What is the evidence that, even in pre-Christian times, Europeans were prone to moral panics and excessive guilt and/or altruism? I’ve never seen any and find it hard to believe there is any.
Why are Europeans so prone to individualism? Why are they less concerned about kinship? Professor MacDonald explained last month the complex issues of population genetics. “This is the toughest intellectual problem there is; psychology, studying Jews is easy by comparison.”
Fortunately, there’s now a huge amount of research to crack the annoying cipher:
Postscript of November 19:
Population genetics is an important piece of the jigsaw puzzle but it doesn’t explain everything. Always keep in mind Frost’s response to MacDonald about the “Christian axiology” piece in the puzzle.
Most white nationalists believe it’s enough to read Kevin MacDonald’s third book of his trilogy on Jewry. But the first book presents the roots of Judaism in a way that the secondary branches can later be grasped. I won’t add excerpts of MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone, only a paragraph:
This project attempts to develop an understanding of Judaism based on modern social and biological sciences. It is, broadly speaking, a successor to the late-19th-century effort to develop a Wissenschaft des Judentums—a scientific understanding of Judaism. The fundamental paradigm derives from evolutionary biology, but there will also be a major role for the theory and data derived from several years of psychology, including especially the social psychology of group behavior.
See the prologue of the third book: here. Written when MacDonald finished his trilogy, it’s the best introduction to his whole trilogy that I know.
Terms like “White supremacist,” “racist,” “anti-Semite” “Nazi” have been devastatingly effective, but they are only effective because they are disseminated by our hostile elites. [a quotation from a Kevin MacDonald article]
They are only effective because whites take them seriously and accept that they’re evil. But this was no mere invention of modern mass media, as they were accepted as evil long before its advent. Racism and white supremacy have been out of style in America at least since the Civil War. White supremacy was offensive to Christians back in that day because it goes against so many Biblical teachings: the insignificance of race, the equal importance and uniqueness of all souls to God, the unimportance of the body, etc.
Thus they abolished it, at great cost to themselves in blood and treasure, before Jews even began arriving on these shores in any great number. Further, doesn’t the Bible (Matthew 19:28-30) predict that when Heaven on earth arrives, that then when Jesus’ followers have completely forsaken their blood relations in order to follow him, that those who were last shall be the first, and the first shall be last?
Here we have the essence of cuckservatism, foretold in the sayings of Jesus. Hence, a devout Christian must prep the bull, in order to make up for having sinfully been first (cf. Mark 9:35). It shows proper humility.
The Old Testament was by Jews, about Jews, for Jews. If you are not Jewish the Old Testament has nothing to do with you, never has and never will. (Read Kevin MacDonald’s first book of his trilogy about Judaism.)
In Ahnenreihe, my favorite blog in German, my friend Richard has been busy replying to frequent asked questions, some of them by monocausalists. This is one of the FAQs:
The Jews are our only problem. Christianity is only a part of the Jewish problem.
That should account for Alexander the Great or the Aryan founder of Buddhism, or the extinct northern Egyptians, Persians and Tocharians.
Alexander the Great commanded his soldiers to marry Asian non-whites. The Egyptians and Persians that Richard mentions can be understood in the context of other Ahnenreihe articles about the history of the white race in the Ancient World, which includes the history of mongrelization in Egypt, Persia and the north of the Tarim Basin where the Tocharians lived.
Without the help of Jewish depredations all of these peoples committed what I call the sin against the holy ghost: suicidal mongrelization. The red-haired Gautama Buddha for example, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama, had the brilliant idea of condemning an aspect of the old Aryan religion: the rigid caste system of the Brahmin which forbade not only intermarriage, but every form of social intercourse between the castes.
The unforgivable sin goes even beyond what we call the Christian problem; beyond all these recent entries where I’ve been quoting Jack Frost, as the ethno-suicidal tendencies mentioned by Richard and others cannot be blamed on any of the Abrahamic religions.
There’s something wrong with whites that predates their interaction with the Semite, either Jew, Christian or Muslim. Richard and I call this the Aryan problem. Kevin MacDonald has been researching some of it from his scientific point of view but he’s hesitant to blame Christianity.
I still believe that my “witches’ brew” metaphor is the best approach to the problem of white decline, even if some commenters have been trying to trivialize it with strawman arguments.
The most powerful force on Earth is the human soul on fire
I’m just saying that the source of the moral justification for the West’s immigration problem is to be found in its Christian past; that the entire worldview of life as some kind of moral contest is a Middle Eastern import that didn’t exist in whites before the coming of Christianity. Saying, as you did, that it has “nothing to do with Christianity” because the elites in Sweden are secular and have turned against the churches just makes me think you don’t see how two thousand years of Christianity have seeped into every atom of the white man’s bones. I’ll be convinced that the Swedish elites have turned against Christianity when you can show me they’ve turned their backs on the Christian ideals of universal brotherhood, peace, love, and charity.
I find it extremely odd, to say the least, that I should be the one to have to point out to someone who is frequently considered to be one of the world’s foremost anti-Semites, that maybe, just maybe, trusting a moral system developed by Jews, and built around the idea that one Jewish rabbi in particular is God, is not the best of strategies for white people concerned about limiting Jewish influence.
Nevertheless, that’s the situation I find myself in. KMD [Kevin MacDonald] and many of his acolytes, who unabashedly here tout Christianity as good for whites, must also then be of the opinion that, in at least this one instance, whites benefited from their association with Jews; that the relationship was symbiotic, not parasitic in kind. How this relates to the central thesis of this site, which as I understand it is that the Jewish race is locked in a struggle with the white race and is attempting to dominate it, is unclear.
KMD appears to think this struggle only commenced in the twentieth century; that there’s no possibility that Christianity itself was developed as a weapon of interracial warfare to subvert whites. I don’t think that reconciles very well with sociobiological theory. If the races are at odds, then haven’t they always been at odds? Aren’t they, according to the principles of Darwin, necessarily at odds, since in a world of finite resources a win for one is a loss for the other? Why should that have only begun in the twentieth century? It would be interesting to see how he deals with that thesis, which is something that Nietzsche appeared to believe, and also Revilo Oliver. If KMD has set this out somewhere, I haven’t seen it.
Then we have these two rather threadbare arguments presented above, which I’ve seen many times before, and I’m sure others are equally familiar with. In the main, they are:
- Christianity was the religion of the West during the period of its expansion, therefore it can’t be something inherently wrong with Christianity that’s the source of the modern problem with whites.
This is supposed to be the strongest argument.
- There’s “real” Christianity (which is smuggled in here as “traditional” Christianity), and subverted Christianity. The former is A-okay for whites, the latter is poison.
The first doesn’t deal with the argument which compares Christianity to a cancer. Cancer, too, doesn’t necessarily kill immediately. You can have cancer for years until it suddenly metastasizes and kills you. You can have it and be apparently strong and have many accomplishments; but nevertheless, you have it, and it will eventually kill you. So this argument in favor of Christianity doesn’t actually come to grips with the charge against it. It’s not a strong argument at all.
The second argument is a confused muddle. “Traditional” Christianity is supposed to be good for whites, yet in the next breath, KMD says that throughout history, Christianity has been on both sides of every issue. So which side is “traditional”? In the American Civil War, was it the South or the North? Were the Puritans traditional, “real” Christians, or not? Since the term is never defined and no examples are ever given, it’s hard to avoid the impression that “traditional” Christianity is whatever the author approves of, and subverted Christianity is whatever the author disapproves of.
Of course, the implication is that “traditional” Christianity is not corrosive to white racial solidarity; that Christianity hasn’t always been universalistic and has at times been racial. But then, in the next breath, he refers to the early Church Fathers, who were anti-Semitic because the Jews weren’t good race mixers like they thought Christians were supposed to be. So it would appear that the early Church Fathers weren’t “traditional” either; and also that the race mixing proclivities of Christianity are of very ancient vintage.
How then can it be argued that there’s nothing inherent in Christianity that subverts race? Is KMD saying that the Christianity of the early Church Fathers had already been subverted? By whom? When? Some details would be nice.
Why do some westerners hate the West?
The book I am presently writing will ponder on subjects touched in Kevin MacDonald’s piece, “Psychopathology and Racial Self-Hate among Whites”: that some adult whites hate the West as a pathologic defense mechanism, or displaced reaction, against earlier abuse as children.
I’m writing it because today’s suicidal ethos throughout the West is unimaginably deeper than anything that the common white nationalist has glimpsed. While pundits are good in describing part of the etiology of western decline, especially the Jewish question, with the exception of Tom Sunic they are clueless about the primary and the secondary causes of white decline: capitalism and Christianity (my most recent entries on these subjects can be read here and here).
In addition to capitalism, Christianity and the Judeo-liberal media, the most extreme cases of self-hatred can be traced back to the way some of us were raised by our parents, and the defense mechanisms we unconsciously built in response to the family dynamics. Although I believe this is the universal cause of extreme self-loathing, in the sense of aversion towards our parents’ culture, in a 2009 series originally written in my mother language I used a single case-study to illustrate why a westerner I interacted with hates her culture to the point of desiring its destruction.
My translation of “Una canaria apañada” can now be read in English at Ex Libris.
A catechism of racial thought, compiled from many of the world’s foremost thinkers on race and western politics—and some unknown internet commentators—edited and commentated upon by César Tort.
Acknowledgment is due to the following authors and commenters: Arthur Kemp, Hajo Liaucius, Kevin MacDonald, Michael O’Meara, Jason Richwine, Manu Rodríguez, Roger Devlin, Evropa Soberana (blogsite), Vance Stubbs, Tomislav Sunic, Jared Taylor, Joseph Walsh and the late William Pierce (the list is not complete).
Just released and available from Amazon Books.
Postscript of February 16, 2015:
The above is a cheap softcover edition. There’s now a more expensive updated edition in hardcover.