On Carolyn and Tan

Or:

Blaming the Morlocks, sparing the Eloi

For those who don’t believe Whites are capable of imposing this madness on themselves, I will point to France during the French Revolution which abolished slavery in the name of the “Rights of Man” and made every Negro a citizen of the French Republic.

Hunter Wallace



I have listened to the recent show on The White Network hosted by Carolyn Yeager and my ol’ friend Tanstaafl (Tan). The show was a reaction to Kevin MacDonald’s article on The Occidental Observer: a summary of a collection of papers of the journal The Occidental Quarterly or TOQ about white pathology.

I have to say something about the show. In the first place, I see that after the debacle of the last year Tan—and I must steal a sentence from Franklyn Ryckaert—is still incapable of seeing the difference between guilt tripping by Jews and honest self-criticism by Whites. Tan still seems to think that self-criticism by Whites is nothing but interiorized guilt tripping and he proceeds then to proclaim the total innocence of Whites. Jews are the only ones who are guilty of white decline, and anyone who suggests that Whites have a responsibility of their own is deluded. He calls that “delusion” the “suicide meme.”

Judge it by yourself, visitors. Listen the show and tell me if Tan continues to identify honest criticism with guilt tripping.

This of course reminds me the recent exchange between Tan and Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents, where Johnson said:

If the problem is a coalition of minorities who are “in most cases” but not always Jews, then it really is more accurate to refer to them as minorities than as Jews, isn’t it? Thus your desire to find-and-replace “minorities” with “Jews” betrays a certain monomania and lack of scruple.

Sort of like my Baptist cousin who tries to shoehorn Jesus into every conversation. It is very low-churchy to clamp down on “one thing needful,” insist on discussing it even when it is not appropriate, and then to bitterly accuse people of being evil when they draw back from you, or simply exceed your narrow range of interests.

I don’t like that about you.

Understandably Tan became chagrined about this sharp comment and reacted on his blog Age of Treason saying that Johnson is no longer welcome to republish Tan’s articles.

Back to the Carolyn show but keeping in mind the exchange that resulted in the recent distancing between Johnson and Tan. When Carolyn said something Tan mildly criticized her that she was using “the passive voice.” Tan is a reductionist, like Johnson’s cousin, and wants to use the active voice. That’s why Tan made it very clear in the show that he doesn’t like MacDonald’s term “white pathology,” and it struck me that at the beginning of the podcast Tan always referred to MacDonald as an “expert in psychology,” never as an expert in the Jewish Problem (JP). This is remarkable because MacDonald is the foremost expert on the JP, and Tan only an amateur. (As a professor with tenure MacDonald has been a full-time researcher for a while and people like us, who have to make a living elsewhere, cannot compete with that.)

Carolyn started then to mention, one by one, the authors who contributed to the TOQ issue about “white pathology.” Tan commented that he disliked the phrasing of one of the first authors mentioned by Carolyn, that today’s liberalism “is rooted in equality” because, Tan maintained, the Jew-controlled media bombards us all the time with such message. But that just begs the question. The disturbing fact is that precisely because whites elevated the notion of equality by the end of the 18th century to the level of a civil religion, the Jews were gradually empowered throughout the 19th century.

As far as I know, Tan has not tried to take issue with the many articles by Hunter Wallace on Occidental Dissent. Wallace started the now abandoned blog Antisemitica and in my opinion is fairly aware of the JP. Wallace now believes that the Yankees of the last centuries and the French Jacobins were basically on the same page of the Jews as to white dispossession (what we call “assisted suicide”).

Napos-big-blunderIt seems to me that Tan commits exactly the same fallacy that the blogger Lew commits when challenged about precisely those roots that show how liberalism was originally a white phenomenon. Lew wants to count serious history since 1910, after the Jews were already empowered, something that misleads his readers by giving the impression that the subversive tribe empowered itself.

Like Carolyn, Tan doesn’t say a peep about the role played by Christianity in the development of suicidal universalism or suicidal out-group altruism. In fact, in Carolyn’s show he did exactly the opposite. About the TOQ contribution of the blogger who goes under the penname of Yggdrasil, Tan disliked it too because Yggdrasil wants to go to the roots (that’s well beyond 1910). Tan commented that pondering into the remote historical past “is a form of escapism” because “now it is Jews running the show,” and added in pretty sarcastic tone that it is silly to go back as far as the French Revolution and—the horror—up to the times of Rome so that these intellectuals “can find excuses for the Jews.”

I very much doubt that the motivation of the TOQ contributors is excusing the Jews. As Aristotle said, to have a profound grasp on a subject one must delve deeply into the past. Few sentences by Greg Johnson have been more illuminating to understand what I have recently been calling the Aryan Problem (economics over race) than Johnson’s phrase, “In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible.”

Click on the pic of Mammon at the top of this blog and then click again on the Kenneth Clark epigraph. Follow the white rabbit to dismiss the single Jewish-cause hypothesis. But Tan labeled all of this historical pondering in TOQ as “lame,” which misses the whole point of bicausalism that in this post I’ll define as you need two to dance tango, the Morlocks and the Eloi.

Like the TOQ contributors, my motivation has absolutely nothing to do with excusing the “Morlocks.” If we use as a metaphor the novel by H.G. Wells, The Time Machine, I would say that my motivation is to try that the Eloi wake up.

Remember the 1960 film that adapted Wells’ novel for the silver screen? When George (Rod Taylor) spots young blond people by a river, a woman, “Weena” is drowning but the other Eloi are indifferent (I would call this “white pathology”). Later in the film George is outraged by the Eloi’s apathy and finds out that they’re mere cattle for the anthropophagus “Morlocks.”

time machine 1

What Tan and many others in the American pro-white movement don’t want to see is that today’s whites are behaving like the Eloi. We are in this mess because the masses of whites are basically animal conformists. See the insightful quotations by Rockwell, Pierce and Hitler in my previous post. They’re absolutely essential to understand the viewpoint of The West’s Darkest Hour.

I must acknowledge that in the show Carolyn sounded more reasonable by blaming, together with the Jews, the liberal Whites. But Tan made it clear in the show that he disagrees with the use of that word, liberal. “It is hard to blame the poor white people,” the Eloi. According to Tan, all blame should be laid on the feet of the Morlocks.

Tan also said that white behavior comes from the current Zeitgeist, and that the white traitors are just opportunists. But the central question in this darkest hour of ours is, again, who empowered the Jews. My educated guess is that Tan and those who think like him will always avoid this question.

“Don’t they deserve some blame?” asked Carolyn. At least Tan acknowledged that a specific acquaintance of Carolyn’s that she mentioned was not forced by the Jews to harbor such traitorous thoughts. Then both talked about Jared Taylor and his concept of “pathological altruism” among whites but the Taylor case is problematic because he tolerates Jews in his conferences. Suffice it to say that at least Tan conceded that white altruism “may have biological roots.”

About the article that MacDonald himself wrote, Tan commented (remember that I don’t know shorthand):

My reaction was negative. Look at these white people who acted like idiots! [sarcasm]… He specifically identifies Christian philanthropists. The point I’d like to make… [is that even as far back as] 1861… to neglect to mention the Jewish influence in that kind of thinking and its influence on Christianity is a mistake.

In other words, Tan leaves Christianity off the hook. Only Jews are to be blamed. He has never replied to my very iterated argument that here in what used to be called New Spain the Inquisition, already familiar with the Jewish tricks at the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted the crypto-Jews; that New Spain was the first Judenfrei state in the continent, and that even sans Jews the Spaniards and the Creoles managed to blunder on a continental scale to the point of destroying their gene pool with Amerinds and the imported Negroes.

Hardly the Jews can be blamed for what happened here or even at the Iberian Peninsula. It was clearly a case of white suicide sans Jews.

If you don’t like to read my posts on New Spain, Spain or Portugal because you might fear that I may have distorted information on a subject that Americans have little interest, go to Occidental Dissent and see the posts by Wallace that prove that, long before the Jews took over the US, a specific form of evangelical Christianity plus the Enlightenment of the founding fathers already contained the roots of suicidal liberalism.

Let my finish this entry with yesterday’s quotations by Spandrell on an interesting exchange at Counter-Currents:

And yes, Jews are evil, but it’s the white elite who brought them in, as it has been since the early Middle Ages. You can hate Jewish chutzpah, but blaming them isn’t going to solve much, because: you can’t remove them, and even if you sent them all to Madagascar, it wouldn’t solve the problem of white leftism.

That’s more or less the idea. The Dark Enlightenment is about studying leftism per se. You might believe leftism is a jewish conspiracy and in their absence whites would suddenly arise as a sane and anti-egalitarian ethnicity. We disagree.

Not that white polities wouldn’t be awesome: personally I’m all for ethnic segregation. But as a European let me tell you that it’s not that easy.

And later on that thread he added:

I apologize if I misrepresented your views on the Jewish Question. I’m aware of Kevin MacDonald’s work and find little to disagree with, but it’s hard to blame the parasite when the host has developed a symbiotic relationship with it. Still I just think focusing on the Jews is a waste of time, people get emotional and discussions are seldom productive.

Which is why this blog focuses on the Eloi.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://chechar.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/on-carolyn-and-tan/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

29 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Thanks for the link. I’m a great fan of your writing on Amerindian culture and psychohistory. Nice to see you’re still around.

    On the joos: I just don’t like the idea of collective blame itself. It’s sloppy thinking. If only history were so simple. Yet again I’m quite happy to read arguments about the Jews poisoning Christian theology already at the 16th century, see here: (link)

    You are right that the Iberians did to South America and themselves was a massive screwup. I think the Middle East declined too because of the massive imports of black labor after the Arabs. The Chinese in Africa today are also mixing with the natives, not massively, but if 10% killed the Portuguese nation…

    hbdchick has good stuff on how NW european mating patterns sort of selected for altruism among whites.

    • Thanks to you. Those guys at CC seemed annoyed at you for reasons I cannot understand.

      I’d say about Jews what the counter-jihadists say about the Muslims in Europe:

      It’s not enough to deport the jihadists. The whole forest is the problem, even if the terrorists are only a fraction and even if there are many law-abiding Muslim citizens in Europe, they must be deported too.

      The same with Jews. See one of my favorite pieces by Pierce on the JP:

      https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/seeing-the-forest/

      Cheers.

  2. Whoops. Tan has just responded at his blogsite—:

    http://age-of-treason.blogspot.mx/2013/12/chechars-crusade.html

    —but his response is more emotional than rational, and it contains lots of straw-mans and things that I didn’t say nor hold in any way:

    his latest effort to explain why I suck. It amounts to the fact that I don’t share his position, that Whites suck

    Tan misses that in the last days I have criticized Greg Johnson, Andrew Hamilton and even my friend Matt Parrot. But that does not mean that I say that Hamilton or Parrott “suck”. It’s just that we agree to disagree. Nothing personal.

    I don’t believe Chechar offers honest criticism of Whites

    No citation or argument: only a flat statement that I am no honest. Curiously, in one of the first entries of this blog, where I praise Tan by the way, I mention why I consider honesty a supreme virtue:

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/all-is-about-valor-and-honesty/

    What I find most bizarre are the ones who go back out of a desire to “prove” that the answer is not the jews.

    Tan omits acknowledging that he’s talking about all contributors of a TOQ issue that dealt with white pathology. What would all of these authors say if someone claimed in a public conference that their motivation was “to ‘prove’ that the answer is not the jews”? Tan simply cannot conceive that the TOQ authors are trying to do objective scholarship.

    Chechar’s argument for White suicide is based on a tautological rationale that can hardly even be called an argument. He cites two inter-related phenomena, the history of Christianity and Spain, exactly because in his mind Whites are entirely responsible for them. Therefore, not the jews. QED.

    Huh? Wasn’t my historical observation sharp (see above the paragraph that starts, “He has never replied to my very iterated argument that…”)? That was one of the reasons that convinced my last year that whites, as Wallace says in the epigraph, are capable of bringing this on themselves without the subversion of the tribe. Spandrel got what I said about New Spain in the first comment of this thread above. Why can’t Tan see something so icy-crystal-clear? Why can’t he even say something about the dozens of Wallace posts where he maintains a similar POV to the one of this blog? By focusing on me Tan is trying to transform the issues into a personal attack.

    Chechar misinterprets and downplays the influence of jews on both Christianity and Spain, and jewish crypsis more generally.

    Really? Does Tan read Spanish? Has he read a reliable history of Spain and New Spain? Or does he “know” what happened here just on principle?

    For the record, I have read the whole Kevin trilogy and am probably better acquainted with the history of Spain and New Spain than Tan. Does Tan ignore that Kevin mentions in Separation and Its Discontents how the Spanish Inquisition handled the cryptos? Does he know how the cryptos were burned at the stake in my native town when detected?

    Briefly put, he agrees with the jewish narrative – that Christians persecuted jews, therefore Europeans are responsible for Christianity.

    Strawman—never said that.

    The reasoning is based, first of all, on the false notion that jews, once “converted”, turn into Europeans.

    Malicious strawman—never said that.

    the jews who were more or less successful in infiltrating and manipulating Christianity without much notice.

    You see? Tanstaafl is a monocausalist. There are many entries in this blog—:

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/the-christian-problem-encompasses-the-jewish-problem/

    —proving that the Christian problem emerged within Christianity itself. You really, really need to be a single-Jewish causer to hallucinate that Christianity was something pure that the tribe corrupted. Worse than that: you must be willfully ignorant of the most elemental reading of history to believe that all issues of Christianity have to do with Jews infiltrating it.

    According to Chechar the jews don’t even matter.

    Malicious strawman—never said that.

    In my view, people who argue as Chechar does are either knaves or fools.

    Thanks for the compliment!

    It’s hard to see this as anything but an excuse for jewish parasitism.

    Sure. And in the article I already linked above, Franklin Ryckaert nailed you perfectly when he wrote: “Yes, and people with such a self-righteous mindset tend to become paranoid. That is why he [Tan] suspected you [Chechar] of being a Marrano. To his mind that could be the only explanation.”

    Further info about my exchanges with Tan here:

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/are-monocausalists-paranoid/

  3. Tribality promotes group survival? I think that probably true, Our Jewish fellow Earth-walkers have, so it would seem, perfected tribality as far as it can be perfected to date, even to the degree of what anthropologists call “pseudo-speciation.” However, among us, too many regard tribality as a relic of more savage times, that we have “evolved beyond” tribality. I suspect that that latter belief is a mark of a “last man,” as both Nietzsche and Spengler use the term, of our culture.

    • I’ll use this post of yours with the sole purpose that my below comment appears relatively at the top comments of this thread. The fact is that Tanstaafl took issue today with my phrase, “It was clearly a case of white suicide sans Jews” and I feel compelled to respond.

      Tan uses as a source the text of a blogger who writes under the penname of “Another Jew” (oops!), and after quoting Another Jew extensively Tan writes in his typically dishonest vein when trying to respond to me:

      Chechar’s narrative on crypto-jews follows the first paragraph, the “litany of suffering” portion of the jewish narrative above.

      Bullocks! I was following Kevin closely, not Jewish narrative on the history of Iberian Jewry as this blogger that Tan quotes does. In another comment of today Tanstaafl added:

      But then that’s my point. Despite the “persecution” the jews were still there, and furthermore, they had influence…

      Chechar claims “judenfrei” and “sans jews” – i.e. there were zero jews and/or they had zero influence. That makes him 100% full of shit.

      More dishonesty. I would be nuts if I claimed that Spain was Judenfrei. What I really said is that New Spain was de facto free of kike influence. Let me quote from the Wikipedia article “Historia de los judíos en México” (my translation):

      The first Jews who came to Mexico from Spain did it with Hernán Cortés in 1519. Two of them, Hernando Alonzo Morales and Gonzalez were accused of “judaizantes” and burned at the stake in an auto de fe, in 1528. It is noteworthy that the Inquisition in Mexico was not be founded until November 4, 1571. The crypto-Jews from southern Spain, including the Carbajal family, being discovered by the authorities of the Catholic hierarchy decided to immigrate to northern New Spain, where they founded the city of Monterrey. One of the many tragedies of this community is told by the martyrdom of Doña Isabel de Carbajal judged after confessing, before the Inquisition, that she was still practicing Judaism. [see the YouTube clip I embedded below]

      During the sixteenth century converted Jews (also called Marranos or crypto-Jews) arrived to the Mexican coasts. They had escaped the Inquisition and had economic ambitions equal to those of their Gentile contemporaries who arrived. But they continued to be persecuted by the Church for another 300 years. [my emphasis]

      After the War of Independence in 1821 the Inquisition was abolished. However, the Catholic religion was declared the only official religion of the new nation.

      Alas, relatively influential kikes started to come to “Mexico” after 1821 (no longer “New Spain”).

      The gist of my argument is that it was precisely the beginning of the Golden Age of Spain, that started in 1492 with the expulsion of the Jews from the peninsula which—pace their vigorous anti-kike Inquisition—massively started to mix Iberian blood with non-whites (1492 was also the year of the discovery of the Americas; the year that started what would be mestization on a continental scale).

      That’s the whole point: the expulsion of Jews did not prevent ethno-suicide at all. And it really proves that the Iberians, both the Spanish and the Portuguese, committed racial suicide sans Jews. (The “hyperbole” I refer below refers to the fact that it was not suicide in the sense of a literal hara-kiri, etc., but apparently Tan in his comment of today is too dense to understand that.)

      Of course, in that comment of today at his blog Tan’s standards for Judenfrei would not have been met even by the Third Reich’s standards in the sense of zero ethnic Jews.

      So I repeat: I stand by what I wrote. The influence of the remaining Jews in the hiding had practically zero influence in the cultural, political, religious and media world of New Spain, especially in the capital, Mexico City. When Tanstaafl writes, “furthermore, they had influence” he is hallucinating. He’s inventing history. I have not read his source, Another Jew, but I bet that not even this blogger claims that the kikes had been influential in New Spain during the three centuries that I am talking about (1521-1821).

      Tan seems to have amalgamated his mind with an a priori principle, “the Morlocks are behind every Eloi ill”, and this dogma is proclaimed independently of real history.

      Fortunately, after writing the above-cited comments Tanstaafl added: “That’s the last second of my life I’ll waste responding to Chechar.”

      I am glad to hear that since it is obvious that Tan will never concede that, in the case of the town where I was born, I know a little more history than he.

  4. The vast majority of the criticism of WNst perspectives on Jews is fallacious because it attacks positions no serious WNst holds. Whether WN’s critics do it from dishonesty, ignorance, misunderstanding, weak reasoning skills or some combination of them, it matters little. What matters is that productive dialog is not possible when one side is defending a nuanced position while the other deals in caricatures, parodies, distortions, or replies to straw men ranging from crude to subtle.

    For example,

    AND YES, JEWS ARE EVIL, BUT IT’S THE WHITE ELITE WHO BROUGHT THEM IN, AS IT HAS BEEN SINCE THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES. – Spandrell

    He observes certain Jews can be evil, but adds the white elite has brought them in since the Middle Ages. Yes? Which serious WNst has ever said otherwise? None. It’s an example of a reply to a position no one takes.

    • Well what can I do. The WNs that have come to address me weren’t of the nuanced sort. More intelligent criticism is of course welcome.

  5. Really good post Chechar.

    I don’t think Tanstaafl is a very intellectual guy. It seems like he has substituted curiosity and clear mindedness with pure aggression. And his aggression has been supported with a narrative of victimology.

    “Whites can do no wrong and are eternal victims of jewish deceit and aggression”.

    This is of course all wrong. And it strikes me as an inversion of the jewish victimology narrative. Which states that jews are eternal victims at the hands of the gentile. He has perhaps unwillingly adopted some of the jewish mindset.

    At the root of the woes of the West lie the “christian problem” and its secular offshoots in the form of liberalism and marxism in different variants. The jews have just enhanced the problems in a major way.

    Here we completely agree. Reductionism will simply not do.

    And your post really illustrates how important it is to study the history of ideas as they have developed in the West. That is if one wants to avoid becoming an a-historical simpleton like Tan.

    I am currently studying the history of christianity and its importance to the development of capitalism in general, and social policy in particular. I have just begun to scratch the surface, but it already has been an eye opener.

    You might think that the catholic church had a degenerate influence on the European peoples. But this pales in comparison with reformed protestants. And in particular calvinism.

    So my advice to you would be to read up on calvinism, which I firmly believe to be the most important forerunner of liberalism and capitalism. If it is not at the root of the “economics over race” ideology, then it mostly certainly has been a hefty accelerator!

    • Deschners maximus opus

      Thank you. MacDonald and especially Sunic at the academic level (and Wallace in his blog) say about the same about the form of Christianity of Calvinist extraction that caused havoc in America. The whole point is that a monocausalist would even blame the Jews on that, independently of the historical evidence, based only on a theoretical principle that you summarized so well.

      On the need of this kind of scholarship I agree with you despite our debate a few months ago. We need scholarship on the TOQ level to discuss the issues.

      By the way, do you know German? I mention this because although the author is a liberal his book (pic above) on the criminal history of Christianity is monumental. The volumes I purchased are replete with scholarly endnotes.

      Cheers.

      • My views are overall in agreement with MacDonald and Sunic. And yes, once you are stuck with a theoretical framework of eternal victimology, many possible explanations and interpretations will apriori be ruled out.

        Lets leave the former debate aside, I think we are more on the same page when you narrow it down to the core issues. Philosophy is only a secondary handmaiden when doing grand history of the West.

        I do know some german (danish is practically a mix of old norse and low german, so by default a scandinavian or dutch person has some knowledge), but I am sadly not as fluent compared to my english.

        At the moment I am still reading up on a lot of history of christianity, in order to get a grip on the basics.

        Deschners’ magnum opus looks quite daunting with all those volumes. But thanks for the tip, I just might have a look at it if time allows it.

        On quite an interesting side note, since I have been reading up on Scandinavian christian history. It appears that the jews actually bought their way into Denmark in the 17 century. This despite the lutheran policy of prohibiting catholics and jews from entering, since their presence was considered potentially divisive. Up until then the whole region had been judenfrei.

        (It appears that Martin Luther was quite a sensible man on this issue)

        The danish king Christian IV apparently owed some sephardic jewish merchant money, and in exchange for residency permission and other rights, the jew forgave the debt. Quite interesting how the pattern of money and jews yet again was repeated.

        And cheers to you too.

  6. I’m partially in agreement with Tanstaafl. I don’t think the “suicide” model works very well, but the Tan-Linder “homicide” model of Jews against Whites doesn’t work for me either.

    I think the medical analogy is the best one. Liberal degeneracy is a plague, a cancer of the race. Jews purposefully spread it like the Mongols spread the Black Death or accidentally spread it once they themselves become infected (and need to be purged in both cases), but its origin is internal and indeed a recurring problem in any complex society.

    I wouldn’t say a cancer patient has a body which is “committing suicide”, though I suppose it’s true in some sense (the cancer cells are degenerate human cells, which are now killing the body). The cancer doesn’t speak for the body just as a 170 lb tumor doesn’t become a human being. The liberals aren’t at a high enough state of consciousness to see the “race” as a single, century-spanning organism, which is collectively superior to the sum of its parts, and is a source of transcendent meaning to the people who comprise it.

    We, the dysfunctional internet Nazis, are the self-hood of the Race, the only ones with enough of an understanding of it to choose its life or death in a meaningful sense. We’re the brain, the heart, the white blood cells, the DNA of the superorganism.

    Obligatory Chesterton quote:

    One of the tragedies of the democratic drift is that profound truths may become truisms without being incorporated in legislative action, especially those truths that require to be imaginatively perceived. Should forty million people find their white blood corpuscles called forth to fight against the deadly germs of typhus, their need would be sufficiently obvious for the politician to bring the resources of the State to their assistance – the more hurriedly in that to the perverted typhus germ a politician makes as appetizing a meal as anybody else. But should those forty million people be fighting a battle no less desperate against all the nameless armies of decadence and ruin that threaten the spirit, the politician can be trusted to observe nothing and therefore not to be diverted from his major business in life, which is service to his own career. Lack of appreciation of this fact, or else a subconscious acquiescence in its implications on the part of the parasitical overlords, has led many a civilization to disaster and many a nation to its grave.

    Evidence of national neurosis today is only too abundant The almost unbelievable shifts and stratagems and blundering follies of modem democratic governments represent one of its facets. The brazen and suicidal rampages of vested interests represent another. The astounding depravity of the Press represents a third. Evidence even more direct is supplied by the facile and poisonous Utopianism of the post-War period: the meaningless catchwords and slogans, the advocacy of the brave new world by human leeches sticking frantically to the bad old order, the failure of the Conservative to conserve, the inability of the Progressive to progress, the murder of the intellect by the intellectuals, and above all the hanging, drawing and quartering of Peace by pacifists who in the frenzy of their hysteria howl and dance and shriek for war. All these things indicate something more than a mental or spiritual stammer, they indicate a strongly entrenched neurosis which is the spirit’s cancer and the trumpeter of death.

    • I don’t think the “suicide” model works very well, but the Tan-Linder “homicide” model of Jews against Whites doesn’t work for me either.

      In the case of the Iberians it was suicide pure and simple, and no monocausalist on the entire WN blogosphere has even dared to address this issue—a whole subcontinent plus what happened at Portugal—with the slightest honesty when I challenge them.

      Just look at Tan. He aprioristically “knows” that the cryptos subverted the Iberians (even when the Inquisition persecuted them in real history, not in Tan’s imaginary history) only because he believes that he can apply his aprioristic principle “good for everything” on all history. I could very well have baptized this entry, “Johnson’s cousin” referring to this attitude of Tan & Co.

      I think the medical analogy is the best one. Liberal degeneracy is a plague, a cancer of the race. Jews purposefully spread it like the Mongols spread the Black Death or accidentally spread it…

      But there’s where we disagree and that’s why, as Jannik is doing, all us pro-whites must be reading history books.

      The Jew didn’t offer Whites the One Ring in the ancient world (like Sauron to the Western kings in LOTR). See the Johnson quotation above about Rome treating whites as liquid and its economic system—not a nation actually: a machine—as fixed. The Jews had not taken Rome by the time of Julius Caesar, not even the Christianized Jews, when the degeneracy was already well under way. It was whites destroying their ethno-culture because they fell prey of the spell of the One Ring (economics over race policies).

      Only in contemporary history we may start speaking of “bicausalism” in the sense of all of the inertia of this suicidal white stuff being utilized by a parasitic group. As pointed out above, the Jews only enhanced the problems in a very major way during our times.

      • In the case of the Iberians it was suicide pure and simple, and no monocausalist on the entire WN blogosphere has even dared to address this issue—a whole subcontinent plus what happened at Portugal—with the slightest honesty when I challenge them.

        The Jews didn’t do much there, but it still doesn’t seem right to consider it suicide. Racial suicide presupposes racial consciousness; it would mean the White race taking a sober look at itself and then removing itself from the face of the earth. No liberal is even capable of doing such a thing, liberalism doesn’t contain the metaphysical groundwork necessary to see a race as a collective entity which is capable of dying from a failure of its component parts to reproduce (as a human body would die should its cells become incapable of mitosis).

        Rather, liberals are a degenerate component with no sense of higher purpose. They revert to their basic functions of consumption and disordered reproduction, and while they may be individually intelligent The White Race exists as a sort of foreign idea which imposes itself on them.

        Just look at Tan. He aprioristically “knows” that the cryptos subverted the Iberians (even when the Inquisition persecuted them in real history, not in Tan’s imaginary history) only because he believes that he can apply his aprioristic principle “good for everything” on all history. I could very well have baptized this entry, “Johnson’s cousin” referring to this attitude of Tan & Co.

        While “crypto-Jews” technically exist, the fact that they’re secret by definition makes discussing them pretty fruitless. It’s like claiming the CIA is behind everything, and there’s no evidence for any of it because they’re secret spies and they’re not supposed to leave evidence. The CIA are indeed spies, who do things without anyone knowing it was them, but now you’re just guessing at things.

        But there’s where we disagree and that’s why, as Jannik is doing, all us pro-whites must be reading history books.

        The Jew didn’t offer Whites the One Ring in the ancient world (like Sauron to the Western kings in LOTR). See the Johnson quotation above about Rome treating whites as liquid and its economic system—not a nation actually: a machine—as fixed. The Jews had not taken Rome by the time of Julius Caesar, not even the Christianized Jews, when the degeneracy was already well under way. It was whites destroying their ethno-culture because they fell prey of the spell of the One Ring (economics over race policies).

        I certainly didn’t mean to imply the Jews were the first to bring degeneracy to the White race, just that they amplified instances of it and spread it internationally for their own reasons.

        As far as race and economics are concerned, I think the phenomenon is less a matter of extreme greed and more a matter of losing a higher ideal, which then makes greed the default motivation. After all, it’s not as though the oligarchs of degenerate societies are skinflints in their personal lives; they spend and consume extravagantly, and they consistently make decisions that harm their society economically in the long-term but grant some sort of short-term personal gain (monetary or social). Indeed, I would say as a society becomes increasingly degenerate the drive to acquire wealth and secure long-term material prosperity (1950s middle-class values) becomes increasingly subsumed by the desire to consume extravagantly without regard even for the ability to continue doing so in the near-future (2010s welfare/debt spending).

      • You wrote: “While ‘crypto-Jews’ technically exist, the fact that they’re secret by definition makes discussing them pretty fruitless.”

        When I said “cryptos” in New Spain I had in mind the judaizantes, not the judíos. IIRC MacDonald writes in SAID that the new conversos of Spain could also be considered crypto-Jews insofar as they continued to marry among each other and form an united front. By the by, this is one of the things that Wallace has said in his blog:

        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.

        This is a scene from a Mexican film depicting how the judaizantes, as the woman below who were supposed to be Christians but relapsed into their kike practices at home, were treated in my native town when detected:

        So why wouldn’t “suicide” in a hyperbolic sense be a term to describe what the Iberians did in the Americas? In spite of the fact that they took harsh measures against the judaizantes (relapsed Jews who had been baptized) and the new conversos, in the Americas they still allowed runaway mestization and in Portugal they even merged genetically with negroes.

      • P.S.

        In the clip some Amerindian faces appear: blasphemers to be punished for sure, but not killed.

        Incidentally, the actor that plays the role of the Grand Inquisitor, now deceased, lived a few blocks from my home in the Colonia Narvarte.

        It is a pity that the Inquisitor’s discourse has no English subtitles because it gives the picture of the zeitgeist in New Spain: keeping this land free from “heretics” and those who follow “the dead law of Moses.” After the Inquisitor’s impassioned speech the other Dominican said:

        “We welcome this Auto de fe for punishment of some and an example to all. It punishes offenses against religion and morality. These Judaizers [crypto-Jews] will be delivered to the justice of the secular arm, to which we ask forgiveness and compassion.”

        Then the man richly dressed in a yellow suit, the representative of the secular arm noted the prisoners’ various offenses against morality and public order. In New Spain the members of the tribe always got special treatment. The non-Jews would be punished with:

        “flogging, banishment, galleys, imprisonment or confiscation of property. And the relapsed Judaizers present and absent are condemned to be burned in flames of fire, until they become ashes and nothing remains of them in the memory of this land.”

        But the film is a disgrace because it painted these New Spaniards as the archetypal “bad guys of the movie”, and the kikes as innocent sacrificial lambs.

      • So why wouldn’t “suicide” in a hyperbolic sense be a term to describe what the Iberians did in the Americas?

        Well their behavior did kill themselves off. The problem I have with using suicide (or assisted suicide) as the model is we Nazis don’t fit into it. We aren’t suicidal. We’re frequently dysfunctional, but that’s not the same. Furthermore our segment of the race, while completely outnumbered and overpowered by the degenerates, has by far the highest level of racial self-awareness.

        It’s absurd to say a bunch of retards gibbering “we all bleed red” speak for a race they don’t understand and don’t care about. These people aren’t qualified to pick the next flavor of Mt. Dew, they’re subhumans. If they want to die out then they’d better do it, and decrease the surplus population (’cause it’s Christmas), but when they come trying to kill us we ought to chop them off like a gangrenous limb.

        In other words, we need to divide the White race into Nazis and liberal scum, demand absolute sovereignty for our faction and let whoever genuinely wants to align with the later faction mongrelize themselves into a slurry. We need to become a counter-culture to the multi-culture, and put a rift between us and the liberals (and “conservatives”, who are a type of liberal). No one is going to join our side until we are a side, and no one wants to join a group of people who only exist for the purpose of trying to get more people to join said group. (Linder’s articles on attacking conservatives touch on this point, and are worth reading if you haven’t.)

        In short, the suicide meme doesn’t set us up for a revolution: it doesn’t give us (as Nazis) a sense of agency, and a place within the narrative. It isn’t wrong so much as it is incomplete.

        (Also to clarify, my opposition to “the suicide meme” stems from a different rationale than Tan’s; his is a “homicide” model centered on measured Jewish aggression, mine is a “cancer” model where the problem is massive internal decay with little conscious governance.)

      • I see. What would you say about Larry Mars’ (a.k.a., John Martínez) term that I stole for the subtitle of this blog, “assisted suicide” (you really have to read a couple of posts by him in this blog to understand what he has in mind)?

      • It wouldn’t be my first choice, but it works better for your blog than, say, a political party. A blog is expected to be more observational/analytical, and a passive tone isn’t so problematic. Also, within the context of the blog “assisted suicide” is a way of saying that White dysfunction is primary and Jewish malice is secondary, which I agree with.

        I can’t, however, imagine The Fuhrer going before a crowd and telling them that Germany has chosen to kill itself. To him, Germany had the will to live so long as one man held the flag; no mass of cowards and traitors had the right to deny the nationalists their destiny. That would be the “final analysis” as I see it.

        If you’re trying to refine your motto, I suppose “the White race is diseased” would be short and to the point (or “liberalism is the cancer of human history”, if you’re feeling humorous).

        Just my 2 cents.

      • I like “assisted suicide” because it gives the sense of bicausalism.

      • Yeah, that’s how I interpreted it.

  7. Around 1:45 Tan talks well about whites’ altruism / positive projection to other races then about how christianity is not a force that satisfies whites religious impulse anymore. But he doesn’t delve into the reasons why all this is so.

    It’s a big mind leap to go from WN101 blame the jews to mindweapons/bugs thinking. The reason why WN101 failed is it didn’t realise our institutions were already rotten (and why the sheeple still look to our institutions for intelligent decisions).

    • I agree with you that not everything that Tan said in Carolyn’s show was silly. But today in the thread linked above he has continued to defame me by means of continuing to indulge in his typical paranoia:

      Behind all his whimsical allusions and harsh rhetoric is a seemingly irrepressible urge to blame Whites and excuse jews.

      You see? What can you say when people “know” what are your true motivations? It would be interesting to see Tan, as I imagined above, telling all those TOQ scholars that their urge is to exonerate Jews. Since Tan has transformed this debate into a personal attack, he is not saying a word about all those in the movement who have gone beyond his narrow view. Again, why he says nothing about Wallace and why Wallace abandoned the monocausal hypothesis?

      To discuss “White pathology” is to beg the question. What’s the pathogen? The answer is jews.

      In other words, even if you can give the lie to the monocausalists by means of the reductio ad absurdum argument, i.e., the Iberian example or white suicide in pre-Christianized Rome, these nuts will continue to have only one answer: jews. I call that dishonest paranoia.

      I think it’s significant that Auster called Chechar to my attention, praising him as an advocate of “non-anti-Semitic white nationalism”.

      It is dishonest to mention this “non-anti-Semitic white nationalism” because I repudiated it since February of 2010, for reasons explained in my popular “lightning” post:

      http://caesartort.blogspot.mx/2010/02/lightning-in-middle-of-night.html

      Any honest reader on this new incarnation of WDH can see that I have not changed my mind since February 2010 as to recognizing the existence of the JP.

      After several years of characteristic exaggerated posturing Chechar has now settled into the same kind of crusade that Jobling, Auster and Fjordman engaged in – saving Whites by sniffing out “monocausalists”.

      Tanstaafl at his worst! More dishonesty and paranoid defamation. None of these kikes, half-kikes or philo-kikes indulges in fantasies, as I do, about a final solution to the kike problem (see my Addenda article “fuck-the-holocaust”).

      Tanstaafl continues:

      What people like this do isn’t a symptom of judaization. It is judaization.

      So people like me who, Linder-like, indulge in fantasies about a final solution to the kike problem (in addition to a “final solution” to the nigger problem, and the brown problem, etc.) are being “Judaized”? Keep in mind Johnson’s quote above, “…and then to bitterly accuse people of being evil when they draw back from you, or simply exceed your narrow range of interests. I don’t like that about you.”

  8. If all the other races have engaged in miscegenation on a mass scale (including the Mongoloids) then how is it a pathology or “suicide” particular to Whites? Actually, concerning race mixing, the only comparison to be made is to the E. Asians (the pure Mongoloids) since Australoids and Negroids have nothing to lose by miscegenating (& have done so) & the other “races” (if you can call them that) are the very product of racial mixing. And, yes, even though they’ve had less opportunity to do so the Mongoloids have mixed their blood considerably. They mixed with Australoids to the South and with Turkics and Whites to the West and North. Even the people who became the Japanese mixed with the Ainu. They did all this without Jews living among them & without being driven crazy by the Jewish mind virus called Christianity.
    The “lower” human types overwhelming the “higher” seems to be an irresistible trend universal to humanity not just to Whites. Anti-miscegenating instincts and taboos along with hardcore Goth style anti-race mixing punishments are ultimately defensive strategies guaranteed to fail in the face of the relentless pressure exerted by the Muds.
    I think Tanstafl is right to an extent though. Just because the Iberians did it on their own doesn’t mean that the Americans would have done so too. Without Franz Boas, the Jekyll Island bankers, the Jews of the NAACP, the Jews fighting for the overturning of the Immigration laws, the Frankfurt School and all the rest can you seriously claim that the disaster now happening would have happened anyway? Not a chance. Prior to the Jewish take over the Americans ethnically cleansed the Indians (albeit in a “soft” manner), had anti race mixing laws, were pro Nordic immigration, were on board with eugenics, practiced sterilization etc. It might have happened a few centuries later without Jews but the current mess is a proven unilateral Jewish operation.

    • If all the other races have engaged in miscegenation on a mass scale (including the Mongoloids) then how is it a pathology or “suicide” particular to Whites?

      I said above that I used the word “suicide” hyperbolically. At any event I don’t care about the Mongols, only about the phenotype of the Aryans, especially of the nymphs (see the images at the sidebar).

      I think Tanstafl is right to an extent though. Just because the Iberians did it on their own doesn’t mean that the Americans would have done so too. Without Franz Boas…

      Well I agree with you on this one. Have you read my sentence about the “witches’ brew”? If not let me know so that I may repost.

      Jewish influence on the West has been immense since the beginning of the last century. Still, Jews are only a very strong “catalyst” in the brew, not the main or single ingredient as the monos believe (as those medicines in which boxes you see: active ingredient X).

  9. I do agree with most of this. Whites appear to have a character flaw, that being miscegenation. As we have seem that even without Jew influence this has taken place and even promoted in the past. So Jews being Jews are capitalizing on this flaw through their control of the media and influence that has on the public. Mainly targeted and the flaw in whites.. However, what most WN fail to see that at the root of this flaw it was also promoted in the bible as well. So we have a character flaw being exploited and promoted in the bible (which the Jews wrote) also this flaw being promoted and made into the new normal through their control of the media.

    So this basic flaw in whites would you say was present before the christian pollution? Or it having always been there and Jews seeing this wrote the promotion of this into the bible to capitalize on it?

    The whites problem is not wholly a Jewish problem it is combination of the Jew and the whites propensity for miscegenation along with the poison of christianties promotion of liberalism).. And I do agree with this analogy it is an assisted suicide not a murder or self suicide.

    So we have a triple-threat for the white destruction. Do I have this correct? Who wins when whites are completely gone? The Jews, so it is a Jewish problem more than just a whites character flaw.?

  10. To the best of my knowledge & reasoning powers, this essay is correct.

    • Thanks for your appreciation. Today Linder posted a couple of VNN comments (here and here) criticizing Greg Johnson that remind me my disagreement with Tanstaafl. It’s all about bicausalism Type A or B (altho unlike Linder Tan does not even recognize any white fault like Christ-insanity: he’s a mono).

      Since Linder has not replied adequately to my comments in the VNN thread, I better say something—something that Linder and the other bicausal-A types, so common in WNsm, are so reluctant to see:

      codreanu

      Original source where I quoted Codreanu: here.

      P.S. Linder just said that “there is not suicidal instinct” and “White attitudes are not the problem”. He definitively has not read this post by Roger (included in The Fair Race).

  11. Concerning the Eloi: The German word “blauäugig” means both gullible and blue-eyed. Hence, in the German language blue-eyed is a synonym for gullible.

    • Have you read the article containing this quote?:

      “Psychologically, this is a noble, harmonious, serene, serious, patient, well-balanced, martial, honourable, disciplined, efficient and racist race, but also somewhat naïve, too angelic and not very cunning in many ways.”


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: