frontal attack upon the Judaized elements in their kith and kin and their own Judaized values.

(b) In addition to this necessary warning — the burden of which has been to some extent, though not wholly, overlooked in Germany — there is a further difficulty that requires stating, and it is a great difficulty which is peculiar to England as the head of a great empire.

The difficulty arises from the complicated problem of administering even by proxy a vast area such as the British Empire, in which scores of different races have to be treated as legitimate British subjects. And it is very questionable whether, at this stage, we can revert to a policy which even the Romans considered injudicious, of withholding full civic rights from any ethnic unit within the length and breadth of the Empire.

To differentiate our policy in this matter according to what kind of people we are dealing with, and to make one adverse exception in the case of the Jews, would hardly be practicable, more particularly as we know from history that the Jews received equal rights in the colonies long before they did in England. The policy of excluding the Jews from administrative influence and power, therefore, could only prove practicable if it were consistently pursued with regard to all other races and types. But whereas this might have been possible two centuries ago, it is hardly possible now.

The only alternative to the radical exclusion of an ethnic type in an empire like ours, therefore, is a demonetization of all the current values which can definitely be classed as disruptive, decadent and destructive of what is regarded as the essential culture of England. For, just as the Jews have, by the support of values favourable to their existence ever since the seventeenth century (though really much earlier, owing to influences coming from the Continent throughout the centuries following the banishment), helped to modify England and English life and made them both much more adapted to their needs and tastes, at the cost of transforming England, so it is possible by a wholesale demonetization of these values to make English life and England, and possibly even the Empire, adopt a culture and an outlook as different as chalk from cheese from those which we now see about us.

But such a transformation and wholesale demonetization of established values is a stupendous undertaking, and although none other offers any hope, it may be questioned whether at this stage in our history we still possess the energy, the fire and the will which alone could be adequate to carry through such a fundamental and far-reaching change.

If we do not, and if we ourselves cannot move towards a sounder, healthier and saner condition which will restore our ancient institutions and ancient stamina, health and self-esteem, there can be no practical solution of the problem at all. It is essential to set out with a transmutation of existing unsound and corrupt values, especially those which have bedouinized not only our society but also our pure type. And if we wish to be practical, it is to this task that we of this generation will address ourselves with all the energy and resolution at our command.

Likewise, the Jew, in order to prey on other peoples, must disrupt their societies, and he accomplishes this by the injection of his own special poison into their bloodstream.
Order is the Jew’s mortal foe. One cannot understand the role of the Jew in modern European history unless one first understands this principle.
The Eternal Bolshevik

It explains why the Jew is the eternal Bolshevik: why he is a republican in a monarchist society, a capitalist in a corporate society, a communist in a capitalist society, a liberal “dissident” in a communist society– and, always and everywhere, a cosmopolitan and a race mixer in a homogeneous society.

And, in particular, it explains the burning hatred the Jews felt for European institutions during the Middle Ages. It explains why the modern Jewish spokesman, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews, frankly admits that the universal attitude of the Jews toward medieval European society was, “Crush the infamous thing!”

William L. Pierce on Jews from Who We Are

… The ensuing slaughter of 75,000 Persian noblemen described in the Book of Esther is probably a figment of the Jewish imagination, but it is nevertheless still celebrated with glee and gloating, more than 2,400 years after the event, by Jews around the world in their annual Purim festival.

Treacherous Friendship

Unfortunately, later massacres instigated or perpetrated by the Jews against their non-Jewish hosts in response to anti-Semitism were all too real. The great English historian Edward Gibbon describes some of these which took place in the first and second centuries A.D.:

From the reign of Nero (54-68) to that of Antoninus Pius (138-161) the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives, and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government but of human kind.

… In Cyrene they massacred 220, 000 Greeks; in Cyprus 240,000, in Egypt a very great multitude. Many of these unhappy victims were sawn asunder, according to a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example. The victorious Jews devoured the flesh, licked up the blood, and twisted the entrails like a girdle round their bodies. (History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter XVI) Laundered History Actually, very little of humanity is shocked at the recital of these Jewish atrocities today, for the simple reason that the carefully laundered “approved” textbooks used in the schools omit any mention of them. Instead, humanity is treated to one television “documentary” after another, from “Holocaust” to “Masada,” in which the blameless, longsuffering Jews are “persecuted” by their enemies.

When one looks at all of Jewish history from the time of the Egyptian sojourn to the present, the outstanding feature which emerges is its endless series of cycles, each consisting of a period of increasingly arrogant and blatant depredations by the Jews against their hosts, followed by a period of reaction, in which either the exasperated Gentiles slaughter, drive out, and otherwise “persecute” the Jewish offenders; or the Jews manage to get the drop on their hosts instead and arrange a slaughter of Gentiles; or both.

Dual Existence

Indeed, this feature of Jewish history is not only outstanding, it is essential: without it the Jews would have ceased to exist by Roman times, at the latest. For the Jews are a unique people, the only race which has deliberately chosen a dual mode of national existence, dispersed among the Gentile nations from which they suck their sustenance and at the same time fiercely loyal to their center in Zion, even during the long periods of their history when Zion was only an idea insteadof a sovereign political entity. (…)

Barrier of Hatred

And the diaspora would survive little more than a generation, were it not for the Jewish consciousness, the concept of Zion. It is this alone which keeps the dispersed Jews from becoming assimilated by their Gentile hosts, for the Jewish consciousness inevitably raises a barrier of mutual hatred between Jews and Gentiles.

How can a Jew of the diaspora, who is taught from the cradle that he belongs to a “chosen race,” do other than despise the goyim around him, who are not even considered human beingsby his religious teachers? How can he do other than hate them for holding back him and his fellow Jews from the world dominion which he believes belongs rightfully to the Jewish nation? And how can Gentiles fail to sense this contempt and hatred and respond in kind?

Action and Reaction

… Any tendency to empathize or identify with their hosts is kept in check by a nonstop recitation of all the past wrongs the Gentile world has done them. Even before anti-Semitism exists in reality, it exists in the Jewish imagination: the Gentiles hate them, they believe, and so they must stick together for self-protection.

Sure enough, before the Jews’ solidarity has a chance to erode appreciably, the Gentiles are hating them. The Gentiles react to the Jews mildly at first and then with more and more resentment and energy as the Jewish depredations continue. It is this action-reaction combination, the hatred and counter-hatred, which keeps the Jews from being absorbed into the host nation.

Exaggerated Losses

Finally there is an explosion, and the most nimble Jews flee to begin the cycle over again in another Gentile land, while the slow ones remain to suffer the pent-up fury of their outraged hosts. The memory of this explosion is assiduously cultivated by the surviving Jews and becomes one more grudge they bear against the Gentile world. They still remember and celebrate the explosions of the Egyptians, the Persians, the Romans, and two dozen other Gentile peoples over the last 35 centuries or so, exaggerating their losses and embellishing the details every time in order to make the memories more poignant, while the Gentiles in each case forget within a generation or two.

These periodic outbursts against the Jews have actually served them doubly well: not only have they been invaluable in maintaining the Jewish consciousness and preventing assimilation, but they have also proved marvelously eugenic by regularly weeding out from the Jewish stock the least fit individuals. Jewish leaders, it should be noted, are thoroughly aware of the details of this dynamic. They fully recognize the necessity of maintaining the barrier of hatred between their own people and the rest of the world, just as they understand the value of an occasional explosion to freshen the hatred when assimilation becomes troublesome. (…)

Tribal Connections

Every Roman army from the time of Julius Caesar was followed by a contingent of Jewish slave dealers, ready to purchase prisoners of war for gold on the spot after each successful battle or siege. No sooner were Gaul or Britain or the German lands in the west pacified by Rome’s legions than Jews appeared in the conquered region to set up shop and get an early edge on any potential competitors for control of the local commerce.

The great advantage that a Jew had in this regard was that he was never merely an individual entrepreneur: he was an agent of a tribe of entrepreneurs. A Roman might depend on family connections or political alliances to further his commercial enterprises, but he was nearly always outclassed in this regard by a Jewish competitor, whose connections extended literally to every other Jew in the Empire, and beyond.

Wholesale Expulsions

Everyone has heard of the wholesale expulsions of Jews which occurred in virtually every country of Europe during the Middle Ages: from England in 1290, from Germany in 1298, from France in 1306, from Lithuania in 1395, from Austria in 1421, from Spain in 1492, from Portugal in 1497, and so on. What many do not realize, however, is that the conflict between Jew and Gentile was not confined to these major upheavals on a national scale. Hardly a year passed in which the Jews were not massacred or expelled from some town or province by an exasperated citizenry. The national expulsions merely climaxed in each case a rising popular discontent punctuated by numerous local disturbances.

Much has been made of the religious bigotry of the medieval Church in explaining the unpopularity of the Jews. Indeed, religion often did flavor Gentile reactions against the Jews…
Sometimes clerics played a role in inciting such actions against the Jews, but far more often the people acted spontaneously, and religion was generally only a cover for other motives, which stemmed much more from the economic activity of the Jews than from their contempt for Christianity.

Bred to Business

The Jews were more successful at commerce than the Gentiles were, partly because the former collaborated with one another in virtually every transaction, while the latter usually did not. Thus, a Jewish wholesaler always had a lower price for a Jewish retailer than for a Gentile retailer, while a Gentile wholesaler merely tried to get the best price he could from all comers, Jew or Gentile.
In addition to the benefits of racial solidarity, the Jews were probably better businessmen, on the average, than their Gentile competitors. The Jews had been bred to a mercantile life for a hundred generations. The result was that all the business — and all the money– of any nation with a Jewish minority tended to gravitate into the hands of the Jews. The more capital they accumulated, the greater was their advantage, and the easier it was to accumulate still more. (…)

Advice and Bribes

The Jews were often able to ameliorate their situations greatly during the Middle Ages by establishing special relationships with Gentile rulers. They served as financial advisers and tax collectors for the princes of the realm and of the Church, always ready with rich bribes to secure the protection of their patrons when the hard-pressed common folk began agitating against them. They made themselves so useful to some rulers, in fact, that they were favored above Christian subjects in the laws and decrees of those rulers.

The Frankish emperor Charlemagne was one who was notorious for the favors and privileges he bestowed on the Jews, and his successor followed his example. (…)

Despite the enormous financial power of the Jews and the protection their bribes bought them, they were continually overreaching themselves: whenever they were given a little rope, they eventually managed to hang themselves. No matter how much favor kings, emperors, or princes of the Church bestowed on them, the unrest their usury created among the peasants and the Gentile tradesmen forced the rulers to slap them down again and again.

The hatred between Jews and Gentiles was so intense by the 12th century that virtually every European country was obliged to separate the Jews from the rest of the populace. For their own protection the Jews retreated into walled ghettos, where they were safe from the fury of the Gentiles, except in cases of the most extreme unrest. And for the protection of the Gentiles, Jews were obliged to wear distinctiveclothing.

After the Church’s Lateran Council of 1215, an edict forbade any Jew to venture out of the ghetto without a yellow ring (“Jew badge”) sewn on his outer garment, so that every Gentile he met could beware him.

But these measures proved insufficient, for they failed to deal with the fundamental problem: so long as the Jews remained Jews, there could be no peace between them and any other people.

Edward the Great

In England, for example, throughout the 13th century there were outbreaks of civil disorder, as the debt-laden citizens sporadically lashed out at their Jewish oppressors.

Another prominent Jewish historian, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews (Knopf, 1965), tells what happened next:

At last, with the accession of Edward I, came the end. Edward was one of the most popular figures in English history. Tall, fair, amiable, an able soldier, a good administrator, he was the idol of his people. But he was filled with prejudices, and hated foreigners and foreign ways. His Statute of Judaism, in 1275, might have been modeled on the restrictive legislation of his contemporary, St. Louis of France. He forbade all usury and closed the most important means of livelihood that remained to the Jews. Farming, commerce, and handicrafts were specifically allowed, but it was exceedingly difficult to pursue those occupations.

England’s Golden Age

Difficult indeed, compared to effortlessly raking in capital gains! Did Edward really expect the Jews in England to abandon their gilded countinghouses and grub about in the soil for cabbages and turnips, or engage in some other backbreaking livelihood like mere goyim? God’s Chosen People should work for a living?

Edward should have known better. Fifteen years later, having finally reached the conclusion that the Jews were incorrigible, he condemned them as parasites and mischief-makers and ordered them all out of the country. They were not allowed back in until Cromwell’s Puritans gained the upper hand 400 years later. Meanwhile, England enjoyed an unprecedented Golden Age of progress and prosperity without a Jew in the land.

Unfortunately, the other monarchs of Europe, who one after another found themselves compelled to follow Edward’s example, were not able to provide the same long-term benefits to their countries; in nearly every case the Jews managed to bribe their way back in within a few years.
**

The common mosquito is a parasite which sucks its sustenance from the bloodstream of its host — and yet, it can do so only after it has injected some of its own saliva into the host’s blood. The reason is that the nutriment the mosquito seeks, the blood cells of the host, will not flow easily into the mosquito’s proboscis. In order to suck them up it must first break down their structure, and this is accomplished by the injected saliva.

Likewise, the Jew, in order to prey on other peoples, must disrupt their societies, and he accomplishes this by the injection of his own special poison into their bloodstream.
Order is the Jew’s mortal foe. One cannot understand the role of the Jew in modern European history unless one first understands this principle.

The Eternal Bolshevik

It explains why the Jew is the eternal Bolshevik: why he is a republican in a monarchist society, a capitalist in a corporate society, a communist in a capitalist society, a liberal “dissident” in a communist society– and, always and everywhere, a cosmopolitan and a race mixer in a homogeneous society.

And, in particular, it explains the burning hatred the Jews felt for European institutions during the Middle Ages. It explains why the modern Jewish spokesman, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews, frankly admits that the universal attitude of the Jews toward medieval European society was, “Crush the infamous thing!”
**
12-year Miracle

In the brief span of 12 years during which National Socialist Germany existed — only six of these years in peace — miracles of economic, social, scientific, and artistic achievement were wrought. While the United States and other Western nations still wallowed in the massive unemployment and misery of the Great Depression, Hitler had already restored Germany to full employment and prosperity. What the democracies could only achieve by aiming for war, Germany did as early as 1936 by building roads and Volkswagens.

The degeneracy and decadence which had characterized the democratic Weimar regime in Germany prior to 1933, with all its prancing homosexuals, self-destructive drug addicts, jaded thrill seekers, musical and artistic nihilists, pandering Jews, Marxist terrorists, and whining self-pitiers, were gone, and in their place was a nation of healthy, enthusiastic, self-reliant, and purposeful Germans: a nation led by progressive men and women conscious of the value of their race and their culture and committed to the advancement of both on all fronts.

And Germany was the only such nation in the White world. Italy had undertaken a number of progressive social, economic, and governmental reforms after the victory of Mussolini’s Fascist movement in 1923, but Fascism failed to put race in the center of life, as National Socialism did.

It is true that this anthology of articles written between 1969 and 1981 by Louis Beam (b.1946), a leader of the Ku Klux Klan in Texas, made us want to reincarnate the glory lost forever of this legendary organization. This very recent edition (from June 2021) is the very first translation of articles signed by Louis Beam with the pseudo AK 47 or AK 116 during these twelve years of stalking by the FBI. This essay is the second to be published in English by the author in 1983. In 1992 (nine years later) he published “Leaderless Resistance” which we had read in Greek translation. The first to use this English title “Leaderless Resistance” for his writings was the American spy Ulius Louis Amoss (1895 -1961) in the 1950s.

Another writer of articles for this freshly translated anthology would be the very famous Nathan Bedford Forrest (1821 1877), one of the founders of the KKK and who was the subject of another essay written by Paul-Louis Beaujour at Déterna editions. We have already presented another book by Beaujour about Ian Stuart.

“We are Christians … In the name of God who created us, let us prepare to fight” urges us Louis Beam on page 54 of this edition. We wonder why Jules Dufresne (the editor and director of the “Lore” publishing house) took the initiative to publish the first translation of this work since until yesterday he was only publishing paganist essays : Odinist ones. (like “Summoning the Gods” by Collin Cleary), or Indo-European (like “Indo-European religion” by Hans F.K Guenther), or North-European (like “Nietzsche Hyperborean” by Olivier Meyer)? And our answer to this important question would be: “because this Christian essay does not encourage interracial love, as we can see today in Catholic or Orthodox churches”.

But the strongest reason why we liked this book would be the fact that Beam talks about Marx by telling us: “Karl Marx (descendant of a family of rabbis) published his “Communist Manifesto “in 1848 and the first Jewish international assembly at Kattowitz, near the Russian border, happened in 1884 “(an inversion of the last two numbers-note to us), op.cit. page 84.
Pastor Robert Miles (1925 – 1992) was a friend of Louis Beam and chief of KKK in Michigan and in a documentary about him directed by David Schock and entitled “The funeral of Pastor Robert Miles” he reveals to us the reason why the KKK lasted for much more than a century. He says that the real reason for this success would be the fact that it was decentralized. “There were several KKKs” he tells us, therefore the opposite of the centralized notion of power advocated by Marx.

The arrival of the second essay of Beam “Leaderless Resistance” in 1992 in the United States will confirm this observation of the pastor and will open the doors to attribute to its author Beam the nickname “Lone Wolf”. If you remember, the same nickname was given to the Oklahoma Bombings “terrorist” Timothy McVeigh three years later.

written by Dionysos ANDRONIS