WarStrike 83 Transcript
February 27, 2025
From WarStrike Episode 83: Discussion on Eugen Dühring on the Jewish question:
Warren and Striker introduce the German economist and philosopher Eugen Dühring, whose work contributed to the founding of national socialism and addressed in detail Jews as a race, not a religion. Dühring’s lifelong battle against Marxism also demonstrates how German intellectuals were 150 years ahead of American WNs in their understanding of power and politics in competition with Jews.
Referenced Works: PDF | Buy the Book
[00:26:52] – [Striker]: Let's get to Dühring. So, let's get to what national socialism is, right? When you look up a Wikipedia entry on what national socialism is, I assume they would say Alfred Rosenberg or something like that. When in reality, no, actually. There's an argument to be made that socialism in and of itself is national socialism. Marx was the plagiarist, the co-opter, and the subversive. Dühring dedicated his life to combating Karl Marx. The seminal Marxist work, the most important work of Marxism, is literally called Anti-Dühring. It's a polemic against this one guy. Every single Marxist sees it as an authority of Marxism. That's where Engels fleshes out things like historical materialism, dialectical materialism, all the main theories of Marxism. They're in one of the last books called Anti-Dühring. And here's the funniest part: because Dühring centered racial antisemitism in his attacks on Marx, Marx was too afraid to put his name on it. It's known historically that Marx wrote this. Engels didn't write it. Engels was a factory owner in England. But Marx was like, "If I put my name on it, he's just gonna attack me for being Jewish." So they had to put it under Engels's name. Which is hilarious. It shows you how you fight these people. You have to engage in polemics. By the way, Alexander Jacob is, interestingly enough, not Jewish. He's actually Indian, some British Indian who translated this in 1997. So, here we have one of the most influential German socialists of the 19th century, and we didn't know much of his work in the English language until the '90s. It just shows you the censorship.
[00:29:30] – [Warren]: I had never heard of this guy before you started talking about him. I read his book here. I didn't get through the last 20 pages because I was taking so many notes and cross-referencing. He makes reference to a lot of 19th-century figures that I didn't know who he was talking about, and I had to look them up. The book is The Jewish Question, A Racial, Moral, and Cultural Question with a World Historical Answer. I kind of missed the answer part at the very end, but I get the idea.
[00:30:39] – [Striker]: He basically says, "We need to engage in terrorism against Jews." I'm not saying we should, you know.
[00:30:49] – [Warren]: If Martin Luther was saying what he was saying, I don't even want to know what the racial antisemites were saying. But, no. Remember, this guy was a socialist. He's left wing. In my studies of nationalism over the last four or five years, the way nationalism grows and develops, the way states form and their national identities form, ethnogenesis, I have come to the conclusion that when people say, "We can't just do what Hitler did," well, yeah, that's true because the NSDAP was the culmination of about 200 years of development of German nationalism and of the German philosophy. It was the end point.
[00:32:13] – [Striker]: Sombart, Dühring, von Treitschke. None of them were reactionaries. Even von Treitschke, who was a von, was a liberal, a classical liberal. He was one of the first people to say that there needs to be a solution to the Jewish question because they are creating a state within a state, using well-intended idealists who believe in universal morality and tolerance. His central thesis on the Jews is, number one, they're a race, not a religion. They're a biological entity. That's his theory. And they're a race distinct from Germans, which you can see in Mein Kampf as well. Hitler in Mein Kampf says the power of personality and so on. Dühring is writing about this decades before that. Ultimately, what Dühring says is Jews are unable to engage in creative enterprise. They don't have farmers or workers, they don't have creative entities. But also, they have no ingenuity. He goes through various famous Jewish intellectuals and mathematicians, Jewish philosophers, and demonstrates how most of them actually plagiarize all of their work. He even says about Ricardo, he says 100 years before Ricardo, a Scotsman called Anderson actually created the theory of rent that Ricardo later took and became famous for. He talks about Jacobi, how Jacobi stole all of his ideas from an Italian and a German mathematician. Jacobi is known for his contributions to algebra, and he demonstrates how he stole all this stuff. He says even Ricardo is basing most of his market theories, as wrong as they are, on Malthus, on the intellectual insights of Thomas Malthus. So, he says, "What Jews are good at is not coming up with new ideas or even perfecting ideas. What they're good at is marketing and advertisement." They'll take an obscure Gentile's work, claim it for their own, and through their power of publicity, through control of the media and academic journals, they can just take credit for it themselves. He says Marx is the perfect example. Marx is not the first person to come up with socialism. He's the first person to subvert it.
[00:35:22] – [Warren]: Absolutely right. That's the other thing: how often these same themes, these same ideas. Prussiandom and Socialism, this German socialism, even national socialism. The term national socialism. This guy is writing this book nine years before Hitler was born. These are currents in the development of not just German thought, but Central European thought. He talks a lot about the French antisemites. That chapter about culture was the one... He mentions a lot of literary figures that I really had to take my time with, because a number of these figures, like Heinrich Heine, I'd heard his name, but I didn't know anything about him. He also mentions David Ricardo and Lassalle. I'd forgotten that the founder of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the SPD, was a Jew. The SPD, which is a party in Germany today, was founded by this Jew.
[00:37:00] – [Striker]: To be fair though, the Jew founded it, but the intellectual innovations were from August Bebel or people like Dühring. Dühring fought Marx for influence over the SPD. The Jews are using their money, media power, and oligarchic influence to control socialism. They didn't come up with the ideas. That's his point.
[00:37:44] – [Warren]: The section where he's discussing these literary figures and how they are promoted by the Jews through their control of the press and publishing. They're able to boost people.
[00:38:06] – [Striker]: He also mentions how university professors looking for fame will pretend some Jew like Heinrich Heine or Born are geniuses, but that's only because they want to get promoted. They want to become academic superstars.
[00:38:27] – [Warren]: He's talking about this guy Lessing. Who was he? Was he Jewish or non-Jewish?
[00:38:44] – [Striker]: He was non-Jewish, a liberal. Dühring talks about Lessing, Hume, and Smith. These are the minds of liberals, emancipationists. They had humanistic intentions, but the Jews effectively co-opted their thought for their own purposes. Think of Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance. After World War II, he writes about how liberal democracies need to viciously censor nationalists because a tolerant society can't tolerate intolerance. Even that is stolen from Dühring. Dühring says, "Jews are incapable of politics because their entire worldview is one of racial and religious intolerance. We cannot have a society of universal morality with Jews in our midst because they don't agree with it. They do not subscribe to universal morality." So when they promote liberalism, it's always a trick.
[00:40:13] – [Warren]: Even if you don't know the characters he's talking about, like Lessing, who was a big Jew lover and wrote a play, Nathan the Wise, to promote tolerance of Jews in Germany. He's credited with raising the esteem of Judaism in Europe. The Jews make him out to be the greatest character and the greatest man. Frederick the Great was troubled repeatedly with suggestions of Lessing's appointment as librarian but was right in keeping him at a distance. He's not significant in his category; he's significant to Jews. He goes through this, specifically with particular Jews, and what he says here completely anticipates Freud and Einstein. Century of the Self makes it clear that it was Edward Bernays promoting Freud, his uncle. If it wasn't for Bernays, nobody would have heard of Freud. Even when there is some talent, it's still directed towards selfish ends, towards the tribe, and towards their hatred. I think of Einstein lending his name to that letter when the three Jewish physicists wrote to Roosevelt about building a huge bomb that can destroy cities.
[00:42:18] – [Striker]: He makes a compelling argument that monotheism is a kind of Jewish racism because monotheism is predicated on the idea that only my God is right and everyone else's is wrong. Prior to that, Europeans would integrate other gods into their pantheon.
[00:43:11] – [Warren]: He's talking about the Jewish God as this master figure. The Jews serve him, and then everybody else has to serve the Jews. In history, this is how they are able to influence elites in European societies.
[00:43:38] – [Striker]: Through their religious training, they're taught to love bomb, to declare fealty to a master, but it's all with the intention of ruling everybody else. The Jew is the second in command behind princes and so on. He also says there seems to be something among Europeans where we have elements in our own race that are corrupt. Alfred Rosenberg claims that the Japanese and the Chinese are able to deal with the Jews financially. Think of Jacob Schiff funding the Japanese in the 1905 war. They're able to take usurious loans for what they need in the moment and pay them back. Europeans have elements in our own race that are susceptible and corrupt, and that's where these people are able to integrate into our society, which they can't do with East Asians.
[00:45:03] – [Warren]: Again, the Faustian spirit. What did Faust do? He made a deal with the devil. This is what he said specifically about the Jew:
“The Jewish idea of unity is nothing else but the despotism of self-interest. This lordship, from which slavery is inseparable, knows no free men and therefore even no relative independence of the individual natural realms and natural things. Everything is a creature and slave. A people of honest creatures, which has never had a fiber of feeling of genuine freedom in itself, must reveal this role even in its individual historical destinies. But where it creates a religion, this must become a slave religion. If mankind occupies itself in a weak hour with such a legacy, it has afterwards much work at, in its laws, to establish its better feelings of freedom once again. The creation of many gods, of whom one was the most respected and powerful, and over whom, in turn, stood the all-encompassing fate, this Greek conception was something which agreed incomparably better with the true nature of things and with freedom than the shriveling unity of abstract Israelism which twines around all independent life. The Jew knows in truth only slaves and chief slaves; to stand on the highest echelon possible in the ranking of slavery is the sort of ambition which he understands.”
[00:46:56] – [Striker]: How do we distinguish European concepts of socialism from Jewish ones? From Goering to the national socialists, their view of socialism is like a knightly vanguard. There needs to be an elite, a dictatorship of knights who give themselves to the concept of race, justice, social justice, workers' rights, and impose that from the top down. Think of Lenin. There's nothing in Marx about vanguardism or Leninist vanguardism. Lenin had to borrow that from Goering. The concept of vanguardism is essentially what Lenin was organizing the Bolsheviks around—a sort of elite order of professional revolutionaries that would impose it from the top down. Marxist theory was like mobs of anarchists roaming through the streets of Paris, the Paris Commune, destroying everything. Albert Rosenberg claims that during the Paris Commune, they destroyed every building in Paris besides the Rothschilds' house. I don't know how true that is. The point is, Dühring says for professional revolutionaries, like a knightly order. That's also what Hitler believed, but Lenin clearly is also stealing from Dühring on that.
[00:49:05] – [Warren]: The man himself was blind. He was a Prussian, born in Berlin, practiced law until 1859. A weakness of the eyes ending in total blindness led him to take up studies which his name is now connected. He was determined to have this great intellectual career despite his disability. The introduction to this book talked about his heroic struggle with blindness. The world was a much harsher place for disabled people back then.
“Eugen Dühring was born in Berlin, the son of a Prussian bureaucrat. He studied law, philosophy, and political economy. Although he began his career by practicing law, he was forced to give up his profession at the age of 28 when he was blinded through a congenital defect. However, Dühring accepted his fate heroically, declaring that, ‘This catastrophe did not dampen, but increased the enthusiasm with which I had sketched out for myself, even previously, a human vocation of intellectual scope.’”
He became a university professor and then was kicked out by Jews. Jews did the thing they're doing with Harvard now.
“He wrote books like Christliche Geschichte der nationalen Ökonomie und des Sozialismus and Kurs der nationalen und sozialen Ökonomie.”
You keep seeing these words: national, social, socialism, German socialism. The whole idea is of class collaboration, the unity of all classes for the greater good.
[00:51:50] – [Striker]: His view on class collaborationism is that Europeans are naturally predisposed to compassion and empathy. If you have a vanguard that is of a knightly character, they can develop the compassionate streak in Europeans, regardless of class, while also allocating human resources based on what they're good at. You do need managers, workers, people of different skills and abilities. The key is for them to care about each other based on the racial principle, to have a view of each other as brothers. The problem with the Jews is they introduce the concept of class struggle, even though they themselves don't do class struggle inside their own community.
[00:53:04] – [Warren]: There's a part where he describes the kosher sandwich idea perfectly. He says:
“It is significant that it must have been precisely the Jews who repeatedly prompted anew to the propertied citizenry on the one hand, and to the working class on the other, the discordant terms of class consciousness, class interests, and class hatred, precisely when the chief political and social wisdom lay herein, and when hatred and disharmony between the different population groups were the lever of the wished-for future conditions. Already, the Jewish national economist, Ricardo, corrupted in his book on political economy his fruits of study transposed there from Adam Smith through the fact that he mixed in a confused discordant representation of how every class makes its profit at the cost of the others. According to this, social economy is an art of acquisition and profit-making according to the opportunity of the economic power situation and under application of all refinements of cheating. What Ricardo accomplished and puzzled out only theoretically, but still in the sense of the bourgeoisie, intriguers and agitators like Messrs. Marx and Lassalle established under the sign and standard of socialism in order to infect both contesting sides with the poisonous Jewish hatred, i.e., with the hatred which the Jews foster against the human race. It was not only demanded by Lassalle of the workers on the German soil that they increase their class consciousness but indeed that they nourish a class hatred and devote a formal cult to it as a principle of liberation. Similarly, only more weakly did Mr. Marx already express himself, although he had factory owners as comrades like Mr. Engels.”
[00:56:52] – [Striker]: Isn't that a refutation of Marxist theory in and of itself, that his co-author is a factory owner in England? Why did the British Empire tolerate Marx and Engels in their midst, promoting communist revolution in Europe? There's probably some hidden history there. I've seen people make speculative arguments about the Rothschilds and so on. I'm completely open to those, but you need to have a smoking gun. He also says the Jews are co-agents of the wealthy property classes. Think about Jeff Bezos's new statement on the Washington Post where he says, "The Washington Post is now going to promote my interests directly," which is economic conservatism combined with social liberalism. He's saying the property classes under the motto of freedom seek to empower their special interests. So, free markets and stuff are just the property classes with the Jews as their co-agents trying to get power in their personal interests, trying to destroy things like tariffs or the taxation process. He says the movement to lower taxes is a Jew and capitalist conspiracy.
[00:58:38] – [Warren]: “Jeff Bezos overhauls Washington Post opinion section, says it will focus on personal liberties and free markets.”
[00:58:49] – [Striker]: It's remarkable that this was happening in the 1880s, the exact same thing.
[00:58:54] – [Warren]: I had democracy die in darkness crossed out and replaced with "greed is good," that new cult idea. I want to read the rest of this paragraph because this is amazing. If somebody said to me that this is something from a Hitler speech in 1928, I would have been like, "Oh, yeah, that sounds like Hitler." That's something he would say. Basically, however, both things go together from the start: the hatred of the bourgeois and the hatred of the prole. He doesn’t use the words "proletariat" and "bourgeois," or at least this translation doesn’t.
“For the rousing up of one part had to become at the same time a goading of the other part. The hostility had to reciprocally increase since no common ground remained. Think of the manosphere stuff and feminism that ripped apart men and women, and still occasionally rears its ugly head in this movement. It’s a real problem, men and women not getting along. Robbery and counter-robbery, or rather, not to forget the characteristic Jewish creeping, thieving and counter-thieving, had to appear as the only forms of intercourse between the two classes. This was, in fact, sketched in the image of Jewishness. Just as the Jews have formed to themselves a chosen tribal benightedness as well as a racial and religious hatred against the rest of the human race, and seek liberation in the cult of this hatred, powerless in everything positive, so should even the workers and bourgeoisie follow their example. The Jewish caustic nature obtained a temporary satisfaction of properly discharging on the non-Jewish element that hereditary and world-historically swollen badness. Even through their mixing into the social question in this way, all better and noble socialistic ideas were distorted and Judaized, and the great human goals of true socialism deformed to their very opposite. The class hatred, which had to be directed against everything, only not against the Jewish bourgeoisie, was cultivated so that the Jews could exploit it and reach mastery in the cloven society so much more easily.”
That’s perfect. You don’t need to modify a word of that for modern day.
[01:01:32] – [Striker]: It’s still very relevant to this day because he’s talking about the same interests, the same ideas, the same sort of mindset. Arguably, it’s more rapacious today than even in the 19th century. There’s nothing to stop it. He even mentions at one point the Kulturkampf with Bismarck. For people that don’t know, it was Bismarck’s attempt to push Catholic clergy influence out of German politics. He’s not a Catholic or religious at all, but he says that the Jews effectively capitalized on the Kulturkampf to crush their rivals for influence over Germany. The Catholic clerics were initially rivals to both the German aristocracy as well as the Jewish collective. So, what the Jews did was they made a tactical alliance with the Junker class against the Catholic clergy, another kind of exclusive order. This is something that the Jews at least fanned the flames of, the Kulturkampf.
[01:02:59] – [Warren]: He says,
“One has announced the political faux pas which thought to advance against the Roman spirituality with mere police laws through political advertisement as a Kulturkampf, and the Jews have not failed to bring to bear here their experience in advertisement in order to attribute to this politics and to themselves a powerful cultural action. Yet those are failed incidental pieces.”
The overwhelming theme that I get from it is stuff we talk about on this show all the time, and it’s no stranger to anybody who’s observed events in the Middle East over the last two years: their hatred, their selfishness, their intense tribalism. He totally dispenses with the idea that you need to treat Jews as a religious faith and not as a race. But he’s not speaking just of the biological Jew. One of the characteristics of this guy is his very moral worldview, so he’s not simply using the biological determinism language of parasite and host. He does look at their religion very hard. It’s interesting that he sets aside the Talmud, which is ahead of his time because a lot of people in our movement and in the late 20th century are fixated on the Talmud. The Talmud’s bad, and there’s a lot of horrible stuff in it, but he essentially says the Talmud was written 200 years after Christ and was them justifying themselves in a lot of ways. He says you really just need to go back to the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the key if you want to understand how they think because this isn’t two centuries later where they’re putting a spin on things. This is their unfiltered original thought.
[01:05:16] – [Striker]: He makes an excellent point about Jews and Christ. Even back then, the Jews were saying that they’re not responsible for killing Christ. But he says both the Old Testament and the Talmud have an extensive legal argument: Christ was convicted by the Pharisees, the Jewish judges, of blasphemy and executed for that reason. They demanded the Romans release the criminal on Passover and kill Christ. If the Jews truly feel they’re not responsible for the legal judgment dooming Christ to death, how many of them are willing to say that the Pharisees who made that judgment were wrong? If your religious court sentences someone to death and you say you’re not responsible for that, by definition, unless you’re a Jewish Sophist, you should go back and say that was the wrong judgment. But he says if Jews were to say that, then they would just be Christians.
[01:06:50] – [Warren]: He says that the Sophists in Athens stand far lower than these Sophists, and it’s less cruel what they made Socrates do—take the hemlock—compared to Jesus, who was horribly tortured to death with hatred.
He says,
"Their own great martyr who wished to redeem the Jews from themselves and from their bad characteristics is still continuously crucified on the cross in their mind, and in places it is only the lack of a bit of Jewish rule which prevents from becoming public the currently restrained Jewish opinion that the crucifixion occurred to him rightly."
[01:07:40] – [Striker]: If you are a practicing or even a secular Jew today, your entire religious worldview, your view of Christ, is that he got what he deserved because the whole premise of Judaism is that the Pharisees were correct in this dispute with Christ. It’s ridiculous for Jews to say they’re not responsible for killing Christ when they were the ones who charged him, tried him, and sentenced him to death. It’s pure sophistry, a legalistic argument that makes no sense.
[01:08:22] – [Warren]: The critical thing to understand about the way this guy looks at this is he says religion is sanctification of racial nature. He’s looking at how their religion reflects their racial nature and what you can interpret about their racial character based on the form that their religion has taken and the way they interpret it. He discusses the Jewish religion quite a bit, but he doesn’t discuss it in terms of this is true or this is false. He discusses it in terms of what can we learn about the Jews based on their religion. He also makes it very clear throughout that even if all the Jews abandoned their religion, they would still be Jews and would still be the way they are.
[01:09:51] – [Striker]: He also mentions that Europeans saw Jews as a racial other and an enemy before Christianity even existed. He talks about Tacitus, who wrote nice things about all non-Romans except for Jews. He writes about Seneca too. Seneca called the Jews a despicable people—or, if you translate the Latin expression he used in a work on superstition quite literally, "the most criminal people."
[01:10:09] – [Warren]: Tacitus was so good to the Germans in the way he described them, this Roman describing the barbarians in the north. His work was so flattering to the Germans that it became a seminal work of German nationalism, this Roman description of the ancient Germans.
[01:10:34] – [Striker]: The Germans were enemies of Rome at the time. Tacitus was trying to transcend his Romanness to write an objective history of the world, and even there, where he’s doing his best to write something nice about everyone, he can’t write nice things about Jews.
[01:11:13] – [Warren]: I did not realize that Tacitus or Seneca commented on them. He says,
"At the top stands a Roman philosopher from the time of the early Caesars, Seneca, who in a place obtained by us verbatim from Augustine calls the Jews a despicable people," or literally, "the most criminal people."
[01:12:13] – [Striker]: On page 69, he says that what Jews say in their press, through their advertisement and marketing, is that the reason they have so much power and money is because they’re more industrious and economistic. Think of the idea that Jews themselves promote: that their cheapness is why they’re wealthy. But he says this is just a front for the real secret to Jewish money and power, which is their lack of moral inhibition in respects to appropriation. He says Jews embrace free market ideology specifically so that they can create monopolies, and then they end all free market ideology so no one can compete with them.
[01:13:08] – [Warren]: He repeatedly makes this claim, and what I like about this work is that he’ll look at a socialist perspective, then a classical liberal perspective, and then a conservative perspective in the German sense. He’s not making it about one of those things being better than the others. He was a socialist, but he’s not arguing that liberalism is the source of all our problems. Many times throughout the book, he speaks of the positive things about liberalism: the freeing up of opinions and of people, even of women. He says the idea of giving women more freedom, which should be a noble idea—to take part in society and the greater good—is turned into an economic question. Basically, what second-wave feminism did a century later, making women into economic worker units that sacrifice motherhood to work for a corporation. When he gets into liberalism, he talks about how this idea of freedom and tolerance is pushed by the Jews not because they want general universal freedom and tolerance, but so that they can get special privileges, have a monopoly, lock it down, and then abolish freedom and tolerance. Think of the civil rights movement in this country, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley. It makes me think that we’re like a race of Goofy Goyms. A guy wrote this book where he lays it all out nine years before Hitler is born, in the time of the Old West, and to this day, we’re still like, "Well, the problem is women," "the problem is this and that."
[01:15:51] – [Striker]: You had this guy, a blind man in the 19th century, who had it all down pat. The problem in Europe is that there’s no freedom, so books like this aren’t even available; they’re censored. The problem in America is the sheer Philistinism, the illiteracy of the American right wing. When I look up modern-day adherents to people like Schmitt, Heidegger, or those interested in Celine, they’re all leftists. They're all leftists. You can't have a left-wing interpretation of Schmitt and Heidegger because they were Nazis. They joined the Nazi party. You can't be on the Jacobin saying, "I'm a Heideggerian leftist who believes design is really about the existential crisis of alienated man in a Marxist class dynamic." Heidegger writes in his Black Book that rationalism, which he opposes, ends in Judeo-Bolshevism. He says it. You can't claim Heidegger for yourself. You can't claim Schmitt for yourself. You can't take Schmitt and say, "Politics is class struggle," because Schmitt says specifically that it isn’t. This is the crisis. It comes from a lack of an authoritarian right in the Anglo-Saxon world.
[01:17:43] – [Warren]: Let me ask you this though. What do you think about the intellectual right? It’s not just all the MyPillow guy. The neoconservatives like to claim Strauss, don’t they?
[01:18:01] – [Striker]: Strauss, who stole everything from Schmitt, by the way. Schmitt, who’s trying to survive and not get fired, says, "Strauss can see my work like an X-ray" and then claims it for himself. He knows exactly what I’m saying in my work and takes it.
[01:18:30] – [Warren]: There’s a section on Wagner in this book. This guy isn’t vicious towards Wagner. He ends up being kind of patronizing because in the end he’s just like, "He’s an artist." But he says Wagner is too easy on him because he criticizes him, yet Wagner was still taking money from Jews.
[01:19:09] – [Striker]: He says Wagner is anti-Semitic, but he makes exceptions for Jews that give him money, which makes him a guy who sells indulgences. That’s true.
[01:19:24] – [Warren]: It’s really comical. The guy has a sense of humor. I was thinking, "I wouldn’t want this guy writing a nasty book about me." He’s very perceptive.
He says Wagner is right about Jews in music and the music business. But he writes,
"In fact later, even the opposition between Richard Wagner and the Jews is more dim. In him, the emancipation from the Jews, which he himself had opposed to the emancipation of the Jews, did not take place in his own affairs to the end."
He continues,
"In the following of the life of the Orpheus of Bayreuth were found many rich Jews and their substantially lenient donations for the production of the music of the future. Since he did not think that he could do without this following…" I’m just thinking, "God, nothing changes."
[01:20:46] – [Striker]: Nietzsche was the same. Towards the end, Nietzsche started to calibrate his writings to be more Jew-friendly because the Jews were offering to popularize him in exchange for him altering his writing.
[01:21:03] – [Warren]: I discovered that Dickens toned down Oliver Twist in later editions because of a wealthy Jewish woman who wrote to him. The cover story is she said, "I want you to know we’re not all bad people," and he was so moved that he altered it. But the implication is clear.
[01:21:36] – [Striker]: Durig says there’s a corrupt element biologically in the white race. It doesn’t seem to be as common among East Asians. If I were to put my finger on it, it’s the desire for fame. Some Europeans have a narcissistic streak, which is why people like Wagner and Nietzsche, despite their beliefs, think, "Well, the Jews are popularizing me."
[01:22:35] – [Warren]: Let the Jews live among the Asians for thousands of years the way they have among our people and adapt themselves to our people, even racially, where they look the same. Sometimes you can tell who a Jew is, sometimes you can’t unless you’re really looking for it. A lot of white people look Jewish but aren’t. In fairness to Wagner, if it was anything like Hollywood today, you’re not going to get your art made unless there’s money from Jews involved. It’s a political position for politicians to address, not the artist.
[01:23:24] – [Striker]: Hitler tried deliberately to fight against that.
[01:23:39] – [Warren]: He says,
“Since he did not think he could do without this following, and since the present sound of the Jewish money belonged with the equipment of the music of the future, he led his anti-Jewish dissonances strive for increasingly milder co-accords and were inaudible under that metallic clang.”
This guy’s weird.
[01:24:07] – [Striker]: People don’t give Germans enough credit for their sense of humor. They have this real deadpan sense that can be hurtful.
[01:24:28] – [Warren]: Wagner had a massive ego. Anybody who studied him knows it was almost ridiculous, very Herman Goering-like, with his Turkish slippers, candelabras, six-foot-high candles, and big sword in the background. There was a funny theatrical egoism to Wagner. He says:
Wagner’s own journal, The Bayreuther Blätter, in the late '70s, carried such gentle talk on the Jews that it wrote many pages on them without using the term "Jew." It suggested that those of the foreign element who attached themselves to Wagner were raised into a higher spiritual sphere.
Wagner understood art as redeeming the Jews from themselves by means of the Wagner associations and patronage certificates—something Christ didn’t achieve.
He’s saying Wagner sees himself as greater than Christ.
[01:26:35] – [Striker]: This was Nietzsche’s critique of Wagner later on. He kind of went from white nationalist to Christian nationalist. Nietzsche hated Parsifal, which is his most sublime work.
[01:27:03] – [Warren]: Parsifal is one of the most sublime works of music ever written. Nietzsche hated it because it was so good and told Christianity really well.
[01:27:31] – [Striker]: Nietzsche predicted that Wagner’s embrace of Christian ethics would destroy his art by losing its life-affirming sensuality. But instead, it just got better, and that’s what made him seethe.
[01:28:04] – [Warren]: Listen to the overture from Parsifal sometime. Don’t listen with distractions—close your eyes, put your headphones in, lights off, and just hear it. Don’t listen on the treadmill. It’s one of the most transcendent pieces of music ever written. At the end, he says:
“With general intellectual, indeed artistic points of view, there wouldn’t be anything to gain for the Jewish question. Therefore, it is not to be wondered in the case of Wagner’s frictions with the Jews, nothing remarkable ever emerged.”
He lets him off the hook and says he’s an artist, not a philosopher. It’s remarkable because everyone during this period would think the king antisemite in Germany is Richard Wagner. Yet here’s Dühring saying he’s not anti-Semitic enough.
[01:29:05] – [Striker]: You could argue it was Schopenhauer.
[01:29:06] – [Warren]: The art stuff was fascinating. I’d love to throw it at Destiny during your debate with him about music.
[01:29:34] – [Striker]: To have a discussion on that level with someone like Destiny, we’d need similar Western reference points. If you’re debating someone with different values, how are you going to get them to understand the difference between rap music, jazz, and classical music?
[01:30:08] – [Warren]: Destiny has a degree in musicology, which is not a reflection on him but on the field of musicology.
[01:30:16] – [Striker]: The adepts of musicology in the U.S. have unconventional appearances and lifestyles. How are we going to have the same reference points? It’s irreconcilable. We cannot engage in politics with people like that.
[01:30:37] – [Warren]: It was a footnote from the beginning essay. He's quoting Rosenberg but talking about music. I thought this was interesting:
“Jews may be permitted to undertake studies in Western music performance, but Jewish composers may not be accepted into the repertoire, so long as their music betrays its racial origins. The example of Mendelssohn is a revealing one, since it points to the occasional artistic competence of the Jews, so long as they are strictly controlled socially.”
[01:31:15] – [Striker]: Think of Kubrick.
[01:31:17] – [Warren]:
“Mendelssohn's pre-Romantic music was written before the full emancipation of the Jews in Germany. On the other hand, Mahler's imitations of Wagner's music bear the typical Jewish hybrid quality of attempted Germanic sublimity juxtaposed jarringly with the native Jewish discordances.”
[01:31:38] – [Striker]: Let me interrupt you right there. In my research, I was shocked when I realized that Jews made an effort to assimilate more into German society before they were emancipated. Once they were emancipated, they let the Jew rip. That's when they started to become more Jew-y. It was after they were given the same rights as Germans that they began to become more racist against Germans. They were like, "Oh, you emancipated me." He makes a big point where he says, "Morality is the principle of reciprocity." The Jews are capable of this, which is why when they talk about universal morality, it's always in bad faith because they do not have reciprocity. The Christian ethic of reciprocity—they literally shut it down and killed the person who was preaching it. So, when you give the Jews equal rights, you assume, as a European gentile, that they're going to make more of an effort to meet you halfway because you're meeting them halfway. But instead, they're like, "Oh, I don't have to assimilate to your society now. You have to assimilate to me."
[01:32:57] – [Warren]: Yes, yes. They start insulting Germans, like Jewish intellectuals in Germany making fun of the German Michael as a stupid goy. German Michael means a gullible, dumb shit, a naive rube. Goebbels turned it around, saying, "There's always the German Michael who is willing to believe the Jews that they're suffering." He's saying, "Don't be a dumb, gullible German." What he says about Mahler is interesting:
"Mahler's imitations of Wagner's music bear the typical Jewish hybrid quality of attempted Germanic sublimity juxtaposed jarringly with the native Jewish discordances. In time, the former element disappears entirely, and the latter truly Jewish character is all that's left in the Jewish music."
Modernist classical music is announced most strikingly in Schoenberg's complete dissolution of the classical tonality in his atonal caricature of the ancient Indo-European modal system. In America, Jewish composers like Gershwin, Bernstein, and Sondheim have been less pretentious and express themselves most comfortably in the homely jazz idioms of the negro."
Spot on. Mendelssohn was great. Some of my favorite composers of the 20th century are Jewish film composers. However, anyone who knows anything about the greats like Max Steiner or Bernard Herrmann knows they were total Wagnerians. Even Danny Elfman's score to Batman is straight-up Wagnerian. The big moment in Batman is something Elfman got from Bernard Herrmann, who got it from Wagner. So it goes back to the idea that Jews can copy and imitate but not create originally.
[01:36:27] – [Striker]: If they're forced to at gunpoint, they can sometimes create okay art or good art. But once they're liberated, once they have the power, they don't feel the need to do that anymore. And that's worse for them, actually.
[01:36:49] – [Warren]: I love orchestral music. A lot of the most talented composers went to Hollywood. Stan Winston, the special effects guy, said that the finest artists of our time are in Hollywood because that's where the money and power are. It's not that there aren't talented Jews; it's that Jewish nepotism is why they're overrepresented, and Aryan film composers are underrepresented.
[01:38:56] – [Striker]: The foundations of their good art are all Aryan. They can do a good copy or an inspired piece, but when they try to invent their own form of art, it ends up sounding like garbage, like Schoenberg. Schoenberg is literally nails on a chalkboard. It's so vile and discordant, often paired with abstract art. It's just ugly.
[01:40:05] – [Warren]: He says that the most basic thing of art has to be the selflessness of the artist. On page 124, he talks about the basic incapacity of the Jews to prove themselves creative in science and art. There is lacking in them that free and unselfish activity of the mind which alone advances to uninterested truth and beauty. The greatest scientists and artistic natures have been that only through being raised above common interests. The Jew, according to his racial temperament, is the opposite. He has no higher scientific and artistic capacities. Even if he did, he wouldn't develop them creatively because that requires unselfish energy, which he lacks. Hitler says the same thing in Mein Kampf, but that was written 50 years later. These ideas were known long before World War I.
[01:42:39] – [Striker]: One interesting thing is the amoral worship of power, which he traces back to Judaism: "I am thy Lord." Liberal leaders nihilistically worship power. He talks about the Book of Daniel and the Book of Esther, how they get close to power, influence the powerful, and then engage in orgies of mass murder, like the murder of Haman. Europeans intuitively hate teachers' pets and suck-ups, but in the Jewish tradition, being a suck-up is a good thing.
[01:44:09] – [Warren]: He says:
“For I am thy Lord. The ultima ratio for the racial tribe of the Jews is in general power and mastery. External power and external success are even today regulative for them.”
When Jews criticize anti-Semites, they often say, "You have no followers," or "No one's listening to that person," or "They have no influence." It's always an appeal to power.
[01:45:11] – [Striker]: Always an appeal to power for the sake of power. The average American is Judaized from cradle to grave. Even some white nationalists talk like this. My response is, “What about what's true? What about what's right? What about what's good for our race? What about the just thing to do?”
[01:45:36] – [Warren]: Nick Fuentes' reaction to Sinwar's death was very revealing to what extent his mind has been shaped by these people. It's just, take the L, you know? They were very crudely trying to put the video out because of this. The racial tribe operates in terms of power and mastery. External power and external success are the only thing they understand. So they see that video and think, "Ha, ha, he's wounded, he's dying, he's helpless, he's alone. Let me kill him."
[01:46:21] – [Striker]: Americans, through the process of Jewish molestation, become molesters themselves.
[01:46:33] – [Warren]: It shows the same uncomprehending thing with them, like taunting Jesus while he's hanging on the cross and dying slowly. Mel Gibson did a great job in The Passion of the Christ showing Caiaphas walking up to him and saying, "Why don't you come down from there? If you're the Jews, why are you up there?" He's tormenting him because of what he's saying, and it never occurs to them that there is such a thing as nobility, self-sacrifice, heroism, and having a higher glory even in losing.
[01:47:27] – [Striker]: Think about what he says about the Jewish religion: it's the only religion that has no concept of eternal life. Adam is created from dirt out of nothing, and there is no end goal. Every other religion—Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam—has a concept of eternal life, but not Judaism. That could be a predecessor to atheism.
[01:48:03] – [Warren]: When he criticizes Spinoza, he says Spinoza derided the concept of compassion. I looked it up, and apparently Spinoza extolled compassion but not pity. He thought pity is destructive because it makes you feel bad, which hurts you.
[01:48:40] – [Striker]: Nietzsche was the same, but I'll take Dühring's word for it. He says Europeans are, by nature, compassionate. Schopenhauer says, "The foundation of all morality is empathy." Some Nietzschean types say empathy is why we let people into our country, but that's not what empathy and compassion are. Empathy and compassion are siding with the victims against the criminals and throwing all the immigrants out. It's a precursor to racialism and nationalism.
[01:49:47] – [Warren]: The idea of hatred itself is something that, the more you study these histories, you realize that a worldview created around hatred is Jewish. They took the paradox of tolerance and said, "No, you." The idea of hate crimes and hate speech is a product of how they view the world. In The Iliad, the story of Achilles and Hector shows Hector as a noble loser. When I read it in high school, I sympathized with Hector. Achilles is kind of a dick, tying Hector's body to his chariot and driving around the city. It's bad form. But in the Jewish thing, there's zero respect for the defeated opponent. There's no such thing as a fair fight. You can tie what Dühring is saying directly to the pager attack and the reaction of the Jews to these pagers blowing up. The rest of humanity is horrified, except for the most Judaized Fox News people. All of humanity feels moral and physical revulsion at this.
[01:52:56] – [Striker]: On page 85, he says, "Cries of antisemitism only seem to appear when Jews need a pretext to start persecuting and murdering people." Antisemitism doesn't really exist in societies where Jews are subjects. Jews never complain about antisemitism when they're actually subjugated; they only complain when they're in charge.
[01:53:33] – [Warren]: That's a great thing to say about Voltaire, too. He loves Voltaire. On book page 85, he talks about Haman:
"Haman is nothing but the embodiment of the right of all other peoples with regard to the Jewish presumption and to the exploitation of peoples by the Jews. The history distorted and colored according to the Jewish mentality of Haman, who at the court of Susa could not forestall the already all-too influential intrigues of the same people with an emergency law against the Jews."
"This history, in its true constitution, should be even today a remembrance for the peoples of what they may foresee from the Jews when the latter, even only occasionally, attain mastery for a while. At that time, in the entire Persian Empire, around 100,000 persons fallen out of favor with them were killed by them. These acts of murder, conducted under the leadership of Mordechai, were real exterminations of their opponents. The excuse they produced is that they had been threatened with extermination themselves."
[01:55:04] – [Striker]: How many times have we seen this?
[01:55:09] – [Warren]: This is 1880.
"The excuse which they produced is that they had themselves been threatened with extermination. But they say the same thing, even of the medieval persecutions. And just as they derive from the rabble-rousing propaganda against the Jews the right to a rabble-rousing propaganda by the Jews, so the Jews will never lack pretext for persecution if only they have the power for it."
[01:55:33] – [Striker]: They only activate conflict and persecute so-called anti-Semites when they have the power to do so.
[01:55:45] – [Warren]:
"The intrigues and injuries which they exercise with their press against everything independent, which in comparison to the Jewish audacity, does not sacrifice itself, the quiet conspiracies with which they turn against the better racial mind and its representatives, all that is supposed not to be a rabble-rousing propaganda, when it is, however, indeed an organized persecution supported by the corporate bodily network of the religious Jews."
[01:56:15] – [Striker]: The origins of Jewish activism like the American Jewish Committee or the Anti-Defamation League go back to the 19th century with the Alliance Israélite Universelle from France. That was the first form of this. He says these types of groups are just a new phase in the development of Judaism, despite being secular.
[01:56:57] – [Warren]: On page 86, he talks about the Alliance Israélite.
There it is. Alliance Israélite.
"While, for example, Protestant peoples have neither a social nor a political association with their Church, but by virtue of the same are connected exclusively in a religious cult, the Jews use their religious associations in all conditions of life, and attach to them even international unions, which are mixed into politics everywhere."
"In this way has the Alliance Israélite in Paris mixed itself in great politics and in the Oriental question, all under provision of religion. The promotion which should allegedly be valid only for the Jewish religion, however, signifies, in general, the promotion of the Jewish race from a political and social viewpoint."
"Whereas, besides the right of organization is neglected for the other peoples, the Jews, relying on their religion, use the privilege to support an international union for their total interests against the remaining peoples. Not even the Roman Church, in spite of its strong organization in clerical party structures, penetrates so boldly, so directly, and so comprehensively into all political transactions and congresses of the power holders in order to obtain an influence with reports, ideas, and private machinations."
[01:58:47] – [Striker]: It’s like think tanks.
[01:58:47] – [Warren]:
"The Jews are taken up with their religion even when they are not religious. This religion is to them, as from the most primordial times, so also now, the means and the security for their entire existence and expansion."
"It could therefore not remain a matter of indifference to the remaining peoples, even if it had a better content than is the case. No racial Jew, even if he gave himself out to be an atheist and a materialist, treats the Jewish religion as a matter of indifference. It is to him rather a security for that mastery or rather for that chief slavedom for which his people have always striven among all peoples."
"The chosen self-interest, the elevation above other peoples and the injustice to them, in short, the inhumanity, indeed the hostility against the remaining human race, that is what has its base here and what has been progressing from millennia."
[01:59:45] – [Striker]: The Alliance Israélite was the big lobby, like the ADL of 19th century France. It was the first of its kind to concentrate power. It’s always after the Jews obtain emancipation that they start organizing like this, because before that, they’re too afraid to do it.
[02:00:06] – [Warren]: This book is filled with great quotations. I read the first half on my phone, taking screenshots of good quotes, and the second half on my computer, writing down page numbers. I ended up with like 40 screenshots. He says, before Sombart:
"Why is the Jewry relatively far richer than the other social groups? The Jews themselves answer, 'On account of greater industriousness and economizing.' But that is only the old tale which they have learnt by listening to all elements unjustly rich."
"I therefore answer simply, it is the greater and more uninhibited instinct of appropriation which allowed the Jews to suck up money from all channels of mankind. The economic freedom is therefore for them only a means in order to exercise their unscrupulous, exploitative villainy."
[02:02:40] – [Striker]: Economic freedom, think of the Republican Party.
[02:02:45] – [Warren]:
"The doctrines of equally free economy and of corresponding economic human rights as they were formulated in a humanely well-disposed way by the Scots Hume and Smith are used by the Jews only in order to head for their own monopoly."
"The Jews have dealt with the doctrines of economic freedom precisely as with the ideas of the revolution. They have used both at first, then falsified, and finally, when they found themselves in possession of the part of freedom pleasant to them, indeed, betrayed them every time."
[02:03:26] – [Striker]: The two liberal powers, Britain and France, both had Jewish prime ministers—Gambetta and Disraeli. Murray makes a good point: Disraeli becomes Lord Beaconsfield because the moral corruption of the Anglo aristocracy allows a man whose name literally means "of Israel."
[02:05:07] – [Warren]: Think of the ACLU and free speech in America—college free speech, Kent State, the hippie movement versus now, with Alan Dershowitz leading the charge. It’s been the whole American experience of the last 50 or 60 years with the liberal thing that exploded in the '60s and '70s and now where it’s ended up with the Jews in the driver’s seat.
[02:05:28] – [Striker]: Al Dershowitz fought in the Supreme Court to legalize pornography in the name of free speech and now fights in the Trump government to crush any critic of Israel. We should do The Concept of the Political by Schmitt next. It’s a complete takedown of Anglo and French liberal ideas of constitutionalism and rule of law. He says:
"The only times a constitutional liberal country will respect your rights is in times of peace and without any discord."
"But when there’s an emergency, the same constitutional republican system will crush your rights as hard as any authoritarian system. In essence, it’s no different, because in authoritarian countries, if there’s no external threat, you can do whatever you want to some degree. Constitutionalism, authoritarianism—there’s actually no real difference. It’s all about the circumstances."
[02:07:03] – [Warren]: Emily and I did our show this past weekend on the FBI, cataloging their worst atrocities. I discovered J. Edgar Hoover got his start in World War I. At 22 years old, he was in charge of creating the registry of German-Americans, photographing them, treating them like criminals—thousands of them. These were people whose families, like my mother’s side, go back to before the revolution, fighting with George Washington. If you opposed the war, they’d throw you in jail. This was the First World War, and Hoover was there in charge.
[02:08:59] – [Striker]: During World War II, Judge Warren, as Attorney General of California, wrote the legal document used by Roosevelt to put all Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps. Then, in the '60s, the same guy is forcing you to take Blacks into your school—the most racist thing and the most anti-racist thing in American history, done by the same guy. It’s all meaningless."
[02:09:29] – [Warren]: I have a hard copy of The Concept of the Political. We should read that and talk about it.
[02:09:42] – [Striker]: It’s how you can understand politics. When I say things like, "Conservatism is depoliticization," most people don’t understand because they don’t know Schmitt. If you read Schmitt, when we talk about politics and depoliticization, what he means is what Donald Trump is doing. When Donald Trump goes out there and says, "Thank you to Blacks, thank you to Mexicans, and thank you especially to Jews for electing me," while ignoring whites, most people look at that and think, "Who cares? It’s implicit whiteness." But Schmitt makes it very clear that there is no such thing as implicit politics. You cannot have politics unless the friend and the enemy, the two clashing entities, are specifically defined. So if Donald Trump refuses to say "white," it’s not just an aesthetic thing or about narcissism. He is actively depoliticizing the white race when he does that, because he refuses to politically categorize you. That is important, because if you do not have a political category, you cannot fight for yourself.
[02:12:47] – [Warren]: The Jews would be the first ones to say, "You are delegitimizing them." The identity is thereby delegitimized, so it’s not a legitimate identity. People who think it’s an identity, say it’s an identity, or have a worldview that it’s an identity are outside the realm of what is acceptable.
[02:13:10] – [Striker]: In The Concept of the Political, Schmitt says very clearly, for all these leftist assholes that consider themselves left Schmittians, "The political lines are almost always between your race and the aliens." The subtext, the context, is Jews, because that’s what was going on in Germany. It’s usually a fight. He says, "I’m not giving a moral distinction here about who’s right and wrong. I am just describing what the battle lines are—between your people and the alien in your midst." Then think about how Claude Lévi-Strauss says the other is the good guy, trying to muddle the political. Schmitt says, "When a population, a race of people, is depoliticized—think of white Americans depoliticized thanks to conservatism—all that means is that the politicized aliens are ruling them." That’s so true about America.
[02:14:47] – [Warren]: He’s talking about economic freedom—economic liberalism, more a British thing; political liberalism, more a French thing. They use both, falsify them, then work them out just for themselves. He says”
"Even in the already somewhat degenerate form which one calls Manchesterism, those doctrines of economic freedom are still too noble for the Jews."
[02:15:00] – [Striker]: That’s free market liberalism, classical liberals—think of Ayn Rand.
[02:15:03] – [Warren]: What I like about this book is that even though he’s a socialist, he’s giving the classical liberals their due. He’s not saying, "The root of all evil is liberalism," or "It’s Adam Smith, it’s capitalists." He says, "The Jewish race is the damn problem."
“The Manchestarian doctrine of parties, which one, on the conservative side, confuses deliberately and falsely with the Jewry, is only a party-related degeneration of those better accomplishments of humane theory. It accepts freedom of trade but ignores the equality which was directive in those achievements of knowledge. They transform economic freedom into a freedom of the propertied class. But the Jews have not yet come to the end of their desires with this degeneration. They wish to see basically a freedom of the Jews, that is a Jewish monopoly made out of the freedom. The influence of Jewish elements and the embodiment of the Jewish way of thought has revealed itself in the so-called liberal legislation—not in the case of the real freedoms which serve even the interest of the Jewry, but in the substitution of these freedoms with monopoly pressure. Thus, for example, the free legal profession, by virtue of which the lawyer conducts his profession as a professional business dependent on no official nomination, is a progress in the sense of greater freedom. For the public, there arises a free supply from which it has the choice. But in our most recent parliamentary legislation, it was not the public whose interests were decisive, as proved by the compulsory court representation introduced—that is, the advocates’ rights of summons and coercion by virtue of which every litigant is required to let himself be represented by an advocate. This institution is a bad step backwards with regard to the freer and more popular spirit which still led the legislation originating from Frederick II.”
[02:18:12] – [Striker]: To be fair, I don’t have to agree with everything he says there. The idea that everyone has a lawyer might violate common law, but if I get arrested and can’t afford a lawyer, I like having a free one. I’m not sure if he’s making a moral judgment; he might just be describing it.
[02:18:43] – [Warren]: He’s saying the way Jews operate—like Facebook, YouTube, Google being Jewish monopolies—isn’t the free market. These monopolies form, and they use them to crush their opponents.
[02:19:23] – [Striker]: He says the roots of Jewish criminal economics come from when they stopped farming and became pastoralists, demanding their animals graze on other people’s land, not respecting property rights, and using fraud in trade. Instead of growing and building, they sponge and trade. He says they’re incapable of creative work, only engaging in trade and marketing—like scamming Romans out of their wealth while Romans had to conquer, farm, and build.
[02:20:45] – [Warren]: He says, quoting Tacitus on the Jews:
"Other peoples among whom the Jews lived basically as enemies to be exploited. In this way, the Jews conducted in the midst of human society and scattered everywhere in it a quiet war of exploitation against the welfare of the human race. In view of these basic traits of the Jewish character, standing firm for thousands of years, it is only a trifle if one objects to the Jews today a fear of every work which really produces something and finds represented among them only such activities as depend on commercial inclination and bring gain through social taxation of one’s neighbor."
[02:22:09] – [Striker]: Look at the footnote where Alexander Jacob cites Philo and others. It’s confirmed by the earliest evidence of the expulsion of Abraham and his tribe from Chaldea for not following lofty astronomical-oriented customs, using ancient historians as sources.
[02:22:26] – [Warren]: The amount of knowledge this guy has, the breadth and range of it—society doesn’t produce minds like this anymore. You’ve got Destiny with his musicology degree, but not this. The idea that Jews are traders and merchants—when I was doing sales on Long Island, a good third of the 45 people in my office were Jews, and they were the best salesmen, amazing with chutzpah, brash, aggressive. Reading The Money Kings, it was interesting how the great Jewish dynasties in America started as peddlers—door-to-door—then built it up. He says:
"When the Jews formed a state, they could not avoid conducting agriculture, but their hereditary disposition always brought them to dwell among other peoples and practice their form of trading activity, or better expressed, trading nomadic life. In this way, they grazed on foreign peoples as pastures through their trade to rake in trade profits and fraudulent gains. Among themselves, they could not naturally carry out such businesses. Their own law directed them to other men as those with regard to whom it is allowed, which is not proper at home. A society united in self-interest against others must turn outwards and seek material for its greed. The Roman conquered the world, but the Jew sought to bring its wealth to himself through devious means—from this is explained the predilection for all commercial activities in which not so much work, but astute acquisition and sly cheating have a scope."
He talks about Abraham haggling with God in the Old Testament—Sodom and Gomorrah, going from 50 to 10 people to save the city.
"It is not any external hindrance which holds back the Jews continually from agriculture and handicraft. They have always demonstrated their innermost disposition, related to the core of their being, the chosen self-interest in sorts of occupation in which acquisitive instinct, rather more than conscience, is a profitable endowment."
The top hedge fund managers, 25% of billionaires now, exemplify this—destroying businesses with acquisitive instinct.
[02:26:44] – [Striker]: In Dühring’s first criticism of capitalism, he says it leads to a general state of moral hazard because it celebrates cheating. If you have a society that says it’s okay to cheat others out of money through usury, trade, or business practices, Jews will rise to the top, and you’ll be ruled by them. It’s un-European, alien to the white race.
[02:27:22] – [Warren]:
"One may therefore give up the notion of changing them. What has been their well-established character for millennia will not be transformed into its opposite by a social reform, let alone merely by moral means."
He cites the 18th chapter of the Book of Moses—a contract Abraham concludes with God, haggling from 50 to 10 just people to preserve the city.
"If the patriarch did not provoke displeasure in his own god but succeeded, this proves the views which the Jewish god entertains with regard to such tendencies. These businesses are sanctified. The dealing from price to price is relatively innocent, proving only the haggling mentality, but the Jews have in their original document sanctified refined stealing, among other things."
[02:29:03] – [Striker]: Think of meme coins—most people doing them are Gentiles, but because of the Judaization of society where stealing and scams are celebrated, you’re smarter and better for it. This happens at an unsustainable level and will collapse. First, the cryptosphere—all the crypto people celebrating Trump embracing them will see him destroy cryptocurrencies through these frauds. Second, you create a race to the bottom where no one wants to do honest work because the thieves get rich. No one wants to go to work because you don’t get paid enough to justify it, and people make more doing crypto scams. If you’re making money at it, it is what it is—every man for himself in the United States of America. Ideally, it’s not a good way to run a country where we encourage thieves to be the oligarchs. It’s just crazy.
[02:30:44] – [Warren]: He really goes on about tolerance.
"The word tolerance is always on the lips of modern Jews."
Again, this is 1880–1881. This book is incredible.
[02:30:57] – [Striker]: It’s fascinating how their playbook hasn’t changed that much. They had the same playbook, some Germans figured it out, and threw them out of the country. They haven’t updated it.
[02:31:10] – [Warren]: In many cases, like the Esther story, it’s a thousands-year-old playbook. The fact that everybody doesn’t know this—like kids don’t know this playbook—is astonishing.
[02:31:31] – [Striker]: There’s so much stuff in this that I organically came up with on my own. Reading it, I thought, "Holy shit, this guy came up with this over a century ago—150 years ago—and I thought they were my innovations."
[02:31:56] – [Warren]: You’re right. We have to keep relearning, and that’s what they do. That’s why they need more—
[02:32:00] – [Striker]: That’s why we’re doing this very thing right now. Everything we’re grasping in the dark to figure out, someone else already figured out a long time ago. It’s just a matter of re-popularizing this stuff. Take Sombart—since I wrote about him, traditionally only leftists wrote about him favorably because of the American right-wing taboo on socialists. Now I’m seeing more right-wingers talking about him. Popularizing these things again is so important to get the intellectual muck out of the gears.
[02:32:43] – [Warren]: A lot of the points he’s making here are in Mein Kampf. You can find this stuff on that Calvin website—Goebbels has bullet points with it. The important thing is to understand this is part of a broad central European continental intellectual tradition. The top minds of the 19th century, back to the 18th and 16th centuries—even further, like John Chrysostom’s Homilies Against the Jews—this is the intellectual heritage of the West and of white people. I saw Bari Weiss put up a YouTube video on her channel, The Free Press—an interview with Alex Karp titled "Alex Karp’s Fight for the West." Look at him with his man boobs in a T-shirt, this frizzy-haired Jew. It’s beautiful.
[02:34:16] – [Striker]: Notice how wrong right-wingers are about how power and politics work. People say, "Why are you dressed like that? How do you expect to be taken seriously in a white T-shirt or wife beater?" But look at how the most powerful people in America dress—slobs with power Julius Caesar or Augustus couldn’t dream of.
[02:35:28] – [Warren]: My point is this: "Alex Karp’s Fight for the West." Dühring is the West, Voltaire is the West, Wagner is the West—not just a Goebbels pamphlet. The Nazis were not an aberration; they were a flower on a branch of a tree.
[02:35:57] – [Striker]: The Nazis were the immune system of the West—the fighting activist wing. Nazism isn’t just about Germany. It started that way, but by the end, the biggest Nazis weren’t even German—Leon Degrelle, people from Spain, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy—all fought together because it was the West.
[02:36:35] – [Warren]: It was the apotheosis, the pinnacle of Westernness. I want to read this line:
"The word tolerance is always on the lips of the modern Jews"
—modern as in the 1880s and also the 2020s.
“When they speak of themselves and demand completely unhindered play for their type and way. Tolerance, however, is that which suits no people less than precisely the Jews. Their religion is the most exclusive and most intolerant of all, for it basically lets nothing be valid but merely the naked Jewish self-interest and its goals.”
It’s so simple, deceptively simple. People get this in their instincts naturally, but there’s an element that misleads them. He says:
“Even the Jews themselves have up to the present day striven for ways of putting down every criticism and every conduct against them, as if it were a matter of religious differences and prejudices, and as if they were different from other peoples only through their religion. But the lower class and the usual bourgeoisie have let their natural instincts and sentiments be deceived neither by the priests nor by the religious educators. They have always seen in the Jew something not reconcilable with their own kind. The baptized Jew—evangelical or Catholic—was and is considered by them, where they correctly understand their aversion to the Jewish type, always essentially a Jew. This naturally grown feeling and judgment based on immediate impressions was misled originally by priestly leaders and then by inadequate religious instruction. The priests have taught the people falsely to imagine that it may not suffer the Jews on account of their deviant religion. The religious educators, including Jewish ones or those directed by a Jewish way of thought, have provided a falsifying counterpart. They have represented every aversion and measure against the Jews as something only to do with the Jewish religion, making it a necessity, for the sake of religious tolerance, to suffer the Jew as he really is with all his characteristics, and to consider other peoples equally. In this way, people and nations have forgotten to understand their own feelings and experience correctly and deal in a correct way with their opposition to the Jew.”
[02:40:04] – [Striker]: He makes the point that the rejection of Jewish power was a bottom-up ordeal. It wasn’t the elites—the people pressured the elites on this question.
[02:40:18] – [Warren]: Even in America today, this is why Jews get nervous when conservatives talk about Christian Zionism. There’s a reason most Jews still vote Democrat. A weird subset goes for it, but many white Americans have a distaste for what they don’t identify as Jewish characteristics. People where I grew up—in the South, rural areas—dislike traits they don’t connect to Jews but are misdirected by the modern priestly class against urban whites, city people, Hollywood liberals, the liberal media.
[02:42:33] – [Striker]: I made this point on Twitter: Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis said cultural Marxists marched through the institutions. The second that class disagrees with Jews slightly on Israel, they liquidate it all—universities, media, NGOs. The left was not in charge; they were a means to an end. The Jews are the ones in charge.
[02:43:11] – [Warren]: When I was door-knocking on Long Island, I encountered Italians who’d moved from Brooklyn. I was pleasantly surprised by how hospitable and friendly they were—how white they were—unlike New Yorkers with their guard up, more rude at first. Once I was myself—a guy from West Virginia—we’d get along great. I thought about how much an Italian from New York’s city neighborhoods has in common temperamentally with rural Scotch-Irish.
[02:44:20] – [Striker]: If you’re an Ellis Island Italian, you’re just three generations removed from a ruralite yourself.
[02:44:40] – [Warren]: So many things red state America thinks they hate are Jewish characteristics they’ve been told to misapply elsewhere.
[02:44:50] – [Striker]: Staten Island votes for Trump with the same percentage as Tennessee, right in New York City. There’s a lot of commonalities between Italians in the Northeast and Scots-Irish types, including the anti-intellectual streak. Both have a lot in common politically and sociologically—more than their differences. The Sopranos is an excellent portrayal of Italians becoming assimilated generic white Americans, a sociological work of art. Whites from the outer boroughs are now on Staten Island and Long Island, but increasingly, people from Long Island are moving elsewhere because it’s so intolerable.
[02:47:48] – [Warren]: The anti-intellectualism can be a really good thing.
[02:47:52] – [Striker]: Another thing they have in common with the Scots-Irish—they live around Blacks, something people in the South are familiar with.
[02:48:29] – [Warren]: There’s so many typical Jewish traits people get instinctively. Take Jared Kushner—your average MAGA person hates him or doesn’t like him. They don’t say, "I love Jared, he’s our guy." What are Jared Kushner’s traits? Slipperiness, sliminess, unmanliness, a smarmy quality, smarty-pants, rich. It never occurs to them because their priestly class—Fox News pundits—misleads them to think it’s urban people, soy boys, when instinctively they have an aversion. I like that he gives credit to peasant anti-Semitism—the bell curve at work. Anything else in the book you want to hit? I took so many screenshots and notes we could spend all day.
[02:49:59] – [Striker]: Go to page 111 where he lists what famous Jewish intellectuals of the time plagiarized, like Ricardo’s theory of rent.
[02:50:06] – [Warren]: I didn’t know who Ricardo was at first—I thought, "Wait, he’s not talking about—"
[02:50:06] – [Striker]: He rents back the concept of what we consider free market economics. Locke and Smith were hostile to rent-seeking practices and saw them as a threat to freedom. The concept of speculation and rentier classes—Locke and Smith saw them as something that would hold free enterprise back. Ricardo said, "No, this is actually part of free enterprise and it’s a good thing."
[02:48:35] – [Warren]: He’s British, from the 17—
[02:48:38] – [Striker]: Notice again, this is before the high IQ Ashkenazis. All these Jewish intellectuals—Spinoza, Ricardo—they’re Sephardic. Why were Sephardics high IQ back then, but when they moved to Israel, they’re considered low IQ? Meanwhile, Ashkenazis in ghettos in Eastern Europe’s Pale of Settlement went from low IQ to high IQ once they took over finance. It’s all court history.
[02:49:13] – [Warren]: For those who groan at your "Hispanics are not a race" speech, the flip side is your specialized historical knowledge of Sephardic Jews.
[02:49:32] – [Striker]: Think of Montefiore—Disraeli was Sephardic. All the big-name Jews from the 19th century in finance and philosophy were Sephardic, expelled from Portugal and Spain.
[02:49:51] – [Warren]: This guy is almost a one-to-one contemporary of Beethoven—Beethoven born 1770, died 1827; Ricardo 1772 to 1823, the Napoleon period. He was a British political economist, politician, member of parliament, one of the most influential classical economists alongside Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith, and James Mill. Born in London, third surviving child of a successful stockbroker, from a Sephardic Jewish family of Portuguese origin, he converted to Unitarianism and made his fortune financing government borrowing.
[02:50:36] – [Striker]: That’s not very Unitarian.
[02:50:39] – [Warren]: You can take the Jew out of the religion, but not the Jew out of the Jew. He got into Parliament, was friends with Malthus—I’ve never really studied classical economics.
[02:51:19] – [Striker]: Ricardo’s main innovation was to normalize privatization and financialization, which Dühring says is an act of Jewish self-interest, not a higher ideal—just self-interest.
[02:51:35] – [Warren, reading Wikipedia]:
Following his estrangement, he went into business with the support of Lubeks and Forster, an eminent banking house. He made the bulk of his fortune profitably financing government borrowing. A popular story states he made his fortune speculating on the Battle of Waterloo outcome. His obituary in the Sunday Times reported he netted upwards of a million sterling during the battle—a huge sum then—later popularized by an economist. In reality, he was already very rich and sold his latest government stock in June 1815 before the battle’s result was known, missing half the rise.
Still, it’s funny that story sticks—while men fought on the battlefield, he was profiteering.
He grew his wealth dealing in securities during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and developed a disdain for the corn laws.
[02:52:57] – [Striker]: That’s a rabbit hole—he contributed to the Irish potato famine.
[02:53:02] – [Warren]: From the Dühring text:
“The economizing Jews, whether so-called socialists or not, value Ricardo in his characteristic way as the greatest national economist whom Adam Smith does not equal. This modesty is as comical as illuminating. The national economy of the chosen and unique people must also be itself chosen and unique. We, however, who do not judge from a friendship for the chosen race, cannot say anything of how chosen Ricardo was, but only of what he had chosen from other scientists and scientific articles to put on the market as new for his own account. In this way, he had only obscured somewhat the ground rent theory, which in its older and more natural form in the 18th century was based by Anderson on profitability differences, but essentially brought forward nothing in his tricky arguments which could be called original.”
[02:54:06] – [Striker]: All he did was steal Anderson—the Scotsman’s—theory and subvert it. That’s what he’s saying—it’s amazing.
[02:54:18] – [Warren]: Dühring writes:
“Ricardo had as a hero of the stock exchange a special tendency to explain all profits from accumulated differences and so shaped the ground rent theory borrowed from others according to his natural inclination, constructing that misinformation whose insecurity was illuminated by Liston Carey and characterized by me as the birth of a hopeless fantasy and a sharp abrupt perplexed raison d’être. The original core, which served as the point of departure for this misconstruction, was not grown on Ricardo’s soil itself. Moreover, Ricardo lived off the Malthusian overpopulation doctrine in which he had got up and showed here his dependence—not in that which is accurate, but only in which is inaccurate. In the realm of the stock exchange and money, one should think Ricardo must have most easily brought forward original doctrines, but even here nothing is to be found unless the darkness spread over paper money and the price of ingots should be considered something.”
He’s very withering in his critique.
[02:55:45] – [Striker]:
“In what light the Jewish banker saw things is evidenced by his generous theoretical sketch according to which the Bank of England had to be removed so private bankers could participate in its businesses. One finds in my history of economics more similar characteristic things of note which reveal the Jewish mentality. Besides scientific inadequacy, there is also that aesthetic cumbersomeness in the sharpness of the application of ideas and in the angularity of his style. Ricardo does not deny his Jewishness even in this direction. His manner of thought process was sharp but interrupted and fragmented from point to point without constant connection, without true logic, and in consequence, without harmony, even as to the external impression.”
E. Michael Jones in his book on logos would say, "This is because the Jews don’t have logos. They don’t have harmony in their mind, and so their work reflects that." He talks about the Jew Jacoby in mathematics ripping off better Gentile thinkers—it’s amazing.
[02:57:18] – [Warren]: The argument that Jews don’t come up with anything original—I usually have an aversion to it because it sounds like envy. But it’s not just about taking credit or who thought of it first—it’s about the general self-esteem of a people.
[02:58:06] – [Striker]: It’s also that you have a good idea, a Jew takes it, uses it for something bad, and steals credit for it.
[02:58:19] – [Warren]: With socialism, that’s the biggest thing. Even 20, 25 years ago, I intuitively grasped that socialism emerged naturally from white people, was hijacked by Jews, and misdirected. My knowledge gaps have filled in, but it’s a shame socialism is still associated with Jewish nonsense in the popular imagination. White America has been handicapped by the inability to associate socialism with anything positive.
[02:59:15] – [Striker]: In the case of Americans, the hatred of socialism and communism is a sublimated anti-fascism—not the same as pre-war anti-communism. Cold War American hatred—watch Rocky. The Soviet boxer is like a German Nordic, the American a stand-in for the Jew. We need to teach our goofy goyim to stop taking things at face value. If you hate communism because it’s Jewish, that’s one thing. But if you get lost in surface-level aesthetics, what happens when Jewish communists become American capitalists, as they did in the ‘60s? You’re still fighting for the same Bolsheviks, now under sublimated anti-Nazi-ism.
[03:00:50] – [Warren]: A mutual friend was defending McCarthy—George Lincoln Rockwell admired him. I talked to an extremely intelligent friend who leans conservative, hopeful on Trump. I mentioned Roy Cohn’s connection, and he said, "Roy Cohn was one of the rare good ones." You said McCarthy was a blackmailed homosexual. While researching the FBI, Emily took the Roy Cohn pill hardcore, showing how Trump was compromised from the start. I found sinister pictures of Roy Cohn with McCarthy, whispering in his ear—there’s a lot of evidence from 1953 about McCarthy’s closeted homosexuality. Roy Cohn is the guy to trace this aggressive anti-communism, super right-wing thread—not just Jews, but gay Jews.
[03:02:56] – [Striker]: Think of that story about NSA and CIA agents in a chat room sharing pictures of their tranny surgeries and weird fetishes. In Communist China, Russia, or Iran, they’d end up in jail or a mental institution. It makes sense they’re the Praetorian Guards of Judeo-liberalism—America is the only place in history where such people aren’t cast out, jailed, or put in an asylum. They’re the most loyal and trustworthy with the country’s secrets and imperial management.
[03:03:51] – [Warren]: Seeing Roy Cohn with McCarthy and Trump, you can either conclude he was a good Jew, or that McCarthy and Trump were heavily compromised. He’s a fixer, a criminal, an absolute monster—Mephistopheles. George Lincoln Rockwell likely had no idea about Roy Cohn or what was going on behind the scenes—it was hard to know back then. It’s extremely sinister how they can switch it. Dühring would see Roy Cohn and know exactly what he’s up to by the 1950s.
[03:04:59] – [Striker]: Under Eisenhower’s triple melting pot, Jews were just white people with a different religion, influencing even Rockwell’s misunderstanding of the Jewish question. He was a product of his time, influenced by ‘50s culture despite the swastika armbands. In the Soviet Union, because it was politicized, Jews were expelled or fled by the ‘70s and ‘80s—think Refuseniks, the Polish Communist Party purging Jews from cultural and political positions. Jews realized America was their best bet because the white race here is depoliticized due to individualism. Schmitt says there’s no such thing as individualism—you’re either controlled by another group or controlling them. We’ll talk more about Schmitt in a week or two.
[03:06:42] – [Warren]: I just watched Tombstone—this book’s second edition, published 1881, aligns with the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, October 26, 1881, the Wyatt Earp era. If you’re steeped in National Socialist literature from the Third Reich, these arguments are familiar. The introduction mentions a journalist, Maher, with racial antisemitism, though he drifted to better optics later in life. There’s no excuse for people not to know this stuff—their playbook doesn’t change.