Is it suicide?

By Hunter Wallace

Keep in mind that Jews as Jews were never expelled from the United States, stripped of their citizenship and voting rights, required to live in ghettos, prohibited from marrying Gentiles, or banned from culturally sensitive institutions.

Contrast the United States with Spain which expelled Jews, persecuted them during the Inquisition, forced them to convert to Christianity and drove them out of the country. In the Northern states, the red carpet was rolled out for them in line with the dominant liberal ideology.

In light of the experience of the world in dealing with Jews, how could it have ended any other way? This is like a White man allowing his daughter to marry a negro and who is then shocked when he beats and kills her.

A body-snatched Spaniard

Having in mind the story of snatched Britons I recounted yesterday, today at Occidental Dissent, Lew said:

Given those facts, do you think it’s possible literal, real, metaphysical Satanic influence is guiding the British leaders?

Preposterous! More probably, snatched Britons are merely acting out their emotional issues, as I explained about an adult Spanish woman who transfers the hatred she feels toward her abusive parents toward her parents’ culture.

Below, what I wrote by the end of 2009 when analyzing her. I apologize in advance that, since most of the original entries in Spanish don’t appear below (it would triple the length of this post), my English translation appears disjointed or disconnected at some places:

Today’s suicidal ethos throughout the West is unimaginably deeper than anything that the common Western patriot, or even the most sophisticated intellectual, has ever glimpsed in his wildest dreams. While intellectuals in the white nationalist movement are good in describing the predicament that the West faces today, at the same time they are clueless about the basic etiology of the whys of the ethnic and cultural self-hatred behind some of our people. Why is this so?

I have written a book from the viewpoint of depth psychology and cannot summarize my findings in this entry. Suffice it to say that the most extreme cases of cultural and ethnic self-hatred go back to the way we were raised by our parents, and the defense mechanisms that we unconsciously built in response to the family dynamics. Although I believe this is the universal cause of extreme self-hatred, in the sense of hatred toward our parents’ culture, in this article I will use a single case-study to illustrate why a westerner that I know hates her culture to the point of desiring its destruction. I analyze her not as a personal vendetta, but in the hope that those who defend our culture and ethnicity will become aware of what Alice Miller calls the forbidden knowledge.

Below, my translation of what I wrote in Spanish in several entries elsewhere:


First entry (6 October 2009)

It’s incredible what a broke guy does to get out of poverty. After the tragedy that occurred in my family, the central subject of my series of books Hojas Susurrantes, I ended up without profession or a job. Through the internet I met a woman from Gran Canaria, Teresa, who proposed to marry me so that I may obtain work permit in Spain. Though we never married, and although there was never intimacy between us, Teresa initiated the paperwork as if she was my employer so that, with time, I could obtain the work permit. Since I originally believed that this was altruistic help I accepted in order to break away from my family’s future inheritance and, finally, be free to publish my Hojas Susurrantes about them.

This idealism moved me to embark on a trip to Gran Canaria. Neither Teresa (“Tere”) nor I suspected that the 2009 economic crisis in Spain would severely worsen during the time I stayed there. Thousands of the island’s canary citizens lost their jobs. I was not even a Canarian and under those circumstances I lived ten months in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria…

But thanks to the unemployment I educated myself. I used those long months to read lots of articles in the blogosphere about the islamization of Europe, and even about the extinction of the white race (if the present suicidal birth-rate trend among Caucasians continues). Since in good faith I always talk about my projects and readings, I committed the mistake of telling Tere that I was involved in the counter-jihad movement; that is, the movement in the blogosphere concerned about the islamization of the West.

What a blunder… In the following months that I lived in Tere’s flat, unable to get out because of lack of a job, Tere harassed me with phone calls, e-mails and, when she visited Canaria (she works in Madrid), even personally. But I’m getting ahead of our story.

The days in which Tere gave me a tour in her island I witnessed how she approached the employees of the shops with questions in very bad mood. When I confronted her about this sort of behavior she replied that we were too susceptible; that she was a courageous woman and that the people simply misunderstand her passion. In a couple of e-mails she told me that her moods formed part of “her always critical and questioning nature.” She also wrote:

“It’s true that I can be very intense or passionate in discussions, something that some people misinterpret as irritation or anger.”

In these entries we will see what these “misinterpretations” really were, and why I consider her case a perfect paradigm to understand the West’s suicide in general and Europe’s in particular.


Second entry (12 October 2009)

Why do I use my time in something apparently so irrelevant like writing about the hysterias of a leftist woman? Simple reason: because we lack what in The Divided Self Laing called a “science of the persons.”

After Romanticism the genre of confessional autobiography cropped up. Unfortunately, by pretending to approach the subject on the basis of abstract principles, psychoanalysis, academic psychology and psychiatry usurped the study of the inner self and approached our souls from the impossible viewpoint of objectivism. This category error permeates the academia insofar as to understand concrete people it’s necessary a subjective history of these people.

Oliver Sacks recognizes this in his area of expertise, neurology. In a recent entry in another of my blogs in Spanish I refer to Sacks’ Musicophilia. And in another of his very acclaimed books, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, Sacks complained that in classical neurology we will find a thousand descriptions of the pathologies that correspond to the left hemisphere of the brain for a single pathology about the right hemisphere. He adds:

And yet, as Luria says, they are of the most fundamental importance. So much so that they may demand a new sort of neurology, a “personalistic,” or (as Luria liked to call it) a “romantic,” science; for the physical foundations of the persona, the self, are here revealed for our study. Luria thought a science of this kind would be best introduced by a story—a detailed case-history.

Sacks approaches the hardware problems of the despised right hemisphere of the brain, the hemisphere of the emotions; Laing and I, on the other hand, approach software problems: the cognitive distorsions through which some see the world. Sacks’ field of study is the damaged brain. Laing’s field, like my own, are the damaged minds. One studies the hardware, the other the software. In another of my blogs I have delved deeper into it.

So why do I post a long entry about a leftist that I met, a woman with no societal influence except her vote to Zapatero’s party? As I said, the reason is simple. The best way to illustrate the failures of judgment should be, according to Laing and Sacks, personalistic. But in the psychology departments I wouldn’t be allowed to enter into this type of incursion about a non-notable person.

I would like to quote Sacks again to illustrate this astronomical mistake in academic psychology. In the chapter about the man who, due to a neurological problem—his eyesight abilities were perfectly OK—mistook his wife for a hat, Sacks wrote:

Neurology and psychology, curiously, though they talk of everything else, almost never talk of “judgment.” And yet, judgment is the most important faculty we have. An animal, or a man, may get on very well without “abstract attitude” but will speedily perish if deprived of judgment. Judgment must be the first faculty of higher life or mind—yet it is ignored, or misinterpreted, by classical (computational) neurology. And if we wonder how such an absurdity can arise, we find it in the assumptions, or the evolution, of neurology itself. For classical neurology (like classical physics) has always been mechanical. Of course, the brain is a machine and a computer—everything in classical neurology is correct. But our mental processes are not just abstract and mechanical, but personal, as well—and, as such, involve not just classifying and categorizing, but continual judging and feeling also. If this is missing, we become computer-like, as Dr P. was.

“Doctor P.” was the curious patient who, due to a neurological problem that made him to forget what human faces were, mistook his wife for a hat. (In the above quotation I didn’t use ellipsis between the unquoted phrases.) What Sacks says after the above quote hits the nail:

By a sort of comic and awful analogy, our current cognitive neurology and psychology resemble nothing so much as poor Dr P.! Our cognitive sciences are themselves suffering from an agnosia essentially similar to Dr P.’s. Dr P. may therefore serve as a warning and parable—of what happens to a science which eschews the judgmental, the particular, the personal, and becomes entirely abstract and computational.

As a remedy to this hemiplegic neurology, Sacks recommends the study of the brain’s right hemisphere. Nevertheless, unlike the left hemisphere, the right one cannot be studied with IQ-like tests, but through personalized case-histories. Sacks thus illustrates the neurological dysfunctions in the diverse areas of the right hemisphere. His work showed me stuff about the mind that I hadn’t fully digested a few years ago when I read another of his books, An Anthropologist on Mars. Incidentally, all of my Sacks books were gifts by Tere! On this one I must be grateful to her…

The above are key quotations to make my point. Just as present-day neurology is hemiplegic, the humanities are hemiplegic too, including almost everything published to date about ethno-masoquism in the West. While a few psycho-biographies about the pathologies of politicians are available, it is considered improper to analyze a casual acquaintance.

I believe that this is a gigantic mistake, as my study of Tere will demonstrate. To analyze a staunch far-leftist woman is, in the “software,” the “hardware” equivalent of analyzing the brain lobe of someone who mistakes his wife for a hat.

The original post was too long. I’ve moved “entries” 3 to 12 (and part of the 14th and last entry). Below I keep what is essential to make my point:

Thirteenth entry (28 October 2009)

I’ve already said that Teresa used my economic dependency to harass me about my political views when I wanted to avoid her as if she was the plague itself. The following e-mail excerpts are examples of such harassment. Angrily she wrote:

19 August 2009

And why do you elude person-to-person confrontation? Do you know what’s the problem with you? You constantly send contradictory messages and the other person doesn’t know how to behave with you.

18 August 2009

But your obsession and visceral hatred that you exude in these [YouTube] videos cannot but confirm the idea, already stated in my previous e-mail, that the subject [my exposé of radical Islam] is no more than a scapegoat for your rages and hard feelings about your family. And it’s a pity that ultimately my efforts to help you to come here, and to spread your ideas about psychiatric coercion, have ended in the promotion of the opposite values of liberty, equality and solidarity which I’ve always struggled for. [In the moved posts omitted here I already talked about Tere’s fallacy of identifying anti-psychiatric activism with the “progressive” policies of the left.]

7:49 A.M.

Incidentally, today I was thinking about one of your videos of the “Alice Miller” series where you bitterly criticize your cousin, the filmmaker, because he didn’t dare to comment anything about your book after you gave it to him.

I don’t know if you noticed it, but you did exactly the same when I recommended you to watch the film that I so much identify with—and that had affected me so much that I wasn’t capable of watching it again with you—, titled The Secret Life of Words. Your only comment was a laconic and brief “Not too bad” and only when I questioned you about it you immediately passed on talking about banal subjects with absolute indifference. How can you demand that others do what you don’t do? [I’ll respond to this hysterical demand, that I should have played the role of Tere’s “Doctor Heart”, below.]

17 August 2009

I’ve just watched one of your videos where you say that you’d like to go to the USA and subscribe the Republican Party. HOW CAN YOU BETRAY YOURSELF AND YOUR IDEAS IN SUCH A WAY? I’d like to know what would those right-wingers of “gates of viena” [sic, a counter-jihad blogsite] say about your ideas about traditional family…

24 June 2009

I’ve glanced through, in leaps and bounds just for a change, your English blog. How obsessive!!!! [in June of 2009 most of my entries were about the islamization of Europe]. Isn’t there any other subject of your interest? And in leaps and bounds, some words catch my attention.

“The Reconquest”? It’s as clear as day that you didn’t suffer the Francoist dictatorship and all of its grandiloquent paraphernalia “for God’s empire”!! [Tere reduces ad absurdum my concern about Europe’s islamization in the 21st century with a 20th century chapter in the history of her country.]

23 June 2009

And it’s a stupidity on your part if you think that in Muslim countries the only schools that the children go are usually the Koranic madrassas. [I never said this] In Morocco, for example, the French lyceums have a great tradition and prestige. [Judge by yourselves my dear readers. In the tone she spoke to me, “stupidity on my part,” Tere demanded at the same time that I played the role of her “Doctor Heart”...]

17 June 2009

“…the social engineers that import millions of Muslims to Europe.” But what paranoid conspiracy nonsense is this? [Tere quotes what I wrote in my blog but omits the context because, as she herself acknowledged, she only “glanced through in leaps and bounds” my entries.]


Teresa ends up in the Fruit Cake Hospital

This is the most important section of my analysis [taking into account the analysis I omitted here because of the length of the original post]. It has to do with my hypothesis that an unprocessed hatred toward the abusive family transmutes into depression, as I explain in my essay “On depression.” Within this framework, suicide or suicidal ideation are perfectly comprehensible. Indeed, suicidal ideation is what at the beginnings of the new century Tere suffered when she was committed in a psychiatry ward of a public hospital of Las Palmas. This is the story:

By the end of 2002 Tere contacted my through internet for the first time. In that year I still didn’t have a webpage. But I had translated to Spanish several anti-psychiatric articles authored by Lawrence Stevens. Tere liked especially one of those articles in which, following Tom Szasz, Stevens said that suicide ought to be “a civil right.”

Tere rarely writes in English. Instead of contacting the author she contacted the translator—me—, and through a series of e-mails she revealed an interesting story that I believed from 2002 to 2009, when my trip to her native island disabused me. I confess that since we met in the internet Tere was so fascinated with my anti-psychiatric work that, for years, she paid the bill of my (now defunct) antipsych webpage.

The day that I left her island for good Tere was in her flat of Las Palmas. On her own initiative, she showed me the file of the psychiatric ward in which she was committed not long before she contacted me in 2002. Although it was written in almost illegible handwriting by the nurses and physicians of the hospital, the file demystified the story that Tere had detailed in her e-mails of 2002, as well as in 2003 when she visited Mexico.

In the idealized story, Tere was casually passing by near a bridge in her island when a policeman believed she would jump from it and called the ambulance, which unjustly took her to the hospital. A female doctor, her story goes, had her in an observation room and Tere protested that the detention was taking too long. This moved the doctor to arbitrarily commit her. Once involuntarily committed in the psychiatric ward she was drugged with Valium, again against her will. The tranquilizer produced a terrible side effect, paralyzing her muscles and Tere believed she would die. She wasn’t allowed to leave the ward for days and days… (If she was cut off the outside world it was because she didn’t want to give the doctors but a single phone number of a girlfriend, who to boot was never at home.) Once her brother took her out of the hospital, Tere was so scared that decided to move to Madrid. Even though she owns a flat in Las Palmas (where I would live years later), Tere preferred to share an expensive flat in Madrid in her obsession to get away, at all cost, from the betrayal she suffered in her native island.

This is Tere’s tale. Originally it made such an impression on me that I mentioned it in my webpage without mentioning her name, as a typical case of psychiatric commitment of a sane person. However, when Tere showed me the psychiatric file, I discovered that her tale was a fabrication.

In the diverse documents that Tere showed me, what first caught my eye was the police report. He testified that Tere told him she was measuring the bridge’s height. Tere hadn’t told me this little detail! What I remember now is that even in her idealized version Tere said she rudely talked back to the policeman when he asked her, alarmed, where exactly was she going.

And until now I start to connect the dots. Remember how Tere treated the employees of Las Palmas? The point is that such behavior provides a very different reading of the facts. The policeman knew that another person had killed himself a week before by jumping off the bridge. Now, confronted with a rude woman talking about measuring the bridge’s height in the middle of a freeway road, he called the ambulance. I remember that Tere herself confessed me that the reason she talked rudely to the policeman was because of what the police symbolized in her mind when she was much younger, especially due to the character of the Francoist police.

So we’ve got Franco once more [mentioned several times in the above-omitted entries]. It’s evident that Tere projects her teen experiences to the present, and onto completely innocent people. Nowadays the Spanish police are very different from Franco’s police, and even more in the Canary Islands. The Canary people in general, and the Spanish police in particular, are kind. However, due to her eternal retro-projections Tere didn’t see any provocation coming from her rude answer to the policeman, who only fulfilled his duty after the recent incident. On the contrary, and like other persons with an attitude problem, Tere projects her traumas onto the people in her immediate surroundings, however innocent they may be. For example, in one of her most provocative e-mails Tere wrote:

Are you sure you are not projecting toward the Islamic subject your unresolved rage and revenge thirst for the harm you got in the family during your teens????????

Tere’s head of concrete impedes her seeing that I’m not projecting but describing what’s happening in Europe. That’s not projection. Tere’s words are a projected self-portrait onto the people she happens to encounter. If there’s someone whose “rage and revenge thirst” is unresolved, it is Tere’s. It’s she the one who suffers from “family harms.”

This is not the first time when someone projects onto myself her self-portraiture. Analogously, the first event in the chain that ended up in her commitment, the policeman’s call to the ambulance, had been a diametrically-opposed incident to the story Tere had made me believe. Let’s now see what happened after that.

According to Tere’s tale, the commitment had been an arbitrary action of female the doctor in charge of the admissions. Only until I arrived to the island I learnt that Tere’s suicidal ideation had been something very real. From Tere herself I learned that she was measuring the bridge’s height to make sure she would die after jumping off! Tere told me this personally in Canaria: not even by e-mail. She had to check up the height because a couple of her acquaintances had jumped off from not sufficiently tall buildings and had, pathetically, survived. But there were even more surprises in her file…

One of the things that surprised me the most is that Tere made a few little tantrums asking to leave the hospital, confronting the nurses with the words:

“I can take my life whenever I want!”

or:

“I can take my life when I feel like doing it!”

Although I don’t have the file with me, I remember those phrases. When I read the police’s report—that Tere intended to measure the bridge’s height—, or the nurses’ report—that she made tantrums about taking her life—, amazed, I asked Tere: “But did you tell them those things?”

Candidly Tere assented and rationalized her conduct as the legitimate reaction before the commitment. There were other phrases of this kind, but I don’t remember them exactly. Since Tere only let me see the file in her presence, I couldn’t annotate what I read. But I can state that the file transmitted a very vivid image that Tere made a fool of herself in the hospital, lachrymosely demanding her right to kill herself. That had been the real cause of her commitment, not the malevolence of the Canary authorities, the version of the story that I had originally swallowed.

When Tere showed me the file it didn’t cross her mind that the revelation would radically transform the idea I had about her case. Tere showed it to me under the impression that I, who for a couple of years had done anti-psychiatric activism, would solidarize with her cause. She never perceived that by showing it to me her old tale would crumble.

A person in his right mind would have kept up a straight face, even someone who would commit suicide. There are be people in their right mind that commit suicide. Tere’s file, on the other hand, registered temper tantrum after temper tantrum in the psychiatric ward, aggravated by the side-effect of the Valium that impeded her to breath normally and even “to open the anal sphincter” when going to the toilet, as Tere confessed a Scientologist who does some activism against involuntary psychiatry. Even though Tere let me read only a fraction of the file, her acting out was so obvious that I wonder why wasn’t she punished with much stronger psychiatric drugs. As I said, the Canary people that I met were very kind; this might explain why they didn’t administer her neuroleptics.

I never told Tere a word about how her file had changed my mind. Still, each time that the file reported one of the amazing phrases attributed to Tere, I asked incredulously: “Did you say that…?” Tere continued to assent without perceiving how the new revelations would change my previous opinion.

Tere’s file refreshed my memory on another subject. When in 2002 I read the long tale that Tere had written, I gathered that in the previous days to her fateful visit to the bridge she was extremely upset about a lawsuit against her previous employer, a rather long and tiresome lawsuit process she had initiated. Tere’s frustration about it drove her to visit the bridge.

In September 11 of 2009, the day I escaped from her island, to my surprise those lawsuits were mentioned in the psychiatric file that I saw. And after watching Tere aggressively arguing in her island with innocent employees the first days we arrived to the island, a behavior she would later repeat with me for sure, the dots connected by themselves. For example, Tere told me that she had reproached, angrily, her detention addressing the female doctor in charge of the admissions in the psychiatric ward. I didn’t tell Tere what was in my mind when she confessed this little incident, but it seems pretty obvious that this resulted in a one-way ticket to the ward. Who on earth dares to talk rudely to the one in charge of admissions within the psychiatric ward itself? Only someone so overwhelmed by her emotional issues that acts out her suicidal ideation in front of the thoughtpolice!

To understand this analysis of Tere it’s useful to become familiar with my analysis of Andrew Solomon (already linked above). Just as Solomon displaced the rage he felt for his mother on one of his friends, breaking his jaw, Tere does something similar. Of course, women are not tough guys by nature. Instead, they frequently discharge their rage verbally: what Tere did at the stores; with me, with the policeman at the bridge, with the powerful psychiatrist in charge of the admissions, and I assume that with her former employers too, against whom Tere filled up angry lawsuits.

In one word: hysteria. Tere has a medical degree. She knew perfectly well the dynamics of the psychiatric institutions in her native island. She has no valid excuse about how would the authorities of her island react before her acting out her emotional issues.

During the ten months that I stayed in her flat, Tere was there about two months in her holyday days. When she told me that her parents hit her as a child, I suggested her to do a serious mourning to process the trauma: say, something like writing an autobiography like the one I had written. For Tere, that was absolutely out of the question. She told me several times that that wouldn’t do any good to her.

Tere never confronted her parents. She doesn’t talk about her family traumas with her two brothers either. Nor does she reproach anything to her silent relatives. She keeps everything to herself. It’s understandable, therefore, that the volcano of rage she carries inside explodes in other ways.

Tere’s case is typical. I have given my two sisters the bestseller of Susan Forward Toxic Parents, which incidentally I recommended to Tere a few years ago and she did purchase a translated copy of it. Forward tells her clients that graduate in her therapy to write a letter to the perpetrator, the parent who abused her clients when they were younger. Of the many people that I know that have read Forward’s book—Tere included—, no one has followed Forward’s advice. The fears of touching the parent inundate even the minds of those who, like Tere, have already half a century in this world. And in the case that the parent has passed away, as I explained in my essay on Solomon, Forward advises reading a vindictive letter in front of the parent’s grave to obtain inner peace. But Tere didn’t settle the score with any of her parents in the form of long epistles (cf. the first book of my series of five, Letter to mom Medusa).

Tere’s attitude is typical. All people whom I’ve tried to communicate with tell me that they already got over it and that writing long, reproaching letters—let alone sending them to their parents—is out of place. It’s risible that Tere answered back that she vehemently dislikes writing when she apparently didn’t dislike writing the psychodrama of her involuntary commitment, and even sending it to her intimate friends. Those who suffer from chronic bad temper are capable of anything except addressing their bitterness at the source that caused it.

In my Solomon essay I said that substitutive hate, the one directed onto scapegoats, is infinite. In the case of Tere that means nothing less that her bad tempers and brawls don’t finish just there. Tere needs, in addition to that, to hate the culture that was deaf about how she was abused in her teens. Tere herself confessed to me that she hated the society because of that betrayal, and that when she was committed her old memories of physical abuse at home assaulted her mind. According to her own words, the commitment had been a —:

“Now I know…!”

—that what was done to her as a child was true. But Tere, who has written op-eds to the newspapers complaining about psychiatry, doesn’t write a single word advocating the child’s right not to be parentally abused or about her own childhood, where her real pain lays. It’s no mystery that she transfers her rancor to parent symbols such as the authorities, as we saw with the police. But the policeman who impeded her reaching the bridge is not her father. Nor her mother. Nor her deaf relatives. It was Tere herself, not the file, who told me that when the policeman asked her where was she going, she responded adamantly:

“To the bridge!”

The hard answer detonated a chain reaction from the forces of law and order. And each time that Tere had the opportunity of repressing her bad temper and keep a straight face, she did nothing but escalate her acting out provoking even more the island’s authorities.


Final analysis

I wouldn’t have written this comparatively long analysis were it not for Teresa’s hatred for the West in general and traditional Spain in particular, and her craving for my culture’s destruction. We already saw [in the omitted entries] that she told me she really loved the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Moorish immigration that is taking away what force remains of Christendom in Spain, that she thinks that every single Western family is noxious, and that she wishes that “everything collapses.”

The sad thing about cases like Teresa’s is that there are many of them. What moves me to write this article is that in the nationalist movement there is no psychological analysis whatsoever, not even in the slightest form, of why leftist people hate their civilization. I believe that this case illustrates it. The volcano of rage that Teresa carries inside never explodes in the form of speaking out about her real aggressors. Never. She re-directs it to the culture that, in her mind, symbolizes her family: the Francoist Spain and everything related to conservatism. Teresa gives a damn about the fact that in other cultures the treatment of women is far worse that what she got as a child. That’s irrelevant. What only matters is the destruction of the culture that crucified her. Period.

Teresa and I have the same age and we both suffered in Catholic families at the same time. Comparing the two biographies it’s evident that I was a victim of more serious parental abuse than what she got.

But I don’t desire the destruction of my civilization. Before trauma, even big time trauma, there still exists individual responsibility. That someone devotes himself to speaking out about child abuse (like me), or contributing to destroy the West through voting for Zapatero and by hating those concerned with the Islamization of the Europe (like Teresa), only shows that there’s indeed something like surrendering our will to evil.

If leftist feminists were good persons, the first thing they would do is to feel compassion for the girls in Europe whose genitals have been chopped off at their parents’ request. But these women do exactly the opposite: they hate the System dissidents who pity the pubescent Muslims, as Teresa hated me in her quoted e-mails.

“A little woman chasing after her revenge would over-run fate itself” wrote Nietzsche. Teresa and the rest of the little women that feel extreme hatred toward our civilization chase after an unconscious revenge. With so many voters like her in Spain and in the Western world, so many Body-snatched Pod whites like in the 1956 film, the fate of the West looks grim indeed. Teresa’s suicidal ideation, aborted by the psychiatric institution that she loathes so much, transmutes itself into the suicide of our civilization since, alas, instead of killing themselves many other empowered women have become West haters too.

But there is something in which Teresa and I are in agreement. I believe that the policeman should have let her jump off the bridge…

AltRight: El sabor de mierda

The traitorous people at Alternative Right that recently published an anti-Hitler article are even worse than the candidates for the US presidency in the last elections: a race that quickly turned on who kissed more kike asses. Yes: AltRighters claim to be pro-white advocates but their words tell otherwise. In today’s comment at Counter-Currents Lew said:

After a particularly vitriolic debate, a Jewish liberal boasted to me there are hundreds of Jewish activists operating in the WNist [white nationalist] and alt right online communities. He claimed that most of them pose as WNists, allies or sympathizers while simultaneously spreading divide and rule, undermining morale and trying make WNists look foolish. Even claimed they work the WNist sites in teams and coordinated groups. FWIW [from what I’ve witnessed] Jews aren’t always honest, and he may have just been taunting.

Perhaps. But some of the commenters’ behavior at AltRight and elsewhere in the net, parroting the current narrative on Hitler and World War 2, should move us to consider the possibility that some Jews are trying to confuse us, or at least that some Whites are kissing their masters’ asses too much.

In the same thread that Lew posted the above comment Ulf Larsen said:

People who write silly articles like the Liddell piece [the anti-Hitler rant at AltRight] don’t understand how serious our situation is, and they don’t at all understand our enemies—our existential enemies. It boils down to this: Liddell and his kind are children, in all relevant political respects. If he doesn’t understand that historical giants like Hitler are our old fighters, that this is essentially a continuation of the same fight they fought, he doesn’t understand much.

In fact, our enemies are to a large extent psychopaths and they don’t believe in fair play. The Jews can never be fooled into taking our side—no matter how “clever” and womanly servile you try to be.

No matter how much you genuflect to them and join in the ritual defamation of their old enemies. They would rather die. It’s their old trick, you know—they will not fall for it. And they only see your prostration as a sign of weakness.

The Jews have three properties that make them strong and successful: 1. Intelligence. 2. Group cohesion. 3. Chutzpah. They don’t ask for permission and they don’t ask for forgiveness. Only losers do that.

We need a few of things to win this fight: 1. A clear direction. 2. Energy focused only in that direction, with no hesitation. 3. Confidence and self-respect so strong that it is contagious, radiating so much will-power that people will fall in love with our cause—so strong shall it be that our people cannot resist joining us.

This is incompatible with whining about old fighters, no matter what you disagree about in the details. Only the enemy shall be attacked, and it is up to conservatives like Liddell if they want to join us or the enemy…

One thing that is absolutely certain is that we can never win if we have so low self-esteem that we need to ask our enemies for permission to fight. The only way to win is to attack the enemy. Conservatives refuse, by definition, to do that. That is why they never can win.
Hitler understood this; bourgeois and effeminate conservatives like Colin Liddell will never understand it. That’s why Hitler has something to teach us (and demands our respect), and “ask-the-Jews-for-permission-Liddell” has nothing to contribute to our cause.

I believe that, like other contemporary conservatives, Alternative Right is a complete goner. Let me explain it with a juicy online anecdote.

Not long ago I visited a nationalist site of Spain. The author complained that, unlike the old conservative Spaniards, the new conservatives are kissing the Spanish kikes’ asses in the hopes of being allowed to advance their conservative agenda. The author rightly said that they will never be fooled by such crude tactics, and that after the licking (in the Spanish slang it goes closer to anus licking than ass kissing) what’s left in the conservatives’ mouths is only “el sabor de mierda” (the taste of shit).

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)

Orwellian rewriting of History

Or:

Portugal and the one-drop rule

Below, (1) my abridgement of Ray Smith’s The Black Man’s Gift to Portugal from “The Best of Attack and National Vanguard Tabloid,” Ref: Issue No. 6, 1971; (2) Arthur Kemp’s more recent views on Portugal in March of the Titans; (3) the comments of John Martínez, a friend whose native language is Portuguese, and (4) my impressions on Iberian miscegenation.

Ray Smith

In view of the fact that we are now being forced to integrate with the Negroes and grant them equal participation, it might be instructive to look at other countries which have integrated with Negroes in the past to see what the Negroes gave them. What is the historical evidence?

There is a wealth of material here for study in such places as Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Brazil, etc., but the nearest parallel to the United States today is Portugal in the 16th century.

It may come as a surprise to hear of the Negroes’ role in the history of Portugal, for in spite of all the emphasis on “Black studies” in our schools, no one seems to talk about the Blacks’ contribution to Portugal—neither the Portuguese, the Blacks, nor our modern historians who are rewriting our history books to make the Negroes look good. It takes considerable digging in books written before our modern era of forced integration to uncover the story of Portugal.


Poets and explorers

By the middle of the 16th century, Portugal had risen to a position analogous to that of the United States today. Portugal was the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, with a large empire and colonies in Asia, Africa and America. The Portuguese people were, like the Elizabethans in England, poets and explorers, a race of highly civilized, imaginative, intelligent, and daring people. They showed great potential and had already made important contributions to the Renaissance. But, unlike England and other European countries, Portugal had a large and rapidly growing Negro population and, at the same time, its white population was declining.

Portugal began the Negro slave trade after encountering Negroes in its explorations and forays into Africa. Portugal brought the first Black slaves to Lisbon in 1441, and they continued to be imported in such numbers that by 1550, the population of Portugal [especially in Lisbon] was 10 percent Negro (the U.S. is 13-14 percent Negro today).

Defilement of the blood

There was no taboo or injunction against sexual relations with the Negroes, and the Negroes blood soon became assimilated into the general population through miscegenation, so that today there are no Negroes, as such, in Portugal. The present-day population of Portugal is described by the New York Times Encyclopedic Almanac, 1971, as follows: “Ethnic Composition: The people are a mixture of various ethnic strains, including Celtic, Arab, Berber, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Lusitanian, and other racial influences. The present population is one of the most homogeneous in Europe, with no national minorities.” (Note that the Negro strain is not listed by the New York Times).

What you can see in Portugal today is the product of uniform, non-selective mixing of the 10 percent Negroes and 90 percent Whites into one homogeneous whole. In effect, it is a new race—a race that has stagnated in apathy and produced virtually nothing in the last 400 years.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., 1911, in its article on Portugal states, “The Portuguese intermarried freely with their slaves, and this infusion of alien blood profoundly modified the character and physique of the nation. It may be said without exaggeration that the Portuguese of the ‘age of discoveries’ and the Portuguese of the 17th and later centuries were two different races.”

The contribution of this new race to civilization in terms of literature, art, music, philosophy, science, etc. has been practically nothing. Portugal today is the most backwards country in Europe…

Portugal and America

In spite of the close similarity between the situation of Portugal in the 1550’s and the United States today, we cannot predict that the outcome of our racial integration with Negroes will be exactly the same. The historical significance, however, is that any country, society, or group which has integrated to any appreciable extent with the Negroes has suffered drastically in its ability to maintain a civilized standard of living and its ability to compete with others. There is no evidence that any other country ever gained anything from integration with Negroes.

It should be pointed out that the Negro-White ratio, 1:9, in Portugal in the 1550’s does not represent the final percentage of Negro genes, for the Negro element was rapidly increasing while the White element was declining. The male Whites were leaving Portugal in large numbers—sailing, settling in the colonies, and marrying native women (the government encouraged this). Most of the Negro slaves brought to Portugal were adult males. The population was thus unbalanced—an excess of White women and Negro males, and a shortage of White men. Chronicles of the era relate that Portuguese women kept Negro slaves as “pets”. They also married them.

The situation in the U.S. today is not too different. The radical-chic Whites have their Black pets.

Our percentage of the Negro element today does not represent the final amalgam. The Negro birth rate is almost twice as high as that of the Whites. There is no White population explosion in America, or anywhere in the world. It is all colored. The colored woman has the children; the White women are on the pill or have abortions.

What the final amalgam in America will be we can not say, but if the present trends continue, the Negro element will be much more than 14 percent.

Why did Portugal integrate?

The British, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese all engaged in the Negro slave trade, but only Portugal brought them to their own country. The question arises—why did Portugal so willingly accept racial integration with Negroes while other European countries kept the Negroes out and maintained their racial integrity? What was the climate of opinion, the current ideology, teaching, or propaganda that led the Portuguese to depart from the behavior of the other countries? What was the difference about Portugal?

You will not find the answer to these questions in our modern history books and recently published encyclopedias, for the whole subject of the decline has become taboo. You will have to dig into older sources and discover your own answers.

You might also ask yourself why America is accepting racial integration while most of the rest of the world is “racist.” Why are we different?

History rewritten

Our encyclopedias and history books have been purged and rewritten. If you look up Portugal in the 1970 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will not find anything about the role of the Negroes and Jews in the history of Portugal, or anything about the decline and fall of Portugal.

The Jews are briefly mentioned among others who “exerted various influences over the territory which in the 13th century acquired the frontiers of modern Portugal.” There is no elaboration of what this influence was.

The Negroes have been eliminated entirely. They are not listed with the other ethnic groups in the ancestry of the Portuguese people. In the entire 15-page article, there is no clue that Negroes were ever present in Portugal or that they had any role or influence in Portuguese history.

The 1970 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana also makes no mention of the presence of Negroes in Portugal.

In all these sources you find “facts,” i.e., names and dates, but with no meaning and no indication of what actually happened or why. However, if you can manage to find some older sources, you can learn a great deal about the history of Portugal.

Blacks and Jews: Jewish police officers
haul away a black man
in this anonymous depiction
of a Lisbon street scene
(Walters Art Museum, Baltimore)

The article on Portugal in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica contains more real information than you can get in reading a hundred history books of more recent vintage. From our modern point of view, this article would probably be called “racist,” but the point is that the presence and activities of the Negroes and Jews are recorded. The information is there, and you can draw your own conclusions. The article is actually pro-Jewish. There is also a scholarly analysis of the factors in the decline and fall of Portugal, with the author tending to blame the Inquisition, the Jesuits, and anti-Semitism. However, neither his conclusions nor his bias prevents him from including factors or information which might lead the reader to a different conclusion.

Our modern scholars and authorities eliminate information which might lead the reader to the “wrong” conclusion.

Suppressing the evidence

The 1964 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica still briefly lists the Negroes and Jews, along with others, as Portuguese racial elements, but with no details or elaborations. By 1966, the Negroes have vanished completely.

Now, what has happened between 1911 and 1966 that makes us purge and rewrite history in such a way? Have we decided that race no longer is, or ever was, a factor in history? This cannot be, since “Black Studies” are flourishing at our universities. Historians are supposedly trying hard to discover all they can about the role of the Negroes in history.

In a trial, a lawyer tries to suppress evidence that would be damaging to his client. He tries to prevent this evidence from reaching the jury. Our modern historians and scholars are trying to suppress evidence. The Negro is their client. We are the jury—and we must not reach the “wrong” verdict.

Liberals in the United States often became very self-righteous and superior when the former Soviet Union purged and rewrote its encyclopedias, eliminating from its history current undesirables and making them “unpersons.” We ridicule their lack of objectivity and irrational scholarship.

But we do exactly the same thing when we rewrite history of Portugal and make “unpersons” of the Negroes (and Jews). In terms of rewriting and deliberately falsifying history, we are much closer to Orwell’s 1984 than the Soviet Union ever was. Big Brother protects us from dangerous knowledge.

Quo Vadis, Aryan man

There is a great need for the American people to know what happened in Portugal in the 16th century, for we are repeating their experience. We are in the same predicament, at the same juncture, at the same crossroads in history. There is an amazing similarity between our situation today and Portugal’s in the 1500’s. Shall we take the same road?

Travelers from other European countries were amazed to see so many Negroes in 16th-century Lisbon, as are travelers today in Washington, D.C. Our own capital is a large percentage Black, and, as was the case in Lisbon, the Negroes do all the manual labor and service jobs. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica comments, “While the country was being drained of its best citizens, hordes of slaves were imported to fill the vacancies, especially into the southern provinces. Manual labor was thus discredited; the peasants sold their farms and emigrated or flocked to the towns; and small holdings were merged into vast estates.”

Manual labor has been “discredited” for many White people these days, and Negroes fill these jobs. We are “too good” for it.

Stout hearts—and pure blood

In analyzing the catastrophe which befell Portugal, the historian H. Morse Stephens (in his book, Portugal, written in 1891) concludes:

They [the Portuguese] were to produce great captains and writers, and were able to become the wealthiest nation in Europe. But that same sixteenth century was to see the Portuguese power sink, and the independence, won by Alfonso Henriques and maintained by John the Great, vanish away; it was to see Portugal, which had been one of the greatest nations of its time, decline in fame, and become a mere province of Spain. Hand in hand with increased wealth came corruption and depopulation, and within a single century after the epoch-making voyage of Vasco da Gamma, the Portuguese people, tamed by the Inquisition, were to show no sign of their former hardihood. This is the lesson that the story of Portugal in the sixteenth century teaches: that the greatness of a nation depends not upon its wealth and commercial prosperity, but upon the thews and sinews and the stout hearts of its people.

This is rather old-fashioned language, but what Stephens is saying is that, by the end of the 16th century, the quality of the people was lacking. Other European nations suffered military defeat, but continued to grow and develop. Portugal stopped dead in its tracks. It had nothing to build on. Portugal can now only look nostalgically to the past. We Americans must use this information as insight into our future. It is too late to save the White Aryan people of Portugal, but we must save ourselves.

Arthur Kemp

Lessons in decline: Spain and Portugal

Spain and Portugal are two countries in Western Europe which have both been marked by phases of great wealth and power and then decline—the classic characteristics of the rise and fall of civilizations. Bearing in mind the lessons already manifest from the ancient civilizations, it is therefore easy to look for the population shifts which, as always, closely track the rise and fall of all civilizations. As to be expected with both Spain and Portugal, the population changes are also evident—and are also directly linked to the leading and then reduced roles these nations have played in not only White history, but also of world history.

♣

One of the first laws which the Gothic kingdom in Spain established was a ban on all mixed marriages. Goths were only allowed to marry Goths, and punishment for violating this ban was burning at the stake.

This overtly racial law kept the intermixing of Goths with all others to an absolute minimum—and particularly with the growing Jewish population. Gothic Spain settled down into a period of relative peace and resultant prosperity, with the only discordant note being sounded by the large Jewish population.

[However], partly because of a fanatic Christianizing zeal (which was common to all early Christians), partly because of Jewish domination of the Spanish financial world, and partly because of the exclusivity and separation which the Jewish religion gave to the Jews, ill feeling between the Christian Goths and Jews in Spain reached a height which had not been seen since the time of the Roman-Jewish war 550 years previously.

In 620 AD, the Spanish Gothic king, Sisbert, ordered 80,000 Jews to be baptized as Christians in an attempt to break Judaism in Spain. This was the start of the Conversos—Spanish Jews who publicly espoused Christianity but in secret kept up Jewish traditions. They were also known by the less complimentary name of “Marranos”—pigs.

Although the 80,000 Jews baptized by Sisbert remained in Spain, about an equal number left Spain for other parts of Europe to escape the growing anti-Semitic feeling in Iberia. Their departure was not a moment too soon—fifty-three years later, in 673 AD, another Spanish Gothic king, Wamba, formally expelled all Jews from Spain who would not convert to Christianity.

Wamba’s immediate predecessor, King Recesuinto [Recceswinth], had taken a step which was to have far reaching consequences. He abolished the long standing ban on mixed marriages, replacing it with a law stating that anyone of Christian beliefs was allowed to marry anyone else of similar beliefs. Henceforth the only ban on intermarriage would be on religious grounds, not racial.

This step allowed any person of any racial origin, as long as they professed Christianity, to intermarry and mix with the Goths. In this way the first steps were taken that would lead towards the dissolution of the Gothic tribe in Spain.

[In his book Kemp proceeds to describe the following centuries, then he writes of Spain’s Golden Age:]

The racial divisions emerge.
This famous painting by El Greco,
(1548 -1614), Saint Martin and the Beggar,
is a vivid depiction of the emerging
division of Spain into those who had mixed
with the non-White Muslims
and those who had not.
Saint Martin is portrayed as completely White.
The beggar is clearly of mixed race.

The change in the racial face of Spain, combined with its disastrous European wars, brought about that country’s decline as a great power, perfectly in line with the law that societies create cultures in the image of their populations, and change those societal norms as their populations change. Spain is a significant example of this principle, because, like Italy after the Germanic Lombard invasion, that country essentially became a bi-racial nation: White in the North, with a gradually darkening population to the south.

By 1648, Spain had been so weakened that it conceded Dutch independence in that year. French provinces were handed back to France in 1659, and Portugal was once again granted independence in 1668.

In 1497, the Portuguese King, Emanuel, mirrored the Spanish example and expelled non-Christian Jews and all Christianized Moors. A law was also introduced which forbid persons of mixed race from holding public office—the law had as its formal title the “Purity of Blood Law” [Limpieza de sangue]. In addition to this, similar restrictions were placed on what was called “New Christians”—Jews who had converted to Christianity to avoid persecution by the Inquisition, which also reached into Portugal.

[In Portugal] there were no social restrictions on the Black population, and intermarriage was as frequent as not. Over the passage of time, the entire Black population was completely absorbed into the Portuguese population, to the point where by the start of the 20th Century, there were no full-blooded Blacks left in Portugal at all.

While not every Portuguese person today is a product of this absorption process, it is true to say that a very large number of Portuguese today are in fact of mixed racial descent, with a small amount of Moorish blood, dating from that non-White race’s occupation of the Iberian peninsula, thrown in for good measure.

The absorption of the ten percent Black population into the Portuguese population also identically mirrors the disappearance of Portugal as a world power. The Portuguese of the Age of Discoveries and those of today are essentially two different peoples. The effects of the absorption of the Black slaves has retarded Portugal’s history ever since. The rapid decline of Portugal following the intake of the vast numbers of Black slaves mirrors her decline.

In 1580, Spain annexed Portugal after the Portuguese king died heirless, and only regained its independence in 1680 once Spain itself had also gone into decline for precisely the same reasons—although the admixture of Black slaves into Spain was never as far reaching as it was in Portugal.

After 1600, Portuguese domination of trade with the East Indies was lost to the Dutch and the English. Partly in response to objections from the mixed race element in society, and partly in response to the reality that many Portuguese citizens were already of mixed racial heritage, the Purity of Blood Law was repealed in 1773, the same year that slavery was abolished in Portugal itself, and the restrictions on the “New Christians” (the Jews) in that country, were lifted.

Portugal’s dramatic and extremely quick decline from the most powerful and richest country in Western Europe to the most backward and poor country in that region, contains an extremely significant lesson. It only required an influx and absorption of just over ten per cent of non-White blood into mainstream Portuguese society to cause a significant shift in population make-up of that country. This shift in make-up immediately affected Portugal’s position and status in the world, with its decline being clearly linked to the absorption process.

John Martínez

I’ve just read the article about Portugal you sent me the other day [Ray Smith’s, abridged above]. It’s awesome, very educative.

I think you remember that I said [in a previous email] that in 19th-century Portuguese novels you never see Blacks in the plots. Despite that, I also said that there is something weird about the Portuguese as far as race is concerned, because those folks are palpably more stupid than other Europeans by and large, and I went on to mention that in Southern Portugal the Arab/Northern African racial admixture with the locals through the centuries probably had been considerable. Now, do you remember a post you prepared for your blog, concerning the frailty of the White genetic material, whose good qualities are lost by any minimum admixture with non-white genetic input? I found it so striking I even translated it and posted it on my blog.

Well, if you put together all these data I think you have a reasonable explanation for what happened to Portugal: Until the 14th century, there had been some Arab/North African amalgamation in the south, but the north remained more or less intact. In the course of the 15th century, due to Portugal’s conquests in Africa, dozens of thousands of Negroes were brought to the country, especially to Lisbon. Since there had never been anything like a racial consciousness in Portugal, racial amalgamation was rife and unchecked. Then, after a few generations, the country imploded economically and became the cultural/economic backwater we see today, especially if we keep in mind that the Black influx into Portugal most likely went on for the following centuries.

In other words, the one-drop rule should indeed be heeded. A relatively small-level racial intermixing on the part of the Portuguese was enough to destroy their character as a White people, even if not enough to give the average Portuguese of today a distinctively Black/Arab/Northern African phenotype.

Choices have consequences indeed…

♣

As soon as I started reading those online articles [critical of both Smith and Kemp’s views on Portugal] I realized they were the work of Portuguese antifas who call Kemp a racist and, paradoxically, at the same time try hard to prove their country is not a Negroes’ nation. Pathetic.

The passage you sent me from Wikipedia says everything, and I’d like to draw your attention to the following data:

In Iberia the mean frequency of Haplogroup L lineages reaches 3.83% and the frequency is higher in Portugal (5.83%) than in Spain (2.90%) and without parallel in the rest of Europe. [emphasis added]

Now, and this is really important, you can’t lose sight of something: since the slave traffic into Portugal must have ended at some point between the 18th and 19th century, in the meantime (at least until the 1960’s and 70’s, when apparently there was a resurgence of African Black immigration into the country), the amount of Black blood among the general population necessarily decreased over time. Therefore, this 5.83% mentioned above certainly was an even higher figure a couple of centuries ago. And now that Blacks are once more migrating en masse to Portugal, the risk they might run of becoming a White nation again in the future has definitely been removed.

About the allegations one of the articles tries to make to the effect that Portugal is no backwater, that it has a vibrant culture which unfortunately is not given attention by the big media… bull. Ever since Camões, arguably the greatest European poet in the 16th century after Shakespeare, the only relevant contributions the country has given to Europe are 19th-century novelist Eça de Queiroz and 20th-century poet Fernando Pessoa. It is true that the insufferable José Saramago won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1998, but so what? Even Toni Morrison won it—although Tolstoy, Joyce and Borges didn’t. In fact, I’m surprised Paulo Coelho hasn’t received it yet. The antifas in Stockholm will bestow prizes to their brothers anyway and commie Saramago would do just as well as any other.

My 2 ¢

Before discovering white nationalist literature I was completely unaware that the Portuguese ruined their gene pool by interbreeding with Blacks. And I ignored also that the Spanish had imported vast amounts of Black slaves into New Spain—presently Mexico—and that with time the Blacks merged genetically with the Amerind mestizos.

But what shocked me the most is that long ago the pure Aryans in Spain—by 476 AD a Visigoth king, Euric, controlled nearly all the Iberian Peninsula—were tricked into degrading their gene pool by means of Christian conversion and marrying non-whites, as explained by Kemp (and William Pierce).

Incidentally, in the first comment of the comments section below I reproduce the whole section on current Iberian genetic studies that Martínez used to pick a quotation. I am reproducing it in addition to linking to it above because in the past I endured the bitter experience of Wikipedia administrators deleting an entire section I had written about aboriginal infanticide in Australia in spite of the fact that it was well sourced. The article “Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula” at Wikipedia could be censored as well.

He who controls the past controls the future! Rewriting history is therefore one of the hobbies of our anti-white culture.

Kemp on the Jews

Excerpted from
March of the Titans:
A History of the White Race
by Arthur Kemp:


The saga of the European Jews

Anti-Semitism—or, more accurately, anti-Jewishness—was not an invention of Hitler nor of his National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Anti-Jewish sentiment has always stalked the Jews, where-ever they went: it seems as if their very presence always elicited a negative and hostile response from virtually all the nations in which they settled. Anti-Jewish sentiment existed long before Christianity, and the introduction of that religion and its distortions merely provided another means of expression for the latent anti-Jewish feeling which always followed the Jews like a shadow.

Origins of anti-Jewish sentiment. The origins of this original anti-Jewish feeling lie within the nature of Jewish society itself: exclusively ethno-centric with a binding religion and inward looking culture, the Jews always managed to maintain themselves as an isolated community in all of the nations in which they settled. This tradition has maintained itself to this day.

For this reason, Jews tended to live together in tightly knit communities in cities: these Jewish blocks came to be called ghettoes, and it is important to realize that the first ghettoes were entirely voluntary Jewish neighborhoods. This was then re-inforced by religious laws limiting membership of the Jewish community by race—only people born of Jewish women could be accepted as Jews. This is another practice which has survived to the present day—people of no direct Jewish ancestry can only become Jews with great difficulty, and even then a large section of the Jewish community, the orthodox Jews, will not recognize converts as true Jews.

Finally, the well-known Jewish propensity for business and the ability to accumulate vast amounts of money—a phenomena well known to this day—was the source of much original anti-Jewish feeling. Gentiles (or, Goy as the Jewish Talmud) refer to non-Jews of all races, with the literal translation of cattle—which in itself is an important insight of how the writers of the Talmud viewed the outside world.

The true origins of anti-Jewish feeling therefore lies in a combination of three major factors:

• the self imposed isolation of the Jewish people;

• the open hostility to Non-Jews as espoused in their ethno-centric and tightly binding religion; and

• the propensity of their financial dealings.

Thus it was that the first anti-Jewish outbursts occurred long before the introduction of Christianity. Christianity merely added to these emotions: as the wave of Christian fanaticism swept Europe, all sense of reason or rationality was lost, and, forgetting that Christianity itself had sprung from Judaism, the Christians gave vent to their long simmering dislike of the Jews by accusing them of being the killers of Christ to boot.

The hostility was however, reciprocated: the Talmud, which is a collection of rabbinical writings added to the Old Testament, contains many violently anti-Gentile remarks, comparing non-Jewish women to whores and providing specific instruction on how it is permissible for Jews to cheat non-Jews in business.

Both Christians and Jews then, altered their religious teachings in attempts to whip up hostility to each other in a bizarre semi-religious and semi-racial clash.

Jews occupy high posts in Moorish Spain and Portugal. After the decline of the Roman Empire, Jews started settling in larger numbers in Western Europe, with many Sephardic Jews crossing over from Africa into Spain. Hot on their heels came the Muslim Moors, who gave the Jews favored status in Moorish occupied Spain: Jews came to fill the highest position in the Moorish republic of Granada in Spain and owned one-third of all the real estate in Barcelona.

When the Moorish occupation of Spain was finally ended, the Christian victors did not take kindly to what they correctly saw as Jewish collaboration with the Moors. This led to the Spanish version of the inquisition, which was primarily aimed at Jews who had falsely converted to Christianity in an attempt to escape the revenge attacks on Jews carried out by the victorious Christian armies. Finally, the Jews were formally expelled from Spain in 1492, the same year that Christopher Columbus set foot in the Americas.

France. As avid supporters of the French Revolution, Jews were rewarded when the National Assembly enfranchised Jews in 1791, simultaneously stripping all restrictions which had been placed on them.

Napoleon Bonaparte was given much support by Europe’s Jews in his campaigns across Europe, for where ever he went he lifted whatever restrictions there had been upon the Jews. Once again, this was only good for Jews over the short term. The downside came when Napoleon was finally beaten: Jews were associated with the destruction that his military adventures had wrought; virtually all of the reforms he had instituted were reversed as a result.

However, by the 1860s, most of the Jewish communities in Western Europe had more or less been de-ghettoized, and Napoleon’s reforms had for the greatest part been re-instituted.

Jewish domination of media in the West. Whether by deliberate plan or accident, the situation has arisen whereby Jews have ended up dominating the mass media forms of both the USA, and to a slightly smaller extent, of Western Europe. The ownership of the mass media by a small group of Jews is well documented and full details are easily obtainable on the Internet.

This Jewish domination of the media can, and does, have serious consequences, so vividly illustrated by the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York’s World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. These events were triggered exclusively by the unflagging US support given to Israel against the Palestinians.

The fact that the USA—and much of the West—continues to support Israel at any cost, including the deaths of thousands of its own citizens, is the surest evidence yet of the power of the Jewish lobby in both the mass media (which generates “public opinion”) and of the Jewish lobby’s famed control over the US government, and to a lesser extent, the governments of Western Europe.

The expulsion of the Jews

The Spanish Jews were amongst the first to feel the full effects of the fall of the Moors from power in Spain. In 1492 Isabella and Ferdinand formally expelled all Jews from that country, punishing the Spanish Jews for having actively collaborated with the Moors during their 780 year long occupation. The victorious Moors (who, because of their common Semitic ancestry with the Spanish Jews and the already poor relations between the Jews and the Goths) employed several Spanish Jews in their administration of Spain in some of the highest posts, even though there were occasional outbursts of anti-Jewish feeling amongst the Arabs themselves.

In the city of Grenada, the last to fall to the White armies, the Spanish were enraged to learn that the Moorish king’s prime minister and most of his leading advisors were Jews. A massacre of Jews in the city followed that discovery. This alliance between a number of Spanish Jews and the Moors inflamed the anti-Semitic feeling amongst the subdued Goths even further; a sentiment which would later flare up in the form of the Spanish Inquisition and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain.

The Inquisition. When Spain was finally liberated from the non-White Moors, the long suppressed anti-Jewish sentiment broke out in full fury. In that year all unbaptized Jews were expelled en masse from Spain, and the infamous Spanish Inquisition, set up to enforce Christendom, was used to persecute Jews, who, because of their collaboration with the Moors, were regarded as the implacable enemies of White Spain.

Earlier Isabella had obtained from the Pope in Rome a dispensation to establish the Inquisition in Spain, which soon turned into a fully fledged anti-Jewish campaign under the name of Christianity. The first hearings against the Conversos were held in February 1481 in Castile; it combined with the outbreak of the bubonic plague. Many Christian fanatics linked the outbreak of the plague to the start of proceedings against the Conversos, and the Jews were blamed for the plague as well as their other real or imagined crimes, which included accusations that they had betrayed the city of Toledo to the invading Moors by opening the city gates at a crucial junction in the siege of that city.

The leading Conversos held a secret meeting to resist the Inquisition with force. Isabella’s spies however found out about the planned rebellion and arrested the ringleaders, most prominent amongst them a rabbi named Diego de Susan. He, along with six other Jews, was tried for subversion, found guilty and executed by burning at the stake in late 1481.

The Conversos then broke rank in panic, and starting fleeing Spain in large numbers, some going to Italy, but many going to Muslim held Turkey, where they once again enjoyed special status. Much property belonging to the Converso Jews—who by some estimates made up as much as 20 per cent of Spain’s pre-Inquisition population—was seized by Isabella and added to the state treasury.

After the expulsion of the Moors and the Jews, Spain entered its Golden Age. It created a huge empire, and along with Portugal, became one of the most powerful nations in Europe.

The First Great Brothers’ War

The World Zionist movement, a nationalist Jewish organization founded by European Jews to create a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, saw an opportunity open up with the British occupation of Palestine, and persuaded the British foreign minister, Lord Arthur Balfour, to issue a public promise in 1917 to the effect that Britain would support the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This public promise became known as the Balfour Declaration.

In return for this undertaking, the World Zionist Movement then promised Britain that it would marshal the world’s Jews behind the Allied cause and, more importantly, endeavor to use their influence to bring the United States of America into the war. In this way, considerable pressure was brought to bear on the American government to enter the war against Germany, although by this stage they hardly needed much prompting.

The United States enters the war. While the World Zionist Congress was actively working behind the scenes with the powerful Jewish lobby in the American government, the course of the war at sea presented the American president, Woodrow Wilson, with an opportunity to enter the war against Germany, despite his presidential election campaign having been specifically fought on a non-interventionist ticket.

In February 1917, the US broke off diplomatic relations with Germany and formally declared war in April. The timing of the US entry into the war—virtually simultaneously with the Balfour Declaration—is too good to be coincidental. By June 1917, more than 175,000 American troops were already in France; by the end of the war more than two million Americans had been deployed in France.

Waves of fresh American troops captured 14,000 exhausted and virtually starving German troops at Saint-Mihiel, and then pushed on through the Argonne forest, breaking the German lines between Metz and Sedan.

With this major defeat, the German government asked for an armistice in October 1918—this attempt to end the war failed when the American president Woodrow Wilson insisted on negotiating only with a democratic German government. The British then pushed home an attack in Belgium and Northern France and early in November American and French forces reached Sedan. By early November, the Hindenburg line had been broken and the Germans were in disarray.

The suppressed link – Jews and communism

The creation of the Soviet Union was to impact upon history for the greater part of the 20th Century—and an understanding of the sub-racial and ideological divisions it caused is crucial to understanding not only the events of that century, but also to understanding the flare up of anti-Jewish sentiment which culminated in the creation of the Third Reich in Germany.

For the Soviet Union’s best kept secret was that the Bolshevik elite had one outstanding characteristic: it had an inordinately large number of Jews in its controlling body.

Virtually all of the important Bolshevik leaders were Jews: they included the “father of the revolution,” Leon Trotsky (whose real name was Lev Bronstein: in an attempt to hide his Jewishness, he adopted the name Trotsky); Lev Kamenev, the early Bolshevik leader who later went on to become a leading member of the Politburo, was born with the surname Rosenfeld; Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Petrograd Soviet, was born with the surname Apfelbaum; and many other famous Communists of the time, such as Karl Radek, Lazar Kaganovich; and Moses Urtisky, (the head of the Cheka) who all changed their names for reasons similar to that of Trotsky.

The Bolshevik’s Party’s Central Committee chairman, Yakov Sverdlov, was also Jewish—and it was he who gave the order to the Jewish Soviet secret policeman, Yurovsky, to murder the Tsar—Yurovsky personally carried out this order.

As if the Russian Revolution was not enough, the originator of the Communist ideology itself, Karl Marx, was also a Jew, with his family name in reality being Levi.

The large Jewish role in the Russian revolution, combined with the fact that Marx had been born a Jew, was manna from heaven for the European anti-Semitic movement, and the link between Jews and Communism was exploited to the hilt, particularly by Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist (Nazi) movement in Germany during the 1920s.

It was not only in Germany that the association of Jews with Communism was made: all over the world Jews became associated with radical political movements, sometimes justifiably so, other times not. Nonetheless, the presence of so many Jews in the creation of the Soviet Union played a massive role in justifying anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe prior to, and with, the rise of Adolf Hitler.

Directly after the First World War, there were another three specifically Jewish Communist revolutions in Europe itself:

• the German Jew, Kurt Eisner, led a short lived communist revolution in Munich, Bavaria from November 1918 to February 1919 (at the same time that Adolf Hitler was an unknown soldier in that city—the effect of being a first hand witness to a Jewish and Communist-led revolution helped to cement Hitler’s anti-Communist and anti-Jewish feelings);

• the short lived Sparticus uprising in Berlin (September 1918 to January 1919) led by the German Jews, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg; and

• the short lived Communist tyranny in Hungary led by the Jew, Bela Kun (Cohen), from March to August 1919.

These incidents all helped to identify Jews with Communism in the public mind: in this light it becomes perfectly explicable why the Nazi Party was able to win support on an anti-Communist and open anti-Jewish platform.

Jews in the later Soviet Union. Jews retained their leading roles in Soviet society until growing anti-Semitism within the Communist Party itself led to a change in policy. Trotsky was the first major Jewish casualty: he split with Stalin over the issue of international socialism and the need to spread the revolution: he was forced into exile in 1929. He was then assassinated in Mexico City in 1940, allegedly by a Stalinist agent.

By the middle 1930s, Stalin had started purging the Soviet Communist Party of other important Jews. The period immediately following the end of the Second World War and the creation of the state of Israel saw another rise in Soviet anti-Semitism: by 1953, Stalin had started purging all Jews in the Soviet hierarchy who were also Zionists.

The Communists, quite correctly, saw Zionism as Jewish nationalism and contrary to the interests of an international socialist brotherhood. Many leading Russian Jews were also fervent Zionists: and it was this group that was then targeted for persecution, and who became famous throughout the rest of the lifetime of the Soviet Union as the victims of Soviet anti-Semitism.

Zionism, as an expression of Jewish separatism was declared a crime against the Soviet state, and Zionist organizations were forced to close down their operations inside the Soviet Union. East Germany, as an official Soviet satellite, was forbidden by Moscow to make any reparations payments to the Zionist created state of Israel for the treatment of Jews by the Nazi government.

Not all Russian Jews were Zionists: those who were not, were generally left alone and some did achieve prominent positions within the post Stalin Soviet Union. Many thousands of Jews did however leave the Soviet Union—estimates putting the total number at over the one million mark, with most settling in Israel or the United States.

The Encyclopedia Judaica, published in Jerusalem, Israel, by Jews, is available at most large public libraries and is in English. This reference book for all things Jewish is quite open about the Jewish role in Communism, particularly early Communism, and contains a large number of admissions in this regard.

The Volume 5 of the 1971 edition of the
Encyclopedia Judaica, published in Jerusalem, Israel,
from where all of the extracts below have been taken.

Under the entry for “Communism”: in Volume 5, page 792, the following appears: “The Communist Movement and ideology played an important part in Jewish life, particularly in the 1920s, 1930s and during and after World War II.” On page 793, the same Encyclopedia Judaica then goes on to say that “Communist trends became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries, Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist Parties.”

The Encyclopedia Judaica goes on to reveal that the Communist International actually instructed Jews to change their names so as “not confirm right-wing propaganda that presented Communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy.”

The Encyclopedia Judaica then goes on to describe the overwhelming role Jews played in creating the Soviet Union. On page 792 it says: “Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet Regime”.

On page 794, this Jewish reference book then goes to list the Jews prominent in the upper command of the Russian Communist party: these included Maxim Litvinov (later foreign minister of Soviet Russia); Grigori Zinoviev, Lwev Kamenev, Jacob Sverdlov, Lazar Kaganovich, and Karl Radek, amongst many others.

The organizer of the Revolution was Trotsky, who prepared a special committee to plan and prepare the coup which brought the Communists to power. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, this committee, called the Military Revolutionary Committee, had five members—three of whom were Jews. The Politburo—the supreme governing body of Russia immediately after the Communist Revolution—had four Jews amongst its seven members, according to page 797 of the Jewish Encyclopedia Judaica.

While many have alleged that Lenin was also Jewish, or at least of part Jewish origin, there is little concrete evidence of this. However, Lenin was ardently pro-Jewish, branding anti-Semitism (correctly) as “counter revolutionary” (Encyclopedia Judaica, page 798). A statement against anti-Semitism was made by Lenin in March 1919 and was “one of the rare occasions when his voice was put on a phonograph record to be used in a mass campaign against the counterrevolutionary incitement against the Jews,” according to the Encyclopedia Judaica, page 798. One of the first laws passed by the new Soviet Communist government was to outlaw anti-Semitism (Encyclopedia Judaica, page 798).

Winston Churchill on the Jewish role in communism. The preponderance of Jews in the inner sanctum of the Communist revolution in Russia was in fact well known at the time that the revolution took place: it is only in the post Second World War II era that this fact has been suppressed.

A good example of the contemporary awareness of the Jewish nature of early Russian Communism can be found in the writing of the young Winston Churchill, later to become prime minister of Great Britain, who, in 1920, was also working as journalist.

In 1920, Churchill wrote a full page article for the Illustrated Sunday Herald on 8 February 1920 detailing the Jewish involvement in the revolution. Churchill discusses in this article the split between Jews: some are Communists, he wrote, while others are Jewish nationalists. Churchill favored the Jewish nationalists, (and of course they indeed fall foul of the Jewish Communists, eventually becoming bitter enemies) and he appealed to what he called “loyal Jews” to ensure that the Communist Jews did not succeed. Churchill went even further and blamed the Jews for “every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century”, writing:

This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new. From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.

It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders.

Churchill also pointedly accused Leon Trotsky (Bronstein) of wanting to establish a “world wide Communistic state under Jewish domination” in this article.

Churchill was not the only journalist to note the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution: Robert Wilton, the chief correspondent for the London Times, who was stationed in Russia at the time, wrote in his book The Last Days of the Romanovs (Hornton Butterworth, London, 1920, pages 147, 22-28, 81,118, 199, 127, 139-148) that “90 per cent” of the new Soviet government was composed of Jews. The correspondent for the London Morning Post, Victor Marsden, went further and actually compiled a list of names of the top 545 Bolshevik officials: of these, Marsden said, 454 were Jews and only 23 Non-Jewish Russians (All These Things, A.N. Field, Appendix B pages 274-276).

The US Army’s telegrams . The American Army Intelligence Service had its agents in Russia at the time of the Communist Revolution, and the Jewish nature of that revolution is accurately reflected in those reports.

An American Senate subcommittee investigation into the Russian Revolution heard evidence, put on congressional record, that “In December 1919, under the presidency of a man named Apfelbaum (Zinovieff), out of the 388 members of the Bolshevik central government, only 16 happened to be real Russians, and all the rest (with the exception of a Negro from the U.S.) were Jews” (U.S. Senate Document 62, 1919).

[Kemp includes here photocopy images of these telegrams from official US National Archives, and then he adds:]

Both describe the domination of the Bolshevik Communists by Jews, using the words “Fifty per cent of Soviet Government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type.”

Copies of documents from the US National Archives are freely available to anyone from the Washington DC, USA, office.

However, none of these authorities quoted above dared to use quite the language of a US Military Intelligence officer, one captain Montgomery Schuyler, who sent two reports to Washington in March and June 1919, describing in graphic detail the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution. Both these reports were only declassified in September 1957 and the originals are still held in the US National Archives in Washington, open for public inspection.

The first report, sent from Omsk on 1 March 1919, contains the following paragraph: “it is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type”.

The second report, dated 9 June 1919, and sent from Vladivostok, said that of the “384 commissars there were 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.”

Both these American army military intelligence reports are freely available from the US National Archives in Washington DC. The importance of this information does not need to be overemphasized in the light of the crucial governing role the commissars played in the running the early Soviet society.

It therefore came as no surprise when anti-Semitism was duly entered into the Soviet law books as a death penalty crime.

Note:

For excerpts of all chapters of Kemp’s book see: here.

Towards White Zionism

Essay-review of Separation and its Discontents:
Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism

by Cesar Tort

I’ve just read the second book of Professor Kevin MacDonald’s study on Jewry, and I must say that it is my favorite book of his trilogy, that I read within a timeframe of two-and-a-half years.

To me, the moral of Separation and its Discontents (hereafter SAID) is that the current decline of the West was caused because the white man did not replace, in due time, the collectivism of the Catholic Church—Christendom was basically immune to Jewish subversion—with another collectivist strategy, like the one in National Socialist Germany.

The reading of SAID made me discover that the critique of universalism and individualism predates the blogs that awakened me in the last few years. MacDonald wrote:

Western societies, unlike prototypical Jewish cultures, do not have a primitive concern with racial purity. Rather, concern about racial purity emerges only in the late stages of Jewish-gentile group conflict…

Despite a great deal of commonality among Western anti-Semitic movements [i.e., Christianity and NS], there was a great difference between the universalistic, assimilatory tendencies of traditional Western Christianity and the exclusivistic, racialist program of National Socialism. Indeed, we have seen that beginning in the 19th century an important aspect of German anti-Semitic ideology was a criticism of Western universalism and the development of peculiarly German conceptions of Christianity. A critical component of official National Socialist ideology, as represented in the thought of Alfred Rosenberg, was the idea that “the twin forces of disintegration, namely universalism and individualism, act in perpetual conflict with the Germanic concept of race.” In this regard, National Socialism was indeed profoundly anti-Western. In rejecting both universalism and individualism, National Socialism resembled, much more closely than did medieval Western collectivist Christianity, its mirror image rival, Judaism. [page 196]

In a previous chapter MacDonald had written:

We shall see that with the rise of the National Socialist movement in Germany, the universalist themes of Western Christianity were completely overthrown in favor of a full-blown racialist ideology of the ingroup. In Chapter 5 I will argue that National Socialism is a true mirror-image of Judaism. Not surprisingly, it was also the most dangerous enemy that Judaism has confronted in its entire existence. [page 133]

If MacDonald is right, and I believe he is, this alone demonstrates that even white nationalists are behaving, to use James Bowery’s term, like “extended phenotypes” of Jews, especially the Anglo-Saxons. In fact, I believe that if the white race goes extinct, Anglo-Saxons will be blamed by the surviving Chinese or Muslim historians in a future that views the Germanic movement as Europe’s last chance to win her centuries-old battle against Jewry.

Just one example. In a 2010 open thread on Hitler at Occidental Dissent (excerpts here) some white nationalists were calling Hitler a “beast” and claimed that their founding fathers were a “raging festival of awesome” superiority compared to Nazism. This ignores that the American Constitution mandates individualism, egalitarianism and a liberty with economic interests over racial interests. Those people who called Hitler a “beast” in his birthday added that Occidental Dissent, which is not a neonazi site, “is disgraced by his picture and a posting saluting him.”

Such commenters are totally unaware of the fact that the Allied forces committed more serious crimes before and after the Second World War than those attributed to the Nazis during the heat of war. This is why I will never tire of repeating that, before any serious discussion of white interests can even take place one should read Hellstorm, the very first book of my list. It makes absolutely no sense trying to discuss our current woes if even white nationalists are plugged in the matrix of Jew-controlled media and the postwar narrative of the academia. By siding the current narrative about Germany, they completely ignore the most elemental facts of our history.

Unlike the common Anglo-Saxon, only by understanding the Jewish problem, and the ways that the Germans reacted against it in the century when we were born, it is possible to comprehend the current mess. One of the most fascinating hypothesis advanced in SAID provides much food for thought. MacDonald wrote, “I propose that the Christian church in late antiquity was in its very essence the embodiment of a powerful anti-Semitic movement…” (page 112).

This is something I had never heard of, and reminds me my first readings of psychohistory and Lloyd deMause’s insights on why the Christ archetype galvanized the population of the ancient world, although MacDonald’s hypothesis is totally distinct and is presented from an altogether distant point of view. But after digesting what both deMause and MacDonald say, for the first time I feel I am starting to comprehend facets of Christianity that would have never occurred to me from a conventional reading to history. If MacDonald is right, the Roman Catholic Church was the earliest attempt toward a type of society that we may call collectivism for European-derived peoples.

Although Christianity always held universalist ideals at its core, it nonetheless fulfilled its role of impeding (like the Muslim nations) that Judaism became a destructive force for the indigenous culture of the late Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages. One of the facts that I learnt in SAID is that most restrictions enacted against the Jews, initiated in the period from Eusebius to Justinian, were still active throughout Christendom until the French Revolution hit the continent with all its fury. It was precisely the so-called “Enlightenment” what inspired the founding fathers of the United States of America. And contrary to those “white nationalists” who insult Hitler and the movement he created, the mortal sin of the French Revolution—the emancipation of Jewry—was not properly atoned in Europe until the arrival of a specifically racial ideology. Alas, the traitors, the Judaized Anglo-Saxons, did everything in their power to obliterate a nascent, competing worldview. The 20th century should have been the German century, not the Jewish century!

But not only Nazi Germany has been demonized in the public mind. The Inquisition is widely seen as a black page in the history of the Church even by the most Catholic individuals that I know. In contrast to the popular view, MacDonald presents us with a radical reevaluation of what was precisely the role of the Inquisition. On page 147 he states: “I here develop the view that the Spanish Inquisition was fundamentally an authoritarian, collectivist, and exclusionary movement that resulted from resource and reproductive competition with Jews, and particularly crypto-Jews posing as Christians.”

In fact, thanks to the Inquisition, for three-hundred years (1521-1821), before the movement of independence that gave birth to “Mexico,” New Spain was Judenfrei.

♣

While reading SAID I could not escape the thought, as I wrote in a notebook, that “whites are brutes” because “unlike the Jews and with the exception of William Pierce and Arthur Kemp, very few have a notion of who we are” (the title of Pierce’s book). And I added that I had seen a television program featuring New York Hassidic Jews celebrating, in one of their holydays, their victory over the ancient Greeks who tried to assimilate them. I wrote: “When do we celebrate the victory of Antiochus IV over the Jews, or Titus’s conquest of Jerusalem?

Bust of Antiochus IV

We cannot celebrate these victories precisely for the reason that both Kemp and Pierce explained so well: neither the Greeks nor the Romans exist today. (And incidentally, what about celebrating the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492?) What we call contemporary Greeks or Romans are the product of centuries of blood mixing that devalued not only the genotype of the original Indo-European population, but their extended phenotype as well: the Greco-Roman ethos and the pagan, classical mythology. Those Greeks and Romans who embraced Christianity were a totally different breed compared to the pure Aryans of Sparta or the austere Romans of the pre-imperial Republic.

MacDonald himself acknowledges on page 190 that “the Jews have continued as a creative race into the present, while the Greeks gradually merged with the barbarians and lost their distinctiveness—a point remarkably similar to Chamberlain’s ‘chaos of peoples’ in which the decline of the ancient world is attributed to loss of racial purity.” Conversely, I would say that since the Jews have conserved their genotype almost intact throughout the millennia they are able to celebrate their Maccabean revolt… in New York as if it was yesterday! In other words, had we Meditarraneans preserved our genes intact, we might still be celebrating Antiochus’ victories over the tribe. Or at least if we knew our history with the same passion that Jews know theirs, we might still be celebrating the fall of the temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or the more recent expulsion of the tribe from the Iberian peninsula.

What conventional historians ignore is that, once the Church lost its power to sell whites a peculiar narrative after the late 18th and early 19th centuries, our overwhelming individualism put us at the mercy of a collectivist tribe. Fortunately, since the dollar will crash and divine justice will finally befall upon the treasonous individualists that empowered the tribe and murdered their ancestors, there is hope that some of us will lean towards White Zionism in a post-crashed world. On page 10 MacDonald says that “in congruence with the results of social identity research, anti-Semitism is expected to be most prominent among those most in competition with the Jews and during times of economic crisis…”

I hope he is right, and although most fans of MacDonald treasure The Culture of Critique as their favorite of the trilogy, I like SAID most because, despite the crime of the age committed by the Allies, there will still be one last chance for the white peoples to reclaim their civilization against the alien invasion, and MacDonald’s work may help us understand white collectivism.

I would even venture to surmise that, pace Alex Linder and other pro-white libertarians, collectivism might be exactly what we need, though at present it does not has to be necessarily Christian or even religious. In order to defeat the tribe a revaluation of the collectivist movement that thrived in Germany when my parents were kids could be considered.

Iberians’ gross blunder

Half a year ago the admin of a Catholic, counter-Jihad website in Spain commented in this blog.

Mexico’s backwardness has been the result of its governments after independence, which has been mostly in the hands of whites. Its historical demise is due to the fact that the whites are not breeding, as it is the case, unfortunately, of so many white nationalists.

I quote this friend because his Catholic views reflect exactly the ideology that ruined this part of the American continent: blaming the few whites in charge of a nation consisting of a sea of brown people and sparing the Catholic, Universal ethics that caused the non-white population explosion in the first place.

Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans is a comprehensive book about the odyssey of the white race, presently available only in printed format. After a long transcontinental research Kemp concludes that colonization is only successful when the colonizers ensure that they demographically replace the native population. “Anything less than that will cause the colonial experiment to fail.” Kemp demonstrates his thesis not only through the paradigm of his native Rhodesia, but of every other geographical entity that had been conquered by whites in the last millennia only to be re-conquered by the natives after overwhelming the white conquerors demographically.

Although William Pierce died before he could manage to put an insightful work on the history of the white race in book form, Who We Are, fortunately his manuscript is available on the net. Pierce arrives to similar conclusions: ethnic cleansing is the only way to succeed, and, as he hinted in other texts, to do that we must abandon Christian meta-ethics altogether.

Over the boards I’ve said it many times and will say it again: Pace my Christian friends, the price to save the West is to give up Christian axiology, and its secular offshoots, that presently are infecting our minds and our sense of decency.

♣

Excerpted from the 22nd article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:

The native Amerinds found by the Spaniards in the West Indies were, like those of the mainland, of Mongoloid derivation, being the descendants of Mongoloid peoples who had begun crossing the Bering Strait from Siberia to North America some 12,000 years ago and had then gradually propagated throughout the empty North and South American continents and the adjacent islands.

Since the Spaniards’ entire purpose in the New World was economic exploitation, not the propagation of their own race, they did not deliberately liquidate the native population. In some areas, however, that was the inadvertent effect of the Spanish conquest. The Indians were not constitutionally suited to the unremitting slave labor in the gold and silver mines and on the sugar plantations which was forced on them by their new masters, and they died like flies under the Spanish yoke.

An enormous toll was also taken by smallpox, a disease endemic among the Europeans but one to which the Amerinds, isolated as they had been for thousands of years, had no natural immunity. It virtually depopulated the Caribbean islands and then wreaked havoc among the mainland Indians. (The Indian revenge was syphilis, a New World disease entirely new to the Europeans—at least, in the new and virulent form in which it existed among the Amerinds.)

Beginning of the Black Tide

Because of the inadequacy of the Indians as a local labor force, the Spaniards almost immediately began importing Negro slaves from West Africa. The latter belong to a race ideally suited to the plantation labor of that era. The Blacks were first used in the West Indies, then on the Brazilian mainland. Approximately a million of them were imported in the period 1550-1650, and by the latter date they had completely replaced the Amerind natives as a slave labor force on the Caribbean islands.

(Spanish-English translation of the painting footnote: Spaniard, Mestizo, Indian)

Approximately 150,000 Spaniards and Portuguese had migrated to the New World by the middle of the 17th century, and natural increase had raised their number to about 400,000. They ruled over about 9,000,000 Indians—and a growing population of mestizos (Indian-White mixed breeds), Blacks, mulattos, and Indian-Black mixed breeds. Only on the island of Cuba was there anything approaching a truly White Spanish or Portuguese community.

Northerners Arrive

From the beginning of the 17th century, however, Northern Europeans—English, French, and Dutch—began seriously contesting the Iberians’ claims on the New World. By 1650 nearly 50,000 English (and a few thousand French and Dutch) immigrants were settled on Caribbean land wrested away from the Spaniards, and another 50,000 had landed in North America.

In sharp contrast to the Spanish and Portuguese colonists, the great bulk of the Northern Europeans came to the New World not to exploit non-White labor and make money, but to settle and work the land themselves, in all-White communities. Thus, colonialism acquired two quite distinct meanings in the 17th and 18th centuries: a strictly economic meaning, which applied to all the Southern European and some of the Northern European colonies; and a racial meaning, which applied almost exclusively to the colonies of the Northerners.

The Pollution of the South

Today the only countries in South America which are substantially White are Uruguay (nearly 100 per cent), Argentina (between 80 and 90 per cent), and Chile (approximately 50 per cent).

Women and Plows

Most of the Northern Europeans who came to the New World had quite different motives than did the Spanish and Portuguese. Most of the latter came only to make money, and relatively few brought their women with them; from the beginning miscegenation was common in the areas controlled by the Iberians.

The Northerners, on the other hand, came for the land and the opportunity for a new life on a new frontier. They brought their women and their plows with them, and for the most part, they did their own labor. They saw in the Indians no opportunity for economic exploitation, but only a danger to their families. Until missionaries began making Christians of the Indians and taking their side against the Whites, the latter just pushed them aside, took their land, and formed all-White communities of farmers, craftsmen, and tradesmen, as they had in Europe.

♣

Note:

I’ve written extensively
on the Spanish conquest of Mexico here

Textbook case

Even if we omit what male Spaniards did with their genes in the Americas with countless Indian women and imported blacks, the sad history of Spain, racially a melting pot of Mediterranean Iberians, Phoenicians, Nordish Celts, Romans, Nordish Goths, Jews, and Moors, is a textbook case of white decline as the result of both ethno-suicide—Christianity—and Semitic genocide.

♣

Excerpted from the 19th article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:

Although King Wamba [a Visigothic king from 672 to 680] was a strong ruler, who successfully put down a Basque rebellion and maintained his frontiers against his Frankish neighbors to the north and Arab pirates raiding by sea from the south, prosperity had already begun taking its toll of Gothic vigor. It was Wamba’s immediate predecessor, Recesuinto, who, at the insistence of the Church, took the first direct step toward Gothic racial suicide (if we do not count as such Sisibert’s allowing baptized Jews to pass as Gentiles a few years earlier) when he abolished the longstanding ban against intermarriage.

Prior to Recesuinto’s reign, the racial pride of the Goths had remained intact. None but Goths might rule, and Goths might marry none but Goths. The penalty for violation of this ban was quite severe: both partners were burned at the stake. Thus, the blood of the Goths had remained unmixed with that of their Roman, Iberian, and Jewish subjects. Recesuinto allowed Goths to marry baptized Jews and anyone else who claimed Christian beliefs, and the nobility of Spain has since been tainted heavily with the Semitic blood of department-store heiresses, or the equivalent thereof in that pre-department-store era.

The Jews conspired all the more against the Goths, and the successors of Recesuinto and Wamba were obliged to take measures against them on a number of occasions. They failed, however, to rid their kingdom of the pestilence, because they did not apply the same measures against baptized Jews as against their unbaptized brethren. This shortsightedness finally led to the undoing of the Goths during the reign of Roderic, who took the throne in 709.

While the men of Roderic’s race had grown soft and indecisive over the course of the dozen generations which had passed since the time of Adolf, unable finally even to cope with a gaggle of money-hungry Semites in their midst, a new Semitic danger had begun to rise to the south of them.

Here Pierce describes how the Peninsula fell to Islamic invasion a few years later. Only in the mountains of the north, in Asturias, were the Nordish Goths able to hold back the Semitic tide permanently. Pierce adds:

Even today, 12 centuries after the fact, Jews still gather in their synagogues on holidays to gloat over their destruction of the Goths, and Jewish writers openly boast of their treachery. The popular Jewish author and lecturer, Max I. Dimont, has taken particular satisfaction in the fate of the Gothic women, both in Spain and in those areas of Gaul subject to Moorish raiding parties from the south. In his best-selling book, The Indestructible Jews, Dimont writes: “As blond Christian maidens fetched fancy prices in the slave markets, raids in Christian lands by Muslim private entrepreneurs became big business. Female captives were pedigreed like dogs. Their Christian antecedents, their genuine blondness, their virginity, and their ability to bear children were all ascertained and notarized before they were marketed.”

Dimont discreetly avoids mentioning that the slave merchants doing the pedigreeing and marketing of these White girls were, in most cases, Jews. What he does say is: “From the inception of Islam’s conquest, Spanish Jews had soared to the highest government posts. A series of brilliant Jewish viziers—viceroys—enriched the caliphate’s coffers and helped usher in an age of splendor and learning.”

Pierce proceeds to describe the heroic deeds of Charles Martell, who unlike the Goths was successful in repelling Muslim invasion. Then he says:

Though forced to retreat south of the Pyrenees, the Arabs and the other Muslim invaders of Spain remained in the peninsula for nearly 800 years, and the genetic damage they wrought there was great. Islam, like Christianity, makes no distinction of race; all that counts is religion, not blood. Thus, the interbreeding begun under Recesuinto to satisfy the demands of his bishops continued at an accelerated pace under Muslim rule, and, as mentioned by the Jewish writer Dimont, the Arabs and Moors were especially fond of mingling their genes with those of Spain’s blond Gothic nobility.

One indication of this lust is revealed by the terms imposed on the Goths who remained in the unconquered enclave in the northwest, which later grew into the Kingdom of Galicia: In order to keep the Semites at bay they were required to pay a tribute of 100 blond virgins each year. It was not until the reign of Alfonso II, which began in 791, that the Goths were again strong enough to put an end to this humiliating imposition.

After a few more paragraphs Pierce ends his chapter with these words:

Not until 1492 was the reconquest of the peninsula finally completed. In that year the unbaptized Jews were expelled en masse from the country they had betrayed eight centuries earlier, and the remaining pockets of Moors followed them ten years later. The Inquisition, which had been established in 1478, dealt to a limited extent with the baptized Jews.

Quotable quote

“Separating from Jews made England and Spain.”

—Celtic Patriot