Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Earlier today I had the pleasure of speaking with Guessedworker from Majority Rights. Over the course of about one and three quarter hours GW and I discussed jewish influence, race, liberalism, Christianity, Lawrence Auster, Paul Weston, White nationalism, European and American relations, and the White network.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
For jews like Lawrence Auster and Paul Gottfried, blaming “liberalism” is a way of shifting blame away from the jews. Here is Auster’s description of their mutual understanding:
Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.
By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.
A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group’s extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group’s extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.
The dissembling here is two-fold. First, they describe racial group differences as religious. Second, and far more important, they ignore jewish anti-White animus.
So how does this White “liberalism” they describe work? They see that the broad-minded White “liberal” individualist don’t-take-your-own-side attitude is not just a poor long-term strategy for the individual, but leads directly to extinction for the group. So how is it that such passive, insecure nothings ever came to run the show?
The answer is that Whites don’t run “liberalism”, the jews do. It is specifically because jews define what contemporary “liberalism” is that White “liberals”, as effete as they are, have gotten and will continue to get the blame for it.
The litany of White sins – slavery, colonization, holocaust – is a jewish construct. It is jews driving the guilt-tripping that causes White guilt and negative associations with White group identity. “You aren’t liberal enough!” is the gist of it. Auster and Gottfried tack yet another item onto the list: “You’re so liberal you’re killing yourself!”
The shift in control over “the philosopy of society” (called “liberalism” ever since the American and French revolutions) from White/Aryan to jew is clearly visible in the shift in attitudes about free speech. Judge Jackson’s dissent in Terminiello v Chicago, in the wake of WWII, shows an increasingly judaized “liberalism” pushing back against White “liberalism”.
“This or that is not a suicide pact” has become a popular turn of phrase in the US. It traces back to Jackson’s dissent in Terminiello, which was motived not by a desire to prevent “suicide”, but to shield the jews from White opposition. Terminiello v. Chicago – Significance at jrank.org describes the background:
Father Terminiello, sometimes called “the Father Coughlin of the South” because of his anti-Semitic rhetoric, was an Alabama priest who, at the time of this case, was under suspension by his church for distributing anti-Jewish literature. Well known for his controversial views on Jews, blacks, New Deal Democrats, and just about everybody else not white, Christian, and conservative, Terminiello came to Chicago from his home base of Birmingham. He was invited by a group called the Christian Veterans of America in 1946 in order to make a speech at the West End Women’s Club.
Terminiello’s appearance was attended by a capacity crowd of about 800. Meanwhile, a hostile mob of protesters, estimated at well over 1,000 people, gathered outside the auditorium. The tone of Terminiello’s speech, which straightforwardly attacked “Communistic Zionistic Jews,” African Americans, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, among others, incited the crowd outside to violence. Police were unable to contain the disturbance. Scores of rocks, bricks, bottles, and stink bombs were thrown, resulting in 28 broken windows, 17 arrests.
In the wake of the mayhem, an organization called the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee filed a complaint against Terminiello, claiming that he had violated a Chicago ordinance against disturbing the peace. The language of the ordinance declared it illegal to create a “diversion tending to a breach of the peace.” Terminiello was convicted and fined $100 for his role in the disturbance. Two higher Illinois courts upheld the conviction. Terminiello eventually brought his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Illinois courts, and overturned Terminiello’s conviction.
In a long, emotional dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson was clearly influenced by his own recent experience as chief U.S. counsel at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals. To Jackson, Terminiello’s language was too close to that of the fascists, whose defeat was considered important enough to justify going to war.
Jackson wrote:
There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.
In effect, Jackson was saying that the Constitution, the most significant document of White “liberalism”, must be interpreted and even ignored in order to suit the best interests of the jews.
Here’s Metapedia’s page on Robert H. Jackson, to which I added a bit about Terminiello v. City of Chicago, Constitution not a suicide pact.
Here’s Metapedia’s page on Arthur Terminiello, which includes excerpts from his speech in Chicago. The portions referring to jews are most notable for their qualifications:
“Now, let me say, I am going to talk about–I almost said, about the Jews. Of course, I would not want to say that. However, I am going to talk about some Jews. I hope that–I am a Christian minister. We must take a Christian attitude. I don’t want you to go from this hall with hatred in your heart for any person, for no person. . . .
“Now, this danger which we face–let us call them Zionist Jews if you will, let’s call them atheistic, communistic Jewish or Zionist Jews, then let us not fear to condemn them. You remember the Apostles when they went into the upper room after the death of the Master, they went in there, after locking the doors; they closed the windows. (At this time there was a very loud noise as if something was being thrown into the building.)
“So, my friends, since we spent much time tonight trying to quiet the howling mob, I am going to bring my thoughts to a conclusion, and the conclusion is this. We must all be like the Apostles before the coming of the Holy Ghost. We must not lock ourselves in an upper room for fear of the Jews. I speak of the Communistic Zionistic Jew, and those are not American Jews. We don’t want them here; we want them to go back where they came from.
The Chicago Civil Liberties Committee (informal motto, “Liberty is for the jews, not for youse.”), who brought the case against Terminiello, merits further investigation. This page seems to use “communist-leanings” as code for “jewish influence”:
During World War II, internal partisan divisions wracked the membership of the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee. Debate surged over the relevance of civil liberties in the Soviet Union, the ACLU’s defense of the legal rights of American Fascists, and endorsement of President Roosevelt and his economic policies. In 1945 the national organization of the ACLU accused the CCLC of partisanship and Communist leanings and threatened the committee with expulsion. In response, the CCLC disaffiliated itself from the national organization
More evidence that jewish “liberalism” means “suicide for thee, not for me” can be found in Liberal Democratic Values – not a suicide pact, at Jewish Issues Watchdog, “keeping an eye on jewish affairs”:
[Peter] Beinart displayed unflinching resolve to advance and to defend his liberal-democratic values – down to the last Israeli.
It must be remembered that commitment to liberal democratic values is not a suicide pact.
To expect Israel to conduct itself in a manner totally divorced from the exigencies of its environment and totally detached from the nature of its adversaries and their manifest goals – as reflected both in their declarations and in their deeds –is a position that reflects neither moral merit nor political prudence
A prescient William Pierce wrote Liberals, the Jews, and Israel in 1975:
THE CURRENT JEWISH power play in the Middle East poses the gravest imaginable dangers to America. Yet, in the midst of these dangers is a development which offers the promise of great good to the American people. That good is the disruption of the American liberal establishment and the extensive undermining of the traditional alliance between Jews and Gentile liberals.
It is interesting to note that liberals, who have always insisted that a person must be judged only as an individual and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group, accepted without hesitation the thesis that the Jews, as a people, were entitled to immunity from criticism and to collective reparations for the disabilities which some individuals among them, no longer present for the most part, had suffered earlier in Germany.
Liberal writers who condemned in the harshest terms the German practice of shooting Jewish political commissars whenever they were discovered among captured Soviet troops, refer in an indifferent and offhand way to the brutal torture and murder of tens of thousands of German SS men, the elite of their nation, who, after they had laid down their arms and surrendered, were turned over to Jews in U.S. Army uniforms to be castrated, used for bayonet practice, and subjected to other tortures too gruesome to recount.
Jews, of course, have been playing the “persecution” angle for all it is worth throughout their long and turbulent history. In a sense they have made a living — generally, a very good living — off being “scapegoats.”
Before the Germans it was the Russian Czars who persecuted this race of professional “victims,” and before them it was the Polish peasants, and the Spanish Inquisitors, and the English yeomen, and the French Crusaders, and the Roman legions, all the way back to the Egyptian Pharaohs. Westerners, and not just the liberals among them, have always been suckers for a cleverly managed act of martyrdom.
The jewish problem traces back long before “liberalism”, the jews have been “suicide pacting” their hosts for millennia.
Andrew Joyce’s thought-provoking series of articles, “Reflections on Some Aspects of Jewish Self-Deception”, is posted at The Occidental Observer in five parts: Part 1. Introduction, Part 2. Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography, Part 3. Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography (continued), Part 4. Self-Deception in Jewish Participation in Secular Culture, and Part 5. Self-Deception in Jewish Participation in Politics.
Joyce notes that jewish self-deception is a common theme at TOO and “a major component of [Kevin] MacDonald’s analysis of Jews”. He hopes “to widen its application as an analytical tool to different historical and contemporary contexts”.
He begins by examining the meaning of the term, especially in the context of the apparent double-standards of jewish moralizing:
While the basic premise of lying to oneself remains central, [Ann] Tenbrunsel and [David] Messick describe self-deception as the state of “being unaware of the processes that lead us to form our opinions and judgments. Such deception involves avoidance of the truth, the lies that we tell to, and the secrets we keep from, ourselves.”[7] Self-deception, on some scale, is “common, normal, and accepted as constant and pervasive in individual’s lives. We are creative narrators of stories that tend to allow us to do what we want and justify what we have done.”[8]
Crucially, they add that self-deception serves a purpose by allowing “one to behave self-interestedly while, at the same time, falsely believing that one’s moral principles were upheld.”[9] This statement alone will have immediate resonance with anyone remotely familiar with the nature of Jewish interference in the cultural and demographic life of White countries. Tenbrunsel and Messick state that this “internal con game” aids a process where ethical aspects of a situation, and their moral implications, are entirely obscured.[10]
One of the key questions confronting anyone studying self-deception is the relationship between a conscious deception of others and an unconscious deception of the self. Tenbrunsel and Messick state that “it is unclear whether such deception is the result of a conscious act or an unconscious process. Self-deception is paradoxical in this sense, for to deceive oneself somehow implies that one must know that something needs to be hidden or kept secret.”[11] Or as other scholars have asked: “how can the self be both deceiver and deceived?”[12]
For our purposes, we would face the dilemma of whether influential Jewish historians, politicians, etc. are simply lying to us, or whether they truly believe what they are saying.
This paradox, at least with regard to the jews, can be unravelled by asking two fundamental questions: Who/whom? And cui bono? Who is lying to whom? And who benefits from these lies? In short, the paradox arises in trying to describe collectivist psychology in individualist terms.
Self-deception, in its most literal sense, is about lying to oneself to protect oneself. It is a personal mechanism for dealing with a personal problem – avoiding mental anguish by mentally avoiding reality. In the extreme it can be psychopathological.
The controversy and supposed paradox begin when the same term is applied to a seemingly related but qualitatively distinct behavior – lying to oneself to facilitate lying to others. The motives are still selfish, but others are now directly affected. In this sense it is on the cusp between psychology and sociology, an especially devious way one may deceive others. In the extreme it can be sociopathological.
Joyce notes that “scholars have identified and delineated four enablers of self-deception”, and that the first is “the employment of language euphemisms”, “careful use of language”. I agree, and thus see a corrective in paying careful attention to the use of language, and especially the term self-deception.
Joyce’s subject is really jewish deception, which includes jewish deception about jewish deception. Yes, the jews promote a narrative which tends to allow them to do what they want and justify what they have done. But it differs from ordinary self-deception in that the behavior is consistent and collective. It is about jews collectively lying to non-jews collectively to serve the interests of jews collectively. To call this plainly sociopathological behavior self-deception is to stretch the term beyond reason. Better to simply call it jewish deception, or jew lies, though even lie fails to capture the repetitive, in-your-face, black-is-white, now-white-is-black nature of it. Deception of others is at the very heart of jewish identity. It is a feature, not a bug.
To the extent either of the truer senses of self-deception plays a part, it seems to apply best to how non-jews try to cope with the otherwise inconceivably awful reality of jewish behavior. We may hypothesize, for instance, that the jews must be unconsciously deceiving themselves, that they know not what they do. Or we may say that jewish behavior is simply instinctive, that they can’t help what they do. But the reality is that jews behave as they do exactly because they are hyper-conscious of their collective identity and interests, not unconscious. Whatever portion of it is instinctive is very deliberately supplemented by indoctrination.
White minds recoil from such thoughts, but the lies jews tell about why jews lie are, in fact, just more jew lies. Jews tell these lies upon lies with the best interests of jews in mind, implicitly if not explicitly. It’s that simple.
In Part 2 Joyce introduces a good example of this:
Robert Wistrich (born 1945) is the current Neuburger Professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the head of the University’s Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism. Born to Polish leftist Jews in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, Wistrich emigrated to France and then Britain while still a youth. He grew up in England, and received his PhD from the University of London in 1974. Between 1974 and 1980 he was Director of Research at the Wiener Library, a piece of biographical information which is quite significant in itself.
In fact, the bulk of Joyce’s “Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography” concerns the work of this professional jew, who makes his hyper-consciousness of jewish interests quite explicit. In Part 3 Joyce writes:
Moving into the Enlightenment and the modern era, Wistrich becomes entangled in the increasingly complex and bizarre, self-deceiving “Christian virus” theory. Attempting to explain why anti-Semitism persisted into a period in which adherence to Christian dogma weakened radically, he proposes that the Christian virus remained dominant but had “pagan, pre-Christian anti-Semitism grafted on to the stem of medieval Christian stereotypes of the Jew which then passed over into the post-Christian rationalist anti-Judaism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”[29]
This is certainly an impressive mouthful, but in the absence of evidence it is completely ad hoc; it actually means and proves nothing and is instead typical of the attempts of Jewish historians to evade the rather obvious fact that in all eras and in all places the themes of anti-Semitism are unwaveringly similar. Talk of anti-Semitic themes “grafting” onto “stems” which ‘evolve’ and “pass over” into new forms simply can’t explain away, for example, the fact that we find evidence and complaints of Jewish avarice from ancient Rome, early Christian Syria, medieval England, and early modern Germany. Anti-Semitism is immutable.
Indeed, this behavior is typical. And it has nothing to do with these jews lying to themselves about what they’re doing. Jewish behavior is parasitic. The jews are virulent in the most literal biological sense of the word. While some work directly on extracting the resources of their host, others, like Wistrich, work more indirectly on damage control, spinning a narrative which shifts the blame onto their hosts. Inverting reality is a hallmark of the jews and jewish deception. Wherever jews cause pain, even more jews flock to cry out that jews are the ones who are the real victims.
My quibble about terms aside, Joyce’s articles are a masterful review of many facets of jewish deception. There are quite a few details and insights which were new to me, and thus I found it well worth reading.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Picking up where we left off. The meaning of “liberal”/”liberalism” is vague and has shifted dramatically over time. As Wikipedia phrased it, “liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society”. The shift in the meaning of the term reflects the shift in power from Aryan to Jew.
The title and focus of this installment was inspired by Weichseler’s pithy comment:
In short, liberalism is a sugar coated racial death wish
In contrast to the suicide meme, “sugar coated racial death wish” better describes the collective, who/whom aspect of White genocide.
Robert Frost’s witticism that, “A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel”, is related, but begs the question. How could such a passive attitude ever become dominant? It couldn’t and didn’t. Such self-abnegating broadmindedness only reflects a strand of the older, Whiter sense of “liberalism” which never was truly dominant, and has at any rate been displaced by a jewish sense of “liberalism” which is not passive, but is instead more or less openly and aggressively anti-White.
Most people do not have strong political beliefs. They vote mainly according to what they think is in their personal interest.
I agree with the broader point, which is to keep in mind the classic distinction between the hoi polloi (in the original Greek sense) and the elite who actually wield political power (the hoi oligoi, the oligarchs, and their politician-servants who are often mistaken as “leaders”).
My dictionary defines liberalism as “a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution”
This definition is at odds with the reality that “liberalism” helped trigger and was most advanced by war – specifically the American and French revolutions and World War II. “Liberalism” rose in revolt against aristocracy and hierarchy, the previously dominant “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society”. Only now that “liberalism” is hegemonic can it been seen as counter-revolutionary.
So, I think the word “liberalism” no longer means anything. It doesn’t refer to a coherent ideology. The Jews pretend to be liberals, which they are not. And the White liberals pretend they still believe in something, but they defer to the Jewish agenda and are held tightly in check. The incredible thing is how the non-Jews have accepted to go along with a new agenda that contradicts their former ideals.
Instead of studying liberalism, maybe we should start studying how dictatorship works, and how the whole population of a country can come under the rule of a small hostile minority.
The how, the mechanics, is important and merits its own focus, but what must come first is a recognition and understanding of the what, this “rule of a small hostile minority”. The shift in meaning of “liberalism” is emblematic – a symbol of both the how and what of jewish rule. We can do more than simply assert that “liberalism” is not a coherent ideology – it is useful to try to understand how and why it came to be so.
The perceived incoherence of “liberalism” springs largely from the fundamental incompatibility of its two supposedly primary ideas – freedom and equality.
As Richard Cotten noted, “Freedom is not free; Free men are not equal, and Equal men are not free.” Reality is not equal, equality is not real. Free from artificial efforts to force equality, human beings are naturally unequal. Freedom or equality – pick one.
In The New Blacklist, Pat Buchanan remarks on this quintessential dilemma of “liberalism”:
Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla Foundation, who escorted Eich out, said in her statement: “Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech.
Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”
George Orwell, thou shouldst be living at this hour.
What Baker is saying is that you have freedom of speech, so long as you use your speech to advocate equality.
Beyond this incompatibility, the incoherence also springs from the increasingly obvious reality that neither freedom nor equality are the true priorities. The current thoroughly judaized “liberalism” is all about racial inequality. It’s about blaming Whites and making excuses for non-Whites. It’s about seeing Whites as bad and non-Whites as good. Under this judaized “liberalism” the free speech and free association of Whites is increasingly defined as “hate” and restricted.
George Lincoln Rockwell noted in the 1960s that the boundaries of the “liberal” mainstream are defined and policed by jews. Within that judaized mainstream there are essentially two poles – the “left”, representing the direction the system is shifting/”progressing” toward, and the “right” being the direction the system is moving away from, purging and excluding (e.g. Eich or Buchanan) as the outer bounds are moved.
The “left”, who at the time of French revolution were the promoters of equality, in opposition to aristocracy and hierarchy, long ago abandoned that pretext. “Leftists” today openly advocate in racial terms. They support identity politics and multiculturalism. In other words, they acknowledge and encourage inequality. They favor the moral and legal supremacy of non-Whites/”people of color”.
The “right”, who used to defend aristocracy and hierarchy, have gradually and continually given ground in a vain effort to avoid being psychoanalyzed as “racist” “sexist” “homophobic” “xenophobic” and “anti-semitic” by jews (whether “leftist” enemies, or supposed “rightist” allies). Today, when mainstream “rightists” talk about race it’s only to nonsensically insist that race doesn’t matter – because their favorite “conservative” is black and immigration is bad because it’s bad for black and brown people.
The self-described “traditionalist” jewish fifth columnist Lawrence Auster identified just about everything he didn’t like (which he couldn’t more specifically identify as “anti-semitism”) as “liberalism”. Upon scrutiny, Auster’s superficial blather about “liberalism”, which has been mimicked and praised by many other supposedly intelligent critics, was only so much dissembling. He talked about “liberalism” only to obscure and excuse the jewish role in it.
Auster was an effusive source of bogus explanations only loosely connected to reality, such as his misidentification of “liberalism” as non-discrimination. The limits of his own ability to discriminate were clear in his insistence of conflating jews and Whites as “whites”, even when the distinction between the two was most plain. The jewish nature of “liberalism” and Auster’s attempt to disguise it was evident, for example, in a key idea he often cited and immodestly referred to as Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society. Roughly stated, the idea is that the worse “minorities” behave the more compelled “the majority” is to excuse them. Just so. Auster never tried to explain how this came to be. He apparently conceived it to apply only to certain “minorities” he himself liked to criticize. When pressed as to how his Law related to the jews he behaved very badly and excused them.
Auster very often distinguished between what he called “left-liberals” and “right-liberals”, but because he would not distinguish Whites from jews (except to defend jews) he almost never discussed the obvious differences between White and jewish “liberalism”. The one occasion I’m aware of where Auster did demonstrate that he could see the distinction was in an exchange with tribemate Paul Gottfried. Note how they still maintained the absurd pretense that the nature of the distinction is religious rather than racial:
You have often told me that Protestant liberals are worse than Jewish liberals, and I never quite understood what you meant by this. But now I think maybe I see it.
What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following.
Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.
By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.
A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group’s extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group’s extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.
Here we see the true “liberal” essence of so much of the complaints about “liberalism”. It has nothing to do with jewish rule, the jewish critics of jewish “liberalism” say, it’s all Whitey’s fault.
In Telling the Truth Kevin Strom makes some excellent points about the ADL Global 100 and National Counterterrorism Center‘s Worldwide Incidents Tracking System.
Looking for pro-White/jew-aware podcasts? Recommended.
This past winter I dedicated eleven 30 minute installments to The Murder of Mary Phagan. In two twenty-odd minute programs – The Aborted Apotheosis of Leo Frank, part 1 and part 2 – Strom provides an excellent summary of the likely circumstances of the murder, takes apart the jewish narrative about the case and explains the significance of this small but somewhat successful challenge to jewish media dominance.