Click on the above link to listen to the audio.
The Realist Report
Tanstaafl: The Jew As A Parasite
December 7, 2015.
The Realist Report
The international Jew, the promoter and benefactor of both international Communism and capitalism, is a biological parasite. National Socialist Germany clearly understood this fact, and made moves to address the situation. Now it’s America’s turn.
On this edition of The Realist Report, we’ll be joined by Tanstaafl of Age of Treason. Tanstaafl is one of the most knowledgeable and insightful commentators in the alternative, independent media today. In this podcast, we discussed the jewish problem and Jewish parasitism, the root cause of so-called “pathological altruism” prevalent in the White race today, the 2016 president campaign, and related matters. http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-tanstaafl-the-jew-as-a-parasite/
John Friend (JF): You are listening to the Realist Report. Here’s your host John Friend.
Tanstaafl (TAN): Hello John.
JF: All right folks. Welcome book to another edition of the Realist Report. I am your host John Friend. Today I have a very special guest, Tanstaafl from Age of Treason is joining me on the line. Tanstaafl is one of the most knowledgeable and insightful commentators in the pro-White media today. Particularly when it comes to the Jewish Question (JQ) or more accurately, the Jewish Problem (JP). A topic that we will be discussing at length today. So Tanstaafl, welcome to the Realist Report. Thanks for being with us today
TAN: Thank you for inviting me John. Glad to be here.
JF: Absolutely. Yes, for people that aren’t familiar with your work, I’m going to post a link to a radio program you did where you kind of go through your background and how you awoke to some of these issues and how you started your website and your radio program and whatnot. But for now can you just people the URL to your website? And any other details you want to give out about your website.
TAN: I think if you just search for Age of Treason you’ll find my site. It’s probably ranked high enough that you will see age-of-treason.com and it’s easy to find.
JF: OK, and I’ll have a link directly to your site when I post this program. And as I mentioned a link to a radio program where you talk about your background and whatnot. Well, anyway let’s just jump right into the discussion. And let’s start off, … Could you just explain to your audience, how you woke up to the Jewish Problem.
TAN: Well, it started by waking up to race, first. I want through most of my life pretending that race isn’t important, doesn’t exist. Looking back on it showed that the proper instincts that I knew, certain places and certain things were not safe and were not good.
But I didn’t, … Like most White people I basically didn’t think of myself as White, or having interests as a White person. And, I eventually, after one particular straw broke the camel’s back, … I realized and accepted that I was White and that Whites are under attack as a race. And that I was part of that whether I wanted to be part of it or not. And I, you know, to put it in terms that I later realized, “race” is a code word for White, basically.
What I saw and what I think what the straws that broke the camel’s back ultimately, were the double standards on race. The hypocrisy, the identity politics. And I didn’t understand this until later either. That identity politics as it exists now and as it has always existed as it was constructed is inherently anti-White.
The anti-White premise of it is built in. It not about all people organizing by race to advocate for their interests as a race, as a group. It’s all groups except Whites being allowed and even encouraged to organize racially. And jews first and foremost for that. The way that I was forced to confront the jews was that once I realized that race was important I realized that the attack on the White race was coming mainly from jews. That jews were the most vocal, the most vitriolic attackers of Whites.
TAN: That is how it happened.
JF: Very interesting. Yes. And you made the point, you were sort of talking about how you were deracinated. You didn’t really think in racial terms prior to your racial awakening. I think that is how most, the vast majority of White are, certainly in America, but probably even in Europe, at this point.
TAN: Yes and it’s unnatural. It’s not just that we are not naturally interested in race. It’s actually propagandized to us in that way. We are indoctrinated with the idea that Whites specifically thinking in terms of race is WRONG! It’s EVIL!
JF: Yes, and you hear the leftists and the anti-White is going on, and on, and on, and on about how there’s still White supremacy in America. And if you look at Congress it’s all White people. And yes that is true to a certain extent. But these White people in Congress and these White people controlling our government, which, you know, is becoming increasingly non-White. But the White people that are in government in the media and whatnot, they do not think of themselves as White. They are not out there acting in the best interests of Whites. They are totally deracinated. And in many cases are working for the racial interests of other groups.
TAN: Yes, that is the dishonesty that you’re pointing out of that argument that we live in a White supremacist system because their are Whites in control of the universities, Whites have been, every president, up to till Obama, Whites run the banks, Whites run Hollywood. It’s really disingenuous, because even the Whites that are involved in those things don’t think of themselves as Whites, don’t have a positive identity as a White. Or, if they do, they keep it to themselves. They know that they have to keep it to themselves or, they will lose their position in any of those places.
JF: Now, getting back to the “Jewish Problem“, you said that you sort of woke up to race first and then you recognized the Jews as the primary adversaries of the White race, and I mean there is a long history that we can talk more about. But, I guess just generally speaking, how would you describe the Jewish Problem, or the Jewish Question? I think the Jewish Problem is a much more accurate, you know, description of this issue, you know, this issue with jews.
You know, we see all across the world today, especially America. But like, how would you describe the Jewish Problem to an average person? What are the most important points that people need to understand when it comes to this issue?
TAN: Right. Well it depends on where they are starting from. If they are starting from zero, where I trace my start from. That they are deracinated. You first have to talk to them about race. You have to get them to see this realization that we are under attack as a race, as a group. And that just because you are acting like it doesn’t matter to you, that is not going to protect you. You are not going to be safe because of that. But once you get someone to say that; race does matter, it’s important and I’m White and I’m going to do something about it.
Then you need to point out the jews to them. It doesn’t come automatically to most people. In fact a lot of people will try to continue the pretense that jews are White. And what you point out to them is that the jews control the banks, jews control the media, jews control the politics and jews rule, when it comes down to it. And if you don’t like what is going on in this country, as most White people don’t, you don’t like the jews. You just don’t, maybe, don’t realize it yet. That it is the jews. And maybe at some point in their brain, … And I think again looking book in my own travels, it wasn’t that I didn’t see the evidence of it. It’s that I refused to confront it for my whole life. It was not that I was totally ignorant of it.
So that is the first thing to do. To get them to acknowledge that there is, that all of this stuff is going on, right. Then you come to the Jewish Problem. And the Jewish Problem is really just the flip-side of the anti-semitism, right. It’s our, … It’s what the conflict of interests is called from a White point of view. It’s called the Jewish Problem. The jews call it anti-semitism. Or you could say, from a jew point of view it’s the non-jew problem. We non-jews call it the Jewish Problem. And historically it’s the problem that jews create for us.
The fact is the jews aren’t White. They are genetically distinct, so their DNA is different. They are ideologically hostile. This is even more important, that even if they were, … If you could get over the fact that they are genetically similar [different?] they are ideologically 180 degrees different Whites. They see themselves, … The core of their identity, if you pay attention to their blood libel narrative and the “Holocaust” narrative, is that Whites are the enemy. Especially when they get on their soapbox and lecture everyone about what the blood libel means to them, what the holocaust means to them. You can see it. They lay it out for you.
That their time amongst European is for two millennia has been nothing but them being victimized by European is. It’s nothing but an inversion of reality. They have lived among Europeans by their own choice. They came up from the Middle East to live amongst Europeans. And they come to live amongst Europeans and insist upon living upon us, amongst us, because they benefit from it. And they know they benefit from it. But they flip it around. It’s one of the psychological, one of the basic psychological tricks that they use, is that they flip it around and blame Whites for the conflict of interest, between the two groups.
JF: Yeah, it’s interesting, that the topic of anti-semitism, I mean it’s something that I’ve written quite a bit about on my website and it’s fascinating, … I mean literally, if you look at, I mean, I follow the jewish press and organizations like the Anti-Defamation League [ADL]. And when they talk about anti-semitism, they are basically talking about people who criticize jews and who make basic observations about jews. And people who literally quote Jews themselves. You know to demonstrate what sort of agenda they’re promoting and what these jews are up to. That is what anti-semitism is, it is telling the truth about the jews. I mean, it’s really incredible that they continue to really use this word as a weapon against us! I mean there’s other words, “racist,” and “White Supremacist” and there’s many others. But I think the jews have been very effective in weaponizing our political discourse and using it against Whites.
TAN: Yes, yeah, and uh, the key is that it has to do with point of view. And it’s the relationship between Whites and jews specifically. It’s like one of those drawings that you can see from one of two ways. It’s actually called a “Ruben-vase”*. It’s the most classic example of that. Yeah, I just looked it up today to find out if there was a name for it. And it’s based on this, according to Wikipedia. It’s based on a Danish psychologist, who turns out, of course, to be jew. But, it’s, … From the jewish point of view, it’s just mindless, senseless, hate of jews for no reason whatsoever. And Whites, in typical fashion, we step outside of ourselves, we don’t even take our own side in this, we step outside of ourselves, see it objectively as a conflict of interests. And see it, as a struggle between equals. And what I’ve come to realize over time, … Initially, that’s how I saw it when I first woke up to it, it’s like:
“Oh, well there’s a conflict here, between two groups, the jews have their own identity and Whites should have their own identity and we’re at odds with each other, at least, some of the time.”
And what I’ve come to realize is that it’s actually far worse than that. It’s Whites have no identity in large part because jews attack whatever sign we show of any sort of consciousness of our racial common interests. And they attack brutally! I mean, it’s just about everything that they accuse the Whites of doing to them, they are actually responsible for doing themselves, they’re basically projecting their own malice onto their enemies.
* [Rubin’s vase (sometimes known as the Rubin face or the figure–ground vase) is a famous set of ambiguous or bi-stable (i.e., reversing) two-dimensional forms developed around 1915 by the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin. They were first introduced at large in Rubin’s two-volume work, the Danish-language Synsoplevede Figurer (“Visual Figures”), which was very well received.
Edgar John Rubin (September 6, 1886ing May 3, 1951) was a Danish psychologisted phenomenologist, remembered for his work on figure-ground perception as seen in such optical illusions like the Rubin vase.
Born of jewish parents, Rubin was born and raised in Copenhagen. Enrolling at the University of Copenhagen in 1904, he majored in psychology and finished his magister artium examination in philosophy in 1910.
JF: Right, and we see how Jews frame anti-Semitism as always some irrational, you know, crazed expression of just anti-Jewish hatred for no reason, there’s no evidence, or any points that these anti-Semites are making, they’re just these crazy individuals. And they’ve also just literally pathologized White identity to where if you actually recognize the fact that you are White and you care about the future of White people, you care about our history, our traditions, you are, again, crazy and irrational. I mean it’s just incredible what they’ve been able to do. And I think of, for example, Dr. Kevin MacDonald and the Culture of Critique really explains this all really, very, very well. And that kind of gets into my next question. What are some of the most important books you would recommend, or that you’ve read dealing with these topics?
TAN: Yeah, definitely Kevin MacDonald is the most important, I would have to mention first. And especially for someone who’s first waking up to race and the Jews. It’s a very detailed explanation of what’s been happening historically and largely cites Jews themselves, as a source of lots of quotes and facts about about the case. And, the Culture of Critique, of course, is a three-volume set, I’ve never read that cover-to-cover myself, I’ve actually gone beyond it. It’s definitely worth it if somebody wants to read it from cover-to-cover, and I’ve read large sections of it, as certain topics became of interest to me. There’s one particular subset that he wrote about the jewish involvement in immigration into the United States that I forward probably once a month to somebody or another whenever immigration comes up and people act like it just happened out of the blue. What’s going on with our open borders. And I thought MacDonald made a great case there in that chapter that he wrote about that, and he made it available in a separate PDF*. Which is relatively short and easy to read.
- [Download of MacDonald’s PDF, ￼Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy: ￼Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy
He also wrote a lot of effective stuff about Cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, Franz Boas. So if you’re trying to figure out, you know, how did we get to this, state of race, and what happened to race science, then MacDonald is a great source for that.
He was inspired, …
JF: I’m sorry, real quick, … I was just going to say, I have read Culture of Critique, but I haven’t read, … I think there are two books that preceed Culture of Critique in the series. And I haven’t read those. But, I mean, that book is absolutely essential reading because it brilliantly and very scholarly explains and analyses the systematic Jewish assault on Western civilization from a cultural perspective, from an intellectual perspective, from a scientific perspective. I mean, these jews literally took over the West, you know, academically and even politically now, obviously, that is very obvious now. But back in the 40s, 50s, as you mentioned, Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School, topics that MacDonald expertly addresses and gives a history of. You know, these radical Jewish intellectuals literally took over Western civilization. And has been undermining and destroying it ever since. And, you know, we can demonstrate this with ease, you know, these jews openly admit it. It’s how do we get people to actually understand all this, because there is a lot to it. And I think you can summarize it and break it down pretty simply. But if you want all the details you have to read Culture of Critique.
TAN: That is what I was getting at when I said, it depends on your point of view as to whether something is anti-semitism or not. And what MacDonald does, is he quotes Jews saying these things. And they say it as a good thing. And of course MacDonald is presenting in a way that puts it in a bad light, in a negative light. Bad for Europeans. That it has been destructive to European society, European civilization. And that is what makes it anti-semitism. If you are seing it from a jewish point of view, well now, someone quoting all these jews, poisonous things about Whites and White civilization, [laughing] yes that is anti-semitism! From our point of view, it’s documenting the Jewish Problem.
JF: Right. Of the jewish genocidal agenda against the West. And that is absolutely what they are up to.
TAN: Right. And it is an agenda that is organized. It is conscious thing. Now, … You can see in the triolgy* MacDonald himself has talked about how he himself became more and more aware of just how deep this problem was. And how, I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but how negative it was. He started of just studying the jews abstractly, objectively and by the Culture of Critique how was basically making an argument in favour ointing the finger of blame at jews for what has happened, certainly in the last 200 years or so, I think is what he covers.
* [A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary Strategy, With Diaspora Peoples.
Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism.
The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.]
[Image — Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy.]
He was inspired by a book, in part he was inspired by a book he came across, I have read cover to cover, called, … It was John M Cuddihy, “The Ordeal of Civility”. [The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity] and the subtitle was, Marx, Freud and Levi Strauss. Focussing on three particular jews who were, that are iconic of what MacDonald calls, jewish intellectual movements. This gurus that lead whole troops of jews, mostly jews anyway. Part of what MacDonald documents is how jews put “goy” out front, several “goy” out front to basically be the face of the movement. But Cuddihy is far more objective, or at least comes across that way. As an Irishman he comes across at least sympathetic to the jews, to there outsider adversarial point of view, towards the West, and towards Anglo-Saxons in particular.
Although the thing is it’s not just the Anglo-Saxons that Jews don’t like. It’s the Germans they don’t like, it’s the Swedes they don’t like, it’s the American they don’t like. It’s really any host that they basically have to subdue in order to benefit from, in order to exploit. And that is, …, you know, MacDonald and Cuddihy are both hesitant to identify jews as an enemy or use any terms that go beyond an objective evaluation of the situation.
I mean, McDonald goes further than Cuddihy does in laying out the hostility and it speaks for itself when you lay it out that way, that they’re the enemy, that they think of us as the enemy. I do it myself when I describe how the jewish identity is centered on, the core of it is, identifying Whites or any host that they live amongst really. But Whites are our concern, and the most recent host for them, as the enemy, and that Whites, if we have a failing at all, it’s in not recognising that, you know where part of the psychological trick they play is that they constantly accuse us of being stupidly, crazily blaming jews for everything. When, the real problem is that Whites, if you want to generalise about the problem, is that Whites don’t blame jews for enough. Whites under-estimate jews. They misunderstand jews. So it’s really a problem of under-estimating them.
JF: Yes, no, and I think that goes to the heart of our problems here in America and really the wider Western world, in that we have never really, well at least in America, we’ve never really dealt seriously with the Jewish Problem and it absolutely is a huge problem.
And guys, if you don’t believe me, I’m gonna have a link to the Renegade Tribune and it’s an article called “Quotes in support of White Genocide”. And it’s just a list of jews making just some of the most outrageous, truly genocidal comments about white people and, I mean, this is something that’s been going on for a very, very long time, certainly during World War II. That’s what World War II was all about. It was all about destroying the one man who actually did stand up to the jews and actually did expose and explain, even in simple terms, the Jewish Problem to his nation and that was Adolf Hitler’s Germany. That is really what all this boils down to, is that we are not real about race and even more importantly we’re not real about the Jewish Question, or the Jewish Problem, I should say.
TAN: Yeah, Hitler’s another one to mention. Mein Kampf, I haven’t read Mein Kampf cover to cover either, I’ve read large sections of it and there is nothing that Hitler has ever, in any translated speech I’ve ever seen or any tract of text that he’s written, nothing that I can find that he’s wrong about.
TAN: As far as I can tell he was telling the truth and he told it very well. He was very articulate, in expressing himself.
JF: I’m glad you mention that because by far the most powerful and impactful book that I read, especially waking up to racial realism and the Jewish Problem, you know, I was really into, I originally got started in all this and sort of woke up to the Jewish Problem by researching 9/11 and coming to the obvious conclusion that 9/11 was actually done by Israel and an international network of jewish criminals. And most certainly not Osama Bin Laden and 19 Arabs, you know, terrorist hijackers. What an absurd, ridiculous story that is! But that was my awakening to the Jewish Problem, but I didn’t really get, you know, into the racial issues until I read Mein Kampf and I mean everything really clicked once I read that book.
And it’s interesting, you know. I remember reading, I think it’s chapter, it’s like chapter 11, or maybe 12 and I think it’s called, “Nation and State” or “Nation and Race” maybe, I can’t remember the exact name of the chapter [Chapter 11: People and Race*] . But it’s really, in my opinion it’s probably the best chapter in the whole book. And he deals with race and he talks about how the White race, “the aryan man” I think he exactly says, is the founder of civilisation and the jews have always been parasites and the corrupters and subverters of civilisation. And I really just read that and was so blown away. I’d never really heard history articulated like that. Wow! Did White people really invent civilisation and all the technology we use today? And the more I thought about is the more obvious it became that absolutely it did. We are the founders of civilisation. No other races have accomplished anything even close to what we’ve accomplished. And I don’t think that’s wrong or supremacist for making that basic, factual observation.
*[Click to see the post: Mein Kampf: Chapter 11 — Race and People]
TAN: Yeah. About 9/11, let’s talk about that in a little while.
TAN: I have a difference of opinion with you on 9/11, but let’s talk about that in a bit.
JF: Yeah, sure.
TAN: Just to continue, the influential books that are worth reading, the influential people who have said things about Jews. Revilo Oliver is definitely one of the more recent and important. William Pierce, you could add to that. But Oliver’s “Jewish Strategy” is very good and highlighted just for me, just how far back in time this goes. That it’s an ancient, … The Jewish Problem is an ancient problem. It’s not something that started when Europeans started to wake up to the biological reality of race, in the 17th, 18th centuries.
TAN: Arthur Gobineau is another one who, predated Hitler. And, by the way, that chapter you mentioned, that chapter 12, … I’m not sure of that is it, either. But race and nation where he talks about that, … But I get into that in some detail when I was discussing Francis Parker Yockley’s book, which is not worth reading, I don’t think.
JF: Hmm, that is, “Imperium”?
TAN: Imperium. And he’s a great writer and he got lots of things right, but I think on race he was wrong. And I can, … He dedicated his book to the hero of World War Two, and he did it just shortly after World War Two. He was writing when everybody else was, or most other people, were putting distance between themselves and the National Socialists and Hitler. He wrote a book about it and dedicated the book to Hitler.
But, what I pointed out, his views on race, … Yockey’s views on race were kind of wishy washy and kind of spiritual. He was against Rationalism and Darwinism because he saw those as some outgrowth of Jewishness, rather than as an outgrowth of Ayran objectivity. And I contrasted Yockey’s opinion on race and nation and the mailability and plasticity of biological attributes like skull shapes. Yockey went into, or bought in the Boas fraud. Which was this idea that if you move a person from one place to the another the ground shapes them. Now this is funny because Darwinism is that theory. Darwinism explains it as taking generations. Generation after generation has to be shaped by it’s environment. That is the basic idea behind natural selection. But it was even more instructive to contrast what Yockey had to say with what Hitler had to say. His hero, …, you know, he apparently missed that chapter, I guess, …
TAN: When trying to understand Hitler’s views about race. And Hitler’s views about race, I believe, come down from Arthur Gobineau. I don’t know if he read the book himself directly, but Gobineau’s, “Inequality of Human Races” describes a very popular view of the importance of race and the differences not just between Whites and blacks and yellows, whatever, the continental races. But the differences amongst Whites themselves, the differences, … Gobineau used the term “race” in a very fine-grained senses that used to be used for nation. What nation used to mean, subrace. A more narrowly group of people related natally. And Gobineau was talking really about the distinctions amongst European is. He saw at that time, he was writing in the 1850s, or so. Whites were just stomping all over the world, conquering and colonizing everywhere here and it seemed like everywhere here the Whites went the non-White races were sort of withering and dying away and he, … From his vantage point Whites were going to dominate the planet.
I think a criticism of Gobineau, is that in retrospect he didn’t appreciate the [danger of] jews. Like other European is in his time and up until today you had many European is that are just blind to the jews or consider them some sort of fossil people. I think Gobineau actually used that term, and later it was used by people like Toynbe, and Spengler also. And that attitude is just wrong! The jews are not a fossil people! Implying that they are just inert, and unchanging and ancient. They are a very dynamic and a very deadly force! Very much alive, very much active in what’s going on in the world.
And in the last influential source I would urge [listeners to look into] , is something that I just became aware of recently is a book called, “The Great Jewish Masque” which is, the author is unknown, … People have speculated about the it. It was published in, by Arnold Leese’s, … He had something to do with the publishing of it. From the way the text is phrased, it came out in 1920, I think or there abouts, … It seemed to me like it was Leese’s voice, from other things I have heard from or read of Arnold Leese.
What it is, it’s a, … Basically an exposure of the Jews as historic fraudsters. That the jewish narrative throughout history, the telling of history from a jewish point of view is a giant lie. It’s one, or it’s a series of lies. Things or elements of who they are, just made up. The subtitle is something like, “The Donkey in the Lion Skin”, or something, “The Ass in the Lion Skin” which is some ancient European fable that describes the jews as basically making themselves to be heroic and brave and great, when the reality is quite the opposite. That they are very secretive. And this idea of jews using masks and disguising themselves is something you will find, … basically every insightful critic of jews have noticed, including MacDonald, including Revilo Oliver, Hitler, is that they use disguises. And MacDonald calls this “crypsis”*. And MacDonald come closest to putting a biological interpretation of what they are doing, closest to calling it out as parasitism, without calling it parasitism, at least until recently. He’s kind of shied away from that. But when you look up what “crypsis” is, and jewish crypsis is basically just this use of camouflage, disguising who they are. It’s a good word, it’s a technically sounding term to describe what they do.
* [In ecology, crypsis is the ability of an organism to avoid observation or detection by other organisms. It may be either a predation strategy or an antipredator adaptation, and methods include camouflage, nocturnality, subterranean lifestyle, transparency, and mimicry.]
One aspect about their fraud, which is the fraud about who they are. This is what this Jewish Masque book is about. It’s about the fraud of their history. Of course fraud and Jew go together in many ways. Financial fraud, scientific fraud and so on.
JF: Right. Now in Mein Kampf Hitler actually talks about the greatest jewish deception is that they are this religious minority rather than a hostile, foreign racial element undermining society. And I think that is what it really boils down to. That we have to understand that the jews are a foreign racial entity, not really a religious community, you know, a lot of people get confused and think:
“Oh, jews are Whites and they just have a different religion”.
And that is just not the case at all. I mean jews themselves, denounce their Whiteness and boldly proclaim their Jewishness, you know, what I mean, so?
TAN: Right. And that they are jews even when they are atheist and so forth. But, and you are right, … I skipped over that. When you are having that conversation with people who, maybe are awake to race but insist that jews are White. That is the kind of people that you have to have this heart to heart, you know, lay it on the table. That, no, Judaism is not what jews are about, it’s their people-hood really. That is the term they use for it. The European euphemism for race, that they use. They talk about the continuity of their people-hood and how important that is to them. And they talk about the evil of assimilation and intermarriage, two more kind of code words that they use. Which is, … You know, if Whites were talking in the ways that jews talk about it, Whites would be accused of being horrible hater racists, you know, for thinking of things in racial terms. But the jews do it more or less openly, using this coded speech for it. They all know what they are talking about. And they all know that it’s their strength. So, and they know it would be their own undoing to say, “Open the borders of Israel to aliens”. Even the Syrians who are their next door neighbours, genetically close to them, they don’t want to open their borders to them. And it’s not because of religion.
TAN: Religion is just an organizing principle for them. It helps them to maintain their racial integrity, their racial purity.
JF: Right, I completely agree. And that is the most outrageous aspect of the Jewish Problem is just their blatant, in your face, it truly is insulting hypocrisy. Where, for example, we have, wall to wall jewish support. I mean every single jewish organization in America, in Europe. They are all demanding that the West accept unlimited and totally unrestricted, you know, refugees from the Middle East. Quote, unquote “refugees”, I mean these people are invaders. And yet as you mentioned in Israel they are not taking in any refugees. And I mean there are other examples of jewish hypocrisy. But this one is so blatant and in your face and it is so relevant today, obviously with what is going on in Europe.
TAN: Hypocrisy is mainly a point of view that appeals to Whites. It’s how we see the world as. The world should be fair and equal and whatever. We view it objectively, right?
Hypocrisy is mainly a point of view that appeals to Whites. It’s how we see the world as. The world should be fair and equal and whatever. We view it objectively, right? Objective groups in competition. We duke it out, man to man, and at sunrise with pistols, with swords, or whatever. That tradition, that mindset.
Whereas the jews, … What’s behind this supposed hypocrisy, this double standard, is really just the single standard of what’s best for jews. And what’s best for the jews and Israel is different from what’s best for jews outside of Israel. Outside of Israel the jews want to be treated as one of many types of people where they can be free to foment division and exploit divisions amongst other people. And so having open borders everywhere here so that they can move freely about, and so that they can move other people freely about is what’s in their best interest. Whereas, in Israel, that is their home, that is their nest. They don’t want to screw that up.
JF: Yes, that is a good way of looking at it. Now, I’m curious. Are you familiar with “Dispossessed Majority” by Wilmont Robertson?
TAN: Another book that I have not read cover to cover, but I’ve read large sections of.
JF: That is a phenomenal book actually, I think.
TAN: I like the book overall, but I think he minimizes the Jewish Problem. I think, for instance, he doesn’t state it as the Jewish Problem, he just lists Jews as one of the unassimmulatable minorities alongside Greeks, southern Italians and a few other groups that he, … He basically, … His language to me is where the weakness begins.
That this thinking of things in terms of majority and minority. Instead of saying White, he, … Another thing that I remember about his point of view is that he really disliked the term, “White“. And for good reason I think, because White and been used by the jews. They had basically shoehorned their way into America by making the argument that they were White. And being mistaken as White by amps who had control to exclude them at that point, on the basis that they weren’t White. You brought it up earlier that America, when it was founded, I think they thought that they were leaving the Jewish Problem behind in Europe. And that there wasn’t that many jews in America, and that there wasn’t going to be a problem with jews anyway because jews started off emancipated in the US. Whereas they still weren’t fully emancipated in Europe at the time. They just started off as equal and White in America, at least the Germanized, Western jews that were in America at that time.
But in the 1880s when the Eastern European jews started flooding into America, it was obvious that these were alien people with alien patterns of thinking and hostile to amps. And many amps pointed this out. But Wilmont Robertson was long past. He should have had the benefit of hindsight, writing in the 70s as he was., you know, to just sort of, … I don’t want to accuse him of pussyfooting, he used that term, or truckling, … That there were certain Whites in power at the time that obviously had some sort of racial consciousness, like Richard Nixon. And he was, … In fact the title of his book, “Dispossessed Majority” was a play on some term that Nixon used at the time. I forget what it was now.
But, the, … Back to the language of majority versus minority. Majority is not what makes us, us! We can be in the minority and White is still important. And even White, if you don’t like the term White because it let’s jews in, well, then that means that you have should be more explicit in saying: “No, jews are not White. They are the enemy of Whites”. And I understand that some people are very north western European, entirely
In their heritage and that they want to preserve that, so that they are very stand offish towards Whites that are further out on the fringes of Europe. Perfectly understandable, and perfectly defensible. They should just be able to say:
“This is our country. We created this country. We are north-western European is and we are not going to let you in, not because we are the majority, but because we are north-western European is. We are related to each other. We are more closely related to each other than we are to you!”
And so, I see no problem in, you know, having different gradations of, and different levels of clustering of race. Race, you know, is not a black and white thing necessarily. Of a particular group to exist it has to make a distinction between “Us” and “Them”! It’s a very basic biological distinction, and over time it’s what produces speciation.
Populations, even if they start out being totally related to each other, they cleave for some reason. Geography is often what’s to do with it, amongst humans or hominids it has to do with language and cultural differences, but then it’s like the law of entropy in physics. In species, speciation is the natural way of things. This constant dividing of different species into other species, into other separate groups that breed amongst each other exclusively. And if they do that long enough then they actually become incapable of breeding with each other over time.
JF: Hmm. Interesting. OK, I wanted to move on here and talk about this, … It’s sort about, … Well I guess in the past couple of years I hear people talking and writing more and more about it, and that’s this idea of pathological altruism. Which is put forth, … I mean, I’ve heard Dr. Kevin MacDonald write about it and talk about it., you know, all sorts of pro-white intellectuals and activists and what not. Jared Taylor comes to mind as well. And, I mean, I think that there maybe is something to this idea of pathological altruism, but from the way that I understand a lot of their arguments, they seem to be basically saying that this is something that is innate, like an innate weakness in White people. And I don’t really agree with that. And after hearing some of your critiques of this idea of pathological altruism, I think that there is a root cause of pathological altruism. There is something that is making us this way. It’s not something that’s necessarily innate within us and I think that’s more of the argument that someone like Dr. Kevin MacDonald or Jared Taylor would be making. What are your thoughts on this? And maybe if I got anything wrong there, please go ahead and clarify.
TAN: Well I think I’m the main critic. I’m the one who basically started this. Because what I saw from my point of view, it started about two years ago, this talk about white pathology and it solidified ultimately into pathological altruism as the specific pathology that people were talking about. And it definitely has broad appeal. I saw it being echoed in many different places. But I didn’t like it from the beginning, because I thought, “White pathology?” That’s describing the symptoms, it’s not describing the cause. What is the cause? That’s my main critique of it, is if you’ve got a pathology, well, what’s the pathogen? Where’s the germ that’s creating this problem, as you’ve said?
JF: I’m sorry Tan, really quick. How would you describe “pathological altruism”. What are the main points of this argument? Just so people have an understanding of what we mean by, “pathological altruism”.
TAN: Right, it’s a technical term. Altruism as from biology and the study of all species, not just how humans behave. But in this case it’s specifically about White people. Altruism is when a person or an organism makes a personal sacrifice that benefits someone else. And it becomes pathological altruism when it’s benefiting your enemy or someone who’s totally alien from you.
It’s one thing to be altruistic towards your kids or, sorry, your sibling’s offspring, towards your nieces and nephews. They’re not directly your offspring, but you still share some genes with them and you still share some interests with them biologically, culturally. So it makes sense and likewise to the people around you in your race. They are all within the same gene pool with you, they are much more likely to share cultural and political interests with you, than complete strangers, complete genetic, biological aliens.
So pathological altruism is this idea, as you said, you put it very well, what I sensed in it too, in my critique of it is that it’s basically an accusation that Whites are born losers. That we’re born to just give away and born to just be suicidal. That’s what I immediately connected it to was my previous critique of people who looked at what’s going wrong, they sense that something’s wrong, they look around and then they’ve got these people who tell them it’s suicide. Europeans are just killing themselves. I hated that before White pathology came along. As far as I’m concerned White pathology is basically the, “Suicide Meme 2.0”. It’s a refinement.
JF: It’s a more intellectual variation of it.
TAN: Yeah, but like I say, it’s an explanation supposedly for people who are deciding that’s somethings wrong, that they want to know what’s wrong. It’s an answer to their question. And White pathology is more specific than suicide. Pathological altruism is more specific that White pathology.
So, if you think, … Remember, this idea comes from Jared Taylor. He’s the main proponent of this White pathology, this pathological altruism idea. The thing about Jared Taylor is that he presents himself as pro-White, but he also at the same time says, “jews are White”, that they look White to him. He talks about race very explicitly, but for him race means black and White or black and White and brown and yellow. But jews are a totally separate problem in his opinion, that it’s unrelated.
He mentioned one time, when he was put on the spot about this, that he doesn’t want to be, “considered a crank on two issues at one time”. And I thought, that’s really curious, because race and the Jews are intimately related to each other. They’re basically the same problem. The reason why anti-racism exists is because the jews drive it. The jews are the one attacking Whites, calling us racists, psychopathologising us for even thinking in terms of race, it’s the jews doing that! Now, I don’t know how Jared Taylor could think about race, day in and day out, and not realise that the jews are genetically distinct, that they have this hostility, ideologically and politically to Whites and that it’s a historic problem, it’s been going on for millennia.
At first I was very charitable toward Jared Taylor because I saw him as a pro-White voice. He’s out in the open under his own name organising activity, writing very eloquently and speaking very eloquently. But on this issue of the jews, he is dishonest at the very least. I don’t think that he’s self deceiving himself. I don’t think that he really thinks that this is some sort of clever strategy that he’s gonna sneak up on the jews, because if he does, he’s a fool.
You can’t sneak up on the jews. The jews are far more racially conscious than any White person I’ve ever read. Even Hitler talks about how he was naive about the jews and learned about the jews only later in life. And that’s the general trend with Whites, that we only wake up to this late in life, if we wake up to it at all. Whereas jews are teaching their young that the Amalekites* need to be genocided. That the anti-semites need to be hunted down. That the Nazis need to be not tolerated, killed.
* [There is no archaeological or epigraphic evidence for the existence of the Amalekites; all sources mentioning them are either directly based on the Hebrew Bible, or of a far later date than the presumed time of their existence.
In the Hebrew Bible, the Amalekites were a nomadic, or semi-nomadic people who inhabited ancient Israel. They are commonly considered to be Amalek’s descendants through the genealogy of Esau. This is probably based on the association of this tribal group with the steppe region of the Negev and the area of Kadesh (Genesis 14:7). As a people, the Amalekites are identified as a recurrent enemy of the Israelites.
In Judaism, the Amalekites came to represent the archetypal enemy of the jews. In the jewish folklore the Amalekites are considered to be the symbol of evil.
Source: Https: ed / en.wikipedia.orged wikied Amalek]
JF: The Klan, racists, yeah.
TAN: They are trained as soldiers from the get go. From the time that they can first speak. They go to special jewish schools for that purpose. Whereas Whites go to schools where jews are the teachers, teaching them that Whiteness is bad. Racism. Giving us the complete opposite story.
JF: Exactly! And they’re forcing our kids to go to school with Negroes and all sorts of other non-Whites and we’re taught that Whites are the most evil people on the face of the planet and we’re responsible for slavery and the “Holocaust” and genocide. You name it, it goes on and on and on.
TAN: That’s how pathological altruism comes in.
JF: Yeah. I was gonna say real quick [that] I agree with most of what you just said about it. This idea that White people collectively as societies, our governments for example, and other White institutions and organisations, the Catholic Church and some of these other mainstream Christian organisations, the idea that they are literally putting the interests of other racial groups of hostile alien racial groups ahead of their own. That is obviously what is going on, that’s public policy in the United States. That’s how many organisations operate in the United States. But I don’t think that it’s really something that’s innate within us, I think it’s a result of propaganda. I think it’s a result of the White race being entirely deracinated, you know, at least collectively. And fundamentally I think that it is a result of the Jews, of the parasitic, subversive nature of the jews and what they do to us when we don’t recognise them as the alien, hostile race of people that they really are.
TAN: Right. They have agency. They are very, very active. They are very, very conscious. They are more conscious than Whites are as to their interests as a group, their existence as a group and what they need to do to not only survive, but thrive. And Whites are not. And part of the reason why Whites are not, the largest part, the proximate cause, as a lawyer would say, is jews. That is the first approximation, that is the number one cause of this. Now, my critique of pathological altruism, … What really set me off was when I noticed that every time it came up, the specific examples that I saw being offered, …
“What is pathological altruism exactly, can you point to something concrete?”
It was always things like “cat ladies” or people who adopt alien babies from Africa or Asia. And, you know, basically they would previously said White liberalism. You know, what is “liberalism”? It’s a vague term. But these are specific examples, this, “cat lady” and alien adoption thing. And what I noticed about this is, … This is not a cause. This is a symptom of the poisonous media that is what’s presented by this jewish media as good and right is this kind of stuff. And it’s no wonder that people go and do it!, you know, people naturally do what they look around and they everyone else clucking about, either in favor of or against.
And so we have stopped being a racially conscious group where we talked about miscegenation as if it was a bad thing. Now we are talking about “miscegenation as a bad thing” as a bad thing! Because of the jews. It wasn’t as if White people decided to that on our own.
JF: Right! It’s a direct result of jewish propaganda.
TAN: Of enemy activity. Yes! If the enemy drops bombs on your city, do you blame yourself of letting your city burn? No! The enemy dropped bombs on you. You fight the fires, but you don’t lie to yourself that you caused the fires!
JF: Right. So what I think it boils down to is that the root cause of pathological altruism, you know, among White people is two interrelated factors. Number one is the denial of race. The denial that White people have interests and that we need to be concerned about them and to think racially. But also sort of, you know, obviously very much related to this, is the Jewish Problem!
JF: And what the Jews are up to and what their agenda is. So I mean, if with continue to deny these realities that we need to deal with, then we are going to continue to suffer this “pathological altruism”. And we are going to continue to watch our countries and our nations to crumble.
TAN: Yes. So as far as MacDonald goes, he has taken up this White pathology and pathological altruism argument. He got it from Jared Taylor. I think he parrots it because he respects Jared Taylor as a colleague, another academic intellectual type who has pro-White intentions. I think he is mistaken there. But, MacDonald is responsible for taking it a step further. MacDonald has actually tried to come up with a thesis that literally roots it in our genes.
He argued that, this pathological altruism is inborn and comes from our Ice Age hunter gather ancestors. That because of the climate in which White people evolved for 15,000 years during the Ice Ages. That, that laid the pattern in our genes, that with are genetically programmed to be egalitarian and tolerant and that we have moral, that we form moral groups rather than ethnic groups. That we have groups based on ideas rather than family relations like Middle Easterners do, like the jews do.
And I think that, you know, that could all be very true, … But I think, …
JF: I was going to say, I think, I think there is something to a lot his arguments. But maybe we just interpret them differently.
TAN: Well, one problem is this., you know, he points to Sweden as the epitome of the White pathological altruism, White pathology. And the problem with that is, … He says it’s because Northern Europeans are the most hunter gatherer of all the different European is. They have the most hunter gatherers. They also have the most Ayran in them genetically. And the Ayran mindset is completely at odds with squishy, wishy washy liberal attitude. There are some similarities.
I haven’t really written about this before, but I thought about it, how, you know, egalitarianism is not purely a hunter gatherer thing. You can see elements of it in this “band of brothers” peer type attitude that even the Ayrans had. That they were amongst equals of the nobility at least. That they saw an aristocracy. They saw differences and the need for a hierarchy. But amongst the people at the top, the Aryans at the top who were running whatever society they conquered, they saw themselves as a band of brothers, as equals in a way within that group.
JF: Yeah, and I think some of these qualities and characteristics that MacDonald talks about and, you know, sort of ties it to evolution and how Whites evolved throughout the ice age and what not and the geography that we were living in, and what not. I think that there is something to these arguments, but I think that what’s even more important is that the Jews sort of recognise these traits and exploit them to the hilt. I mean really, they understand our psychology. They have really studied these things. Look at Bernays* and all these other Jewish propagandists. They know how to do this stuff scientifically.
* [Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 – March 9, 1995) is considered one of the fathers of the field of public relations along with Ivy Lee. Combining the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, Bernays was one of the first to attempt to manipulate public opinion using the subconscious.
He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the ‘herd instinct’ that Trotter had described. Adam Curtis’s award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self, pinpoints Bernays as the originator of modern public relations, and Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine.
Born 1891 in Vienna to jewish parents, Bernays was nephew to psychoanalyst pioneer Sigmund Freud. His father was Ely Bernays, brother of Freud’s wife Martha Bernays. His mother was Freud’s sister, Anna. In 1892 his family moved to New York City. In 1912 he graduated from Cornell University with a degree in agriculture, but chose journalism as his first career. He married to Doris E. Fleischman in 1922.
In the 1920s, working for the American Tobacco Company, he sent a group of young models to march in the New York City parade. He then told the press that a group of women’s rights marchers would light “Torches of Freedom”. On his signal, the models lit Lucky Strike cigarettes in front of the eager photographers. The New York Times (one April 1929) printed: “Group of Girls Puff at Cigarettes as a Gesture of ‘Freedom’”. This helped to break the taboo against women smoking in public. During this decade he also handled publicity for the NAACP.
Source: Http: ed / en.metapedia.orged wikied Edwardtion Louistion Bernays]
TAN: Yes. Manipulative. They are manipulative and they’re ruthless in the manipulation. They are hyper aware, hyper sensitive and willing to do whatever they have to do to manipulate their host to behave however they need it to behave. The thing about MacDonald is you can use his own arguments that he makes in Culture of Critique and he’s made since. He went on, … He had two recent interviews with Nordfront that were very, very good. I recommend to anyone who likes MacDonald. And he himself lays out that he thinks culture is very important and that it’s critical. That’s why he wrote a book about the culture of critique. And yet, as I say, the jewish influence in recent history is the proximate cause for the degeneracy that we see around us. All the stuff that people point at and say, “That’s pathological altruism”. Well, the jewish finger prints are all over it! The jewish control and dominance of the media and the sick messages that they send out, portraying this degeneracy as normal, as heroic, as something to celebrate! That’s the number one cause of the degeneracy that you see. It’s people ingesting that poison and it’s no wonder that people get sick and die from that kind of stuff.
JF: Yes. Very well said, and I want to talk more about the jewish media here in a few minutes. Really quickly, you mention this idea of White suicide and this is something that I have heard Jared Taylor talk about this idea of White suicide, how Whites are literally committing suicide and implementing policies that are suicidal in nature. And again I think that is a very flawed argument because I think they are not suicidal, I think they’re genocidal and they are coming from the organised jewish community and their puppets., you know, their goyim puppets in key positions of power and influence in America, certainly. And you know, what’s incredible is really, most important positions in the federal government, in Congress in the Obama Administration are actually controlled by jews themselves. So it’s certainly not suicidal if the jews, a racial foreign element, are implementing policies that are destructive to us. That’s not suicide, that’s genocide.
TAN: That’s right. That’s right. They don’t identify positively with Whites, in fact they identify negatively. They see Whites as the enemy. So, yes, it’s not suicide. The number one tip off is that suicide is a very personal decision. You consciously decide, “I’m gonna end my life” for whatever reason and you do it. That’s suicide. What’s happening is the people who actually control the levers of power or at least have some sort of influence over it. They are the figure heads, for instance the President of the United States, the President of various other countries in Europe. They are not suicidal, they are almost the polar opposite. They are so concerned about themselves and their own personal interests and that’s really what the problem is, is the over-concern for personal interests and a complete lack of consideration for their race, for the larger group. They think that they can live without their larger group.
JF: And that to me is the epitome of this idea of Whites being deracinated. There’s a disconnect between Whites as individuals and Whites as a wider community, a wider racial community.
JF: And we have to understand that. We have to understand that we are part of a wider community and we have to start thinking in these terms if we want to compete and eventually retake our countries. I think that is happening. I think there are more people realising these sorts of things. Go ahead.
TAN: Beyond merely competing, we have to go beyond seeing the jews as yet another group that wants to exploit us. That’s when we come to what is a better thesis for understanding the relationship between Whites and jews, is parasitism.
That if you look at it in biological terms, and the Jews are constantly dropping hints that you should look at it in biological terms. When they talk about ant-semitism, they talk about it as a disease. They talk about it as an infection. As a virulent thing. And the reality is, … If you look up virulence you find out, … What does virulence mean? Virulence is the technical term for the damage that a parasite causes it’s host. That’s what virulence is. The more virulent a parasite is the more damaging it is, the more deadly it is to it’s host.
And actually, the Nordfront guys brought up a point that a true parasite basically can co-exist with it’s host for an extended period of time, whereas a parasite-like entity that kills it’s hosts is called a parasitoid.
TAN: I thought that’s interesting. A fine distinction. They’re parasitic basically and that’s the best way, I think, to make sense of all of it. All of the pieces fall into place when you understand it that way.
Many, many people, even people who aren’t racialists have written about the financial parasitism of the banker class or the donor class or whatever. That they are behaving in a parasitic way, financially. Well, financial [parasitism] is just one aspect of the whole thing. The Israel lobby in Zionism, is another, more, … It’s related to money, but it’s also about sovereignty, it’s about redirecting the resources of many other nations to the benefit of Israel. Shipping them money, shipping them arms, making promises to protect them. The leaders of the United States and European countries say things in defence of jews and Israel that they would never say about even defending their own countries that they run! And, you know, Trump is a good example of that.
JF: Right. That was actually the next topic. I mean, this idea of, … Really the most accurate way of viewing the Jew is as a parasite, right? I mean, that is really [true] in my opinion. And I think you’ve elaborated on this in great detail on some of your radio shows about this reality. I mean, that is the way, you know, we have to understand these people.
Again, this is something that the Germans talked about, you know, the National Socialists clearly understood this and wrote about it. And, you know, made it a central aspect of what they were trying to communicate to the German people.
As you mentioned there’s many forms of this parasitism, financial, obviously political. Look at the holocaust industry. This is in my view the most outrageous and truly infuriating and blood boiling, … I mean, I cannot stand these jews and this fake “Holocaust” story. And the way they just exploit us financially, emotionally, culturally. You can’t avoid the “Holocaust” in the West today.
TAN: That’s right. The elements of the parasitism that came to me, that stood out to me were the infiltration, the manipulation, the exploitation. This pretty much covers all of what the Jews do, how they do it and that all points to parasitism. They are exploiting secretively, furtively, they are exploiting a host. They do whatever they can to subdue our defences, in fact what the jews have done is they’ve hijacked our defences, they’ve actually turned our defensive mechanisms, our defensive institutions into institutions that benefit them. That protect them, within our own countries. And the “Holocaust” is a big part of that.
JF: Yes, and that kind of gets into the next topic. And that’s this “cuckservative” meme that is a relatively phenomenon. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen you write and talk about this subject, but I’m curious. What are your general thought on it? And the idea that it expresses, because I think it’s a very powerful, devastating critique of American politics.
TAN: It is devastating. I think most of the people who use the term are not even really fully conscious of just what it is they’re implying. I think many people are talking about it in terms of the inter-racial sex fetish. That cuckolding fetish. But it really traces back, … The root of the whole concept is the exploitation of a parasite, of its host and the cuckoo bird. You know, how the cuckoo bird is this giant bird, comes lays this giant egg in some smaller birds nest and then that giant egg hatches into a giant, screeching, demanding chick, …
JF: Just a disgusting bird.
TAN: It hatches early. It’s genetically different than the bird it’s parasitising and it kicks out their eggs and then screeches at the top of it’s lungs to be serviced by the other bird. And if you dig deeper into even that, and I haven’t heard anybody but Jews really go into this, … There’s one jewish biologist that wrote about this. How a cuckoo bird, actually… There is a struggle between the cuckoo parasite and it’s host. The host that tries to defend itself, by say, knocking the cuckoo bird egg out, the cuckoos will come and punish that bird by destroying it’s nest.
And so, there’s a give and take, there’s a push back and forth. And I see that even, … I haven’t dug into the details of it yet. There’s still lots to do with demonstrating the Jewish parasitism of Europeans over the course of millennia. But one of the elements that you should see if it is parasitism is you should see some attempts by Europeans to sort of adapt and do something to defend themselves. In fact, you could see all of the expulsions that Europeans have done over the centuries as one bit of evidence in that Europeans have tried to defend themselves. It’s not suicide, they’ve repeatedly tried to defend themselves but they are never able to achieve full consciousness and they just end up kicking the problem next door.
It’s like, if you’ve got roaches in a motel and you just gas one apartment, the roaches move next door to the other apartments and then ultimately they filter right back in to the apartment that was cleaned out and that’s what, … The Jews have actually adapted to that kind of treatment of them over time too. They’ve counter-adapted to being expelled. It’s part of their life-cycle now, being expelled. They’ve made it into their narrative.
The holocaust narrative is really just the most recent example of the narrative that they’ve been telling for two thousand years, about how they’ve been horribly oppressed by every host that they’ve ever tried to exploit, and it’s become the story that they tell. George Lincoln Rockwell wrote a great metaphorical story about it, “The Ducks and Geese”. The parable of the ducks and geese.[Actually it’s, “The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens“]
JF: And we see how, not only how important this fake holocaust story and just this narrative of jewish persecution is. We see how central this is to their over all agenda. But, I mean, it’s just something that defines them as jews, it’s a central aspect of their jewish identity. There’s public polls, the Pew Research Center does research on different ethnic groups in America. And the most important aspect of jewish identity, when you ask jews and when you poll jews, whether it’s in America or anywhere really in the whole world, is their identification with this fake “Holocaust” story. And that they’re victims and that their people have this history of oppression and the whole world hates them. It’s a central aspect.
TAN: Right. That is the number one answer that they provided as to what it was that made them identify as jews. That is the number one thing that they cite themselves. Jews polling jews or Pew polling jews about it.
JF: Exactly. You know, another interesting aspect of jewish parasitism and just how effective it’s been and how out of control it is in America, is again, going back to this idea of a cuckservative. We have these mostly White guys in the GOP, in the Republican party, who portray themselves as these great American patriots. When in reality all they are doing is serving the interests of Jews, on every single key aspect of public policy. Whether it’s foreign policy, domestic policy, they always bow down to the Jews; and yet they’re able to effectively present themselves as these American patriots and American heroes.
TAN: Right. Yes, they’re not cat ladies. They’re selling out their own kind, either consciously or unconsciously for their own personal benefit. For power, for fame, for fortune, whatever it is that drives them to do it. Or, … There’s also an angle to it of vicarious racial identity. That they know they can’t identify as White. I think of this when I think of people like Limbaugh and Coulter and Hannity, although less. I think they’re waking up to it a little bit themselves, but in the past it seemed to me like, they, … People like that take a certain joy out of talking about jews, like they’re this people to sympathise with and to defend and to give your life in their defence. [It] just makes you the most wonderful person in the world. And the cuckservative thing cuts through all that! And even more specifically, “kikeservative”, emphasises the fact that what they’re doing is sick.
If you want to talk about White pathology, that’s the number one evidence of White pathology is when people actively identify with their enemy, and talk about their enemy in these glowing, positive terms. You’ve got to be mentally ill.
JF: Yeah, they literally are servicing their own racial enemy. The racial element that wants to destroy everything that they stand for. I mean it’s amazing.
TAN: I don’t mean to cop out and say:
“Oh, they’ve got to be crazy!” because I think that’s what it is.
When people say:
“My enemy is stupid” or, “My enemy is crazy” what that really is, is they are copping out saying, “I can’t explain it” or, “I don’t want to explain it so I’m just gonna call it stupid or crazy”.
The reality is that I think there is a way to make sense of what these people are doing. Which is that they just don’t care about their race. They in fact think that their race is a liability and they need to cut the chord with their race in order to progress, to make their career, or to at lest maintain their career. That they have to act like they don’t care. They have to show that they don’t care.
It’s becoming more and more obvious, this, “Black Lives Matter” thing and what happened at Mizzou (University of Missouri).where you’re basically now being pressured if you’re in any form of position of power as a White man, or White woman, to renounce your race and accept guilt for your race.
That’s part of what I didn’t like about White pathology also, is it’s basically related to that, what White liberals do, denouncing their Whiteness. When White racialists talk about White pathology and pathological altruism, what are they doing? They’re not saying they, themselves, are born pathological, that they are behaving pathologically. No, it’s those other Whites! It gives them a sort of boost in their brain to say:
“Oh yeah, I’m not broken, but all those other Whites are.”
It’s taking responsibility in the most dishonest way, of not really taking responsibility yourself, personally, but saying somebody else is responsible for it. And the funny thing about that is when I made this critique, the very first thing and the loudest criticism of me, that comes at me was:
“Oh you just want to blame the Jeeews for everything, you want to shift all the blame to the Jews”.
It’s a stupid argument. It’s simplistic and it’s easy to take it apart. What I’m actually arguing is that there’s two here, there’s at least two parties involved, jews and Whites, and they’re in conflict. And it’s not that it’s just the jews or just Whites. It’s the people who say it’s suicide that are really saying that there’s no jews involved:
“Don’t pay any attention to those jews behind the curtain”.
JF: Exactly, it’s all dumb Whitey’s fault. Now, there’s a couple other topics that I wanted to wrap up with here and one of them is, two of the most important issues in my opinion. Two issues that are central not only to the White struggle but just the struggle for truth and honesty and decency and some sort of integrity in our society is being honest about the true history of World War Two, so “Revisionism”. And then 9/11 truth. You know, being honest about 9/11 and what really happened and who was really behind it. And it sounds like, based on your comment earlier in this interview, you might disagree with me on 9/11.
But I’m just curious, what role do you see for Revisionists, for people that are doing critical research into World War Two, into World War One, into this alleged jewish “Holocaust” story? Which in my view has been thoroughly and conclusively debunked once and for all. We have the evidence and proof to explain everything that we’re saying about this event, this alleged event. So I’m curious, what are your thoughts on these two important topics?
TAN: I think different things, different issues appeal to different people, because of where they’re coming from, where their background is. I think in general, what you’re getting at is there are these other, sort of related movements that are on the periphery of the White struggle, what you called, … Is being pro-White, having a racial identity and fighting for your race and those other things attract truth seekers. That’s the general description you could give to it. There are people that sense there is a problem. They don’t accept the mainstream narrative, the mainstream explanation for what the problems are.
As I’ve pointed out many times the mainstream explanation of what’s wrong is racism! Whites, White supremacy! Those are the problems according to the Jewish mainstream narrative. And there are people who that doesn’t compute with. I mean they look at things like 9/11, they look at things like the “Holocaust”, … Other things that I could think of that are similar, … Men’s Rights or even the Counter Jihad people. They are all coming at it from different angles. It reminds me of that cartoon or parable of the elephant, the wise men, … The blind wise men and the elephant. They all feel a different part of the elephant, they all describe it in a different way. But it’s all connected and it’s all, you know, the Jews are all behind it.
[Image] The jewish elephant and the blind wise men.
The problem with these other things, whether it’s 9/11 truth and maybe to a lesser extent “Holocaust” revisionism, but certainly with Men’s Rights and certainly with Counter Jihad is that it’s full of jews. There are Jews trying to derail you. There are jews trying to get you stuck just there, … Don’t go any further! Don’t think about White racial consciousness. A lot of the people involved aren’t White or are only half White. And there are a lot of half jews or part Jews are there to. Who are pretending to be White. And there are a lot of gate keeping going on. So it’s a two edged sword.
Those other related areas, 9/11 included, are ways in which people see that there is something wrong with the system. And for them different things are the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and hopefully they then proceed through the gate to full racial consciousness, to full truth of it all.
JF: Absolutely! And in my opinion, I mean, the racial issues are by far, you know, the most issues that I’m dealing with. But I do think that revisionism and 9/11 truth, and just being honest about the nature of the media and the Jewish media and how it’s being used to deceive us and what not. Just being, you know, being honest about all these subjects. I think it’s important and critical for our success.
But I do agree with you, there are a lot of people in 9/11 truth that really kind of get bogged down and they, you know, they don’t continue to progress to where we are at, where we are talking about these issues.
TAN: I’ve read people that have come through 9/11 truth, Mike Delaney is one that I think of that have pointed out that there’s lots and lots of jews. They are creating disinformation. So they sense that there is something there that needs to be covered up. They sense that it’s a weak point. And they flood in there as gate keepers, as charlatans to keep people busy poking around all the different theories there.
TAN: My own opinion about 9/11 is, “I don’t know” I wasn’t there. I’m not involved with it directly, I don’t know anyone directly, … Well, actually I knew a few people who were involved, who were at Ground Zero, … I don’t know anybody who was directly killed, they wouldn’t be able to tell me anything anyway. But, the thing is it’s, it’s some, … Whatever happened there is, … The argument that I often hear is, the argument that you laid out pretty well. The jews or Israel did 9/11. And we can be certain of that.
And I would only say to that, is we can’t be certain. I don’t know that for certain that it was the president of Israel or a bunch of Israelis that planned the whole thing and did it. You get into these gradations of argument where you can argue endlessly. Just how much did Israel do? Did they, at the very least, … And what I’m comfortable with accepting is that they know that there were Muslims that were doing it. And that they didn’t in any way communicate to United States security that, that this was going to happen. So they didn’t prevent it. And you get finer, more and more gradations all the way to a surreal, … It was all just crisis actors, … It didn’t really happen. It was just a Hollywood production.
And I understand why people can go that far, because they see Hollywood productions, … But, they see what the jews are capable of putting up on the screen, you know, that they can manufacture things that look real, … But, to me that is not necessary. I don’t even need to dig into the details of 9/11. By the time people told me that I should look into 9/11, I was well past that. I already understood that, … I understood race, and I understand that the jews are the enemy.
So, once you understand that, I think that is really what the important thing is. This other things, 9/11, the “Holocaust”, all the details of the “Holocaust”, arguing that amongst each other, Men’s Rights, Counter Jihad, … All that stuff just becomes peripheral, once you realize that race is real, the White race is what is important to you, … And the Jews are the biggest enemy of that, … Then yes, you could say that the jews are capable of just about anything.
The Jews give the commands to our government. Sure, Jews rule! I mean, if not directly occupying the office of the President, they are the ones who narrate our imaginations. Using their control of the media, they put the ideas in our heads as to what is good and what is bad and with that power, it’s like the power to print money, there’s almost infinite spill-over from that into other things. I want to say, though, that it’s not infinite. The Jews do not have infinite control and that’s what makes me sceptical about elaborate things, like 9/11 or some of these other things that people say are just hoaxes, entirely. Even when they say the “Holocaust” was a hoax, or the “Holocaust”, the Germans had camps. They put Jews in those camps. They distinguished Jews from themselves racially, biologically. That is real. The hoax part is the soap and the lamp shades and the six million, …
JF: And the gas chambers, yeah.
TAN: … and all of the exaggerations that the jews tell about it. But it goes deeper than just the “Holocaust“, even. It’s questioning the jews on any aspect of their history. Take disagreeing with the jews about the fact that they are victims, historically. That’s as bad as “Holocaust” denial. It maybe doesn’t have a word for it other than anti-semitism, anything more specific than that. But that is really what you need to do is realise that the whole thing is a lie. Not just the “Holocaust”, but their whole history from their point of view, is a lie.
And this is another point to make, is history itself is a story from a certain point of view. People like to describe history as having an objective basis in reality. And yes, there are facts upon which given history is based. Events happen. But even when you have something that happened recently. If you have two people involved and you both of their stories you’re gonna get two different versions of what happened. Which one is true? It’s hard to tell. And even you standing outside of it listening to both sides, you create a third opinion, a third view of what happened. I’m not trying to say that it’s all relative but it’s more relative I think than most people give credit to. I’m a rational, logical person. I believe in reality based, … I believe in science. I’m grounded in that way and I’m sceptical of arguments based on just hand waving and assertion, you know, saying:
“You’ve got to believe this otherwise you’re stupid”.
And that’s one of the things that’s left a bad taste in my mouth about 9/11, is when people come and make an argument like that to me:
“Oh, you believe that 12 Arabs or 19 Arabs did 9/11? You’ve got to be an idiot!”
Actually I just don’t know. And I know I don’t trust my government, I know I think my government answers to jews and serves jews more than it serves it’s own citizenry. I know that that’s a fraud. I know (Franz) Boas was a fraud. What more do you need to know other than jews are the enemy. Why dig into the details?
JF: That’s fair enough, I understand where you’re coming from.
TAN: I’m not opposed to the people who want to spend their life digging into the details of 9/11 or the “Holocaust” or any of the other aspects. That research is valuable because then you can, like MacDonald’s books, you can point at it, you can say:
“OK, I can build from there. I can stand on the shoulders of those giants and I can do something beyond that. Something meta. Taking their results and all the detailed arguments that they’ve laid out and going beyond it”.
JF: Yeah, OK, that’s fair enough. I have a much clearer perspective of where you’re coming from on these issues, so thanks for clarifying all that. And I totally hear what you’re saying, it’s a good argument although, obviously I’d probably disagree slightly.
Now to wrap up here I just wanted to get your take on Trump, on Donald Trump especially and just the Presidential campaign in general. I’ve been frankly very impressed with Donald Trump. I’m not trying to say he’s some kind of White nationalist or anything like that, but I think he’s saying a lot of very important things and I do find him to be a genuine person and I think he’s running a brilliant campaign. So, what’s your take?
TAN: He’s definitely creating an earthquake and several earthquakes, a daily earthquake, you know:
“What did Trump do today to turn things upside down?”
TAN: And in that respect it’s good. I think, first of all, though, Trump is an example, a physical example of how the Jews infiltrate, how they intermarry with the non-jewish elite and form alliances with them and together how this goes forward. You know, Trump as unlikely as he is to say:
“I’m a proud White man and I’m gonna do what’s best for White people.”
He does say things that come very close to that about jews. How he’d be a good President for jews because he’d defend Israel a thousand percent and all that stuff. So he’s a good example of how jewish influence actually works. But I think on the flip side, on the good side for Trump is that he exposes this Judeo-Liberal democracy for the fraud that it is. That basically, it’s pretty obvious that the people behind the curtains are jews, because of the way that Trump is so obsequious to Jews and Israel, but also how they react. How jews are very, very much trying to incite fear and loathing of Trump. How they compare him to Hitler, even though the comparison is laughable. In their minds it’s real! That’s a measure of how hyper sensitive they are, the old joke about:
“Your broken leg is a comedy and my hang-nail is a tragedy”.
Everything is another tragedy, another holocaust about to happen from a jewish point of view. That’s part of the secret of their success, they don’t let any detail slide. And when it comes to Trump, they did the same thing with Obama. They complained that he was a horrible anti-semite and every little thing he did that they didn’t like:
“Obama is a horrible anti-semite”.
So this is becoming, I think, more obvious to more Whites more quickly than it ever has in the past and Trump is, he’s not doing it on purpose. I think, … The way I understand Trump is that he is just a pragmatist. He wants to be President and he knows that all he has to do is say things that are popular. And he doesn’t care if other candidates wouldn’t say those things. They know what is popular too. They know shutting down the border, building a wall, deporting them all, all of that stuff, “Make America great again”, they try to mimic him to the extent that they can but they all answer directly to jewish donors. The jewish donor class that funds their campaigns and who would destroy them in the media if they were to say those things that Trump is saying. Well Trump is saying it and the media is trying to destroy him, the jewish media, but he’s using Twitter and Facebook to go directly to the people. It’s the first candidate who’s really done that himself. I mean, candidates have in the past had those social media accounts, but Trump actually communicates mostly that way and most of the jews media tearing down at him is reacting to what he’s doing.
JF: Yeah, and that’s what I mean by he’s running a very effective campaign and that he’s genuine because he is himself out there operating his own Twitter account. And he speaks very well in front of crowds I think. Again, the issues that he’s bringing up are very important and resonating very deeply with, well, sort of, most of America! Well, I think a lot of his views on the border, for example, are mainstream amongst many Americans.
TAN: And even many non-Whites. He’s actually more popular with non-Whites than the media. That was one of the things that they tried on him first is:
“Oh no, he said this horrible stuff about Mexican immigrants, and that’s it, he’s lost the Mexican vote”.
The assumption being that Mexicans vote as a block and they all vote pro-immigration and the reality is different than that. And Trump has demonstrated that.
I think the other main point about Trump to keep in mind is that we’ve seen this pattern before, in fact it’s been the pattern of White politicians for a hundred years, at least the last fifty, where they promise things like Nixon did with his, “silent majority” quote. That was the thing that the “dispossessed majority” that we were talking about earlier, … Nixon talked about the “silent majority” and he talked in private with Billy Graham about that it was the jews that were the enemy and attacking him although he didn’t seem to really, fully appreciate just how much of an enemy they were. How implacable they were.
But we’ve seen it with Schwarzenegger in California. You should be familiar with that. Maggie Thatcher in Britain did it. They “dog-whistle” on race, that’s what the left calls it, dog-whistling is saying things in code like Trump does that are popular and they know are popular. But then when they get into office they don’t actually deliver.
TAN: When they get into office they don’t actually deliver, they do the the opposite, in a lot of cases, in fact, like Thatcher did, like Reagan did, or Nixon, uh, Trump would be a change from the normal if he were to get into office and actually try to do what he’s said he’s going to do, … Building a wall, and everything, and he said he’s going to build a wall, but he also said he’s going to have a great big door in it. That’s evidence that Trump understands that he can say whatever he wants to get elected. He tells one group of people I’m going to build a giant wall and for the benefit for the other people who are skeptics or don’t want to hear that, he says I’m going to have a big fat door in it, and he’s trusting that people are too stupid to put those two together and see that they contradict each other.
JF: Um hmm, …
TAN: And, for the most part, I don’t think it is stupidity. I think it’s just people, they want to hear, … they want leadership, certainly. White people, are just thirsty for somebody to push back against this smothering, downward spiral, that even if they don’t think in terms of race, they think in terms of their country. Their country is going to hell and they want to take their country back. Often times they don’t think any further than that – they don’t think to themselves, take if back from who? From the Mexicans? It’s not the Mexicans who let themselves in here. They don’t want to confront the fact that it’s race and it’s the jews that are the enemy. And on Trump, the ones who are cheering for Trump, at least half of them are in that camp. They’re cheering for Trump because he’s saying things they want to hear. But they aren’t thinking beyond that to – can I really believe this guy? Is he really going to do what he’s saying? He says he loves Israel and he loves jews – his daughter’s married to one, he does business with them, … Can I really trust him to fight the enemy?
JF: Yeah, I know, those are all good points and very well taken, I think, um, we’d be fools to simply assume that Trump is just going to get in there and do everything that he’s now saying. And, as you mentioned with his comments about he wants to have a big door to let people in through the border are a little bit troublesome, yeah. But, I mean, definitely we should hold his feet to the fire as best we can. And that my strategy has always been that as soon as he got into the campaign was to really try to reach out to his supporters, to people who are paying attention to Trump – your tea party types, your traditional conservatives and old time Republicans, and to sort of draw them into our camp. Into the race realist camp, into the quote, unquote, “anti-Semitic camp”, which, as we talked about, is just being honest about jews. And maybe that’s been effective to a certain degree, maybe not, I don’t know. But I really think we have the potential to reach out and get more and more people into our way of thinking as a result of what Donald Trump is doing with his campaign.
TAN: Yeah, it only takes a little bit of nudging because the evidence is right there for people to see, if they see it in the right way. They can see, for instance, that for the last several election cycles, Whites have been psycho-patholgized by the jewish media, that not liking, disliking and distrusting Obama is just a sign that Whites are racist. And not voting for Obama:
“You’re a racist, just because you’re White.”
You don’t even have to say that it’s because you’re White. The tea partiers are a good example of that – where they formed and the jewish media psycho-pathologizes them for being racists, and when they bend over backwards to demonstrate that they’re not racist. Meanwhile, you have jews openly expressing their dislike for Obama, even though they ended up voting for him. And their distrust for him. And they’re doing the same thing with Trump this time around and the narrative for that, is this is just jews looking out for what’s best for the jews and it makes sense.
Tan: To me, that’s one of the things you can point to your mom or pop, or neighbor next door, as something very obvious: That jews are not White, they’re not treated to the same standard politically as Whites. The jews can organize like any non-White group for their own best interest, do it openly, and there’s no problem. In fact the problem only starts if YOU say there’s something wrong with it, then you’re a racist hater.
Meanwhile, Whites, just the rumor of Whites starting White student unions is this unthinkable disaster from the Jewish media’s point of view. They can’t stand the idea that Whites might actually organize. Even if it’s just a rumor – and I don’t think it is just a rumor, I think there actually is a nugget, a growing awareness that Whites are having, that it’s not going well and I think there’s a nugget, a growing awareness that Whites are having that, this is not going well and it’s because they’re White, that they’re going to have to face this at some time or another. The jew thing I think will come after that, for some people the jew thing comes first and then they discover Whiteness. It depends.
JF: Right, obviously both of them are interrelated and connected and very, … They are easy to piece together once you start thinking about these things.
TAN: Right, the opposite of what Jared Taylor said, is that they’re two separate things, they’re not related to each other.
JF: And anybody being honest should recognize that. Hey, Tanstaafl, we are going to go ahead and wrap up now, this has been a very interesting discussion for sure and I just want to thank you so much for taking time out of your busy day to join me here today.
TAN: Well, I thank you John for having me on, you’re very knowledgeable, you understand things very well and you articulate yourself very well, you put it very well. Whenever I hear you speak about these issues, I’m always impressed.
JF: Thank you, I appreciate that, that certainly means a lot coming from you, because I’ve learned quite a bit over the years from reading your site and listening to your radio program. So I really do appreciate that!
TAN: Thank you.
JF: OK. Thanks Tan and thanks everybody.
Click to download a PDF of this post (0.8 MB):
Version 22: Nov 7, 2016 — Formatting and corrections. Added two images.
Version 21: Jan 22, 2015 — Added correction to book title.
Version 20: Jan 21, 2015 — Added PDF of TRANSCRIPT.
Version 19: Jan 18, 2015 — Added 6 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter Bon, From the Land of Babble). Total = 96 mins. This completes the draft transcript! Thank you Kirk (50 mins) and Bon (11 mins)!
Version 18: Jan 4, 2015 — Proofread first 30 minutes. Added link to Mein Kampf: Chapter 11 — Race and People post.
Version 17: Jan 2, 2015 — Added 5 minutes of transcript. Total = 90 mins.
Version 16: Dec 30, 2015 — Added 10 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter Kirk). Total = 85 mins.
Version 15: Dec 28, 2015 — Added 5 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter Bon, From the Land of Babble). Total = 75 mins.
Version 14: Dec 27, 2015 — Added 10 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter Kirk). Total = 70 mins.
Version 13: Dec 26, 2015 — Added 5 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter Kirk). Total = 60 mins.
Version 12: Dec 25, 2015 — Added 5 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter Kirk). Total = 55 mins.
Version 11: Dec 24, 2015 — Added 5 minutes of transcript. Total = 50 mins.
Version 10: Dec 24, 2015 — Added 5 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter Kirk). Total = 45 mins.
Version 9: Dec 23, 2015 — Added 5 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter Kirk). Total = 40 mins.
Version 8: Dec 23, 2015 — Added 5 minutes of transcript. Total = 35 mins.
Version 7: Dec 20, 2015 — Added 5 minutes of transcript. Total = 30 mins.
Version 6: Dec 18, 2015 — Added 3 minutes of transcript. Total = 25 mins.
Version 5: Dec 17, 2015 — Added 2 minutes of transcript. Total = 22 mins.
Version 4: Dec 17, 2015 — Added 10 minutes of transcript (Commenter Kirk submitted 5 minutes). Total = 20 mins.
Version 3: Dec 12, 2015 — Added 5 minutes of transcript. Total = 10 mins.
Version 2: Dec 9, 2015 — Added 5 minutes of transcript. Added cover and Progress Chart.
Version 1: Posted Dec 9, 2015