Liberal axiology

by Alex Kurtagic

Editor’s note: What happened the last week in the US Supreme Court can only be understood considering that the West had long embraced liberalism, the most destructive ideology of history. (Kurtagic’s complete piece can be read: here.)


The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.

In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.

When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.

The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.

Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.

The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.

Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society.

Egalitarianism

Kurwenal who had not commented in this blog for a while, has just posted three insightful comments diagnosing Western malaise. This one deserves promotion to article entry:
 
kurwenal
A particular animating force, the Jewish-Christian spirit, has been travelling and ever moulding the outlook, the discourse, and values that today inform Western consciousness. The defining character of this spirit is egalitarianism. It has expressed an egalitarian will, an egalitarian mentality—instinctive at the beginning, but increasingly conscious of itself until, in our own times, it has become fully aware of its aspirations and final goals.

Western civilisation is condemned because the egalitarian utopia that has inspired it for the last two thousand years is in contradiction with the demands of modern society. Enthralled by this utopia, European man can no longer assume control of the world’s destiny, or be the creator of a new future.

Ashamed of a past which over time has given it undisputed superiority, the egalitarian West now wants the “end of history.” It desires a return to the static stage of mammalian happiness: to an Edenic pre-human past.

Egalitarianism has passed through different phases: mythical, ideological, and synthetic. It entered history (Phase One) in the garments of the Christian myth—“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)—and, as with any other myth, without explaining itself in either its discourse or in its actions, sensing its internal dialectics still as unity and harmony. Then (Phase Two) the “contradictions” began to be felt and rationalised: first on a religious level, when the theologies of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation became “ideologies” and the dialectical contraries took social and political shape—becoming “parties.” In this second phase, egalitarian consciousness becomes deeper, re-conceiving the idea of “equality of souls before God” as “equality of men as citizens before their institutions.” This has come to be called “the revolutionary era,” since its manifestations were sometimes, though not always, violent. Liberalism—in its Anglo-Saxon and French modalities—started here.

Goethe was wont to say that ideas, taken to their ultimate consequences, become absurd. Egalitarianism was indeed pursued to its ultimate consequences: the aspiration and will of attaining “equality of men before Nature itself.” This Third Phase may be characterised as “theoretical,” since it claimed to merge—”rationally” and “ecumenically” in a superior synthesis—the ideologies that derived from the myth. It started in an embryonic manner with Hegelianism; then came a first political-philosophical manifestation: Marxism.

In the synthetic phase in which we currently find ourselves, the dialectics of egalitarianism are felt as an obstacle to achieving a global ecumene. Hence the constant presence of terms like “internationalism,” “cosmopolitism,” and “multiculturalism”—and the establishment of “political correctness” as the only legitimate discourse.

With hindsight, Marxism-Leninism may be considered a “deviation” from the main current of the egalitarian tendency, since it tried to “force” or “anticipate” the natural evolution of egalitarianism towards a final synthesis. It was not until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the peaceful ending of the Cold War—when Communism became reabsorbed into the common egalitarian matrix (partly because the objectives pursued by Marxism in the Eastern bloc had already been attained in the West)—that the final and true “recovered unity” of the egalitarian tendency took shape.

Its consecration may be observed today in the unanimous acceptance of the doctrine of human rights and its expansion through liberal-capitalistic or socialist-Third Worldist globalisation—a project of planetary homogenisation which seeks to progress till the conclusive exit of humankind from history.

On Procrustes

by Franklin Ryckaert

 
Unequality is a basic fact of human life. There is unequality between individuals within groups and there is unequality between groups (*). This is so evident that denying it is a form of insanity. Can a moron be made a genius by better education? Would paying his educators more money or threatening them with sanctions if they fail do the trick? The idea is preposterous, yet this is exactly the policy in the US when it comes to educating Blacks and Hispanics.

The source of this insanity is the emotional idea that somehow equality is a basic human right. “All men are equal” is the slogan, but seeing that unequality is the reality in society, our egalitarian idealists now try to rectify this “injustice.” This can only be achieved by the “Procrustes method” i.e., artificially favoring the inferior while artificially harming the superior. The result is the dominance of incompetence and the ruin of society.

Theseus_Prokroustes_Louvre

Theseus attacks Procrustes.
Anonymous painting in the background
of a Kilix Attic red-figure 440 BC.

(*) The findings of Richard Lynn’s intelligence quotient (IQ) and the Wealth of Nations about the distribution of IQ among human populations could be summarized thusly:

  • The “yellow ” group (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese): IQ 105.
  • The “white” group (Europeans): IQ 100.
  • The “brown” group ( Mestizos, Amerindians, American Blacks, Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Indians, South East Asians): IQ 85.
  • The “black” group (sub-Sahara Africans): IQ 70.
  • Finally at the bottom: Australian Aborigines: IQ 62, Bushmen and Pygmies: IQ 54.

American Blacks differ from African Blacks because they carry White genes for 20% due to miscegenation.

Differences in talent and temperament between human races are genetic and therefore cannot be changed by education. Unequality is the reality of life. Sanity is the acceptance of reality.

Published in: on June 7, 2015 at 12:00 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags:

The New World Order:

Free trade, and the deindustrialization of America

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief
 
Every regular television news watcher has heard the expression “New World Order” often enough now to be familiar with it. George Bush really popularized the expression during the last two years of his administration. Prior to that one heard only occasional veiled references to it, but as Mr. Bush ordered wave after wave of bombers over Iraq to pound Baghdad into rubble and attempted to kill Iraq’s President with “smart” bombs, he spoke repeatedly of the need to punish those who tried to stand in the way of the New World Order.

Bill Clinton has used the expression even more freely: he has referred to the New World Order in connection with his futile efforts to assassinate Somalia’s uppity warlord Mohammed Aidid, with his support of Russia’s current clown prince Boris Yeltsin, and, most recently, with his campaign to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through the Congress. Probably most of you remember Mr Clinton talking on television about NAFTA being essential for the New World Order and for equality in the world.

Most people who have become familiar with the term assume that it is merely an abstraction: a convenient label for referring, in a general, loose sort of way, to the reordering of international power relationships which has been going on ever since the Second World War—and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Empire at the beginning of this decade.

Actually, for the initiated, the New World Order has a much more specific and concrete meaning. In brief, it is a utopian system in which the U.S. economy (along with the economy of every other nation) will be “globalized”; in which the wage levels of U.S. and European workers will be brought down to those of workers in the Third World; in which national boundaries will for all practical purposes cease to exist; in which an increased flow of Third World immigrants into the United States and Europe will have produced a non-White majority everywhere in the formerly White areas of the world; in which an elite consisting of international financiers and the masters of the mass media will call the shots; and in which so-called “peace keeping” forces from the United Nations will be used to keep anyone from opting out of the system.

This particular scheme for world rule has very deep historical roots. Tracing those roots is fascinating, but I won’t have time for that on this program today. If you want to study the historical details, then you should read my article on the New World Order in the current issue of National Vanguard magazine, which is available from the producer of this program.

I’ll simply say today that the New World Order conspiracy had its origins in a series of international Zionist conferences held around the beginning of this century. It picked up steam during the First World War and really began acquiring concrete substance with the formation of a number of organizations in the period immediately after that war, the foremost of which was the Council on Foreign Relations. By the end of the Second World War the New World Order planners formed a virtual ruling class in America with total control of U.S. foreign policy and also a growing power to mold domestic policy to suit their internationalist aims. What these people understood, long before anyone else did, is the potential power of the mass media. They understood what enormous, hidden political power could be wielded in an age of mass democracy by a tiny group of well-organized people who could manipulate public opinion by controlling the mass media.

It should be noted that the New World Order booster club has developed a rather diverse membership as its schemes have matured. There are, of course, the original, power-hungry conspirators, who believe that their god intended for them to rule the world, and there are the cynical politicians of the Bush/Clinton stripe who go along with the conspirators, hoping to receive a few choice scraps from their table.

Then there are the crazies: the homosexuals and feminists, for example, who see in the New World Order the antithesis of the heterosexual, patriarchal world they hate with such insane fervor. Along with these are the lunatic egalitarians, who are hell-bent on “equalizing” everyone.

A substantial portion of the membership consists of a rabble of academics and literati who simply want to be fashionable; they would as enthusiastically support any other intellectual fashion possessing as large and skillful a press claque.

Besides all of these, however, there are many people on the New World Order bandwagon today for more or less benign reasons. The world population really is far too large. The ongoing destruction of the global ecosystem really is unacceptable. Something must be done—and soon. Many of those who recognize these facts are neither power-hungry cynics nor deranged haters nor even fashion-conscious eggheads, but instead are sane, principled men who simply do not have the moral courage to deal in a forthright way with the population explosion in the non-White world and with a number of other pressing demographic and ecological problems. They have opted for what seems to them the only solution for halting the self-destruction of the world which has a sufficiently powerful advocacy group behind it to be feasible. They really believe that under the New World Order Kenyans no longer will be permitted to machine-gun herds of elephants from helicopters in order to collect their tusks, Brazilians no longer will be permitted to destroy the rain forests with chainsaws and flamethrowers, and Haitians will be forced to use condoms. Even White Americans will be forced to curb their wasteful habits.

The New World Order schemers have played a very significant role in bringing about many social and economic changes in America, and I could spend a lot more time than we have today talking about these changes—and why the internationalists wanted them. If you want to understand that part of the scheme you’ll just have to read my article in the current issue of National Vanguard magazine. Today I must limit myself to just one New World Order policy, and that’s so-called “free” trade and what that policy means for America.

Our first really notable experience with “free” trade in the post-Second World War period was with Japan. A few years after the war Japanese cameras began displacing U.S.-made cameras from stores in the United States, until today they totally dominate the market: Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji—they’re all Japanese. The only two American brands left are Polaroid and Kodak. If you’ll go into a camera store and look carefully at the Polaroid and Kodak cameras on display, howeever, you’ll discover that most of them were actually manufactured in Japan or elsewhere, not in the United States.

After succeeding in establishing a virtual camera monopoly the Japanese began moving into the consumer electronics business: portable radios, television receivers, VCRs, pocket calculators, microwave ovens, hi-fi tuners and amplifiers, etc. Within two decades they virtually wiped out domestic production. The few U.S. consumer electronics companies still surviving have their products made in Asia and then put their names on them and bring them into this country to sell them.

The average American saw nothing amiss with this; indeed, he regarded it as a boon. More products were available to him, at lower prices, than there would have been if Japanese products had been kept out by trade barriers. The unhappy voices of the few hundred thousand Americans who had been employed in the camera and consumer electronics industries were drowned out by those of millions of happy consumers. When Japanese automobiles began appearing on American streets in large numbers in the 1970s, there was more of a reaction. The unionized automobile and steel workers were able to make their voices heard. They smashed Japanese cars with sledgehammers in publicity stunts designed to win sympathy for their plight. Even the politicians who had been bought by the internationalists got into the act: worried by the threat of losing union votes, they put on serious faces and talked to the television cameras about limiting the number of Japanese cars which could be brought into the country. The percentage of Hondas, Toyotas, Subarus, Nissans, and other Japanese vehicles sold in America eventually stopped rising. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler pulled in their belts, fired a few hundred thousand American workers, and announced that they would survive. Although the U.S. steel-making industry was hit hard and was forced to close dozens of plants, it also managed to hang onto life.

All was not quite as it seemed, however. Americans were reassured by the sight of new Fords, Chevrolets, and Dodges on their highways, but in many cases not much more than the name was actually American. The Chrysler corporation sold Dodge Colts which, in fact, were made in Japan by Mitsubishi. Under a Chevrolet label General Motors sold light pickup trucks which were produced entirely in Japan. Ford did the same thing, not only with some of its consumer vehicles, but also with its farm tractors.

Japan is not the only country which has claimed a part of what used to be the American automobile industry. U.S. auto companies have stayed in business only by having more and more of the work which goes into their cars performed outside of the United States, in order to take advantage of vastly cheaper labor. Wiring harnesses from Mexico, electronic ignition modules from Taiwan, seat covers and other upholstery from Korea, alternators from Brazil, speedometers and other dashboard instruments from Hong Kong: more and more of what is sold as “American” is made elsewhere and only assembled in the United States.

The Asian country which has benefited most in recent years from the U.S. policy of “free” trade is China. The Chinese assault on American industry was not widely noticed at first, because the Chinese did not begin with high-profile consumer items, such as cars or television receivers. They began at a more basic level, first with machine tools and then with hand tools. They have virtually destroyed the American machine-tool industry singlehandedly.

In the 1950s the United States was the world leader in the manufacture of machine tools, with more than 50 per cent of the total production. Machine tools—lathes, milling machines, grinders, stamping machines, and the other large, motorized tools used in factories—are the most essential component of a nation’s industrial base. Today we make only six per cent of the world’s machine tools. In the last decade alone our share of the world’s production has declined by a factor of three, down from 19 per cent in 1984. It’s still dropping. In another five years we’ll have only three or four makers of machine tools left, and they’ll be making only highly specialized, computer-controlled tools. All of the general-purpose machine tools used in the United States will come from China or Brazil.

The same thing is happening to the U.S. hand-tool industry. If one examines the plastic-packaged tools and accessories hanging on the display peg-boards in any of the larger automotive parts stores—the spark plug wrenches and screwdriver sets and compression testers—one will find that somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of them are imported from Asia, mostly from China. With the larger tools—hydraulic floor jacks, for example—the situation is worse: the chances are about nine out of ten that one will find a “Made in China” label. If there are any U.S.-made jacks still to be found, they will be priced at about three times the price of a Chinese jack of similar quality. American manufacturers, with their much higher labor costs, simply cannot compete with Chinese industry, and they are being driven out of business.

For the past few years the Chinese have been moving into the production of low-priced consumer goods as well: the sort of plastic household goods that housewives buy in K-Marts or Wal-Marts. Because these goods are priced substantially lower than similar American products, consumers welcome them. They do not consider the fact that the well-paid American workers who formerly made such goods in U.S. factories now are scrambling to find service-industry employment at substantially lower wages.

The Chinese (including those in Hong Kong and Taiwan) and the Japanese are not the only Asians who are destroying the U.S. industrial base. The Koreans, for example, have had the U.S. clothing industry under attack for years and have devastated large sections of it. Mr. Clinton has just invited the Vietnamese to join the feeding frenzy.

There is a double significance to this transfer of American industry out of the country. In the first place, it lowers the average wage level of American workers, as they are forced to move from manufacturing into a service industry or into less than full-time employment. And although factory workers are the first to be hit, eventually most other segments of the work force suffer as well, even the yuppies and others who would never think of working with their hands. When people who used to work in factories have less money to spend, there’s less money to earned by everyone.

In the second place, the transfer of industry out of the United States robs us of national self-sufficiency. It may not matter much whether we have factories for producing panytyhose and plastic hair curlers or we import these things from Korea, but it matters very much whether or not we produce our own machine tools. If the Koreans give us an ultimatum: do what we say or no more plastic hair curlers, we can laugh in their faces. If the Chinese decide not to sell us more machine tools, however, we’ll be in trouble.

This, of course, is exactly what the New World Order boys planned. “Interdependence,” they call it. They began selling us on the virtues of interdependence—and the evils of independence—as early as the 1950s. The New World Order is a system in which every country is dependent on many other countries for its necessities of life, and no country is independent enough to opt out of the system and go its own way.

“Free” trade is essential to the whole scheme. The controlled media deliberately have created the impression in the public mind that “protectionism”—the regulation of imports through the imposition of tariffs or quotas—is a corrupt policy which benefits greedy industrialists at the expense of everyone else. Actually, it is a necessity for national survival and progress. Consider just three facts:

Fact Number 1: Merchants always will buy their manufactured goods from the supplier who will give them the best price for goods of a specified quality. If the best price is from a foreign supplier, and if international trade is unregulated, then the merchants will import their goods from abroad. On an individual basis the merchants really have no choice in the matter: a widget merchant who pays two or three times as much for his American-made widgets as other widget merchants do for their Chinese-made widgets soon will be out of the widget business.

Fact Number 2: For most manufactured goods the cost of the labor which went into them is the largest single component of the total production cost. When one country has a much lower wage scale than another country, then it will be able to sell its manufactured goods at a lower price, other things being equal. The other things are labor discipline, organizational skill, and the possession of the necessary machinery and raw materials. Thus, Ghana or Zambia, for example, could not compete with the United States in the production of manufactured goods even if it paid nothing at all for labor, because it lacks labor discipline, organizational ability, and an industrial base. China, on the other hand, has very cheap labor which is better disciplined than that in America, as well as the needed organizational skills for utilizing that labor effectively in large-scale enterprises. Furthermore, China has painstakingly built up its industrial base—with our collaboration—during the past 40 years or so.

Fact Number 3: When industrial production moves from a country with high wages to a country with low wages, the immediate effect will be a reduction in the difference in wages between the two countries. Wages in the country which gains the industry will rise, and wages in the country which loses the industry will fall. This will be true whether the production is in the hands of nationally based companies or a multi-national corporation. Thus, if the North American Free Trade Agreement results in the Ford Motor Company closing a plant in Detroit and building a new one in Tijuana for the production of Fords, wages will rise in Mexico and fall in the United States just as surely as if the production had shifted from Ford to a company owned entirely by Mexicans.

What this means is that if an industrialized country which has built up a high standard of living for its citizens wants to maintain its industrial base and its living standard, it must regulate imports of goods from countries with lower wage scales. If it does not, its industrial base will be eroded, and its living standard will fall. This is a fairly simple economic fact, and most Americans could understand it if the proponents of the New World Order had not thrown up a smoke screen of obfuscation. They claim that there will be “readjustments” to be made when all trade barriers are down, but that in the long run everyone will benefit. We will import more goods, they say, but we also will export more, and everything will even out. That is not true, and they know it. What will “even out” will be wage scales around the world. The rich countries will become less rich, and the poor countries will become less poor, and if the process continues long enough wage scales—and standards of living—will approach equality, which is what the egalitarian ideologues among the globalists really are aiming at. To them the present state of affairs, with White Americans earning 20 times as much as Mexican peons or Chinese coolies, is “unjust.”

Other New World Order ideologues see in the interdependence which will result from wiping out a number of strategically vital industries in the United States (and other industrialized nations) a sure way to prevent international conflict in the future. They have taught two generations of Americans that “cooperation” is a virtue in itself, and we will be a more virtuous nation when we no longer are able to act unilaterally: that is, when we must secure the agreement of the countries which supply our ball bearings and our computer chips before we make a major move in international affairs.

All of this is not to say that international trade is a bad thing in itself. Trade, like many other things, should be an instrument of national policy. A nation’s international trade should be regulated with one aim in mind: to maximize the security and prosperity of the nation. Americans can hardly expect that of a government headed by a man who only two decades ago was demonstrating in the street with other draft-dodgers, gleefully chanting, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong’s gonna win!”

The only environment in which unregulated trade can be tolerated is within a natural community of interest: i.e., within a group of political entities which have a common sense of identity and a common set of interests, determined by Nature rather than by politics alone. In such an environment unrestricted trade usually is beneficial. For example, we do not want to protect Michigan’s automobile industry from competition by an automobile manufacturer in Indiana or Texas. If Texans can build a better car at a lower price, then we, as Americans, are better off for it. We don’t worry about people in Michigan becoming dependent on Texans, because we’re the same people.

But we damned well better worry about being dependent on Chinese and Mexicans, who are fundamentally different from us in many ways.

Most White Americans, I am sure, even if they have been taken in by the egalitarian propaganda that racial differences really don’t mean anything, are not willing to have their own living standards continue to go down, so that Chinese and Mexican living standards can rise. And very few real Americans are willing to sacrifice our national independence and security to a scheme which will make us dependent on countries like China and Mexico for a lot more than cheap consumer goods.

But that’s exactly what’s happening now. Mr. Clinton and the gang in the White House are pushing as hard as they can to destroy American sovereignty, to boost interdependence at the expense of national independence, and to make us equal to Mexicans and Chinese.

The only way we can stop this is to reach millions of people with our message, to make them understand the consequences of the ongoing destruction of America’s industrial base and the motives of those responsible for it. We must make every American understand what a dangerous and evil scheme the New World Order is and what disastrous consequences it will have for all of us if we fail to derail it while there is still time.

—March 19, 1994

By Way of Deception

Thou Shalt Do War

 

wlp_bas_relief

by William Pierce

The motto of Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, is, according to recently defected Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky: “By way of deception thou shalt do war.” That motto describes more than the modus operandi of the world’s most ruthless and feared organization of professional assassins and espionage agents; it really describes the modus vivendi of an entire race. It is necessary to understand that fact before one can hope to understand fully the role of the Jews in national and world affairs.

The concept of a race eternally at war with the rest of the world is alien to us. It is difficult to believe or even to grasp. When we examine such a concept and begin sifting the evidence it is easy to become confused. On the one hand we have the Old Testament injunctions to the Hebrews from their tribal god, speaking through their prophets, to annihilate every Gentile nation over which they gain power:

And thou shalt consume all the peoples which the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eye shall not pity them… thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (Deuteronomy 7:16, 20:16)

Similarly bloodthirsty, explicit injunctions are repeated so often in the Jews’ holy books that we can only assume that they are meant to be taken seriously. The historical evidence suggests that in ancient times the Jews did indeed take their religion seriously: they were notorious everywhere and at all times as implacable haters of humanity who in turn were thoroughly despised by every people among whom they lived.

Then on the other hand we have the modern, American Jew in the role of humanitarian, shunning the instruments of war and urging that all citizens, including himself, be disarmed, in order to make the streets of our cities kinder and gentler. Not only do the Jews provide the principal impetus to America’s gun-control effort, but they are found in the forefront of every other squishy, do-good movement, from those ostensibly aimed at reducing hostility between the races to those designed to increase tolerance of homosexuals and their practices.

How are we to make sense of this apparently conflicting evidence?

Is the Jew in the U.S. Congress who cites the rising murder statistics and then demands that the government confiscate all privately owned firearms trying to deceive us as to his intentions? When he talks peace and disarmament is he really thinking war against the Gentiles?

And what of the carefully cultivated media image of the Jew as a gentle, inoffensive victim of bigotry, always being persecuted but never persecuting others? Is that also deception? And even if it is, does it necessarily mean that beneath the Jew’s mask of benevolence and innocence hides the malevolent visage of a cunning predator? Perhaps for every bloodsucking Jewish swindler like Ivan Boesky or Michael Milken there is a Jewish benefactor of mankind like polio vaccine developer Jonas Salk, and for every bloody-handed Jewish gangster like Ariel Sharon, Meyer Lansky, or Yitzhak Shamir there is a Jewish Nobel Peace Prize winner like Menachem Begin, Henry Kissinger—or the appropriately named Elie Wiesel.

Or are we also being deceived when the Salks and the Kissingers are held up to us as reasons for not condemning all Jews for the transgressions of some?

By way of deception thou shalt do war.

Does that injunction mean: “If you must wage war—if it is impossible to avoid war—then you stand a better chance of winning by being tricky”? Or does it mean: “Thou shalt wage war, and thou shalt deceive”?

The answer to this question is important. If it is the former—if the Jews, as a whole, are not malevolent, if they have broken with their Old Testament tradition and no longer feel that their racial mission is to destroy all other peoples, but they merely feel that when forced to defend themselves they are justified in using all means, including deception, then we may be able to live on the same planet with them, at a distance. We don’t have to like them or agree with their policies, but we can see the possibility, at least, of some sort of peaceful coexistence, once a separation of peoples has been accomplished.

In seeking the answer we should keep in mind that deception is, in itself, hostile. A policy of systematic deception is tantamount to a policy of war. If we discover that the Jews (as a whole, not just a few swindlers among them) have been deceiving us deliberately and systematically over an extended period of time on any matter of substance, then we may infer that they regard the relationship between us as one of war, and we should respond accordingly.

The pursuit of this inference may be the only path to an unmuddied answer. After all, how do we know that someone is waging war against us? If he makes an open declaration of war and then begins shooting and bombing us, the matter is clear enough. But if, because he always follows a policy of deception, he declares that he is not at war with us and only has our best interests at heart, we may have difficulty in deciding whether the injury he causes us is deliberate or inadvertent.

Suppose he undertakes courses of action which damage us in ways somewhat less directly than shooting and bombing—ways such as bringing hordes of non-Whites across our borders, breaking down the barriers to racial mixing in our society, encouraging permissiveness, undermining our institutions, promoting cultural bolshevism—all the while claiming that he does not regard these things as harmful. If we were a more practical people we might pay less attention to what the Jew says and more to what he does; we might stop worrying about his motive, judge him on the basis of the effect his presence has had on us, and then act accordingly.

Unfortunately, there are many who cannot in good conscience take a stand against the Jew without knowing what is in his heart—and the Jew is aware of this. We must catch him deliberately lying to us, deceiving us systematically and massively, in order to infer that his intent is hostile.

That’s one reason why the unraveling of the “Holocaust” myth is so important to us—and why the Jew clings so desperately to every lie in its fabric.

We should draw some sort of conclusion from the consistency of the Jew’s actions. Virtually everything he does is harmful to us. Without much exaggeration we can say that whenever the Jew takes a stand on a new issue, the proper position for us is on the other side.

Everyone who has read any Jewish literature—i.e., literature by Jews about Jews—has encountered the traditional Jewish character who whenever he must make a decision about something the goyim have done asks himself: “Is it good for the Jews?” That’s an admirable trait in any person, Jew or Gentile: always being concerned first about the welfare of his community, of his tribe, of his race. The Jewish author more often than not sprinkles a bit of dissimulation over it, however, suggesting that it may be unfashionably parochial, but it is excusable on the grounds that the Jews have been obliged by bitter experience to be wary of anything the Gentile does.

It goes without saying, of course, that the same author would regard it as totally inexcusable for a Gentile to use a similar criterion: to ask himself about some policy or action of the Jews, “Is it good for the White race, for Gentiles?” Such a character could only be cast in the role of villain.

And what we never encounter in Jewish literature is a Jewish character weighing a Jewish policy by asking himself: “Is it bad for the goyim?” Unspoken though it may be, however, it seems that this criterion plays as large a role as the first in determining Jewish policies. Perhaps to them it is just another way of saying the same thing—although they are very careful not to phrase it that way. At least, they have been since the Second World War; before that they sometimes seemed to think that the goyim couldn’t read, and chutzpah got the better of discretion. In 1924, for example, the prominent Jewish publicist Maurice Samuel, author of a score of serious books on Jewish matters and recipient of numerous awards from Jewish organizations, wrote in his You Gentiles, a book addressed to his hosts:

We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.

Even here, however, there is deception, with the will to destroy masked as piety.

Think of the enormous demographic and social changes which have transformed our world since the Second World War. In 1941 the United States was for all practical purposes a White country. Blacks and other minorities existed, but they were not seen in White residential areas, White schools, White recreational facilities, or most White workplaces. They had a negligible influence on the political process, on public morality, and on the national culture. Racial intermarriage was illegal in most jurisdictions and extremely rare everywhere. America’s city streets were safe by night and by day. There was no drug problem; the use of marijuana, heroin, and other drugs was confined almost entirely to Blacks and mestizos, in their own, separate communities. Teenage pregnancy (among Whites) was as rare as a public display of homosexuality. Schools were orderly, disciplined, and safe.

America had its problems, of course. Whites, even when they are in control of their own destiny, are not angels. Greed, meanness, superstition, and stupidity were reflected in a thousand social and cultural ills. A thoroughly corrupt political system, inevitable in a democracy, provided the country with its top political leaders and public officials. Blacks and other racial minorities, though invisible and powerless, were a festering sore which eventually would have to be dealt with.

The country, however, was still White and gave every indication of staying that way; in the years immediately prior to the war immigration to the United States was predominantly White, with immigrants from Europe outnumbering those from Asia and Latin America combined by five to one. America’s problems were still soluble and Western civilization was still viable, still capable of being cleansed and renewed. Furthermore, in Germany a man was showing the race the way to save itself.

In response to that man’s efforts most of the Western world engaged in an all-out war to destroy him, his works, and his followers. His ideas and teachings became anathema, and the half-century which followed was dedicated to justifying the slaughter and destruction of the war by promoting the antitheses of those ideas and teachings.

He had taught that the White race is the most progressive race and is inherently superior to the non-White races in its civilization-building capacity, and so the elevation of the social and economic levels of non-Whites at the expense of Whites became the premier postwar goal.

He had taught that racial mixing is a crime against Nature, that our race must strive above all else to maintain the integrity of its gene pool, and so racial mixing became the postwar fashion: schoolchildren were bused to achieve mixing in the schools, forced housing laws were passed to achieve residential mixing, laws against miscegenation were struck down everywhere, and the immigration laws were changed to bring a new flood of non-Whites into the country.

He had taught that the building of self-discipline in young people, the strengthening of their will-power and of their ability for self-control, is the most important task of a nation’s educational system, and so in postwar America discipline became a dirty word, and permissiveness became the norm.

He had taught that, just as races differ in their innate abilities, so also do the individuals within a race, and that a healthy and progressive society must conform its institutions to this natural inequality among its members. Consequently, in postwar America egalitarianism became the new religion, and leveling the aim of government. To seek out the best and brightest, in our schools and elsewhere, and give them the recognition and the special training to enable them to move upward to positions of leadership—even to admit the possibility that some were better and brighter than others and could contribute more to civilization—became taboo.

He had taught a healthy, complementary relationship between men and women, with the former as providers and protectors and the latter as nurturers, and the new society he built in Germany was family centered, with laws and institutions aimed at strengthening the family and helping it to provide a sound environment for healthy children. Therefore, after his works were destroyed the victors denounced sexual complementarity as “repressive” and brought women out of the home and into the workforce by the millions, with children relegated to day-care centers. Every sex-role distinction was officially discouraged or outlawed, even to the point of bringing women into the armed forces on an equal footing with men. Feminism and homosexuality flourished with governmental protection.

Today we can see the consequences of these postwar policies all around us, and it is a matter of public record that the Jews have been the primary instigators and propagandists for each of these policies without exception.

They had non-Jewish collaborators in abundance, of course. The legislator primarily responsible for the change in postwar immigration patterns, the late Jewish Congressman from Brooklyn, Emanuel Celler, for many years chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, chose as a co-sponsor for his 1965 immigration bill the Gentile Senator from Massachusetts Edward (Teddy) Kennedy.

The “civil rights” revolutionaries who were organizing “sit-ins” and “freedom rides” during the 1950s and 1960s received their financing, their legal assistance, and their media support from Jews, but without an utterly corrupt and unprincipled Gentile collaborator in the form of Lyndon Johnson, first as Senate majority leader (1955–1961) and later as President (1963–1968), the series of legislative coups which made the agenda of the revolutionaries the law of the land would not have come so easily.

Collaboration has come from Blacks as well as Whites. Many of the organizations pushing for legislated “equality” between Blacks and Whites have been headed by Blacks in recent years. The most venerable of them, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was given its first Black president as long ago as 1975, after an unbroken succession of Jews (although the separate NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which bills itself as “the legal arm of the civil rights movement,” is still strictly kosher, with a Jewish chief).

In no area of endeavor have the Jews had more willing non-Jewish collaborators than in the postwar promotion of permissiveness. Jews Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin may have been the most flamboyant spokesmen for permissiveness during the 1960s with their “if it feels good, do it” and “kill your parents” maxims for young Americans, but dozens of well-known Gentiles were right on their coattails, from “New Age” guru Timothy Leary with his campaign to popularize LSD and other psychedelic drugs to soft-porn publisher Hugh Hefner and his advocacy of “the Playboy philosophy.”

It is, after all, hardly the case that Jewry forced its way into America with tanks and machine guns and compelled the unwilling Aryans to stand by and watch while their civilization was destroyed and their race corrupted by the Semitic invaders. From the beginning the prey collaborated with the predators at all levels: the primitive Bible-beaters who for generations have been taught by their own kind that the Jews are “God’s Chosen People” and that it’s bad luck to cross them; the jaded, self-indulgent great grandsons and great granddaughters of an earlier generation of hard-headed, hard-working pioneers and entrepreneurs, eager to be amused and titillated by every new fashion in ideology, art, music, or lifestyle dangled before them by wordy, alien hucksters; hungry opportunists in business, in education, and in the cultural establishment, ready to take the part of the obnoxiously pushy but admirably well-organized strangers, once those strangers had established sufficiently strong beachheads to be able to offer favors in return; and, of course, the politicians, democracy’s inevitable maggots, who are ready to ally themselves with the Devil himself if they think they can gain a temporary personal advantage by doing so.

It is clear that when cleanup time comes there’s as much weeding to be done in our own garden as in any other race’s. An inattentive observer might even conclude that the Jews are no more blameworthy for the bad directions taken by our society than our own worst elements are; that as opportunists they merely look for ways to turn the weaknesses they find in us to their own advantage.

Did they push for opening our borders to the Third World because they had a long-range plan to mongrelize us, or were they merely going along with greedy and irresponsible elements of our own race who wanted to keep the cost of labor down?

Have they been the principal promoters behind every destructive fashion in painting and music in order to cut us loose from our cultural moorings, thereby confusing our sense of identity and making us easier prey, or simply because they have recognized the lack of aesthetic discrimination on the part of our consuming masses and are as eager as the confidence men of any race to sell the suckers whatever they’ll buy?

Do they use their control of the entertainment industry to promote the acceptance—and in many cases the approval—of homosexuality, feminism, and interracial sex as a way of softening us up morally and preparing us for slaughter, or are they simply trying to please and thereby win as customers for their commercial sponsors the more degenerate elements of our population?

An inattentive observer might be stumped by such questions. A more attentive observer, however, will note the details, the specifics, as well as the generalities, and he will understand that those details, taken together, are not consistent with simple opportunism but only with war by way of deception.

Forcing the stream of immigration into America after the Second World War to change from White to Brown and Yellow has most notably kept the cost of farm labor down, but Jews are not farmers, and it is difficult to see how they could expect to benefit economically from this change. The influx of non-White immigrants also has kept the cost of certain other types of labor down—restaurant workers, unskilled construction workers—but the connection to any vital Jewish business interest is tenuous at best.

There can be no doubt that culture distortion has been enormously profitable for Jews. With a controlling economic interest in every facet of the popular-culture industry from art galleries to music records, tapes, and compact discs, they make money from nearly every product that the culture-consuming public can be persuaded to buy. And since no one has ever lost a nickel by underestimating the taste of the public, the deliberate Jewish debasement of art and music is understandable on the grounds of greed alone. But the specific directions are not.

In the production and promotion of what might be called “consumer music,” for example, the one great change which has taken place since the Second World War has been the ascendancy of African rhythm over European music. Fifty years ago one could walk into any record store catering to the general public and find 78-rpm phonograph discs with a number of different types of music: classical, hillbilly (a form of White American folk music known today as “bluegrass” and subsumed under the more general heading “country and western”), numerous samples of genuine folk music from Europe, the religious music of the more primitive Christian fundamentalists (“gospel”), and a wide-ranging selection of “popular” music. The last category contained everything from the songs of Stephen Foster to the vacuous, fluffy stuff of the musical comedies which were especially popular then.

Jews already had established a strong beachhead in popular music production—Sigmund Romberg, Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein, George Gershwin, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin—but, at least, most popular music, even that composed by Jews, was still based on European forms. Jazz was for all practical purposes the only non-White music being peddled to White consumers, and it constituted a relatively small minority of the wares—although the “swing” and “big band” forms into which jazz evolved took a larger share of the market. Still, much of the available music was White in form and origin, with classical music still prominently represented.

By the end of the Second World War jazz-influenced popular music was evolving away from its Black roots into hybrid forms that most people considered more White than Black. The introduction of the long-playing record, which for the first time permitted people to listen to an entire symphony without changing records, and of high-fidelity sound systems even brought about a renewal of public interest in classical music. At this point the people controlling the music industry could have moved in any of a number of directions. They chose to put their heaviest promotional efforts behind another music form with Black roots: rock ‘n’ roll.

Rock also evolved, of course. Today in its many forms, some of which have moved rather far from their Black origins, it dominates consumer music. And the masters of the industry have begun pushing yet another non-White music form, more blatantly Negroid than anything heretofore: rap.

Today one must look hard to find even a handful of classical cassettes or compact discs in the music section of a K-Mart or other consumer emporium. European folk music can be had only from a few specialty stores. The majority of the music offered to the consuming public is in some significant sense non-White.

Economic democracy might be invoked to explain, at least in part, the displacement of structure by rhythm, as the taste of the average consumer has become more primitive. But it is clear that deliberate promotion has had much to do with this trend. Why have the promoters so consistently chosen directions which weaken and dilute the White cultural heritage?

Certainly, the feminists, homosexuals, and race-mixers are pleased to see themselves depicted on television and cinema screens as people of a morally superior sort, as role models for the younger generation of goyim. Perhaps they even show their appreciation by buying more of the products of the sponsors of Star Trek, True Colors, and other brave, new television productions. But feminists, queers, and interracial couples still make up only a rather small minority of the population, despite the best efforts of the media masters. Wouldn’t it make better economic sense to cater to the majority? There are as many approximately normal consumers who feel at least a twinge of disgust when a television program tries to persuade them that hard-drinking, hard-swearing female soldiers or cops are “normal” as there are bull-dykes who will run out and buy the sponsor’s brand of beer. And there certainly must be more healthy viewers who seethe with suppressed rage when they see a White woman kissing a Black man on the screen than there are avant-garde sickos who applaud such an abomination.

No, opportunism does not explain the Jews’ destructiveness. There is no doubt that they are opportunists. But their opportunism is too consistently destructive. They have too inerrant an instinct for what will be bad for the goyim.

Can their behavior be explained in terms of an alien brand of idealism—an idealism which evolved in the marketplaces and bazaars of the Middle East over the last five thousand years and is natural for them, but which leads to disaster when applied to European society and institutions? Was their support for communism from the middle of the last century up until its recent collapse really based on their sympathy for the oppressed proletariat and their desire for social and economic justice, as they claim? They themselves have been oppressed, they say, and so they have a natural sympathy for the underdog. They will tell you that the reason they promote feminism, argue for the acceptance of homosexuals, and demand the integration of Blacks into every facet of our lives is that their religion requires it of them; the ethics of Judaism is egalitarian, and it specifies that each man be judged only by his or her character.

Undoubtedly there have been naive, starry-eyed idealists among communism’s Gentile propagandists—at least, in those countries which had not yet experienced communism in practice; the great American writer Jack London was one, and there certainly may have been a few Jewish idealists of Marxism as well. But only a person who has no knowledge of communism in practice can believe that those who engineered its revolutionary triumph in Russia or commissared its institutions in Eastern Europe after the Second World War were seekers of justice for the workers.

As for the claim that Jews have an affection for justice and equality greater than that of other races, we only need to look at the ways in which this alleged affection manifests itself in that part of the world where it should be seen in its purest form: namely, Israel and the Israeli-occupied Arab territories. Ask any Palestinian about Jewish justice!

Judaism, of course, is unequivocally opposed to feminism and homosexuality—for Jews. Furthermore, it is a race-based religion, which defines its adherents in terms of their bloodline and declares them inherently superior to all other races. How does their promotion of feminism among the goyim, for instance, square with the well-known Jewish prayer, “I thank you, oh Lord, for not having made me a goy, a slave, or a woman,” which is recited every day by the Orthodox faithful?

In the Talmud, that authoritative compendium of the Jewish oral law, there are a thousand other reminders to the Jew that he is absolutely superior to all other life forms:

Heaven and earth were created only for the sake of the Jews. (Vayikra Rabba 36)

The Jews are human beings, but the goyim are not human beings; they are only beasts. (Baba Mezia 114)

Yahweh created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form and is condemned to serve the Jew day and night. (Midrash Talpioth 225)

So much for Jewish egalitarianism. Jewish solicitude for Blacks in America today is as much a fraud as was the claim of Jewish sympathy for the oppressed proletariat of Russia on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution.

What truly lies in the Jewish heart was revealed by an exceptional Jew, Baruch Spinoza (like Ostrovsky, a renegade), who wrote in the 17th century:

The love of the Hebrews for their country was not only patriotism but also piety and was cherished and nurtured by daily rites until, like their hatred of other nations, it was absolutely perverse… Such daily reprobation naturally gave rise to a lasting hatred, deeply implanted in the heart: for of all hatred, none is more deep and tenacious than that which springs from extreme devoutness or piety and is itself cherished as pious. (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Chapter 17)

The Jewish role in the non-Jewish world and the Jewish motivation for the policies pursued by the Jewish community would be much easier to perceive if the Jews acted in a more consistent and straightforward way: if they spoke with a single voice and spoke truly, saying what really was on their minds. But, then, consistency and straightforwardness would violate the cardinal rule: By way of deception thou shalt do war.

Nevertheless, on a somewhat higher plane of subtlety, there is a consistency in the Jews’ inconsistency. On virtually every major issue—political, social, cultural, moral, or what have you—where there are two principal sides or factions, Jews will be found pushing in both directions and serving as spokesmen for both factions—but with a difference.

Consider: For many years prior to Mikhail Gorbachev’s recent dismantling of the Soviet power bloc and the general recognition of Marxism as a fraudulent, unworkable system, communism’s principal apologists and apparatchiks in the West were Jews. So were a number of anti-communist spokesmen.

During the Second World War, of course, the communists could do no wrong in the eyes of the West’s controlled media, because they were helping to destroy the man about whom the Jewish media masters had nightmares. Thus, while Soviet butchers were torturing thousands of patriots to death in the police cellars of the Baltic countries and liquidating the Polish leadership stratum at the killing pits in the Katyn woods, Jewish communists in the United States were stealing the plans and test results from America’s atomic bomb program and sending them to their colleagues in the Soviet Union.

After the war was over, however, and a reaction began to set in among White Americans as they realized that the communist beast they had unleashed against Eastern Europe might end up devouring them too, it was time for Jews to begin hedging their bets: it was time for the media to begin quoting “responsible” anti-communists. (The “responsible” ones were those who failed to mention the Jewishness of the system they were speaking out against.)

While the memory of Jewish atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was still fresh and Jewish communist sympathizers such as Robert Oppenheimer were being weeded out of America’s atomic weapons program, Jewish scientist Edward Teller became the spokesman for anti-communist Americans who wanted a strong, nuclear-armed America able to stand up to the Soviet Union. Three decades later, after Jews had rooted for the Viet Cong communists throughout the war in Vietnam, Jews began flocking to the neoconservative movement to speak up for an America strong enough to defend Israel’s interests in the Middle East against the Soviet Union’s Arab clients there. Often they were the same Jews who had been cheering for the Reds a year or two earlier. That really confused the goyim.

Consider: Whenever a gaggle of eggheads gets together in some area to sponsor a classical-music FM radio station as a sole outpost of European culture in a sea of African rock-and-rap rhythm or sub-dimwit gospel bleating, there surely will be a Jew or two among them. And when they are interviewed by the local press, it surely will be one of those Jews who is quoted. That helps to spike any nasty rumors as to who’s behind all of the garbage-music programming at the other stations.

Consider: As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the madness of Political Correctness which has infected America’s colleges and universities is Jewish through and through. And many of those who are urging their colleagues to hold the line against Political Correctness also are Jews (at least, the ones appointed by the media to be spokesmen for academic freedom are). This not only ensures that the Jews manning the PC barricades won’t be criticized as Jews for wrecking our universities, but it preempts those who might try to swing things too far back toward academic freedom.

Consider: While Jew Howard Metzenbaum in the U.S. Senate and Jew Charles Schumer in the U.S. House of Representatives spearhead the legislative drive to strip Americans of their right to armed self-defense and are unanimously and vociferously supported in this effort by the Jewish media, a tiny, Milwaukee-based, Jewish pro-gun group calling itself Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) manages to attract far more attention to itself than its size ordinarily would merit. JPFO is not just a group of pro-gun people who coincidentally happen to be Jews; it is a group of people who are shouting to the world: “Hey, look at me; I am a Jew, and I am in favor of gun ownership.” Whenever a JPFO spokesman is quoted in the news media—which is often enough to give the impression that his organization is right up there with the National Rifle Association, fighting for gun owners’ rights—he flaunts his Jewishness.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that in any contest it’s a good strategy to control your principal opposition. That way you can put on a great show of bad guys versus good guys struggling against each other, but you are always in a position to make the contest go in either direction you want and only as far as you want. Not only do you preempt any real opposition, but you keep the goyim fooled and deflect any criticism of your role in the affair.

By way of deception thou shalt do war.

The deception is masterfully done. It suffices to keep most of the people fooled most of the time. Only a careful study of the details of a number of different social phenomena in which Jews are involved parts the veil of lies and trickery sufficiently for us to see a clear pattern.

The pattern is this: Jews come into any homogeneous society—and such was America at the beginning of this century—as outsiders, as strangers. The society is effectively closed to them. They cannot easily penetrate its institutions. They cannot get their hands on the levers of power. If they try they are noticed, suspected, and resisted. And they always must try. In this they apparently cannot restrain themselves.

To make way for themselves, to open up possibilities for penetration and control, they must break down the structure of the society, corrupt its institutions, undermine its solidarity, weaken its sense of identity, obliterate its traditions, destroy its homogeneity. Thus they inevitably will be in favor of democracy, of permissiveness, of every form of self-indulgence and indiscipline. They will be proponents of cosmopolitanism, of egalitarianism, of multiculturalism. They will oppose patriotism (except when they are inciting their hosts to fight a war on behalf of Jewish interests). They will agitate endlessly for change, change, change, and they will call it progress.

And no matter what they are for or against they will have at least some of their number taking the opposite side: If they are promoting the public acceptance of homosexuality, they also will have a few prominent Jewish publicists bemoaning the downfall of traditional morality and warning of the consequences of the confusion of sexual roles. If their aim is to neutralize the universities as institutions for passing on the historical, intellectual, and cultural traditions of our people to a new generation of potential leaders, at the same time that they are organizing Red Guard brigades to enforce Political Correctness they will have a contingent beating the drums for tradition and free inquiry. If they are working feverishly to disarm White Americans in order to prevent the latter from exercising their right of revolution they will go to the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for a contrary statement now and then.

What does all of this prove? In the strictest sense of the word, nothing; it is only suggestive.

If you watch a person flip a penny five hundred times, and it always comes up tails, you cannot be absolutely certain that the penny has two tails. But you at least ought to suspect that someone has been working on that penny in his machine shop.

If you study the historical record and observe that every matter of importance in which the Jews have been involved turns out badly for us, even though there are usually a few Jews on our side of the matter, you cannot be absolutely certain that the game is rigged. But you at least ought to suspect that the Jews are following their ancient maxim and waging war against us by way of deception.

— February, 1992

Most whites are stupid

This is a 2013 threaded comment in this blog:

The average human being in any walk of life, irrespective of class, sex, faith, culture, education, etc., can only grasp facts through an extremely summarized, simplified prism. In other words, the overwhelming majority of people can only think in terms of platitudes and clichés—the few ones that can think at all. Therefore, it is understandable that the average white nationalist feels uncomfortable with a nuanced view of the race question. Raw, complex facts don’t fit well in a cartoonish narrative.

Most Whites are stupid, period. The regular white nationalist is less dumb than the common White on the street, but not by a large margin. Try to discuss the historical onus of Christianity for the White race or hint at violence as a legitimate political tool (Breivik, e.g.), and most of them will either walk away from you or try to shut you down.

A shame that the author of the above comment is the same miscreant from Brazil whose behavior I exposed elsewhere. I wish an Aryan had written it!

The threaded comment can be directed not only to those white nationalists who won’t break away from our parents’ toxic religion, but also those who believe in 9/11 or JFK assassination nonsense (the overwhelming majority of white nationalists, according to a Daily Stormer poll); cannot grasp the subtleties of what I call B-type bicausalism but insist in thinking Jew is the root-cause of all ills, therefore cannot even read Pierce’s non-fiction book demonstrating that the mess started well before kike takeover or his fictional book about the proper use of violence (see my latest post on The Day of the Rope). They cannot even do the most elemental research about the financial accident that is coming.

Moreover, many white nationalists cannot tolerate anything but the most demented form of egalitarianism regarding Europeans. This is a rant from Australia I did not let pass yesterday:

All this talk about who is white in Europe is a waste of time and you are all delusional nordicists. After insulting Italy and Greece and Spain you are going to lose your last hope of any nordic blood surviving beyond 2020. This is largely the fault of American nordicist community who believe that Italians and Greeks and Spanish are like Mexicans… If you go to Greece or read the obituries of Greek and Italian newspapers you will see that that they are white people you morons… Jews control the world. It is all over… Instead of being united, nordicists in America just played into the hands of the Jews, that is how fucking stupid they are… So fuck all you nordic cunts. I hope the muslims kill you all and the niggers rape your daughters and mothers and then throw them to the Jews.

This Aussie does not even know that I’m not an American. Like him other white nationalists become mad as hell as the typical liberal when confronted with the fact that there was a degree of mongrelization in some parts of Europe before our times and hinting—The horror! You must be Lord Voldemort!—that less mixed whites have better genes than the mudbloods. See the most scholarly article in this blog about racial studies, whose author is a Spaniard, not a North American “nordicist.”

White nationalists really cannot break away from biological egalitarianism, not even the pundits who refrain from profanities. Stupid indeed…

On Paul Kurtz

kurtzIt is true that I have praised Paul Kurtz, who died in 2012 and I used to call a “mentor” for his work debunking precisely the pseudosciences that made me lost many years of my life. The photo in the Wikipedia article on him (also at the left) was uploaded by me after I requested it directly to Kurtz.

Alas, after he died I discovered this video where in the last five minutes Kurtz said that “America is a universal culture” and, mentioning the immigration fauna in the US, he added the phrase, “We are part of the planetary community.”

Kurtz then agreed with the interviewer that “the genetic makeup of the human race is all one” and, incredibly for someone who made a career defending real science against pseudosciences, he added: “There are no separate races. We are all part of one human family.”

The interviewer defined Kurtz as the “father of American secular humanism.” On a 2013 Occidental Observer thread a commenter opined about the “secular humanists”:

The new atheists are pure scum. Yes, despite their adolescent hatred of Christianity, their morality is a hundred percent Christian; anti-racism, egalitarianism, brotherhood of humanity, etc. Pathetic. I have far more respect for the average Christian than I have for those soulless, deadened worshippers of “reason” and “logic.”

I could not resist the temptation of naming Kurtz “scum” in that thread, in spite of the fact that Jews and Christians are presently on the same page here. This happened just after I discovered the above-linked video, where Kurtz stated also that WASPs have no exclusive claim to North America, and mentioned the Inuit as a group that, according to him, settled there before whites. Go figure! Before I became Jew-wise once I even harbored the thought of dedicating my autobiographical book to this guy…

Looking directly at the camera by the end of the interview, Kurtz concluded that “the First Principle in planetary ethics is that we ought to treat every person on planet Earth as equal,” after which he mentioned the races and the ethnic groups.

Well, well… I am still grateful that Kurtz’s writings, his magazines Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry, and the organization of skeptics he founded has helped a lot of people who, like me in the past, went astray in parapsychological cults. But when I met him personally in 1989 and 1994—in the 1994 Seattle conference of skeptics I also met Carl Sagan and shacked hands with him—I ignored that both Kurtz and Sagan had Jewish ancestry.

Why I believe WN is fraudulent

“Just about everybody I know in the New Right [i.e., racialists who reject people like Rockwell and Pierce] has used drugs.”

Jef Costello

Why I believe that white nationalism is fraudulent? Very simple: WNsts are ultimately liberals. They are radical—and I mean really radical—egalitarians regarding race, gender and sexual orientation.

At the very core of Judeo-liberalism, and I am talking of what our media, universities and government teach us, lies the principle of non discrimination. Well, well… White nationalists see no problem with women and out-of-the-closet homosexuals in their meetings, and most of them abhor discriminating the off-white population in the West (e.g., Greg Johnson asking us to believe that browns are whites, literally!).

NS-nymphRead my entries about nordicism and anti-nordicism before jumping here to post any rant in the comments section. (There is also a long section in my compilation The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour about why I rejected white nationalism in favor of national socialism.) Rants who fail to address the basic points in this blog (or book) criticizing anti-nordicism won’t pass.

The new god of the Romans

“Why were you so ungrateful to our gods
as to desert them for the Jews?”

—Julian, addressing the Christians

Julian

Whites have been nuts for a long, long, long time. In a film or documentary about the times after Julian I listened a pagan character saying “…the new god of the Romans” in the sense that this new cult (Christianity) was a curious fad of the eccentric invaders.

Just as the Roman Christians of the first centuries were clueless about the utter craziness of adapting a new god—stealing the god from the subversive tribe only meant schizophrenizing themselves—, today’s whites are just as crazy about the uttermost toxicity of their new religion, Liberalism. And I find it a little embarrassing that it had to be a Jew, Lawrence Auster, the one who nailed the underlying principle of Liberalism.

A new god, or rather a secular incarnation of the previous one, has infected the white psyche since the French Revolution, which equalized everyone in the name of the “rights of man” and made every Negro a citizen of the French Republic.

The same at the other side of the Atlantic. I have already quoted Mark Weber but since he explains my point so clearly, his words merit re-quoting:

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

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

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

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

In his speech Weber also said that in keeping with that goal in the past, Americans, the archetypal liberals in every sense of the word, decided that distinctions between Christians and non-Christians were not very important and stopped discriminating against the latter. That was not necessarily a bad step but then, an artificial equality between women and men was enforced by law. And with time the same happened with Jews and finally with the Negroes and other non-Whites, who became empowered in America in ways that even the Founders would have found unconceivable.

Presently it is turn of the fags. Quite a few white nationalists are tolerant on this behavior because, like the Aryans who abandoned Apollo for a Semitic god, they also ignore that this fad is one of the last in a downward spiral. What’s next? Tolerating pedophiles? Those who commit bestiality? Keep Alexis de Tocqueville in mind: “The desire for equality becomes more and more insatiable as equality increases.”

Egalitarianism, the new god of the white peoples, is the quintessence of liberalism: which was concocted by well-intentioned whites but as crazy as the Christians who demolished the pagan temples, burnt the libraries and shattered the sculptures that represented our true soul.

Quotable quote

“Equality is a slogan based on envy.”

—Alexis de Tocqueville

Published in: on December 4, 2013 at 10:03 am  Leave a Comment  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 291 other followers