The Jewish Question revisited

Note of September 2017:
The first half of this post,
“Wuthering Heights,”
has been relocated: here.

 

In a recent radio podcast Mark Weber, a revisionist historian and current director of the Institute for Historical Review, said (ellipsis omitted between unquoted sentences):

Americans pride themselves of not having an ideology (“We are not fooled by fascism, communism or Nazism or any other ‘isms’”). Well, in fact, America does have an ideology. It has a kind of core idea and a core narrative of itself that is widely accepted by Americans, whether they call themselves conservatives or liberals. And it is so engrained in the American mentality that it is not often expressed very openly.

The core of the American ideology is in the birth certificate, as it were, of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence. You all know that the Declaration of Independence lays out, I think, what Americans assume about what this country stands for, what it really means and in cases of doubt we turn back to it: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And to this end “Governments are instituted.”

Now that’s an essential kind of belief that Americans more of less accept. Liberals emphasize much more than conservatives the equality part of that. And conservatives tend to emphasize the point of individual life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. That is a very core kind of thing and with that there is a kind of narrative of American history.

The narrative of American history is that although it’s true that we didn’t have real equality when America was founded that is what we are aiming for: that’s our goal [emphasis in Weber’s voice]. And it is true that our founding fathers did not practice it well. But we are all trying to practice it. We are trying to reach that goal, that goal of real equality.

In his speech Weber also said that in keeping with that goal, in the past Americans decided that distinctions between Christians and non-Christians were not very important and stopped discriminating against the latter. Also, in keeping with the very same principle of non-discrimination, according to Weber the equality between women and men was enshrined. And the same could be said about how Jews and blacks got fantastically empowered in the US.

The social engineering that has transformed the West in general and America in particular has at its core this idea of equality and its corollary, the principle of non-discrimination as the most unquestioned, inviolable axioms of our moral universe. For example, Weber also noted that nowadays no conservative would ever dream of taking away the women’s right to vote. On the contrary: the equality commandment has now metastasized beyond unthinkable limits for our grandparents and, Weber pointed out, many are now saying: “Well, the next bastion is to make sure that gay people are equal too,” always in an endless pursuing of an amplifying spiral for an ever more encompassing equality.

This is a narrative “not only for liberals but of conservatives too,” who “may resist in one point but once it’s in place [women’s rights/affirmative action/Jews controlling the MSM] they don’t object it.” To boot, in the academia and in the mainstream media, including the film industry, this spiraling axiology is been made retroactive, and presently the world of my beloved grandmas is increasingly demonized precisely because even conservatives accept the narrative. Just compare this suicidal ethos that both liberals and conservatives subscribe with what I say in the manifesto: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that men and cultures are created un-equal, and that only an ethno-state will save our race from extinction.”

Christianity and Secular Christianity are based on the inversion of the most vital values. An ethnostate, by definition, would not only revoke the non-discriminatory principle but transvaluate it. Discrimination would be, again, considered the most basic, commonsensical ruling principle of our society. Hence the Nietzschean call for an Umwertung aller Werte, or transvaluation of Christian values back to Greco-Roman values: the only way to place, again, axiology upright.

After listening to Weber’s speech several times, I found it impossible not to think in my recent posts where both Christianity and what we are now calling Secular Christianity are harshly criticized. Which brings me to the Jewish Question and, specifically, to my debate with the monocausalists about whether or not the Jewish problem is the only causative factor of Western malaise.

Five months ago Michael O’Meara published what has been perhaps the most controversial article at Counter-Currents, “White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism”, of which O’Meara commented in the discussion thread:

“I’m certain most people read my piece with a good deal of negative emotion. But re-read my piece without emotion and look at what I actually try to say.”

As to Jewish monocausalism is concerned, in the threaded discussion O’Meara said that he could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that, say, Catholicism and Protestantism “were more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.” This, of course, reminds me Hitler’s criticism of Christianity. Readers of his table talks are always amazed by the fact that those who knew Hitler intimately often listened harsher words from the Führer’s lips directed against Christianity than against Judaism itself. See for example my latest post quoting Hitler’s private talks here.

Uncle Adolf had a point. For instance, it would be nonsense to say that Mr. Earnshaw loved Heathcliff and altruistically punished his eldest son “as a result of Jewish influence in early Victorian England” (even Kevin MacDonald would agree with me that that sort of behavior, however fictional, would qualify as “altruistic punishment”). And the same could be said about Catherine’s lasting infatuation with the dark-skinned gypsy. Both attitudes symbolize the westerners’ fondness for the “New Jesus,” what I am starting to call Secular Christianity. Or at least they symbolize what they are failing to do: an outright, revolutionary repudiation of the intruders and the traitorous elites. This is what Hindley intended in his early teens before his father irreparably damaged the emotional state of his most natural, legit heir by means of a series of altruistic punishments that ended in that the gypsy inherited the entire estate of Wuthering Heights. (Reread Brontë’s novel. The plot moved me to constantly swear, in exasperating soliloquies, against the deranged altruists of the Yorkshire.)

Yes: it is time for westerners to give up their self-destructive philo-Semitism. But Christianity and its secular incarnation that mandates us to love these later-day “gypsies” as the First Commandment must be torn to pieces too. Perhaps it’s suitable to end this post with the opening words of chapter 56, “Old and New Tables” of Thus Spake Zarathustra:

Here do I sit and wait, old broken tables around me and also new half-written tables. When cometh mine hour?

Umwertung aller Werte!

12 Comments

  1. “Christianity and Secular Christianity are based on the inversion of the most vital values.”

    Do people here know the real meaning of the Star of David? (link)

    You could always ask a Jew, but only a few Jewish scholars know the answer.

    It is made of two imbricated pyramids, one standing still, the other inverted.

    After this revelation, it is not hard to guess what these pyramids represent.

    They represent the same thing the pyramids of the Aryan Ancient Egypt represented: the Natural Order.

    Slaves at the bottom, the King at the top. Any alteration of this order brings death to the civilization.

    And what does Christianity say? What do Jews do today?

    They totally invert the pyramid. And it is the most efficient way of slaughtering a civilization without firing a single shot.

    • Talking about the “New Jesus”, this is body language:

      https://chechar.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pm_black_kids.jpg?w=470

    • The so-called Star of David (more correctly known as The Shield of David) was a pagan symbol that later came to be adopted by medieval Christians and was only adopted by the Jews a few centuries ago.

      • BS. The Star of David is mentioned in the Bible.

  2. A great post Chechar.

    Your opening quote is a stunner.

    “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.”
    —Hitler

    That profound statement sums up a two thousand year old thought control system that has the West by the balls.

    I need to get pass all the BS surrounding Hitler and start reading what he really had to say.

    I’m more fully realizing that Christianity with its ‘turn the other cheek, forgive your enemies, save the world, store riches in heaven, render unto Caesar’, etc, etc, are all suicidal, masochistic ideas, especially when subject to jewish predations. Can we say that Christianity was a jew virus designed to poison the minds of us ‘goys’? It looks like it.

    Michael O’Meara’s article at Counter-Currents, does make a good point re the fixation on jews by many White Nationalists. But, I think that it’s just one side of the same jewish coin. On one side is the face of the jew, the ’cause’, and on the other face are the ‘symptoms’, aka, Christianity, third world immigration, feminism, and so on.

    So what do we do?

    The vast majority of whites are oblivious to what is going on. We need to get the word out, just like you are doing.
    I believe they will wake up, although the more slowly they do, the more the damage.

    • “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity” is a false Hitler quote, notice no source is listed.
      Hitler knew enough to make peace with the churches, jew bolsheviks tore them down, and you want to follow the latter model.

      • Not false: it comes from his Table Talks.

  3. Yes, Table Talks is not a reliable source. http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

    • David Irving disagrees.

      • Yes, Irving wasn’t there either. Bottom line, Hitler did not in fact express such thoughts in verifiable writings or speeches, Bormann had a motive to lie, and the article I cite gives many other reasons for disbelief.

        Further, the Hitler model is the only one that has worked in a western nation. His model worked with Christians, never against the notion that Germany was and should be a Christian nation. It is not wise in my view to deviate from that model, if you ask the people to choose between their race and their Christianity they will choose Christianity, and Germany demonstrates that it is not necessary to ask the people to make such a choice.

        Btw, thanks for the discussion, I enjoy the site.

      • Irving’s method to detect forgeries is sound, There’s no reason to believe that the man who used shorthand to record the Fuhrer’s exact words lied. IMO people reject this shorthand record only because they don’t want to see their religious beliefs attacked. But it makes perfect sense once you understand H’s admiration for Nietzsche and, especially, Julian the Apostate.

  4. Yes, we agree upon this at least, “IMO people reject this shorthand record only because they don’t want to see their religious beliefs attacked,” my views on the facts are no doubt influenced by my religious belief, as are yours and others who see Hitler as anti-Christian. I will omit further counter-examples and thanks again for the discussion and the great site.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: