In a recent comment Sebastian Ernst Ronin commented on one of my phrases: “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.” And he added: “You are preaching to the wind.”
Although Ronin is right that I am preaching to the deaf, it is still a pity that not even those white nationalists who are very conscious of the Jewish Question have studied carefully the whole trilogy of Kevin MacDonald on Judaism.
Why? I discovered the pro-white movement in 2009 and have already read the trilogy together with some of the most important books authored by those who advocate white interests (and, incidentally, a couple of days ago I ordered Tom Sunic’s latest book).
I would recommend the Judeo reductionists, those who still are under the impression that the subversive tribe is behind all our woes, to study carefully MacDonald’s trilogy. You will find out that he is not a “monocausalist.” First, obtain a hard copy of MacDonald’s first trilogy book, A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples, and read it from cover to cover, making copious notes, starting with the 2002 preface.
That whites are whites’ deadliest enemy—“No Jews, no Arabs, no communists have done so much damage to the White gene pool as Whites themselves” (Sunic)—is also suggested on pages xliv-xlix of MacDonald’s preface to A People that Shall Dwell Alone, of which I’ll cite a few passages:
Puritans forbade the worship of Christmas, both in England and in Massachusetts, and whipped, burned, and exiled those they found to be heretics, all the while believing themselves to be the beleaguered defenders of liberty…
At that time certain religious non-conformists, especially Anabaptists and Quakers, were still prevented from settling in New England and imprisoned, tortured and even executed if they returned there.
The above image, a window from Old Ship Church, a Puritan meetinghouse in Hingham, Massachusetts doesn’t appear in MacDonald’s book; I added it.
MacDonald reaches similar conclusions to what Brad Griffin, the admin of Occidental Dissent, has been saying for a couple of years: that the Yankees and the Jews have long been on the same page. MacDonald wrote:
Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired the rhetoric and rendered the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa justifiable in the minds of Puritans. Militarily, the war with the Confederacy rendered the heaviest sacrifice in lives and property ever made by Americans (Phillips 1989, 477). Puritan moral fervor and its tendency to justify draconian punishment of evil doers can also be seen in the comments of “the Congregationalist minister at Henry Ward Beecher’s Old Plymouth Church in New York [who] went so far as to call for ‘exterminating the German people… the sterilization of 10,000,000 German soldiers and the segregation of the woman’” (in Phillips 1999, 556).
If this is not whites having a pretty loose screw, what is it? Keep in mind that the American Civil War happened before the Jews took over the American media.
58 replies on “Judeo reductionism – why?”
Sad but true. David Duke has pointed out that the Judeo-Communists took over the remnants of the old Abolitionist organizations:
http://goo.gl/RCcRE
I can point to Moorfield Storey, a Boston Brahmin connected to the Abolitionist movement, who became the first president of the NAACP, which was founded, for the most part, by socialist Jews, with the goal of radicalizing the “American” Negro population, a goal in which it was all too successful.
Have you ever read Isaac Asimov’s short story, “In A Good Cause“?
The short version:
A multitude of human-inhabited star systems, all independent of each other, all fiercely jealous of each other, encounter a huge alien empire. The idealist character spends his whole life trying to get the various human governments to unite against the aliens, and repeatedly fails. The militarist character joins the Earth military/diplomatic forces and maneuvers events to reinforce the division between human governments, by making them think that Earth is going to ally with the aliens against them. Then, once it is guaranteed the other humans won’t help the aliens, Earth turns on the aliens and crushes them due to superior human kickassery. At the end of the story, the militarist explains to the idealist that their goals had always been the same, but if any humans had fought alongside the aliens, Earth’s advantages would have been negated; it was their own kind that was the worst threat, and that had to be neutralized first.
I see many parallels.
Very good point indeed. In the same manner if the Allied Powers wouldn’t have aligned themselves with Soviet Union against Germany, Germany would have easily defated the the latter. It was indeed Great Britain that showed the only great resistance and couldn’t be overcome by Germany, which in the end decided the outcome of WWII.
When your country is invaded by a foreign army, it tends to concentrate all your attention. Of course, it doesn’t mean that other problems do not exist. It is the same with Jews. No one claims they are the only problem we’ve had in our history. Most people don’t even know that they are a problem. Ten years ago, I didn’t know.
But now I think they are our problem number 1. Western countries are invaded by the third-world. The urgent thing is to repel the immigrants. I don’t have the power to convince the leftists that race-replacement is bad for us. I cannot get down in the street, grab an immigrant by his shirt collar and take him back to the airport. What’s needed is a change of the government policy. As I see it, support for race-replacement doesn’t come from popular opinion but mainly from the Jewish media. And it is enforced by the government who is co-opted by the Jews. So, the solution is simple: get rid of the Jewish media. Denounce them. Create our own explicitly pro-White media. I don’t even understand your idea of tightening White people’s loose screws. How would you go about it?
What problem is more important to deal with than Jewish anti-White activism, Jewish control of the media and of Western governments? What are the drawbacks of talking too much about the problem of Jewish influence? Most people are still unaware of it, and those of us who know about it are still trying to figure out how it works.
“the Yankees and the Jews have long been on the same page”
But they don’t have the same motivations: the Jews are anti-White, while the Yankees are moralists. And the real activists who buy the newspapers, ban the White point of view, defame White Nationalists and try to make them lose their jobs, are overwhelmingly Jews, not Yankees.
MacDonald doesn’t say that Jewish activism is the only problem, but he still says that Jewish organizations were the only pressure group campaigning to change the American immigration policy. They got their wish in 1965 and the country was swamped under third-world immigration. From what I’ve read, he sees Jewish activism not as a sufficient factor, but as a critical factor in causing today’s crisis. He doesn’t think it would have happened without Jewish involvement.
Christianity may also be seen as a crucial factor. And the personality of White people is also a crucial factor. White people’s concern for being fair to everybody even to our own detriment is probably rooted in our genes. It partly explains why some Christians and some loony leftists have turned into pro-immigration fanatics. Even so, most White people, Christian or not, still oppose race-replacement, at least in their minds.
I think that both Christians and leftists have been manipulated by Jewish activists. Even if we have an altruism gene that makes us want to help invaders, it is very strange that it seems to be activated by TV propaganda. And very often, loony leftists are not so much helping invaders as supporting anti-White policies. It suggests manipulation.
In any case, even though you think White people have a screw loose, we cannot change our genes, but we can get rid of the Jewish media and launch our own pro-White media. We can also try to get rid of the Jewish politicians and their allies. We have to be practical. What else do you think should be the priority? I think that spreading information and raising awareness is useful and easy to do. Not enough people are doing it.
“spreading information and raising awareness” is, by and large, _useless_. Because 90% or more of the people out there will reflexively shy away from even thinking antisemitic or racist thoughts, because they know that that’s Bad, and they don’t want to be Bad.
When you’re on the other side, you see the kooky antisemites going on and on about their kooky obsession that has nothing to do with any of the OBVIOUS facts that are so OBVIOUS to EVERYONE, and you just don’t bother to take the time to even think about it, because it’s all so OBVIOUS.
It’s only in the context of a really major and extended social dislocation, where the old rules go away and stay away, that “raising awareness” is going to be useful. Having a coherent explanation ready to go, in easy-to-digest small pieces, for all the simple and direct questions that are going to get asked, will make a serious impact. But until that opportune moment, agitation only reaches the people who are willing to be reached, willing to investigate these things on their own regardless of whether they are pushed into it or not.
That is part of why I collect books in physical rather than electronic form: so that, regardless of what happens, I have specific documentary evidence I can draw on and point to, and prepare all the evidence in my own head so that when it comes time to talk about it, it comes to me naturally, and I don’t have to say “I read it on a blog somewhere, but I don’t remember where”. I had a lot of success with this in 2008, talking with people about the financial crisis and the underlying nature of the bad mortgages that triggered it – I had answers ready to go, and my answers made sense, so when people looking for answers and ready to jettison preconceptions happened to ask questions, they genuinely listened to me. I mostly stayed away from ethnicity and race statements at the time – the closest I came was to talk about how a lot of these mortgages were given to poor minorities that had no possible way of paying them off, and that was right up against the line because I had one person (a nonwhite former member of the military, who clearly didn’t understand what that oath to protect the Constitution actually means) inform me rather stiffly that I wasn’t to say such things because it might hurt someone’s feelings. So that was the point where I stopped.
In a serious collapse-of-the-USSR-style crisis, it will be possible to go farther. When the USSR went down, the global system stayed in place, anchored by the USA. This time around, China absolutely depends on being able to continue exporitng stuff to the USA, the EU is worse off financially than the USA and is facing really serious internal problems, so when the USA hits the wall, there will be no rescue waiting.
I can imagine this ranging from being a post-USSR situation across much of the globe, to an end-of-the-Bronze-Age level catastrophe. Many of the pieces are in place and there’s little to stop it except luck. Here are a few pieces on that worth reading:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/firstdark.html#Isildur
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4095
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4106
One additional comment to my previous one (which is in moderation right now, I guess because of the links), regarding dark ages – Edward Gibbon in Decline and Fall says that a major reason for the post-Roman dark age was that knowledge was lost; so many documents were either deliberately destroyed (often by Christians, wanting to eradicate paganism – he documents this extensively – other times by vicissitudes of war) that much of the classical world’s knowledge was permanently lost. (This is, as Billy Beck [libertarian and antiracist, but has said some intelligent things all the same] points out, why the Renaissance was such a big deal; such things as internal heating, running water, and cast bronze were rediscovered and became generally practicable for the first time in over a millenium, and it was also the time period when the European population finally recovered to levels it had been at the height of Rome’s prosperity.) Gibbon then comments with satisfaction on how the printing press has made such a loss of knowledge impossible in the modern world. He also comments on how European political disunity makes it impossible to impose a single political and economic system that can, in its failure, bring down everybody at once, which is part of what happened with Rome.
Of course, the modern world has charged right ahead in doing exactly what Gibbon was glad had NOT been done. Knowledge is increasingly electronic, and thus will evaporate when / if the networks fail. (All it takes is one EMP bomb or big solar flare, and the internet goes away. If a flare comes AFTER a financial / social collapse, when what’s left of civilization is already struggling to keep things together, that would be devastating.) The world’s political / economic system is, practically speaking, all one. What Mencius Moldbug calls the Cathedral is in complete control. If and when the Cathedral fails, everything goes down with it, because there is hardly anything outside its reach.
If this civilization does NOT collapse in the next hundred years, it will have been astoundingly lucky.
What about this: getting rid of the Jewish media = precisely tightening White people’s loose screws
I see it the other way around. Christian piety and altruism together with secular liberalism empowered the Jews since the French Revolution.
Enlightenment liberalism has empowered the Jews, but the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” originally — and, I would say, rather wisely — excluded Jews, who were held to have been the inventors of “Biblical fanaticism”, and numerous French atheists were anti-Jewish, going back at least to Voltaire: http://goo.gl/JqRnp. I cannot see any good reason why the Revolutionaries should have been eager to behead White slaveholders to free the nigs while holding an antipathy towards the Jews, except, perhaps, that the Jews were more capable, and therefore more dangerous.
There were Jewish Jacobins, whose club was named for Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but it was not until Napoleon that the Jews were unleashed. Of course, there have long been stories that Napoleon was Jewish, and perhaps these stories are true. In any case, it seems clear that there was, in addition to the Islamophilic element that Fjordman has pointed out, a racial element to the Enlightenment that ushered in an era of ethnomasochism unknown during Christian times and unthinkable during pagan times. If Christianity today is mostly liberal, it is only because today’s Christianity is mostly a product of the Enlightenment.
None of this is to suggest that forcing Whites to worship a crucified, Judaized Galilean and recite mantras about the brotherhood of man for 1,500 years played no role in the post-Enlightenment catastrophe, but the liberal elements of Christianity were largely purged from daily life, so that Western culture was revived and Europe experienced the High Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Baroque. The Enlightenment brought some good things, mostly in science, but the fine print about the death of the West appears to have been more significant than the boldface we have been reading for the past several centuries.
Armor: White people’s concern for being fair to everybody even to our own detriment is probably rooted in our genes.
I don’t think it is genetic in any crude sense. Unless our genetics have changed recently, and unless one wants to believe that we are wholly (and not just partially) limited by our biology, we would do better formulating alternative arguments.
As you note, one basic problem is the drive to be “fair.” Yet is was not always so.
Fairness today means “equal”. Actually, it means that any advantage gained by White men by way of their natural superiority over others must be counteracted by democratic legislation in conjunction with a general anti-White social propaganda found within the alien media, and the academy.
Practically, it means imposing an unnatural equality on what is by nature unequal. However, we must remember that our modern notions of fairness are a relatively recent social discovery. For instance, in Classical thought the idea of fairness was never a part of political or social vocabulary. Rather, the Classics spoke of “justice.”
Justice understood that equality was not an aspect of the world, including the world of man and his artifacts. Thus, in order to provide justice it was necessary to, first, understand human natures, and then strive to give each man his due according to his particular nature, or type. The important thing to notice is that nature is a plural. Classical thought understood that men were intrinsically different, and that this observed inequality was a natural aspect of the world. Christianity, along with Marxist and Enlightenment inspired materialism, destroyed this understanding.
What happened in modernity was the abandonment of the idea of nature, and the idea of recognizing a thing’s natural end. Today this abandonment is pervasive. In metaphysics and the philosophy of science one can cite as examples the abandonment of existentially rich notions of causation (formal, material, efficient, final) in favor of just the efficient, along with a pervasive materialism that, toward its logical conclusions, denies the immateriality of the mind, and in some instances even abandons what is left of the very idea of efficient causation, leaving just random action for explanation.
In the social sciences we have the prevalence of dogmas such as anti-racism and feminism, the promotion of multiculturalism, along with an entire host of associated anti-White male Social Bolshevist ideologies.
In politics we witness the triumph of the dispossession of White men through universal democracy.
As art we recognize just about anything anyone wants to slop on a canvas, or shout into a microphone, as long as it is hideously ugly.
And in religion we have Christianity.
As I’ve said time and time again, what is necessary is a recovery of ancient natural law. But who is up for that? It would mean a return to ideas such as “natural slavery” and castes. “Freedom” in the libertarian sense would have to be discarded. And the majority teachings of Christianity should have to first become obnoxious to most people. Finally, a recovery of a sense of the Beautiful in aesthetics has got to manifest.
To expect such a thing in today’s world, and from today’s citizens, is the height of folly. Truly, I’m convinced that most Whites are, if not happy in their dispossession, at least not too uncomfortable with it. And if they are uncomfortable, it is still a long way for them to get to the root of their discontent. Maybe in a generation or two, and only then in the case of some natural or social catastrophe. In that case, one almost begins to welcome chaos as a way out.
Absolutely. That’s why recently I added a whole post for a very short quotation of Ludvoci that encapsulates the modern zeitgeist.
M: “As you note, one basic problem is the drive to be “fair.”
Are we being played for suckers because of our innate and noble sense of fairness? On second thought, I don’t think we are. I think that Western Jewish dictatorship work in much the same way as the Soviet dictatorship, the East-German dictatorship, and the North-Korean dictatorship. The East-Germans were the same people as the West German. The North-Koreans are the same people as the South-Koreans. They don’t have a screw or a gene loose.
“For instance, in Classical thought the idea of fairness was never a part of political or social vocabulary. Rather, the Classics spoke of “justice.”
But is was a completely different context. The real problem today is that we are being replaced with people from other races. It has little to do with discussing what would be the best organization among Europeans.
The Jewish idea of fairness is that the West should be an hotel open to every race, while Israel should be for Jews only. Actually, real fairness means that every race should have its own territory. If we had our own media, we would say so, and 99% of White people would agree.
“As I’ve said time and time again, what is necessary is a recovery of ancient natural law. But who is up for that? It would mean a return to ideas such as “natural slavery” and castes.”
Instead of trying to change people, you should try to change the government. The new non-Jewish government will change the television programs, and people will magically become normal again (more or less). And instead of returning to “natural slavery”, we will send the third-worlders back to the third-world (or give them a separate piece of territory).
No it is not it is called national socialism, and yes one can care about its community and the poor the old and the weak. I read more and more comments over here about exterminating other races, restoring ancient law, while all we need is “mind your own business” Blut und Boden, every folk its own land and we will be all set. Homo pekinsis in Asia, Homo Africanus in Africa, Homo sapiens sapiens in europe. just need to get rid of the gate openers, Homo neanderthal aka the jew, who knows Homo SS is too stupid and naive to strive for its own survival.
Transvaluation of all values does not mean “restoring ancient law”, as you will see tonight with my newer post.
MacDonald’s position, vis-a-vis the Puritans is nonsensical. How did an exclusionary Puritan ethic morph into abolitionist zeal for inclusion, not only of other whites, but further of Africans as well? Either the Puritans are exclusionary or they are not, it cannot be both. Moreover, the Christmas celebration of the Puritan era, more likely resembled a festival of Bacchus, drunkenness and public fornication, than anything like the modern celebration.
If the ‘Northern war of aggression’ was more about punishment than unity, how did Jim Crow laws arise, lasting virtually until an Irish-Catholic president enforced integration at the point of a gun nearly a century after the end of war?
Is Sunic not aware of evolution? Competition is proximate and it can be argued that it is adaptive. David Sloan Wilson, ‘Darwin’s Cathedral’, writes…
“In the absence of a strong church or comparable social organization, individuals must maintain their own social order, which leads to a limited amount of cooperation at a small scale but also to feuds and rivalries that are dysfunctional at a larger scale.”
The great English poet, Edmund Spencer also proposed ethnic cleansing of the Irish, but it never happened. Neither was Eisenhower’s malice toward the Germans founded upon the preaching of a Yankee vicar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#JCS_1067
I suspect that MacDonald’s Catholicism informs his anti-Puritan bigotry; I have a Catholic friend who, much like Tom Sunic (another cultural Catholic, although he has gone pagan), goes on endlessly about how all the word’s problems are driven by America’s ongoing Puritan fanaticism. It’s impossible to reason with these people; I think it’s more important to prevent the spread of their ideas, including their Papism, which is little more than the theocratic equivalent of globalists’ UN-worship.
Morgenthau epitomized the malice of the Yid towards Whites, for the unpardonable sin of having created civilization, which the Jew can corrupt, and can occasionally even develop, but which the Jew did not create, and which he was incapable of creating.
The big perps of the Morgenthau Plan were obviously the actual perpetrators, starting with the American President and Eisenhouer. There’s no excuse or way around this fact. Brad Griffin, who’s not a Catholic but a Protestant that admires Luther, recognizes that the Yank problem is at least as large as the JP.
It’s not a mystery why people are upset at this idea. You see, the Mongolians are charging down the hill towards your village… and rather than taking stock of the current situation and acting, we have so little faith that we revert to making recriminations (blaming ourselves).
What’s the point really? There’s only one clear and present danger right? It’s not our religions, it’s not miscegenation, it’s not our philosophies, it’s not George Bush or whoever… it’s pretty simple.
Not so simple. The big question that no Judeo reductionist has answered me is why on Earth, thru more than a millennium, the Muslims who live with the subversive tribe never fell prey of their psyops to the point of surrendering their media to them—even when their IQs are lower than ours. It’s so obvious that something horribly wrong happened in the white psyche after Napoleon that I feel stupid even for stating the obvious. As I said above, tightening up our loose screw means exactly getting rid of the subversive tribe. And to be able to do it implies first an internal jihad: getting rid of the late Christian and secular Neochristian software that allowed the empowerment of Jews in the first place.
Or force the Jew to play by Christian and Neochristian rules. Muslims use the logic of fairness and reason to argue that Islamophobia is just as bad as Anti-Semitism. This means the West will be no longer able to defend the Jews against the Muslims.
No forcing anything on them. Just get’em all deported to Israel. When whites think like that it means they have come to their senses. But first Christianity and its secular offshoot must be dead in our minds. Present-day WNsts are still Christians or neochristians (see for example my last posts where I criticized Greg Johnson’s doublethink / doublelife, and he advertizes both Nietzsche and Hitler in his site!).
Usury.
(link)
Chechar: “Just get’em all deported to Israel. When whites think like that it means they have come to their senses. But first Christianity and its secular offshoot must be dead in our minds.”
When the Europeans still firmly believed in Christianity, they did expel the Jews from a number of countries. Today, the first step should be to get them out of the media. How can there be any Christian objection to that?
I have stated many times and linked dozens of times my “Red Giant” entry which purports to explain how Christianity metamorphed into Secular Christianity and how that created a Zeitgeist that is killing us. Recently I copied and pasted an AmRen article by Kurtagic that at least explains part of this process, the creation of suicidal liberalism, without blaming old time Christianity. That article, although limited, contains important clues. But Sunic seems to be the specialist on this subject. You should know, because you have also listened to some of his conferences.
You’re correct about post-Napoleon (I thought you were referring to white history). There’s always a trend to ‘utopianism’ though in these arguments. ie. assuming that there was a perfect system free of subversion.
RE; Muslims. Well Islam doesn’t have an artistic/media orientation like ‘the West’. Secondly, at what point was it necessary for Jews to subvert their media? The West has been completely dominant over Islam for 500 years… see Lawrence of Arabia. I don’t think it’s a valid question to be honest.
The obvious point is that whites have been surrendering not only their media, but large parts of their financial system and even academia and powerful political lobbies to an alien tribe. You got to be completely insane (Christianity + neochristianity IMHO) to allow that. Muslims may be primitive, but unlike us they don’t have a loose screw.
So maybe we need a European Mohammed.
“Muslims may be primitive, but unlike us they don’t have a loose screw”
You didn’t know about the Jewish problem ten years ago. Did you have a screw loose back then?
Each characteristic of the human mind has its good and its bad sides, its shortcomings and its virtues. Europeans are more trusting and less tribal than other races. That quality makes cooperation easier, and technical progress faster, but it is also a flaw in that it makes us more vulnerable to crooks. It isn’t the same as having a screw loose.
White people have other characteristics: we are smart enough, idealistic, disciplined and obedient to authority, not very violent, more compassionate than other peoples, with a reluctance to take the law into our own hands… Those are qualities so long as no aliens are allowed into our governments and societies. But our qualities have inherent drawbacks: they make us less able to repel invasion.
“whites have been surrendering not only their media, but large parts of their financial system and even academia and powerful political lobbies to an alien tribe”
The alien tribe has invaded Western society from the top down, through corruption and co-optation. It is not as if White people had accepted the Jewish idea that race-replacement is good for us. I think the problem is really dictatorship, censorship, intimidation. It isn’t a matter of White people having too much trust and goodwill.
As for the Arabs, they have been miscegenating with black slaves for centuries, and their governments are certainly open to Jewish corruption and influence. Will they tolerate Jewish propaganda claiming that Black immigrants are just as Arab as anyone else? We’ll know that in a few years time. Andrew Hamilton has written an article at counter-currents documenting Jewish efforts to corrupt the minds of Iraqis through television. (here)
With respect to propaganda to the effect that Negroes are “Arab”: It’s not just Jews who say this. It’s part of pan-Arabism, which is precisely the ideology Jews have been working hardest to destroy. Jews have been pushing out one pan-Arabist ruler after another: Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, and soon Bashar al-Assad, to the detriment of the Christians in the Middle East.
In the textbook and accompanying videos I’ve been using in the course of studying Arabic, the authors — who are Egyptian, Lebanese, and Norwegian — have decided to incorporate niggers (Mauritanian and Sudanese) as examples of “Arabs”. It was perfectly obvious from the videos that they were trying to display as wide a range of phenotypes as possible; I don’t see this as a uniquely Jewish phenomenon.
The Arabs absolutely do not consider sub-Saharan Africans to be their equals. This was a major aspect of the Libyan revolution; that Kaddafi had been using black mercenaries, and when his hold slipped, the native North Africans were absolutely savage in their reprisals against the blacks.
Similarly also in Sudan, where the Islamist north is much more Arab than the black south that they keep massacring.
“I don’t see this as a uniquely Jewish phenomenon.”
Good. Chechar will be interested to learn that Arabs also have a screw loose.
In Europe and America, you’ll find many White people who argue that Black thugs are just as American or just as Swedish as anyone else. But they were not saying that fifty years ago. It is traceable to Jewish influence.
I didn’t know of the JP… in 2009. I thought anti-Semites were paranoid. I was not mad, just a brainwashed liberal.
Agreed. What KMD says about how the white psyche was formed in the cold winters rings very true to me. But when I think about screwed whites I have in mind Christianity and neochristianity; not prehistory, but history.
But we allowed this. The Muslims didn’t.
Again, Jewish influence throughout the Muslim World is minimal when compared to Jewish influence in the US. Sunic has a point when he says that Homo Americanus = Homo Judaicus, something like the above KMD quote expanded into a whole book. I don’t claim having read the book; just ordered it, but what Sunic said in my recently embedded videos diagnose screwed whites pretty well IMO.
We are in complete agreement that the problem of Black thugs in America and Europe being declared by Whites to be as “American” or as “Swedish” as anyone else is traceable to Jewish influence. My point was simply that Pan-Arabism, whose roots (at least to my knowledge) lay in National Socialism rather than in International Socialism, and which is thus detested by Jews and their dupes, also involves the promotion of such nonsense, despite its not being a creation of Jews, and despite its not even being particularly Jew-friendly.
Rollory,
You are correct that most Arabs do not consider niggers, including Arabic-speaking niggers, to be their equals, hence the enviably widespread use of the term “3abd” (i.e., “عبد”) in the Arab world.
However, Arab nationalists like to promote the idea of “Arabness”, and they, at least in some cases, extend “Arabness” to Arabic-speaking niggers (which would not include South Sudanese, but which would include the North Sudanese and the Moors/Azawagh Arabs) as well as to Copts, who, along with many Egyptian Moslems, would be appalled at being called “Arabs”. You can see a rather heated discussion amongst some professed African Moslems about the Arabness/non-Arabness of various African-Moslem racial sub-groups here: http://goo.gl/xK5Je
Is this ideology insane? Absolutely. Am I endorsing it? Absolutely not. But is it a result of the Jewish influence? Not to my knowledge.
Arab men fathered children with Black women, Arab culture and identity going by the father. This results in people who identify as Arabs, but look largely Black. Compare to blond, blue eyed people like Tim Wise.
Oogenhand,
You are correct that Arab identity is, at least in general, handed down through the father, and I am aware that having (had) a father who carries (or carried) the passport of a given Arab nation generally suffices for one to obtain a passport from that nation.
However, it seems doubtful that a Lebanese or a Saudi and a black- African “Arab” with only remote Middle/Near Eastern ancestry would be equally accepted by ordinary Middle/Near Eastern Arabs, who loathe niggers. (On an English-language Lebanese-nationalist blog I was reading at some point, the author complained about the mythical “Arab identity” that includes Mauritanian blacks; he regards such a notion as nonsensical, although he may not be representative of other Arabs.)
You comparison to Tim Wise is interesting, insofar as Jewish identity is passed down by the mother, not by the father. Thus, as Nicholas Stix has pointed out, Tim Wise, despite his claims, is not Jewish. Unlike Nicholas Stix, I would suggest that Wise’s Jewish blood has probably increased his anti-White tendencies and his tendency towards self-aggrandizement.
From the Jewish standpoint he may not be a Jew, but from the psychological standpoint he is one of them. Remember how Takuan Seiyo and Fjordman, both Jewish on their fathers’ side, psychically function as rather haughty ambassadors of their tribe. In these cases psychology is more important than Jewish legalism.
Chechar,
Yes, that is why I said that Jewish blood probably increases Caucasophobia (i.e., even when one is not technically Jewish). Also, there are different standards for what qualifies as Jewishness. I used the matrilineal Jewish descent because Oogenhand suggested that niggers of patrilineally Arab descent are still Arabs. My point was that while Tim Wise may not be Jewish (i.e., at least according to Jewish standards), he acts Jewish, whereas the “Arab” niggers are simply niggers with some remote Arab ancestry. Like you, I see these legalistic questions as being of limited importance. I think I may not have expressed the ideas as clearly as I should have, but I see no difference between our positions.
FDR and Eisenhower were certainly race traitors, but there is still the question — which may well be unanswerable — of whether or not Germany would have been completely destroyed, ideologically as well as economically, if Morgenthau had not been whispering in FDR’s ear.
The US military had proposed a quick reconstruction of Germany; it was Morgenthau who proposed ensuring that Germany could never again wage war (i.e., Jewish revenge). So we are left with the usual situation: A malicious, specious idea originates with a Jew(s), and gets taken up fanatically by unthinking Whites.
Does this make the Whites innocent? Of course not. But it would be difficult to call FDR, who nearly succeeded in his attempt to become America’s socialist dictator, a Puritan. Similarly, Eisenhower was a Midwesterner of German extraction, with strong Communist sympathies. He deliberately ensured the Rape of Berlin, he sided with the Soviet Union against Britain and France (as well as Israhell) during the Suez Crisis, and he pioneered the New Look. He was about as far from being a Puritan as one could get. In many respects, I think Moslems would be closer.
But then my point is stronger. They were not Puritans. Therefore something is seriously wrong with whites in general (cf. Sunic’s quote way above).
Yes, I agree that Whites have a bizarre, unintentionally self-destructive tendency to buy whatever snake oil the tribe sells them. The Chinese did something similar with Bolshevism, which was exported to China from the USSR by Jews (see here: http://goo.gl/Wih5k), and it served them right for tolerating their Jewish minority, even though the opium trade in China, which the Chinese have traditionally blamed on the British, was saved from destruction by the British, but was in fact run by Jews, led by David Sassoon: http://goo.gl/U71sK. Despite all the hoopla about the rise of China, I think the Chinese are on the road to self-destruction, not only because of their problems with debt and inflation, but because their ideology is going to shift the power out of the hands of the Han, and into the hands of the minorities, just as happens in White countries where Jewish ideology is implemented.
Specifically, the Communist Party of China does not impose the One Child Policy on ethnic minorities, and it gives them extra points on their university entrance exams on the basis of their minority status, a practice which Western advocates of affirmative action can only envy. Still, Whites are the world champions when it comes to adopting Jews’ worst and, in many cases, most malicious ideas. Somehow, Whites manage to emerge from each wreckage more subservient to the tribe than ever.
The point you and Sunic continually deny is that there is no collective notion of ‘whiteness’. Just as there is no collective notion of yellowness. The broadest political commitment, currently, is nationalism or pan-nationalism. The Chinese or Koreans still resent the Japanese incursion into their territories and seek recompense for the alleged rape of Nanking and the alleged enslavement of Korean ‘comfort’ women.
DJ: “The point you and Sunic continually deny is that there is no collective notion of ‘whiteness’.”
Yes there is. For example, any White American, Russian or Portuguese traveling to Paris will be mistaken for a Frenchman, at least as long as they don’t start speaking their own language. They will help the White Parisians feel reassured that the local White population has not completely disappeared yet. If they look Nordic, they will be seen as super Frenchmen. If not, they will be seen as standard Frenchmen. If a Hungarian arrives in traditional garb, people will wonder from which French province he comes.
Thus Zinedine Zidane or Sarkozy must be French. It shows the folly of building consciousness upon a single phenotype. The Germans may rise to save Germania but they will not be moved by common skin color.
I wonder how this ‘self-destructive’ impulse is any different to Faustian ideals. Even across cultures, eg. Samurai, the neccessity of destruction is the flip side to great accomplishment.
That’s why these ‘historical’ based arguments can be pointless. Think of the fall of Byzantium. This may have been seen as a great calamity for Europe but on reflection, this helped concentrate power in western Europe and reinvigorated it. Likewise, the utter destruction of America may be the best thing for the White Man…. but obviously anyone within those territories will have differing views.
So insightful is this comment of yours that I’ve quoted it in today’s entry (here).
Back to the original post:
The real question isn’t whether Jews are powerful enough to destroy us without any help, active or passive, from White people. It is obvious that they receive help from White traitors.
The question that matters is whether an international crusade for the race-replacement of White people could have been launched without the Jews (Answer: No). And would the crusade lose its momentum without the Jews (Answer: Yes).
So, it makes sense to think in terms of Necessity and sufficiency.
• Jewish activism isn’t sufficient to bring about race replacement. There must be other elements: apathy of White people, an inclination to violence among some low-IQ suggestible White men who think of themselves as left-wing, and so on.
• Jewish activism is necessary to bring about race replacement. White people will occasionally fight against their own vital interests but not with the Jews’ singleness of purpose. No Jews = No systematic efforts to destroy the White race in every White country.
Yes: but the whole point is that, unlike the Muslims, the western Christians were infected with an HIV that, after they developed AIDS, allowed pneumonia (Jewish empowerment throughout the nineteenth century). No Christianity/neochristianity, no “emancipation” of Jewry in the West.
In fact, those who complain about Jewish malfeasance and who focus on that problem are particularly aware of the shortcomings of White people. They frequently lament that White people behave like sheep.
For example, here is a political poster for the French parliament elections in 1889, in support of Adolphe Willette, who officially ran as an “antisemitic candidate”, in Paris.
The poster says :
“… if Morgenthau had not been whispering in FDR’s ear. (..) it was Morgenthau who proposed ensuring that Germany could never again wage war (i.e., Jewish revenge). So we are left with the usual situation: A malicious, specious idea originates with a Jew(s), and gets taken up fanatically by unthinking Whites.”
This evokes images of Gríma Wormtongue in my head. Unfortunately the tribe we have to deal with is more numerous.
But when you read the novel you get the impression that the king of Rohan was susceptible to such mental tricks. So the question remains: why unlike Muslims whites are so vulnerable to the tribe’s malfeasance?
My personal view is that the Umwertung aller Werte with which we are all living has resulted in the replacement of the Æsir (i.e., Northern Europeans, particularly Nordics) with the dvergar (i.e., Jews). When I was a freshman in college and barely aware of the Jewish problem, I complained to an American-born Chinese classmate that Jews had so much influence it was “like somebody let the dwarves out of the forge”; in retrospect, I think I was lucky I didn’t end up in deep trouble for that.
Yuri Slezkine, a Jewish supremacist who has sought to justify the Jews’ destruction of their host countries, has suggested in his book, “The Jewish Century” (see review by Professor Kevin MacDonald here: http://goo.gl/MEax6), not only that modernity has involved “Apollonians” (whom he characterizes as land-bound, food-producing majorities, mostly peasant-farmers, “plus various combinations of warriors and priests who appropriate peasant labor by controlling access to land or salvation”) becoming “Mercurians” (whom he characterizes as “service nomads” specializing in the delivery of goods and services), but that modernity has largely been defined by a transition from Apollonianism to Mercurianism. Slezkine claims that “We’re all supposed to be Mercurians now, and traditional Mercurians — especially Jews — are better at being Mercurian than anyone else.” Slezkine mentions the supposed tendency of Apollonians to see Mercurians as aloof, devious, and unmanly, and that of Mercurians to see Apollonians as stupid, belligerent, and unclean, with Slezkine concluding: “In other words, the oppositions mind/body, intelligence/physicality, impermanence/permanence, non-belligerence/belligerence remain the same and are agreed upon by everyone involved. Everyone knows which traits are associated with which group; the difference is in the interpretation.” (See here: http://goo.gl/fFYTK).
I see some similarity in Slezkine’s argument, with respect to the Jewish nature of modernity, to statements by the Jew Otto Weininger (a good Jew, as Hitler pointed out), who wrote in his book “Sex and Character: An Investigation of Fundamental Principles” (see here: http://goo.gl/L8ZBZ):
“But women and Jews are matchmakers: their aim is to make humanity guilty.”
What a quotable quote! The “Empire of the Yin” as half-Jew Takuan Seiyo would say…
Glad you like the quote! Indeed, the idea of the feminine character of the modern zeitgeist did not originate with Takuan Seiyo, whose main contribution, I suspect, has been to obscure its connection to Jews. Should it come as any surprise that feminism has been, to such a great extent, a Jewish movement?
Yes, he loves to obscure its connection to Jews. But his case illustrates perfectly why I am more concerned with white Judaized gentiles (e.g., Ned May = “Baron Bodissey”) than with these Jewish obscurantists in the counter-jihad movement. As I recently paraphrased Sunic, “I (Sunic) don’t have a problem with Jews but I do have a problem with those whites who want to become hyper-Jews”, like the Baron of Gates of Vienna.
Naturally, since you are from Jewish origin you try to focus on the former; I being a Gentile, on the latter.
You are probably right. However, I tend to blame the degeneration of my living environment on Jews, and I see the susceptibility of Whites as an enabling factor, rather than as a causative factor. For instance, if a man is fatally shot, “penetrability by bullets” probably isn’t listed as a cause of death.
The Chinese have also been brainwashed with Jewish minoritarian ideology, so susceptibility is not unique to Whites; I think the Jews simply prefer the Chinese to Whites, because the Chinese blamed the British for the Jewish opium trade, and the Jews therefore didn’t infect the Chinese with as virulent a form of the disease.
I remember an old Jewish woman telling me that China was the only country that never discriminated against Jews, and that her (adopted?) grandchildren were Chinese, that they were Jewish, and that they spoke Hebrew and Yiddish.
You are making me reconsider my perspective. After all, if Whites woke up, the Jews wouldn’t be able to drill holes in the hull of my lifeboat, like the scorpion that stung the frog in the middle of the stream. It was my realization that the Jews were drilling holes in the hull of my lifeboat that initially made me turn against them, although I had never really believed I was related to a bunch of sand-niggers wandering around in some Middle Eastern desert several thousands of years ago. Nevertheless, I used to believe that Jews should be allowed to have their own country if they could manage it themselves, since Israel was an ally of the United States… all the nonsense movement conservative media tell Americans when they are not absorbing more overtly Jewish content.
If there is no changing the Jews, one may at least be able to get Whites to stop committing suicide. It may interest you to read this piece, which struck a chord within me:
http://goo.gl/KgVY7
This essay helped to convince me that Jews are not merely foolish, as Jewish “conservatives” love to claim, but dangerous and malicious, although perhaps short-sighted (e.g., “I want to join the Saxon Protestant country club and marry a shiksa goddess, and if I have to bring down the whole damned Occident to do it, I will!”). Seeing that a Jewish leader in Britain, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, has called for an end to multiculturalism showed me that Jews are perfectly capable of throwing their dark-skinned and differently gendered comrades under the bus, as long as they no longer find them useful. That’s one reason blacks in America hate Jews so much: Jews opposed affirmative action, which has resulted in the creation of a black elite that would otherwise probably never have been created. The blacks understandably resent the Jews for pretending to be their friends, then throwing them under the bus when they were no longer useful.
The moral of the story is that Jews should never have tried to bring about the apotheosis of the chimp, which they in fact have now achieved. What the Jews don’t seem to realize is that the chimp understands them, doesn’t like them, and wants to kill them — as I do.
Where I differ with the chimp is that I dislike the chimp as well, but if Whites woke up they would make short work of the chimp and the Jew. That, however, may happen only in the event of a crisis, and even then the outcome is doubtful.
You can see here that Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff and son of an Irgun member, has been cozying up to Louis Farrakhan:
http://goo.gl/kaGDA
Yids will use absolutely anyone, as long as they think they can do it with impunity; this leads them to overestimate their abilities. Niggers, who remember that the Yids did not throw their influence behind affirmative action, were in fact smart enough to realize they were being used when the Yids decided to go back to wiping their asses with black toilet paper, because it fit into their larger agenda of weakening the White, Christian character of America.
Of course it’s true that the mentality of the Puritans has done immense damage to our people, but where did that mentality come from? It came from the jewish mindset in the Old Testament. We would live in an unimaginably different and better world if our race had never come in contact with this vile tribe or its twisted mentality. It’s remarkable how similar the outlook of abolitionists was to modern liberals regarding race. The numerous crimes committed by the Union armies against Southern civilians and the treatment of the defeated South is reminiscent of the treatment of defeated Germany by the Allies. Christianity, despite all attempts to digest this alien, semitic philosophy, has sickened and warped the aryan soul. It needs to be rejected as our spiritual guide before we can deal with the universal parasite.
So true.