Mitchell Heisman

I wished to dedicate a thread to Mitchell Heisman. After reading his work I have tried my best to formulate an adequate synopsis with quotes. You can add anything you like about Heisman whether it be from his work or other sources of information about him.

Throughout time, Man’s desire to explore his place in the world through the cultivation and application of his wisdom do a rare few come along and revolutionize our understanding of this fundamental existential human state. Mitchell Heisman is one of the few that has succeeded in this pursuit. Upon my completion of his extensive 1900 page essay, which in my personal opinion, is one of the most deeply thoughtful and most far-reaching scholarly examinations of modern society since Nietzsche’s Will to power, or Plato’s Republic, I have meticulously to the best of my ability, provided the reader of this synoptic review with some significant quotes and excerpts that may incite some interest in undertaking the time to devote to reading it.  

Heisman’s work is concerned primarily with how human nature evolved into its decline into obsolescence by very specific historical events and reformations of sociopolitical relevance. The idea of Sociobiology and genetic evolutionary elements of “Kin Selection”, is at the root of his entire socio-philosophical position which is crucial to understanding his insights.  

He begins his work by examining the history of ancient hierarchical governments and their conflicting relationships with religion, namely monotheism. From the history of the Egyptians and the Jews and Judaism and its ramifications of biblical influence under monarchial regimes. He examines the nature of monotheism and polytheism, and the mimetic prowess of the bible (namely Judaic etymology) to alter traditions of pagan or hereditary cultures. He also touches on some important key issues involving the sanctity of “progress” of technology and its artificially imposing power to supersede or change the role of what the idea of society or human means and how the bible has been the support for this. The idea of the technological “Singularity” is at the heart of his contrasting views of religion and modern advancement that culminates in what he calls the “Technological Genesis of God”.

He provides diligently thought provoking undertones of the phenomenon of “post-biological evolution” in the name of meme vs. gene competition, which is an aspect of modernity that Heisman consistently returns to and is concerned with throughout his work as he correlates it to Judeo-Christian timelines of revolution.The Jewish question that Heisman endeavors to elucidate takes precedence in his theory of the Jews which he dubs the “Jewish Kinship Paradox”. This is the forerunner in his work to understanding the relationship of Jews to the rest of the world and most importantly, to themselves and their own survival.

He then moves from this exploration from these early periods, to the Roman empire and offers a very fascinating and in-depth look at how Jesus jump started the necessary means for modernity to evolve into liberal democracy; taking into account the very unique identity of Jesus himself rather than merely his ideas. He then discusses Hitler and the Third Reich, the Holocaust and the Jews deterministic place in it. Moreover, he places emphasis on the relationship between Hitler and the Jews and Hitler’s entire cause for biological supremacy. He reveals how Marxism was refuted by Nazi socialistic domination.

From these initial events, he then moves to explore the past of Western modern democracy that developed in the pivotal event of 1066 at the battle of Hastings between the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons. The bulk of his work is based on this event in history of the Norman Conquest which he maintains has been forgotten as the birth of Americanism and its entire culture. He examines very closely, not merely the event itself but the conflict of the English nation from the failures of the English Civil war, to their similarity of the American civil war, and the American Revolution of Jeffersonian “Rights”. He posits that the West has been forced to adapt to being an oppressed and persecuted nation of subjugated people that through ethnic violation from the Norman Conquest, evolved the liberal foundation of individualism. He explores individualism as the key mimetic phenomenon that has destroyed not only the kinship basis of human relationships but relationships themselves and how the system of capitalism has subsequently used this undermining biological suppression for the continuity of rampant economic-technological materialism which is the impetus for his theory of the “Singularity”.

Finally towards the end, he returns to the idea of the Singularity and the scientific application of it to transcend biology. He predicts a possible war that could occur between humans and “post-humans” or “transhumans” if technological development achieves its goal of AI. He also questions how AI is possible or if it can be sentient. His grasp of self-actualization and his subsequent suicide could perhaps be returned to his quote about the nature of philosophical pursuit taken from Plato’s “Phaedo” dialogue. Aside from his own Jewish dilemma, Heisman seems to have reached one of the most lucid nihilistic personifications of self-destruction by attempting to undertake the impossible challenge that comes with absolute reconciliation of either modernity or of the attainment of the ideal state of consciousness.





If a waterfall is natural, then a dam that harnesses the
waterfall’s natural energy to produce electricity is artificial or
supernatural. If sand in a desert is natural, then the silicon
extracted from sand and used to create a microchip is
artificial or supernatural. If biological human intelligence is
natural intelligence, then computer intelligence is artificial
intelligence. Artificial intelligence is supernatural
intelligence in the sense of being postbiological intelligence.
From this perspective, artificial intelligence could be
considered the pinnacle of the supernatural overcoming of
nature and thus the supreme creation in the image of God.-Heisman.


 A Darwinian perspective clarifies that all the
characteristically Biblical imperatives to show compassion to the less fortunate, to save the weak, to feed the starving, and
to give to the poor, all amount to ways to end evolution by
natural or artificial selection. In other words, if biological
evolution proceeds by eliminating less fit humans, or
humans less well adapted for survival, the distinctively
Biblical ethic of compassion and charity acts like a
gargantuan monkeywrench thrown into the selective
mechanisms of biological evolutionary “progress”. The Bible
can be understood as a primitive step towards steering
human history away from biological evolution and towards
a culmination of technological evolution that is God
(artificial intelligence).-Heisman

 How could ancient prophets have anticipated the
Singularity? I have been speaking almost as if the authors of
the Bible were ahead of Charles Darwin. While I have no
reason to think that the authors of the Bible were anything
but utterly ignorant of the theory of evolution by natural
selection in the formal sense, they lived no less in a world
formed by evolution by natural selection in practice. Since
their world was generally less civilized, their very existence
was in many more informed, not by the theory of natural
selection, but by the practice of natural selection. Mind
uploading demonstrates the endpoint at which civilization
becomes diametrically opposite of natural selection.
The Bible has been cogent to so many people only because
its authors had a genuinely deep understanding of the  human condition. No formal understanding of biological evolution was necessary to recognize the basic conflict
between a deeply embedded animal nature in humans, and
the most superlatively imaginable possibilities of the human
mind sublimated as God. No knowledge of evolution by
natural selection was required to imagine God as the most
total superbiological supremacy over man’s “evil” nature.

  Jews did not build the first cities or civilizations. It
appears that the earliest Jews interacted and learned from
the first cities built by others. If early Jews were outsiders
relative to the first cities, they would have been in a position
to reflect on and about civilization. From such a position,
early Jews would have been more likely to form more
abstract generalizations than those subjectively invested in
the cultural values that maintain the city itself.
The Jewish religion, like the urban settings that later
generations of Jews gravitated towards, is a man made
construction. Mosaic law could be called a meta-civilizational
technology. Moses’s technology was built on a
knowledge or informal “science” of human natures. For
most of the history of the evolution of life, life has adapted to
nature through the means of natural selection. Judaism, like
other technologies, tends to manipulates nature to adapt to
man, rather than man to nature.-Heisman



Jewish Biblical-modern values devalue death, and thus
devalue natural selection, and thus devalue biological
evolution. What Nazis failed to grasp, however, is that God
does not represent the opposite of evolution, but rather, a
paradigm shift within evolution. Biblical-modern values
devalue biological evolution because they reach beyond
biology towards postbiological evolution.
The obvious incompatibility between the conception of
creation and Darwinian evolution can very easily obscure
the evolutionary reason why these two paradigms necessarily
clash. If God’s rule over “creation” represents the rule of
postbiological evolution over biological evolution, and God  represents the evolutionary successor to biology at the point
at which biology becomes obsolete, then “creation” appears
distinctly anti-evolutionary for a specific evolutionary
reason: the point at which God rules is precisely the point at
which biological evolution has been slowed to a stop.
“Creation” would then be analogous to the creation of a
virtual world (i.e. a computer simulation) that preserves the
memory of biology in postbiological form. The Bible, by
being the embodiment of a postbiological form of evolution
(i.e. memes) embodies a first step towards total creation of
civilization. Those who live in the artificial or “virtual”
world created by following the commandments or ways of
God have taken a step towards realizing the postbiological
paradigm in a biologically based world.-Heisman

Hebrews who choose death rather than the dishonor of
slavery were, by definition, selected out of the population.
The slave, then, is a kind of survivor. The slave chooses life.
The slave is a slave to the fear of death. The slave’s fear of
death provided a sociobiological foundation for a
“universal” valuation of life for a former slave nation.-Heisman

Ascribing infinite value to each individual was the first
step in the social engineering revolution ascribed to Moses.
A singular, undifferentiated God could sanction lone voices
of dissent against the caste differentiations sanctioned by
polytheistic gods. Monotheism represents the end of the
hierarchy of the gods and the common Egyptian-gentile
values they embodied. On the social level, God legitimated a
kind of equality to undo the lingering sense of inferiority
branded into slaves at the bottom of the Egyptian hierarchy.
Remoralization was the condition, and foundation, of
national regeneration.-Heisman


Moses saw that the only hope for Jewish survival lay in
their ability to learn to work together to form a viable people,
just as many secular Jewish leftists believe all people can
learn to work together to form a viable humanity. This
paradoxical Jewish belief in learning often culminates in the
belief that a Jew can fully transcend his or her Jewishness
through learning. Yet the very existence of Jews is a historic
verification of the ability of nurture to overcome nature. It
should not be surprising, then, that many Jews lack perception of biological factors in the social world, or find
them as something to be corrected.

The Biblical value that breaks the cyclical logic of genetic
continuity is infinite valuation of each individual life in the
eyes of God. The transcendent relationship between God
and individuals means that relationships between people,
especially kinship or familial relationships, can be
overridden by an individual’s relationship with God. This
break in the relationship between an individual and all other
humans, taken to its extreme, implies a break in the
continuity of biological relationships that subordinate an
individual to the selfish genes. Moral individualism or
conscience acts as a monkeywrench in the cyclical universe
of subordination to the reproduction of the selfish gene.-Heisman

The view that Bernays and his nemesis, Chomsky, are
consciously united in some Jewish national conspiracy is
comparable to the belief that blacks have consciously
organized to take over world basketball. While the extent of
Jewish media influence can easily be exaggerated, the
inordinate concentration of Jews in highly influential media  positions does require an evolutionary explanation. Jews
may have an inclination to control human behavior with
words and other media forms because Jews owe their very
existence to their ancestor’s ability to control Jewish behavior
with the media technology commonly known as the Bible.
Modern Jewish media control is only an extension of ancient
Jewish media self-control. Jews may have a genetic ability to
influence human behavior with “nurture” because first,
foremost, and fundamentally, Judaism was founded through
the nurturist ability to overpower their own genetically
maladaptive tendencies. Jews exist because they embody
this paradox of a genetic inclination to correct genetic
inclination with “nurture”, i.e. the laws of Moses.-Heisman

With this in mind, one can grasp how the ability to
override one’s own genes through learning (i.e. Mosaic law)
is related to the traditional notion of being created in image
of God. Mosaic law was a like a self-recursive technological
self-enhancement of Jewish sociobiology. God is like this
Mosaic innovation in the ability to self-modify — taken to its
logical extreme. God is transcending genetic determinism
taken to its logical extreme.-Heisman

Darwin helped clarify the ethics underlying pagan
worship of the warrior. The social Darwinian notion that
death itself is a vehicle of goodness means the more death of
the weak and the unfit, the more natural selection. The more
natural selection, the more goodness and progress towards
biological aristocracy. The natural justice of natural selection
is progress through death. From this point of view, the soldier
represents the human with the greatest virtue because the
soldier is a killer.-Heisman

Why should Chomsky choose Jewish causes over non-
Jewish causes simply because he himself is a Jew? Just as
normative kin selection leads towards favoritism for one’s
own, the Jewish kinship paradox culminates in a specific
disfavoritism of one’s own. In consequence, the “Jewish selfhatred”
that Marx and Chomsky have been charged with is
something of a misnomer. Disfavoritism towards one’s own
people is a corollary, and not an aberration, of extreme, selfconsistent
internationalism.-Heisman

In short, Jews survived their kinship paradox, in part,
through a moral mechanism that capitalizes on persecution
and oppression as a source of collective unity. Because every
single member is threatened, consciousness of the value of
each member is strengthened.-Heisman

The self-contradictions of modern egalitarian progress, placing
equality atop a hierarchy of values, was resolved in Biblical
religion through its original grounding in belief in the
transcendence of God. Without God, however, the “logic” of
modern egalitarianism is simply self-contradictory.-Heisman


There is a reason why the problem of equal justice
appears to be insolvable: Life is exploitation. In order to end
exploitation, we must end life. In order to end exploitation,
we must will death.-Heisman

Modern equality began by dismissing the importance of
biology. Ultimately, it leads to the removal of all biological
factors from the equation of life until the achievement of
death. The logic of equality leads towards the elimination of
all forms of hierarchy that separate life or biological
priorities from the larger physical world. Self-consistent
egalitarianism leads to self-consistent materialism: humans
and other life forms have no inherent basis for viewing
themselves as chunks of “superior matter”, with special
rights above all other material things. The idea that biology
has any special privilege whatsoever over non-biology is in
its very conception anti-egalitarian, and to fulfill and achieve
the enlightenment project is to engage in rational biological
self-destruction.-Heisman

Modern egalitarianism can be viewed as a symptom of a
larger process of economization. While in its common use,
“economics” refers to trade, money, supply and demand,
etc., “economization” is a far larger phenomenon that
ultimately amounts to the translation of biology into
technology.-Heisman

One way of interpreting the Mosaic solution to the Jewish
kinship paradox is genes outsmarting themselves. To totally
outsmart the genes in a literal sense would be biological
death. But to totally outsmart the genes in a more selective
sense would be, for example, to transfer biological
intelligence to a technologically superior substrate, i.e. a
computer. The latter solution is analogous to the Jewish
choice of life through the transcendence of biology.
God is a logical corollary of Mosaic law because Mosaic
law that outsmart biology, taken to its extreme, lead to the
discovery of the paradigm shift symbolized and grasped as
God. Going one step further, the idea of genes that outsmart
themselves is comparable to the idea of an artificial
intelligence that outsmarts itself by improving its own basic
program. These are two analogous steps in a larger
progression: just the non-biological intelligence of Mosaic
law outsmarted biology, God-AI would presumably
outsmart its own source code.-Heisman

Human animals are generally built with a naturally
selected bias towards life, and this is the basic root of the
irrational human preference for life over death. The
irrationality of religion is actually an extension of the
irrationality of the will to live. The irrational choice of life
over death, taken to its logical extreme, is the desire for
immortality; the desire to life forever; the desire to live on in
“the afterlife”. For many, the great lies of the great religions
have been justified for they uphold the greatest lie: the lie
that life is fundamentally superior to death.-Heisman


Here we thus have the transcendence of God out of
exponentially self-improving technologies of artificial
intelligence, and the immanence of God, a presence in
everything, that evolves out from the internet and blurs into
our reality and ourselves. If nanobots or other sensor
technologies can read human minds, then God will always
know where you are, what you do, and what you think. God
will be watching you.-Heisman

The idea here is that, at some point, God-AI will be
politics. Consider, then, how this possibility is echoed in the
traditional conception of God. Traditional Biblical ethics are
primarily domestic ethics; politically internal ethics. The Ten
Commandments, for example, are domestic ethics. Domestic
ethics, characteristic of treatment of conventional insiders,
can be contrasted with ethics characteristic of treatment of
political enemies. The Bible took steps towards making
domestic ethics universal; towards a world in which
outsiders are included into the larger community under
God. This made traditional sense for a distinct theological
reason: it was assumed that God rules over human
pretensions to politics, and that, ultimately, God is politics.-Heisman


To build or not to build? “This question I believe will
divide humanity more bitterly in the 21st century than the
question which divided humanity so bitterly in the 20th,
namely, “Who should own capital?””139 While keeping in
mind that Karl Marx was wrong in fundamental ways, the
question of who owns capital will amount to the question of
who owns the machines; who own technology. It is because
de Garis does not see the connection between the question of
who own capital and the question of who owns advanced
AIs that he remains stuck in the Terran/Cosmist dichotomy.
Marx was foresightful in recognizing that the relentless
accumulation of capital has transformative consequences —
but not foresightful enough to identify the transformative
consequences of AI. Capitalism will develop machines that
displace human labor and the displacement of human labor
by technology will eventually necessitate socialism. The
connection between capitalism and superhuman AIs is that
capitalism drives technological evolution forward and is,
without consciously intending to, driving the evolution of
artificial intelligence. There is every reason to think that
advanced automation and early AI will displace human
labor, create unprecedented unemployment, and necessitate
a new socialistic order.-Heisman

Jesus was different because his soul was different. He was
both inside and outside Judaism simultaneously. The secret to
fathoming the depths of Christianity is to grasp that Jesus’s
soul was half-Jewish-half-Roman. A Tao of interwoven
opposites, he was spiritually united only in faith in God.
Insider within outsider and outsider within insider, Jesus
was a Jew-Roman Jew within Judaism within the Roman
Empire within the Kingdom of God within the Kingdom of
Caesar within the soul of a Jewish Roman-Jew.-Heisman

Birth through rape means existence is sin. Why, then,
would God let Jesus be born? To be persecuted and
tortured? To stand on moral or spiritual ground, he had to
deny himself as a biological being. He had to deny himself “in
the flesh”. If Jesus was to hate sin, he had to hate himself.
The world decreed that he must hate himself for ever being
born and Jesus, in turn, turned against the entire world. To
undo the sin of rape, Jesus had to completely relinquishment
his biological body. His body had to be tortured. The act of
rape could be eliminated only if Jesus’s body was
eliminated.-Heisman

A good Christian should ask himself or herself: have you
hated your mother today? Christian love is not universal
because Jesus specifically preached hatred of the family.
Christian love cannot be universal if the Christian must
“hate…his own life”.
Starting with his very own Jewish family in Nazareth,
Jesus attacked kin selective altruism, and hence, kin selective
selfishness at its very root. Kinship, including the most
radical kinship of one’s relationship to one’s self, must be
hated, not incidentally, but necessarily since the identity of
the self is interwoven with the kinship community that bore
that self as an extension of it (i.e. as an expression of genetic
fitness). Along with the group values of shame and honor
that Jesus attacks, self-consistent hatred deracinates the self
from the claims and bonds of kinship and its entire world of
values.

Without accounting for Jesus’s hatred of the family one,
very simply, cannot understand Christianity. Jesus did not
preach a superficial doctrine of “universal love” but, rather,
a hatred of selfishness so total that it attacked the selfish love
of father and mother, and sister and brother. The
“universalism” of Christianity is built upon a refutation of
the “universalism” of the values of the common, patriarchal
family. Pure, literal individual egoism is, in its implications,
the negation of subordination to kinship logic, and
“altruism” against the egoism of the family was the supreme
individual egoism of Jesus as the negation of subordination
to familial altruism. Christianity is a distinctive source of the implicit Western
modern valuation that kin selective altruism is ultimately evil.
Hatred of kin selective altruism is the foundation of the
distinctly Christian form of altruism that systematically
negates those kinship roots. Jesus’s love of the stranger is
founded upon “Christian” hatred of the family. It is from this
attack on family values that a distinctively Christian life
follows. The traditional negation of Christianity’s roots in
Jewish sociobiology is only an extension of this interior logic.
The demolition of the family is the deepest, most
profound human foundation of Jesus’s moral innovation.
Without this thorough attack on the family, the purity of
Jesus’s vision of the end slips back into Judaism’s honoring
of father and mother on the path to the end. But with this
overcoming of the family, Jesus’s vision was consummated
and Christianity was born.

The great Roman hierarchy was built on a central
contradiction: the glorified selfish altruism of duty to Rome.
Christianity worked by exposing this contradiction to Jesus’s
radicalization of the ideal of altruism: consistent self-sacrifice
unto the self-destruction of the ego. This was the seditious
genius of Jesus. Christianity deconstructed the Roman
hierarchy by pulling the thread of altruism loose from its
conventional association with familial love and thus
unraveled the whole structure as if a yarn from a knitted
sweater.

Love killed honor. The values of honor and shame are
appropriate for group moralities where the group is valued
over “the individual”. Crucially, such a morality is
inconceivable without a sense of group identity. Jesus’s
morality became liberated from a specifically Jewish group
identity. Once it dominated gentile morality, it also eroded
kin and ethnic identity. The Christian war against honor
moralities became so successful and traditional its
premodern origins were nearly forgotten along with the
native pagan moralities it conquered.

Liberalism continues the Christian paradigm by
interpreting Homo sapiens as individuals, rather than
members of groups such as racial groups. If it is wrong to
assume Jesus can be understood on the basis of group
membership, and his half-Jewish/half-Roman descent is a
key to understanding this, then the evolutionary connection
between Christianity and modern liberalism becomes
clearer. Jesus was a paradigmatic individual exception to
group rules, and his example, universalized, profoundly
influenced modern liberal emphasis on individual worth in
contradistinction to assumptions of group membership.

It was precisely because shame in his hereditary origins
was so radical, and his pride in his non-biological identity as
the “son of God” was so radical, that Jesus helped initiate a
radical break with the shame/honor ethics of the ancient
pagan world. Jesus’s values implicated the end of the
hereditary world by living the logical consequences of
denying the importance of his hereditary origins. This is a
central premise underlying the entire modern rupture with
the ancient world: breaking the import of hereditary origins
in favor of individual valuations of humans. In escaping the
consequences of a birth that, in his world, was the most
ignoble possible, Jesus initiated the gentile West’s rupture
with the ancient world. Jesus’s repression of shame in his
own biological birth was a sociobiological foundation of
Christianity’s evolutionary impact on modern values.
The rupture between the ancient and the modern

The average secular liberal rejects Biblical stories as
mythology without rejecting the compassion-oriented moral
inheritance of the Bible as mythology. That people, still, after
Nietzsche, still tout these old, juvenile enlightenment
critiques of Christianity would seem to be another refutation
of the belief that a free and liberal society will inevitably lead
to a progress in knowledge. The primitive enlightenment
critique of Christianity as a superstition used as a form of
social control usually fails to account that its “social control”
originated as a weapon that helped to bring down the
Goliath of Rome.

Christian memes impacted Christianized genes by
making the highest the lowest, the first the last, the alpha the
omega and, in general, rewriting the rules of the social game.
Christianity literally helped to breed the progressive left by
gradually altering the social status of certain human types. It
made conventional Darwinian winners moral losers and
enshackled the genetically adaptive function of pagan
virtues in its moral snares.

Within the hypocrisy industry that Christianity created,
those inconsistent with general ideal principles tend to be
the ones that survive. To be fully consistent would be as
biologically suicidal as dying on the cross. The ethically
honest ones tend to be selected out of the population. The
cheaters of these ethical principles tend to multiply. In short,
the supremacy of Christian ideals tends to breed a
bourgeoisie; egoists who follow the moral letter in a practical
sense while trampling over ideal spirit. This is why
Pharisees survived to become the ancestors of most Jews
while Jesus got the cross. This is how Christianity helped to
create the modern world.

The history of early Christianity has notable points of
resemblance with the modern working-class movement.
Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of
oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves
and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all
rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both
Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming
salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this
salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism
places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both
Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming
salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this
salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism
places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both
are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and
made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of
the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of
religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all
persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge
victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its
appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in
the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years
socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory
absolutely certain.-frederich engels

Christian altruism is diametrically opposed to Roman
altruism. Christian altruism economized Roman altruism. By
economized, I mean that Christian altruism effectually
equals, counters, undoes, and unravels the synthesis of
virtue that made Roman imperial aristocracy viable.
Whereas Roman values synthesized the good with the virtues
of the soldier, Biblical monotheism disassociated the good
from the virtues of the soldier. This is a form of
economization in the sense that the synthesis of values
conducive to political supremacy are analyzed, dissected,
and disassociated in way that directly opposes the humanly
political.

Christianity collapsed into capitalism, in part, because
Christianity attacked the patriarchal virtues of duty and
family that override selfish individualism. Above all, it was
the Christian valuation of a form of altruism that subverts
kin selective altruism that helped pave the way towards
capitalist individualism. In a sense, Christianity led the
modern West to a state more like Jews (Judaism was
 originally a technological corrective against selfish
individualism or internal factionalism). This means that
Christianity inadvertently helped produce the capitalist
world criticized by Marx.

The dawn of Christianity marked a great split between
biological and postbiological evolution because Christian
values generated a great split between body and mind, i.e.
between genetically adaptive inclinations of the body and an
ethical standard in opposition to bodily inclinations.
Whereas paganism tended to harmonize mind and body,
Christian values tended to divide mind and body. Christian
memes such as the notion of the Kingdom of God, if taken
seriously, signify memes in opposition to genes, and memes
ruling over genes.

The Zeitgeist of modern progress that Dawkins referred to
can only be contrasted with Biblical teachings if the spirit of
Christianity is contrasted with the laws (or actual practices)
of Christians. This just happens to be quite similar to the
paradigm of Jesus condemning Pharisaic hypocrisy. Jesus
taught reverence for spirit over law. Jesus took the most
distinctive social principles of Judaism — “the essence” or
spirit of Judaism — and radicalized it. What Jesus did on a
theological level, liberals do on a political level.


The infinite value of human lives in ancient Judaism
exposes a technical deficiency; the inability to cohere into an
effective, unified, national body of obedient individuals. Yet
if what distinguishes Jews is negative; a lack of capacity; a
dissent against the Überorganism model, how does that add
up to a positive identity? If an Überorganism, via kinship, is
by definition more than the sum of its individual members,
how can Jews be considered more than the sum of their
parts, if they simply oppose it? Lack of apparent exploitation
of members as cogs in the Überorganism was reinterpreted
as a basis for moral superiority as God’s chosen people. The
practical, technical inability to subordinate and organize
towards the complex differentiations of the Überorganism
model was flaunted as the foundation for a new moral order.

In consequence, Judaism works because Jewish values, in
their most uncompromised forms, are systematically
incompatible with the Überorganism model represented by
Egyptians or Nazis. The very existence of the complex
sociobiological differentiations that culminate in an
Überorganism is dependent on the subordination of its
members to the political whole. Dissidence towards that way
of life in the form of omega altruism over alpha altruism is
the definition of its dysfunction. Taken to its extreme, omega
altruism culminates in the death of the political system. The
moral reversal from means to ends; from a slave-technology
to a child of God, is an implicit program for the deconstruction
of the Überorganism model represented by
Egyptians and Nazis.

The extreme political right leads to treating individuals
only as means of their selfish genes. The extreme political
left leads to mass individual survivalism that overrides the
kin selective developmental logic of the selfish genes. The
extreme right leads to political control over biological
evolution. The extreme left leads to overriding direct control
over biological evolution.

Modernity, whether liberal democratic or Marxist, is
characterized by the precedence of economics over racialbiology
and politics. The Judeocide was economic interest
mastered by biological priorities. The most extreme
implications of Hitler’s racial-biological premises were
economically irrational when judged by the premise of “the
individual”, i.e. the economics of death camps. Conversely,
the economic premises of capitalist or communist systems
make the extreme implications of racial-biological premises
irrational. Hitler refuted Marx by recognizing the
incompatibility of these priorities and by overcoming Marx’s
assumption of natural economic determinism.

Aber es ist ihm damit nicht Ernst. To be serious about an
idea, one must be push it to its most extreme consequence
and conclusion. Are moderns serious about the idea that
biology does not matter? Are moderns willing to push
economic materialism to its logical conclusion?

Judaism is built on the general valuation that life is
superior to death. The entire Jewish religion is built around a
 fundamental separation of life from death. Auschwitz was
the absolute violation of this separation that culminated in
the Sonderkommando’s life in death.

Just as Anglo-Americans killed Germans in order to
restore the principle of the sanctity of human life, to choose
survival is to choose between notions of evil. The
Sonderkommando demonstrates how vices or moral
compromises can ultimately equal the most outright crimes.
But, above all, reasoning strictly upon the premises of
modern individualistic philosophy forces one to accept that
the Sonderkommandos were right. The Sonderkommandos
were right, strictly speaking, from the values characteristic
of modernity: the “rational” value of individual selfpreservation.

A limited tolerance for
Christianity and especially groups such as the “Positive
Christians” was, for Hitler, something to be temporarily
entertained among the masses. Pastor Martin Niemöller saw
the Positive Christians as nationalists and racists first, and
Christians second. Yet the “positive” in Positive Christianity
was actually only the residual paganism that was never fully
eradicated in the first place. “Negative” Christianity, or
altruism that opposes duty to the state, would correspond to
actual Christianity as proscribed by the ethics of Jesus.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and bretheren, and sisters, yea, and
his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).

Just as Jesus had turned family values on their head, the
Nazis would turn Jewish familial values on their head. Nazi
heaven created a world where Jews destroy one another
rather than help one another. The greatest victory of all over
the Jewish “invention of conscience” was mastery over the
conscience of Sonderkommandos that actively participated
in the destruction of their own humanity. The Nazis killed
the souls of Sonderkommandos by forcing them to help
eliminate Jewish bodies.

What, then, did the Nazis attempt to do? The Nazis
attempted to invert the inverters; to radically uproot the
radical uprooters; to deracinate the race that deracinates the
races; to deny the value of the race that denies the value of
race; to arrogate an infinite valuation of death upon their
infinite valuation of life; to meet their unqualified will to live
with an unqualified will to kill. It was because Jews
spawned an ethic of kindness and humanity that Jews were
singled out for the ultimate cruelty and inhumanity. Nazis
made the highest law the killing of the highest moral law
“Thou shall not kill”. The Nazis willed the rebirth of
 biological evolution through the revaluation of the value of
death. Auschwitz represents a kind of “principle” and that
“principle” is biological evolution through Darwinian
selection. The principle of equality implies the end of
biological selection, and the Nazis obsessively identified
Jews with the principle of equality. The God of the Jews,
Jewish egalitarianism, and Jewish ethics selected for the
elimination of selection. Auschwitz was selection for the
elimination of the selectors of the elimination of selection.

Just as the Nazis radically desecrated the Biblical
commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, the deniers radically
desecrate the Biblical commandment “Thou shalt not lie”.
Just as the act of killing Jews kills conscience, the act of lying
about the murders kills conscience, multiplying the Nazi
will to annihilate the Judeo-Christian roots of conscience.
When combined, these strategies amount to the final aim of
the total sociobiological annihilation of all Jewish existence.

Nazism was not purely German phenomenon, needless to
say. It incorporated an intellectual pillar in the English
materialism of Darwin. Darwin represented a far more
radical historical materialism than Marx: biological
materialism, or the notion that humans are material things.
So for Heidegger to accept Nazism, he was inevitably led to
accept a basis in Darwinian materialism.

Even if
Hitler killed every single Jew on Earth, economic-technological
development would lead to the Singularity no
less. In other words, even if Jews have played a
disproportionate role in developing the path towards
postbiological evolution, the law of accelerating returns
would lead towards postbiological AI — with or without
Jews.

More than the façade of castles, for some it was the
Normans themselves and their entire conquering way of life
that represented tyranny, aristocracy, and inequality. For
some who called themselves “modern”, to oppose the
Norman was to advance freedom, democracy, and equality.
For some, to oppose the Norman was to oppose the political
tradition that began with William the Conqueror, the
founding father of the British Empire.

What Paine was griping about has not been adequately
explained. Yet a person socialized within the norms of
liberal democracy is, in a certain way, one of the most
prejudiced against the assumptions required to understand
him. Americans are the most biased against Paine’s insight
because most of its founders bestowed upon them the
foundational, freedom system interpretation by which to not
see the unpleasantness of the deeper origins of the founding
itself. It is precisely because liberal democratic institutions
evolved as a peaceable political solution to a hereditary
discontinuity between rulers and ruled that its citizen fail to
understand why that would be a problem. The impersonal
style of “modern” Western government is the response to an
original breakdown in kinship relationships and this elicits
common sense skepticism as to whether race and kinship
really matter at all. Liberal democracy is a political solution
that formally makes kinship not matter because kinship does
matter.

Of course, that blacks possessed a distinctive African
ancestry is admissible, but the ancestry of the South’s ruling
race is apparently inadmissible. This must be a state of affairs
almost more peculiar than slavery itself. Everyone else
across the world is permitted a distinctive ethnic or racial
identity except the great Southern slave masters. For some
peculiar reason, the original Southern slave masters are not
allowed to have a distinct ethnic or racial identity. This
means that the only people in American history who
apparently have no distinct ethnic or racial origins beyond
being white are precisely the same people who thought
other people could and should be enslaved on the basis of
their ethnic or racial origins.

These aristocratic planters must have been the most
raceless, bloodless, deracinated, rootless, cosmopolitan
universalists ever known to history. We must conclude that
of all white people, these aristocrats must have valued
heredity or genealogy the very least. The Virginia planters
were most peculiar, not for being owners of black slaves, but
for being the least ethnically self-conscious white people in
world history. Is this an accurate reflection of reality?


This is really one of the great, peculiar paradoxes of world
history: the elite Southern planters, one of the most extreme,
unapologetic, and explicitly racist groups in history, are
precisely those who may have the most obscure racial
identity in history. Their claim to fame has been tied to
identifying blacks as a race of natural slaves and in
identifying themselves as race of natural masters — a
“master race” without a racial identity. Perhaps the time has
come to recognize that they have also merited a claim to
fame simply for the obscurity of their racial identity.

It is as if, in America, of all places, no explanation is
required for this profound cultural difference between North
and South. America was supposedly a country defined by
“the qualities and defects that characterize the middle class”.
But the idea of a slave race assumes the existence of a master
race, not a bourgeois or middle-class race. The Union was
not threatened by the leadership of poor Southern whites; it
was threatened by the leadership of a subgroup of whites
with an aristocratic philosophy that mastered the entire
cultural order of the South.

The issue of slavery was literally beyond the document
called the United States Constitution and the American Civil
War is the classic demonstration of the impossibility of
understanding American history on the “legal” principles on
that paper. Southern slavery, defended by the United States
Constitution, was a direct extension of Norman-Cavalier
culture of conquest and mastery. This is the historic basis of
the racial equality between Northern Anglo-Saxons and
blacks: both had been enslaved by Normans. Normans
enslaved the black race in America just as they had once
enslaved the Anglo-Saxon race in England.
It appears that Northern Anglo-Saxons believe that they
are racially superior to blacks on this point: while blacks
bear the burden of history as a once enslaved and oppressed
people, Anglo-Saxons are above such historical misfortunes.
While blacks had been victims of past racial oppression, the
angelic, slave-liberating Anglo-Saxons of the North stand in
transcendent moral majesty over such base origins. The
Anglo-Saxons, it would seem, are only conquerors and never
the conquered; only free and never slaves.

Anglo-Saxons could never have been treated akin to
niggers. Saxploitation is impossible! One can only suppose
that Anglo-Saxon believe they are Superniggers. American
Anglo-Saxons seemingly believe that they are an Über-race;
a race superior to race; the race whose superiority consists of
being the only race superior to race. Since Anglo-Saxons are
always clearly superior to the status of niggers “reduced by
the law to perpetual slavery” they must be Superniggers. (I
admit that I sampled this theme of “Supernigger” from an
old album by that Supernigger of comedy, Richard Pryor.)
Southerners were much more modest on this point.

While the proud Northern victory in the Civil War freed
both Anglo-Saxons and blacks from the shadow of their
historic oppressors, admitting the Norman Yoke would also
be admitting a past of Anglo-Saxon slavery. Anglo-Saxon
racial pride itself demanded that the victory be sublimated
in universal terms. Why, then, is America the exceptional
and paradoxical country where a black man can become
president? The answer is Anglo-Saxon racial pride.

Liberal democracy in the English-speaking world is not
the product of either Anglo-Saxons or Normans. It would be
more accurate to claim that liberal democracy is a product of
the evolution of an ethnic conflict between Normans and
Anglo-Saxons. These two groups with opposite political
tendencies were neither fully compatible nor fully
incompatible, and the grinding tension between times of
reconciliation and times of civil war produced the dynamics
of liberal democratic “universalism”.

While egalitarian individualism is an abstract idea,
one observable consequence of its political application is an
increased indifference to kinship relations. The failure to
decisively resist and expel the foreign Norman body in
England correlated with the rise of individualism. In other
words, failure to preserve the freedom and integrity of the
kinship foundations of the body politic was compensated
with the rise of the freedom and integrity of the individual
body. This breakdown towards individualism was further
universalized when it was discovered that it could be used
to oppose the ‘strong family values’ that was the basis of the
Norman nepotism system.

What was the difference between the new Norman rulers
of England and the old? A law called the murdrum fine, a
high monetary penalty, was imposed by Normans for
homicide against Normans. This collective fine was imposed
on the unit of local government called the hundred. It was
thought necessary due to prevalence of attacks against the
conquerors. If a Norman was found murdered and his
assassin was not apprehended within five days, the entire
hundred where the murder took place would be forced to
pay this steep fine.496 This policy served as an effective
deterrent to murderous expressions of ethnic conflict.
Why has the English language and civilization conquered
the world? The beginning of English-speaking world’s
inordinately imperialistic political force began with the
Norman Conquest. The inordinately nepotistic behavior that
characterized the conquest was only a relatively extreme
expression of common kin selection. People, after all, “are
biased in favor of their kin in every human society.”498 Like
rhesus macaques, people have inherited the genetically
adaptive behaviors of their pre-historic ancestors. Thus, if
we are to inquire into the origins of political order and thus
into a pre-historic “state of nature”, a study of rhesus
macaques can shed light on elements of our common
evolutionary history.

Moreover, any attempt to mark out an especial vilification
of Normans for engaging in genetically adaptive behavior
could be considered identical to a general vilification of
human nature itself. Every human alive owes their existence
to their ancestors’ willingness to engage in war to defend
their lives for themselves and their genetic successors. As
Maestripieri put it, “[A] despotic and nepotistic organization
makes an army a perfect war machine” because it is well
adapted to its function, “just as the anatomy and shape of a
bird’s beak is adapted to its function, for example, of
cracking hard seeds.”512

The strategic marriage of Emma of Normandy to an
English king was not separate from the gradual, protocolonial,
ingratiation and infiltration of Normans in the
years that preceded the Conquest. These developments were
preambles to an aggressive kin selection strategy that set its
predatory eyes on an England weak from internal divisions,
Vikings invasions, and the poor political judgment of King
Ethelred. As Searle observed, “when one compares the
leaders of William II’s generation with their contemporaries
in France and Anglo-Saxon England, the Norman leaders’
ability to cooperate is their dominant characteristic and
underlies the discipline that they exhibited.”523 The
Domesday Book of 1086, the most systematic accounting of
the spoils of England, was only the culmination of Norman
spying, scouting, and shrewd accounting of their English
prey — a program that had begun well before 1066.
Through this conflict between the need for legitimacy and
an aggressive kin selection strategy, the question of whether
William had any intention to share power with native
Anglo-Saxons can be addressed. Although military
domination and turning the other cheek are not the easiest
aspirations to reconcile, William made the appearance of
giving it a try. By making rebellions the occasion for
expropriations, the conquered natives themselves could be
denounced as treacherous aggressors.

The Anglo-Saxons were divided and conquered. The
maintenance of the appearance of cooperation with the
natives was a cynical ploy. This conclusion is justified, not
simply by a surmise of intentions, but by an evaluation of
the kin selective behavioral patterns both preceding and
succeeding the Conquest. If heredity mattered among all
medieval people, for the composition of a hereditary
aristocracy it was decisive. Normans had greater genetic
interests in their own kin over any Englishman and that was
decisive. The most able or powerful Englishmen were the
greatest competitors to Norman genetic interests and this is
why the native aristocracy was annihilated while the masses
were largely spared.

All of the arguments about rightful succession to
England’s throne in 1066 confirm the underlying assumption
that some form of kinship formed a basis for political
legitimacy. The association of kinship and legitimacy was
part of the common sense of medieval times. If kinship did
not matter, one would be at a complete loss to explain why
wars were fought, why pedigrees were preserved, and why
the entire political order was routinely obsessed with
connections of heredity. William’s hereditary claims, for
example, implied that kinship connection was such an
important basis for legitimacy that it trumped even the
disconnect of French language and culture (notwithstanding
the proto-colonial inroads Normans had been making
among England’s rulers). Without a sociobiological
accounting of the kinship values of the adversaries at
Hastings, there is no way to realistically account for what
these people were fighting for.

Yet a time comes when the niceties are overdrawn, the
welcome is worn out, and it is time to thrown out the inlaws.
The Puritan and American revolutions asserted the
hereditary rights of the common people; natural rights;
birthrights of Englishmen, and later, the rights of man.
Those impeccably genetically adaptive genocidal behaviors
that characterized the Conquest were outlawed by the rights
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For the
conquered, individual rights were genetically adaptive.

This condition of hereditary hostility against the ruling
order, and not a purely structural organization of society, is
what captures the original meaning of “feudalism”.
“Feudalism” is manifest in the lingering “class” conflicts
between the conquerors and the conquered. “Feudalism” is
exemplified, not by the abstract principle that the king owns
all the land or even the “medieval” social structure brought
about the Conquest, but by the bloodfeud unleashed in protomodern
England. The English Civil War was not fought
against “feudalism”, it was ‘blood-feudalism’.

1688 would overcome 1660 as the new 1066. For the Saxon
nation it was, as Thomas Jefferson later put it, a “re-conquest
of their rights”.554 This is how “conquest”, which would
seem to logically entail slavery and the loss of rights, could
be conceived as liberty and the (re-)gaining of rights.
A key insight of historian George Garnett’s Conquered
England was the recognition that, while the Normans
preserved many Anglo-Saxons traditions after 1066, they
often changed their meaning. So while traditional Anglo-
Saxons forms were preserved, their meanings were often
fundamentally altered under a “veil of propriety”. There is a
deep similarity between 1066 and 1688 in this respect: the
form of the Norman invasion and conquest of 1066 was
preserved in 1688, but its meaning was changed. The
“revolutionary” change of 1688 was successful as
paradigmatic English tradition because it was a conservation
of the form of the Conquest that subverted its original
meanings. That was the historical meaning of the
“revolution” of 1688.
The Dutch-Germanic-Protestant
Conquest of 1688 would overcome the Norman Conquest of
1066, not in the moral manner of the Puritans, but by
attempting to outdo the conquerors at their own game. The
carefully stage-managed invasion or conquest of 1688 could
be a “bloodless” or non-violent revolution because its whole
importance was symbolic. William of Orange’s conquest of
England was designed to override, overcome, and replace
the symbolic importance of 1066 with a new constitutional
paradigm for the Kingdom. This was the English way of
political equality: Norman and Saxon could each feel that
they had conquered one another.

Ultimately, William superiority over the other claimants
to England’s throne was superiority in force of arms. The
brute fact of the Conquest speaks for itself: any Anglo-
Saxons who believed William’s rule was legitimate were
saddled with a new Norman aristocracy. Any Anglo-Saxons
who believed William’s rule was illegitimate were saddled
with a new Norman aristocracy. The fait accompli was
justified through a legitimate principle of the European
civilization of that time: the right of conquest.

To be consistent, Locke’s argument had to undo the entire
logic of patriarchy from the political to the familial. He drew
some exceptions, but the line of his thinking undoes kin
selective preferences generally, leaving a raw product of
unrelated, isolated individuals. Freedom and equality thus
evolved as a substitute and replacement for the kin selective
factors that underlay the hive model of human political
relations. The impersonal nature of modern liberal
democratic government is, at least in part, an adaptation to
the perception that the government is constituted by cold
and distant masters rather than the genuine fathers of the
nation. “Natural” rights were opposed to an unnatural, faux-father
government.

Unable to fully conserve a lost Saxon past in way that it
was preserved among a certain cognate nation, this liberal
crypto-conservatism would instead conserve both rebellion
and acquiescence to the role they had adapted to in the old
order. If Saxon democrats were to institute a traditional
hierarchical state, associated with the Normans, they would
lose an essential element of their identity. The revolution thus
conserved the non-aristocratic identity they had adapted
to.625 Keeping government weak also conserves this Anglo-
Saxon adaptation in the sense that government retains the
assumption of its alienation from the people. The
universalism of Anglo-Saxon democracy conserves the loss
of a distinctly political-national Anglo-Saxon identity.

American democracy is a continuation of the English
“class” system in that historical Anglo-Saxon ethnic hostility
to the descendants of the Normans is implicitly ranked as
the highest “class” of ethnic hostility. Other ethnic hostilities,
especially towards blacks, are ranked as of an inferior
“class” of ethnic-racial hostility. The institutionalization of
this fossilized ethnic hostility in cultural anti-government
resentment is, in effect, how America has preserved itself in
spite of the many other ethnic hostilities that have
subsequently emerged.

A strong strain of the ‘Saxonist’ political tradition,
exemplified by Jefferson, is the valuation of a feminine,
passive role for the state. The government is there to be like
a mother who makes sure her children play nice with one
another and not kill each other. She makes sure no one
pilfers his or her neighbor’s property, especially if one owns
an unequal amount of it. Aside from this, the only thing that
government should aspire to is impotence. Senility is a
virtue of good government; government that is weak,
emasculated, easy to push around, and manipulate if it gets
out of line. Somehow, along the way, this formula for
political weakness produced the greatest superpower in
world history

The universalism of American anti-aristocratic political
ideals represents the height, not the nadir, of Anglo-Saxon
ethnocentrism. American universalism is an expression of
the world-historical magnitude of the Norman domination
of the Anglo-Saxon political world

The primary reason for the abstract egalitarian
identification of Anglo-Saxon and blacks, then, was only
partly the empathy of one subjugated people for another.
First and foremost, the radical Saxon vendetta against the
old conquering class was so old and bitter, it proved far
stronger than racial hostility to blacks. The revolutionary
reverse apartheid against the elite Norman legacy took
precedence over any prejudice against blacks. The
universalism of the revolution, although deeply influenced
by Christianity, is a sublimated radicalization of Anglo-
Saxon ethnocentrism which implicated blacks as an
afterthought.

The Confederate war for mastery over other humans was
in principle the same as the battle of Hastings and its
consequence of Normans as masters over England. The
revolutionary system of rights that fought duty to the
British-Conquest order in America eventually implicated the
neo-Norman slavery of the South. This Jeffersonian triumph
of rights over duties was the source of Fitzhugh’s most basic
complaints: “Men seek to become independent in order to
cease to pay labor, in order to become masters, without the
cares, duties, and responsibilities of masters.”708

Jefferson’s ownership of black slaves only illustrates the
depths of his egalitarian-ethnocentrism: equality was
designed to bring down the Normans, not to raise up the
blacks. While the idea that equality is superior to inequality
may be self-contradictory, the argument that democracy is
superior to aristocracy correlated with the argument that
Anglo-Saxons are superior to Normans. By the time of the
rise of the Anglo-Saxon racialist interpretation of Manifest
Destiny, it became increasingly obvious that Anglo-Saxon
supremacism over Norman supremacism was being
disguised as racial egalitarianism.

Whereas in 1066 it was the Anglo-Saxons who were the
technologically backward provincials, in the 1860s the tables
had turned. Just as the Restoration of 1660 preserved the
Founding union of Norman and Saxon established by
William the Conqueror in Britain, the Restoration of 1865
preserved the Founding union of Norman and Saxon in
America. Just as the Norman Conquest of 1066 destroyed the
Anglo-Saxon aristocratic order, the Anglo-Saxon conquest of
1865 destroyed this Norman aristocratic order. This was the
historic racial equality achieved by the American Civil War.

I no longer can open pdf files, does anyone have a plain text version of Heisman?

Stuart- wrote:

I no longer can open pdf files, does anyone have a plain text version of Heisman?

This should be it:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank you.

From pages 608 and 609:

Quote :

The scientific question of whether millions of Jews were
killed by Nazis during World War Two is, in a general sense,
a perfectly legitimate question even if there are unusual
questions of political motive. If Judeocide deniers claim that
Jews have befitted politically and economically from the
Judeocide, this implies that the Judeocide denier's position
would result in damage to Jewish interests. Conversely, I
also think that the Judeocide has been exploited by some
Jewish groups, in some cases to silence criticism of Israeli
political policies. The outstanding point here, however, is
that even if both the Judeocide and Judeocide denial have
been used as propaganda tools, this makes not an iota of
difference in regard to the evidence that the Nazi genocide
of the Jews did or did not happen.

Hitler warned, in a speech to the Reichstag on January 30,
1939, of "the destruction [Vernichtung] of the Jews in
Europe". Other than declarations such as this, Hitler was
cunning enough to distance himself, for the sake of his
public reputation, from what were very likely private orders
for the genocide of the Jews. Even if humans have inherited
inclinations towards war over evolutionary history, Hitler's
war against other European nations never would have
happened spontaneously, i.e. without Hitler's explicit
orders. Hitler's war against the Jews was no different. This is
true even if Auschwitz speaks the language of the genes
more than the language of the memes and the ultimate
evidence for Auschwitz is thus to found more in what Nazis
did, rather than only in what Nazis said.

From this standpoint, I would emphasize three lines of
evidence to corroborate the historicity of the Nazi genocide
of at least five million Jews during World War Two. First,
a general sociobiological understanding of human nature
that places the Judeocide as one of many genocides that have
taken place in human history. Second, a more specific
sociobiological understanding of Nazism as a historical
expression of a kin selective German Kultur . Thirdly, specific
historical evidence for genocide at Auschwitz and other
Nazi extermination camps, the best example I have found
being Tlie Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial by
architect Robert Jan van Pelt.

I assume he's incorrect about the number being anywhere near five million, can anyone explain this dishonesty?

Stuart- wrote:

From pages 608 and 609:

Quote :

The scientific question of whether millions of Jews were
killed by Nazis during World War Two is, in a general sense,
a perfectly legitimate question even if there are unusual
questions of political motive. If Judeocide deniers claim that
Jews have befitted politically and economically from the
Judeocide, this implies that the Judeocide denier's position
would result in damage to Jewish interests. Conversely, I
also think that the Judeocide has been exploited by some
Jewish groups, in some cases to silence criticism of Israeli
political policies. The outstanding point here, however, is
that even if both the Judeocide and Judeocide denial have
been used as propaganda tools, this makes not an iota of
difference in regard to the evidence that the Nazi genocide
of the Jews did or did not happen.

Hitler warned, in a speech to the Reichstag on January 30,
1939, of "the destruction [Vernichtung] of the Jews in
Europe". Other than declarations such as this, Hitler was
cunning enough to distance himself, for the sake of his
public reputation, from what were very likely private orders
for the genocide of the Jews. Even if humans have inherited
inclinations towards war over evolutionary history, Hitler's
war against other European nations never would have
happened spontaneously, i.e. without Hitler's explicit
orders. Hitler's war against the Jews was no different. This is
true even if Auschwitz speaks the language of the genes
more than the language of the memes and the ultimate
evidence for Auschwitz is thus to found more in what Nazis
did, rather than only in what Nazis said.

From this standpoint, I would emphasize three lines of
evidence to corroborate the historicity of the Nazi genocide
of at least five million Jews during World War Two. First,
a general sociobiological understanding of human nature
that places the Judeocide as one of many genocides that have
taken place in human history. Second, a more specific
sociobiological understanding of Nazism as a historical
expression of a kin selective German Kultur . Thirdly, specific
historical evidence for genocide at Auschwitz and other
Nazi extermination camps, the best example I have found
being Tlie Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial by
architect Robert Jan van Pelt.

I assume he's incorrect about the number being anywhere near five million, can anyone explain this dishonesty?

Dissonance: he was a Jew himself, after all.

I just found this from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Kvasir wrote:

Quote :

California School District Under Fire for Holocaust-Denial Assignment  
A California public school district has backpedaled after an eighth-grade assignment — to write a persuasive essay on whether or not the Holocaust occurred — came under serious fire and prompted death threats to administrators.

“We are aware of the controversy surrounding the distribution of an eighth grade writing prompt during the third quarter of the academic year,” notes a press release issued Monday by Rialto Unified School District interim superintendent Mohammed Islam. “The intent of the writing prompt was to exercise the use of critical thinking skills. There was no offensive intent in the crafting of this assignment. We regret that the prompt was misinterpreted.”

The assignment, “Is the Holocaust a Hoax?” was reportedly issued district-wide to eighth graders in April. It asked students to “…write an argumentative essay, based upon cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe [the Holocaust] was an actual event in history or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain wealth…”

District spokesperson Syeda Jafri tells CBS Los Angeles that the district’s superintendent was unaware that the assignment had been issued until angry parents informed his office, and that it had come out of the Education Services Department, which will now undergo sensitivity training. “Absolutely the Holocaust occurred,” Jafri tells CBS. “It was brought to our attention, and we’re not happy. And we are going to correct it.” She says the district is “striking” the offending sentence, although it’s not clear whether the assignment has been nixed, or whether the wording has simply been revised. Jafri adds that both she and Islam have received death threats as a result of the controversy.

It's one of several recent examples of schools landing in hot water as a result of assignments dealing with hot-button issues. In Washington, a middle school was criticized after assigning students to pick cotton as a way to learn about slavery, while fourth graders in Texas were given homework involving the topic of marital infidelity and Detroit middle-school students were tasked with writing an essay on whether they'd rather be slaves or factory workers. Last fall, another California middle school reportedly issued a persuasive writing assignment from a Nazi perspective.

Rialto’s press release about the recent Holocaust-denier assignment continues: “We concur with the United States Holocaust Museum website, which states, ‘Teaching Holocause history demands a high level of sensitivity and keen awareness of the complexity of the subject matter.’ We appreciate the suggestions of the Anti-defamation League, as we have shared goals when it comes to our students and or community. The District will provide additional review of future writing prompts in an effort to ensure appropriate subject matter.”

The Los Angeles chapter of the Anti-Defamation League responded to the Rialto assignment through various statements to media outlets and through a press release it issued on Monday. “It is ADL’s general position that an exercise asking students to question whether the Holocaust happened has no academic value,” notes associate regional director Matthew Friedman in the press release. “It only gives legitimacy to the hateful and anti-Semitic promoters of Holocaust Denial.” He adds that charging eighth graders with the task of proving the Holocaust is dangerous, “especially given the large volume of misinformation on denial websites.”

The statement further notes, “ADL does not have any evidence that the assignment was given as part of a larger, insidious, agenda.  Rather, the district seems to have given the assignment with an intent, although misguided, to meet Common Core standards relating to critical learning skills.”

The figure of "six million" has always been a questionable discrepancy in the belief of the death toll of the Holocaust. Conversely, "six million" has been  indoctrinated into the minds of moderns as deeply negative as Hitler's name has.

There can be no doubt that indeed the National Socialist policies advocated an expungement of Jewish presence and most importantly of Jewish culture and religion, but the actual legitimizing of an "extermination policy" is the ambiguous factor. The cultural-political state of affairs during the early 19th century in Europe was one of economic prosperity more so for those of lesser involvement in the ramifications of Germany's degradation after World War 1 and most of these particular individuals happened to be Jews.

It seems that the over-polarized position of democratic institutional erections and dictatorships during post World War 1 Germany was the catalyst to shock the world into the reality that nationalism of a distinctly racial and cultural pride was still something to behold as a value regardless of its negative view. This is how Germany was placed center stage as that disconcerting yet enticing power to be universally condemned because its self-realization of a higher destiny promoted by Hitler was something of an intimidating Leviathan.

The truth is that there is no realistic way to account for exact figures of mass death in a war as grievous and costly as World War 11. Auschwitz has always been the main concentration camp to be used an an examplary focus of horrors and suffering of the Jews compared to the many other smaller and underdeveloped camps around Europe that probably did not house anywhere near as much as Auschwitz did.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The gas chambers themselves are never actually looked upon as simple "crematoriums" to dispose of the dead. It is also neglected by most moderns that the population of prisoners in these "death camps" consisted not only of Jews, but of allied POWs, Slavs, Pols, traitors and other non-Jewish individuals.

Thing is that there were too many Jews to eradicate and six million even during the course of a decade which was a little less than how long the Third Reich stood for, would not have been sufficient time to kill such a gross number of people considering the manpower, cost of labor, supplies, time management; all would have placed too great of a burden to meet such a genocidal objective.

Many of the Jews were used as workers to meet provisional demands for the war that the Germans lost very quickly to the Red Army after Stalingrad.

Heisman had an interesting take on the enforcement of the Jewish  "Sonderkommandos", who were Jews that carried out the disposal of the death prisoners in the camps for the purposes of self-preservation.

Mitchell Heisman wrote:

The Sonderkommando, by contrast, represented
individual self-interest liberated from kinship or racial ties to
the point where individual self-preservation worked in
diametrical opposition to kin selective self-preservation. In
the Nazi vision of “progress”, however, the consequences of
modernistic individualism are turned upside down through
their logical culmination in radical unfreedom and radical
inequality.

Mitchell Heisman wrote:

Auschwitz represents the attempt to destroy the
biological foundation of the moral standard by which
Auschwitz can be judged evil. The very act of examining
Auschwitz with clear, condemnatory moral value
judgments, as Daniel Jonah Goldhagen does in Hitler’s
Willing Executioners, is an act in defiance of Auschwitz. Yet it
is also a demonstration of the irreconcilability of Nazi values
and Jewish values.

Mitchell Heisman wrote:

the Nazi order sought to unify Germans
within an internal hierarchy. This hierarchy was extended to
non-Germans as German nationalism. Jews, by contrast,
tend to divide against their own internal hierarchy. This
breakdown of hierarchy characteristic of the Jewish kinship
paradox extends to non-Jews as Jewish internationalism.
Alpha altruism is exemplified by the nationalism of
Hitlerism. Omega altruism is exemplified by the
internationalism of Marxism.

and finally...

Mitchell Heisman wrote:

The Jewish kinship paradox meant a Jewish inability to
create an enduring biopolitical synthesis. Instead of a highest
self-reference on the level of biology or the genes, the
ultimate emphasis of Jewish self-reference was God-memes.
In this way, the lack of a highest biopolitical self-reference
lead to moral self-consistency (consistency over
completeness).

Whether or not Heisman believed in his heart of hearts that the Holocaust occurred or not, he approached the relationship between Hitler and the Jews from an purely abstracted sociobiological point of view. He empathized with Hitler in order to understand how Hitler saw the Jews to how he saw his own people. Hitler hated, first and foremost, what the Jews represented, their usurious parasitic nature and what they stood for; there lives on the other hand were merely secondary; incidental.

Moderns love to embellish only the simple acts of murder or to demonize Hitler and the Germans, without seeing that culture and a return to traditional national exclusive native pride (as we see this ethnic awakening happening in the Ukrainian-Russian crisis) was what the cause was geared toward.

There are great articles relating to this rampant Nazi censorship and liberal totalitarian mind control.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The six million figure has some significance in a jew prophecy. It was used extensively even before the war:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

apaosha wrote:

The six million figure has some significance in a jew prophecy. It was used extensively even before the war:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

E.g.,
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So what's the politically correct response when confronted with the prior use of the figure? It's so blatant, I'm curious what their "logical" answer is.

perpetualburn wrote:

So what's the politically correct response when confronted with the prior use of the figure?  It's so blatant, I'm curious what their "logical" answer is.

In the short term, no amount of disputaton or prolixity will dampen consensus.

I verified many of the newspaper articles that are in the above image:

1/29/1905, second article, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
3/29/1906 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
12/02/1914 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
10/18/1918 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
11/12/1919 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
3/29/1933 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
6/1/1933 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
9/08/1935 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
5/31/1936 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
02/23/1938 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
05/02/1938 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
01/15/1939, includes another article with the term "6,000,000", [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Other related articles I found that weren't in the above image:

11/26/1936, second article from bottom of the page, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
1/09/1938 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
7/10/1938 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

----------
A link I found on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

perpetualburn wrote:

So what's the politically correct response when confronted with the prior use of the figure?  It's so blatant, I'm curious what their "logical" answer is.

From [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Number arguement aside, dead is dead."

"unless youre gonna call up john titor and go back in time to do a dead count it happened....cant change it, so"