‘Tanstaafl cannot think in terms of a combined causality, for him there can be only one cause: the Jews’. —Franklin Ryckaert
I woke up thinking I would post an entry from another section of Savitri Devi’s book and, while checking my email spam filter, I come across an article in The Occidental Observer (TOO) about Tanstaafl (Tan).
Although I never met him personally (the American government doesn’t give me a visa to visit the US), when I first woke up to the Jewish question, Tan and I were friends. Then I began to ask questions, such as the cases of ethno-suicidal miscegenation without Jewish subversion that have occurred throughout history, and I distanced myself from him. While I still believe that the JQ (the Jewish Question) is a very real thing—Kevin MacDonald is more or less right, as far as he goes, in his three books on the JQ that I’ve read—, in expanding the JQ into the CQ (the Christian Question) I lost almost all the friends I had known, thanks to the internet, from white nationalism.
But before I get into the title of this article, which I came up with because my previous article is entitled ‘WDH vs. AmRen’, I would like to confess a few things about my biography.
As you can read in my autobiographical books, my adolescent life begins with a family tragedy that destroyed several people. Cognitively, I was not well after the storm and fell into a neochristian cult, whose dogmas led me into a ‘dark night of the soul’.
Specific anecdotes are beside the point except that, after a period of blind belief in the cult, called Eschatology, I began to ask questions. For example, why, if Eschatology develops paranormal powers to heal the body and in theory one can prolong youth, did eschatologists get sick and die like everyone else (see my article on the subject on pages 9-24 of Daybreak)? My teachers of Eschatology never answered me, nor did it ever occur to them that they should answer me.
That was the first time I left a group that had served as a new family after the loss of my biological family. It was also the first time I realised that a group of religionists are so self-encapsulated in an ideological bubble that any rational argument attacking their bubble from the outside will simply be ignored.
Years after I left the cult, something similar would happen to me with another group I belonged to, but this time it was just an internet group about abusive parents: specifically, readers of the Swiss psychologist Alice Miller. By now I was familiar with the work of Lloyd deMause, who, in his book that was translated into several languages, History of Childhood, said that children had been much more abused in the historical past, and more so in non-Western cultures. Since Miller’s fans were (and apparently still are) all liberals, they didn’t enter into an honest discussion with me about the terrible treatment of children in non-Western cultures.
So, for the second time, I lost a group I had acclimatised with, and for exactly the same reason: a lack of honesty on the part of my colleagues to face the facts. My conclusions about deMause’s work can be read in my book Day of Wrath, and my final word to those I left behind as I crossed the bridge from Miller country to White Nationalist country can be read: here.
But my spirit of always going to the frontier of knowledge made me cross, once again, another bridge, although crossing it has left me almost alone. A commenter on this site hit the nail regarding this ultimate loneliness: ‘The leap from 5 to 6 [of Mauricio’s ladder] is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes’. Indeed: by introducing the CQ we lose the friendship of not only Christian white nationalists, but Christian sympathisers like Kevin MacDonald and many secular people who comment on his site and AmRen.
The West’s Darkest Hour used to be visited by more people, and even receive more donations, before I went nuclear on the CQ. But I won’t change my views unless someone shows me I’m wrong.
A while ago I asked commenters who subscribed to ‘monocausalism’—Jewry as the primary cause of white decline—not to argue here. I have modified that request and I think that, if they have good reasons to refute me, they could point them out to me—as long as they take into consideration what I say in the single comment of the sticky post!
But there is a problem with this desire of mine for dialogue. If I take into consideration my past, for example all those decades I lost in the cult and the reluctance of eschatologists to discuss the issues with me, or the reluctance of Alice Miller fans to discuss my interpretation of deMause, I think I should understand that white nationalists will never try to refute me. Like the eschatologists and Miller fans, they will simply ignore what I say even though it would be possible, say, for one of these fans to write a critical review of my Day of Wrath, or for the nationalists to write critical reviews of the other books on the sidebar.
As those who study paradigm shifts know, the old-school proponents (e.g., those who believe in the quasi-monocausal premise of TOO) have to die off so that the proponents of the new paradigm—that the CQ and JQ are two sides of the same coin—can begin to flourish.
The problem is that we don’t have much time. The anti-white establishment is growing by the day to ‘wait’ for the monocausalists to die out (think, for example, of who Biden wants to nominate to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat). Rather than trying to convince them, it would be great if younger people could climb Mauricio’s ladder and get to where very few of us are. And if we are wrong, let those of the old school start, for example, by answering what Ferdinand Bardamu objects to about Kevin MacDonald (pages 171-181 of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).
Update of February 4
Edmund Connelly, PhD, the author of ‘Tanstaafl and Rational [!] Discussion of Jews’—the first link in the above article—didn’t mention what Greg Johnson thinks about Tan’s monocausalism.
In white nationalism there are three main sites of pundits: TOO, AmRen, and CC (Counter-Currents) administered by Johnson. Had Connelly been a little more objective, he would have taken Johnson’s objections to Tan into account.
Exactly the same can be said about the commenters in the TOO discussion thread. As of this update, there is not a single critique of Tan—or monocausalists like him—of the sort of Greg Johnson’s sharp critique. That gross omission vindicates what I wrote above about ‘the quasi-monocausal premise of TOO’.