White suicide since Alexander

A comment by Franklin Ryckaert:

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

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

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

3) The Jewish exploitation of both.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/white-suicide-since-alexander/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

31 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Whatever the malign influences of the jew in our destruction we cannot discount our own perverse, suicidal tendencies either. The jew is a parasite and could easily have been discarded by the white race at any time. The jew could never have succeeded to the extent it has without the cooperation of whites. The primary problem lies with ourselves. Unless we accept that and deal with our lack of character and moral courage the machinations of the jew and the hatred of the non-whites for us are pretty much irrelevant.

    • @Brian Boru

      So, we must stop criticizing the Jews and blame ourselves for failing to crush the Jews?

      It’s incredible how many people are repeating that completely absurd line of thought!

  2. I do think you are onto something. A few days ago I had a discussion with a blonde, blue-eyed woman about Islamization in the Netherlands. She constantly took side against the Dutch, but she had no problem calling the Chinese environmentally destructive scum, and even suggested that Native Americans were just as murderous as Muslims.

  3. And yet right up until the 70s Western nations, including America, Australia, and Canada were so white as to be a dream. Christian, too. Most of what mixing there was came from Muslim conquest. No it isn’t some psychological characteristics, it’s a policy of genocide, this constant looking inward is merely a method of avoiding confrontation.

    • No it isn’t some psychological characteristics…

      What else can it be? Present-day whites are like Eloi lambs marching straight to be cannibalized by the Morlocks. To my mind, the most illustrative century to understand our current dilemma is not the 20th but the 19th. While the crazy French emancipated the Jews by the end of the 18th, it’s infuriating to see how throughout the 19th century other European countries, one by one, started to emancipate the subversive tribe too because of a deranged sense of moral decency. Only Hitler and his Nazis rebelled against the insane policies of these Christians.

      Obviously, our parents’ religion is the culprit here. I am not saying that we must excuse the white shark (the Jews), only that we must never spare the megalodon (Christian axiology).

  4. The praposed trilogy would be very interesting. I have identified as White Nationalist for about 1 1/2 years now. This obsession with blaming the Jews for all our problems is troubling to me. I feel it leaves us open to being blind sided by traitorous fellow whites. This is not to exempt organized Jewry of its crimes.
    Horus the Avenger says that White Rabbits are not racial, and that is racial. All other Rabbits automatically go racial, only White Rabbits do not.

    • Yes: this seems to be the root problem. Sometimes I like to see these genetic characteristics of white rabbits explained by Kevin Mac as the root; Christian axiology as the trunk, and modern liberalism as the branches. We must go to the root of course, independently of the parasites that presently are plaguing the tree.

  5. Yggdrasil put us back in touch with Arthur Keith who made useful observations on the competing instincts to focus/expand our loyalties. The tendency to universalism is part of our evolved human nature. It has never presented a major threat to European existence and does not today according to all opinion polls I’ve seen. The tendency to nurture small loyalties is usually far stronger.

    Alexander’s proto-multiculturalism is generally considered to have been opportunistic rather than idealistic. For example Oxford historian J.M. Roberts wrote about the “mass wedding of 9,000 of his soldiers to eastern women. This was the famous ‘marriage of east and west’, an act of state rather than of idealism, for the new empire had to be cemented together if it was to survive.”

    Cemented together with the Greek side on top.

    From Pierre L. van den Berghe, THE ETHNIC PHENOMENON:

    “Perhaps the soundest reason why foreign conquest and domination are so deeply resented is that they almost invariably represent a direct threat to the biological fitness of the conquered. The very reproductive success and, hence, biological survival of the conquered group is at stake. It is no accident that military conquest is so often accompanied by the killing, enslavement and castration of males, and the raping and capturing of females for purposes of enhancing the fitness of the conquerors.

    “Even when conquest is relatively mild and not openly genocidal, the subordinate group in an ethnic hierarchy almost invariably “loses” more women to males of the dominant group than vice versa. Hypergamy (mating upward for women) is a fitness-enhancing strategy for women, and, therefore, subordinate-group women do not always resist being “taken over” by dominant-group men. But subordinate-group men lose fitness by loosing potential mates from their group without any hope of access to dominant group females. It is not accidental that the most explosive aspect of interethnic relations is sexual contact across ethnic (or racial) lines; nor is the asymmetry of the resentment surprising. No group is concerned about gaining women; every group resents losing women.”

    is sexual contact across ethnic (or racial) lines; norFR wrote, ‘When the Western European peoples began to colonize the world’ …

    They ‘Whitened’ through genetic conquest those parts of the world but maintained their European homelands as bastions of Whiteness until very recently. When Pakistanis and Jamaicans boot the English out of their countries, follow us back to England, begin knocking up English girls but keep their own in line, aren’t they winning? If not then what are the English losing?

  6. FR wrote,

    ‘When the Western European peoples began to colonize the world’ …

    They ‘Whitened’ through genetic conquest those parts of the world but maintained their European homelands as bastions of Whiteness until very recently. When Pakistanis and Jamaicans boot the English out of their countries, follow us back to England, begin knocking up English girls but keep their own in line, aren’t they winning? If not then what are the English losing?

  7. And from Rex Warner, THE GREEK PHILOSOPHERS:

    [Stoicism] ‘put forward the genuinely inspiring idea – by no means a natural one to the Greeks – of mankind as a single family, of each man as fundamentally a “citizen of the world,” and only secondarily and by convention a member of this or that restricted community. Alexander, according to Plutarch, put this idea into practice in the government of his vast and heterogeneous empire; but it was formulated in philosophy by Zeno. It is relevant, no doubt, that Zeno himself was not Greek; he was apparently, of Semitic extraction.’

    Sharing power and splicing lineages is a common strategy for managing multi-ethnic empires, Alexander wasn’t doing anything that Asian or African warrior leaders haven’t done. But it was Zeno who first advanced as a philosophical principle the idea of the brotherhood of man into Western culture, and he wasn’t European although his target audience was. A lot of older Jewish texts proudly claim Zeno as one of their own.

    • Zeno was a nasty Middle-Eastern subversive. Use subversion against subversion.

  8. Franklin Ryckaert wrote,

    “Central to the weakness of Whites is what I call naive inclusivism. It is naive because it not only believes that all non-white peoples can and want to become like Westerners, but also that including them in Western societies will lead to a Utopia instead of racial suicide.”

    But non-White peoples generally want to preserve their cultural distinctiveness and mass immigration will lead to predictable problems in part because of that fact. This common sense view is vastly more prevalent among White people than the attitude you say is a central issue.

    FR wrote,

    ‘We simply cannot ascribe this suicidal behaviour to Jewish machinations’

    It wouldn’t be suicide if we could, and isn’t suicide at all if those views are not accurately ascribed to Whites. Yet in opinion polls White people in the West are quite consistent, ‘please – enough immigration already,’ ‘please – no more culture of critique,’ ‘please – no more affirmative action.’

    Isn’t it clear then that some group/s other than the ethnic majorities are driving policy?

  9. Nick,

    I’ve corrected the sentence as you requested.

    In your comments you missed the gist of our arguments.

    What Franklin and I are trying to say is that, as Kevin Mac has demonstrated, Whites are the polar opposite to Jews as to racial preservation, and that this characteristic is innate: something against what we must fight. It’s precisely this mindset what caused the current mess even though at the beginning Europeans restricted mestization to their conquered lands. Remember how I started my article “Fuck Christianity”?:

    In my life I have declined a couple of marriage proposals for the simple reason that the Mexican ladies were not pure whites. And last year I lost an internet friend, the Catholic administrator of the paleoconservative site La Sexta Redoma: a Spaniard who, when I confessed that I had just rejected one of such proposals, commented:

    But you would have whitened her descendants. That is what Spaniards did in the XVI – XVIII [centuries] in Mexico.

    So here we go again after half millennia! While 16th-century Spaniards were extremely tough on Jews they were, at the same time, fairly tolerant of the natives—with Pope Paul III recognizing in 1537 that Amerindians had souls and declared them fit to marry the bachelor conquerors!

    This theological blunder caused the astronomical mess that any racially-conscious visitor can see with his own eyes in the city where I studied grammar school with my blond cousin. I refer to the thoroughgoing mestization of Mexico, with overwhelming Indian blood over the European: the primary cause of Mexico’s backwardness and ultimate historical demise in the coming decades.

    This very same man of a site who receives thousands of hits each day, one of the best you can find in Spain to fight Islamization, told me by private mail that he felt very comfortable in a church in Switzerland with people of all ethnicities attending mass. He said this when we were still on friendly terms and he discovered that the background ideologies of us were so different: Catholicism versus racialism.

    His advice to me can only be understood in the context of how Christian universalism has been a real factor in our current demise as a people (I mean, Iberian whites still living in Mexico). You cannot blame Jews in a place where the Inquisition persecuted them ruthlessly. New Spain at its apex, run by pure Iberian whites, was even more powerful than her neighbor, the US. Now it’s third world rathole.

    The mess is the result of people like this “valiant” fighter from Spain with a very successful “anti-immigration” blog in Madrid.

  10. Your arguments are false or overstated.

    • How so?

      • That’s a rather baffling question. In my comments above I reply directly to many of your and FR’s arguments and show how they are false or overstated. I will repost them if you insist:

        The tendency to universalism is part of our evolved human nature, not a specifically White or Christian thing, and has never presented a major threat to European existence and does not today according to all opinion polls I’ve seen. You got polls saying Whites today want Whites to die off? Or any other evidence for this claim?

        Alexander’s proto-multiculturalism is generally considered to have been opportunistic rather than idealistic where sharing power and splicing lineages is a common strategy for managing multi-ethnic empires and Alexander wasn’t doing anything that Asian or African warrior leaders haven’t done. You deny that non-Whites also do this? Then who was Alexander making these alliances with in that case?

        Alexander was a conqueror, not a victim and not suicidal. Where Alexander made alliances he always retained the upper hand, politically, racially, culturally. This not so?

        The Brotherhood of Man meme was inserted into the Western philosophical tradition from outside. It was ‘by no means a natural one to the Greeks,’ nor any other European culture. Arthur Keith observes that wherever Universalist policies obtain they do not enjoy mass public support, ‘Governments have forced and are forcing Universalism upon unwilling and resistant subjects.’ Don’t you see governments doing this? And can you trump my Zeno card and point to an earlier, White originator of the ideal “citizen of the world” as you ought to be able if this mentality really is a specifically White trait?

        When Pakistanis and Jamaicans boot the English out of their countries, follow us back to England, begin knocking up English girls but keep their own in line, they are winning — aren’t they?

        The common sense view – that non-White peoples generally want to preserve their cultural distinctiveness and mass immigration will lead to predictable problems in part because of that fact – is vastly more prevalent among White people than the naive inclusivism FR says is a central issue. In fact, does anyone actually claim that ‘all non-white peoples can and want to become like Westerners’ and that ‘including them in Western societies will lead to a Utopia’? Is this an overstatement? Or an outright falsehood?

        In accordance with Keith’s predictions opinion polls show White people in the West are quite consistently in favour of themselves over others, ‘please – enough immigration already,’ ‘please – no more culture of critique,’ ‘please – no more affirmative action.’ These are not the stances of people hostile to racial self-preservation, far less do they constitute active ‘White suicide.’ Where immigration, the Culture of Critique and our economic dispossession continue apace, it is being done to us despite our wishes, we are not doing it to ourselves. We are, in Keith’s words, ‘unwilling and resistant subjects.’

        This suicide meme has only one predictable effect — it saps our will and resistance because it divides us among ourself [sic] and suggests we’re not even worth fighting for. This is its utility to people like Auster, it has none for people like us.

      • The tendency to universalism is part of our evolved human nature, not a specifically White or Christian thing

        Did you miss the point that the problem is that whites are the ones who have most of these tendencies?

        Alexander was a conqueror, not a victim and not suicidal.

        Extremely suicidal I would say. He was blond, he mongrelized his sperm, and he obliged many of his soldiers to marry non-whites too. Where are the blonds now in Greece? Can it be a coincidence that now Germany has to bail out Greece when in other times the Greeks’ IQs were so high? (I myself being a Mediterranean, sometimes I don’t even consider the coarser types of Mediterraneans properly white; they have already miscegenated.)

        That Alexander’s influence was a devastating blow for the West has been recognized even by non-racialist historians like Will Durant (here).

        The Brotherhood of Man meme was inserted into the Western philosophical tradition from outside.

        I think this is not true. Have you heard of the French Revolution? How fraternity was decreed as obligatory, imposed by pure whites upon whites?

        We are, in Keith’s words, ‘unwilling and resistant subjects.’

        If this is so, where are the Breivik-like “hunters” in the West today (in the sense Mark and I have been discussing in other threads)? I only see hedonistic degenerates that give a shit about their race. When I lived in Manchester I saw a couple of mixed couples (true English roses with Gorillas) and no native English I met seemed the least bit concerned about it.

        Degenerates. Traitors…

        This suicide meme has only one predictable effect—it saps our will and resistance because it divides us among ourself [sic] and suggests we’re not even worth fighting for.

        Exactly the opposite! If the Jewish problem is merely an epiphenomenon of the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values, then we can reclaim our power back. It is up to us to leave degeneracy aside and start discussing seriously how we will finally resolve the JP in absolute ways.

  11. “The age-old inclination of Europeans to include the whole world in a universal ideal” is simultaneously pursued alongside the innate white Caucasian love of internecine war. Rather psychotic.

    In only takes a few newspaper articles and some gung-ho speeches by the politicians and we’re off to war. I often hear (as we all have) about how unjust the war in Vietnam was, yet many still refer to WW2 as the “good war”. We, members of the white race throughout history, have killed down more of our own kind than any foreign enemy has : and that includes the massive slaughter of whites in the Soviet Union. Much of the killing in the Soviet Union was ethnically-driven and cannot truly be labeled internecine. Still, even in the Soviet Union, many white Russians killed down their own kind in support of the government.

    • Yes, the Goths were killing each other when the Moors took over. Then the Moors began race-mixing with Goth women, and then the Moors began fighting among themselves. I get the idea that the Moorish civilization went down due to race-mixing.

  12. ….and Goth civilization went down because the Goths were killing each other. That’s exactly why the Moors took over in the first place. The Goths weakened themselves though internecine war. The goths who survived the internecine fighting then went on to race mix (big time) in the new world with the indians and the black slaves. Smart.

  13. Franklin Ryckaert’s comment means that you can criticize Jews and Whites from two different angles :

    1. You can criticize their nature, their faults and vices, that is to say, the innate psychological characteristics of Jews and Whites.

    2. You can criticize them for what they do, their political activism, their lying, their hijacking of the media, and so on.

    I think that you, Chechar, focus too much on the first point. It’s interesting, but won’t bring a solution. Instead of criticizing the Whites for what they are, you should criticize the Jews for what they do. We have to denounce the anti-White political power before anything else.

    For example, it is more important to criticize our governments for encouraging race mixing than to criticize desocialized, brainwashed White people for marrying non-Whites.

    A few years ago, when I didn’t know about the Jews, I used to bash “the leftists”, that is to say the political organizers and the ideological leaders. I would never have thought of criticizing the loss of resolve of the White race. Now that I have learned that the political organizers and the ideological leaders are mainly Jewish, there is no reason why I should refrain from criticizing them, apart from their intimidation tactics.

    Do you think that I should stop bashing the leftists and start bashing White people in general? Or is it only the Jews that need to be protected from the bashing?

    • I don’t think that any commenter on this thread has proposed such a thing as protecting the tribe from bashing. It’s just that the Eloi marching directly to be cannibalized look like hypnotized, ultra-degenerate creatures to say the least.

      To my mind what Franklin said in the main text is so important that I am impatiently waiting for my copy of Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race. It seems that Franklin got the above info partly from this book. Since in Mexico I have to deal every single day with the blunder committed by the Spaniards, what they did since half a millennia ago in a world sans Jews, it is easy to see what Franklin (and probably Kemp) mean.

      Just one example. Recently I’ve been typing the words of my father verbatim: a man who glorifies the pre-Hispanic world even though he’s undistinguishable from a common Spaniard. I do this because I know him for decades and am increasingly convinced that the Jews did not brainwash him: post-council Catholic axiology did.

      Of course: it is a single case-study, but I suspect that there are many, many more like him: Body Snatched Pods that are destroying the white race with their ideology because of their Christian moral grammar, or rather the fulfillment of it in this secular age.

      Jews look secondary to me compared to the damage caused by Christianity and Christianity’s bastard son (which is why I recently added so many entries about Gospel fictions).

      • “the Jews did not brainwash him: post-council Catholic axiology did.”

        If you think that much of the problem comes from the Second Vatican Council, that’s a confirmation that it comes from the top, not from a natural and spontaneous change in the general population.

        “Body Snatched Pods that are destroying the white race with their ideology because of their Christian moral grammar”

        I don’t know about your father, many people have leftist tendencies, but I think that leftist bishops in the West are toeing the line defined by the media and the governments. Bishops are not leading the population in any way. If you are a conservative bishop, you just shut up in order to avoid trouble. I think the more deeply you are socially entrenched in the hierarchy, the more awkward it becomes for you to take a stand against race-replacement, and the more you tend to repeat leftist platitudes. It doesn’t really reflect what you think. The minds of our phony elites have not been snatched. It’s a simple lack of courage.

        The anti-White ideology comes from the top. The fact some White people, in the general population, go along with it (those you call the body snatched pods), isn’t proof that the problem comes from White people by and large. It’s not the White population that has been preventing the constitution of a pro-White movement in Mexico. I think it is due to :
        – American and Western influence
        – the fact that 90% of Mexicans are non-Whites
        – a preference for the easiest solution: it is easier to compromise and manage our slow destruction than to make a stand for the White race.

        What should be studied is not how ordinary White people have been influenced by the anti-White ideology. It’s more important to observe who sets the tone in the highest spheres of society, in the media, and in government institutions.

  14. Franklin:

    “France doesn’t keep statistics about its ethnic and racial minorities because it considers them all as ‘Frenchmen’ / … / We simply cannot ascribe this suicidal behaviour to Jewish machinations”

    Yes we can. In the case of racial statistics in France, the problem is entirely due to Jewish interference with the government. Every White person would be interested to know how many fellow Whites are killed or raped every year by Blacks and Arabs. It is Jewish activists who keep saying in the media that publishing the stats would contradict French ideals.

    In 2010, a committee (COMEDD) appointed by the French government and headed by François Heran (commissioner for diversity and equal opportunities) said that the French law didn’t forbid racial stats but only under certain conditions.

    In fact, they want racial stats to be allowed against White people. If you complain that they are too many White people in some place, that’s okay with the COMEDD.

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

    Actually, White people’s propensity to individualism and abstract idealism runs contrary to the current governments’ policy of sacrificing our individual existences to carry out the Jewish grim dystopian collectivist project. Every White person can see that we are heading for a nightmare, not an ideal world.

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

    Until recently Christianity used to be the main institution resisting liberalism. The Christian philosophy didn’t use to be: if it feels good, just do it. On the contrary, the Church used to behave as a guardian of civilization. Liberalism doesn’t look to me as an outgrowth of Christianity.

    “3) The Jewish exploitation of both.”

    The exploitation of our European idealistic tendencies plays a very marginal part in today’s disaster. Most White people don’t believe the Jewish garbage about multiculturalism. The truth is that the government simply doesn’t care what people think. Our treacherous White elites don’t believe the Jewish garbage either, but they have a deal with the Jewish lobby. If they don’t say anything against the race-replacement policy, their careers will be safe.

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

    Most White people would like to kick the non-whites out of the West. But they are uneasy about it because, at the same time, they don’t want to hurt them. That doesn’t make them “naive inclusivists”.

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

    If you are invading other people’s territories, it’s natural that you wouldn’t be over concerned about preserving the purity of the White race. For example, the French fur traders who explored Canada were simply adventurers. They didn’t bring their wives along, and I’m not surprised that some of them took Indian wives. Alexander the Great was an adventurer too. It’s not the same as letting your own White homeland be invaded by non-Whites. Today in the West, governments are redistributing our resources to third-world immigrants so they will have large families and replace us completely. Nothing like that has happened in the past.

    • But you are not seeing here that what the whites did at Canada, though momentarily not in their native lands, speaks ill about their wish of self-preservation (just contrast it with the super-ethnocentricity of the tribe). And as I have noted many times, in the Spanish and Portuguese side of the American continent this attitude was perpetrated on an astronomical, massive degree: the first step of what’s happening today, with no help from the Jews.

      Last time I was in Spain I met a Peruvian woman with very Amerindian features who worked in a company that imports non-white babies for degenerate Spaniard women who don’t want to bear the pains of childbirth. Just as the case of my father, I find it preposterous to blame the Jews for the manifest self-hatred of the Peruvian’s roommate: a pure white woman I analyzed. She vehemently approved such practices in front of me, and I consider sheer blindness not to see that at least some whites are actively hating their race and culture with all their might.

      Click on the above link (“analyzed”) for further detail of what I mean. That besides the Jews there are monsters from the Id coming from the white psyche is something that ought to be apparent for those who are willing to see.

  16. Chechar, regarding your last response to me: amongst all that counter-factual rhetoric you’re right about one thing at least — the dearth of spirited resistance. We should be opposing all this much more strongly. That would be a valid criticism should you choose to begin dealing with Whites as we are.

  17. A comparison: If an arsonist is setting the houses on fire in your neighborhood, your priority is to get him arrested. You don’t start blaming yourself for having built a wooden house instead of a brick house. And you don’t start saying: “I shouldn’t blame the arsonist, I should blame myself for not being tough enough with arsonists”.

    • That’s one way of seeing things. My point of view on the other hand would be what Denikin said to Greg Johnson not long ago: A human getting accidentally stung by a scorpion is one thing. But when millions of humans have been repeatedly stung by scorpions for 2,000 years and have not yet learned to stay away from them, it means there’s something wrong with the humans—Whites—, not the scorpions—the Jews.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: