P.S. of 17 October 2014:
The thought police that hates free speech has now censored the below clip:
http://youtu.be/-69cJVYEOKw
Category: Free speech / association
by Mark Farrell
Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (BookSurge, 2007, with a foreword by Kevin MacDonald).
In today’s politically correct world, very few authors dare to criticize what is wrong with society. Despite the First Amendment, it is often political suicide to realistically recognize what is occurring, and may even cost one’s job in some cases, if not more. Dr. Tom Sunic is one of those brilliant and fearless individuals who defies the politically correct ban, and he has written an astounding book that all fans of freedom should take the time to read.
Who is Dr. Tom Sunic, you might ask? He is a man of many talents, whose credentials are impeccable. He obtained his doctorate in political science at the University of California. He is fluent in Croatian, French, and German, and has had articles published in various publications in these languages, as well as several books. He has worked as a US professor, and was also a diplomat for Croatia for some time. He is no lightweight in either the political or intellectual establishment. And yet he dares to speak the truth about the destruction of the West, and doesn’t cringe when mentioning the perpetrators largely responsible for America’s ongoing transition to third-world status. It should come as no surprise that America’s most brilliant psychologist, Professor Kevin MacDonald, has written the foreword of Dr. Sunic’s book, for Dr. Sunic is a man to be admired: He is one of those brave-hearted and brilliant souls who dares to stand up to be counted among those who recognize America’s reckless nature. He unapologetically speaks the truth of where this once mighty nation is heading: on a one-way, broken roller coaster—downhill and fast.
In Dr. Sunic’s most recent book, Homo Americanus, he tries to define just “who” is the American man, and what the American man believes. Dr. Sunic’s views are very interesting and somewhat refreshing, as he has lived under one of the former communist nations and knows firsthand how totalitarian governments infringe on personal liberties; and he doesn’t hesitate to point out what some Americans already realize—namely, that we too are having our rights torn asunder by the politically correct crowd who stop at nothing to destroy the last vestiges of liberty in America. In a chapter of Dr. Sunic’s book, “Americanism and Anti-Americanism,” he comments on America’s new fangled Orwellian Society in terms that describe its politically correct policies to limit free expression:
Admittedly, every epoch has its dominant ideas, and each ruling class in every country on earth is never too eager to discard its founding myths and replace them with other myths that may be seen as factors destabilizing for its political survival. Likewise, the dominant ideas at work in modern Americanism are often hailed by the ruling class and its court historians as “self-evident.” Questioning the veracity of that self-evidence can cause serious troubles for an intellectual heretic and can even lead to the signing of a death warrant to their intellectual career. For instance, challenging the principles of American democracy or probing critically into the legacy of antifascist victimology must be strictly avoided. These prohibitions are not officially on display in America; they just constitute a public no-entry zone. An author or a politician who ventures into one of these forbidden fields is at best shrugged off as a crank by the masters of modern American discourse or labeled as a “prejudiced” person. At worst, he can end up in prison. In most cases, however, he will find himself cut off from academic discourse and political debate, which in effect means that he is intellectually sentenced to death.
Indeed, an increasing number of Americans seem to suffer under the politically correct rules of debate. One needs only to look at such individuals as the Ph.D.-level chemist Germar Rudolf, who was deported from the U.S. and ripped from his American wife and child for having dared to write his doctoral dissertation on a politically incorrect topic in Germany years prior, where he was imprisoned after being deported. The same can be said of Ernst Zundel, another victim of thought crime who was also ripped away from his wife in the hills of Tennessee and shipped to Europe for having dared to venture into politically incorrect territory by questioning some of aspects of history. Of course, while it’s political taboo to discuss such things, it is unlikely either would have been deported if they weren’t white. In today’s Great Society, that is undoubtedly the greatest crime—being white—and trumps all others.
Sunic touches on the topic of white guilt that has plagued America for far too long. In his chapter, “E Pluribus Dissensus: Exit European Americans,” he describes some of the logic used to keep southern whites in a constant state of guilt and self-hate, and how similar actions have been used elsewhere as well:
The end of the antebellum South can serve as a laboratory for studying the guilty feelings that European people have been subject to in early postmodernity. The social malady consisting in self-hate started in America after the Civil War, only to be re-enacted a hundred years later all over Europe and postmodern America. In early postmodernity, Europe and America participated in the same joint guilt trip that can only be atoned by financial gifts and excuses to non-Europeans… Every opposing viewpoint was labeled by the liberal North as “hostile to freedom,” similar to the smear campaign of modern Northern successors against authors who criticize globalism and Americanism.
Dr. Sunic also breaks the social taboo of commenting on those people who call themselves the “Chosen Ones” for their involvement in changing the racial make-up of the US. For instance, after the Senate defeated the recent immigration bill, which would have changed the status of over 12 million illegal aliens, one of the first to cry about this was the exclusively Jewish organization known as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith. The ADL then put forth an article arguing on the illegal immigrants’ behalf. Such comments further prove Dr. Sunic’s many statements:
The process of Americanization seems to be enhanced by the rapid growth of multiracial society, which has always had strong supporters among Jewish intellectuals in America who have never hidden “that making of the US into a multicultural society has been a major Jewish goal from the beginning of the nineteenth century” [citing George Sunderland].
While Russia further distances itself from the Soviet apparatchik, we in America are slowly drifting that way, Dr. Sunic notes. If we in America are not too timid to take a hard look at reality, we must admit that America’s laws discriminate against whites in the name of “equality,” and America’s white citizens are often afraid to even voice dissent against such ridiculous policies for fear of being socially stigmatized, just as it was the old Soviet policy to stigmatize the families of those who criticized its similar policies. As a result of such policies in America that discriminate against whites, it is causing our universities and companies to significantly lower the bar in an effort to have a racial make-up that is reflective of the population. Testing and skills can no longer be used as the main criteria for entrance, as America’s educational institutions and companies become increasingly dysfunctional—similar to society itself in America.
As time progresses, such policies will undoubtedly put America further behind in the world, and will eventually lead to third-world status unless something is done. As the economy slowly withers, there is no real need to ask ourselves, “Why?” It is but a matter of time when wide-scale non-white riots like those that have occurred in all of America’s cities from time to time occur again; the real question remains whether America will be able to quell such riots. All it will take is a major, sudden drop in the economy, or perhaps the media’s focus of an isolated incident such as the Rodney King case of ’92. In the concluding chapter of Sunic’s book, he seems to point out this self-evident truth that all Americans see but most fail to openly recognize:
The egalitarian appetite, once observed in communist Homo sovieticus, is well under and under a new name in America and in Americanized Europe. American ideology will gain more prominence in the future, as egalitarian dynamics and wide-spread advocacy of permanent economic progress gain momentum. Once, when inequality was considered something natural, as it was in the antebellum South, or prior to the American Revolution, then even the crassest sign of inequality did not offend the observer’s eye. By contrast, when everybody is declared equal, even the smallest dose of inequality becomes unbearable. “The desire for equality becomes more and more insatiable as equality increases,” noted De Tocqueville. Consequently, as the American system becomes more and more economically opulent, even the slightest economic crisis, resulting in a small drop in living stands, is bound to cause social discord and political upheavals.
Dr. Sunic’s views are refreshing and well worth reading. His book should be required reading for all college students, and it is a tragic shame that it is not—yet, at least. Consider purchasing a copy of Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age for yourself, and ask your local librarian to order a copy as well.
Categories
Relief valve
Since The Occidental Observer (TOO) has just closed all comments in all threads, the idea has occurred to me that, starting tomorrow, I might repost the coming TOO articles in the Addendum to the West’s Darkest Hour.
Reposting those articles there would work like a relief valve for those willing to compliment, or take issue, with TOO’s authors.
Of course: when TOO accepts comments again I will stop reposting.
Thoughts?
Re my previous and next post: I will reproduce Friedrich’s excellent translation of the Junge Freiheit later in this week.
Friedrich wrote (indented paragraph):
The point is that in both cases if you want to spread awareness, mentioning the mere facts helps little as it is an emotional and psychological problem and I don’t know how these mental barriers [among self-harming Germans] can be overcome.
I think I know how, and for the first time in my blogging career I am tempted to add a donate button in this blog to help us to purchase a teleprompter, a camera and proper lighting equipment in order to film high-quality films with me quoting what I have already typed from Hellstorm.
I have created a mantra of my own (“What the Allies did in times of peace was incomparably more monstrous than the crimes attributed to the Germans in times of war—precisely because it was done in times of peace”) that would like to hammer on Westerners in general, and the German people in particular, by the end of my audiovisual messages. And I will need some resources to be able to do the high-quality filming—think of David Duke’s well-planned videos, although unlike my Anglo-Saxon colleagues I look like a passionate Mediterranean before the camara.
The Holodomor message. Besides my mantra I shall convey my message already stated at the Occidental Observer about the “First Act” of the opera: Jewish Bolsheviks killing more civilians than Himmler. This message cannot be illegal even in Europe if I start quoting sources with the Establishment imprimatur, for example Jewish Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears and Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag.
The Self-harming message. And I will mention the fact of a System feeding us twenty-four hours a day with the “Second Act,” the so-called Jewish Holocaust, maliciously omitting the other two (and since I follow Irmin Vinson and David Irving’s latest position on the subject I doubt I would go to jail even if I visit Germany).
The Hellstorm message. Last but not least, I’ll also speak out about the “Third Act” of the opera: the Allied forces committing a larger Holocaust than the one attributed to Hitler.
Since my films will be highly emotional—precisely the method that the System has been using for the Self-harming message—, if properly sponsored my future YouTube viewers, totally ignorant of both the Holodomor and the Hellstorm holocausts, will allow in their minds the plantation of the first seeds of a process to undemonize Hitler, the Nazis, Germany, Europe, and eventually the entire West and the White people in general.
I wish some of my readers could afford helping us in the project of taking the First and Third acts of our grand World War II opera to the public view—for the first time since the War! Isn’t it really amazing that the System managed to hide the other two Holocausts committed in the 1930s and 40s—and for so long?
Send me a little piece of advice on the subject of donation, either here or in private if you prefer (see “contact” at the sidebar). I am even willing to renew my studies of German so that, with the help of a teleprompter and colleagues like Friedrich at the other side of the Atlantic, with time the message could be delivered not only in English but in German as well…
_______________
P.S. There is a long follow-up to this post: here.
Or:
Self-harming Germans
cheering at Inglourious Basterds
Glad to have received a reply.
“Why should native Germans repudiate the memory of these atrocities is beyond me.”
It is of course a sad state of affairs, but I can see how it came to be this way. For the Allies after 1945 it was just the continuation of the war against Germany and the German people with other means.
After the first world war Germany was able to recover; thus to prevent another recovery and to turn Germany into a docile protectorate / occupied nation permanently, they went on to completely reengineer society by brainwashing and “reeducating” the populace.
I remember reading a quote somewhere saying that the war is only won once the occupied population has internalized the victors’ narrative. The Germans were made to feel guilty and to see their own ancestors / nation as evil and the Allies as saviors.
Our chancellor Merkel for example recently (in 2010 I think) visited the annual Russian victory parade in Moscow and thanked the Russians for “freeing” and “liberating” the German people. Her predecessors Schröder and Kohl did the same on D-day celebrations of the western Allies. Befreiung (liberation) is the word that is constantly being used to describe the beginning occupation of Germany in 1945. It’s the way they teach these events in the history lessons at schools and it’s the word used by the media. Thus mentioning the mass murder, torture, rape and expulsion of Germans that took place in that time would contradict the official narrative—the one-sided history which portrays our own ancestors only as criminals and the Allies as selfless benefactors on a crusade to “liberate” the German people from “Nazi tyranny.”
Our current leftist mass immigration and multiculturalism advocating establishment is also entirely based on this historical narrative. If you argue against mass immigration, it will ultimately always lead back to “evil Nazi Germany,” human rights and how we for this reason are obliged to accept immigration and have to repress nationalists. Then you have the Jewish lobbies, who think they have a monopoly on the victim status and who viciously oppose any Germans remembering their own victims. And when the Federation of German Expellees suggested a memorial for expelled people—including but not exclusive to the Germans who lost their native homeland in 1945—Polish politicians demanded measures from our politicians to prevent this (and our foreign minister Guido Westerwelle, back then during a visit in Poland, actually obeyed and condemned the Federation of German Expellees shortly after).
The European Union, Globalization, the historical self-image of the Allied nations… there are just so many different parties stacked against German interests in this case. In the end it’s all about power to this day; that’s why the knowledge about German victims is suppressed while atrocities in the other direction get exaggerated.
“Have you tried to communicate to them? Or translate to German these excerpts from Goodrich’s book?”
I haven’t translated any excerpts yet, there are other sources available in German. But you’re right, it’s probably a good idea to make parts of Goodrich’s book available in German as well if no one has done so yet. But I’m probably not the best suited for this task due to my limited language abilities.
And yes, I have talked about these topics with other Germans, but it’s a difficult topic to cover.
Nationalist Germans at least are already very aware of what took place, in that regard the situation might be different in other white nations, but they’re unfortunately only a small minority. But talking to them is like preaching to the choir. There’s no awareness problem in this case.
I would say average Germans on the other hand fall into two categories: there are those who have fully internalized the official narrative and those who are tired of the constant indoctrination and just want to be left alone and live a pleasant life.
Those who have fully internalized the official narrative will get agitated and attack you once you mention German victims, because they will see you as a revisionist who seeks to excuse German crimes by mentioning Allied crimes. They will not discuss facts but will discuss your motivation behind mentioning them and accuse you of having sinister intentions. The official historical narrative with the Jewish Holocaust has gotten quite a religious atmosphere, and if you stray from the German perpetrator & non-German victim narrative, it is seen as a sacrilege/blasphemy.
Some people have made the comparison that the Holocaust has turned into a secular version of Christianity, a new replacement religion. Emotions play a big role. How do you reach these people with mere facts? Of course reading a book like Goodrich’s, which describes in detail the suffering of the German people, is emotionally very disturbing and touching as well. But how do you get them to read these accounts in the first place when they already have all these mental protective barriers in place and judge you morally just for bringing it up?
Maybe part of the problem is also that we don’t have a Schindler’s List kind of movie showing the German suffering and retelling a book like Hellstorm. I’m not even sure how I would like that; it has an exploitative and tasteless element, but it’s a fact that people respond to emotional messages from audiovisual media quite strongly, and the German suffering is not present in that form. I’d go so far as to say that a large part of the population these days bases their historical knowledge on Hollywood movies they have seen, and we know whose narrative they only show.
Then there are those Germans who have grown tired of the daily anti-German indoctrination and the one-sided historical narrative that we’re constantly being force-fed with. They just don’t want to hear about past events. They say we should let bygones be bygones and focus on the future. They strive for a materialistic hedonism. They want to live a pleasant life, material wealth, entertainment, fun, happiness. In a way you can’t blame them, since we all strive for happiness.
But since they’ve just grown tired of the anti-German slandering based on the Second World War, they don’t want to hear anything about it. So they also block off once you mention the German victims. They might also get irritated or angry. I guess in part it’s because they fear that this controversial topic might endanger their material wealth and their status in society. Another reason might be that acknowledging it would lead to a cognitive dissonance. They would also have to acknowledge in turn that our society is ill and that the elites are anti-German and that we live under a repressive regime, which would conflict with their strife for happiness. It’s easier to look the other way and to conform with the crowd, and thus the messenger is shunned instead of acknowledging the message. As in the movie The Matrix, it’s a decision between the red pill and the blue pill—and it looks like in reality most people would prefer the blue pill to remain in a state of blissful ignorance.
I guess it’s also a form of mental escapism and suppression of uncomfortable truths and traumatic historic memories. Feeling victimized isn’t a good feeling. That might be another reason why the official narrative is so successful and why there’s a total disconnect with our past and people even identify with the Allied occupants, thus all this talk about “liberation” or Germans watching Tarantino’s movies like Inglorious Basterds and cheering while Germans get slaughtered on screen.
The point is that in both cases if you want to spread awareness, mentioning the mere facts helps little as it is an emotional and psychological problem and I don’t know how these mental barriers can be overcome.
Even in rare cases when you had long discussions with someone and think it left an impact… it gets quickly drowned out again by the constant barrage of propaganda through all the media channels.
Many people work hard throughout the day and once they come home they feel tired and just want to relax, they don’t want to think. What do they do? They lean back and turn on the television. And there they get the same message ad nauseam. It’s a seductive mix of propaganda and American Hollywood entertainment. It’s the same on the radio. They broadcast 24/7 American movies and series, advertising and a little system propaganda in-between. So whatever conversation you had, it’s just a little flicker on their attention span and quickly forgotten and drowned out. It reminds me of that one scene in Brave New World in which the character tries to get through to his mother, but she prefers the drug-induced feel-good state while consuming the systems media.
And then there’s the whole Jewish Holocaust propaganda and censorship we have to deal with. I would like to be able to separate the two topics and treat them independently, but often the first thing you hear when you mention German victims is “but they killed six million Jews! [and thus deserved it and wasn’t so bad in comparison].”
You get it thrown into your face regularly. Not a day goes by without the holocaust being mentioned on television or in the newspapers. And it seems it wasn’t enough that we have selective memorials for them at every second street corner. In recent years they started to plaster the streets with golden stones with inscriptions which basically say “Here lived a Jew… and he was murdered by your ancestors!”
They call these things Stolpersteine (which means stones, on which one is supposed to stumble over). They often make children from elementary school place these stones or clean them. The protestant church also seems to support this project. Imagine if we would place such a commemoration stone for each German victim that was killed during the terror bombing campaign—we could plaster entire streets with them. I think that is another reason for this constant holocaust propaganda and exaggeration: it serves to hide and suppress the crimes against the Germans.
Some images to illustrate those Stolpersteine: here, here and here.
And once they throw the Jewish Holocaust in your face when you mention German victims, you can’t even argue with them as it is illegal. People have been imprisoned for merely translating books on the topic. And last year an NPD politician even got sentenced to jail for what they called “indirectly denying the Holocaust”: He didn’t want to participate in a Holocaust commemoration and called it a “one-sided guilt cult.” He got eight months of jail and a couple of thousands Euro fine.
And censorship in general is quite harsh. So you have to be very careful if you want to be a blogger in Germany.
Recently Gottfried Küssel, a blogger in Austria was sentenced to almost ten years for running his website, which was probably tamer than your own blog. Horst Mahler was sentenced to twelve years of imprisonment only for speaking out. Considering that he’s already seventy-six years old it’s more or less a life-long prison sentence for having the wrong opinion.
So spreading awareness online is always risky in Germany. Of course, you would think that simply mentioning the German victims should be safe, but if you draw a comparison to the official Jewish Holocaust, or they insinuate that you say certain things in order to show the Third Reich in a positive way, or that your speech could agitate the population, you go to prison.
Speaking of Horst Mahler, even the lawyer who defended him got imprisoned in turn, because the defense of his statements was seen as a repetition or a crime in itself. At least she only got imprisoned for something like three years I think, but on top of that she lost her lawyer license and has thus been barred from working in her profession. Her name is Sylvia Stolz and last month she participated in a free speech congress in Switzerland and spoke about the trial and the anti-free speech laws in Germany. I fear she will end up in prison again for giving that speech once she returns to Germany.
I will end my message with an article that was just released this Monday in the Junge Freiheit, one of the few conservative German newspapers. It also deals with German victims, the one-sided culture of remembrance and repressed memories. So I thought you might find it interesting. The article is in German, so I had to translate it. My English isn’t very good, but it should at least be better than the Google-translate version.
With Best Regards,
Friedrich
Categories
Letter from Germany
I wanted to thank you for speaking out for the German victims of the Second World War.
Unspeakable crimes were committed against the German people in those days, and few people are even aware of it. In Germany we’re constantly being told that our ancestors have been monsters and we’re subjugated to holo-propaganda from an early age on and this is reinforced on an almost daily basis on all channels. Yet the crimes against the Germans are covered up: there’s censorship, they’re not even briefly touched in school history curriculums and people who want to remember German victims as well get harassed.
For example Erika Steinbach and the Federation of Expellees were subjugated to a political witch hunt because they wanted a memorial that also remembers the millions of expelled Germans who lost their native homeland after 1945, even though the memorial they had in mind wasn’t even exclusively for German victims.
And when people gather to remember the civilian victims of the fire bomb attacks against German cities they’re always met by anti-German mobs (they actually call themselves Antideutsche), supported by the political establishment and media, who carry placards with titles like “Bomber Harris do it again!” or some slogans glorifying the Red Army.
The holocaust propaganda is omnipresent, while German victims are erased from history and the consciousness of the people. Although I belong to a young generation that has not witnessed the horrors of war, it feels awful to see how these victims—our grandparent’s generation—have no voice.
It feels as if through this silence the initial crime is repeated or persists and it creates a really quite heavy and depressing atmosphere in society. Knowing about these crimes and yet seeing that they’re actively suppressed by the State that is supposed to represent us—it makes it that much more unbearable.
So seeing someone like you speak out and to give them a voice, it feels like a slight relief.
That’s why I think what you did was right and important despite some people having complained and wanted to thank you.
It might also help to educate some British and American White Nationalists. Over the years I’ve met many who were revisionist only in so far as that they reject multiculturalism and political correctness, but they fully swallowed the one-sided black & white history about World War I and World War II that is being thought and perpetuated by the mainstream (which knows of no German victims) when it suits their nationalism.
These are the people that throw stuff at you like, “We wouldn’t be in this multicultural mess today if Britain wouldn’t have had to put evil Nazi krauts in line twice in the last century!” To them it’s a crime against humanity when Germans shot ten or twenty people in some village after partisan attacks, but the fire bombings that killed millions of women and children in Germany and Japan were totally justified and no crimes at all—they even build new memorials glorifying them.
And the Soviet mass rapes and murders your blog article described so visually… they don’t believe it and if you mention it they accuse you of “Nazi propaganda.” Then what can you say to these people? But articles like the ones you posted might lead some of them to look past mainstream history and to investigate these events with a more open mindset.
I thought about writing more about the current situation in Germany, but for an uninvited email I’ve probably already written too much. I just wanted to thank you for posting the blog articles and your intention to give these victims a voice as well.
With best regards from Germany,
Friedrich
Categories
Australia is gone
The following is a recent comment by
Pat Hannagan on The Occidental Observer:
Australia is rapidly being shutdown in terms of any “free speech” that is not in full concordance with the ruling media and political dynasty of communist anti-Western / anti-White policy and propaganda.
We have the media inquiry instigated by Labor PM Ms Gillard, driven by the appointed Jew Mr Ray Finkelstein QC. (link)
We have NSW “conservative” Premier Mr O’Farrell “…who is concerned there have been no successful criminal prosecutions in the history of the NSW laws and that they have fallen out of step with community expectations”, now demanding an “inquiry that will consider strengthening anti-discrimination laws to make it easier to convict people for serious racial vilification”.
Note well: The inquiry has been welcomed by the president of the Anti-Discrimination Board, Stepan Kerkyasharian, as “a great opportunity to deal with this matter”. Mr Kerkyasharian is, of course, a Jew. (link)
As is the Chairman of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, Mr John Searle.
It is illegal in Australia to point out what I have above, that certain drivers of anti-discrimination legislation and proponents of racial vilification laws in Australia are Jews.
The prominent neoconservative opinion writer Andrew Bolt, himself a lover of Israel and all things Jewish, was himself set upon by a coterie of Jews and taken to court for “hate speech” towards Aboriginals.
You can read about that also in Quadrant, and note all the Jews who orchestrated the campaign against him, as well as the aforementioned Justice Finkelstein. But, Bolt will never note that the Jews, on the whole, despise and revile him—he loves them! (link)
Furthermore, it is illegal to do so in Australia. That is why it is important that blogs such as Occidental Observer, administered out of the U.S.A. continue to allow comments.
You cannot rely on Australia to lead anything. Our bi-party system is in lock-step to shutdown White Australia, and criminalise White Australians.
Or:
Portugal and the one-drop rule
Below, (1) my abridgement of Ray Smith’s The Black Man’s Gift to Portugal from “The Best of Attack and National Vanguard Tabloid,” Ref: Issue No. 6, 1971; (2) Arthur Kemp’s more recent views on Portugal in March of the Titans; (3) the comments of John Martínez whose native language is Portuguese, and (4) my impressions on Iberian miscegenation.
Ray Smith
In view of the fact that we are now being forced to integrate with the Negroes and grant them equal participation, it might be instructive to look at other countries which have integrated with Negroes in the past to see what the Negroes gave them. What is the historical evidence?
There is a wealth of material here for study in such places as Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Brazil, etc., but the nearest parallel to the United States today is Portugal in the 16th century.
It may come as a surprise to hear of the Negroes’ role in the history of Portugal, for in spite of all the emphasis on “Black studies” in our schools, no one seems to talk about the Blacks’ contribution to Portugal—neither the Portuguese, the Blacks, nor our modern historians who are rewriting our history books to make the Negroes look good. It takes considerable digging in books written before our modern era of forced integration to uncover the story of Portugal.
Poets and explorers
By the middle of the 16th century, Portugal had risen to a position analogous to that of the United States today. Portugal was the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, with a large empire and colonies in Asia, Africa and America. The Portuguese people were, like the Elizabethans in England, poets and explorers, a race of highly civilized, imaginative, intelligent, and daring people. They showed great potential and had already made important contributions to the Renaissance. But, unlike England and other European countries, Portugal had a large and rapidly growing Negro population and, at the same time, its white population was declining.
Portugal began the Negro slave trade after encountering Negroes in its explorations and forays into Africa. Portugal brought the first Black slaves to Lisbon in 1441, and they continued to be imported in such numbers that by 1550, the population of Portugal [especially in Lisbon] was 10 percent Negro (the U.S. is 13-14 percent Negro today).
Defilement of the blood
There was no taboo or injunction against sexual relations with the Negroes, and the Negroes blood soon became assimilated into the general population through miscegenation, so that today there are no Negroes, as such, in Portugal. The present-day population of Portugal is described by the New York Times Encyclopedic Almanac, 1971, as follows: “Ethnic Composition: The people are a mixture of various ethnic strains, including Celtic, Arab, Berber, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Lusitanian, and other racial influences. The present population is one of the most homogeneous in Europe, with no national minorities.” (Note that the Negro strain is not listed by the New York Times).
What you can see in Portugal today is the product of uniform, non-selective mixing of the 10 percent Negroes and 90 percent Whites into one homogeneous whole. In effect, it is a new race—a race that has stagnated in apathy and produced virtually nothing in the last 400 years.
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., 1911, in its article on Portugal states, “The Portuguese intermarried freely with their slaves, and this infusion of alien blood profoundly modified the character and physique of the nation. It may be said without exaggeration that the Portuguese of the ‘age of discoveries’ and the Portuguese of the 17th and later centuries were two different races.”
The contribution of this new race to civilization in terms of literature, art, music, philosophy, science, etc. has been practically nothing. Portugal today is the most backwards country in Europe…
Portugal and America
In spite of the close similarity between the situation of Portugal in the 1550’s and the United States today, we cannot predict that the outcome of our racial integration with Negroes will be exactly the same. The historical significance, however, is that any country, society, or group which has integrated to any appreciable extent with the Negroes has suffered drastically in its ability to maintain a civilized standard of living and its ability to compete with others. There is no evidence that any other country ever gained anything from integration with Negroes.
It should be pointed out that the Negro-White ratio, 1:9, in Portugal in the 1550’s does not represent the final percentage of Negro genes, for the Negro element was rapidly increasing while the White element was declining. The male Whites were leaving Portugal in large numbers—sailing, settling in the colonies, and marrying native women (the government encouraged this). Most of the Negro slaves brought to Portugal were adult males. The population was thus unbalanced—an excess of White women and Negro males, and a shortage of White men. Chronicles of the era relate that Portuguese women kept Negro slaves as “pets”. They also married them.
The situation in the U.S. today is not too different. The radical-chic Whites have their Black pets.
Our percentage of the Negro element today does not represent the final amalgam. The Negro birth rate is almost twice as high as that of the Whites. There is no White population explosion in America, or anywhere in the world. It is all colored. The colored woman has the children; the White women are on the pill or have abortions.
What the final amalgam in America will be we can not say, but if the present trends continue, the Negro element will be much more than 14 percent.
Why did Portugal integrate?
The British, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese all engaged in the Negro slave trade, but only Portugal brought them to their own country. The question arises—why did Portugal so willingly accept racial integration with Negroes while other European countries kept the Negroes out and maintained their racial integrity? What was the climate of opinion, the current ideology, teaching, or propaganda that led the Portuguese to depart from the behavior of the other countries? What was the difference about Portugal?
You will not find the answer to these questions in our modern history books and recently published encyclopedias, for the whole subject of the decline has become taboo. You will have to dig into older sources and discover your own answers.
You might also ask yourself why America is accepting racial integration while most of the rest of the world is “racist.” Why are we different?
History rewritten
Our encyclopedias and history books have been purged and rewritten. If you look up Portugal in the 1970 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will not find anything about the role of the Negroes and Jews in the history of Portugal, or anything about the decline and fall of Portugal.
The Jews are briefly mentioned among others who “exerted various influences over the territory which in the 13th century acquired the frontiers of modern Portugal.” There is no elaboration of what this influence was.
The Negroes have been eliminated entirely. They are not listed with the other ethnic groups in the ancestry of the Portuguese people. In the entire 15-page article, there is no clue that Negroes were ever present in Portugal or that they had any role or influence in Portuguese history.
The 1970 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana also makes no mention of the presence of Negroes in Portugal.
In all these sources you find “facts,” i.e., names and dates, but with no meaning and no indication of what actually happened or why. However, if you can manage to find some older sources, you can learn a great deal about the history of Portugal.
Blacks and Jews: Jewish police officers
haul away a black man
in this anonymous depiction
of a Lisbon street scene
(Walters Art Museum, Baltimore)
The article on Portugal in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica contains more real information than you can get in reading a hundred history books of more recent vintage. From our modern point of view, this article would probably be called “racist,” but the point is that the presence and activities of the Negroes and Jews are recorded. The information is there, and you can draw your own conclusions. The article is actually pro-Jewish. There is also a scholarly analysis of the factors in the decline and fall of Portugal, with the author tending to blame the Inquisition, the Jesuits, and anti-Semitism. However, neither his conclusions nor his bias prevents him from including factors or information which might lead the reader to a different conclusion.
Our modern scholars and authorities eliminate information which might lead the reader to the “wrong” conclusion.
Suppressing the evidence
The 1964 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica still briefly lists the Negroes and Jews, along with others, as Portuguese racial elements, but with no details or elaborations. By 1966, the Negroes have vanished completely.
Now, what has happened between 1911 and 1966 that makes us purge and rewrite history in such a way? Have we decided that race no longer is, or ever was, a factor in history? This cannot be, since “Black Studies” are flourishing at our universities. Historians are supposedly trying hard to discover all they can about the role of the Negroes in history.
In a trial, a lawyer tries to suppress evidence that would be damaging to his client. He tries to prevent this evidence from reaching the jury. Our modern historians and scholars are trying to suppress evidence. The Negro is their client. We are the jury—and we must not reach the “wrong” verdict.
Liberals in the United States often became very self-righteous and superior when the former Soviet Union purged and rewrote its encyclopedias, eliminating from its history current undesirables and making them “unpersons.” We ridicule their lack of objectivity and irrational scholarship.
But we do exactly the same thing when we rewrite history of Portugal and make “unpersons” of the Negroes (and Jews). In terms of rewriting and deliberately falsifying history, we are much closer to Orwell’s 1984 than the Soviet Union ever was. Big Brother protects us from dangerous knowledge.
Quo Vadis, Aryan man
There is a great need for the American people to know what happened in Portugal in the 16th century, for we are repeating their experience. We are in the same predicament, at the same juncture, at the same crossroads in history. There is an amazing similarity between our situation today and Portugal’s in the 1500’s. Shall we take the same road?
Travelers from other European countries were amazed to see so many Negroes in 16th-century Lisbon, as are travelers today in Washington, D.C. Our own capital is a large percentage Black, and, as was the case in Lisbon, the Negroes do all the manual labor and service jobs. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica comments, “While the country was being drained of its best citizens, hordes of slaves were imported to fill the vacancies, especially into the southern provinces. Manual labor was thus discredited; the peasants sold their farms and emigrated or flocked to the towns; and small holdings were merged into vast estates.”
Manual labor has been “discredited” for many White people these days, and Negroes fill these jobs. We are “too good” for it.
Stout hearts—and pure blood
In analyzing the catastrophe which befell Portugal, the historian H. Morse Stephens (in his book, Portugal, written in 1891) concludes:
They [the Portuguese] were to produce great captains and writers, and were able to become the wealthiest nation in Europe. But that same sixteenth century was to see the Portuguese power sink, and the independence, won by Alfonso Henriques and maintained by John the Great, vanish away; it was to see Portugal, which had been one of the greatest nations of its time, decline in fame, and become a mere province of Spain. Hand in hand with increased wealth came corruption and depopulation, and within a single century after the epoch-making voyage of Vasco da Gamma, the Portuguese people, tamed by the Inquisition, were to show no sign of their former hardihood. This is the lesson that the story of Portugal in the sixteenth century teaches: that the greatness of a nation depends not upon its wealth and commercial prosperity, but upon the thews and sinews and the stout hearts of its people.
This is rather old-fashioned language, but what Stephens is saying is that, by the end of the 16th century, the quality of the people was lacking. Other European nations suffered military defeat, but continued to grow and develop. Portugal stopped dead in its tracks. It had nothing to build on. Portugal can now only look nostalgically to the past. We Americans must use this information as insight into our future. It is too late to save the White Aryan people of Portugal, but we must save ourselves.
Arthur Kemp
Lessons in decline: Spain and Portugal
Spain and Portugal are two countries in Western Europe which have both been marked by phases of great wealth and power and then decline—the classic characteristics of the rise and fall of civilizations. Bearing in mind the lessons already manifest from the ancient civilizations, it is therefore easy to look for the population shifts which, as always, closely track the rise and fall of all civilizations. As to be expected with both Spain and Portugal, the population changes are also evident—and are also directly linked to the leading and then reduced roles these nations have played in not only White history, but also of world history.
♣
One of the first laws which the Gothic kingdom in Spain established was a ban on all mixed marriages. Goths were only allowed to marry Goths, and punishment for violating this ban was burning at the stake.
This overtly racial law kept the intermixing of Goths with all others to an absolute minimum—and particularly with the growing Jewish population. Gothic Spain settled down into a period of relative peace and resultant prosperity, with the only discordant note being sounded by the large Jewish population.
[However], partly because of a fanatic Christianizing zeal (which was common to all early Christians), partly because of Jewish domination of the Spanish financial world, and partly because of the exclusivity and separation which the Jewish religion gave to the Jews, ill feeling between the Christian Goths and Jews in Spain reached a height which had not been seen since the time of the Roman-Jewish war 550 years previously.
In 620 AD, the Spanish Gothic king, Sisbert, ordered 80,000 Jews to be baptized as Christians in an attempt to break Judaism in Spain. This was the start of the Conversos—Spanish Jews who publicly espoused Christianity but in secret kept up Jewish traditions. They were also known by the less complimentary name of “Marranos”—pigs.
Although the 80,000 Jews baptized by Sisbert remained in Spain, about an equal number left Spain for other parts of Europe to escape the growing anti-Semitic feeling in Iberia. Their departure was not a moment too soon—fifty-three years later, in 673 AD, another Spanish Gothic king, Wamba, formally expelled all Jews from Spain who would not convert to Christianity.
Wamba’s immediate predecessor, King Recesuinto [Recceswinth], had taken a step which was to have far reaching consequences. He abolished the long standing ban on mixed marriages, replacing it with a law stating that anyone of Christian beliefs was allowed to marry anyone else of similar beliefs. Henceforth the only ban on intermarriage would be on religious grounds, not racial.
This step allowed any person of any racial origin, as long as they professed Christianity, to intermarry and mix with the Goths. In this way the first steps were taken that would lead towards the dissolution of the Gothic tribe in Spain.
[In his book Kemp proceeds to describe the following centuries, then he writes of Spain’s Golden Age:]
The racial divisions emerge. This famous painting by El Greco, (1548 -1614), Saint Martin and the Beggar, is a vivid depiction of the emerging division of Spain into those who had mixed with the non-White Muslims and those who had not. Saint Martin is portrayed as completely White. The beggar is clearly of mixed race.
The change in the racial face of Spain, combined with its disastrous European wars, brought about that country’s decline as a great power, perfectly in line with the law that societies create cultures in the image of their populations, and change those societal norms as their populations change. Spain is a significant example of this principle, because, like Italy after the Germanic Lombard invasion, that country essentially became a bi-racial nation: White in the North, with a gradually darkening population to the south.
By 1648, Spain had been so weakened that it conceded Dutch independence in that year. French provinces were handed back to France in 1659, and Portugal was once again granted independence in 1668.
In 1497, the Portuguese King, Emanuel, mirrored the Spanish example and expelled non-Christian Jews and all Christianized Moors. A law was also introduced which forbid persons of mixed race from holding public office—the law had as its formal title the “Purity of Blood Law” [Limpieza de sangue]. In addition to this, similar restrictions were placed on what was called “New Christians”—Jews who had converted to Christianity to avoid persecution by the Inquisition, which also reached into Portugal.
[In Portugal] there were no social restrictions on the Black population, and intermarriage was as frequent as not. Over the passage of time, the entire Black population was completely absorbed into the Portuguese population, to the point where by the start of the 20th Century, there were no full-blooded Blacks left in Portugal at all.
While not every Portuguese person today is a product of this absorption process, it is true to say that a very large number of Portuguese today are in fact of mixed racial descent, with a small amount of Moorish blood, dating from that non-White race’s occupation of the Iberian peninsula, thrown in for good measure.
The absorption of the ten percent Black population into the Portuguese population also identically mirrors the disappearance of Portugal as a world power. The Portuguese of the Age of Discoveries and those of today are essentially two different peoples. The effects of the absorption of the Black slaves has retarded Portugal’s history ever since. The rapid decline of Portugal following the intake of the vast numbers of Black slaves mirrors her decline.
In 1580, Spain annexed Portugal after the Portuguese king died heirless, and only regained its independence in 1680 once Spain itself had also gone into decline for precisely the same reasons—although the admixture of Black slaves into Spain was never as far reaching as it was in Portugal.
After 1600, Portuguese domination of trade with the East Indies was lost to the Dutch and the English. Partly in response to objections from the mixed race element in society, and partly in response to the reality that many Portuguese citizens were already of mixed racial heritage, the Purity of Blood Law was repealed in 1773, the same year that slavery was abolished in Portugal itself, and the restrictions on the “New Christians” (the Jews) in that country, were lifted.
Portugal’s dramatic and extremely quick decline from the most powerful and richest country in Western Europe to the most backward and poor country in that region, contains an extremely significant lesson. It only required an influx and absorption of just over ten per cent of non-White blood into mainstream Portuguese society to cause a significant shift in population make-up of that country. This shift in make-up immediately affected Portugal’s position and status in the world, with its decline being clearly linked to the absorption process.
John Martínez
I’ve just read the article about Portugal you sent me the other day [Ray Smith’s, abridged above]. It’s awesome, very educative.
I think you remember that I said [in a previous email] that in 19th-century Portuguese novels you never see Blacks in the plots. Despite that, I also said that there is something weird about the Portuguese as far as race is concerned, because those folks are palpably more stupid than other Europeans by and large, and I went on to mention that in Southern Portugal the Arab/Northern African racial admixture with the locals through the centuries probably had been considerable. Now, do you remember a post you prepared for your blog, concerning the frailty of the White genetic material, whose good qualities are lost by any minimum admixture with non-white genetic input? I found it so striking I even translated it and posted it on my blog.
Well, if you put together all these data I think you have a reasonable explanation for what happened to Portugal: Until the 14th century, there had been some Arab/North African amalgamation in the south, but the north remained more or less intact. In the course of the 15th century, due to Portugal’s conquests in Africa, dozens of thousands of Negroes were brought to the country, especially to Lisbon. Since there had never been anything like a racial consciousness in Portugal, racial amalgamation was rife and unchecked. Then, after a few generations, the country imploded economically and became the cultural/economic backwater we see today, especially if we keep in mind that the Black influx into Portugal most likely went on for the following centuries.
In other words, the one-drop rule should indeed be heeded. A relatively small-level racial intermixing on the part of the Portuguese was enough to destroy their character as a White people, even if not enough to give the average Portuguese of today a distinctively Black/Arab/Northern African phenotype.
Choices have consequences indeed…
♣
As soon as I started reading those online articles [critical of both Smith and Kemp’s views on Portugal] I realized they were the work of Portuguese antifas who call Kemp a racist and, paradoxically, at the same time try hard to prove their country is not a Negroes’ nation. Pathetic.
The passage you sent me from Wikipedia says everything, and I’d like to draw your attention to the following data:
In Iberia the mean frequency of Haplogroup L lineages reaches 3.83% and the frequency is higher in Portugal (5.83%) than in Spain (2.90%) and without parallel in the rest of Europe. [emphasis added]
Now, and this is really important, you can’t lose sight of something: since the slave traffic into Portugal must have ended at some point between the 18th and 19th century, in the meantime (at least until the 1960’s and 70’s, when apparently there was a resurgence of African Black immigration into the country), the amount of Black blood among the general population necessarily decreased over time. Therefore, this 5.83% mentioned above certainly was an even higher figure a couple of centuries ago. And now that Blacks are once more migrating en masse to Portugal, the risk they might run of becoming a White nation again in the future has definitely been removed.
About the allegations one of the articles tries to make to the effect that Portugal is no backwater, that it has a vibrant culture which unfortunately is not given attention by the big media… bull. Ever since Camões, arguably the greatest European poet in the 16th century after Shakespeare, the only relevant contributions the country has given to Europe are 19th-century novelist Eça de Queiroz and 20th-century poet Fernando Pessoa. It is true that the insufferable José Saramago won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1998, but so what? Even Toni Morrison won it—although Tolstoy, Joyce and Borges didn’t. In fact, I’m surprised Paulo Coelho hasn’t received it yet. The antifas in Stockholm will bestow prizes to their brothers anyway and commie Saramago would do just as well as any other.
My 2 ¢
Before discovering white nationalist literature I was completely unaware that the Portuguese ruined their gene pool by interbreeding with Blacks. And I ignored also that the Spanish had imported vast amounts of Black slaves into New Spain—presently Mexico—and that with time the Blacks merged genetically with the Amerind mestizos.
But what shocked me the most is that long ago the pure Aryans in Spain—by 476 AD a Visigoth king, Euric, controlled nearly all the Iberian Peninsula—were tricked into degrading their gene pool by means of Christian conversion and marrying non-whites, as explained by Kemp (and William Pierce).
Incidentally, in the first comment of the comments section below I reproduce the whole section on current Iberian genetic studies that Martínez used to pick a quotation. I am reproducing it in addition to linking to it above because in the past I endured the bitter experience of Wikipedia administrators deleting an entire section I had written about aboriginal infanticide in Australia in spite of the fact that it was well sourced. The article “Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula” at Wikipedia could be censored as well.
He who controls the past controls the future! Rewriting history is therefore one of the hobbies of our anti-white culture.
Instead of replying to a comment by Ward Kendall in the latest thread, I better rephrase here something that Larry Auster wrote about Islam in 2008:
Commenter 1 and others in this thread argue as follows: “Solution X may be what we need to do for our survival, but the support for X does not exist, therefore Solution X is not a good idea and I disagree with it.”
This is to argue backward, in a way that is very common among conservatives, and shows a failure to grasp the radical nature of the challenge before us.
Obviously, any kind of solution to the Jewish Problem that is favored by serious Western patriots will be completely outside current accepted thinking. Therefore any solution offered by white nationalists is going to lack current support and seem completely out of the question—by current standards. Commenter 1 and others implicitly imagine that the solution they seek could be arrived at within the current liberal assumption that governs our world. But that is false. It is modern liberalism itself—the belief that all people and cultures are basically the same and that discrimination against and exclusion of any group or religion are the greatest sins—that is leading us to our destruction.
Therefore it is the liberal worldview that must be challenged and defeated. For Commenter 1 to say, “Solution X is no good, because the liberal orthodoxy would refuse to support it,” is to give up the battle without having even tried to fight it. What Western patriots need to grasp is that Western survival requires and assumes the defeat of liberalism. Those who are not prepared to challenge liberalism on a fundamental level will not be able to save the West. Thus any policy that the participants in this discussion favor—ranging from stopping all Jewish immigration, to designating Judaism as a political ideology and placing legal restrictions on it, to initiating Jew out-migration, to the quarantine of Jews within Israel or Madagascar, to the more radical and violent steps that Westerner and others have proposed—all these policies assume that the West will have gone beyond its current liberalism. The defeat of liberalism is the assumed starting point of all our proposed solutions. Therefore the end of liberalism should not be seen as some distant, impossible goal, but as the indispensable condition of our survival.
To believe in the West and in our own life as Westerners, is to believe in the defeat of liberalism. Those who are unwilling to challenge liberalism may offer a lot of lip service about defending the West, but they will eventually yield to its destruction. So how do we get from here to Solution X? Not by saying, “There’s no support for it.” Not by saying, “We have to wait for liberals to change.” Not by saying, “Let’s spend the next 20 years telling people that ZOG is a mortal threat to our civilization, but never telling them what they can do in order save themselves from this threat.”
No. We get to Solution X by making our case, our whole case, including the diagnosis (ZOG is a mortal threat to us) and the possible cure (my own preferred cure is the removal, disempowerment, and permanent quarantine of Judaism; others have their preferred cures and we should continue discussing them). By making our whole case, we persuade people (1) of the nature of the problem, (2) of the only possible solutions to the problem, and (3) of the fact that these solutions are not possible within liberal assumptions, because liberalism is a suicidal ideology, and therefore we must renounce liberalism.
It’s the whole case what will persuade people and move them to the position that will make Western survival possible. Not a quarter case, not a half case.
See my whole parody in the previous incarnation of this blog—so sarcastic that it moved the Blogger admins to vaporize the West’s Darkest Hour last year.
Manny Friedman: Jews “own a whole freaking country”; and yes, that includes the media.
Well, it turns out after all that Jews do control the media—and a whole lot besides. So says Manny Friedman, writing in the Times of Israel. Of course, we at TOO have known this for quite a while, but it’s nice to hear it from a Jew, even though it’s in a Jewish publication and intended to be part of a Jews-only dialog.
The thing is, it’s okay for someone like Friedman to say it (or Joel Stein, writing in the LATimes and linked by Friedman). But it’s definitely not okay for someone like me.
In fact, Friedman is typical of Jewish writers who inhabit a completely Jewish universe when they talk about anything relating to Jews. Friedman is well aware that non-Jews who talk about such issues should prepare for a wall-to-wall, no-holds barred, 24/7 campaign against them:
The funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”
Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!
Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?
I don’t see any “funny parts” to this, and I’m not sure “irony’ is the right word here. How about “ethnic strategizing,” as in “Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the ethnic strategizing of this?”
And what does being a “bigot” have to do with anything? The working philosophy of the ADL is that bigots are non-Jews who thinks Jews control the media or anything else. And underlying that philosophy is the idea that public awareness of Jewish control would be bad for the Jews. Bigots are people who think that Jews use their control to influence many other aspects of culture in ways that are not in the interests of non-Jews: That the Israel Lobby has virtually made the US into a client state subservient to the interests of Israel, including the Iraq war and a looming war with Iran. Or that Jews use their control of the media to undermine public Christianity and traditional Western sexual mores, and to promote things like multiculturalism that are quite opposed to the interests and attitudes of White Americans. Or that Jews are an integral part of what Pat Buchanan calls the “casino capitalists.”
Buchanan, although avoiding the ethnic angle, only mentions Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan and Goldman Sachs when discussing post-1995 problems.
This new predatory elite has exported American jobs and repeatedly obtained lucrative bailouts when things get bad.
Fortunes are lost and made overnight. Names appear on the list of richest Americans no one has ever heard of. Cheating and corner-cutting are constantly being unearthed. Broker- and banker-gamblers in their 30s amass and flaunt nine-figure fortunes.
When WASPs were the dominant elite in America, their many Jewish critics never had any compunctions about calling them by name and probably loved using what Andrew Fraser calls the “subtly, perhaps deservedly derogatory acronym” of ‘WASP’. But our new Jewish elite cannot tell its name despite the fact that they “own a whole freaking country”—a rather large and powerful country in which the vast majority of the population are not Jews.
Friedman says the reason for Jewish angst about discussions of Jewish power is
because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world.
Right. Jews understand that there are huge conflicts of interest over the construction of culture, whether it’s foreign policy, the sexualization of culture, immigration, multiculturalism, or the role of Christianity in the public square. Quite simply, Jews have different attitudes and perceived interests, and they have been pushing in different directions than White Americans for the entire last century. Massive amounts of money, propaganda, and organizational effort have gone into this effort. This effort has been transformative.
Abe Foxman (quoted in the Stein article) would love to have Americans believe that there are a lot of executives in Hollywood who just happen to be Jewish and that’s the end of it. But it’s far more than that. Jews have fundamentally different attitudes and perceived interests when it comes to the construction of culture, from religion to foreign policy. It wouldn’t matter that Jews are an elite if they had the same attitudes and perceived interests as the traditional people and culture of America. But they don’t, and they haven’t ever since they arrived en masse a century ago. Indeed, in general Jews have an atavistic hostility toward the traditional culture of the Christian West.
Jewish organizations do everything in their power to prevent an honest discussion of Jewish power. And that is completely understandable. Do they really want to advertise to White America that Jews have had a preponderant role in making Whites a minority, in promoting the ideal of multiculturalism, in making America a client state of Israel, in the sexualization of culture and in legalizing and promoting pornography, in banning Christianity from the public square, in obliterating traditional American conservatism in the Republican Party, and in predatory financial practices that are destroying the American economy…?
Likely not. But one can bet that to the extent that there will be any discussion of Jewish power, it will be more or less exclusively within the confines of the Jewish community. (Here’s a recent WND article titled “Who Stole Our Culture?” that fails to come to grips with the powerful ethnic component of the correct answer, despite their emphasis on the central role of the notoriously Jewish Frankfurt School.) Friedman publishes his article in an Israeli newspaper (which is completely ignored by the MSM in the US) and links to Joel Stein (whose article sank like a rock and certainly did not ignite a national discussion on the consequences of Jewish media domination). Neither Friedman nor Stein would dream of linking to The Occidental Observer or anything remotely similar to back up their claims. Yet our discussions are far more extensive, nuanced and well-sourced than anything put out by Friedman or Stein.
Non-Jews should have a robust role in the discussion of all these issues. Here’s Steven Walt criticizing Peter Beinart’s The Crisis of Zionism (in an otherwise favorable review) for addressing only Jews in the discussion of American attitudes toward Israel:
I think it is unfortunate that Beinart chose to direct his book almost entirely toward the American Jewish community. That is his privilege, and it’s possible that the best way to get a smarter U.S. policy would be to convince American Jewry to embrace a different approach. Yet Beinart’s focus also reinforces the idea that U.S. Middle East policy—and especially its policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — is a subject that is only of legitimate concern to Jewish-Americans (and Arab-Americans) and can only be legitimately discussed by these groups. In fact, U.S. Middle East policy affects all of us in countless ways and it ought to be a subject that anyone can discuss openly and calmly without inviting the usual accusations of bigotry or bias. I’m sure Beinart would agree, yet his book as written sends a subtly different message.
Right. We all have a right and even a duty to discuss these subjects because they affect our vital interests. But, like Walt and John Mearsheimer when their book on the Israel Lobby came out, doing so invites the worst sort of hostility from Jewish critics—accusations that it was shoddy scholarship and a throwback to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
It is a compelling measure of Jewish power that Jews are able to so effectively suppress discussion of Jewish power. The power of no other group is off limits for public discussion. I can’t resist quoting Joe Sobran’s 1996 classic:
The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls [then the dominant team]. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Joe Sobran [1995]. “The Jewish establishment.” Sobran’s [September]:4–5).
The reality is that Jews cannot afford to have these issues discussed openly and honestly because doing so would not only threaten their power. It would create a huge backlash, since Jewish power has been so deeply antithetical to the interests of Whites in America and elsewhere. So they sit on an ever more explosive powder keg. Shoring up their defenses, but unable to go back even if they wanted to (which they don’t). Pouncing mercilessly on anyone who gets off the reservation. With 100,000,000 non-Whites in America who are rapidly increasing as a percentage of the population, there are simply too many facts on the ground at this point to go into a low-key retreat.
[See e.g., this video presently featured at The Occidental Observer]
The external controls keeping the non-Jews in line are certainly very powerful. As Cooper Sterling’s recent article shows (and as Friendman acknowledges), individuals who cross the lines imposed by the SPLC (a Jewish organization in all but name) or the ADL face dire economic and social consequences.
However, Jewish control goes far beyond the ability to punish behavior and attitudes they don’t like. Ultimately the whole edifice depends on massive self-censorship by non-Jews. Jews also need to use their position in the media to continue the incessant propaganda that reinforces the current dispensation— that diversity is a strength and is good for everyone, that all humans are essentially the same so that importing millions of Africans, Asians, and non-Whites from Latin America would have no effects on the fundamental character and institutions of the West, that Jews are powerless and that they are morally and intellectually superior victims of irrational hatreds, that Israel is an embattled democracy with a strong allegiance to the same values Americans hold dear, etc.
Implicitly at least, Jews realize that they need to use their media power to make these messages into psychological reflexes so that all White people, including especially respectable, well-educated White people, will feel shame and guilt for even thinking politically incorrect thoughts. In this, of course, they have been incredibly successful. We never see the end of guilt-ridden, self-flaggelating, ethnomasochistic Whites who look up to the New York Times for moral enlightenment. (Here’s a NYTimes “news article” from yesterday intended to induce guilt for opposing oppose massive non-White immigration to Greece: “Greek Far Right Hangs a Target on Immigrants.” Wall-to-wall. 24/7.)
It’s a long story why Whites are so susceptible to such manipulations. But yes, it matters who runs the media.
This is a short list of things that could possibly challenge the dominance of the current system:
• Victory by a European Nationalist Party, such as Greece’s Golden Dawn (the focus of the NYTimes article), Hungary’s Jobbik, or France’s National Front. If one European country manages to have a nationalist revolution and manages to withstand the severe pressures that would be immediately arrayed against it, there would be a transformative effect on the rest of the White world.
• The effect on the rest of the White world would be especially powerful as the costs of multiculturalism inexorably rise throughout the West and Western economies suffer from the effects of our predatory financial elite. There is a palpable anger in White America and throughout the White diaspora. It is unfocused or maladaptively focused (e.g., Christian Zionism). And it is without effective leadership. But it is a powerful force waiting to be harnessed.
• The rise of new media, able to avoid the stifling conformity to the culture of Western suicide being preached by the mainstream media throughout the West. Our word is getting out, even though it is to relatively a tiny audience, many of whom are already converted. If our media becomes obviously influential and a threat to the current regime, there will be powerful attempts to destroy it.
• But those on our side are increasingly intellectually confident and possessed of an intense moral fervor about the legitimacy of our cause. In the long run, such people are the worst enemies of the current zeitgeist. As recent research on opinion change shows, a small, confident, morally self-assured minority can dramatically alter the opinions of the majority. This has been the secret of Jewish success in influencing the culture of the West. But the ugliness of Israel and the egregious hypocrisy of American Jews on everything related to Israel are pretty much impossible to hide at this point. The emperor clearly has no clothes.
It’s not over until it’s over.
♣
The original article and comments can be read at
The Occidental Observer, here.
See also MacDonald’s “White pathology”.