“To focus exclusively or mainly on the Jews (no matter how nefarious their distortions) is an exercise either in reductionism, ignorance, or dishonesty.”
Above, Botticelli’s 1494 painting Calumny of Apelles which depicts a wrongfully accused man on trial, surrounded by a series of menacing women, each one made to represent a different moral failing. Below, a couple of slightly edited posts from the comments section of The Occidental Observer. They were posted yesterday by a commenter whose native language probably is not English:
I think it is very clear that the more male influence there is in society, the more xenophobic that society is. The more female influence there is in society, the less xenophobic that society is.
Have a look at Sweden—the most feminised country on Earth. It has accepted much more refugees per capita than Germany itself. It is Number 1 in Europe for accepted refugees per capita. And many people are calling Germany crazy. Well, Sweden is even crazier than Germany.
What is causing this pathological altruism? Jews? There are very few of them in Sweden, although they do control some of the media. I think mister [Kevin] McDonald had trouble proving that pathological altruism in Sweden is caused by Jewish influence alone. It is not caused either by the fact that they are northern peoples either, since northern peoples were way more xenophobic a hundred years ago. [MacDonald’s article: here] Then no Muslims were allowed in Northern Europe. No non-European minorities. It was totally populated by white people. And before a hundred years ago America was way more xenophobic as well. All of Europe was more xenophobic.
So what caused the decrease of xenophobia in the US and Europe? Simple: the increase in female influence. Since females are less xenophobic than males, the more female influence there is in society, the less xenophobic that society will be.
This is why countries in Eastern Europe are still hostile towards immigration and multiculturalism and are totally white. In Eastern Europe there is no feminism at all. Women there are more feminine. They are all male-dominated countries; most people in Eastern Europe even don’t know what “sexism” is. White men there are still violent and to be a macho is not considered to be something bad…
I don’t blame or hate women, since that’s their nature. Don’t expect them to fix the problems of the white people. But I do believe that any group that does not control the behaviour of their women—especially their birth-rates, marrying rates, and phenomena such as women politically siding with other groups against their own men—sooner or later ceases to exist.
So the problem is with white men, who don’t keep their women under control, and instead idolise women and think they are angels, or perfect beings. They are not. They are simply humans, who can make mistakes, have weaknesses, and are far from perfect.
So it is white men to blame, for being unable to keep their women in check.
Instead of engaging in the familiar bleat of “forgive them, they know not what they do”, you two girls ought to come down off your crosses and answer the question. Where’s the resistance? The fact is, there is no way to distinguish the current situation (“domination”, according to you and some others) from active cooperation. People who actively cooperate in their own genocide don’t deserve any pity. Such “victims” are indeed blameworthy.
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
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…
Most commenters and bloggers in the white nationalist scene are like the Hobbits. They want to comprehend what’s happening to the West with a worldview that can be understood by homemakers. That’s why the single-cause hypothesis is so popular among them, even among German hobbits. The trouble with the monocausal hypothesis is that it makes the movement look silly. Yesterday for example, a monocausal hobbit stated on The Daily Stormer that there are signs that ISIS could have been spawned by the Mossad.
Don’t take me wrong. As in the novel, which by the way I read in the luxurious 50th anniversary edition, I believe that white nationalist Hobbits will play a pivotal role to destroy the One Ring.
However, unlike Tolkien’s characters, white nationalist hobbits don’t always want to take advice from the Gandalfs of our time—Sunic, O’Meara, MacDonald. Instead, they are becoming increasingly enchanted by the simplicities of the single-cause explanation for everything.
Like Bilbo Baggins, Hobbits should become humble with their intellectual superiors and see that the world beyond the Shire is a little more complex than their bucolic and simple life of farming, eating and socializing. That was my intention by compiling The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, of which I reproduce below an abridged version of the piece “Liberalism” by Francis Parker Yockey that I chose for the book. But be warned: it’s too abstract for the housewife level!
* * *
Why Rationalism follows one spiritual phase, why it exercises its brief sway, why it vanishes once more into religion—these questions are historical, thus irrational.
Liberalism is Rationalism in politics. It rejects the State as an organism, and can only see it as the result of a contract between individuals. The purpose of Life has nothing to do with States, for they have no independent existence. Thus the “happiness” of “the individual” becomes the purpose of Life. Bentham made this as coarse as it could be made in collectivizing it into “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” If herding-animals could talk, they would use this slogan against the wolves. To most humans, who are the mere material of History, and not actors in it, “happiness” means economic well being.
All things in the political domain were transvalued by Liberalism. War was transformed into either competition, seen from the economic pole, or ideological difference, seen from ethical pole. Instead of the mystical rhythmical alternation of war and peace, it sees only the perpetual concurrence of competition or ideological contrast, which in no case becomes hostile or bloody.
Because Liberalism views most men as harmonious, or good, it follows that they should be allowed to do as they like. Since there is no higher unit to which all are tied, and whose super-personal life dominates the lives of the individuals, each field of human activity serves only itself—as long as it does not wish to become authoritative, and stays within the framework of “society.”
Twenty-first century readers will find it difficult to believe that once the idea prevailed that each person should be free to do as he pleased in economic matters, even if his personal activity involved the starvation of hundreds of thousands, the devastation of entire forest and mineral areas, and the stunting of the power of the organism; that it was quite permissible for such an individual to raise himself above the weakened public authority, and to dominate, by private means, the inmost thoughts of whole populations by his control of press, radio and mechanized drama.
They will find it more difficult yet to understand how such a person could go to the law to enforce his destructive will. Thus a usurer could, even in the middle of the 20th century, invoke successfully the assistance of the law in dispossessing any numbers of peasants and farmers. It is hard to imagine how any individual could injure the political organism more than by thus mobilizing the soil into dust, in the phrase of the great Freiherr von Stein.
But—this followed inevitably from the idea of the independence of economics and law from political authority. There is nothing higher, no State; it is only individuals against one another. It is but natural that the economically more astute individuals accumulate most of the mobile wealth into their hands. They do not however, if they are true Liberals, want authority with this wealth, for authority has two aspects: power, and responsibility. Individualism, psychologically speaking, is egoism. “Happiness” = selfishness. Rousseau, the grandfather of Liberalism, was a true individualist, and sent his five children to the foundling hospital.
Law, as a field of human thought and endeavor, has as much independence, and as much dependence as every other field. Within the organic framework, it is free to think and organize its material. But like other forms of thought, it can be enrolled in the service of outside ideas. Thus law, originally the means of codifying and maintaining the inner peace of the organism by keeping order and preventing private disputes from growing, was transmuted by Liberal thought into a means of keeping inner disorder, and allowing economically strong individuals to liquidate the weaker ones. This was called the “rule of law,” the “law-State,” “independence of the judiciary.” The idea of bringing in the law to make a given state of affairs sacrosanct was not original with Liberalism. Back in Hobbes’s day, other groups were trying it, but the incorruptible mind of Hobbes said with the most precise clarity that the rule of law rule means the rule of those who determine and administer the law, that the rule of a “higher order” is an empty phrase, and is only given content by the concrete rule of given men and groups over a lower order.
This was political thinking, which is directed to the distribution and movement of power. It is also politics to expose the hypocrisy, immorality and cynicism of the usurer who demands the rule of law, which means riches to him and poverty to millions of others, and all in the name of something higher, something with supra-human validity. When Authority resurges once more against the forces of Rationalism and Economics, it proceeds at once to show that the complex of transcendental ideals with which Liberalism equipped itself is as valid as the Legitimism of the era of Absolute Monarchy, and no more. The Monarchs were the strongest protagonists of Legitimism, the financiers of Liberalism.
But the monarch was tied to the organism with his whole existence, he was responsible organically even where he was not responsible in fact. Thus Louis XVI and Charles I. Countless other monarchs and absolute rulers have had to flee because of their symbolic responsibility. But the financier has only power, no responsibility, not even symbolic, for, as often as not, his name is not generally known. History, Destiny, organic continuity, Fame, all exert their powerful influence on an absolute political ruler, and in addition his position places him entirely outside the sphere of base corruptibility. The financier, however, is private, anonymous, purely economic, irresponsible. In nothing can he be altruistic; his very existence is the apotheosis of egoism. He does not think of History, of Fame, of the furtherance of the life of the organism, of Destiny, and furthermore he is eminently corruptible by base means, as his ruling desire is for money and ever more money.
In his contest against Authority the finance-Liberal evolved a theory that power corrupts men. It is, however, vast anonymous wealth which corrupts, since there are no superpersonal restraints on it, such as bring the true statesman completely into of the service of the political organism, and place him above corruption.
It was precisely in the fields of economics and law that the Liberal doctrine had the most destructive effects on the health of the Western Civilization. It did not matter much that esthetics became independent, for the only art-form in the West which still had a future, Western Music, paid no attention to theories and continued on its grand creative course to its end in Wagner and his epigones. Baudelaire is the great symbol l’art pour l’art: sickness as beauty. Baudelaire is thus Liberalism in literature, disease as a principle of Life, crisis as health, morbidity as soul-life, disintegration as purpose. Man as individualist, an atom without connections, the Liberal ideal of personality. It was in fields of action rather than of thought that the injury was the greatest.
Allowing the initiative in economic and technical matters to rest with individuals, subject to little political control, resulted in the creation of a group of individuals whose personal wills were more important than the collective destiny of the organism and the millions of the population. The law which served this state of affairs was completely divorced from morality and honor. To disintegrate the organism from the spiritual side, what morality was recognized was divorced from metaphysics and religion and related only to “society.” The criminal law reflected finance-Liberalism by punishing crimes of violence and passion, but not classifying such things as destroying national resources, throwing millions into want, or usury on a national scale.
The independence of the economic sphere was a tenet of faith with Liberalism. This was not subject to discussion. There was even evolved an abstraction named “economic man,” whose actions could be predicted as though economics were a vacuum. Economic gain was his sole motive, greed alone spurred him on. The technic of success was to concentrate on one’s own gain and ignore everything else. This “economic man” was however man in general to the Liberals. He was the unit of their world-picture. “Humanity” was the sum total of these economic grains of sand.
The type of mind which believes in the essential “goodness” of human nature attained to Liberalism. But there is another political anthropology, one which recognizes that man is disharmonious, problematical, dual, dangerous. This is the general wisdom of mankind, and is reflected by the number of guards, fences, safes, locks, jails and policemen. Every catastrophe, fire, earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, evokes looting. Even a police strike in an American city was the signal for looting of the shops by the respectable and good human beings.
Thus this type of thought starts from facts. This is political thinking in general, as opposed to mere thinking about politics, rationalizing. Even the wave of Rationalism did not submerge this kind of thinking. Political thinkers differ greatly in creativeness and depth, but they agree that facts are normative. The very word theory has been brought into disrepute by intellectuals and Liberals who use it to describe their pet view of how they would like things to be. Originally theory was explanation of facts. To an intellectual who is adrift in politics, a theory is an aim; to a true politician his theory is a boundary.
A political theory seeks to find from history the limits of the politically possible. These limits cannot be found in the domain of Reason. The Age of Reason was born in bloodshed, and will pass out of vogue in more bloodshed. With its doctrine against war, politics, and violence, it presided over the greatest wars and revolutions in 5,000 years, and it ushered in the Age of Absolute Politics. With its gospel of the Brotherhood of Man, it carried on the largest-scale starvation, humiliation, torture and extermination in history against populations within the Western Civilization after the first two World Wars. By outlawing political thinking, and turning war into a moral-struggle instead of a power-struggle it flung the chivalry and honor of a millennium into the dust. The conclusion is compelling that Reason also became political when it entered politics, even though it used its own vocabulary. When Reason stripped territory from a conquered foe after a war, it called it “disannexation.” The document consolidating the new position was called a “Treaty,” even though it was dictated in the middle of a starvation-blockade. The defeated political enemy had to admit in the “Treaty” that he was “guilty” of the war, that he is morally unfit to have colonies, that his soldiers alone committed “war-crimes.” But no matter how heavy the moral disguise, how consistent the ideological vocabulary, it is only politics, and the Age of Absolute Politics reverts once again to the type of political thinking which starts from facts, recognizes power and the will-to-power of men and higher organisms as facts, and finds any attempt to describe politics in terms of morals as grotesque as it would be to describe chemistry in terms of theology.
There is a whole tradition of political thinking in the Western Culture, of which some of the leading representatives are Macchiavelli, Hobbes, Leibnitz, Bossuet, Fichte, de Maistre, Donoso Cortes, Hippolyte Taine, Hegel, Carlyle. While Herbert Spencer was describing history as the “progress” from military-feudal to commercial-industrial organization, Carlyle was showing to England the Prussian spirit of Ethical Socialism, whose inner superiority would exert on the whole Western Civilization in the coming Political Age an equally fundamental transformation as had Capitalism in the Economic Age. This was creative political thinking, but was unfortunately not understood, and the resulting ignorance allowed distorting influences to fling England into two senseless World Wars from which it emerged with almost everything lost.
Hegel posited a three-stage development of mankind from the natural community through the bourgeois community to the State. His State-theory is thoroughly organic, and his definition of the bourgeois is quite appropriate for the 20th century. To him the bourgeois is the man who does not wish to leave the sphere of internal political security, who sets himself up, with his sanctified private property, as an individual against the whole, who finds a substitute for his political nullity in the fruits of peace and possessions and perfect security in his enjoyment of them, who therefore wishes to dispense with courage and remain secure from the possibility of violent death. He described the true Liberal with these words.
The political thinkers mentioned do not enjoy popularity with the great masses of human beings. As long as things are going well, most people do not wish to hear talk of power-struggles, violence, wars, or theories relating to them. Thus in the 18th and 19th centuries was developed the attitude that political thinkers—and Macchiavelli was the prime victim—were wicked men, atavistic, bloodthirsty. The simple statement that wars would always continue was sufficient to put the speaker down as a person who wanted wars to continue. To draw attention to the vast, impersonal rhythm of war and peace showed a sick mind with moral deficiency and emotional taint. To describe facts was held to be wishing them and creating them. As late as the 20th century, anyone pointing out the political nullity of the “leagues of nations” was a prophet of despair. Rationalism is anti-historical; political thinking is applied history. In peace it is unpopular to mention war, in war it is unpopular to mention peace. The theory which becomes most quickly popular is one which praises existing things and the tendency they supposedly illustrate as obviously the best order and as preordained by all foregoing history. Thus Hegel was anathema to the intellectuals because of his State-orientation, which made him a “reactionary,” and also because he refused to join the revolutionary crowd.
Since most people wish to hear only soporific talk about politics, and not demanding calls to action, and since in democratic conditions it matters to political technics what most people wish to hear, democratic politicians evolved in the 19th century a whole dialectic of party-politics. The idea was to examine the field of action from a “disinterested” standpoint, moral, or economic, and to find that the opponent was immoral, unscientific, uneconomic—in fact—he was political. This was devilishness that must be combated. One’s own standpoint was entirely “non-political.” Politics was a word of reproach in the Economic Age. Curiously however, in certain situations, usually those involving foreign relations, “unpolitical” could also be a term of abuse, meaning the man so described lacked skill in negotiating. The party politician also had to feign unwillingness to accept office. Finally a demonstration of carefully arranged “popular will” broke down his reluctance, and he consented to “serve.” This was described as Macchiavellism, but obviously Macchiavelli was a political thinker, and not a camouflageur. A book by a party-politician does not read like The Prince, but praises the entire human race, except certain perverse people, the author’s opponents.
Actually Machiavelli’s book is defensive in tone, justifying politically the conduct of certain statesmen by giving examples drawn from foreign invasions of Italy. During Macchiavelli’s century, Italy was invaded at different times by Frenchmen, Germans, Spaniards and Turks. When the French Revolutionary Armies occupied Prussia, and coupled humanitarian sentiments of the Rights of Man with brutality and large-scale looting, Hegel and Fichte restored Machiavelli once again to respect as a thinker. He represented a means of defense against a foe armed with a humanitarian ideology. Machiavelli showed the actual role played by verbal sentiments in politics.
One can say that there are three possible attitudes toward human conduct, from the point of evaluating its motives: the sentimental, the realistic, and the cynical. The sentimental imputes a good motive to everybody, the cynical a bad motive, and the realistic simply seeks the facts. When a sentimentalist, e.g., a Liberal, enters politics, he becomes perforce a hypocrite. The ultimate exposure of this hypocrisy creates cynicism. Part of the spiritual sickness following the First World War was a wave of cynicism which arose from the transparent, revolting, and incredible hypocrisy of the little men who were presiding over affairs at that time. Macchiavelli had however an incorruptible intellect and did not write in a cynical spirit. He sought to portray the anatomy of politics with its peculiar problems and tensions, inner and outer. To the fantastic mental illness of Rationalism, hard facts are regrettable things, and to talk about them is to create them. A tiny politician of the Liberal type even sought to prevent talk about the Third World War, after the Second. Liberalism is, in one word, weakness. It wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party. The inexorable movement of Time, Destiny, History, the cruelty of accomplishment, sternness, heroism, sacrifice, superpersonal ideas—these are the enemy.
Liberalism is an escape from hardness into softness, from masculinity into femininity, from History into herd-grazing, from reality into herbivorous dreams, from Destiny into Happiness. Nietzsche, in his last and greatest work, designated the 18th century as the century of feminism, and immediately mentioned Rousseau, the leader of the mass-escape from Reality. Feminism itself—what is it but a means of feminizing man? If it makes women man-like, it does so only by transforming man first into a creature whose only concern is with his personal economics and his relation to “society,” ie. a woman. “Society” is the element of woman, it is static and formal, its contests are purely personal, and are free from the possibility of heroism and violence. Conversation, not action; formality, not deeds. How different is the idea of rank used in connection with a social affair, from when it is applied on a battlefield! In the field, it is fate-laden; in the salon it is vain and pompous. A war is fought for control; social contests are inspired by feminine vanity and jealousy to show that one is “better” than someone else.
And yet what does Liberalism do ultimately to woman: it puts a uniform on her and calls her a “soldier.”’ This ridiculous performance but illustrates the eternal fact that History is masculine, that its stern demands cannot be evaded, that the fundamental realities cannot be renounced, even, by the most elaborate make-believe. Liberalistic tampering with sexual polarity only wreaks havoc on the souls of individuals, confusing and distorting them, but the man-woman and the woman-man it creates are both subject to the higher Destiny of History.
Yockey’s views on liberalism appear in Imperium (1962), 208-223.
As a postscript to my recent post about why the single-cause hypothesis in White Nationalism is untenable—that is, that “Whites can do no wrong and are the eternal victims of Jewish deceit and aggression”—, let me clarify something I said about the Iberian side of the conquest of America and New Spain in particular.
(A Mestizo kiddie: the symbol of the Iberian blunder.)
The main culprit of the extremely thorough mestization that took place in the American continent at the south of Río Grande, all the way to the lands of the Incas in South America, was the Iberians’ lust for gold and silver.
That was the main culprit that in this blog I have called, inspired in Wagner and Tolkien, as falling prey of the One Ring or “economics over race” policies. That’s also why, at the very top of this blog, I include an image of the real god of spoiled whites, Mammon.
The second culprit was the Catholic Church that allowed the bachelor Spaniards in the continent to marry Amerindian women with a Pope bull only ten years after the conquest of the Aztec Empire. Christianity in general is blind to racial matters and the Church did not give a damn about the havoc that such bull would cause. (The Catholic Church was so powerful in New Spain that by the end of the 17th century it owned more than half of its territories.)
Those are, in my view, the two main factors that explain how the Iberians massively screwed up the continent.
As I said in my previous post, this case proves that whites are capable of committing ethno-suicide by themselves, without the help of the subversive tribe, the Jews, who were persecuted and dispatched when detected in the three-hundred year period that lasted the Colonial times. (Hernán Cortés was the first to burn at the stake a couple of kikes in 1528, even before the Inquisition was formally established in New Spain.) Yes, it is true that even with such controls some cryptos might have entered spheres of influence. According to one biographer, Bartolomé de Las Casas was of converso heritage, although others refer to Las Casas family as old Christians who migrated from France.
But the larger point is that even if Las Casas (and presumably other cryptos who escaped detection) was of Jewish ancestry, it would be ridiculous to claim that they “caused” the thoroughgoing mestization that, with time, ruined the genetic pool of the conquerors.
If you want to breathe the zeitgeist of New Spain I would highly recommend reading the primary sources, starting with the stupendous chronicle of Bernal Díaz del Castillo (d. 1585), The Truthful History of the Conquest of New Spain, i.e., the conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Bernal was a foot soldier and fought with Hernán Cortés during the conquest of the capital of the Aztec Empire.
You will breath in The Truthful History, right from the beginning of the history of post-Columbian Mexico, how gold and religion provided the zeitgeist or axis around which the Iberian dominion over the Americas would move. Whatever happened in this large part of the American continent it had nothing to do with Jewish subversion. It was the Spanish and the Portuguese doing it to themselves. But judge it by yourself if you are interested in history. Read the primary sources that have been translated to English.
For those who don’t believe Whites are capable of imposing this madness on themselves, I will point to France during the French Revolution which abolished slavery in the name of the “Rights of Man” and made every Negro a citizen of the French Republic.
I have listened to the recent show on The White Network hosted by Carolyn Yeager and my ol’ friend Tanstaafl (Tan). The show was a reaction to Kevin MacDonald’s article on The Occidental Observer: a summary of a collection of papers of the journal The Occidental Quarterly or TOQ about white pathology.
I have to say something about the show. In the first place, I see that after the debacle of the last year Tan—and I must steal a sentence from Franklyn Ryckaert—is still incapable of seeing the difference between guilt tripping by Jews and honest self-criticism by Whites. Tan still seems to think that self-criticism by Whites is nothing but interiorized guilt tripping and he proceeds then to proclaim the total innocence of Whites. Jews are the only ones who are guilty of white decline, and anyone who suggests that Whites have a responsibility of their own is deluded. He calls that “delusion” the “suicide meme.”
Judge it by yourself, visitors. Listen the show and tell me if Tan continues to identify honest criticism with guilt tripping.
This of course reminds me the recent exchange between Tan and Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents, where Johnson said:
If the problem is a coalition of minorities who are “in most cases” but not always Jews, then it really is more accurate to refer to them as minorities than as Jews, isn’t it? Thus your desire to find-and-replace “minorities” with “Jews” betrays a certain monomania and lack of scruple.
Sort of like my Baptist cousin who tries to shoehorn Jesus into every conversation. It is very low-churchy to clamp down on “one thing needful,” insist on discussing it even when it is not appropriate, and then to bitterly accuse people of being evil when they draw back from you, or simply exceed your narrow range of interests.
I don’t like that about you.
Understandably Tan became chagrined about this sharp comment and reacted on his blog Age of Treason saying that Johnson is no longer welcome to republish Tan’s articles.
Back to the Carolyn show but keeping in mind the exchange that resulted in the recent distancing between Johnson and Tan. When Carolyn said something Tan mildly criticized her that she was using “the passive voice.” Tan is a reductionist, like Johnson’s cousin, and wants to use the active voice. That’s why Tan made it very clear in the show that he doesn’t like MacDonald’s term “white pathology,” and it struck me that at the beginning of the podcast Tan always referred to MacDonald as an “expert in psychology,” never as an expert in the Jewish Problem (JP). This is remarkable because MacDonald is the foremost expert on the JP, and Tan only an amateur. (As a professor with tenure MacDonald has been a full-time researcher for a while and people like us, who have to make a living elsewhere, cannot compete with that.)
Carolyn started then to mention, one by one, the authors who contributed to the TOQ issue about “white pathology.” Tan commented that he disliked the phrasing of one of the first authors mentioned by Carolyn, that today’s liberalism “is rooted in equality” because, Tan maintained, the Jew-controlled media bombards us all the time with such message. But that just begs the question. The disturbing fact is that precisely because whites elevated the notion of equality by the end of the 18th century to the level of a civil religion, the Jews were gradually empowered throughout the 19th century.
As far as I know, Tan has not tried to take issue with the many articles by Hunter Wallace on Occidental Dissent. Wallace started the now abandoned blog Antisemitica and in my opinion is fairly aware of the JP. Wallace now believes that the Yankees of the last centuries and the French Jacobins were basically on the same page of the Jews as to white dispossession (what we call “assisted suicide”).
It seems to me that Tan commits exactly the same fallacy that the blogger Lew commits when challenged about precisely those roots that show how liberalism was originally a white phenomenon. Lew wants to count serious history since 1910, after the Jews were already empowered, something that misleads his readers by giving the impression that the subversive tribe empowered itself.
Like Carolyn, Tan doesn’t say a peep about the role played by Christianity in the development of suicidal universalism or suicidal out-group altruism. In fact, in Carolyn’s show he did exactly the opposite. About the TOQ contribution of the blogger who goes under the penname of Yggdrasil, Tan disliked it too because Yggdrasil wants to go to the roots (that’s well beyond 1910). Tan commented that pondering into the remote historical past “is a form of escapism” because “now it is Jews running the show,” and added in pretty sarcastic tone that it is silly to go back as far as the French Revolution and—the horror—up to the times of Rome so that these intellectuals “can find excuses for the Jews.”
I very much doubt that the motivation of the TOQ contributors is excusing the Jews. As Aristotle said, to have a profound grasp on a subject one must delve deeply into the past. Few sentences by Greg Johnson have been more illuminating to understand what I have recently been calling the Aryan Problem (economics over race) than Johnson’s phrase, “In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible.”
Click on the pic of Mammon at the top of this blog and then click again on the Kenneth Clark epigraph. Follow the white rabbit to dismiss the single Jewish-cause hypothesis. But Tan labeled all of this historical pondering in TOQ as “lame,” which misses the whole point of bicausalism that in this post I’ll define as you need two to dance tango, the Morlocks and the Eloi.
Like the TOQ contributors, my motivation has absolutely nothing to do with excusing the “Morlocks.” If we use as a metaphor the novel by H.G. Wells, The Time Machine, I would say that my motivation is to try that the Eloi wake up.
Remember the 1960 film that adapted Wells’ novel for the silver screen? When George (Rod Taylor) spots young blond people by a river, a woman, “Weena” is drowning but the other Eloi are indifferent (I would call this “white pathology”). Later in the film George is outraged by the Eloi’s apathy and finds out that they’re mere cattle for the anthropophagus “Morlocks.”
What Tan and many others in the American pro-white movement don’t want to see is that today’s whites are behaving like the Eloi. We are in this mess because the masses of whites are basically animal conformists. See the insightful quotations by Rockwell, Pierce and Hitler in my previous post. They’re absolutely essential to understand the viewpoint of The West’s Darkest Hour.
I must acknowledge that in the show Carolyn sounded more reasonable by blaming, together with the Jews, the liberal Whites. But Tan made it clear in the show that he disagrees with the use of that word, liberal. “It is hard to blame the poor white people,” the Eloi. According to Tan, all blame should be laid on the feet of the Morlocks.
Tan also said that white behavior comes from the current Zeitgeist, and that the white traitors are just opportunists. But the central question in this darkest hour of ours is, again, who empowered the Jews. My educated guess is that Tan and those who think like him will always avoid this question.
“Don’t they deserve some blame?” asked Carolyn. At least Tan acknowledged that a specific acquaintance of Carolyn’s that she mentioned was not forced by the Jews to harbor such traitorous thoughts. Then both talked about Jared Taylor and his concept of “pathological altruism” among whites but the Taylor case is problematic because he tolerates Jews in his conferences. Suffice it to say that at least Tan conceded that white altruism “may have biological roots.”
About the article that MacDonald himself wrote, Tan commented (remember that I don’t know shorthand):
My reaction was negative. Look at these white people who acted like idiots! [sarcasm]… He specifically identifies Christian philanthropists. The point I’d like to make… [is that even as far back as] 1861… to neglect to mention the Jewish influence in that kind of thinking and its influence on Christianity is a mistake.
In other words, Tan leaves Christianity off the hook. Only Jews are to be blamed. He has never replied to my very iterated argument that here in what used to be called New Spain the Inquisition, already familiar with the Jewish tricks at the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted the crypto-Jews; that New Spain was the first Judenfrei state in the continent, and that even sans Jews the Spaniards and the Creoles managed to blunder on a continental scale to the point of destroying their gene pool with Amerinds and the imported Negroes.
Hardly the Jews can be blamed for what happened here or even at the Iberian Peninsula. It was clearly a case of white suicide sans Jews.
If you don’t like to read my posts on New Spain, Spain or Portugal because you might fear that I may have distorted information on a subject that Americans have little interest, go to Occidental Dissent and see the posts by Wallace that prove that, long before the Jews took over the US, a specific form of evangelical Christianity plus the Enlightenment of the founding fathers already contained the roots of suicidal liberalism.
And yes, Jews are evil, but it’s the white elite who brought them in, as it has been since the early Middle Ages. You can hate Jewish chutzpah, but blaming them isn’t going to solve much, because: you can’t remove them, and even if you sent them all to Madagascar, it wouldn’t solve the problem of white leftism.
That’s more or less the idea. The Dark Enlightenment is about studying leftism per se. You might believe leftism is a jewish conspiracy and in their absence whites would suddenly arise as a sane and anti-egalitarian ethnicity. We disagree.
Not that white polities wouldn’t be awesome: personally I’m all for ethnic segregation. But as a European let me tell you that it’s not that easy.
And later on that thread he added:
I apologize if I misrepresented your views on the Jewish Question. I’m aware of Kevin MacDonald’s work and find little to disagree with, but it’s hard to blame the parasite when the host has developed a symbiotic relationship with it. Still I just think focusing on the Jews is a waste of time, people get emotional and discussions are seldom productive.
Which is why this blog focuses on the Eloi.
Today, in “Recently in The Occidental Quarterly: Special Sections on White Pathology”, Kevin MacDonald wrote:
This is an introduction to special sections in the Summer and Fall issues of The Occidental Quarterly focused on White pathology. Whatever blame for our situation that we place on others, the bottom line is that we are allowing the unfolding disaster to happen. It is unprecedented for a civilization to voluntarily cede political and cultural hegemony to others, particularly when so many of these people harbor hatreds and resentments toward our people and our culture.
I am glad that scholarship is now saying what this blog has been saying for a while: that besides Jewish influence there are factors within the White psyche that are causing the West’s darkest hour today.
The authors of the Quarterly point out to a form of puritanical Christianity and biological factors as contributing ingredients of the “brew” that presently has evolved into a poison. The “single Jewish cause” hypothesis of our problems, what I have called “monocausalism,” is thus unsupported by both the humanities (history) and science (evolutionary psychology).