Psychopaths’ brains lack basic wiring that triggers compassion
1,364 words
German translation here
Jews have many unique psychological characteristics that render them radically unlike non-Jews. One quality Jews possess in one-on-one situations, and even group situations, is a keen sensitivity to the subtleties, nuances, desires, thoughts, and emotions of non-Jews. They can size up people of all races and interact with them extremely well. This is no doubt one reason for their prominent role as mediators and go-betweens.
When they desire to do so, Jews deal with all kinds of people, high and low, rich and poor, of every race, even the prickliest and most difficult personalities, with diplomacy, delicacy, and tact, patiently subordinating and concealing their own thoughts and feelings in the process.
Despite underlying callous indifference to the well-being of whites, blacks, Mestizos, Arabs, Asians, or anybody else—Jews are the most inhuman people on earth—they nevertheless engage more sensitively and intimately with individual members of all races and subcultures, even the most outré, than any of those people can with members of their own kind. But coldness and the instinct to dominate and manipulate lurks behind the seemingly caring and sympathetic façade. It is not insincerity in the sense we understand it, but a function of their bifurcated (two-track) minds.
I believe this ability to make whites—indeed all Gentiles—feel sympathetic and at ease is analogous to, though far more subtle and sophisticated than, the “winning personality,” “high levels of social competence,” and “socially dominant personality profile” psychologist J. Philippe Rushton identified among blacks. Of the latter he noted, “They are outgoing, talkative, sociable, warm, and friendly. Psychometrically speaking, they score high on the Extraversion personality dimension. They are also much less anxious, shy, and fearful than Whites.” (“Solving The African IQ Conundrum: ‘Winning Personality’ Masks Low Scores,” VDare.com, August, 12, 2004)
Following is a concrete illustration.
An American Catholic layman described a brief discussion he had in 2011 with the Israeli Ambassador to the Vatican after attending a speech the man gave in a Franciscan monastery overlooking the ruins of the ancient Forum in Rome.
During the question and answer period the Catholic asked a polite but pointed question about Israel’s harsh treatment of the Palestinians. Later, a Franciscan priest privately thanked him: “We can’t think that way. We are Catholics.”
Afterward, the Israeli ambassador, flanked by two armed bodyguards, approached the questioner and chatted him up about America, Laurel and Hardy movies, and other inconsequential matters. The Israeli was obviously sizing up the man, perhaps even ID’ing him in some way.
The racially naïve Catholic, who nevertheless possessed far more self-awareness than most Gentiles, wrote,
The strange thing is that, in those minutes of his speaking to me, I felt a genuine rapport with him. I rather liked him; in fact, I felt a kind of closeness to him, one that I did not feel when speaking earlier with the priest. The Ambassador’s belief system is alien to mine. His speech, both before us and the Pope, was obviously little more than a tactical exercise in an ongoing Israeli disinformation campaign. Yet, I felt nothing less than a genuine liking for that government’s official representative to my tribe [Catholics].
Why should I have felt more of a rapport with that man than with the priest who shares my beliefs about this world and the next? His friendly face smiling and his body language drawing me into his love for Laurel and Hardy, I noticed that part of my feeling of liking him was, yes, feeling a little sorry for him. He seemed likeable and vulnerable, unlike any Arab I had ever spoken to. I was warmed by his manner. An aura seemed to draw me into a strange cloud, induced to identify, emotionally and psychically, with the past suffering of the Jews and disposed almost not at all to consider worthy the present suffering of the Iraqis, the Afghanis, the Libyans, and the Syrians.
Some points to consider:
- The writer is unusually open, honest, and self-aware. Yet, his objective understanding of injustice does not dilute psychic and emotional identification with Jews, despite the fact that it is not reciprocated. This glaring asymmetry is irrelevant to Gentiles.
- Jews routinely go everywhere. The Israeli ambassador was proselytizing in an alien setting.
- The Israeli was accompanied by two armed bodyguards in a Franciscan monastery. This evidently did not provoke disquiet. The full security measures, I suspect, were multilayered, sophisticated, and extensive, provided by Jews, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Italian government.
- At least some participants, like the writer and the Franciscan priest, were aware of the callousness, self-centeredness, and untruthfulness of the propaganda, at least intellectually.
- Despite the grossly sinful and indefensible nature of Israeli behavior, the ambassador drew even an informed listener into his “aura,” his “strange cloud,” causing the man to identify psychically and emotionally with “the Jews” and their persecution myth, which somehow trumped the egregious, unending depredations they committed against others. One suspects that had the victims been white, they would have received no consideration whatsoever by anyone.
- The Israeli seemed “likable and vulnerable [!], unlike any Arab I had ever spoken to.” The man was “warmed” by his manner, even “felt a little sorry for him.”
- Jews are able to evoke such positive responses in Gentiles (including their victims) even while committing the most unspeakable crimes. This strange spell, like that cast over Winston Smith by his tormentor O’Brien in George Orwell’s 1984, causes Gentiles to suspend law and moral principle wherever Jews are concerned.
This strange, intangible, Svengali-like power is certainly a major source of Jewish dominance. Jews possess an uncanny ability to empathize with the Other, examine him closely and take his measure, understand and engage, even mesmerize him, without feeling the slightest genuine sympathy or compassion.
This disjunction between empathy (the capacity for participating in or vicariously experiencing others’ feelings, volitions, and ideas) and sympathy (genuine caring) is completely foreign to whites, who do not understand it and cannot cope with it in a healthy manner. For them, to empathize is to sympathize. In the English language the words are synonyms. It is quite different for Jews.
In this connection it is striking how often the process of targeting and destroying non-Jews involves establishing intimate personal contact with the victims (known in spy circles as “humint”—human intelligence), partly in an attempt to dominate, but mostly to coldly evaluate the luckless, overmatched target face to face. One wonders how Jews would fare in a conflict if they were deprived of this opportunity.
Sometimes Jewish community representatives or Establishment journalists are used. Frequently, however, an intimate Jewish friend, acquaintance, or colleague of the victim is recruited for the purpose. Sayanim-fashion, the formerly-independent acquaintance invariably agrees, Judas-like, to betray his Gentile “friend.”
That is how Eddie Jacobson, a former Kansas City haberdashery partner of Harry Truman, was approached out of the blue by organized Jewry in 1947-48 and asked to pressure the President into recognizing Israel, as well as provide personal access for more important Jews to strong-arm the chief executive and corruptly deliver money and votes to him (the carrot and the stick).
The ADL used David Irving’s Washington, DC friend, James Jacobs, an executive at NASA and expert on nuclear power, to surreptitiously gather personal information about the author in its decades-long campaign to destroy him. Jacobs happily obliged, as if cutting his friend’s throat was the most natural thing in the world.
According to a confidential 1977 ADL memo, Jacobs stated “that Irving is definitely not anti-Semitic . . .” This remains true today, despite everything the Jews have done to harm the author. It is the predictable, fatal, knee-jerk response by Gentiles to the Jews who intensely despise and persecute them. The relationship can only be described as sado-masochistic.
At any rate, Gentiles are deceived. They mistake Jewish understanding for sympathy, because in their minds sympathy and empathy go hand in hand. They care more about fictional Jewish suffering than they do about the most ghastly injustices perpetrated by Jews against others.
Formerly, whites entertained a stereotype of the “inscrutable Oriental.” Had they meant Jews instead of East Asians, the designation would have been apt.
44 comments
99% of the White race is incapable of understanding this, and more unfortunately, 99% of so-called White nationalists are incapable of working their way around it, even if they’re aware of it. Whites need to develop an absolutely stone-cold disposition towards non-Whites, especially Jews.
This is very interesting. This dichotomy of apparent Jewish self-representation and group adherence has struck me also. Whenever I have to deal wih a Jew (in a bank, for example), I am thinking about Israel, the ongoing vilification of non-Jewish white society, the blood-libel of holocaustism and the relentless warmongering coming from this alien race. The conclusion can only be not to trust and keep any interaction to a minimum. In particular it is advisable not to have Jews in one’s circle of friends. I suppose that this behavior has evolved during the ages the Jews chose to live within other people’s nations while at the same time live apart from them. This requires behaving deceptively so as to not cause antagonism in a situation loaded with tension as it were a compressed spring.
“Whenever I have to deal wih a Jew (in a bank, for example), I am thinking about Israel, the ongoing vilification of non-Jewish white society, the blood-libel of holocaustism and the relentless warmongering coming from this alien race.”
All Whites should think like this. When dealing with Jews we must constantly remind ourselves that they are not White, that they hate us, and that they want to destroy us. Sooner or later disregarding everything they say will become second nature to us.
Whites must immunize themselves against the opinions, perspectives, and arguments of Jews.
I don’t trust any jew. Not one, not even one who benefits me in the short term. If there are any Jews on our side then they’ll understand why it is we cannot trust them.
See every Jew as a soldier of an hostile army and you won’t go wrong. The same pertains to Muslims, but in their case it is almost literally so.
I’ve recently been doing a great deal of research on Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), the most basic element of which is a total lack of empathy for others, and I’ve been struck by the degree to which NPD seems to describe many of the “positive” survival strategies of the Jewish community. The funny thing is that many individuals with NPD effectively fool everyone around them, often for decades. While the disorder is characterized by a total lack of true empathy, Narcissists become master manipulators who often fool the vast majority of the individuals with whom they come into contact. Somebody like Bill Clinton, for example, displays many NPD characteristics, and it is these same characteristics that are largely responsible for his professional success. I’d argue the same is true for many Jews, and the entire community, with its intense self-involvement, could certainly be said to be narcissistic. Narcissists are often very successful, particularly today.
Along with lack of empathy, the diagnostic criteria for a Narcissist includes the creation of a “false self”, basically a false personality, or persona, constructed early in life and invested in totally. The “bifurcated” personality referred to by Mr. Hamilton seems quite similar to this concept. One could argue that the Jewish community has survived and thrived by learning to construct false selves en masse, which are then utilized to interact with outsiders.
I’m not so certain that it’s accurate to say that Jews actually “empathize” with others. It might be more accurate to say that they find social interaction to be fun, like a game, with each individual spoken to like a puzzle waiting to be solved. So it’s really more “sympathy without empathy”, than the other way around. Sympathy can be social (i.e., nothing more than words) while empathy must include true feeling.
All the texts say that true Narcissists, being consumate manipulators, learn early in life to simulate the appearance of empathy. I would guess that it is this simulation which the Israeli ambassador was displaying, as opposed to the real thing.
Many thanks. This is the best article on jewish behaviour I have ever read. I recognise the feelings of the American Catholic.
I consider myself a very jew-wise man but it happens often that I feel sympathetic to the jews when I read articles written in a special manner. Henry Makow is an example.
I remember how William Pierce once wrote that the only way to behave towards jews is to shoot on sight.
“… noticed that part of my feeling of liking him was, yes, feeling a little sorry for him.”
This is exactly my sentiment most of the time I have anything to do with jews. But my true feeling is that I hate those evil bastards.
I also feel sorry for most non-whites I encounter: blacks, arabs, asians, etc. Is there something wrong with me? Am I completely crazy?
“I also feel sorry for most non-whites I encounter: blacks, arabs, asians, etc. Is there something wrong with me? Am I completely crazy?”
Nothing is wrong with you. You are not crazy, you are White. Sympathy/Empathy is what we do. Often to our detriment. This article teaches us to recognize when this quality of ours may be working against us.
They may win some folks over at first with their guile, but they wear out their welcome as soon as their arrogance and deceit is unmasked – look how many enemies they make and how few friends they have. True friendship is based on mutual respect – they just don’t get it.
Thank you Mr. Hamilton, for expressing so eloquently the same conclusions I’ve gleaned from years of experiences with jews.
The jews are a feminine race. Otto Weininger, a jew, the author of “Sex And Character” realized this and it may have contributed to his suicide at the age of twenty one. Jews like women of all races are better at reading the faces of men, this has been shown in studies. Blacks have this ability too, but not to the extent that the jews have. It is the ability of either a symbiotic creature or a parasitical creature. We white men must understand this if we are going to successfully deal with non-whites. On another note, I am happy to inform Mr. Johnson that I will increase my contribution from $40.00 to $50.00 a month beginning 06/01/14.
Aryan men are the only true masculine force on the planet. They are the only light, the only true goodness. That is why they are targeted for destruction.
And I’m a woman, btw.
I am in total agreement with you. They are pretty cool especially when they drop the pretensions.
Jewish empathy is not sympathy. Jewish empathy is reconnaissance (psychological reconnaissance of the targeted victim that is). This is intelligent predator behavior.
Exactly, very well said. A race such as the jews which gave up its serf class centuries ago and have never had an agricultural/farming class can never be anything but predators.
One of the things that a lot of whites seem to be unaware of existing is that there always is an energy exchange between and among people. Because we have been so conditioned that it is nice to give and not receive, our energy gets drained by parasites or vampires who know how to do it quickly and silently. People often give their personal power away unaware they are doing so. Taking your power back requires a conscious deliberate effort. One way is to mentally detach as Walter explains above and not feel guilty for doing so. I knew this Jewish woman who seemed to be able to maneuver herself into any power position. She would approach one with great sincerity and concern and lots of sympathy ‘talk’. It was always on an emotional level. She oozed it. One day I just looked at her with complete indifference and she slunk away with a wounded expression on her face. The I Ching calls it ‘molts in the face’. Yes, it is cold and calculated, but it is also self-defense. One can call it mental hygiene.
I’m reminded of early movement literature about “Colonel” Mandell House and how he could “pump” thoughts into people’s heads.
Whites need to become far more inward. Typically we are very weak inside even if we seem or are strong outwardly. In any case, what does that strength matter if it’s not guided from within? If we aren’t in control of ourselves, someone else inevitably will be. The most important function that we need to develop is an inner watchfulness – that sees when we are not living up to our ideals or when we are being weak and taken advantage of. A review of ones actions at the end of the day is the way to begin. But it must expand to include feelings and thoughts. And finally it must become an awareness in the moment that can recognize seduction or hypnosis and reject them.
I can give you a very literal manual on how to accomplish this.
http://manhood101.com/ebook.html
skip the first section pay attention to sections II and III and you’ll get what I mean.
Rhondda, your message on the reality of energy exchange in human interaction might sound esoteric to some, but it is dead on correct. Thanks for bringing it up!! No one should go into an important interaction/transaction/debate,etc. with any group or individual, until they have done an internal check on their energy level. It’s a point that could be expressed in other ways, but you essentialy nailed it!!
Thank you.
I am ice cold with jews and blacks, and refuse to deal with them in anything other than the most superficial of circumstances. No exceptions.
Some may think this is unfair, but it is a philosophy born out of experience.
With all other peoples I give the individual the benefit of the doubt and go from there.
Generally speaking, though, living in multicultural America has given me a very sharp and jaded eye to human interaction and how to handle it.
Empathy without sympathy? Psychotherapeutic schizopathy (Classical Greek: Schizen = [to] split; pathein = [to] endure), also known as “professional detatchment.”
Very well written, and arriving at the same conclusion I have come to myself. Accept that they are there, minimize your interaction with them, and never, never trust them.
I have heard witnesses here in Europe help jews escape the germans during WW2. They said in the confessions afterwards that they would never do it again. The fact that they put their life on the line to save their fellow human beings, was recognized to an astonishing low degree. The jews travelled with all their belongings, which normally included a lot of cash that they did not always manage to hide. The helpers were hardly ever offered any compensation out of this.
Most Jews are very adept at dissimulation and compartmentalizing their hatred and loathing of white gentiles when dealing with them in person. This must be a survival trait they evolved to more successfully live among us in the diaspora. As Revilo Oliver remarked in “What We Owe Our Parasites”, a Jew can seem like an Englishmen in London, a German in Berlin, a Czech in Prague and an American in any US city.
This talent has made it most difficult for the majority of white gentiles to discern Jews as “the other” and as a mortal biological enemy.
I too am impressed with this article, but Coenradt (3 above) I fear may be confusing empathy and sympathy. The reason the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) individual is so manipulative is precisely because he does feel empathy: he understands what his target wants to hear, how to please him etc., and uses that knowledge to his own advantage. What he lacks is sympathy, that is, care or concern for his target. As another commenter said, “Jewish empathy is reconnaissance.”
Hamilton has I think made a psychological advance in distinguishing empathy from sympathy. I hardly ever comment on forums such as this but I would like these definitions to be adopted, hence this clarification. (I have had a similar problem with the definitions of psychopath and sociopath.)
Allouine’s comment (7) was interesting too. However I might add that, beside the feminine strategies they employ, Jews are competitive, and that’s a masculine trait.
Simon, welcome. These are valuable observations. The first, I hope, of many.
“The reason the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) individual is so manipulative is precisely because he does feel empathy.”
This statement is simply false. The description of NPD in the DSM-V is “A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy.”
“He understands what his target wants to hear, how to please him etc., and uses that knowledge to his own advantage.”
I agree that many Jews and all successful manipulators do this, but “empathy” is not the correct word to describe such an ability. Empathy is not the ability to “figure out” other people, and in fact has nothing to do with human rationality. What you are describing is a wholly rationalistic, analytical mechanism, essentially the ability to “psychoanalyze” in the Freudian sense.
To clarify, the distinction I made between empathy and sympathy is precisely the sort that Simon Sheppard describes. Therefore, my reaction to Coenradt’s remarks was similar to his. I almost posted a response to that effect, so that confusion would not arise.
The DSM’s criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder might well be as Coenradt describes, because he indicates he has been studying the subject in depth. However, the DSM’s specification of a lack of empathy in NPD would render it inapplicable in the strict sense to what I was getting at.
I own an older edition of the manual (DSM III), but did not look it up because I was not thinking about it. I was not attempting to make a clinical diagnosis of a disorder.
The meanings that I supplied in parentheses—“empathy (the capacity for participating in or vicariously experiencing others’ feelings, volitions, and ideas) and sympathy (genuine caring)”—are ordinary English definitions of the words. In fact, the one for empathy closely tracks a definition provided by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, because I wanted to be precise.
Are you the Simon Sheppard author of the “suppressed science” series of books? If so I want you to know I really like your work. I have the ” Big Sister: What Women Don’t Want Men to Know.” I am going to try to get all your books. I recommend Otto Weininger’s “Sex And Character” and Michelle Langley’s “Women’s Infidelity.”
Since we are on this topic and you seem to take great interest in these matters, may I recommend to you this book from a place called the Manhood Academy (yes I know, don’t laugh.)
manhood101.com/ebook.html
You can skip Section I and move straight onto Sections II and III and find some astounding revelations about social interaction. These are most certainly tools that can be used to defend oneself against the scheming, covert, “psychological reconnaissance” (great term) of the Jew, and various other manipulators.
Happy reading.
Jews were operating as minority money-lenders and slave-traders for thousands of years. Those professions don’t select for niceness.
What are the differences between jews and other semites?
I find arabs and others from the muslim/semite/north-african/middle east area to be very ’empathy without sympathy’ on a personal level. “Oberflächliche Herzlichkeit” I call it in, which means as much as superficial heartiness. The jews I have meet have always been neurotic and weak, but I always treat them with more of a cold shoulder and never give them the chance of day anyway!
Has anybody else made observations on how they differ?
Thanks for these astute observations.
There is only one thing… perhaps this is not the place…
I agree that there are certain characteristics that set the Jews apart from the rest of humanity (elaborated upon in this article) and that the Jews are responsible to a large extent for the decline of our civilization and culture. But in spite of myself I do not feel the same revulsion toward Jews that some others here seem to experience on a very personal level… maybe this is a “what if” moment (Juleigh Howard-Hobson).
Sorry for the random comment. I am a great fan of this website… I just wonder if there are any other readers who have ever felt uncomfortable around this issue.
The distinction, in common terms, is “get the sale, not the return.”
Tell the customer what he wants to hear to get the sale, then cut the phone line for complaints. “There’s nothing I can do.”
“Your Kampf is mein Kampf.” Sell workers’ communism, not the gulag; free health care, not shortages; public investment, not national bankruptcy; education, not indoctrination.
I see this at the marketing level, not the personal level.
If this skill is true, and I haven’t seen it to be true on a personal level, Jews are scary. Their personality puts your guard down against all reason, then it goes in for the kill. Ted Bundy, “My arm is broken. Give me sympathy, until I bash your brains out.” The Jew will put you in the “om-zone,” apparently. It’s like a fish with a worm tongue.
How do you deal with a Jew? Call a white nationalist with a ten-foot pole? Personally, I don’t imagine there’s a 7-foot Jew with a magic personality or a winning personality. I have never found one.
They want something you have. Stature and dignity. Always be the adult in the room.
Keep your head in the game at all times. Discount everything they say, and who they are, by 90%. That’s not hard. How many Jews are truly impressive?
I re-read all of the above and thought about it carefully. (Perhaps you will begin to appreciate why I post on forums so rarely.) This may be more a matter of semantics than anything else, but with an important psychological component.
First of all, when the word sympathy is used in a technical sense, e.g. in electronics, it means two signals are synchronised, or in phase with each other. So if we were starting from scratch, perhaps we would prefer to use ‘sympathy’ for ’empathy’ and ’empathy’ for ‘sympathy’ — completely exchanging them. Unfortunately, this is not an option. We may be forced in some circumstances to refine words, and even define new ones, but we still have to communicate our meaning to others. We risk becoming arcane, so such new definitions or redefinitions should be kept to an absolute minimum.
I seek above only to illustrate the semantic difficulties. Hamilton suggests ‘compassion’ as an alternative for ‘sympathy,’ which would perhaps be safer.
In our quest for first precision, then understanding, we are already operating under a handicap. We only have to note the widespread adoption of such nonsense words as ‘racism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ to illustrate how much Jews, using their domination of the media, control our language.
Even at the basic level of the word, orthodoxy can be wrong. I would point to the psychological term projection as a good example.
Assuming that others act or perceive similarly to ourselves is probably the single most important human mechanism (see the page ‘Basic Psychology 1’ on Heretical for a longer discussion on this). In orthodox psychology however, due to that great charlatan Freud, projection is ‘attributing one’s undesirable traits to another.’ But there is no fundamental difference between ‘I often lie so I think you are lying’ and ‘I tell the truth so I tend to believe that you are telling the truth.’ It is exactly the same pattern, the same mechanism. I call this projection, and the specific projection of undesirable traits ‘Freudian projection.’
Do you see how this most elementary psychological mechanism has been corruptly framed by its term, effectively forestalling our understanding of it?
As has Hamilton, I fell back on common English usage, and ‘projection’ has been loosely used in the sense I now formally apply the term.
Incidentally it is evident that females project more than males, but I have not yet arrived upon an evolutionary origin for this.
But to cut to the quick, get to the point, wind-up to the crux and draw to a close at last — considering all of the above, I find it entirely conceivable that it is DSM IV that is wrong, not us.
Jews understand what we feel (empathy), but they do not feel what we feel (sympathy). It is a perfectly intelligible distinction. It is a characteristic of all people who live by manipulating others: confidence men, pimps, etc. They have to read people to manipulate them, but if they could really feel what their victims feel, then they would not engage in exploitative behavior. The “golden rule” is meaningless to them, in a deep emotional sense. It would be interesting for Andrew Hamilton to review some of the literature on criminal psychology and sociopathy. I think it would throw light on the Jewish problem. But it strikes me that there is a significant disanalogy between Jews and clinical sociopaths. Jews are not incapable of sympathy with others. Their lack of sympathy and general misanthropy is a product of their religion and upbringing.
Jews are very well capable of sympathy (hence they are not clinical sociopaths), but only for their fellow Jews. You can see that from the many charitable organizations they have, but they are meant only for fellow Jews. If they show sympathy for non-Jews it is always simulation with a tribal alterior motive. This is the case with their socalled “sympathy” for the under dog, be it workers, Blacks, illegal immigrants, homosexuals etc. Their feigned sympathy for these groups is only used to undermine the power of the majority.
The whole moral and emotional universe of the Jews is aranged along tribal lines : moral behavior and sympathy for fellow Jews, but immorality and antipathy for non-Jews. This attitude already struck the Ancients. This is what Tacitus said about the Jews :
“…among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of humanity with all the hatred of enemies…”
As a small parasitic minority it is in their interest to understand the mind of their host population. This not only to be able to better exploit it, but also to anticipate their detection as parasites and subsequent expulsion – their worst nightmare. Empathy without sympathy therefore has become a survival instrument for these parasites.
I’ve come late to this discussion. It is very incisive and searching. It seems to me that the fine–and largely correct– distinction between empathy and sympathy carries implications for Europe’s struggle against the Jews that many here may not appreciate.
In order to empathize the Jew must in some measure act as an agent or accomplice of his associate(s). Which means that in pursuing his own narrower goals and interests he is also broadly pursuing the goals and interests of his current ally.
When those interests diverge to a significant degree a new replacement ally is acquired, the former ally having been discarded.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
The quote above encapsulates the Jewish modus operandi. But not only the Jewish modus operandi.
“At any rate, Gentiles are deceived. They mistake Jewish understanding for sympathy, because in their minds sympathy and empathy go hand in hand. They care more about fictional Jewish suffering than they do about the most ghastly injustices perpetrated by Jews against others”
Certain Gentiles may find that feigning sympathy for the Jews and pretending to be deceived by them is the perfect cover for practicing their own form of pathology.
Being clear-eyed about the Jew can lead to clarity about the Gentile (certain kinds in particular) as well.
Empathy has two stages: the first stage is recognition, the second stage is sympathy.
So defective empathy, where the second stage doesn’t trigger, makes for a very useful predator gene.
This trait isn’t unique to Jews, it’s simply that they have had a unique evolutionary history as a predatory mercantile minority and so this trait has a much higher frequency among them.
@Greg Johnson
“It would be interesting for Andrew Hamilton to review some of the literature on criminal psychology and sociopathy. I think it would throw light on the Jewish problem. But it strikes me that there is a significant disanalogy between Jews and clinical sociopaths. Jews are not incapable of sympathy with others. Their lack of sympathy and general misanthropy is a product of their religion and upbringing.”
I think this is correct. Jews are too cohesive as a group for the sociopath analogy to be exact.
However if we take empathy as two staged: 1) recognition followed by 2) sympathy then we can list the logical possibilities.
First we have the group that doesn’t recognize the signals. This is a separate issue.
What then are the logical reaction possibilities for those who do recognize the signals?
1) sympathy (the default case of working empathy)
2) nothing (no reaction at all)
3) reverse sympathy (pleasure from causing pain or distress)
Then there’s also
4) tunable sympathy
(4) would be what you needed to still feel sympathy within the in-group but not for the out-group
Alternatively tunable sympathy could be the default eg. no sympathy for someone who “deserved it.” In which case Jewish evolution wouldn’t be genetic but cultural. They evolved their culture of victimhood and covering up the crimes they committed against others as a way of tuning out empathy towards non-Jews.
Cultural sociopathy.
I think it’s a bit of both, 1) selecting against empathy and for sociopathy to a certain extent but you can’t do that too much or you lose group cohesion so also 2) cultural evolution selecting for maximum levels of “us and them” to allow the maximum tuning of sympathy levels.
This discussion has had quite a run! But probably the ‘law of diminishing returns’ applies. One thought I had, to summarise the distinction–
We might think of empathy as feeling (or sensing) with, and sympathy as feeling for.
This summary doesn’t conflict with my big reference dictionary, nor the above.
Yes, I’d like to thank everyone who participated.
The primary point is how radically Jews differ from Gentiles. This piece was an attempt to explore one facet of that difference.
I often feel like the frustrated protagonist in John Carpenter’s sci-fi movie They Live (1988). “Jesus, just put the sunglasses on and look!” Their own Orthodox rabbis prattle about the enormous gulf between us. Those men aren’t talking through their hats. Not only are they correct, they are obviously correct. My only beef is that they call evil good and good evil—exactly what their prophet Isaiah rebuked them for.
I believe if whites (or any Gentiles) could mind meld with Jews they’d experience an enormous shock.
At any rate, the stubborn refusal of most whites to think honestly, realistically, critically, or evenhandedly about Jews leaves a vast area of empirical reality open to examination by anyone intrepid enough to venture into it.
Once upon a time I scrambled to the top of a steep, tree- and brush-covered ridge in the middle of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. I was taken aback by the unexpected sight of miles upon miles of forested wilderness rolling away at my feet, without a sign of human life anywhere.
Intimidating yet tantalizing at the same time. So vast—with only me to see it!
re: ‘mindmeld…’ : I can & I did. Quite a shock to my system.
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.