2,146 words
Jews and Aryans—indeed, Jews and Gentiles—do not think alike. Psychologically and morally, Jews are radically different from other peoples. Jews are correct in recognizing that the first and most important division between human groups is not black and white or any other racial category, but Jew versus Gentile. Everything else is secondary. There is a profound sense in which all Gentiles are human beings, while Jews are not. Or, to state the matter from an ultra-Orthodox perspective: Gentiles of every race, including even the most obsequious philo-Semites, are beasts, while Jews are semi-divine beings animated by a soul.
Virtually all Jews are acutely conscious of the huge gulf that separates them from the rest of mankind, placing them outside its circle. Hardly any non-Jews are. The keen realization of this difference and its implications for racial survival is restricted to a tiny Gentile minority—a de facto elite.
Fritz Lenz, a German geneticist and anthropologist before, during, and after the Nazi era, possessed such awareness. He maintained that although Jews are unique in physical appearance, it is their mental characteristics that really set them apart.
Citing examples to support his thesis, he said it was possible “to recognize the literary work of a Jew (scientific work included) by the way in which the thoughts are developed and by the method of expression.” (Thorleif Boman’s Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek appears to embody a similar outlook in its title.)
In an attack upon psychologist Kevin MacDonald, an American critic of Jewish power, the Jewish Studies Department at California State University, Long Beach quoted Lenz as writing in 1941:
[A]s important as the external features for their evaluation is the lineage of individuals. A blond Jew is also a Jew. Yes, there are Jews who have most of the external features of the Nordic race, but who nevertheless display Jewish mental tendencies. The legislation of the National Socialist state therefore properly defines a Jew not by external race characteristics, but by descent.[1]
Hopefully the quotation and translation are accurate. Note that Lenz’s assertion was deployed to tar MacDonald even though he had referred to an entirely different point made by Lenz.
The use of the unrelated quote was purely polemical and propagandistic. Jews use this technique all the time. The purpose is to dishonestly incorporate by reference everything Lenz ever wrote (and, in all probability, some things he never wrote, but which were ascribed to him by Allied/Communist intelligence agents, prosecutors, propagandists, Jewish polemicists, post-War academics, and journalists) and then slyly cherry-pick and indirectly attribute to MacDonald any “damaging” statements the authors choose.
Such behavior is itself an attribute of Jewish thinking. It is dishonest and unprincipled because the technique is never applied to Jews and others on the Left, as it easily could be with devastating effect.
It is informative that Jews assume—correctly, it appears—that high-IQ Gentiles will unquestioningly swallow the ploy without critical evaluation. Probably the gullible target audience, no matter its “intelligence,” is entirely unaware of the manipulation. As a consequence, Lenz’s unrelated statement is subtly transmuted into MacDonald’s position in the minds of readers—along with Hitler’s “eugenic” elimination of the unfit and Nazi resettlement policy in the East for good measure! It is a sophisticated psychological deception. Such people aren’t objective scholars. “Scholarship” for them is just another arena for racial warfare.
Years ago I read the following statement, attributed to an anonymous criminal defense attorney not otherwise identified, and immediately thought: “Jewish.”
I don’t feel bad that a black person who couldn’t possibly get a decent job, who couldn’t possibly earn a decent living—I feel bad that somebody got murdered, yea, but I think it’s separable—what happened to the victim and what you do with the defendant because of it. I think those are mutually exclusive. . . . I feel that [the black killer] was probably justified. He was robbing a store, you know. If he had a job, he wouldn’t have had to rob a store. If he had been a businessman, he could have embezzled, you know, and you don’t have to shoot people while you’re embezzling, you know. No, I don’t feel bad, even if he got out on the street. (Quoted in Thomas Marvell, Appellate Courts and Lawyers, 1978, p. 58)
To this day I don’t know whether the speaker was Jewish, yet am virtually certain he was. The thought structure fairly shouts it.
Do you think I’m wrong?
Compare the speaker’s subtle, unusual, immoral reasoning with that of a known Jewish attorney in Germany c. 1986, whose anti-white animus is even more explicit:
I have an inexplicable sympathy for German criminals. I’ve never been analyzed, but I’m sure a psychiatrist would have a field day with me. What I like best of all is defending real criminals, all those thieves, murderers, swindlers, the worse the better. I like these types and their perversions. The nastier the better. Everything that does not spell decent German I find appealing, and I’d do anything in my power to defend these types. I certainly don’t lack clients. Word has gotten around in certain circles that I’m a good defense lawyer. . . .
I would defend the worst crooks, regardless of whether they were able to pay me or not. My parents also approve of what I’m doing, especially my father. . . . They’re members of the Jewish Community but they’re not very religious. Still, all their friends are Jews, including many who don’t belong to the Community. (Peter Sichrovsky, Strangers in Their Own Land: Young Jews in Germany and Austria Today
Sichrovsky, a journalist and former member of the European Parliament from Austria who conducted the interview, is Jewish.
The depth of the hatred Jews harbor for whites, and the extent of their social power, is impossible for most Aryans to comprehend in the absence of honest information. Anyway, they’d rather not think about it.
As previously noted, Jews are acutely aware of the facts Lenz drew attention to. Writing about what she called “the ‘hidden language’ of Diaspora culture,” Glenda Abramson, editor of The Blackwell Companion to Jewish Culture: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present
The Jewish artist, writer, or scholar . . . represents concerns and convictions which are not overtly Judaic but which have come to be most closely associated with Judaism or Jewishness . . . More than 200 contributors [to the Companion] have written thousands of words on the evidence of Jewishness even in the least candidly Jewish works, and have demonstrated that Jewishness does not necessarily rest in obvious iconography or imagery, but in patterns of thinking and seeing, in certain distinct and repeated themes and topics [emphasis added], and even in an aggressive absence of acknowledgement of Jewishness. Diaspora creativity conceals the reality of Jewish communication in a kind of code which can be deciphered by those with the appropriate historical and cultural tools. The code incorporates the internal Jewish attitudes to non-Jewish society, to non-Jews, to social systems, to religion, to Jews themselves, which are rarely explicitly articulated, but are displaced into other themes and ideologies. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. x–xi.)
Note that Abramson explicitly acknowledges the existence of coded Jewish communications: “the ‘hidden language’ of Diaspora culture,” “Jewish communication in a kind of code which can be deciphered by those with the appropriate historical and cultural tools.” This code exists, and can be cracked by Aryans with the fortitude to do so.
In 1988 filmmaker John Carpenter wrote and directed a low-budget sci-fi film called They Live that many racialist viewers correctly perceived as an allegory of Jewish power and Gentile collaboration. This was not Carpenter’s intent. In his muddled vision he was attacking Reaganite conservatives. The most charitable thing that can be said is that he badly missed his mark and hit the Jews instead.
As an aside, I have to mention Carpenter’s hilarious but suspenseful first film, Dark Star (1974), about four young spaced-out astronauts whose mission is to blow up unstable planets with nuclear bombs. Carpenter produced, wrote, and directed the film, and composed the musical score. It was shot on a shoestring budget, as evidenced by the fact that the space alien was a painted beach ball with plastic feet. A malevolent little monster it was, too.
In They Live, malicious space aliens have taken over Earth, whose clueless inhabitants are secretly exploited with the collaboration of conscienceless human elites who profit handsomely from their partnership with the alien overlords. These are the Warren Buffets, FDRs, LBJs, Edward Kennedys, and Quentin Tarantinos. The aliens are disguised as human beings, and can only be seen in their true form with the aid of special sunglasses (analogous to the “tools” necessary to decipher Abramson’s “code”). With the sunglasses on, the aliens are rendered completely and hideously visible, and bear no resemblance to humans—even the selfish collaborators—whatsoever. The everyday world becomes an unsettlingly different place. An interesting feature of the glasses is that they can only be worn for short periods of time because they induce terrific headaches, as if reality were too painful to contemplate for long.
Lev Kopelev—who, being Jewish rather than German or Slavic, and Communist rather than Nazi, was never prosecuted for his crimes—died in Cologne, Germany at the ripe age of 85 in 1997. He played an active role in the starvation of millions of families in the Ukraine in 1932–33. “I took part in this myself,” he later wrote, “scouring the countryside, searching for the hidden grain . . . I emptied the old folks’ storage chests.” (While the death of millions was being accurately reported by Malcolm Muggeridge in London’s Guardian, the Jewish New York Times lied to its elite audience: “Russians Hungry, But Not Starving,” p. 13 headline, March 31, 1933.)
In the terrible spring of 1933 I saw people dying from hunger. . . . And corpses . . . I saw all of this and did not go out of mind [sic] or commit suicide. Nor did I curse those who had sent me out to take away the peasants’ grain in the winter . . . Nor did I lose my faith.
With the rest of my generation I firmly believed that the ends justified the means. Our great goal was the universal triumph of Communism, and for the sake of that goal everything was permissible—to lie, to steal, to destroy hundreds of thousands and even millions of people, all those who were hindering our work or could hinder it, everyone who stood in the way. . . . I believed because I wanted to believe. (The Education of a True Believer [New York: Harper & Row, 1980], pp. 11–12, 235, quoted in Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine [New York: Oxford University Press, 1986], p. 233)
Now their crusade is to physically extinguish our people, to bash “the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed,’ but destroyed” (“eliminating the kulaks as a class” meant killing them). Why? Because we’re “the cancer of human history.”
As with the handful of embattled rebels in They Live who alone see the aliens for what they are, only a minority of whites today see the Jews for what they are. An inchoate minority possessing this rare capability must be reached and motivated to act before positive social change and racial survival can become genuine possibilities, because the Jewish role is the key role in the destructive process.
Some people reading this are prospective members of this de facto elite. You were chosen by the vast gallery of your ancestors stretching backward in time. You know, deep down, that it is man’s job to understand, to face the truth, to shoulder responsibility.
You can read the hidden code of Jewish power, assume the mantle of responsibility, and help guide your people to safety—if you so choose. Do not waste precious time on comfortable but irrelevant hobbyhorses like so many others do.
You will eventually discover that life is extremely short. Even when it’s “long” it’s short. And long includes a period of decline. Average life expectancy matters as well. Wikipedia frequently provides subjects’ age at death; when not given it can easily be calculated. Habitually make a mental note of it. The same with obituaries. Observe how many people check out sooner than you’d think—whose tour of duty is comparatively short. The Trickster fools us all.
Make your life count.
Note
[1] Appendix to CSULB Jewish Studies Program’s Statement on Kevin MacDonald: Evidentiary Support, p. 4. The Lenz statement has apparently been translated from the German by someone associated with the Jewish group. The quotation and its German citation have been inserted verbatim into Wikipedia‘s entry on Lenz without attribution to the partisan Jewish Studies report from which it was presumably drawn. (The department wouldn’t copy it from Wikipedia, would it?) I would prefer a more objective source for the quotation and translation, but in the present social climate one is not available.
39 comments
Great article. A good analysis of the problem, and inspirational at the end.
However, as always I wonder what can I as an individual do? There has to be some meaningful way to resist the evil, but I haven’t found it yet.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Boycott Hollywood. Cancel your cable subscription and stop going to the movies. You will increase your own free time and wealth, and simultaneously deprive your enemies of income.
2. Always vote, in the primaries and in the genral election, and be a one issue voter. Always vote for the candidate who will reduce immigration.
I could not agree more with point 1), boycott Hollywood. If, one carefully studies, television programs, gossip rags, newspapers, that have a Hollywood connection, and the messages in Hollywood movies for at least the last 60 years, then it is impossible not to see the anti-white brainwashing and intent. Yet, clueless white Americans by the tens of millions, enrich the Hollywood culture that continues to bash them so energetically!!
The best and most powerful thing in your power to strike back is to have children. Each generation of white children puts off our destruction by…wait for it…another generation! You can make it more complicated if you like, but really it’s not.
Thank you, thank you. I noticed this, but did not know how to describe it. When I have said something I was told I was crazy. It’s that indirect blow that is hard to comprehend because it is so easily denied.
Mr. Hamilton, you are simply a bright light in a dark world.
We live in the shadow of an orchestrated lie, a veil of ideological obfuscations and petty bribes that covers our sight to the chopping block they lead us so to gingerly.
Even now, the lie feeds itself, never content with either the passing of time or the its countless sins against all that is good and worthy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23989454
They couldn’t help but repeat their holy gospel: “the 6 million.”
As to your great article, it took me quite a bit of time to realize this myself, that Judaism is not an ethnic/racial classification like European, Swedish, or Japanese, but more a state of mind in viewing oneself and the group within the larger community.
As I read works like KMAC’s the culture of critique, I’m beginning to find an interesting pattern in which the aggressiveness of Jewish antagonism and paranoia within their host societies is positively correlated with their level of inter-mixture within the society itself.
The most aggressive Jewish communities hasn’t been the closed off orthodox shetl, but in fact the Westernized, secular Jewish community of half breeds and questionable ancestry. Its as if the state of near total integration clicks on some kind survival mechanism in which Judaism can only reassert itself via a predatory consciousness.
Congresswomen Wassermann-Schultz would pass for European. If she were in a black neighborhood, her chosen identity would offer her no comfort to the whims of our predatory underclass. Yet, she will continue to see Europeans merely the greatest of potential anti-semites, first place in Jew’s long list of goys who must never be forgiven, nor ever given peace.
So, with a tear in her eye, and victim hood in her heart, she cries for death and war.
I am just now becoming aware of the Jewish question and all it entails, but one thing about the Jews that I don’t understand is why. Why do they hate us so much? Why of all the “goyim” do they hate white Europeans above all others? Why do they want us to die?
Aryans have always been their greatest rivals; Hittites, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Germans. All Indo-Europeans, all builders and creators. They, the jews, have taken the path of parasites to the point of no return.
A lot of us have been at it for years and still don’t get it. Suffice it to say we are up against unimaginable, unfathomable, implacable pathological hate. Start with Kevin MacDonald if you’re new.
I’ve been reading about the Jews for years, and I still can’t understand them, for their mentality is so different from our own. Their hatred for us is fathomless, and it reminds me of Theoden’s despairing remark in The Two Towers: “So much death. What can men do against such reckless hate?” The answer, of course, is to confront it courageously: “Let this be the hour when we draw swords together.”
They hate us because we’re their opposite. Aryans create, Jews destroy. Aryans are beautiful, Jews are ugly. Aryans are peaceful and honest, Jews are aggressive and deceitful. Aryans seek objective truth, Jews prefer myth and fanaticism. These two races were destined to clash.
Chilling. Indeed they live, we sleep. Savitri Devi saw the Jews as less of a race and as more of an vast, ancient, inter-generational cult devoted to World conquest. Of course there may be a subtle genetic aspect to this psychology as well, passed down via the mother.
One small group of Jews, the Kairites, still reject the Talmud and all that it stands for. Traditionally they have gotten along well with Gentiles.
“Fritz Lenz . . . maintained that although Jews are unique in physical appearance, it is their mental characteristics that really set them apart.” Sir Arthur Keith said the same thing in A New Theory of Human Evolution, in which he wrote:
“The evolutionary process to which the Jews have been subjected has been centred, not on their bodily features, but on their mental equipment. The one essential mental attribute which the Jew must possess is a living sense of being linked to his own community and of being separated from those of the Gentiles; without this sense he would drown in the Gentile sea. Consider for a moment the temptations to which the Jews have been exposed and the winnowing or selective ordeal they have undergone in the twenty-five centuries which now separate them from their ancestors of the captivity. The Jew has his social qualities quite as well developed as those of the Gentile; he is daily tempted by the social attractions of his host people, and if he is weak, may fall victim to them. The one sin his community will not pardon is apostasy to his creed and race. In spite of the execrations of his community he may fall in love with, and marry, a woman of the Gentiles, and so bring Gentile blood into his race. The mixed progeny of such unions is, in due course, subjected to assimilative seduction of the host people ; if the hard racial mentality of the Jew has not been inherited, then such progeny will be reabsorbed by the Gentiles, and thus eliminated from the race. For eighty generations the Jews have been subjected to this merciless process of psychological selection; unless their racial sense remains firm they go down in the Gentile sea. Instead of weakening, the Jewish feeling of separateness seems to grow stronger as time goes on.”
I believe Lothrop Stoddard remarked that some Bolsheviks are born rather than made. It could be added that with the Jews, Bolsheviks have not just been born, they have been effectively bred. As Voltaire prophetically remarked on the Jews: “They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.” Although Bolshevism has gone, the Bolsheviks remain, and there’s nothing they enjoy so much as a blood orgy.
Good point to bring up now. We have to start the same process. We are obviously at a genetic bottle neck. Our one drop rule, that has served us so well, will serve us even better in the future as it is augmented by genetic testing. In the meantime we may have to learn the art the Jews have mastered: living separately in other people’s nations. What a terrible fall we have suffered and are about to suffer.
In the same vein, Houston S. Chamberlain hit a mega bingo when he called Jews ‘die große Gegenraße’, or the great anti-race. Biological Jews, the descendants of the ancient, yet highly aberrant, parasitical Habiru Sagaz, are nation wreckers….par excellance. White “gentiles”, altruistically somnolent, are a pushover for this racially motivated, motley tribe.
I’ve been thinking intermittently, in one form or another, about the verities expressed at the end of Andrew Hamilton’s article. I’m relatively young, but I’m already feeling my age, and I’m feeling that I’m overly concerned with things that are ultimately trivial. Reflecting on what has happened in the last ten, fifteen, twenty years — or what may happen in the next ten, fifteen, or twenty years — is something I find profoundly unsettling.
We need to put things in their correct historical or chronological perspective and to break decisively with a “presentist” perspective, with the ethic of what David Mosler calls “the recreational society.” Hamilton notes this in his comments on the lifespan of individuals. Of course, there is more to this than the number of years. The process of development needed to reach the height of one’s powers is typically slow, and the discipline needed to do this is invariably severe. This is true of movements as well as individuals.
I should perhaps examine the ideas of Edward Banfield and Oscar Lewis (which I know of only by reputation at present) on the relationship between time horizons and the “culture of poverty,” and develop these ideas with reference to the political culture of White nationalism. As presently constituted, White nationalism has a system of values and behaviors that reflects and reinforces its weaknesses. A short time horizon reflects a lack of seriousness and a lack of agency. We might actually have the time and the resources needed to win, but at a collective level we’re failing to effectively use the resources and opportunities that we have, we’re failing to work intelligently, diligently, and persistently, and we’re wasting time rather than working with time. There is so much to do, but work is not started or followed through as it can and should be.
White Republican in blockquote:
I have the same feeling. In fact, I feel as if I am walking in a Culture that was dead, but didn’t know it yet. What keeps me positive is to realize this is one lifetime of many, and my perspective comes in part from Krishna to Arjuna: “You have the right to your labors, but not to the fruits thereof.” My duty is met to the extent I can meet it today, Eternity is left for the Eternal.
That is what I address Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic as not merely a temporal political entity, or even as the Living Bridge from Here to The Stars. No, I see it also as an Analytical Model. Thus, rather than falling into the learned helplessness of the false dualities placed before us as “choices,” I look to see how these issues would be dealt with in a Northwest Republic. This is heartening.
Savitri walked the ruins of post-War Berlin, and did not despair, seeing the NSDAP Cultural Moment as one moment in a series of social possibilities. She did not despair, as she knew the time would come where the best of what made it the foremost example of Western Civilization would come again, in the fulness of Time. her perspective was of one who was above Timer. It is one we would do well to emulate, while accepting our Duty to the Race in the current Cultural Moment.
This is why Family is so important; your lessons can be passed on to your Posterity, giving them an advantage compared to the presentists.
We Do have a tremendous lack of seriousness. I have thought about this, and I think it is because we were – prior to Rockwell, Pierce (as a Philosopher) and Covington – strongly encouraged to engage in acts that were designed by our Opposition as pure presentism, acts that, at best, made us look short-sighted and foolish.
There was no metacontext, and nothing to fight FOR that could bind generations to come. It was all defiance, and all but the adolescent behavior of oppositional defiance. It “fought” only against a narrow issues, and the “fight” was very local in space and time. Even if they “won” their very narrow battle, they never made a dent in the war they were unknowingly engaged in. It’s almost as if they were shadowboxing, and the shadows used their own power to tire them out.
Thus, the importance of the metacontext, the Northwest Republic, and sending money to counter-currents each and every month.
We have a Destiny, and a Duty to our Destiny.
When I said that I’m feeling my age, I should have said that this isn’t so much a matter of feeling old, but rather a heightened awareness of one’s mortality and vulnerability. This isn’t something I or most people like to think about, and it’s easier to indulge in evasive or magical thinking. But Andrew Hamilton is right that the knowledge we have as White nationalists imposes great responsibilities upon all of us, and that we all need to make our lives count.
One thing that impresses me about Andrew Hamilton is his modesty, or rather what his modesty reflects. Despite his great learning and talents, and despite his impressive body of work, he has the humility of someone who has a truly serious and mature attitude towards work.
I’m thinking of examining the ideas of thinkers like David Ronfeldt, John Arquilla, John Boyd, William S. Lind, and John Robb on fourth generation warfare, networks, and netwars, and developing their ideas in the context of political activism. We need to establish forms of organization with what systems theorists call emergent properties or network effects, whose reach and capabilities are constantly growing, and which are therefore increasingly visible, credible, attractive, and useful to the people we need to win over to our cause. We need forms of organization in which people can find meaningful and constructive work where they are and as they are. And we need forms of organization in which work is appropriately distributed among people, which avoids overworking the few and underworking the many.
In thinking about these matters, I should take a cue from Bertrand Russell’s remark: “The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.” We should develop and use working solutions — solutions which needn’t be perfect or complete, but which will give us leverage over things, which will get us forward, and which we can improve upon in time. This is a far better approach than waiting for a heaven-sent leader to arrive or for the system to collapse.
White Republican in blockquote:
The answer comes from Harold Covington, and is elegantly simple.
A Church can be profitably used to achieve all of these means, to all of our ends. It encompasses all necessary forms of organization in one metapolitical structure, one metapolitical system.
I agree that fatalism leads to the soft impotence of structural ineffectiveness. If the economy “collapsed” tomorrow, most WNists – most people – would simply fall apart and die in about ninety days.
The solution, in micro-microcosm, is to not hope for Someone who will save us from what we have c0-Created. The solution is to be the leader – in conscious control of your own life your own Mind, your own Soul, your own Spirit, if nothing else – the System needs.
This, in part, is why I am such a strong advocate of est. I can not speak to what it has become – feminized, I think – but Erhardt started the original “Fight Club” philosophy, by forcing you to focus ruthlessly on the unexamined assumptions you allow to control your thinking, to control YOU, and realize YOU have the power with your conscious choices to rewrite the scripts you are trapped in.
That is why Harold Covington is so damn important. He entered the Hall of Funhouse Mirrors that White nationalism was, and broke the mirrors, seeing the only way forward was our own nation, our own state, on our own terms.
A New Church could go a long way towards defining the temporal foundation – networks of all kinds – for the foundation of the organic nation.
Of course, sending money to counter-currents each and every month is essential.
Has any progress been made in putting together a collection of Andrew Hamilton’s writings? While Hamilton’s work has its own style, I’m tempted to characterize his radicalism as Piercean, which is one of the highest compliments I can pay.
I have yet to formulate an approach. In a way, I’m tempted to write something more integrated than a collection of essays would be, though hopefully I would be able to incorporate a great deal of material from my CC writings in somewhat altered or rewritten form, to make the text mesh together smoothly. About the time I start focusing on the task, though, something else comes up, or the next weekly essay is due (purely a self-imposed chore on my part, though Greg initially suggested regular contributions to all CC writers).
But I won’t procrastinate forever. If I fail to come up with something in a reasonable amount of time, I will select either a cross-section of CC essays, or several that group naturally around some topical node, for a collection.
As to another point you raise (above), Pierce’s concept of the National Alliance, as you know, incorporated the time and resource dimensions you discuss. Another purpose was to supply an answer to Starets’ (first commenter above) perfectly legitimate and practical—but presently unanswerable—concern: “As always, I wonder what can I as an individual do? There has to be some meaningful way to resist the evil, but I haven’t found it yet.” The idea was for many individuals from varying backgrounds to pool their talents and resources through the organizational agency of the Alliance.
Whatever course you take with regard to a book, I think you should write something that develops your ideas on Jewish dominance.
It could be said that the Jews have mastered the black arts of social engineering in more than one sense.
In the context of hacking, social engineering involves manipulating people in order to defeat security systems. As Revilo P. Oliver showed in “What We Owe Our Parasites,” White people have many qualities of character and intellect that make them vulnerable to Jewish manipulation. The Jews know how to hack the minds of our people, and perhaps this is what gives them dominance over us. They’ve managed to get our people to disable their defenses by stigmatizing “anti-Semitism,” “racism,” “fascism,” and “prejudice.”
In the context of politics, social engineering involves the use of power to reorganize society, as is discussed in James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State. (A prototype of Jewish social engineering can be found in the “Old Testament,” which describes how Jews stole all the property of the Egyptians and uprooted them from their own land, until “a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph” — a wicked “anti-Semite,” no doubt — managed to put the Jews to work by enslaving them.) Your recent article, “The Racial Spoils System,” was particularly informative concerning some of the economic aspects of social engineering.
Here’s a quick suggestion. Your article “The Triumph of Communism” had a brilliant thesis and I would love to see it expanded into book form.
Andrew Hamilton,
I think that a book by you could be very helpful in identifying the premises on which a truly political anti-Semitism should be based, one informed by profound realism concerning both the Jews and our own people. You appreciate what’s involved and what’s at stake like few others do, and you writes incisively, forcefully, and concisely on these issues.
Of course, such a political anti-Semitism will not be popular. I think you’re correct to remark: “Most whites (indeed, most Gentiles of all races) are simply incapable, psychologically or emotionally, of dealing with facts about Jews.” I think this is true not only of those who are blinded or brainwashed by the Jews, it is also true of many anti-Semites. Even those who recognize that the Jews are in a war against us generally don’t understand the nature of this war and are therefore unable fight the Jews effectively. We’re dealing with something that’s profoundly alien to us.
White Republican,
In light of your comments and suggestions, I feel it is probably the case that I should write something about Jews, although, to be honest, I’d rather not think about them. Still, nobody else is doing it—we are at some sort of bizarre intellectual and moral nadir precisely when the subject should be front and center—and I have reflected on that weird people over the years because of their obvious central importance. If whites are unwilling to deal with this problem coldly, objectively, scientifically, and rationally, everything else is a waste of time, self-indulgent hobbyism.
I am also acutely aware, as you indicate, that such a book would not be popular, even among “white nationalists.” Still, what must be said must be said by somebody. And there is a case to be made that forbidden but true thoughts exploit a gaping hole in both the economic marketplace and the marketplace of ideas. In theory at least, it should meet an inchoate demand.
I would add to your comment about anti-Semites that the mere presence of “anti-Semitism” does not automatically lead to useful behavior. George Lincoln Rockwell wrote of his experience with aware conservatives in the 1950s who recognized the Jewish problem. They were not in denial like people today. But all they would do was whisper at meetings about “Eskimos” (their codeword for Jews)—nothing else. Such behavior is meaningless. I also know of a case where someone who was unquestionably anti-Jewish would have sold out his own family at the drop of a hat the minute the slightest real-world pressure appeared—behavior reminiscent of the victims of Communism. Truly, white reactions to Jews are inexcusable in so many ways. Yet this is the human material we have to deal with.
One “problem” (actually a positive for this writer) is the word limit. Greg wants comparatively short books. This provides some structure and guidance but also imposes limitations. Within the desired word limit one could not attempt anything like a comprehensive or extensively footnoted approach to the subject, which would at any rate be daunting and probably impossible. I don’t know if even a superficial overview is feasible. Probably only some aspect(s) of the problem could be addressed.
I was struck by an observation you made: “[We] should take a cue from Bertrand Russell’s remark: ‘The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.’ This is a far better approach than waiting for a heaven-sent leader to arrive or for the system to collapse.”
I think this is true, and applicable to pro-white thought generally. It is extremely hard to practice, though, since our real-world options are so limited, and becoming more so every day. There are few (relevant) historical analogies to look to for guidance. Moreover, I tend to share Revilo Oliver’s profound despair rather than Pierce’s healthier optimism. I will say, though, that Pierce never minimized the difficulties we face. That would have been lazy and self-defeating, since the utmost objectivity is required if we are to survive. We must be intellectually ruthless with ourselves, eschewing all of the fantasy self-indulgence, dishonest evasion, and easy-way-out thinking to which our race is so fatally prone, and which our enemies effortlessly exploit.
” I’ve never been analyzed, but I’m sure a psychiatrist would have a field day with me”
That, for me, was the ‘tell’. Not so much the sly reference to psychoanalysis — and the coy use of ‘analysis’ as if that were the only kind — but the self-deprecating. The Jew always presents himself as a loser — think Woody Allen. The naive goy buys his act, even sympathizes and wants to “even the score”. WWII, Christian Zionists, goyishe neocons, etc.
Polish proverb: “The Jew cries when HE hits YOU.”
Speaking of Woody Allen, consider Jewish “humor” as another area when their thought processes show up.
Just as the Jew despises physical labor — and laborers — so he despises physical comedy. The great silent –thus physical — comedians were goyim like Keaton and Lloyd. Of course, the MSM created and perpetuate the myth of the “great” Chaplin. You’ll note that he was the only one to make sound films — inane, sickeningly sentimental dreck where he gets to shoot his mouth off.
The Three Stooges are an anomaly — actually, they’re playing gentile day laborers, so it gives you a chance to see how they see us. But for this, the Jews shun them, endlessly disputing whether to claim them for the tribe, while the somewhat ambiguous Chaplin is always claimed.
Anywho, Israel Shahak noted that there is no trace of humor, or at least jokes, from the Bible until well into assimilation. “Jewish Humor” seems to be an artifact of vaudeville, no sooner. Hardly genetic! More like a tool of destruction. You’ll notice that whether it’s the Marx Bros. or the Stooges, the aim is to mock and tear down Aryan institutions.
Consider the ‘roast’. Who but a Jew could come up with such a thing? Insults as a sign of ‘affection.” Right….. As Don Rickles used to say, after insulting someone to their face, “But I kid. I kid, because I love!” They used their shabbos goy Dean Martin to get the idea on TV, but now ‘thanks’ to Comedy Central you can see the real thing. Jews [along with a few shabbos goyim like Lisa Lampasomthing, a supposedly “famous” comic no one heard of before, who specializes in self-deprecating ‘jokes’ about her lust for Negroes) pouring sewers of filth on goyim like Charlie Sheen or Pamela Anderson (examples of typical dumb goyim) or crypto-jews like Shatner.
Notice how Jewish comics used to be fey little imps like Harpo or Curly, then became “black” comics like Bruce or that guy with the newspapers, that you had to like to be ‘hip’ and not ‘square’ like their ‘persecutors’ in the Establishment, then now and then the mask would slip (Sandra Bernhardt: “Sarah Palin better not come to New York or I’ll have my black brothers gang rape her ass”) to now, when its just non-stop, in you face filth from the likes of Sarah Silverman?
Is there a single ‘comedian’ on TV who isn’t either a triumphal, sneering Jew/ess or a meek, placating White nerd?
Can’t agree about only Jews being the only ones to like vicious humor. The whole American lower middle class is full of it. You’re an Irish kid from Kansas City – you should know that.
Gentiles need to build up some resistance to this stuff. A bit of philosophical analysis goes a long way here. Just because a Jewish comedian can make us laugh about Jews being in control of the media has no relation to the truth value thereof. I can laugh if the comedian is good but not for a second doubt the fact that he is trying to make light of.
James J. O’Meara in blockquote:
“….or that guy with the newspapers…”
Mort Sahl.
Great insight-very true. The lovable losers who really want to control everything and bring it down to their own miserable level.
Remember that jews used to be a slave race. In many ways, psychologically, they are still a slave race. They have all the characteristics of a lower race (ugliness, hostility, hatred of hierarchy, disdain for aesthetics, etc.), only with a higher intellect. The reason why they hate Aryans is because we are their spiritual opposites. We create while they destroy. We are beautiful while they are ugly. We seek objective truth while they prefer faith, belief, and fanaticism. It’s not possible for these two races to peacefully exist. This is a cosmic battle between good and evil.
True, their battle against Aryans is not one of “self-defence” not even one of revenge for historical injustices, it is a battle against our very essence. That’s why they try to defile our arts, our women and our morality. Presently they are even engaged in our genocide with their campaign for mass non-white immigration and miscegenation. They would do that even if never in history they would have been persecuted by us. I consider these creatures as incarnated demons.
A common mistake in this age of identity theft is to declare Remember that jews used to be a slave race.
John Ch 8 is a discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees.
John 8:33 We be Abraham’s seed and were never in bondage to any man……….
There is no doubt as MacDonald has shown that the Jews are today’s alpha group but let us not be as sloppy or as careless as the modern Christian.
When the Romans conquered Jerusalem they brought back jews and marched them through Rome in chains. So yes, they were slaves, albeit briefly.
Philip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” is a story completely gutted of its most interesting elements for “Blade Runner.” DADoES is about androids–Jews. The Rosen Corporation makes them. Rachel Rosen is an android whose job it is to seduce the hunters of droids like Deckard and use their empathy so they won’t be able to kill droids.
Droids cannot participate in the empathic religion that humans can, via the Empathy Box. There is also a 24×7 culture of critique that “Buster Friendly and his Friendly Friends” churns out on the video–pure Jewish chatter.
When Dick was asked to dumb down the story for a version to come out with the film, he refused. We all know what “dumbed down” would be–gutted of its messages.
Consider the idea of a breeding program
From Patrick Buchanan: “According to two polls reported this weekend by the Jerusalem Post, Israelis by 7-1 do not want Israel to go to war with Syria. But two-thirds of Israelis favor the United States going to war with Syria.”
Are these Jews “unconscious” of what their preferences mean for America? Do they really “know not what they do”?
http://takimag.com/article/america_says_no_to_a_beltway_war_patrick_buchanan/print#ixzz2eVp30Die
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.