One of the more common ways that people who try to avoid the jewish question – largely because they claim they want to focus on ‘bigger issues’ like race in general and/or view jews as ‘White’ and/or ‘European’ – is that they engage in what I’d term blaming ‘isms’.
To be specific; what they normally do is that either minimize or downplay the particular responsibility of the jews for the current existential situation which faces European civilization around the world – without actually arguing to the contrary – but rather they seek to blame vague ‘isms’ that they hold are the ‘real culprits’.
What do I mean by vague ‘isms’?
Well generally speaking today these people blame ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’ and/or ‘communism’ – better-educated individuals sometimes use ‘Marxism’ as a more accurate replacement ‘ism’ to ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ – and seek to suggest if only we ‘better understood’ that their particular ‘ism’ is ‘the culprit’; then key problems would be solved without recourse to ‘blaming the jews’.
You’ll often see these individuals – who often want to drone on endlessly about ideas and their history rather than apply a logical lens such as Occam’s Razor to them – put what have been called ‘scare quotes’ around the jews/jewish question so they’ll state something like ‘the problem is the fundamental nature of capitalism not “the jews”’ or ‘the problem is Marxism not “the jews”’ etc.
The issue with these individuals – who often otherwise intellectually lucid – is that – if I may be blunt – they are fundamentally intellectual cowards or at least intellectually inconsistent.
Since they treat ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’ and/or ‘communism’ – in fact you can apply it to any other ‘ism’ like ‘anarchism’ but they don’t blame ‘anarchism’ generally-speaking since anarchism as a political force more or completely died in the 1920s and its last bastions of power wiped out in the Spanish Civil War in the mid-to-late 1930s (ergo it is implausible) – as if they were forces that are tabula rasa (i.e., a blank slate).
What that means is that they treat their favourite ‘isms’ as if they were forces outside of reality and vague ‘forces of nature’ that govern humans rather than as being the product of humans.
The problem here should be rather obvious: they are ipso facto assuming – even if their claimed logic states otherwise (remember your claimed logic is not necessarily your actual logic) – that say ‘capitalism’ as a force exists outside of biology when in reality it was created and is governed by it.
This lies at the heart of Edward Wilson’s famously pithy critique of Marxism:
‘Great idea. Wrong species.’
Put in simple terms: Marxism works contrary to human nature itself in Wilson’s view – one I happen to agree with – and as such falls apart as a viable political philosophy, which is distinct from Marxist class and political analysis that remains a viable (and often valuable) heuristic.
The point is that blaming ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’ and/or ‘communism’ as forces in and of themselves fundamentally dissociates both these ideologies/political forces from the fact that they were created by, further added to by, advocated by and applied by human beings, which makes them vague and ethereal ‘enemies’ that have no form or substance.
To use a military analogy: those who blame such ideologies/forces in and of themselves are like military commanders who believe their enemies are simply ‘the hun’ and are ‘sub-human apelings’ who they need no particular information about because ‘the enemy’ all behave in such and such a way because ‘they are evil’.
Rather than those military commanders who want to learn about their enemy in detail because they understand the characteristics and history of their enemy as individuals and a group inform us how they think and what they will likely do in different situations.
By not factoring in who the ‘capitalists’, ‘socialists’ and/or ‘communists’ are these individuals get out of the problem of having to be specific, while still superficially seeming to be intellectually rigorous – who doesn’t want to blame a good vague multisyllable ‘ism’? – because it is safe and no one takes offence when you blame an ‘ism’ because you can merely claim to not be part of said ‘ism’ (or to have had a ‘conversion experience’).
However, when you are specific and suggest – quite accurately – that – for example - black people are inherently more violent than White people and/or Pacific Asians then people take offence, because while it is factually true: it is specific and thus it points out responsibility and suggests a causative link.
In the same way; it has long been observed that any idea, political system and/or religion fundamentally alters dependent on the ethno-racial demographics of its followers so that – for example – Christianity among black people in Africa is fundamentally and radically different from Christianity among White people in say Sweden and that if you put White people in Africa (e.g. the Boers) or black people in Sweden you get the same effect but transposed onto different physical geography.
In a similar way: the government of Liberia – whose constitution is based on the US constitution – is not the same or in any way similar in reality to the government of the United States: currently or historically.
The point is simple: the ‘Who’ matters far more than the ‘What’.
The ‘What’ is the ‘isms’ and the ‘Who’ is the people standing behind those ‘isms’ in a particular context.
Those who focus on the ‘What’ are guilty of engaging in promoting a science-blind/race-blind view of history and fundamentally ignoring both evolution – which Richard Weikart has aptly pointed is ‘inherently racist’ (and while he thinks this a negative criticism it is actually a positive truism) – and biology itself while in essence treating humanity as amorphous spirit-beings who exist above biology not as organic material beings whose actions/behaviour is governed by biology.
We can thus see that those who want to blame ‘isms’ are engaging in a form of intellectual cowardice (or at least being very specifically illogical to their personal benefit [which again is predicted by evolutionary psychology as I am sure Edward Dutton would happily and correctly point out]) and trying to wriggle their way out of dealing with uncomfortable truths.
The most important of these – and the one with which these individuals almost invariably have by the strongest allergic reaction to – is the jewish question or to put it more specifically the fact that jews as an ethno-racial group – in reality roughly three closely-related ones – show disproportionate and sustained overrepresentation among the decision-makers and those charged with implementing ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’.
The reason for this veritable – and apparently contagious - allergy to these truisms is that once we acknowledge the reality of biology as the true governor of the ‘What’ then identifying the ‘Who’ in that equation results in jews being acknowledged as both being incredibly overrepresented and disproportionately powerful in modern finance/stock market-based capitalism; this is seen in applied form in how powerful jews are in the world due to how many financial/corporate assets they own and/or control as AUM (Assets Under Management).
Similarly, when we do this historically, we are forced to acknowledge the fact that jews have – as a group – disproportionately engaged in the systematic genocides committed in the name of both ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’, while under-targeting their own people relative to their representation among the class that should have been hit the hardest – the bourgeoisie - suggesting that much like how black juries tend to find black criminals who have murdered non-blacks not guilty – or to inject extenuating circumstances into the equation - more often than not. Jews tend to disproportionately target non-jews – especially their historic European enemies and victims – and other jews seek to ‘explain it away’ so-to-speak or simply deny that it ever happened.
This then forces us to not use the simplistic vague labelling that ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ is the enemy or the problem per se, but rather that these ‘isms’ are by themselves relatively innocuous – hence why for example both communism and capitalism in China while genocidal and ruthless haven’t resulted in civilizational collapse (because the ‘Who’ matters far more than the ‘What’) – but rather what is the problem is when your ‘What’ is seized by an alien ‘Who’.
In other words: when a biologically alien ‘Who’ controls your ‘What’ then your ‘What’ represents their biological interests – which are not your biological interests (despite their frequent attempts to try to gaslight you into believing they are) – then the ‘What’ is not actually the problem but rather the ‘Who’.
This isn’t a controversial statement as it lies at the very heart of the leftist critique of ‘colonialism’/’imperialism’ in that – for example – the biologically alien British ‘Who’ controlled the ‘What’ in India so that the ‘What’ primarily served British/White biological interests not Indian biological interests, while the British sought to portray what they did as being in the biological interests of India; it was not inherently so.
A good example of this is found in the British Empire’s deliberate policy of exporting Indians across its territories as a more intelligent and pliant population base to recruit as civil servants and officials compared to the locals in countries in Africa as well as islands like Mauritius.
This example then illustrates how this works in practice and how the logic of the critique of ‘isms’ – in this case ‘colonialism’ and ‘imperialism’ – in fact mandates understanding the ‘Who’ in order to comprehend the ‘What’.
What acknowledging this then forces us to do then is to look at the modern and historic West and ask about the ‘Who’ in order to understand the ‘What’ rather than simply blaming your favourite ‘What’ – sometimes plural - as a vague bugbear about who and/or what is responsible for the situation that we find ourselves in today.
This then explains that the root of the problem is not ‘isms’ – e.g., ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ – but rather that these ‘isms’ as they have been – and are – practised in the Western world today as well as yesterday is defined by who has created, captured and/or controlled them which then forces us to ask who that tends to be.
The answer is very simple.
The jews.
Hence modernity and history reflect an ethnocentric and judeocentric worldview that in turn reflects jewish biological interests not European biological interests and which in turn has led to forms of ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ that reflect this fundamental reality because the ‘Who’ is the jew which causes the ‘What’ to conform their biological interests.
This is why both those who claim the jewish question ‘doesn’t matter’ and/or ‘is irrelevant’ claim what they do – they acknowledge this ethnocentric and judeocentric primacy by trying to squelch all mention of it not with discussion but derision – and also why the world looks the way it does.
Face it.
There is no way out of this, but through the jew.