Counter-Currents
1,799 words
Last week I wrote an article entitled “People Just Like You . . .” suggesting that Jews have a totally different psychology than Gentiles. One reader commented, “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 do they want us to die?”
This question was answered by William Pierce, founder of the National Alliance, in a 2001 American Dissident Voices broadcast called “The Scorpion and the Frog.” The online text of his radio speech, which I could still link to two years ago, has already disappeared in its original form due to the collapse of the National Alliance, its website, and electronic archives. An audio version can still be heard online elsewhere.
The stealthy disappearance of such important material forcefully illustrates how rapidly and consistently pro-white ideas vanish from social discourse, leaving no tracks behind for anyone to find, and become part of no permanent knowledge base. This, combined with continuous censorship and suppression, prevents meaningful group self-consciousness from forming or evolving in natural freedom-of-ideas fashion. It is only by successfully establishing a substantial, ongoing presence in World 3 (the concept of World 3 is summarized in the first four paragraphs at the preceding link) that human behavior can be influenced in a positive direction over time.
The Scorpion and the Frog
In 2001 William Pierce was a guest on the Bob Grant radio show in New York City. Grant told Pierce he didn’t understand why Jews would behave the way Pierce described. Why would they seek to destroy a society that had made them rich, powerful, and influential?
In his “The Scorpion and the Frog” broadcast shortly afterward, Pierce dealt with Grant’s question at length. “It was a very reasonable question,” Pierce said, “a natural question,” “the question that almost any intelligent, honest person might ask in those circumstances.”
When Bob Grant asked me that question, I wished he hadn’t. I knew the answer, and it is a simple answer, but it’s not the sort of answer one wants to give to people who are driving home through rush-hour traffic. It is simple, but it also is profound. One needs to hear the answer and then to think about it carefully . . .
The answer, in its simplest form, to Bob Grant’s question is this: Jews do what they do because they are Jews.
To illustrate his point, Pierce related the “the old fable about the scorpion and the frog”:
The scorpion wants to cross a stream, but he can’t swim. He sees a frog and asks the frog to carry him across on the frog’s back. The frog says, “No, I don’t trust you. I’ve heard about how treacherous scorpions are. I’m afraid that if I let you get on my back you’ll sting me.” The scorpion replies, “Why should I do that? That wouldn’t be in my interest. If I sting you, then we’ll both drown.” So the frog agrees to let the scorpion get on his back and begins swimming across the stream. Halfway across, the scorpion stings the frog. As the frog is dying and beginning to sink, he asks, “Why did you do that? Now we’ll both die.” The scorpion answers, “I couldn’t help myself. It is in my nature to sting.” And it is in the nature of the Jews to deceive and to destroy.
What Pierce says about the Jewish desire to destroy Western society applies equally to the question, “Why do they hate us? Why do they want us to die?”
I would add two further points. In destroying Western civilization and committing genocide against the “cancer of human history” as they call us, Jews are not destroying themselves as the scorpion in the fable did. They will move on to exploit others after they have finished the West off. From a rational standpoint it is doubtful that they are maximizing their self-interest by such behavior, but that is neither here nor there. They are motivated by insatiable greed and hatred, not reason.
Second, hatred is irrational. It is an emotion—in this case, an ungovernable one. Jews harbor murderous hatred for their victims. This does not make sense to Gentiles, or need to make sense to them. It is simply a fact.
Origin of the Parable
Pierce gave no indication of the origin of the fable, although he obviously thought it was “old.”
I immediately recognized a striking resemblance between it and an alleged Amerindian tale about an Indian brave and a poisonous snake told by Norman Vincent Peale in one of his books. He attributed it (reverentially, because he thought the source was the noble red man) to a Reader’s Digest article by Iron Eyes Cody. I checked, and the article by Cody did appear. The short 8-paragraph parable, which Peale reprinted in full, can be read online. “But You Promised!” was accepted by thousands of whites who learned of it through Reader’s Digest, Norman Vincent Peale’s book, and perhaps other sources, as an authentic bit of American Indian folklore.
It was while researching that story that I discovered that Cody, the star of the famous environmentalist 1970s propaganda TV commercial “the crying Indian,” was really an Italian American who falsely passed as Amerindian in both public and private life after moving to Hollywood, where he worked as an extra in motion pictures. His story, if examined objectively rather than politically correctly, would likely furnish useful insight into the rare phenomenon of white “passing,” as well as the widespread one of psychological and emotional over-identification with non-white races, since, unlike Jews who “pass” (among all races), Cody did not remain loyal to his own people. Moreover, the motives for his deception appear to have extended far beyond those of a simple con man.
It turned out that Cody’s tale was one of Aesop’s fables in disguise, “The Farmer and the Viper,” about a farmer who is bitten and killed by a snake he warms against his breast to save it from freezing to death. In the Roman fabulist Phaedrus’ version, the lesson is this: Don’t expect to be rewarded for altruistically helping the wicked—a lesson whites would do well to learn.
Arata Takeda, a Japanese professor in Germany currently with the Department of Germanic Studies at the University of Chicago, attempted to trace the origin of “The Scorpion and the Frog” and wrote a 2011 paper about it in German, “Blumenreiche Handelswege Ost-westliche Streifzüge auf den Spuren der Fabel Der Skorpion und der Frosch.” He failed to discover the origin of the tale, which actually appears to be modern in its current iteration.
The nearest he came was the discovery of a medieval story concerning a scorpion and a tortoise among the fables of Bidpai. In it, a scorpion asks a tortoise to carry him across a stream, promising to do no harm. When the tortoise discovers that the scorpion is trying to drive its sting through his shell, he dives and drowns the treacherous pest. (Another valuable lesson for whites.) Although many of Bidpai’s stories can be traced to the ancient Hindu fable collection the Panchatantra, no Sanskrit version of the scorpion/turtle story exists. Takeda believes it was introduced sometime during the 12th and 13th century AD in Persia. Anyway, it teaches a different lesson than does “The Scorpion and the Frog.”
Acknowledging Facts versus Understanding the Reasons for Them
To reiterate Pierce’s main point: “The simplest answer, which also is the most profound answer: Jews do what they do because they are Jews. . . . There is hardly a more important thing for any of us to do now than understand why the Jews are pushing our society over the brink of ruin, and then to oppose them by every means possible.”
Revilo Oliver said the following about concerted, long-term efforts engaged in by Jews, who slowly inject their deadly poison over long periods of time, generations in fact, thereby escaping whites’ shorter time horizons and becoming virtually invisible to them:
Aryans are apt to think most unlikely an operation of which they would be utterly incapable—of which they are, we must believe, genetically incapable, since their earliest records, in the Homeric traditions, the Norse legends, and even the Vedas, attest the great difficulty of maintaining an effective consensus within even compact and comparatively small bands for specific, immediate, and limited ends. It is a pernicious and perhaps fatal error, characteristic of our race, to assume that other races have approximately the same nature as ours.
The mistake most people make is to let their puzzlement over seemingly irrational motives interfere with their perception of objective facts. Although we may not understand the reasons behind certain facts, the facts themselves are clear enough as long as we do not let bafflement over motivation cloud our minds or, worse, deny what we see before our eyes.
Jews are aware of this mental quirk and exploit it. One ploy to deflect accusations of elite Jewish involvement in Communism that I recall was, “Why would wealthy or otherwise successful Jews support Communism? It makes no sense.”
This is analogous to Bob Grant’s question to Pierce: “I don’t understand. You said that Sumner Redstone and the other Jewish media bosses are deliberately trying to destroy our society. Why would they want to do that? They are rich and powerful and influential. This society has been good to them. Why would they want to destroy it? That doesn’t make sense to me.”
Victimized whites think, and are invited to think: “That can’t be true. It doesn’t add up,” because it doesn’t add up to them. The only way to correct this egregious error is to ask instead: “What is true? What actually happens in the real world?”
Jacob Schiff and Armand Hammer were wealthy, privileged Jewish capitalists who aided the Communists. Hollywood was full of well-paid, high status Jews who were Communist Party members, as were the administrations of presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. US Congressman Samuel Dickstein (D.-N.Y.), who played a key role in founding the House Committee on Un-American Activities to persecute American right-wingers (not Communists), was a paid agent of the Soviet NKVD. In Britain, book publisher Victor Gollancz was a Communist, and Baron Victor Rothschild of the fabulously wealthy banking family was identified in 1993 by six retired KGB colonels as the key to the Cambridge spy ring’s penetration of British intelligence. The ’60s generation of Jewish red diaper babies across the West came from the most advantaged backgrounds imaginable, yet were fanatical Left-totalitarians and terrorists determined to destroy the System that lavished so many privileges upon them at the expense of the native citizens. These are easily ascertainable facts.
One must consciously abjure sophistry and casuistry in favor of simply seeing facts.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
38 comments
Jews despise all non-Jews because it is in their nature, but I think what the commentator was asking was not why Jews hate “gentiles” but why they hate Aryans specifically, with such ferocity.
The reason is because only Aryans are capable of stopping the jewish quest for global domination. Only we are capable of understanding them, questioning them, and fighting them. There are plenty of Jews in Asian countries but no Asian country with a substantial Jewish population has ever given rise to “anti-Semitic” movements the way ours have.
eiszeit,
I think it’s kind of silly to debate over who the Devil hates the most and is his biggest victim. But if we’re to just look at objective facts as Mr. Hamilton is arguing here, then I think that the Arabs currently could say that they are the largest targets of Jewish evil. I have seen snuff films on LiveLeak of the Israelis doing things to the Palestinians in which they were gleefully, boastfully, sadistic, murderous, and cruel.
Over all of history, it is probably the Slavs, not Aryans (although I know there is some overlap) who have been the most victimized. The Jews both committed genocide against their best and brightest, wiped out roughly ten million of them, and sentenced the survivors to decades of horrid living conditions.
Perhaps they do hold a special hatred for Aryans, and I can think of a slew of motives for this. But the foggy nature of trying to parse through these motives, then thinking that I could never prove a motive, anyway, leads us right back to the point of this article: focus on facts, don’t ask messy questions about motives and why.
Hear! Hear!
Great points. I’ve noticed this too: Whites cannot imagine a Conspiracy since they would be incapable of keeping their mouths shut. And people are so conditioned now that the Elites don’t even need to keep quiet – people refuse to believe even when shown the words of the Jews or Bilderbergers themselves.
They hate us because we are the opposite of them, not because we are the most likely to uncover them. Other, harder peoples who are more like them understand them much more easily. The Muslims used to employ Jews but they sure as hell never turned their banking or foreign policy to them.
The Buddhists consider the lower mind as one of the senses. This psychology supports your suggestion of just accepting what is perceived even if not understood at the time. The lower mind is involved in organizing sense perception, not understanding per se.
Put a few things together here –
The fundamental tenet that all of the world’s wealth and resources belong to the chosenites and that the goyim are only temporary custodians.
These goyim (‘cattle’, ‘livestock’) are not really human at all, and indeed rank with all the non-human lifeforms – all to be exploited and ruled by the chosenites. Think in terms of a global plantation in which non-chosenites are exploited, harvested, abattoir’ed. Think also in terms of an in-group/out-group mentality which legitimizes any and all actions taken against the out-group.
The paranoic idea – but one central to pulling chosenites together both as an identity construct and for mutual protection under the rabbinate – that all goyim are actual or potential ‘anti-Semites’. Therefore, they are to be hated, and extermination is a sort of preventive strike, as also is any activity which serves towards undermining or destroying the host culture and society.
There is no mystery here. And none of the above has to even be explicit and/or consciously understood. It has become reflexive after five millennia of practice.
Perhaps not related, but I think very interesting are Mahatma Gandhi’s comments about Jews and the letters he wrote to Adolf Hitler. I became aware of these within the last two years.
Gandhi said “Jews don’t befriend anybody”, “they dominate everybody”. I found that fascinating coming from an Indian, whose country has virtually no Jews at all. But they were part of the British Empire, so I guess he was knowledgeable about British politics.
He also wrote at least two letters to Adolf Hitler, at least one of which was intercepted by the British and Hitler never received. I’m not sure Hitler received the other one either. In one letter he signed it at the bottom with “your friend” and he also stated “he” or “we” don’t believe you are the monster the press portrays you as. I believe he also criticized Hitler in those letters.
Gandhi’s grandson founded a peace organization in the USA that didn’t hesitate to criticize Jews. When the Jews became powerful in the organization Gandhi founded, one of them fired Gandhi and threw him out of the organization he had founded, accusing Gandhi’s grandson of “anti-semitism.”
In David Duke’s “My Awakening,” he uses the analogy of termites. They destroy your home, perhaps not intentionally, but destroy it nonetheless. Regardless of intent or rational, the result is to our detriment.
Star Trek: Voyager “The Fox and the Scorpion”
But here is the biblical version. There once was a man named Joesph who grew high in stature in Egypt and counseled the King. He had the Egyptians store some of their own grain for a foretold 7 bad years. When the years came, instead of just giving them the grain they needed, he first accepted gold for their OWN grain, giving some to his own people, the Jews. When the people ran out of gold, he accepted their cattle and lambs and goats for grain, giving some to his people, the Jews. When the people ran out of herds, he accepted their land for grain, installing his own people where the Egyptians had lived and took their houses and their ability to make a living in their own Country.
Finally, when the people rose up against Joesph, the Pharaoh asked him, why did you strip my people of all that they owned for their own grain which they grew themselves for bad times?
Joesph replied, “I couldn’t help it. I’m a Jew and it’s my nature.
So they drove him out.
Dear Lieutenant,
Tell me where in the Holy Bible where it says that Joseph was a Jew and I’ll give a $100 to the summer fundraiser.
Let’s see, walks like a duck, talks like a duck… The Quran doesn’t say that Mohammed was a Muslim or an Arab either. Hint: the book in question was originally written in Hebrew.
But the story of Joseph ended quite differently, no?
This is a clever examination in this area. There is a huge muzziness about this stuff, but Joseph couldn’t possibly be one of the Others until Moses went mountain-climbing. Joseph was subject to the worldwide moral code of seven commandments.
This same function of pushing things back (or forward) in time can be seen in a lot of areas. For example, WASP was first published as an insult for the diverse white Americans by political scientist Andrew Hacker in 1957, and at once a mini-industry sprang up claiming the term had been used before informally (as a way to push it back in time).
The term also began to be used in books after 1957 that were about political or social events in the USA from 1890 to 1955, just as thought it were in use back then. This pushing terms and labels backward and forward is a clever trick, and used in a multitude of ways. It is almost impossible to keep up with the perversions in our vocabularies here, there, and everywhere. It’s not a paranoia thing, but a lightweight brushing of a term over past histories does not mean it was spoken or thought then. It’s a toughie.
Dear Sandy,
Please post a copy of the receipt.
Be happy to! Starting in Luke, after telling of the baptism of Jesus and the commencement of his ministry, states, “He was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Heli…” and continues on until “Adam, which was of God.” Jacob, his father is mentioned prominently. This puts him in the line of the Jewish through his father people, thus a Jew.
It is secondly stated that in Matthew 1:1–17[2] begins the Gospel, “A record of the origin of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac…” and continues on until “…and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.”
You might possibly argue that Jacob was not in the direct line of Issac and thus not Jewish except for this passage; “Isaac died at the age of one hundred and eighty, and his sons Jacob and Esau laid him to rest in the Cave of Machpelah. Esau took all the wealth and movable possessions of his father and settled in Seir, while Jacob inherited the land of Canaan, as G-d had promised.” Joseph was Jacob’s second youngest son and “dearly Loved”. Raised Jewish and according to the laws and customs of the family at that time.
Obviously the Joseph of Egypt was not Joseph of Mary, but Isaac, the Father of the earlier Joseph is in direct line from Adam to Jesus, who was a Jew, whose parents were Jews, whose linage was from the Line and Tribe of Jews and who counted Joseph of Egypt and his father Jacob as amongst their founding members and the name is a name passed down only through the Jewish tribes.
I can’t get his Birth Certificate, but the fact that he is mentioned in the Line of Kings of the Jews is Proof.
Fair Enough?
Lt. Greyman, NVA
Thanks for the reply Lt. and good as it was it still doesn’t explain this modern mainia for turning everything Israelite/Israeli/Jews/Judah into “Jew.”
Joseph was Jacob’s second youngest son and “dearly Loved”. Raised Jewish and according to the laws and customs of the family at that time. I doubt very much that the Talmud was in existence in those days and that Jacob was a Talmudic.
I’m no scholar and as you are from the NW could I suggest that you do some follow up with your fellow North Wester Hoffman. http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html For the NVA to be out in front as you guys are I would suggest that your theologians brush up on Judah and his five sons. A study of the Sheelah boys, as the Irish would say, could be enlightening for your field division.
Between vet bills and saving for a trip I am a bit short at the moment and even though I don’t think you have proven they were jews I’ll donate the $100 to Counter-Currents summer fund raiser before the clock runs out as we are all paddling the same canoe.
A lot of time can be wasted on why Others do what they do, but in this case, my friends and I have a relatively long term exposure to some intimate details about the nature of the Others’ outrageous hostility & Big Lies, and their love of political drama & the anti-white narrative, and the answer lies in their religious ideology which has, over the centuries, become resistant to openness & honesty about themselves, and full of rage against themselves which they project against us. It goes like this (short version).
According to their religious ideology, all mankind was subjected to a universal moral code consisting of seven commandments, based on a covenant between God and Noah. In their understanding, all the white, black, red, brown, and yellow peoples are still bound by those laws. No kidding…we’re in that mix from their point of view.
A great trauma swept over them at a historical point, and it wasn’t the crucifixion of Jesus as Christians often assume. It was when they turned their back, at least symbolically, on God & the seven Noah laws, and sent Moses up the mountain (twice) to collect chiseled stones with the new ten commandments specifically to set themselves apart from humanity.
From a psycho-social point of view, this new law-giving was treason to the God who had already given seven laws to everyone, and it was the Other’s way of accepting the role of anti-human facing all the other people in the world separately whom they assume are still bound by the Noah seven laws. No kidding.
A bit of evidence is their claim that they own the ten commandments, and from their religious ideological point of view, they do, and they bitterly resent our appropriation of the ten commandments, the Old Testament (Torah), and their ancestors & prophets as property of the world.
So our general understanding has been completely upside down. They committed treason to God by rejecting the universal seven commandments, and the trauma has seared their bellies for centuries. The Old Testament reeks of this spirit after the Moses mountain climbing experience. All of which is to say that the birth of Jewry was a botched birth that maimed their spirits and bodies.
Consider the Roman Catholic priest who betrays God by abandoning his solemn vows to God, and walks away. We know that he bleeds in his belly every night of his “freedom” from his betrayal. The Others we are speaking about feel the same pain centuries after their treason.
But these guys are pretty skilled at conjuring great dramas for media to promote…consider the role of Francis Cohen who somehow infiltrated the white liberty movement in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and persuaded some white guys that it would be a wonderful idea to dress up in Nazi drag and do the March on Skokie. A march never happened, just a picnic in a nearby town, but the scandal and drama of the plans to march repelled all the natural white American leadership class by tainting white liberty with white treason. Just one Cohen triggered all that image making, and we’re still not over the psychic shocks of his making wartime enemies into heroes.
Cohen’s reward was to go to penitentiary for molesting three ten-year-old boys, so he got the treatment all around, but his legacy has tainted the white liberty movement ever since the 1970’s. Not a bad legacy for one man who has projected his self hatred onto us.
The Seven Noahide Laws are intended to govern the Gentiles who survive in a Jewish-run world. They are Talmudic laws to which the latter must submit. They trace back to Maimonides and are particularly promoted by the Orthodox sect Chabad Lubavitch.
The latter, and some other Jews, have established a movement of Gentiles, including whites and former Christians, who have already converted to such worship. In 1991 the Wall Street Journal reported that a Baptist minister and his congregation in Athens, Tennessee converted to the cult and removed the steeple from their church. They hauled it to the dump claiming it was a “pagan fertility symbol.” Instead of their former Wednesday evening prayer service, a Jewish rabbi instructed them on “Jewish thought.”
White people in this movement are psychologically similar to Iron Eyes Cody, though philo-Semitism is a much stronger draw for whites even than worshiping non-Jewish “minorities,” as can be seen from US and European behavior in the Middle East—brown and black people always take second place to Jews!
In March 1991 President George H. W. Bush issued a Presidential Proclamation (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=23514) and both houses of Congress issued a Joint Resolution (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.104.ENR: ) violating the so-called “separation of church and state” they impose upon Christians in order to honor Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson and endorse the Seven Noahide Laws. They falsely called their legal document “Education Day, U.S.A.”
This is very interesting and something I did not know. There is a book called Spiritual Warfare the Politics of the Christian Right by Sara Diamond. She discusses the churches that are increasingly becoming more militant and obedient to political authorities, the uses of humanitarian aid to convert followers in third world countries and other various nefarious actions via the media etc. It is probably a bit out of date as it was written 1989, nevertheless, I was hoping they would all get raptured by now.
Sorry Andrew, according to the earliest ideas in the Old Testament we see the seven laws of Noah established, theologically speaking, well in advance of Moses the law-giver and mountain-climber. The seven laws of Noah did not arise in Others’ literature during Talmudic times, they were in place in Genesis itself. You can find these seven laws in the earliest part of the Old Testament itself.
It is true that some have attempted to shine a historical light backward in time to make it seem as though the Others in some sense preceded the seven laws of Noah, but we are talking about their theological ideology and, interpret the order of times as they will, the seven laws of Noah preceded the ten laws of Moses which latter were the actual beginning of the theological ideological notion of Judaism under a variety of names.
For example, Abraham, Jacob, Ishmael, and all the Old Testament patriarchs after Noah were subject to the seven laws until Moses…there were no ten laws when they were hanging around. You need to flip the order of events to make it make sense. The seven laws are not Talmudic, although some of that strange literature seems to try to make Others the enforcers of laws they turned against.
Still, we believe that the root of the Others’ psychological freeze in rage at themselves may be understood at their betrayal of the former moral order…again in the light of their own religious ideology, not ours.
PS: Couldn’t help but notice that you used the word “Gentiles” in its capitalized formal form as a name. This is a name applied to us by Others more as an insult than a friendly label, and we really need to separate ourselves in all particulars from their claims. Its no better than shiksa and goyim. We are not their other.
The most important point is not the scorpion, it is the frog– our nature, to question, to give the benefit of the doubt, to refrain from grouping an army of frogs, dithering, etc., all things R.P. Oliver documents well –
KNOW THYSELF!
Exactly. Kevin MacDonald documents this well in “Culture of Critique”. The Northern European people survived by a degree of openness. With the Jews it was a little closer to the opposite.
It is not much of a conundrum why Jews seek to destroy ethnic European elites. It is because those elites are resource competitors. Jews are control freaks in the extreme and ethnic European elites not only get in the way of that, but remain a possible future threat. It makes perfect sense what they are doing and needn’t be described as an irrational reflex. I suppose the Jews figure they can make a compact with the Chinese elites, and maybe it is true, but it is risky. If the White race is blended out of existence in the main and the splintered remnants harried into shut-ins by state and street sponsored terror, my guess is the world will pretty much descend into perpetual mayhem. No one will trust the Jews because at some point the Jews must announce the revelation of the method in order to reap the benefits with the new demographic. They certainly can’t allow themselves to be identified with ‘the world cancer’ as they might get cut out themselves.
Yes. Can’t remember where, but there is or was a page where their internal discussion of how to ingratiate themselves into Chinese Culture was going on. Fascinating. So alien to our mindset. Can’t imagine the self image of people who think this way.
Apparently there were a few Temples in the Western China long ago. And of course a commercial presence in Shanghai since at least the 1800’s. They had also conducted some kind of poll which found that many Chinese were sympathetic to them because of how they had supposedly been treated.
Isuppose everybody has seen the notorious Barbara Lerner Specter video… recently there have been increasing news of antisemitic attacks on Jews in Sweden. So that’s an example of a scorpion-frog case for sure.
I’d also say that a lot of Goy-hatred stems from self-hatred and cultural envy. With many intellectuals there seems to be a “Revenge of the Nerds” element to it. Another reason certainly is their traditional “eternal victim” mindset, and that breeds a lot of hatred, and in return, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, antisemitism… and on goes the vicious circle, as shown in the movie “Defamation”.
… attacks by Muslim immigrants of course.
I don’t think it is hate. Their group strategy is to live in societies while remaining separate, biologically. It is in their group interest to keep group solidarity for the core ethnic group of a society suppressed. This way they get access to the upper echelons of society while remaining separate. Their high average IQ allows them to rise to the top of any society. If the solidarity of the core ethnic group is not suppressed then this access will be blocked.
Beauregard, are you dual seedline?
No. Just a guy with friends who try to make sense of the Big Lies we are taught. No doctrine.
Mr. Hamilton, in your previous article “People Just Like You”, which I read today, you used the word “Nazi” a few times. It is basically a derogatory term today. The proper terminology is “National Socialist”.
Yes, I avoided it until recently. However, David Irving uses the shorthand term “Nazi” regularly, and he’s far from being anti-German. It just seemed a bit easier, without imposing any real cost in terms of being a kind of enemy Newspeak you really have to be wary of. My first rule about Germany is to look at it objectively—I’m not a Jew or a Leftist, so anti-Nazism is not my cult. I’d rather know the facts. My second rule is to learn anything positive pre-1946 Germany has to teach us about race, Jews, who we are, and what we need to do to survive.
This article made me think of the book “Zur Erkennung des Hauptfeindes” by de Benoist. In order to act in a conflict, one needs to know who one’s enemy is. I don’t know whether this book exists in English, and I have never read it myself, but this idea of first recognizing the capital enemy has made me think about the problem of acting in a directed manner against the “enemy”- which after much reading and thinking I recognized more and more clearly as the Jewish spirit of destruction and amorality, and its major carrier and originator.
I have come to the conclusion of Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Pierce regarding the Jews: There is no deep and concealed reason for their behavior; they are what they are and were for several millennia, hence the very same fate they suffer always. It is possible that this time they overdid it and have no more recourse in the world, hence the frantic intensivication of the destructive work, both as an inner drive and the only end that may not be desastrous for them; however, unbounded passions and amorality have been unleashed in the process of destroying that which was the result of long historical developments. Even if far from ideal, it represented some modus operandi of parallel competing cultural developments.
The unleashed dogs of war against a whole race will eventually get out of hand; whether such an upheavel will still be in time to overcome the enemy is uncertain, and whether it will still be possible to save our world from its total destruction is another question. We are at this time not strong enough to cause any change quickly and this will not change as long as the lights won’t go out or the shelves empty in the stores.
Andrew Hamilton,
The following is a belated reply to your very last comment in “People Just Like You . . .” I would have replied to it earlier, but the comments were closed.
I think the Jewish problem qualifies as a “wicked problem,” as Peter J. Dunning and Robert Dunham define it:
“The simple problems are those in which everyone agrees on the problem definition and there is a power center that can implement the change. The complex problems are those in which everyone agrees on the problem definition, but there is no consensus on how to proceed. The wicked problems are those for which there is no consensus on the problem definition or on the solution approach, and partisan interests block collaboration.” (The Innovator’s Way: Essential Practices for Successful Innovation [Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010], p. 315.)
Dunning and Dunham also write (pp. 318-19):
“History tells us that resolutions of messes are likely to be disruptive innovations. The reason is that the paradigm (belief system) hosting the mess does not allow the new thinking needed to resolve the mess. Only a belief-changing innovation driven by an entrepreneurial mindset will succeed. This is why many in the throes of the mess feel threatened about the prospect of a solution. The solution may challenge everything connected with the mess, including social power structures and deep beliefs.”
People tend to view wicked problems with complacency or despair, as if they are normal or hopeless, and to view solutions to them with disinterest or disbelief. Even if proposed solutions to wicked problems are indeed correct, their correctness might not be easy to demonstrate or recognise, and many people will dismiss such solutions as mere theories and opinions. (Of course, it should be understood that solutions to wicked problems are in the nature of relative rather than absolute solutions.)
Implementing solutions to wicked problems require a collaborative approach, but it’s hard to get people to collaborate. In such situations, the most effective means of collaboration may be, as Dunning and Dunham suggest (p. 315), to “organize collaboration in a local part of [a] system, impose a structure, then spread the new organization to the whole.” It’s more effective to instruct a few than to exhort the many, to work with a known quality than an unknown quantity, to prototype or pilot something effectively and have others gradually adopt it than to demand that everybody adopt something at once.
Part of the problem is that there’s so much to do, but hardly anybody is doing anything, and it’s hard to identify what one can and should do. But some basic principles to observe would be: don’t try to reinvent the wheel, don’t try to do everything, focus on those things on which you can most productively apply your strengths, and focus on what’s truly important. And make the following words your nihil obstat: “Obstacles are placed across our path in life, not to be boggled at but to be surmounted.”
I think you can define the problem better than others. A good definition would be a good start. It’s probably impossible for any one individual to write a truly encyclopedic work on the real “cancer of history,” let alone devise a cure for it.
One of the problems in definition is that there are no clear boundaries. Where does the Jewish problem begin and end? To properly understand the Jewish problem today, I think one needs to account for what has been called “the system of treason,” to use the title of an essay by Éric Werner. I admittedly haven’t read this particular essay myself, but Werner characterizes this system by an inversion of values, behaviors, and loyalties, in which treason has become institutionalized, universalized, and banalized, and subversion has become “progressive.” (As Revilo P. Oliver wrote, “Treason is merely commonplace in the United States today.”) You have, of course, examined this system in various ways throughout your articles.
“One of the problems in definition is that there are no clear boundaries. Where does the Jewish problem begin and end? To properly understand the Jewish problem today, I think one needs to account for what has been called “the system of treason,” to use the title of an essay by Éric Werner.”
An interesting approach, but one which delays actually doing something. All one has to do is to identify a falsehood, a trait, or an enterprise that supports the Others’ work or livelihoods, and combat it explicitly or implicitly as a way to undermine their power.
One example would be to circulate the slogan, “They don’t tell the truth,” or some such which would create buzz. And it’s true…there is literally no way to trust their public pronouncements.
Another example wold be to combat the purchase of blood diamonds. That is a topic (like the campaign of marketing of furs) which would militate against their incomes, and “blood” attached to any topic would stir interest. And it’s true.
Another example are the loathsome “roasts” that they promote…stitching some elements of these pieces could produce a film that would make people throw up and reject the persons who put this things on.
Running around screaming “J-J-J” (which is not what you proposed) is not going to work, but attacks along the margin would chip away at the Others’ influence. Defining the “clear boundaries” just postpones doing something.
We’ve seen interesting variations on the theme in San Francisco where someone wanted to put an issue on the local ballot banning circumcision and that exposed the Others’ hand & power.
We’re seeing right now panic & anger about Obama seeming to want to keep the military out of Syria…everyone in the nation with a TV set who understands even a small part of the Others’ role in our wars has to be taken aback by the virulence with which they are out front and almost all alone pushing for war. Even Jane Harmon defended the loss of civilian lives in a US missile attack on Syria by saying, “They’ll die anyway!” Just another Madeline Albright. So opposing wars around the Mediterranean Sea, the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean would help to expose their willingness to send our children to die in their wars to destabilize their neighborhood’s state structures.
Then there is the Others’ meat-butchering, chicken-swinging, anti-Palestinian abuses, and costs added to your food bill for costs associated with trade marking food especially fit for the Others to eat. Our society is jammed to the brim with small items that are un-American or anti-social or special treatment. Just point a finger, develop a way to attack, and go to work.
Beauregard,
In the comments above, I’m addressing the Jewish problem at one level, and you’re addressing it at another level. I’m addressing it at a theoretical (“big picture”) level, and you’re addressing it at a tactical level of activism. I think these approaches should be complementary, but there’s only so much that one can address in a single comment. In these matters, both the division and the combination of labor is needed. We shouldn’t oppose theory to action, or theorists to activists. We need theory and action in these matters to be much more focused, purposeful, and effective than at present, we need a much higher ratio of activist work to theoretical work, and we need activist work to be properly informed by theoretical work (in the way that strategy, tactics, and intelligence informs the activity of an army).
William Pierce said that “if we don’t look at the Jews specifically, if we don’t try to understand them as Jews, then we can never really understand what is happening to our race and our civilization. And if we don’t understand what’s happening, we’re much less likely to be able to change things for the better. We need to understand the process, and in order to understand the process we need to understand the Jewish role in it — because it is the key role.” I think that we need to understand the Jews in these terms.
I don’t think that drawing attention to the big picture means making things more complex than they really are. We’re in a war with many fronts with a powerful, protean, manipulative, deceitful, and tenacious adversary. The Jews have embedded themselves in our political, economic, and cultural life, and have effectively colonized large parts of it. If we don’t understand the Jews as Jews, they will defeat us. Their wiles might not work on clear-sighted anti-Semites, but they will work on others (perhaps the majority of our people), and it is through these others that Jews will exercise their mischief.
Of course, it is imperative to actively oppose the Jews. There is no shortage of targets. The question is, what are the best targets to attack, and what is the best way to attack them? What is the best way to conduct campaigns against the Jews? I think such campaigns against the Jews need to be informed by an anti-Semitism which is both radical and political, which has no illusions concerning the Jews or our own people, and which is of a long-term, continuous, and dynamic character. The front is everywhere and the war is total.
I don’t know what you’re referring to when you mention “the loathsome ‘roasts’ that they promote.” And are you referring to the De Beers cartel when you refer to blood diamonds?
White Republican,
Thanks again for your comments. I copy your statements and re-read them. Probably some sort of definition of the problem, or sketching some key aspects of it, is what I must aim for. It is incredibly complicated.
I definitely classify the Jewish problem as a wicked problem. With the deaths of Wilmot Robertson and William Pierce we are left with vast complacency: Jews are normal, not the problem—indeed, the problem is anything but Jews. Which means failure and racial death if nothing changes. It is highly irresponsible behavior.
With their unconscious genius for self-description in the epithets they hurl at others, it’s easy to see that the cancer cells latch onto preexisting cells and literally transform the social body, resulting in the “system of treason” of which you speak, or Yockey’s “culture distortion.”
With regard to the statement “Obstacles are placed across our path in life, not to be boggled at but to be surmounted,” William Pierce once said something very similar in an ADV broadcast (I believe), but with a slight twist that made a huge impression on me: “Life is about overcoming problems.”
I had never thought about it that way before. (I would perhaps modify it to the more modest, “Life is about ceaselessly trying to overcome problems.”) The only philosophy I had seen assumed happiness to be the objective. But that’s a will-‘o-the-wisp. I think the two gentlemen had it essentially correct against the conventional philosophers on that score.
You mentioned recently that you are “relatively young,” and have frequently alluded to ideas you consider pursuing in your own writing. Take it from one who knows: time flies, time flies, time flies. It’s best to do it while you’re young (writing, or anything else a man can do that should be done).
Jewish historian Barbara Tuchman once said: “Research is easy [or fun—for me it’s both], writing is hard.” That perfectly sums up what it’s like for me, and perhaps for others. In his interview with biographer Robert Griffin, Pierce likened doing his weekly ADV broadcasts to an old cartoon he’d seen. A man had a writing assignment to do, and there was a little figure on each shoulder whispering in his ears. The angel figure said, “Go ahead, get it done” while the devil figure countered, “Aw, take a break, go out and have a brew.”
Researching the huge granite block that is the Jewish problem is fun—you always learn something new that no one else in the world even wants to think about. But trying to carve something out of it, to release some form inherent in the stone, well, that’s something else entirely. That’s work.
Andrew Hamilton,
I’d have to agree with you that there’s widespread complacency about the Jewish problem. Such negligence might be characterized as criminal, and it might well be fatal. It’s as if there’s no political dimension to contemporary anti-Semitism.
The quotation I used in my previous comment is from the James Murphy translation of Mein Kampf: “Obstacles are placed across our path in life, not to be boggled at but to be surmounted.” In his speech “Our Cause,” William Pierce noted that Schopenhauer expressed a similar attitude: “The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer expressed essentially the same idea when he said that the very most any man can hope for is a heroic passage through life. Greatness, in other words, instead of happiness, is the mark of a good life.”
I agree with a key point of your article above, namely that we must see things as they are, and not in terms of our own sensibilities or our sense of logic. Nevertheless, I sometimes find this hard to do. I remember reading one of Hervé Ryssen’s books dealing with Jewish messianism, and feeling that “this can’t possibly be right, this doesn’t make sense.” Despite my hostility towards the Jews, and despite the quantity and quality of Ryssen’s documentation (his works make extensive use of contemporary mainstream Jewish sources), I still found myself in a state of incomprehension. At times the penny can be slow to drop.
Douglas Rushkoff’s remark in a documentary on the Protocols of Zion is a good example of the boundless conceit, malice, and hubris (in a word, chutzpah) of the Jews:
“The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody — to every race, to every nation, to every idea — is that we smash things that aren’t true. We don’t believe in the boundaries of nation-states, we don’t believe in these individual gods that protect individual groups of people; these are all artificial constructions, and Judaism really teaches us how to see that. In a sense our detractors have it right, in that we are a corrosive force. We’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real . . . and that’s very upsetting to people.”
How many goyim think or behave like that?
When I read such statements, I sometimes think of Revilo P. Oliver’s remark: “It is always hard to estimate what significance should be given to the utterances of diseased minds.” Given the ubiquity and power of the Jews, the answer is often “a lot.”
So no other mention of Kevin MacDonald in these posts. He is the one person who has come up with a direct answer posed by this article. The cause of their hatred is evolution. The Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy is the result of a hereditary line that has helped the Jews preserve their own genetic integrity, otherwise they would be absorbed into the mass, like they want for everyone else.
In addition, you might want to look for the Insturation Magazine article “What Can the Jews Do for Us?” I found it very useful as a an explanation of the problem to the common man.
He has come up with a direct answer, but is it the definitive one you imply?
I liken the problem to scurvy. When Europeans began routinely making exceptionally long sea voyages, the mortality rate among sailors from scurvy was horrendous. An English ship’s doctor in the mid-1700s did a controlled experiment (I have read that it was the first controlled medical experiment, but am not certain about this), giving fresh fruit to part of the crew and regular rations without fruit to the rest. This virtually wiped out the dread killer among those who received fruit.
Even so, it took something like 45 years for the scientific community to accept, and the admiralty to routinely dispense, fresh fruit aboard all ships to essentially eradicate the disease.
This was a huge advance in scientific knowledge and the betterment of human conditions. It was tangible, worthwhile, highly useful information that was long used to practical effect.
But the disease was still a black box. Why did fresh fruit prevent scurvy? Not until the 20th century were the mechanisms of the disorder scientifically elucidated: the disease was caused by a lack of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in the diet.
“It’s their nature” is analogous to the discovery that fresh fruit could eliminate scurvy. It is extremely useful information—if it is understood and employed.
But the Jewish problem still remains a black box, and it is necessary to keep searching for underlying mechanisms, which remain hidden. The evolutionary psychology hypothesis is an attempt at a vitamin C-type explanation. Sam Francis wrote a sympathetic review of MacDonald’s work, but doubted that evolutionary psychology supplied the answer. Meanwhile, we have the important practical information we need, if we will embrace it.
But the Jewish problem still remains a black box, and it is necessary to keep searching for underlying mechanisms, which remain hidden
I would suggest a search of our respective Holy Books for the answer. A few thousand years of history and applied theology might offer a few more clues. As a wit once said, “You don’t enjoy football because not knowing the rules of the game or who the players are you can’t follow the game.” Same goes for those underlying mechanisms.
At the very least religion is one more tentacle of the octopus with which we struggle.
Wow. Watching that crying Indian vid was like being put on a ballistic missile fired back into my childhood. Freaky !
Also, please allow me to complement (add to) your The frog and the scorpion fable: A most delectable piece by Jean de LaFontaine entitled “Le chien et les chacals” :
Le chien et les chacals
Du coquin que l’on choie, il faut craindre les tours
Et ne point espérer de caresse en retour.
Pour l’avoir ignoré, maints nigauds en pâtirent.
C’est ce dont je désire, lecteur, t’entretenir.
(Roughly :
” Of the pampered, one must fear their tricks,
And hope not for kindness in their midst”
(Not a bad little improv translation, if I say so myself).
It’s in old French, it is stunningly beautiful, and extremely race realist. In the part about “their odor precedes them by leaps and bounds” , LaFontaine was not talking about four-legged creatures.
– Arturo
crimesofthetimes.com
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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