Why NAZI is a four letter word

Be the 1st to vote.

The more you tell a child he can’t have something, the more he’ll want it. I must think like a child, because the more I hear about Hitler 125 years after he came to the planet, allegedly, the more curious I am about why it’s illegal to even show his image in the country he was elected leader. Where in history have we ever seen this?

click to buy

John had Richard Tedor on twice to discuss the book on the left. In the discussion, Richard discusses National Socialism, the recovery of Germany, and ’s rather reluctant role to oversee the whole transformation and fight against communism. He talks and writes about aspects of history and Germany you will not hear or read in many places, if at all.

What did I get from this interview? It appears that National Socialism’s elevation of the common man and worker, and Germany’s trading with other nations without international money and credit, raised the ire of the Anglo American empire. While they may have thought that they had successfully crushed Germany with the Treaty of Versailles, Germany came up with a system to rise from the ashes despite the West’s best efforts. So why is it that we never hear about this system? National socialism was apparently a hybrid of liberalism and communism. It allowed private property and private ownership, with companies charters issued with the state’s best interest in mind. Instead of using the state’s power to build corporations and enrich a few, the workers and people had to see a communal or social benefit.

As America and the West’s workers are slowly assimilated to the lowest common denominator, including 0;third” world countries, those disaffected will be looking for solutions. What better way to get them NOT to look at the National Socialist solution (which was not Hitler’s idea) then to equate their system with antisemitism and the most heavily propagandized and demonized person on the planet, Adolph Hitler.

I don’t know or say that this book is right or wrong about Hitler. What I do think is wrong is that we can’t know or learn from more than one source about history and its characters. To make it a criminal offense to investigate is the opposite of free thinking and freedom in general.

I urge all fakeologists (who know how easy it is to fake history, even reality) to review this information and make your own decisions. It’s that important that we know history so we aren’t doomed to repeat it.


On this edition of The Realist Report, we’ll be joined by author Richard Tedor. Richard and I will be discussing his book Hitler’s Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs & Foreign Affairs.

via John Friend’s Blog: The Realist Report – Richard Tedor: Hitler’s Revolution.



Enhanced by Zemanta
No tags for this post.

34 thoughts on “Why NAZI is a four letter word

  1. Carole Thomas

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE2hsa… What happened among the Jews ( Jewish Committee (German Jews) vs Jewish Congress ( eastern European Jews), the Nazi’s and Zionists ( Transfer Agreement) , the Anglo- American establishment, corporations such as Ford that inspired Hitler and IBM that provided punchcards to facililitate census- taking in Nazi Germany, American and British eugenic movements (Darwin, Sanger) is hard to unravel
    This is a guy who has spent decades of his life trying to do just that. Definitely worth a listen:

    1. rickpotvin

      It’s not as complicated as you make it seem (or might want to make it seem). Just as in arithmetic in grade school where we could take a fraction down to it’s lowest common denominator, so to in this situation. I’m not trying to over-simplify but merely saying it’s simpLER than your overly complicated analysis. I’ll leave it there for now.

      1. Carole Thomas

        Hi Rick,
        I really enjoy listening to your talks with Ab! Hope you’ll be on again soon.
        I have only just discovered Edwin Black, and obviously can not vouch for the veracity of what he writes. He seems very knowlegeable and I am certainly enjoying listening to him on YouTube, but obviously now I am sensitive to the fakery aspect I take everything with a pinch of salt – as we all do. I am still sifting through what he has to say ( the Zionists and the Nazis struck a mutually beneficial deal; Influence of American eugenicists on Nazi thinking about “racial hygiene”; the link between IBM and Hitler). I find the details very complex ( but fascinating), however his thesis about the origins of the mess are quite easy to understand – it boils down to a number of elite Anglo- American families who want to maintain a stranglehold on commerce, public opinion and population by means of fear tactics. So I guess it’s quite simple after all:-)

    1. Jan Erik

      The originator of the EUGENICS idea ! :

      During their preparations for the United Nations’ so-called International Conference on Population and Development, scheduled to be held in Cairo in September of this year, the genocidal bureaucrats of the U.N. are seeking to condition governments and public opinion worldwide to accept the notion of a “carrying capacity” for our planet. In other words, the U.N. butchers would like to establish scientific credibility for the idea that there is an absolute theoretical maximum number of persons the earth can support. Some preliminary documents for the Cairo conference set a world population level of 7.27 billion to be imposed for the year 2050, using compulsory abortion, sterilization, euthanasia and other grisly means. It is clear that the U.N. and its oligarchical supporters seek to exterminate population groups in excess of the limit.

      Academic kooks like David Pimentel of Cornell University argue that the earth’s carrying capacity is even lower, and claim that their studies show the need to cut world population down to 2 billion, the “optimum human population” of “number of people the planet can comfortably support.”

      But where does the idea of “carrying capacity” come from? Is there any scientific basis for attempting to posit any limit for the human family? There is none whatsoever. An examination of the history of the “carrying capacity” argument reveals that it originated as one of the epistemological weapons of the dying Venetian Republic during the late eighteenth century–that is, of one of the most putrid, decadent, and moribund oligarchical societies the world has ever known. The originator of the “carrying capacity” argument was Giammaria Ortes, a defrocked Camaldolese monk and libertine, who in 1790, in the last year of his life, published the raving tract Reflections on the Population of Nations in Relation to National Economy. Here Ortes set the unalterable upper limit for the world’s human population at 3 billion.

      Ortes (1713-1790) was a Venetian charlatan and mountebank, and his “population possible to subsist on all the earth” has long since been exceeded and today has been doubled. Ortes was one of the most important ideologues of the Venetian oligarchy in its final phase. Many current proponents of U.N.-sponsored genocide would identify themselves as followers of Parson Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834), the author of the infamous “Essay on the Principle of Population,” which was published in 1798. But all of Malthus’s argument is already contained in a more explicit form in the writings of Ortes. In fact, in the entire school of British Philosophical Radicalism after the time of the American Revolution–including Malthus, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1732), James Mill (1773-1836) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), there is virtually nothing that cannot already be found in Ortes. The British empiricists were, as usual, obliged slavishly to plagiarize their decadent Venetian originals.

      Giammaria Ortes
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Jump to: navigation, search

      Abbé Giovanni Maria Ortes (March 1713 – 1790) was a Venetian composer, economist, mathematician, Camaldolese monk, and philosopher. He is better known for his population predictions that preceded those of Malthus.

      Orthesis belonged to the kamaldulensiska monastic order. He was probably the first one, according to Adam Ferguson, who used the term “economics” of the science, in which he exercised a remarkable activity, particularly by Economia Nazionale (1774) and Riflessioni sulla popolazione (1790), which along with other his works reprinted in Pietro Custodis anthologies “Scrittori classici italiani di economia politica” (1802–16). He was against mercantilism.

      He anticipated certain aspects of Adam Smith and Thomas Robert Malthus, especially the latter, as he felt that the population propagation, if it were offered free rein, would take place in a geometric progression with a doubling every 30 years. No one knows exactly how he died.
      Della economia nazionale (1774)
      Sulla religione e sul governo dei popoli (1780)
      Dei fedecommessi a famiglie e chiese (1784)




    2. rickpotvin

      It looks to me like Black is another in a long line of Jewish revisionists since The American Dream doesn’t include ethnic cleansing. On the contrary, it promotes the notion that all men are created equal (in a value sense). It turns out that the Holocaust is a hoax, as well. So we’ve got a seriously different point of view here. I have discovered that debating race is pointless without debating banking. The type of banking and money system usually associated with Jews is based on debt with no ability to repay the interest– of course. On the other hand, there banking associated with sovereign nation-states– based on “credit” which is the system that Hitler used to get Germany going again (doing an end-run around the Jewish owned banks)– Hitler having admired Lincoln’s “greenbacks” used to fight the Civil War. The privately owned and misnamed Federal Reserve has been run by Jews– and is a private institution. This element of America is treason of the highest order. The Fed should be nationalized. The Byzantine Empire succeeded for 1000 years as the Post Roman Eastern Empire because it did not allow Jews– with their private debt ideas– into banking. Hitler realized he had the same problem. As far as the master race goes, Jews already consider themselves to be God’s Chosen People. How can anyone top that? But again– looking at BANKING before we look at RACE, I think is far more productive.

      1. Carole Thomas

        Mmm you say the American dream doesn’t include ethnic cleansing and promotes the idea of the equality of man. I’m a bit sceptical about that. Maybe the American dream is a hoax too,
        David Starr Jordan wrote a book published in Boston by the American Unitarian Association. called “BLOOD OF THE NATION, THE; A STUDY OF THE DECAY OF RACES THROUGH SURVIVAL OF THE UNFIT (1902).”
        He proposed that the “blood of a nation determines its history “ and that the “history of a nation determines its blood.” He thought that Rome had declined because the best and fittest had been sent to battle and had died, while the weak and unfit had remained at home and reproduced causing a decay in the character of the nation. He believed the Anglo- Saxon founding fathers had the best blood and was worried that due to a low birth rate a decline similar to that of Rome would be inevitable. He believed the population in America could be bettered by eugenic measures. His writings suggesting that that “a race of men or a herd of cattle are governed by the same laws of selection” inspired many other people in America and elsewhere ( eg Nazi Germany) and got favorable reviews in popular periodicals. It doesn’t sound to me much like the thought of ethnic cleansing was unpalatable in the America of the early 20th century or that the American Dream was something that was open to all.

          1. Carole Thomas

            It’s more of a gut feeling but I think there has to be a difference between institutional eugenics with some kind of pseudo- scientific basis and intermarriage within a community ( endogamy).

            I came across an interesting website where the topic of what constitutes Jewishness is gone into in some depth. Here’s an extract where they talk about endogamous dynamism, ie intermarriage within a community is the rule but exceptions can be made if these exceptions are seen to promote self- interest. I am still exploring the topic.


            “So we return to the eternal question: ‘Who then are the Jews?’ The problem with all these definitions is that they are barking up the wrong tree. The essence of Jewry lies not in any purported genetic preservationism, but rather in its eugenic dynamism. By maintaining high barriers to genetic interlopers, but not excluding them entirely, a constant influx of high-quality genes was achieved, producing superior intelligence. The Jewish-British geneticist and eugenicist Redcliff Salamon formulated the most accurate definition: an endogamous family1:

            Jews = members of a cultural and breeding alliance

            Still another added twist is the concept of Jewishness as a cancelable condition, as when the London newspaper ^ Jewish Chronicle in a 1930 editorial referred to Leon Trotsky as a “former Jew” on the grounds that he had abandoned all the religious and cultural accoutrements of Jewish culture. (Trotsky himself referred to himself as a Russian.) Much the same concept was presented by the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) in dismissing Jewish disparagers of Jewry as “inauthentic Jews,” and more recently by the Israeli demographer Sergio DellaPergola in referring to persons who are “currently Jewish.” One American Zionist (a self-contradictory phrase, some would argue) reader of the manuscript of this book commented about Karl Marx that it was insufficient to be born Jewish, one had also to “qualify.”


          2. rickpotvin

            I can’t find a reply button under Carole’s post about endogamy vs. eugenics.. and this comment section is quite impossible to “work” further given its 30 responses so far– so if anyone– esp. Carole– wants to continue this line of tought, join me in my faster forum in my thread about the Jews-as-religion hoax… www.network54.com/Forum/153202….

            Briefly, I think Carole is nitpicking with her finer (albeit probably true) distinction between “endogenics”– which nobody but those-in-the-know use– and plain old wider definition eugenics where you’re engaged in some sort of genetic refinement of humans– either to weed out low intelligence, diseases, or even select for race. Jews are the best known race-selectors-via-mommy in history— that’s well known. So Carole redefines as as endogenics. Isn’t that special? If we propose that Nordic blonde blue eyes engage in maternal-endogenics then, is that okay? Why doesn’t that program exist and publicized? Why is race mixing thought of as politically correct and hip? — for white and black? and brown? Yet Jews are careful to NOT race mix.? Tomato, tomahto– eugenics, endogenics. The German program recognized Nordic white Aryan as a race– and favored that race. Wasn’t that Carole’s endogenics? Why is it endogenics for Jews but eugenics for Nordics Aryans? More here…

  2. Blue Moon

    After WWI, Germany was refinanced by three main institutions-
    1. The US Congress through the Dawes and Young plans-(Here’s the official story where they downplay the effects as most of the loans went to the likes of German General Electric, Krupp armaments, and IG Farben: history.state.gov/milestones/1…)
    2. Wall Street through banksters like Warburg- (www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Su…)
    3. The Vatican through Hitler’s Pope, Pius XII- (As early as 1919, Pacelli, the future Pius XII, was funding Hitler and his controllers- This link is from a Pacelli apologist but the story on page 40 seems plausible: (books.google.com/books?id=X_jU…)
    The reason Hitler, in my opinion a complete tool, and possibly more than one person, is demonized is to avert attention from the fact that the Anglo-American alliance created the Nazis in order to spearhead an attack on their other creation, the Soviet Union- Dialectics, baby!
    I may have posted something similar before but as of now I’m enthused by the idea that the Hitler seen in the newsreels taking the salute, especially in the shots where the brim of his hat is pulled down low, is not the same actor as the one seen without a hat and standing at the podium gesticulating and pontificating-
    As for the implementation of autarky, I can see it interpreted as a form of debt forgiveness by London and Wall Street to get Germany ready for the eastern war- Let’s face it, France rolled over and Britain’s pre-war diplomacy with the Reich was like an adult steadying a child’s first ride on a two wheeler- (Here’s the Wackness on autarky: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky)

    1. rickpotvin

      Sovereign nation states don’t have to be financed by anyone but themselves. Hitler had a national bank of his own and didn’t need debt financing from anyone.

      “We were not foolish enough to try to make a currency [backed by] gold of which we had none, but for every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done or goods produced. . . .we laugh at the time our national financiers held the view that the value of a currency is regulated by the gold and securities lying in the vaults of a state bank.”
      – Adolf Hitler, quoted in “Hitler’s Monetary System,” www.rense.com, citing C. C. Veith, Citadels of
      Chaos (Meador, 1949)

      Or so it seemed. Hitler and the National Socialists, who came to power in 1933, thwarted the international banking cartel by issuing their own money. In this they took their cue from Abraham Lincoln, who funded the American Civil War with government-issued paper money called “Greenbacks.”

      The projected cost of the various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. One billion non-inflationary bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates, were then issued against this cost. Millions of people were put to work on these projects, and the workers were paid with the Treasury Certificates. T

      Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved and the country was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries were still out of work and living on welfare.

      1. Blue Moon

        Germany’s recovery through the 20’s was based on foreign loans, including Vatican investments in Germany as part of the Lateran treaty, which forbade the Vatican from investing in Italy with the cash Mussolini forked over- When Hitler was installed as chancellor by Hindenberg his personality cult went into overdrive- The quotes attributed to him are obvious taunts to justify his eventual demonization and to have him become the lint catcher for the nefarious ruse that London/Wall Street had concocted- It’s easy to get swept up in the Hitler cult, even from a fakeologist perspective- My assertion is that these thugs read scripts written by British intelligence (Likely the Tavistock crowd) and that all of the economic legerdemain was on order from the same Anglo-American overseers- Like the oligarchs of Venice, real power is rarely if ever seen-

        1. rickpotvin

          I thought Germany recovered due to Hitler in the 1930s.

          QUOTES FROM
          How Hitler Tackled Unemployment and Revived Germany’s Economy
          The German worker will be saved from ruin with a concerted and … volume of tourism more than doubled, while automobile ownership during the 1930s tripled.

          Two days after taking office as Chancellor, [in 1933] Hitler addressed the nation by radio. Although he and other leaders of his movement had made clear their intention to reorganize the nation’s social, political, cultural and educational life in accord with National Socialist principles, everyone knew that, with some six million jobless and the national economy in paralysis, the great priority of the moment was to restore the nation’s economic life, above all by tackling unemployment and providing productive work.

          “The scale of the Nazi economic achievement should not be underestimated,” concludes Niall Ferguson, a Harvard University professor of history. “It was real and impressive. No other European economy achieved such a rapid recovery … To most people in 1930s Germany it seemed there had been an economic miracle.

          Rick says.. Hitler sounds like more than a personality cult to me.

          1. Blue Moon

            I just don’t buy it- The massive infusion of foreign, gold backed money into Germany in the twenties is well documented and it didn’t come from Jews- My contention is that the autarky was allowed as sort of an economic filling to extend the rearmament process which was totally overseen by London/Wall Street- The German “greenbacks” were like military script- Good only at the PX in order for the military to get their money back, or in this case, Germany- That German money was not the bankster’s money- It was for the common lug who was not going to build a portfolio with that fiat paper- Meanwhile, IG Farben and Standard Oil of New Jersey, to name one collaboration, went right on with their business in real dollars- Read The Crime and Punishment of IG Farben by Joseph Borkin to get a line on the IG/Standard holdings-
            The idea that Jewish owned banks had some kind of hammerlock on Germany is pure propaganda- In short I see the so-called Jewish bankers as nothing more than glorified tellers, handling other people’s money- Save for JFK on the half dollar, all the faces on our currency, for example, are white male protestants- Not a Jew in the bunch (Obviously Susan B Anthony isn’t of that ilk but that still born PR stunt isn’t Germane- (Tortured pun intended) The fronting of Jews in the nascent modern banking system (you could make a case that it is based on earlier Templar notions of credit) goes back to Venice (of course) and the Jews have been, and always will be, the flack catchers for the real money men-
            And since I’m pontificating on behalf of the Jews, what are they doing at the big boy’s table? A portion of my evolving narrative on the Jewish people currently reads like this: The money lenders of Venice were allowed to charge interest in order to give them an income- That’s because they were housed in the first ghetto- Now, look at the Palestinians- They throw rocks- The Venetian Jews were given something relevant to do, so they didn’t throw rocks- By and by, this banking model occurred in other parts of Europe and Jews would handle the transactions of, once again, other people’s money- Eventually, super powers need their money men in close concert- Here’s is where the Rothschild’s step in- First they had to change their name- Then they had to take off the yarmulkes because you can’t have Jud Suss sitting at the banquet table with Barons and Earls- You have to have your proxy bankers look and act like the peerage- That was the deal then and that is the deal today- Flack catchers-
            Consider this: The Venetian/Jewish banking system develops right around the era of the founding of the new world, and it is around this time that the term “Jew” is recognized/imposed by officialdom- Jews were ghettoized in Europe and culturally collectivized while given a hand in banking to have some reason to support the system that oppressed them (though by charging interest they were seen as engaging in sin, reinforcing the stereotypes of conniving and such) Meanwhile, the Americas were being colonized and the long, desperate struggle to eliminate indigenous cultures began- Though the native peoples had many diverse cultures, the term “Indian” was stamped on their collective forehead- Like the ghetto, they were herded onto reservations- Like banking, they were eventually given a hand in the economy with gaming commissions, though, like usury, their income is based on what many consider a sin- So it goes…

          2. ab Post author

            Wow Blue Moon. That’s one of the most intelligent explanations I’ve read on the internet. I don’t know if it’s true but it sure sounds right. I may promote it to a post on its own. Brilliant.

      2. smj

        “Sovereign nation states don’t have to be financed by anyone but themselves. Hitler had a national bank of his own and didn’t need debt financing from anyone.”

        this statement may be true in theory, but in practice sovereign nations have international balance of payment settlements to meet. perhaps, the fine folks in basel, switzerland don’t like your greenbacks. the likes of ig farben, bayer, and daimler ag want to be able to act independently on the international stage.

          1. rickpotvin

            The economics of production is no hoax. Witness steel, water, agriculture and transportation.

            The economics of finance– there’s your hoax. And the crux of that hoax is to say that private-debt-finance is better than public-credit-finance. America was founded on the latter– yet the world has been hijacked by the former.

          2. rickpotvin

            I don’t understand your response with Adam Smith et. al. Production is production– in terms of PHYSICAL economy– rather than monetarism. This is quite independent from anything attributed to Smith or Marx et. al.

        1. rickpotvin

          Balance of payments can be handled bilaterally between sovereign national governments.

          Privately owned BIS says they promote financial stability– yet the world’s financial system is out of control, national programs are being destroyed, private banks involved in fake assets called derivatives are being bailed out every month and there’s more war mongering going on than ever. Not very stable if you ask me. I would close the doors of BIS and allow nations to conduct their own financial stability.

          1. rickpotvin

            What?! Subverted nation-states may be corporate fronts but the concept and the reality of the nation-state has been around for 600 years clearly defined in terms of its interests of developing continguous geographical land masses with coherent cultures of populations– and granting status to corporate entities as a lesser power to the nation-state. What “IS” is not what “should be”. You’re confusing the normative with with subjective. Ugh.

      3. rickpotvin

        Ab’s right- “wow”. So for BlueMoon then– who are the “super powers” that hired the Venetian Jews to be the flack catchers?

      1. Carole Thomas

        What makes Venice special?
        The masks! Wearing a mask gives you a sense of power and enables you to do things you normally wouldn’t.

        “made from paper-mache and wildly decorated with fur, fabric, gems, or feathers. Eventually,Venetian masks re-emerged as the emblem of Carnevale (Venetian Carnival), a pageant and street fair celebrating hedonism.
        Venetian masks have been worn in Venice, Italy, since antiquity. Unlike the vast majority of their counterparts in contemporary European nations, each citizen in Venice enjoyed a high standard of living. Everyone was part of the great economic machine that was the Republic. Venice was capitalizing on its position, on its gains, long before its contemporaries had realized the value of a market economy. With a level of social wealth unequaled since, the citizens of Venice developed a unique culture—one in which the concealing of the identity in daily life became paramount to daily activity. Part of the secrecy was pragmatic: there were things to do, people to see, and perhaps you might not want others to know what deals you were cutting. After all, the city is relatively small.

        Additionally, the masks served an important social purpose of keeping every citizen on an equal playing field. Masked, a servant could be mistaken for a nobleman—or vice versa. State inquisitors and spies could question citizens without fear of their true identity being discovered (and citizens could answer without fear of retribution). The morale of the people was maintained through the use of masks—for with no faces, everyone had voices.

        As a result of the concealment of identity, however, people naturally found themselves taking advantage of the situation. The society grew ever more decadent. The immense amount of travelers coming through the city meant that sexual promiscuity was commonplace and acceptable. Gambling went on all day and night in the streets and houses, even in convents. Women’s clothing became more revealing; homosexuality, while publicly condemned, was embraced by the populace. Even the nuns and monks of the clergy, bejeweled and dressed in the latest imported creations, wore masks and engaged in the same acts as the majority of their fellow citizens. Rome turned a blind eye, as long as the Republic continued to make generous donations.
        The Republic fell into a state of luxury, indolence, and moral decay. Eventually the wearing of masks in daily life was banned and limited only to certain months of the year.”

        Hitler, his cronies and his doubles were wearing masks. He was playing a stock character from the Comedia dell’Arte. ( “Commedia dell’Arte, (Italian, meaning “comedy of professional artists”) was a form of improvisational theater, which began in the 16th century and was popular until the 18th century, although it is still performed today. Traveling teams of players would set up an outdoor stage and provide amusement in the form of juggling, acrobatics, and, more typically, humorous plays based on a repertoire of established characters with a rough storyline, called Canovaccio.”)

        The character Hitler was playing seems to be Scaramouche. (Capitan Scaramouche either a young man of adventure or a quite old mariner, a boasting, swashbuckling officer, often Spanish, dressed-to-kill in cape, feathered hat, high boots, with sword in belt, was always a prime favorite. He told extraordinary tales about how he beat a whole army of Turks and carried off the beard of the Sultan, but when there was a hint of real danger he was the first to run away.)

        I’m guessing today that Venetian mask wearing and Comedia dell’Arte has reached a high point!


        1. rickpotvin

          Interesting angle there. It might explain the 9/11 actors as well as those kids willing to participate in drills taken to media as real and not talking about it. Not to be off-topic– but I asked you if you thought the matrilineal definition of Jewishness consistutes a massive eugenics program, above and I see no response yet. Would you care to oblige? Thanks.

          1. Blue Moon

            The matrilineal succession in Jewish families is not comprehensive- The distinction between Jewish/non Jewish has been debated for eons between Jewish reformists and the orthodoxy- Legally, gentile law has often erred on the side of “even a little bit Jew means all Jew”- Some Jewish observances on the conservative side state that the mother’s line only constitutes Jewishness- This is the longest held tradition and harkens back to the original awareness in humans of family descent, long before any of the Abrahamic traditions unfolded- Matrilineal is the natural form of family continuity- Patriarchal presumption is a much later, artificially derived urban phenomenon, reaching its zenith with Rome’s Pater familias, the legally defined notion that a man’s family is his property- Today, some Jewish reformists allow descent from either parent- As always, the Orthodox maintains matrilineal descent is the only legitimate succession- As for eugenics, the androgenization of genders is the first phase in cutting reproduction in the common classes- Matrilineal descent would seem to be resistant to that concept-

          2. rickpotvin

            I think that’s fairly accurate but I don’t see how material descent endogamy resists androgeny. If that’s true, shouldn’t all races insist on material descent for their own success in procreation?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.