This speech at the National Policy Institute conference in Washington on Sep. 10, 2011 (photo taken at the NPI conference) includes a more recent audio introduction by Tom Sunic himself.
While Sunic can see the Jewish Problem he points out the accusing finger at capitalism, Christianity and the petty nationalisms of Europeans. Although many white nationalists abhor the phrase “We are doing it to ourselves,” it is nonetheless us who have a loose screw that needs a little tightening up.
The implication of Sunic’s speech is that, for strategic reasons, in these times of massive non-white immigration Europeans should momentarily forget their territorial disputes and focus on the rising tide of color, and also on the One Ring of greed and power that made us slaves of Sauron: the dynamics of a deranged Judeo-Christianity plus liberalism.
(Just ignore the stupid break with degenerate VOR music at the middle of the audio.)
13 replies on “Sunic’s worldview in a single audio”
Audio files are useless to persons with impaired hearing. We need text to read.
Re “Although many white nationalists abhor the phrase ‘We are doing it to ourselves,’ it is nonetheless us who have a loose screw that needs a little tightening up.”
You are preaching to the wind.
Ageed, but I still would like to know if people like you can agree with that (and Brad Griffin now supports a very similar position at Occidental Dissent: what he calls the Yankee Question).
You didn’t reply to DJ’s question in the blog post titled “Who needs Jews when you got Christianity”.
DJ asked : “Were the Swedes more ethno-suicidal, a century ago, when church attendance was higher, or is the tendency greater today when only 4% of Swedes attend their church?”
The same question can be asked about every White country. It means that the problem is not Christianity. That is particularly obvious in the USA, with the American phenomenon of Christian Zionists. It should be obvious that the views of Christian Zionists come from Jewish influence.
The idea that Christianity is all about supporting race replacement is also due to Jewish influence. Blaming Christianity is like blaming “leftism”. The main problem with leftism is that it is largely controlled by Jews. The left used to be pro-worker. When the Jews ditched the workers and took up the cause of the non-Whites, “the left” followed suit.
The main problem with the right is also the Jews. They have worked at the destruction of conservative political institutions (in the US, see for example what they did to National Review) and at the demonization of the anti-replacists.
And what do you think is the main problem with capitalism? Hint: it begins with the letter J. Big investors do not benefit from destroying the economy through the mass immigration of low IQ third-worlders. They do not benefit from hiring affirmative action people who cannot do their job properly. Big corporation managers are simply responding to pressure from government and the Jewish lobby.
Tom Sunic also mentions petty nationalist quarrels among White nations. I don’t see it as a big obstacle to the anti-replacist cause, at least in Western Europe, even though the Jewish media encourage ill-feelings between White countries.
By the way, I don’t like the phrase “petty nationalisms” because it is unfair to lump everyone together. In Brittany, the French problem may be losing its relevance, because of the larger race-replacement crisis, and because Brittany has largely been destroyed already and it is so difficult to wake people up. But still, from a Breton point of view, there was nothing petty in resisting the French. The French policy consisted in destroying the Breton language, preventing the emergence of Breton elites, Breton institutions, Breton mass media, sacrificing the Breton economy, deliberately mixing the Breton population with the larger French population, and so on. Besides, a possible solution for Bretons who want to escape the disaster of Jewish-ruled Africanized France would have been to declare their independence.
“We are doing it to ourselves”
Would you say that the North-Koreans are doing it to themselves? I wouldn’t. I know that they don’t have Jews over there, but the majority of the population is still oppressed by a small minority. That is true in the West too. Most White people are firmly against race-replacement, but their opinion counts for nothing and they are intimidated and censored by the government and the media. We live in soft dictatorships. That is true whether or not you think Jews play a crucial role in Western dictatorships.
I am not exactly saying that in our times Christianity is what’s killing us. But “pneumonia”—the JP—was, historically, a secondary infection. See my lead paragraph in the entry “Assisted suicide.” It encapsulates in a nutshell my POV about the JQ and Western suicide.
The real culprit is the AIDS that we contracted after the French Revolution. And of course: we contracted AIDS because we were infected with HIV (Christianity): a religion that was politically imposed on whites 1,600 years ago.
A superficial physician would blame pneumonia for the death of his patient. But a more sophisticated physician would point out to what caused “pneumonia” in the first place (again, see “Assisted suicide” linked above).
Same with the above, with the aggravating historical circumstances that, even before Christianity, whites succumbed over and over again to the One Ring (economics over race) which made them lost the purity of their genetic pool from the times of Sumer all the way to the Greco-Roman world. Read Pierce’s story on the white race, and see what do we mean (always keep in mind that Pierce was extremely well versed in the JQ).
I am afraid I must disagree. If they were firmly against race-replacement they would vote in masse for BNP, National Front, and the toughest nationalist parties; and NS would be redivivus and in vogue by now. The sad truth is that most white people are psychically Neanderthals, as I have shown in what is perhaps the toughest post of this blog.
• “pneumonia”-the JP-was, historically, a secondary infection.
• The real culprit is the AIDS that we contracted after the French Revolution.
• because we were infected with HIV (Christianity)
My cure to the Jewish Problem would be to get the Jews out of government and the media. It would be faster that trying to cure leftism, Christianity, or some inborn tendencies of White people.
“I am afraid I must disagree. If they were firmly against race-replacement they would vote in masse for BNP, National Front, and the toughest nationalist parties”
Give me an example of a policy imposed by the government and actively resisted by White people in spite of censorship, intimidation and vilification. You won’t find many examples. Does it mean that White people agree with everything their government is doing?
White people don’t vote for the political parties that are closest to their views. That is because of censorship and demonization by the Jewish media.
Like Svigor, I agree that the JP must be tackled first for practical purposes. (But it still worries me that, historically, whites surrendered their media to the tribe for mental issues of their own.)
According to Salter’s chart, (On Genetic Interests) the average Greek is genetically further distant to the average Englishman than tha average non-European Caucasian is to the avearge European Caucasian. Thus the mass migration of Southern Europeans into the Anglo-Saxon commonwealth that was America was as deleterious to the founders as the current non-white immigration. In other words extinction is extinction regardless of its origins. And yet the descendants of the Puritans defended against that invasion. What is different today? Why was the migrant tide turned back in 1924 but not today? Surely the Christian virus ran rampant then, just as it does now so how can it be responsible currently?
Secondly, if capital always favours racial treachery, how do we explain South African apartheid? Capital will favour race realism if it serves its purpose.
Finally, poor people, hypothetically, would favour a citizen’s dividend or guaranteed income. However, the UK Green Party, that advocates this policy, gets fewer votes than the BNP. A voter’s motivation is somewhat more complex.
You have to understand the unfoldment of Christian axiology together with its secular offshoot of liberalism, plus the Jews who pushed for open boarders plus the deranged whites that reached power throughout the West after WW2. See me recent entry, “Egalitarianism is evil” to understand at least part of such development.
I would recommend also your reading of what Arthur Kemp says on South Africa and why the economics-over-race policy is really the culprit of what happened there:
It seems Kemp is content to ignore the attempts by the Boers to establish separate Boers states like the Transvaal only to be undermined by British imperial interests. Encouraged to fight the Boer wars to protect the interest of Jewish investments (Barnato, Rothschilds/DeBeers and subsequently Oppenheimer whose interests benefited substantially from cheap African labour.
“Jewish university students, in particular, vehemently opposed the apartheid movement. Jews, in fact, were largely (over?) represented in the percentage of white citizens who were arrested for anti-apartheid protests. A large proportion of Jews were also involved in organizations such as The Springbrook Legion, The Torch Commando, and the Black Sash. These anti-apartheid organizations led protests that were both active (ie. marching through the streets with torches) and passive (ie. standing silently in black). Other Jews sought to teach, train, and include black citizens in South African society. Ian Bernhardt lived in Johannesburg and led the Union of South African Artists in which he helped teach and protect black artists. Jews could be found in the majority of anti-apartheid organizations and protests throughout the apartheid regime.”
Secondly, an earlier unanswered question, how does exclusionist liberalism arise from inclusionist Christianity? It appears that Jefferson suffers no cognitive dissonance when declaring all men are created equal while owning African slaves.
Rephrase your “unanswered” question; I don’t understand it as stated. Or even better, see my long entry “The Red Giant” where the author argues how Christianity developed into secular liberalism.
I only excerpted a few passages on South Africa from the Kemp book. Since he was born there he knows what he’s talking about. His conclusion is that attempting to exploit the native population (economics over race) has always brought the same racially suicidal problem—since ancient history. Pierce says the same in his own historical study, but unlike Kemp he was an exterminationist. Both agree that enslaving a population is, on the long run, racially suicidal.
My educated guess is that those who believe that the tribe is the main factor of our woes have not read any of these books.
P.S. If for inclusivist/exclusivist you meant that until recent times Christians excluded non-whites, you really have to know the history of the white race, because Christianity started as an all too inclusivist political ideology. This is a passage from another chapter of Kemp’s book:
But after Christianity converted the Iberian Goths…
See the context: here.
DJ: “the mass migration of Southern Europeans into the Anglo-Saxon commonwealth that was America was as deleterious to the founders as the current non-white immigration.”
The replacement of Northern Europeans with Southern Europeans is obviously less of a replacement than their replacement with Indian Mexicans, Africans, Chinese, Indians, Middle Easterners, and so on.