The Realist Report - Tanstaafl - The Jew As A Parasite TRANSCRIPT

Tanstaafl: The Jew As

A Parasite

December 7, 2015.

The Realist Report

The international Jew, the promoter and benefactor of both

international Communism and capitalism, is a biological

parasite.

National Socialist Germany clearly understood this fact

and made moves to address the situation. Now it’s America’s turn.

On this edition of The Realist Report, we’ll be joined by Tanstaafl

Age of Treason

. Tanstaafl is one of the most knowledgeable and

insightful commentators in the alternative, independent media today.

In this podcast, we discussed the Jewish problem and Jewish

parasitism, the root cause of so-called “pathological altruism”

prevalent in the White race today, the 2016 president campaign, and

related matters.

http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-tanstaafl-

the-jew-as-a-parasite/

TRANSCRIPT

(90:00 min)

https://katana17.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/the-realist-report-

tanstaafl-the-jew-as-a-parasite-transcript/

John Friend (JF): You are listening to the Realist Report. Here’s
your host, John Friend.

Tanstaafl (TAN):

Hello John.

JF: All right folks. Welcome book to another edition of the Realist
Report. I am your host John Friend. Today I have a very special
guest, Tanstaafl from Age of Treason is joining me on the line.
Tanstaafl is one of the most knowledgeable and insightful
commentators in the pro-White media today. Particularly when it
comes to the Jewish Question (JQ) or more accurately, the Jewish
Problem (JP). A topic that we will be discussing at length today. So
Tanstaafl, welcome to the Realist Report. Thanks for being with us
today

TAN:

Thank you for inviting me John. Glad to be here.

JF: Absolutely. Yes, for people that aren’t familiar with your work,
I’m going to post a link to a radio program you did where you kind of
go through your background and how you awoke to some of these
issues and how you started your website and your radio program and
whatnot. But for now can you just people the URL to your website?
And any other details you want to give out about your website.

TAN:

I think if you just search for Age of Treason you’ll find my

site. It’s probably ranked high enough that you will see

age-of-

treason.com

and it’s easy to find.

JF: OK, and I’ll have a link directly to your site when I post this
program. And as I mentioned a link to a radio program where you talk
about your background and whatnot. Well, anyway let’s just jump
right into the discussion. And let’s start off, … Could you just explain
to your audience, how you woke up to the Jewish Problem.

TAN:

Well, it started by waking up to race, first. I want through most

of my life pretending that race isn’t important, doesn’t exist. Looking
back on it showed that the proper instincts that I knew, certain places
and certain things were not safe and were not good.

But I didn’t, … Like most White people I basically didn’t think of
myself as White, or having interests as a White person. And, I
eventually, after one particular straw broke the camel’s back, … I
realized and accepted that I was White and that Whites are under
attack as a race. And that I was part of that whether I wanted to be part
of it or not. And I, you know, to put it in terms that I later realized,
“race” is a code word for White, basically.

What I saw and what I think what the straws that broke the camel’s
back ultimately, were the double standards on race. The hypocrisy, the
identity politics. And I didn’t understand this until later either. That
identity politics as it exists now and as it has always existed as it was
constructed is inherently anti-White.

The anti-White premise of it is built in. It not about all people
organizing by race to advocate for their interests as a race, as a group.
It’s all groups except Whites being allowed and even encouraged to
organize racially. And Jews first and foremost for that. The way that I
was forced to confront the Jews was that once I realized that race was
important I realized that the attack on the White race was coming

mainly from Jews. That Jews were the most vocal, the most vitriolic
attackers of Whites.

JF: Hmm.

TAN:

That is how it happened.

JF: Very interesting. Yes. And you made the point, you were sort of
talking about how you were deracinated. You didn’t really think in
racial terms prior to your racial awakening. I think that is how most,
the vast majority of White are, certainly in America, but probably
even in Europe, at this point.

TAN:

Yes and it’s

unnatural

. It’s not just that we are not naturally

interested in race. It’s actually propagandized to us in that way. We are
indoctrinated with the idea that Whites specifically thinking in terms
of race is WRONG! It’s EVIL!

JF: Yes, and you hear the leftists and the anti-White is going on, and
on, and on, and on about how there’s still White supremacy in
America. And if you look at Congress it’s all White people. And yes
that is true to a certain extent. But these White people in Congress and
these White people controlling our government, which, you know, is
becoming increasingly non-White. But the White people that are in
government in the media and whatnot, they do not think of themselves
as White. They are not out there acting in the best interests of Whites.
They are totally deracinated. And in many cases are working for the
racial interests of other groups.

[05:12]

TAN:

Yes, that is the dishonesty that you’re pointing out of that

argument that we live in a White supremacist system because their are
Whites in control of the universities, Whites have been, every
president, up to till Obama, Whites run the banks, Whites run

Hollywood. It’s really disingenuous, because even the Whites that are
involved in those things don’t think of themselves as Whites, don’t
have a positive identity as a White. Or, if they do, they keep it to
themselves. They know that they have to keep it to themselves or, they
will lose their position in any of those places.

JF: Now, getting back to the Jewish Problem, you said that you sort of
woke up to race first and then you recognized the Jews as the primary
adversaries of the White race, and I mean there is a long history that
we can talk more about. But I guess just generally speaking, how
would you describe the Jewish Problem, or the Jewish Question. I
think the Jewish Problem is a much more accurate, you know,
description of this issue, you know, this issue with Jews.

You know, we see all across the world today, especially America. But
like, how would you describe the Jewish Problem to an average
person? What are the most important points that people need to
understand when it comes to this issue?

TAN:

Right. Well it depends on where they are starting from. If they

are starting from zero, where I trace my start from. That they are
deracinated. You first have to talk to them about race. You have to get
them to see this realization that we are under attack as a race, as a
group. And that just because you are acting like it doesn’t matter to
you, that is not going to protect you. You are not going to be safe
because of that. But once you get someone to say that; race does
matter, it’s important and I’m White and I’m going to do something
about it.

Then you need to point out the Jews to them. It doesn’t come
automatically to most people. In fact a lot of people will try to
continue the pretense that Jews are White. And what you point out to
them is that the Jews control the banks, Jews control the media, Jews
control the politics and Jews rule, when it comes down to it. And if
you don’t like what is going on in this country, as most White people

don’t, you don’t like the Jews. You just don’t, maybe, don’t realize it
yet. That it is the Jews. And maybe at some point in their brain, …
And I think again looking book in my own travels, it wasn’t that I
didn’t see the evidence of it. It’s that I refused to confront it for my
whole life. It was not that I was totally ignorant of it.

So that is the first thing to do. To get them to acknowledge that there
is, that all of this stuff is going on, right. Then you come to the Jewish
Problem. And the Jewish Problem is really just the flip-side of the
anti-semitism, right. It’s our, … It’s what the conflict of interests is
called from a White point of view. It’s called the Jewish Problem. The
Jews call it anti-semitism. Or you could say, from a Jew point of view
it’s the non-jew problem. We non-jews call it the Jewish Problem.
And historically it’s the problem that Jews create for us.

The fact is the Jews aren’t White. They are genetically distinct, so
their DNA is different. They are ideologically hostile. This is even
more important, that even if they were, … If you could get over the
fact that they are genetically similar [different?] they are ideologically
180 degrees different Whites. They see themselves, … The core of
their identity, if you pay attention to their blood libel narrative and the
holocaust narrative, is that Whites are the enemy. Especially when
they get on their soapbox and lecture everyone about what the blood
libel means to them, what the holocaust means to them. You can see it.
They lay it out for you.

That their time amongst European is for two millennia has been
nothing but them being victimized by European is. It’s nothing but an
inversion of reality. They have lived among Europeans by their own
choice. They came up from the Middle East to live amongst
Europeans. And they come to live amongst Europeans and insist upon
living upon us, amongst us, because they benefit from it. And they
know they benefit from it. But they flip it around. It’s one of the
psychological, one of the basic psychological tricks that they use, is

that they flip it around and blame Whites for the conflict of interest,
between the two groups.

[10:00]

JF: Yeah, it’s interesting, that the topic of anti-Semitism, I mean it’s
something that I’ve written quite a bit about on my website and it’s
fascinating, … I mean literally, if you look at, I mean, I follow the
Jewish press and organizations like the Anti-Defamation League
[ADL]. And when they talk about anti-Semitism, they are basically
talking about people who criticize Jews and who make basic
observations about Jews. And people who literally quote Jews
themselves. You know to demonstrate what sort of agenda they’re
promoting and what these Jews are up to. That is what anti-Semitism
is, it is telling the truth about the Jews. I mean, it’s really incredible
that they continue to really use this word as a weapon against us! I
mean there’s other words, “racist,” and “White Supremacist” and
there’s many others. But I think the Jews have been very effective in
weaponizing our political discourse and using it against Whites.

[Image] Ruben-vase.

TAN:

Yes, yeah, and uh, the key is that it has to do with point of view.

And it’s the relationship between Whites and Jews specifically. It’s
like one of those drawings that you can see from one of two ways. It’s
actually called a “Ruben-vase”*. It’s the most classic example of that.
Yeah, I just looked it up today to find out if there was a name for it.
And it’s based on this, according to Wikipedia. It’s based on a Danish
psychologist, who turns out, of course, to be Jew. But, it’s, … From
the Jewish point of view, it’s just mindless, senseless, hate of Jews for
no reason whatsoever. And Whites, in typical fashion, we step outside
of ourselves, we don’t even take our own side in this, we step outside
of ourselves, see it objectively as a conflict of interests. And see it, as
a struggle between equals. And what I’ve come to realize over time,
… Initially, that’s how I saw it when I first woke up to it, it’s like:

“Oh, well there’s a conflict here, between two groups, the Jews
have their own identity and Whites should have their own

identity and we’re at odds with each other, at least, some of the
time.”

And what I’ve come to realize is that it’s actually far worse than that.
It’s Whites have no identity in large part because Jews attack whatever
sign we show of any sort of consciousness of our racial common
interests. And they attack brutally! I mean, it’s just about everything
that they accuse the Whites of doing to them, they are actually
responsible for doing themselves, they’re basically projecting their
own malice onto their enemies.

* [Rubin’s vase (sometimes known as the Rubin face or the
figure–ground vase) is a famous set of ambiguous or bi-stable
(i.e., reversing) two-dimensional forms developed around 1915
by the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin. They were first
introduced at large in Rubin’s two-volume work, the Danish-
language Synsoplevede Figurer (“Visual Figures”), which was
very well received.

Edgar John Rubin (September 6, 1886 - May 3, 1951) was a
Danish psychologisted phenomenologist, remembered for his
work on figure-ground perception as seen in such optical
illusions like the Rubin vase.

Born of Jewish parents, Rubin was born and raised in
Copenhagen. Enrolling at the University of Copenhagen in
1904, he majored in psychology and finished his magister
artium examination in philosophy in 1910.

Sources:

https: //en.wikipedia.orged wikied Edgartion Rubin
https: //en.wikipedia.orged wikied Rubintion vase

]

JF: Right, and we see how Jews frame anti-Semitism as always some
irrational, you know, crazed expression of just anti-Jewish hatred for
no reason, there’s no evidence, or any points that these anti-Semites
are making, they’re just these crazy individuals. And they’ve also just
literally pathologized White identity to where if you actually
recognize the fact that you are White and you care about the future of
White people, you care about our history, our traditions, you are,
again, crazy and irrational. I mean it’s just incredible what they’ve
been able to do. And I think of, for example, Dr. Kevin MacDonald
and the Culture of Critique really explains this all really, very, very
well. And that kind of gets into my next question. What are some of
the most important books you would recommend, or that you’ve read
dealing with these topics?

TAN:

Yeah, definitely Kevin MacDonald is the most important, I

would have to mention first. And especially for someone who’s first
waking up to race and the Jews. It’s a very detailed explanation of
what’s been happening historically and largely cites Jews themselves,
as a source of lots of quotes and facts about about the case. And, the
Culture of Critique, of course, is a three-volume set, I’ve never read
that cover-to-cover myself, I’ve actually gone beyond it. It’s definitely
worth it if somebody wants to read it from cover-to-cover, and I’ve
read large sections of it, as certain topics became of interest to me.
There’s one particular subset that he wrote about the Jewish
involvement in immigration into the United States that I forward
probably once a month to somebody or another whenever immigration
comes up and people act like it just happened out of the blue. What’s
going on with our open borders. And I thought MacDonald made a
great case there in that chapter that he wrote about that, and he made it
available in a separate PDF*. Which is relatively short and easy to
read.

[Download of MacDonald’s PDF, Jewish Involvement in Shaping

American Immigration Policy:

Jewish Involvement in Shaping

American Immigration Policy

[15:00]

He also wrote a lot of effective stuff about Cultural Marxism, the
Frankfurt School, Franz Boas. So if you’re trying to figure out, you

know, how did we get to this, state of race, and what happened to race
science, then MacDonald is a great source for that.
He was inspired, …

JF: I’m sorry, real quick, … I was just going to say, I have read
Culture of Critique, but I haven’t read, … I think there are two books
that proceed Culture of Critique in the series. And I haven’t read
those. But, I mean, that book is absolutely essential reading because it
brilliantly and very scholarly explains and analyses the systematic
Jewish assault on Western civilization from a cultural perspective,
from an intellectual perspective, from a scientific perspective. I mean,
these Jews literally took over the West, you know, academically and
even politically now, obviously, that is very obvious now.

But back in the 40s, 50s, as you mentioned, Cultural Marxism and the
Frankfurt School, topics that MacDonald expertly addresses and gives
a history of. You know, these radical Jewish intellectuals literally took
over Western civilization. And has been undermining and destroying it
ever since. And, you know, we can demonstrate this with ease, you
know, these Jews openly admit it. It’s how do we get people to
actually understand all this, because there is a lot to it. And I think you
can summarize it and break it down pretty simply. But if you want all
the details you have to read Culture of Critique.

TAN:

That is what I was getting at when I said, it depends on your

point of view as to whether something is anti-semitism or not. And
what MacDonald does, is he quotes Jews saying these things. And
they say it as a good thing. And of course MacDonald is presenting in
a way that puts it in a bad light, in a negative light. Bad for Europeans.
That it has been destructive to European society, European
civilization. And that is what makes it anti-semitism. If you are seeing
it from a Jewish point of view, well now, someone quoting all these
Jews, poisonous things about Whites and White civilization,
[laughing] yes that is anti-semitism! From our point of view, it’s
documenting the Jewish Problem.

JF: Right. Of the Jewish genocidal agenda against the West. And that
is absolutely what they are up to.

TAN:

Right. And it is an agenda that is organized. It is conscious

thing. Now, … You can see in the trilogy* MacDonald himself has
talked about how he himself became more and more aware of just how
deep this problem was. And how, I don’t want to put words in his
mouth, but how negative it was. He started of just studying the Jews
abstractly, objectively and by the Culture of Critique how was
basically making an argument in favour pointing the finger of blame
at Jews for what has happened, certainly in the last 200 years or so, I
think is what he covers.

* [A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group
Evolutionary Strategy, With Diaspora Peoples.
Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary
Theory of Anti-Semitism.
The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish
Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political
Movements.]

He was inspired by a book, in part he was inspired by a book he came
across, I have read cover to cover, called, … It was John M Cuddihy,
“The Ordeal of Civility”. [The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-
Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity] and the subtitle was,
Marx, Freud and Levi Strauss. Focussing on three particular Jews
who were, that are iconic of what MacDonald calls, Jewish intellectual
movements. This gurus that lead whole troops of Jews, mostly Jews
anyway. Part of what MacDonald documents is how Jews put “goy”
out front, several “goy” out front to basically be the face of the
movement. But Cuddihy is far more objective, or at least comes across
that way. As an Irishman he comes across at least sympathetic to the
Jews, to there outsider adversarial point of view, towards the West,
and towards Anglo-Saxons in particular.

Although the thing is it’s not just the Anglo-Saxons that Jews don’t
like. It’s the Germans they don’t like, it’s the Swedes they don’t like,
it’s the American they don’t like. It’s really any host that they
basically have to subdue in order to benefit from, in order to exploit.
And that is, …, you know, MacDonald and Cuddihy are both hesitant
to identify Jews as an enemy or use any terms that go beyond an
objective evaluation of the situation.

[20:00]

I mean, McDonald goes further than Cuddihy does in laying out the
hostility and it speaks for itself when you lay it out that way, that
they’re the enemy, that they think of us as the enemy. I do it myself
when I describe how the Jewish identity is centered on, the core of it
is, identifying Whites or any host that they live amongst really. But
Whites are our concern, and the most recent host for them, as the
enemy, and that Whites, if we have a failing at all, it’s in not
recognising that, you know where part of the psychological trick they
play is that they constantly accuse us of being stupidly, crazily
blaming Jews for everything. When, the real problem is that Whites, if
you want to generalise about the problem, is that Whites don’t blame
Jews for enough. Whites under-estimate Jews. They misunderstand
Jews. So it’s really a problem of under-estimating them.

JF: Yes, no, and I think that goes to the heart of our problems here in
America and really the wider Western world, in that we have never
really, well at least in America, we’ve never really dealt seriously with
the Jewish problem and it absolutely is a huge problem.

And guys, if you don’t believe me, I’m gonna have a link to the
Renegade Tribune and it’s an article called, “Quotes in support of
White Genocide”. And it’s just a list of Jews making just some of the
most outrageous, truly genocidal comments about white people and, I
mean, this is something that’s been going on for a very, very long

time, certainly during World War II. That’s what World War II was all
about. It was all about destroying the one man who actually did stand
up to the Jews and actually did expose and explain, even in simple
terms, the Jewish problem to his nation and that was Adolf Hitler’s
Germany. That is really what all this boils down to, is that we are not
real about race and even more importantly we’re not real about the
Jewish question, or the Jewish problem, I should say.

TAN:

Yeah, Hitler’s another one to mention. Mein Kampf, I haven’t

read Mein Kampf cover to cover either, I’ve read large sections of it
and there is nothing that Hitler has ever, in any translated speech I’ve
ever seen or any tract of text that he’s written, nothing that I can find
that he’s wrong about.

JF: Amen!

TAN:

As far as I can tell he was telling the truth and he told it very

well. He was very articulate, in expressing himself.

JF: I’m glad you mention that because by far the most powerful and
impactful book that I read, especially waking up to racial realism and
the Jewish Problem., you know, I was really into, I originally got
started in all this and sort of woke up to the Jewish problem by
researching 9/11 and coming to the obvious conclusion that 9/11 was
actually done by Israel and an international network of Jewish
criminals. And most certainly not Osama Bin Laden and 19 Arabs,
you know, terrorist hijackers. What an absurd, ridiculous story that is!
But that was my awakening to the Jewish problem, but I didn’t really
get, you know, into the racial issues until I read Mein Kampf and I
mean everything really clicked once I read that book.

And it’s interesting, you know. I remember reading, I think it’s
chapter, it’s like chapter 11, or maybe 12 and I think it’s called,
“Nation and State” or “Nation and Race” maybe, I can’t remember the
exact name of the chapter [Chapter 11: People and Race*] . But it’s

really, in my opinion it’s probably the best chapter in the whole book.
And he deals with race and he talks about how the White race, “the
aryan man” I think he exactly says, is the founder of civilisation and
the Jews have always been parasites and the corrupters and subverters
of civilisation. And I really just read that and was so blown away. I’d
never really heard history articulated like that. Wow! Did White
people really invent civilisation and all the technology we use today?
And the more I thought about is the more obvious it became that
absolutely it did. We are the founders of civilisation. No other races
have accomplished anything even close to what we’ve accomplished.
And I don’t think that’s wrong or supremacist for making that basic,
factual observation.

*[Click to see the post:

Mein Kampf: Chapter 11 — Race

and People

]

TAN:

Yeah. About 9/11, let’s talk about that in a little while.

JF: OK.

TAN:

I have a difference of opinion with you on 9/11, but let’s talk

about that in a bit.

JF: Yeah, sure.

TAN:

Just to continue, the influential books that are worth reading,

the influential people who have said things about Jews. Revilo Oliver
is definitely one of the more recent and important. William Pierce,
you could add to that. But Oliver’s “Jewish Strategy” is very good
and highlighted just for me, just how far back in time this goes. That
it’s an ancient, … The Jewish Problem is an ancient problem. It’s not
something that started when Europeans started to wake up to the
biological reality of race, in the 17th, 18th centuries.

[25:00]

JF: Right.

TAN:

Arthur Gobineau is another one who, predated Hitler. And, by

the way, that chapter you mentioned, that chapter 12, … I’m not sure
of that is it, either. But race and nation where he talks about that, …
But I get into that in some detail when I was discussing Francis
Parker Yockley’s book, which is not worth reading, I don’t think.

JF: Hmm, that is, “Imperium”?

TAN:

Imperium. And he’s a great writer and he got lots of things

right, but I think on race he was wrong. And I can, … He dedicated his
book to the hero of World War Two, and he did it just shortly after
World War Two. He was writing when everybody else was, or most
other people, were putting distance between themselves and the
National Socialists and Hitler. He wrote a book about it and dedicated
the book to Hitler.

But, what I pointed out, his views on race, … Yockey’s views on race
were kind of wishy washy and kind of spiritual. He was against
Rationalism and Darwinism because he saw those as some outgrowth
of Jewishness, rather than as an outgrowth of Ayran objectivity. And I
contrasted Yockey’s opinion on race and nation and the mailability
and plasticity of biological attributes like skull shapes. Yockey
went into, or bought in the Boas fraud. Which was this idea that if you
move a person from one place to the another the ground shapes them.
Now this is funny because Darwinism is that theory. Darwinism
explains it as taking generations. Generation after generation has to be
shaped by it’s environment. That is the basic idea behind natural
selection. But it was even more instructive to contrast what Yockey
had to say with what Hitler had to say. His hero, …, you know, he
apparently missed that chapter, I guess, …

JF: Right.

TAN:

When trying to understand Hitler’s views about race. And

Hitler’s views about race, I believe, come down from Arthur
Gobineau. I don’t know if he read the book himself directly, but
Gobineau’s, “Inequality of Human Races” describes a very popular
view of the importance of race and the differences not just between
Whites and blacks and yellows, whatever, the continental races. But
the differences amongst Whites themselves, the differences, …
Gobineau used the term “race” in a very fine-grained senses that used
to be used for nation. What nation used to mean, subrace. A more
narrowly group of people related natally. And Gobineau was talking
really about the distinctions amongst European is. He saw at that time,
he was writing in the 1850s, or so. Whites were just stomping all over
the world, conquering and colonizing everywhere here and it seemed
like everywhere here the Whites went the non-White races were sort
of withering and dying away and he, … From his vantage point
Whites were going to dominate the planet.

I think a criticism of Gobineau, is that in retrospect he didn’t
appreciate the [danger of] Jews. Like other European is in his time and
up until today you had many European is that are just blind to the
Jews or consider them some sort of fossil people. I think Gobineau
actually used that term, and later it was used by people like Toynbe,
and Spengler also. And that attitude is just wrong! The Jews are not a
fossil people! Implying that they are just inert, and unchanging and
ancient. They are a very dynamic and a very deadly force! Very much
alive, very much active in what’s going on in the world.

And in the last influential source I would urge [listeners to look into] ,
is something that I just became aware of recently is a book called,
“The Great Jewish Masque” which is, the author is unknown, …

People have speculated about the it. It was published in, by Arnold
Leese’s, … He had something to do with the publishing of it. From the
way the text is phrased, it came out in 1920, I think or there abouts, …
It seemed to me like it was Leese’s voice, from other things I have
heard from or read of Arnold Leese.

[30:00]

What it is, it’s a, … Basically an exposure of the Jews as historic
fraudsters. That the Jewish narrative throughout history, the telling of
history from a Jewish point of view is a giant lie. It’s one, or it’s a
series of lies. Things or elements of who they are, just made up. The
subtitle is something like, “The Donkey in the Lion Skin”, or
something, “The Ass in the Lion Skin” which is some ancient
European fable that describes the Jews as basically making themselves
to be heroic and brave and great, when the reality is quite the opposite.

That they are very secretive. And this idea of Jews using masks and
disguising themselves is something you will find, … basically every
insightful critic of Jews have noticed, including MacDonald, including
Revilo Oliver, Hitler, is that they use disguises. And MacDonald calls
this “crypsis”*. And MacDonald come closest to putting a biological
interpretation of what they are doing, closest to calling it out as
parasitism, without calling it parasitism, at least until recently. He’s
kind of shied away from that. But when you look up what “crypsis” is,
and Jewish crypsis is basically just this use of camouflage, disguising
who they are. It’s a good word, it’s a technically sounding term to
describe what they do.

* [In ecology, crypsis is the ability of an organism to avoid
observation or detection by other organisms. It may be either a
predation strategy or an anti-predator adaptation, and methods
include camouflage, nocturnality, subterranean lifestyle,
transparency, and mimicry.]

One aspect about their fraud, which is the fraud about who they are.
This is what this Jewish mask book is about. It’s about the fraud of
their history. Of course fraud and Jew go together in many ways.
Financial fraud, scientific fraud and so on.

JF: Right. Now in Mein Kampf Hitler actually talks about the greatest
Jewish deception is that they are this religious minority rather than a
hostile, foreign racial element undermining society. And I think that is
what it really boils down to. That we have to understand that the Jews
are a foreign racial entity, not really a religious community, you know,
a lot of people get confused and think:

“Oh, Jews are Whites and they just have a different religion”.

And that is just not the case at all. I mean Jews themselves, denounce
their Whiteness and boldly proclaim their Jewishness, you know, what
I mean, so?

TAN:

Right. And that they are Jews even when they are atheist and so

forth. But, and you are right, … I skipped over that. When you are
having that conversation with people who, maybe are awake to race
but insist that Jews are White. That is the kind of people that you have
to have this heart to heart, you know, lay it on the table. That, no,
Judaism is not what Jews are about, it’s their people hood really. That
is the term they use for it. The European euphemism for race, that they
use. They talk about the continuity of their people hood and how
important that is to them. And they talk about the evil of assimilation
and intermarriage, two more kind of code words that they use. Which
is, … You know, if Whites were talking in the ways that Jews talk
about it, Whites would be accused of being horrible hater racists, you
know, for thinking of things in racial terms. But the Jews do it more or
less openly, using this coded speech for it. They all know what they

are talking about. And they all know that it’s their strength. So, and
they know it would be their own undoing to say:

“Open the borders of Israel to aliens”.

Even the Syrians who are their next door neighbours, genetically close
to them, they don’t want to open their borders to them. And it’s not
because of religion.

JF: Right.

TAN:

Religion is just an organizing principle for them. It helps them

to maintain their racial integrity, their racial purity.

JF: Right, I completely agree. And that is the most outrageous aspect
of the Jewish Problem is just their blatant, in your face, it truly is
insulting hypocrisy. Where, for example, we have, wall to wall Jewish
support. I mean every single Jewish organization in America, in
Europe. They are all demanding that the West accept unlimited and
totally unrestricted, you know, refugees from the Middle East. Quote,
unquote “refugees”, I mean these people are invaders. And yet as you
mentioned in Israel they are not taking in any refugees. And I mean
there are other examples of Jewish hypocrisy. But this one is so
blatant and in your face and it is so relevant today, obviously with
what is going on in Europe.

[35:00]

TAN:

Hypocrisy is mainly a point of view that appeals to Whites. It’s

how we see the world as. The world should be fair and equal and
whatever. We view it objectively, right?

Hypocrisy is mainly a point of view that appeals to Whites. It’s how
we see the world as. The world should be fair and equal and whatever.
We view it objectively, right? Objective groups in competition. We

duke it out, man to man, and at sunrise with pistols, with swords, or
whatever. That tradition, that mindset.

Whereas the Jews, … What’s behind this supposed hypocrisy, this
double standard, is really just the single standard of what’s best for
Jews. And what’s best for the Jews and Israel is different from what’s
best for Jews outside of Israel. Outside of Israel the Jews want to be
treated as one of many types of people where they can be free to
foment division and exploit divisions amongst other people. And so
having open borders everywhere here so that they can move freely
about, and so that they can move other people freely about is what’s in
their best interest. Whereas, in Israel, that is their home, that is their
nest. They don’t want to screw that up.

JF: Yes, that is a good way of looking at it. Now, I’m curious. Are you
familiar with “Dispossessed Majority” by Wilmont Robertson?

TAN:

Another book that I have not read cover to cover, but I’ve read

large sections of.

JF: That is a phenomenal book actually, I think.

TAN:

I like the book overall, but I think he minimizes the Jewish

Problem. I think, for instance, he doesn’t state it as the Jewish
Problem, he just lists Jews as one of the unassimmulatable minorities
alongside Greeks, southern Italians and a few other groups that he, …
He basically, … His language to me is where the weakness begins.

That this thinking of things in terms of majority and minority. Instead
of saying White he, … Another thing that I remember about his point
of view is that he really disliked the term, White. And for good reason
I think, because White and been used by the Jews. They had basically
shoehorned their way into America by making the argument that they
were White. And being mistaken as White by amps who had control to
exclude them at that point, on the basis that they weren’t White. You

brought it up earlier that America, when it was founded, I think they
thought that they were leaving the Jewish Problem behind in Europe.
And that there wasn’t that many Jews in America, and that there
wasn’t going to be a problem with Jews anyway because Jews started
off emancipated in the US. Whereas they still weren’t fully
emancipated in Europe at the time. They just started off as equal and
White in America, at least the Germanized, Western Jews that were in
America at that time.

But in the 1880s when the Eastern European Jews started flooding
into America, it was obvious that these were alien people with alien
patterns of thinking and hostile to amps. And many amps pointed this
out. But Wilmont Robertson was long past. He should have had the
benefit of hindsight, writing in the 70s as he was., you know, to just
sort of, … I don’t want to accuse him of pussyfooting, he used that
term, or truckling, … That there were certain Whites in power at the
time that obviously had some sort of racial consciousness, like
Richard Nixon. And he was, … In fact the title of his book,
“Dispossessed Majority” was a play on some term that Nixon used at
the time. I forget what it was now.

But, the, … Back to the language of majority versus minority.
Majority is not what makes us, us! We can be in the minority and
White is still important. And even White, if you don’t like the term
White because it let’s Jews in, well, then that means that you have
should be more explicit in saying:

“No, Jews are not White. They are the enemy of Whites”.

And I understand that some people are very north western European,
entirely

In their heritage and that they want to preserve that, so that they are
very stand offish towards Whites that are further out on the fringes of

Europe. Perfectly understandable, and perfectly defensible. They
should just be able to say:

“This is our country. We created this country. We are north-
western European is and we are not going to let you in, not
because we are the majority, but because we are north-western
European is. We are related to each other. We are more closely
related to each other than we are to you!”

And so, I see no problem in, you know, having different gradations of,
and different levels of clustering of race. Race, you know, is not a
black and white thing necessarily. Of a particular group to exist it has
to make a distinction between “Us” and “Them”! It’s a very basic
biological distinction, and over time it’s what produces speciation.

[40:04]

Populations, even if they start out being totally related to each other,
they cleave for some reason. Geography is often what’s to do with it,
amongst humans or hominids it has to do with language and cultural
differences, but then it’s like the law of entropy in physics. In species,
speciation is the natural way of things. This constant dividing of
different species into other species, into other separate groups that
breed amongst each other exclusively. And if they do that long enough
then they actually become incapable of breeding with each other over
time.

JF: Hmm. Interesting. OK, I wanted to move on here and talk about
this, … It’s sort about, … Well I guess in the past couple of years I
hear people talking and writing more and more about it, and that’s this
idea of pathological altruism. Which is put forth, … I mean, I’ve
heard Dr. Kevin MacDonald write about it and talk about it., you
know, all sorts of pro-white intellectuals and activists and what not.

Jared Taylor comes to mind as well. And, I mean, I think that there
maybe is something to this idea of pathological altruism, but from the
way that I understand a lot of their arguments, they seem to be
basically saying that this is something that is innate, like an innate
weakness in White people. And I don’t really agree with that. And
after hearing some of your critiques of this idea of pathological
altruism, I think that there is a root cause of pathological altruism.

There is something that is making us this way. It’s not something
that’s necessarily innate within us and I think that’s more of the
argument that someone like Dr. Kevin MacDonald or Jared Taylor
would be making. What are your thoughts on this? And maybe if I got
anything wrong there, please go ahead and clarify.

TAN:

Well I think I’m the main critic. I’m the one who basically

started this. Because what I saw from my point of view, it started
about two years ago, this talk about white pathology and it solidified
ultimately into pathological altruism as the specific pathology that
people were talking about. And it definitely has broad appeal. I saw it
being echoed in many different places. But I didn’t like it from the
beginning, because I thought, “White pathology?” That’s describing
the symptoms, it’s not describing the cause. What is the cause? That’s
my main critique of it, is if you’ve got a pathology, well what’s the
pathogen? Where’s the germ that’s creating this problem, as you’ve
said?

JF: I’m sorry Tan, really quick. How would you describe
“pathological altruism”. What are the main points of this argument?
Just so people have an understanding of what we mean by,
“pathological altruism”.

TAN:

Right, it’s a technical term. Altruism as from biology and the

study of all species, not just how humans behave. But in this case it’s
specifically about White people. Altruism is when a person or an
organism makes a personal sacrifice that benefits someone else. And it

becomes pathological altruism when it’s benefiting your enemy or
someone who’s totally alien from you.

It’s one thing to be altruistic towards your kids or, sorry, your sibling’s
offspring, towards your nieces and nephews. They’re not directly your
offspring, but you still share some genes with them and you still share
some interests with them biologically, culturally. So it makes sense
and likewise to the people around you in your race. They are all within
the same gene pool with you, they are much more likely to share
cultural and political interests with you, than complete strangers,
complete genetic, biological aliens.

So pathological altruism is this idea, as you said, you put it very well,
what I sensed in it too, in my critique of it is that it’s basically an
accusation that Whites are born losers. That we’re born to just give
away and born to just be suicidal. That’s what I immediately
connected it to was my previous critique of people who looked at
what’s going wrong, they sense that something’s wrong, they look
around and then they’ve got these people who tell them it’s suicide.
Europeans are just killing themselves. I hated that before White
pathology came along. As far as I’m concerned White pathology is
basically the, “Suicide Meme 2.0”. It’s a refinement.

[45:00]

JF: It’s a more intellectual variation of it.

TAN:

Yeah, but like I say, it’s an explanation supposedly for people

who are deciding that’s somethings wrong, that they want to know
what’s wrong. It’s an answer to their question. And White pathology is
more specific than suicide. Pathological altruism is more specific that
White pathology.

So, if you think, … Remember, this idea comes from Jared Taylor.
He’s the main proponent of this White pathology, this pathological

altruism idea. The thing about Jared Taylor is that he presents himself
as pro-White, but he also at the same time says, “Jews are white”, that
they look White to him. He talks about race very explicitly, but for
him race means black and White or black and White and brown and
yellow. But Jews are a totally separate problem in his opinion, that it’s
unrelated.

He mentioned one time, when he was put on the spot about this, that
he doesn’t want to be, “considered a crank on two issues at one time”.
And I thought, that’s really curious, because race and the Jews are
intimately related to each other. They’re basically the same problem.
The reason why anti-racism exists is because the Jews drive it. The
Jews are the one attacking Whites, calling us racists, psycho-
pathologising us for even thinking in terms of race, it’s the Jews doing
that! Now, I don’t know how Jared Taylor could think about race, day
in and day out, and not realise that the Jews are genetically distinct,
that they have this hostility, ideologically and politically to Whites and
that it’s a historic problem, it’s been going on for millennia.

At first I was very charitable toward Jared Taylor because I saw him
as a pro-White voice. He’s out in the open under his own name
organising activity, writing very eloquently and speaking very
eloquently. But on this issue of the Jews, he is dishonest at the very
least. I don’t think that he’s self deceiving himself. I don’t think that
he really thinks that this is some sort of clever strategy that he’s gonna
sneak up on the Jews, because if he does, he’s a fool.

You can’t sneak up on the Jews. The Jews are far more racially
conscious than any White person I’ve ever read. Even Hitler talks
about how he was naive about the Jews and learned about the Jews
only later in life. And that’s the general trend with Whites, that we
only wake up to this late in life, if we wake up to it at all. Whereas
Jews are teaching their young that the Amalekites* need to be
genocided. That the anti-semites need to be hunted down. That the
Nazis need to be not tolerated, killed.

* [There is no archaeological or epigraphic evidence for the
existence of the Amalekites; all sources mentioning them are
either directly based on the Hebrew Bible, or of a far later date
than the presumed time of their existence.

In the Hebrew Bible, the Amalekites were a nomadic, or semi-
nomadic people who inhabited ancient Israel. They are
commonly considered to be Amalek’s descendants through the
genealogy of Esau. This is probably based on the association of
this tribal group with the steppe region of the Negev and the
area of Kadesh (Genesis 14:7). As a people, the Amalekites are
identified as a recurrent enemy of the Israelites.

In Judaism, the Amalekites came to represent the archetypal
enemy of the Jews. In the Jewish folklore the Amalekites are
considered to be the symbol of evil.

Source: Https: ed / en.wikipedia.orged wikied Amalek]

JF: The Klan, racists, yeah.

TAN:

They are trained as soldiers from the get go. From the time that

they can first speak. They go to special Jewish schools for that
purpose. Whereas Whites go to schools where Jews are the teachers,
teaching them that Whiteness is bad. Racism. Giving us the complete
opposite story.

JF: Exactly! And they’re forcing our kids to go to school with
Negroes and all sorts of other non-Whites and we’re taught that
Whites are the most evil people on the face of the planet and we’re
responsible for slavery and the holocaust and genocide. You name it, it
goes on and on and on.

TAN:

That’s how pathological altruism come in.

JF: Yeah. I was gonna say real quick [that] I agree with most of what
you just said about it. This idea that White people collectively as
societies, our governments for example, and other White institutions
and organisations, the Catholic Church and some of these other
mainstream Christian organisations, the idea that they are literally
putting the interests of other racial groups of hostile alien racial
groups ahead of their own. That is obviously what is going on, that’s
public policy in the United States. That’s how many organisations
operate in the United States. But I don’t think that it’s really
something that’s innate within us, I think it’s a result of propaganda. I
think it’s a result of the White race being entirely deracinated, you
know, at least collectively. And fundamentally I think that it is a result
of the Jews, of the parasitic, subversive nature of the Jews and what
they do to us when we don’t recognise them as the alien, hostile race
of people that they really are.

[49:53]

TAN:

Right. They have agency. They are very, very active. They are

very, very conscious. They are more conscious than Whites are as to
their interests as a group, their existence as a group and what they
need to do to not only survive, but thrive. And Whites are not. And
part of the reason why Whites are not, the largest part, the proximate
cause, as a lawyer would say, is Jews. That is the first approximation,
that is the number one cause of this. Now, my critique of pathological
altruism, … What really set me off was when I noticed that every time
it came up, the specific examples that I saw being offered, …

“What is pathological altruism exactly, can you point to
something concrete?”

It was always things like “cat ladies” or people who adopt alien babies
from Africa or Asia. And, you know, basically they would previously

said White liberalism. You know, what is “liberalism”? It’s a vague
term. But these are specific examples, this, “cat lady” and alien
adoption thing. And what I noticed about this is, … This is not a
cause. This is a symptom of the poisonous media that is what’s
presented by this Jewish media as good and right is this kind of stuff.
And it’s no wonder that people go and do it! , you know, people
naturally do what they look around and they everyone else clucking
about, either in favor of or against.

And so we have stopped being a racially conscious group where we
talked about miscegenation as if it was a bad thing. Now we are
talking about “miscegenation as a bad thing” as a bad thing! Because
of the Jews. It wasn’t as if White people decided to that on our own.

JF: Right! It’s a direct result of Jewish propaganda.

TAN:

Of enemy activity. Yes! If the enemy drops bombs on your city,

do you blame yourself of letting your city burn? No! The enemy
dropped bombs on you. You fight the fires, but you don’t lie to
yourself that you caused the fires!

JF: Right. So what I think it boils down to is that the root cause of
pathological altruism, you know, among White people is two
interrelated factors. Number one is the denial of race. The denial that
White people have interests and that we need to be concerned about
them and to think racially. But also sort of, you know, obviously very
much related to this, is the Jewish Problem!

TAN:

Yep.

JF: And what the Jews are up to and what their agenda is. So I mean,
if with continue to deny these realities that we need to deal with, then
we are going to continue to suffer this “pathological altruism”. And
we are going to continue to watch our countries and our nations to
crumble.

TAN:

Yes. So as far as MacDonald goes, he has taken up this White

pathology and pathological altruism argument. He got it from Jared
Taylor. I think he parrots it because he respects Jared Taylor as a
colleague, another academic intellectual type who has pro-White
intentions. I think he is mistaken there. But, MacDonald is responsible
for taking it a step further. MacDonald has actually tried to come up
with a thesis that literally roots it in our genes.

He argued that, this pathological altruism is inborn and comes from
our Ice Age hunter gather ancestors. That because of the climate in
which White people evolved for 15,000 years during the Ice Ages.
That, that laid the pattern in our genes, that with are genetically
programmed to be egalitarian and tolerant and that we have moral,
that we form moral groups rather than ethnic groups. That we have
groups based on ideas rather than family relations like Middle
Easterners do, like the Jews do.

And I think that, you know, that could all be very true, … But I think,
…

JF: I was going to say, I think, I think there is something to a lot his
arguments. But maybe we just interpret them differently.

TAN:

Well, one problem is this., you know, he points to Sweden as

the epitome of the White pathological altruism, White pathology. And
the problem with that is, … He says it’s because Northern Europeans
are the most hunter gatherer of all the different European is. They
have the most hunter gatherers. They also have the most Ayran in
them genetically. And the Ayran mindset is completely at odds with
squishy, wishy washy liberal attitude. There are some similarities.

I haven’t really written about this before, but I thought about it, how,
you know, egalitarianism is not purely a hunter gatherer thing. You
can see elements of it in this “band of brothers” peer type attitude that

even the Ayrans had. That they were amongst equals of the nobility at
least. That they saw an aristocracy. They saw differences and the need
for a hierarchy. But amongst the people at the top, the Aryans at the
top who were running whatever society they conquered, they saw
themselves as a band of brothers, as equals in a way within that group.

[55:08]

JF: Yeah, and I think some of these qualities and characteristics that
MacDonald talks about and, you know, sort of ties it to evolution and
how Whites evolved throughout the ice age and what not and the
geography that we were living in, and what not. I think that there is
something to these arguments, but I think that what’s even more
important is that the Jews sort of recognise these traits and exploit
them to the hilt. I mean really, they understand our psychology. They
have really studied these things. Look at Bernays* and all these other
Jewish propagandists. They know how to do this stuff scientifically.

* [Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 – March 9,
1995) is considered one of the fathers of the field of public
relations along with Ivy Lee. Combining the ideas of Gustave
Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the
psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, Bernays
was one of the first to attempt to manipulate public opinion
using the subconscious.

He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he
regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the ‘herd
instinct’ that Trotter had described. Adam Curtis’s award-
winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the
Self, pinpoints Bernays as the originator of modern public
relations, and Bernays was named one of the 100 most
influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine.

Born 1891 in Vienna to Jewish parents, Bernays was nephew to
psychoanalyst pioneer Sigmund Freud. His father was Ely
Bernays, brother of Freud’s wife Martha Bernays. His mother
was Freud’s sister, Anna. In 1892 his family moved to New
York City. In 1912 he graduated from Cornell University with a
degree in agriculture, but chose journalism as his first career.
He married to Doris E. Fleischman in 1922.

In the 1920s, working for the American Tobacco Company, he
sent a group of young models to march in the New York City
parade. He then told the press that a group of women’s rights
marchers would light “Torches of Freedom”. On his signal, the
models lit Lucky Strike cigarettes in front of the eager
photographers. The New York Times (one April 1929) printed:
“Group of Girls Puff at Cigarettes as a Gesture of ‘Freedom’”.
This helped to break the taboo against women smoking in
public. During this decade he also handled publicity for the
NAACP.

Source: Http: ed / en.metapedia.orged wikied Edwardtion
Louistion Bernays]

TAN:

Yes. Manipulative. They are manipulative and they’re ruthless

in the manipulation. They are hyper aware, hyper sensitive and willing
to do whatever they have to do to manipulate their host to behave
however they need it to behave. The thing about MacDonald is you
can use his own arguments that he makes in Culture of Critique and
he’s made since. He went on, … He had two recent interviews with
Nordfront that were very, very good. I recommend to anyone who
likes MacDonald. And he himself lays out that he thinks culture is
very important and that it’s critical. That’s why he wrote a book about
the culture of critique. And yet, as I say, the Jewish influence in recent
history is the proximate cause for the degeneracy that we see around
us. All the stuff that people point at and say:

“That’s pathological altruism”.

Well, the Jewish finger prints are all over it! The Jewish control and
dominance of the media and the sick messages that they send out,
portraying this degeneracy as normal, as heroic, as something to
celebrate! That’s the number one cause of the degeneracy that you see.
It’s people ingesting that poison and it’s no wonder that people get
sick and die from that kind of stuff.

JF: Yes. Very well said and I want to talk more about the Jewish
media here in a few minutes. Really quickly, you mention this idea of
White suicide and this is something that I have heard Jared Taylor talk
about this idea of White suicide, how Whites are literally committing
suicide and implementing policies that are suicidal in nature. And
again I think that is a very flawed argument because I think they are
not suicidal, I think they’re genocidal and they are coming from the
organised Jewish community and their puppets., you know, their
goyim puppets in key positions of power and influence in America,
certainly. And you know, what’s incredible is really, most important
positions in the federal government, in Congress in the Obama
Administration are actually controlled by Jews themselves. So it’s
certainly not suicidal if the Jews, a racial foreign element, are
implementing policies that are destructive to us. That’s not suicide,
that’s genocide.

TAN:

That’s right. That’s right. They don’t identify positively with

Whites, in fact they identify negatively. They see Whites as the enemy.
So, yes, it’s not suicide. The number one tip off is that suicide is a
very personal decision. You consciously decide, “I’m gonna end my
life” for whatever reason and you do it. That’s suicide. What’s
happening is the people who actually control the levers of power or at
least have some sort of influence over it. They are the figure heads, for
instance the President of the United States, the President of various
other countries in Europe. They are not suicidal, they are almost the
polar opposite. They are so concerned about themselves and their own

personal interests and that’s really what the problem is, is the over-
concern for personal interests and a complete lack of consideration for
their race, for the larger group. They think that they can live without
their larger group.

JF: And that to me is the epitome of this idea of Whites being
deracinated. There’s a disconnect between Whites as individuals and
Whites as a wider community, a wider racial community.

TAN:

Right.

JF: And we have to understand that. We have to understand that we
are part of a wider community and we have to start thinking in these
terms if we want to compete and eventually retake our countries. I
think that is happening. I think there are more people realising these
sorts of things. Go ahead.

TAN:

Beyond merely competing, we have to go beyond seeing the

Jews as yet another group that wants to exploit us. That’s when we
come to what is a better thesis for understanding the relationship
between Whites and Jews, is parasitism.

[60:02]

That if you look at it in biological terms, and the Jews are constantly
dropping hints that you should look at it in biological terms. When
they talk about ant-semitism, they talk about it as a disease. They talk
about it as an infection. As a virulent thing. And the reality is, … If
you look up virulence you find out, … What does virulence mean?
Virulence is the technical term for the damage that a parasite causes
it’s host. That’s what virulence is. The more virulent a parasite is the
more damaging it is, the more deadly it is to it’s host.

And actually, the Nordfront guys brought up a point that a true
parasite basically can co-exist with it’s host for an extended period of

time, whereas a parasite-like entity that kills it’s hosts is called a
parasitoid.

JF: Interesting!

TAN:

I thought that’s interesting. A fine distinction. They’re parasitic

basically and that’s the best way, I think, to make sense of all of it. All
of the pieces fall into place when you understand it that way.

Many, many people, even people who aren’t racialists have written
about the financial parasitism of the banker class or the donor class or
whatever. That they are behaving in a parasitic way, financially. Well,
financial [parasitism] is just one aspect of the whole thing. The Israel
lobby in Zionism, is another, more, … It’s related to money, but it’s
also about sovereignty, it’s about redirecting the resources of many
other nations to the benefit of Israel. Shipping them money, shipping
them arms, making promises to protect them. The leaders of the
United States and European countries say things in defence of Jews
and Israel that they would never say about even defending their own
countries that they run! And, you know, Trump is a good example of
that.

JF: Right. That was actually the next topic. I mean, this idea of, …
Really the most accurate way of viewing the Jew is as a parasite,
right? I mean, that is really [true] in my opinion. And I think you’ve
elaborated on this in great detail on some of your radio shows about
this reality. I mean, that is the way, you know, we have to understand
these people.

Again, this is something that the Germans talked about, you know, the
National Socialists clearly understood this and wrote about it. And,
you know, made it a central aspect of what they were trying to
communicate to the German people.

As you mentioned there’s many forms of this parasitism, financial,
obviously political. Look at the holocaust industry. This is in my view
the most outrageous and truly infuriating and blood boiling, … I
mean, I cannot stand these Jews and this fake “Holocaust” story. And
the way they just exploit us financially, emotionally, culturally. You
can’t avoid the “Holocaust” in the West today.

TAN:

That’s right. The elements of the parasitism that came to me,

that stood out to me were the infiltration, the manipulation, the
exploitation. This pretty much covers all of what the Jews do, how
they do it and that all points to parasitism. They are exploiting
secretively, furtively, they are exploiting a host. They do whatever
they can to subdue our defences, in fact what the Jews have done is
they’ve hijacked our defences, they’ve actually turned our defensive
mechanisms, our defensive institutions into institutions that benefit
them. That protect them, within our own countries. And the
“Holocaust” is a big part of that.

JF: Yes, and that kind of gets into the next topic. And that’s this
“cuckservative” meme that is a relatively phenomenon. I’m pretty sure
I’ve seen you write and talk about this subject, but I’m curious. What
are your general thought on it? And the idea that it expresses, because
I think it’s a very powerful, devastating critique of American politics.

TAN:

It is devastating. I think most of the people who use the term

are not even really fully conscious of just what it is they’re implying. I
think many people are talking about it in terms of the inter-racial sex
fetish. That cuckolding fetish. But it really traces back, … The root of
the whole concept is the exploitation of a parasite, of its host and the
cuckoo bird. You know, how the cuckoo bird is this giant bird, comes
lays this giant egg in some smaller birds nest and then that giant egg
hatches into a giant, screeching, demanding chick, …

JF: Just a disgusting bird.

[65:00]

TAN:

It hatches early. It’s genetically different than the bird it’s

parasitizing and it kicks out their eggs and then screeches at the top of
it’s lungs to be serviced by the other bird. And if you dig deeper into
even that, and I haven’t heard anybody but Jews really go into this, …
There’s one Jewish biologist that wrote about this. How a cuckoo bird,
actually… There is a struggle between the cuckoo parasite and it’s
host. The host that tries to defend itself, by say, knocking the cuckoo
bird egg out, the cuckoos will come and punish that bird by destroying
it’s nest.

And so, there’s a give and take, there’s a push back and forth. And I
see that even, … I haven’t dug into the details of it yet. There’s still
lots to do with demonstrating the Jewish parasitism of Europeans over
the course of millennia. But one of the elements that you should see if
it is parasitism is you should see some attempts by Europeans to sort
of adapt and do something to defend themselves. In fact, you could
see all of the expulsions that Europeans have done over the centuries
as one bit of evidence in that Europeans have tried to defend
themselves. It’s not suicide, they’ve repeatedly tried to defend
themselves but they are never able to achieve full consciousness and
they just end up kicking the problem next door.

It’s like, if you’ve got roaches in a motel and you just gas one
apartment, the roaches move next door to the other apartments and
then ultimately they filter right back in to the apartment that was
cleaned out and that’s what, … The Jews have actually adapted to that
kind of treatment of them over time too. They’ve counter-adapted to
being expelled. It’s part of their life-cycle now, being expelled.
They’ve made it into their narrative.

The holocaust narrative is really just the most recent example of the
narrative that they’ve been telling for two thousand years, about how
they’ve been horribly oppressed by every host that they’ve ever tried

to exploit, and it’s become the story that they tell. George Lincoln
Rockwell wrote a great metaphorical story about it, “The Ducks and
Geese”. The parable of the ducks and geese.

JF: And we see how, not only how important this fake holocaust story
and just this narrative of Jewish persecution is. We see how central
this is to their over all agenda. But, I mean, it’s just something that
defines them as Jews, it’s a central aspect of their Jewish identity.
There’s public polls, the Pew Research Center does research on
different ethnic groups in America. And the most important aspect of
Jewish identity, when you ask Jews and when you poll jews, whether
it’s in America or anywhere really in the whole world, is their
identification with this fake “Holocaust” story. And that they’re
victims and that their people have this history of oppression and the
whole world hates them. It’s a central aspect.

TAN:

Right. That is the number one answer that they provided as to

what it was that made them identify as Jews. That is the number one
thing that they cite themselves. Jews polling Jews or Pew polling Jews
about it.

JF: Exactly. You know, another interesting aspect of Jewish parasitism
and just how effective it’s been and how out of control it is in
America, is again, going back to this idea of a cuckservative. We have
these mostly White guys in the GOP, in the Republican party, who
portray themselves as these great American patriots. When in reality
all they are doing is serving the interests of Jews, on every single key
aspect of public policy. Whether it’s foreign policy, domestic policy,
they always bow down to the Jews; and yet they’re able to effectively
present themselves as these American patriots and American heroes.

TAN:

Right. Yes, they’re not cat ladies. They’re selling out their own

kind, either consciously or unconsciously for their own personal
benefit. For power, for fame, for fortune, whatever it is that drives
them to do it. Or, … There’s also an angle to it of vicarious racial

identity. That they know they can’t identify as White. I think of this
when I think of people like Limbaugh and Coulter and Hannity,
although less. I think they’re waking up to it a little bit themselves, but
in the past it seemed to me like, they, … People like that take a certain
joy out of talking about Jews, like they’re this people to sympathise
with and to defend and to give your life in their defence. [It] just
makes you the most wonderful person in the world. And the
cuckservative thing cuts through all that! And even more specifically,
“kikeservative”, emphasises the fact that what they’re doing is sick.

[70:00]

If you want to talk about White pathology, that’s the number one
evidence of White pathology is when people actively identify with
their enemy, and talk about their enemy in these glowing, positive
terms. You’ve got to be mentally ill.

JF: Yeah, they literally are servicing their own racial enemy. The
racial element that wants to destroy everything that they stand for. I
mean it’s amazing.

TAN:

I don’t mean to cop out and say:

“Oh, they’ve got to be crazy!” because I think that’s what it is.

When people say:

“My enemy is stupid” or, “My enemy is crazy” what that really
is, is they are copping out saying, “I can’t explain it” or, “I don’t
want to explain it so I’m just gonna call it stupid or crazy”.

The reality is that I think there is a way to make sense of what these
people are doing. Which is that they just don’t care about their race.
They in fact think that their race is a liability and they need to cut the
chord with their race in order to progress, to make their career, or to at

lest maintain their career. That they have to act like they don’t care.
They have to show that they don’t care.

It’s becoming more and more obvious, this, “Black Lives Matter”
thing and what happened at Mizzou (University of Missouri).where
you’re basically now being pressured if you’re in any form of position
of power as a White man, or White woman, to renounce your race and
accept guilt for your race.

That’s part of what I didn’t like about White pathology also, is it’s
basically related to that, what White liberals do, denouncing their
Whiteness. When White racialists talk about White pathology and
pathological altruism, what are they doing? They’re not saying they,
themselves, are born pathological, that they are behaving
pathologically. No, it’s those other Whites! It gives them a sort of
boost in their brain to say:

“Oh yeah, I’m not broken, but all those other Whites are.”

It’s taking responsibility in the most dishonest way, of not really
taking responsibility yourself, personally, but saying somebody else is
responsible for it. And the funny thing about that is when I made this
critique, the very first thing and the loudest criticism of me, that
comes at me was:

“Oh you just want to blame the Jeeews for everything, you want
to shift all the blame to the Jews”.

It’s a stupid argument. It’s simplistic and it’s easy to take it apart.
What I’m actually arguing is that there’s two here, there’s at least two
parties involved, Jew and Whites, and they’re in conflict. And it’s not
that it’s just the Jews or just Whites. It’s the people who say it’s
suicide that are really saying that there’s no Jews involved:

JF: Exactly, it’s all dumb Whitey’s fault. Now, there’s a couple other
topics that I wanted to wrap up with here and one of them is, two of
the most important issues in my opinion. Two issues that are central
not only to the White struggle but just the struggle for truth and
honesty and decency and some sort of integrity in our society is being
honest about the true history of World War Two, so “Revisionism”.
And then 9/11 truth. You know, being honest about 9/11 and what
really happened and who was really behind it. And it sounds like,
based on your comment earlier in this interview, you might disagree
with me on 9/11.

But I’m just curious, what role do you see for Revisionists, for people
that are doing critical research into World War Two, into World War
One, into this alleged Jewish “Holocaust” story? Which in my view
has been thoroughly and conclusively debunked once and for all. We
have the evidence and proof to explain everything that we’re saying
about this event, this alleged event. So I’m curious, what are your
thoughts on these two important topics?

TAN:

I think different things, different issues appeal to different

people, because of where they’re coming from, where their
background is. I think in general, what you’re getting at is there are
these other, sort of related movements that are on the periphery of the
White struggle, what you called, … Is being pro-White, having a
racial identity and fighting for your race and those other things attract
truth seekers. That’s the general description you could give to it. There
are people that sense there is a problem. They don’t accept the
mainstream narrative, the mainstream explanation for what the
problems are.

[75:00]

As I’ve pointed out many times the mainstream explanation of what’s
wrong is racism! Whites, White supremacy! Those are the problems
according to the Jewish mainstream narrative. And there are people

who that doesn’t compute with. I mean they look at things like 9/11,
they look at things like the “Holocaust”, … Other things that I could
think of that are similar, … Men’s Rights or even the Counter Jihad
people. They are all coming at it from different angles. It reminds me
of that cartoon or parable of the elephant, the wise men, … The blind
wise men and the elephant. They all feel a different part of the
elephant, they all describe it in a different way. But it’s all connected
and it’s all, you know, the Jews are all behind it.

[Image] The jewish elephant and the blind wise men.

The problem with these other things, whether it’s 9/11 truth and
maybe to a lesser extent “Holocaust” revisionism, but certainly with
Men’s Rights and certainly with Counter Jihad is that it’s full of Jews.
There are Jews trying to derail you. There are Jews trying to get you
stuck just there, … Don’t go any further! Don’t think about White
racial consciousness. A lot of the people involved aren’t White or are
only half White. And there are a lot of half Jews or part Jews are there
to. Who are pretending to be White. And there are a lot of gate
keeping going on. So it’s a two edged sword.

Those other related areas, 9/11 included, are ways in which people see
that there is something wrong with the system. And for them different
things are the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and hopefully they
then proceed through the gate to full racial consciousness, to full truth
of it all.

JF: Absolutely! And in my opinion, I mean, the racial issues are by
far, you know, the most issues that I’m dealing with. But I do think
that revisionism and 9/11 truth, and just being honest about the nature
of the media and the Jewish media and how it’s being used to deceive
us and what not. Just being, you know, being honest about all these
subjects. I think it’s important and critical for our success.

But I do agree with you, there are a lot of people in 9/11 truth that
really kind of get bogged down and they, you know, they don’t
continue to progress to where we are at, where we are talking about
these issues.

TAN:

I’ve read people that have come through 9/11 truth, Mike

Delaney is one that I think of that have pointed out that there’s lots
and lots of Jews. They are creating disinformation. So they sense that
there is something there that needs to be covered up. They sense that
it’s a weak point. And they flood in there as gate keepers, as charlatans
to keep people busy poking around all the different theories there.

JF: Right.

TAN:

My own opinion about 9/11 is, “I don’t know” I wasn’t there.

I’m not involved with it directly, I don’t know anyone directly, …
Well, actually I knew a few people who were involved, who were at
Ground Zero, … I don’t know anybody who was directly killed, they
wouldn’t be able to tell me anything anyway. But, the thing is it’s, it’s
some, … Whatever happened there is, … The argument that I often

hear is, the argument that you laid out pretty well. The Jews or Israel
did 9/11. And we can be certain of that.

And I would only say to that, is we can’t be certain. I don’t know that
for certain that it was the president of Israel or a bunch of Israelis that
planned the whole thing and did it. You get into these gradations of
argument where you can argue endlessly. Just how much did Israel
do? Did they, at the very least, … And what I’m comfortable with
accepting is that they know that there were Muslims that were doing
it. And that they didn’t in any way communicate to United States
security that, that this was going to happen. So they didn’t prevent it.
And you get finer, more and more gradations all the way to a surreal,
… It was all just crisis actors, … It didn’t really happen. It was just a
Hollywood production.

And I understand why people can go that far, because they see
Hollywood productions, … But, they see what the Jews are capable of
putting up on the screen, you know, that they can manufacture things
that look real, … But, to me that is not necessary. I don’t even need to
dig into the details of 9/11. By the time people told me that I should
look into 9/11, I was well past that. I already understood that, … I
understood race, and I understand that the Jews are the enemy.

So, once you understand that, I think that is really what the important
thing is. This other things, 9/11, the “Holocaust”, all the details of the
“Holocaust”, arguing that amongst each other, Men’s Rights, Counter
Jihad, … All that stuff just becomes peripheral, once you realize that
race is real, the White race is what is important to you, … And the
Jews are the biggest enemy of that, … Then yes, you could say that
the Jews are capable of just about anything.

[80:00]

The Jews give the commands to our government. Sure, Jews rule! I
mean, if not directly occupying the office of the President, they are the

ones who narrate our imaginations. Using their control of the media,
they put the ideas in our heads as to what is good and what is bad and
with that power, it’s like the power to print money, there’s almost
infinite spill-over from that into other things. I want to say, though,
that it’s not infinite. The Jews do not have infinite control and that’s
what makes me skeptical about elaborate things, like 9/11 or some of
these other things that people say are just hoaxes, entirely. Even when
they say the “Holocaust” was a hoax, or the “Holocaust”, the
Germans had camps. They put Jews in those camps. They
distinguished Jews from themselves racially, biologically. That is real.
The hoax part is the soap and the lamp shades and the six million, …

JF: And the gas chambers, yeah.

TAN:

… and all of the exaggerations that the Jews tell about it. But it

goes deeper than just the holocaust, even. It’s questioning the Jews on
any aspect of their history. Take disagreeing with the Jews about the
fact that they are victims, historically. That’s as bad as “Holocaust”
denial. It maybe doesn’t have a word for it other than anti-semitism,
anything more specific than that. But that is really what you need to
do is realise that the whole thing is a lie. Not just the “Holocaust”, but
their whole history from their point of view, is a lie.
And this is another point to make, is history itself is a story from a
certain point of view. People like to describe history as having an
objective basis in reality. And yes, there are facts upon which given
history is based. Events happen. But even when you have something
that happened recently. If you have two people involved and you both
of their stories you’re gonna get two different versions of what
happened. Which one is true? It’s hard to tell. And even you standing
outside of it listening to both sides, you create a third opinion, a third
view of what happened. I’m not trying to say that it’s all relative but
it’s more relative I think than most people give credit to. I’m a
rational, logical person. I believe in reality based, … I believe in
science. I’m grounded in that way and I’m skeptical of arguments
based on just hand waving and assertion, you know, saying:

“You’ve got to believe this otherwise you’re stupid”.

And that’s one of the things that’s left a bad taste in my mouth about
9/11, is when people come and make an argument like that to me:

“Oh, you believe that 12 Arabs or 19 Arabs did 9/11? You’ve
got to be an idiot!”

Actually I just don’t know. And I know I don’t trust my government, I
know I think my government answers to Jews and serves Jews more
than it serves it’s own citizenry. I know that that’s a fraud. I know
(Franz) Boas was a fraud. What more do you need to know other than
Jews are the enemy. Why dig into the details?

JF: That’s fair enough, I understand where you’re coming from.

TAN:

I’m not opposed to the people who want to spend their life

digging into the details of 9/11 or the holocaust or any of the other
aspects. That research is valuable because then you can, like
MacDonald’s books, you can point at it, you can say:

“OK, I can build from there. I can stand on the shoulders of
those giants and I can do something beyond that. Something
meta. Taking their results and all the detailed arguments that
they’ve laid out and going beyond it”.

JF: Yeah, OK, that’s fair enough. I have a much clearer perspective of
where you’re coming from on these issues, so thanks for clarifying all
that. And I totally hear what you’re saying, it’s a good argument
although, obviously I’d probably disagree slightly.

Now to wrap up here I just wanted to get your take on Trump, on
Donald Trump especially and just the Presidential campaign in
general. I’ve been frankly very impressed with Donald Trump. I’m not

trying to say he’s some kind of White nationalist or anything like that,
but I think he’s saying a lot of very important things and I do find him
to be a genuine person and I think he’s running a brilliant campaign.
So, what’s your take?

TAN:

He’s definitely creating an earthquake and several earthquakes,

a daily earthquake, you know:

“What did Trump do today to turn things upside down?”

JF: Right!

[85:00]

TAN:

And in that respect it’s good. I think, first of all, though, Trump

is an example, a physical example of how the Jews infiltrate, how they
intermarry with the non-Jewish elite and form alliances with them and
together how this goes forward. You know, Trump as unlikely as he is
to say:

“I’m a proud White man and I’m gonna do what’s best for
White people.”

He does say things that come very close to that about Jews. How he’d
be a good President for Jews because he’d defend Israel a thousand
percent and all that stuff. So he’s a good example of how Jewish
influence actually works. But I think on the flip side, on the good side
for Trump is that he exposes this Judeo-Liberal democracy for the
fraud that it is. That basically, it’s pretty obvious that the people
behind the curtains are Jews, because of the way that Trump is so
obsequious to Jews and Israel, but also how they react. How Jews are
very, very much trying to incite fear and loathing of Trump. How they
compare him to Hitler, even though the comparison is laughable. In
their minds it’s real! That’s a measure of how hyper sensitive they are,
the old joke about:

“Your broken leg is a comedy and my hang-nail is a tragedy”.

Everything is another tragedy, another holocaust about to happen from
a Jewish point of view. That’s part of the secret of their success, they
don’t let any detail slide. And when it comes to Trump, they did the
same thing with Obama. They complained that he was a horrible anti-
semite and every little thing he did that they didn’t like:

“Obama is a horrible anti-semite”.

So this is becoming, I think, more obvious to more Whites more
quickly than it ever has in the past and Trump is, he’s not doing it on
purpose. I think, … The way I understand Trump is that he is just a
pragmatist. He wants to be President and he knows that all he has to
do is say things that are popular. And he doesn’t care if other
candidates wouldn’t say those things. They know what is popular too.

They know shutting down the border, building a wall, deporting them
all, all of that stuff, “Make America great again”, they try to mimic
him to the extent that they can but they all answer directly to Jewish
donors. The Jewish donor class that funds their campaigns and who
would destroy them in the media if they were to say those things that
Trump is saying. Well Trump is saying it and the media is trying to
destroy him, the Jewish media, but he’s using Twitter and Facebook
to go directly to the people. It’s the first candidate who’s really done
that himself. I mean, candidates have in the past had those social
media accounts, but Trump actually communicates mostly that way
and most of the Jews media tearing down at him is reacting to what
he’s doing.

JF: Yeah, and that’s what I mean by he’s running a very effective
campaign and that he’s genuine because he is himself out there
operating his own Twitter account. And he speaks very well in front of
crowds I think. Again, the issues that he’s bringing up are very

important and resonating very deeply with, well, sort of, most of
America! Well, I think a lot of his views on the border, for example,
are mainstream amongst many Americans.

TAN:

And even many non-Whites. He’s actually more popular with

non-Whites than the media. That was one of the things that they tried
on him first is:

“Oh no, he said this horrible stuff about Mexican immigrants,
and that’s it, he’s lost the Mexican vote”.

The assumption being that Mexicans vote as a block and they all vote
pro-immigration and the reality is different than that. And Trump has
demonstrated that.

I think the other main point about Trump to keep in mind is that we’ve
seen this pattern before, in fact it’s been the pattern of White
politicians for a hundred years, at least the last fifty, where they
promise things like Nixon did with his, “silent majority” quote. That
was the thing that the “dispossessed majority” that we were talking
about earlier, … Nixon talked about the “silent majority” and he
talked in private with Billy Graham about that it was the Jews that
were the enemy and attacking him although he didn’t seem to really,
fully appreciate just how much of an enemy they were. How
implacable they were.

But we’ve seen it with Schwarzenegger in California. You should be
familiar with that. Maggie Thatcher in Britain did it. They “dog-
whistle” on race, that’s what the left calls it, dog-whistling is saying
things in code like Trump does that are popular and they know are
popular. But then when they get into office they don’t actually deliver.

[90:00]

TAN:

When they get into office they don’t actually deliver, they do

the the opposite, in a lot of cases, in fact, like Thatcher did, like
Reagan did, or Nixon, uh, Trump would be a change from the normal
if he were to get into office and actually try to do what he’s said he’s
going to do, … Building a wall, and everything, and he said he’s going
to build a wall, but he also said he’s going to have a great big door in
it. That’s evidence that Trump understands that he can say whatever he
wants to get elected. He tells one group of people I’m going to build a
giant wall and for the benefit for the other people who are skeptics or
don’t want to hear that, he says I’m going to have a big fat door in it,
and he’s trusting that people are too stupid to put those two together
and see that they contradict each other.

JF: Um hmm, …

TAN:

And, for the most part, I don’t think it is stupidity. I think it’s

just people, they want to hear, … they want leadership, certainly.
White people, are just thirsty for somebody to push back against this
smothering, downward spiral, that even if they don’t think in terms of
race, they think in terms of their country. Their country is going to hell
and they want to take their country back. Often times they don’t think
any further than that – they don’t think to themselves, take if back
from who? From the Mexicans? It’s not the Mexicans who let
themselves in here. They don’t want to confront the fact that it’s race
and it’s the Jews that are the enemy.

And on Trump, the ones who are cheering for Trump, at least half of
them are in that camp. They’re cheering for Trump because he’s
saying things they want to hear. But they aren’t thinking beyond that
to – can I really believe this guy? Is he really going to do what he’s
saying? He says he loves Israel and he loves Jews – his daughter’s
married to one, he does business with them, … Can I really trust him
to fight the enemy?

JF: Yeah, I know, those are all good points and very well taken, I
think, um, we’d be fools to simply assume that Trump is just going to
get in there and do everything that he’s now saying. And, as you
mentioned with his comments about he wants to have a big door to let
people in through the border are a little bit troublesome, yeah. But, I
mean, definitely we should hold his feet to the fire as best we can. And
that my strategy has always been that as soon as he got into the
campaign was to really try to reach out to his supporters, to people
who are paying attention to Trump – your tea party types, your
traditional conservatives and old time Republicans, and to sort of draw
them into our camp. Into the race realist camp, into the quote,
unquote, “anti-Semitic camp”, which, as we talked about, is just being
honest about Jews. And maybe that’s been effective to a certain
degree, maybe not, I don’t know. But I really think we have the
potential to reach out and get more and more people into our way of
thinking as a result of what Donald Trump is doing with his campaign.

TAN:

Yeah, it only takes a little bit of nudging because the evidence is

right there for people to see, if they see it in the right way. They can
see, for instance, that for the last several election cycles, Whites have
been psycho-patholgized by the Jewish media, that not liking,
disliking and distrusting Obama is just a sign that Whites are racist.
And not voting for Obama:

“You’re a racist, just because you’re White.”

You don’t even have to say that it’s because you’re White. The tea
partiers are a good example of that – where they formed and the
Jewish media psycho-pathologizes them for being racists, and when
they bend over backwards to demonstrate that they’re not racist.

Meanwhile, you have Jews openly expressing their dislike for Obama,
even though they ended up voting for him. And their distrust for him.
And they’re doing the same thing with Trump this time around and the

narrative for that, is this is just Jews looking out for what’s best for the
Jews and it makes sense.

JF: Right.

Tan:

To me, that’s one of the things you can point to your mom or

pop, or neighbor next door, as something very obvious: That Jews are
not White, they’re not treated to the same standard politically as
Whites. The Jews can organize like any non-White group for their
own best interest, do it openly, and there’s no problem. In fact the
problem only starts if YOU say there’s something wrong with it, then
you’re a racist hater.

Meanwhile, Whites, just the rumor of Whites starting White student
unions is this unthinkable disaster from the Jewish media’s point of
view. They can’t stand the idea that Whites might actually organize.
Even if it’s just a rumor – and I don’t think it is just a rumor, I think
there actually is a nugget, a growing awareness that Whites are
having, that it’s not going well and I think there’s a nugget, a growing
awareness that Whites are having that, this is not going well and it’s
because they’re White, that they’re going to have to face this at some
time or another. The Jew thing I think will come after that, for some
people the Jew thing comes first and then they discover Whiteness. It
depends.

JF: Right, obviously both of them are interrelated and connected and
very, … They are easy to piece together once you start thinking about
these things.

TAN:

Right, the opposite of what Jared Taylor said, is that they’re two

separate things, they’re not related to each other.