Did Spengler dodge the JQ?

10 posts


Here is Spengler's characteristic take on the JQ. The question is whether this is adequate or dodges certain aspects of the question:

Two problems I see with this:

1) Jews certainly share an insectoid clannish-collectivism and a cynical money-intelligence with other fellaheen present in our civilisation - Parsees, Chinamen, Hindoos, etc. - and this explains a lot. Yet there is also something unique in the Jewish proclivity for agitation against the host culture; they are not content to keep their heads down and profit materially from their ethnic networking. The others are happy to jump on the minority grievance gravy train, but Jews tend to be the initiators. Maybe it is just their longer history in our midst?

2) Jews and Arabs are both Magian fellaheen, so it doesn't explain the hatred between them. Is this just a rivalry between different versions of the Magian consensus, bearing no real similarity to the conflict between the Faustian and the Jew?

*Glossary: The use of the term fellaheen, referring to a type of Arab peasant, is extended by Spengler to cover all post-historical peoples, the descendants of dead civilisations.

President Camacho Bronze Age Pervert Thomas777 Roland Drieu mlad
President Camacho
Jewish-Arab enmity is a modern phenomenon that truly only stems from the time of the Balfour Declaration-- this notion of a "three thousand year hostility between Arabs and Jews" is really just a neoconservative fiction successfully peddled by propaganda merchants like Glenn Beck. Of course, since faith is the boundary separating different "nations" in the Magian Culture, friction between two faith-nations is inevitable, but this enmity is sporadic and circumstantial (not existential) in nature. Both are part of the same wider culture; one need only look at the Orthodox Jews to see how much more they resemble Islamic fundamentalists compared their Westernized, atheistic "Jewish" relatives.

Muhammed himself recognized Jews along with Mazdaists and Christians as "peoples of the book" and spared them the sword that was brought down on pagans. The Jewish Resh Galutha (Patriarch-in-exile) based in Babylon was afforded great respect by the Muslims as he was recognized as a direct descendant of the prophet Dawoud (King David). Like the top Christian and Mazdaist officials, he was also effectively the political sovereign of his people, and was responsible for the administration of justice, levying taxes, and raising troops for the Caliphate. As Spengler noted, the Aramaic Jews fought side-by-side with the Parthian and Sassanid Persians against Rome, with the Arab Muslims against the Byzantines and Crusaders, and with the Moors against the Spaniards.

Not until Caesarism manifested itself in the Sultanate was the Exilarch stripped of political jurisdiction over his own nation. And -- as one-sided chroniclers of the "history of Muslim anti-semitism" are wont to omit -- the Caliph and the Christian Patriarchs of the Sultanate were likewise stripped of temporal power and downgraded to religious figureheads.
Well, that's something that is still sort of up for debate, but I think the boldened component certainly explains part of it. Jews were "emancipated" on the soil of Western Europe during the Enlightenment, and some came to paint themselves (whether in earnest or cynically) as active members of the host culture. Of course, even sympathetic or philosemitic Westerners clearly identified Jews as fundamentally different from themselves both historically and spiritually-- this was the entire impetus which motivated the original gentile Zionists to push for a Jewish "homeland".

This is why the Holocaust is so important. Because after World War II we see a gradual shift-- at least in the Anglosphere-- regarding how Jews are perceived, and the change was accepted by the hosts seemingly out of empathy and altruism. The modern case for Israel is that it needs to exist because Jews are similar and not different from Westerners; "Judeo-Christian culture" has been constructed as a coherent system of values in opposition to the rest of the world, etc. This awarding of "in-group" status is not an honor that has been accorded to Jews' close spiritual relatives such as Armenians or Arabs, let alone other fellaheen within the West like Indians and Asians. These other peoples must still politic as outsiders and immigrants.

As far as being "initiators", it bears remembering that every influential Jewish intellectual and business magnate is simply a crude vaudeville mock-up of their Western superiors. But the reason they have license to operate so smoothly, in my opinion, is because they have constructed an exoteric counterfeit history which has been promoted with great success.

But as the West becomes ever more ahistorical, the intellectual scaffolding that Jews have erected to secure their in-group position will become more and more incomprehensible and irrelevant to the masses, and only the factual side of Jewish existence (ie, the practical effects of political and business enterprises) will stand out in full relief.
The huge literature on state-making, contemporary and historic, pays virtually no attention to its obverse: the history of deliberate and reactive statelessness . This is the history of those who got away, and state-making cannot be understood apart from it. This is also what makes it an anarchist history.

The argument reverses much received wisdom about "primitivism" generally. Pastoralism, foraging, shifting cultivation, and segmentary lineage systems are often a "secondary adaptation," a kind of "self-barbarization" adopted by peoples whose location, subsistence, and social structure are adapted to state evasion . For those living in the shadow of states, such evasion is also perfectly compatible with derivative, imitative, and parasitic state forms in the hills.
Bob Dylan Roof
The jewish assimilation process was substantially underway by the time Spengler started writing. I haven't read what Spengler says about the jews, yet, but judging by Ash's post, Spengler's treatment is incomplete. I disagree that jews were largely cosmopolitan descendants of a dead culture. Maybe the holocaust is the key, though I doubt it, given the burgeoning Zionist movement at the turn of the century.

Jews are harmful to and exist apart from the West only to the extent that they keep one foot in their crude ethnic culture. What separates them from Arab Muslims is partial European ancestry and a partial acceptance of Western cosmopolitan morality. The latter is harmful in general from a nationalist's standpoint, but it becomes absolutely pernicious when it is only cynically adopted by a group for the purposes of furthering in-group interests.

I think it's fairly apparent that jews are stratified not only by genetic ancestry, but also by cultural, intellectual, and economic properties. Usually this signals the dissolution of a people. For example, Northern Europeans tend to express nothing but open contempt for their own lower classes, and actively seek to undermine their interests, traditions, and identity. In contrast, jews of all types tend to work toward a few common in-group goals, similar to the behavior of different castes in termite or ant mounds, regardless of the radical differences separating subgroups of jews. Intelligent jews may disdain certain fellow jews, but they almost invariably retain a type of intangible allegiance to something essentially jewish, like Israeli nationalism, or a commitment to endogamy.
President Camacho
Who said that Jews are "cosmopolitan?" They thrive in cosmopolitan host cultures for obvious reasons, but I don't think they're cosmopolitan themselves, perhaps only excepting the very most deracinated "plastic kikes".

I also only believe that the Holocaust was an important component in shaping the Western perception of Jewish identity; I don't really believe the Holocaust has significantly changed the way Jews interact with each other or the outside world.
Yes, and this is one of the outward markers of a people whose history and inward development has been a closed book for some time; there is no directional or creative impulse in Jewish religion or politics, only loyalty to what was established and settled many generations ago. The Northern European hostility towards their "lower classes" you mention is one of the remaining vestiges of the Western estate system-- more specifically, the English estate system, since all of the other nobilities have been annihilated in blood and spirit.

Unlike a "class" (in the Marxian sense), a true estate defines itself as ethically or spiritually superior to the common folk; it is the estate that takes responsibility for leading and molding the formless masses. As a Jew who created a materialist system of history, Marx was incapable of understanding that the aristocracy's position was secured by its claim to ethical (not material) supremacy, and, in the French case for example, it was only after this supremacy was attacked and destroyed by the likes of Rosseau and Voltaire that the door was opened up for the confiscation of the nobility's wealth.

By contrast, Jews (as well as Chinese, Indians, etc) no longer possess any such feeling for ethical hierarchy within their culture. Jewish "elites" are marked strictly by their elite wealth; yet while the English elite marked his position by wealth more than any other Westerner, there was and is a theological and metaphysical component associated with wealth acquisition which modern WASP elites (even those of humble birth) have taken up in spirit. The Jew accepts the privileges of capitalist wealth while rejecting the responsibility for promoting the universal ideals of the English Enlightenment. Jews make no real claim to ethical superiority, but men like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates put this upon their shoulders. The massive eponymous charities founded by men like Ford, Carnegie, and Gates are dynasties established for the sake of posterity; testaments to their role in shaping historical progress.

The irreligious and avaricious Jew hedge fund manager whose charity consists of donations to Israel has his counterpart in the corrupt Sunni Gulf magnate who sends his millions to holy warriors-- their only political instinct, honed over a millenium of hardened civilization, is to protect and promote the interests of the "Consensus" (ie, the nation of believers). Universality, "world leadership", and "Progress" are instincts only amenable to Western elites.
Bob Dylan Roof
This is probably part of it, but I don't see any vestiges of an estate system in the elitism of deracinated northern european liberals.

I'll submit that social atomization is also a function of the fact that Northern Europeans created the only modern culture that achieved actual individual freedom, in the sense that Northern Europeans are no longer beholden to any organic suprapersonal moral ties, like family, village, city, and nation.

lol, I can't agree with this analysis, at all. Their sense of moral superiority is almost their defining trait. The millenia-old jewish resentment of European culture is only matched by the deep-seated conviction that jews have a superior moral perspective.

This isn't inconsistent with the fact that wealthy jews are less generous with their wealth. The jewish penchant for moralizing - for priestly instruction of the goy - functions primarily to weaken and subordinate out-groups, and only has an ancillary effect on jews.
President Camacho
Ressentiment is a trait only manifested among inferior groups who are vividly conscious of their own inferiority.

I disagree with the idea that Jews believe in their own ethical/moral superiority... I believe that Jews are essentially amoral; they are practical, utilitarian people and the only deep moral impulse some may have is to defend the tribe. If they were truly convinced of their superiority, they wouldn't feel the constant need to editorialize crassly about the wonders of Jewish morality... you don't see guys like George Bush or Warren Buffett funding editorials to aggrandize WASP virtues, because they are assured not only of their own superiority but of the public acceptance of that superiority as well.

Deep down Jews know their faith is threadbare and morally barren, and held together only by the maintenance of common enemies. It is this insecurity-- not confidence-- that puts them on the attack. I think the few highly intelligent Jews of the past few decades who also possessed an acute objectivity (Kissinger, Kubrick, the Coen Bros, etc) would agree with this assessment.
Bob Dylan Roof
Anecdotally, my experience has been that jews exude a sense of moral superiority, which is clearly evidenced in their editorials, as you mention. Two possible explanations for this phenomenon: 1) jews really do feel morally superior and want to change the world by educating and admonishing immoral peoples, but their practical behavior results, unknowingly, in essentially amoral, utilitarian actions on behalf of the tribe; 2) they are all Machiavellian calculators, lacking genuine moral feeling, who prey upon the goy's susceptibility to appeals to universal norms for the benefit of the tribe.

I sincerely doubt that #2 is the general case among jews, simply because, based on my own personal experiences with individual jews and my own feelings of sympathy and empathy, many jews seem to genuinely believe in their moral crusades. I do agree with Nietzsche that there is a level of self-conscious dishonesty in the ascetic priest's mission to construct slave morals, but such individuals are historical anomalies. Additionally, there are, no doubt, plenty of consciously amoral jews, like Madoff, or the shysters involved in exploiting German guilt for monetary gain. But I can't accept the proposition that there is a conscious, grand jewish conspiracy to swindle the goy.

Another reason I don't think all, or even most, jews are simply cold machiavellians derives from an observation on general human psychology. Shared group feelings like persecution, enmity, self-defense, and exclusivity are very powerful motivators because, as Nietzsche explains in the Genealogy , such feelings allow unexceptional individuals to partake in the achievements and power of the group as a whole, enjoying those benefits as if they were the product of their own individual will. If an individual doesn't really buy into the hifalutin proclamations about the virtues of self-abnegation for a group (the way Northern Euros feel about their own nations), it's difficult to maintain a really efficient system of group preservation.

As an aside, this dispute probably isn't terribly productive because I agree with a version of #1, meaning that you and I basically agree that the external result of jewish moral activity is purely utilitarian in most cases.
I will just briefly add that this is entirely correct in the German context. Many Jews at the time were fully assimilated to the extent that they were not an insignificant presence on the right. The most notable examples belonged to the George Circle: Friedrich Gundolf and Ernst Kantorowicz (amongst others) and one might include Hugo von Hofmannstahl, however peripheral he was. About Gundolf it was remarked by Ernst Gloeckner in correspondence with Ernst Bertram that, "everything Jewish in the negative sense no longer clings to him." Though it should be noted that he didn't escape all criticism for being a "Jewish intellectual". Martin A. Ruehl disparaged the Jew Kantorowicz as having a "Nazi mind". Many within the "Conservative Revolution" were, though not philosemitic, quite sympathetic to assimilated Jews. Indeed Juenger and his brother left their regimental association after the Jewish members were expelled.

The holocaust and its mythos play a large roll in ending this tendency of assimilation and buttressing jewish identity.
Bob Dylan Roof
Was Ernst Kantorowicz politically active?