On the edge – in some respects across the boundary – of the patriotic-identitarian movement, there still remains a ‘question’ that many consider to have been either answered already, or else rendered altogether undesirable: in ‘tainted’ old-right jargon it is known as die Judenfrage1 and in ‘fashionable’ Alt-Right jargon it is commonly referred to as the ‘JQ’, the ‘Jewish Question’. In certain respects, the recent revival of interest in the JQ is justified: for new scientific disciplines that analyse bio-evolutionary group strategies and ethnogenic processes, ‘Judaism’ represents a particularly rewarding study object due to a uniquely well-documented history spanning many centuries. These studies are gradually revolutionizing contemporary understanding of the doubly biological and cultural-historical phenomenon of ‘ethnic identity’: they are adding new bio-(epi)genetic and social-psychological perspectives to old perspectives based on religious dogmatism, material determinism and political correctness.2 They allow for an enhanced understanding – and substantial ‘correction’ – of ‘anti-Semitism’ as a largely sub-rationally and sub-consciously operating, but logically reducible and rationally traceable, phenomenon. But this new – ‘postmodern’ – JQ also involves a degree of risk: the high complexity of the ‘Crisis of the Postmodern West’,3 most acutely visible in the deliberate ethnic replacement of the indigenous peoples of the West by the politically ‘untouchable’ hostile elite of the West, creates the temptation of simplistic ‘mono-causal’ explanation and ‘quick-fix’ scapegoat identification. The premature identification of the hostile elite that is presiding over the present Crisis of the Postmodern West through one-stop ‘ethnical profiling’, and the ‘classic’ stratagem of postulating a ‘Jewish World Conspiracy’, is not only a predictable intellectual pitfall, but it also represents a potentially fatal childhood disease to the new-born patriotic-identitarian movement.4
For the fledging patriotic-identitarian movement it is important to emphatically distance itself from the facile projection of the diseases, weaknesses and degeneracy of one nation – or group of nations – on any other nation. It has the educational task of pointing to the fact that the socio-psychological diseases of the Western nations – institutional oikophobia, self-destructive matriarchy, collective narcissism – result from the degeneracy of these nations themselves. From that perspective, the negative influences of certain literally alien elements – the massive socio-economic burden of fraudulent ‘asylum seekers’, criminal ‘refugees’ and import ‘jihadists’ – represent nothing but side-effects of dangerous defects in the natural immune system of the Western nations themselves. In other words: the dramatic rise of such invasive ‘vectors’ is primarily due to the critical condition of the body politic of the Western nations themselves.
Thus, the patriotic-identitarian is obliged to emphatically reject the notion that the Crisis of the Postmodern West is caused by any kind of ‘Jewish’ conspiracy. It is undoubtedly true that the operations of the hostile elite are partially conspiratorial in nature, as in the nebulous role of ‘shapeshifting’ societies such as ‘Bilderberg’ and ‘Davos’. But the identification of the hostile elite as – even predominantly – ‘Jewish’ is self-evidently absurd. The psycho-historical aetiology as well as the socio-pathological character of the hostile elite point to a functional ‘(d)evolutionary’ adaptation of relatively recent origin as well as a generalized and resolutely anti-ethnic direction.5 The historico-materialist ideology and consistently deconstructive technique of the hostile elite are entirely incompatible with the authentic Jewish Tradition; they are, in fact, diametrically opposed to it in more than one sense.6
Above all else, the hostile elite is committed to a program of anti-tradition, anti-identity and anti-ethnicity: it thinks of itself as exempt from the laws of nature and it claims the right to demolish all authentic traditions, identities and ethnicities through deconstruction by every means possible, both psychological and physical. The postmodern hostile elite is quintessentially anti-nomianist (i.e. committed to the rejection and inversion of all forms of law): because it rejects tradition, identity and ethnicity (life forms that its members are existentially unable to ‘carry’ themselves), it also rejects – and reverses – all the forms of law that uphold these life forms. It cannot be ‘Jewish’, because the Jewish Tradition requires a very high degree of deference to traditional authority, meta-historical self-identification and ethnic solidarity.7
It would be very interesting to investigate the technical – probably highly ‘mixed’ – ethnic allegiance of the top membership of the hostile elite: the reason that the hostile elite is so rabidly opposed to the notion of ethnicity – let alone its own ethnic ‘registration’ – might very well be that it fears its own exposure as a méti-métèque mélange that leaves it with no solid pied-à-terre anywhere on Earth. Any notion of authentic ethnicity and ethnic ‘sphere sovereignty’8 is naturally repulsive to an elite that lacks any ethnic substance itself: obviously, the deepest existential root of the hostile elite’s ‘universalism’, ‘cosmopolitanism’ and ‘globalism’ is its own dramatic lack of rootedness. The Jewish people most emphatically do not lack in rootedness: it may have been historically subjected to a long Exile, but they have never given up on their ‘right of return’ and their dream of a renewed ‘Golden Jerusalem’.9
The only – highly artificial – way in which the hostile elite could possibly be labelled ‘Jewish’ is by defining the whole globalist postmodern New World Order as a ‘Jewish’ project. Such a label, however, not only misrepresents the authentic Jewish Tradition – in form as well as content – but it also denigrates the autonomous role of the Western peoples within this New World Order. Labelling the New-World-Order project as ‘Jewish’, means that the Western peoples, who have consistently supported and lived with this project for many decades, are degraded to the status of brainless and spineless livestock. Such a reductio ad absurdum is bound to give rise to a cynical question: do peoples that sink to the level of ‘cattle’ actually deserve better than to be treated as such?
But, as guardian of Western civilization, the patriotic-identitarian movement is bound to reject the implicit assumption that any people, from the most ‘primitive’ tribe to the most highly ‘civilized’ nation, deserves the label ‘cattle’ or ‘cattle farmer’ – let alone the label ‘good’ or ‘bad’. The semi-Manicheist ‘angels’-vs.-‘demons’-role pattern that historically pervades anti-Semitism – generally characterized by unreasonably dogmatic schemes – structurally fails to recognize the sovereign responsibility of each people in determining its own fate. Any substantial association of the brand-new patriotic-identitarian movement with anti-Semitic primitivism must be regarded as a counter-productive anachronism. Within the patriotic-identitarian movement, which must remain ‘lean and mean’ in order to survive and thrive, there simply is no room for any burdensome residue of political primitivism. It is therefore bound to reject anti-Semitism in the same breath as ‘old-right’ racism and libertarian ‘populism’.
The patriotic-identitarian movement can only be effective if it bases itself on a vision of future that is at the same time authentically rooted and radically progressive: an ‘archeofuturist’ vision that decisively moves beyond old reflexes, old thought patterns and old mannerisms. From that perspective, dogmatic anti-Semitism actively harms the patriotic-identitarian movement: to the degree that it does stem from deliberate subversion (as a diversion manoeuvre and a divide-and-rule tactic), it must be rejected as a waste of time.
Even so – or rather, because of this – it is important to emphasize the correct treatment of the JQ, preferably in a succinct manner that puts it into ‘political quarantine’. Such treatment involves recognition of the legitimacy of all JQ-related issues – a recognition that is entirely lacking in the contemporary politically correct consensus which is deliberately fostered by the (self-)censorship of the system media and academic establishment. The Cultural-Marxist hostile elite of the West has succeeded in achieving a ‘thought police’ consensus in the – increasingly narrow – public debate: doctrinal mantras and psy-op manipulation now dominate journalism, education and the arts to a degree unmatched since the Gleichschaltung that characterized the mid-20th century experiments of Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism. Thus, the patriotic-identitarian movement must recognize the legitimate need for a confrontation with the psycho-historical taboos that the Cultural-Marxist ‘thought police’ have pronounced on many key issues in Western history – including those issues that relate to the JQ. It is important to emphasize, however, that an assault on these taboos does not automatically equal militant ‘revisionism’: the patriotic-identitarian movement should seek to break out of these taboos, rather than to align itself with one side or another in the various historical conflicts that are covered by these taboos.
Examples of these taboos include the diplomatic background to the Second World War, the technical modalities of the Holocaust, the heterogeneous ideology of National Socialism and – last but not least – the historical phenomenon of Adolf Hitler (contra reductio ad Hitlerem). As the historical distance is increasing, the need for an open and honest discussion of these taboo topics is increasing as well. The increasingly anachronistic and artificial efforts of the hostile elite to maintain its hopelessly outdated historiographical standard meta-narrative and to enforce a digitally endangered cordon sanitaire around these topics are counterproductive: they merely serve to undermine public trust in academic standards, journalistic integrity and political authority. In combination with the increasingly obvious excesses of ‘hidden agenda’ policies such as ethnic replacement and social deconstruction, the hostile elite’s insistence on maintaining these taboos is opening a fatal divide between rulers and ruled – to the point of causing spontaneous collective protests and uncontrollable mass movements. The increasing frequency of entirely unpredictable ‘electoral upsets’ – ‘Brexit’, ‘Trump’ – and ‘protest movements – gilets jaunes, ‘Chemnitz’ – indicate a build-up of critical mass. These phenomena indicate that the widening gulf between rulers and ruled can easily result in a revolutionary upheaval – or even worse: in a complete breakdown in law and order and societal collapse. The very real prospect of a sudden regression to atavistic tribalism should be of particular concern to the immigrant minorities of the West: once deprived of state-enforced protection, they will face a backlash that will wipe away their decades-old privileges in a matter of days.
As sole heir to the values of Western civilization, the patriotic-identitarian movement is obliged to – try and – anticipate, control and channel this backlash. It is thus obliged to engage in an open and ‘therapeutic’ discussion of the various psycho-historical taboos that plague the Western peoples: the JQ touches on some of these taboos. Facilitating an open debate on the various psycho-historical traumas of the Western peoples will enable the patriotic-identitarian movement to break through the narrowing ‘event horizon’ that is imposed on Western civilization by its hostile elite.
It should be remembered, however, that such a truly civilized debate is something entirely different than the ‘lightning rod’ of the all-levelling Gutmensch dialogue that presently dominates the public sphere under the aegis of the Cultural-Marxist system media. The real purpose of such a truly civilized debate is nothing less than to stave off the looming violent ‘Final Solution’ to the Crisis of the Postmodern West by means of a preventive but peaceful ‘spring cleaning’. This requires the patriotic-identitarian movement to engage in a head-on confrontation with – and a radical elimination of – the decades-old pseudo-intellectual and sub-human filth of Cultural Marxism.
(*) Organizational note: Before the postmodern JQ can be effectively addressed from the perspective of the rising patriotic-identitarian movement, it is necessary to more precisely define that perspective. For convenience’s sake, that perspective will here be named, admittedly somewhat imprecisely, ‘ethno-nationalist’: its definition will be provided in the next two paragraphs, entitled ‘A City upon a Hill’ and ‘Die fröhliche Wissenschaft’. The third paragraph, entitled, ‘Söhne des Bundes’, will specify the actual study object of the JQ: it serves to remind the reader of the correct definition of the ‘Jewish People’ – as opposed to the various historically incorrect and politically distorted definitions that prevail in the sub-intellectual contemporary ‘public debate’ as a result of Cultural-Marxist ‘identity deconstruction’. The fourth and final paragraph, entitled ‘Justified and Ancient’, will conclude this essay with a provisional ‘viewpoint’ for patriotic-identitarian movement – a point of reference for all those that recognize the need for ‘wrapping up’ the past and concentrating on the future.
‘A City upon a Hill’
The patriotic-identitarian movement of the West is committed to the absolute (non-abstract, non-intellectual, non-negotiable) right of every nation to the maximal dosage of authentic identity, political autonomy and territorial sovereignty that that nation wishes to have – to the extent that this is concretely compatible with the effectively exercised rights of other nations. Thus, the patriotic-identitarian movement emphatically rejects the pharisaic arguments of ideologically distorted ‘jurisprudence’ of ‘international law’. Instead, it affirms the dictates of natural law, i.e. the biologically compelling realities of ethnicity in the real world of earth-bound allegiances: it affirms the a priori right of all nations to a ‘place under the sun’. Such a physical place – that root and no other – is always unique: it determines and defines the uniqueness of the nation that inhabits and/or derives from it – it is directly related to it physical, psychological and spiritual properties in the deepest possible sense. The specific geopolitical rootedness and the specific socio-economic biotope – the place that provides its ‘bio-evolutionary niche’ as well as its ‘mythopoeic home’10 – determine the unique combination of physical, psychological and spiritual properties that define a nation as a nation.
These properties interact with the nation’s specific ‘place under the sun’ in subtle and profound ways that modern science has barely begun to understand (initially as ‘evolutionary adaptation’), but that pre-modern historians instinctively grasped (as symbolic markers and cultural mirrors).11 The specific jargon with which this subtle reality was expressed in the Western social sciences of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, physically as Blut und Boden, or ‘blood and soil’, psychologically as Heimat, or ‘homeland’, spiritually as Weltachse, or ‘world axis’, and culturo-historically as Kulturkreis, or ‘cultural field’, are now effectively banned from academic and public discourse as ‘politically contaminated’ by their – largely misunderstood – usage during the political experiment of the ‘Third Reich’. Even so, they remain useful as signposts in the scientific reconstruction of the experiential realities that they reflect.
But it is above all the right to protect these realities – the collective lives – that remains unchanged: the right to protect authentic collective identity is absolute in the most concrete sense of the word: in the final analysis, it entirely supersedes legal argumentation, philosophical relativism and ideological deconstruction.12 In this sense, any ‘international law’ that insists on fixed institutions and norms constitutes a contradictio in terminis: a nation’s right to exist is no more relative than a woman’s right to motherhood and a child’s right to be born.
The absolute quality of a nation’s right to exist is reflected in the consistently transcendentally referential ‘origin myths’ of the world’s nations: it may be possible – to a certain extent – to ‘objectively’ (scientifically) study the origins of a nation through bio-evolutionary and cultural-historical analyses, but the birth of a nation is always ‘subjectively’ (psychologically) experienced as Divine Providence. Thus, divinely ordained ‘creation’ and ‘election’ are universally recurring – explicitly stated or implicitly assumed – standard themes in such ‘origin myths’, from the orally transmitted totemic birth categories of the Brazilian Bororo described by Claude Lévi-Strauss to the ‘City upon a Hill’ vision13 of the American Founding Fathers. Thus, the identity of nations can be better grasped by theologians and cultural anthropologists than by biologists and geneticists. It needs to be said again: every nation’s right to exist is absolute: its right to national identity, national autonomy and national sovereignty are merely limited by the equally absolute rights of other nations.
Conclusion: The right of the Western nations to exist as ethnically and historically distinct peoples in autonomous regions and sovereign states is an absolute standard from which the patriotic-identitarian movement can tolerate no deviation. The patriotic-identitarian movement respects the aspiration of the Jewish nation for its rights to be measured by the same standard. To the extent that elements of the Jewish nation remain in exile among the Western nations, the first-born rights of the indigenous peoples of West must, within reason, prevail over those of all resident aliens – including over those of the Jewish exiles. But to the extent that the Jewish nation is now reasserting territorial sovereignty in its Promised Land, it should be awarded full recognition and support for its legitimate aspirations to statehood.
‘Die fröhliche Wissenschaft’
Every physical attack, bureaucratic derogation and ideological subversion of a nation’s absolute right to exist automatically falls within the category of – synchronically experienced and diachronically documentable – absolute evil. Thus, the collective experience of any attempt at genocide, premeditated or otherwise, falls within the category of the most extreme psycho-historical trauma that a nation can be subjected to: as a collective experience, its impact is comparable to the individual experience of an assassination attempt. A permanently hyper-reactive ‘Pavlov reaction’ is bound to characterize any nation that has been subjected to such trauma. Such ‘bottleneck’ moments are bound to permeate the historical identity of that nation, to the extent of shaping its entire religious and mythical experience – the Polish ‘Miracle at the Vistula’ (1920), the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ (1941–45) and the Abkhazian War of Independence (1992–1993)14 are recent examples of such moments.
Inevitably, any nation’s history is most profoundly shaped and focussed on its most elementary ‘life cycle moments’: its (mysterious) birth, its (traumatic) crises and its (pre-cognized) death. Thus, written history can only be subjective: no historian can pretend to ‘rise above’ his own particular Sitz im Leben, or ‘setting in life’. The historian is always part of a physical nation, a historical continuum and a spiritual tradition, even if – rather: especially if – he empathically rejects and opposes these allegiances. ‘Objective history’ does not – cannot – exist: historiography is automatically defined and functionally contextualized by the historian’s Sitz im Leben. Any claim to ‘objectivity’ immediately betrays a ‘hidden agenda’: it signifies an – ultimately very transparent – attempt at promoting an ideologically functional discourse. Thus, the claim to ‘scientific objectivity’ by the contemporary Western discipline of ‘academic history’ is a mere façade that serves a specific programme of politically-correct ‘deconstruction’: as a collective project, it is no more than a hireling in the pay of the neo-liberal/Cultural-Marxist hostile elite.
From a Traditionalist perspective, the only authentic form of history is history with long-term existential relevance to a specific audience with a specific identity, i.e. history that supports authentic identity by providing it with an absolute historical continuity. Such history – fashionably reduced to the status of a mere ‘narrative’ by postmodern ‘deconstruction’ – necessarily exceeds the boundaries of ‘known’ facts and present-day ‘event horizons’, because it necessarily contains various teleological and anagogic reference points beyond (past) facts and (contemporary) experiences. It has, in fact, the status of ‘meta-narrative’: it has ‘added value’ in terms of a nation’s collective psycho-historical conscience. It even defines the nation in terms of its supra-historical destiny, as in the projections of the Japanese Kokutai, or ‘body politic’, and the Jewish ‘Chosen People’. This means that there are many histories that are all valid at the same time: there are as many authentic histories as there are authentic nations.
Given the vital importance of the collective psycho-historical conscience in the life of a nation, it is obvious that every ‘universalist’ discourse that claims ‘objective’ validity above and beyond the specific history of a specific nation is potentially detrimental to that nation. Knowledge of the histories of other nations may be functionally valuable in a limited way – e.g. in diplomacy and cultural studies – but such knowledge can never be allowed to replace or supersede national history. By definition, national history serves as an absolute measure and criterion by which all other forms of history should be read and interpreted – these other forms include the universalist ‘world history’ that the hostile elite claims to derive from ‘objective science’ through culture relativist ‘deconstruction’. The fact that many national histories are all valid at the same time does not reduce them to relatively valid ‘narratives’: this simultaneous validity merely enhances – through contrasts and shades – the mythopoeic, aesthetic and spiritual experience of national history as a lived gay saber (Nietzsche’s fröhliche Wissenschaft, or ‘joyful wisdom’).
Conclusion: The specific histories of the Western nations represent uniquely privileged meta-narratives and therefore constitute absolute reference points for the metapolitical and political public discourse of these nations. Neither the alternative histories that are valid for other nations nor the ‘universalist’ historiographical ‘deconstructions’ that are practised by the hostile elite, can diminish the absolute value – and validity – of such national history. By the same token, the patriotic-identitarian movement respects Jewish history as an absolute standard for the Jewish nation and it emphatically rejects the ‘cultural appropriation’ of Jewish history that is practised by anti-Semitic ideologues. To practice history through the lens of the ‘Jewish world conspiracy’ is bound to misrepresent the historical self-image of the Jewish nation – and to diminish the national histories of the Western nations by infusing them with undignified ‘victimhood’.
1 The German term originally refers to the social-historical dispute between Bruno Bauer (Die Judenfrage, 1843) and Karl Marx (Zur Judenfrage, 1844); the theme only took on a political dimension with the rise of the Zionist movement (the subtitle of Theodor Herzl’s milestone publication Der Judenstaat, ‘The Jewish State’, actually reads Versuch einer modernen Lösung der Judenfrage, ‘An Attempt at a Modern Resolution of the Jewish Question’).
2 Cf. the theses of Jim Penman and Kevin MacDonald, which are built on the pioneering work of Edward Wilson.
3 Here the Crisis of the Postmodern West is interpreted in a Traditionalist sense, i.e. as the latest phase of the larger historical complex that René Guénon described as la crise du moderne. For a historiographical ‘update’ of this theme, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of the Great War (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2018).
4 For a basic sketch of the strategic position of the new patriotic-identitarian movement, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, Alba Rosa. Ten Traditionalist Essays about the Crisis in the Modern West (London: Arktos, 2019) 231ff.
5 For a summary aetiological analysis of the hostile elite, cf. ibidem, 147ff.
6 For a summary analysis of the ‘Inversed Tradition’ in the Jewish context, cf. Wolfheze, Sunset, 104ff.
7 In this regard, it is interesting to note the alleged parentage of at least two former American top diplomats, Madeleine Albright and John Kerry, in the extremist anti-nomianist sect of the Jewish heretics known as the Frankists.
8 A reference to the Traditionalist concept of soevereiniteit in eigen kring, ‘sphere sovereignty’, which stipulates differentiated authority and responsibility; it was an important element of Neo-Calvinist thought and strongly reflected in the work of Dutch statesman Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920).
9 A reference to the ‘unofficial’ Israeli anthem Yerushalayim Shel Zahav.
10 A reference to the hypotheses of Dutch orientalist Henri Frankfort (1897–1954) and French ethnologist Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (1857–1939).
11 A reference to the work of Flemish poet Jacob van Maerlant (ca. 1230–1300), e.g. his highly symbolic Spieghel historiael, ‘Mirror of History’. Profound reflections on this pre-modern ‘being in the world’ can be found in the work of Dutch historian Johan Huizinga (1872–1945), e.g. in his Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen, ‘The Waning of the Middle Ages’.
12 German legal philosopher Carl Schmitt (1888–1985) has investigated the interface between ‘natural law’ and ‘institutional law’, most importantly through his concepts of Nomos and Katechon. A recent evaluation of Schmitt’s work is found in Robert Steuckers’ Sur et autour de Carl Schmitt. For a review, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, ‘From the Arsenal of Hephaestus’, Geopolitica.
13 Matthew 5:14: Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.
14 For a historical evaluation of the Abkhazian War of Independence in the context of the Umvolkung strategy of the Western hostile elite, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, ‘The Devouring’, Erkenbrand.
It seems to me that the author is unaware of a crucial aspect of Jewdom.
His text is well reasoned, positive but somewhat naive, too intellectual I would almost say.
As far as the Jews is concerned they can fend for themselves and they dont need any apologies from the ethno-nationalist side.
The biggest taboo the author did not deal with is the ritual of circumcision which is according to a lot of modern medical studies responsible for a pathological mindset .
It is high time we call a spade a spade.
Does the author think that using a lot of big words and clever phrases will convince anyone that jews have been unfairly treated throughout history? This article was a giant waste of 5 minutes of my life.
I am naturally sorry to learn of your lost five minutes, but I permit myself to doubt that Mr. Wolfheze’s article can be reduced to nothing more than an obscurantist smoke-screen for misplaced pity. Perhaps (at risk of wasting more of your time) you could point out where precisely you disagree with Mr. Wolfheze’s statements, so as to advance conversation on the matter?
[…] 23 Cf. https://arktos.com/2019/02/06/from-jq-to-iq-part-1/ […]
Wolfheze accepts Judaisms doubtful claims as to the origins of their religion and their people. The last, most conclusive answer seems to be that a bunch of Persian Hebraic traders adopted Judaism in an area of today’s Turkey called Ashkenaz and transported it from there. There was probably no Judaic kingdom for any duration of time that steadily occupied the space of today’s Israel and Palestine.
Be that as it may, historical fact in this case here plays second fiddle.
Alexander Wolfheze’s argument does not address the specific character of Judaism, but treats it as just one of many orthodoxies. Orthodox (that is here “traditionalist”) religions from his perspective are fighting a war against anti-tradition, if you will. Doing this, he is following the Guenonist-Schuonist Traditionalist school.
However, the specific content of Judaism today needs to be addressed. We need not only consider the divide between secular and orthodox Judaism, but also consider kabbalists such as Hassidim and classical Jews such as Naturei Karta.
Both of the lastly mentioned trends within Judaism harshly divide humanity into chosen and goy. This belief is nowhere absent within Judaism. Wolfheze may propose a way for Judaism to align itself with the “Transcendent Unity of Religion”, but it is telling that his argument comes from a goy toward Judaism and is not advanced from Judaic side. The “Traditionalist Jew” Leo Schaya did in the end convert to Islam, for a reason. Even Naturei Karta’s position is that the Jews are “a people apart”.
Without a fundamental shift at the highest levels of Judaic orthodoxy, that is without an honest aspiration of orthodox Judaism to accept the validity of other religions than itself, and thereby the status of the other humanity as equally worth in the face of God, Wolfheze’s essay is nothing else but a sign of surrender.
Keep in mind, for the Kabbalist, the goyim’s existence is a sign of the qlippoth, that is the garbage broken shells of creation, which keep disturbing the perfection that otherwise would be the relationship between creator and creation.
Read Gershom Sholem.
Commentary Arktos Journal article JQ-IQ 110619
Dear ‘Citizen (Jürgen) X’,
If I hesitated to immediately answer your comment it is not because of its contents, but rather because you failed to give your full name. You should know that those few New Right publicists and spokesmen who have committed themselves to the open David-and-Goliath fight against the globalist hostile elite and its mainstream media and academic allies – a tiny group that includes many of Arktos’ authors and staff – tend to be less than impressed by anonymous and pseudonymous ‘critics’. For us, who have actually sacrificed (careers, salaries, reputations – sometimes more) for our cause, to be accused of ‘surrender’ – in any way, shape or form – effectively places the anonymous and pseudonymous accuser, who has not even the courage to name himself, beneath contempt. That issue aside, it is important to state that such anonymous and pseudonymous criticism falls short of two standards that the New Right seeks to uphold in Western public discourse: transparency and courtesy. Perhaps it is even more important to remind readers that such criticism is frequently employed by our enemies, as they seek to sow confusion, dissent and animosity within our movement. It is our collective experience that any ‘JQ’ debate tends to exploited by SJW/MSM ‘trolls’ and ‘infiltrators’ seeking to ‘catch’ New Right publicists and spokesmen at ‘crime think’. Hence my normal policy never to answer any anonymous pseudonymous comments; hence my hesitation to answer the ‘Jürgen’ comment.
In this case, however, I have decided to make an exception – for two reasons. First, Arktos Journal is one of the few places left for open debate on ‘politically incorrect’ topics – as one of Arktos’ authors I wish to actively support this editorial policy. Second, it is conceivable that, despite its surface shortcomings, your comment reflects a deeper concern for the cause of the New Right. If that is true, I sympathize with your predicament in mulling over the ‘JQ’: not so much because it forces you into solving some highly complex ‘equations’ (to spend your time on its arcana is your own choice), but rather because there is hardly any free speech space to debate it (you are fully justified in resenting the discursive taboo on the ‘JQ’). Arktos Journal is one of the few free speech spaces that are left in the public domain: in this sense, your comment deserves a reply:
(1) Your statement ‘Wolfheze accepts Judaism’s doubtful claims as to the origins of their religion and their people’ is simply wrong: the only thing that is recognized is the bio-evolutionary and cultural-anthropological functionality of the Israelite origin myth (cf. paragraph ‘A City upon a Hill’);
(2) Your statement ‘The last, most conclusive answer seems to be that a bunch of Persian Hebraic traders adopted Judaism… and Palestine’ is extremely wrong: even the most basic acquaintance with the relevant scientific (epigraphic, archaeological, comparative-linguistic, exegetical) disciplines (such as half a semester of Ancient Near Eastern History) will immediately cure all of these misapprehensions. My own specialization is Assyriology: New Assyrian and New Babylonian (cuneiform) records contain multiple unambiguous references to the states that the Bible refers to as ‘Israel’ and ‘Juda’ across a span of no less than 250 years – I have read them (and shifted through mountains of additional evidence) myself and have no reason to suspect that the rulers of Ancient Mesopotamia were somehow complicit in a pro-Zionist ‘identity construction’ conspiracy avant la lettre.
(3) Your statement ‘Wolfheze’s argument does not address the specific character of Judaism’ is spot on: the content and the character of the Jewish Tradition and the Israelite nation are not of any concern to the New Right movement. My article ‘JQ to IQ’ aims at drawing a boundary: it recognizes the Jewish Tradition and Israelite nation as entities that should be culturally-historically regarded as alien elements within the Western life-world. To the extent that they retain a remnant presence in the contemporary West, they should be allowed to develop separately, along their divergent path – on the basis of mutual non-interference as far as possible. What the Jewish Tradition and Israelite nation are in and of themselves – their content and character, however ‘good’ or ‘bad’ they may be suspected to be – are simply none of our business. This applies even – actually especially – in the possible case of any Jewish thinker ruminating over the preferential ontological status of his ‘chosen people’. In this regard, it should be noted that Gershom Scholem’s writings simply re-phrase rabbinical concepts that serve as intellectual guidelines for Jewish scholars themselves rather than as ‘anti-gentile’ propaganda. The actual content of the Jewish Tradition and the actual character of the Israelite nation may be interesting for a specialized scholars, appointed officials and a handful of ‘converts’, but no more. Thus, I emphatically disagree with your statement that ‘the specific content of Judaism needs to be addressed’. All that needs to be addressed is the practical issue of mutual ‘border control’.
(4) Your statement ‘Wolfheze may propose a way for Judaism to align itself with the “Transcendent Unity of Religion”’ is highly misleading: for anyone to make such a proposal would not only be ridiculous, it would be blasphemous – the suggestion of any such alignment is entirely incompatible with basic Traditionalist principles. The phrase ‘transcendent unity of religion’ is a contradiction in terms: every authentic religion represents a special(ized) path to transcendence. From a Traditionalist perspective, there is only one possible Transcendent Unity, and that can only be found in what exists above mere religion – in God. In this regard, it should be noted that a single thinker’s (in casu: Leo Schaya’s) ‘choice’ for another religious path (in casu: Islam) than his ‘birth religion’ (in casu: Judaism) can never be taken as ‘proof’ of the superiority of one Tradition over another. Rather, from a Traditionalist perspective, there exists no absolute superiority of any one religion (or, for that matter, any nation) over another – there merely exists relative superiority, i.e. the entirely legitimate (individual and collective) experience of sublime uniqueness. Thus, from a Traditionalist perspective, ‘conversion’ is an empty word – there is merely a realization of what one has been all along in nature. If the Western peoples manage to realize their own experience of sublime uniqueness – if they manage to recapture that experience in a renewed Western Tradition – then they no longer need to diminish or fear other peoples and other Traditions. Then, they do not need to fear ‘Islam’ of ‘Judaism’. The New West, that the New Right is fighting for, should not be defined by what differed from it or what opposed it in the passed: it should be defined by the self-surpassing act of will to be something more.
There is only one ‘surrender’: to fail to face up to these truths – to fail to abandon old limits and old fears.
Thank you Mr. Wolfheze for your elaborate answer. I am as content to have written the comment as I am with your reply, since these are topics of utmost importance and our dialogue will server to enlighten those that will be.
Speaking of which, I certainly am no specialist in the field of middle eastern religion, but I have read the works of Laurent Guyenot – I kindly suggest you reply to his arguments. Not for my sake, but for the sake of the whole conversation and movement. You represent one of the most sophisticated voices in the entire New right and Guyenot gives very compelling arguments.
Regarding your initial phrases, I believe one should let his mask fall when the time is right, not earlier. I am not yet become powerful enough to reveal my identity.
With all due respect, I have to disagree with your policy of border control and your idea that the goyim should not concern themselves with the peculiarities of Judaism. We can only become what we are, that is true. But on that way we have to recognise what we are not. The great mystery that I fail to understand is what exactly made the western man lose his Pagan tradition. My question, stated differently is such: What spiritual need was there in western man to succumb to the middle eastern religious complex.
I am not able to see Christianity without Judaism. They both are Thesis and Anti-thesis to each other and they are both fundamentally alien to my personal equation, just as they were to Evola’s. To clarify, the anti-thesis probably remains in Orthodox Christianity, which I am not familiar with. Catholicism and Protestantism are more or less Judaism with Jesus. Secularism and Legalism, too. Are you aware George Bush II made the noahide laws US law? (Border control, I keep thinking)
I feel there are many like me. In order for the West to become itself again, we will have to confront what we are not, to apply effective “border control” we will have to understand where we are now. And in the last 2000 years, western border control has been particularly shitty since basically all our indigenous religions were at least heavily influenced by Judaism or were dialectical counter-points such as Christianity and National Socialism.
Also in the realm of border control is the question of counter-initiation and I would just like to say that the fact that a Thelemitic-Satanic symphonic death metal outfit such as Therion ends up publishing songs that go “let us build a temple in Jerusalem” speaks volumes. That is to say that many influential esoteric societies in the West end up following the goals of Judaism. Judaic and kabbalistic symbolology is everywhere. How can we practice border control if we cannot recognise the other?
Lastly, at least within the abrahamic faiths, there is a strong trend to divide the world into good and evil. In the Zohar, the goyim are the product of the waste of creation, it logically follows that said waste should be recycled as the chosen see fit. Christianity also fails to formulate a reason for the existence of the unbeliever. In Islam, the kuffar are to be executed. The specifics of Judaism are of no concern to me as non-Jew? in the face of these facts, that sounds like running into an open knife.
Commentary Arktos Journal article JQ-IQ 210619
Dear ‘Citizen X’,
You may have honoured the readers of our discussion on the finer points of the ‘JQ’ by elaborating on your pseudonym ‘Jürgen’ by adding the epithet ‘the Phantom’, but this does not remove my stated objection to the culture of pseudonymity and anonymity currently prevailing in the New Right digisphere – and in the public sphere as a whole. There are many ‘phantoms’ haunting the – now rapidly shrinking – free speech space of New Right internet publication and communication. But our enemies do not fear such ghosts: our enemies know that they will evaporate with public exposure and are justified in despising those of us that fear the light of day. The Real New Right, however, is of an altogether different calibre: the words of the Real New Right have been and are being written under some of the greatest names of Western thought, past and present. These words instil fear in the hearts of our enemies because they speak truth to power: they may be ignored for a day and a season, but they will eventually prevail. Thus, I urge you, and others like yourself, to stand up and be counted: to write, blog and speak under your own name will earn you respect – and self-respect. I will have to return to this all-important theme at the conclusion of my response.
1. Laurent Guyénot’s analyses of historical Judaic/Zionist strategies do not need any reply from my side: these analyses fall outside the scope of the specific strategy proposal that I made in ‘JQ-IQ’. In terms of their metapolitical functionality, Guyénot’s geo- and psyop-strategy analyses fall in the same category as MacDonald’s bio-evolutionary analyses: they are best understood as legitimate exercises in intellectual self-defence on behalf of the European people and Western culture. In this sense, they are simply ‘doing their jobs’ as representatives of one of the old Katechon institutions of the West: the Academy. As far as I can tell, they are doing so according the best of their ability and their efforts are entirely compatible with the specific proposal for the New Right that is made in my ‘JQ-IQ’article, viz. the adoption of a ‘post-Anti-Semitic’ discourse. A truly Archaeo-Futurist discourse would abandon the stifling political correctness of prevalent nihilist relativism in the social sciences and it would recognize the legitimacy of the ‘JQ’ as a cultural-historical and psycho-historical research field, but it would also redirect the New Right’s firepower on its real enemy: the post-ethnic globalist hostile elite.
2. You insist that it is necessary to study Judaism in order to ‘recognize what we are not’ – and you ask a question: ‘what spiritual need was there in Western man to succumb to the Middle Eastern religious complex?’ Thus, you assume that Western identity and Western Tradition are somehow ‘problematic’: nobody with an authentic identity would ever speak of any need to ‘recognize what we are not’ and nobody living within an authentic Tradition would ever pose questions concerning ‘spiritual need’. In fact, Western identity and Western Tradition are not ‘problematic’ at all: Western identity is found in simply being (yourself) and Western Tradition is found in simply living it (yourself). The only thing that is problematic is the ability of modern Europeans to ‘live up’ to the – very high – standards set by their ancestors: the specific existential modalities of current post-modernity are simply incompatible with the European Tradition. The greatest task of the New Right is to adjust these modalities: this is the true aim of the Archaeo-Futurist Revolution that the New Right is working towards. The re-incorporation of the European Tradition in a brand new Archaeo-Futurist West forces the New Right into re-appropriating (re-inventing, re-imagining) its Christian heritage. You touch upon this very problem in a very striking manner: you said that ‘Christianity is fundamentally alien to [your] personal equation’ – this is true for many young people. The problem is that the ‘post-modern Christianity’ they have come to know is, in fact, an inverted, emasculated and perverted anti-Christianity: it inverts the heroic – ‘Roman-style’ (knightly-monastic) and ‘Faustian-style’ (self-realizing) Christianity of their ancestors. This older – true – Christianity organically incorporated and fostered many of the qualities and visions of an older pagan culture: it is this equation that created the unique qualities of world-conquering Western civilization. It provided a highly sophisticated ‘Christian’ control mechanism to manage its ‘pagan’ Aryan archetypes. This perfectly calibrated ‘fusion reactor’ created what we call ‘Western civilization’ – an almost literal gateway to the stars and the great envy of the world. In this regard, Nietzsche spoke of Christianity as the ‘school of Western civilization’ – but more and more people are now ‘dropping out’ of this school before graduating. Young Westerners fail to recognize the link between true European identity and true Christianity. Christianity is much more than a ‘dialectic antithesis’ to Judaism. Even from a mere historical-materialist perspective it is much more: it effectively constitutes a bio-evolutionary ‘adaption’ that provides a unique kind of existential discipline. Providing a sacrificial work ethic, continuous spiritual rhythm, internalized restraints and psychological feedback loops, it reinforces and brings out the best in Western man. This older – true – Christianity can never be alien to the personal equation of any true Westerner. This applies even if he happens to formally belong to a non-Christian denomination or if he remains religiously unaffiliated: after having graduated from the ‘school’ of Christianity many vocational paths are open to him. But ‘dropping out’ of it altogether deprives Western man of basic developmental opportunities.
3. Thus, I strongly disagree with your statement that ‘in the last 2000 years, western border control has been particularly sh**** since basically all our indigenous religions were at least heavily influenced by Judaism or were dialectical counterpoints such as Christianity and National Socialism’. Western civilization is quintessentially Christian: to reject Christianity is to strip away the control mechanism that gives Western civilization its ethical ‘added value’ and to deprive it of its potential for spiritual world-conquest – as proven by the (incomplete) experiments of Soviet Bolshevism and German National-Socialism. The ‘border control’ of Western Christendom may have had its ups and downs throughout the centuries, but it has survived many external and internal threats over the course of its long existence. If the armies of Christendom managed to defy overwhelming odds at Vienna in 1683 and on the Vistula in 1920, then its spirit may yet wipe away the globalist hostile elite.
4. The acceptance of Noahide Law does not imply the acceptance of some sinister ‘Judaic’ control mechanism. In the Abrahamic Traditions, the Noahide Law precedes the Mosaic Law and it applies to the whole of the human race – it is part and parcel Christian doctrine. It rejects idolatry and blasphemy, it condemns extrajudicial killing and sexual immorality, it institutes property rights and legal procedures and it restricts animal bloodshed – these are elemental precepts of Western civilization. It is the loss of these precepts, under the aegis of historical materialism (currently implemented in social-darwinism, liberal-normativism and cultural-marxism), that have brought Western civilization to brink of the abyss. The antinomian globalist hostile elite that now rules over most of the West is engaged in an all-out assault on these basic precepts. From an authentically Christian perspective, the globalist hostile elite is an agent of the Anti-Christ. To the extent that any American President would be sincere in implementing Noahide Law he would be simply implementing Christian Law. As an outside observer I would assume that this would be in accordance with his popular mandate: in comparison to most Western European peoples, Americans tend to be pious Christians.
5. Your statement that ‘many influential esoteric societies in the West end up following the goals of Judaism. Judaic and kabbalistic symbolology is everywhere’ needs some qualification. It may be true that the higher echelons of the globalist hostile elite occasionally abuse ancient symbols and thought constructs from the Abrahamic Traditions, but basic acquaintance with Traditionalist scholarship will expose these uses as transparent attempts at fraud – or deliberate attempts at inversion. The so-called ‘esoteric’ content of hostile elite ‘spiritualities’ (Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, New Ageism, etc.) is wholly illusory. In the context of the contemporary Western world, authentic esoteric content is entirely limited to the remnants of the Christian Tradition. Regarding the esoteric sphere, there are some overlaps between the Christian, Judaic and Islamic Traditions, but these pertain to form (texts, symbols, rites) and not to content.
6. You say: ‘in the Zohar, the goyim are the product of the waste of creation, it logically follows that said waste should be recycled as the chosen see fit. Christianity also fails to formulate a reason for the existence of the unbeliever. In Islam, the kuffar are to be executed.’ While it is true that each of the Abrahamic Traditions contains the notion of supernatural ‘election’ of (part of) their respective adherents, this notion should be understood as an anagogical principle within that Tradition rather than a declaration of war on what lies outside of it. An attempt at, and experience of, ‘relative superiority’ can be a legitimate part of any self-realization project in any sphere of life – a religion, a nation, a tribal community, a family group, a material pursuit, a personal vocation. It does not automatically demean or intentionally disqualify those that fall outside that project and outside that sphere. I suspect that your negative assessment of the Abrahamic Traditions is based on highly selective and distorting readings. But, if you are a gentile Westerner, there us something more important to keep in mind: your failure to do justice to the Christian Tradition that underpins Western civilization risks ending in a self-destructive mind-set. The worst kind of ‘running into an open knife’ is falling in one’s own sword – the Christian Tradition is a very sharp and double-edged sword because it requires a very high level of personalized ‘perfection’. The best way to avoid such a self-destructive mind-set is to re-acquire and re-activate the Christian Tradition – not by joining some postmodern ‘boomer/hippie’ church community, but by re-incorporating and re-inventing the Christian Tradition at a personal level.
As you can see in my substantive reply, I am committed to an open and uncensored debate of the ‘JQ’ within the New Right. But that same commitment to open and frank debate now forces me to return to the issue of pseudonymity and anonymity. Under the aegis of neo-matriarchy, the principles ‘privacy’ and ‘confidentiality’ tend to become the fetishes of a highly feminized public culture – in that sphere they have come to justify secrecy, deceit and cowardice. This public sphere, now shaped by electoral ‘secret ballots’, entrepreneurial ‘limited liabilities’, plausibly deniable ‘black ops’ and ‘algorithmic’ censorship, leaves little space for two long-forgotten masculine virtues: responsibility and fairness. Pseudonymity and anonymity provide unearned and unfair advantages in any debate: they make it impossible to verify the speaker’s actual credentials, true intents and real interests. A man’s individual concerns for career, reputation and family may be entirely legitimate, but when he fears to speak his mind in public, then he should not challenge other men who stand up and speak up. You said that you have ‘not yet become powerful enough to reveal [your] identity’. But you will find that the act of standing up and speaking out actually creates power. I wish you the strength to free yourself from fear – and to find your voice. Till that time – the time that you grant the readers of Arktos Journal the basic courtesy of writing under your own name – I will abstain from any further online discussion.
Dear Mr. Wolfheze,
you fail to explain how far it is tactically sound to shed anonymity.
I was tempted to let your comment stand as is, but then I ordered your Alba Rosa book.
I find your understanding of traditionalism very problematic since you are both pro-protestant christianity and a philosemite. Neither Evola nor Guenon ever accepted protestantism as a valid Tradition. Guenon saw Kabbalism as such and so there we have a goy concerning himself with Jewish matters.
Which brings me to my main point: You will not address the specifics of the Jewish tradition – but only if they are negatively critiqued. In your reply you praise the Noahide laws. For everyone reading: these “laws” ARE IN THE TALMUD, not in the Tanakh. In Alba Rosa, on multiple occasions you praise the Jewish tradition, also breaking your own rule of not concerning yourself with Jewish matters (or are you yourself Jewish?).
Lastly, when you praise the formidable law of the children of Israel for forging an unbreakable bond between its members and lament the absence of such a spiritual defence in the Christians… are you not inviting National Socialism? This is what McDonald has shown: NS was Judaism but for the Goy. (Therefore also the fact that the only state in the world today which still practices something close to the Nuremberg racial laws is… Israel!)