web analytics

Category: Judeo-reductionism

Categories
Joseph Goebbels Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald

On exoteric white nationalism

ds-temp-banner

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”.

Categories
Americanism Judeo-reductionism Michael O'Meara

Kindergarten WN

Michael_O'Meara

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).

Categories
Alexis de Tocqueville Feminism Judeo-reductionism Liberalism

Anglin & feminism

Michelle Dockery

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
Judeo-reductionism Michael O'Meara

Monocausalists

“To focus exclusively or mainly on the Jews (no matter how nefarious their distortions) is an exercise either in reductionism, ignorance, or dishonesty.”

—Michael O’Meara

Categories
Deranged altruism Emigration / immigration Feminism Judeo-reductionism Women

Women!

Calumny of Apelles

Above, Botticelli’s 1494 painting Calumny of Apelles which depicts a wrongfully accused man on trial, surrounded by a series of menacing women, each one made to represent a different moral failing. Below, a couple of slightly edited posts from the comments section of The Occidental Observer. They were posted yesterday by a commenter whose native language probably is not English:

 
 

I think it is very clear that the more male influence there is in society, the more xenophobic that society is. The more female influence there is in society, the less xenophobic that society is.

Have a look at Sweden—the most feminised country on Earth. It has accepted much more refugees per capita than Germany itself. It is Number 1 in Europe for accepted refugees per capita. And many people are calling Germany crazy. Well, Sweden is even crazier than Germany.

What is causing this pathological altruism? Jews? There are very few of them in Sweden, although they do control some of the media. I think mister [Kevin] McDonald had trouble proving that pathological altruism in Sweden is caused by Jewish influence alone. It is not caused either by the fact that they are northern peoples either, since northern peoples were way more xenophobic a hundred years ago. [MacDonald’s article: here] Then no Muslims were allowed in Northern Europe. No non-European minorities. It was totally populated by white people. And before a hundred years ago America was way more xenophobic as well. All of Europe was more xenophobic.

So what caused the decrease of xenophobia in the US and Europe? Simple: the increase in female influence. Since females are less xenophobic than males, the more female influence there is in society, the less xenophobic that society will be.

This is why countries in Eastern Europe are still hostile towards immigration and multiculturalism and are totally white. In Eastern Europe there is no feminism at all. Women there are more feminine. They are all male-dominated countries; most people in Eastern Europe even don’t know what “sexism” is. White men there are still violent and to be a macho is not considered to be something bad…

I don’t blame or hate women, since that’s their nature. Don’t expect them to fix the problems of the white people. But I do believe that any group that does not control the behaviour of their women—especially their birth-rates, marrying rates, and phenomena such as women politically siding with other groups against their own men—sooner or later ceases to exist.

So the problem is with white men, who don’t keep their women under control, and instead idolise women and think they are angels, or perfect beings. They are not. They are simply humans, who can make mistakes, have weaknesses, and are far from perfect.

So it is white men to blame, for being unable to keep their women in check.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Matthias Grünewald New Testament

On the two Marys

Gruenwald-crucifixion (detail)
Karen and Amanda:

Instead of engaging in the familiar bleat of “forgive them, they know not what they do”, you two girls ought to come down off your crosses and answer the question. Where’s the resistance? The fact is, there is no way to distinguish the current situation (“domination”, according to you and some others) from active cooperation. People who actively cooperate in their own genocide don’t deserve any pity. Such “victims” are indeed blameworthy.

—Jack Frost

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald

Richard replies to the monos

In Ahnenreihe, my favorite blog in German, my friend Richard has been busy replying to frequent asked questions, some of them by monocausalists. This is one of the FAQs:

The Jews are our only problem. Christianity is only a part of the Jewish problem.

Richard answered:

That should account for Alexander the Great or the Aryan founder of Buddhism, or the extinct northern Egyptians, Persians and Tocharians.

Alexander the Great commanded his soldiers to marry Asian non-whites. The Egyptians and Persians that Richard mentions can be understood in the context of other Ahnenreihe articles about the history of the white race in the Ancient World, which includes the history of mongrelization in Egypt, Persia and the north of the Tarim Basin where the Tocharians lived.

Without the help of Jewish depredations all of these peoples committed what I call the sin against the holy ghost: suicidal mongrelization. The red-haired Gautama Buddha for example, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama, had the brilliant idea of condemning an aspect of the old Aryan religion: the rigid caste system of the Brahmin which forbade not only intermarriage, but every form of social intercourse between the castes.

The unforgivable sin goes even beyond what we call the Christian problem; beyond all these recent entries where I’ve been quoting Jack Frost, as the ethno-suicidal tendencies mentioned by Richard and others cannot be blamed on any of the Abrahamic religions.

There’s something wrong with whites that predates their interaction with the Semite, either Jew, Christian or Muslim. Richard and I call this the Aryan problem. Kevin MacDonald has been researching some of it from his scientific point of view but he’s hesitant to blame Christianity.

I still believe that my “witches’ brew” metaphor is the best approach to the problem of white decline, even if some commenters have been trying to trivialize it with strawman arguments.

Categories
Axiology Christendom Deranged altruism Emigration / immigration Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald

On secular Christianity

The Occidental Observer (TOO) has been publishing several articles on white pathology this week (this one on Sweden, only the latest). I feel that neither the editor of TOO nor the commenters have a grasp of what Secular Christianity is. For example, in the linked article Kevin MacDonald wrote:

It is vitally important that we come to grips with this suicidal phenomenon which is more common in Northern Europeans. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Sweden is the most secular country in the world, and its elites are hostile to Christianity and more than happy to donate Christian churches to the non-Christian newcomers, or destroying them to make housing for them.

Jack Frost commented:

“It has nothing to do with Christianity.”
I couldn’t disagree more. The striving after moral perfection you’re talking about is nothing if not Christian, as are the underlying ideals of charity and universal brotherhood. It’s inconceivable that any Jewish propaganda in that direction would have any appeal in the West if it hadn’t been so deeply Christian for so long. Christianity is where the West’s morality comes from, not propaganda. The sort of madness described above was unknown in whites of pre-Christian times.

MacDonald responded:

As an evolutionist, that is difficult to accept. You have to think that people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics. Why keep that one and not, say, the doctrine of original sin or the idea of Hell? Why don’t we see Middle Eastern Christian groups with aggressively universalist ethics? Why has Christianity been compatible with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. in some times and places and with elite oppression during so much of Western history?

Besides my Tuesday entry where I quoted him I do not know well Frost’s point of view. Is he blaming Christianity for all our problems? I would disagree with such reductionism. In one of the recent TOO threads I quoted the formula that appears in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour: individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) plus egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) plus the empowerment of Jewry since the times of Napoleon has created a lethal brew for the white peoples. In other words: I don’t believe in a single cause of western decline, but in several etiological ingredients.

MacDonald does not believe that Christianity is a root cause of the problem. The questions he raises above can be explained if we introduce the notion of what in The Fair Race we call “Secular Christianity.”

Why keep that one and not, say, the doctrine of original sin or the idea of Hell?

Secular Christians—western atheists, agnostics or nihilists who subscribe liberalism—have not abandoned the idea of sin, only sublimated it. Post-Christian whites are supposed to be the “bad guys” of world history.

Regarding the idea of hell, this has been the most psychotic idea of all Western history. In my opinion, the doctrine of eternal damnation proves that whites were psychotic throughout Christendom. I have written extensively about this extremely disturbing doctrine in Spanish and only a little in English.

Suffice it to say that it was to be expected that when whites abandoned the idea of eternal torture that they allegedly deserved according to the monstrous god they used to worship, something would happen. The extreme self-harming violence of such idea had to find an outlet, an ogre of the superego so to speak: exactly what we may well be witnessing with these pious efforts to deliver the European soil to the downtrodden à la The Camp of the Saints.

Why don’t we see Middle Eastern Christian groups with aggressively universalist ethics?

Good question professor MacDonald. Here we can see that my “brew” metaphor is better than any of the monocausal explanations. Among whites universalism is hard wired since prehistory, which explains why sand niggers who have embraced Christianity are immune to it.

Why has Christianity been compatible with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. in some times and places and with elite oppression during so much of Western history?

And here we have the other major factor, capitalism, in action. The use of slaves was obviously motivated by economic interests. In the past greed trumped the compassionate message of the gospel. Let me put it in this way: in Yang times capitalism trumps Christian axiology, whereas in yin times like ours altruistic axiology trumps economic interests.

In one of the recent TOO threads I quoted the Swede from whom I learnt the term “Secular Christianity.” I tried to explain the TOO commentariat that Christianity is not only dogmatics, but axiology (moral grammar, ultimate ethics) as well. From this viewpoint modern liberals, however rabid anti-Christian may seem, have not really broken away from their grandparents’ religion.

The Swedes who have been the subject of a couple of recent articles at TOO are a good example. What’s the most classic Swedish film that comes to mind? Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal, which depicts a quixotic knight (played by Max von Sydow, pic below) and his pragmatic squire who return to Sweden after fighting in the Crusades. Saving the Holy Land from the infidels (a Yang goal) may no longer be fashionable, but fulfilling the promises of the Sermon of the Mount (a yin goal), which contains the central tenets of Christian discipleship, has become mandatory, especially the Beatitudes. As a TOO commenter put it, “The idea that deluded, race denying, libtard Swedes think that they are creating a humanitarian superpower by genetically obliterating themselves, is one of the most perverse forms of masochistic megalomania that I have ever heard of.” But this is only the modern equivalent of the quixotic, and therefore disastrous, Children’s Crusade of 1212 (which recent scholarship has revealed was conducted not exactly by children but by quixotic commoners).

Scandinavian Quixote

Presently whites are as religious Don Quixotes as they have always been, especially the pure Nordid atheists and secular humanists who claim to hate Christianity. But with honorable exceptions, like Alex Linder and company, MacDonald and most white nationalists ignore it.

I like to think of Christianity / Secular Christianity as a circle. Once you dismiss half of it, the dogma, the remaining axiological half metastasizes and tries to grow in the form of a circle again; this time without any need of gospel fictions. With due time dogmatics is thoroughly dismissed and the area of Secular Christianity becomes a full circle again. Every neo-Christian wants to be a quixotic knight in one way or another. The Swede wrote:

Our progressivist paradigm is based on Christian ethics. The Left is all about Christian ethics. What the left wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing and fulfilling it: what I call “The Finish of the West.” The current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization.

It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes. So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, [presently] it causes the population explosion in the world.

Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet.

But the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only to us but also to them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.

This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity. The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form.

And not only the population explosion thanks to Western aid. Secular Christianity is behind the acceptance of those masses of non-white immigrants into our soils. Frost is right above that it is inconceivable that any Jewish propaganda in that direction would have any appeal in the West if it hadn’t been so deeply Christian for so long (my emphasis). Furthermore, the Swede claims, in my opinion accurately, that since in neo-Christianity there is no sacrificial Christ, we ourselves, the still guilty post-Christians, must do the sacrifice—what is happening in Sweden!

In the article about “Schweitzer’s niglets” which expands the above quote you will also surmise a possible reply to one of MacDonald’s critical statements of Frost’s views:

You have to think that people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics.

Well, quixotic Albert Schweitzer exemplifies why once you lose the credibility in the gospels, Christian axiology is not only maintained but reinforced.

Apparently the concept of a witches’ brew containing several ingredients is too strong food for thought to be digested even by the best minds in white nationalism. I gave up trying to convey my complex ideas to the commenters of those TOO threads, and even the site admin removed a couple of my posts.

However, since MacDonald is still taking issue with Frost in today’s comments section, I’d love if someone posts a link to this article in that thread.

Categories
Conspiracy theories Egalitarianism Intelligence quotient (IQ) Judeo-reductionism Nordicism William Pierce

Most whites are stupid

This is a 2013 threaded comment in this blog:

The average human being in any walk of life, irrespective of class, sex, faith, culture, education, etc., can only grasp facts through an extremely summarized, simplified prism. In other words, the overwhelming majority of people can only think in terms of platitudes and clichés—the few ones that can think at all. Therefore, it is understandable that the average white nationalist feels uncomfortable with a nuanced view of the race question. Raw, complex facts don’t fit well in a cartoonish narrative.

Most Whites are stupid, period. The regular white nationalist is less dumb than the common White on the street, but not by a large margin. Try to discuss the historical onus of Christianity for the White race or hint at violence as a legitimate political tool (Breivik, e.g.), and most of them will either walk away from you or try to shut you down.

A shame that the author of the above comment is the same miscreant from Brazil whose behavior I exposed elsewhere. I wish an Aryan had written it!

The threaded comment can be directed not only to those white nationalists who won’t break away from our parents’ toxic religion, but also those who believe in 9/11 or JFK assassination nonsense (the overwhelming majority of white nationalists, according to a Daily Stormer poll); cannot grasp the subtleties of what I call B-type bicausalism but insist in thinking Jew is the root-cause of all ills, therefore cannot even read Pierce’s non-fiction book demonstrating that the mess started well before kike takeover or his fictional book about the proper use of violence (see my latest post on The Day of the Rope). They cannot even do the most elemental research about the financial accident that is coming.

Moreover, many white nationalists cannot tolerate anything but the most demented form of egalitarianism regarding Europeans. This is a rant from Australia I did not let pass yesterday:

All this talk about who is white in Europe is a waste of time and you are all delusional nordicists. After insulting Italy and Greece and Spain you are going to lose your last hope of any nordic blood surviving beyond 2020. This is largely the fault of American nordicist community who believe that Italians and Greeks and Spanish are like Mexicans… If you go to Greece or read the obituries of Greek and Italian newspapers you will see that that they are white people you morons… Jews control the world. It is all over… Instead of being united, nordicists in America just played into the hands of the Jews, that is how fucking stupid they are… So fuck all you nordic cunts. I hope the muslims kill you all and the niggers rape your daughters and mothers and then throw them to the Jews.

This Aussie does not even know that I’m not an American. Like him other white nationalists become mad as hell as the typical liberal when confronted with the fact that there was a degree of mongrelization in some parts of Europe before our times and hinting—The horror! You must be Lord Voldemort!—that less mixed whites have better genes than the mudbloods. See the most scholarly article in this blog about racial studies, whose author is a Spaniard, not a North American “nordicist.”

White nationalists really cannot break away from biological egalitarianism, not even the pundits who refrain from profanities. Stupid indeed…

Categories
Judeo-reductionism

On the “white genocide” meme

“Why do White Nationalists insist on mono-causality, as if the Jews were God?”

—Jaego


Franklin Ryckaert

It would be nice if a person with the talent of a Prof. MacDonald would write a trilogy on the problem dealing with:

1) The innate psychological characteristics of Whites (individualism, abstract idealism, universal moralism).

2) The influence of Christianity and its secular outgrowth of Liberalism (inversion of values, altruism as the only form of moralism even to a suicidal degree).

3) The Jewish exploitation of both.

Central to the weakness of Whites is what I call naive inclusivism.

It is naive because it not only believes that all non-white peoples can and want to become like Westerners, but also that including them in Western societies will lead to a Utopia instead of racial suicide. This naive inclusivism is as old as the European expansion outside Europe itself:

• Alexander the Great wanted to include all peoples of the Middle East in his Hellenistic ideal, even initiating miscegenation with them.

• The Romans included all non-European peoples in their Empire bequeathing Roman citizenship to all who they thought deserved it. They even had one time an Arab emperor (Philippus Arabs).

• When the Western European peoples began to colonize the world, they made the same mistake. The Spaniards and Portuguese miscegenated with the natives of their colonies on a mass scale and later also with their imported African slaves.

• The Dutch miscegenated with the Indonesians and accepted their mixed offspring as “Europeans.”

• The French accepted educated Blacks, the so-called évolués, as their equals. France doesn’t keep statistics about its ethnic and racial minorities because it considers them all as “Frenchmen.”

• Only the British kept aloof from the natives in their colonies and didn’t allow them to immigrate into the white settlement colonies or Britain itself. But that has now radically changed, the British having become the most extreme both in terms of immigration and miscegenation.

We simply cannot ascribe this suicidal behaviour to Jewish machinations, rather it is the age-old inclination of Europeans to include the whole world in a universal ideal. You aptly describe Jewish destructive influence as an “epiphenomenon.”[1] It couldn’t function as it does without the above-described preconditions.

Hunter Wallace

A commenter asked:

Why are Jews leading white nations to begin with? What level of idiocy does it take to allow your nation to voluntarily be led by a foreign tribe? That’s the question.

Wallace responded:

Ever since the French Revolution—see what happened in Haiti—, the answer has been liberalism.

Yankees believed in liberal capitalist democracy and their ideology legitimized the Jewish takeover of their society without a shot being fired. Germany put up more resistance under Hitler because Germans were less committed to liberalism.

It’s really that simple: Jews thrive in liberal democracies, under communism, and other systems that substitute abstract ideology for ethnic or religious solidarity.

Is Jewish influence bad? Of course.

It is a secondary infection. Jews don’t thrive in the Muslim world, China, Japan and other places because the conditions there aren’t favorable to Jews like they were in early twentieth century Yankeeland.

Yankees believed that Jews had a right to own their newspapers and film industry. They had a right to accumulate vast amounts of wealth and participate on an equal basis in their political system. The rest is history.

For those who don’t believe Whites are capable of imposing this madness on themselves, I will point to France during the French Revolution which abolished slavery in the name of the “Rights of Man” and made every Negro a citizen of the French Republic.

The triumph of anti-racism and egalitarian fanaticism just happened to coincide with the French Revolution and the 1848 Revolution.

Occigent

It’s the Jews’ fault Whites let them into Harvard? It’s the Jews’ fault that Whites let them take over academia? It’s the Jews’ fault that Roosevelt was a communist? It’s the Jews’ fault that Whites handed over their civilization?

The only wild conspiracy going on here is that Whites aren’t responsible for their own beds.

Anyone who tells you that the state of the ethnic ship upon which our mind weapons are mounted is not now and has not always been our direct and personal responsibility is a Jew-trained welfare mind white house wigger [2] that should be immediately cast overboard. We’ll be lucky enough as it is to get this rusty old scow to safe harbor without that dead weight.

We are the most powerful people in the world. We can change the future tomorrow. Don’t let the victimcrats hobble your vision, your clarity, and most important of all, that lost Jewel of White Civilization, your personal responsibility. To your people, to your culture, and to God: Do not ever let someone get in the way of that responsibility. They are the enemy. And they will drag you further down into the pits of hell.

Repeat. Our ship is not the Muslim’s responsibility, it is not the Jews’ responsibility. It is our responsibility. So wake the fuck up and stop giving other people power over you.

People: Get real. We love what the Jews do for us. We love the entertainment, we love the laissez faire attitude, we love the sex, we love the drugs, we love the rock and roll. And we get drunk on it, and they take it too far.

But for God’s sake, open your eyes. Get real with yourselves. History is rife with whites who would sell their soul for lollipop, as is Washington DC, and as long as there are such whites, which will be always, there will always be Jews to accommodate them.

Do we wish that Jews would not accommodate us in our sin? Yes. We do. Is it the Jews’ fault that we sin? No. It is not. It is our fault.

Right now, as we speak, there are probably a million Jews engaged in commerce and entertainment to fill the needs of a hundred million white sinners. And we do nothing to stop it. And that’s their fault?

Sebastian Ernst Ronin commented:

A plea into the wind, beautifully expressed though. When it hurts enough, then yes, maybe. Until such time, the culture of victimhood serves the purposes of an infantile “White genocide” meme.

Futurodellanazione commented:

Monocausalism seems to be most popular with relatively uneducated/fanatical European National Socialist types. It isn’t nuanced or especially cerebral, but it’s a convenient gate to open for useful idiots. The Islamists use monocausalism to recruit suicide bombers. It’s a smart tack and one that works for certain crowds.

Johan Hoeff commented:

Kudos to Occigent for his presentation; the thread was worthy of note, for the depth and common-sense approach to our present, if not our historical life. We are Masters of our own ship, or we are not.

Roger

There was no mention in the Labour Party’s 1997 manifesto of any plan to bring millions upon millions of new people in, but it was still obvious to all observant people that they were social revolutionaries and radical egalitarians with a deep commitment of the destruction of the English constitution (they were highly successful at achieving their ends). There was a clear antecedent from previous decades, however, during which time the Labour Party had started the process of coloured immigration from the ex-colonies.

The Conservative Party had continued to support the process whenever it was in government, and its leaders marginalised Enoch Powell when he made his famous speech in 1968. Nobody can seriously claim not to have known Labour were pro-immigration, although the average voter might not have been able to predict the extent of it. We know, from admissions by a Labour scriptwriter called Andrew Neather, and more recently from the Jew Peter Mandelson, that they deliberately used immigration as a means of “rubbing the Right’s nose in diversity,” and went so far as to send recruitment teams abroad to find people to move here. This was well-known within the party’s leading ranks, but absent from their public statements. When Neather made the rare mistake of being honest to a journalist about immigration, most people paid little attention to it.

The results of their actions were plain to see by the time the next election came along in 2001. By this time, there had been several race riots in Northern England (not for the first time) and a significant increase in the level of net migration—and they still got re-elected. No adult could profess ignorance at this point: a vote for Labour was very obviously a vote for mass-immigration, multiculturalism and the erosion of liberty. Four more years passed, during which time the Iraq war was initiated, another huge wave of immigration came along, and the government revoked a law banning homosexual propaganda from schools (“Section 28”) and decided to give queers the “right” to form civil unions—and they got re-elected again. Their manifesto during that election campaign included a pledge to introduce new laws criminalising “Racial and Religious Hatred,” which would re-enforce the pre-existing Race Relations Acts supported by all three of the main political parties.

By 2010, the voters decided to kick them out and replace them with the Conservative Party, whose leader refers to himself as the “heir to Blair” and does not differ from the Labour Party in any substantial way. The Conservatives did not manage to win a parliamentary majority, and they depend on the support of the Liberal Democrats to get their legislation passed (which is not a problem because the two parties agree about almost everything, but pretend not to as part of the democratic media circus). Since then, mass-immigration has continued unabated, there have been more race riots, crime has continued to increase, and now the government is pushing through homosexual marriage laws while denouncing their critics as “swivel-eyed loons.” If you look at the opinion polls for the next general election to see how people are planning to react against the failed Conservative-Liberal government, you will find that they are going to respond by voting the Labour Party back in! A Labour Party led, no less, by a Jew.

It is unbelievable that people can continue to vote for the enemies of civilisation time and time again. The only reasonable conclusion is that the voters really do support their own national suicide.

Here’s the funny thing: in every election since 2001, less than half of the population has turned out to vote. Tens of millions of people are not even registered with the electoral roll, making them ineligible to vote. These apathetic people cannot complain about our woes if they will not even do something as easy as vote for the BNP. Of the minority of Brits who actually turn out to vote, less than half have voted for the winning party in each of the last four elections. The parties are not popular at all, but the apathy of the non-voters is akin to complicity. If they object to it, they should get themselves on the electoral register and vote for the BNP. There have been plenty of opportunities to do this, but people simply refuse.

Truly, “optimism is cowardice”! I have no idea how the UK (or Sweden) is going to recover from this. People’s brains have been turned to mush. It is intolerable. No wonder Dominique Venner topped himself.

______________________

Excerpted from discussions at The Occidental Observer, Occidental Dissent and The West’s Darkest Hour in recent years.

Notes:

[1] Ryckaert refers to my statement: “The Jewish Problem is an epiphenomenon of the deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values.”

[2] A male Caucasian, usually born and raised in the suburbs that displays a strong desire to emulate African American Hip Hop culture. (Note of the Ed.)