After finishing the first volume, I have started to read Volume II of Garry Kasparov’s My Great Predecessors, especially the long chapter devoted to Mikhail Botvinnik, the world champion of chess from 1948 to 1963 (second from left to right on the book cover).
While reading Kasparov’s lead paragraphs to that chapter some of his sentences struck me. Botvinnik had called chess “an inexact problem,” just as the problems of the living. “To solve inexact problems,” maintained Botvinnik, “it is very important to limit the scale of the problem to avoid getting bogged down. Only then could one hope to solve it satisfactorily.” For this champion chess reflected objective reality and what a person thought, and every problem should be reduced to manageable analysis and thought.
Since in the past I was an amateur chess player, these passages immediately brought my mind to my recent discussions in this blog with those who want to reduce the incredibly complex problem of the West’s darkest hour to the Jewish Question.
This is what I thought while reading that page of Kasparov’s magnum opus: “It is true that, in practical terms, people like Alex Linder are right in that the masses would not grasp something too complex and that, in order to explain the problem to them once pro-white politics becomes possible, we should focus on the subversive tribe.”
I have no problem with that pragmatic approach. Politically, I am on the same page of Hitler, Goebbles, and Linder on this issue. The problem starts when we abandon pragmatic politics and enter into the more subtle terrains of academic discussions.
If whites survive the current crisis, even after a final solution to all non-white problems is achieved future intellectuals will surely try to ponder what exactly happened in the 20th and 21st centuries. In that futuristic scenario it is unlikely that they will navigate forever inside the strait waters of Judeo reductionism. Sooner or later they will probably expand their point of view into a bigger picture, an all-encompassing meta-perspective, perhaps like the one barely sketched in my “Witches’ brew.”
Presently even those who are not Judeo reductionists, like Brad Griffin at Occidental Dissent, acknowledge that—rephrasing Botvinnik’s language—solving the Jewish problem would reduce the West’s darkest hour to manageable proportions. But even so the question will remain open: Why the West, unlike the Muslim world, became so Judaized after Napoleon emancipated the tribe? Why every Western nation started to imitate Napoleon’s lead in the 19th century? What was the primary cause of the empowerment of Jewry in the first place, always keeping in mind that they never wielded such power in the Muslim world?
These honest, commonsensical questions won’t go away even if a final solution to the problem is historically achieved.
40 replies on “Botvinnik’s advice”
There is of course the case of the Jewish golden age in Islamic Spain, however, it appears the re-emergence of Roman Law in the Middle Ages mitigated the canonical ban upon usury thus allowing European nobility, like in arenda Poland, to use Jewish middle men for short term economic gain blind to the perils of lending/leasing with interest.
http://www.culturewars.com/2003/RevolutionaryJew.html
You make it seem as if the catholic church urged jews to ripp off peasants, while the CC forbad usury for every single person on earth, only jews did not have to listen to their authority, therefore our ‘elite’ (f… them) thought it worthwhile to use the judeogangsters to suck the cerfs.
Jewish commercial interests were protected in Poland by the Statute of Kalisz…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Kalisz
Yes, Muslims used Jewry against Christian Whites in Spain but that’s not my point. My point is that Muslims have never, ever allowed in their countries the power that Jews now have over the United States. They never allowed Jews to use their influence to the point of weakening the Islamic countries; never to the degree of what has happened in the US since the last century.
To see the big picture you got to become familiar with the writings of both Michael O’Meara (economics over race—the “One Ring” with its “rings” for the deranged kings of the West), and Tom Sunic (those silly North American Christians who morally want to become “hyper-Jews”).
Firstly, comparing Andalusia to the US is like comparing apples and oranges. Secondly, how do you know what power Jews held in Islamic Spain? he record is unclear, however, some scholars proclaim it a golden age for Jews. There is also speculation that some of the Young Turks in the Ottoman were crypto-Sabbateans. Thirdly, Sunic may consider US evangelicals silly, however they are virtually the only white populations with high fertility. Demographics is destiny.
Thanks for telling me that you’re an evangelical. That explains a lot.
Where did I identify as an evangelical? Religion is not necessary to identify demographic trends. It is also evident that evangelical whites are highly particularized and broadly segregated.
When you said “may consider US evangelicals silly” I thought “US” meant “us” 🙂
Jews are in power since babylon but in response to your theoretic statement : the french revolution 1789 was the starting moment of the downfall of the catholic church. Does this ring a bell something is wrong in your theory? The jews took over the property of many presbyterian and started wholesale domination of press, industry and government (while before that they were only invasive as merchants and bankers). SO YES you turn into a conundrum something that is all too obvious. The downfall of the catholic church right after the French RV and aggravated by Napoleon coincided with the rise of the hebrew tribe : therefore your whole idea of “christianity makes us feeble-somust be delt with” goes down the drain. Less catholicism means more jew pover, proven in any european country. Or ask Abrham Kuiper (not a jew), dutch politician in his 1870 book “liberalisten & joden” who blamed the overwhelming jewish supremacy in the low lands on the downfall of the church. But off course you know it better than this famous dutch political leader among many furthering such an opinion in the 19th (bismarck, drumont etc) and won’t change a millimeter of yours. Seems to jew or not to jew has become the single subject of this otherwise so interesting blog.
Are we then to assume that it is not the predisposition for outgroup altruism, allegedly a part of our genetic makeup, that is ultimately responsible for our weakness against invasive species? What then destroyed Catholicism? Did Catholicism replace older defense mechanisms of the Germanic tribes or did we never possess such?
Prof. Drew Fraser made the point in his book “The Wasp Question”, that a revolution in the Catholic Church, (see Pope Gregory VII) destroyed the Germanic tradition of sacral kingship separating the secular and the spiritual realm which traditional was the purview of Germanic kings. What took place was a battle for the secular realm with the re-emergence of Roman law in the Holy Roman Empire. Roman law replaced Germanic law and became view as a moral menace, even by Hitler, because it was judged less concerned with the collective. Others view it, Roman law, as antithetical to the Christian tradition of commerce.
The NSDAP 25 point program included…
“We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.”
The Moral Menace of Roman Law…
“legal historians began to argue that the spread of Roman law had resulted, not merely in a redistribution of resources, but in changes in fundamental attitudes about trust and social duty. As one leading 1853 book put it, Roman and “Germanic” property law were informed by fundamentally different “basic intuitions [Grundanschauungen] about rights, freedom, and honor,” and the tale of the spread of Roman law was the tale of how Roman intuitions had penetrated Germanic “legal consciousness.”(21) Scholars who worked along these lines generally argued that because Roman property rights were not limited by obligations of trust or duty, the spread of Roman law encouraged an exploitative, antisocial, and “unbrotherly” attitude toward the world. The most famous technical version of this claim came from Otto von Gierke, who maintained that the psychic basis of Roman property law lay in the exercise of unfettered “will,” whereas the psychic basis of Germanic law lay in the “morally bound will.” Because Germanic law approached the social world in this “morally bound” way, Germanic law was “communal” where Roman law was “individualistic” and capitalistic.”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+moral+menace+of+Roman+law+and+the+making+of+commerce%3a+some+Dutch…-a018373247
Just curious: have you read “The Red Giant” in this site?
Another question: How many articles linked in “The Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem” have you read?
There’s no question that 19th century Europeans handed over very important sectors of their society to Jewry.
To ponder on the question, “Why every Western nation started to imitate Napoleon’s lead in the 19th century?” I would recommend, first, ascertaining that it happened by means of reading this book.
It is not so obvious. Did you read my “Witches’ brew”? Even Linder, who believes that the JP is the largest problem, also recognizes that we got a gigantic Christian problem. You are forgetting Botvinnik’s advice: we cannot tackle an inexact problem (chess, life, the West’s darkest hour, etc) as an exact problem.
“the question will remain open: Why the West, unlike the Muslim world, became so Judaized”
We are told that White people evolved a different psychology during the ice age. Europe was very cold, it was sparsely populated, and cooperation was required between all people in order to survive.
The Middle East was a more hospitable place and had a much higher population density. The difficulty in the Middle East wasn’t how to survive in the harsh climate, but how to survive the competition with other tribes. People there learned to favor their own tribe over anyone else.
Today, Jews and Arabs still have a tribal mentality, while White people have an individualistic and universalistic mentality.
It means that White people do not usually marry their first cousins. They tend to treat their cousins in the same way they would treat anybody else in society. White society is more egalitarian, less stratified, more democratic minded than non-White societies.
At least, that’s what I understand from some of the articles I’ve read, by KMac (as well as some interviews).
It doesn’t mean that White people can’t see any difference between fellow White people and African immigrants. Normal White people want Africans to stay in Africa.
But our innate egalitarianism explains why we have established democratic institutions open to everyone, where the members are elected by the people, or selected on their aptitudes. That is different from Near-Eastern countries, where you probably have to belong to the right family or have the right connections in order to get a job in the administration. Of course, our democratic institutions can only work if we stay among White people. In the old times, our Western institutions were not really open to everyone. Their members mainly came from the richest segment of the population. And no one ever suggested that, in the name of equality, we should start replacing ourselves with non-Whites.
No one thought we should import non-Whites, but still, it is much easier to import non-Whites in a society which is heavily bureaucratized, centralized, and atomized. There will be far less resistance.
The other day, at Occidental Dissent, Hunter Wallace cited James Howard Kunstler (a Jew) about the destruction of American society through the development of chain stores like WalMart. (here). I think he’s right. Once racial separation has been achieved, White people will have to recreate a decentralized society. I think it would have been easier to resist the government injection of non-Whites in every corner of White society if WalMart didn’t exist.
—
My main point is that the Jews could never directly exploit White people’s psychological weakness by persuading us that race-replacement is good for us. What they had to do is infiltrate our institutions, which however, have largely been influenced by our particular White psychology. We know the Jewish methods: lies and deformations, bribery, defamation, secret networking, aggressive activism, manipulation of non-Jews… But their shenanigans can only work through the institutions of the country they colonize. And those democratic, open institutions didn’t exist in the Arab world.
—
PS: Other Jewish tactics: claiming that the Western egalitarian tradition is a vindication of race-replacement: according to them, both Christianity and the French revolution, as well as the American Bill of Rights, strongly approve of race-replacement. The Jewish-inspired declarations of human rights (United Nations, European Union’s Charter of fundamental rights, and so on), also claim to be based on Western tradition, when actually they support racial mixing and immigration.
Curious that you omit the big culprits of Western demise: capitalism and Christianity.
No One Ring, no deranged kings with their lesser rings; no Christianity, no population explosion (and therefore no mass immigration into the Western heartlands).
I am really curious if, like other commenters, you have not read “The Red Giant” either? If Kevin MacDonald provides a perspective, that essay provides a meta-perspective that encompasses Kevin’s findings.
No meta-perspective, no understanding of what’s happening today. Or are you also a Christian like DJ, and probably also Wolf in this thread?
So, turn the tribalism against them, and make the individualism and egalitarianism work for us.
“No meta-perspective, no understanding of what’s happening today.”
That is the problem with mentioning the JQ. It doesn’t sound intellectual enough. But you say that you have no problem with the pragmatic approach and that something should be done about the Jewish problem. I guess I should leave it at that, even though your more intellectual musings conflict with the practical approach.
“If Kevin MacDonald provides a perspective”
He provides many perspectives. In particular, he has documented the influence of Jewish intellectual movements on Western society. But in France and the United States, it seems to me that Jewish power relies on the ownership of the media and of much of the government, more than on anything else. Through their absurd theories, they haven’t been able to persuade White people that race-replacement is good for us. Meanwhile, they managed to conquer the government and the media, and they can now safely ignore popular opinion. Owning the media is mostly useful to enforce massive censorship and prevent White people from speaking publicly to each other. It cannot completely change popular opinion.
—
I’ve read your Red Giant article, and it is a bit longish. I haven’t watched Lord of the Rings and I don’t know what the theme of the ring is about. I know that Jewish influence works in concentric rings, but you are probably talking about something else.
About the Christian Question, you are the one who brings back the CQ to the JQ. I know that the Old Testament talks about the beauty of turning the other cheek. It’s funny because it doesn’t fit with the general message of the OT, which is Jewish supremacist. But I’ve heard that some themes from the Bible were borrowed from other religions. Anyway, I think that the crazy altruism and the philosophy of turning the other cheek have more to do with the European character than with any message we received from the Jews through the Christian religion. I’m not myself a Christian believer although I wish I was.
Christianity is not the big culprit. Christians are simply going along with the rest of the West. Fifty years ago, Christianity was much stronger, and society wasn’t so ill.
Capitalism isn’t the problem either. Maybe you mean that materialism is a problem, but you would have to be more precise. If capitalism creates problems, someone should explain why society and the government allow that to happen. The usual claim is that capitalism is responsible for immigration. That is a useful argument to hide Jewish anti-White activism. But the obvious truth is that the third-worldization of the West through mass immigration makes everyone poorer, including the capitalist investors.
But I was talking of a larger picture, you know.
Reading both Pierce’s and Kemp’s books on the history of the white race convinced me that part of the problem is the “One Ring”: throughout the millennia whites have been trying to take some mileage from non-whites as serfs and that has caused miscegenation in the ling run, from Mesopotamia to Spain’s adventures in the New World.
Since I am familiar with the latter I know all too well that Iberian miscegenation both in the Americas and in the Iberian Peninsula resulted from the “curse” of the One Ring: gold. You don’t have to read Tolkien’s novel to understand the metaphor.
As to Christianity, I don’t buy that Jews turned old-time Christians into deranged altruists. I am from a Catholic family, you know, and you have no idea how both of my parents love the browns precisely because of their Christian love for the downtrodden. Since I know them for decades I have realized that their ideology doesn’t come form the Jews but from their silly religion.
This very minute that I called my mother I learned that she’s has spent hours watching the ceremony to appoint a new Pope.
I suspect that that sort of Christian altruism is the sort of altruism that caused the emancipation of the Jews in the first place. And I find it incredible that non-Christian nationalists don’t want to see something so obvious.
The paradox with “secular Christianity”, the message of the long article you said to have read, is that this deranged altruism only gets highlighted once you give up Christian dogma, which is what has been happening in the last centuries and decades. No deranged altruism among whites, no empowerment of the fucking tribe after Napo.
But all this is academic, right? We are on the same wagon with regard a solution to the J problem…
Yes, we got to attack “pneumonia” first even if the disease was caused by an aids virus in the first place—a sort of Botvinnik’s pragmatic advice about chess extrapolated onto the historical realm.
So what? Just because Christians wish to help the poor and downtrodden in Africa does not explain the mass migration of Muslims into for example, Quebec. It’s a post WWII phenomena. It arises from the fact that the Quebecois gave up their faith, empty pews empty cradles, and that the narrative of non-discrimination was woven into the discourse replacing the Catholic Nationalism that proceeded it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Trudeau:_Son_of_Quebec,_Father_of_Canada,_1919-1944
And why the shift after WWII? Its because the Catholic Nationalism of Quebec or France was tied to the Jewish Holocaust. How else is the giant sea-change explained? How is the shift from the belief that “the children of ethnically mixed marriages suffer from a form of schizophrenia because they are inhabited by two different souls” to the notion of egalitarianism in less than a decade explained. This is why this giant star analogy is silly on the face of it.
I doubt you have read the whole “Red Star” article.
Wuthering Heights is a perfect example of deranged altruism before the Jews took over; a virus for the white mind that made an opportunistic infection (“pneumonia” / JP) possible.
My father goes to the extreme of calling Aztecs “the profound race”. And since I know his library perfectly well I know that he got inspiration from some Dominicans; not from Jewish authors.
We cannot leave Christianity out of the hook.
There’s a big difference between Mexico and Europe. In Mexico, the Indian population was already there and more numerous than in the United States. I guess it would have required drastic measures to separate them from the White population. In contrast, there was only Whites in Europe. All that was required to preserve Europe’s population was to refrain from importing non-Whites.
I agree with JD that helping people in Africa is a different thing than importing Africans to Europe. In Western Europe, most church goers who give money to missionaries and to charities working in Africa don’t approve at all of race-replacement. It’s the government, not the population, that has brought in millions of non-Whites.
In Mexico, there was simply a lack of courage from White people. They were too soft. Of course, some people will argue that it was the Christian thing to do, even though it means the end of White people in Mexico.
But in Europe the governments are deliberately destroying the Whites by way of race-replacement. There’s no way it can be argued that it is the Christian thing to do.
I have said many times that I don’t hold Christianity as the sole culprit, but certainly as one of the major ingredients of the “brew”.
The big difference between us is that I am prepared to assign a major role to Jewish influence, but apparently you guys are not prepared to assign a significant role to non-Jewish factors.
What about the fact that I have iterated many times, the mongrelization of Portugal when Christianity was most healthy?
I think it is time to remember Severus Niflson’s words last year: “Anybody who claims that all of our issues are to be laid on the feet of Jews is basically crossing the line into the realm of religion and faith, which in all honesty isn’t my favorite area since it crosses from rational into emotional.”
From a national socialist point of view we can very well be interested, respect, cooperate or help any race in any country. If every nation sticks to his original home lands this is even a good thing. The missionaries were spreading western values among others stopping cannibalism, promiscuity and slavery in the continents of africa and south america (as you explained). Or maybe you think those activities cool and westerns views should not prevail. You just link things together that don’t match, as others try to point out to you you should get aware you are on a dead end trail.
Wolf: you are missing the whole point of my “Wuthering Heights” entry. I doubt that you have been reading the articles of this blog related to non-jewish factors involved in our current predicaments. It’s not rational to continue discussing this way.
It’s like your house is on fire and instead of blaming the arsonist and encouraging the firemen, you start a philosophical debate with them: it’s not just the arsonist, it’s the house, there’s something wrong with it, it burns too easily, it must have been poorly designed, the materials were poorly chosen too, and the weather is too dry and windy… Above all, let’s not rush to judgment. We must identify every problem. It wouldn’t do to be monocausalists!
In other words: you assign 0% of blame to any non-Jewish factors? You say nothing about Portugal (and many other pages of the history of white mongrelization sans Jews)? There’s no “witches’ brew” at all (a term I learned in Pierce’s last, concluding chapter of his last book), only a single ingredient? You believe what Helvena said at AoT, that “there’s NOTHING wrong with us” (capital letters in the original)?
Why do you continue to through up these non sequiturs ? How is the argument to be taken seriously if there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion? If Portugal then the Islamification of France…with respect where is the link? It’s like the red star analogy i.e. that liberalism is Christian universalism w/o the dogma yet it cannot explain Jefferson’s apparent denial of universalism in equality. How did he balance slavery with all men are created equal and endowed, by natural law, with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness w/o suffering from cognitive dissonance?
In summary, two things, 1)what does Portugal have to do with the mass non-white migration into Europe over the last 50 years,and 2) how does the red star analogy make any sense?
The case Portugal demonstrates that whites committed racial suicide even when Jews and crypto-Jews were hunted down and killed by the Inquisition.
Now, please answer the questions I raised in my response to Armor.
The African admixture in the Portuguese apparently runs between 2% and 4%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_admixture_in_Europe
Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one’s own death. Undoubtedly the Portuguese intermarried. and per Darwin, racial/tribal extinction may arise through absorption, but was it really with the purpose of the Portuguese causing their own racial death? Or was it simply individual decisions the consequences of which accrued to the group? And even if that position is accepted it does not mean other Europeans set out to achieve that goal.
However, again, how do we extrapolate the cause and effect of that event to 1948 progressively faithless England and the arrival of the Windrush and its shipload of Jamaicans? Are we to assume that whatever drove the Portuguese, like lemmings, to the cliffs of racial destruction also afflicted the English? How? Or did the English government believe that after fighting a war to free the people of Europe, at the cost of millions of lives, from the fascistic yoke of National Socialist racial doctrine that they could not very well deny, especially considering the UN racial charter, these immigrants because of the color of their skin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question
Before continuing this debate I must ask you directly:
Do you assign zero percent of blame for this darkest hour to non-Jewish factors?
If not—intuitively of course—how much percent do you assign to other factors. If any, please mention which non-J factors you have in mind.
Thank you.
“you assign 0% of blame to any non-Jewish factors?”
Your question doesn’t make much sense to me. You didn’t even tell if you were specifically talking about the race-replacement crisis. My comparison of Jewish activism to arson works well. If someone puts your house on fire, how much of the blame should go to the arsonist? I think that is an absurd question. Of course, if you knew there was an arsonist lurking in the neighborhood, you could have prevented the arson by standing guard around your house. Does it mean that you are 50% responsible? It doesn’t really make sense.
I don’t care that Jews were not involved in bringing Africans to Portugal. They are responsible for today’s race-replacement crisis. If we survive the race-replacement crisis and get rid of the Jews, then it will become useful to do some introspection and try to improve ourselves. And we will start making projects again. Until then, it is no use focusing on White people’s psychology when we know that the arsonist if Jewish. We have to stop the arsonist.
My comparison with old people works well too. If a crook has taken advantage of the old age of his victims, should the judge give him a reduced sentence on the grounds that his victims are so stupid?
I know we have a minority of “stupid” White people who go along with the fashionable craze of supporting race-replacement. But it would not be happening if not for the Jews. People will argue that the government is enforcing race-replacement in such and such country where Jews are only a tiny minority. But the phenomenon didn’t independently pop up in each country. It is an international craze. If Britain, France and the USA were not in the process of replacing their European population, the Swedish government would not be doing it either. What happened in Portugal three centuries ago may have been an independent, isolated phenomenon. But what is happening today in Scandinavia is not.
“You believe what Helvena said at AoT, that “there’s NOTHING wrong with us”
When Helvena says “there’s NOTHING wrong with us”, it presumably means that White people should stop the Jews instead of engaging in introspection. Helvena doesn’t think that White people are perfect creatures.
That question makes lots of sense to intellectuals like Tom Sunic, who have scoffed at the idea that Jews have “extra-terrestrial” powers in front of MacDonald (and MacDonald does not seem to disagree with him; otherwise he wouldn’t be Sunic’s editor).
Then ask MacDonald not to waste more of his precious time, as he wasted in his very recent issue of the printed The Occidental Quarterly, an issue devoted exclusively to the subject of “white pathology”.
Sorry but it doesn’t work. How many times I have said that Muslims have even lower IQs compared to whites and they have never allowed (as whites have) such gigantic Jewish takeover of their societies. The obvious conclusion is that there must be something horribly wrong with the white psyche.
You are not even listening. I have told you many times that reading both Pierce’s and Kemp’s histories on the white race proved (to my mind) that whites have been committing racial suicide since the Ancient World—in fact, since the times of Sumer! Portugal is no isolated phenomenon at all. But I suspect you will never read those two historical books—the only specific works on the whole history of Caucasians—precisely to avoid cognitive dissonance, right?
Next time you translate to French an article for The Occidental Observer I would recommend asking MacDonald if he believes that non-Jewish factors may be involved in our race replacement (actually, race replacement was what made many white societies fall in the Ancient World according to Pierce and Kemp). But IIRC you have not even read the Professor’s whole trilogy?
“intellectuals like Tom Sunic, who have scoffed at the idea that Jews have “extra-terrestrial” powers”
In another thread, I gave a citation of Adolphe Willette, a French politician who told the voters, in 1889 : “The Jews are tall only because we are on our knees! Let’s stand up!” Willette is an example of someone who thought at the same time that the main problem was the Jews, and that there was a problem with White people letting the Jews get away with their anti-White activism.
My own opinion is that Jewish activists are able to keep their anti-White system in place thanks to the support and collaboration of many Whites. But they are likely to lose that support as we spread information about the JQ, and as racial polarization increases, due to racial violence. Then the Jews will lose their power.
What I don’t like is the theme that White people are suicidal. In the past, it would not have bothered me to hear that. But now, I realize that it is used to hide Jewish responsibility in the current disaster.
“his very recent issue of the printed The Occidental Quarterly, an issue devoted exclusively to the subject of “white pathology”
It is certainly interesting to speculate on what’s going on in leftist heads, but he isn’t trying to play down the Jewish role.
“Muslims have even lower IQs compared to whites and they have never allowed (as whites have) such gigantic Jewish takeover of their societies”
In the old time, when most White people where still farmers, it was impossible for Jews to live as parasites on traditional farming communities. There was no big bureaucracy for them to infiltrate. Similarly, Muslim countries give fewer opportunities to Jews to live as parasites.
“asking MacDonald if he believes that non-Jewish factors may be involved in our race replacement”
We already know what he says: that White people’s mental characteristics have both their good sides and their bad sides, and that White people’s lack of ethnocentrism is a vulnerability.
—
I’m not sure that we have a deep disagreement about the JQ. It seems like an artificial quarrel. In a situation where most people are not even aware of the Jewish problem, I don’t think that “monocausalism”, as you say, can be a big problem. How many “judeo-monocausalists” have you come across on the Internet?
What I find absurd is the idea that we should blame White people more than the Jews, on the grounds that White people’s refusal to take their own side is even worse than the Jewish tendency to attack us. If we blame White people too much, we become part of the problem.
I don’t think that it is a big problem either, but sometimes it leads to paranoia like claiming that 9/11 was orchestrated by Mossad and that Jihad is totally innocent, etc.
In a Counter-Currents thread Lew asked the same and a commenter that is now a CC regular gave a list of what he considered monocausalists.
Why? I believe exactly the opposite. If we blame whites in the exact proportion that they deserve, and that’s why I love Pierce, after the coming convergence of catastrophes they’ll start listening to us and they might start behaving like Muslims, i.e., “showing healthy majority resistances with regard to the subversive tribe”.
It’s like curing a patient from AIDS. If you kill the AIDS virus, automatically you kill pneumonia insofar as the latter was only an immunodeficiency opportunistic infection.
Auster’s piece may be of interest…
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024334.html
“the question will remain open: Why the West, unlike the Muslim world, became so Judaized”
As I said higher up, our vulnerability is that we have established democratic institutions open to everyone. Those institutions have become bureaucratic and have been infiltrated by the Jews. A good example is the welfare state system. It didn’t exist in the past. What we had was charity, and family solidarity. Then it was replaced with a state-run welfare system. Then the welfare bureaucracy was hijacked by the Jews, who began distributing the money to third-world immigrants.
But in Muslim countries, there is probably not much in the way of a state welfare system. So it cannot be hijacked by Jews.
—
About the preponderance of the JQ among WN concerns :
In the past, my main concern used to be the destruction of Brittany by France. People would ask me if I really thought that there would be no problems at all in an independent Brittany. Well, of course, there would still be problems, but then we could start doing something about it.
The same is true about immigration. I think the immigration crisis makes it impossible to devote much energy to any other problem. The only way to save our future, stop the violence, protect nature, stop unemployment, improve education, improve social relations, make people happier, increase the White birth rate, and so on, is to stop immigration and expel the non-Whites. Does it mean that immigration is the only problem? No. But it’s no use trying to fix other problems while race-replacement goes on. It would be like trying to fill a bottomless bucket. To use another analogy, if your house is on fire, you don’t start repairing the leaky roof. First, you put out the fire. And try to catch the arsonist.
If a Jew puts your house on fire, and if your house has a leaky roof, it can technically be argued that the Jewish arsonist is not your only problem. But I think he makes the leaky roof problem irrelevant.
One of the problems with White people is that they so want to be fair that they start being unfair to themselves. But they are more likely to do that if they are under psychological pressure from the other side. When we blame the Jews for destroying the West, it’s easy to come off as lunatics. We’ll appear much more reasonable if we say that there are other factors involved. Very often, we respond to psychological pressure without even being aware of it. We think we do it because we are very, very fair-minded, when in fact we do it because of the psychological pressure.
I think that’s why many people insist that immigration is caused by a variety of factors : big business wanting cheap labor, White people being suicidal, Christianity, “leftism”, and so on. But the truth is that race-replacement is due to Jewish activists, no matter how much help they receive from White people.
Even White Nationalists try to minimize Jewish responsibility, and I think it can be a self-defeating attitude. They are also afraid to say that the collapse of White people’s birth rate and average income are overwhelmingly due to third-world immigration.
But again, you are confusing two issues.
Dropping the hammer on the arsonist may be the practical thing to do while the theater is on fire. But in the postmortem analysis (have you seen the TV programs where they analyze fires, arsons or whatever caused planes to crash?) you got to think how the arsonist managed to enter into the theater in the first place: two totally different stages of action / analysis.
I disagree. When I lived in California I remember that Reagan liked Mexican immigrants only because it was very good for business; and I remember deranged altruists saying in the San Francisco Examiner or the San Francisco Chronicler that native Americans should admit those mexers only because they were good Christians, etc.
About Muslims…
In Northern Africa, Muslim Arabs never had Christian humanistic scruples. When they took black men as slaves, I think they used to have them castrated. And I suspect that many Blacks were left to starve when they became too old to be useful to their Arab owners. Arabs did not respect the Blacks at all. But even so, they took young black women in their harems and that explains why North-African Arabs today have an amount of black African blood.
In the United-States, the Christian Anglo-Americans were more reluctant to mix their blood with their slaves. So, who’s racially suicidal?
You are conflating two different issues here. White suicide is a phenomenon throughout white history (cf Pierce and Kemp), and something analogous to racial suicide among miscegenating Arabs may have happened.
On the other hand the Jewish problem, or rather the Judaization of the American spirit, was enabled after crazy Puritans of Calvinist extraction conquered an important part of North America, as I have been advertising these days with my quotations of Sunic.