“Racism” became stigmatized in the United States between 1938 and 1945. American racial attitudes, particularly in the Northern states, softened during this period. It became dogma that blacks were equal to Whites.
Benjamin Garland blames it all on the Jews. Why were millions of Jews let into the United States in the first place though? Why were they allowed to hijack our institutions? Why were they allowed to become so culturally, politically and economically powerful? Why were they praised by George Washington who said that the United States “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance”?
The answer to all of the questions and more is one that Benjamin Garland refuses to entertain: it is because American Nationalism is civic nationalism. That’s why slavery was abolished. That’s why blacks were given citizenship. That’s why women were given the right to vote. That’s why universal manhood suffrage triumphed. That’s why husbands lost authority over their wives and children. That’s why Jews were accepted and treated as equal citizens from the beginning. That’s why traditional morality and religion has collapsed into this orgy of nihilism and consumerism.
We’ve simply taken the axioms and logic of American Nationalism to greater and greater extremes and we are living with the consequences.
(Read the full article on Ben Garland: here.)
Category: Judeo-reductionism
I have been in friendly discussion with a correspondent from New York about my criticism of monocausalism. Like some white nationalists, he’s a proponent of reductionism. I’ll illustrate his point with an anecdote.
Yesterday an erudite criollo that speaks fluent Latin and also reads in Greek visited my house. As he was a professor of Hispanic literature at Harvard, he’s fairly knowledgeable of the history of the Americas.
He informed me about something I was unaware of: the ‘prueba de sangre’ (for a wiki article on the subject see: here) that the New Spaniards performed on those suspected of being crypto-Jews. What I ignored is that it was far tougher than the Nuremberg laws, as no less than eight generations in the past were investigated to make sure that the guy in question would not behave subversively in New Spain (now Mexico).
However, even with such stringent controls, the New Spaniards committed ethnosuicide through the miscegenation approved by the Pope himself. My New Yorker correspondent still believes that it is possible to salvage the single-cause hypothesis (Jewish subversion as the primary factor of white decline) as he sees Christianity as a form of Jewish psyop for whites.
I appreciate and respect his point, but the sad truth is that even before Christian takeover after Constantine, so well explained in the masthead of this site by the Spaniard Evropa Soberana, very powerful Aryans suffered from ethno-suicidal behaviour. In ‘Costin Alamariu Is Damn Right About The Alt-Right’ the author includes a quote of Alexander the Great that proves my point: side by side with the JP we have an Aryan Problem.
Alexander was one of the most startling universalist figures of his day. His Oath from 324 BC, as recorded by Eratosthenes and others, reads:
‘From now on, let all mortals live as one people, in fellowship, for the good of all. See the whole world as your homeland, with laws common to all, where the best will govern regardless of their race. Unlike the narrow-minded, I make no distinction between Greeks and Barbarians. The origin of citizens, or the race into which they were born, is of no concern to me. I have only one criterion by which to distinguish their virtue. For me, any good foreigner is a Greek and any bad Greek is worse than a barbarian’.
Categories
On James Mason
In response to Mason’s opinion about Trump in this article and a previous one: The idea that Trump is some victim of the Jewish media is utter nonsense. He willingly appointed Jews into his cabinet. In fact, he had more Jews during his path to Presidency supporting him than any other candidate during the election.
Why is it that when the System seemingly does something “good” (a subjective term), people attribute it to Trump personally, but when the System does something bad, it is attributed to “Jewish influence”, something that is supposedly being done behind Donald’s back. The Daily Stormer does this dumb shit all the time. And now Mason is doing it.
The fact that he is a “reformer” who wants to build a wall is obviously a tactical move to make White Americans think somebody gives a shit about them. He is doing nothing whatsoever to advance White interests. He is still a Zionist and a Mammon worshipper who is sending Americans to their deaths for the sake of our racial enemies. He is as much an ally as Clinton, Obama and Reagan.
As for James Mason’s Christian Identity (CI) conversion: I am extremely disappointed and bereaved about this. I have never met the man, but I feel like I have lost a good friend. Probably the way people felt when GLR was murdered. Every time he says anything regarding CI and British Israelism, like in the article above, I simply feel a tinge of pessimism and disappointment wash over me. How could a man who wrote SIEGE and who spread the truth on Charles Manson suddenly become a schizophrenic lunatic?
I know nothing about his personal life, but what emotional void does his cranky belief system fill? I am not trying to sound rude here, I have the utmost respect for him, but this is slowly dwindling. The whole affair is really quite depressing to me.
I’ve been thinking about the relevance of the WDH Radio Show and what I’ve been doing on Saturdays: adding translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s first book on the criminal history of Christianity.
Regarding the radio show, I must confess that I do not recognize myself in what has been said in the four episodes. The reason is obvious. As I have already confessed, my knowledge of English comes basically from reading (on the sidebar, see the photograph of this year of me in my home library). Speaking a language is something entirely different from reading or writing it, and involves even another area of the brain.
I have done inquiries to correct the problem and to be able to speak well in the radio shows. If I wanted to make myself understood immediately, I would have to pay for the services of a simultaneous translator, who would charge me approximately $315 dollars for each episode. But that would only solve the problem artificially. A better solution would require intensive training to get my tongue out in English. Last week I made an appointment with an Aryan woman who in Mexico City presides over the offices of the Berlitz Corporation. The “Private Program,” that is an individualised and intensive program that lets me loose my tongue in three weeks costs $ 1,180 dollars.
The alternative for free would be to find a native English-speaker who is going to study to Spain and desperately needs one of these courses in reverse: to speak fluent Spanish. Through Skype we would train with each other: I trying to speak in English and he or she in Spanish until we both correct the pronunciation to the degree of speaking fluently. But that’s not going to be easy to find. That’s why people usually pay the amounts I quote above when they have the need to do so.
In the radio programs I would like not only arguing, but also making long and elaborate speeches. It is very frustrating not to be able to do it, especially since the voices that have been heard in the four episodes, even those of our guests, do not reflect my ideas. Not being able to argue with them, or with my co-hosts Joseph and Jake, is very frustrating.
What I said in the hatnote of yesterday’s entry on Yeats goes to the heart of the matter. I do not believe that Jewry is the primary factor of white decline. I think it’s the swamps of Aryan sin what have caused the tremendous proliferation of mosquitoes. These must be killed off, of course: but I don’t believe in the “spontaneous generation” of mosquitoes. (For those who have not gotten the memo, this is the Aryan Problem in a nutshell: “A country has the Jews it deserves. Just as mosquitoes can thrive and settle only in swamps, likewise the former can only thrive in the swamps of our sins” —Codreanu.)
And here is where it is clearly seen why I no longer want to prolong the radio episodes indefinitely. If Alex Linder accepts our invitation, the fifth episode will be the last (unless, very unlikely, a sponsor to fund my simultaneous translation for a sixth episode appears). I do not object to the Linderite idea of eliminating mosquitoes, the proposed topic for the next episode. I partly agree with his medicine, but not with the diagnosis. (“Partly” I say because I’m not only an exterminationist of our obvious enemies, but of the greater part of humanity as proposed by Pierce in his immortal novel.) My diagnosis, and here I differ not only from Linder but from almost everyone that I know (with the exception of Tom Sunic), are the swamps of capitalism and Christianity.
Gold over blood is only the most conspicuous sin (read the stories of Pierce and Kemp on the white race to understand this subject in depth). An equally mortal sin, though not as historically old as using non-white labour, is the religion of our parents. And here is where I have second thoughts on the pertinence of continuing to add Saturday translations from Deschner’s books.
It is clear that on Saturdays I am talking to myself! It is assumed that the purpose of blogging is to communicate with others. But even my friends do not seem to be B-type bicausalists; like many they lean toward bicausalism A.
If I believe that Aryan sins—materialism and Christian ethics—engender mosquitoes, and if this bicausalism B is not part of your accepted wisdom (there are even monocausalists in the movement), continuing this Deschner adventure becomes soliloquy. I am not motivated to continue these monologues. Having said that, I would like to confess what I liked about the three volumes of Deschner’s “criminal history” I purchased in 2002.
The late historian showed that most of the Christian martyrs’ stories are legendary. Before reading his books, I already knew that the New Testament is full of internal contradictions; for example, what the Synoptics say compared to John’s gospel. (On the discipline of studying the NT from the secular POV see: here.) But what impressed me greatly in discovering Deschner is that, in later centuries, the church was dedicated to inventing a rosary of martyrs and saints, of which there is very little if any historical evidence! As someone deeply educated in Roman Catholicism, this surprised me because, as a good German scholar, Deschner’s books are full of bibliographical references in several languages, and as far as I know he has not been rebutted on this point.
The making of saints and martyrs is one aspect of the religion of my Catholic parents that I would have loved to expose on this site. Instead, what I have decided is adding other titles of interest to my Daybreak Press. Although I will no longer add translations of Deschner on Saturdays, or Sunday passages from the novel Julian, next Monday I will continue to reproduce those passages that I consider important of Eugenics and Race by Roger Pearson. Pearson was a real catch. His Darwinian science almost reaches my exterminationist POV of the inferior races, going beyond the political correctness of American race realists.
If any of the visitors to this blog, or if my friends Joseph and Jake, do not agree with what I say above do not hesitate to express your criticism below.
Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.
______ 卐 ______
The coalition of egalitarianism
Understanding the bonobo and chimpanzee different societies is absolutely central to understand our species. The knowledge of our closest cousins and the broader study of animal sexuality responds perfectly the question “Why the system of gynocentrism or egalitarianism inevitably fails in humans, but works in other species?”
Once we grasp the basics of animal sexuality and of Homo sapiens it is easy to see why patriarchy is the only viable model for human society. In his video “The coalition of egalitarianism” the blogger defines alpha males as those with greatest sexual dimorphism. Sometimes alpha humans are physically robust, but there are beta males with muscle, and there are alpha males without muscle. Being alpha or beta has nothing to do with muscles but with sexual dimorphism, adds the blogger. I could illustrate this point with my own family.
These days Donald Trump’s election shocked all people in Mexico, even the Mexican whites. I stopped any discussion of the subject with my mother and sister, who hate Trump. My educated guess is that there is about a three standard deviation of IQ (a psychometricians’ term) between me and my family. It is an absolutely monstrous deviation that makes any reasonable discussion with them impossible, and it reminds me what the blogger claims in another entry: “women are children.”
Back to his video, he says that alphas make effective leaders but terrible followers. This explains a lot, especially why in white nationalism we have no leaders: most of us are alphas. The blogger adds: “In MGTOW, discussions usually focus on female nature, hypergamy and gynocentrism. However, women are relatively harmless on their own. Their strength comes from their ability to cooperate and manipulate. The beta males play a key role in this cooperation because they don’t want to live in a patriarchal society either.”
These beta males are like women (think about the “males” in Hillary Clinton’s team). A society cannot be founded on feminized males and on women: it is a society that will end up in ruins, as in the painting by Thomas Cole in a previous entry. Keep in mind the first stage of civilization in that entry: brutal patriarchy. In sexualized animals, including humans, there are only two strategies of mating: the patriarchal tournament mating or the gynocentric pair-bonding. The betas don’t want brutal patriarchy under any circumstance. They will chose the second option. They will be exploited by the women, yes: but they prefer it and not being dominated by the alphas.
It is true that the blogger seems to be describing the apes more than the humans in his video. But the comparison has some validity. He uses the typical Venn diagram of three circles to show that the Men’s Rights Movement shares a considerable space with feminism through the egalitarian stance of both. In other words, many in the MRM movement are phony anti-feminists, as shown in entry 19 of this series.
But the blogger himself commits serious cognitive mistakes. A staunch monocausalist, he believes that the basic etiology of the West’s darkest hour is feminism. I on the other hand believe that feminism is only one ingredient of the poisonous cocktail that is killing westerners, not the sole active substance.
This said, feminism should be analyzed and I will continue to add more entries quoting the blogger.
Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.
______ 卐 ______
The case for patriarchy
We have seen that the patriarchal society is the only kind of society that, in the long run, can be functional. Society degenerates in proportion of abandoning the patriarchal model. To no avail, I have told white nationalists many times that they must widen their optics from a perspective to a meta-perspective of white decline. For example, the fact that the Iberians polluted their blood in the peninsula and in the Americas when their Inquisition targeted crypto-Jews proves that there is an Aryan problem in addition to the Jewish problem. No monocausal nationalist has answered this challenge honestly.
We could say something analogous disregarding the old story Spain and Portugal: present-day Japan. With no Jewish press they are committing demographic suicide. While they are not importing masses of coloreds into their island, the blogger says that Japan will also face collapse. Like the deranged West, the Japanese government is pandering the women through welfare programs. In his video “Women will not save Japan” the blogger says that the Japanese women won’t ever consent any reform, even facing a demographic winter.
The West is in far worse shape. Ant-racism, anti-whitism and feminism have reached maddening proportions. Women have become so toxic that white men are pretending to be eunuchs. In “She will never love you too” the blogger responds to a common objection: “Men are just as bad as women. They just want a woman for her body, which means they don’t love women either.” He responds: “No: You are your body” in the sense that we love women directly, not indirectly (economic resources and protection). I have observed how in the lives of cousins of my age the wives are the ones who have applied for divorces taking away their houses and children, while my cousins continue to love them.
In another video, “The case for patriarchy,” the blogger addresses two common objections:
Objection 1. The moral or fairness argument: Patriarchy oppresses women; it is unfair.
Before answering this argument we have to ask a question: Are the sexes equal? The blogger recapitulates what we have seen before. In his video he inserts diagrams of human skulls showing the dimorphism between men and women. The male skull is taller and stronger and its brain larger and denser. This is reflected in his higher IQ.
This is so because in barbarous times the alpha male had his harem. Civilization tamed him through the institution of marriage. In tournament species the strong has the power on reproduction and controls the society of that species. If the dimorphic species is controlled by the female, and here the blogger reproduces a photo of a queen bee, we have a matriarchal society: the queen controls reproduction. If the dimorphic species is controlled by the male, the king of the tribe controls it. In our species sexual dimorphism shows that Aryans were biologically predestined to form a patriarchal society (see also William Pierce’s Who We Are).
Brainwashed normies usually reply to our rhetorical question Are the sexes equal? with platitudes like “Everyone should be treated equally” or “Everyone should have equal rights.” The blogger replies that treating people equally doesn’t mean that they are equal and that “rights” is a legal concept, not one observed in Nature. If men are wired biologically to be the protectors and the providers of the family that means that we do the primordial thing. The blogger comments that the sexes are drastically unequal in their contributions to society. Giving birth? He mentions the extreme example that a woman in a comma state gave birth to a baby. Like the Spartans, we do the really hard work.
Since the 1970s the patriarchal authority of the man has been destroyed and handed over women, even the custody of children. The result is the collapse of fertility of the white peoples (and the Japanese). “Whichever sex controls reproduction controls the family and thus controls society.” In sharp contrast to thousands of years of history and prehistory, presently a matriarchy is imposed throughout the West.
Objection 2. The economic or practical argument.
France was the cradle of modern egalitarianism. But the spear-head of feminist movements initiated in the 19th century in the United States, according to the blogger. Then the US 1963 “Equal pay” Act was copied by the English in 1970. But women will never be equal to males. Sexual dimorphism favors the male in humans. This is why, when men are allowed to compete physically or intellectually with women, like in sports or chess, they usually win. “Since equal opportunity favors men, the only way to achieve gender equality is to tear them down.” Eventually men are going to be tired of this perverse game. “This is the inevitable result of the feminist matriarchy. By attacking men and tear them down to the level of women, the society is attacking its own foundation.”
Like me, the blogger hopes that a new society will be born after the ashes of the present one.
The following is a comment that the moderator of
The Occidental Observer did not let pass tonight:
Thanks for mentioning The Daily Stormer. Today’s article on The Daily Stormer implicitly takes issue with Dr. MacDonald’s thesis about pathological altruism. Anglin wrote:
The Alt-Right, on the other hand, is driven by well-defined principles, even though we presently do not have a leader. There are different strands of the Alt-Right, of course, but we all agree on a few core concepts:
• White countries will be for White people
• Traditional gender roles will be restored
• The Jews are the prime force behind the collapse of Western civilization.
I agree with the first two concepts. But Anglin does not seem to have taken seriously what, for heavy-weight intellectuals like Tom Sunic, are factors even larger than the Jewish problem: economics over race policies and Christian ethics (see also William Pierce’s only non-fiction book, Who We Are). Then Anglin apparently refers to The Occidental Observer:
Replacing the Jewish Problem with a White Problem
Presently, it looks as though a big part of the strategy to direct us away from the Jews will be the promotion of the concept of “pathological altruism,” a theory which asserts that we Whites simply cannot help destroying ourselves in an attempt to help non-White people.
There is some basic truth within the concept, as we are an extremely empathetic race. But the agenda I see coming is to remove the Jewish question from the equation and replace it with pathological altruism. This ultimately amounts to victim-blaming.
If Anglin has MacDonald in mind he’s speaking nonsense, as the main focus of the professor is still the Jewish problem.
The concept of pathological altruism is interesting on an intellectual and academic level, but that is the extent of it. It is not useful in attempting to address the real plague of our society, which is the Jews. Beware of anyone trying to use this theory to shift the blame from the Jews onto Whites.
Wrong. It’s us who empowered them after the Napoleonic wars. Liberalism, i.e., white suicide, must be studied in addition to the Jewish problem.
Also beware of anyone trying to inject any other type of new concept into the narrative. We have a very stable narrative, and we need to simply stick with it and build on it. We need to stay focused on the Jewish problem, on building a movement based on an awareness of the Jewish issue.
Anglin’s POV is right as a pragmatic tactic for an exoteric site such as The Daily Stormer. The Nazis did about the same, especially Goebbels: sell the Jewish problem to the Aryan masses! But more esoteric NS leaders, such as Hitler and Himmler, in their inner circles also talked about what we might call the Christian problem, often as if it was a more elemental problem than the Jewish problem (see, e.g., here and here).
For propaganda purposes for American Christians The Daily Stormer is ok. But for more subtle tools of cracking the annoying cipher of white decline, the scholar ought to do a careful reading of Sunic’s and Revilo Oliver’s texts and those of this very webzine, including MacDonald’s concept of “pathological altruism”.
by Michael O’Meara
For white nationalists—whose cyber-based “movement” is still in its infancy—simple explanations tend to be the rule.
The reductionist “anti-Semitism” that dominates WN ranks and serves as a catch-all explanation for the predicament white people find themselves in today, to cite the most prominent example, is wont to attribute every assault on white life to Jewish perfidy.
There is, certainly, no disputing the existence of this “perfidy,” for no other group—not the browns or blacks, not the former powers of international Communism, not anyone or anything—is or has been so disposed to breaching the color line, undermining America’s traditional racial hierarchy, or propelling the processes responsible for the present dispossession of the country’s white majority.
To think, however, that Organized Jewry has been the alpha and omega of this dispossession is not just simple-minded, it’s dishonorable.
It’s simple-minded because it understands complex historical processes in Kindergarten terms. It ignores other, no less culpable factors.
More fundamentally, it ignores or conflates the differences between structural imperatives and conspiratorial designs, between concrete objective forces and the subjective influences of interest and conscience.
History, as such, offers few cases where monocausal explanations suffice, for the confluence of fortune, structure, and subject (fortuna, necessita, virtu) undergirding the historical process means that significant historical changes are almost always the consequence of a combination of forces unique to their specific time and place.
By the same reasoning, monocausal explanations focusing exclusively on a demonized “other” are dishonorable because they spare whites all responsibility for their misfortunes, refuse to acknowledge the dysgenic and self-destructive forces indigenous to modern society, and ignore the numerous, inherently Jewish facets of the American project.
In criticizing this, I do so not to absolve the Jews, but to preface the subject of this essay—the anti-white consequences of the Cold War—which offers a somewhat broader explanation of white dispossession (though there are at least a couple of others that can also be made).
_________
Editor’s note: You can read the rest of the reprinted, 2011 article on Counter-Currents (here). But I much prefer the original 2010 article at The Occidental Quarterly divided in four pieces. Reason: in three threads of the comments section O’Meara responds to his monocausal critics (here, here and here).
Michelle Dockery, the English rose who plays the role as
Lady Mary Crawley in ITV drama series Downton Abbey.
Andrew Anglin has penned another article explaining feminism. While I vehemently share his anti-feminism I don’t have time for a long post. I will limit myself to state that, like most white nationalists, he blames Jewish subversion for this weapon of mass Occidental destruction called feminism.
But feminism apparently has older roots in European liberalism than in the more recent Jewish subversion. Incidentally, I much prefer the old term “liberalism” than the popular “cultural Marxism” in racialist circles (see: here). No other intellectual has better described the new religion of whites, liberalism, than Alexis de Tocqueville: “The desire for equality becomes more and more insatiable as equality increases.” From this viewpoint Western feminism is just one stage of this deranged, runaway liberalism which basic axiom is the principle of non-discrimination. (Presently, in its suicidal and terminal stage non-discrimination on race, gender and sexual orientation.)
As I said, I don’t have time. Exactly in a month I’ll reveal why I have been so busy elsewhere and perhaps will be busy for years. But those who have already read Roger Devlin and want to be entertained and educated at the same time—something almost impossible in today’s media—, could watch the current season of Downton Abbey. I still have to see the Christmas episode but the whole seasons depict how English society started to empower women in the beginning of the century when we were born.
Categories
Monocausalists
“To focus exclusively or mainly on the Jews (no matter how nefarious their distortions) is an exercise either in reductionism, ignorance, or dishonesty.”