(This article was originally written in May, 2021.)

1) Popular historian Stefan Ihrig (of Jewish descent) in the book Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians From Bismarck to Hitler (2016) mentions the physical and mental connections noted by anthropologists between the Jews and the Armenians and other Near Eastern peoples. In his book, Ihrig cites the German racial theorist Hans F. K. Guenther’s racial study of the Jews, Rassenkunde des juedischen Volkes (1930), translated in Ihrig’s work as “Racial Handbook of the Jewish Race”. It is, firstly a misleading translation of Guenther’s work. Guenther was never loath to stress the distinction between race on the one hand, and nationality, people (“volk”), language, and religion on the other, and in his work he stated plainly his belief that the Jews were not a race in the proper sense, but a racially mixed people, albeit somewhat homogenized through some definite cultural economic, social, political, and religious compulsions acting as selective processes, favoring the possession of certain racial characteristics and resulting in some degree of racial uniformity within the modern Jewish nation. Ihrig again makes the mistake of transmuting the term people or nation into race in the following statement ascribed to Guenther: “it appears also that these commercial abilities are more prominent within the races with Near Eastern characteristics, the stronger the influence of the Near Eastern race is on them.” (Italics mine.)

Ihrig makes another poignantly obvious error in the following words: “Günther’s major publication was his Racial Handbook of the German People. It had first appeared in the 1880s as the Catechism of the Anti-Semites (1887) and was republished in the early 1920s in a much-expanded version. The ‘Günther,’ as the book was called, was available in soft cover, hardcover, and in a ‘nice,’ ‘decorative’ half-leather edition for the style-conscious anti-Semite.” It is hard to be patient with such egregious dishonesty. Guenther’s Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes was first published in 1922. If Guenther had written something published in 1887 it must have appeared before the date of his birth in 1891. I also know of no work written by Guenther having a semblance to a “Catechism of the Anti-Semites”, still less any work published by him of that name. If Ihrig is referring to an Antisemiten-Katechismus (“Anti-Semitic Cathechism”) which first appeared in 1887, the attribution is clearly false, the author of this catechism being Theodor Fritsch.

2) In the Jew Asimov and William Clouser Boyd’s book Races and People (1955), racial mixing is nearly dismissed by the writers, in a way, as a good experiment for the future of mankind. The writers encourage miscegenation and attempt to temper such an idea by the claim that we currently (though of course, one must bear in mind the year of publication) know too little about the effects of racial mixing and of hereditary variation. But I am inclined to believe the contrary. The main reason we know so little about the effects of race crossing is because the Jews are hiding the good and reliable sources from us, and replacing it with their own twisted and nonsensical, yet emotionally enticing claims. 

We must keep in kind, that whatever which is “new”, or now popular, is not always better. What we need is science, research on the subject as purely untainted by the emotions as possible. But morality must also be maintained.

3)

Jonathan Marks

The Jews Michael A. Little and Kenneth A. R. Kennedy are the editors of the book Histories of American Physical Anthropology in the Twentieth Century (2010), discussing the ideas of anthropologists of the 20th century, including what they call “scientific racism” and the social triumph of the disciples of the Jewish Boasian school of anthropology. The chapter I will cite on the biologist Reginald Ruggles Gates, below, is from chapter 10 of the work, which was not by the hands of the editors. Some searching led me to the writer of the chapter, a Jewish anthropologist named Jonathan Marks, well-known in the contemporary intellectual gang as a defender of “egalitarianism” and the nonexistence of human races. “Marks” is likely an anglicization of “Marx”; clearly, such a name would have seemed too obvious, especially for someone holding the views that the writer does.

“Ruggles Gates was a Canadian-English plant geneticist, who found a home at Harvard. Rejecting the interbreeding criterion, he argued in the AJPA [American Journal of Physical Anthropology] (1944) and in Human Ancestry (1948) that human races were so fundamentally different as to be equivalent to species. His 1948 book came with a foreword by Hooton, who politely disavowed it, and would not even recommend it when queried by Robert Yerkes (July 12, 1949). In India, the geneticist J. B. S. Haldane refused to host a visit from Ruggles Gates; in New York, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky referred to him privately as ”a mutant’ (Dobzhansky to Ashley Montagu, July 12, 1947). Gates and Garrett served together starting in 1960 as the founding associate editors of Mankind Quarterly, funded by Draper. The journal’s contents and orientation set off a huge controversy in biological anthropology, loudly denounced by mainstream scholars, notably Juan Comas (1961) and G. A. Harrison (1961). In the journal’s first number, Garrett (1961) outlined ‘the equalitarian dogma’—leveling the accusation that American higher education a generation ago had been hijacked by Jewish Communist anthropologists, led by Franz Boas, promoting the insidious idea of racial equality. The following year, Carleton Putnam published Race and Reason, developing the ‘scientific’ case against school integration, and blaming the influence of those Jewish Communist Boasians once again for the idea of racial equality. The introduction to Race and Reason was co-authored by Garrett, Gates, and George (as well as by the editor-in-chief of Mankind Quarterly, Robert Gayre).”

The quote above claims that Earnest Hooton, who was perhaps the most prominent physical anthropologist in America at his time, disapproved of the ideas postulated in Gates’ Human Ancestry, the very work for which he had contributed the foreword. In fact, Hooton writes in the foreword to Human Ancestry: “Professor Ruggles Gates does not subscribe to the dogma that all races of modern man belong to the same species. He argues powerfully for specific diversity. […] I am glad to see Professor Gates tackle the problem so courageously, even if I myself am indifferent, hesitant, or pusillanimous.” Gates two years before had also expressed his indebtedness to Hooton for his critical perusal of sections of his two volume work Human Genetics. Throughout both Human Ancestry and Human Genetics, which Hooton at least partially read, Gates’ acknowledgment of racial differences in mankind are signally present. Given these facts, I am inclined to assume that Hooton spoke a certain way publicly from fear of reprisals as a prominent Harvard academic in an unscientific, sentimental, unintelligent, post World War II era.

The Jewish geneticist Dobzhansky’s vitriol of Gates as a “mutant” to the Jewish anthropologist Ashley Montagu (real name: Israel Ehrenberg) is just another instance of the vitriolic behavior of the Jews when facts and theories do not fit their wishful, unsound, and preconceived notions.

As for the claim that the psychologist Henry Garrett blamed the denial of racial differences and the forceful ideology of “human equality” on “Jewish Communist anthropologists”, he would be fully justified in saying so if he did, but I have no evidence at hand that Garrett was anti-Jewish or that he actually used those words. Garrett, as far as I know, was not a supporter of Nazism, even suing one of his colleagues, Bozo Skerlj, for accusing him of being a follower of Nazi ideology. Given how much the Jews twist words and with how much vigor they slander and debase those whose views they oppose, I am much in support of the idea of the overstating or perversion of the real events by the Jews unless proof is furnished.

Concerning the segregationist and political organizer Carleton Putnam (who was a cousin of the physical anthropologist Carleton Coon), I can find no evidence in his work Race and Reason (1961) that he was anti-Jewish in the sense of believing Jews were racially different from “White” (European) or other human populations. Though Putnam saw the connection between Jews and their role in the popularizing of “egalitarian” beliefs in the political and social life at the time, he himself considered Jews to be part of the “White race”, supposedly only distinct from the latter in a non-racial sense. In fact, his belief on the racial affiliations of the Jews is shown in the same work. Putnam was not anti-Jewish in the racial meaning.

In his chapter, the Jew Marks concludes that the decline of racial awareness in the anthropological field, and the ascendancy of Jewish ideas therein “was arguably American physical anthropology’s finest moment.”

According to Wikipedia, Marks “is an outspoken critic of scientific racism, and has prominently argued against the idea that ‘race’ is a natural category. In Marks’s view, ‘race’ is a negotiation between patterns of biological variation and patterns of perceived difference. He argues that race and human diversity are different subjects, and do not map on to one another well. This view is now the stated consensus of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.”

4) The Jewish academic Paul Lombardo’s article in the Albany Law Review (March 22, 2002) on “‘The American Breed’: Nazi Eugenics and the Origins of the Pioneer Fund” contains the typical exaggerations, the hopeless way of attacking individuals rather than criticizing the ideas, of imputing every eugenicist as a promoter of “genocide” and the supposed attempt by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews, of shrewdly avoiding logical dissection of the real investigations made by the eugenicists in their real, scientific attempt to purify the human stock. The Jew Lombardo, for instance, claims that, “Like Grant and Laughlin, Wickliffe Draper believed that the United States and Germany were the two countries that contained the purest residue of Nordic biological heritage.” I do not know if Harry Laughlin and Wickliffe Draper actually believed Germany was among the two most Nordic nations of all, but I know Madison Grant did not think so. In his most well-known work, The Passing of the Great Race (1916), Grant considered only about 13 percent of Germans to be of “pure” Nordic race: “This change of race in Germany has gone so far that it has been computed that out of the 70,000,000 inhabitants of the German Empire, only 9,000,000 are purely Teutonic in coloration, stature and skull characters.” 

Far surpassing this paltry proportion was Sweden; Sweden, according to Madison Grant (The Conquest of a Continent, 1933) “is purely Nordic”. But my corrections certainly should not be taken as saying that I believe or support Grant’s theory of the supreme ascendant position of the Nordic race in world history. My purpose here is to describe honestly Grant’s beliefs as they were, rather than to question the veracity of these per se. In fact further research, and indeed passing observation shows clearly that the Swedish people are not purely Nordic in race, even if the claim is correct that they have, relatively speaking, more Nordic blood than any other nation in the world. Grant’s writing is rather dogmatic at times and his belief that the Nordic is the superior race in nearly every human activity worthy of emulation is certainly to be regretted, even if he does have many factual and quite interesting things to say. I merely mention this fallacy by Lombardo to point out another instance of deceptive writing in today’s Jewish-dominated academic circle.

5) On its website, Villanova University, the only Augustinian Catholic university in the United States, claims that while Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian monk who was the discoverer of the hereditary laws, attempted the state certification examination for a teacher’s certification in 1856, “he became ill, most likely as a result of debilitating test anxiety, and withdrew.” I have not been able to verify that Mendel was, or was not, of an anxious disposition, but from what I have read of his life it seems unlikely. 

Yet it brings up other queries: Why make the suggestion of mental illness of Mendel when no strong evidence appears to exist of even a moderate degree of mental defectiveness? Why are the Jews constantly attempting to give eminent men the disadvantage of the doubt regarding their mental health and psychological soundness? The Jews are constantly making claims that various great men in history suffered mental afflictions, and what is even more untenable, they make the contention that their mental illness is precisely what caused them to be great, or which aided them in attaining eminence. It is an idea without scientific justification that geniuses and eminent men are more liable to neuroticism or mental disorders than is the general population; careful scientific studies have, on the contrary, shown that geniuses are less likely to suffer from mental disorders than is the average run of mankind. Of course, multiple instances could be given of intellectually notable men who undoubtedly suffered from neuropathic or mental defects; but as Lothrop Stoddard correctly remarks, “it was not those traits that made them eminent; on the contrary, these were handicaps. Somewhere back in their ancestry a taint was introduced into a sound, superior strain, and produced this disharmonic combination of qualities.” (The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man, 1922.)

6) “The field of race science is meant to explain why people behave as they do, but in such a way that practical measures can be set into motion in order to control or rectify behavior.” This attempt by the Jews at the defamation of true racial science is taken from the book The Power of Scientific Knowledge: From Research to Public Policy (2012) by Reiner Grundmann and Nico Stehr, which was published by Cambridge University Press (a popular publishing company, and therefore necessarily Jewish controlled). Reading this statement, the reader is lead to assume that whatever facts which racial investigations furnish can never be used to improve the conditions of men by the study of mankind and the races that compose it. The ideas suggested by this statement are saliently unsound. Psychologists use what they discover by science to make suggestions and conclusions in practice; without practical function, the subject, like any other, would be useless in benefiting man. The same concept of application from what one knows in the study of racial characteristics and racial differences evidently does not apply, and never can according to these authors. Any suggestion drawn from such study is necessarily “forced” and directed, as the authors themselves say, “in order to control or rectify behavior”. 

It is, I think, propaganda to say that what the student of race has to say is said for the fact of “controlling” or “rectifying” behavior while at the same time not maintaining such a tradition of labeling in other scientific fields. As with any scientific matter, the prudent student of science only applies what he has learned according to what his knowledge and what sound conclusions would lead him. 

To have a better understanding of the absurdity of the statement given, read this sentence, and see whether the suggestion of “forcefulness” is clearly excessive and actuated by some penchant by the authors towards a certain dogma, or beliefs of their own: “The field of psychology is meant to explain why people behave as they do, but in such a way that practical measures can be set into motion in order to control or rectify behavior.” The statement is made for readers to assume that, in the revised example just given, psychologists will concede all things which do not support matters they personally support and give impetus only to those facts or discoveries that do support them. 

It is insincere to assume that the purpose of race science, but not other sciences like psychology, is to “control or rectify behavior”. But it is the custom of the dictionaries to use something like the following formula when defining any of the sciences: “The study of (scientific topic)”; no mention is made of any practical endeavor. Yet when dealing with the facts of human races, practical function is implied as if necessary; one may be lead to suspect that the reason for this is to arouse negative feelings and direct them according to the authors’ desires. Indeed, in the study of such matters as racial differences between men, which “arouse so much heat, so much bad feeling, so much misrepresentation”, to follow the words of the American paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, particular caution would seem to be a most sensible mode of conduct in the pertinent investigations. But without applying what one has learned, without acting on facts and sound theories, how is mankind to direct himself in a conscious way towards the improvement of the coming generations of the world, and the alleviation of suffering between the races following from negligence, or ignorance, or dishonesty? No matter how unpleasant they are, it is better to face the facts when they are discovered; in the long run, hiding from them will not be a boon to us. Hiding from these facts I think will, in the end, result in more immorality than what their acknowledgment and proper actions will entail.

7)

This is the sort of sordid propaganda the Jews in control of the media are trying to instill in the minds of students.

I have noticed for years now something of “gender pronouns” commonly being displayed on profiles on social media, in emails, and even in registration forms. Anyone with a whit of observational abilities should wonder, What is the origin of this filth? 

This Jewish propaganda seems to have first made its appearance several years ago, and now it is “the trend” which the masses are following. Is this the sort of immorality which relatively “normal” persons must endure through again and again?

8)

The filth that Jews promote today to youth. This is what children born today will accustom themselves to for the rest of their lives if things go on as they are going now. I suspect hundreds of millions of these Jewish agitators and corrupters are spreading this kind of degeneracy in all the major websites today. Who would have imagined that this planet would have socially degenerated to such an extent as we see now say, a mere twenty years ago? Sadly, the Internet, almost entirely under Jewish control as it is, has been working for the Jews’ depraved ideas more than against them.

9)

I found the above image while searching for other matters. Rachel Riley is the Jewish TV host who feeds depraved ideas in the minds of youth throughout the world by messages like the one above on a Jewish game show in Britain known as Countdown. This was not a recent thing, so that it is hard to imagine how much more contemptible the Jewish TV shows now are, since the masses are becoming accustomed, or morally and socially “loosened”, as much as their mediocre hereditary equipment would permit it, to seeing such things.