19 June, 2014

Eugen Dühring and the Jewish Question

Posted by Socrates in jewed culture, jewed economics, jewed politics, Jewish behavior versus White behavior, judaism, philosophy, Socrates, white nationalism, White Nationalists, White philosophy, White thought at 2:10 pm | Permanent Link

(Above: Eugen Dühring)

[…]

“He (Dühring) considered the Jews to be characterised primarily by self-interest and this self-interest has coloured all of the commercial dealings of the times with its “glorification of cheating, and, in general, the entire celebration of the handsome strategem of cunning exploitation”. Their socio-political strategy has always been a despotical one and even their god was a god of “transcendental terrorism”. The Jewish theocratic ideas of society are based on the enslavement of the Jewish people to their Lord God but they, in turn, must enslave the rest of mankind to please this sole, jealous monarch of the world: “To be a slave or to make slaves – that is the alternative of the peoples disposed to a lack of freedom”. The Jewish religion has thus no truly religious character but, instead, a markedly economic-political one. The Jewish god Jehovah is himself nothing but an embodiment of the Jewish self-interest and represents the opposite of the Indo-European natural pantheon. The Germanic mythology is ruled by concepts of fidelity and nature-bound spirituality which have unfortunately been obscured by the overlaying of the original German moral character by Christianity, a religion which Dühring believed to be unfortunately closely related to the Jewish racial culture in which it arose as a reaction to the evils of the Jewish nature.”

[Article].


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 07/17/14 The Jewish Question: A Problem without a Solution 33% similar
  3. 04/02/11 Pennsylvania vs. Jewish Money Practices 32% similar
  4. 06/16/18 A Hollywood Director Poses an Interesting and Legitimate Question 31% similar
  5. 08/10/06 New Evidence, Old Contradictions: Carl Schmitt and the Jewish Question 30% similar
  6. 07/30/14 A Question of Sanity 29% similar
  7. 7 Responses to “Eugen Dühring and the Jewish Question”

    1. Tim McGreen Says:

      “The Jew can never be appeased; He is a cruel, scheming and avaricious creature who projects his pathological hatred of mankind on to his enemies; He is a rootless cosmopolitan who is found everywhere but at home nowhere; He is incapable of appreciating art, beauty or truth, for his mind is disordered and unnatural.

      Although vindictive, the Jew is a coward who uses lies and money to manipulate others into doing his bidding. His tribal desert god is merely a magnified reflection of his own arrogant, exaggerated sense of self. His art is crude and scatological, his women unfeminine and foul-mouthed, his children undisciplined and ungrateful.

      The Jew is a parasite and a pestilence whose ultimate aim is to subvert, conquer and destroy the entire world, even though by doing so he would not only destroy the host on which he feasts, but himself as well.”

      –Canadian douchebag Justin Bieber

    2. fd Says:

      Like Eugen Dühring, Hitler also was against a Jewish state. Moreover, Hitler had a common sense, sober way of managing Jews. He wrote September 16, 1919: “Antisemitism as a political movement may not and cannot be molded by emotional factors but only by recognition of the facts. Now the facts are these:” The aforementioned sentence is brilliant.

      http://www.hitler.org/writings/first_writing/

    3. CW-2 Says:

      An insightful and penetrating article written by an Indian! Rather a long presentation but amply rewarding the effort in reading and re-reading.

      We, men of the 20th century, when examining the nature of the jew problem tend to focus on its biological and ultimately genetic aspects which offer an explanation of jewish behavior. Duhring was of course aware of this racial warfare but recognized the battle was also spiritual / cultural. We can only oppose the jew with a strong and confident ‘spiritual’ defense. WN is the first layer of spiritual armor, but it isn’t sufficient in itself, we need almost a new ‘religion’.

    4. Tim McGreen Says:

      Insightful and penetrating, you say? Well then, you should use the word “trenchant”. A trenchant article written by an Indian. The Cap’n likes it when his favorite posters use them big fancy words.

    5. fd Says:

      For me, the article was a rerun of so many others that came before it. Each writer paraphrases the same old information in his literary style. It’s like reading 3 books on brown bears and then writing a book on brown bears. But I appreciate the time and effort the author invested in the subject. And I agree that we have to keep exposing the enemy no matter how many times it must be repeated.

    6. CW-2 Says:

      Tim, if the Cap’n says so then we should all start thumbing through our copies of Roget’s Thesaurus. Of course brevity is the soul of wit. But there is often a tendency with Indians, eg. the author of the article, to weigh down style and fluency with too many of ‘them big words’.

    7. fd Says:

      100% academia writing can be sterile and hyper. It’s a popular way to mask status quo writing skills. Nietzsche said a man should write with blood. Let the reader know who you are. Infuse your culture into your writing if you have a culture.

      A Harvard grad might say: Sir, your uncouth manner repulses me (actually that’s not bad). A biker on I 10 between L.A. and Phoenix might say: F**k Off! A Texas rodeo hood aka Confederate cowboy might say: F**k with the bull, you get the horn. Great writers never compromise their literature with extravagant language. Using ‘big words’ is cool. Just don’t over do it.