Why Deschner

Why reproduce passages from Karlheinz Deschner’s book?

When more than eight years ago I discovered the internet sites that claimed to defend the West from mass migration, I was delighted. The first of those places where I interacted with people was Gates of Vienna. It was the first time in my life that I encountered Jews in serious discussions.

Then I knew nothing of the Jewish problem. But the way that half-Jew Takuan Seiyo reacted when I began to awaken to the Jewish question was so bilious that in my mind it had the diametrically opposite effect: it made me see that his critics were right.

Then I started having problems with the star of the anti-jihad movement: the Norwegian Fjordman especially when, in a thread of Gates of Vienna, I mentioned that famous YouTube clip in which a Jewess emigrated to Sweden says that the Jews will play a central role in turning European countries multiracial. Fjordman became furious, and I did not understand his fury until, thanks to the Breivik incident in Norway, later it was revealed that Fjordman’s father was Jewish.

That means that Fjordman is a crypto-Jew, something that in time I also came to suspect of another commentator of Gates of Vienna, Conservative Swede: as in August of 2009 he became furious with me in a discussion thread when I mentioned Hitler. (That happened before I openly converted to National Socialism.)

Another Jewish fellow in the counter-jihad movement with whom I had problems was the late Lawrence Auster. Once I woke up to the Jewish question in 2010, Auster slandered me on his site saying that I wanted to exterminate the Jews—in times when I didn’t say such a thing. As his site View From the Right received many hits on Google, that defamation caused me problems, as one of my family’s friends is a Jewess; and the gossip of what Auster wrote came to her ears and eventually to my family’s.

Thus, over time I realized that the anti-jihad movement was full of ethnic Jews, half-Jews and crypto-Jews. But all of this paled with the way Edward S. May (‘Baron Bodissey’), the admin of Gates of Vienna, reacted to my awakening.

As I’ve said in this blog, the ‘Baron’ interrupted the publication, in his site, of the series of chapters that I now collect under the title Day of Wrath. But what surprised me the most was that the ‘Baron’ is neither a Jew nor a crypto. He is one of those typical boomers who almost feel devotion for the Jews. I will never forget the e-mail he sent me when notifying me that he would interrupt the publication of my book. This pious Christian spoke of the ‘sanctity’ of the Jews he knew! So the underlying problem in Gates of Vienna was the gentile administrator, more than the kikes that orbited his site.

Gates of Vienna, I later learned during my awakening on the Jewish question, was only the tip of the iceberg. In Esau’s Tears, a book I bought when I still wanted to communicate with them, I was exasperated how, throughout the 19th century, Europeans handed the press over to the subversive tribe. The platform that the modest Gates of Vienna provided to those Jews was only a gecko compared to Godzilla in the wider world! And all, over the years I came to realise, because of a version of Christianity sympathetic to Jewry—precisely the version of Christianity in the United States.

The way I see things now is uncomplicated. I could compare it with an influenza virus that damages our defences and makes us prone to a bacteria that infects our throats.

White nationalists are very aware of bacteria. But very few—Tom Sunic among them—are aware that bacterial subversion was not the product of spontaneous generation but was internalised via a religion of Semitic origin, Christianity. So, and here I go beyond Sunic, if we hate the ‘virus’ (Christian ethics) to the point of destroying it, the bacteria problem would be solved because our defences would be robust again. This is why I am now adding more blog entries of Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity.

Which white nationalist knows the history of Christianity? Who was aware of, say, the rabid fanaticism with which the Fathers of the Church and the early theologians fought each other (see my latest entries from Deschner’s book)?

The truth is that nationalists ignore the history of their religion: they know only the myths, legends and lies they told us as children educated in the Christian faith.

It is time for someone to understand the Christian virus from its origins, in the hope that the Aryan man will be able to recover his defences and win the battle against (((bacteria)).

Psychological Rubicon

Open thread

Caesar paused on the banks of the Rubicon

In “Iceland – Normie Land” I confessed last week:

When I lived in Normie Land this was the path, my steppingstones that helped me to cross the psychological Rubicon:

1st stone: Robert Spencer and other online counter-jihadists (late 2008)

2nd stone: Larry Auster, who went beyond counter-jihadism onto stepping a racial and anti-feminist stone (but he was Jewish)

3rd stone: Jew-wise white nationalism, especially the webzines under the watch of Greg Johnson in the late 2009 and 2010 (in the following years I became disillusioned because of some ethno-suicidal traits of Johnson & the broader WN movement)

At the other side of the river I found the very solid ground of National Socialism.

And which was the path of your psychological Rubicon?

Published in: on May 27, 2017 at 8:59 am  Comments (5)  

War of the sexes, 18

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______


Why civilized society hates men

Back in 2009, before my full racial awakening, the following comment by a Swede in a Counter-Jihad site attracted my attention:

Well, what sort of men does it take to put things right in a lawless Wild West town? There is a very good movie that I recommend, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Lawrence Auster (just to mention his positive sides) pointed out the important analysis of that movie: “It’s about the idea that civilization depends on men who use violence, but that civilization, once it is founded and secure and no longer needs violent men, ignores and derides the very men without whom it wouldn’t exist.” The bumbling city slicker (James Stewart) wasn’t up to the job, the town had to be saved by the violent, marginal brute (John Wayne).

Auster again: “The image is not of restrained, upright men who just use force when absolutely required and within the rules, but of tough men, violent men, men who have something primal about them, men who can subdue Indians, men who can blow away the Liberty Valance types and rescue the softer, civilized Jimmy Stewart types, men who are ready, able and willing to kill barbarians and save society, men like Nelson, who used apocalyptic levels of violence to kill thousands of men and destroy Napoleon’s navy and prevent the invasion of England.”

Whenever you find such men, hold on to them. You cannot afford to be picky when it comes to choosing here. Only princesses in fairy tales can afford that… So in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance James Stewart is the civilized city-dweller that can build civilization. But John Wayne is the brute who makes civilization possible in the first place!

Without the men like John Wayne, the James Stewarts are therefore useless. It’s pretty pointless then to lament the John Waynes’s lack of Jimmy Stewart properties, isn’t it?

In his video “Why civilized society hates men” the blogger says: “Society is not gynocentric because of the Jews or a conspiracy. Society is gynocentric. Period.” Remember what I said about gynocentric Sparta in my previous post, or even better read the whole mini-book about Sparta that I translated to English.

turd-flinging-monkeyThe blogger adds that gynocentrism only perishes during war. Perhaps the most extreme example of this was the burning of the Gaul villages by the Gaul Vercingetorix to prevent the Romans from gathering food supplies. Vercingetorix also expelled Gaul women and children from his fortress during the Roman siege. The lives of soldiers, and soldiers alone, had value in the war!

Back to our times. Presently only the Jimmy Stewart types are allowed to thrive. The blogger does not mention The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance but he says that because the West only wants feminized white males “this is why marriage laws punish men but don’t punish women.” Those are laws designed to castrate the alpha male. The blogger maintains it is no coincidence that right after the Cold War ended in the 1990s together with the threat of nuclear annihilation came the third feminist wave. America did not need the Waynes anymore, or speaking plainly: “Respect of masculinity is directly proportional to the threats that a society faces.” And also: “As soon as the threat passes, masculinity is demonized.”

Giving women or feminized males positions of authority shoots us on the foot. In another video the blogger said: “Ethical leadership is a male characteristic. Women make terrible leaders because they are inherently selfish and so incapable of ethical leadership.”

If Clinton wins in a couple of days Americans will learn it the hard way. Of course: a woman is running for president because virtually all westerners believe in equality. Even most white nationalists don’t rebel against feminism. Who among them forbids women in their conferences? The grim truth is that nationalists are only partially awakened. In another video the blogger said: “Equality is a lie: a myth to appease the masses” and still in another one he claimed that he has seen more men destroyed by women than by bullets, even after he served in the Iraq war.

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


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.

Another provisional entry?

Yesterday I deleted an entry about Matt Heimbach because I couldn’t find actual sources for the words put into his mouth. Today I’d like to add another provisional entry that I’ll also delete if actual sources are not provided for the quotations mentioned below.

At the blog Destroy Zionism, Streicher’s Ghost wrote:

Matthew Heimbach, the founder of the “White Student Union” which has generated some controversy recently, has participated in a radio interview with a crack-smoking Negro. In it, Heimbach says: “if a Jew converted to Christianity, I would accept him as a brother in Christ.”


This is in accordance with the words from Galatians 3:28—written by the Jew Paul (Saul)—in the New Testament: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Heimbach also says that he prefers Black Christians to White Pagans.

The radio show (Heimbach talks about 25 minutes into the show).

To be fair, the author of the above piece did provide a source: the radio show. But I don’t have the time or the patience to listen that long interview. If someone of my readers does, please provide the exact minute and approximate seconds when Heimbach said “if a Jew converted to Christianity, I would accept him as a brother in Christ” (that this is quite problematic is easily shown if we remember the late Larry Auster).

The other claim, that Heimbach prefers black Christians to white pagans, is more problematic because it’s not even stated in quotation marks. Did he really say it? I’ll need a source to allow this entry stay at WDH.

In the comment section Varg Vikernes said, “Actually, I think this [news about Heimbach] is good; it illustrates well the problem with Christians.” I would agree with Vikernes only if the two quotations are real.

Published in: on June 21, 2013 at 5:53 pm  Comments (39)  

Auster’s principal discovery


Today during my peripatetic soliloquies in my daily walk, I realized that I have failed to transfer into textual form one of my most recurrent soliloquies about the current totalistic paradigm. But first I would like to drop a few lines about the previous totalistic paradigm for the white peoples.

The original Latin text that Catholics used to listen during the traditional Mass—:

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
factorem cæli et terræ,
visibílium ómnium et invisibílium…

—is called Nicene because it was adopted in the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD (a city that changed its name after the Turkish occupation). The Nicene Creed has been normative not only for the Catholic Church but for the Orthodox Church and many Protestant denominations.

Latin was a language designed for uttermost clarity. When the tenets of Christianity became under direct attack by the end of the 18th century, the Enlightenment philosophers, some of them recently emancipated from the Jesuits’ indoctrination, knew exactly the doctrinaire content of the principles they were taking to task.

The situation today is exactly the opposite, I have told myself during so many soliloquies. One of the reasons why contemporary whites have been unable to challenge the new paradigm that began to be formed after the Enlightenment, called “liberalism” by Lawrence Auster and which reached its peak in our times with the American hegemony over Europe, is that the liberal axiom has never been stated explicitly by its proponents. The situation reminds me the Aristotelian concept of the enthymeme with its unstated assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to a conclusion.

The late Auster discovered that liberals were suppressing a crystal-clear, Nicaean-like statement of their major premise. Their Non-discriminatory principle is unstated and simply taken as axiomatic: something akin to the Orwellian world where the State controlled thought by means of controlling the peoples’ language. In Auster’s own words, “No one in today’s society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.”

Unlike Latin, Newspeak is a language designed for uttermost unclarity. This means, of course, that in order to reverse the totalistic belief system that presently controls the white psyche, one must first identify the liberal axiom before the dissident, post-Enlightenment philosopher is even able to discuss it.

In other words, if we listened the liberal axiom with the same frequency that, as a child, I listened the Nicene Creed every Sunday during the Mass, the first step to disabuse whites from the paradigm that is destroying the West would have been taken.

Published in: on March 30, 2013 at 2:04 pm  Comments (5)  

Lawrence Auster (1949-2013)


Larry Auster died today. Although we had strong discrepancies in the past, the West’s Darkest Hour owes Auster some of its central ideas.

MacDonald’s recent article about Auster gives the impression that the good professor also forgave Auster’s gross insults against MacDonald because, just before dying, Auster seemed to disabuse his readership by making known a hidden chapter on the Jewish Question that very well could have been published at The Occidental Observer or The Occidental Quarterly.

Controversies aside, perhaps Auster’s most important discovery was the explicit enunciation of the Non-discriminatory principle that, implicitly, rules the West today: the quintessence of liberalism.

I sincerely believe that every pro-white advocate should be aware of that principle.

Published in: on March 29, 2013 at 11:15 pm  Comments (17)  

Auster / MacDonald

LarryAuster at VFR dinnermacdonald

In my stats page I am seeing that my previous post, which reproduced Kevin MacDonald’s most recent article, has been receiving at least some traffic from The Occidental Observer.

In the Addendum I have reproduced Lawrence Auster’s 1998 unpublished chapter that inspired MacDonald to write his positive recapitulation of it.

I have just read Auster’s piece, which is over eleven thousand words, and the following phrase caught my attention.

“The problem is that the Jews, in the absence of healthy majority resistance, have virtually made their sensibility the ruling sensibility of America…” [my emphasis]

Of course! The “monocausalists” who don’t see absolutely anything wrong with the white psyche ought to take heed how, in the last centuries, Muslims have indeed showed healthy majority resistances with regard to the subversive tribe within their Islamic nations.

Judeo reductionism aside, Larry Auster’s revelation is stunning insofar as it demonstrates that he has been conscious of the Jewish Problem all of these years of his blogging career since he wrote that unpublished book.

I hope that visitors of this blog find the time during this weekend to read the articles by MacDonald and Auster. Since it is practically impossible to comment in either of their sites, visitors are welcome to comment either here or in the Addendum.

Ex Gladio Libertas!
68 Anno Nostri Hitlerum

Auster on the Jewish Problem

When I was a liberal Larry Auster was one of the few authors who helped me in changing my worldview… at fifty! Although Auster and I have had strong disagreements in the past regarding the Jewish Problem, the recent article by Kevin MacDonald, “Lawrence Auster on the Role of Jews in Disestablishing White, Christian America” merits reposting here. Keep always in mind that, although Auster converted to Christianity, he is ethnically Jewish.

At The Occidental Observer webzine MacDonald wrote:


Lawrence Auster is one of those rare Jews (Paul Gottfried is another) who seems to have an appreciation for the traditional people and culture of America and an understanding of the role of Jews in White dispossession—not that Auster and I haven’t had our disagreements (“Lawrence Auster gets unhinged”).

Auster recently posted a chapter originally written in 1998 on the role of Jews in the multicultural transformation of the U.S. and the decline of White America (“Jews: The Archetypal Multiculturalists”). He hits pretty much all the right notes. Auster often has a way of phrasing things and choosing quotations from prominent Jews that cut to the heart of the matter—almost like painting pictures that are worth a thousand words.

His dissection of Alan Dershowitz is classic—the supreme arrogance and hypocrisy of Dershowitz’s fanatic ethnocentrism that is entirely mainstream in the Jewish community. Dershowitz unabashedly gives Jews the right to alter America in the direction of multiculturalism to suit their interests, as well as to disregard the Constitution and the attitudes and interests of White America; Dershowitz simultaneously condemns the ethnocentrism and group feelings of non-Jewish Whites while supporting Jewish ethnocentrism, endogamy, and sense of group interests in America as well as the racialist, apartheid state of Israel. To say that Jews like Dershowitz have no respect for the traditional people and culture of America is a gross understatement; they see the world from a completely Jewish perspective in which the rights, culture, and traditions of non-Jews at best count for nothing. At worst, they are the appropriate target of hatred, scorn, and ultimately, one fears, far worse; indeed, Auster describes Dershowitz as “openly hostile to America’s historic civilization.”

Dershowitz is an example of extreme ethnocentrism where it is impossible to see the world except in terms of Jewish interests. Here’s Auster on Dershowitz excoriating WASP law firms for not hiring ethnically obsessed Jews like Desrhowitz:

He lived a life apart as a Jew, yet at the same time he expected high-society lawyers to staff their firms with people who couldn’t socialize with them. And he calls them bigots for not wanting to do this! [Auster’s emphasis]

Jews like Dershowitz are completely unable to see the situation from the perspective of those he condemns. Unfortunately, Dershowitz is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion and activism among American Jews and certainly within the organized Jewish community in America. And because of the elite status of American Jews, this is very important indeed. Jews matter.

One thing that struck me is that nothing much has changed for the better since 1998. Despite the rather old references, Auster’s article is up to date because the processes he describes are ongoing. If anything, they have become more extreme. For any given example that he lists, there could be dozens more gleaned from the intervening 15 years. Nothing fundamental has changed.

“Jews re-made America”

Because of the Jews’ tragic history as a persecuted people, and because of their own ability, through their leading role in American intellectual life, to set the terms of permissible discourse, it is impossible in today’s society to have an honest discussion on the subject of Jewish cultural impact. While every other ethnic group can be spoken of in a critical light, if only to a very limited extent, nothing that is even implicitly critical is allowed to be said or inferred about Jews

One may wonder exactly what the Jews’ “tragic history as a persecuted people” has to do with this—one should at least phrase it as perceptions of persecution because Jewish historical memory is profoundly tinged by Jewish ethnocentrism (see, e.g., the work of Andrew Joyce on the Russian pogroms, the Limerick affair in Ireland, and Jewish writing on historical anti-Semitism). But it’s certainly true that 15 years later it’s still impossible to have an honest discussion of Jewish influence on culture (Joe Sobran’s classic statement on the subject dates from 1996). And, given the intellectual shoddiness of the Jewish intellectual movements that have dominated intellectual circles throughout the West (psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, critical theory, and Marxism) much more than talent is involved here. In fact, the limits on permissible discourse on Jews are maintained by exclusion from the mainstream media because of Jewish influence and by the threat of job loss and other negative repercussions for those who publicly criticize Jews.

In particular, Jews have used their power to disestablish the traditional idea of America as having a European ethnic and a cultural core based on Christianity.

The Jews also (as few people recognize, because the subject is forbidden) changed America in some profound and not always positive ways. In terms of national identity, Jews were instrumental in the reformulation of America as a universalist society based strictly on ideology rather than on peoplehood, a change that set the stage for mass Third-World immigration and the much more profound redefinition of America as a multicultural society. In terms of morality, many Jewish intellectuals, writers, and entertainers deliberately undermined the older Anglo-American Victorian ethos, a program of moral/cultural subversion that climaxed in the Sixties counterculture and the dominant nihilist culture of the 1980s and 1990s. In terms of politics, Jews were instrumental in replacing the old American order of Constitutional self-restraint with the statist politics of unrestrained compassion.

Auster highlights the chutzpah underlying Jewish activism in overturning public expressions of Christianity, beginning in the late 19th century—the topic of a recent academic book confirming Auster’s comments. He also cites David Hollinger’s important work showing the role of Jews in altering the attitudes of American intellectuals in the direction of secularism, universalism, and ethnic pluralism. The result of the ascent of the Jews was that

the elite universities had changed from guardian of the old Western order to its subverter. [See also here.] This transformation in the universities then reverberated through the rest of the culture, stripping America’s public institutions, entertainments, symbols, and manners of the Christian and bourgeois values they had once embodied. America’s transition from a Protestant culture whose public institutions, celebrations, and symbols reflected Christian belief, to a pluralist, secular society with no identity at all, was complete.

Auster cites Jews who unabashedly celebrate the Jewish role in the displacement of White America with no fear of anti-Semitism—yet further examples of the overt expressions by Jews of Jewish power tabulated in Andrew Joyce’s recent article. Auster mentions sociologist Earl Raab’s pride in the Jewish role in changing the bias toward Northwestern Europe in U.S. immigration laws, and he notes Rabbi Abram Goodman’s comments that “Now I witness a Harvard that has been thoroughly cleansed and Judaized.” Auster comments that “thus an American Jew in 1997 unselfconsciously boasts of eliminating America’s former Christian culture, describing this elimination in terms (“thoroughly cleansed and Judaized”) not unlike those once used by the Nazis about the Jews.” Indeed, as Ron Unz has shown, Jews are now vastly overrepresented at Harvard controlled for their academic achievement, while non-Jewish Whites are underrepresented by a factor of at least 15 compared to Jews, again based on academic achievement. I rather doubt that Goodman (or Dershowitz, for that matter) is shedding any tears for Harvard’s egregious discrimination against non-Jewish Whites—discrimination that is far greater than historical discrimination against Jews who, even before the end of WWII, were admitted to Harvard at levels far above their percentage of the population. Our new hostile elite is far more corrupt than the old elite—and far less representative of the population as a whole.

The Judaization trumpeted by Rabbi Goodman means the destruction of the European cultural heritage of America:

Now that their enemies have been scattered and silenced, the left and the minorities can admit that their real agenda all along was not simply inclusion, equality, justice, or tolerance toward Jews and other minorities, but the destruction of the Christian culture.

And, of course, it goes beyond the destruction of culture to the destruction of the political power of White America—a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly apparent in U.S. elections. The entire process has never been about the pursuit of moral ideals; it has always been about ethnic hard ball, and the end result is the displacement of White America, its culture and its people.

The Jewish Role in Unleashing Displacement-Level Immigration to the U.S.

Auster is quite aware of the role of Jews in the demographic displacement of White America (see also here), noting particularly that Jewish immigration reformers not only wanted to end the bias in favor of Northwestern Europe but to ease the immigration of as many non-Whites as possible (see also here, p. 291). He focuses (as do I; see previous link, p. 285ff) on an extraordinary article from 1952 in Commentary by Harvard historian Oscar Handlin in which Handlin essentially deplores the fact that non-Jewish immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe do not have the same hatred against the traditional people and culture of America that Jews have. Auster takes Handlin’s argument to its logical conclusion:

If an immigration law that is designed to preserve the nation’s ethnic majority is racist (because it implicitly puts down other groups), then the same must be true of any manifestation of the ethnic majority, including its very existence. After all, if a nation still has an ethnic majority, and a culture that reflects that majority, doesn’t that impute inferiority to all people not related by blood to that majority? Therefore the only way to procure real democracy is to turn the ethnic majority into a minority, which is to be accomplished (and since 1965 has largely been accomplished) by immigration…

The 1965 Immigration Act, the culmination of a forty-year, largely Jewish-led campaign, was not simply a piece of “liberal” legislation (i.e., an act aimed at formal equality) which later turned out to have unforeseen, radical consequences. As early as 1952, the liberal idea of equality before the law was already linked in the minds of Jewish immigrationists with the radical project of dispossessing America’s white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian majority.

The hatred of Jews extends also to other White cultures. Auster notes literary critic Leon Wieseltier’s rejoicing at the displacement of traditional English culture by the Muslim onslaught:

Wieseltier is not exactly shy in his hatred. He mocks an Englishmen’s fears about the survival of English culture. He rejoices at the thought of Englishmen being discomforted, disoriented, and displaced in their own country by Muslims. If anyone is driven by an ethnic animus, surely it is Wieseltier and the many Jews who think and feel as he does.

Hypocrisy and Double Standards

Of course there is a massive hypocrisy about all this: “The Jews feel that they have a right to homogeneity and collective survival. But, as we have seen, the Jews deny this same right to white gentiles” [Auster’s emphasis]. This desire to destroy and vilify the ethnic ties among non-Jewish Whites while maintaining their own is deeply rooted in Jewish tribalism. “It is a blind, unreasonable, unappeasable force.” Exactly. TOO has an archive of 39 articles related to Jewish double standards related to ethnocentrism and we repeatedly discuss the legitimacy of White identity and interests. But the organized Jewish community and the vast majority of American Jews are completely tone-deaf when it comes to a hypocrisy that is so obvious that a child could see through it.

Auster seems to adopt a cultural explanation of Jewish ethnocentrism, attributing the pervasive double standards to deep immersion over the centuries in a tribalistic culture represented by the Talmud and its very different ethical treatment of Jews and non-Jews. (My view is that Jewish culture reflects biological influences—the deep ethnocentrism and collectivism at the heart of Middle Eastern culture [see here, p. 24ff], abetted by selection within the Jewish community that effectively excluded less ethnocentric Jews [see here, passim].)

As a result, Jewish patriotism toward America is always contingent on whether America meets specifically Jewish interests. The interests of the nation as a whole, much less the interests of the descendants of the White Europeans who founded the country, are completely irrelevant. “Over and over, Jewish-American patriotism seems to be based on some factor extrinsic to America itself” such as America’s role in defeating Hitler or supporting Israel.

Jewish Subversion of Traditional American Culture Via Media Influence

Auster also highlights another theme of TOO—the Jewish role in the subversion of the traditional culture of America resulting from their control of Hollywood. In a comment on the movie Outbreak reminiscent of Edmund Connelly’s work on the “Jews to the rescue” theme of Hollywood movies like Independence Day, “the Jew now cast as action hero—and his brilliant black sidekick heroically foil the plot.” There is also the denigration of WASPs as stereotypically evil also documented by Connelly (see above link): “the anti-WASP animus in film and TV had evolved into a formalized demonology. The cold-hearted, inhuman WASP—the WASP as super-Nazi—has been a regular fixture in one suspense/action movie after another.” The bottom line is that

Eastern European Jews, with their discontented, irrepressible temperament, were admitted as equals into a culture that had been formed by Anglo-Saxons and other northern European-origin people, with their pacific, self-controlled temperament. The former outsiders then proceeded to make their own sensibility the center of the culture, while diminishing and demonizing the Anglo-Saxon.

Provoking Anti-Semitism

Auster acknowledges that the Jewish role in the dispossession of Whites and their culture will likely lead to anti-Semitism:

[Another prospect] will be an upsurge of anti-Semitism among marginalized whites, many of whom will blame the Jews (not without cause) for the ruin of white civilization. Having acted all along on the ludicrous and hostile assumption that the white American majority is a potential neo-Nazi force that must be dispossessed, Jews will hardly be in a position to complain about real anti-Semitism when it appears among whites who have actually been dispossessed.

Despite his awareness of the forces that have dispossessed White America, Auster is very concerned to deflect anti-Semitism, even though he understands that anti-Jewish attitudes are completely expectable.

To seek to transform America into a Messianic project, to identify with the Other (whoever the Other may be) at the expense of the native majority, to deny to the native majority its ethnic identity while indulging in one’s own ethnic identity—this is not just a bad agenda, it is a Jewish agenda, and it is entirely moral for citizens of a free country to criticize it as such.

Auster’s basic argument is that not all Jews have been involved in or support these transformations, and a certain percentage of Whites (such as David Hollinger, about whom Auster says “he barely conceals his pleasure at Christianity’s being pushed aside”) have welcomed or at least acquiesced in these transformations. (It remains to be seen how much pleasure White Americans will have in majority non-White America where a very large percentage of non-Whites, including Jews as described here, have historical grudges against them. I rather doubt that pleasure will be a majority opinion among Whites.)

Nevertheless, we should be clear. These transformations could not have occurred unless there was overwhelming support for them among the vast majority of Jews and within the organized Jewish community. Indeed, there is far higher consensus among Jews on issues related to White dispossession than even on Israel, where there are beginning to be cracks in the unified support among American Jews for whatever Israel does. While there is a certain analogy between Auster and Gottfried on one hand and Philip Weiss and Peter Beinart on the other as opponents of the mainstream Jewish community on issues related to White dispossession and Israel respectively, the letter have been far more active in trying to convert other Jews and they speak for far greater numbers of Jews on Israel-related issues than Auster or Gottfried do on issues related to White dispossession. And in any case, the mainstream Jewish community remains as staunchly anti-White and pro-whatever-the-government-of-Israel-wants as ever.

Auster cannot point to any significant Jewish organization that has dissented from the dispossession of White America. (To be sure, groups like ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews have played no role in the dispossession of White America, either in favor or in opposition, since they live in a hermetically sealed world completely cut off from the rest of the society.) Nor can he point to any other identifiable group that promoted these cultural changes. While it is true that Europeans are more prone to individualism and moral universalism than other groups and this made them more susceptible to dispossession (see here, p. 14ff), there can be little doubt that Jewish activism is ultimately responsible for the displacement of White Americans (see, e.g., here).

The fact that some Whites have greeted these changes is expected (although it is certainly short sighted and selfish), given the fact that in contemporary American society the media environment (the constant propaganda of Whites as evil noted by Auster; see also here) and the rewards (e.g., career opportunities for White university administrators or corporation CEO’s who promote multiculturalism) and punishments (e.g., job loss and ostracism resulting from opposing multiculturalism) overwhelmingly favor the changes wrought by the Jewish hostile elite. The power of the hostile elite is now institutionalized and strongly defended from attack, particularly against attacks by disaffected Whites. As noted above, a key marker of Jewish power is that Jewish power, unlike the power of any other group, has been successfully relegated to outside the boundaries of acceptable discussion.

Moreover, Jewish influence extends far beyond the organized Jewish community. The very large influence of Jews in the media, resulting in the invidious portraits of Whites and Christianity and positive portrayals of everything Jewish (see here, p. 53ff), has been the work of individual Jews and informal Jewish networks, not Jewish organizations.

The same can be said of the Jewish networks involved in the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique—movements that collectively undermined the concept of America as a White, Christian nation. Indeed, the crux of the issue, displacement-level non-White immigration, is a consensus issue among all Jewish organizations and among all Jews from the far left to the neoconservative right. As Auster says about neocon Norman Podhoretz, he “does not regard non-Jewish Americans as his people. In effect, he sees America as ‘one nation, many peoples’—which is, of course, the multiculturalist view of America.” And remember, Podhoretz, is what passes as a conservative among Jews. The hatred for the White establishment among neocons as they were climbing the ropes of power is legendary (see here, p. 4).

Righteous Anger

So what is the appropriate reaction to all this among White Americans? Recently Bill O’Reilly has been harping on “righteous anger” as an entirely appropriate response to the rather mundane issue of President Obama’s failure to propose specific budget-cutting measures. Given the cataclysmic consequences to White America, righteous anger at the Jewish community is an entirely appropriate response for Whites whose cultural and demographic displacement is well-advanced as a result of Jewish activism. This is, after all, the mirror image of the hatred that is such a prominent characteristic of the mainstream Jewish community, as noted here in the discussion of Dershowitz, Wieseltier, Handlin, and Rabbi Goodman and reflected in the theme of Jews as a hostile elite. (Whites expressing righteous anger at what Jews have done to America are likely to experience far more negative consequences than did these Jews for openly expressing their hatred toward White America—a telling indication of Jewish power.)

No one would think it unjustifiable if a people becomes angry when they are physically invaded, reduced to a minority, and their culture taken away from them. Although not the result of physical invasion, the end result of this Jewish onslaught is exactly the same.

There is no more grievous crime against a people than the crime being committed against White America. Righteous anger is an appropriate response indeed.

A “final solution” to the Jewish problem

Instead of replying to a comment by Ward Kendall in the latest thread, I better rephrase here something that Larry Auster wrote about Islam in 2008:

Commenter 1 and others in this thread argue as follows: “Solution X may be what we need to do for our survival, but the support for X does not exist, therefore Solution X is not a good idea and I disagree with it.”

This is to argue backward, in a way that is very common among conservatives, and shows a failure to grasp the radical nature of the challenge before us.

Obviously, any kind of solution to the Jewish Problem that is favored by serious Western patriots will be completely outside current accepted thinking. Therefore any solution offered by white nationalists is going to lack current support and seem completely out of the question—by current standards. Commenter 1 and others implicitly imagine that the solution they seek could be arrived at within the current liberal assumption that governs our world. But that is false. It is modern liberalism itself—the belief that all people and cultures are basically the same and that discrimination against and exclusion of any group or religion are the greatest sins—that is leading us to our destruction.

Therefore it is the liberal worldview that must be challenged and defeated. For Commenter 1 to say, “Solution X is no good, because the liberal orthodoxy would refuse to support it,” is to give up the battle without having even tried to fight it. What Western patriots need to grasp is that Western survival requires and assumes the defeat of liberalism. Those who are not prepared to challenge liberalism on a fundamental level will not be able to save the West. Thus any policy that the participants in this discussion favor—ranging from stopping all Jewish immigration, to designating Judaism as a political ideology and placing legal restrictions on it, to initiating Jew out-migration, to the quarantine of Jews within Israel or Madagascar, to the more radical and violent steps that Westerner and others have proposed—all these policies assume that the West will have gone beyond its current liberalism. The defeat of liberalism is the assumed starting point of all our proposed solutions. Therefore the end of liberalism should not be seen as some distant, impossible goal, but as the indispensable condition of our survival.

To believe in the West and in our own life as Westerners, is to believe in the defeat of liberalism. Those who are unwilling to challenge liberalism may offer a lot of lip service about defending the West, but they will eventually yield to its destruction. So how do we get from here to Solution X? Not by saying, “There’s no support for it.” Not by saying, “We have to wait for liberals to change.” Not by saying, “Let’s spend the next 20 years telling people that ZOG is a mortal threat to our civilization, but never telling them what they can do in order save themselves from this threat.”

No. We get to Solution X by making our case, our whole case, including the diagnosis (ZOG is a mortal threat to us) and the possible cure (my own preferred cure is the removal, disempowerment, and permanent quarantine of Judaism; others have their preferred cures and we should continue discussing them). By making our whole case, we persuade people (1) of the nature of the problem, (2) of the only possible solutions to the problem, and (3) of the fact that these solutions are not possible within liberal assumptions, because liberalism is a suicidal ideology, and therefore we must renounce liberalism.

It’s the whole case what will persuade people and move them to the position that will make Western survival possible. Not a quarter case, not a half case.

See my whole parody in the previous incarnation of this blog—so sarcastic that it moved the Blogger admins to vaporize the West’s Darkest Hour last year.