Everyone, including self-proclaimed “anti-racists,” is racist. Existing society is deeply racist; Jewish and philo-Semitic, hatred is embedded in its institutions.
“Anti-racists” hypocritically and cynically twist and distort words. “Racist” and “hate” have ordinary English meanings, not just Newspeak meanings.
The fact that racism, hatred, and discrimination are directed against whites, and ideas of chosenness and moral superiority ascribed to Jews and (derivatively, contingently, and temporarily) to Gentile non-whites, does not mystically render them non- or anti-racist.
Again, everyone is racist. Contemporary governments are systematically discriminatory, even genocidal entities. (There is no such thing as “reverse discrimination,” just discrimination.) The vast majority of whites are also racist in the prevailing anti-white sense.
If the latter were Jews, they’d be called self-hating Jews, if blacks, oreos (black on the outside, white on the inside), if Amerinidians, apples (red on the outside, white on the inside), if Mestizos, coconuts, if Asians, bananas.
Consistent with Newspeak principles, no parallel epithet for conventionally racist whites exists.
The casual internalization of and obsessive adherence to anti-white racism by whites causes great bewilderment among the tiny cohort of pro-white advocates.
They conclude that non-whites must possess ethnocentrism that whites mysteriously lack, or that after thousands of years, self-destructive, extremist egalitarian hunter-gatherer atavism or, alternatively, Christian racial “altruism,” suddenly reappeared among whites between 1965 and 1970 everywhere on Earth, or that whites abruptly decided to blow their collective brains out (the “we did it to ourselves” theory).
Pushed to its despairing extreme, such perplexity can lead, if combined with certain Darwinian or Nietzschean tenets, to a normative “whites don’t deserve to live” mentality instead of an objective “If whites don’t ditch hatred of self-kind they won’t live” outlook.
An Alternative Theory
William L. Pierce, the founder of the National Alliance, promulgated a more persuasive theory.
First, he recognized the key role that Jews play in anti-white racism.
Jews are not white and do not think of themselves as white. Pierce had no psychological, emotional, or status hang-ups that prevented him from seeing this. Consequently, he did not worship Jews, defer to them, or regard them as superior to whites or immune from criticism.
He conceptually separated Jews from whites just as Jews themselves do, and objectively analyzed their role in the contemporary racist dynamic.
Pro-white professor Revilo P. Oliver bluntly drove home the same point in reaction to an article by conservative Christian author Otto Scott:
Mr. Scott begins his article by quoting the “darling of the intellectual left,” Susan Sontag: “The white race is the cancer of humanity.” He notes that his god [i.e., the Christian God—Oliver was an atheist] punished the woman by afflicting her with cancer. But he makes the astonishing blunder of supposing that the Sontag woman thought of herself as a Caucasian. She is a Kikess and would no more think of calling herself Caucasian than she would of calling herself a bitch or a sow. She belongs to Yahweh’s Master Race, the race that now openly boasts in its own publications, “WE are the purpose of Creation.” (Revilo Oliver, “Confession of Guilt,” Liberty Bell, July 1989)
Sontag, according to Christopher Hitchens, later “retracted” her statement by sneering that her remark had slandered cancer patients.
What follows naturally from such hatred, especially when stoked with “Holocaust” fanaticism, which provides the ruling class, the mass murderers of millions of Europeans under Communism and world war, with a warrant for genocide?
What do people do with those they deem to be “the cancer of humanity”?
Exactly what Jews and governments are doing—they eradicate them.
My opinion is that the anti-white racism of the Jews is of an entirely different order than the racism of other non-whites. The racism of the latter is fundamentally taught or learned or culturally-acquired racism.
The hatred of the Jews, on the other hand, is virulent, implacable, eternal, and homicidal. It burns within, and will never leave them.
Whites Are Neither Good Nor Evil
William Pierce also taught that the vast majority of whites are neither good nor evil; they will think and behave in whatever manner the powers that be direct them to. Most people that is, will conform and obey, no matter what. (Pierce called them “lemmings.”)
Only a tiny handful, he said, are truly good or evil—he estimated 1 to 3 percent in either direction. For some reason he believed the number of “good” people, though exceedingly small, was roughly double the number of intrinsically bad people.
My own inclination is perhaps closer to the Christian belief that humans are afflicted with original sin, and can only be saved (become good) through a process of change and redemption.
What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good.
Nevertheless, people’s beliefs and behaviors can change radically. Change (for the worse) during my lifetime has been massive. Of course, it is easier to destroy than to build.
Unfortunately, if Pierce’s assumptions are correct—and, apart from his optimistic overestimation of the number of good to evil people, they appear to be—then it is comparatively easy with modern technology and dedicated ruthlessness for a small, domineering elite to continuously identify and destroy the tiny handful of good people on the margin, as they did under Communism and have continued to do in the post-WWII era.
As a result, whites opposed to genocide or totalitarianism have failed to gain any traction.
The Case of Germany
Most whites believe in Holocaust dogma. Germans who stewed blissfully in the depraved Jewish cauldron of Weimar did a volte-face and began shoveling Jews into “ovens” at the behest of the Great Satan. Today, Germans once again complacently serve a decadent, genocidal anti-white state.
It doesn’t matter who is metaphorically shoveled into the ovens—Jews or, today, whites—as long as the perceived authorities order it. Brutal East German Communism is as acceptable as West German freedom as far as Germans are concerned. Whoever calls the shots is fervently obeyed.
This is strong proof to me that human beings really are, as my former college roommate was fond of saying, “malleable.” It is safe to assume that today’s anti-white whites, under appropriate conditions, can be influenced and persuaded, shaped and bent into pro-white anti-Semites. Jews believe this, since they’ve performed the same alchemy in reverse.
In other words, Jews can be treated the same way they treat whites—which is food for thought. There is hazard in lighting the path to Darkness, but Jews were eager to take the gamble.
The Mass Media as Agents of Change
The mass media and state-controlled education have displaced the family in the formation and transmission of attitudes, beliefs, behavior, and culture. In addition, the mass media winnows candidates for public office at every level, thereby exerting effective control over the (formerly) democratic political process.
“One-to-many” transmission spreads radical innovations and causes rapid cultural change. The media are a powerful source of one-to-many communication.
Powerful conformity is induced also by “many-to-one” transmission. This consists of many persons or institutions all transmitting the same idea or message to every individual.
Social scientists Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd note that “TV’s constant availability, low cost, and curiously addictive hold on our attention apparently allow it to crowd out more highly rated activities.” (Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, 2004, p. 238)
There are many unexplored reasons why TV, movies, video games, pop music, and other forms of media exercise such tremendous influence over our ideas and behavior. A “simple” one, I believe, is the (literal) hypnotic effect they have on us. Hypnosis is associated with heightened suggestibility.
The Jews, as William Pierce recognized, control the mass media of news and entertainment (which he invariably denominated the “controlled media”).
There is perhaps no other truism of modern life that he emphasized so repeatedly. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that he never developed, or at least never publicly articulated, a theory of media control, or analyzed the nexus between media messages and human psychology and behavior.
Instead, he stated his case axiomatically:
By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence. . . .
To permit the Jews, with their 3000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.
White Resistance to Thinking Realistically About Jews
Whites (actually, all Gentiles) exhibit an astonishing degree of resistance to thinking objectively about Jews. Most seem incapable of exercising even the most basic rationality where Jews are concerned. It really is remarkable.
This is true even of many white racialists and nationalists.
An important point to emphasize is that not all racialists have the same objectives. Danger lurks in the fallacy of the shared assumption—the incorrect belief that people are all on the same page when in reality they are not.
For example, my primary objectives are for the white race to (a) survive, (b) expand demographically, (c) win complete emancipation and independence from other races, including Jews, and (d) resume the path of progress.
But other “racialists” may have radically different objectives. To cite one example, I am sure the primary objective of some whites is the advancement of Jewish interests. And some “racialists” are not racialists at all. There are many other possibilities.
In reading the Nation of Islam’s The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, vol. 2: How Jews Gained Control of the Black American Economy (2010), I was forcefully struck by the historical coexistence of anti-black racism and extreme philo-Semitism among whites in the Deep South over a very long period of time—a phenomenon characteristic of the former nations of southern Africa as well.
The widespread myth of shared black-Jewish suffering in the racist South (or, by extension, southernAfrica) is a gigantic Jewish imposture. It is a lie. There is no equivalence whatsoever between the black and Jewish experiences in either case. The Nation of Islam’s researchers leave no room for doubt on that score.
This new insight, combined with my longtime awareness of unshakeable philo-Semitism among many white racialists, finally caused it to dawn on me that there is a deep psychological fissure within white racialism that cannot be bridged.
As English-born John Derbyshire, who is on the opposite side of this divide from me—the “Southern” side, for want of a better term—expressed it:
I bond effortlessly with East Asians & I think always have. I’m more at ease in a room full of Chinese people than I would be in a room full of black American rap artists. And my personal predilections aside [emphasis added], I think the big division in our society is always black-nonblack. The other stuff—Hispanics, Asians—is a bagatelle [unimportant, a trifle] by comparison. (“‘I May Give Up Writing and Work as a Butler’: Interview with John Derbyshire,” Gawker, April 9, 2012)
Derbyshire, who is married to a Chinese woman and has hybrid children, is also a self-described “philosemite,” “anti-anti-semite,” and “Zionist.” Philo-Semitism is central to his value system, as it is for many racialists.
I am convinced that this represents, like the historical racism of the South and southern Africa, a totally different psychology from mine, or William Pierce’s, despite the fact that a hostile society classifies both as a single monolithic form of “white racism.”
In fact, they could not be more different. This truth is crucial to grasp if Jews are indeed the primary impediment to white survival, and the main catalysts of genocide.
How to Eliminate “Racism”
Lessons from Robin DiAngelo on What It Means to Be White, Part 2
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 374 Greg Johnson, Richard Houck, Gaddius Maximus, & Thomas Steuben on How to Respond to Being Called “Racist”
Lessons from Robin DiAngelo on What It Means to Be White, Part 1
What Do You Say When Someone Accuses You of Racism?
David Duke’s Bottle of Red Pills
خطة عوديد ينون والسياسة الخارجية الأمريكية
The Surfside Condo Collapse, the Media, & the Polish-Canadian Question