On myopia and perspectivism

After Nietzsche became insane, his sister and a friend of the philosopher assembled some of his loose writings in a book she published. §481 of that book that Nietzsche never intended to publish, The Will to Power, contains this sentence: ‘In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable [emphasis in original]. Otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings—“perspectivism”.’

In other words, all ideations, even white nationalist ideations, take place from particular perspectives or points of view (POVs), and there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives, which judgment of value can be made by integrating different vantage points together.

The image reveals a difference of contextuality. Each perspective is subsumed into another and adds an overall objective measure: a meta-perspective.

If we illustrate perspectivism with the current paradigm in white nationalism, that Jewish subversion is the primary cause of the downfall of whites, this working hypothesis may be represented by the smallest circle. An exemplary case of this point of view is that of David Duke. (Incidentally, I liked very much his most recent podcast about the ongoing Syrian crisis: here.)

But Duke is myopic: he cannot see that the Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem (see the second circle encompassing the smallest one). Those nationalists who doubt the accuracy of this contextualisation should read the texts that support the encompassing claim: (1) Evropa Soberana’s Rome vs. Judea, (2) Jack Frost’s PDF and (3) the recently published Why Europeans Must Reject Christianity by Ferdinand Bardamu.

But the ‘Christian problem’ POV can also be subsumed into another circle: the Aryan problem, that we also have discussed on this site (listen e.g., to Arthur Kemp’s historical perspective) and so on: the Aryan problem can be subsumed into a larger circle, what Joseph Walsh recently called ‘the human problem’ in the comments section of this site.

But the ‘human problem’ is not the largest comprehensive vantage viewpoint or ‘circle’. In the last chapter of ¿Me Ayudarás?, which is basically an autobiographical book, I go further: the human problem can be subsumed into the larger understanding of the ‘animal problem’.

I tackle this larger problem, along with the even larger contextualisation than the animal problem—the ‘bio problem’ in other planets—with my principle of the four words: eliminar todo sufrimiento innecesario. But the point is that in order to take this most encompassing principle to the stars—the circle that encompasses all others: our meta-perspective—, presently we must concrete ourselves to solve the most immediate problem, the Jewish Problem. The stars, including the choice between us or A.I. en route for the Star Child (see the image chosen for my previous post, the last instalment of Bardamu’s essay) will come only if Aryans pass all the lesser tests.

My advice to solving the Jewish Problem is precisely to get rid of Christian ethics. It is the moral compass of contemporary whites what is driving Aryans toward the abyss, including the compass of most white nationalists.

So we are stuck in the second circle in this age of treason, which is why this site focuses on the Christian Problem. In the next few days, my humble contribution will be asking Bardamu if he would allow me to include his essay in the 2018 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support The West’s Darkest Hour.

Salvador Borrego

(1915-2018)

Mexican journalist Salvador Borrego, author of revisionist books about the Second World War, died last month, aged 102. The year that Borrego was a hundred years old, in 2015, David Duke paid a visit to him in Guadalajara, as can be seen in this photograph.

In 1955 the famous José Vasconcelos wrote a preface for Borrego’s main work, Derrota Mundial, in which Borrego argues that the world lost with the defeat of Germany.

Published in: on February 22, 2018 at 6:04 pm  Comments (14)  

On Alex & Dave

by Jack Frost

 
duke-jonesAlex Jones is an anti-racist Christian (a redundancy, of course) whose marketing genius has allowed him to devise a means to take the vague patriotic sentiments and disquiet at a changing country that most white Americans feel and turn those feelings into money. He’s turned their resentment into a multi-million dollar enterprise. His on-air persona is part televangelist and part WWE wrestler, and he’s going for the same credulous, poorly-educated, almost all white demographic. He seems sincere in his anti-racism though and probably is, but deep down I’m sure he realizes that if he were racist he wouldn’t have a show, so it’s a shrewd business move as well.

The long interview with Duke was surprising then, especially because Duke, an anti-racist Christian just like Jones [Editor’s italics], got to get his message out to millions of listeners and viewers, for the most part free from interruption. He clearly won the “debate”, such as it was.

I contend that a race of people even slightly interested in their own survival would respond to Duke’s revelations with an outpouring of outrage at Jews and support for white nationalism, but of course, that in all likelihood hasn’t happened. If it did, I haven’t heard anything about it.

To understand why nothing much ever comes of such performances, you have to realize that the role people like Alex Jones and David Duke serve in the political ecology of America is to take dangerous energy that conceivably could build to become a violent explosion that would damage the system, and dissipate it into harmless channels.

Alex’s pitch is simple. Feeling patriotic? Cultural change got you down and the spirit of 1776 stirring you up? Then buy something from Alex Jones and you’ve done your part to fight those dastardly “globalists” that are the one and only cause of your troubles. Alex has got a complete line of nostrums designed to deal with everything from your falling IQ (the globalists are poisoning the water and slowly killing your brain with fluoride) to constipation. He’s even got a product called “Super Male Vitality” if you’ve been feeling impotent lately.

Duke is similar, although his demeanor is more low key and he’s not as good of a showman or businessman as Jones. It must be appreciated that both of these men are in the consciousness raising business. Endless consciousness raising is their bread and butter.

The last thing either one of them want is for their listeners to take action. Once the masses awaken and revolt there would be no further need for their product! By listening to Duke, people sympathetic to his message feel they’re part of the resistance to the changes enveloping them on every side. People who aren’t sympathetic to Duke, which, unless I miss my guess, includes most of Jones’ audience, get to be entertained for a bit and get to indulge themselves in a feeling of moral superiority to the supposedly racist, anti-semitic David Duke.

So there’s something in it for everyone, all around. A good time was had by all. Everyone gets to oppose “globalists”, or Jews, if that’s your cup of tea, or racism (always an easy sell in a Christian nation), and no blood gets shed at all.

Nobody gets hurt, the system remains safe, and nothing ever changes.

Published in: on August 26, 2015 at 2:57 pm  Comments (5)  

Duke debates Jones

The West’s Darkest Hour is “esoteric” in the sense that only a very small group of visionaries can see that there has been huge Aryan problem (materialism and Christian axiology) behind a secondary infection: Jewish takeover of key Western institutions. But esoteric doctrine is so strong meat for the masses of awakening whites that the “exoteric” message is far more palatable: just focus on Jewry, don’t speak against Christianity to the masses. This is the tactic that Hitler and his inner circle used during their public speeches and, conversely, in informal table talks.

duke-jonesFor this very reason, the masses of awakening whites should hear the voice of David Duke—not mine! Today’s debate between David Duke and Alex Jones for example is worth viewing. In the introduction Jones spoke favorably of “Christian western ethic of transcending tribalism” and that “Christians promoted the end of slavery.” The Daily Stormer, the archetypical exoteric site for nationalists, failed to grasp that this sort of morality has been behind the Jewish opportunistic infection. This, in spite of the fact that at one point Jones asked Duke if our problems would not exist in absence of Jews. Duke, who in the Q/A session from listeners recognized he’s a Christian, responded: “we let them take over…”

Of course, Duke believes that Jews are the root problem, not us. But as I have implied, whites that start awakening are unprepared to listen the voice of Zarathustra. (Stay tuned for a forthcoming Nietzschean entry this week.)

Published in: on August 18, 2015 at 11:48 pm  Comments (6)  
Tags:

Mexican conference

Last year Jez Turner, the organizer of the London Forum, asked me in a LF meeting in London if there were nationalists in Mexico. I was left aghast. Did Jez, who’s a very fine gentleman, know that in Latin America there are many races, the most prolific mestizos and the Amerinds, followed by “pardos” of African, Amerind and Caucasian descent? Who are the nationalists? Has each group its own nation (real whites, only a tiny minority here)?

This May, the First International Identitarian Congress was held in the city of Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. In the event the commemoration of the 100th birthday of Mexican revisionist Salvador Borrego, who in the photo appears at the center with the umbrella, was also held. (I respect Borrego: in Mexico single-handedly he has challenged, with erudite books, the Allied narrative about World War II.) Well-known revisionists attended: Ernst Zündel, Mark Weber, the Spanish Pedro Varela (incarcerated in Spain in 2010-2012 for publishing politically incorrect books) and Alberto Buela of the Argentinean New Right. White nationalist David Duke also attended.

After returning from the trip, Duke wrote on his website that he had met with Mexican nationalists who told him very clearly that they want to discourage immigration to the United States. This sounds wonderful. What Duke ignores is that, according to Ricardo, a blogger that I know personally, his new allies “have had a long history of territorial claims with historical foundations on the American [US] soil”!

Aztlán? Is this the kind of “nationalists” that gentlemen like Jez Turner and Dave Duke expected from Latin Americans? Ricardo also said (my translation):

After the meeting the great personalities return to their white countries and homes: Duke to the US, Zündel to Canada, Varela to Spain, Iturralde to Argentina, and all happily share the results of the conference, with a good taste for having collaborated towards an Identitarian effort. What they ignore is that the mafia of opportunists who gravitate around Borrego have presented them a face and even conditions that they really do not respect.

Make no mistake: these Mexicans are no believers of the 14 words, not even remotely.

Published in: on June 13, 2015 at 7:38 pm  Comments (2)  

A Matrix for the white peoples

Isn’t it incredible that what George Lincoln Rockwell said at UCLA in 1967, a couple of months before he was assassinated, about the actual perps of the largest genocide in Western history is still censored in the media? Alexander Solzhenitsyn was the author of a two-volume work, Two Hundred Years Together, about the history of Russian-Jewish relations between the years 1795 and 1995. It is the only non-fiction book by Solzhenitsyn besides The Gulag Archipelago.

Alas, the Jews and the Zionist gentiles in the Anglo-Saxon world are so powerful that they have managed to censor the Russian-English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together for more than a dozen years! The publishing houses in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia, including the universities presses, are such cowards that Solzhenitsyn’s last major work, published since 2001-2002 in Russian, has not been translated to English!

What can we think about the powers that be regarding the fact that the most significant historical datum of the 20th century is still hidden from the masses?:

Solyenitsin“You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the ‘Russian Revolution.’ It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators.”

—Solzhenitsyn, quoted by David Duke

When I was younger Soviet dissidents had to smuggle copies of Solzhenitsyn’s work into the Soviet Union. Today totalitarianism has been inverted and it is us who are smuggling unauthorized translations of Solzhenitsyn’s last major work from Russia into the West, thanks to the internet.

There’s no question about it: whites have been plugged in a matrix for seventy years now.


Postscript of February 18:

I have now printed and read Roger Devlin’s long review of Two Hundred Years Together, originally published in The Occidental Quarterly (here and here). It looks like, although I do not claim that Solzhenitsyn’s quote in above post is fraudulent, it certainly goes against the grain of what, according to Devlin, Solzhenitsyn opined about Russian Jews in his last book.

Similarly, after watching ISIS’ recent mischief in Libya I retract what I said last month, that “whites have a better chance to survive under Sharia than under the current Judeo-liberal system.” While it is true that the current system is a fast track for Aryan extinction, under Islam extinction would only be postponed a little longer.

One of the advantages of our continuing education through the Internet is that our worldview may be slightly modified as new bits of data are encountered and properly digested. This said, the basics of my catechism in the form of a compilation of many authors in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, which 2015 edition has just been released, are still intact.

Crucify them!

Spartacus 's followers are crucified

This is my response
to J. Varlaan in yesterday’s thread:


Oh man, I must be with you and others like us in the aftermaths of the days of the rope! This is why I believe that white nationalist Christians are obsolete animals. Unlike Pierce, Covington and Linder, white nationalist Christians don’t harbor this sort of fantasies. These nice guys are incapable of indulging themselves in hate because their fucking religion, especially the Protestant branch, forbids them such sentiment.

Seriously man, my big dream is to mark the end the Christian Era that is killing us by exposing, for a hundred years, thousands upon thousands of crucified white traitors along the roads from Paris to Berlin and from Washington to Atlanta. So, speaking of the future, the rotten corpses on the crosses that were killed long ago in the revolutionary days would produce the visual shock that the white race so desperately needs.

That’s why I lean much closer toward Pierce’s seminal novel than to Covington’s quintet. The fanaticism required in the white psyche to survive the darkest hour must go far beyond Dave Duke’s bullshit YouTube propaganda of being fair to non-white peoples and their shitty cultures. Instead of the gospel, the coming overman must find inspiration in Thus spake Zarathustra and in The Turner Diaries.

If conquering the world for the race is the ultimate objective, one must first crucify the most notorious members of wickedest generation of history, and give the strong message to the survivors that Constantine’s abolition of the crucifixion practice in the year 337, out of veneration of a Galilean, is over.

Let the diamond speak!

Bicausalism


Armor, a commenter in another thread, said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armor said:

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

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

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

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

(This entry was expanded on April 27)

MacDonald’s latest article

Manny Friedman: Jews “own a whole freaking country”; and yes, that includes the media.

Well, it turns out after all that Jews do control the media—and a whole lot besides. So says Manny Friedman, writing in the Times of Israel. Of course, we at TOO have known this for quite a while, but it’s nice to hear it from a Jew, even though it’s in a Jewish publication and intended to be part of a Jews-only dialog.

The thing is, it’s okay for someone like Friedman to say it (or Joel Stein, writing in the LATimes and linked by Friedman). But it’s definitely not okay for someone like me.

In fact, Friedman is typical of Jewish writers who inhabit a completely Jewish universe when they talk about anything relating to Jews. Friedman is well aware that non-Jews who talk about such issues should prepare for a wall-to-wall, no-holds barred, 24/7 campaign against them:

The funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”

Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!

Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?

I don’t see any “funny parts” to this, and I’m not sure “irony’ is the right word here. How about “ethnic strategizing,” as in “Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the ethnic strategizing of this?”

And what does being a “bigot” have to do with anything? The working philosophy of the ADL is that bigots are non-Jews who thinks Jews control the media or anything else. And underlying that philosophy is the idea that public awareness of Jewish control would be bad for the Jews. Bigots are people who think that Jews use their control to influence many other aspects of culture in ways that are not in the interests of non-Jews: That the Israel Lobby has virtually made the US into a client state subservient to the interests of Israel, including the Iraq war and a looming war with Iran. Or that Jews use their control of the media to undermine public Christianity and traditional Western sexual mores, and to promote things like multiculturalism that are quite opposed to the interests and attitudes of White Americans. Or that Jews are an integral part of what Pat Buchanan calls the “casino capitalists.”

Buchanan, although avoiding the ethnic angle, only mentions Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan and Goldman Sachs when discussing post-1995 problems.

This new predatory elite has exported American jobs and repeatedly obtained lucrative bailouts when things get bad.

Fortunes are lost and made overnight. Names appear on the list of richest Americans no one has ever heard of. Cheating and corner-cutting are constantly being unearthed. Broker- and banker-gamblers in their 30s amass and flaunt nine-figure fortunes.

When WASPs were the dominant elite in America, their many Jewish critics never had any compunctions about calling them by name and probably loved using what Andrew Fraser calls the “subtly, perhaps deservedly derogatory acronym” of ‘WASP’. But our new Jewish elite cannot tell its name despite the fact that they “own a whole freaking country”—a rather large and powerful country in which the vast majority of the population are not Jews.

Friedman says the reason for Jewish angst about discussions of Jewish power is

because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world.

Right. Jews understand that there are huge conflicts of interest over the construction of culture, whether it’s foreign policy, the sexualization of culture, immigration, multiculturalism, or the role of Christianity in the public square. Quite simply, Jews have different attitudes and perceived interests, and they have been pushing in different directions than White Americans for the entire last century. Massive amounts of money, propaganda, and organizational effort have gone into this effort. This effort has been transformative.

Abe Foxman (quoted in the Stein article) would love to have Americans believe that there are a lot of executives in Hollywood who just happen to be Jewish and that’s the end of it. But it’s far more than that. Jews have fundamentally different attitudes and perceived interests when it comes to the construction of culture, from religion to foreign policy. It wouldn’t matter that Jews are an elite if they had the same attitudes and perceived interests as the traditional people and culture of America. But they don’t, and they haven’t ever since they arrived en masse a century ago. Indeed, in general Jews have an atavistic hostility toward the traditional culture of the Christian West.

Jewish organizations do everything in their power to prevent an honest discussion of Jewish power. And that is completely understandable. Do they really want to advertise to White America that Jews have had a preponderant role in making Whites a minority, in promoting the ideal of multiculturalism, in making America a client state of Israel, in the sexualization of culture and in legalizing and promoting pornography, in banning Christianity from the public square, in obliterating traditional American conservatism in the Republican Party, and in predatory financial practices that are destroying the American economy…?

Likely not. But one can bet that to the extent that there will be any discussion of Jewish power, it will be more or less exclusively within the confines of the Jewish community. (Here’s a recent WND article titled “Who Stole Our Culture?” that fails to come to grips with the powerful ethnic component of the correct answer, despite their emphasis on the central role of the notoriously Jewish Frankfurt School.) Friedman publishes his article in an Israeli newspaper (which is completely ignored by the MSM in the US) and links to Joel Stein (whose article sank like a rock and certainly did not ignite a national discussion on the consequences of Jewish media domination). Neither Friedman nor Stein would dream of linking to The Occidental Observer or anything remotely similar to back up their claims. Yet our discussions are far more extensive, nuanced and well-sourced than anything put out by Friedman or Stein.

Non-Jews should have a robust role in the discussion of all these issues. Here’s Steven Walt criticizing Peter Beinart’s The Crisis of Zionism (in an otherwise favorable review) for addressing only Jews in the discussion of American attitudes toward Israel:

I think it is unfortunate that Beinart chose to direct his book almost entirely toward the American Jewish community. That is his privilege, and it’s possible that the best way to get a smarter U.S. policy would be to convince American Jewry to embrace a different approach. Yet Beinart’s focus also reinforces the idea that U.S. Middle East policy—and especially its policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — is a subject that is only of legitimate concern to Jewish-Americans (and Arab-Americans) and can only be legitimately discussed by these groups. In fact, U.S. Middle East policy affects all of us in countless ways and it ought to be a subject that anyone can discuss openly and calmly without inviting the usual accusations of bigotry or bias. I’m sure Beinart would agree, yet his book as written sends a subtly different message.

Right. We all have a right and even a duty to discuss these subjects because they affect our vital interests. But, like Walt and John Mearsheimer when their book on the Israel Lobby came out, doing so invites the worst sort of hostility from Jewish critics—accusations that it was shoddy scholarship and a throwback to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

It is a compelling measure of Jewish power that Jews are able to so effectively suppress discussion of Jewish power. The power of no other group is off limits for public discussion. I can’t resist quoting Joe Sobran’s 1996 classic:

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls [then the dominant team]. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Joe Sobran [1995]. “The Jewish establishment.” Sobran’s [September]:4–5).

The reality is that Jews cannot afford to have these issues discussed openly and honestly because doing so would not only threaten their power. It would create a huge backlash, since Jewish power has been so deeply antithetical to the interests of Whites in America and elsewhere. So they sit on an ever more explosive powder keg. Shoring up their defenses, but unable to go back even if they wanted to (which they don’t). Pouncing mercilessly on anyone who gets off the reservation. With 100,000,000 non-Whites in America who are rapidly increasing as a percentage of the population, there are simply too many facts on the ground at this point to go into a low-key retreat.

[See e.g., this video presently featured at The Occidental Observer]

The external controls keeping the non-Jews in line are certainly very powerful. As Cooper Sterling’s recent article shows (and as Friendman acknowledges), individuals who cross the lines imposed by the SPLC (a Jewish organization in all but name) or the ADL face dire economic and social consequences.

However, Jewish control goes far beyond the ability to punish behavior and attitudes they don’t like. Ultimately the whole edifice depends on massive self-censorship by non-Jews. Jews also need to use their position in the media to continue the incessant propaganda that reinforces the current dispensation— that diversity is a strength and is good for everyone, that all humans are essentially the same so that importing millions of Africans, Asians, and non-Whites from Latin America would have no effects on the fundamental character and institutions of the West, that Jews are powerless and that they are morally and intellectually superior victims of irrational hatreds, that Israel is an embattled democracy with a strong allegiance to the same values Americans hold dear, etc.

Implicitly at least, Jews realize that they need to use their media power to make these messages into psychological reflexes so that all White people, including especially respectable, well-educated White people, will feel shame and guilt for even thinking politically incorrect thoughts. In this, of course, they have been incredibly successful. We never see the end of guilt-ridden, self-flaggelating, ethnomasochistic Whites who look up to the New York Times for moral enlightenment. (Here’s a NYTimes “news article” from yesterday intended to induce guilt for opposing oppose massive non-White immigration to Greece: “Greek Far Right Hangs a Target on Immigrants.” Wall-to-wall. 24/7.)

It’s a long story why Whites are so susceptible to such manipulations. But yes, it matters who runs the media.

This is a short list of things that could possibly challenge the dominance of the current system:

• Victory by a European Nationalist Party, such as Greece’s Golden Dawn (the focus of the NYTimes article), Hungary’s Jobbik, or France’s National Front. If one European country manages to have a nationalist revolution and manages to withstand the severe pressures that would be immediately arrayed against it, there would be a transformative effect on the rest of the White world.

• The effect on the rest of the White world would be especially powerful as the costs of multiculturalism inexorably rise throughout the West and Western economies suffer from the effects of our predatory financial elite. There is a palpable anger in White America and throughout the White diaspora. It is unfocused or maladaptively focused (e.g., Christian Zionism). And it is without effective leadership. But it is a powerful force waiting to be harnessed.

• The rise of new media, able to avoid the stifling conformity to the culture of Western suicide being preached by the mainstream media throughout the West. Our word is getting out, even though it is to relatively a tiny audience, many of whom are already converted. If our media becomes obviously influential and a threat to the current regime, there will be powerful attempts to destroy it.

• But those on our side are increasingly intellectually confident and possessed of an intense moral fervor about the legitimacy of our cause. In the long run, such people are the worst enemies of the current zeitgeist. As recent research on opinion change shows, a small, confident, morally self-assured minority can dramatically alter the opinions of the majority. This has been the secret of Jewish success in influencing the culture of the West. But the ugliness of Israel and the egregious hypocrisy of American Jews on everything related to Israel are pretty much impossible to hide at this point. The emperor clearly has no clothes.

It’s not over until it’s over.

The original article and comments can be read at
The Occidental Observer, here.

See also MacDonald’s “White pathology”.

Today’s West is a soft Gulag —Tom Sunic

“Totalitarianism is the worst when it is least perceptible, and this is the problem now with the so-called free West.”

The complete interview can be listened at YouTube.