Bicausalism


Armor, a commenter in another thread, said:

“The way you use the word monocausalist reminds me of how Hunter Wallace liked to divide the white nationalist scene between the vanguardists and the mainstreamers.”

It’s because, perhaps, I have not been clear enough:

1.- Monocausalists – Most of the commenters at Age of Treason, and people like Dave Duke whom I deeply respect. These people believe that there’s but one cause of our woes: the subversive Jews. For instance, Tanstaafl here, in late Summer 2007, quotes himself:

Isn’t it absurd that anyone would even think to blame Christianity or WASPs for the rise of PC and its catastrophic consequences? Isn’t this in fact a reversal of the truth? Hasn’t the rise and spread of PC eroded the power of Christianity, WASPs, and whites in general? Blaming them is in effect blaming the victim.

Yes, there are Christians, WASPs, and whites who have fallen for the PC brainwashing. Yes, there are some who have taken it so deeply to heart that they work to expand and protect it. That’s the nature of PC. That is its purpose. To control the minds of the people it seeks to destroy. The left, at its root, is all about destruction.

You don’t have to be an anti-Semite to notice where these ideas originate from and who benefits. But you do have to violate PC to say: Jews.

For strict monocausalists, “there is nothing wrong with whites.”

2.- Bicausalists Type A – Those who, like Greg Johnson, Alex Linder and some commenters at Linder’s VNN Forum, believe that Jews are the primary cause of our woes, though there are other important factors as well. Unlike Tanstaafl, these bicausalists also blame our parents’ religion. For instance, Johnson recently commented against Christianity at Counter Currents and last Saturday Linder briefly discussed with Carolyn Yeager the role of Christianity in debilitating the Aryan mind when dealing with the subversive tribe.

3.- Bicausalists Type B – Those who, like Tom Sunic, Manu Rodríguez and I believe that there’s something seriously wrong with us, extremely wrong actually. Whites’ mental issues (which include a Calvinist type of Old Testament Christianity that conquered North America) are the primary infection, and the Judaization of the West, a secondary infection (like AIDS / pneumonia, etc).

A popular image to visualize this later type of bicausalism would be through the archetype of Isildur, a character of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.

Armor said:

“Now of course, if White people were naturally as aggressive and prone to violence as the Arabs, their society would be harder to penetrate for the Jews…”

But ethnically we were even more aggressive and prone to violence than the Arabs (who became sand-niggers with time). I trust you have read my controversial entry on Portugal, where several of my sources agreed on the fact that in the first centuries of our era the Iberian Goths burned at the stake their fellow Aryans that dared to mix their precious blood.

Pace Duke, James Edwards, Yeager and so many white nationalist Christians who have been saying “Happy Easter” in the white blogosphere these days, Christianity changed all that, and not only in Iberia: something that they’ll never acknowledge.

We need a new generation of nationalists who, unlike the conservative Spaniards of today (whom I find intolerable by the way) or of yesterday (silly burners of heretics instead of dispatching the miscegenators) leave universal Christianity behind.

(This entry was expanded on April 27)

MacDonald and psychiatry

Discussing in a radio show with Carolyn Yeager the horrific Connecticut killings perpetrated by Adam Lanza, Professor Kevin MacDonald, who in addition to his studies on Judaism is familiar with child psychiatry, said:

I am in favor of biological psychiatry and in the understanding of all of these mental disorders in a biological manner.

In other words, like virtually all psychology academics, MacDonald is grossly misinformed about this subject.

Biological psychiatry is a pseudo-science insofar as the etiology of mental disorders is not somatogenic but psychogenic. I wonder if MacDonald knows that there’s an entire journal by professionals in mental health, Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry that aims to debunk the claims of biological psychiatry. (For my own take on this very subject, see my paper that took years of research, “Unfalsifiability in psychiatry and licit drugging of white children”.)

In the interview MacDonald also said:

I don’t think we can really understand what is going on in his [Lanza’s] brain.

This confusion of the “mind” with the “brain” is pandemic too among the brainwashed, that is, almost all American society. MacDonald seems to ignore that the mind is not the brain, and that we can commit heinous acts, say killing children, with perfectly normal brains (though our souls must be rotten to the core).

Those psychiatrists that blame the brain for any mental disorder and try to fix it through physical means are similar to a hypothetical computer technician who claims there is no software—only hardware—, and always tries to fix the computers’ viruses of his clients by messing the mother board with his pliers. “Never use an antivirus if the software doesn’t exist.” The fact that in humans the “software” does indeed exist escapes the brainwashed individual. Again, see my paper linked above. It demonstrates that psychiatric bio-reductionism is as unscientific as the methods of this hypothetical computer technician (Greg Johnson corrected some of my syntactic inaccuracies of that paper).

MacDonald said:

His mother should have put him [Lanza] into a treatment facility… She seemed to be aware that he had severe problems. She apparently quit her job to be with him all the time… She knew that he had these demons. Well, if she had taken him into a treatment facility and if there would be good psychiatrists there they would not leave him out on the street. I do think that a lot of people have to be confined… In the old days we used to put [homeless people] in psychiatric hospitals.

There are no “good psychiatrists” in “psychiatric hospitals” for the simple reason that psychiatry is as pseudoscientific as, say, parapsychology or UFOlogy. MacDonald’s statement is also very common in his profession but is plagued with so many errors of judgment about both mental disorders and the psychiatric profession itself that I wish that my whole book was translated to English to be able to link it now!

Suffice it to say that when I lived in Marin County in California I interacted a lot with white homeless people, most of them perfectly sane. I wonder if MacDonald and his colleagues can see that living on the streets causes severe mental distress and not the other way around: that so-called schizophrenics end up homeless? Furthermore, unlike the ubiquitous Hollywood stereotype, people labeled as schizophrenics are, according to statistics and my own experience with these people, not more violent than non-schizophrenics.

In another part of the interview both Yeager and MacDonald stated that the anti-psychiatric ideas that deinstitutionalized the mental hospitals were promoted in the 1960s by the Left. While it is true that at the other side of the Atlantic typical anti-psychiatrists like Ronald Laing and David Cooper were leftists, in America the foremost critic of psychiatry, Tom Szasz, who incidentally died earlier this year, was not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination. What’s more, deinstitutionalization was in no way caused by Szasz’s views, who never had any power whatsoever in institutional psychiatry. Deinstitutionalization in America’s 1960s was a matter of social policy; of federal economic interests vs. state interests.

More to the point, Lanza’s monstrous actions are probably the result of having been victimized by an extremely abusive mother: the most heretical hypothesis in the mental health professions today (as heretical as saying in the academia that “Whites also have ethnic interests” or that “Hitler was not that bad after all”). However, I cannot explain the trauma model of mental disorders here, only link to a brief section of my book of what a psychiatrist, whom incidentally I once visited at his Dallas clinic, says about that model.

Briefly, if Lanza’s mother destroyed Adam’s mind society should have committed her, not the victim as MacDonald advised. By committing the original perpetrator, Adam Lanza would have felt socially vindicated and no pathological displacement of his rage on innocent children would have occurred.

But society assaults the victim instead. Through the mental health professions society makes a massive effort to obfuscate the fact that some parents produce the most horrible form of mental hell in a child’s mind. This blindness is precisely what drives the society, as explained in my book, to “re-victimize” a child who already was victim of maddening parental abuse. The psychiatric re-victimization is performed by means of an insulting psychiatric label together with psychotropic drugs and/or involuntary commitment: a blame-the-victim, soul-devastating action that often increases the chances of driving the child mad.

In my writings I speak of “the trauma model” to contrast it with the pseudo-scientific “medical model of mental disorders,” a medical model that MacDonald subscribes (“I am in favor of biological psychiatry and in the understanding of all these mental disorders in a biological manner”). Although the trauma model explains severe psychoses, it can also be used to explain comparatively lesser forms of mental distress, such as neuroses. Those who would like to visualize how engulfing mothers—and I am talking now of cases far less serious than Lanza’s—often drive the child into explosions of rage can see my essay-review of a silly bestseller authored by a junior whose father made a fortune in the Big Pharma.

The Führer’s way is the only way

Or:

Niflson responds to Linder

Last month during the second hour of Carolyn Yeager’s radio show, Severus Niflson convincingly rebutted Alex Linder’s libertarian stance against fascism and, although Niflson didn’t mention it, I believe his critique also applies to Greg Johnson’s “New Right” philosophy.

I cannot write shorthand, so forgive me the errors in the following transcriptions of the interview. Specifically addressing what Linder wrote, Niflson said that he, Niflson, is a militarist; and that we cannot have a State without centralization “because it won’t function.”

After a peroration on political sciences, Niflson rephrased Max Weber’s definition of the State: “The State is simply a territory with the monopoly of power,” that is to say, the monopoly of the use of force. Yes, the government runs the State but is not the State.

After Niflson mentioned Bakunin’s critique of Marx he responded to Yeager’s question about clarifying his previous statement:

herrmann_die_fahne“I believe in the esthetics, and I believe in the morality, and I believe in the functionality of military power and of a militarized State. And of course: our ancestors did it historically. Even the modest tribes had basically a war chief, the monopoly of force. The culture of the tribe would be militarized [emphasis in Niflson’s voice]. Everything was focused on making spears, making knives, making swords.”

Using the words “structure” and “hierarchy,” he added that “a glorious thing to do is a militarized society,” and that every State worth of something was militarized; even Bismarck who was not a military guy dressed like one. We never made statues to laypeople but of knights on horses because that’s the only way a nation can defend itself. And there’s the rub:

“Militarism requires strong centralization in the sense that you require the government to focus militaristically on values of marshal heroism.”

That’s why, Niflson added, we are attracted to the military esthetics of National Socialism. After an input by Carolyn, Niflson claimed that libertarians wanted:

“A civilian society of consumers and basic chronic relaxation—in other words: America.”

This, even though the US used to be far more stoic in the past. It is making now a transition toward a bourgeoisie civil society where:

“Civilians make every decision; civilians think everything; civilians decide everything and militarism is related to fighting wars that civilians decide should be fought.”

And it’s far worse today since not even civilian Anglo-Saxons but Jews are ultimately deciding which war must be fought. Nevertheless, Niflson added:

“You cannot have a society without the mechanism of war. Libertarians tend to forget that without militarist ideology you cannot survive—especially us [nationalists after the ethno-state is formed] who will be attacked by everyone.”

And he added that in an ethno-state even the engineers and the architects would wear militarized uniforms because “everything they do they do for military objectives” —i.e., we will have to fight to survive for a long time.

“Every male would have to be ready to pick up a rifle and fight. Because I am a militarist I cannot agree with this naïve libertarianism, which is somehow Utopian—this idea that without a centralized State we can survive.

I have always said that the dynamics of power require structures of power, and the structures of power are militarism. Successful nations are militarized; that’s the truth.”

Keep in mind Egypt, Mesopotamia, Athens, Sparta and Rome. An hypothetical nation of anarchists would easily lose before an organized nation of fascists in a war between the two nations. After Carolyn wrought the subject of Linder’s views again, Niflson added:

“It’s because he is thinking in a non-military context. He is thinking like a civilian. Most of these libertarians believe in pluralism, because we live in a pluralistic society. But at least in the first hundred years we won’t have the luxury of being pluralistic at all.”

Which reminds me of course what the Führer said so clearly during his intimate table talks. Niflson continues:

“We will have to be single-minded, highly structured, hierarchical—and militarized—to be able to survive. We can’t be pluralistic. We can’t have multiple groups bargaining for power in your own nation state…”

This evokes Johnson’s plain antipathy toward NS-like totalitarianism as a template for the coming ethno-state.

“…because the State is the monopoly of the use of force. And that means that others will have to submit.”

After another comment of Carolyn, Niflson added:

“This country [the US] is a civilian democracy of lazy welfare queens. It is a nation of consumers—fat consumers that all they want is to be entertained and satisfied…”

That’s why they don’t want to live in a dictatorship, but be free:

“…inject themselves with garbage; get drunk, etc. These are the types of liberties that are desired.”

After some minutes Carolyn brought back the subject of Linder again. Niflson answered:

“The only effective way is to grow and centralize Federal power; grow and centralize, grow and centralize.”

I guess he said this to confront Linder’s idea of mere “White mania” after whites win their right to an ethno-state, insofar the State would go:

“…after your children, put in them a rifle and say you’ll fight today.”

Linder’s idea—and I’d add Johnson’s stance against genocide as well—is a fantasy because in a new civilization everything is about war; in a federal world these libertarians (or New Righters) won’t have any say on it, no participation in the power of the State. Niflson then satirizes these ideologies:

“I won the war [the creation of an ethno-state] but I’ll make myself weaker. I’ll go for communes and people will run these communes; they will have chickens there.”

Carolyn then made the insightful remark that in the US everyone is afraid of collectivism, that they are even afraid of the word “collective.” But in the past of the US the people had a collectivist vision. Not today adds Niflson, because:

“…people are retreating into their homes, retreating into their fantasies and they don’t want to come out.”

If we are in a middle of a war and a successful nation has been built, the whole point is not “to be a Man” (to use Linder’s term) but simply to win, and that just cannot happen in a pluralistic society insofar as every child will have to be indoctrinated.

Niflson echoing Michael O’Meara:

“Every nation has a myth. The population will grow with this myth and this myth will become reality.”

Though we can speculate about the coming myth, no one knows it because it is a myth that will develop in a given moment. In one of his last thoughts about libertarianism, Niflson added that the majority of us are libertarians, but that it is a delusion because we are all living:

“…under an invisible tyranny: the tyranny of entertainment and consumption, because we are basically forced into our homes; we didn’t want to get out.”

And that fantasy-world is precisely the tyranny, the Matrix that controls us: a fear of the real world.

New approach to the holocaust

Himmler_advert


If there’s a moral of the story on the recent debate at The Occidental Observer about the so-called “holocaust” that can only be that most white nationalists are cognitively immature. I find it scandalous that I was the only one who linked Greg Johnson’s piece as an important article, as can be ascertained at the bottom of the TOO article (5 trackbacks to “Dealing with the Holocaust”): four trackbacks to this blog and the other one to my nationalist blog in Spanish.

One example of such immaturity is Carolyn Yeager’s recent podcast “Should White Nationalists leave the Holocaust alone?”, where the possibility that millions of Jews could indeed have died as a result of the harsh treatment they received in the Third Reich is not even considered as a remote possibility.

Just contrast most of the nationalists’ dogmatic stance on the “holocaust” with the intellectual trajectory of David Irving, who a few years ago acknowledged that at least more than two millions of Jews died in the camps (source, National Alliance News):

According to an article in the extremist leftist Guardian newspaper in Britain, historian David Irving has backtracked on his earlier views about the Holocaust myth and now accepts that the Nazis engaged in mass extermination of Jews in certain camps.

Irving says that his views on the Holocaust have crystallized rather than changed. He says that he believes the Jews were responsible for what happened to them during the Second World War and that the “Jewish problem” was responsible for nearly all the wars of the past 100 years: “The Jews are the architects of their own misfortune, but that is the short version A-Z. Between A-Z there are then 24 other characters in intervening steps.”

He says that a document, which he is 80% sure is genuine, suggests that 2.4 million Jews were killed in Poland, but goes on to claim that the gas chamber at Auschwitz was fake. “It was not the centre of the killing operations—it has only become a focus because it is the site that is best preserved. Much of what is shown [to] the tourists there is faked postwar—watchtowers, even the famous gas chamber.”

He added: “In my opinion now the real killing operations took place at the Reinhardt camps west of the Bug river. In the three camps here [Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka] Heinrich Himmler’s men (mostly Ukrainian mercenaries) killed possibly as many as 2.4 million in the two years up to October 1943. There is now nothing to be seen of the Reinhardt camps, neither stick nor stone, so few tourists go there. I have visited all four sites earlier this year.”

Pressed as to whether this change undermined his previous stance, Irving replied: “It is a crystallization of my view.” Asked if he now accepts there had been a Holocaust against the Jewish people he said he was “not going to use their trade name.”

He added: “I do accept that the Nazis quite definitely, that Heinrich Himmler, organized and directed a program, a clandestine program, for the liquidation of European Jews… and that in 1942-43 alone over 2.5 million Jews were killed in those three camps.” He added that Hitler was “completely in the dark” about the program.

This of course doesn’t mean that Irving is guilt-tripping whites for what happened in Poland. Like me he’s only concerned with facts and honesty.

I find it pathetic that this holocaust guilt could have been overcome decades ago by simply pointing to the fact that the Jewish Bolsheviks started the genocide by killing more White civilians than what Himmler did with the Jews as a prophylactic response. If the astronomic amount of time spent by nationalists and non-nationalists in researching paranoid conspiracy theories like 9/11 would have been spent researching real historical facts, like what happened in the Gulag under Stalin’s willing executioners, the tide could have been turned in our favor long ago.

I look forward for a new generation of nationalists who leave behind “holocaust” denialism, 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories, monocausalism and even their infatuation with rock music and degenerate, Jew-controlled Hollywood films (yes, this includes Nolan’s silly Batman trilogy that presently is being hysterically praised in some nationalist blogs).

Alex Linder today

Listen to today’s interview: here

On ostriches and real men

Greg Johnson on the Holocaust:

1. White Nationalists need to deal with the Holocaust just as we need to deal with the Jewish Question in general.

It is futile to focus on White advocacy alone and ignore the Jews. Quite simply, the Jews will not return the favor. You might not pick Jews as the enemy, but they will pick you. You might wish to see Jews as Whites, but Jews see themselves as a distinct people. Thus they see any nationalism but their own as a threat.

2. It is futile for White Nationalists to ignore the Holocaust, for the Holocaust is one of the principal tools by which Jews seek to stigmatize White ethnic pride and self-assertion. As soon as a White person expresses the barest inkling of nationalism or racial consciousness, he will be asked “What about the Holocaust? You’re not defending genocide, are you?”

The Holocaust is specifically a weapon of moral intimidation. It is routinely put forward as the worst thing that has ever happened, the world’s supreme evil. Anybody who would defend it, or anything connected to it, is therefore evil by association. The Holocaust is evoked to cast uppity Whites into the world’s deepest moral pit, from which they will have to extricate themselves before they can say another word. And that word had better be an apology. To borrow a turn of phrase from Jonathan Bowden, the Holocaust is a moral “cloud” over the heads of Whites.

So how can White Nationalists dispel that cloud? We need an answer to the Holocaust question. As a New Rightist, the short answer is simply this: the New Right stands for ethnonationalism for all peoples—what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism.” We believe that this idea can become hegemonic through the transformation of culture and consciousness. We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers. Thus we retain the values, aims, and intellectual framework of the Old Right. Where we differ is that we reject Old Right party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.

The idea of ethnonationalism is true and good, regardless of the real and imagined crimes, mistakes, and misfortunes of the Old Right. Thus we feel no need to “deny,” minimize, or revise the Holocaust, just as the New Left felt no need to tie its projects to “Gulag revisionism.”

The above are only the first paragraphs of a long article at The Occidental Observer. I would recommend reading it all: a sound answer to, say, Carolyn Yeager’s stance on the Holocaust.

However, I must take issue with Johnson’s “We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers.” Besides the fact that lots of Jews were very probably murdered in the Second World War the following is what, like the ostriches, most nationalists are still unwilling to see:

1. The dollar will crash soon

2. With all probability the crash will cause high-rocketing unemployment, riots, looting and eventually famine in some places

3. Unlike New Orleans after Katrina, the tension won’t be solved soon after the crash. On the contrary: racial tension in the most ethnically “enriched” cities will escalate throughout the US

4. To boot, in due time the racial clash will converge with a peak oil crisis that, by the end of the century, has a chance of killing the surplus of worldwide population created as a result of quixotic Christian ethics (“Billions Will Die—We Will Win!”)

The reason I believe that most nationalists’ reactionary, non-revolutionary stance hides the head in the sand is because in the coming tribulation very few will care about “totalitarianism, imperialism or genocide” as the bourgeoisie of today care. With all probability, during the convergence of catastrophes nationalists will be ruthless survivors committed to the 14 words and no more to Christian ethics. As I put it elsewhere, “the future is for the bloodthirsty, not for the Alt Righters.”

Granted: Johnson’s piece is otherwise excellent, a must-read for conservative nationalists who are still struggling with guilt and anti-white sentiments inculcated by the tribe. But unlike Johnson and the other ostriches I agree with Mark that the situation for our people is so dire that, with the help of Mother Nature, only a scorched-Earth policy has any chance of success. This is why these days I am reproducing, and will continue to reproduce, the articles of William Pierce: the only intellectual who has dared to write openly and unabashedly about exterminationist pro-whitism—exterminationism with or without the help of Nature.

Even those nationalists who very strongly disagree with us on moral grounds ought to open their minds. They have closed minds because they still have to live for decades in a city plagued with non-white swarms and almost no whites (as I have). You must open your minds about the coming collapse of the dollar and the subsequent peak-oil crisis. Please take your heads off the sand! After all, any of this could potentially unleash a racial crisis of truly biblical proportions even considered as an independent factor. I believe Guillaume Faye will be proven right: the convergence of catastrophes will mark “the metamorphic rebirth of Europe or its disappearance and transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.”

Johnson and the rest of nationalists who are unwilling to see the storm that is coming are like the tender-hearted women who lie weeping and mourning, awaiting the results of the coming fighting in Jacques-Louis David’s Oath of the Horatii:

We on the other hand are like the three brothers expressing loyalty and solidarity with Rome before battle, wholly supported by the father and willing to sacrifice our lives (and millions, if not billions of other lives) for the good of our people.

White suicide since Alexander

A comment by Franklin Ryckaert:

It would be nice if a person with the talent of a Prof. MacDonald would write a trilogy on the problem dealing with:

1) The innate psychological characteristics of Whites (individualism, abstract idealism, universal moralism).

2) The influence of Christianity and its secular outgrowth of Liberalism (inversion of values, altruism as the only form of moralism even to a suicidal degree).

3) The Jewish exploitation of both.

Central to the weakness of Whites is what I call naive inclusivism.

It is naive because it not only believes that all non-white peoples can and want to become like Westerners, but also that including them in Western societies will lead to a Utopia instead of racial suicide.

This naive inclusivism is as old as the European expansion outside Europe itself:

• Alexander the Great wanted to include all peoples of the Middle East in his Hellenistic ideal, even initiating miscegenation with them.

• The Romans included all non-European peoples in their Empire bequeathing Roman citizenship to all who they thought deserved it. They even had one time an Arab emperor (Philippus Arabs).

• When the Western European peoples began to colonize the world, they made the same mistake. The Spaniards and Portuguese miscegenated with the natives of their colonies on a mass scale and later also with their imported African slaves.

• The Dutch miscegenated with the Indonesians and accepted their mixed offspring as “Europeans”.

• The French accepted educated Blacks, the so-called evolués, as their equals. France doesn’t keep statistics about its ethnic and racial minorities because it considers them all as “Frenchmen”.

• Only the British kept aloof from the natives in their colonies and didn’t allow them to immigrate into the white settlement colonies or Britain itself. But that has now radically changed, the British having become the most extreme both in terms of immigration and miscegenation.

We simply cannot ascribe this suicidal behaviour to Jewish machinations, rather it is the age-old inclination of Europeans to include the whole world in a universal ideal. You aptly describe Jewish destructive influence as an “epiphenomenon”; it couldn’t function as it does without the above-described preconditions.

Tanstaafl and Carolyn Yaeger refuse to acknowledge this basic fact, ascribing its recognition to “treason”. Self-criticism hurts, but it is absolutely necessary.

An exchange at TOO on monocausalism

Luke said…

“Our problem is us, not the Jew. The Jew is weak in and of himself, for he is totally dependent on his White slaves performing outside their character. He has only the strength we give him.” —Franklin Ryckaert

This sounds suspiciously like a Jared Taylor style proclamation. May I suggest that the TOO [The Occidental Observer] readers, and Brother Ryckaert visit this link and peruse what the blogger Tanstaafl has coined “The Suicide Meme” and what Tanstaafl’s views are of those who push it?

http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2010/05/suicide-meme.html

Incidentally, I would be last White to try to deny that there exists an incredible amount of White racial cowardice throughout the vast majority of the non-White Nationalist, still asleep, White community. I have seen this disgusting cowardice up-close, and it is truly sickening to behold.

However, I do not support the idea of letting the jews off the hook for the mess we find ourselves in today. For those so inclined, would they also make excuses for a doctor whose patient just kept getting sicker and sicker, the longer the doctor handled the patient’s health care?

These “sick” and racially gutless Whites that most of us on TOO encounter in our lives—are the way they are, because of jewish media brainwashing, which is reinforced via academia, via our treasonous anti-White alien hijacked government and via just about every major area of our jewish corrupted society. Their only real fault was not being immune to jewish spider venom, the way most on TOO readers seem to be.

I encourage all TOO readers to review Tanstaafl’s “Suicide Meme” and absorb its implications and message. I found it to be excellent.

Franklin Ryckaert said…

Luke, this discussion about the question of “guilt” is going on Carolyn Yaeger’s new website The White Network in the comment section of the program “Are White Males Hooked on Weakness” with comments by me, Chechar and Tanstaafl himself. Tanstaafl blames everything on the Jews and even has asked Chechar whether he is himself a Jew or partly Jewish simply for suggesting that Whites might be partly responsible for their own predicament. On this latest developments, see Chechar’s website The West’s Darkest Hour article: “Are monocausalists Paranoid?

My position is that Whites have some unique characteristics such as individualism, abstract idealism and universal moralism [emphasis added] that can be exploited by alien ethnocentric groups, especially in times of degeneration. This has to be understood by Whites themselves. Many however refuse to consider a change to White ethnocentrism. Of these Whites one could say that they are indeed suicidal. Even without Jews such Whites would fall victim to other ethnocentric groups. To fight the Jews we must be strong ourselves and that entails an honest taking stock of our own weaknesses.

Chechar said…

Re: “Our problem is us, not the Jew.” —Farnham O’Reilly

More important that the post you mention are my series of articles criticizing “monocausalism”. In one of them I advanced a definition of the JP: “The Jewish Problem is an epiphenomenon of the deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values.”

Franklin Ryckaert said…

Chechar, Tanstaafl has reacted to your articles on his own blog Age of Treason on June 22, 2012. He seems not to understand.

The problem with Tanstaafl, who is definitely gifted in other respects, is that he is incapable to see the difference between guilt tripping (by Jews) and honest self-criticism (by Whites). He thinks that self-criticism by Whites is nothing but interiorized guilt tripping. Then he proceeds to proclaim the total innocence of Whites (as if that is possible): Jews are the only ones who are guilty of white decline, anyone who suggests that Whites have a responsibility of their own is telling a lie. He calls that the “suicide meme”.

Fact is that Jews cannot practise their destructive dominance without cooperation of Whites. Fact is also that Jews couldn’t exploit certain weaknesses of Whites if they didn’t have them in the first place. As for guilt tripping, Whites have committed crimes during their history. That cannot be denied. Only, their crimes are not unique to them.

Tanstaafl cannot think in terms of a combined causality, for him there can be only one cause: the Jews.

Chechar said…

I am afraid that you are right.

“There is NOTHING wrong with us”.

This is monocausalism in a nutshell: an actual quotation of a commenter in Tan’s site not long ago.

When you study the Whites’ ethno-suicidal tendencies in historical contexts sans Jews (e.g., how the Catholic Spaniards mongrelized their race in the Americas since the 16th century or how after Constantine the Romans destroyed the libraries of their Classic World—a “self-lobotomy” as Carl Sagan put it), we simply cannot claim that all of our issues are to be laid on the feet of Jews. I find it amazing that some people don’t want to see something so obvious.

Franklin Ryckaert said…

Yes, and people with such a self-righteous mindset tend to become paranoid. That is why he suspected you of being a Marrano. To his mind that could be the only explanation.

Carolyn Yeager said…

Franklin, you are misrepresenting Tanstaafl’s views. He is not a “monocausalist”. That is not his word or his position. That seems to be Chechar’s word for something he disagrees with. [Chechar’s note: In fact, Tanstaafl seems to subscribe to what commenter Helvena said in Tan's blog: “There is NOTHING wrong with us”: a perfect definition of monocausalism by a “single Jewish causer” himself]

It would be correct to state that Tanstaafl’s main focus is on the Jews, not on white guilt or white faults. Tan has opened a lot of people’s eyes to the Jewish strategy and to Jewish interlopers. I can’t see that that has anything to do with paranoia.

Chechar, you quote Farnham O’Reilly as saying “Our problem is us, not the Jews.” That is supposed to solve everything? Because O’Reilly says it, it must be true? That is too simple. People are imperfect, including White people. Are Whites supposed to be perfect paragons of virtue, as you present yourself, in a way? Jews have taken advantage of White characteristics and right now hold ALL the power. White confidence needs to be built up, not torn down.

Franklin Ryckaert said…

Carolyn Yeager,

Tanstaafl may of course chose himself the subject he wants to concentrate upon. For him that is the JQ and he is doing a good job at that. I found especially his exposure of the insincere motives of so-called “pro-White” Jews like Lawrence Auster very clarifying.

But there are always two sides in a conflict. I never saw a conflict in which one side is totally “guilty” and the other side totally “innocent”. Whites do have their faults and weaknesses. They had better face it and try to mend their ways instead of always complaining being “victims”. That is not undermining self-confidence, it is strengthening of character.

Of course this is something different from the (mostly Jewish) “guilt tripping”, which is a psychological tactic to disarm Whites in order to make them accept their own dispossession. Guilt tripping, based on real, exaggerated or invented guilt is meant to destroy not to build.

Self-criticism is meant to restore. To point that out doesn’t mean that you are in the enemy’s camp.

Junghans said…

Very well stated Franklin, my sentiments as well. With all due respect to both Carolyn and Tanstaafl, (who I highly regard), the poisoning of the Anglo/White mindset is both internal and external, and that is what we need to recognize. This issue has been discussed before at this site, in an article by Kmac [Kevin MacDonald] about whether our genetic demise is ‘racial suicide’, or ‘assisted racial suicide’. The general consensus was that it was both. [emphasis added] The racial interlopers have discovered our foibles, and are ruthlessly compounding and exploiting them. The mega-question here is: finding the psychological key to unlocking these enigmatic, innate White racial character faults, and to come to grips with them.

Carolyn Yeager said…

“The racial interlopers have discovered our foibles, and are ruthlessly compounding and exploiting them.” —Junghans

That is exactly what I said.

“The mega-question here is: finding the psychological key to unlocking these enigmatic, innate White racial character faults, and to come to grips with them.”

This has already been done. But our White character is not something we need to, or can, change because Jews exploit it. We are good people and our character is important to who we are, and all that we have accomplished. What we should come to grips with is those who are exploiting this.

This “debate” over “monocausalism” as it’s being called, has only confirmed for me that we need to educate our people about the Jews much more than we need to blame ourselves and try to make ourselves better. I’m seeing that Tan is right when he says that this is just one more Jewish tactic to take attention off themselves.

You, for example, want to spend time and energy looking for a “psychological key” to unlock our faulty nature in order to fix ourselves. A fool’s errand. However, if you’re talking about ridding ourselves of homosexuality, pornography, alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addictions, and other such vices, I’m for that. But who injects these vices into our societies? Let’s start with getting rid of them.

Junghans said…

Carolyn Yeager: A Fool’s errand? Hardly. Please re-read what Franklin wisely wrote, and calm down a bit.

Studying our own people’s nature is essential in understanding who we are, how we think and how to enlighten and motivate our alienated folk. In my experience, considering the apathetic White people that I encounter daily, and the greater historical experience, I’d say that we face a titanic struggle in trying to save these credulous, intellectually toxified people from themselves. Why, indeed, have they foolishly let themselves become domesticated as a de facto Jewish colony? A Golem for Israel? And, worse yet, remain clueless about it! Where is their sense of critical analysis? Why have they let their weak racial radar become deactivated by the Jewish usurped media? Why, indeed, why? I believe that even Kmac recognizes this dilemma, is currently researching this White psychological enigma, and is likely to write another paper on it. [emphasis added]

Regarding Jewish culture distortion, revisionism and the JQ, I quite agree with you. By all means, keep the major focus on these critical problems. I never implied otherwise. By the way, Carolyn, I still like you and your outspoken grit, and do listen to your broadcasts. I wish that there were more ladies like you out there.

Chechar said…

This “debate” over “monocausalism” as it’s being called, has only confirmed for me that we need to educate our people about the Jews much more than we need to blame ourselves and try to make ourselves better. I’m seeing that Tan is right when he says that this is just one more Jewish tactic to take attention off themselves. —Carolyn

I don’t know what this means, since as a relatively newcomer to WN (by the end of 2009) I learnt everything about dismissing the single-cause hypothesis from well-known WN writers, who for obvious reasons cannot be accused of “one more Jewish tactic to take attention off themselves [the Jews]”.

Here’s a quotation from my June 21 blog entry that caused all of this debate (links omitted so that this comment doesn’t get stuck in the filter):

Niflson is not alone speaking out about the character flaws of present-day whites. If I wrote for this blog the articles criticizing monocausalism it’s because notable people moved my train of thought toward that direction after Michael O’Meara became disenchanted with the webzine Counter-Currents:

1) Tom Sunic for one has been openly dismissive of monocausalism in his radio podcasts.

2) Michael O’Meara’s best 2011 article at Counter-Currents dismissed monocausalism as something silly and quite stupid.

3) Many of Harold Covington’s radio rants convinced me that, although the subversive Jew must be named, something horribly wrong—“yellow dogs” is one term used by Covington—is going on within the character of today’s Whites.

4) Hunter Wallace has been contradicting monocausalism for at least two years at Occidental Dissent. Although I disagree with his claim that America is run by blacks (I believe that Jews are far more influential) I have quoted some of his recent pronouncements on monocausalism, which Wallace calls “single-cause hypothesis.”

5) The harshest diatribes against these degenerate whites I’ve read comes from the pen of William Pierce: one of the best minds that the movement produced in the continent.

6) Even Kevin MacDonald himself doesn’t seem to support strict monocausalism!

The heavyweights convinced me that strict monocausalism is silly, and that besides naming the Jew we must also note our flaws that empowered the tribe since the French Revolution.

Carolyn Yeager said…

Junghans, Why is it that so many men want to tell a woman to “calm down” when she is calm? What was not calm about what I said? A fool’s errand? Well, that is what you’re on, whether you and Franklin agree with me or not… I do not care.

Along with that, you advise me to listen to Franklin’s “wise counsel.” I’m surprised you didn’t add, “child.”

I have concurred we have to know ourselves, and there is plenty of information on who and how we are. Because every white person is not a paragon of virtue bothers you?

“We face a titanic struggle in trying to save these credulous, intellectually toxified people from themselves.”

Give me a break. Get rid of the Jews and you’ll see a transformation (after the worst of our lot go into work / rehabilitation camps). Mr. O’Reilly was referring in his article to WN leaders, not the average White man. Do you think you can take that on? Well, wait for KMac to write another paper on it; then you’ll know what to say.

I am a little fed up with what’s found on comment boards. I made clear points and you just take on a superior air.

fender said…

Chechar, It’s not about one cause or many, it’s about which cause is most destructive, and that’s the Jewish one.

Chechar said…

Which is, of course, a matter of opinion. The above debate with Carolyn comes from three other websites besides TOO (Carolyn’s, Tanstaafl’s and mine). If you follow the above linked pages you will hit an audio-reply by Severus Niflson to the position of Tanstaafl. Here’s my transcript of part of Niflson’s audio:

If I had to choose on these two sides, I’d go for Ben Klassen and say: it’s our fault… He was very clear that in reality it’s our fault… We are not victims… This type of thing that we are victimized by Jews, I think it’s erroneous, it has a very dark aspect… because it makes us into pathetic type of losers. They [the Jews] have a lot of power, but a lot of it is because we allowed them to, right? Therefore, if we turn the focus on ourselves I think we will do a lot better.

In that audio reply Niflson also mentions that the ancient Greeks brought non-whites into their lands and that it caused the first race replacement in Europe that, with centuries of miscegenation, destroyed that civilization. These ideas are found in scholarly form in Madison Grant’s great book, and I have also complained a lot about how the Spaniards and the Portuguese basically destroyed their ethnicity throughout the whole American subcontinent without the help of the Jews since the 16th century.

See my definition above of the JP. If that definition is right, then a substantial sector of the movement is, basically, blaming the white shark (the Jews) and sparing the megalodon (secular Christianity).

I agree with Niflson that if we turn the focus on ourselves—the megalodon—we will do a lot better.

Excerpted from a discussion at The Occidental Observer.

At last…!

At last someone spoke out about a problem that most nationalists are reluctant to discuss. This image is taken from Carolyn Yeager’s radio podcast, where she “discusses the increasing promotion and approval of homosexuality in our Western societies, and also in our White advocacy communities.

OK, Carolyn probably saw the photo that a Spanish policeman of the little town of Bélmez de la Moraleda in Andalusia took me long time ago and momentarily thought that I was, ehem, “gay” (I really hate this word). What can I say? Not all men who have looked a little androgynous in younger years necessarily are.

Anyway, don’t miss Carolyn’s podcast. It’s must listening (link above). As far as I know, it is the first time that the problems of accepting overt, non-closet homosexuality in our community are approached honestly and fairly in audio form.

Published in: on June 7, 2012 at 7:26 pm  Comments (5)  

The future is for the bloodthirsty,

not for the alt-righters



Panina said

There are very tangible reasons to stop associating with the “white nationalist” movement:

1) It is dead. Anyone with two eyes, a brain and enough courage can attest this fact. Though disappointing, it is understandable that it has not achieved a single victory in its entire history. What is far more problematic is that it is losing adherents and sympathizers at a steady pace instead of gaining new ones. This is a raw estimation, but I don’t think there are more than 50,000 active and declared WNs in the entire US territory as of now… That’s called a sect, a cult.

2) It is pathetic. Read Stormfront, the world hub of WNism, to understand what I mean. Who wants to associate with those who post there? I’d rather live among Hispanics or Asians than among the lowbrow skinheads, mixed-race “Whites”, Slavs, feminist women and Christian creationists of Stormfront.

3) The term “white nationalism” bothers me because “white” is too vague. I’ve seen enough specimens of white Untermenschen in my life to understand that skin color alone is unfortunately not enough, in times of accelerating dysgenism, to assert the nobility, intelligence and probity of someone.

I like the terms “realism” (since were are, in fine, observers and accepters of scientific truths), “white advocacy”, “pro-white” (which has a double meaning), or “new right”.

I replied…

White nationalism is a term for American whites (I have the impression you live in Europe. Am I wrong? I for one live in Mestizo America). American whites need a nation now that they are becoming a minority.

I don’t believe that the movement is dead. It’s just a tiny embryo that has chances to grow after the dollar crashes.

It has scored zero victories not because the story of the movement or the character flaws of nationalists, but because after the war America reached a period of economic prosperity unparalleled in history, and now that I am studying the history of the decline and fall of Rome it’s clear that people tend to become lazy and even self-destructive in periods of easy panem and free circenses. If we have to blame something, we must blame the increasingly degenerate westerners of the last forty or fifty years.

The movement has no chance to make a real breakthrough unless and until the dollar crashes. After the coming financial armageddon we will experience runaway racial turmoil in western cities and after that continuing crisis, since the race problem cannot be solved until the ethno-state is established in NorthAm and non-whites expelled from Europe. Then the entire world will suffer from the peak-oil, energy devolution crises. The convergence of catastrophes predicted by Faye will become reality for sure. All of this will happen within the lifetimes of some of us, and contrary to Greg Johnson et al’s reactionary, non-revolutionary stance, I look forward to watch, as Pierce put it, “blood flowing ankle-deep in the streets of many of Europe’s great cities.”

Yesterday I listened the two hours of the opening podcast of Carolyn Yeager and Tanstaafl’s new internet radio show. It was good. If I were billionaire I’d purchase Fox News and invite these bloggers for a daily show. The sound of their voices is exactly right during pre-crash America.

But there’s no question that the dollar will collapse. And after the collapse people will be mad as hell. Then, and only then, will bloodthirsty revolutionaries like me have a chance.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 238 other followers