The standard narrative, with regards to relations between Christians and Jews, is one of constant conflict. The Jews have been subjected to various forms of repression, ranging from marginalization to genocide. The underlying assumption is that the Christian majority was either motivated by religious fanaticism or ignorant bigotry. Of course, the events during World War II loom large in this understanding. The Germans are just assumed to have gone insane and followed an anti-Semitic madman.
That’s what makes the book Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe such an interesting read. Instead of the modern practice of working backwards to force history into the current narrative, it is a review of the polices toward the Jews, in the centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It’s an old book, published in 1977, by a now retired scholar of the period. It’s also a short book, just 140 pages. The style and brevity makes it a good introduction to the period for the casual reader.
The book starts with a review of Jewish policy under the Visigoths, who ruled what is now Western France and most of what is now Spain. Both Gaul and Iberia had large Jewish populations by the end of the Roman Empire. The Breviary of Alaric was a collection of Roman laws that applied to the Hispano-Roman and Gallo-Roman population, living under Visigoth rule. It was within this body of laws that official policy regarding the Jews was established in the Visigoth kingdom.
Under the Visigoths, the Jews had a great deal of autonomy. They maintained their own courts, were permitted to own slaves and conduct trade within the kingdom. More important, the Jews were rich and powerful, so they played a large role in the internal politics of the kingdom. The main area of conflict was over the Jewish habit of proselytizing to the Christians as well as the pagans. The Church would tolerate the Jews converting pagans, but not the converting of Christians.
That’s the most interesting aspect of the book. Throughout the early medieval period, the Jewish populations in the former Western Roman Empire were endlessly proselytizing to the Christian populations. This was not just under the Visigoths in the early Christian period. This continued through the Carolingian period, despite very strong objections from the Church. Even the Church, however, was forced to overlook these violations of the law, as the Jews had a lot of power.
If one were to search for a starting point of anti-Jewish sentiment in the West, it would not date to the time of Christ, but to the medieval period. Jews not only competed with the Church politically and culturally, they were very aggressive in their approach to Christians. For example, in the Carolingian period, Jews widely circulated the Toledot Yeshu, which is an alternative biography of Jesus. It describes Jesus as an illegitimate child, who practiced magic, was an adulterer, and died a shameful death.
The Church, of course, was not happy about this behavior, but lacked the power to do much about it, other than train better priests. That’s another interesting aspect of the period. Jews and Christians regulars celebrated feats together and Christians tended to prefer the Jewish sermons to that offered by the Church. Many Bishops also had good relations with the Jews in their area. In other words, into the Middle Ages, there was not much in the way of antisemitism, at least not as we understand it.
It was these twin realities that drove the development of anti-Jewish policy in the Church during this period. Many important churchman, individually and collectively, not only feared the proselytizing of the Jews, but worried about the fact Judaism was very attractive to both pagans and Christians. It was in this period that institutional opposition to Judaism developed and evolved, despite the fact that the secular authorities were pro-Jewish in their policies. Antisemitism was a reaction to this.
Another aspect to all of this is the fact that Jews used to be aggressive proselytizers, working hard to convert pagans and Christians. Today, the opposite is true. While anyone can become a Jew, that’s like saying anyone can become a physicist. It is technically true, but conversion is not common. Jewish law requires the rabbi to try three times to discourage the convert. This policy may have been a response to the conflicts with the Church over the conversion of Christians.
Probably the most surprising thing in the book is just how pro-Jewish most secular rulers were in the early medieval period. Charlemagne and his son Louis the Pious were extremely favorable to the Jews in their domains. They actively encouraged Jews to immigrate into their lands and gave them special privileges to conduct trade. They also had many Jews serving in administrative roles, holding power over Christians. The Jews were treated better than the Church in many cases.
The reality of the early medieval period is that the secular authorities maintained a very tenuous grip on their holdings. The king relied upon the local landowners and community leaders to maintain control. In many cases, those wealthy and powerful people were Jews within large Jewish communities. As a result, the Church was often the least influential institution. In many cases, the local bishop relied upon Jewish support to maintain his position. The Jews had a lot of power.
Probably the most telling point in this regard is the fact that the most successful monarchs of the period all had pro-Jewish polices. Charlemagne, Theodoric the Great and Gregory the Great pursued pro-Jewish polices. The Jews were literate, wealthy and maintained well-organized, long-standing contacts with Jewish communities throughout the West and East. As such, they were a powerful ally. In return for Jewish support, successful Christian rulers protected Jewish interests.
As much as this reality contradicts the current narrative, it also contradicts many anti-Semitic narratives as well. For example, it is popular with modern anti-Semites to claim the Jews worked with the Muslims in conquering Christian Spain. In reality, the Jews were willing to work with whoever looked like a winner. Jews also worked with Christians against the Muslims and sided with the Viking raiders when they sacked Bordeaux. They also worked with the Franks against the Vikings.
One final bit of interest is it seems that the beginning of Jewish hatred for the Catholic Church began in this period. This hatred turns up today in modern Zionism. In Yoram Hazony’s book, The Virtue of Nationalism, he repeatedly claims that Catholicism was a form of empire, which he condemns. It’s a strange tick, given that the Catholic Church holds little influence in the modern world. It was the Church, however, that managed to reduce Jewish power in the West, starting in the medieval period.
The book does not address this issue, but the fact that Church policy was separate, often at odds with official policy, in the kingdoms of the early medieval period, made it possible for Jews to carve out special privileges. Once Church policy became entangled with official policy, this was no longer possible. Jews were then marginalized and isolated, in order to prevent them from influencing the secular authorities and proselytizing to the Christians. The Catholic Church was bad for Jews.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!
Do note this was BEFORE the tribe’s work with Lenin and Stalin to help them break those 50 million eggs. But most of those were only Goyim anyway…
Z man wants to get medieval on the Jews.
I would, instead of saying Jews fought for the side they thought would win, instead say that they fought for the side that would be most advantageous. For example, in the Battle of Haifa during the First Crusade, Jews fought against the Crusader siege in spite of almost certain victory on the part of the Christians. However, during the Reconquista, Jews would fight for whomever was nicer to Jews at any given time and allowed them to bear arms, and that included Christians (as you note), including when such Christians were bound to lose.
They are their own nation and pursue their own interests; “is it good for the jews?” is their guiding principle. Can’t fault them for that, but they have to be viewed as a foreign nation and treated as such.
Well, sort of. Orthodox Judaism teaches conservative values for all of mankind and that one should pray for the government of the host nations; some rabbis go as far as to say one should serve in their armies, to uphold the honor of God. But yes, it also believes that we are separate. I think the modern phenomenon of secular Jews and “fellow white people”ism is entirely separate from what has happened throughout history because that simply is not what the Jewish nation has ever stood for.
Benjamin, my concern, as a WASP, is that Jewish people very much look after each other. Of course, that can be said for any number of ethnic groups that are a minority. But, while very many Jewish people look like White people, they will still favor their own over a WASP. Everyone expects Blacks to look after Blacks, and Chinese to look after Chinese, but when Jewish people appear White, there’s some bit of subterfuge going on where only the Jewish people know what the score is. This fanaticism with looking out for each other is, perhaps, what has lead to the Jewish people seeking to control all forms of media, and promoting each other’s work.
Anecdotally, I saw this play out with a Jewish acquaintance that I had. He was an atheist (as is every Jew that I’ve ever met), but spent much time at the local Temple, fixing things, etc. It seems that the Temple was a place for his ethnic group to come together and socialize for business, or whatever … basically, for earthly purposes only.
Thank you, adding that book to 2Do pile. Z
Geneticists Gregory Cochran and Razib Khan have noted that ashkenazi dna is 80% old roman dna. Razib has publicized that ashkenazi markers dont exist before the middle ages, so the entire ethnic group commonly calling themselves ashkenazi was formed when fleeing roman elites took jewish women as wives and concubines, just after western rome was sacked. This population flourished and adopted jewish customs From then on, you were only jewish if your mother was jewish, how convenient. So the theory goes.
Think about this. What if there is an ultra secret organization that has been in existence for god knows how many thousands of years. It was they who inspired man to build Civilization. The leadership of this organisation are beyond brilliant. Cunning, subtle and ruthless. Without the slightest thought of mercy or compassion. They have convinced all of humanity that is we who are in charge of planet earth when if fact, nothing could be further from the truth. From the very beginning they have been guiding, moving, manipulating and influencing our every decision. Everything humans have ever built was specifically designed for the sole benefit of this organisation. Their plans and ultimate goals are simply beyond our comprehension. We are trapped in a game that we did not choose play. But we have no choice, we must continue. Even suicide works to advance their project. And, all of your hopes, dreams, loves and hates. All of your knowledge, skills and experience, everything that makes you you, has been fashioned to advance the agenda of the orginisation. Beyond that, you are irrelevant.
What does free masonry have to do this this?…………
JR Wirth said: ” What does free masonry have to do this this?…………” The free masons are a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com. Nothing going on there.
Everything would suggest they are rather inept
Sir Balin said: ” Everything would suggest they are rather inept.”
That’s what they want you to think. Sorry, there is no escape.
Jews are 1.14% of the US population. If so few can subvert so many perhaps that many deserves it for being so weak and stupid. Just sayin’ Oh, and all hail to the master cat herder who got all those Jews to do it.
Yes we we were subverted and we deserve it, but what to do next?
LineInTheSand said: ” Yes we were subverted and we deserve it, but what to do next?” Folks on this site constantly talk about the smart fraction. But most don’t seem, at least to me, to connect that with the lightly skinned. If the universe holds a steady course, around 20% of the people on this site will be smart enough to figure it out. The rest will spend the remainder of their short miserable lives, toiling in obscurity for a rich evil Jew.
Another masterwork in miniature.
Kudos on finding a lost map coursing between Scylla and Charybdis.
So much to be examined here, hat tip to the readers!
The Black Death hit around 1350 and killed 1/3 of the European population.
How did that change the Church-Jews power and cultural dynamic?
Happy Saturday, RFF. I just Googled “judaism europe black death impact population church” – first two pages are pogroms all the way down.
It would be nice to find sources that simply stated things like what the Jewish population losses were, if physical separation or other Mosaic law customs worsened or mitigated Jewish losses, how the economic sectors of finance and trade were impacted, if the increased leverage of lower population labor effected Jewish businesses, etc but the minute you put the J-word into Google, you get firehosed with annudah Shoah. It would take a deliberate painstaking effort to cherry pick through the kvetching and dig out useful information.
I’d rather stare at this creek and pray for trout.
Pleasure to hear from you. Are you creek fishing? Good for you! May you have fish abundance for dinner tonight. You can multi-task!
I did a little ferreting around and found ala The Great Courses:
“The feudal society had begun to change by 1340. One was the rise of a merchant class, which was able to develop in part because of a population boom that occurred between 1000 and 1300. Over the course of 3 centuries, the population of Europe doubled from approx. 75 M to around 150 M, due to a few influences one of which was…….HA! …a period of global warming The Medieval Warm Period that INCREASED THE GROWING SEASON (they didn’t all die from Global Warming) and advances in agriculture.
The population boom created a land crunch. With the doubling of the population in 3 centuries, most all arable land was under the plow,
With this land crunch, many people were driven to the cities to find a way to make a living. This created, for the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire, urbanization on a significant scale in places like London, Paris, Rome Florence and Milan.
An increase in trade and the movement of goods to and from far-flung locales served to create a new class that didn’t quite fit into the 3-Estates model. While the merchant class should technically belong to the 90% of those who work, the members of that class started to look a little more like the top 5%, the Nobles, or those who fight.
A shrewd businessman could make enough money to afford expensive clothes and education for his family.”
Guess who we found and where they went.
I love Great Courses – have the Great Minds on my Audible right now – 40+ hours for a $12 credit was worth buying the WaPo snakes a couple of lattes. Thanks for the info. Urbanization puts a strain on our Dunbar Number social capacity and overall psyches. Selects for lower empathy groups better ability to compartmentalize & abstract thinking. Large cities will always be “Jewy” – in that sense Nathan Cofnas was right, but I think his critique of MacDonald’s Critique, so to speak, downplayed extreme nepotism and other distasteful aspects of Judaic identity. The “blood and soil” guys are also right in recognizing that Whites are better adapted to smaller scale, more rural environments. If we’re going to find the right balance, we need to shift our ethnostates away from high-density urban living. We’ll always have some of it, but for forseeable generations, we’re best evolved and adapted for smaller towns and villages. The internet, computers, cell tech etc… allow us to have the advantages of connectivity without living like overcrowded hamsters in a Blade Runner urban hellscape.
RFF, read Belgian historian Henri Pirenne’s short classic “Medieval Cities” which describes commercial growth in the period you mention. People didn’t leave the land because it was scarce, they left it because there was more opportunity in the growing cities. “Stadtluft macht Frei” was the slogan of the time. Agricultural labor got scarce because of the migration. Merchants got rich and built churches, not synagogues. Jews were not prominent in development during that era. Not everything commercial is Jewish. The first big time European traders were Vikings.
We shouldn’t spend all our time playing cherchez le Juif.
I’m not wed to my narrative. Good input….Thank You.
“I’d rather stare at this creek and pray for trout.”
Wise man.
Missing the main point. Literacy and taxes. Dark Ages rulers illiterate themselves as their warriors had two choices for scribes and clerks. Jews or the Church. The Church demanded more resources mostly land in the post monetary era after the fall of Rome. Jews only protection.
Growth of urban lay literacy in places like England made kicking out Jews and taking over the loan books a profitable policy for kings
Here in the US White men are no longer needed. Chen and Kumar can replace us. White men are the new Jews absent wide deep war where Chen and Kumar retreat back home.
Every comment that I’ve ever seen from Whiskey on any website going back a decade that includes criticism of the J3ws involves him deflecting. Oy vey.
Whiskey is not Jew obsessed like some here, I’d put it that way.
Whiskey said: “Missing the main point. Literacy and taxes. Dark Ages rulers illiterate themselves as their warriors had two choices for scribes and clerks. Jews or the Church. The Church demanded more resources mostly land in the post monetary era after the fall of Rome. Jews only protection. Like I said. Business is business.
thezman said: “That’s what makes the book Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe such an interesting read. Instead of the modern practice of working backwards to force history into the current narrative, it is a review of the polices toward the Jews, in the centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire.”
Interesting post. I’m sure professor bachrach’s book is a real eye-opener. For me. It’s perfectly understandable that the secular authorities woud use a more practical approach in dealing with the jews. Business is business. And it’s also perfectly understandable, that when the Church gained the upper hand they would tell the jews to knock off the proselytizing. And denying the asians access to the upper echelons of the power structure is simply sound politics. Lets face it, two religous power blocks on the same turf and eventually somethings got to give. Of course you have to understand that the Church was constantly having to deal with Schisms and Heresies within it’s own ranks. So the the fewer problems the better. People used to understand that their tribe came first. The jews certainly did and still do. A lot of tribes still do. The first natural law is self defence. Without life, there’s nothing else. So the bottom line really is, seek the wherewithal to self-defend, or shut up and join the crowd.
it is popular with modern anti-Semites to claim the Jews worked with the Muslims in conquering Christian Spain. In reality, the Jews were willing to work with whoever looked like a winner. Jews also worked with Christians against the Muslims and sided with the Viking raiders when they sacked Bordeaux. They also worked with the Franks against the Vikings.
This doesn’t make them look any better. In fact, it confirms that they cannot be trusted.
Indeed they fly under the flag of the Jolly Roger by all accounts. It would be foolish for whites to have deals or alliances with them given their history of betrayals.
Judaism forbids usury with other Jews, but it’s perfectly kosher between Jews and non-Jews. Jews were able to easily capture medieval money markets, built the best lending houses, and lent to each other at much lower rates.
Christians had this taboo on usury all together and believed that charity was the best approach. It got so bad that all interest was forbidden by the church in 1179. How interesting that anyone who taxed the church was ex-communicated at the same time. Jewish power resulted from Christian misinterpretation of the bible. Christianity gradually reformed this misinterpretation. To this day Christian charity is overrated and harms more people than it helps. The fact that the heroin injecting bums are still fed and given tents by churches is part of that.
One can even say our un-policed border and benefits for illegals and their children is an outcropping unique to Christian charity. Although our western societies became post-Christian long ago, they still contain the social construct of Christianity, where one is expected to take in complete strangers like stray cats, including people who would murder you in your sleep and rape your daughter.
Most of the theology cited to mandate infinity dindus is (((OT.))) The NT cites can be resolved by reminding the audience that Joseph always planned to and eventually did take his family back home.
OT also commands them to stone transgenders and homosexuals. Funny how they overlook those parts.
So they ingratiate themselves with corrupt princes and churchmen so they can do the dirty work for an elite of fleecing the general population by whatever means they find most effective. Sounds familiar.
The Jewish descriptions of their ancient neighbors and their decrepitudes is more than likely an inversion.
Cicero found them unpatriotic, sacrilegious, backward, and alien.
Tacitus found them to be…”perpetual corrupters, luring people away from their religions, their families, and their patriotic duties on purpose, as though Jews had a singular devotion to destroying all civilizations but their own”.
You can find similar descriptions in the late empire and in every succeeding period of European history.
No matter where no matter when…the narrative always seems to repeat itself.
If anti-semitism were really an irrational inexplicable sudden eruption of scapegoating you’d expect an occasional variation in the reasons why…
it is not a irrational impulse. the very fact that Jews will destroy any white who brings up the Jewish domination of education, banking, media,politics and dominating our culture.
The only irrational people are those who bullshit themselves that this dominance isn’t real and a mortal threat to whites and Western civilization.
Now this isn’t to say we should be obsessed with this tyrannical gang, we shouldn’t, we just need to be aware of the power they wield and that they are our enemy and comport ourselves accordingly.
“In reality, the Jews were willing to work with whoever looked like a winner.”
Faithless bastards. I don’t need religion to dislike them.
In ancient times, Romans looked down on Greeks for having entirely situational ethics, and Greeks looked down on Jews for the same. The Greek vs. Jew riots during the Second Punic War in Alexandria were epic.
Exile said: “In ancient times, Romans looked down on Greeks for having entirely situational ethics…” The satirist Juvenal hated the greeks. Check this out. Start at 10:01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG8OAXMbfYw
The Jewish question always brings me back to what I notice is the same problem history has had with American Indians. Once historically, they were “savages” who needed to be civilized, now the are saintly people who lived in matriarchal societies, who had a “special” relationship with “nature” and lived in harmony with the enviroment, bla, bla, bla,… Instead of excepting them as a hugely diverse group of peoples with often very different lifestyles, we lump everyone together, and by doing this we miss a lot. Aztecs built sophisticated cites of stone… and mass executed hundreds of people day, ripping their hearts out. Paiutes in Death Valley had little, and ate beetle soup. Jewish people varied a lot too, depending on where they lived. Some were prone to greed and dual loyalties, others just ran their trades. We need to keep this in mid when judging who did what.
“Jewish people varied a lot too, depending on where they lived. Some were prone to greed and dual loyalties, others just ran their trades.”
What, would you guess, are the relative proportions of these sub-groups? What if we confine our analysis to the members in each sub-group who are influential and powerful?
Social policy is based on patterns and averages, not exceptions and outliers. Every social policy question presumes a NAxALT, but unless you can demonstrate that the group in consideration is so diverse it can’t reasonably be called a group, the exceptions are irrelevant to the problems being considered. It’s a persistent taxonomical issue, but it’s also used as a deflection from inconvenient truths about accurately defined groups.
In the case of Jews, particularly those in Current Year America, we’ve accurately described the group and the issues.
Did Zman think the book was worth reading?
There are many peculiar contradictions in the historical record. For instance, they go on and on about how the jews were driven out of spain, but one of the enlightenment reforms in the early 1700s was that jews no longer had to wear yellow hats to identify themselves. So there must have been an existing, recognized Jewish population in spain. How?
I did like it. I learned a few things and I’d recommend it as a good starter for people interested in the period.
Is it going to be Jew-stuff all the time around here now? I’m really not interested, and I’ll gladly make room for those who are if that’s the case.
We spent the entire week on other topics. Signalling for Z-Man to “toe the line – no J talk or else” isn’t fair to the other readers/listeners. If you’re demanding a heckler’s veto on what we can discuss, it’s not appreciated.
I’m not “demanding” anything. I’m asking a question about the future direction of this blog based on recent discussions, and I’m stating where my own interests lie, in what I consider a pretty open and above-board fashion. Whether it’s explicitly stated in the title or first line, a great number of posts in the last month have swerved into Jew-stuff, and this is not something I wish to read or discuss. If that’s going to be a focus of conversation from now on, I will adjust my reading habits accordingly.
I have a slightly different take. The Zman has a lot of knowledge, sound reflections on what he knows and a clear writing style. His podcasts are models of what podcasts should be. I’d like to refer his site to persuadable normies I know. Unfortunately, when the topics and comments get all Jewy as they are recently trending, it makes me look like a crackpot for recommending him. I still read him myself, but the Jooooo emphasis turns off other potential readers.
Of course I’m happy for him to run the place as he sees fit, but the JQ stuff will limit his ability to reach a lot of people who could profit from his ideas.
Made the same point recently in person to the ZMan. Didn’t seem he agreed with my premise or conclusion. While I continue to read his material, I no longer can recommend him to others.
Agreed Doc. This emphasis on the JQ seems to have coincided with the recent push for shekels (pun intended). While the readership may be up, the commentariat has changed. Others may not share my opinion, but polymaths and Renaissance men are simply more interesting than obsessive kranks. I’ll just note that commenters whose insights I value, e.g. Lineman, seem to have disappeared or greatly reduced their commentary. Bitching about the relative perfidiousness of Jews is not going to lead Our Thing to solutions for the culture war.
This comes off more as George Will-esque tone policing than as any legitimate concern with the level of discourse. The topic of the day is for Z to decide, not a self-appointed League of Concerned Gentlemen Scholars.
This week we “obsessively kranked” over Nassim Taleb on IQ, the fake religion of anti-racism, intelligent design, monetary policy and an entirely J-free podcast where most of the comment page was about vacation and Woke Capital. How much more diverse do we need to get to meet the “Renaissance man/polymath” standard of approval?
If you don’t like the J-talk, fine, but kindly just admit it and spare us the mean girls snobbery about your awesomely diverse and cultivated takes on muh culture war.
You, sir, (Exile) are the paradigmatic example of the quantity-over-quality, quick-with-ad hominems jackass who has recently infested the comments. I DGAF whether you approve of my tone or consider me a snob. I will continue to read Zman’s articles and listen to his podcasts, no matter what topic he chooses; but if the comments continue to deteriorate with contributions such as yours, it will be with considerably less profit and enjoyment. Sadly, I rather doubt you will STFU.
You started this by big-leaguing us. Stop crying out as you strike us. We’re not hijacking threads, we’re addressing the topics the host gives us.
Two posts is hardly an emphasis.
Failure to admit we have a problem is what’s gotten us to the sorry state we are in now.
If you want to go talk about “Muh Freedumb” and post pictures of your half-Aztec grandchildren, I suggest the Facebook comments section for Breitbart.
I beg your pardon? What grandchildren would those be? The ones produced by my 25-year old autistic son who lives in a group home? Or by my other autistic son, who’s 28 and lives at home? Or by my 30-year old Asperger’s Syndrome daughter, who also lives at home? Try a better tactic than flinging wild guesses about when constructing your “zingers”.
So you don’t have a stake in the future and don’t care. Duly noted.
But the 30 year old proves you’re a Boomer. Also duly noted.
Using disabled children we don’t know exist as victim shields to hide behind after you broadside everyone here you disagree with is a low Lefty tactic. If you’re being honest, everyone here sympathizes but we can’t and won’t let you play a victim card to shut everyone up.
I responded to a low slam about half-breed grandchildren hasarded by someone who was in entire ignorance of me or my family in the hopes of scoring a cheap victory. I’ve no power to shut anyone up on this blog, but I’ve no intention of allowing a snotty little gotcha remark like that to pass.
“Shut up!” he asked.
The Zman has stated his position on the JQ fairly definitively. So my guess is no, it will not be all Jew-stuff.
“Probably the most telling point in this regard is the fact that the most successful monarchs of the period all had pro-Jewish polices.”
Maybe cooperating with the smartest people is a better policy than trying to suppress them.
A thought, anyway.
Until they overthrow you because they see you as belonging to a competing tribe.
So you think they’re actively trying to overthrow the gentiles?
They played crucial roles in the 1964 immigration act, the founding of the NAACP, and the removal of Christianity from the public space, for example.
So did ever other left-leaning demographic.
Lorenzo, your answer is clearly true. I wonder if the “left-leaning demographic” whites and j3ws should be treated as a single block, or are their motivations fundamentally different.
Maybe you’re right, all liberals are the same, but I can’t help but notice that different liberal sub-groups appear to have different motivations and end-goals.
I think the left groups have the same goal: take power over everyone. Looking at the current anti-white agitation, I’d guess their idea is that white people, males anyway, are the last impediment to their success. My suggestion is to adopt Zman’s idea of positive identity rather than a negative one. The people with the JQ fixation spend their energy defining themselves as Un-Jews. It makes no points with persuadable normies.
I agree that many groups have the same goal of overthrowing traditional white male culture, but how will those groups fracture after their victory? Perhaps those fractures are relevant in our current analysis.
Secondly, what is our positive identity?
Positive identity: The people responsible for what’s best in Western society, governance and culture, plus the greatest mass prosperity and material comfort in human history.
The left is trying hard to make people forget that, but there’s plenty of very visible and undeniable evidence that the left is wrong.
“The people with the JQ fixation spend their energy defining themselves as Un-Jews.” It makes no points with persuadable normies.”
Since birth we have been force-fed jew-scripted lies, propaganda, and gas-lighting intended to dispossess us of our legacy, erase our ethno-racial identity, and criminalize White advocacy. Modern Christians and conservatives practically worship jews, do their bidding, and prioritize jewish interests over those of White children. This is the “JQ fixation” that needs to stop.
From our side, Identifying the enemy, who seeks our extinction, studying his strengths and weaknesses, and endeavoring to correct our own weakness and to maximize our own strengths is part of a rational battle plan. Fighting for our survival and restoring control of our own destiny in a White homeland is not a “fixation” or mis-expenditure of energy, or defining ourselves as Un-Jews.
“It makes no points with persuadable normies.”
We need to worry less about persuading normies and much more about motivating ourselves as regards communicating, garthering, orgainzing, and demonstrating leadership by example.
>>>So you think they’re actively trying to overthrow the gentiles?<<<
This is pretty much one of the foundational statements of the Dissident Right, yes.
If that is a fundamental tenet of the dissident right, normies will lump the DR with the Bad Mustache Man and the left will whoop up the connection so that nobody ever forgets it. Once you’ve gone down the JQ rabbit hole, you’re out of business with the normal people you need to persuade.
Blaming the Jews has been the consolation of every loser–Muslims included–for a thousand years
I’d swear that a false flagger planted that one.
Lorenzo – if all you’ve taken from all the thoughtful, reasoned, and informed comments up to this point here today is that it merely amounts to an implied irrational “blaming the Jews,” then I think perhaps the problem one of your perception only.
We need to give normies a new normal. The idea that “losers blame Jews for their own problems” is a Jewish cope. Race realists have been hearing the same thing about muh rayciss for decades, but the reality remains – 13 do 50, 1 do 109.
“… they’re actively trying to overthrow…”
They already have.
Assuming that your question is sincere, that you are White, and that you care about a future for White children, you need, like most of us here, to get deadly serious about securing our very existence as a distinct race.
109 communities tried.
What’s more likely – that none of them came up with this cooperation strategy b/c dumb haters, or that there’s a problem with “cooperating with the smartest people” you aren’t taking into account?
If it’s option 2, what’s your plan to deal with the pronkem?
“Problem”
Step 1 – help other people notice there’s a problem.
Step 2 -https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/06/the-slow-cleanse/
Not saying this is what you’re doing, Lorenzo, but as a relevant point for others, when dealing with these issues, JQ’ers should be prepared to deal with debate-ending strategies. One of these is to get you to state your 100 point soup-to-nuts plan for solving the JQ, then doing the Alinsky shuffle on your specific points. Greg Johnson’s plan is a good way to address that tactic.
The point of the strategy from the anti-Noticing side is to get you into the weeds on details and deflect attention from the fact that there’s a problem.
It’s the implicit details that are guaranteed to chase persuadable normies away.
“Slow cleanse”. That concept is so offputting that it might as well have come from a false flagger.
Jaysus wept
This is one of those ‘things change” concepts. More White people are becoming aware of the animus jews have for us. This may or may not reach a tipping point. If it does, as it has before, things will change.
There’s no more reasonable, civilized and humane way to express or approach the problem of multiculturalism. If someone is too “nice” to demand that uninvited guests stop trashing the house and leave, I don’t know how to help them. They can choose to help us or they can share tissues with Jaysus. It’s that simple.
When it comes to the Jews I know one thing for certain. I am not a Jew. If anything, after self identifying as a person of the dissident right I am a White Anglo Saxon American. It’s OK to be a White Anglo Saxon American. Live with me in peace and prosperity. History tells us what we need to know. If we can get the real truth of it all. We are not the same. We are not equal. They are not like me. That’s OK too.
ZMan’s critique of “negative identity” is framed against Black identity, how we need a positive identity in contrast. I don’t recall his ever noticing how much of Jewish identity is also negative. Being Jewish means always being on the edge of another pogrom. This persecution complex increases Jewish cohesiveness and helps them maintain a separate identity. This serves two purposes. It prevents assimilation, which I can respect to a degree. The problem is that it also justifies doing anything to the goyim to prevent another genocide. “Oy vey, we had to slaughter millions of goyim or there would have been another Shoah!” When 99% of the human race is plotting to kill you, where’s the incentive to act ethically?
I really don’t care if Jews and Christians got along better 1000 years ago. Today 90% of them are diametrically opposed to my interests. Maybe Zman can break down Jewish identity like he always does to the Blacks and anti-Semites. Why are so many Jews shite people and why do so many dissident right people have a weird fetish for them? Is it like the mirror image of Stalag porn?
“Why are so many Jews shite people and why do so many dissident right people have a weird fetish for them?”
Because the J3w versus White conflict is the most consequential conflict of the last 100 years, yet most people are blinded to it by the media/academia. We’ve lost almost every battle.
TRS’s “Third Rail” touched on this last week, two of the podcasters are going to do a separate piece on it in the near future. Particularly for modern Jews whose foundational myth begins and ends with the Holocaust (95% – yes 95% – polled recently in Europe said the Holocaust is very important to their identity), they are bonded together by opposition to the hostile Others, particularly Christians (see Michael Medved’s piece in Commentary’s symposium on why Jews vote liberal years back – American Jewish identity is primarily anti-Christian – Medved got Shoah’d hard for that one, much “shh – goys noticing” kvetching).
Historically, the only positive spots are the Covenants and the Kingdom period, and even those high points were layered with tragedy (the golden calf, the Witch of Endor, Bathsheeba, Queen of Sheba, etc…).
The Holocaust is a phantasmagoric update and amplification of the Exodus with totatalitarian tentacle porn (masturbation machines, gas chambers, ovens, cattle cars).
There is no connection between OT Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism which formed in 70 AD after the destruction of Jerusalem as punishment for Deicide.
Rabbinical Judaism formed as opposition to the Catholic Church established by Jesus and it remains that to this day. It is the Synagogue of Satan.
Rabbinical Judaism has no priests, temple or worship. It is an arguing society intended to keep the Jews in the rabbinical camp
Talmudic rabbinical Judaism has legs even when most American Jews are barely religious and many are Dawkins-style aggressive atheists. In function if not in theory, Jews worship their race as God. There are lessons for us to learn there (counter-Semitism, I know) in fashioning a stronger belief system based on White identity that can withstand modernity the same way Jewish identity, if not exoteric religious practice, has.
The war crimes committed against the Jews (and them alone, of course) has aught to do with Holocaust which were the worship types taught to Hs people by God for His people in preparing them to accept Jesus as messiah.
There were four different types of Holocausts – sacrifice in worship of the the sovereignty of God; sacrifice of propitiation, to appease His anger irritated by our countless sins; sacrifice of Impetration, asking for His bounty; sacrifice of thanksgiving (eucharist) thanking Him for His bounty
and it was Jesus and His pluperfect self sacrifice which alone is worthy of the name Holocaust.
Now, the Jews want everyone to accept the the crimes committed against them (and them alone) in WW2 was a holocaust but a holocaust is a burnt offering to God which is then consumed.
Did the Nazis kill the Jews as their way to worship God and did they then eat the sacrifice?
Or did the jews sacrifice their own for power? It was jews who coined the phrase wasn’t it?
I think the Jews use the war crimes committed against them (and them alone) as a way to advance their supremacy – “We have unjustly suffered more than any other people/race in history”
>>>The Holocaust is a phantasmagoric update and amplification of the Exodus with totatalitarian tentacle porn (masturbation machines, gas chambers, ovens, cattle cars).<<<
Don’t forget the pedal-powered brain-bashing machines, electric floors, Bear/Eagle pits, and (my personal fav) the Roller Coaster of Death.
Damn, roller coaster of death and masturbation machines?
One of the rumors I have heard about Epstein’s private island is that it had a dental chair in which girls were strapped in and had their braces removed. Perhaps their own proclivities lead them to ascribe the same behavior to others.
I’ve covered Jewish negative identity in the past, but not in great detail. The holocaust stuff has been a huge negative for Jewish identity.
>>>The holocaust stuff has been a huge negative for Jewish identity<<<
It was the excuse they needed to dispossess us of our lands, our heritage, and ultimately our lives, so I can’t say I agree.
In the short term they’re winning, but Whitey’s an opponent with advantages they can’t match – competitive IQ levels coupled with a sense of transcendence, aesthetics and creativity that the materialist shopkeepers and scientists can’t match, vast numbers as well as superior social charm and captivating shiksas.
In the arena of social advantage alone, the only reason Jews have been able to manipulate other races to use as cultural and demographic weapons against us is that we’ve been too honorable and/or unaware to fight them on that basis. As Z often notes, Blacks literally can’t live without us. No race has that same relationship with the Jews. We can weaponize our racial good looks and charm.
In the long run, Jews who can’t make peace with us are fighting a losing battle – unless we take ourselves down through apathy, ignorance or toxic ideologies.
The 109 historic expulsions and self-deportations of Jews suggest either a common pattern of Jewish behavior or a common pattern of non-Jewish behavior.
Blaming the Jews requires that we accept that a tiny diaspora group of insular, in-marrying cultural and religious fanatics behaved in similar ways that angered diverse host populations.
Blaming the goyim requires that we blame the other 99% of the human race.
Social policy and research is based on patterns and averages, not exceptions and outliers.
The Edict of Alhambra, one of the 109 above, tossed the Jews out of Spain because of their converso shapeshifting into the higher echelons of Spanish Christian power after the Reconquista, not anything they did before or during the Reconquista. (see http://www.unz.com/article/review-the-jesuit-order-as-a-synagogue-of-jews/ for examples).
Check out numerous pieces by Andrew Joyce at The Occidental Observer regarding the pattern of medieval Jewish collaboration with rulers like the Ottomans and Balkan kings as tax farmers and lenders, with the impetus for expulsion usually arising in the put-upon debtor classes of kulaks and petty lords.
NAJALT, and all that, but I’m not going to accept that the entire White race (and a few others who’ve asked “whatcha doin’ rabbi?” over the centuries) are motivated solely or even primarily by irrational animus, religious doctrines or envy over Chosen morals, wealth or smarts.
I’m going to follow the same rules we apply to the other races and conclude that “1 do 109” means that Jews are the problem, not the other 99% of humanity. It’s no less obvious than “13 do 50,” but the consequences of Noticing are much higher.
That’s what we need to change. When we told the world in 2016 that “we want our country back,” this is what we meant.
Like conversos in Spain and Jews throughout Medieval Europe, American Jewry has reached levels of power, wealth and cultural influence that amount to our Finlandization by an antagonistic if not outright hostile minority. If you oppose or even indirectly offend this tiny, oppressed, misunderstood and envied group of morally pure plucky over-achievers, you will find yourself jobless, ostracized, financially exiled and possibly even imprisoned, whether you are a powerful goy in politics, media or finance, a pizza guy or a blue-collar Proud Boy.
The J-Pill is out there. Start with Occidental Observer, Unz Review and Counter-Currents. Follow your logic, your common sense, and your lying eyes.
When I look back at my education in history classes, I am amazed at my credulous acceptance of the teaching that J3ws were often treated awfully by Europeans, due to the evil of the Europeans, without ever asking, “Wait, is it possible that there are two sides to this story?”
Kind of like the question of “what could these people have done in the 1920’s that pissed Germans off enough for what (allegedly) happened in the 30’s and 40’s to take place?”
Meme: For those who’ve often thought the same, here’s a link I saved from Vox ‘s blog a number of years ago, that provides a brief but compelling summation of some important numbers: WWII a Jewish Creation
Exile,
I dont actually disagree with your theory above, but I’ll play Devil’s advocate for a moment.
What non-Christian group was the medieval to Renaissance Church actually sympathetic with? Even the Cathars, a strange heretical sect of quasi-Christianity, were eradicated. Did all of these groups carry the same come kick me then kick me out gene?
Shape-shifting and infiltration, skills I will admit are refined in the repertoire of the Jewish people en toto, were not unheard on the chaos of pre-Reconquista and Reconquista Spain. The great El Cid fought for Muslim warlords against fellow Spaniard Christians at times and yet he is forgiven and revered.
Perhaps the error of the Jews is not so much their perceived duplicity, but rather a cultural fault, that is either their inability to recognize their welcome is outlived, or perhaps an innate prohibition against giving up their gains or power when a native population grows hostile to them.
Curious mental exercise.
None of those errors is mutally exclusive – I can see a number of mutually reinforcing social maladjustments stemming from the common root of Chosen-ness. A sense of superiority, particularly moral and intellectual superiority, holier and smarter than thou, lack of empathy and unwillingness to cut losses and compromise with lesser competitors. A constellation of adaptive and maladaptive behaviors that on balance ends up in incompatibility.
While the Christian Churches were all intolerant, they co-existed with Jews and Muslims where circumstances necessitated it. For example, no one doubts the Templars devoutness and fanatacism, but they co-existed often peacefully with both during the Crusades launced to conquer the other Abrahamic faith’s lands. Breaking the peace was a tango that required a partner or two.
The fact that these expulsions and emigrations have continued long into the post-Ren era shows that Christian intolerance wasn’t the main ingredient.
“converso shapeshifting into the higher echelons of Spanish Christian power ”
I think this might be a key concept. The Jewish mind solves problems sideways instead of head on. I think western man finds this duplicity offensive or dishonorable on some level and that’s why jews don’t get the respect other opponents do. Just loathing.
I think I’m going to start referring to conservatism inc as conversos.
It’s part of our Western legacy – I point out elsewhere that Romans scorned the Greeks for being foxes rather than lions. While Romans borrowed much from the Greeks, the Empire still ended up splitting on Greco-Roman cultural-political lines centuries after Rome conquered Greece. There was an oil-water aspect to their mix.
It took a while, but Homo sapiens ascended to the top of the organic pyramid, developed agriculture, and evolved from hunter-gatherer to civilized man. Various cohorts within the species evolved unique adaptations to local environment; some physical, some social/cultural. The diversity of religions is simply the evolution of what “worked” in any particular place. Into this cauldron of this religious diversity, fitness selection played it’s role and left it’s mark. What persists is what works.
Religion mens “bond with God” and it was God who instituted religion and there has ever one been one true religion -the religion of Jesus Christ – and the OT is one long preparation for the incarnation of Jesus Christ and His Church, and the OT revelation is revealed very slowly and in the NT it is reveled as Jesus Himself.
The only difference in the one religion is that n the OT the faithful had far less revealed to them then do the NT faithful
The Bond with God began with Adam and Eve and then increased to include progressively larger populations – family, tribe, tribes, nation and then universal family (Catholic Church)
Interesting observations. St. Gregory of Tours mentions Jews occasionally in his History. Couple interesting interactions recorded.
One is of a wicked bishop who, among other atrocities, buried a priest alive in an attempt to steal his property. St. Gregory records that this bishop was, “on familiar terms with the Jews and was much influenced by them, not for their conversion, which ought to be the preoccupation of a priest, but because he bought goods from them. He was easily flattered: and they knew how to keep in his god books…” This is from after A.D. 500 or so.
He records some attempts at Christian conversion of Jews. In Clermont-Ferrand, around 580, another bishop was energetic in evangelization toward the Jews, with initially poor results. One who did convert was assaulted during Easter procession, leading the crowd to level the synagogue. Although, according to Gregory, following a threat to expel them from the city, they converted as a group.
King Chilperic was quite serious about Jewish conversion, ordering many to be converted and acting as godfather to some. Gregory says that some of these conversions were not sincere. In any case, one of the kings Jewish friends would not accept conversion, even after being imprisoned for a while; that man was killed by another Jew (who had converted) as part of what looks like some sort of family vendetta.
OT: The progressive or atheist penchant for pointing out the brutality of early Christians from Constantine’s era to the late Renaissance. It is their “Aha, gotcha hypocrite!” argument that makes me want to stop getting stuble-length haircuts so I’d have hair to pull out.
It is hard for us to conceptualize early Medieval Church high clergy. We picture the almost effeminate purse-lipped, pencil-necked bishop ready to parse through theological obscurities… more of a modern take.
Many of the early medieval Church higher ups were little more than well connected lords with close connections to the regional warlord… with probably no more than a generation or two between him and his pagan origins. There are numerous accounts of bishops riding to the defense of a city armed and armored, and of priests slitting pagan throats after a battle. Why wouldn’t they? Most came to sword and spur training long before any religious education. Many early Christian rulers and power players had only the basest of Christian indoctrination and would sometimes vacillate between Christianity and pagan belief structures.
By the Renaissance, the Church had largely become political/familial in structure (I’ve heard a brilliant theory essentially attributing the Black Death for much of the businesslike change in the Church… many of the faithful and compassionate lower clergy died off while treating victims of the Plague, while nominal Christian higher-ups purportedly walled themselves off with their clerical staffs from the dying masses). Christian high officials, with a few notable exceptions, were picked but not Chosen by calling, and were no different from their elder brother in the sense that they were concerned largely with power, wealth and their illegitimate progeny.
While I can see the arguments against official organized religion, they are not legitimate theological condemnations of Christianity itself.
If a human endeavor, however noble, can at times be corrupted… it will be. It does not follow that the seed itself is to blame because the great oak it will become contracts a disease. “Gentlemen, I give you the F. B. I….”
I did not know that Jews once proselytized aggressively in Europe, in fact I thought they largely did not. But that certainly explains why many Ashkenazi Jews look so European, genetically they probably largely are. Also makes me wonder if hybrid invigoration, between European and ME Jewish stock, could play a causal role in their high IQ, in addition to the other explanations about more or less active selection for it.
Jews also engaged in the forced conversions of pagans and Christians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion
Jews played a prominent role in the Soviet Union before WWII when millions of people were executed, exiled, imprisoned or starved to death:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
In the 1970s, after they were pushed out of power in the Soviet Union, they had the chutzpah to whine about “persecution” and the US let them in.
In the sixth century, Pope Saint Gregory the Great codified the modus vivendi of The Catholic Church with the Jews – Sicut Judaies non – in which he taught that no man could harm the Jews or disturb their services but that they not be allowed to ascend to places of authority in Christendom or to corrupt Christian morals.
I am not surprised that a Messias-Denier could not be trusted to write an accurate portrayal of The Church especially when he is writing about heretics and you are no help when you identify heretics as The Church.
What is your definition of Church?
There is one definition of “the Church” in this context. I’m not sure what you’re doing with this weird hairsplitting, but Arianism is not a factor in this discussion.
I am asking what your definition of “The Church ” is
That is not hair-splitting.
What his your definition of The Church?
He’s talking about the main-line doctrine Roman Catholic Church, to re-state the obvious. Retreating into “no true Catholic” theological equivocations to rationalize the eternal perfection of the Church on all things is one of the most damaging and discrediting thing Catholics do, and it’s emptying your pews. When you find yourself obsessing over definitions like this, you’re turning faith into libertarian sperg-bait. No one can argue with someone in good faith when they do this, and no one wants to bother. They just ignore you after a few tries. If you try to engage someone’s arguments substantively, you’ll both have a better time of it.
What are you talking about.
I retreated into nothing.
I asked him what his definition of The Church is as it seems quite apparent that he uses “The Church” to describe what any local community of Christians did or didn’t do.
He will not answer what his definition of “The Church” is because he prolly thinks “The Church” refers to something other than what it is.
When on refuses to define what it is they are really talking about, I get suspicious
Great post and very informative. I had no idea Judaism was once encouraging of proselytization.
“Read your Bible!” as the preachers say. “”Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.” Matt. 23:15
Well, sure. But it runs counter to the narrative the Jews tell about their history in Europe, which is of a marginalized minority in perpetual danger of being pogrommed by ignorant Christians for no reason at all.
There is a lamentable habit of citing some action by some Christians and ascribing those actions to “The Church.”
How are a bunch off heretics (Arians) considered “The Church?”
“How are a bunch off heretics (Arians) considered “The Church?””
Ah, the “No True Christian” argument.
Except in this particular case, they really were not Christians.
Good point. The rulers in the West during the early Medieval period were almost all Arians. The conversion of Clovis was such a big deal specifically because all the others (Burgundy in France, Visigoths in Spain and France, Ostrogoths in Italy) were Arian. That Clotilde, Catholic princess of Arian Burgundians by some unlikely process, converted Clovis to Catholicism was widely seen as some sort of miracle. Which it was.
This was a non-trivial distinction, Catholic vs. Arian, as the treatment of Clovis’ great-granddaughter, Ingund, by her Arian Visigoth mother-in-law shows. Attempting to get the girl to be re-baptized as Arian, the girl declines. At that point, the queen, “seized the girl by the hair and threw her to the ground: then she kicked her until she was covered with blood, had her stripped naked and ordered her to be thrown into the baptismal pool.”
I wonder how much of the positive treatment of the Jews in the West was driven by a set of foreign rulers with heretical religious beliefs finding them to be useful as they ruled over an ethnically distinct people with different religious beliefs. Arian Visigoths ruling Catholic Hispano-Romans, for example. Just a thought.
The material covered in the book includes the Visigoths, who converted from Arianism in the late sixth century, the Merovingians, the Carolingians and the Ostrogoths. From about 500 AD, Arianism was not a factor in Jewish policy.
Speaking just of the Visigoths, it seems reasonable to wonder. The Breviary of Alaric, which defines the Jewish rights to separate law courts and so on, was an Arian Visigoth document. As I understand, the Visigoths themselves had a different law from the Catholic Hispano-Romans over whom they ruled. The Visigoth conversion to Catholicism was 589, officially, and the entire kingdom was obliterated 120 years later by the Muslim invasion.
The Jews famously opened the gates of Toledo to the Muslim armies, an act which was totally justified by the Visigothic mistreatment of the Jews, I’m told.
In any case, it really does seem that the Jews switched sides. Most histories seem to suggest the Catholic treatment of them was mostly to blame, which suggests that there was something that made Arian Visigoths treat Jews better than the Catholic Visigoths did.
The Breviary of Alaric applied to the subjects and was mostly a collection of existing Roman laws. That’s the thing to keep in mind. These “barbarians” inherited an existing system of laws that had been in place for centuries.
Another interesting thing in the book is the comparison between official policy and reality, both within the Church and the secular realm. The local church authority would adopt rules that were then ignored by everyone, including the church. Some things never change.
Originally, the Visigoths sought to retain their ethnic distinctiveness and independence from the Roman Pope by remaining Arian while ruling over Catholic Hispano-Romanos. In 587, King Reccared converted to Catholicism and his subjects followed, whether they wanted to or not, and the Visigoth version of the Cloud People ruling class assimilated with their Dirt People subjects.
I agree w/ the premise of your question. As a Christian I often find myself diametrically opposed to establishment “church”, primarily because church professionals tend to frequently leave the biblical reservation in search of progressive acceptance. And this has been a problem throughout Christian history, and down through the ages of Jewish history back to Abraham and Lot. “Nothing new under the sun” comes to mind.
The mark of the Christian is motive, and it doesn’t entail power, alliances, or politics. Yet the mark of “The Church” has often been (and remains) focused on those very things. Christians need to be more studious with their church history … it’s not all piety and humble martyrdom. Z-man raises some great points of history.
As to the Jews, Christians should (must?) be able to make a distinction between Hebrews and Zionists. Again, motive. There’s a world of difference between the world of deep-state Zionists and the Jew laboring on a kibbutz in his homeland. Non-Christians may very well think differently, and understandably so. But for those who find the biblical text compelling, there’s a BIG difference between a humble Jew and the calculating Pharisee. It’s the latter group with whom we struggle.
Being diametrically opposed to the Church is to be diametrically opposed to Jesus who established His Church (matt 16:18)
I am still looking for someone to define “The Church”
One could begin by saying, for instance, that it is The Kingdom of God on earth and all outside it are part of the Kingdom of Satan but I am not likely to see that advanced as a part of any definition of what The Church is
That’s an interesting piece, Z. I hope you’ll write more like it. I do have a question, though. The medieval period is 1000 years, roughly from 500 AD to 1500 AD. When, specifically, did the Catholic Church gain enough power and influence with the kings and nobility that it was able to act against Jews? Also, did the author address anti-Jewish pogroms, such as occurred in Strasbourg in 1349?
The “clerical faction” began to gain power with the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire. Increasingly weak monarchs and better organized Church in the 9th and 10th century is the tipping point. The quality of the churchmen in the early medieval period was often quite low. That began to change in the 9th century.
The book only covers the early medieval period, so anything after the the 900’s is not addressed.
The increase in Church power (post Carolingian) may also coincide with popularizing of sending second and third sons of nobility into the clergy. Prior to that some of the most famous or popular Christian leaders came from ignoble backgrounds. By the early Renaissance, it was not uncommon to see a young nobleman exit seminary and immediately step onto a bishopric slot.
Further, by late medieval period the ability of nobles to enter into the trading/Mercantile class was more acceptable and even desirable. You see this occur particularly in the Italian states and Mediterranean coastal areas.
Both of these factors placed powerful gentiles in direct competition with arenas that were traditionally a Jewish hegemony.
A young nobleman cum clergyman has ties to both the Church and secular Christian rulers. Church officials were also educated and replaced many Jews in secular clerical positions, essentially replacing Jews in the need to have someone “keep the books.”
Finally, the Jews had been much needed as a means of banking and trade over great spans… having contacts and organizations that spanned Europe, western Asia and the Middle East. Early to mid-Medieval feudal powers often couldn’t project beyond their own territory in terms of either power or trade policy. With the spread of Christianity under the Crusades throughout the Middle-East, North Africa and Eastern Europe and the advent of Crusading Order banking systems and trade routes (i.e. Templars), Jews became redundant and relegated to “the competition” instead of the sole source of conducting long-range trade and communication.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the human capital in the Church. The habit of dividing the estate among the surviving sons made it impossible to maintain a kingdom, much less an empire. Louis the Pious died and his three sons then went to war with one another. If he had sent two of his sons off to be princes of the Church, that would not have happened.
This new custom of sending the extra sons and daughters of the nobility into the Church served the interests of the Church and the Nobility. it also bound the two along blood lines in many cases.
Rather like the British who used their Empire as a means to get younger sons out of the way and less likely to cause domestic mischief.
Thanks. That’s about what I expected.
Supposedly the high Middle Ages, 1000-1200 AD, the church and states became more powerful and cracked down on the Jews for various reasons, probably mostly to get out of debt, as happened in England. At that time, most ashkenazi Jews migrated to Eastern Europe, hence the populations there. Gilad atzomon said that the real reason the Jews went east was because they were needed to replace the middle class which had been decimated by the mongols.
Sir Balin,
That is interesting. I never considered the vacuum created by the Mongols in eastern Europe. The Russian boyars were nearly eradicated by the hordes and further west, the creme of the Slavic nobility and proto-prussian powers were decimated. There is even some genetic trace of the mongols as far west as Switzerland and you can still see that genetic heritage in the epicanthic folds above many Russians’ eyes.
To point, that was contemporary with the late Crusades and the complete souring of the Western and Central European relationship with European Jewry.
Why wouldn’t they migrate to a natural vacuum (in all ways: power, land and population)? The Caucasus were fragmented and disordered, and the “Peace of the Khans” would allow them to exercise one of their primary social assets, that is, trade and long distance communication.
Interesting.
Well posited, Sir.
I read that in Being and Time, Unreferenced. Perhaps it is merely a tactic of Atzmon, you know how all narratives are distorted into a tale of grievance and victim hood, instead he changes the emphasis to white victimhood for a change!
Well, if it is a competition for victimhood the Mongols provide many top runners, making the Jewish holocaust just a holocaust notable mention. East asians and Southwest Asian muslims score massive victimhood points.
Luckily for Europe, the Khan was informed that Europe held nothing of value and then shortly after contact the Mongols descended into internal dynastic warfare.
If you compare the size of the Mongol detachment that wrecked eastern Europe to a full scale horde, the western armies were only matched against a Mongol reconaisance in force.
Either way, I hadn’t ever looked at that as a possible explanation for Jewish inhabitation of eastern Europe north of the Byzantine Empire. Thanks for the post.
But the thing is, none of this matters. All that matters today is that the people leading the genocide of whites through mass immigration, systematically denigrating our culture, and destroying our legal and political systems, are jews.
Cultivating a strong and healthy anti-Semitism is an absolute necessity for the survival of white people. Racism, of which anti-Semitism is one type, is the immune system of a people. By lobbying against it, the Zman is attacking the immune system of our people, and hastening our destruction. What happened to you, Zman?
I disagree. Negative identities always end in failure. I don’t want to be black. https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=11058
I understand we need to be pro us, but would that include being anti those who are trying to weaken us. It seems like there is room for both.
I was thinking similar thoughts. I agree that it’s necessary to promote a positive identity for our group, but we know what that brings in response, and one certain group is always (Every. Single. Time.) there to swat us down.
Wherever we have a problem, I find Jews working to make it worse. Whites don’t do this to blacks – it’s wholly fictitious. Tennessee Coates can’t cite NYT-level articles by Whites crowing about Black replacement. He has to reach 50 years back to find anything to credibly bitch about. We can’t spend 15 plugged-in minutes without getting slapped with a gefilte fish.
NAJALT x 100, but there’s a major segment of that tribe that needs to be brought to heel, by their own or by us, since their own won’t do it. It’s the same problem as jihadis vs. “vast majority of peaceful Muslims,” and requires a similar solution.
Maybe only 5 of 13 do 50, but those 5 need to be dealt with. Same with whatever percentage of the 2% are up to no good.
Well it’s pretty damn hard to develop a positive group identity of any kind when the Tribe is there to smash us into the ground. The tribe has made it clear they don’t like us and want us dead and gone. They either say this directly among their own kind or use 3rd world proxies in MSM to get that message out or by the policies they support.
And any pro-Western movement they are apart of, they invariably sabotage at some point by screaming “anti-semite” to friendly ears in the MSM.
My own policy is to simply recognize them as a threat the same way I view Rattlesnakes and Blackwidows.
If it were easy, white people would not be needed to do it.
Z, I can’t say I agree on “negative identities always end in failure.”
I’d go so far as to say it’s worked out pretty well for the People Who Shall Dwell Alone. Their whole identity is bound up in being the leaders of “not Whitey.”
That is observably not true. They say they are chosen by the deity whose name shall not be spoken. Sounds like a fairly positive identity to me.
How is Jewish criticism any different than criticizing blacks?
Would you consider the currently widespread holocaust obsessed Jews as establishing a negative identity?
Think “Hereditary Enemy.” as vs a negative identity.
Certain groups will be and always have been at odds, “had conflicts of interest” as it were and acknowledging that can be part of a strong healthy outlook
It’s highly doubtful the West will go NDSAP or full Socialist at any point so an escalation to crazy town is unlikely and the animosity can be kept in check and used for social capital iff desired/
This of course presumes the West is Christian in its culture . It may not be and may outside the US and Eastern Europe revert to a Pagan worldview disguised as environmentalism
The only risk is if people on the Left get power , some of them will happily declare exterminatus even though this is stupid in the extreme.
Frankly I think going this route is unwise and Antisemitism has far too much of a negative outlook to benefit.
I’ve known plenty of Jews and their clannishness and tribal ways are well worth emulating and learning from. It will in some sense make us poorer but a materially weaker, mentally stronger West would be a good thing
What Israel does Not our people, not our problems, you can’t live here is healthiest way to be.
Why hate when you can emulate?
This will unwind nearly everything the Catholic church did but if it can be combined with a rudimentary “no more brother wars.” and “clean up your mess” ideology the West would thrive in a more hostile world
We’ll probably end up tribal anyway but the faster we embrace it, the better for all
BTW this post is quite fascinating and its nice to see discussion of the period anywhere these days. I get hungry enough for content that I end up watching videos on Saxon glass production
My quick take is the tolerance of Jews and their interest makes perfect sense to me as the early medieval period had yet to develop strong religious , social or financial institutions whereas jewish institutions were thousands of years old and well entrenched
Once the Roman Catholic Church gained power , anti jewish activity was a given since Mid to High medieval structures were opposite land from Jewish systems
Even ignoring the rather important matter of Jesus Catholic prohibition on usury for example means there would be hefty conflict with moneylenders
Frankly I think the Catholic system was better for western folks but it took was alien to us so if we revert as we may well, the loss will be far less than it otherwise might have been.
I think there should be two sides to the sword: to love the things that help us and hate those that hurt us. You need both, I think
Unfortunately, about 1/3 of whites are fully onboard with the anti-white agenda that so many Jews propound. Yes, we need to realistically assess the Jews, but we would also do well to understand and address the pathologies within our own ranks. The Jews can’t do it alone.
Failing to realistically assess the Jews is one of our pathologies. Manson couldn’t do it alone – he didn’t even go in the house. Thank God he still died in jail for it.
If we believe that women have moral agency equal to that of men, then the women who physically committed the crime should have been punished more severely than Manson. If women lack this moral agency, then they have no business voting, participating in government, or otherwise exercising authority over men in any sphere, especially the church and the miilitary.
The feminist movement is one of many sinister weapons wielded by jews to fracture White families.
Fascinating. Certainly not the story we usually get.
Nope, sure isn’t.
But neither is it the whole story. In most countries where the rulers favored the Jews for their money and connections and power base, they used them to squeeze the local populace through taxes, loans, exclusive commodity franchises, etc. The Jews were game because the host population was an alien people to them. Read about how/why the Jews were forced out of England – it was local pressure (and from the people, not just the local officials and landowners) which forced the king’s hand.
The Jews’ absence allowed England to develop its own middle and merchant class and culture developed along local lines, which led to England’s flowering culturally, politically, and economically. Then the Jews worked hard, after their ‘enlightement,’ to heavily intermarry with British nobility in the 19th and 20th centuries – using the lure of wealth, as always – and largely succeeded. There’s a lot at TOO about this but I’ve always studied English history and read of it elsewhere. Whereas the local English tend to be entirely English, the monied and propertied classes almost all have 1/4-1/16 Jewish ancestry. And before Zman retorts with his ‘magic Jew theory,’ the effect is not so much genetic as it is one of identity and roots and who one considers one’s own people.
I’ve always viewed jews is simply another competing nation with their own priorities, cultural values and goals. If its in their interest to undermine the host nation they will. They will also lobby for benefits that give them an advantage. Politics is a zero sum game, somebody’s got to be on top.
I read a short treatise from the 16th or 17th century outlining the history of conflict between jews and Christians in England drawing from court records. I can’t remember what it was called or where I found it online, but it showed a back and forth between the two nations with no solution. Interesting read, but dry.
Me too. Then, as now, all tribal conflicts were all about money and power. If Jews put money in your pocket you will be amenable to them, if they threaten or work against you, you will reciprocate. I no longer accept historical accounts at face value; it’s safest nowadays to assume all the authors all have at least some bias.
My historical take on the Jews is that when they work within existing power structures of their hosts and play ball… they do well. When they don’t, they get the punt or they get cleansed… same as any other tribe. The only exception I know of is Middle East politics where they are surrounded and hated by moslems… and those fig farming goat feltching mutts hate everybody.
At this moment in time I think we may have better enemies to worry about.
John, give me a reality check. What “better enemies to worry about” do we have?
Liberals, for a start…
I appreciate your answer and it illustrates an ongoing debate in my mind. What is more powerful at a deep psychological level, a political ideology, like liberalism or conservatism, or tribalism?
Certainly both are powerful, but if an ideologue has to choose between his ideology and his tribe, for example being colorblind or favoring his tribesman, what is the most common outcome? Does a non-white ever choose an ideology that disadvantages his tribe over what is good for his tribe?
These are difficult questions and people of good faith can disagree.
The Tribe is the final boss in Satan’s video game. SJW’s, Feminists, Jihadists…they’re the underbosses you have to clear on the lower levels.
“What is more powerful at a deep psychological level, a political ideology, like liberalism or conservatism, or tribalism?”
I personally believe that both can be trumped by self interest. This is at the heart of the JQ today – on a national level, are these guys a liability or an asset? As our esteemed blog host has pointed out, historically they have been both to their host countries. Time and time again, they’ve proven that they can be very powerful friends and enemies. To counter Exile, for example – Judaism gave rise to the most powerful religion in the history of man – Christianity. Jews were at the heart of the research that gave America the atomic bomb. As a group they are strongly represented on the cutting edge of science and technology.
To me it’s important to keep them in perspective. Sure, they are very active in shitlib activist politics and yellow journalism… but there’s any number of whites mixed up in that idiocy too.
One of the things that the cucks got right, and we as dissidents need to take to heart – is that racism leads to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Sometimes, things change and get so bad that that is the only solution… and I personally don’t think we are there yet. But we ARE on the way, and it’s something that we might all want to talk about before we move from the ballot box to the cartridge box.
Jews “gave” us Christianity by crucifying Christ and persecuting his disciples. The Talmud of their modern rabbis says he’s drowning in excrement in Hell. According to very much Jewish GOP’er Michael Medved, American Jewish identity today is primarily anti-Christian.
Jews gave the atom bomb to Stalin.
Jewish technical and industrial espionage against the US includes stealing their fissile nuclear material and the Jonathan Pollard case which resulted in serious enough damage to US intel and interests that AIPAC needed 30 years to spring him.
John, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I will consider your words.
Just based on voting patterns alone, there’s a 70% overlap in Jew & Liberal. And voting GOP is hardly a 100% indicator of conservatism – tell me the neocons who run almost every GOP media site don’t value their tribe more than their politics (cough, NeverTrump, cough).
Name one of those “better enemies” and I’ll name 3 Jews who’re providing aid & comfort to them if not outright scripting their moves.
I’m going to nerd out for a bit here. I’ve had insufficient coffee so bear in mind this is an imperfect analogy.
In the Dune series, the spacing guild was seen as all powerful, as they were the only institution capable of FTL travel, and thus controlled all commerce in the imperium.
They were widely regarded as being above reproach and having the power to make or break anyone, even the emperor.
Paul Mua’Dib realized that they could not survive on their own, and furthermore they lacked the stones to grasp the sword themselves and rule, have their glorious day in the sun, as pass into oblivion.
Thus, all he needed was sufficient power to tell them their place. True, they could have destroyed him, but the collapse of the imperium would have ruined them as well.
Paul was prepared for Armageddon. They were not, and decided that life was sweeter than influence.
Make of that what you will.
Can’t pass on Dune bait.
— Spoiler Alert for those who haven’t read past “God Emperor” ————————————————
Rebecca. Bene Gesserit. Frank was one of those woke guys with a soft/blind spot for the tenacious Chosen.
“But of course…” (((some))) have taken offense at Herbert’s preservation of the People who Shall Dwell Alone through another 5000 years of history – check out https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/1633/jews-of-dune/
Herbert made a giant circumcision the three-eon God Emperor of the known universe and kept their actual religion around, but still couldn’t keep these people happy.
They have to go back.
By converting to judaism europeans could also avoid the church rules of marriage
In that period, Jews would kill a Jewish woman who went off with a non-Jewish man. Stoning was the preferred method. A Christian woman would be forced to convert, but she would be cut off from her own community, so both sides tried hard to keep their women home.
“both sides tries hard”
But the Jews’ stones were presumably harder,
Mark Brahmin’s site The Apollonian Transmission discusses in great depth what he refers as Racial Esoteric Moralization, which is Jewish myth building and propaganda to win European breeding stock.
On the other hand, since Ashkenazi Jews are 50% Italian, French, and German, in that order, the men may have been afforded a greater reproductive freedom.
james wilson said “…the men may have been afforded a greater reproductive freedom.” Oh yah! I’ll take a dubble scoop.
That’s factually untrue. Jewish courts have been forbidden by the High Court (Sanhedrin) from instituting executions or even lashes since the destruction of the Temple. That includes for such women.
Take up with the author of the book. He has documentation on his side. You have theory.
Vigilante justice perhaps?
“…As much as this reality contradicts the current narrative, it also contradicts many anti-Semitic narratives as well. For example, it is popular with modern anti-Semites to claim the Jews worked with the Muslims in conquering Christian Spain. In reality, the Jews were willing to work with whoever looked like a winner”.
Logical error here:
The third sentence – in confirming the second, belies the first.: that the Jews DID work with the Muslims is the “anti-Semitic narrative” is confirmed not contradicted.
Also, how is the fact “that the Jews worked with the Muslims” Anti-Semitic?
Anti-Semites claim Jews are purpose built to undermine host populations. They use the Muslim conquests as an example. The reality is, Jews were as much the host populations in Iberia as the Christians. They were another community competing with other communities. They worked with and against Muslims, Christians and Pagans as circumstances warranted.
I’ve heard very little of the Muslim collaborationist angle with respect to Spain. Jews were used by the Ottomans and later Balkan Russian and Eastern European rulers as administrators and tax farmers. Check out Andrew Joyce’s stuff at TOO on this, particularly in the Pale of Settlement. Similar to England, the local kulaks and petty lords eventually got fed up with usury and special royal privileges and the usual irrational aritrary superstitious anti Semitic expulsions occurred.
In addition to (and as part of) being administrators and tax farmers, Jews often were given sole license to run bars/saloons in Europe. They ensured the locals paid through the nose for a brief break from their miserable lives and simultaneously kept them drunk and in debt. Usurious loans were peddled along with beer.
Jews were definitely valued administrators and accounts for Muslim rulers of Spain. It caused a lot of resentment and a backlash when the Reconquista finally concluded. Muslim rulers in other areas gladly took them in.
If anything, it illustrates another antisemitic canard: that Jews will take up whatever tools are ready at hand to advance their own interests, over and above those of other affected peoples.
To be fair, this is true of almost every other ethnic group apart from whites; it’s just that the Jews tend to be better at it than anyone else.
A canard is an unfounded rumor or narrative. You can either claim Jews don’t do this or that they exemplify it. You can’t do both simply b/c “anti-Semitic.” Pick one.
I was using “antiisemitic canard” ironically, Exile.
I have no objection to Jews acting in their self-interest – like everyone here, I wish that Whites would, too. What aggravates me is their phony concern for humanity, tikkun olam (“repair the world”), which just happens to serve Jewish interests and satisfy their lust for vengeance against the White goyim. Blaming Christian persecution of Jews on religious bigotry, economic envy or jealousy of supposed moral superiority (snort) willfully ignores the fact that at least sometimes White Christians had/have a legitimate gripe with them.
“Anti-Semites claim Jews are purpose built to undermine host populations. They use the Muslim conquests as an example. The reality is, Jews were as much the host populations in Iberia as the Christians.”
Dear Z Man, I’m a dummy compared to you and pretty much everyone else here so please just bear with me. I’m not sure I’d say they’re “purpose built to undermine host populations,” so much as their ways/actions have emerged from their religion, which is focused on the Old Testament *laws*. They pride themselves in violating the spirit of the laws while not technically violating the law. In this way they live in a low-trust manner and their focus is on the material in this life. Whereas Christians’ ways/actions have emerged from the New Testament *faith*, which is the foundation of the world’s most desirable high-trust civilizations.
Not all Jews are religious, just like not all Christians are religious, but all people dwell in the laws and cultures that are shaped by our religions. Our Bill of Rights and Constitution all come from the seed of Christian beliefs. Even if the Jews had a long-time presence in Spain, at some point their low-trust way wreaks havoc on the Christian high-trust ways and then the expulsion occurs in order to preserve and protect the Christian people who create the preferred kind of society. That’s just how it should work, something I’d love to see our western governments do to protect what remains of western culture.
Saying “the Jews worked with the Muslims” is not antisemitic unless used as evidence of an innate Jewish tendency to disloyalty which exceeds the ordinary human tendency to disloyalty in comparable circumstances.
! These. 2;
14 For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews,
14 You took for your model, brethren, the churches of God which are assembled in Judaea in the name of Christ Jesus. You were treated by your own fellow countrymen as those churches were treated by the Jews,
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men;
The word of God vs the personal opinion of the ZMan
…And how does the Orthodox Church fit into all of this?
My guess is the author didn’t talk much about Byzantium and the other national Orthodox churches. Most medievalists specialize in medieval Western Europe.
Toward the end of the book, he touches on the fact that the Byzantines were generally pro-Jewish. In Italy, they were very pro-Jewish, but for practical reasons. They simply lacked the authority to be otherwise.