Look, people, we’re in a rapid and accelerating cultural collapse here in the West, in the USA in particular. One thing Alt-Right writers do often enough is point to the prominence of one particular group in the vanguard of cultural Marxism, as evidence that this group planned and caused cultural decline. That Jews were disproportionately represented amongst the Bolsheviks does not imply that Bolshevism was a Jewish movement, a National Socialist canard cited by Hannah Arendt. The political and cultural collapse of the Tsarist regime was brought about by that regime (and modernity), not the Jews.
In this light, we examine this recent comment left over at Heartiste.
Knowledgeable students of the enemy will not be surprised to learn that the Troll Hunter is (((Robert Aschberg))), grandson of (((Olaf Aschberg))) who was a key figure in 20th century history. A ‘Swedish’ financier, he became ‘Banker to the Bolsheviks.’ This was a critical step in cementing those Western ties to the Soviet Union … (((Eskimos)))
Every fuckin’ time.
Tanstaafl is right, CH. This suicide of the West has been egged on.
“Eskimos,” like Scots-Irish, are often used as code for Jews. That the Aschbergs are prominent financiers in the political/media structure of the Swedish government is indeniable. That they are Jews is also undeniable. That the actions of some Jews, like George Soros, have poured acid on community relations is further undeniable. Those Jews, having joined the cultural mainstream, are assisting in the suicide of the West.
We at Patriactionary have admired, by contrast, reactionary Jews showing the way to restore a Patriachal society. We once had a Catholic, Patriarchal culture in the USA, and it was destroyed… not by Jews, but by Mainline Protestants, allied to a messianic Progressive state.
A comparison is in order. Since the Germ Theory of Disease (Discovered by a German Lutheran, although there was a prominent Jew involved as well), we have seen germs (bacteria, viruses) as the cause of many a disease. Certainly, persons infected with cholera bacteria are the ones who show symptoms of cholera. However, there is a profound counter to the idea that cholera CAUSES disease.
In The Biology of Belief, pp. 95-96, we read the following:
My favorite example of scientific denial of the reality of mind-body interactions relates to an article that appeared in Science about nineteenth-century German physician, Robert Koch, who along with Pasteur founded the Germ Theory. The Germ Theory holds that bacteria and viruses are the cause of disease. That theory is widely accepted now, but in Koch’s day it was more controversial. One of Koch’s critics was so convinced that the Germ Theory was wrong that he brazenly wolfed down a glass of water laced with vibrio cholerae, the bacterium Koch believed caused cholera. To everyone’s astonishment, the man was completely unaffected by the virulent pathogen. The Science article published in 2000 describing the incident stated: “For unexplained reasons he remained symptom free, but nevertheless incorrect.” (DiRita 2000)
The man survived and Science, reflecting the unanimity of opinion on the Germ Theory, had the audacity to say his criticism was incorrect? If it is claimed that this bacterium is the cause of cholera and the man demonstrates that he is unaffected by the germs … how can he be “incorrect”? Instead of trying to figure out how the man avoided the dreaded disease, scientists blithely dismiss this and other embarrassing “messy” exceptions that spoil their theories.
Now, no one would deny that people who do suffer from cholera are infected with vibrio cholerae. The point of this anecdote, however, is that Vc does not CAUSE disease, it takes advantage of a diseased or malfunctioning system, opportunistically. The scientist with full confidence in his conviction about cholera likely fended off infection with the deadly bacterium, where others with weaker immune systems of mind-body connections would not.
We now visit the memoir of Stefan Zweig, talking of fin-de-siecle Vienna, and the wondrous world it was, in his book The World of Yesterday. Zweig, from an Austrian Jewish family, is describing the cultural milieu that was that place and time, and the Jewish relationship to it. First, he talks specifically about Jewish assimilation:
Adapting themselves to the milieu of the people or country where they live is not only an external protective measure for Jews, but a deep internal desire. Their longing for a homeland, for rest, for security, for friendliness, urges them to attach themselves passionately to the culture of the world around them. And never was such an attachment more effective-except in Spain in the fifteenth century-or happier and more fruitful than in Austria. Having resided for more than two hundred years in the Imperial city, the Jews encountered there an easygoing people, inclined to conciliation, and under whose apparent laxity of form lay buried the identical deep instinct for cultural and aesthetic values which was so important to the Jews themselves.
An upwardly-mobile Jewish burgher class, in other words, admired and wanted to join the cultured world of the Austrian elite. He continues:
(I)n Vienna… they found there a personal task. In the last century the pursuit of art in Austria had lost its old traditional defenders and protectors, the Imperial house and the aristocracy. Whereas in the eighteenth century …Josef II ably discussed his operas with Mozart, and Leopold III himself composed music, the later emperors, Franz II and Ferdinand, had no interest whatever in artistic things; and our Emperor Franz Josef, who in his eighty years had never read a book other than the Army Register, or even taken one in his hand, evidenced moreover a definite antipathy to music.
It wasn’t just the Hapsburgs who dropped out of cultural leadership. He continues:
The nobility as well had relinquished its erstwhile protector’s role; gone were the glorious days when the Esterhazys harbored a Haydn, the Lobkowitzes and the Kinskys and Waldsteins competed to have a premiere of Beethoven in their palaces, where a Countess Thun threw herself on her knees before the great demigod begging him not to withdraw Fidelio from the Opera. But now Wagner, Brahms, Johann Strauss, and Hugo Wolf had not received the slightest support from them.
Of course, Viennese culture and music did not collapse in the 19th century. Zweig:
To maintain the Philharmonic on its accustomed level, to enable the painters and sculptors to make a living, it was necessary for the people to jump into the breach, and it was the pride and ambition of the Jewish people to co-operate in the front ranks to carry on the former glory of the fame of Viennese culture. …
(W)ithout the ceaseless stimulating interest of the Jewish bourgeoisie, Vienna, thanks to the indolence of the court, the aristocracy, and the Christian millionaires, who preferred to maintain racing stables and hunts to fostering art, would have remained behind Berlin in the realm of art as Austria remained behind the German Reich in political matters. (emphasis added)
When a culture begins to go downhill, panem et circenses becomes the interest of the people, but they are merely following the predatory elite at the top of society, who have shirked the responsibilities that come with the rights and privileges of God’s gifts. This denial of Truth at the top is the cause of the collapse; an elite that will not bend the knee in a Godly direction will now believe and do anything. Nietzsche said it first, but society after society has proved it.
I see too much alt-right writing that parallels (National) Socialist propaganda, and compares Jews to vermin and pestilence. I viscerally disagree with this characterization. Those who believe in the “eternal” perfidy of the Jews, however, must answer the question: how and why did the elite of Christian societies so abandon its leadership role that Jews could take over?
