Counter-Currents
Wade Michael Page
2,245 words
Killing sprees are becoming more common as “Western” civilization unravels.
If killing sprees per se mattered to elites, there would not be a sharp distinction made between killings committed by conscious (or unconscious) whites, and killings committed by non-white immigrants (VDare’s “Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome”—most recent tally here), non-white gangs, drug cartels, and so forth.
But often the FIRST thing the media and police recklessly do when such crimes occur is jump to the conclusion that politically or racially motivated “whites” are responsible—even when they are not. This institutionalized psychological-emotional reaction is reflexive.
Even a case of self-defense by a mestizo (George Zimmerman) against a black is trumpeted internationally by media, police, and prosecutors as a “white racist” killing.
Thanks to such behavior, most people, educated and uneducated, intelligent and unintelligent, harbor the belief that the Columbine killers, one of whom was Jewish and both of whom were anti-white, were . . . white racists.
The media and the Left likewise falsely implicated Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance in Jared Lee Loughner’s 2011 Arizona shooting of Jewish Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others.
They reported that The Dark Knight killer James Holmes was a Tea Party member (a falsehood), and that he had read Norwegian revolutionary Anders Breivik’s manifesto. Equally damning, he had white skin and was not a Jew—although he had worked as a counselor at a Jewish day camp.
Two men who shot blacks, one an American Indian, were likewise reported to be white racists.
Ceaseless group defamation of this sort by a frighteningly powerful mass media is extremely pernicious. It sinks roots deep into the public psyche, the minds of elites, and the apparatus of domestic tyranny (police and national security agencies) exactly as if it were true.
Long-term, such racist lies and innuendoes are every bit as damaging as genuine crimes committed by racially or politically motivated whites. By being falsely reported as “racist” they become racist. The lies are internalized by society, not the truth.
Objectively, it is counterproductive for the System to behave in this manner, especially given the impotence and unconsciousness of the powerless, aging, defeated, demographically collapsing white population.
At present, non-whites are the future, and organized violence by them is inimical to the long-term health of the totalitarian state.
But anti-white hatred is an irrational emotion as well as a deeply-ingrained habit, so this feature of anarcho-tyranny will not disappear.
Anti-white racism and philo-Semitism are the religious cement that holds everything else together—for now.
Natural Occurrences
We have reached the point where anytime anything like this happens, a knot involuntarily forms in my stomach. Will the latest perpetrator be linked to white nationalism?
Linkage automatically evokes the “domestic terrorism” paradigm, whether this is reported by the media or not, making the case of prime importance to the media, the police apparatus, and state policy.
The first thing the ruling class does is check for Internet contacts and speech, websites visited, organizations the individual belonged to, books and magazines they read, things they wrote and said, and so on.
Everything is treated differently than in cases of run-of-the-mill non- and anti-white mass murders.
What matters are the ideas that motivated the killers: anti-genocidal ideas, pro-freedom ideas, white racial ideas.
Jews have a keen grasp of the power of ideas, facts, truth, and what suppressing them and replacing them with lies—Big Lies—accomplishes.
The entire academic and legal case against First Amendment liberty or, in other countries, freedom of speech, boils down to the assertion that ideas have (or potentially have) real-world consequences.
And who can deny it?
The incredible crimes against humanity committed in the Middle East are fundamentally the consequence of Jewish ideas. So was the slaughter of tens of millions of Europeans by Communists.
Likewise, Jews seized power in the West because their speech and activities were not ruthlessly suppressed in the manner they currently prescribe for us.
Jews, the Left, and government fully understand this.
Jews and the Left are fundamentally totalitarian. The 20th and 21st centuries represent the exteriorization, the global extension to Gentiles, of the age-old totalitarianism of the ghetto, the shtetl, and the synagogue.
Even Harold Covington has stated that he immediately feels queasy and checks his subscription and e-mail lists to see if the latest killer-in-the-news might at some point have contacted him.
I mention Covington because he’s a revolutionary, not a conservative. At present, I can think of only one other person who’s a white revolutionary. Both he and Covington were important players in the past, but are peripheral today.
By “revolutionary” I do not mean that they do anything other than write and speak. They don’t. Rather, they have revolutionary mindsets. They are realists about power and social change under present conditions.
I regard whites such as Benjamin Smith, Timothy McVeigh, James von Brunn, Anders Breivik, and Wade Michael Page as entirely natural consequences of genocidal policies.
They are human versions of thunderstorms or tornadoes—acts of God.
Does anyone seriously believe that rulers can destroy basic human rights, a morally advanced system of liberty and law unprecedented in human history, and intentionally wipe out a major race of mankind (the crime of genocide) without any blowback whatsoever?
Of course not.
What is remarkable isn’t that such killings occur, but how few of them do. Jews and government have to date paid no price for committing genocide. They could care less about the tiny collateral damage the population experiences, which merely serves as more grist for their “Hate Whites, Suppress Whites, Kill Whites” propaganda mill.
None of the killers told anyone what he intended to do, asked us what we thought about it, or paid any attention to our general counsel and advice on the subject. Nor will their successors in the future.
But they will be “linked” and “tied” to us by Jews and government because of ideas. Ideas are the real target.
Indeed, the killers will be “linked” and “tied” to everyone on the right, even thoroughly philo-Semitic, anti-white conservatives.
The effect will be to force all conservatives and white racialists continuously Leftward.
What Do Jews Believe for Themselves?
How do they expect whites to react?
What would Jews do if the situations were reversed?
The answer is obvious. Long ago there would have been organized bloodshed on a massive scale, including the use of nuclear weapons, crude or sophisticated, against the government and cultural elites.
Today Jews claim they face an “existential threat” to their survival.
How do these poseur-“victims” talk about themselves? What is the morality of opposing genocide according to their own statements?
Jewish journalist Seymour Hersh in The Samson Option (1991), a book about Israel’s illicit nuclear weapons, quoted a former Israeli government official with firsthand knowledge of that nation’s nuclear program as saying, “We can still remember the stink of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Next time we’ll take all of you [white Europeans] with us” (p. 42).
This quote was, until recently, included in Wikipedia‘s entry about Hersh’s book, classified as a “notable allegation” contained therein. At the moment it can still be read on an outdated cache of the web page. But the visible page has already been scrubbed clean by Wikipedia‘s philo-Semitic editors, so web surfers will no longer see it.
Far more people would have discovered the quote (and through it the book) on the Internet than will ever discover it independently, obscurely buried in a 20-year-old book.
I own The Samson Option, and the quote is accurate. (I did not post it; I have never contributed to Wikipedia, a viciously anti-white publication.)
This damnable, all-encompassing, free speech-smothering, unending Jewish/government censorship, this culture-distorting, twisted mass of lies, is another reason whites are in the situation they’re in. The truth cannot be told. Public opinion cannot take its natural course.
On pp. 260–61, Hersh reveals that Israel had previously targeted its nuclear weapons at the Soviet Union—i.e., whites—because of that country’s anti-Zionist policies and support for Arab states.
Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld said in 2003:
We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother. . . .” Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under. (Quoted in David Hirst, “The War Game,” The Guardian (UK), September 21, 2003; original interview in the Dutch weekly magazine Elsevier, no. 17, April 27th, 2002, pp. 52–53; Van Creveld, who is Jewish, was born in the Netherlands.)
David D. Perlmutter, director of the school of journalism and mass communication at the University of Iowa, wrote in a newspaper op-ed:
What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter? . . . For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?
Recently a leader of the American Jewish community called upon Jews to assassinate America’s Zionist Negro president. Alfred Adler, owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, ran a column suggesting that Israel should consider giving
the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.
Yes, you read [that] correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?
Other than a flurry of negative publicity that lasted a day or two, Jews suffered no fall-out from this affair.
Yet two powerful Jewish hate groups, the ADL and the SPLC, spied on Wade Michael Page for a decade, evidently feeding information about him to government security agencies.
Why? Because unlike their powerful Israeli and American Jewish compatriots mentioned above, Page was deemed (by them) to be a nascent “domestic terrorist”!
An earlier assassination attempt against an American president, George H. W. Bush (father of the neocon), was exposed by ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky.
In 1991, according to the ex-agent, the Jews plotted to murder Bush, who, like Obama, was deemed insufficiently servile, and then kill unwitting Palestinian collaborators who would be framed for the crime, thereby bringing the wrath of the United States down upon that horribly victimized people. (Other Side of Deception, New York: HarperCollins, 1994, pp. 278–82)
This, then, is the morality of the ruling class when it comes to genocide.
The threat to governments and civilian populations from Jewish terrorism is obviously substantial and ongoing. It dwarfs any danger posed by white racialists.
Yet the primary mission of globalist politicians, police, and security agencies is to cater to and serve these people while both groups jointly suppress white “potential terrorists.”
The “Senselessness” of White Violence
Conservative white nationalists maintain that Benjamin Smith, Timothy McVeigh, James von Brunn, Anders Breivik, and Wade Michael Page behaved foolishly and counterproductively.
As an aside, it is obvious that Tim McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik, whatever one thinks of them, belong in an entirely different category than the others, despite the fact that Jews, the media, and law enforcement indiscriminately lump them all together.
As for the others, one wonders why, if they intended to sacrifice their lives anyway, they didn’t shoot for bigger game.
Decades ago Louis Beam, in Essays of a Klansman (1983), published a chart with a point system designating the relative importance of potential targets, ranging from Category I, assigned 1 point, making the soldier an “Aryan Warrior,” down to Category IX, assigned a mere 1/1000 of a point, making him “Cannon Fodder.”
Everyone listed above, save for McVeigh and Breivik, is classified as cannon fodder under Beam’s system. In other words, his system ranked the revolutionary utility of their actions as very, very low.
Not that anyone would need a published chart to grasp the idea.
The fact that most of these people seem not to have thought of this on their own reinforces my belief that their actions are almost entirely spontaneous, engendered by sheer hopelessness and frustration.
On the other hand, both William Pierce and Breivik believed that even such arbitrary and seemingly senseless killings potentially served some revolutionary purpose. Clearly, not all whites think alike.
At any rate, victims of genocide will continue to lash out violently against a violent, racist System, and there is nothing that we can do about it.
Governments, Jewish organizations, academics, and the media will say that words and ideas were responsible for their actions, and ruthlessly suppress pro-white speech accordingly. That is their true motivation. The killings are merely pretexts.
The rulers are genetically programmed to behave the way they do. The idea of law and freedom as formerly understood in the West is completely alien to them. Their social system is composed of people who find totalitarianism congenial.
Such methods worked under Communism, destroyed the white race, destroyed the Middle East, and have established an embryonic global dictatorship.
Why won’t they keep on working?
Such is their reasoning.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
101 comments
This has, as it were, ‘hit the mark’, on every level; very well done and accurately presents the real-world position we are in.
Commentary, on my part, is superfluous, and it was a pleasure to read a solid, hard-hitting appraisal of this, and the general world in which we live.
White Nationalism will survive, intact, with thinkers and writers like this.
This article should be linked to as many places as possible.
“The rulers are genetically programmed to behave the way they do. ”
Who are you referring to? All of them, or just the Jewish ones? Are you suggesting people like Paul Wolfowitz and Henry Kissinger are genetically programmed to destroy the white race, while the motivations of a Dick Cheney or Lyndon Johnson or Ted Kennedy are non-genetic?
LBJ probably was a crypto-jew:
http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48942551.html
Historians have revealed that Johnson, while serving as a young congressman in 1938 and 1939, arranged for visas to be supplied to Jews in Warsaw, and oversaw the apparently illegal immigration of hundreds of Jews through the port of Galveston, Texas.
A key resource for uncovering LBJ’s pro-Jewish activity is the unpublished 1989 doctoral thesis by University of Texas student Louis Gomolak, “Prologue: LBJ’s Foreign Affairs Background, 1908-1948.” Johnson’s activities were confirmed by other historians in interviews with his wife, family members and political associates.
Research into Johnson’s personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America. According to Gomolak, Aunt Jessie had nurtured LBJ’s commitment to befriending Jews for 50 years. As a young boy, Lyndon watched his politically active grandfather “Big Sam” and father “Little Sam” seek clemency for Leo Frank, the Jewish victim of a blood libel in Atlanta. Frank was lynched by a mob in 1915, and the Ku Klux Klan in Texas threatened to kill the Johnsons. The Johnsons later told friends that Lyndon’s family hid in their cellar while his father and uncles stood guard with shotguns on their porch in case of KKK attacks. Johnson’s speechwriter later stated, “Johnson often cited Leo Frank’s lynching as the source of his opposition to both anti-Semitism and isolationism.” …
Five days after taking office in 1937, LBJ broke with the “Dixiecrats” and supported an immigration bill that would naturalize illegal aliens, mostly Jews from Lithuania and Poland. …
Novy and Johnson had been secretly shipping heavy crates labeled ‘Texas Grapefruit’ – but containing arms – to Jewish underground ‘freedom fighters’ in Palestine.”…
Johnson blocked the Eisenhower administration’s attempts to apply sanctions against Israel following the 1956 Sinai Campaign. …
President Johnson firmly pointed American policy in a pro-Israel direction. …”
I think it was his Aunt who set LBJ up in the cattle business.
The pro-Jewish position seems to have been Fundamentalist, “if israel is destroyed, the world ends.”
LBJ and USS Liberty:
http://www.uss-liberty.com/page/9/
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/90418.php
I don’t fully ascribe to the gentic determinant idea myself, but he sure smoked you out.
What’s the best way to stop the psychopathic elite? Is there a way to force Israel to dismantle their nukes?
Another great essay. You really get it. I wish more thought like you. Using facts, logic and argument, you always put the primary blame where it belongs: on the JEWS. By all rights, this ought to be an uncontroversial, consensus view in WNism.
Are you aware that the Middle East, Egypt (with blond Pharaohs) and India once harbored considerable Indo-European (“Aryan”) populations; that Greece, Macedonia and Rome were infinitely more Nordish than today (especially Sparta); that the One Ring of greed and power (economics over race) made these Nordics and Mediterraneans misecgenate and eventually mongrelize their progeny with Semitic people and other non-whites?
Are you aware that Portugal itself was far more homogeneous than the racial mess we see today (“Gothic” in fact, i.e., Scandinavian), with laws that forbade mixing marriages of the “blue blooded” blonds and that, after the Christian ethos took over, they finally mixed their blood with black slaves? Or that we cannot blame jews in a New Spain exclusively ruled by pure whites for the simplest reason that through three centuries jews were ruthlessly persecuted, and even burned at the stake, and that by their own volition the Spaniards—sans jews—ruined their gene pool with the Indians in this part of America?
You say that “the primary blame” (the tribe) of our current predicament should be “uncontroversial”.
Really? It looks like most nationalists have not read Arthur Kemp’s 686-page history of the White Race.
Yes, really, absolutely.
I mean, listen, if WNists can’t agree on something as basic and obvious as Jews being are our principal racial enemy, then it maybe it is hopeless. You can’t solve a problem when you don’t address the whole problem, and while Jewish influence is not our only problem, it is definitely part of the problem, and one of the biggest parts. You can’t defeat an enemy you don’t identify as an enemy.
I’ve never read Kemp’s book. I’ve been told it contains major factual errors and other problems. (Did you pick up Blond Pharaohs from him or elsewhere? I closely studied Egyptian art long ago, from the Narmer palette to the great Pyramids at Giza. I don’t recall any blonds showing up in their art.)
So, yes, I was aware of most of those things. Their relevance to our situation is what?
Race-mixing is a fact of history. Laws or not, males will copulate with damn near any females in close proximity because of the power of the sex instinct. Sex is an absolute obsession for healthy young men; it’s one of the many reasons racial separation is necessary. And Jews, of course, are among the most powerful opponents of this solution.
Chechar, while I don’t always agree with you, you’re actually one of my favorite voices in the community. I respect your advanced learning. But I’m not following your point here. The only way to ensure the mixing that has occured in the past does not occur in the future is to do something about the people standing in the way of solving the problem. Jews are in that number.
I’m not a Single Jewish Causer, if you took my comment to suggest that. The situation is extremely complex. I recognize this. But we need to avoid the pitfall, the mistake, of downplaying Jewish maliciousness because other factors matter besides their influence, or completely ignoring them.
If I recall correctly, the claim of blonde pharaohs is based on 4th dynasty image of a princess or queen (Hetepheres II) with yellow hair. However, we know that Egyptian royals often wore wigs and head dresses, including ones that golden elements, so yellow hair does not necessarily indicate natural blondism.
Here is a link: http://www.touregypt.net/images/touregypt/fourthqueens5.jpg
Read about the image here: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/fourthqueens.htm
Here are gold wig covers:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44124324682@N01/674060995
http://moonhex.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/ancientegyptiandecoratedwigpic.jpg
My underlying point is that even Hitler criticized Christianity even more than Judaism in his table talks (which of course doesn’t mean that Hitler dismissed the JP!).
From William Pierce. And the 2011 edition of Kemp’s book has DNA tests confirming it in Tutankhamen and his forefathers, which means that whites really messed their race after the first dynasties in ancient Egypt.
Yes: Kemp’s book needs lots of editing and academic oversight. But if you read it together with Pierce’s history of the white race the big surprise is that whites have been behaving suicidally since the Ancient World.
That deracinated whites are Whites’ worst enemy, not the damned jews.
I stand corrected! But didn’t you say the other day in this site that gradually you are leaning more and more toward Linder’s monocausalism (of course: you used another word)?
By the by, Linder is one of the very few monocausalists whose ideology doesn’t bother me the least bit. Reason: at VNN he always bans those who shout “Jew Jew” to other WN fellows just for disagreeing with them and with no proof of actual Jewishness.
deracinated whites are Whites’ worst enemy, not the damned jews.
This is not true except in a sense that is not relevant. Jews are Whites’ worst enemy right now. While they have not been Whites’ worst enemy at all times, in all places and across the entire arc of history, they are Whites’ worst enemy right now, for the present.
I support historical analysis to make sure we don’t fall into easily discredited positions like the Single Jewish Cause idea and for other reasons. But, at the same time, I think WNists need to be careful about getting so lost in the complexity of our situation they lose sight of the big picture, the forest for the trees if you will.
It’s not Christians, capitalists or deracinated Whites presently blasting the public airwaves with images of Wade Micheal Page to demonize White racial consciousness; it’s Jewish media. It’s not Christians, capitalists or deracinated Whites threatening to incinerate Europe with nuclear weapons. It’s Jews.
It doesn’t matter what the activity is. When it comes to opposing Whites, you never fail to find Jews. You will sometimes find Jews and White liberals. You sometimes find Jews and capitalist business owners. But you always find them, working alone against White interests, or in collaboration with others.
But didn’t you say the other day in this site that gradually you are leaning more and more toward Linder’s monocausalism (of course: you used another word)?
I didn’t say I’m leaning toward monocausalism. I don’t remember exactly what I said. I agree with AL on a good many points but not every point. It was probably something to that effect.
I think a common sense position is that the Jews are our deadliest single enemy (given their racial talent for subversion) and our primary enemy (given their direct and indirect power and influence, and their role as the linchpin of the anti-White system), but not our only enemy. I don’t know why this position should be so controversial.
The Denver Museum of Nature and Science used to have a blond mummy on display who was actually identified as such. About ten years ago, that display was taken down and replaced by a “rich mummy – poor mummy” display that showed the differences in the quality of mummification based on social class. I never saw any explanation of why this was done, but we can always speculate…
Physical anthropological evidence and Egyptian art suggests that the Ancient Egyptians were a brunette Mediterranean white people.
The mummy of Rameses II has reddish hair, though. It might be the case that his hair color was somehow altered post mortem by the passage of time. But then why would there not me more mummies like that? The fact that the Ramessides identified closely with the god Set indicates an extra-Egyptian origin, however, either from Canaan, which had many fair-haired populations due to Indo-European invasions, or from Libya, the inhabitants of which were portrayed by the Egyptians as tall, fair-skinned, fair-haired people probably related to some isolated Moroccan Berber populations who show the same traits.
When I say that deracinated whites are our worst enemy, or perhaps I should have said “have been our worst enemy”, I have also in mind the history of how they empowered the Jews in the 19th century, when dominion of the press by Jews was not complete. It is a textbook case of what William Pierce says:
I am prepared to think that, at first glance, a white shark certainly looks like the most notorious predator on the surface of the sea. But when you get miles above and see the big picture from an eagle’s viewpoint the megalodon—Christianity and “secular Christianity”—dwarfs the shark.
What bothered me the most while studying 19th century European history of the Jews is the timidity of white Europeans to see the threat that the Jews represented. 19th century whites seemed to be paralyzed by the new ideas of emancipation and the equality of men that resulted from the Revolution in the previous century.
In other words, one way to look at things is like the Monomorium santschii. This species, over evolutionary time, has lost its worker caste altogether. The host workers do everything for their parasites, even the most terrible task of all. At the behest of the invading parasite queen, they actually perform the deed of murdering their own mother. The usurper doesn’t need to use her jaws. She uses mind-control: probably a chemical for ant nervous systems.
The analogy is not completely accurate because whites created this suicidal chemical. It was liberalism, the Rights of Man, the guillotine that beheaded blonds during the Revolution (often it was enough for a person just to have blond hair to be accused of being a nobleman; the end result was that the number of blond-haired people in France was much reduced by these targeted executions) what allowed a parasitic tribe to take over their societies since the 19th century.
So these deracinated whites have been Whites’ worst enemy in modern times (not to mention what happened since the Ancient World as I said in my previous comments). You only have to look at the Constitution of the United States, directly inspired from so-called French “Enlightenment” ideas, to see the damned chemical in full light: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And for this egalitarian goals “Governments are instituted” in the pursue of “happiness”: exactly why the tribe has been empowered in modern times by deracinated whites.
Chechar: You appear to be on the edge of endorsing the so-called “we’re doing it to ourselves” suicide meme. Can I ask what is the difference in principle between the position you’re taking here and the”Single Jewish Cause” position? They say it’s “the Jews.” Those who back the suicide meme or its variants say it’s us. With both positions, there is an exclusive or near exclusive focus on only one aspect of the problem (Jewish versus White behavior). The common error is oversimplification that results in a fallacious position.
Yes: I can clarify it.
If you read the books by Pierce and Kemp mentioned above it really looks like we did it to ourselves in the Ancient World and even in Modern Times. Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe, one of my heroes in my childhood—I found stunning Elizabeth Taylor’s blue eyes contrasting with her black hair representing the Jewish moneylender’s daughter, Rebecca, long before I awoke on the JQ—, idealizes this couple of Jews in a novel that had enormous impact in the century when French revolutionary ideals and Romanticism were taking hold of the European psyche.
It is just a single example of Christian/secularized Christian idealizing of the Enemy, but as I said in my blog entry “The Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem”, an entry which by the way has been featured today in a nationalist site in Portuguese:
To respond to your question, it seems to me that the primary evil, alas, lays within ourselves. As I have iterated elsewhere, the Jewish Problem is an epiphenomenon of the deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values.
Did you miss our little discussion on this topic at TOO a couple of months ago (these are some chosen comments of that discussion). If you click on that link you will see that Franklin Ryckaert summarized my current views better that what I could do at the time.
Christianity is not the primary problem. At times it has been a bulwark against Jewish power. Why do you think Jews loathe it so much?
Jews exerted their dominance over the pagan Romans and over the Aryan Persian elite (Zoroastrians). They continue to do so today over thoroughly de-Christianized—even anti-Christian—whites.
They likewise dominate the Japanese, ordering the latter to censor specific publications; the Japs immediately obey. Sony’s Akio Morita was a well-known philo-Semite of a type common in the Far East.
Jews dominate most Arabs and Muslims, despite pervasive propaganda to the contrary. Even Yockey mentioned this (anecdotally) in a letter.
Thus, there is a problem of Jewish racial dominance. Once their population becomes large enough, their natural dominance over other peoples exerts itself. When their population crashes (it tends to yo-yo in size over long periods of time), they remain wealthy, powerful, and highly influential among non-Jewish elites, but cannot distort the entire culture the way they do when their numbers peak.
Finally, the term “monocausalist” is a polemical, not an objective analytical term. It is a red herring. I don’t know of any serious “anti-Semite” who’s ever claimed that Jews are the ONLY problem.
I regard your recent stance as “anti-anti-Semitic.” Your ideas appear to evolve very, very rapidly. You may eventually move away from white preservationism or white nationalism entirely.
Greg,
Kemp cites a 2011 DNA study demonstrating that Tutankhamen’s Y-DNA belongs to the halogroup R1bla2, the single most common Y Halogroup among white western Europeans (and also the most common Y gene in Ireland and Britain). Kemp also says that the last white Egyptians had vanished prior to 800 BC; that they miscegenated with the vast Nubian and Semitic peoples and that, although official historians date the fall of Egypt by the end of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, “the true Egyptians had long since vanished”.
Combined to the One Ring of greed and power (cf. Michael O’Meara’s writing) and whites’ propensities of altruistic punishment, it’s certainly one of the main factors.
At Age of Treason Helvena, who has also commented in this cite, has said “there is NOTHING wrong with us”, implying that Jews are 100% culprits of our current malaise and we 0% guilty, and many agreed with him.
And you are dead wrong on this. Have you missed my recent blog entries on final solutions to the non-white problems (which obviously include the Jews) after the dollar crashes and we enter into truly apocalyptic times? How can someone who fantasizes à la Turner Diaries with final solutions be an “anti-anti-Semite”?
As Andrew Hamilton points out, Christianity can’t be a primary problem given that Jews have risen to dominance in non-Christian societies, and, until recently, Christianity has always been more anti-Jew than pro.
Jews exerted their dominance over the pagan Romans and over the Aryan Persian elite (Zoroastrians). They continue to do so today over thoroughly de-Christianized—even anti-Christian—whites. – Andrew Hamilton
Yes, but those who put the primary blame on Christianity often elide this rather obvious objection by blaming Christianity anyway. They’ll just say anti-White and anti-Christian Whites are not de-Christianized or anti-Christian at all. Rather, they’ll claim, anti-Christian Whites are unknowing intellectual descendants of Christians. Anti-White Christians, the argument goes, supposedly share common values with Christians like universalism and egalitarianism. On this view, secular liberalism versus Christianity is just a sectarian dispute.
Jews hate Jesus Christ with passion, some don’t even say his name, a Israeli Jew personally told me this.
Keep in mind that modern-day Jews are descendants of the Pharisees, I recommend this book for you Chechar: http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/index.html
Elisabeth Dilling fully understood the Jews and their anti-Christianity more than 50 years ago.
The fact that Jews despise Christianity does not mean that Christianity does not make whites love and worship Jews, to our ruin.
Even the most anti-semitic forms of Christianity allow Jews to convert. For Christians, Jews at worst are errant elder brothers in faith who bear no taint that cannot be washed away with a splash of holy water.
Christianity has paved the way for levels of Jewish subversion far above what took place in Egypt, Persia, or Rome.
I know what you mean Mr Johnson, the whole “judeo-christianity” is sickening and a blasphemy.
Bernard Lazare, one of the greatest Jewish writers in all history in his book “Anti-Semitism” on page 350 wrote: “The Jew is not satisfied with de-Christianizing, he destroys Catholic or Protestant faiths, he provokes indifference but he imposes his idea of the world, of morals and of life upon those whose faith he ruins. He works at his age old task, the annihilation of the religion of Christ!”
50 Years Ago: Vatican II changed the Vatican’s positions on key issues including the church’s teachings on Jews. Many of the intellectual forces behind the reforms were converts from Judaism.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/159955/converts-who-changed-the-church/?p=all#ixzz23GXpUEqf
AH: I don’t know of any serious “anti-Semite” who’s ever claimed that Jews are the ONLY problem.
Chechar: At Age of Treason Helvena, who has also commented in this cite, has said “there is NOTHING wrong with us”, implying that Jews are 100% culprits of our current malaise and we 0% guilty, and many agreed with him.
Without more proof than that, it’s hard to see any meaningful relationship between your monocausalism concept and serious Jew-critical nationalist thought. I mean no disrespect to Helvena or the people who comment at AOT. They’re not leading nationalists, and even in the case of Helvena your conclusion he subscribes to monocausalism is based on an inference that he may not have intended.
So, again, who are these monocausalists?
Here are 8 names. They’ve all criticized/criticize Jews to varying degrees, some very harshly: Hitler, Rockwell, Pierce, Duke, Covington, Linder, MacDonald, Johnson. Which has ever said Jews are the only problem? If not them, then who? I doubt even Linder has said that. I’d have to see it to believe it.
Lew: If I invented this concept I wouldn’t have picked up this very word in the nationalist blogosphere before discussing it in my blog.
I would say that Linder and other bloggers at VNN and J Richards at MR and quite a few of the commenters at AOT are monocausalists. At least Linder blames Christianity too, but he told Guessedworker “I see nothing wrong with whites” in a radio interview where the single Jewish cause was discussed specifically. And at AOT some people get angry when blaming Christianity too along with the tribe (the impression I got is that you can only blame jews there, not us).
Also, see my most recent blog entry, also linked in the trackbacks below, where Tom Sunic says that “The worst enemy of the White man can often be his fellow White man” and that “No Jews, no Arabs, no communists have done so much damage to the White gene pool as Whites themselves” —in direct response to the single Jewish hypothesis.
The Jews are our worst enemies because they prey on our weakness.
A man who coshes you on the head and steals your wallet is bad enough.
A man who tells you that his car broke down and his baby needs formula, then steals your wallet when you offer him a gift has taken more than your money: he has taken your virtues and used them to hurt you, and he has undermined the trust that is essential to society.
When whites encounter new peoples, the look for things to admire. When Jews encounter new peoples, they look for weaknesses to exploit. They really are a different breed of animal.
Quotation of Chechar’s comments (sorry, I’m inexperienced with the HTML functions):
“But if you read it together with Pierce’s history of the white race the big surprise is that whites have been behaving suicidally since the Ancient World.
…
So these deracinated whites have been Whites’ worst enemy in modern times (not to mention what happened since the Ancient World as I said in my previous comments).”
Chechar, while I generally support your assertion that Jews are not the sole cause of the decline of whites (although not on the specifics of the issue of Christianity), I must say that you are almost making it appear here as if whites are inherently “suicidal” or something. You state the facts that race-mixing had occurred in ancient times without stating the true origins of this race-mixing, which is something that many great racialist thinkers have studied. The origins is decadence and degeneracy; the loss of one’s “soul.” One the great philosophers I was thinking of is Alfred Rosenberg, who explained the issue concisely in the following way in “The Myth of the Twentieth Century”:
“At the subconscious level, whether in cult or in life, man obeys the commands of the blood, as if in dreams or, according to natural insight, as a happy expression describes this harmony between nature and culture. But culture, with the growth of all subconscious activity and of expanding consciousness and knowledge, becomes more and more intellectual, and ultimately engenders not creative tension but, in fact, discord. In this way, reason and understanding are divorced from race and nature and released from the bonds of blood. The ensuing generation falls victim to the individualistic system of intellectual absolutes, and separates itself more and more from its natural environment, mixing itself with alien blood. It is through this desecration of the blood that personality, people, race and culture perish. None who have disregarded the religion of the blood have escaped this nemesis—neither the Indians nor the Persians, neither the Greeks nor the Romans. Nor will Nordic Europe escape if it does not call a halt, turning away from bloodless absolutes and spiritually empty delusions, and begin to hearken trustingly once again to the subtle welling up of the ancient sap of life and values.”
@ Daniel Constantine,
Great quote by Alfred Rosenberg. The point in the Kemp book referred above is that in various cultural settings healthy whites always strive to keep their ethny intact; that only in decadent and extremely well off times they start to degenerate.
@ Armor,
I do speak of the JP to my acquaintances. My trouble starts with those who believe that the JP is the sole factor. Remember our discussion at “Norway did not need the Jew; we did it ourselves”? As I told Matt Parrott recently in another CC thread, the complex etiology of Western malaise truly is a witches’ brew. Following that metaphor I would say that the JP is indeed a strong catalytic factor in an ongoing chemical process of several centuries. Take a look at my latest blog entry, “Are we doing it to ourselves?” linked in the trackbacks below. This is what I quote there from a recent comment at OD:
The Revolution clearly had other ethno-suicidal aspects, as I said above about the grotesque beheading of blonds.
Yes, talking of a strong catalytic chemical in the witches’ brew (“a piece of a liver of a blasphemous Jew” to paraphrase Macbeth) added to a previous process of many more ingredients is relevant, especially if the “piece of liver” accelerates the rate of the reaction. But unlike the monocausalists we shouldn’t believe that this “catalyst” is the whole process; that there are no more ingredients, or that whites are totally innocent of their current demise as a people.
We have to be historically conscious of how whites messed it up horribly in every culture that Indo-Europeans created since the Ancient World, mostly without the J-factor, if we are to understand our current trappings.
Quote Greg Johnson:
“Even the most anti-semitic forms of Christianity allow Jews to convert. For Christians, Jews at worst are errant elder brothers in faith who bear no taint that cannot be washed away with a splash of holy water.”
Some anti-semitic forms of Christianity allow conversion, but qhat about people such as Paul de Lagarde and Houston Stewart Chamberlain? They were very religious Christians but also anti-semitic on a racial level. I don’t think a pure Jew who converted would be acceptable for them.
Yes, but then they were not being genuine Christians.
Chechar: Respectfully, I think you’re doing real damage pushing these ideas. I hope you reconsider. Again, you haven’t identified anyone important who believes Jews are the ***only*** problem. J Richards, especially, is a proven liar and an uber-troll who spreads divide and rule. Nothing he says can trusted. If there is anyone not to rely on as credible voice, it’s him. Richards promotes “monocausalism” to make people who discuss the JQ look foolish. Is it possible his troll technique worked on you? You appear to be investing energy rebutting a position no one takes but Richards. You seem to have moved from exposing the Jewish agenda behind anti-Jihad to arguing the problem is us.
Chechar: “We have to be historically conscious of how whites messed it up horribly in every culture that Indo-Europeans created since the Ancient World, mostly without the J-factor, if we are to understand our current trappings.”
On the contrary, in order to understand what’s happening now, you must forget what happened at other times. Today, western governments don’t care what normal people think. Government policy isn’t influenced by what the population thinks, it works the other way around, from the top down: the population is influenced by the government and the media, who are in the hands of our enemies. If you think that White flaws are responsible for the government’s anti-White policy, you could just as well say that the North Korean dictatorship is due to flaws in North Korean minds, and that South-Korea is a Republic because of republican tendencies in South-Korean minds. In fact, the North Korean supreme leader is in power because he controls the army and the police, and because whoever disagrees with that is sent to a prison camp.
In the West, our enemies remain in power by ignoring popular opinion. They control every institution, the media, the police, the courts of law… Our governments have been bought and co-opted by Jewish money, through Jewish networking, and Jewish activism. The problem with our co-opted politicians is not their suicidal altruism, but their love of money and lack of scruples.
Some people would rather say that the western governments have been bought and co-opted by left-wing activists, not necessarily Jews. But the agenda of the left is really made by Jews. If not for them, the left would not support race-replacement. Today, the agenda of the right is also made by Jews, and consequently, the right also supports race-replacement.
Finding out what’s wrong with White people isn’t as important as understanding how the dictatorship works at the top, how the politicians are chosen, how Western governments allow Jews to own all the media, and so on.
This is a very articulate statement of the wrong way to look at politics: a kind of pure mechanistic power politics where human motivations are reduced to greed and fear and intellectual and cultural issues can be safely ignored. It is very clever to use the two Koreas, but I don’t think it proves your point, since both Korean systems were imposed by foreigners, and one has to wonder: what is it about Koreans that allowed two such radically different systems to be imposed upon them, and do the subsequent development of both systems show anything in common, anything indigenously Korean?
Well, I am glad to hear your words about Richards, who recently was given admin powers at MR to the point that he abused such powers to delete comments (not mine btw) scorning his pet theory of monocausalism.
As to “doing real damage” I believe the opposite. At VNN you recently said: “It’s painful to think that new people are coming to our sites… only to ‘learn’ we’re doing it to ourselves rather than the truth, that none of our problems can be solved because we’re under constant attack by the organized Jewish community.”
What if Ben Klassen, Tom Sunic and Severus Niflson are right: that yes, the Jews have a lot of power but that a lot of it is because we allowed them to, and that if we turn the focus on ourselves we will do a lot better (see Sunic’s TOO 3-part article recently reproduced in my blog in a single entry)?
It may sound paradoxical, but the more we recognize that the “blasphemous jewish liver” in the Macbeth witches’ brew is only a “catalyst” —an accelerator— of the whole process of Western decadence, not the main ingredient, the better we’re prepared to reclaim our civilization. See for example Wallace’s recent article about how anti-racism and egalitarian fanaticism coincided with the French Revolution (he claims he’s writing a book on this subject). The whole point is that deranged whites, not Jewry, did it to themselves.
Chechar:
Might part of the problem of “monocausalism” be simply that too many of the media-defined “Leaders” of White nationalism are only sen when they are ranting and raving about the Jewish Question? People do not see the analysis of Kemp, or Chamberlain, or Ronsenberg, or anyone, as the dynamics of Judaism as a cultural weapon, a philosophy masked as a religion, a religion which is the EXACT opposite of Christianity?
Don”t such functional “monocausalists” actually do us harm by destroying our morale, and giving us a good excuse to do nothing at all (too many of us like that, anyway!)? Don’t they speak of the vast J Team “Open Conspiracy,” and then sit down, go back and take the Blue Pill?
Ultimately, anyone only has the power over you that you allow them. Yes, their influence can be powerful, indeed, but if they don’t have a gun pointed directly at your head at that moment, you can choose how to respond to them, with either the multigenerational wisdom of the Patriarch, or the minute awareness of the social isolate, who chooses the path of No Resistance, on any level whatsoever.
We know the only force the Jews truly hate and fear is Christianity – true, deep, Patriarchal Christianity. They made their peace with Islam long ago, and remade the effective part of Christianity over on their image. Wasn’t Loyola motivated by those Jews who claimed to have converted, but didn’t, while remaining in positions of power and influence? Didn’t he see the leaven in the loaf could spoil the loaf?
When Freud came to America, his purpose was – and he said this on the boat he came over one – to destroy the West. He did this by working with his nephew, Eddie Bernays, to undermine not just our institutions, but also to inoculate us with the disease of terminal self-doubt. By developing an entire system of Authority figures whose sole purpose was to render us infantile – including, especially, the public school system – we see an America whose Children are Jung’s Eternal Children. One addiction after another guarantees ineffectiveness at the Adult level, and Children – especially the manufactured Adolescent – are easily manipulated by peer pressure, all the while claiming their Adult independence as loudly as possible.
That takes us to Derren Brown, whose remarkable show on Britain’s Channel 4, “The Heist,” showed how easily it was to take people who had been psychologically primed and turn them, “in the guise of a week-long management seminar,” into people who, in their minds, would AND DID rob armored cars at gunpoint. Reread this paragraph slowly, because it should scare the Hell out of you.
How many “nudges’ were used to make ordinary people become servants of an unseen Master? How effective were they? We see the result. Ordinary aduls “nudged” into robbing armored cars at gunpoint, in less than a week.
Now, imagine a population raised on color television, the most efficient and effective social control system in history, in conjunction with the public school system. I talked with my nephews about what they learned in school. They said, ” I don’t know. Not much. Nothing, really.”
“Not much” at the level the level of abstract thought that is a necessary precondition for Adulthood, but a LOT of indoctrination took place, which built into them values and ideas they had no idea they were adopting, and would define themselves in terms of.
So, every time the topic of Race came forward, it was framed in the context of (1) Inequality, and (2) This Evil Is Something Adults Do. To the extent they rebelled against Adults, all too often, their actions were formed by their values, and their values were shaped by the enemies of the White Race, Western Civilization, and Christianity.
Seen any young men in churches recently? No. Now you know (in part) why.
When the mention of Racism is framed with green-toothed trash wearing bedsheets and pillowcases as formal attire, the emotional linkage to the abstract concept of Race reduces race to an evil lowest common denominator of what they see as White people, acting in White interests.
Incidentally, link this further with pictures and movies of Black men as strong, powerful wise, virile role models, and you get the rest of the story.
PREDICTION: Obama just signed an Executive Order concerning 15% of the advertising the government pays for, one way or another, essentially ensure the functional equivalent of Affirmative Action.
WATCH FOR commercial where the White men are fat, poorly dressed, and not too bright, with (light skinned!) Black males as the powerful authority figures who have The Solution. See White women either ignore the White guy, or look at him (Briefly, just to make a point) with open scorn, followed by her looking UPWARDS, adoring, at the Black guy.
Did I mention the “government” controls General Motors? Think they influence advertising? Think the Armed Forces advertise? Insurance companies like AIG, and its subsidiaries? Think they advertise?
At all points, we are openly mocked, openly scorned, openly ridiculed, openly negated, and defined as incompetent and/or Evil. Freud and Bernays succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
For more reasons than I can articulate, the Northwest Republic is the New Polaris.
Listen and learn, Grasshopper.
@ Chechar
Whether it is the Jews or not (and it is the Jews), the problem of race-replacement and cultural degeneracy comes from a small minority of people at the top of society. That was already my opinion a few years ago, when I didn’t know how critical Jewish influence was. The problem comes from a minority of activists at the top. Their influence is made possible by the passivity, stupidity, and even collaboration of millions of White people. So, the problem doesn’t only come from the top. But in order to change things, you still have to target the minority of activists at the top, not the millions of White collaborators. One way to do that is to tell normal White people about the Jewish problem.
“This damnable, all-encompassing, free speech-smothering, unending Jewish/government censorship, this culture-distorting, twisted mass of lies, is another reason whites are in the situation they’re in. The truth cannot be told. Public opinion cannot take its natural course.”
Not only public opinion is unnaturally constrained. Even for the few hundred thousand whites that are more or less awake, Fed and Jewish infiltration of our real world activist organizations is preventing the normal development of a core of resistance that Jefferson would have expected.
The founders knew from history the power of an organized cabal arising from within a people.
I don’t think they realized that the most dangerous and powerful type of conspiracy is one carried out by a whole ethnic group. An entire people, who have cut lose from any territory and set sail like a U-boat through the sea of humanity. A people who have as a consequence developed a subversive set of protocols and where every tribal member is an intelligence/black ops/psyops asset.
The Jewish Nation must be set down on a specific piece of dirt and de-Zionized.
“What is remarkable isn’t that such killings occur, but how few of them do.”
Ah, you stole my thunder, as this was the precise point that I had intended to make. It’s really quite astonishing, when one considers how few of these incidents have occured and balances that against the scores of millions of invaders that have swarmed our lands. While I condemn acts of violence such as the Sikh temple shooting (violence in the absence of a clear and coherent objective is almost always counterproductive), our incredible level of passivity and restraint is also cause for alarm. What other race has ever shown similar restraint, when faced with even 1/1000 of the threat that is now our lot? How would the fine denizens of Punjab react if millions upon millions of white settlers headed their way, it was declared that whites were to become the majority, and the natives better like it or shut up?
Yet the defamation of our people not only continues, but intensifies. As you point out, the lies and distortions are internalized, not the truth. The media salivate at the chance to pin horrific incidents on white racism. I wonder how many innocent whites were killed or maimed as a result of the media’s incitement of racial hatred against whites in the Martin/Zimmerman case, where the shooter wasn’t even white? It was clear to me that the media hacks actively enjoyed what they were doing, and at the very least did not care about the prospect of battered white bodies showing up in emergency rooms and morgues.
We all knew this was coming, but even I was somewhat surprised by the sheer intensity and shamelessness of the whole affair. Non-white shooting falsely pinned on whites, doctored tapes, and the incitement of low IQ savages against completely innocent people. What’s not to love in the new and improved America?
Just the tiniest of tastes, merely a sip really, of what awaits whites when it becomes obvious to our enemies that we are no longer even a nominal majority, therefore no longer enjoying at least some degree of strength in numbers. It is clear that many of them will be feeling their oats, and will relish the opportunity to instill fear and terror. Considering how things already are, they will be able to hit the ground running when the real opportunities open up.
The temple shooter simply reinforces the hatred and disdain that our enemies feel for us, and their commitment to displace and break us. Our differences are irreconcilable. The anti-whites understand this, and are clearly playing for keeps.
We need a land of our own where these people have zero power and influence, where their writ simply doesn’t run.
They also tried to kill Truman:
http://www.dcdave.com/article5/120510.htm
Thanks for this information. I was unaware of the assassination attempt against President Truman.
I am not familiar with the author of the piece, but his facts seem well-sourced. I suspect that further examination will verify what he says.
The Jews have assassinated many people, a few of whom are known, many of whom are unknown.
The political and legal mainstreaming of assassination and torture on behalf of Jews is yet another thing we have to thank them for—such as racist “civil libertarian” law professor (Harvard University) and ADL associate Alan Dershowitz.
A giant leap BACKWARD, destroying in one easy move 500 years of slow Western moral and legal progress.
The fact that these ‘white-rage’ killers are so far off the target has to be a worry. It’s like no-one has seen Mrs. Spectres’ video on transforming Europe through multi-c.
If anything, I believe the PTB are using the method of ‘Vaccinating with live-viruses’ in order to immunize their system. eg. Breiviks/Page’s are engineered/counterfeit events to diffuse the real sentiment that exists. In much the same way that Occupy movements were co-ordinated before a true anti-Wall St. backlash took effect. Or the way movies/video-games are there to allow the people to ‘experience’ their ‘fantasy’ without truly damaging the system.
Not being a “hard man” myself I shy away from the physical but even so I am constantly surprised that our White shooters are never referred to as freedom fighters. Any other country would refer to its own in that manner.
They aren’t freedom fighters to me because their stated motivations (if they have any) and/or their methods mean nothing to me. Many don’t share my politics, and even if I might agree with their politics, their “political” acts certainly don’t speak for me.
Take McVeigh. That 90’s era militia, anti-tax, Turner Diaries stuff means nothing to me. Plus, blowing up children in a day care is simply retarded from the point of view of trying to win popular support.
Take Von Brunn. He and I might have agreed on a few things. But shooting a security guard is not one of them. Worse than ineffectual.
Take Loughner. He’s a mentally ill schizophrenic. At best, he’s an argument for better mental health care in this country – that’s about it.
Take Brevik. I might agree with him politically, here and there. Killing scores of teenagers, no, absolutely no. He’s probably mentally ill.
Take Page. The more I learn, the more I see this as less about politics and more about a guy who probably had problems with alcohol combined with a bad break up. As much pain as I think he was in, killing temple-goers ain’t the right way to cope.
So no, these guys aren’t freedom fighters for me. Many are mentally ill. All of them employed near-senseless, completely counter-productive violence. The fact that I might share some of their political beliefs ends up being more of a coincidence than anything else. I love eating almonds, but the fact that a spree killer also happens to love almonds does not earn him any of my sympathy.
Indeed Vick. They are a strange bunch andI really don’t know what to make of them. Not exactly a cohesive movement.
James von Brunn’s story is a sad commentary on White Nationalism and the Populist/Patriot community he identified with. He thought the resulting trial his citizen’s arrest of Federal Reserve employees at the Federal Reserve in Wash DC would be covered by the media resulting it’s possible exposure to the general public as a privately owned cartel. He wrote afterwards of his disappointment that not even Willis Carto’s Spotlight newspaper bothered to send a reporter to cover the proceedings.
Andrew Hamilton writes, “As an aside, it is obvious that Tim McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik, whatever one thinks of them, belong in an entirely different category than the others, despite the fact that Jews, the media, and law enforcement indiscriminately lump them all together.”
Anders Breivik and Timothy McMeigh, for all their polemical and tactical expertise, only exacerbated the situation we find ourselves and hastened the imposition of the security state by murdering innocents instead of the perfidious planners and perpetrators of the genocide against us.
I’m not sure about Anders Breivik, but I seriously doubt Tim McVeigh was the murderer of the innocents. It’s ‘the perfidious planners and perpetrators of the [white] genocide against us” who actually killed the innocents by using McVeigh as patsy. They make it appear it’s McVeigh who did the crime.
Now to me, if it’s the US government providing the weapons, the logistics, the protection from prosecution, and the resources to launder the cash, then it’s the US government who is actually the drug cartel with the Sinaloa’s providing nothing but cover.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/19895/
The War on Drugs is Just a Turf War: Feds Arm Cartels and Banks Reap the Profits
Posted on August 11, 2012 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends… John Lennon
What I find rather curious is that almost none of the white terrorists mentioned have targeted Jews. Could this mean that they were set up by Jews? Or maybe Jews knew about the potential threat, but liked the effect it would have, so they did nothing to prevent it, rather like 9/11?
Tanstaafl wrote a blog entry on the same subject:
http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2012/08/wade-michael-page-triggers-outpouring.html
Lew,
As to “identify anyone important who believes Jews are the ***only*** problem” I believe that people like Dave Duke, whom I respect a lot, are working under the assumption that Jews are about 90-95% of the problem, a position that strikes me as “monocausalist” enough. For Christians like Duke et al it is inconceivable that the Christian problem (and other ingredients) comprise precisely that percentage of our “brew”.
I believe that people like Dave Duke, whom I respect a lot, are working under the assumption that Jews are about 90-95% of the problem,
Chechar, I appreciate you responding to the question. Admittedly, Duke does spend a lot of time on the JQ. Still, the statement that you “believe” he is working under an assumption is really nothing but subjective opinion based on guesswork.
Though I don’t for sure either, I’d venture a guess Duke frequently discusses Jews for the same reason Hunter Wallace frequently discusses the American South. Duke has a lot to say about the JQ because of his special interest in the topic. This doesn’t necessarily make Duke a monocausalist. Here’s an idea. Can I suggest you email Duke, give him your definition of monocausalism, and ask him if he is one? I’m just a reader. You’re an established writer. He won’t answer me even if I knew how to contact him. I don’t. He might answer you. It might be worth it to get some clarity and settle this question.
The portions of Sunic’s pieces that deal with Christianity struck me as a standard anti-Christian analysis, seriously flawed and pretty weak tea. Sunic seems to be of the school of nationalist thought that traces nearly all of the problems with European man to 1000 years of Christian influence. Anti-Christians like Sunic are probably closer to true monocausalists than similarly accomplished nationalist intellectuals who put the emphasis on Jews.
Sunic and these anti-Christians love cherry-picking historical facts and intellectual trends to support their case, while ignoring facts and trends that go against their case. Because otherwise, they would have no case that Christianity is the foundation of modern egalitarianism. For example, in passing, Sunic mentioned that Charles Martel turned back the Islamic butchers who tried to invade Europe. Although Sunic was very critical of Christianity throughout his three-part essay, he didn’t mention Charles Martel was Christian. Why not? I can think of only one reason: Charles Martel is a counter-example that undermines the anti-Christian thesis. Martel wasn’t weak, he didn’t practice a slave morality, he didn’t turn the other cheek. He went out and killed some Muslims. It’s likely the only reason none of us are bowing to Mecca five times daily is because the Christians kept the Muslims out of Europe.
Sunic holds up Thomas Jefferson for the standard nationalist excoriation, quoting his “all men are created equal line,” as anti-Christian/Enlightenment nationalist writers usually do, without the historical context necessary to make sense of Jefferson’s line. Jefferson did not equality the way people understand it today. The way people understand it today is so far removed from how Jefferson understood the idea he wouldn’t recognize it. In point of fact, Jefferson and the other founders had an extremely narrow understanding of equality. Jefferson meant that all people should be treated equal under the law, not that they were literally equal. If you’re going to try build a case that Jefferson contributed to modern egalitarianism, I think this distinction matters.
Modern egalitarianism says everyone is literally equal. But Jefferson didn’t believe that, and did not intend his all men are created equal line to be understood in this way. So in what sense did Jefferson contribute to modern egalitarianism? He didn’t. It is simply an **error** to suggest that he did. It’s a misunderstanding; it’s not true. Future generations picked up his idea and warped in ways he did not intend. Jefferson wasn’t a Christian either, incidentally. He was an Enlightenment Deist who rejected Christian mysticism. So the notion that Jefferson’s political ideas came from Christianity is incorrect too.
More accurately, Jefferson’s rights theory was largely derived from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government. And Locke, in turn, was influenced by Thomas Hobbes, an atheist. So Sunic and these anti-Christians are often just flat out wrong on the facts. I don’t think they are being deliberately dishonest; they just want to push a narrative, Chrisitian morality as type of all-purpose monocause. It’s fallacious because the founders did not mean people were literally equal, and the origin of Jeffersonian Natural rights theory is directly descended from the atheist Thomas Hobbes’ work Leviathan.
Regarding the French Revolution, there never would not have been one if France’s Aristocrat class wasn’t perpetuating mass injustice against the French people. Revolutions happen when people reach a breaking point with their grievances going addressed. The movement for liberty, equality and fraternity could have been crushed in its infancy, but the French Aristocrats allowed the conditions that make revolution possible to fester. So if there is anyone to blame for the French Revolution, it’s the them.
Sunic and the anti-Christians generally ignore these all distinctions and especially misunderstand the American founding. Maybe this is understandable since many of these anti-Christians come from Europe. But, they have a weak argument, bottom line, because they ignore important distinctions much like the Single Jewish Causers.
Lew,
I don’t necessarily disagree with what you say, and perhaps it’s time to make a personal confession.
Since I awakened on the JQ in 2010 a question had tormented me: to assign—intuitively of course—percentages of blame on JQ vs. other factors.
After much inner struggling I discovered that it all depended on the sources I was reading. If I happened to be eating too many Jews for breakfast, it looked indeed like the JQ constituted 90 percent of the etiology of our current mess or more (I myself was a sort of “monocausalist”). Surprisingly, when following next I reread intriguing discussions like this one it became apparent that Christianity and its liberal offshoots were the damned ninety %.
I simply could not make my mind… Throughout 2010 and 2011 my inner life looked like sine/cosine graphs alternating Monday, Wednesday and Friday believing that Jews were the main factor while changing my mind on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday below the “x” axis of the graph. Again, I realized all had to do with the chosen sources and with the subsequent confirmation bias.
Everything started to change by the end of the last year after digesting the implications of Michael O’Meara’s “White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism”.
O’Meara’s claim that, if financially sponsored like KMD, he could demonstrate that the West’s darkest hour had to do more with capitalism, Protestantism and Catholicism (among other factors) than to Jewry started to make sense in my soliloquies only after I posted a couple of entries about how the Spaniards’ lust for gold (and sex), together with the crazy approval of the Pope to marry Indian girls, caused the horrible mestization that I see every time I step outside my home.
Thinking about what happened in New Spain (not to be confused with “Mexico”) provoked a change in my worldview, and gradually the sine/cosine alternations ceased, to my relief.
This does not mean that my present POV is necessarily right. I am still learning. However, for the moment I believe that my “catalyst” metaphor accurately depicts the JP. Jewish subversive activities are a strong chemical, granted; but like O’Meara I believe that it is not the main ingredient of the witches’ formula. Some of KMD’s papers on how whites have some unique hardware characteristics such as individualism, abstract idealism and universal moralism, together with the software that I call the Christian / Secular Christian problem (liberalism run amok after the Revolution), constitute, to my mind, the main ingredients of the brew that’s killing us. (I think that Wallace is doing a good job illustrating it in the case of the US, what he calls the “Yankee Question”.)
But as I said, I’m still open to new ideas, just as I was open when O’Meara’s short piece made an impact in my previous thought.
Yes, David Duke tries hard to focus on the jewish question that he sounds monocausalist – I think he wanted to emphasize the fact that, as Greg describes elsewhere, “jews are a different breed of an animal.” Far too many whites are still wrapped with “they look like us” “they look white to me”, etc. without realizing they’re actually chameleons. Monocausalists try to wake up the whites the danger of jewish menace by focusing on the jewish question, getting the whites to know the difference between whites and jews.
After all, many white leftists get ideas from the jews.
As a friend writes the following:
Jews work overtime trying to make us believe that all races are equal. They not only use it for race mixing, but it’s a cover. To make us think Jews are just another ethnic group among other ethnic groups in this world to make it seem they have humanhood, so to speak. No group operates the way Jews do. If they bring in all kinds of people into white countries it helps their cover.
Who carries out the genocide of a race of people like the Jews do? No one. Who organizes the total destruction of civilizations like the Jews do? No one. Who steals, cheats and swindles like the Jews? No one. Who defiles the pure like the Jews? No one. Who takes advantage of the gullible like the Jews? No one. Who thrives on war and mayham like the Jews? No one. Who tricks people and manipulates them like the Jews? No one. Who uses psychological mind control like the Jews? No one.
No empathy, remorse, regret….
For that matter, who killed God? The Jews did. No other race did it. Who insists that Jesus was a Jew? The Jews. If Jesus was a Jew He would be just another human being and not God the jews hated and murdered. They hate Christ just as much today as they did two thousand years ago.
(Sure, any day now, we’ll believe God made a bunch of creepy psychopaths His chosen!)
I tend to think of these issues in an evolutionary context, much as Kevin MacDonald. That doesn’t mean that I regard religion as the “enemy.” No, I regard religion as just another evolutionary path. From my point of view, a good religion is one which promotes racial survival and health, a bad one works against those.
Certainly the evolutionary environment is a complex one and has many facets. Regarding racial mixing in times past, I think it is probably the case that if you put different races in close proximity, then over the course of time they will blend unless barriers are in place. And those barriers are themselves an evolutionary step up.
So to talk about this as “it is something wrong with us” is to talk as though we should have come out of the gate in perfect evolutionary condition. That’s not the way it works. Evolution takes time.
The issue is whether we make it to the next evolutionary level. I would like to expand on that, but that will have to wait for another time.
See what I told Lew above about New Spain. If we take what the New Spaniards did even in the States that presently belong to the US you will see that the problem with the white psyche is deeper than what you are saying.
Unlike the Anglo-Saxons, who waited until the twentieth century to start the nasty process of miscegenation and eventual mongrelizating, the Spaniards started it even before Cortés conquered Tenochtitlan. Since the first expeditions on the continent at the beginning of the sixteenth century the Iberian ingroup-outgroup psychology was already extremely weak relative to Amerinds, to the point of having sex with the native women almost right away after the first landings (read The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Díaz, one of Cortés’ loyal soldiers).
Compared to the Jews, it is this extremely weak sense of ethnic preservation what concerns me and must be changed in the future (a subject for another thread).
See what I told Lew above about New Spain. If we take what the New Spaniards did even in the States that presently belong to the US you will see that the problem with the white psyche is deeper than what you are saying.
Unlike the Anglo-Saxons, who waited until the twentieth century to start the nasty process of miscegenation and eventual mongrelizating, the Spaniards started it even before Cortés conquered Tenochtitlan. Since the first expeditions on the continent at the beginning of the sixteenth century the Iberian ingroup-outgroup psychology was already extremely weak relative to Amerinds, to the point of having sex with the native women almost right away after the first landings (read The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Díaz, one of Cortés’ loyal soldiers).
Compared to the Jews, it is this extremely weak sense of ethnic preservation what concerns me and must be changed in the future (a subject for another thread).
I regard the situation of soldiers, conquerors, or fortune hunters as very different from settlers. If I want to measure the sense of ethnic/racial identity, then I would want to look at settled and complete family/social units and not males separated from their own females.
Even in America, there was mixing taking place on the fringes, as every claim of Indian ancestry is not vacous, affirmative action not withstanding. But the extent of mixing taking place in the last 40+ years is in fact unnatural and may be laid to control of the (powerful new electronic) media by Jewry. Mass propaganda is a very powerful tool, so what we see now is the behavior of a sick white society, not a healthy one.
Thus I do not regard the preservation instincts of a healthy and stable white society to be as inferior to others as you might. Give David Duke control of the mass media for the next 10 years and watch what happens.
Lew,
A functional definition of a monocausalist could be someone that believes that what has happened and is happening could not have happened and could not be happening sans Jewish influence. Using this definition, I’d say there are plenty of monocausalists out there. This explains their tendency to fixate on Jews, too. Because they believe none of this could have happened without Jews, endlessly criticizing and denouncing Jews becomes an outlet for their frustrations. Add to that the failure of the one regime in history that made a point of disempowering Jewish influence and it’s a recipe for through-the-roof Jew-hatred. (You know, a “could have had it all, now set to have nothing, and it’s all the fault of the blasted Jew, Jew, Jew” sort of thing.)
In contrast, I believe it could all have quite easily happened sans Jewish influence. Why? Because it’s happened so many times throughout history. And why? Because people mix and grow to like each other and are ignorant of the long-term effects. It doesn’t take anything more than that. Not all people and not all at once, and there’s plenty of discriminating and hatred, but throughout history discriminators have found it very difficult to reach a critical mass in favor of separation.
My view on this matter is that everything that is happening could have happened without Jewish influence, but the fact that it could have been otherwise does not entitle us to ignore the fact that Jews are our principal enemy in the sense that they are (1) the primary agents and beneficiaries of the current anti-white system and (2) to an even greater extent the primary people we will have to fight to change the system, even those aspects of the system that they did not create but from which they benefit nonetheless.
Well, I can only repeat my point: you claim there are many monocausalists as you’ve definined it here without actually naming anyone important. O’Meara did the same. He wrote 1000 words with no quotes, no citations and no references, all while claiming many nationalists confuse anti-semetism with WNism. Reader chatter in the online communities is not good evidence monocausalism is a dominant position in WNism. Obviously, as with any political movement, there are people participating with different degrees of knowledge and sophistication. Among the true Jew obsessives in WNism, or people who come across that way, many are just people trying to understand what’s going on. This is my impression from years of reading, no data. People go their whole lives without perceiving the JQ because no one talks about it. When they finally learn about it, they become understandably outraged by Jewish crimes. So they talk about it execessively. It’s also hard to know how many of the barnyard anti-Semites and nuts are trolls working to discredit the whole issues (J Richards). If you could adjust for these factors, I bet the true number of WNist monocausalists would reduce to a relatively small number of uninformed people or low intelligence people who aren’t representative.
I don’t grant that we’d be a situation this dire sans 20th century Jewish influence. But we can leave that for another time.
Lew,
I’m not really interested in precise definitions of monocausality because one can quibble about it forever. But allow me to broaden my definition to “people who talk about Jews more than they talk about anything else (including about solutions).” “Judeo-obsessives” is another good term for it. They talk about Jews so much it’s very easy to get the impression it’s the only thing they think matters. Often, I would bet, it’s the only subject they have any serious knowledge about, but even then they typically muck it up by going way overboard. (Come off it, you’ve never heard the “3000-year-old enemy”.. dare I say it… canard? You know there’s plenty more where that comes from.)
As for naming names, gosh, where would I start? If you don’t mind me saying it, you, Linder, Tanstaafl, just off the top of my head. David Duke and Don Black. WLP. Friedrich Braun in an earlier incarnation. Sam Davidson, definitely. Guessedworker often comes close. Hunter Wallace while he was running the Antisemitica blog. Patrick Grimm. PLENTY of usernames I can’t recall on more obscure forums (like Phora). Plenty of occasional anonymous comments (eg one I vaguely remember on racehist, something to the tune of “…. as if it [solutions] requires anything more than freeing ourselves from the Jews…” There are many like that.) The “anon” who posts semi-regularly at MR. Fred Scrooby, if you remember him, beyond a shadow of doubt. I wouldn’t hurl that accusation at Kevin Mac because Jews are an academic specialty of his, so of course he has a lot to say about them. If I thought about it a little longer I’d probably agree it’s unfair to stick this label on a number of those I’ve stuck it on here, but I think if we include “intensity of animosity” as a criterion it helps the label stick.
Verlis,
The importance of clear definition as a tool for clarity goes back to Socrates. You don’t want to quibble with it. It’s understanable. A definition would hinder its effectiveness as a pejorative label for people who prefer to blame Whites instead of Jews. If forced to define it and then identify important people who fit the definition, you won’t be able to sustain the position that monocausalism is a dominant view in WNism. I’ll put Chechar, O’Meara and anyone else who takes this position in that bucket too. In fact, I’ll throw down the guantlet again to Chechar, O’Meara, you and everyone else. Get in touch with Duke, Black and rest of thar list. Ask them. Report back. Your subjective opinion about those who give an impression of monocausalism is just that — subjective opinion — and one that ignores what people actually say or have said about their positions. As recently as this comment thread, I said I’m not a monocausalist. WLP and Linder deal/dealt with Christianity as a major contributor to decline. These folks are not monocausalists.
Right here, for another example, in this sharp exchange with Chechar, Tanstaafl explicitly says he’s not a monocausalist.
http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2012/06/methinks-psychoanalyst-doth-project-too.html?m=1
Some people talk a lot about Jews because most people don’t talk about them. There are already plenty of people covering the other problems: liberals, cultural Marxists, apathy, consumerism, Capitalism, globalism, low birth rates, HBD and dysgenics, decadence and Christianity. All are routinely discussed in the HBD sphere, the paleo and alt right sites, and WNist sites. We need more attacking Jews not less.
Lew writes: “Some people talk a lot about Jews because most people don’t talk about them. There are already plenty of people covering the other problems: liberals, cultural Marxists, apathy, consumerism, Capitalism, globalism, low birth rates, HBD and dysgenics, decadence and Christianity. All are routinely discussed in the HBD sphere, the paleo and alt right sites, and WNist sites. We need more attacking Jews not less.” I think we need to view all of these problems in context, depth, and perspective. We’re in a war with many fronts and many actors, and discussing these problems in terms of “nothing but the Jews” or “anything but the Jews” is misleading. Putting the Jewish problem into context might mean giving proportionally less attention to it, but it would help us better understand it, and it should in no way mean going soft on the Jews.
Verlis: “A functional definition of a monocausalist could be someone that believes that what has happened and is happening could not have happened and could not be happening sans Jewish influence.”
If someone believes that factor X plays a central, crucial, critical, and decisive role in phenomenon A, then he is a criticalist, but not necessarily a monocausalist. He may believe that factors X, Y, Z all play a crucial role in phenomenon A. If he believes that factor X is the most critical factor, then he may be called a most-criticalist.
For example, let’s suppose for a minute that race-replacement is caused by a conjunction of 2 factors: 1. Jewish anti-White activism, 2. European stupidity and passivity. Race-replacement couldn’t happen without #1, and it couldn’t happen without #2. You need the 2 factors together. If you believe so, it isn’t entirely clear if you are a monocausalist. On the one hand, you believe there are two factors. On the other hand, the impetus only comes from the first factor.
A comparison can be made with some murder investigations. It is often claimed by the advocates of a murderer that society made him do it! For example, in Paris, in 1926, the Ukrainian nationalist hero Simon Petlioura was murdered by Sholom Schwartzbard, a Jew from Bessarabia. In defense of the murderer, the LICRA organization claimed that Ukrainian nationalists were anti-semites. And the murderer was acquitted. If it had been up to me, he would have been guillotined. So, I guess Chechar is right, and I am something of a monocausalist.
By the way, today’s French nationalists who denounce the government’s race-replacement policy are prosecuted by the government at the instigation of the Licra, and are ordered to pay compensation to the same Licra, which is a Jewish organization, even though wikipedia doesn’t say so.
Verlis: “I’d say there are plenty of monocausalists out there. This explains their tendency to fixate on Jews, too. Because they believe none of this could have happened without Jews, endlessly criticizing and denouncing Jews becomes an outlet for their frustrations.”
The Jews think their quarrel with White nationalists should be fixed in this way:
1. The Jews keep the media and keep agitating for race-replacement.
2. The White Nationalists just shut up.
I think a better solution is to keep criticizing the Jews until their monopoly on the media has been broken.
The Jews also say that it was unreasonable to try to catch Roman Polanski 30 years after he raped a teenager girl. According to their logic, if someone has escaped justice or kept in the same racket for more than 30 years, he should be allowed to keep doing it.
Verlis: “it’s happened so many times throughout history.”
Nothing like today’s mass-race-replacement ever happened in the past. Some people were born 50 years ago in 100% white nations and will die in 50 years in places where the Whites have become a minority, especially among children. In the 19th century, government negligence might have explained why non-Whites were let into Europe, especially Jews. But today, Africans are being imported by the millions, and White people’s money is redistributed to them by our own governments so they will raise large African families. It isn’t negligence, it is a deliberate policy. Nothing like that ever happened before in the history of humanity.
Verlis: “through-the-roof Jew-hatred”
Verlis/Silver likes to focus on feelings, not facts. I think he should be banned from the internet.
Why are you saying this? You know damn well I’d have guillotined him too (I guess I’m the most bloodthirsty commenter in this thread).
Greg,
I’m not sure I can fully agree with either (1) or (2).
Jews obviously believe they are benefiting from the current arrangement, but I don’t think they’re its greatest beneficiaries. I think blacks can lay claim to that title. Jews were doing quite well for themselves before things took the turn they did and would have continued to do so had things never taken such a turn (and done even better in the long-term because their activities would have remained obscure and/or uninteresting). Blacks on the other hand would not have had nearly as much as they do. But this is a minor point, and I respond to it only because you consider it a key point.
With respect to (2), I don’t think it belongs in the future tense. The fight is now, is taking place right now — with these words we are typing, in fact. The moment a critical mass agrees that Jews are the/a main problem is the moment Jews cease being the/a main problem. I don’t just mean that awareness is all that is required to overcome them; I mean they’ve read their Sun Tzu and aren’t going to engage in a battle they know they can’t win. At that point you can expect them to start being rather accommodating all of a sudden. You may say that whatever accommodation the Jew makes cannot hope to be enough, thus the Jew remains the main enemy, but the fact that he is making such an accommodation changes what is implied by the term “main enemy” quite profoundly. The Jew in that case would no longer be an enemy attempting to erase whites (or supporting policies that result in erasure and preventing attempts to rectify the situation), he’d be an “enemy” complicit in policies that would result in white salvation, attempting only to prevent whites from taking things “too far.”
Regardless of whether you agree with my analysis, it’s worth considering the possibility. Forewarned is forearmed, after all.
1. Blacks in the present regime are merely two-legged Jewish biological warfare agents. They are only the big winners in material terms, in the sense that they enjoy a standard of living they could not attain on their own. But when blacks get serious about their identity and destiny and start acting like black nationalists, suddenly Jews turn on them neatly. Blacks, in short, are destined to be blended out of existence under the present regime as well, and in that sense, they are destined to lose big in the end.
2. Jews are already dividing their camp and trying to colonize and subvert the nationalist opposition. There may be some sincere Jews who wish us well. But there is no way to tell them apart from Jews who are merely out to subvert and destroy us. Thus as far as I am concerned, we have to do this alone. The only gesture of Jewish solidarity with White Nationalism that I will accept is Aliyah: immediate and unconditional and irrevocable departure to Israel.
If you wear your star, though, you will still be allowed to comment here.
If you wear your star, though, you will still be allowed to comment here.
Well, I’m no Jew, but it’s true I’ve tended to see things through a “Jew’s-eye-view.” If you’re willing to be honest with yourself you’d have to admit that’s true of a HELL of a lot people you’re now trying to ram into your white alliance. So if Jews are guilty then so are we.
But what are we guilty of? First and foremost, of loving our lives and fearing for them. That’s what everything stems from and that’s what has blinded us. You know, I was once accused of being a “race-replacement advocate.” My reply was, yes, I am — if by “replacement” you mean restitution. That should not be an impossible task. But your damnable greed (“we want it all”), your damnable impatience (“out, out, out, right now!”), your damnable revulsion (“non-white slime!”), and your damnable blood-lust (“when the Saxon began to hate”) nip any and every such nascent effort at restitution in the bud. Something to think about.
I will respond to Verlis by placing his remarks in a more appropriate context.
(1) Whenever Jews talk about “civil rights,” they frame the issue in terms of Race, but it is ALWAYS “White versus Black.” Nobody bothered to actually read the Civil Rights legislation, which uses the terms “race” and “religion” interchangeable. Of course, only one race has its own religion, so the Jews get a threefer – they get Whites defining the Civil Rights issue in terms of Blacks, and the twofer of having the Civil Rights legislation written to favor the only Race that has its own religion – the Jews.
(2) I am not “monocausalist,” but it is very educational to bear in mind that the Jews ALWAYS have an agenda, and they are ALWAYS working to move it forward. Understanding how any action is or is not “good for Jews” is an interesting template to overlay your analyses of any social issue. Chuck Pearson, Linder’s mentor in matters Judaica, noted the Jews take ALL sides of an issue, so any outcome from the discussion is “good for Jews.” Let’s revise than and extend it – the Jews work ruthlessly to SHAPE the discussion, so it is controlled by Jews from the outset. Straw men are allowed, and even created, by the Jews, to insure they win.
Verlis in blockquote:
Greg already responded to this. Note that the Jewish Framework is implemented at the beginning – the REAL issue, they say, is black people. No. The Jews are doing spectacularly well. Blacks did what cannon fodder do; they bought the Jews time to consolidate their efforts at control.
Their definition of winning is not ours. The “Samson Option” defines one aspect of how the Jews define winning; if the land of Israel goes, so does Rome (first, by the way), and every other European capital. Note that the Jews aren’t worried about nuking Arab capitals – only the ones of Christian Europe, with Rome their favorite target.
As for them having read Sun Tzu, imagine if Sun Tzu had learned to read the “Hidden Torah,” the Talmud. He would have reacted as Martin Luther did. He would also have seen his axiom concerning deception as the FOUNDATION of the Art of War had been mastered in civilian frameworks. He would have gone from First Generation to Fifth Generation Warfare overnight.
What separates “Judaism” from all other “religions” is that it is a philosophy of power, and control, pure and simple. Such “accommodation” as they may make would only be to delay us from taking action in any way, shape or form., for ourselves, while they worked all the more diligently to insure that, for them, “Next Time, The World.”
The test of what is right for us is to see what the Jews hate the most. Bob Whitaker’s and his Mantra, Francis Parker Yockey, Harold Covington, John deNugent and Jim Giles. They all proposed simply what is effective for us, and do not dwell overly much on our parasites, except to step over them, if we can, and, in the alternative, deal with them forthrightly.
It’s more important to consider what we can do. It’s amazing that the Jews are taking us so seriously as to engage in thought-out disinformation ploys. Well, this isn’t the place for pil-pul, and I think that’s why they are here. We are focusing on what works for US, which is a philosophy that works very well for the Jews.
I think that’s what has them so concerned. We are learning their control technics, their control technologies, and are immunizing ourselves against their use of them, while learning how to use them for ourselves. Internalizing a Racial focus is one lesson we can certainly learn from them.
Applying it consistently is another.
Yes.
Yes, it is.
@ Lew,
For more that two years Hunter Wallace (and sometimes Guessedworker) have been using the term “single Jewish cause” in their blogs. As to racial preservation, you can define it as those who believe that there is essentially a single cause for the West’s darkest hour, but it has been something so obvious at MR and OD that a formal, dictionary-like definition has been deemed unnecessary there.
I think it’s pretty dominant. Besides Revilo Oliver and me who among WNists blames more Christ-insanity than Judaism? Who besides O’Meara and a few others blame more a capitalism run amok or even, before the rise of capitalism, “economics over race” policies (again, cf. Kemp’s book)?
Above I talked about the “witches brew”. While in my blog I’ve added quite a few entries about how Christianity is a megalodon compared to Judaism (in the sense of a far larger predator of whites), the meaning of my metaphor is that even the history Christianity, which is a huge subject, is not enough to understand the brew’ formula. O’Meara for one has published here some intriguing articles purporting to demonstrate the havoc that corporate capitalism has caused for the white race. And again, if you study why whites disappeared in the Middle East, India, Egypt and later mongrelized themselves in Greece, Rome and throughout the American continent at the south of Río Grande after conquering all of these lands—sans Jews (one of my ancestors proudly lived in front of the Palace of the Inquisition that persecuted Jews)—, you start getting the big picture.
The criticisms of Christianity recorded in my blog are not original. It’s a collection of articles from other authors. If we add to these factors the Jewish Problem and my truly original contribution to the field (my interpretation of Psychohistory as to why some whites hate their race), my “brew” metaphor starts making sense: The etiology of Western malaise is extremely complex indeed, with several exotic ingredients—not just one—that must be deciphered, one by one. Any theorist who picked one of the above-mentioned ingredients and claimed that it’s the single element of the brew would be a “monocausalist” (e.g., if I claimed that my book on Psychohistory explained it all I would be a monocausalist).
Don’t quibble on definitions, Lew. The term “monocausalism” is well known even in the academia. Edward Gibbon has been criticized by later historians precisely for being a “monocausalist”: claiming that the rise of Christianity was the main factor of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.
Are you kidding me?
Let’s suppose for a second that you are not one.
Are you ready to acknowledge that whites’ hardware according to some of KMD’s papers (abstract idealism + individualism + universalism + altruistic punishments) in addition to whites’ cultural software (Christ-insanity + its liberal offshoots + economics over race policies) all together constitute the major ingredient in the formula that’s killing us, and that Jewry merely catalyzes such process?
(Btw, you didn’t read my above link of what Franklin Ryckaert said about my exchange with Tanstaafl, did you?)
Are you ready to acknowledge that whites’ hardware according to some of KMD’s papers (abstract idealism + individualism + universalism + altruistic punishments) in addition to whites’ cultural software (Christ-insanity + its liberal offshoots + economics over race policies) all together constitute the major ingredient in the formula that’s killing us, and that Jewry merely catalyzes such process
No, I dispute all of it. Obviously, we won’t resolve this, but
1) the genetic hardwiring can’t be that problematic. After all, Whites are still around. If whites evolved genetic hardwiring that is problematic under present circumstances, that just shows that it is the circumstances that are the problem not the wiring, i.e. there is nothing wrong that can’t be fixed by changing external circumstances.
2) A substantial subset of whites have historically rejected that cultural template (liberalism + economics over race). In the United States, Southerners fought against it. In Europe, Germany and its allies did. The Whites that rejected the template were destroyed by force. Thus, it’s not true that whites in general have made a collective mad rush toward contemporary liberalism as proponents of the suicide meme suggest. It had to be imposed by force on many White people. As recently as the middle 19th and 20th centuries, many whites had very healthy cultural instincts but couldn’t develop those instincts because they were on the losing side in disputes that came down to brute force.
I am not saying that the ingredients alone (e.g. whites’ propensities toward altruism or universalism) are suicidal, only that in combination with Christianity + its liberal offshoots the brew becomes highly toxic (the process being accelerated by the J catalyst).
A commenter posted this in my blog today:
America was the preeminent racialist country before any European equivalent arose, but it was always held back from completely securing the existence of the European race by the mitigating power of our Christian foundation.
No Christianity means no Puritan proselytizing and universalism within the American psyche, which means no ideological foundation to tolerate the presence of Africans, Indians, or any non-White immigration.
Christianity always made it “uncouth” to be overly racialist. European America was able to implicitly secure the genetic stock through immigration restrictions, segregation, and what have you, but it was always a precarious position.
This semi-implicit racialism, always pervaded by the Christian sense that it was not necessarily the most dignified of ideologies, was easily destroyed by the Jewish culture of critique.
From then on, without the sounder minds to shepherd the flock our universalism (Coolidge etc) took hold and our religion became the realization of the proposition nation.
Of course, to realize that dream the destruction of White genetics has become a necessary sacrifice.
Verlis,
You’ve listed a lot of names and forums. It appears you might be obsessed with the “Jew-obsessives.” I disagree that Blacks have benefited from the current arrangement more than Jews have. That’s pretty silly, isn’t it — there’s benefit and there’s benefit.
Jews do not accommodate. They do not mix with Gentiles and “get to like each other” – if they mix at all, they mix and take control.
The Occidental Observer is running a series called
The War on White Australia.
A year ago it ran the amazing report of the Jewish Australian MP who wants Australia to take in the African immigrants that democratic Israel doesn’t want
crapping up its own country.
This item from 2/23/03 is no longer accessible on its Australian Jewish News page, but is preserved here. It’s entitled, “Jewish Donors Control Australia’s Political Parties:
Labor And Liberals Dominated By Jewish Money.”
Jews do what is the nature of the Jew to do. They take over. As putrid little Dershowitz gurgled on television with reference to the legal profession, squirming in his chair, “oh that . . . we made that our own.”
The cause of the Jew-Gentile dilemma lies primarily in the fact that Jews are a hostile pack and Gentiles are individuals (hence the lack of critical mass). Jews are never acting alone; their whole tribe is standing behind them. Jews are always acting in the specific interest of Jews. As the World Jewish Congress says, “All Jews are responsible for each other.” The “intensity of animosity” toward their perceived competitor–the object of their envy–European Whites, manifests itself by their promotion of processes that don’t even benefit themselves, but only harm Whites.
And then there’s the “intensity of animosity” toward all the other non-Jews in the world that haven’t let them take over (yet). . . .
It’s long past time for some push back against the oft quoted bromide that WNism is overrun with Jew “obsessives,” “paranoids” and people who inappropriately dwell on Jews .
People say it all the time, including many supposed WNists. Usually, in my experience, the idea goes unchallenged; however, is it even true?
For it to be true, it would have to be shown, I think, there are few or no rational reasons for discussing Jews often.
But, in point of fact, the list of compelling reasons for discussing Jews often is actually quite long.
1) Censorship
Censorship is the standard. There is no where else to discuss it. Most sites ban the JQ. Where else but in a WNist community can people talk about it?
You can discuss immigration, globalization, banking, finance, and cultural Marxism almost anywhere, including on many mainstream sites. But you cannot discuss the Jewish dimension of these problems, and usually there is one.
If, for example, you want to discuss corruption in the banking industry from a dissident perspective, you can visit zerohedge.com. If, however, you want to discuss Jewish representation in the banking industry, you can’t. You have to go to a WNist site to discuss it.
2) Direct and immediate relevance of the problem.
WNists talk about the JQ often for the same reason mens’ sites discuss feminism, divorce and domestic law often. It’s an immediate and pressing problem. Almost every day prominent Jews do something to harm Whites. Every time they do it, it sparks a new discussion of the same problem but from a fresh angle. It makes about as much sense to criticize WNists for frequent discussions of Jews as would to criticize men for busting on divorce laws.
3) Educational value
In this society, people can go live their whole lives without ever learning about the JQ. They won’t hear about it in the schools, from the pulpit, in the universities, or from the mass media. Thus, when new people find their way to our sites, we have to educate them. Education necessitates discussion.
There is no getting around making the same points over and over again. Every educator will tell you this. You can’t educate successive waves of new people without repetition.
4) Ongoing principled disagreement
We’re not always going to agree. Even among WNists who agree Jewish influence is a problem, there is still plenty of room for vigorous disagreement over 1) how much Jewish influence matters relative to other problems (Jews versus Christian morality), and 2) which aspects of Jewish influence are most relevant. Resolving these differences requires discussion.
5) Rebutting trolls and people who are uninformed
Our sites draw trolls, disruptors and people who don’t necessarily have malicious intent but who are ill informed. Often, they say things that aren’t true on the JQ (trolls do it deliberately; the uninformed don’t). When this happens, discussion is necessary to correct errors.
Bottom line:
Although the WNist conversation does often turn to Jews, there are perfectly good reasons it pulls so much bandwidth relative to other topics. These reasons have nothing to do with “paranoia,” “obsession,” an inadequate education, or a poor appreciation of other problems or similar nonsense.
(None of this means, of course, Jews should be the only thing we ever discuss.)
Lew:
Your point about the relevancy of the JQ to White nationalism is well taken.
I think a good part of the problem is when people gain a basic knowledge of the JQ, and then simply STOP, as they realize the power of the Hive Mind and its obsessive need for control.
They then use this as the rationalization for them doing nothing more – not even something as innocuous as sending money to counter-currents monthly.
No, they get a tiny peek at what is going on out there in the Big Bad World, and retreat to the soft ineffectiveness of their lives. They rationalize that, as they can’t do anything about it, they might as well look for the Blue Pill, and stop the effects of the Red Pill from going further.
You can’t unknow what you know. You can choose to Do Nothing About It – nothing that is remotely effective, even for yourself, much less your Family.
THAT is the problem with most “JQ obsessives.” They have enough of a Cause as to assume they have ALL of the Cause. The challenge is for them to realize they are not helpless in the face of this, unless they choose to see themselves as such – which they do, thus abandoning the Adult responsibility for working with what they know.
We KNOW the JQ is a very legitimate question, indeed. The issue is to develop intelligent analysis about their success, and our failures. Why is it we have so little to show for a CENTURY worth of labor? It’s because, at ALL points, before Rockwell, Oliver, Pierce and Covington/Whitaker/Horus the Avenger/John deNugent/Counter-Currents, at BEST we were “encouraged” to chase the wrong rabbit, in the wrong direction.
For the first time, we can put our energy into a much more effective direction; “What are THEY doing to us?” becomes transformed into the Adult active, “What can we DO for us?” The latter allows us to step over the former, while being “wise as serpents, and peaceful as doves.”
We reject their framing on events, and their analyses. We choose our own, and move forward.
Doing this costs the shattering of your Childish illusions, their replacement with Adult models of effectiveness, time, and money.
Now, right now, is an excellent time to contribute financially to counter-currents.
That’s all well and good. I just don’t want the JQ lost in the mix.
Not directly responding to Jews, not identifying them, not going after them, not educating people on their activities is to accept Jewish terms. Jews don’t like people talking about them. It is perhaps the greatest taboo in this society. Intentionally or not, when Chechar, O’Meara or other writers who are very advanced in their learning come along and don’t talk about Jews or minimize their role, that amounts to acceptance of the Jewish frame. I doubt organized Jewry is displeased we have prominent people blaming or putting the main emphasis on capitalism, Christianity and White defects for this situation.
I’ve been troubled by the penetration of this “we’re doing it to ourselves” idea into our communities for a long time. If you put it together with MOB and Andrew Hamilton’s recent observations that there has been a general decline in activism over the last decade to the point of Buckleyization, it looks like a trend, and not a good one, as it is a trend away from taking on a core issue.
I first became aware of the suicide “Whites are the problem” meme a long time ago in the HBD-sphere, though I didn’t know that’s what it was called at the time. At Mangan’s and other places, there was a core group of Jews who were masters at denying Jews have anything to do with the situation. Their basic approach involved the same logic Chechar is using here. So, this concern has been in the back of my mind for awhile. This idea was not all over the place 10 years ago. Having it spread around the HBD blogs is one thing. I never thought the idea would make it as far as TOO and CC and be taken seriously.
Lew, in all modesty I think that my article “Our Fault?” has this situation nailed:
1. 95% of talk about whites doing it to ourselves is just an attempt to deflect attention from the Jewish problem.
2. But we have to recognize that white racial destruction
(a) has happened without the Jews (e.g., the destruction of the Roman people by Roman capitalism, Negro chattel slavery in the New World, the Civil War to emancipate slaves) and
(b) is not entirely the fault of the Jews, because:
(a) Jews built the present race replacement regime on foundations created by whites (e.g., individualism, universalistic moral and political theories, capitalism)
(b) Jews had many white collaborators who benefit from the destruction of our nations
(c) Whites have constitutional weaknesses that make us susceptible to Jewish subversion, principally low levels of ethnocentrism and high levels of individualism, plus a penchant for moral universalism and grandiose notions of white agency and responsibility
3. However, before we can fix our own problems, we have to regain control of our borders, our culture, and our destiny, and to do that, we need to fight Jewish power. Jews may not be the sole cause of our woes, but they are the primary people who benefit from them and they are the people whom we will have to fight first. There’s no way out but through the Jews.
4. I am not sympathetic to your raking Chechar over the coals about who the “monocausalists” are. The position is seldom defended openly. But it does function as the unstated premise of a lot of arguments. Monocausalists are those who act as if Jews are the sole cause of our problems. This includes people who try to reduce the whole problem to mere Jewish dictatorship: pure power politics, in which the only power that Jews have over our people is based on greed and fear. Such analyses simply dispense with the necessity of white self-analysis and point toward simplistic “hard power” solutions, like Alex Linder’s fantasies about being saved by military tough guys (e.g., Federal employees who watch Fox News), which are doomed to fail, since WNs lack “hard power” and we are facing the most powerful system of coercion and brainwashing ever created.
Greg, Duly noted. Thanks for weighing in. I’ll close with this. Let me make clear I didn’t mean it as a coal-raking and for creating that perception I want to apologize to Chechar specifically.
I don’t minimize anything, Lew. Everything that MacDonald says in his trilogy is, in my opinion, true. It’s just a question of meta-perspective vs. perspective.
Do you know that after my awakening I deleted many posts from my blog which reflected my obsolete views about Counter-jihad? On the other hand, after I acquired a meta-perspective (all the ingredients of the brew, not only factor “J”) I’ve not removed a single blog post dealing with the JQ.
I really really doubt that those kikes believe in final solutions to the J problem as I fanatically do (just see the strong words on the subject I use in my site).
Tom Sunic for one also seems to believe that the Christian problem is the primary infection and the JP the secondary one, just like a HIV virus which allows life-threatening opportunistic infections to thrive. Mono-causalists seem to focus on the opportunistic infections (Jewry). Nothing wrong with that. But when they insist it’s the primary infection I call their attention to what is the real primary HIV that allowed the secondary infection.
By the by, I am still a dilettante, still learning and still willing to change if confronted with facts. Don’t compare my amateurish ruminations with O’Meara: like Sunic he’s a real intellectual.
Chechar,
Thanks for clarifying. Mangan always deleted about 50% of my comments on Jews, while the letting stand Jewish comments and mainstream conservative comments hostile to WNists. I inappropriately let my irritation on this general topic boil over a bit.
I’d say for someone who isn’t a trained professional, your work is pretty damn good. And your English prose style is better than about 99% of trained writers whose native language is English.
Again, I apologize for misunderstanding and coming across aggressively.
GJ: “This includes people who try to reduce the whole problem to mere Jewish dictatorship: pure power politics, in which the only power that Jews have over our people is based on greed and fear.”
If I’m allowed to caricature your own position too, you think that White people, who have a genetic predisposition to crazy altruism, have been convinced by the Jewish media that the right thing to do is to commit collective suicide. You think that Jewish activism is very effective in the media and the intellectual world. People have been brainwashed and that’s why they voted for people like Clinton, Bush and Obama.
My own theory is that, in spite of the brainwashing, most people are still against race-replacement but what they think no longer matters. The voters are short-circuited by Jewish activists who are directly interfering in the political process, in the pre-selection of Clinton, Bush and Obama during the election primaries, and in the running of government once a president gets elected.
Even in the intellectual world, the Jews didn’t earn their status through the strength and appeal of their absurd theories. Instead, they helped each other get positions of influence. They used bribes and ethnic networking.
I think that Augustin Cochin gave a good description of how it works (Devlin / Cochin). Cochin didn’t mention the Jews and his example was about the French Revolution, but I think that Jewish activism probably works that way.
As I told Chechar, whether it is the Jews or not, the problem of race-replacement comes from a small minority of people in the top of society. Those who refuse to see that it is a Jewish problem still have to explain how genocidal race-replacement is imposed to the majority of White people by a minority. No matter what you say, it isn’t true that most White people want to be replaced.
Do you think that France and the United States are functional democracies? If you like intellectual games, then trying to understand how dictatorship works is at least as interesting as reviewing batman movies. We are told that Hitler’s Germany and Brezhnev’s Soviet Union are good examples of dictatorship. But Hitler and Brezhnev had more in common with the average German/Russian than Bush and Obama have with the average White American. Bush thinks nothing of terminating White America.
Hitler’s Germany and Brezhnev’s Soviet Union could not function without support from their people. In the Soviet Union, in the end, I guess no one believed in the system any longer. They no longer had the heart to impose their dictatorship. We know it won’t happen like that in the West. The Jews and the non-Whites are not going to disappear, and they won’t have a change of heart. What we can hope is that White people will stop supporting the system that is trying to kill them. Today, White people are not suicidal, but they are collaborating with genocidal governments.
Lew,
The importance of clear definition as a tool for clarity goes back to Socrates. You don’t want to quibble with it. It’s understanable. A definition would hinder its effectiveness as a pejorative label for people who prefer to blame Whites instead of Jews.
No, I’m not interested in a hard definition of the term because I don’t go around calling people monocausalists. If someone brings up the Jew every time a racial issue arises, particularly in a very aggressive, dumb, caution-to-the wind (wrt to the facts of the matter) manner (which is quite common), I just tell myself he has Jew-on-the-brain disease and tend to ignore him. It’s one thing to draw attention to Jewish influence and explain an event or issue in the context of that influence, but it’s quite another thing to just harp on about Jew this, Jew that and pretend you’re elucidating matters.
Have you listened to the speech Robert Jay Matthew gave shortly before he went on his rampage? It’s a classic of the genre. That’s the sort of madness that unchecked Jew-on-the-brain can lead to. What a waste.
If someone brings up the Jew every time a racial issue arises, particularly in a very aggressive, dumb, caution-to-the wind (wrt to the facts of the matter) manner (which is quite common), I just tell myself he has Jew-on-the-brain disease and tend to ignore him. It’s one thing to draw attention to Jewish influence and explain an event or issue in the context of that influence, but it’s quite another thing to just harp on about Jew this, Jew that and pretend you’re elucidating matters.
Yes, and it’s quite another to pretend that people “harp” on the Jews for no reason. Implied in all of your comments on this issue is the notion people “harp” on Jews for no reason, because they’ve got “Jews on the brain,” or some such. It seems to be something you want to believe, that people discuss it for no reason other than to harp on Jews out of context. It’s not true, and for a very obvious reason. Whether matters are being elucidated entirely depends on who is reading. You never know when a new person might be reading.
So while a Jew-critic may not necessarily be elucidating anything relevant for you in bringing up Jews, they might very well be elucidating an important point for others. Try to bear this in mind. I mean it as a serious point you seem to be overlooking.
The 25,000th time you read about Jewish control of the media might be the first time for someone else. There has to be a first time we all learned everythning we know, no? I discovered KMDs work through WNist comments. I sure as hell wasn’t going to find it it the mainstream (see my point #1 above about censorship forcing discussion out of the mainstream and into one place where it becomes concentrated). For all I know, the commenter might have mentioned KMD hundreds of times prior to me seeing it.
On a related issue, I did not understand what “metapolitics” meant in a CC context until I read Greg’s explanation of metapolitics in OD comments (or somewhere) over two years ago. I doubt it was Greg’s first time explaining metapoltics, or the first time his regular readers saw the idea explained, but it was the first time I saw it. I understand the importance of it idea now whereas I didn’t before.
The problem is not Jew-critics in WNism. Jewish behavior is the problem. It reason for the ongoing discussion. I’m much more concerned about Jewish paranoia about Whites, Jewish aggresions against Whites and their patholgical case of Whites-on-the-brain syndrome than I am about whatever problem may exist with the tendency you’re describing.
Anyway, I’m definitely closinig out this one. The topic is played for now.
What are you talking about, Lew? It seems you’re so determined not to be “tricked” that you repeatedly and almost willfully misconstrue my statements.
Nowhere did I endorse shutting up and not talking about Jewish influence. Quite the opposite. But I suggested there is a more effective way to go about it rather than to merely “name the Jew.” Kevin Mac’s writings are exemplary in this regard. The rantings and ravings of the average internet “jew-critic” are most definitely not. The former produces understanding; the latter produces unhinged psychopaths (“vantards”). The internet has enabled us to bypass gatekeepers and discuss life’s most pertinent issues directly with strangers, but this doesn’t obviate the need for real world (one-on-one and one-to-many) communication. Vantard psychopathology not only cripples vantards’ own ability to make themselves understood to real world peers, but hampers everyone else’s efforts too, because of the undesirability of being associated with vantard ideas. What I meant above by it being a “waste” is that vantards, for all their faults, are some of the most devoted racialists out there. What a pity then that their methods leave so much to be desired.
Armor,
The speed and scale of events today are different than what has occurred previously, but otherwise it’s the same thing. Today the entire white world is being race-replaced, whereas previously it was only certain parts. Indeed, feelings, at root, are precisely what prompted you to make such a juvenile comment as suggesting I be “banned from the internet.” Grow up.
And what is wrong with focusing on feelings? Ultimately, both what you hope to achieve and the fate you hope to avoid are all about feelings.
Silver: “Kevin Mac’s writings are exemplary in this regard. The rantings and ravings of the average internet “jew-critic” are most definitely not.”
There are two different things :
1. Some people think that Jewish anti-White activism is the main cause of race-replacement.
2. Some people use coarse language to criticize the Jews.
If you disapprove of coarse language, it doesn’t mean that Jews are not the main promoters of race-replacement. You should stop conflating the two things. Kmac certainly believes that the Jews play a crucial role in today’s disaster, and you would denounce him as a rabble-rouser if he used a less circumspect style.
Today’s problem is race-replacement and anti-goyism, not antisemitism. Most people who rant and rave on the internet don’t know about the Jewish problem. Most of those who know about the problem are reluctant to mention it. Most of those who mention it are too careful and polite. Much fewer White people are ranting and raving about the Jews than about the liberals, or about how we are doing it to ourselves. Most low-brow people who resent race-replacement will criticize the Blacks, not the Jews. So, before you start another campaign against vulgar antisemitism, you should start one against anti-africanism.
“But I suggested there is a more effective way to go about it rather than to merely “name the Jew.”
How do you go about naming the Jew without naming the Jew?
“The speed and scale of events today are different than what has occurred previously, but otherwise it’s the same thing.”
It isn’t the same thing. What we have today is a DELIBERATE race-replacement policy.
The survival of whites or, more realistically, perhaps, a remnant of them, is what it’s about for me, and whites won’t survive if they refuse to deal with facts.
The counterfactual thesis advocated by many here amounts to moralistic/altruistic punishment by those who are sincere about what they’re saying. Some aren’t, of course. That’s the way the battle’s fought.
The once dominant WASPs exhibited this particular form of failure and rejection of responsibility first, then the Buckleyites, and now “white nationalists.”
The Jews are dominant and strong, whites are weak and servile.
There! That should be exculpatory enough of Jews and condemnatory enough of whites to satisfy anybody! (So why do I think it won’t be?)
Plus, it’s what I really believe.
Indeed, feelings, at root, are precisely what prompted you to make such a juvenile comment as suggesting I be “banned from the internet.” Grow up.
This should have appeared at the end of the last paragraph.
There is nothing irrational about the power elite’s hatred of “real Americans” / people of White, Christian heritage. They want us to disappear. Their agenda – No more white kids and no more churches!
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment