Brace yourself!

Sticky post of July 24

“Whites are dying because they have no defense in real life, just whining internet cowards. Every site that is pro White is White Nationalist infantile dribble. Until Whites can muster a defense without the vulgar and endless brooding [in] White Nationalism they will continue to die.”

Keith

 
It’s eight days now since I posted the “Syssitias” article. At a very generous estimate, pro-white discussion over the net, whether race realism, white nationalism, southern nationalism or neo-Nazism is only a mood, not a movement.

Unlike what can be read in Hitler’s biography, presently a sponsor for creating a boots-on-the-ground movement doesn’t exist. But what is really alarming is that thousands of pro-white men discussing in the internet don’t want to fight.

Jack Frost recently reminded us that William Pierce used to say that the only way to re-educate a brainwashed individual is with a stout oaken table leg. Nothing else will work. This is my take on the subject:

    1.- Presently, whites are in Happy Mood (proof is that even white nationalists are unwilling to pick real fights, as Commander Rockwell did);

    2.- Right after the dollar crashes, whites, in general, will be in Angry Mood;

    3.- The following months, after hungry blacks chimpout and start attacking us massively in the big cities, in the countryside whites will switch their minds to Combat Mood, a mood that is basically defensive: they will defend their farms and families from feral niggers looking for food and white pussy;

My crystal ball cannot see beyond this scenario. But if racists were not as spineless as they are today, they would know that Chaos is Opportunity and that, if Syssitia-like groups were already formed, a big window of opportunity would be opened to form cadres for these whites in Combat Mood (which again, is merely defensive provided that private guns will not be confiscated). We would educate them about the causes of the unfolding societal collapse.

Combat Mood is preliminary. My ideal brothers-in-arms would be those who are so fanatic that they are already in:

    4.- Killing Mood.

This mood has been illustrated in Pierce’s The Turner Diaries. The ultimate goal for those in this mood is fighting a guerrilla war, of decades if necessary, until obtaining control of the nuke bombs of a western nation. (Which is why I am not considering Covington’s novels, as he believes that a non-nuclear, neo-Nazi nation at the corner of the US, can survive without such weapons of mass destruction.)

braceI am already in this Killing Mood but, if I won’t become violent for the moment, it’s because the masses of westerners are in Happy Mood and wouldn’t understand such action. (See these excerpts of Pierce’s second novel that illustrate my point, and also his 1968 article.)

Forming Syssitias would be the first baby step in the direction of bracing ourselves, but isn’t it depressing that racially conscious whites are not preparing for The Day?

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 132

the-real-hitler

 

15th May 1942, midday

Ludendorff blackmailed by Jewish Press—The narrow-mindedness of the bourgeoisie—Settling accounts with the Jewish thieves.

In 1917 General Ludendorff was compelled to order a new census of available manhood. He had in this connection the misfortune to come up against the Frankfurter Rettung. The state of disintegration was by then such that he was not in a position to overcome the intrigues of that newspaper. The Frankfurter Reifung (or rather the Jews who pulled the strings of the paper) actually threatened to withdraw its support of a new war loan, and even to advise industrial circles not to subscribe to it, if the new census threatened by Ludendorff were in fact made.

And Ludendorff, of course, had not the power to have these Jews brought to Berlin and hanged in public. And it is these same Jews, experts in the stab-in-the-back game, over whom our bourgeoisie now sheds tears when we ship them off somewhere to the east! It is curious, all the same, that our soft-hearted bourgeoisie has never shed any tears over the two or three hundred thousand Germans, who, each year, were compelled to leave their homeland, nor over those among them who elected to go to Australia, and of whom 75 per cent used to die en route.

In the political field there is no stupider a class than the bourgeoisie. It is sufficient for an end to be put to some individual’s activities, on the score that he is a public menace, and, for reasons of security, for him to be arrested, tried, condemned and put to death, and immediately these tender souls set up a howl and denounce us as brutes. But that the Jew, by means of his juridical trickery and sleight-of-hand, makes it impossible for innumerable Germans to earn a living, that he should rob a peasant of his land and hearth, disperse his family and oblige him to leave his country, that these German emigrants should lose their lives attempting to seek their fortune abroad—that, of course, is quite different! And the bourgeois actually regards as legal a State which permits it, simply because these tragedies have as a pretext some measure of juridical justification and are covered by some article or other of some Code!

It does not occur to any of those who howl when we transport a few Jews to the east that the Jew is a parasite and as such is the only human being capable of adapting himself to any climate and of earning a living just as well in Lapland as in the tropics.

Among our petty bourgeois there are not a few who pride themselves on reading their Bible; but they don’t seem to know that, according to the Old Testament, the Jew survives with equal ease a sojourn in the desert and a crossing of the Red Sea.

Frequently during the course of history, the Jew has become too presumptuous and has exploited to excess the country into which he has insinuated himself. And the countries concerned, victims of his plundering, have one after the other borne witness to the damage they have suffered at the hands of Jewry; each country has then tried, in its own way and when the opportunity arose, to solve the problems arising from the presence of the Jews. And the telegram which we have just read shows with what speed the Turks, for their part, are in process of solving the problem.

Truth before fashion

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief 
Perhaps you’ll pardon me if I speak to you today in a more personal vein than I usually do. I want to tell you about some personal perceptions of mine, because I believe that many of you who are listening have had similar perceptions. I believe many of you have something in common with me, something very important.

When I was a little boy, 11 or 12 years old, I used to spend my time taking clocks apart, building radios and model airplanes, and doing experiments in a tiny laboratory that I had in my parents’ garage. I used to make little solid-fuel rockets and try them out in the back yard. My ambition was to be a rocket scientist when I grew up. And that’s what I became, at least for a while, until I returned to the university to teach.

The point is that, more than anything else, I was interested in learning what made things tick. I was fascinated by knowledge, by discovery, by the truth. I didn’t care at all what was fashionable: I wanted to know what was true. I was the kind of fellow who sometimes would wear one brown sock and one blue sock, because it really didn’t make any difference to me. And I’m pretty much still that way, except that now my wife makes sure that my socks match.

While I was growing up, of course, I paid some attention to what was happening in the world around me. I knew that there were good people and bad people, smart ones and stupid ones. I knew that the world wasn’t perfect, but I believed that it could be made better. I still believe that.

After I was grown I learned one thing, however, which was really depressing to me for quite a long while. I learned that most of the people around me—not all, but most—were much more interested in what was fashionable than in what was true. When I was a university student, for example, I was very interested in history, and I wanted to discuss the various topics which came up in class with fellow students. Whenever the topic was an ideologically sensitive one, however—the Second World War, for example—I found that it was very difficult to carry on an objective conversation with most people. They would balk whenever the discussion wandered onto unfashionable ground. I would ask the students I was talking with, why is it that almost no member of the general public can tell us how many American GIs died during the war—or how many Germans or how many Poles—but nearly everyone thinks he knows that “six million” Jews died? Why is that? Is it that people believe that only Jews are important? Or is it that they have been brainwashed with propaganda by the media, which are controlled by Jews? And if there is propaganda involved, shouldn’t we be suspicious of its claims?

Well, whenever I would say things like that, the people I was talking with would become uncomfortable. Some would become emotional. They would refuse to continue the discussion.

I’ll give you a more recent example of this sort of thing. A few weeks ago the United States sent a military expedition to Haiti to force the government controlled at that time by General Raoul Cedras to abdicate in favor of Mr. Clinton’s good friend, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. General Cedras was a dictator, we were told by the controlled media—a bad man—and Aristide was a democrat, a good man, a man much like Bill Clinton. We were sending troops to Haiti, the media said, to restore democracy.

Now, it’s true that most Americans weren’t as enthusiastic about sending troops to Haiti to install Aristide as the gang around President Clinton was. But we went along with it. And if you watch the television news coverage of the military occupation, you are led to believe that our soldiers are enthusiastic about their assignment. They are doing a noble thing, they believe, giving Haiti back to Aristide and restoring democracy.

Now, the fact is that Mr. Aristide is a Communist, and besides that a much worse thug and terrorist than General Cedras ever was. In 1991, when Aristide was the top dog in Haiti, he ruled by terror and murder. He killed his opponents with burning tires, “necklacing” them, as the Blacks call it, before General Cedras booted him out of the presidential palace. It is difficult to imagine a more despicable criminal than Jean-Bertrand Aristide as the ruler of a country. And our government is backing him. Our troops are keeping him in power and taking guns away from Haitians who oppose him.

Isn’t that amazing?

But just try discussing that with the average U.S. voter. He doesn’t want to talk about it. It’s unfashionable. About as far as the average American will go is admitting that what goes on in Haiti isn’t our business, and that we should let the Haitians run their own affairs.

Some Americans will say that we had to intervene in Haiti because economic conditions were so bad there that we had a flood of Haitian “boat people” coming into this country. That, of course, is sheer nonsense: economic conditions were worse than usual in Haiti before our invasion because the Clinton government had imposed an embargo on the country in an attempt to force General Cedras out. That’s why the Haitians were starving: it was Mr. Clinton’s embargo. But most people don’t want to hear that.

And they don’t want to hear about the fact that Aristide is a Communist and a bloodthirsty terrorist. They prefer to hear that our troops are in Haiti to “restore democracy.” That’s what is fashionable. That’s what it is comfortable to believe.

Now, let me become personal again.

During the past 30 years I’ve noticed this sort of failure of reason over and over again. I’ve seen the government in Washington adopt policies that I was certain were destructive policies, policies that would lead to the loss of our freedom, to the loss of everything that we hold dear. I was appalled, and I would speak out against these policies.

But invariably the controlled media supported the policies, and so the policies were fashionable in the eyes of most people. People who were against the government’s policies were called “racists” by the media. They were called “isolationists.” They were called “haters.” And most people let themselves be bullied by the media. They went along because it was fashionable to go along.

And so there I was, time after time, concerned about trends that I could see developing, concerned about subtle shifts in the propaganda of the controlled media, concerned about changes in government policy. I could see all around me the bad effects of such trends. I could see where these new trends were heading. It was clear. It was obvious. But other people seemed not to notice. It was as if they were oblivious to the destruction of their own world which was going on around them. I felt very frustrated that they refused to see what I saw, that they continued to pretend that things were fine when I knew that we were headed for disaster.

Can you picture that situation? Have you ever felt the way I’ve just described?

I don’t mean to say that I always was right, that I always knew better than everybody else. I can make mistakes, I can make errors of judgment, just like anyone. But when I make a mistake it’s an honest mistake. I don’t deliberately misjudge things in order to be fashionable.

The unfortunate fact is that much more often than not my judgments about the government’s policies have been correct. Policies that I instinctively felt to be wrong have turned out to be so. Trends that analysis and reflection convinced me were degenerative trends have turned out to be so. And I have never hesitated to speak out. I have never hesitated to say, for example, “Hey, everybody, the government’s immigration policy is a disaster. It’s changing the racial character of America. It will destroy everything that’s good about our country if we permit it to continue.” And the controlled media then would turn their hatred against me. They would shriek at me: Racist! White supremacist! Hater!

Or I would say, “Hey, everybody, the reason the crime problem has become so bad during the past 30 years is that we’re subsidizing it. We’re using our taxes to help the minorities, who are responsible for most crime, to breed. We’ve accepted so-called ‘civil rights’ laws which are empowering and protecting the criminal elements.” And the controlled media would shriek at me again: Racist! Hater!

And, of course, I wasn’t being a hater at all. I was simply concerned about the destruction of my country, the destruction of the civilization which my ancestors had built at such great cost, and I was giving voice to my concerns. I was speaking the truth as I saw it, even when the truth wasn’t fashionable.

And I must admit that sometimes I had the very unsettling impression that I was one of a small minority of sane people, and that the majority of the population had fallen under the influence of a gang of lunatics and were letting the lunatics make all of the policies.

I’ve been seeing the quality of education in America fall disastrously year after year, and in response the government has formulated new educational policies which I knew could only make things worse, policies which almost seemed calculated to make things worse. Instead of aiming for quality in the schools, the government ever since the Second World War has been pushing for “equality.” The quality of the educational system goes down, and so the government forces a big dose of “equality” on it. That makes the quality go down even more, and so the government responds with an even bigger dose of forced “equality.” And when I see this I have to pinch myself, I have to say to myself: Are you really the only sane person in this country; are you the only one who can see that this policy of pushing “equality” instead of quality will only make things worse? Are you the only one who still has a grip on reality?

And, of course, I know that I’m not the only one who feels this way. I know that there are many of you who also feel yourselves the only sane people in a world gone mad. I know that there are many of you who still prefer the truth to whatever is fashionable at the moment. Otherwise you wouldn’t be listening to this program.

The problem is that we sane people, we rational people, we people who accept the evidence of our eyes and are able to make comparisons of what we see today with what we saw in the past—we have got to do a better job of sticking together. We have to put up a united front against the lunatics.

And, you know, it can be done. It is possible for the sane minority to get the lunatics back into their cages and then begin repairing the damage they’ve done. It is possible to take the media away from the destructive psychopaths now in control.

I’m given hope by the fact that even the majority of ordinary Americans, the ones who always prefer to be fashionable, finally have overdosed on insanity. The gang of Clintonistas who’ve been running the country into the ground for the last two years have scared them so badly that we had a massive repudiation of them and their policies at the polls recently. Even the trendy air-heads who’ve been tolerating insanity for decades have finally said, “Enough!”

Please don’t think that what I’ve just said means that I’m a Republican. The good thing about the recent elections is not that the Republican Party won; the good thing is that the elections put a party in control of the legislative branch of the government which is different from the party in control of the executive branch. If we’re lucky we’ll have the two parties fighting each other to a standstill for the next two years. We’ll have governmental gridlock, and the government won’t be able to do as much damage as otherwise.

This gives us a little breathing space, a little time to organize ourselves and prepare for battle with the lunatics.

Actually, I’ve used the word “lunatics” loosely in describing those we oppose. The people who control the media and the people in the government who take orders from them aren’t really crazy. They’re evil. Do you understand that? Evil. They’re people committed to the destruction of everything beautiful and noble and decent in the world. We don’t want to put them in a lunatic asylum. We want to hunt them down—every last one of them—and put a final end to their evil.

One of the most interesting results of the recent elections was the rebellion of White Californians against the growing tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico which was swamping their state. That rebellion expressed itself as Proposition 187. The media people and the Clintonistas—and also many Christians who have been infected with the egalitarian madness—are really unhappy about Proposition 187. They’re hinting that those who voted for it are “racists,” that the only reason they want to make things more difficult for illegal aliens is that most of the aliens aren’t White, because they’re Mexicans, mestizos.

And the White voters are responding, “Oh, no, that’s not the reason at all. We’re not racists. We just want to keep our schools and other public facilities from being overwhelmed.”

But, really, for most of them that’s a dishonest response. The whole reason why Proposition 187 was necessary is because the illegal immigrants are non-White. If they were English or Swedish or German they wouldn’t be a problem. They wouldn’t be a threat. Everyone understands that, but most people are afraid to say it. They are afraid of being unfashionable. So they kept smiling and pretending that everything was all right for 50 years, while their country was being ruined by the media and the government. Finally they had too much, and they rebelled by voting for Proposition 187. But they still won’t face the situation squarely and call a spade a spade. They still prefer being fashionable to dealing in the truth.

But, at least—at least—they did rebel. That’s a very good sign indeed. It shows that there are limits to how much the average citizen will let himself be abused. It’s good to know that. I had begun to worry that he would put up with anything rather than risk being called a “racist.”

You know, the trouble with most people is not that they’re stupid. Most people can figure out as well as you and I can that if you give welfare to Blacks, pretty soon you’ll have more Blacks.

They can understand that if you don’t control your borders, pretty soon you’ll have more Mexicans and Haitians in the country.

They can figure out that if you then pass special laws to protect criminals, you’ll have a lot more crime to deal with.

They know that if you begin mixing Blacks and Whites socially, some Whites will begin acting like Blacks, and the average moral tone of White society will decline.

They can understand that if you force White students to go to school with Blacks and then try to maintain the pretense that Blacks are just as capable as Whites, you must lower scholastic standards and thereby keep White students from reaching their full potential.

They know that if you pass so-called “free trade” laws, which allow industries in non-White countries with extremely low wages, countries like China and Mexico, to compete with American industries, pretty soon you’ll bankrupt the American industries and put many Americans out of work. And they can understand that if you permit Jews to get control of the mass media of news and entertainment in your country, and along with that a dominating influence on the political process and government policy, you’re in big trouble. You leave yourself open to all of the aforementioned ills and a whole Pandora’s box of others besides.

They can understand, in other words, that if people permit their government to adopt the policies the American government has adopted during the past 50 years, they will reduce themselves to the condition of the American people today: their civilization in a precipitous decline, their public and private morality in a shambles, their future mortgaged, and an assortment of non-White minorities in the process of foreclosing on that future.

This is something that most of our fellow citizens should be capable of understanding. Instead, they’ve let themselves be persuaded, primarily by the controlled media, that they should ignore their own reason and pretend that everything is A-OK.

Or, if they are so fed up with conditions that they just can’t pretend any longer that there’s nothing wrong, they still won’t face the facts squarely and accept the obvious answers, because they don’t want to be racists. And so they pretend that a switch from the Democrats to the Republicans will fix everything.

But, you know, somebody has to be willing to announce the fact that the emperor is naked. Even if it’s not polite. Even if it hurts a lot of people’s feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that the emperor’s new suit is the very height of fashion, someone has to come right out and say, “Hey, momma, look! The man has no clothes on!”

Not just me. A lot of us have to say that. A lot of us have to bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth. It’s important. Much more than the state of our economy and the quality of our schools and the crime problem depends on it. In the long run, everything depends on our preferring what is true to what is fashionable—preferring it enough to speak out for it.

I don’t expect everyone to do that. I know that most people will continue being the way they always have been. But it doesn’t take everyone in order to make a difference. It only takes a few. It only took one small boy to open everyone’s eyes to the emperor’s foolishness—one small boy to persuade all the townspeople that they really were seeing what they thought they were seeing.

So I’m counting on those of you who occasionally wear mismatched socks. I’m counting on you to say, “By god, I am right. The government and the media are wrong. And the right thing for me to do is to speak up now, regardless of whose feelings I hurt.” You do that—you keep looking at the world with open eyes and not being afraid to come to your own conclusions about what’s good and what’s bad—and you tell people about what you see.

You tell them, and many of them will open their eyes and look too. Don’t let the controlled media intimidate you. Don’t let the government push you around. We’re the ones who are right, not them.

You stand with me, and be honest with me, and speak out with me, and together we’ll begin pushing back some of the evil which has been taking over our world. We’ll begin building a better world together.

I’m counting on you. Thanks for listening.

January, 1995

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 137

the-real-hitler

5th June 1942, midday

Pre-disposition of the Finns to mental diseases—Effects of study of the Bible thereon—Religious mania—Germans must avoid spiritual sickness.

 

The topic of conversation was the exceptionally large number of cases of mental disease in Finland. Among the causes put forward as possible explanations of the vulnerability of the Finns to these types of diseases werethe Aurora Borealis and the strong inclination prevalent among Finns to worry unduly over religious problems. In Finland the farms are often as much as thirty to fifty miles apart, and the inhabitants, condemned, particularly in winter, to a comparatively isolated existence, feel the need of mental exercise; an exceptionally strong tendency to religious surmise is therefore understandable. The Fuehrer expressed himself as follows: It is a great pity that this tendency towards religious thought can find no better outlet than the Jewish pettifoggery of the Old Testament. For religious people who, in the solitude of winter, continually seek ultimate light on their religious problems with the assistance of the Bible, must eventually become spiritually deformed. The wretched people strive to extract truths from these Jewish chicaneries, where in fact no truths exist. As a result they become embedded in some rut of thought or other and, unless they possess an exceptionally commonsense mind, degenerate into religious maniacs.

It is deplorable that the Bible should have been translated into German, and that the whole of the German people should have thus become exposed to the whole of this Jewish mumbo-jumbo. So long as the wisdom, particularly of the Old Testament, remained exclusively in the Latin of the Church, there was little danger that sensible people would become the victims of illusions as the result of studying the Bible. But since the Bible became common property, a whole heap of people have found opened to them lines of religious thought which—particularly in conjunction with the German characteristic of persistent and somewhat melancholy meditation—as often as not turned them into religious maniacs. When one recollects further that the Catholic Church has elevated to the status of Saints a whole number of madmen, one realises why movements such as that of the Flagellants came inevitably into existence in the Middle Ages in Germany.

As a sane German, one is flabbergasted to think that German human beings could have let themselves be brought to such a pass by Jewish filth and priestly twaddle, that they were little different from the howling dervish of the Turks and the negroes, at whom we laugh so scornfully. It angers one to think that, while in other parts of the globe religious teaching like that of Confucius, Buddha and Mohammed offers an undeniably broad basis for the religious-minded, Germans should have been duped by a theological exposition devoid of all honest depth.

The essential conclusion to which these considerations leads me is that we must do everything humanly possible to protect for all time any further sections of the German people from the danger of mental deformity, regardless of whether it be religious mania or any other type of cerebral derangement. For this reason I have directed that every town of any importance shall have an observatory, for astronomy has been shown by experience to be one of the best means at man’s disposal for increasing his knowledge of the universe, and thus saving him from any tendency towards mental aberration.

Published in: on July 17, 2015 at 12:58 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags:

On cognitive dissonance

by Jack Frost

Given the general Christian insistence on regarding all souls as “equal in the eyes of God,” cognitive dissonance without doubt has had a lot to do with the evolution of anti-racism throughout what used to be called Christendom.

Ben-Franklin-DuplessisFor example, the discomfort (i.e., cognitive dissonance) of the Founding Fathers with regard to race-based slavery conflicting with their worldview is palpable when you read their writings. Some, like the deeply religious Benjamin Franklin, became abolitionists, and freed their own slaves (n.b., but only after using them for most of their lives). The descendants of those same slaves no doubt are still preying on whites even today. How many murders, rapes, and robberies of white people have been the result of Franklin’s act of Christian generosity? How many shattered, ruined lives?

We’ll never know. Given the prevailing worldview, the question is uninteresting, just as the ongoing genocide of whites in South Africa is uninteresting. Eventually, of course, other abolitionists even fomented America’s Civil War over the issue, and their descendants, such as the founders of the NAACP, worked sedulously to make the negro the white man’s equal in law. Nearly all of these abolitionists were Christian fanatics who framed their objections to slavery in moral terms. Confronting such people with evidence they are wrong will usually only increase their fanaticism.

This being the case, could it be that efforts at “education” are not only fruitless, but counter-productive? This would explain much about the racial right’s long history of failure.

A lesson

by Jack Frost

As we’ve seen, there is great resistance from certain quarters even on the racial right to the very idea that the Christian worldview is in any way responsible for the current political situation, even when it’s easy to show that the core doctrines of political correctness are quite consistent with Christian teachings, and even when there are so many on the left who are churchmen.

This is no doubt a great help to the system, and more proof, if any is needed, that worldviews don’t change easily. Change is difficult because people become emotionally invested in something that touches them so deeply, and also because a worldview is, in some ways, beyond the reach of reason.

When Christianity took over white civilization so long ago, it didn’t triumph by its skill at argument, or appeals to evidence or logic, but largely by the sword, just as it proclaimed it would. You don’t reason people out of a worldview. You don’t “educate” them out of it.

The lesson of the Christian takeover is that a new worldview may arrive, but if it follows precedent, its arrival will be unheralded, unplanned, and accompanied by great bloodshed.

Published in: on July 8, 2015 at 1:48 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

The Jewish Problem

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief
 
For the last three decades there has been, in this land of free speech and a free press, an almost universally observed taboo on one topic of overwhelming importance: the Jewish question. Until about the last year or two, in fact, it was hardly permissible to even hint at the existence of such an issue, much less to discuss it openly.

Now the subject has been broached, not by our own people—for whom it has the most crucial importance—but, interestingly enough, by the Jews themselves, who successfully imposed the taboo on it in the first place.

One cannot pick up a major newspaper today without reading about “the Jewish vote” in the recent Presidential election, or which candidate got the most “Jewish money,” or which senators are blocking further Russian trade agreements until the Russians make more concessions on “the Jewish issue,” and so on.


Growing anti-Semitism

The Jewish question is phrased in the sharpest terms by the most Jewish of the Jews: the professional Zionists. They talk compulsively, almost hysterically, of rising anti-Jewish feeling in America, of “genocide” in Russia, of growing anti-Semitism in Italy and elsewhere, of the need to protect Jewish interests everywhere. And, contrary to past practice, they talk about these things publicly, where everyone can hear: in newspapers and national magazines, in open campus lectures, with placards in street demonstrations.

Books are in general circulation today, written either by Jews or philo-Semites, which come closer to a frank discussion of the Jewish question than would have been imaginable a few years ago. Even some motion pictures and television programs have ventured onto this formerly forbidden ground.


Deliberate deceit

All this is not to say that the American people are being given an honest treatment of the Jewish question. There remains more deliberate deceit on this topic than perhaps any other except the Black-White racial issue. But what a revolutionary change from the time when the very existence of the issue itself was denied!

Very recently it was not even permissible to speak publicly of Jews as a distinct racial-cultural-national group, a people with peculiar interests and characteristics distinguishing them from other peoples with different interests and characteristics. One could only speak of “Americans of the Jewish faith,” “a person who happens to belong to the Jewish religion,” and similar euphemisms. Americans were so thoroughly brainwashed that the mere use of the word “Jew” in public caused embarrassment and discomfort.


Pressures building

Now that is changing, and it is a good thing. It is not entirely clear why the taboo is being lifted, however. With a little effort the lid probably could have been kept on the subject for another decade, maybe longer, before internal pressures blew it wide open.

One reason may have been that the Blacks simply wouldn’t keep their mouths shut. Less disciplined than the White goyim, they kept spilling the beans.

Negro civil rights militants resented having to be told by their Jewish “advisers” and financiers what their every move was to be. Nor did they fail to gain the impression that they were being “used” by the Jews: that Jewish money and brains were not being poured into the civil rights movement out of any love for Blacks but in order to disrupt White society for the Jews’ own ends.


“Jew Devils”

And if Black slum-dwellers had not already noticed who it was who collected their rents every month and took what money they had left in exorbitant finance charges, there were plenty of Black nationalist leaders ready to point it out to them. In the Black Muslim theology, “Jew devils” roast in a pit noticeably hotter than that reserved for ordinary “White devils.”

White liberals have been conditioned to dismiss as “racism” any criticism of Jews emanating from other Whites. Every four-letter word coming from the mouth of one of the pampered new breed of Negro “intellectuals,” however, is pounced on like a pearl of wisdom.


Conditioning backfires

Gutter-level hate-screeds directed at Whites—trash literature such as Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice, which has been made required reading for millions of White high school and university students by neo-liberal teachers—are accepted as good, noble, and true by Gentile liberal and Jew alike. So, when the same breed of Blacks began expressing their feelings toward Jews, White liberals were obliged to take them seriously. One might say the Jews are hoist on their own petard.


Jews as a group

It would be unfair to give Black militants all the credit for forcing the Jews to reopen the Jewish question, however. Ever since the Jews so thoroughly trounced the Arabs in the “Six Day War” of 1967 (using American weaponry), they seem to have thrown discretion to the winds. They are so proud of themselves for that bloody bit of banditry that they can’t stop boasting about it. It is a triumph which belongs to all Jews everywhere, they feel: to Jews as a group. And it is as a group that they have been talking of themselves ever since.


“Just a coincidence”

This is a development of some importance. Before, if one violated the taboo by, say, grumbling about the Jewish monopoly control of America’s information media, one would immediately be put down by the nearest liberal with a little lecture about all those Jews in television and the publishing industry being just a coincidence; about the fact that it might just as well have been Baptists controlling the media if they had worked as hard at it and were as good businessmen as the Jews; about the necessity of judging each Jewish TV mogul as an individual rather than as a Jew.

And if one spoke of “organized Jewry” or hinted of a “Jewish conspiracy,” one was instantly consigned to the outer darkness, along with the little old ladies in tennis shoes who see a communist spy under every bed. Nowadays, Golda Meir can talk about “the organized Jewish world” and be quoted by UPI without anyone batting an eyelash.


Something other than Americans

So, however it has come about, we have the Jewish question with us today: the general acceptance (even if only implicit) of the fact that Jews are something other than Americans with a different religion; that they are Jews first and Americans (or Canadians, or what have you) only second or third; that they form a coherent group; that they have group interests, Jewish interests; and that those interests are quite often, if not always, at variance with the interests of just about everyone else.

When we couple this fact with the fact that Jews have worked their way in to positions where they control the vital nerve centers of the Western world: public information, education, finance, domestic politics, foreign policy… the Jewish question becomes a very real Jewish Problem.


Myths about the problem

The way in which the American people solve this problem will depend on their understanding of it. At present that understanding is badly clouded, and all the forces of the System are intent on keeping it that way, through the propagation of a set of myths. A few of these myths are:

  • The Jewish problem has its roots in Gentile bigotry. If it were not for anti-Semitism and the threat it poses to the Jewish people, there would be no Jewish problem. Jews would simply be another ethnic element of the population of any country where they live, just as the Pennsylvania “Dutch” (Germans), Minnesota Swedes, or Boston Irish are ethnic elements of the U.S. population, each with its own peculiarities but without any particular “problem” (e.g., a “Swedish problem”).
  • Anti-Semitism is always a manifestation of either religious intolerance or economic envy. That is, Christian bigots hate Jews because their religion is different, and bigots in general hate Jews because they are successful.
  • Jews are a “persecuted” people with a tragic history. For thousands of years other peoples have bullied them, massacred them, selected them as “scapegoats”—all through no fault of their own. At present Arab terrorists are persecuting them in the Middle East and the Soviet government is persecuting them in Russia. The persecution they most like to talk about, however, is the one they recently underwent at the hands of the Germans: the “holocaust” of World War II. Because of the “holocaust” and other persecutions, the Jews are especially deserving of our sympathy and consideration.
  • Jews are a “liberal” people: tolerant, pacifist, equalitarian, open minded, champions of freedom and justice. Their “tragic history” and the suffering they have undergone have given them these liberal traits.
  • Jews are a specially gifted, artistic race. This is easily seen to be so by the way Jews dominate virtually all cultural fields in America today. There are more Jewish sculptors, painters, novelists, poets, composers, editors, and directors than those belonging to any other ethnic group, WASPs included. In line with this, Jews tend to be more sensitive and intellectual, on the average, than persons of European race.


A glimpse behind the façade

Many and weighty volumes have already been written debunking or supporting these myths. Here we have no room to explore them all. We can only present the briefest of suggestions to the reader that perhaps there is another way of looking at them than the “official” way presented by the System.

Screen-Shot

(A book published by Harry Ostrer in 2012 which admits that the Jews are a separate race and that understanding their genetic history is crucial to understanding the Jewish identity.)

Consider the first myth: namely, that Gentile bigotry is the cause of the problem. It is particularly rewarding to explore this myth together with Myth No. 3, that of a tragic history of thousands of years of persecution.

From the time of the ancient Pharaohs, nearly 4,000 years ago, to the present, everyone—Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Medes, Romans, Spaniards, Anglo-Saxons, Cossacks, Poles, Russians, Germans, Arabs—has persecuted and massacred the poor Jews. That’s quite an array of various breeds of bigoted goyim.


Everybody bigoted except Jews?

About the only conclusion the official myth allows us to draw from this is that bigotry is a universal characteristic of non-Jewish peoples! Furthermore, this bigotry has remained Jew-specific over an immense period of time and among peoples with widely varying cultures.

From the time when the ancient Egyptians booted Moses and his tribe out of Egypt, to the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, Germany in 1298, France in 1306, Austria in 1421, Spain in 1492, Portugal in 1496, and so on, to the present day, no one seems to have been able to get along with the Jews for very long. “Persecution” has been the inevitable result.


Is “persecution” myth a racket?

Of course, history is a continuous record of different peoples not getting along with one another: French vs. English, English vs. Spanish, French vs. Germans, Irish vs. English, Poles vs. Russians, and so on. But the English do not consider themselves “persecuted.” Nor do the French, the Germans, or any of the other peoples mentioned. Only with the Jews is it “persecution.”

Yet, the universal antagonism between the Jews and their various neighbors down through the millennia is undeniable. Could it be—is it remotely possible—that the reason for this lies with the Jews themselves rather than with all their antagonists?


“His blood be on us and on our children”

Certainly the myth that the trouble lies with Christian intolerance of “Christ killers” does not hold water. Moslems, atheists, and pagans have had as little use for Jews as the most retribution-minded Christians.

Tacitus, the pagan historian, wrote of the Jews: “When the Assyrians, and after them the Medes and the Persians, were masters of the oriental world, the Jews were deemed the most contemptible of all the nations then held in subjection.” And Tacitus’ other references to the Jews reveal that he and his fellow Romans shared that contempt, thus giving us four peoples in this one example, with four different religions, unanimous in their verdict on the Jews.


Venom of the Talmud

If that is due to religious bigotry, perhaps the bigotry is the Jews’ rather than all the others. This was the conclusion reached by the great Martin Luther, at any rate, who taught himself to read the Hebrew of the Talmud, the basic religious work of Judaism, and was horrified by the venomous outpouring of hatred against all non-Jewish peoples (goyim) he found there.

That leaves the “envy” myth. It is best considered together with the notion that the Jews are especially gifted and talented, and that these special talents have led to their spectacular degree of success, relative to non-Jews.


Masters of degeneracy

Let us immediately recognize that Jews, as a whole, do possess certain talents to a larger degree than other peoples. No Gentile writer, for example, could have produced a novel quite like Philip Roth’s The Breast or Portnoy’s Complaint. No Gentile composer could have treated a sacred theme with quite the same grandiose vulgarity as Leonard Bernstein did his Mass. No Gentile producer could have churned out such an appalling box-office success as Joseph Papp’s (Papirofsky) Hair.


Kosher culture

Almost as notable as the proliferation of noisy, flashy Jewish cultural “successes” is the absence of first-rate non-Jewish achievement in the artistic-literary-musical-theatrical field. Where are our late 20th century American Shakespeares, Beethovens, Wagners, Miltons, or Brueghels? There are none in sight.

There are a number of competent Gentile artistic and literary technicians still competing with the Jews, as well as a multitude of hacks, but the balance is shifting steadily toward a totally kosher cultural establishment.


Stifled soul

Transcendent artistic genius flowers only under certain favorable conditions. These conditions are those which allow latent genius to freely give expression to some aspect of the racial-cultural soul of a people. These conditions are notably lacking in America today.

Without a lengthy elaboration of why they are lacking, a brief and homely excerpt from a recently published and very illuminating book on the Jewish question, Professor Ernest van den Haag’s The Jewish Mystique, may serve to suggest that Jewish domination of the Gentile cultural establishment is one of the principal reasons.


Different outlook

Van den Haag correctly observes that

Persons whose outlook and sensibility differ radically from what is current, or acceptable, within the establishment are unlikely to be understood by establishment members. They are automatically relegated beyond the pale. For them to be heard, published, read, understood, or appreciated according to their merits becomes very difficult.

Then he quotes for us the complaint of one Gentile writer:

“When I was a screen-writer for one of the major studios,” says a former toiler in the vineyards dominated by another Jewish cultural establishment, “we were talking one day about how a mother would react to finding out her son had cheated in school. When it came my turn to speak, I said what I had to say. The head of the studio looked at me and said, ‘Mr. O’Connor, no mother would react that way.’ I told him that I had cheated in school, and that was exactly how my mother had reacted. There was an embarrassed silence for a moment, and then the studio head went on as if I hadn’t spoken. My mother had slapped me around a little bit, and then sternly told me to go to the priest to ask God’s forgiveness. The response they expected was that the mother would weep a little and take the poor, wounded boy to her breast. That’s how they wrote it, and for a moment there, they made me feel as if my mother wasn’t a member of the human race.”

 
Alien atmosphere

In other creative fields—science, for example—kosherization has advanced far less than in script-writing, but it is, nevertheless, advancing. No doors are slammed in the faces of talented Gentiles yet, but there is already an alien atmosphere which many sensitive Gentiles find uncongenial.

Perhaps it is in the business-professional world that the pattern is clearest. In most areas—retail trade, banking, dentistry, and law are examples—Gentiles are still in strong contention, although the Jewish element is gaining in influence and degree of domination.

In these areas Gentiles are highly conscious of their Jewish competitors, and whenever this consciousness manifests itself in an anti-Semitic manner the “envy” myth is immediately invoked to explain the anti-Semitism.


Organized takeover

There are other areas, however, where Gentiles are no longer in contention. Whole industries and professions have been literally taken over by the Jews.

The garment industry; the wholesale news distribution industry, which supplies magazines and paperbacks to newsstands; the motion-picture industry; and a score of others are almost totally Jewish in ownership and management. Psychiatry is, for all practical purposes, a Jewish profession.

A Gentile who attempts to trespass on one of these kosher preserves finds practically insurmountable obstacles in his path. He is immediately made to feel that it is he, not the Jews, who is an alien. He does not speak the same language, he does not know the customs, he does not belong.

Perhaps, then, we ought to consider that when a Gentile retail merchant, say, makes an unkind remark about his Jewish competitors he is motivated by something besides envy. Perhaps he has a faint, subliminal premonition of the situation the Gentile garment manufacturer of half a century ago found himself in as his Jewish colleagues slowly but surely forced him to the wall.

And we might also ask ourselves: Is it “talent” which is solely responsible for this burgeoning Jewish success—or is it also something else?


Jews and liberalism

Finally, let us look at Jewish “liberalism.” It is certainly true that Jews have been overwhelmingly prominent in virtually every “liberal” manifestation of the past 200 years, from the great liberal bloodletting of the French Revolution through the bolshevization of the Russian people and the building of the Negro rights movement in America.

Jewish university students were more numerous among the “freedom riders” of a decade ago than any other ethnic group.

Jewish students and Jewish lawyers, in the role of “pacifists,” have been the backbone of the home-front sabotage effort against the U.S. armed forces throughout the war in Vietnam.

Jewesses have been in the van of the crusade for women’s “liberation” since the inception of that rather unnatural movement.

In general, any group, movement, or political organization in America today agitating for “peace,” “equality,” “freedom,” or “justice” can be counted on to have a disproportionately large number of Jews among its adherents.

But are Jews really “liberals”—or is “liberalism” merely a useful mask for them to wear in their dealings with other peoples? For an answer, look at the Jews where they feel no need for a mask: occupied Palestine.

In America, Jews, through their control of the media of mass propaganda, have succeeded in making millions of White people feel guilty because our ancestors dispossessed the Indians and exploited Black slaves. Do the Jewish masters of Palestine, or their fellow Zionists in America, feel guilty because they have massacred, plundered, and dispossessed the Palestinians?

In America, Jews have been among the shrillest critics of our prisons and the staunchest supporters of prison rioters, such as those at Attica. What, then, is their excuse for the ghastly torture chambers and concentration camps they operate in Palestine in order to keep their restless Arab subjects in line?


Goyim not equal

In America, Jews preach “equality” for all peoples, religions, and races. Why, then, are Jews the only first-class citizens in Israel?

In America, Jews have been predominantly “pacifist” and anti-militarist (except during World War II!). How do they reconcile this with their enthusiastic support of military aggression in the Middle East?

In America, Jews have been the most vehement denouncers of “McCarthyism” and other forms of “witch-hunting.” People who made the “mistake” of joining the Communist Party 20 or 30 years ago should not be penalized for that mistake today, they say. Why, then, do they maintain in Tel Aviv massive files of dossiers on former German National Socialists and direct a worldwide effort to harass them, hound them from their jobs, smear them in the press, even kidnap and murder them? That is, why do they preach to us forgiveness of our sworn enemies while they preach vengeance against theirs?

There is no mistaking the reality of liberalism, or, more correctly, neo-liberalism. Millions of Americans are genuinely infected with it. It is a virus which is ravaging our people and destroying our nation.

And there is no mistaking the fact that Jews are bearers of this virus. But a little observation and reflection suggest that the disease itself strikes only men of the West and that Jews have a natural immunity to it.


Executing the solution

As already mentioned, the Jewish problem is one of great complexity and subtlety, and one can hardly hope to explore it, much less present any very confident solution, in a page or two. Nevertheless, it is a problem which must be faced and solved. The future of our race and our nation depend upon our finding—and executing—the correct solution to it in the very near future.

The only way we can hope to find that correct solution is first to clear away the smokescreens and lies which have been propagated solely to hide it from us.

The reader with the independence of mind and strength of character to question the official myths must not stop here. He must take upon himself the responsibility of fully informing himself, so that he can intelligently discharge his obligations as a patriot and a member of his Western racial community.

Information on the Jewish problem is available from a number of sources. Some of them are Professor Parkinson’s East and West, William Walsh’s Isabella the Crusader, and Dietrich Eckart’s fascinating Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin; on the relationship of the problem to communism are Frank Britton’s Behind Communism, Mr. Bacu’s The Anti-Humans, James Burnham’s Web of Subversion, and Louis Marschalko’s The World Conquerors; on its relationship to capitalism are Professor Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism and A. K. Chesterton’s The New Unhappy Lords; on the relevance of the problem to present-day America are Wilmot Robertson’s excellent The Dispossessed Majority and Hank Messick’s Lansky. And there are many others.

Read them, and then act!


_________________

From Attack! No. 16, 1972 transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom.

Latin American loyalties

Recently I was asked these questions:

Are there any prospects that White Hispanics in Mexico and other Latin American countries might be willing to participate in a general revival of White interests? Or are they too cramped by the label Latino to identify as White? Or are racial categories in Latin America so imperceptible—due to the subtle gradations of white, near-white, off-white, almost white, mestizo—that forging a White identity is impossible?

I responded thus:

“Latin” America is in a far worse shape than the North. With 500 years of miscegenating experience these guys [“whites”] have lost almost all pride of their white skin (what remains of it). I have some writings about the subject in Spanish.

However, there’s something important missing in my reply. The real trouble I see in this part of the continent lies in the fact that, once you tolerate a few Amerindian genes in your bloodline, the race barrier is gone. The reason of this is not complicated. Due to Mendel laws, if you have an Amerind ancestor, even if you are predominantly white some of your offspring will come up darker that the rest.
mis primosThis for example is a 1960s photo of my cousins of two different families when they were children. (The blondest one passed away a couple of years ago as a mature adult.) You can see that my cousin at the bottom is darker than the one who had Scandinavian blond hair, his (now deceased) brother. This makes my point. Once you have darker brethren the ethnic barrier collapses within your psyche. You won’t be dismayed when, say, your whitest son starts dating a swarthy girl in Mexico because you already produced a child who, phenotypically, cannot be considered properly white.

This behavior produces a downward spiral of miscegenation due to the fact that most Mexicans are browns. The whitest genes dilute more and more in each generation, insofar as the browns are prolific and phenotypical whites not.

I have lived half a century in Mexico. I know the dynamics of mestization. Several people in white nationalism have criticized my one-drop-rule stance. For example, Andrew Anglin wrote about me: “He gets way into the Nordic stuff in a way that I find basically religious.” That’s only because Anglin et al completely ignore the psychological dynamics of mestization, especially the loyalties with swarthier offspring and cousins and uncles and aunts—and thus with who’s dating your daughter—once your bloodline is not pure.

Earlier this month I said, “Race-wise Americans should consider the sociology down the south of Río Grande.” However, I acknowledge it must be difficult for an American or European to figure out the psychological aspects of blood mixing throughout Latin America, unless he has lived in one of these countries for a long time.

By Way of Deception

Thou Shalt Do War

 

wlp_bas_relief

by William Pierce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By way of deception thou shalt do war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By way of deception thou shalt do war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— February, 1992

The biological white

british-actor

This month I suspended the flow of Hitler’s table talks because I wanted the gospel fictions message to sink in. But that will never happen among those white nationalists stuck in their parents’ religion. Andrew Anglin for example, who said at the London Forum that he wants to blame the Jew for everything, wrote a piece “On the biological Jew” that in 2013 I excerpted here.

Anglin and most white nationalists have been beholding the mote in the Jew’s eye and fail to consider the beam in their own.

As any regular visitor knows I was born in Mexico. I’d like to respond to Anglin et al by means of quoting the comments that Gottlieb, who like me was born in Latin America, posted a couple of years ago over several threads in this blog. Since his native language is not English I’ll correct some of his syntax. His comments are a perfect counterpart to the received wisdom in white nationalism. In the bulleted sentences Gottlieb said:

  • I found a serious defect in the perfectly candid psychology of Christians and leftists. They are extremely egocentric and try to demonstrate their “goodness” through the stupid idea of loving the neighbor, regardless of who’s the neighbor.
  • Yes: the intellectual and cultural elite of today’s West is made up of Jews, but mainly by white liberals. That’s why the elites, a hybrid of white liberal and Jewish, want to destroy the ethnic homogeneity of white countries: they themselves are a minority.

This reminds me a shocking discovery in MacDonald’s trilogy: that centuries before the Jews took over the Western media the Christian kings used them to control the white population, especially by taxing.

  • Could it be that liberals suffer from brainwash or that they are already predisposed to believe in equality and fraternity? I think the same about people who believe in the Bible: brainwashing or genetic a propensity?

Which of course reminds me Revilo Oliver’s observation that Christianity is an Indo-European religion about which the Chinese and other peoples are immune.

  • Europeans are extremists by nature. That’s why the Swedes, who sterilized 60,000 people during the 20th century, became one of the most liberal countries in the world.
  • As I said, the purest whites are the most liberal. That must mean something. On the other hand, the more mixed tend to be the most tribalist. In the US, the more racist South is where happened some form of mild racial mixing while New England was originally the land of the purest Anglo-Saxons of the Americas. The purest whites are the least racist because they evolved directly to fulfill this kind of Christianity; while clearly mixed people—a considerable part of the Russians, Iberians, and Balkanians—remained tribalists. What might save me from being a complete liberal fool are my non-white genes.
  • Note also the Nazi leaders. Most of them were not even Nordic. This also relates to aggressiveness. Blondes and redheads tend to be less aggressive. It was extremely common among the classical anthropologists of the past to portray Alpine populations as having Mongolian admixtures. It makes sense that a good part of the Nazi leaders were of the Alpine type.
  • It is a kind of inversion. While white liberals nourish a Platonic love for all races except themselves, I entertain a great admiration, near vassalage to them compared to white Caucasians.

In one of those threads Stubbs commented: “The White capacity for self-delusion, self-destruction, and spiritual decay is as large as our capacity for creativity and strength… We will either be a conduit for gods or for demons, for overman or oblivion.” Gottlieb responded:

  • Precisely because both are related. Some of these traits are almost divine gifts, like Caucasian creativity. However, the higher the height the greater the fall.
  • The clear effect of the Christianization of Europe was the domestication of the white man. Crime reduction and safe communities are the result, but also the reduction of the traits responsible for the survival of any species.
  • Leftism is the evolution of the extremely high capacity of abstraction among Caucasians, which is missing in other peoples including the Jews. For liberals human equality is not just a belief: it is real even if there’s no scientific proof. It is easier to understand this difficulty than understanding the factual reality of things through the stupid cognitive process of many Christians.
  • Why are Jews like that? Because they are Jews. Why are white liberals that way? Because they are white liberals. There is no logical explanation about that cultural behavior but a specific biological explanation. We never lost white liberals: we never had them.

Which is why the Führer’s way is the only way. If they are wired the wrong way regarding the other races you need a collectivist, 4th Reich empire to counterbalance the white man’s suicidal tendencies.

Published in: on April 17, 2015 at 3:17 pm  Comments (29)  
Tags: ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 296 other followers