It may be the case. On the other hand, an Egyptologist of the old
school may be wrong on a particular point ; a Roman historian may be
wrong on a particular point ; a modern racialist may be wrong on a
particular point ; a Church Father may be wrong on a particular
point ; yet, when the views of a Church Father, the views of a modern
racialist, the views of a Roman historian, and the views of an
Egyptologist, that is to say, of individuals who, in most other
respects, differ totally from each other, coincide totally on a
particular point, wouldn't you grant that those views can be said to
be firmly grounded, especially when they are corroborated by many
other trustworthy sources?
Speaking of sources, it should be emphasised that Jews have tried
their best to dispose of all documents allowing to trace the origin
of their 'race' as soon as they gained a foothold in the state
apparatus of the main European countries, that is to say, from around
1850 on. This doesn't only mean that some books are democratically
prevented from being published, this also means that some people are
put in charge of doing the rounds of second-hand booksellers, of
buying them those books, and of having them destroyed later -
needless to say that, in most cases, it's a goy who's put in charge
of doing the dirty work. In Paris, in Milan, and in other European
cities, many second-hand booksellers can testify for this. At least
one copy of 'Le molochisme juif' (1864) by Gustave Tridon, based on
sources which, for most of them, are almost impossible to find again,
has not been pulped, however. It should be published again by a
French publisher any time soon. Unfortunately, Tridon, a disciple of
Blanqui, didn't examine the question of the origin of the
Jewish 'race' from a racial point of view, but from a religious point
of view ; even socialist atheists didn't understand that, as put by
R.P. Oliver, in 'The Origins of Christianity', the Jews "replaced
race with a church" and imposed the latter on the goyim. It is still
deeply interesting and informative.
As for this excerpt of 'Presentation of the Jewish Problem' you
quoted, Evola doesn't really endorse the view according to which the
Pharisees were of non-Semitic origin ; he considers it as plausible.
It seems to us that this 'myth' is more or less linked with that of
the "Aryan Christ", uphold by Chamberlain and, to a certain extent,
by Rosenberg. Evola, as for him, never gave any credit to it ; in 'Il
mito del sangue', he made fun of Rosenberg for standing up for
this "tittle-tattle". On the other hand, many of his articles on the
Jewish problem gathered in the anthology 'Il genio d'Israele' confirm
that he thought that "very different bloods have flowed into the
Jewish people", whatever those bloods may be. According to him, the
Jewish 'race' was a product of the cross-breeding of all the worst
kind of racial rubbish which would wander in remote times in the
Middle-East, a geographic location which, as is clear to anyone, is
at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Hence the fact that
the Jewish 'race' became the 'anti-race'. In the same way as the
Jewish 'race' is a product of the crossbreeding between the
degenerate offspring of various bloods, the Jewish religion can be
considered as a syncretic mix of the teachings of many different
religious doctrines, which range from the Egyptian cult to
Zoroastrianism to the cults derived from it, all conceived of from
the purely moral and materialistic perspective which is peculiar to
that 'anti-race'. The Jew doesn't create, is unable to create ; all
he can do is to borrow, to copy and to ape.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@y...> wrote:
> I'm afraid it may just be the case that Evola, Doresse, Tacitus,
and Jerome, were all wrong about the
> relationship between the Jewish God and the God Set (called by the
Greeks, Typhon).
>
> After all, I believe that Evola was wrong about the following :
>
> "Ethnically, and originally, very different bloods have flowed into
the Jewish people; the Old Testament itself
> speaks of many tribes and races contained in this people and modern
race research has come to admit, in it, the
> presence of elements even of Aryan or non-Semitic origins, as seems
to be the case in particular for the
> Pharisees."
> (from 'Presentation of the Jewish Problem')
>
> Insofar as the above suggests an origin for Pharisees (who are in
fact a post-Babylonian-exile caste) in a
> higher realm than the rabble of the rank and file Israelites of the
Exodus, it recapitulates a Masonic or
> Rosicrucian myth, which few outside of Masonry or Rosicrucianism
would support. However, it also argues against
> the idea the the Israelite religion is an inversion of the Egyptian
one, suggesting rather that it is an arcane
> élite transmission of it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide
with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com