Categories
Jewish question (JQ) Kevin MacDonald Mexico City

For Spanish-speaking folk

Do you remember my article under the long title ‘Enrique Krauze, Mexico’s Most Prominent Public Intellectual, Hates Trump (and White, Protestant America)’ that was published almost four years ago in The Occidental Observer?

Enrique Krauze has just published a thick autobiographical book.

I obtained a copy of his book earlier this week and find it fascinating, as Krauze recounts how he was raised by his Jewish family in Mexico City after they fled Poland with Hitler’s rise to power. What he says about Nazism and the Holocaust also fascinated me, as it is rare in Mexico for Jews to speak openly about their philias, phobias and abismal fears, and even more so in books that become bestsellers (as Krauze’s book is becoming)!

I live to the uttermost south of the big city, where apparently no Jews live (in Mexico City, Jews are concentrated in Polanco and Las Lomas). In a café where I used to play chess, years ago I spoke, very briefly, with a Jewish scholar of chess, about Hitler. But I have never had a long conversation with one of them on the subject—which is why I was so interested in the book by Krauze that the Spanish publisher TusQuets has just released (Krauze is even going to Argentina and Chile this month to continue promoting his book!).

Of course: such a book could only be of interest to Spanish speakers who are aware of the Jewish question. Here I can only say that my short 2018 article that Kevin MacDonald accepted for his webzine caused me some trouble, though not serious, in the city where I live.

Categories
Bible Carolingian dynasty Christendom Franks Jewish question (JQ) Judaism Kevin MacDonald Laurent Guyénot Merovingian dynasty Old Testament

The Holy Hook, 1

 
Editor’s note: With the subtitle of ‘Yahweh’s Trojan Horse into the Gentile City’, this essay by Laurent Guyénot was published, complete, on May 8, 2019, in The Unz Review.
 

Is the Church the whore of Yahweh?

I concluded an earlier article [‘Zionism, Crypto-Judaism, and the Biblical Hoax’ —Ed.] by what I regard as the most important ‘revelation’ of modern biblical scholarship, one that has the potential to free the Western world from a two-thousand-year-old psychopathic bond: the jealous Yahweh was originally just the national god of Israel, repackaged into ‘the God of Heaven and Earth’ during the Babylonian Exile, as part of a public relations campaign aimed at Persians, then Greeks and ultimately Romans. The resulting biblical notion that the universal Creator became Israel’s national god at the time of Moses, is thus exposed as a fictitious inversion of the historical process: in reality, it is the national god of Israel who, so to speak, impersonated the universal Creator at the time of Ezra—while remaining intensely ethnocentric.

The Book of Joshua is a good eye-opener to the biblical hoax, because its pre-exilic author never refers to Yahweh simply as ‘God,’ and never implies that he is anything but ‘the god of Israel,’ that is, ‘our god’ for the Israelites, and ‘your god’ for their enemies (25 times). Yahweh shows no interest in converting Canaanite peoples, whom he regards as worthless than their livestock. He doesn’t instruct Joshua to even try to convert them, but simply to exterminate them, in keeping with the war code he gave Moses in Deuteronomy 20.

However, we find in the Book of Joshua one isolated statement by a Canaanite woman that ‘Yahweh your god is God both in Heaven above and on Earth beneath’ (2:11). Rahab, a prostitute in Jericho, makes that statement to two Israeli spies who spend the night with her, and whom she hides in exchange for being spared, together with her family, when the Israelites will take over the city and slaughter everyone, ‘men and women, young and old’ (6:21). Rahab’s ‘profession of faith’ is probably a post-exilic insertion, because it doesn’t fit well with her other claim that she is motivated by fear, not by faith: ‘we are afraid of you and everyone living in this country has been seized with terror at your approach’ (2:9). Nevertheless, the combination of fear and faith is consistent with Yahweh’s ways.

The French Catholic Bible de Jérusalem—a scholarly translation by the Dominicans of the École Biblique, which served as guideline for the English Jerusalem Bible—adds a following footnote to Rahab’s ‘profession of faith to the God of Israel’, saying it ‘made Rahab, in the eyes of more than one Church Father, a figure of the Gentile Church, saved by her faith.’

I find this footnote emblematic of the role of Christianity in propagating among Gentiles the Israelites’ outrageous metaphysical claim, that great deception that has remained, to this day, a source of tremendous symbolic power. By recognizing her own image in the prostitute of Jericho, the Church claims for herself the role that is exactly hers in history, while radically misleading Christians about the historical significance of that role. It is indeed the Church who, having acknowledged the god of Israel as the universal God, introduced the Jews into the heart of the Gentile city and, over the centuries, allowed them to seize power over Christendom. [Red emphasis by Ed.]

This thesis, which I am going to develop here, may seem fanciful, because we have been taught that Christianity was strongly Judeophobic from the start. And that’s true. For example, John Chrysostom, perhaps the most influential Greek theologian of the crucial 4th century, wrote several homilies ‘Against the Jews’. But what he is concerned about, precisely, is the nefarious influence of the Jews over Christians. Many Christians, he complains, ‘join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts’ and even believe that ‘they think as we do’ (First homily, I,5).

‘Is it not strange that those who worship the Crucified keep common festival with those who crucified him? Is it not a sign of folly and the worst madness?… For when they see that you, who worship the Christ whom they crucified, are reverently following their rituals, how can they fail to think that the rites they have performed are the best and that our ceremonies are worthless?’ (First Homily, V,1-7).

To John’s horror, some Christians even get circumcised. ‘Do not tell me,’ he warns them, ‘that circumcision is just a single command; it is that very command which imposes on you the entire yoke of the Law’ (Second Homily, II,4). And so, with all its Judeophobia (anachronistically renamed ‘anti-Semitism’ today), John Chrysostom’s homilies are a testimony to the strong influence that Jews have exerted on Gentile Christians in the early days of the triumphant, imperial Church. And no matter how much the Greek and Latin Fathers have tried to protect their flock from the influence of Jews, it has persisted as the Church expanded. It can even be argued that the history of Christianity is the history of its Judaization, from Constantinople to Rome, then from Rome to Amsterdam and to the New World.

______ 卐 ______

 
Note of the Editor: This is exactly what apologists of Christianity, like the secular Kevin MacDonald, fail to understand (see e.g., how he misunderstands John Chrysostom in his preface to Giles Corey’s The Sword of Christ).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
We commonly admit that the Church has always oppressed the Jews and prevented their integration unless they convert. Were they not expelled from one Christian kingdom after another in the Middle Ages? Again, this is true, but we must distinguish between the cause and the effect. Each of these expulsions has been a reaction to a situation unknown in pre-Christian Antiquity: Jewish communities gaining inordinate economic power, under the protection of a royal administration (Jews served as the kings’ tax collectors and moneylenders, and were particularly indispensable in times of war), until this economic power, yielding political power, reaches a point of saturation, causes pogroms and forces the king into taking measures.

Let us consider for example the influence of the Jews in Western Europe under the Carolingians. It reaches a climax under Charlemagne’s son, Louis the Pious. The bishop of Lyon Agobard (c. 769-840) left us five letters or treatises written to protest against the power granted to the Jews at the detriment of Christians. In On the insolence of the Jews, addressed to Louis the Pious in 826, Agobard complains that the Jews produce ‘signed ordinances of your name with golden seals’ guaranteeing them outrageous advantages, and that the envoys of the Emperor are ‘terrible towards Christians and gentle towards Jews.’ Agobard even complains of an imperial edict imposing Sunday rather than Saturday as market day, in order to please the Jews. In another letter, he complains of an edict forbidding anyone to baptize the slaves of the Jews without the permission of their masters.[1]

Louis the Pious was said to be under the influence of his wife, Queen Judith—a name that simply means ‘Jewess’. She was so friendly to Jews that the Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz hypothesizes that she was a secret Jewess, in the manner of the biblical Esther. Graetz describes the reign of Louis and Judith (and ‘the treasurer Bernhard, the real ruler of the kingdom’ according to him) as a golden age for the Jews, and points out that in the emperor’s court, many regarded Judaism as the true religion. This is illustrated by the resounding conversion of Louis’ confessor, Bishop Bodo, who took the name of Eleazar, had himself circumcised, and married a Jewess. ‘Cultured Christians,’ writes Graetz, ‘refreshed themselves with the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Jewish philosopher Philo, and read their works in preference to those of the apostles.’[2]

The Judaization of the Roman Church at this time is appropriately symbolized by the adoption of unleavened bread for communion, with no justification in the Gospel. I say ‘the Roman Church’, but perhaps it should be called the Frankish Church because, from the time of Charlemagne, it was taken over by ethnic Franks with geopolitical designs on Byzantium, as Orthodox theologian John Romanides has convincingly argued.[3]

The Old Testament was especially influential in the Frankish spheres of power. Popular piety focused on the Gospel narratives (canonical gospels, but also apocryphal ones like the immensely popular Gospel of Nicodemus), the worship of Mary, and the ubiquitous cults of the saints, but kings and popes relied on a political theology drawn from the Tanakh.

The Hebrew Bible had been a major part of Frankish propaganda from the late sixth century. Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks, the primary—and mostly legendary—source for Merovingian history, is framed on the providential ideology of the Books of Kings: the good kings are those who support the Catholic Church, and the bad kings those who resist the growth of its power. Under Louis the Pious, the rite of anointment of the Frankish kings was designed after the model of the prophet Samuel’s anointment of King David in 1 Samuel 16.

__________

[1] Adrien Bressolles, ‘La question juive au temps de Louis le Pieux,’ in Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, tome 28, n°113, 1942. pp. 51-64, on https://www.persee.fr

[2] Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891 (archive.org), vol. III, ch. VI, p. 162.

[3] John Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay Between Theology and Society, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981.

Categories
David Skrbina Kevin MacDonald The Jesus Hoax (book)

Kevin MacD reviews Skrbina’s book

Last year Kevin MacDonald reviewed The Jesus Hoax, and I replied to him in the comments section of his webzine. David Skrbina also replied to him in that thread, his final words were: ‘I close with the request to read my book, The Jesus Hoax, in full. The above review by Kevin MacD, while excellent, leaves out many essential details. Many critical commenters here simply do not understand the full picture (FYI, I’m not Jewish, not a Zionist, and not a leftist). It’s fine to be critical, but please be a knowledgeable critic’.

As can be seen in that thread, more Christians than non-Christians comment on The Occidental Observer. But even the non-Christians of white nationalism fail to proclaim what I proclaim: that the primary cause of white decline is not Jewry, but Christian ethics. (Modern Jewish subversion is only an epiphenomenon of the great weakening of Aryanism by accepting the moralistic codes of Semitic writers.)

I don’t want to dwell too much on MacDonald’s long review because neither he nor any white nationalist has answered what I have so often said about miscegenation in Constantinople and Latin America: something that gives the lie to MacDonald’s claim that there was a time when an ‘adaptive Christianity’—his words in the book-review—flourished and served Aryan DNA.

No such animal ever existed, as we have seen and will continue to see in our translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s ten books.

I must end this post by reiterating Skrbina’s request on The Occidental Observer to read his book, albeit in excerpts as I will continue to do on this site for the rest of the week.

Categories
American civil war Kevin MacDonald Monocausalism Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

Morgan on KMD, again

Kevin MacDonald: ‘Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition…’

I’ve been flipping through this book, and it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be. On the positive side, I’m glad to see that MacDonald is evidently of the view that the American Civil War was all about slavery. He says, for example:

Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa.

This is a controversial statement in right-wing circles, where it is common to hold that the Civil War was only a dispute over states’ rights or tariffs, and that slavery played no role at all. So kudos to MacDonald for taking a stand in the opposing camp.

On the other hand, he is still pushing the view that the cultural defeat of Darwinism in America marked a turning point in white fortunes, and for this defeat he blames the Jews, especially Franz Boas. But, to those who have been following the matter, it will come as no surprise that he completely ‘forgets’ to mention the sizeable Christian role in the defeat.

There was a considerable amount of resistance to Darwin’s ideas from Christians on both sides of the Atlantic. In England, Thomas Huxley, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, verbally jousted with Bishop Wilberforce. In America, it culminated in the 1925 Scopes trial, the so-called Monkey Trial. Darwin’s theory was thought to be contrary to the Bible, and there had been a law passed making it illegal to teach anything other than Biblical creation stories in public schools.

Ironically enough, it was the heavily Jewish ACLU that challenged this law. This would seem to pose a problem for MacDonald’s notion that the Jews were the only force [emphasis added by Ed.—what I call ‘monocausalism’] against Darwinism, so he prefers not to discuss it. Those pesky Jews!

In their relations with whites, it’s always been heads they win, tails we lose. If they challenge Darwin’s idea, as did Boas, they’re attacking white racial solidarity. If they uphold Darwin’s idea, they’re attacking Christianity, which in MacDonald’s view has been a force for white unity. Thus it seems the abandonment of Darwinism was not entirely a Jewish project. White Christians, too, reacted in horror to Darwinism’s implications, and still do so today.

In my view, omitting a discussion of this is a serious flaw in the book.

__________

Read it all here.

Categories
American racial right Jewish question (JQ) Kevin MacDonald Old Testament

Why I am so critical of them

To many racialists, my constant criticism of white nationalism may seem excessive. But I do so and will continue to do so, for a very specific reason.

The platform that Kevin MacDonald provides, at least in the first and third books of his trilogy on Jewry, could potentially be ideal for understanding the West’s darkest hour: Whites and Jews have been engaged, for over two thousand years, in an ethnic war in which only one can come out alive (the best of the Gentiles, says the Talmud, must be exterminated; that is, the competing Aryans).

Instead of constructing an ideological edifice in which this fundamental premise serves to understand the Christian problem, bearing in mind that Christian ethics is the poison that is killing the Aryan, most contemporary racialists turn a blind eye to what is right under their noses: the JQ and the CQ are one and the same (again, remember Nietzsche’s long quote in The Fair Race).

Perhaps it would be a good idea for me to start quoting our friend Gaedhal’s letters so that, drop by drop in many posts to come, we can better understand the mind of Jewry—and the schizophrenia of white racialists who worship the god that wants to exterminate them. In his missive today, Gaedhal informs us of the following (note how psychotic, from this point of view, it is to admire Saul, David and company):

‘…lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.’

Numbers 23:9b KJV

‘Nations’ above is, in the Hebrew text, ‘goyim’. The Jews do not see themselves as part of the family of nations. They see themselves as separate, distinct, superior, and wish to dominate and enslave the gentile nations. Later on, in the Bible, one of the gentile nations tricks Israel into letting them live by becoming their slaves!. They become hewers of wood and drawers of water.

The reason why David was preferred by Yahweh to Saul is because Saul let some of the Goyim live—in disobedience to Yahweh’s strict command to exterminate them all!—whereas David did not. David was perfectly obedient to Yahweh in this respect, yea, a man after Yahweh’s own heart in this regard. It became a saying in Israel that Saul killed thousands of Goyim but David killed tens of thousands of Goyim.

Categories
Adolf Hitler Holocaust Kevin MacDonald

Carolyn Yeager confronts KMD

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for replying! I wrote that you had ‘never admitted that [you] seriously doubted that “it” occurred as generally described’. So it’s not what you have said but what you have failed to say. Also, publishing someone else’s articles in your capacity as editor of The Occidental Observer is not equivalent to a statement from you.

In 2017, you participated in a videocast of Torah Talk with Luke Ford, a non-ethnically Jewish student of Torah and Talmud. One of Ford’s young students asked you the clearly unexpected question: ‘What are your thoughts about holocaust revisionism?’ I quote your answer word for word:

Yeah, I guess I’m not, uh, I’ve never had any sympathy really, before—I haven’t seen anything that would really, you know, convince me. And I, frankly, haven’t dealt into it very much. My view is that it’s not important for what I’m doing and I don’t think it’s really important—I think what’s really important is the culture of the holocaust, you know, how it’s taught in school, how it’s used to defend Israel, and it’s used as a weapon against people who oppose immigration, and all those things—ah I think those are very important things to discuss. So whether it actually happened, exactly, and all that is something that I don’t think is possible to even go there anymore, is just… just uh… third rail.

Definition of ‘third rail’: A subject that tends to be avoided because of its offensive or controversial nature.

I’d like to insert here that IF it’s not important whether the H. actually happened, how can there be a culture about it that is important? We need to know whether it happened or not—if not, there can be no culture based on it. You were also asked your feelings about Adolf Hitler. You answered:

Oh God, I think that the only term I can use is a disaster. I think that his own personality… got in the way of [the generals] carrying out their strategic military [goals] in World War Two. I think he was, you know, he thought of himself as a general or something. You know, he interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals and I think that that was… horrible, that was a disaster.

There was more, which you can read for yourself at [Carolyn’s site].

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note: Read the whole exchange at The Occidental Observer.

Categories
Game of Thrones Kevin MacDonald

Throne revisited

Three years ago, on 19 May 2019, the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, premiered. Because of how popular this HBO series became among normies, I’ve tried to use Tyrion’s message in the finale about the stories we tell ourselves.

What strikes me most is that the story being told by American white nationalists is, like the story told to the plebeian German under the Nazi regime, the story that the Jews wrote for our consumption, the New Testament: a story where the heroes and protagonists are Jewish.

It reminds me that I recently watched the special edition DVD of the 1959 film that won so many Oscars: Ben-Hur. Commenting on the opening of the film with images from Nazareth, Charlton Heston was talking to another film pundit, who remarked that the people in red clothing were the ‘bad guys’ of the movie, i.e. the Romans. It was implied that the good guys were the Jews!

It is alarming that American racialists keep coming up with these stories in which the Aryans are the bad guys and the Jews the good guys, as if telling us such stories had nothing to do with the empowerment of the Jews in the West!

Never mind that Game of Thrones is rubbish (I criticised each of the 73 episodes in On Beth’s Cute Tits). What matters is my use of the finale to say something that reminds me of Goethe’s words: The hardest thing to see is what is in front of you.

And indeed, today’s racialists, unlike Hitler, are unable to see what is right under their noses: that to tell us a Jewish story for two thousand years is pure poison for racial preservation, and that the first thing we must do is to tell us the Aryan story.

Categories
American racial right Degenerate art Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Film Kevin MacDonald Mainstream media Vikings

The Northman (film)

Today I was about to continue translating the preface to the most authoritative edition of Uncle Adolf’s monologues when I came across this recent paragraph by Kevin MacDonald on the film The Northman:

The deep question is how such a violent, hierarchical culture developed eventually into the highly egalitarian Scandinavian cultures we see today. My short answer is that the Indo-Europeans dominated a far more egalitarian hunter-gatherer majority and that the latter eventually came to dominate the area—a theory spelled out in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.

It occurred to me that that paragraph alone merited saying that Scandinavian cultures today are betrayed by the malware bug of neochristian ethics, and especially by the ravages of civilisation and even more so the bourgeoisie lifestyles. Remember the essay in On Beth’s Cute Tits (pages 103-107) where the author compares the Yang culture of the chimpanzees with the yin culture of the bonobo apes. The yin empire of the new totalitarians in Scandinavia is a result of the brave new world (also remember Bolton’s essay on Yockey).

But before posting my reply to MacDonald, I thought I’d better go and see the film, which I did; especially since several pundits on racialist forums have been speaking out about this American-British drama, directed by Robert Eggers: a Viking story set in early 10th century Iceland.

Even before I had finished watching the film a few hours ago, I told myself that it wasn’t good, despite the critics’ acclaim. Anyone who wants to preserve the Nordic race can only see in The Northman one of those typical American films with a huge series of strident scenes: the kind of stridency that has become very fashionable in recent decades, a truly degenerate cinema.

Given that the American director wanted to do something different and has complained that pro-white advocates have become enthusiastic about TV series about Vikings, that should be enough to make us realise that we are dealing with an ethno-traitor. In Eggers’ film we see the Berserkers burn a Russian village hut with women and children inside at a time when, apparently, these Russians were still as white as the Berserkers; and before that expedition they killed, as if they were just serial killers, a father and son who were travelling on a ship very close to theirs.

I am no expert on the history of the Berserkers, but if these two scenes aren’t based on accurate historical facts, the film represents a Black Legend against the Vikings: part of the ongoing media defamation of the untainted white world of yore with a drop of mud blood. I also found the role of the ‘Viking’ bitch played by Nicole Kidman, a mother who is killed by the main protagonist, to be a smear on real Viking motherhood.

The Northman is pure Hollywood when we get to the love affair between this protagonist and a slave girl played by the same actress from Netflix’s The Queen’s Gambit. Given that both the protagonist’s behaviour with his mother and his blonde mistress isn’t based on historical fact, but on Hollywood dramatization, I am surprised that those who claim to defend the memory of the Northmen fail to see these distortions.

In fact, a priest of the fourteen words shouldn’t go to the movies. As I said, I made the exception because of the film reviews not only in The Occidental Observer but in other important racialist forums. Of the movies filmed in the present century, I would only recommend Artificial Intelligence (2001), the first Lord of the Rings (released the same year), Pride and Prejudice (2005), Apocalypto (2006) and Spotlight (2015), although the opening scene of A.I. contains a bad message. The fourteen-word priest must be a purist when it comes to raising pure Scandinavian children, like the child actors who appear in The Northman.

This image is not from the film that can currently be seen in the theatres of Gomorrah. Anyone who wants to learn about the Berserkers from the pen of a white supremacist should read pages 453-477 of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. Unless you have superhuman kidneys to filter the good from the bad, it is a blunder to watch the propaganda of the cinema billboard.

Categories
Alice Miller American racial right Autobiography Ferdinand Bardamu Kevin MacDonald Monocausalism Psychohistory

WDH vs. TOO

‘Tanstaafl cannot think in terms of a combined causality, for him there can be only one cause: the Jews’. —Franklin Ryckaert

I woke up thinking I would post an entry from another section of Savitri Devi’s book and, while checking my email spam filter, I come across an article in The Occidental Observer (TOO) about Tanstaafl (Tan).

Although I never met him personally (the American government doesn’t give me a visa to visit the US), when I first woke up to the Jewish question, Tan and I were friends. Then I began to ask questions, such as the cases of ethno-suicidal miscegenation without Jewish subversion that have occurred throughout history, and I distanced myself from him. While I still believe that the JQ (the Jewish Question) is a very real thing—Kevin MacDonald is more or less right, as far as he goes, in his three books on the JQ that I’ve read—, in expanding the JQ into the CQ (the Christian Question) I lost almost all the friends I had known, thanks to the internet, from white nationalism.

But before I get into the title of this article, which I came up with because my previous article is entitled ‘WDH vs. AmRen’, I would like to confess a few things about my biography.

As you can read in my autobiographical books, my adolescent life begins with a family tragedy that destroyed several people. Cognitively, I was not well after the storm and fell into a neochristian cult, whose dogmas led me into a ‘dark night of the soul’.

Specific anecdotes are beside the point except that, after a period of blind belief in the cult, called Eschatology, I began to ask questions. For example, why, if Eschatology develops paranormal powers to heal the body and in theory one can prolong youth, did eschatologists get sick and die like everyone else (see my article on the subject on pages 9-24 of Daybreak)? My teachers of Eschatology never answered me, nor did it ever occur to them that they should answer me.

That was the first time I left a group that had served as a new family after the loss of my biological family. It was also the first time I realised that a group of religionists are so self-encapsulated in an ideological bubble that any rational argument attacking their bubble from the outside will simply be ignored.

Years after I left the cult, something similar would happen to me with another group I belonged to, but this time it was just an internet group about abusive parents: specifically, readers of the Swiss psychologist Alice Miller. By now I was familiar with the work of Lloyd deMause, who, in his book that was translated into several languages, History of Childhood, said that children had been much more abused in the historical past, and more so in non-Western cultures. Since Miller’s fans were (and apparently still are) all liberals, they didn’t enter into an honest discussion with me about the terrible treatment of children in non-Western cultures.

So, for the second time, I lost a group I had acclimatised with, and for exactly the same reason: a lack of honesty on the part of my colleagues to face the facts. My conclusions about deMause’s work can be read in my book Day of Wrath, and my final word to those I left behind as I crossed the bridge from Miller country to White Nationalist country can be read: here.

But my spirit of always going to the frontier of knowledge made me cross, once again, another bridge, although crossing it has left me almost alone. A commenter on this site hit the nail regarding this ultimate loneliness: ‘The leap from 5 to 6 [of Mauricio’s ladder] is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes’. Indeed: by introducing the CQ we lose the friendship of not only Christian white nationalists, but Christian sympathisers like Kevin MacDonald and many secular people who comment on his site and AmRen.

The West’s Darkest Hour used to be visited by more people, and even receive more donations, before I went nuclear on the CQ. But I won’t change my views unless someone shows me I’m wrong.

A while ago I asked commenters who subscribed to ‘monocausalism’—Jewry as the primary cause of white decline—not to argue here. I have modified that request and I think that, if they have good reasons to refute me, they could point them out to me—as long as they take into consideration what I say in the single comment of the sticky post!

But there is a problem with this desire of mine for dialogue. If I take into consideration my past, for example all those decades I lost in the cult and the reluctance of eschatologists to discuss the issues with me, or the reluctance of Alice Miller fans to discuss my interpretation of deMause, I think I should understand that white nationalists will never try to refute me. Like the eschatologists and Miller fans, they will simply ignore what I say even though it would be possible, say, for one of these fans to write a critical review of my Day of Wrath, or for the nationalists to write critical reviews of the other books on the sidebar.

As those who study paradigm shifts know, the old-school proponents (e.g., those who believe in the quasi-monocausal premise of TOO) have to die off so that the proponents of the new paradigm—that the CQ and JQ are two sides of the same coin—can begin to flourish.

The problem is that we don’t have much time. The anti-white establishment is growing by the day to ‘wait’ for the monocausalists to die out (think, for example, of who Biden wants to nominate to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat). Rather than trying to convince them, it would be great if younger people could climb Mauricio’s ladder and get to where very few of us are. And if we are wrong, let those of the old school start, for example, by answering what Ferdinand Bardamu objects to about Kevin MacDonald (pages 171-181 of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).

 

Update of February 4

Edmund Connelly, PhD, the author of ‘Tanstaafl and Rational [!] Discussion of Jews’—the first link in the above article—didn’t mention what Greg Johnson thinks about Tan’s monocausalism.

In white nationalism there are three main sites of pundits: TOO, AmRen, and CC (Counter-Currents) administered by Johnson. Had Connelly been a little more objective, he would have taken Johnson’s objections to Tan into account.

Exactly the same can be said about the commenters in the TOO discussion thread. As of this update, there is not a single critique of Tan—or monocausalists like him—of the sort of Greg Johnson’s sharp critique. That gross omission vindicates what I wrote above about ‘the quasi-monocausal premise of TOO’.

Categories
American racial right Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) George Orwell Kevin MacDonald

A fair hearing – when?

George Orwell said: ‘At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals’.

But these days, after years of hard work, Kevin MacDonald is getting a fair hearing on Jewish influence in the West—in an Israeli journal! (see KMD’s ‘My paper on Jewish influence blows up’). Despite the tearing of clothes by the usual suspects (ADL, etc.), his ideas are finally being discussed in a mainstream journal, giving him a chance to respond.

I wonder how long it will take a similar courtesy that these Israelis are extending to KMD, but this time from racialists regarding The West’s Darkest Hour?

This is our challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy in white nationalism: unlike your monocausalism, we believe that Christian ethics enabled the Jewish problem. But to this day, our unfashionable opinion has never been given a fair hearing in your highbrow forums (for example, KMD rejected Ferdinand Bardamu’s article on Christianity that now appears in The Fair Race). You haven’t done so even though it would be relatively easy to review, say, our masthead book (I only authored the preface).