The Smiling Jew and other clever wiles
Anthropologists think that smiling is based on an evolutionary impulse of some kind that has its origins deep in human history. Opinion differs as to what ‘smiling’ meant, or what its purpose was, at different times. One theory put forward is that due to our reduced canines, at some point smiling became a way of showing others that we are not a threat. Smiling might also have been a simple gesture of submission. Those who needed to join a group would have learnt to smile to show their submission and successfully integrate, while those who sought to express their dominance over others would refuse to smile.
Certainly in our society, one common strategy for ingratiation into a group or culture – be it the workplace or some social environment – is simply to smile. Smile, smile, smile. It is seen as a gesture of friendship, but from an evolutionary perspective, it can also be seen as a form of submission or compromise, needed for those who are genuinely submissive, but also by those who see submission or integration as merely a strategy for true dominance. The opposite behaviour, refusing to smile, can work equally powerfully, but is also risky because it is more visibly dominant and transparent in its intent. People who do not smile are typically seen as ‘anti-social’ or ‘unfriendly’. They are a threat to the cohesiveness of the group because they do not follow group behaviour. Of course, in certain situations, visible unfriendliness and other signals of dominance are a requisite of professionalism.
In his seminal motivational book, How To Win Friends And Influence People, Dale Carnegie had a great deal to say about smiling. Here are some relevant excerpts from the book:-
“You don’t feel like smiling? Then what? Two things. First, force yourself to smile. If you are alone, force yourself to whistle or hum a tune or sing. Act as if you were already happy, and that will tend to make you happy. Here is the way the psychologist and philosopher William James put it: “Action seems to follow feeling, but really action and feeling go together; and by regulating the action, which is under the more direct control of the will, we can indirectly regulate the feeling, which is not.”
Your smile is a messenger of your good will. Your smile brightens the lives of all who see it. To someone who has seen a dozen people frown, scowl or turn their faces away, your smile is like the sun breaking through the clouds.
Actions speak louder than words, and a smile says, “I like you, You make me happy. I am glad to see you.” That is why dogs make such a hit. They are so glad to see us that they almost jump out of their skins. So, naturally, we are glad to see them.
I am talking about a real smile, a heart-warming smile, a smile that comes from within, the kind of smile that will bring a good price in the marketplace.
Carnegie was capitalism’s answer to Lenin. The impact of his homespun philosophy is, I would argue, much more significant than anything written by a Friedman or Hayek. He didn’t write this book for the good of humanity and he wasn’t sponsored by the League of Nations. He was writing a book for business people. You might almost say that it was a propaganda piece for the Capitalist Party (i.e. the political elite). He began his famous motivational courses during a hiatus in the Great Depression of the 1930s, at a time when the future seemed more optimistic than later events justified, and when people were desperate for advice on how ‘to get ahead’. Of course, as anyone who has travelled through reality knows, ‘getting ahead’ normally means more or less doing as you are told and colluding in the abuse and exploitation of others. Carnegie’s innovation was to suggest that we should be nice while doing it, and actually really genuinely believe in it. Thus we would be less likely to complain about it and take up arms against the Capitalist Party, the people that Carnegie was really writing for.
The advice dispensed by Carnegie still appeals to the type of person the Americans call ‘middle class’ and we British variously call the ‘striving classes’, ‘hard-workers’, the ‘affluent working class’, ‘White Van Man’, or whatever – people who want to ‘get ahead’. Traditionally such people were, and still mostly are, white. They are normally poor – ‘affluent poor’, you might say – but they share certain delusions, including an implicit belief in the system, or at least they are not as cynical about it as, say, a drop-out might be. Their consumerism and almost fanatical belief in home ownership fuelled the post-War booms in the Anglo-Saxon economies. I think it would be safe to say that I was brought up in this environment. My parents were manual workers with few or no academic qualifications, and I remember being instilled with certain ideas, some of which were valid, while others I can see in hindsight represented ‘respectable deceits’. I was pressured to pursue a ‘career’ and cautioned against dropping out or falling in with ‘undesirables’ or the wrong crowd. These warnings, which were well-intended and contained much wisdom, nevertheless reflected a pining for respectability, and implicitly, a need among the post-War generation to put distance between themselves and their less materialist, less self-conscious parents. It also reflected, I think, a basic existential fear about the collapse of society and thus the collapse of the material prosperity that the ‘affluent poor’ enjoyed. This ‘materialism’ survives today and explains a great deal of what happens in mainstream politics.
Politics – whether the ‘social’ and ‘workplace politics’ of our everyday lives or the institutional forms – is the relational apotheosis of the Carnegie doctrine. The way we relate to each other in different aspects of our lives tends to reflect a deep need in society for compliant attitudes. A practical, seemingly trivial example of this would be the way in which any kind of vocal disturbance that disrupts the apparent equilibrium of daily life, whether a shouting match between a couple in the supermarket, or an impassioned political protest – will often prompt a response of visible shock on the part of onlookers. Increasingly, people value an equilibrium of calm and compliance to counter the anarchy and stress of their daily working lives. Extra-mural activities that are of no productive value, such as protest, dissent, anger, are being stigmatised as dysfunctional. The archetype of the ‘angry white man’ – whether he is in a committee meeting or on a golf course – is offered as an unattractive example that we are urged not to emulate.
There is nothing new in this, to be fair – a need for compliance and group think is, to an extent, a reflection of innate human impulses – but what is new, at least for our time, is the way in which compliance and consensus are being fetishised. We must not ‘rock the boat’, cause ‘trouble’, give ‘offence’ nor do anything that might threaten ‘investment’ into our local areas. We must all become Smiling Jews. Society is being reduced to a series of transactions, in which human value is measured by a shekel. This naive hyper-materialism permeates debate even among Nationalists. UKIP has co-opted those whose real loyalty is to the ‘respectable deceits’ of the post-War generation. In the end, they will do what is expected of them in the workplace, in the community and in politics, in the hope that they might be able to change the environment a little, make it slightly more favourable to whites. This is done with the best of intentions, but it serves wickedness and evil, and in any case won’t work. You know the drill by now – leave your troubles at the door and be ‘professional’, don’t rock the boat. Smile!
The Smiling Jew that each of us sees in the mirror is just the more visible element of a deeper culture that has its hold on the West. Those Nationalists who believe they can invent a counter-culture to reverse it and re-create a white society, or something like it, are mistaken. What is needed is a new society. The strategy must be separatism. The reason goes back to the nature of our real enemy. Jews understand the difference between power and influence, and prefer the latter, using overt submissiveness and ingratiation as a strategy for racial domination. Whether the Jew is Levy, Leveson or Mandelson, they do not overtly take power themselves – at least not the top positions – but instead tend to act as hired hands, right-hand men, to the putative (white) leaders, using the influence this gives them to steer institutions and entire countries. This strategy is partly self-selected, due to their natural physical unattractiveness, with the result that Jews tend to be obsessed with money, finance and capital, and are skilled in areas that require back room, bureaucratic ‘expertise’ – law, finance, administration, media production. It’s how the Jew parasite survives, and the virus needs a host.
Liberalism, the ideology that Jews promote, is an ideal vehicle for this survival strategy. It encourages whites to be ‘open-minded’, ‘tolerant’, ‘nice’ and so on – Smile! It discourages conservatism, scepticism, criticism, dissent. It is a concept, not a tangible enemy, and so cannot be fought easily. Meanwhile, the Jew hides skilfully among the host population. Liberalism helps him to do this, as a society that is ‘open’ and tolerant of different cultures is less likely to single out the Jew, but the Jew also uses miscegenation for this purpose, a kind of physical expression of liberal values, so that subsequent generations of Jews increasingly resemble the host group phenotypically, while retaining their true racial and cultural allegiance. The crocodile smile of the Jew is a reflection of both his submissiveness and his dominance. He submits to his host, the white society, knowing cleverly that this is the key to his true long-term domination. In contrast, the white man’s smile is the signal of his final capitulation and submission to the Jew. The white man as The Smiling Jew – the white man Judaised, finally – is what the Jew is really thinking when he gives you that crocodile smile. Above all else, we, the workers, are to be ‘friendly’ and ‘smiling’ – a veritable Rainbow Nation of fluffy loveliness, all equal and tolerant.
Sometimes the Jew also makes use of the ‘unsmile’. This is an indirect method of thought control using the manipulation of behaviour similar to the ‘smile’. It is in fact an emotional corollary to the smile. We are asked not to smile for our passport photographs, nor make jokes at airport security. Official business is grim and serious and the authorities must not be laughed-at. There is also the emotional bullying inflicted on The Unsmiling Jew in that he must be seen to react to certain events in a po-faced way; he must condemn dissenting public figures harshly; he must agree with the treatment of certain forms of speech as a serious ‘crime’; and he must use only a licensed form of speech, widely known as political correctness. What people often don’t appreciate is how the term ‘political correctness’ is deeply misleading. The notion is that political correctness itself is just a modern form of politeness and self-censure, a kind of legalistic application of language, a formality and almost harmless. When viewed in that limited way, political correctness can indeed be seen as just an advanced form of etiquette for people who live side-by-side with others of a different culture. In reality, the doctrine is of much deeper significance and importance. A better term for it would be emotional correctness. The Unsmiling Jew is the essential counterpoint of The Smiling Jew. He is told what to think, feel and say, and when, and even why. And he is made to feel guilty for his ‘incorrect’ feelings. Above all else, it is not enough to comply, the individual must also be happy about it and if he is not happy – usually evinced by a smile, a penchant for meaningless chatter and gossip and an interest in mindless TV soaps and sport events – then he is viewed as neurotic and dysfunctional, a ‘weirdo’, an outcast. So smile! But be careful when you smile.
Meanwhile, you will notice that the Rainbow Nation’s commissars, the celebrity white traitors and Jews, and their various hired idiots in the media, the police, politics, law, business, and academia, your boss at work – honorary Jews in short – are all permitted to be stern and unfriendly. They are, after all, the ruling class – or its collaborationist branch – and must express their dominance. This dominance entails the imposition of new values on white society, some of them entirely alien. We have already had to suffer the ignominy of homosexual equality, a sign of ‘civilisation’ the Jews tell us. Now, it seems, we must be ‘tolerant’ and ‘smile’ in the face of the sexualisation of our children. We are reassured that child abuse is never tolerated, but already we are seeing tiny glimpses of an emerging toleration. Some people really do think that paedophilia is just another sexual orientation, rather than a psychiatric condition. Typically, such people see problems such as homosexuality and paedophilia through a legalistic perspective. They advocate changes in the law so that this or that ‘orientation’ can be normalised by legislative fiat. This legal permissiveness has taken place against the backdrop of broader economic changes in society, especially the financialisation of capital and the focus on service industries, which have reduced the industrial power of working people and led to the diminished role of men in society, and with it the weakening of the family. The media and advertising industries have slowly crept into the sanctified realm of childhood innocence, like unwelcome stalkers in the night, intruding their profanity on ordinary people who tend to ape what they see in the imagery around them. Permissive attitudes have played a role in increasing the opportunities for men to indulge base desires unchecked. One undesirable result of this is an increasing role for the state in policing sexual conduct, with its courts acting as a kind of surrogate parent to an infantilised population. Executive dominance over the legislature has also left the courts without their traditional independence and without any respect for the presumption of innocence. The sexual perversion of the elite, stocked with homosexuals, and the infiltration by ethnic minorities, have resulted in a raft of anti-white legislative measures that have created a confused moral climate.
Against this background, a long-running scandal of institutionalised paedophilia and child abuse has re-surfaced over the last week. What we are being asked to believe is that these allegations cannot be properly investigated or prosecuted for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to missing documents and the memory loss of key witnesses and suspects. One suspect is Greville Ewan Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone. It is an open secret that Lord Janner, a Jewish Labour Law Lord, is a suspected paedophile. He has been investigated several times by the police for various child abuse allegations, but charges have never been brought. When asked to explain this, a range of dubious excuses are brought forth by the police. The latest announcement is that he will probably not now face criminal charges due to his ‘dementia’. The Houses of Degeneracy – formerly known as Parliament – will go to great lengths to protect itself, but on this occasion it seems that Janner will probably not be thrown to the wolves as a distraction. That he is a well-connected Jew and promulgator of Holocaust propaganda of course has absolutely nothing to do with it. No such scruples were exercised for white men accused of paedophilia – Hall and Harris, being examples – and rightly so in that they were guilty, but they too are elderly, like Janner. Only, they are not Jewish.
Janner himself is an interesting figure. A lawyer and author, he is a sort of modern version of Dale Carnegie for the more sophisticated. Titles of his books include On Meetings, On Chairing, On Presentation and How To Win Meetings. His Janner’s Complete Speechmaker shows all the brutal self-analytical qualities of Carnegie. This is someone who understands not just speech-making, but human beings as well.
“The first and last sentences of a speech are crucial. The importance of a clear, resounding, and striking first sentence and a well-rounded peroration cannot be over-emphasised. You must catch the interest of your audience from the start and send them away satisfied at the end.” [p.5].
“Personalise your message. Give your audience true incentive to listen. Whet their appetites for the substance to come.” [p6].
Throughout the book, Janner warns against the perils of jargon and cliché, the over-use of the vertical pronoun, common verbal grammatical errors, how to deal with nerves, various social faux-pas and other ways that the amateur speech-maker might trip himself up. Janner also likes the sound of his own voice:
“Part of the price of the pleasure of hearing your own voice is the need to endure the speeches of others.” [p131].
Unlike Carnegie, Janner was born into privilege and advantage, the son of Barnett Janner, a member of the House of Lords. It is interesting that he has nevertheless developed an almost neurotic obsession, expressed through his books, with the finest minutiae of social advancement and success. People of privileged backgrounds do not normally concern themselves with such things, except as a kind of commentary on the sub-culture among their own class. It’s a subject that is normally the province of the more insecure and self-made. It is tempting to think of Janner’s counterpart, Carnegie, the son of a poor Mid West farmer, as that kind of figure, someone who craved social acceptance through the pursuit of material success – a classic American 20th. century materialist, in other words – but Carnegie was more complex than that. He did end up changing the spelling of his name to ape the great steel magnate (it was originally spelled Carnegey), but in the beginning he had innocent dreams of becoming an adult education teacher and then an actor, failing at the latter. He actually fell into the more cynical area of motivational schtick, for which he would become famous, entirely by accident. Out-of-work and homeless during the Depression, he decided to combine his liking for teaching and his skill as a salesman. It is easy to see how a person in such desperate circumstances of poverty – in Carnegie’s case, he was living at a YMCA in New York – might have been driven towards a point-of-view that, if anything embraced the values of the system fanatically and ingratiatingly, including a kind of obsessive-compulsive interest in the details of human behaviour and the value of compliance and ‘getting on’. The alternative – bitter rejection of the system – would have got him nowhere.
Janner, on the other hand, has never had this type of poverty to drive him, yet much like Carnegie, he seems to concern himself with how people can get on in life and the details of success and social acceptance. Among his other titles are Janner on Communication and Janner’s Complete Letterwriter. Coincidentally, I found the latter book years ago at a second-hand bookshop, at a time when I was involved in Labour politics myself and knew about Janner (though I’d never met him), and my first thought was: Why would a successful politician, barrister and QC want to write a scratty little book on letter-writing? Now that I am aware of some unpleasant rumours about Lord Janner, my question widens to: What does Janner’s interest in writing ‘how-to’ books say about him? What’s his psychology? Appropriately, it’s a very Jewish question, so let’s employ some Jewish methods and start with the father.
The key to Janner might be found in his relationship with his father, Barnett Janner. Although he has never suffered hardship, Janner will have had to cope with the pressure of being the son of a highly-successful, self-made man, who was a lawyer and Member of Parliament, then a member of the House of Lords, and held the position of President of the Board of British Jews. All of these attainments ensured a high profile for his father, and thus the family, within the Jewish community. Barnett Janner was not necessarily the scion of privilege, though detailed information about his background is hard to find. He was born in Lithuania and his family emigrated to Britain when he was nine months old, where his father became a furniture dealer in Cardiff. Barnett, having achieved on his own merits, would have harboured similar expectations of his children. The pressure would have been considerable and might have been detrimental psychologically to his son, either pushing him into a life he did not want, or maybe turning him into an unpleasant, callous, single-minded individual. Janner went on to equal his father’s achievements, becoming a barrister, an author, a Member of Parliament, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and then a peer. He became a Member of Parliament by taking over his father’s Leicester seat on his retirement in 1970. Both were Labour politicians, and having succeeded his father, they were clearly close politically, both advocating Zionist causes. Zionism is Jewish geopolitical nationalism. Zionists believe in the creation and sustaining of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Zionism is important to all Jews, but some oppose it, a larger number affect to oppose it, still more pretend to, a smaller number support it, and almost-all Jews in some way believe in it (whether they support it or not). As a side-note, it is the case that some deeply-religious Jews are sincerely anti-Zionist and virulently oppose the State of Israel. This is because they believe the existence of a Jewish nation-state threatens Jewish existence itself. They prefer the strategy of maintaining Judaism as a tribe, rather than rely on a geopolitical entity that can be attacked. However, that view is rather principled and esoteric and definitely in the minority. In fact, most anti-Zionist Jews tend to be liberal-left types and insincere. For the Jewish Left, opposing Israel is a kind of teenage reaction or rebel style trip – an example of this tendency is Noam Chomsky, who intellectualises liberal Jewish anti-Zionism, whereas in fact if you study his writings and statements closely, you’ll realise he upholds Israel. This fake opposition is very important. Another subtle tendency of ‘pro-Zionism’ disguised as something else is found among conservative Jewish writers like Peter Hitchens, an atheist who pretends to be a Christian and stern moralist and who paradoxically admits he is Zionist. You might have noticed that he makes easy concessions to the Palestinian side in order to appear ‘balanced’ – a common tactic.
In order to ensure Israel remains in existence, it is necessary for Jews to bring influence to bear on Western governments, which can only happen if Jews are made to appear sympathetic to the West so that the interests of Jews (specifically, Zionist Jews) and the West are made to appear to dovetail. They do this in various ways. Fake opposition is deployed, as outlined above, to ensure that the parameters of contrary views and feelings are kept within certain limits. Fake anti-Zionists like Chomsky often make heavy and dramatic use of abstract legalistic language – reference is made to human rights, Nuremberg standards, etc. – as a form of linguistic submission and ingratiation towards what are supposed to be Western ideas. The method is in fact part of a strategy of dominance. Hitchens, the ‘reasonable’ Zionist uses similar liberal parameters to judge Israeli actions. Neither Chomsky nor Hitchens – nor other Jews who fall into their respective ideological camps – will mention the real reasons for Israel’s existence and its actions, which is the racial preservation and advancement of the Jewish people.
It’s important to note that there is nothing necessarily wrong or immoral in this activity, in and of itself. Jews have as much right to genetic preservation as any other group, and they also have the right to lie and trick us about it. They can’t be blamed for this. My purpose is to point out the deceit and its impact on European (white) civilisation. What we see is a narrative presented in piously humanistic, liberal, ‘Western’ terms – a positivistic, legalistic narrative devoid of actual meaning. If Chomsky, Hitchens & co. were actually intent on telling the truth, they would begin by admitting and accepting their own pro-Jewish racism, and they would point out what Israel is for and why its collapse can never be allowed to happen by any self-respecting Jew. People like the Janners played an important role in this deceitful pro-Israel narrative, by advancing 20th. century British Zionism, a movement within Britain’s traditional institutions that persuaded our government to adopt policies favourable to Israel and to Jews in general. The essential features were – Holocaust education, equality laws, joining the EEC and mass immigration. A liberal climate in society is more favourable to Jewish survival. The Janners’ loyalty was not to Britain, but to their race, the Jews. In its own way, this loyalty was admirable, but it was also detrimental to the interests of indigenous whites.
We now come to the possible relationship between the allegations of paedophilia against Greville Janner, his politics and his strange penchant for writing self-help books. Janner’s need for acceptance and pressure to emulate his father gave fuel to his ambition, but Janner was also part of a distinct and different racial group with its own interests that were, and are, separate from whites. Janner, the racist and Jewish supremacist, inculcated in Jewish culture, steeped in the rabid Zionism of his father, a bitter contemporary of the Holocaust, sees white people as cattle that he can legitimately control, trick and deceive – and possibly also sexually abuse, though that allegation remains unproven. Power is pursued for its own sake, of course, but also out of loyalty to family, tribe and race. In that respect, the Jews of today understand the survivalist importance of race and culture better than the whites of today. Janner’s patronising attitude and his obsession with social etiquette and superiority to the cattle whites is encapsulated in his books, which are the projection of a complex. With his didactic barbs about the minutiae of success, he taunts whites using the pettily repressive mores and norms of their own culture.
Unfortunately, most whites do not recognise the deeper motives in the behaviour of powerful and influential figures. Institutionalised paedophilia, even if proven, will just be seen as the disgusting actions of individuals, not the degeneracy of an entire political system. That’s because presentation is more important than the truth, something that Janner knows a thing or two about. We whites are mostly social rather than intellectual as a race. This has its advantages, but its downsides include the fact that we are easily manipulated by clever Jews. Buzz words are more effective in diverting the focus of the average white than a detailed, truth-seeking scrutiny of the facts, even to the extent that the truth – the Jewish face that is staring back at us from the television screen – will be ignored in favour of the usual mantra: “democracy”, “human rights”, “equality”, “justice”, “fairness”, the language of the cynical, lying Jew. The role of the white man is to smile back – or else.
The ultimate liberal shibboleth of our time is the Holocaust, that Greville Janner helped to invent and promote – first as a wartime Army investigator, then as a politician. In The Complete Speechmaker, Janner writes:
“About the only time that deliberate exaggeration helps the presentation of a serious case is when that case is thin. ‘If something is too silly to say, you can always sing it,’ says the operatic librettist. ‘If logic and argument are surplus’ says the skilled speaker, ‘then it is just possible that if you should loud enough, exaggerate sufficiently, thump with sufficient force, you may numb the minds of your audience.’ [p16].
I cannot, for the life of me, think what ‘Lord’ Janner must be referring to.
The question arises: how many ‘Janners’ must be publicised and how much of this sickening degeneracy must white people put up with before they begin to question the system more fundamentally? When is the White Man going to stop smiling and become angry again?