[ In this very informative audio interview (139 mins) Henrik Palmgren talks with Dr. Andrew Joyce. We learn of Andrew’s gradual awakening to the Jewish Problem/Question while still at school. Since then he has been led to conclude that organized jewry is behind a genocidal plan to effectively destroy White countries through the importation of non-Whites, among other strategies. He concludes that we all have a duty to fight for White survival by spreading awareness of what is going on to as many people as possible — KATANA]
Red Ice Radio
Dr Andrew Joyce
The History of Jewish Influence
Andrew Joyce PhD is a scholar, speaker and writer with academic expertise in immigration, ethnic and religious conflict, and philosophy. Andrew sits on the Editorial Advisory Board of The Occidental Quarterly and is a regular contributor to The Occidental Observer. He also serves the British Renaissance Policy Institute in an advisory capacity and will be producing and editing a new journal for BRPI. He is in the final stages of preparing for publication Talmud and Taboo: Essays on The Jewish Question.
Dr. Joyce joins us for another critical look inside the history and events that continually lead us back to the immense Jewish question. To begin, Andrew highlights his academic journey and how he arrived at tackling the vast obstacles embedded within our propagandized Western history to get to the truth of Jewish influence. We discuss their role during the Middle Ages as middleman merchants in close alliance with the elite powers that be, when the practice of usury transformed the means by which Europe was expanded and consolidated. Andrew explains some misconceptions about Jewish emancipations during the medieval period, many of which were influenced by the weakening of monarchal power and the rise of parliamentary democracy in host nations. Then, we consider how the Jewish proclivity of exploiting weaknesses within the flawed democratic system, their fierce ethnocentricity, and deep fear of being racially and genetically disseminated has compelled them to intensely strategize against gentiles. Andrew talks about the cycle of greed within the monarchy system that led to numerous Jewish expulsions and the clever maneuvers that repeatedly brought them and their money back into the untouchable ruling elite fold. We also look at the current calamity of governmental errors driving Europeans to extinction and how Jews have contributed in shaping the demographic suicide of the West.
In the members’ half, we address the concern that there tends to be an unhealthy obsession with the JQ and how we can study our own weaknesses in terms of damaged ethnic cohesion in balancing this weighty issue. Dr. Joyce stresses that we must find rational ways to communicate to the average citizen how our deprived sense of historical peoplehood coupled with the barrage of guilt inducing MSM and academic programming is leading us to the slaughter. We talk about the great power of face to face persuasion and leading by example, along with using humorous memes and trolling in encouraging our folk to adopt a sense of nationalistic pride. Then, Andrew illuminates how Jews have used a backdoor trial and error approach to slowly infiltrate special interest groups aiming to clamp down on freedoms to criticize detractors, and we look at what a massive cultural shift might look like if Whites can employ that same diligence in reversing the pathologically blind response to their destruction. Further, we discuss the immense responsibility that lies in safeguarding the inheritance of our future generations, which ultimately requires a strong ethnic brotherhood standing in radical resistance to the invading cultures that have no place within our own. At the end, we get into the idea that everything happening now with the push for multiculturalism in the West is just history repeating itself, and if we are to reverse this creeping genocide we must bring more awareness, raise the stakes, and adapt an attitude of total success.
Henrik: Welcome, this is Red Ice Radio. I’m Henrick. I hope you have had a good day so far. Thank you for tuning in. It’s always a pleasure to have you with us. We have some good company over the weekend. Some friends that came for a visit and we decided to take Monday off. A much needed break, since we seldom take them, and extend the weekend a bit and charge up the batteries, as we are gearing up to start our new live show, exclusive for members, this coming Saturday. So definitely don’t miss that! Information and details, will be on Red Ice Members dot com slash live. We also put some details on the main site to Red Ice dot tv. Just go to forward slash live, or click on upcoming stream at the top of the site, or from the menu if you’re on a mobile device.
Switching over to today’s show we have Dr Andrew Joyce with us. He’s a scholar, a speaker and a writer with academic expertise in immigration, ethnic and religious conflict and philosophy and sits on the editorial advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly and is a regular contributor to The Occidental Observer. He also serves the British Renaissance Policy Institute, in an advisory capacity and will be producing and editing a new journal for them. He’s also in the final stages of preparing for publication of his book, “Talmud and Taboos: Essays on the Jewish Question”.
And that’s what we’re going to talk about here today.
As Andrew puts it, “The anvil that has worn out many hammers!”
But I urge you to check out our, “New to Red Ice” section on the website. And search in our archives if you want to get a better understanding, both why this is an important question, and also we can put Judaism, Jewish influence and their ethnic interests in context and in relation to our own interests. There really isn’t any reason why this should be an untouchable topic, as some people propose. We would to do same and we do, with any other group that has clashing interests with our own. So stick around. I hope you learn something new.
Welcome Dr. Andrew Joyce. It’s a pleasure to have you here. Thank you so much for coming on Red Radio today!
Andrew: Henrik, it’s an absolute pleasure to be here. I’m a big fan of the show.
Henrik: Well, thank you so much. I appreciate that. You have a Ph D. In history and you told me here, before we started, that you really take a hard and an unsentimental lens, specifically at Jewish history. You have written tremendous amounts for Occidental Observer. I believe you’re involved in British Renaissance right now, Britren as well. You have just a tremendous amount of essays, if you will, in your past that you’ve written about. And I’m looking forward to talking more about your work and some of the, specifically some of the history that you’ve written about. But, what do you think our audience should know about you, Andrew, and your background before we kind of dive into the meat of your work here.
Andrew: Well, and I think the audience might want to hear first and foremost how I came to be writing so much and so extensively on the subject of jewish culture. My teenage years, actually, is when I started getting into this particular subject matter. I always had a very intense interest in history and what I would describe as a real thirst for knowledge and endless an insatiable curiosity. But it wasn’t always directed towards jewish subjects. I went through phases of my childhood where I was fascinated by ancient Egypt, for a while also I was very, very interested in the Viking period of the Norse. But when I was about fifteen or sixteen, I came to discover, through the education system, as so many of our young people now do, something called the “Holocaust”. And as part of my particular school curriculum we had to study a film that I’m sure all of your listeners have heard of, by the name of Schindler’s List.
Andrew: And we had to write an essay on Schindler’s List, after having watched it. And while most of my classmates were, you know, watched it and had, what I would call, the “expected emotional trigger response” to the images that they were seeing on film, of young children being arbitrarily shot and what have you. I looked at it through a much more critical lens. I looked at Schindler’s List for what I perceived to be, and that was a masterwork of propaganda. Whether that was the filming style chosen by Spielberg, himself, who chose to always have the camera pointing down at jews, emphasizing their lowly humble and innocent, doe-eyed expressions, while always pointing the camera upwards at Germans, who were dominant, domineering and violent lords and masters.
I started to pull apart the techniques used by Spielberg and actually in the resultant essay that I wrote for my school teacher, I argued this Spielberg really was no different from what I was being told about Joseph Goebbels. [laughter] Another master propagandist who was quite fond of being innovative in his filming techniques. We only have to look at the movie, “The Eternal Jew” and look at how he spliced his own themes and his use of imagery there, to see that he too was a propagandist.
But it was an unorthodox essay I should say. And actually, the reason that I was able to take things further was because, I was particularly blessed to have a rather open minded History teacher. The essay was taken in along with everyone else’s. it was reviewed and it was marked. And actually, got quite a high mark. My history teacher then pulled me aside one day and he said to me:
“Look this what you’ve written here it is not a acceptable piece of work. This is not something that should be seen to encourage. But, the reason I’ve given you such a high mark, is that in terms of history writing it is a good piece of work and what you have displayed is a certain degree of open mindedness, and more to the point, you’ve shown a talent for argument. You’ve marshaled your sources well and produced a convincing piece of persuasive writing.”
So, that was unusual. I benefited from that, I’m sure that does not happen every day in schools across the West.
Henrik: Unfortunately not.
Andrew: Yes. But actually, the next few years, I kind of put the jewish history thing aside again. It interested me really for a brief period then and as I said, as an aside. But, as I went into the age of nineteen, or twenty, I started to just reading more generally into Western history. I started a degree in history. I looked in the twentieth century international history. I looked into the history of the United States and I became particularly interested in the history of migration, ethnic conflict going back centuries if not millennia.
And I think that anyone who looks into that range of topics seriously and critically and with an open mind, can’t help, but be struck by the presence of the jews in those themes, in terms of ethnic conflict, in terms of patterns of the political contest if you want to put it like that, between the native peoples of Europe and the really, what was the only significant minority in Europe at the time. It really struck me as a crucial story in the history of Europe. But one that had been written, as far as I could tell, in quite a distorted way, in a biased way and in a manner in which it just left me completely unsatisfied. And it was that dissatisfaction with those histories that drove me on to read more and more and more. And the dissatisfaction actually grew more and more and more. Until, I started really conducting independent research into some of these things. Not all of which was related to my university course, or really any way to my academic career that would follow. But it became, I described to someone else recently, it became in a strange way, it sounds like a strange term to used, but, a labour of love. The love was not for jewish history, but for truth, …
Andrew: … and the desire to get to the bottom of these sources. When one wants to find truth in this sphere of jewish history, one of the confronted with innumerable obstacles.
When you walk into any university library, or public library, and you go to the section they have on jewish history, you will find hundreds of books, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds! And all of them will have been published by elite publishing houses, we’re not talking about some backing street publisher, we’re talking about Princeton University Press, Harvard University Press, Yale University Press, Cambridge and Oxford University Press. We’re talking about really the most highly regarded publishing houses in the world and all of them are publishing these books on jewish history and each and every one of them is published by a jewish author and a jewish academic.
And each one of these books, when you open them up, all have the same kind of themes., you know, jews have been victims since they entered on the world stage, jews have done no wrong, Western society is sick, it is evil, and from day one it has concocted, what they call, “canards” about jews. And they have used these canards to spread hate and to perform acts of violence and destruction against this harmless and innocent jewish community. To anyone who thinks independently, to anyone who has enough brain cells to understand what a primary source is, a primary document and really take on board what what what the truth of the matter may be, these narratives don’t sit well and will create, as it did in me, a great sense of dissatisfaction.
By the time I was twenty three, twenty four, I had started to formulate some of my own theories, but I was pretty much still adrift, and I was definitely not part of any kind of movement. I was still unsure of what my conclusions meant, in that sense that most young people today, if you were to approach them and say to them:
“Look, you are the victim of excessive jewish influence in your society”.
Right. Their first reaction won’t be to say, “Oh, that’s crazy!” Because, I think deep down everyone knows that there is a there is a more than substantial amount of plausibility to a statement like that. But their first reaction rather will be one of, I would say, fear mixed with a sense that, what you have just said, is somehow not quite right, and somewhat not quite good.
So, when I started at the age of twenty two, or twenty three, to start to question serious aspects of jewish history and really have the seed of a much more realistic, much more aware, conception of what this history amounted to, I was struck by that same feeling of, but wait a minute, where does that leave me? What does that make me? Because we are all led to believe that to question certain things about Jewish history, or to feel certain things towards jews, or to perceive in jewish group behavior, or actually, to perceive jews as behaving as part of a group, even that, that means that you are somehow a Nazi, racist, anti-semite!
We have all of these labels that immediately come to mind, and they immediately come to mind, because they’ve been put there! And they’ve been put there at a very young age through our education system and our culture. So I went through this phase of wrestling with what this meant. But, I persisted, because to me it didn’t matter so much, as I said, as you mentioned of the start, I’ve adopted a very unsentimental attitude to these things. Truth takes priority!
Andrew: So, I soldiered on. And then I would say, when I was probably twenty seven, twenty six, twenty seven, I had the great fortune of discovering the magnificent trilogy of books on jews and jewish culture, by Kevin MacDonald. And it was like a light just shone on me! And one of the reasons for that was, because a lot of the material that I had read, written by people in centuries past, who didn’t, let’s be honest, who didn’t quite like Jews very much at all, it was written, as far as I could tell, in a very sloppy way, or a very emotive way that I couldn’t quite get in touch with. I couldn’t quite connect with that.
I needed something that had a bit more rigor to it, a bit more intellectual heft. And I think that Kevin MacDonald’s books were the first that I really just devoured and found satisfying on a level that I have needed, probably since I was eighteen or nineteen, since that journey really began in earnest.
I remember at the time after I had finished, Culture of Critique, the last of the triology, I emailed Kevin Macdonald. I had dug out his email. When one Googles, Kevin MacDonald, one of the first things that you’re confronted with, is this, obviously the ADL hit piece.
Andrew: Which I had a quick read and nothing on it surprised me, whatsoever. But I persisted in scrolling down the results and I got his email address and I made contact with him.
And we exchanged emails and I told him a little bit about myself and some of my own research and he was very positive about that. And one day I just, I decided, just send him a piece of writing. I was very impressed with the content of the Occidental Observer and I hoped that I had something I could contribute to what they were trying to achieve there, in terms of disseminating what I would call real history and also honest discussion of contemporary politics and culture. And it was well received, and really it hasn’t stopped since then.
I think the pace of my work has increased. I write also for the Occidental Quarterly, I sit on the editorial board for the Occidental Quarterly and I’ve been doing speaking engagements and really just trying to get the truth out there. And coming on Red Ice this evening is another part of that. So I thank you Henrik for giving me the opportunity.
Henrik: Well thank you! Yeah, definitely we were very glad to have you. As I said I think you do great work. I don’t know if you’ve been counting, but I’m attempted to do so today. I think we have multiple pages on the Occidental Observer under your author’s page, if you will, you’ve probably written, what, forty, fifty pieces, I think, for the Occidental Observer over a few years?
Andrew: Yeah, it is probably, definitely, yes definitely around fifty right now.
Andrew: In addition to, you know, pieces for Occidental Quarterly that didn’t appear in the Occidental Observer. There are one, or two there. And on top of that, you know, I’m working actually on a book right now. It’s a collection of what I would regard anyway as my best articles for the Occidental Observer, but also some new content. And I also have expanded some of the articles that I wrote for the Occidental Observer, because when you write for the Occidental Observer there’s a limit to how detailed you can be on some subjects, but when you’ve got a whole chapter to play with, you know, that you can really get to the meat and bones of each and every subject. And it’s very important to me as a writer.
One of the things I pride myself on is that each of the claims that I make and each of the statements I try to back it up with as much factual and, you know, material with a lot of integrity, as possible, because we are in an uphill struggle. Those on the opposing side will try and call what we do pseudo intellectualism, or pseudo science and we need to really be on top of our game, each and every time, in the hope that any right thinking person who eventually does come across our work, as isolated and pushed to the corner of the Internet as it is, we have to hope that when an intelligent decent person does read that work, that they are thoroughly convinced. And that we take that small, but minute opportunity to win them over and show them a new perception of the world. So yes, it’s very, very important to me.
Henrik: Of course! Yeah, exactly. I mean your work is academic well referenced and I appreciate that so much. We definitely, you know, need to do that, because it’s not that our opinions stand on unfounded principles — it’s quite the opposite. And in that regard we definitely share the quest for truth, you know, we have that in common and we’re also, of course, on the same page when it comes to the fact that we’re in desperate need for real history and an objective history and fair history.
Well now, you know, many in our audience, I think, are more, or less well seasoned on the topic of the JQ [Jewish Question]. However, we do get newcomers all the time. We have to keep them in mind. We also have, of course, both detractors and enemies listening and I would invite them also to keep an open mind and listen to a perspective that they usually do not consider. So, with that in mind, you kind of briefly touched on this of course, but what would you say to those that have, more, or less, an official view on the history of the jews? Specifically, maybe as it pertains to Europe, right, of them being a suppressed group, especially targeted throughout history. They are victims. What should they know in terms of this relationship between jews and Europeans, or jews in Europe? And what would you say to them as a kind of an overview to give them a different perspective, maybe, than the official one that they have been given?
Andrew: I think the first thing that I would say to anyone adopting a neutral, or as you say, oppositional position to what we might have to say. First I would have a say to them is, open your mind. You may right now think that you have an open mind, you may think that you’re the most liberal, loving and caring person walking the earth, but I ask you to set down any, I ask the set down your conceits. And I don’t mean that in an insulting way. We all have our conceits and our preconceptions and our prejudices. And I would ask each and every one of those people to set those down completely, wipe the slate clean!
Then, I ask you to take the arguments that we’re making. For example, one of the arguments that I would make, is that you may have this conception of jews as being victims in the historical past. To which I would reply, that if you were to look at the history of mediaeval Europe, Poland actually would be an excellent example. And if you were to look at the position of your ancestors and compare it to the position of the jewish ancestors of jews living today, you would find that the jewish ancestors would be in a position far superior, far more comfortable and far more powerful than your own. And the reason for that is quite simple. In the Middle Ages, jews occupied a middle man role. That middle man role normally was finance driven, they were tax farmers, money merchants. And one of the main methods of operation that they followed was that they would be in close alliance with the elite. So, I don’t know about you, but there aren’t many oppressed victims in the world who are in close alliance with the elite!
Andrew:In actual fact, if you were to look for the oppressed in that society, it would have been your own ancestors, those people who under the paying heightened rates of tax, because the new guy in town, the jewish population had just put a down payment on the right to collect taxes and hike them. Not only hike them, but had the backing of the royal militia with which to enforce the heightened raise in taxes.
So, you know, that there are innumerable examples, like that, but it’s just a small one. You need to completely wipe your mind of any preconceptions you might have about the position of the jews in history. Because, much of what you have been led to believe, simply didn’t happen and you will not be able to progress to a more enlightened view of your current situation, until you abandon those preconceptions.
Henrik: Right. Tell us a bit about how they gained this position, as middlemen, as merchants and money lenders in our society.
Andrew: Well, Henrik, as with many of our modern contemporary problems the issue kind of starts in a way, with us, rather than the jews. jews have been involved in commerce and lending money at interest for centuries, at least two thousand years. So, it wasn’t anything new that they did., but in the Middle Ages, European society was changing. There were a switch from tribes into principalities and then a slow drift from principalities into nation states and the end of the feudal system.
Now, all of this expansion and consolidation of our people required things like, armies. It required things like administration and it required also a certain amount of increasing trade and increased complexity in trade. We were able to cover all of these necessities ourselves, but for some princes and kings, not at the pace that they would have liked. We’ve met many a medieval king that was greedy and hungry for power. It’s part of the human condition.
And what they wanted they wanted right now. Now for the person that is impatient for financial progress. Since from time immemorial until the present, one of the things that they will lust after, is a quick loan, easy cash. We still have it today. When a housewife can’t wait to get the newest appliance, or the newest clothes, she’ll use her credit card to get. Well, these kings and princes weren’t much different, they wanted out fast easy cash. And they had, in their midst, a semi-nomadic group of wanderers who didn’t have much to offer the surrounding culture. In fact, they were quite self isolating., but one thing that they did have that they were willing to share with that surrounding culture, was cash, was money, at a price. Their interest rates were not to be taken lightly. But, you know, when you are the prince when you’re a king, nothing is beyond your consideration. And, of course, why care when you can pass the cost on to the lowly peasants?
So, this was the means by which the jews gained a foothold in Europe. It was it was the greed and the selfishness of our elites, and unfortunately, we still have so many contemporary examples, where our elites are greedy, selfish and they will be happily in partnership with jews to achieve those goals. But, yes, that in a nutshell is how those [jewish] communities gained a foothold, whether it’s in the far east of Poland or, whether it’s with the arrival of the Normans in 1066 in England. The jew travelled with the Normans and just with the Anglo Saxons, their money landing and whatnot and, you know, the problem grows from there, but that in a nutshell is it’s origin.
Henrik: Yeah. It’s kind of a strange relationship, because the, what’s called the emancipation of the jews didn’t really occur. It happened at different date, of course, throughout various countries. I think, all the way from 1791 in France, all the way up to, what, 1923 in Romania and trickled throughout in different countries. That’s when the jews were granted, I guess, legal equality., but it seems the relationship before that, Andrew, was still kind of one at arm’s length, if you will. That they had a relationship working together, but they were still kind of separate within society, right? They were still their own group and they still largely kept to their own, so it wasn’t as clear-cut as that, am I right?
Andrew: Yes, that’s correct. One of them the misconceptions of this business of jewish emancipation, is that, it is like any other emancipation, we might consider emancipation of slaves, or what have you. But it really wasn’t. jewish emancipation was a tactical measure.
There was an essay written in the nineteenth century by a man named McCauley, I can’t remember his first name., but it was an argument, actually for jewish emancipation., but in the essay McCauley to was quite honest in his interpretation of what this meant and why jews wanted it. jews didn’t want to be seen on a par with every other citizen during the period of absolute monarchs. Definitely not! Why? Well, because the average citizen was in a very lowly position indeed. It was much better to be in the middle man position, cozied up to the elite and have all the privileges that entailed. Now, that didn’t always produce good results for jews, for example, a monarch that you were very close to my died and his successor might not be very keen on you at all. Either, because he’s more of an adherent to his religious principles, or whether, because he had an intense loathing for jewish characteristics, mannerisms, group behavior.
An excellent example would be Frederick the Great, Fredrick the II of Prussia. He was, he found jews to be very, very distasteful and he was also particularly concerned with their tendency towards money lending, but really, bankruptcy, financial fraud, things like coin shaving that they’ve been involved in, going back centuries. And one of the things that he actually did was that he introduced a law making the jewish community, as a whole, liable for any instance of financial fraud by any particular jew.
It was conclusively effective in eliminating financial fraud in that community and actually, when I was recently re-reading some research that I did on the Mark Rich case, you know, Mark Rich in the 1980s, along with Pincus Green, these two jewish businessmen who basically defrauded the United States out of a hundred, at least one hundred million dollars in hidden tax money, that you know, that they gained a lot of profits from illegally trading with Iran.
Andrew: But a lot of this ill-gotten cash, … They’d pumped like a quarter of a million dollars into the ADL, five million dollars to Birthright Israel. A lot of this money went into Jewish causes, which all contributed to the fact that all these Jewish groups wrote a petitions for a pardon from Bill Clinton, which was subsequently granted. And I read that and I thought to myself, you know, Jews benefit as a group from financial fraud carried out by members of the group. So why shouldn’t they be punished as a group? That actually, that measure by Frederick the Second, seemed to me supremely logical and I admire it’s effectiveness. And actually I think that something similar today wouldn’t be — certainly to my mind — it wouldn’t be monstrous and it would probably do a great deal to deter this very harmful — at least to the non-Jewish community — practice.
But to come back to the mediaeval period and the issue of jewish Enlightenment, or jewish emancipation. The drive for jewish emancipation only only came about with the rise of parliamentary democracy, with the slow creeping march of democracy. Because when you have no monarch anymore, or when the power of the monarch is weakened and the power of the people begins to rise, it places the middleman in a very, very difficult position. So the cut and thrust, the goal behind jewish emancipation is not simply to achieve equality with everyone else, because that’s what you always wanted, it is a response to events within the host population.
Andrew: The nature of government has changed. Therefore we are now going to tactically readjust and reposition ourselves into new avenues of power and one of the ways that we can achieve this is by trying to get this thing, this new thing called the vote. We need to be, we need to have the vote, we need to be electable, we need to be appointable to government office, we need to be appointable to any advisory positions, which may be available, we need to be part of this process. Simply, you know, standing by and occupying some kind of null and void status is unconscionable. So that’s the essence, I would argue Henrik, for the drive for jewish emancipation. And McAuley? ? Himself referenced, I can’t remember the exact words. But as I recall it, it was a very realistic piece of writing. He argued that it should be granted nonetheless, because the democratic system, we can hold jews accountable, we can see how they vote, we can observe them more closely than if they kind of go rogue. But actually, I think that was a very serious miscalculation by McAuley? ? I think that he overestimated the effectiveness of the democratic system. He didn’t quite grasp the many weaknesses that permeate the parliamentary democracy in practice, because, of course, it’s a wonderful idea in theory, but it is so dangerously and fatefully flawed in practice, and I think that many of our contemporary problems are due not only to the inherent weaknesses of parliamentary democracy in practice, but also the sheer talent of Jews in spotting and exploiting those weaknesses.
Henrik: Right, exactly. Now tell us a bit about why we should view them as a group, as opposed to just individuals, you know, where people say, “Well, you know, there are good ones and there’s bad ones”, right. But of course we know that specifically we, as Europeans, are treated as a group, as a whole and the claim is that our power and privilege as a group is somehow equally distributed among us. But what speaks in favour of this idea that they do in most respects operate as a group and that they have a fierce ethnic interests?
Andrew: Well the first thing that I would say to someone who would approach me and say:
“Hey, come on Andrew, they aren’t a group, we can’t hold them all accountable for the individuals of one of them. They’re each wonderful, loving individuals in their own way”.
The first thing that I would say to that is simply, well, why do they organise as a group? Why do they self-describe as a group? Why do they cling so ferociously to their group status? Is the World Jewish Congress a figment of my imagination? Is the ADL a figment of my imagination? Have we been making up this idea of a religion called Judaism which is ferociously ethnocentric? Of course not. The jews are the most — if I can make up some words here — the, “Groupiest group that ever grouped!”
Henrik: Right. [laughing]
Andrew: You know, it’s comical. I don’t understand how anyone who looks at jewish history, and I’ve for looking at it for about fifteen years or more now. I don’t understand how anyone can even spend one hour, or one day looking at this history and deny that here is a collection of people that has ferociously sought it’s interests and intensively looked out for one another. And that’s one of the things that jews do, that that I find difficult in some ways to condemn, partly because I would like to see more of it within our own people.
Andrew: They look out for each other.
Henrik: Well, I think Andrew, sorry to interrupt, but the problem is that most people don’t look, well not even a day, many don’t even look an hour, because they already have all the answers, right? They know how they position themselves as a group, and they are a suppressed group and I would imagine that somehow they would explain this:
“That well, you know, they need to organise on this level, because they have been targeted throughout history uniquely”.
So this is just kind of a safety mechanism — is a security for them to be able to organise like this otherwise, you know, there would be concentration camps and gas chambers built tomorrow, you know. [laughing]
Andrew: Well, that might be a cozy little theory that satisfies some some smug little social justice warrior, but the reality is quite different. When you look at the history, when you look at the nitty gritty of Jewish history, what you will find — and it’s almost perverse — is that during those periods in history in which the host population, or the monarch, or the government attempted to wrap it’s arms around the jews and welcome them in. And I’m thinking of the government of Alexander the First in Russia, you know, in terms of having a policy which is that of the carrot or that of the stick, you couldn’t have had a bigger carrot.
Jews were welcomed with open arms, there were policies allowing them into education, you know, a lot of the more coercive measures that had been employed in the past were really abandoned. And how did jews respond to this? Well, actually they became even more defensive, they herded together even more intensively, because what jews feel most threatened by is not violence, is not anti-semitism, what jews fear most is dispersal and dissemination and vanishing genetically, racially into the gentile, the great gentile mass that they imagine to exist. It’s been in their religious writings for millennia, this idea that they shall not mix, that they shall stand apart from the nations and be forever a people that shall dwell alone, as the title of Kevin MacDonald’s first book, goes.
So the idea that they group together, because of fear of violence and of oppression. It shifts all of the agency onto the host population, which is to blame for jewish actions. And I think that that is a very facile and naive interpretation of jewish history. I think anyone with any amount of intelligence and grounding in the subject can see that, the only agency in Jewish history rests with the jews.
Jews are all time strategisers, at all times tacticians and at all times perfectly capable of getting themselves out of just about any scrape you can imagine.
It’s why after three thousand or more years they are still here, while the Egyptians and the Babylonians have vanished. jews and judaism and jewish influence are an anvil that have worn out a thousand hammers or more and the sooner that more of our people realise that and adjust their tactics and level of awareness accordingly, the better.
Henrik: Yeah. I definitely want to talk about what you just mentioned, more, later on. But, let’s kind of continue to unfold this scenario and talk a bit more about the history here. What can you say about the issues or issue of expulsions, right? How many, I don’t know if you’ve counted, perchance, I’ve attempted a couple of times, but how many places have they bee expelled from throughout the last millennium and what is this indicative of what, what should we learn from this history?
Andrew: Well, I couldn’t even begin to count. I’m sure actually that not even all of them have been recorded, Henrik. I think jews have been expelled from different locations and host populations from pre-history, probably. They themselves, in the story of the Exodus, you know, going out of Egypt, I think that it’s possibly allegorical, it possibly refers to one, or several expulsions in prehistory.
Andrew: And I think that it’s a, you know, it’s a self-congratulatory interpretation, a self-righteous interpretation of those expulsions. But I would hesitate to put any limit on the number of expulsions, or areas of location. I think that there’s been a constant and prevalent phenomenon of Jewish history.
As far as the significance of it in history, as far as the reasons behind it, I think these are more straightforward to explain. In his book, “The Jews” Hilaire Belloc describes a kind of process by which friction develops between a jewish population and it’s non-Jewish host. It’s an excellent book explaining this in very mechanical and matter-of-fact ways, but essentially, jews originated in our societies along with an idea that they have some kind of usefulness. The usefulness may have been for a short period to a particular monarch, if they financed a war, if they financed the expansion of a kingdom, the creation of a militia. Some loans provided by jews also built some of Europe’s cathedrals.
So there was an idea for a time there of usefulness. But attending that, was also a number of other characteristics of the jewish community that weren’t even remotely perceived as being positive. One was exclusiveness. Over time, exclusiveness or exclusivity contributes to friction and it contributes to friction, because exclusivity with jews carried echoes also of superiority. And, you know, people in mediaeval Europe were aware of the fact that when the jewish butcher, or whatever, sold them meat it was the lower quality cuts. They were aware the jews wouldn’t sit at the same table as them. They were aware that slowly, but surely, of what was written in the Talmud about them, for example.
So, exclusivity was one of the factors contributing to friction. The other was exploitation. The financial usefulness of the jews gradually morphed into a sense of being exploited. And, you know, if it was the monarch who started to feel that it was getting a little bit tight in terms of making the repayments, he would simply pass that on to the wider population, by raising the taxes, which would then be collected by the jews.
So the tension always rose from, really from below, that’s where the pressure built up. Now, a monarch who enjoys absolute power, feels quite comfortable. He can do really what he wants, and if the nobles immediately below him are divided and squabbling, and what have you, the old divide and conquer strategy, then he feels even more comfortable. But gradually, because of this position of the Jews, who not only were charging exorbitant interest rates on their loans, but were also a heathen, different and separate people, it added a different flavour altogether to what was occurring.
And it was also an opportunity, the differences of the Jews, for these different groups within the European population to come together. So the nobles start coming together. The people start coming together. If they’re lucky, they manage to get a bishop or the local priest on board as well, so you have a unification of the peasantry, of the clergy and of the nobility. And when that happens, the power of the monarch starts to become weaker, in terms of the overall balance. There are a number of things that can then happen. The monarch can attempt to clamp down on all these people and we have instances in history where, examples may have been made of a particular noble who was violent to a jew, because jews were protected by being the King’s property. So if a noble didn’t want to repay his loan and he struck a jew, or if he killed a jew, he would be severely punished, because that was viewed as an assault on the Monarch himself. But, the balance of power was crucial. But, if it was tipped, just that little bit too much against the monarch, if you looked at the nobles that were arranged against him and the people behind them and also the clergy, and he thought for a second, “I might not come out too well from a conflict on this” then expulsion was a good way to release that pressure. It was, it would be a good way to deflect attention from his own personal greed and his own personal exploitation of the lower orders. It could all be, you know, dispensed with by the getting rid of this this troublesome middleman population.
And I think that as we look back at history, we shouldn’t be too sentimental about this in terms of believing that our kings and monarchs were perfectly good in doing this, or whatever. It was selfish, ultimately. It would benefit us for a time that the jews where were expelled, but inevitably they would be re-invited by another monarch with similar motives of greed and self-interest and the cycle with would be forced to repeat itself, in some European principalities at least.
But, also on the subject of expulsions, another period of weakness would be the period of the interregnum, for example, between one King dying and their successor coming to the throne. Lots of nobles took that opportunity to carry out actions against Jews and try and push them out. It wouldn’t be a formal royal edict of expulsion, but it was an all out effort by the nobility to get rid of this troublesome and exploitative population of jews in the interregnum period.
And we see a lot of that, particularly in England in the Middle Ages. Really the idea behind it was:
“Okay, while there is no King in position right now, we need to act quickly, because as soon as the new King takes the throne the Jews are his property once again and effectively become untouchable and are backed by the Royal Militia”.
So when you strip away a lot of the superstition behind things like this idea of the blood libel and everything, I actually don’t view them really as instances of crude superstition at all. I actually think they were very, very intelligent manoeuvres by a people that were very, very hamstrung in terms of what they could do and how they could voice their displeasure at being exploited. And if you could claim some kind of allegiance with the Church or claim that what you were doing was somehow part of God’s wishes and there were miracles and everything going on. Very, very clever. Very clever, indeed. And I think there was an excellent bit of logic going on there.
But, jews thrive under very, very powerful elites that they are allied to and this is something — it’s a crucial factor in Jewish, … I cannot stress that enough, it is a crucial factor that jews thrive under very, very strong government and a weak population. And that’s why, in the past I’ve written about this issue of gun control, …
Andrew: … about jewish efforts to disarm the population of the United States and, at all turns, pushing for big government.
Henrik: Yeah, very many important factors there that you talked about that I want to get into later, but I know this will be jumping ahead maybe a little bit, but I want to address this before we break here in five minutes or so and then I want to speak a little more about your writings and the upcoming book that you have. But can you explain the concerns, if you will, an overview of the concerns that you have right now, when it comes to what we’re facing as Europeans. I mean, you can extend this to North America too, I guess, as our situations are similar, but different circumstances perhaps, but in consideration of what you just talked about, why should we concern ourselves with jewish ethnic interests and power and how does that kind of converge with our interests as European? What’s, describe that for someone who just has no clue whatsoever, in terms of the situation that we are in and how that is juxtaposed by Jewish interests.
Andrew: I think the best place to start would be simply to say that we are living in a period in time that is completely unprecedented in the history of our people. Or in human history. I think that the current demographic changes that are occurring across Europe and in those lands in which Europeans have been predominant in the last two or three centuries, that these changes are a catastrophe of immense significance, and the danger that we face as a people is tragically immense.
The, as far as the jewish position, and all that is currently happening is concerned, that the jewish role is very, very significant. I don’t think it’s, right now, as direct as some people think it is, or seem to need to think it is. I think a lot of the groundwork for our current situation was laid in fact at the start of the twentieth century and it really snowballed up through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s and I think, actually, what we’re seeing now is not so much that the planting of this rotten tree, but the fact that this rotten tree is now bearing fruit.
Andrew: I think that generations of our young people have grown up in an atmosphere, a cultural, intellectual educational atmosphere, saturated by a truly poisonous jewish intellectualism. They have absorbed it, it is in their blood stream, it is in their thought processes. And in many respects it dominates and distorts their entire personality.
I recently called this phenomenon of social justice warrior, the “Frankenstein’s creation of jewish intellectualism”. These young people who believe, or have been led to believe, that they are supernaturally good, or supernaturally moral and capable of transforming the world. I mean, I simply look at it and I feel like asking them, you know, what are these changes that that you think you are bringing about? What power do you think you have, other than the power to completely wipe your entire genetic heritage from the face of the earth?
Andrew: Because most of these people are intellectual mediocrities, they aren’t particularly intelligent, nor do they have anything even entertaining to say. You turn on your screen and you look at the average far-left protest and you see a bunch of normally upper-middle class zombies with their heads full of Marx and Steinem and then any other number of jewish brainwashers. And they’re creating havoc and destroying every chance that that their people has of some kind of resurgence, and regaining some kind of sane position within their own nations.
But, look. I just look around and I’ll be honest, I confess to tremendous feelings of despair at times, sitting some evenings watching the news broadcast as it tells us of thousands of more migrants.
Andrew: You know, I don’t call them refugees — they aren’t refugees from anything. They aren’t fleeing anything but a mediocre existence created by their own culture.
Andrew: We can’t help them with that. All we can offer them is a suicidal, symbiotic relationship in which they attach themselves to our welfare systems, in which they, you know, commit crimes on an appalling scale and completely and utterly take us for granted, and take us to the cleaners!
And there is no benefit! There is no benefit to us for letting in these people! There is no utility, there is no way of skewing any of the facts, because there is not, …
Henrik: But it feels so good Andrew, it feels so good to help other people. Right? [sarcastic laughter]
Andrew: I’m sure it does, I’m sure it does to some very, very dysfunctional people who live very, very empty lives.
Andrew: I spent a good amount of time earlier actually. I was driving in the car and sometimes these themes and these thoughts come into my head and I ponder, and I just reflect back on any kind of historical pretext there may be, for why we are the way we are, right now. And when I say “we” I mean lots of these dysfunctional moral do-gooder types. And as you say, well why do they feel that this is so good? One of the ideas, actually, that I came up with earlier, was that we have a very much declined sense of what is ours in the modern age, and part of that is economic.
If you were to rewind and turn back the clock two centuries you and I Henrik, would have been born into a family homestead. We would have had land that our fathers and their fathers would have owned, and such would have been the case going back generations. But, you know, industrialisation came in, people drifted from the countryside into the city. They sold what little land they had to some, you know, capitalists, who probably gave them a few coins and off they skipped merrily to the city where they took a job in a factory. And they felt so free and they didn’t have the concern of the land and everything, anymore.
But fast forward even further to our generation, and that the most that we can hope to own or feel attached to, is perhaps our own home, our house, if we’re lucky it might have a garden. If we live in the city we won’t have that. And all of the things that we feel attached to are our possessions.
Andrew: That’s what modern culture and society is. Our cars are ours. Our televisions is ours. The fancy new kitchen suite is ours, but the land is not ours, And so when we hear about thousands of invaders streaming through the borders and they’re settling here and settling there, that sense of loss that would have been there, if we were still in the position of our ancestors and the land itself was ours, it’s gone. That feeling is gone! And it is a complex situation and, you know, it’s not purely psychological. It’s economic, you know. Our world has changed. There is a famous book by the English historian, Peter Laslett, called, “The World We Have Lost”, and it’s full of recollections about times when we all, you know, that we lived near our extended family. We lived on the land. We had guests and apprentices living in our home, and he talks about breaking up of social bonds and cultures that came with industrialisation.
I think part of the problem — by no means all of it — is that Whites have a tendency to be our worst enemy sometimes. Some of our talents in creating machines and industrialisation contained the kernels of our weaknesses, but these weaknesses need to be exploited, of course, and I think that’s where jewish intellectualism comes in. Because if there’s one thing that, you know, the organised jewish community is very good, and has been very good at doing over historical time, it is finding and then exploiting ruthlessly any weaknesses that we may have.
Henrik: Yeah, yeah. So it’s just incredibly important, I mean there’s so much we can say about this and I have much more that I want to ask you about, and much more I want to discuss in the next segment. I want to ask you, well obviously, we can’t talk about this subject while avoiding something as central to this as as the “Holocaust”.
I want to ask you more about that later. And how, what position that has, or how important that is in the question of jewish identity, and also, of course, how that has been exploited in terms of everything that’s happening right now. So, we’ve tons more to discuss here. But tell us, you work a bit with British Renaissance. You obviously, as we said, write for theoccidentalobserver.net and you are part of also publishing articles for the Occidental Quarterly. Feel free to give us the website addresses to those so people know where to go, where they can find your writings. And also tell a bit about the upcoming book you have and if you have any release date as of yet, on that.
Andrew: Yeah, well what you said, occidentalobserver.net is where you’ll find the vast majority of my writings. I don’t really write for any other websites and I enjoy a very, very close and fruitful relationship with Kevin MacDonald.
He’s a scholar that I admire tremendously and I think he’s done some absolutely groundbreaking work that will forge a path and has forged a path for younger scholars and people in our movement, like myself, …
Andrew: … to follow, really for decades to come. I view his writings as no less significant and historical as some of the things written by Richard Wagner, or Heinrich von Treitschke. Or many others in the past, who have taken on this subject and have attempted to come to a reasoned, scholarly, but at the same time, eloquent response to it.
Yes, I’m also involved to some extent in Jack Sen’s British Renaissance group. It’s constantly evolving, you know. I’m not in the thick of it, but as an idea, the British Renaissance is evolving. I mentioned earlier that, you know, jewish influence is a an anvil that has worn out thousands of hammers, and I think that one of the good things at least about a British renaissance is that it’s not fixing itself to one shape too much.
I think that one of the things that our movement suffers from is this rash enthusiasm that seems to attend every new group or movement, you know:
“This is how we are going to win; this is how we’re going to get the votes of the people; this is how we are going to roll back Jewish influence; this is how we are going to end the migration crisis.”
I see the same thing with the phenomenon of Donald Trump in the United States:
“This is heart. This is the turning point.”
And I think that longer-term, more flexible strategies would be far more useful to our cause, and really, to view the whole thing as the “long game”.
Andrew: What we’re looking at here is a problem that has been with us for about two thousand years. And many, many more intelligent men, than myself, have taken it on and failed. That’s not a reason for me to walk away with my head down and say, “Well, you know, I’m not up to it.” But, it is a reason for me to want to avoid any kind of hubris, and unfortunately I’ve seen hubris now and again in our movement and unfortunately some egos as well.
But, one of the things that I would say about Jack Sen is that he has adopted a flexible approach to the question of bringing Britain to it’s senses, and I think he’s being quite ably assisted by others, at the minute. And certainly the group has been slowly evolving into a think tank — it’s now the British Renaissance Policy Institute. And I think that, over time, some good ideas may well come out of it, or it may undergo a further transition as the situation requires. We need to keep in mind that this is a dynamic, as I said earlier, it’s an incredibly important period in our history, but it’s also very, very dynamic.
The situation is changing constantly, and things are being thrown up that not even our enemies have anticipated. I don’t think, for one second, that the Donald Trump phenomenon is something that was on the jewish play book. I think that they’ve been placed in a very, very uncomfortable position, if not so much by Trump, who of course has a Jewish son-in-law, then by Trump as they fear that some of the themes that he’s raising, the style of his rhetoric. This kind of, it’s in some ways, it’s Trump is kind of a mega-troll, you know. Some of the things he’s come out with, are really riling people up!
That is to jews, akin to some kind of Pandora’s Box, that threatens to swallow them whole. This is viewed with great trepidation and will be met, over time, with, I’m sure, a very sophisticated counter-strategy. Already we hear about Republican donors, jewish Republican donors, slowly, according to Haaretz and The Forward, slowing opening their wallets to Trump.
This will be an effort, quite similar to the historical instances, where even where the monarch or the leader was quite hostile to jewish or Jewish interests, to just get in there with any kind of influence they can and one of the most ancient forms of getting influence is to open the chequebook.
Andrew: It’s to shake the coins, you know. That will be the way in.
Henrik: Yes, that’s an interesting point, Andrew. Let’s definitely talk more about Trump and, “Trumpism” in the second segment. There is much to that, of course. We’ll have the websites up, of course, to the publications that we are talking about here, the Occidental Observer, the Occidental Quarterly and also to British Renaissance. And quickly here now then before the break. The book. Any idea when it will be out?
Andrew:Certainly, you know, I’m just finishing the manuscript right now, but the goal would be to have it out by the end of 2016. The book is called, “Talmud and Taboo”. Essays on the jewish question and as I said, earlier, it will contend some of the best content that I’ve produced for the Occidental Observer, some of that expanded and developed further., but also some new essays, covering things Trump and, “Trumpism” and also some thoughts on the jewish question as a whole and it’s contemporary significance. And also my own thoughts on counter strategy and slowly, but surely, we might be able to build something over time and it will take time, that can secure an existence for our children.
Henrik: Absolutely! Very important. All right, very good. “Talmud and Taboo”, keep an eye out for the book, ladies and gentleman, upcoming here probably towards the end of the year, hopefully. All right, well thanks Andrew. Stay with us here. We’ll be right back after a short break with the second hour. Much more to get into. We’ll talk to you on the other side.
END OF PART 1/2
Click to download a PDF of this post (0.7 MB):
Version 9: Sep 18, 2016 — Formatting. Added PDF for download.
Version 8: Jun 11, 2016 — Fixed some typos. Changed uppercase “Jew…” to lowercase “jew…”.
Version 7: Jun 10, 2016 — Added 17 more minutes. Total complete = 67 mins. TRANSCRIPT NOW COMPLETE.
Version 6: Jun 7, 2016 — Added 5 more minutes. Total complete = 50 mins.
Version 5: Jun 5, 2016 — Added note on, “Why Bother with Transcripts?” 5 more minutes of transcript proofread. Total complete = 45 mins.
Version 4: Jun 4, 2016 — 40 minutes of transcript proofread. Total complete = 40 mins.
Version 3: Jun 4, 2016 — 5 minutes of transcript proofread. Daisy has 35 minutes in progress. Total complete = 5 mins.
Version 2: Jun 3, 2016 — 5 minutes of transcript proofread. Daisy has 20 minutes in progress. Total complete = 5 mins.
Version 1: Posted Jun 3, 2016 — Added rough draft of transcript.