web analytics
Ancient Rome Catholic Church Celts Christendom Egalitarianism Emigration / immigration Hans F. K. Günther Islam Julius Caesar Kali Yuga Liberalism Miscegenation New Testament Oliver Cromwell St Paul Tom Sunic Universalism

Assisted suicide

“Mental AIDS” is the collapse of a people’s immune system in the face of their enemies. Practically all whites throughout the West suffer from mental AIDS insofar as they are not defending their sacred lands against an invasion of millions of non-whites. However, some white nationalists get mad when hearing the expression “suicide” as a value judgment about the pathological passivity among present-day whites. Most nationalists speak, instead, of “homicide”: the Jews being the primary infection that infected the white soul.

But what if they are a secondary infection? After all, the white people contracted Christianity (HIV) in the 4th century, which after a long incubation period eventually developed into liberalism (AIDS) during the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Liberalism, or Neochristianity as I like to call it, weakened the West’s immune system. After Napoleon, Neochristians opened the door to the subversive tribe throughout continental Europe—Jews—: a “mental AIDS”-related opportunistic infection, such as pneumonia is an infection of the somatic equivalent of AIDS.

See the HIV link above. If Christianity and its secular offshoots are massively involved in the West’s darkest hour, and I cannot conceive a biggest blunder than emancipating the Jew, why not start diagnosing the situation as “assisted suicide,” with the Jew only being too happy to comply the deranged Neochristian’s will to bring about his own death?

I am not alone in this apparently wild opinion. Below, my abridgment of Tom Sunic’s “Race and Religion: Awkward Friends of the White Man,” published in three parts at The Occidental Observer:

NPI_Conference-Tom_SunicRegardless how much empirical artillery one can muster in defence of the uniqueness of the White gene pool, and regardless of how many facts one can enumerate that point to diverse intellectual achievements of different races, no such evidence will elicit social or academic approval. In fact, if loudly uttered, the evidence may be considered a felony in some Western countries. In our so-called free and secular society, new religions, such as the religion of racial promiscuity and the theology of the free market have replaced the old Christian belief system. Only when these new secular dogmas or political theologies start crumbling down—which may soon be the case—alternative views about race and the meaning of the sacred may appear.

The historical irony is that it was not the Other, i.e. the non-White, who invented the arsenal of bashing the White man. It was the White man himself—both with his Christian atonement and now with his liberal expiation of the feelings of guilt.

Alain de Benoist writes that liberalism has been a racist system par excellence. In the late 19th century, it preached exclusive racism. Now, in the 21st century it preaches inclusive racism. By herding non European races from all over the world into a rootless a-racial and a-historical agnostic consumer society and by preaching ecumenical miscegenation, the West nonetheless holds its undisputed role of a truth maker—of course, this time around under the auspices of the self-hating, self-flagellating White male.

It must be stated that it was not the Colored, but the White man who had crafted the ideology of self-denial and the concomitant ideology of universal human rights, as well as the ideas of interracial promiscuity. Therefore, any modest scholarly argument suggesting proofs of racial inequality is untenable today. How can one persuasively argue about the existence of different races if the modern system lexically, conceptually, scientifically, ideologically, theologically, and last, but not least, judicially, forbids the slightest idea of race segregation—except when it evokes skin-deep exotic escapades into musical and culinary prowess of non-European races?

Most American White nationalists use Thomas Jefferson as their patron saint, frequently associating his name with “good old times” of the American Declaration of Independence. Those were the times when the White man was indeed in command of his destiny. The White founding fathers stated:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Yet the abstract words “all men” combined with the invocation of a deistic and distant “creator” had a specific significance in the mind of Enlightenment-groomed Jefferson. Two hundred years later, however, his words ring a different bell in the ears of a real Muslim Somali or a Catholic Cholo planning to move to the United States.

Wailing and whining that “Jefferson did not mean this; he meant that”—is a waste of time. The American Declaration bears witness to the classical cleavage between the former signifier and the modern signified which has become the subject of its own semantic sliding—with ominous consequences for Whites worldwide.

Contemporary geneticists and biologists are no less vulnerable than philosophers and sociologists to dominant political theologies. What was considered scientific during the first part of the 20th century in Europe and the United States by many prominent scholars writing about race is viewed today as preposterous and criminal. The dominant dogma idea of egalitarianism must give its final blessing in explaining or explaining away any scientific discovery.

Although the field of the former Soviet social sciences is considered today as quackery, its egalitarian, Marxist residue of omnipotent inheritance of acquired characteristics is religiously pursued by the post-Christian, neoliberal capitalist West. In layman’s terms, this means that the floodgates for mass immigration of non-Europeans must be kept wide open. Racial promiscuity and miscegenation must be enforced. It is science! It is the law!

As in the ex-Soviet Union, the dominant theology of egalitarianism and TV shows incessantly role-modeling interracial sex only accelerate the culture of mediocrity and the culture of death.

European and American history has been full of highly intelligent individuals endorsing abnormal religious and political beliefs. This is particularly true for many temporary White European and American left-leaning academics who, although showing high IQ, are narrow-minded, spineless individuals of no integrity, or race traitors of dubious character. Low IQ Cholos or affirmative action Blacks are just happy pawns in their conspiratorial and suicidal game.

[White suicide]

The pristine, pastoral and puerile picture of the White race, so dearly longed for by modern White nationalists, is daily belied by permanent religious bickering, jealousy and character smearing within the White rank and file. Add to that murderous intra-White wars that have rocked Europe and America for centuries, one wonders whether the proverbial and much vaunted Aryan, Promethean, and Faustian man, is worthy of a better future.

Surely, the White man saved Greco-Roman Europe from the Levantine Hannibal’s incursion, which nearly resulted in a catastrophe in 216 b.c. at Cannae, in southern Italy. The White man also stopped Attila’s Hunic hordes on the Catalaunian Fields in France in 451 a.d. The grandfather of Charlemagne, Charles Martel, defeated Arab predators near Tours, in France in 732. One thousand years later in 1717, a short and slim Italo-French Catholic hero, Prince Eugene of Savoy, finally removed the Islamic threat from the Balkans.

But… the power of the newly discovered universal religion and the expectancy of the “end of history,” later to be followed by bizarre beliefs in “global democracy,” often eclipsed racial awareness among Whites. As a rule, when White princes ran out of Muslim or Jewish infidels—they began whacking each other in the name of their Semitic deities or latter day democracies. The 6’4” tall Charlemagne, in the name of his anticipated Christian bliss, went on the killing spree against his fellow pagan Germans. In 782 a.d. he decapitated several thousand of the finest crop of Nordic Saxons, thereby earning himself a saintly name of the “butcher of the Saxons” (Sachsenschlächter).

[I wish that Sunic had mentioned how Julius Caesar ordered the massacre of the 40,000 inhabitants of Avaricum during the Gaul wars; how this monster destroyed 800 towns and enslaved millions of Celts; how “hundreds of thousands of blond, blue-eyed Celtic girls were marched south to be pawed by Semitic flesh merchants” in Rome’s slave markets. Also, in 408 a.d. the Romans, in all the Italian cities, butchered the wives and children of their German allies—60,000 of them.]

And on and on the story goes with true Christian or true democracy believers. No Jews, no Arabs, no communists have done so much damage to the White gene pool as Whites themselves. The Thirty Years War (1617–1647) fought amidst European Christians with utmost savagery, wiped out two thirds of the finest German racial stock, over 6 million people. The crazed papist Croatian mercenaries, under Wallenstein’s command, considered it a Royal and Catholic duty to kill off Lutherans, a dark period so well described by the great German poet and dramatist Friedrich Schiller. Even today in Europe the words “Croat years” (Kroatenjahre) are associated with the years of hunger and pestilence.

Nor did Oliver Cromwell’s troops—his Ironsides—during the English civil war, fare much better. Surely, as brave Puritans they did not drink, they did not whore, they did not gamble—they only specialized in skinning Irish Catholic peasants alive. Not only did their chief, the Nordic looking fanatic Cromwell consider himself more Jewish than the Jews—he actually brought them back from continental Europe, with far-reaching consequence both for England and America.

A slim, intelligent, Nordic looking, yet emotionally unstable manic depressive, William Sherman, burnt down Atlanta in 1864—probably in the hopes of fostering a better brand of democracy for the South. We may also probe some day into the paleocortex of the Nordic skull of an airborne Midwest Christian ex-choir boy, who joyfully dropped firebombs on German civilians during WWII.

The faith or the sacred?

No subject is so dangerous to address among White nationalists as the Christian religion. It is commendable to lambast Muslims, who are on the respectable hit-parade of the Axis of Evil. Jews also come in handy in a wholesale package of evil, which needs to be expiated—at least occasionally. But any critical examination of Judeo-Christian intolerance is viewed with suspicion and usually attributed to distinct groups of White people, such as agnostics or modern day self-proclaimed pagans.

Why did the White man accept the Semitic spiritual baggage of Christianity even though it did not quite fit with his racial-spiritual endowments? The unavoidable racialist thinker Hans Günther—a man of staggering erudition and knowledgeable not only of the laws of heredity, but also of comparative religions—reminds us that the submissive and slavish relation of man to God is especially characteristic of Semitic peoples. In his important little book, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, he teaches us about the main aspects of racial psychology of old Europeans. We also learn that Yahweh is a merciless totalitarian god who must be revered—and feared.

The messianic, chiliastic, or “communistic” mindset was unknown among ancient Europeans. They could not care less which gods other races, other tribes or other peoples believed in. Wars that they fought against the adversary were bloody, but they did not have the goal of converting the adversary and imposing on him the beliefs contrary to his racial heritage. Homer’s epic The Iliad is the best example. The self-serving, yet truly racist liberal-communistic endeavour, to wage “final and just war” in order to “make the world safe for democracy,” was something inconceivable for ancient Europeans.

A German-British racialist author of the early 20th century, Houston Stewart Chamberlain in his The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century writes that “a final judgment shows the intellectual renaissance to be the work of Race in opposition to the universal Church which knows no Race” (p. 326). Unlike Christianity, which preaches individual salvation, for ancient Europeans life can only have a meaning within the in-group—their tribe, their polis, or their civitas. Outside those social structures, life means nothing.

In the 1st century, words of far-reaching consequence for all Whites were pronounced by a Jewish heretic, the Apostle St. Paul, to the people of Galatia, an area in Asia Minor once populated by the Gauls (i.e., Celts). Galatia was then well underway to become a case study of multicultural debauchery—similar to today’s Los Angeles:

“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28).

Christianity became thus a Universalist religion with a special mission to transform the Other into the Same. The seeds of egalitarianism—albeit on the religious, not yet on the secular level—were sown.

Although Christian Churches never publicly endorsed racial miscegenation, they did not endorse racial segregation either. This was true for the Catholic Church and its flock, as observed by the early French sociologist and racialist Gustave Le Bon. Consequently, Catholic Spaniards of White racial stock in Latin America could not halt decadence and debauchery in their new homelands as WASPs in North America did.

Later, in 1938, in light of eugenic and racial laws adopted not only in Germany and Italy, but also in other European countries and many states in America, Pope Pius XI made his famous statement: “It is forgotten that mankind is one large and overwhelming Catholic race.” This statement was to become part of his planned encyclical under the name The Unity of the Human Race.

“The unity of the human race”, as noble as these words may sound, is a highly abstract concept. On a secular level communist and liberal intellectuals constantly toy with it—in order to suppress real tribes, real nations, real peoples and their real racial uniqueness.

The folly of the compound noun: “anti-Semitism”

Civil religions also have their holy shrines, their holy relics, their pontiffs, their canons, their promises and their menaces. Failure to believe in them—or failure to at least pretend to believe in them—results, as a legal scholar of Catholic persuasion, Carl Schmitt wrote, in a heretic’s removal from the category of human beings. Among new civil religions one could enumerate the religion of multiculturalism, the religion of antifascism, the religion of the Holocaust, and the religion of economic progress.

Many Whites make a fundamental mistake when they portray new civil religions as part of an organized conspiracy of a small number of wicked people. In essence, civil religions are just secular transpositions of the Judeo-Christian monotheist mindset which, when combined with an inborn sense of tolerance and congenial naïveté of the White people, makes them susceptible to their enchanting effects.

As a result of semantic sliding of political concepts, the Jewish-born thinker and the father of the secular religion of communism, Karl Marx, would likely be charged today with “anti-Semitism” or the “incitement to racial hatred.” Leftist scholars usually do not wish to subject his little booklet, On the Jewish Question (1844) to critical analysis. Consider the following:

The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

Of particular significance is Marx’ last sentence “insofar as the Christians have become Jews.” In fact the White man has “jewified” himself by embracing the fundaments of the Jewish belief system, which, paradoxically, he uses now in criticizing Jews.

Christian anti-Semitism can be described, therefore, as a peculiar form of neurosis. Christian anti-Semites resent the Jews while mimicking the framework of resentment borrowed from Jews. Accordingly, even the Jewish god Yahweh was destined to become the anti-Semitic God of White Christians! In the name of this God, persecutions against Jews were conducted by White non-Jews. Simply put, the White non-Jew has been denying for centuries to the Jew his self-appointed “otherness” i.e. his uniqueness and his self-chosenness, while desperately striving to re-appropriate that same Jewish otherness and that same uniqueness, be it in the acceptance of Biblical tales, be it the espousal of the concept of linear time, be it in the belief of the end of history.

To face up to the purported bad sides of Judaism by using Christian tools, is futile. This is the argument of the German philosopher Eugen Dühring, who notes that “Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism” and “a Christian, when he rightfully comprehends himself as such, cannot be a serious and complete anti-Semite.” (Die Judenfrage als Frage des Rassencharakters, 1901). Dühring was a prominent German socialist philosopher, contemporary, but also a foe of Marx. Like most German socialist thinkers of the late 19th century he was an anti-Semite, in so far as he saw in the Jewry the incarnation of capitalism. Dühring notes that “historical Christianity, when observed in its true spirit, and all things considered, has been a backlash within and against Judaism, but it has also emerged from it and to some extent in its fashion.” (p. 25-26).

What German geneticists and anthropologists, such as Fritz Lenz, Hans Günther, Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and thousands of other scholars wrote about Jews had already been written and discussed—albeit from a philosophical, artistic and literary point of view—by thousands of European writers, poets and artists. From the ancient Roman thinker Tacitus to the English writer William Shakespeare, from the ancient Roman thinker Seneca, to the French novelist and satirist, L. Ferdinand Céline, one encounters in the prose of countless European authors occasional and not so occasional critical remarks about the Jewish character—remarks that could easily be called today anti-Semitic. Should these “anti-Semitic” authors, novelists, or poets be called insane? If so, then the entire European cultural heritage must be banned and labeled insane.

Excluding the Jew, while using his theological and ideological concepts is a form of latent phobia among Whites, of which Jews are very well aware of. Criticizing a strong Jewish influence in Western societies on the one hand, while embracing Jewish religious and secular prophets on the other, will lead to further tensions and only enhance the Jewish sense of self-chosenness and their timeless victimhood. In turn, this will only give rise to more anti-Jewish hatred with tragic consequences for all. The prime culprits are not Jews or Whites, but rather a civil religion of egalitarianism with its postmodern offshoots of universalism and multiculturalism.

The issue that needs to be addressed is why Whites, for two thousand years, have adhered to an alien, out-group, non-European conceptualization of the world.

31 replies on “Assisted suicide”

Julius Caesar was in the hands of the jewish lobby ( yes, there was a jewish lobby back them).


Semitic controversies is also a good site to understand jewish power in the classical period:


I’ll try once again–please remove the top comment if you can.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Sunic is only partially correct in his “waste of time” comment. It is certainly not a waste of time for us to understand how Enlightenment derived liberalism moved toward our current untenable social universalism. Certainly we understand that Jefferson was writing about a subset of White men, Englishmen, in his polemic to his King, however an insistence upon a questionable metaphysical construction, along with an Epicurean moral foundation for individual action could not but help create subsequent confusion.

We remember how Jefferson was enamored with Locke, who was intellectually committed to a Hobbesian formulation of government, albeit one with a twist. Regardless of their differences, both understood how the basic political unit was the individual. And only individuals who were equal in essence could therefore legally and morally enter into a binding contract (i.e., a civil covenant). This, because any contract among unequals presupposes, or at least suggests, coercion, and legitimate government can not be founded upon coercion.

Jefferson’s metaphysical equality of course contradicted actual circumstances of men in the world, men who were in aggregate anything but equal. Yet if men were equal both in and from nature, how then could the extant inequality of men in the real world be explained?

Inasmuch as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau understood that civil government by contract was an artifact, a path leading out from a preexisting state of nature where equality was the rule, it was only one small intellectual step to next infer that men’s current inequality within civil society must be due to a defect within the conventional civil order. Therefore, if men in society are non-equal, and the cause of this inequality is due to society itself, then the solution is ameliorative social action aimed at “restoring” an intrinsic but nevertheless lost natural equality.

We know the result of this logical deduction as modern political liberalism, an ideology manifesting in three aspects: a left liberal communist version, a right liberal neo-conservatism, and naive libertarianism. Examples of each of these views in practice is common, and need not be mentioned here.

What can be done? Only by way of a recovery of pre-liberal thinking, but a recovery that is fully prepared to both encounter and counter liberalism, can a future path be cleared. Whether such a thing can ever be expected to manifest within our current liberal regime, and among the average man, is an open question; yet one suspects not. This Sunday perhaps 70% of the American population will be watching professional sports on television. These people are not interested in revolution, or even much change. They are too comfortable in their misery.

Be that as it may, one never knows how it will work itself out. I’m reminded of a quip from Petyr Ouspensky’s articles written for A.R. Orage’s The New Age literary magazine, about life during the Bolshevik takeover of Russia. For many Russians Bolshevism was just “another way of life” that interfered perhaps not too kindly with the previous way:

“Did you ever hear [Ouspensky wrote] about the chief of police in [Rostov] just after the outbreak of the Revolution in 1917? His clerk found him sitting in his office one morning, with a pile of newspapers and proclamations in front of him. He was scratching his head in perplexity. ‘Ye-es,’ he said at last, ‘I can understand that the proletariat of the world ought to unite; but why must they unite in Rostov-on-the-Don?’”

To me the crux is moral, or more specifically the lack of psychic “emergency” among man in general and whites in particular (by coming close to the black monolith, Dave Bowman metamorphosed his mind; but most mortals have not touched it). I believe that without realizing it Andrew Hamilton hit the nail recently at Counter-Currents: “What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good.”

This is what I call Neanderthalism, and the only way to cure it is to wait until the dollar crashes and whites hit bottom after the excruciating pains resulting from a collapsed society. Only then will psychic redemption be possible.

People (any people) need leaders. Things aren’t properly explained, I only discovered the truth after personal research and connecting the dots myself. Most won’t do this.

Of course. I am over fifty and only awoke in 2009. But that’s not what I meant (lack of a Morpheus to awaken potential Neos, etc).

What I meant is that even as a pre-2009 liberal I felt horrible when encountering an English rose with a Negro (the subject of my previous post). English whites on the other hand didn’t seem to care. I didn’t have access to their hearts of course; but that apparently uncaring attitude toward one’s own race strikes me, as José Vasconcelos said, “the worst of character flaws”.

Exactly the same happened to me in Texas while watching blondes with blacks. If “Most won’t do this” that can only mean that they’re mean.

Off topic. Where can I find the list of books that influenced you? You had them all listed, but I can’t find it.

Another book that should be required reading in all the schools, but never will, is The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson, erstwhile editor and publisher of the much missed Instauration magazine.

It can be found here, in several readable formats:


Robertson’s book is prefaced by T.S. Eliot’s almost Orientalist quote:

In order to possess what you do not possess you must first go by the way of dispossession.

Anent Chechar’s statement on social collapse, I would offer another Orientalist saying, from the introduction to Luo Guanzhong’s 14 C. classic, Romance of the Three Kingdoms:

It is a general truism of this world that anything long divided will surely unite, and anything long united will surely divide.

Your analysis of the deep roots of the White race’s current ordeals summarize the problem very well. If one could magically inculcate it in the heads of the White masses, our problems would all be solved on a global scale in a matter of months — if not faster.

However, Mr. Sunic was very ably introduced. Too, your introductory comments sharpened my focus upon Mr. Sunic’s message. (Probably, on account of my commenting here, my name will go on a list somewhere in letters of brown. Since we all know what else is brown, we therefore know what kind of a list it will be.)

While it is not entirely true that one cannot cheat an honest man, awareness of confidence tricks diminishes vulnerability. (Without going into a long argument, suffice it that I concur 97.5+% with the article as introduced.)

“liberalism has been a racist system par excellence. In the late 19th century, it preached exclusive racism. Now, in the 21st century it preaches inclusive racism.”

This is the weakness of Sunic’s argument. How did racially exclusive liberalism transform to racially inclusive liberalism? It certainly was not Christianity because how can Christian tolerance produce racial exclusion or discrimination, if his hypothesis is correct? He does not answer the question imo, because it is a process that requires self-examination, something he is not willing to face. It was not self-flagellation that induced it, but the contempt for racially exclusive liberalism because in its very nature it has the potential to act against Sunic. This is not assisted suicide unless you believe the depiction of events in Hellstorm is an account of assisted suicide.

A lot of what whites have done against whites may be interpreted as a sort of “suicide”. Not only the sins listed in Sunic’s article but what you read in both Pierce’s and Kemp’s stories on the white race.

I would invite you to search these words in this blog and follow the white rabbit:

“META-PERSPECTIVE. Learn about White suicide throughout all history. Read excerpts of Arthur Kemp’s The Complete History of the White Race.”

“”may be interpreted as a sort of “suicide”.

Chechar, such an argument insults your own intelligence. You’re a bright guy. You know that suicide is the intentional act of killing yourself, not killing others. Otherwise every act of aggression whether intra or inter-tribal is suicide. It is reductio ad absurdum.

What I have just said in another thread by means of quoting a sentence from Pierce’s last chapter of his last book applies also to this discussion (here).

“Assisted suicide” by the way is a phrase that I picked recently from a native Portuguese-speaker in the thread on Kemp’s chapter on France, and the suicidal Revolution that emancipated the Jews (here).

You may read the whole thread to know what we mean.

“When the smoke began to clear late in the 1960’s, White Americans found that they had bamboozled themselves out of their most precious and fundamental civil right: the right of free association.”

If this is what passes for the scholarship of Pierce then it is extremely sad, because it completely misrepresents the historical record. It was clearly a well organized, well financed and well led aggression upon the American founding people by other ‘white’ ethnic groups who were repelled by the fundamental intolerance of their presence by the founder race. Even the choice of the word ‘bamboozle’ is nonsensical. How do you trick or mislead yourself?

Self-delusion is an enormous subject, that I’ve touched in other contexts.

You still have to see the whole picture.

Have you read Pierce’s last book (or Kemp’s similar history on the white race)? Sunic is a real intellectual in the sense of someone devoted to accumulate a very broad knowledge of history, literature and political theory, and he arrives to similar conclusions. Once you see the meta-perspective you start to consider that the subversive tribe is for whites what pneumonia is for AIDS: a secondary, opportunistic infection—but certainly not the primary infection.

At least take a good look to a my excerpts of Pierce’s Who We Are.

This is not self-delusion, this is deliberate obfuscation by Pierce because to admit otherwise is to shatter the artificial construct of ‘whiteness’ that he has formulated. If anyone is delusional it is Pierce and Sunic who hold a powerful conviction despite superior factual evidence to the contrary.

Although they eulogize freedom of association and mourn its loss they make no attempt to understand its passing but merely declare it bamboozling.

If the Jews are the main (some would even say the only) cause of our problems, how do you explain that just before they were emancipated whites committed suicide in both sides of the Atlantic (I have in mind the American Civil War and the French Revolution—cf. my Kemp link in a previous response above)? How would you explain that the triumph of anti-racism and egalitarianism coincided with the French Revolution and the 1848 Revolution, before the jews became so powerful?

Are you aware that the Middle East, Egypt (with blond Pharaohs) and India once harbored considerable Indo-European (“Aryan”) populations; that Greece, Macedonia and Rome were infinitely more Nordish than today (especially Sparta); that the One Ring of greed and power (economics over race) made these Nordics and Mediterraneans misecgenate and eventually mongrelize their progeny with Semitic people, Numbians and Arabs?

Are you aware that even Portugal was far more homogeneous (“Gothic” i.e. Scandinavian) than the mongrels we see today, with laws that forbade mixing marriages of the “blue blooded” blonds and that, after the Christian ethos took over, they finally mixed their blood with black slaves?

And how would you respond to Brad Griffin?:

Europeans have a long history of self-hatred and debasing themselves over their sinfulness to appease the Almighty. [White guilt] is a byproduct of certain formulations of Christianity and liberal republican ideology.

Everyone here knows that Yankee White guilt was a huge problem long before the Jews became powerful in America. [Cf.] Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Read Lincoln’s speeches about drenching battlefields in Southern blood to atone for the sins of slavery. Yankees were worshipping free negroes like Frederick Douglass before the WBTS [War Between the States]. Henry David Thoreau protested Indian Removal and the Mexican War. Lincoln also opposed the Mexican War.

Britain and France abolished slavery over White guilt. In France, the Jacobins in the French Revolution even went so far as to make blacks into citizens with equal rights, and dispatched troops to the Caribbean with guillotines to kill the White planters. Blacks were lionized as the saviors of the colonies and the only true republicans in the West Indies. King Leopold II was portrayed as a monster in Britain and was forced to turn over the Congo Free State to Belgium.

Jews are aggravating a preexisting problem for their own selfish purposes. If every Jew in America vanished tomorrow, there would be a lot less White guilt and our situation would markedly improve, but we would still be left with the self righteous hypocritical Yankee holier-than-thous in Congress. [The fact that] Jews control the media isn’t a sufficient explanation: the South opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only the North and West were for it.

While I agree that Jews promote White guilt through the mass media and universities, I disagree that White guilt would disappear if every Jew in America disappeared tomorrow. White guilt has deep roots in Christianity and liberal republican ideology. It goes back to the myth of the noble savage. Again, look up Uncle Tom’s Cabin. See also The Society of the Friends of the Blacks during the French Revolution.

Also, in the southern part of the continent we cannot blame the subversive tribe in a New Spain (1521-1821) exclusively ruled by pure whites for the simplest reason that through exactly three centuries jews and crypto-jews were ruthlessly persecuted and even burned at the stake. Judenfrei New Spain, by their own volition, ruined their genetic pool with the Indians—and the Negroes they brought from Africa.

It’s high time to start looking the mirror…

It is explained by recognizing that the premise is false. The idea that there is some common cause based singly on a sole phenotype, ‘whiteness’ and that competition does not exist between groups, tribes and families, based on self-interest is fundamentally misleading. Sexual desire will trump racial connectedness and even heterosexuality, in some cases. Race mixing in Haiti was fairly common even before the revolution. History is replete with a bounty of such examples. Master Griffin’s beloved South was the most avid supporter of FDR’s desire to wage war against Germany. Lindbergh was held in contempt by Southrons. How is it possible that racialist Southerners desired to destroy racialist Germans, especially when they had not long ago felt the wrath of abolitionists? Griffin subtlety conflates Yankees with North and West.The 1866 the Civil Rights Act was struck down by a USSC dominated by Yankees, and thus provided fertile ground for Jim Crow to emerge, however the North in 1964 was predominantly Catholic.

The point is that the racial exclusion of classical liberalism does not demand enslavement of those it wishes to exclude. The end of freedom of association is a unique event which does not depend upon white historical conflicts in order to explain it. If white guilt is preponderant, even w/o Jewish influence, how was immigration restriction passed in 1924? If white guilt is unrelenting, how was state based legal segregation upheld by the USSC in Plessy v. Ferguson?

“In the postwar era, North American Jewry tended to accept that racial prejudice was a psychological aberration, attributable to pathological individuals who acted out their internal problems in discriminatory behaviour. This aberrational behaviour, when left unchecked, not only damaged its direct victims, the racial minorities, it also affected the minds of the general population, setting an example of what was right and acceptable. Prejudice, therefore, was not just a disease but a contagious disease, and it set up a vicious circle of prejudice leading to discrimination and of discrimination leading to prejudice. Antisemitism was understood as an example of prejudice, as a special case but not a distinct phenomenon: discrimination against Jews was considered part of this general syndrome. (5)

Acting upon this definition, Jewish organizations in Canada designed a grand strategy to interrupt the syndrome. The goal was to enlist the force of the law to inhibit the behaviour of pathological individuals, both through test cases in the courts and through the introduction of protective legislation. (6) This would, with one stroke, prevent the most overt discriminatory practices, it would interrupt the syndrome and thus have an effect on the generation of the underlying prejudices, and it would set the educational example of the law before a generally law-abiding Canadian populace. Since antisemitism was regarded as one aspect of the problem of prejudice, universal laws against discrimination would address the specific problem of antisemitism. The method selected, the tactical approach to fulfill this grand strategy, was to forge alliances with other minority organizations and with liberal forces generally in Canadian society, to demonstrate to legislators that there existed a constituency supportive of re form. All instances of discrimination, not just those perpetrated against Jews, would be exposed in order to illustrate the need for legal protection. (7)”

This is the bamboozle of which Pierce lays at the feet of “whites” when in fact it was ethnic aggression against a founder people because of the ‘intolerance’ of racial exclusion (discrimination) that is an essential component of classical liberalism. In essence freedom of association became re-classified as a pathology, rather than a necessity to the existence of free institutions. It is an event unique in, not dependent upon, Western history.


The worm is not Jews per se but the meme that discrimination is pathological. This meme is embraced by others, including white ethnic groups, who resented the exclusion inherent in classical liberalism. Andalusia was a golden era for Jews. They lived under no civil disabilities whatever; and a poll-tax (dhimmah) was the only fiscal burden laid upon them. Michael E. Jones writes of Arenda Poland, another golden era for Jews who received state protection from discrimination



I agree with WNsts that the JP is a huge problem that merits final solutions such as all-out deportation of Jews to Israel. Where we differ is in the more academic issue of assigning percentages of blame. If Jews are 100% to blame and whites 0%, as the most extreme “monocausalists” believe, how would you explain that the Muslims, who have lower IQs than whites, have never fallen into der Juden’s psyops, such as the elimination of freedom of association you described above? For example, after more than a millennium of interacting with Jews in their Islamic nations it would be inconceivable to handle over the media to the subversive tribe—utterly unthinkable for the brown Muslims!

Obviously there must be something seriously wrong with whites to have allowed Jews to takeover the culture-creating media. Even MacDonald is now publishing a TOQ issue about what he calls “white pathology”.

P.S. I agree that the non-discriminatory meme is the crux. See my latest entry.

Individual freedom, let alone free association, has never existed in the Muslim world. Free institutions cannot exist, as Mill pointed out, in a mufti-national society. Apparently, MacDonald is accepting the prevailing meme that the Anglo-Saxon pursuit of individual freedom is a pathology that runs in the face of so called ‘white nationalist’ interests.

[J.S. Mill link]

Chechar you should include in your reasoning that all those ‘whites fighting whites’ over the centuries did so as they did not have the faintest idea neither of race neither that there was anything outside of the white race to be afraid of. They just fought whoever the king, the pope or the banker told them to fight. Me msyelf was not aware we were in mortal dange rof end of civilisation before the year 2005. That’s when all of a sudden I felt overwhelmed by the presence of numerous and aggresive non whites on the streets of Europe and I started looking who invited them here.
Blaming whites is just a theoretical mindgame by the likes of Ronin and C) , interesting but who cares. We all know now that white children are too naive, too kind, maybe too intelligent to be smart or streetwise like arabs. It makes no sense to add guilt to that. We must protect them from who is perverting them. Like in 1933 the tribe of teutons stood up as one single voice overnight when they were woken up by one man who had singled out the danger from within (without), aka jewish capitiism and judeo bolshevism. It makes no sense whatsoever to hope for a change in attitude of the white race, they never did & never will. Except when facing annihilation, but this time the ennemy is not the indians attacking the wagons, they are boild like frogs in cold water and will never cry wolf.

In addendum you could also compare to american indians, who fought each other to the bitter end even in the face of annihilation. It is only when it was too late, when they were going couch potatoe on the reservation that they start playing victim and blaming the whites for their “holocaust” (mainly through smallpix like millions of white persihed from indian gonorhea), forgetting how pawnees fought lakota (even in 1891) and shoshones fought cheyenne (even in 1878) etc etc. Anyone outside your tribe is an alien and worth fighting they prooved, and whites were seen as allies to smash their old enemies. This learns us that cConsidering yourself as red or white is only realized when it is too late. It needs education also.
And nothing against Ronin, I like his writings and maybe seccession will be the way to go, although peakoil is BS (a jewish oil company strategy to harvest at the price of rarity) and I’m tired of charging whites like many many others on Counter Currents, I don’t know their names as I am not interested in this delusional analysis, no time left for freudian research on our being wiped out of the planet. You even state that KMD is now starting looking in that ‘we are too blame’ direction. What does that help us? Ok let’s admit we are too stupid so any vulture and parasite can feast upon us. I say kick out the parasites like Desmond her above in stead of hoping for a utopical reversal of behaviour, agressive self awareness as a race is NOT in our genes, every white slut succombs to black music for mating is the proof of it. I say fight those who have put that influence on our women, like the traditionel Indian leaders of the 1870′ fought the liquor traders out off their tribe, as they and us found nothing but the KIKE.

Comments are closed.