Gaslighting

gaslight

I’d like to revisit and expand here on a point I made two weeks ago at the end of Pathology and Pathogen. The very last part of Andrew Joyce’s article I quoted was:

Critics of Jews are equally concerned with developing an understanding not only of Jewish power and influence, but also of the pathology of Whites that has facilitated Jewish power and influence as well as the current disaster of displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism. The emphasis is on the identification of multiple sources and origins of the current societal malaise, and on evidence-based intellectual and scientific investigation of all aspects of the interactions between Jews and non-Jews in all locations and throughout historical time. This activity can in no way be seen as the seeking of simplistic answers.

This, as I said, is the problem. It is an acknowledgement that there is a problem and at the same time it is a misconstrual of the nature and source of the problem.

As Joyce’s own description alludes, in the interactions between jews and non-jews in all locations and throughout historical time the sole common element is … the jews. Yet he also take pains to avoid this simple point – to emphasize that he, and other critics of jews seek “multiple sources and origins” which “can in no way be seen as the seeking of simplistic answers”.

But the answer is simple. No pathogen, no pathology. Or to put it slightly less simply, the impact of jewish pathologization and manipulation is so enormous that it’s difficult to imagine what problems would remain if they were removed.

At any rate, as the earlier portion of Joyce’s article made clear, and as I can attest to myself, an objective critic of jews can dig into as many details and develop as complex an understanding of jews as they like. But from the beginning jews will pathologize them and their effort as “anti-semitism” – as a congenital mental disease which has nothing to do with the jews. My argument is that the simple answer to such single-minded hostility is, first of all, to recognize it as such. Second, to recognize that whatever appeal objectivity has to Whites, however inborn it may be, it is in this case part of the problem.

In the face of jewish aggression, Whites have historically capitulated and are now prostrate exactly because we have internalized the fundamental thrust of the jewish critique. Whites have blamed ourselves and our societies for not being tolerant or accomodating enough. The political term for this misguided belief is “liberalism”. The simple answer is to steel ourselves and advise our collective to be less prone to tolerance and accomodation, to resist the urge to blame ourselves and our collective, and instead to recognize manipulative alien collectives, first and foremost the jews, as an endless source of threats and pathology from which we individuals who are aware of the situation have a responsibility to defend ourselves and our collective.

I must emphasize now, again, that I credit Joyce with at least connecting his own discussion of “white pathology” to the jews and jewish power. This connection is obvious and simple to make. Yet it is missing from the diagnosis provided by many other pundits who like to use terms like “white pathology”. This is especially glaring for those pundits who insist on using terms like “white suicide” to push the suicide meme, as I discussed in Fear and Genocide. Pundits like the jew Lawrence Auster and the jewhadi Fjordman come immediately to mind.

I’m also thinking of pundits like Ricardo Duchesne and Jared Taylor, who more or less pretend the jews don’t exist or are “white”, and in either case the jews don’t play a significant role in anything they have to say about “white pathology” or “white suicide”. Duchesne and Taylor were among the handful of writers Kevin MacDonald asked to address the issue in late 2013, in Recently in The Occidental Quarterly: Special Sections on White Pathology.

MacDonald has written about it himself. In an article from October of 2014, Psychopathology and Racial Self-Hate among Whites, he begins:

A prominent feature of the Frankfurt School was the ideology that ethnocentrism among Whites (but not Jews) was a psychopathology. This weapon was taken up by the organized Jewish community which claimed that pro-White and anti-Jewish attitudes were literally public health problems and popularized phrases like “virulent anti-Semitism,” analogizing anti-Jewish attitudes to the spread of a virus.

This campaign has been incredibly successful among Whites. Whites who have internalized this pathogen naturally suppress such attitudes, and they do so despite their universality, and despite the reality that ethnic self-interest is eminently rational from an evolutionary perspective. And even despite the fact that many of those promoting this pathogen are proudly ethnocentric themselves.

But the campaign has been very effective: No one wants to publicly express attitudes that mark one as a psychiatric case.

So far, so good. He even identified jews as the pathogen, or at least as the source of a pathogenic campaign. But then he seems to balk and backpedal, showing some signs that he too has internalized a bit of the pathogen he just described:

Given the rationality and the evolutionary imperative of ethnic interests, there is the opposite suggestion — that at least some of the Whites who express such attitudes are suffering from a psychopathology. After all, the great majority of humanity is, to varying degrees, ethnocentric. and proud of it. What’s wrong with Whites?

This isn’t the opposite suggestion. It’s the same suggestion: There’s something inherently and unfixably wrong with Whites, and it is not caused by the jews. That’s the suggestion. The main example MacDonald focuses on is Pastor Renita Marie, who in response to the jewsmedia propaganda about Ferguson, wrote an article for the jewsmedia expressing guilt about her Whiteness. MacDonald describes her as a “genuine liberal”, a term he says was used by the Frankfurt School. He then explains how the Frankfurt school pseudo-science was wrong, that they “create an upside-down world where ethnocentric Whites had parents who didn’t love them”. But the woman had an ethnocentric upbringing and still turned out to be a race traitor. Therefore, MacDonald seemed to be presenting this as a case of “white pathlogy”, minus the jews. As he puts it:

Rev. Marie has dropped out of the White race and has become a crusader against it. Of course, that means a good career and lots of praise from elites in the contemporary environment. But it’s pretty clear that her motivation is far deeper than merely taking advantage of all the opportunities available these days from hating Whites. A genuine race traitor. Noel Ignatiev would be proud.

But it isn’t at all clear that Marie’s motivation runs any deeper than the jewish pathogenic factors MacDonald himself describes. Instead it seems, as I previously discussed in the case of Joyce, that MacDonald simply doesn’t wish to accept that it is that simple.

Another indication is that MacDonald links Noel Ignatiev’s name to a search of his website. The first hit is an article of his from 2009 titled Promoting genocide of whites? Noel Ignatiev and the culture of Western suicide. He notes that:

the effort by a professor, Noel Ignatiev, and his journal, Race Traitor, to promote the “cultural and psychological genocide of whites.”

Amazingly, MacDonald refuses to take this seriously and argues instead that Ignatiev’s use of the word genocide and his anti-White arguments and activism are just so much hyperbole and nonsense. MacDonald describes how he sees Ignatiev and his allies:

Their hatred assumes a surface legitimacy because the hated “whites” are just a “social construct.” It’s not really about killing people, so where’s the beef? The “genocide” of whites is not about homicide or suicide; it’s only about getting white people to stop thinking that they are white.

Our interpretation is that Ignatiev’s views are nothing more than ethnic competition. As a leftist Jew, he is part of a long tradition that has opposed white interests and identity — the culture of critique that has become the culture of Western suicide.

The culture of critique is a jewish construct, not a White construct. Jews deliberately attempting to induce Whites to stop thinking of themselves as White is genocide, not suicide. This should be obvious to someone who is actually explaining the role played by the jews.

So I have to say – never mind what’s wrong with Whites, or what’s wrong with Duchesne and Taylor – what’s wrong with Joyce and MacDonald? Physicians, heal thyselves!

When I first discussed “white pathology” (in Pathology and Pathogen), I acknowledged that many Whites are clearly behaving pathologically. My point was that the pathogen, the jews, explains this. Furthermore, jewish psychological influence is visible even in Whites who are conscious of race and the jews, even in those who attempt to explain jewish psychological influence, like Joyce and, as I’ve just described, MacDonald.

The most negative response I’ve gotten was, “We know already what is wrong with the Jews … we should now ask ourselves what is wrong with us”. This is precisely the suggestion Joyce and MacDonald have made and that I’ve taken issue with.

I consider it a problem that even White men as knowledgable about the jews and jewish power as MacDonald and Joyce are can, for fear of appearing simple-minded, come across instead as overeager to buy into the less plausible idea of a congenital “white pathology”, independent of the jews. An idea which is primarily promoted by jews themselves and others who seem most interested to ignore or at least downplay the role of jews.

So far I’ve been reiterating and fleshing out of points and arguments I’ve already made. I’d like to add a new twist now, another way of seeing the relationship between Whites and jews that I think dovetails with this discussion. It also fits my previous suggestion that Whites need to confront the parasitic nature of that relationship, and not shy from taking the White side in it.

I first discussed Stockholm Syndrome in The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 3. It was trying to understand and explain the behavior of men like John Derbyshire (see John Derbyshire and The Suicide Thing), who is well aware of jewish power and the fear they induce, but who in spite of that, or rather because of it, minimizes the role of the jews and denounces braver and more honest men than himself who don’t, men like Kevin MacDonald.

Stockholm syndrome:

or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.

At the time I quoted a portion of an article describing the Symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome, which I’ll quote again here, because it can be seen as a metaphor for the broader mainstream media and political zeitgeist, well beyond Derbyshire and MacDonald:

Included in these traits are the prisoner’s belief (correct or incorrect, it doesn’t matter) that he or she cannot escape, which means that survival must occur within the rules set by the all-powerful captor; and the prisoner’s isolation from people not being held by the captors, which prohibits any outside view of the captors from infringing on the psychological processes that lead to Stockholm syndrome.

In the current zeitgeist the White “prisoners”, or hosts, dare not question their jew “captors”, the parasites, who quite literally dictate and diligently enforce the rules of “proper” discourse. This is popularly referred to as political correctness, though the term semitic correctness is more fitting.

The crux of capture-bonding is that the “prisoners” don’t see their “captors” as wrong-doers, but out of ignorance or pity come over time to sympathize and make excuses for them instead.

There is a related psychological phenomenon whose symptoms are just as much or more relevant to the relationship between Whites and jews, and specifically the discussion of “anti-semitism” and “white pathology”. It’s called gaslighting:

Gaslighting or gas-lighting[1] is a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted/spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception and sanity.[2] Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

The term owes its origin to the play Gas Light and its film adaptations, after which it was coined popularly.

Sociopaths frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but typically, are also charming and convincing liars who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their perceptions.

The obvious analogy is that the jews and their psychoanalytic theories of “anti-semitism” are the mental abusers, the sociopathic liars who deny any wrongdoing, and Whites are the victims of their mental abuse, and exhibit “white pathology” as a result of it.

Another definition of the term explains in more detail:

Gaslighting – The practice of brainwashing or convincing a mentally healthy individual that they are going insane or that their understanding of reality is mistaken or false. The term “Gaslighting” is based on the 1944 MGM movie “Gaslight”.

Casting You as the Crazy One

In the classic suspense thriller, Gaslight, Paula (Ingrid Bergman) marries the villainous Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer), not realizing that he is the one who murdered her aunt and is now searching for her missing jewels.

To cover up his treachery, he tries to persuade Paula that she is going mad, so he can search the attic for the jewels without her interference. He plants missing objects on her person in order to make her believe that she has no recollection of reality.

Essentially, it describes forms of manipulation which are designed to make the victim lose their grip on the truth or doubt their perception of reality.

Among the examples of what it looks like that fit the jews:

A person acts threateningly and then accuses you of abuse when you react in self-defense.

How it Feels

Gaslighting can be a terrifying experience. It can quickly put you on the defensive – trying to justify your own actions or behaviors – when you started out by challenging someone else’s questionable behavior.

A gaslighting perpetrator’s fabrications may be presented so convincingly and with such conviction you begin to question yourself and your own memories and judgment.

Among a list of points advising what NOT to do:

Don’t waste your time trying to convince someone who has already made up their mind about you that they should reconsider.

In other words, don’t bother arguing with jews or other true-believer anti-Whites.

Don’t blame yourself for what the other person is feeling or how they are behaving. Don’t look for ways to change yourself to try to fix another person. As the OOTF 3 C’s mantra says: “You didn’t cause it, you can’t cure it and you can’t control it.” You are only responsible for your own words and actions.

In other words, don’t go searching for “white pathology” when the effort jews make to create it is staring you right in the face. If you do, then you are responsible for that.

I’ll emphasize again right here that I’m drawing an analogy. It’s not a perfect fit. For one thing, gaslighting ordinarily describes a relationship between two individuals, whereas the analog I’m making is for the relationship between Whites and jews collectively, even though within those collectives there are a broad spectrum of individual motives and attitudes.

I do think however that the analogy is useful because it fits the most relevant and important aspect of the relationship between Whites and jews, the relatively conscious and lopsided relationship between White and jew elites.

Another description from a blog called Narcissists Suck:

Gaslighting occurs when a person you trust to tell you the truth about reality, is, in fact, bending reality with lies. When this happens consistently over a period of time it causes you to question your sanity.

This is important. For whatever reason one participant in the gaslighting relationship trusts the other. They do not expect and cannot accept that the other could lie to them. The other participant, in contrast, is deliberately manipulating and exploiting that trust.

Driving the victim insane may not be their main intent, as it is described elsewhere, but can instead be seen as a long-term result of the primary ingredient, the unrequited love, the one-sided abuse and deceit.

If you find yourself often questioning your own sanity you need to suspect you are being gaslighted. In the absence of any who will support what you are seeing, hearing, and knowing, please give yourself permission to believe yourself. Gaslighting is a deliberate and evil tactic. So when you’ve determined that someone is doing this to you, it is past time to remove yourself from this person’s sphere of influence.

I found a description connecting narcissism, gaslighting and Stockholm Syndrome. Once again, there are some obvious parallels to the relationship between elite Whites and jews – in particular the description of narcissists fits the jews.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disease (DSM) – 5 2013 Changes:

Narcissistic Victim Syndrome (NVS)

Is the result of the damages that occur to a person who is closely connected or involved with or works with a Narcissist. A narcissist is someone who needs total control and believes the world revolves around them and them only. The narcissist craves constant praise, admiration, honor and respect, even when they do not deserve it. They will use any means within which to obtain this constant control including the following: intimidation, abuse (physical, sexual, emotional and more), isolation, deprivation, financial/economic control and anything else that they can use to keep the victim under their thumb and control. One of their best tools is Gaslighting or the denigrating of the victim so they believe they are crazy and that only the Narcissist is capable of taking care of them or being with them. The narcissist is also always right and the perfect person, thus they could never possibly be wrong. This lends well with the theory of Gaslighting as the Narcissist will have the victim believe that they are too weak, or crazy, or delusional and more. They will actually cause the victim to distrust their own selves and ability to think for themselves. Narcissists are about total and complete submission of control to them. They do not recognize any boundaries or borders between them and others. They are the border control

Some of the signs and symptoms of NVS include:

A victim of NVS can exhibit Stockholm syndrome or cult-like behavior joining up with the aggressor. They will defend and protect the narcissist for fear of not being loved or part of their inner circle. The victim’s self-esteem is so torn down by the Gaslighting and other crazy making behaviors of the Narcissist that it is just easier for them to follow along. They often are so emotionally beaten down they do not realize what is even happening to them, just that they are angry or sad all the time, and feel like they have no persona or sense of self.

They will/can show signs of Cognitive Dissonance, which basically means that they know that the situation they are in is no good, but they continue to stay it, using false rational. Yet, they are angry, scared, confused, lost and do not know where to turn to. They fear things that never happened or even exist but because the Narcissist says they did, the Victim is programmed to believe it is so. [calls to mind "RAMPANT ANTI-SEMITISM!" and "THE HOLOCAUST!" -T] Their ability to think clearly has been disrupted and taken over by the Narcissist.

There’s much more I could say about this analogy, but as with what I had to say about parasitism, the main point is that it is not only more explanative than some vague “white pathology”, but prescriptive as well.

When You Love Your Abuser: Stockholm Syndrome and Trauma Bonds, for example, offers some further advice:

the only way to escape this dangerous dependency upon a psychopath is to remove yourself permanently from his influence. Any contact with him keeps you trapped in his web of manipulation and deceit. In some respects, however, this is a circular proposition. If you have the strength to leave a psychopath and the lucidity to reconsider your relationship with him, then you’re probably not suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

As we recall, psychopaths establish control of their victims BITE by BITE, like emotional vampires. Once again, “BITE” stands for “behavior, information, thoughts and emotions.” Psychopaths attempt to control all aspects of their partners’ experience of reality.

To counteract their dangerous influence, you need to BITE back. Give the victim a true perception of reality and real emotional support.

Whites need to produce our own media, which offers a true perception of reality and real emotional support. Explain what the jews are doing, and how they are doing it. Counter the lie that they’re just an odd kind of “white” people who are, or could ever be, on the same side. Point out that the jews are gaslighting Whites – that their anti-White narrative about “racism”, “anti-semitism”, “blood libel”, “the holocaust”, and more is manipulative, abusive. Whites shouldn’t put up with this because it obviously isn’t good for Whites.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

65 thoughts on “Gaslighting”

  1. probably no need to publish this.
    Your audio is very (tin)sounding like low MP3 and too much treble,
    Have you considered adding some bass to it,give it some oompf?

  2. Given the rationality and the evolutionary imperative of ethnic interests, there is the opposite suggestion — that at least some of the Whites who express such attitudes are suffering from a psychopathology. After all, the great majority of humanity is, to varying degrees, ethnocentric. and proud of it. What’s wrong with Whites?

    I think K-Mac was unclear here. I think what the meaning he intended to convey was that some ethnomasochistic Whites (like the woman mentioned further down) might be pathological, which, would be the ‘opposite’ suggestion.

    I think he’s trying to say that it isn’t those that display ethnic and racial loyalty that are pathological but those that are pathologically disloyal to the race.

    This reading seems to be correct but not any better since K-Mac seems to be saying that most whites that are disloyal to their tribe aren’t pathological. He hints that most are just selfish and seeking to advance at the expense of the group. He seems to defined this as rational self-interest rather than destructive pathology.

    Although I admit I could be misreading here it doesn’t matter since either view seems incorrect. On your reading he of course mistakes cause for effect and on mine he doesn’t seem to consider cutthroating amongst Whites to be pathological.

  3. Lol. Well, besides my audio comment. This was another great show. The last three or so have been really well done and very informative.

    I see this pathological altruism meme all over the net or the White suicide and the great, we deserve it because WE suck memes.

    I always to myself, lightly questioned the praise of McDonald, his stance seems to be antiWhite in a sense that through all his brilliance he concludes its OUR fault not because of action or lack thereof but because it’s how WE are. So our fate in sealed, since WE cannot stop or change who WE are.

    McDonald essentially, as you say, is blaming Whites and excusing jews. Just not as bad as others do.

    I have argued this with alleged pro Whites on Twitter and blogs and they either block me or resort to calling me a jew because I point out its not suicide, its genocide. They cling to this notion of blaming Whites and that traitor Whites are worse than jews, so we must blame our own and not the jew.

    It seems like blaming Whites is a safe out, it’s easier than admitting we have an external enemy. So, we must fight Whites and not the reason you’re upset with US. It may be the victim narrative the jews have created is so deep in some they may have mental blocks in acknowledging the depth of the jew hate for us?

    Without the jew these alleged traitors would not exist. Why is this concept so hard to grasp for some?

    Focus on the jew, that is the root, anything less and you’re just chopping at branches.

    I hope this makes sense or you can offer some crticism or correction in what I wrote?

  4. Thanks for the feedback. The low audio quality is a combination of a cheapo headset and Skype. I think Skype puts the ceiling on the quality (16Khz, mono) rather than my MP3 parameters (32 Kbps), but I should probably at least try a decent mic.

  5. Swedish Radio Sorry for ‘Anti-Semitic’ Responsibility Question – Forward.com:

    Swedish public radio apologized for a presenter’s question to the country’s Israeli ambassador about whether Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism.

    “We offer our fullest apologies for this question,” Sveriges Radio said in a statement on its website. “It was misleading and put blame on individuals and on a vilified group.”

    The Sveriges Radio reporter in a live interview asked the envoy, Isaac Bachman, “Are Jews themselves responsible for the progression of anti-Semitism?” Bachman responded that he rejects the question, to which the reporter responded, “Why,” the French news agency AFP reported.

    . . .

    Along with the apology, which also said, “The Jewish community has suffered a horrible act of terror and has all our sympathy,” the station removed the program from its online archive.

    Is such grovelling the effect of gaslighting from outside, the influence of jews on the inside, or both? If there is any congenital White tendency toward objectivity it would have to be OVERCOME in order to accomodate such a total jew-particular apology. Among the treasonous White elite “pathological altruism” might be a larger component (producing misplaced sympathy for Palestinians and alien interlopers in the first place) but as we can see in this example and others like it, when push comes to shove concern for (or fear of) “the jewish community” trumps all other factors.

  6. Apropos KMac’s discussion of the Frankfurt school and parenting, here’s Jimmy Marr’s pithy take on the subject:

    Ya see, anytime a jew tells you something, you should ask yourself what it’s opposite is.

    In the case of Freud and all modern psychology, there is endless focus on parent-child relationships as forgers of personality.

    The opposite would be a complete acceptance genetic heredity as determinative of personality. This viewpoint is what all those jew-inspired volumes of psychobabble are designed to obscure.

    The truth is exactly as a notoriously evil genius once said, “It ain’t in the ism. It’s in the jism”

  7. Excellent episode, very thought-provoking!

    I’ll note that, despite your setting out to prove the opposite, you actually end up concluding that pathology is two-sided after all. There is “Jewish pathology” (viz. narcissism) and there is “White pathology” (viz. NVS). Analytically speaking, that is undoubtedly the right way to approach these issues. The Jew-White relationship is precisely that, and any relationship will have two parties. That, of course, does not mean that the two are morally equivalent, only that it is useful to make a distinction between the purely mechanical or functional side of the relationship on the one hand, and its moral evaluation on the other.

    To free ourselves of ─ or at least protect ourselves against ─ the pernicious influence of the Jewry, we need to gain a better understanding of the mechanical-functional aspects of the relationship. I’ve found your podcast series extremely helpful in that regard, and I’m hoping you will continue to explore other metaphors in addition to the ones you have looked into thus far. A concept that comes to mind is the sado-masochistic class of relationships, which could be juxtaposed against the relationship between the ideologies of Judaism and Christianity. Other concepts that might be useful as extensions of this podcast are “narcissistic supply” and related theories, as well as “projective identification”. The Jews have a well-documented propensity to project their own pathology upon others, which is precisely what projective identification is about.

    Again thanks, I’m looking forward to the next instalment! ─ A.B.

  8. Tan these Feb podcasts bring together the multiple strands you have researched since the Yeager days. All the flesh has been boiled off the skeleton.

  9. Solid work here. I rarely post things like this on Facebook – mixed company and all – but you were too clear and information-dense to pass up. And your case is instantly PROVABLE, too, from everyday White experience in the modern world.

    I could see that White Nationalists pushing “white pathology” were pissing you off, and now I understand why. And I agree completely. Until now I was: “So we have a chink in our armor? Who’s gonna die?”

    Not anymore. It’s not us. It’s them. Every time!

  10. Aurora,

    despite your setting out to prove the opposite, you actually end up concluding that pathology is two-sided after all

    What I’ve set out to establish is that a holistic view (eg. pathology/pathogen host/parasite) makes more sense and has more utility than the far more typically disconnected discussions of jewish shenanigans and White pathology/altruism/suicide.

    I probably won’t go much deeper into psychology/psychoanalysis. There are basic truths about the psyche in there, but it’s largely a thicket of tedious jewish bullshit.

  11. Is it really a question that whites are vulnerable to Jewish subversion? Is it really a question that whites would be better off if we could understand and, if possible, fix these vulnerabilities?

    It strikes me that you are hung up on a single word: pathology. Jews argue that whites are pathological because we are too ethnocentric. MacDonald wonders if we are pathological because we are not ethnocentric enough. And you claim they are saying the same thing because they are using the same word, “pathology,” to describe completely opposite conditions.

    So let’s just set that word aside and talk about white vulnerabilities and design flaws. Because if we were not intrinsically vulnerable to Jewish subversion, then we would be invulnerable, wouldn’t we? And if we were invulnerable to Jewish subversion, we would not be in the mess we are in today.

    RE pathogen-pathology: Not every pathological condition is caused solely by outside forces. And even in the cases where there are external pathogens, they can’t cause pathologies without some vulnerability in their victim, for example, a lack of immunity. So, how can we immunize ourselves against the Jewish pathogen?

  12. T. is essentially correct in de-psychologizing the relationship between Jews and Whites. At the elite level, it’s mostly the power of money…via controlling the Central Bank debt-and-fiat currency manufacturing machine. The Jews simply buy off the White elite. via campaign finance, the Wall St. insider-traded, Federal Reserve funded fake “investment” account, and so forth. At the mass level, it’s their lock on the old, legacy MSM and a perpetual barrage of pro-Jew, anti-White propaganda. Which means that, when the Jews’ Universal debtPonzi collapses, so will most of their power over us. They’ll be forced to resort to sheer, naked violence…just as they do in occupied Palestine. The Jews, of course, know this, which is why the ongoing, frantic gun-grab by their stooge politicians.

  13. Since your article calling out Ricardo Duchesne I’ve wondered if it didn’t have an effect on him not pretending Jews are White people anymore. I hope so, anyway. He hasn’t done it since then, that I know of, and in an interview some time after he recommended The Occidental Observer for the Jewish question.

    If you want to avoid the Jewish issue to keep your job, or for other strategic reasons, that’s fine with me. Point people to TOO, even better. Just don’t pretend that Jews are White.

    Other than that one blunder he seems to be doing some great work up in Canada and has written some great stuff.

  14. Well, I suppose that’s as good as it gets with the “dumb goyim”. What’s lacking on the Gentile side these days is simply intellectual horsepower. When they can’t handle the maths, they have an outburst and walk out of the classroom: “This is bullshit!” Little wonder the best and brightest amongst them prefer the company of Jews.

    The Jewish tragedy is that their intelligence comes with a tendency towards unrighteousness. Psychopathy is very much a Jewish disorder. Top Gentiles therefore are faced with a dilemma: it’s either the goy dumbasses or the Jew psychos. The future, I think, belongs to the “righteous psychopath”, or the righteous Jew. Regrettably there aren’t all that many of them, but the few that exist are extremely powerful. Effortless superiority.

  15. I fully agree with you Tan. Over at Occidental Observer is yet another article about the illness of Whites:
    Bend It Like Bennett: Genuflecting to Jewish Power
    I submitted this post but I don’t know that it will make it past the censors: Bennett is doing what most feminine brains do, they cater to power. There is no “psychosis” about it. There is nothing wrong with Whites. White are the victim of jew manipulation. Psychoanalyzing Whites is just another way of letting jews off the hook. Tanstaafl says it best, “There’s a connection between “white suicide” and “white pathology”. They operate on the same psychological mechanism. The rationale is that we’re supposedly smart and sane if we take responsibility, if we DON’T blame someone else, or at least as long as we don’t blame the jews. So instead we’re encouraged to do something truly stupid and insane, and blame our own race. Not ourselves personally, mind you. That’s a key part of the trick. It’s an appeal to SELF-esteem as opposed to GROUP-esteem. This idea is that our poor race is ill, but not we individuals who are capable and enlightened and accept “white pathology”.”

  16. “Jew! Jew! Jew!”

    Who said that? … Recently, too many White leaders, like Tom Metzger, who chide those who always and consistently name the jew. They imply that it misses a greater problem — ourselves — but miss two important factors:

    1. Most people, even today with the internet, have never heard that the jew is Enemy #1. (Those who have still require continual reinforcement to offset the dominent kikejew control of most main stream and alternate media.)

    2. Many White leaders suffer from the error of ‘positive feedback’. (Their audience is the proverbial ‘choir’ such that they hear “Jew! Jew! Jew!” amongst themselves and think the madding crowd hears it too. They don’t!)

    Of course, the ‘jew’ inside of us could be considered that greater problem of which they speak — a valid point; however, that is no excuse to relegate White Enemy #1 to “just another problem”.

    In 1983 one of our greats railed “Jew! Jew! Jew!” in his speach before the National Alliance. We should always remember this.

    Bob

  17. Greg,

    Is it really a question that whites are vulnerable to Jewish subversion? Is it really a question that whites would be better off if we could understand and, if possible, fix these vulnerabilities?

    Most of the discussion of “white pathology” is vague. It seems to be more about blaming Whites and excusing (or ignoring) jews. It is hardly at all about identifying vulnerabilities, and even less about fixing them.

    I think the main vulnerability is that Whites don’t see the jews as hostile aliens. Duchesne and Taylor aren’t going to fix this.

    Another vulnerability is that even many Whites who are race- and jew-aware don’t seem to appreciate the parasitical nature of the jews. Thus they tend to underestimate the impact of jewish infiltration and manipulation. Joyce and MacDonald (and other prominent historical intellectual “anti-semites”) needlessly try to demonstrate that they aren’t stupid or crazy. In this case by paying lip service to this vague “white pathology” idea. This itself is a vulnerability, not a fix for one.

    you claim they are saying the same thing because they are using the same word, “pathology,” to describe completely opposite conditions

    No, it’s not about the word pathlogy. My point is that “anti-semitism” (as jews use it) and “white pathology” (as MacDonald and Joyce use it) refer to the same CONDITION: There’s something inherently and unfixably wrong with Whites, and it is not caused by the jews. The jews think this condition is bad for the jews. The “white pathologists” think this condition is bad for Whites. The underlying condition they’re talking about is the SAME.

    You can quibble about whether this or that proponent of “white pathology” actually argues it is inherent or unfixable – but I think it’s pretty clear that the “not caused by the jews” part is what Duchesne, Taylor, MacDonald and Joyce (and others who use the term) agree on. Duchesne and Taylor won’t even acknowledge that the pathological behavior of Whites has anything to do with the activity of a pathogen, a parasite. MacDonald and Joyce see the connection but balk at comprehending it as such.

    RE pathogen-pathology: Not every pathological condition is caused solely by outside forces.

    If you use medical terminology and analogies, then you should accept the implications. Every “pathological condition” worthy of the label implies there is literally an “outside force”, a disease causing it. “White pathology”, as I’ve criticized and as you imply here, is a theory of spontaneous generation. Medical science long ago replaced such fallacious beliefs with the germ theory of disease.

    So, how can we immunize ourselves against the Jewish pathogen?

    Step #1: Explicitly recognize there is an outside force, a jewish pathogen, which calls for immunization. Thus “white pathlogists” should first heal themselves.

  18. Aurora,

    Well, I suppose that’s as good as it gets with the “dumb goyim”. What’s lacking on the Gentile side these days is simply intellectual horsepower. When they can’t handle the maths, they have an outburst and walk out of the classroom: “This is bullshit!” Little wonder the best and brightest amongst them prefer the company of Jews.

    Whites don’t have any kind of horsepower problem. We have a driver problem.

    The choice is not between “goy dumbasses or the jew psychos”, though I can see that’s a common rationalization the self-imagined “best and brightest” use to side with the jews. I think the problem is not that Whites have failed to engage and debate jewish bullshit. The problem is that they have.

    White intellects are especially prone to the delusion that we just have to argue with the jews harder, better and more – when, in the end, it is not about arguing with them but recognizing them as the enemy and defeating them. Whites need leaders who realize that Whites are in an existential struggle with the jews, not a fucking classroom debate.

  19. Tan writes:

    If you use medical terminology and analogies, then you should accept the implications. Every “pathological condition” worthy of the label implies there is literally an “outside force”, a disease causing it. “White pathology”, as I’ve criticized and as you imply here, is a theory of spontaneous generation. Medical science long ago replaced such fallacious beliefs with the germ theory of disease.

    When people talk about white pathologies in relation to the Jewish question, they are talking about psychological pathologies that make whites susceptible to Jewish manipulation. When people talk about pathological narcissism or pathological altruism, is it your position that the word “pathology” obligates them to find a germ to explain it, lest they fall into the error of spontaneous generation?

    You really are depending on word games here. So let’s flip the table. Forget about “pathology.” Let’s talk about white “vulnerabilities” to Jewish subversion. White vulnerability to Jewish manipulation is not caused by Jewish manipulation. It is what makes Jewish manipulation possible in the first place. What are those vulnerabilities?

  20. Whites, as others, are not a monolith!
    Most are lemming sheeple – subservient to power.
    Some are independent, and think – flaws and all.

    We who lead are of rare breed,
    at least that’s what we think!
    Our enemy thinks the same, you see.
    The question is: Who’s free?

  21. Tan writes:

    My point is that “anti-semitism” (as jews use it) and “white pathology” (as MacDonald and Joyce use it) refer to the same CONDITION: There’s something inherently and unfixably wrong with Whites, and it is not caused by the jews. The jews think this condition is bad for the jews. The “white pathologists” think this condition is bad for Whites. The underlying condition they’re talking about is the SAME.

    You can quibble about whether this or that proponent of “white pathology” actually argues it is inherent or unfixable – but I think it’s pretty clear that the “not caused by the jews” part is what Duchesne, Taylor, MacDonald and Joyce (and others who use the term) agree on.

    As I read this, you are saying, “Whites are too ethnocentric” and “Whites are insufficiently ethnocentric” mean the same thing because they both refer to white traits. That is true, but it is a superficial identity. In their substance, however, i.e., their real meaning, those two propositions are not only different, they are diametric opposites.

  22. Greg,

    When people talk about pathological narcissism or pathological altruism, is it your position that the word “pathology” obligates them to find a germ to explain it, lest they fall into the error of spontaneous generation?

    Their use of the word pathology invites the analogy. I think the analogy has value. I take it seriously. I’d like them to do so as well, for example by seeking out the psychological analog of a germ. Joyce and MacDonald come close. Duchesne and Taylor do not.

    You really are depending on word games here. So let’s flip the table. Forget about “pathology.” Let’s talk about white “vulnerabilities” to Jewish subversion.

    You should suggest that to the “white pathologists”. My point is that talking about “white pathology” is a way of not talking about White vulnerabilities to jewish subversion – as I said, “not the jews” is the common element. Can you acknowledge that?

    White vulnerability to Jewish manipulation is not caused by Jewish manipulation. It is what makes Jewish manipulation possible in the first place.

    I say there’s a chicken and an egg. You’re insisting the egg came first.

    In the first place, infiltration enables manipulation. The primary White vulnerability is an unwillingness/inability to see the jews as hostile aliens and thus to see jewish manipulation as hostile alien manipulation. This vulnerability is largely if not entirely a product of jewish infiltration and manipulation.

    My main point is that it is a relationship. An exploitative, parasitic relationship. The jewish organism has always been hyperconscious of itself and the nature of the relationship, while its host (or rather its string of hosts) has always been relatively unconscious. Whites today are in a situation which the jews have actively cultivated. In fact, they have cultivated such relationships, over and over, for millenia.

  23. Greg,

    As I read this, you are saying, “Whites are too ethnocentric” and “Whites are insufficiently ethnocentric” mean the same thing because they both refer to white traits. That is true, but it is a superficial identity. In their substance, however, i.e., their real meaning, those two propositions are not only different, they are diametric opposites.

    No. I’m saying the meaning is subjective, that the interpretation of the terms may come from opposite points of view, but the substance, the underlying phenomenon being described, is the same.

    As I pointed out in Fear and Genocide, Tim Wise and Jared Taylor both use the term “white pathology”. Wise uses it to mean “Whites are too ethnocentric”. Taylor uses it to mean “Whites are insufficiently ethnocentric”. The substance in both cases is “Whites are broken in some way that the jews had nothing to do with”.

  24. Sure, I will concede that whites have problems that Jews did not cause. Does that mean that I agree with Tim Wise on the substance of those problems? No, not at all. Tim Wise thinks that whites are too “hateful” and ethnocentric. I think that whites are not “hateful” and ethnocentric enough. Your whole argument strikes me as (1) asserting an inessential and superficial similarity between two diametrically opposed positions, so (2) you can rhetorically stigmatize people like Kevin MacDonald for wanting to explore whether and how whites have intrinsic vulnerabilities to Jewish manipulation. Your ultimate motives are obscure to me.

  25. I’m confident my arguments have substance and that I’ve made them clear enough. I think you’re simply determined to dismiss them. If what I’m arguing is as inessential and superficial as you say, then you have no cause for concern.

  26. Whites are trusting, trust worthy people. You can take a White at their word. Jews are cunning, the source of their manipulation. Trusting is a good thing. A high trust society creates wealth and opportunity and the jew is drawn to this. These two very different peoples need to be separated. The lion will never lay with the lamb.

  27. Very good podcast Tan.

    In particular your explanation on the “gaslighting” technique that jews use to destroy White resistance and demoralize us through non-stop anti-White propaganda and the constant portrayal of resistance to jew aggression as being some sort of mental disease. The victim of aggression is actually the aggressor and other such nonsense.

    I like this: “The obvious analogy is that the jews and their psychoanalytic theories of “anti-semitism” are the mental abusers, the sociopathic liars who deny any wrongdoing, and Whites are the victims of their mental abuse, and exhibit “white pathology” as a result of it.”

    The fact is we are vulnerable to jewish psychopaths, but that shouldn’t be seen as some kind of White pathology. Do we need to change our natures and become like serial killers to counter serial killers? No.

    To counter these jewish pyschos we need enough Whites to simply wake up and understand what they are doing to us and expose their aims and methods. That is only beginning to happen.

    ——————

    For my latest blog post, An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor, click here >>> KATANA

    [http://katana17.wordpress.com]

  28. Tanstaafl, please accept a wholehearted ‘thank you’ for your efforts on behalf of our
    beleaguered race.

    I also happen to see value in using biomedical analogies when discussing the infamous “JQ” as I find it not only facilitates spreading the message to those willing to lend me an ear but also appears to have the added bonus of getting under the skin of our enemies, both the self-chosen people and their philo-semitic pets.

    How a dearth of goy deference enrages the soul of the parasite and its boot-licking lackeys!

    Specifically, I describe the Jew as an HIV-like virus that acts to paralyze the nation’s immune system, thus exposing the host society to a vast array of deadly pathogens that the Jew feverishly promotes such as abortion, pornography, sodomy, homosexuality, pedophilia, child prostitution, degenerate art, feminism, multiculturalism, miscegenation, espionage, usury, open borders, free trade, ad infinitum nauseam!

    The primary mechanism for suppressing the natural immune system of our body politic has been a virulent form of thought control known as “political correctness.” Indeed, kosher p.c. has been so effective that our overlords can now rely on the self-censoring qualities of the brainwashed and psychologically battered masses resulting in a near total capitulation and acquiescence to their homicidal dictates. Those not willing to toe the semitically correct line are socially ostracized and, if need be, subjected to punitive acts of financial extortion and judicial terror to ensure compliance.

    Ain’t post-modern Amerika a slice?

    Even a healthy nation must succumb to the maladies and the eventual death that awaits unless the Jew is identified, suppressed and expelled from the realm. Throughout history, our race as well as others have responded to this agent of disease via nature’s time-tested and proven prescription that dates back to the ancient Romans: persecution and expulsion of the Jew.

    Here’s a partial list of Jewish persecutions and expulsions over the past 2000 years:

    http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/HistoryJewishPersecution/

    Let us not mince words. The Jews are a parasitic race of nation-wreckers and soul-destroyers; they are destruction incarnate and their nature is death. It’s explicitly clear from history that nations, once thoroughly penetrated by Jews, either successfully identify, persecute and expel them or eventually succumb to their infections and perish.

    Our choice as a people is simple: identification, suppression and expulsion of the Jew from our midst or death of our nation states and possibly the destruction of the genetic stock that made Western Civilization possible.

    Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that such actions will be forthcoming or are even possible at this stage given that we find ourselves deep behind enemy lines, under the cultural and political domination of scabrous aliens and hired traitors steeped in subversion and crime and seemingly bent on our complete destruction. Currently, things appear hopeless but not desperate. It is only when life itself becomes desperate for the majority of our people that our circumstances will no longer seem hopeless. In other words, no change is possible until there is an overwhelming need for it to occur. Until dawn sheds her light unto this darkest hour, please continue your efforts at spreading the word and accept my very best wishes with success in the years to come.

    PER ASPERA AD ASTRA

    Scipio Americanus

  29. Parasitism and other analogues mentioned strike me as fertile ground. However what about responses to parasitism?

    I’m not clear how you can claim nothing wrong with our race, and here is why.

    Taking parasitism in nature for example. In many cases the parasitism is managed eg. dust bathing and grooming (eg. monkeys co-operating to remove ticks and fleas. Or internally such as malaria where genetic immunity can occur (albeit at a cost in the case of sickle cell anaemia).

    Not best examples perhaps, but what I’m getting at is it appears Whites lack any evolved way of recognising and responding to Jewish parasitism. In that sense surely there is something wrong with Whites?

    If you contest this then where are the other races in this parasitism down through the ages?

    How about Jewish parasitism against:
    East Asians
    Indian sub-continentals
    Arabs in general
    (Africans perhaps excluded since apart from a possible adventure for Gold in ‘Great Zimbabwe’, not a lot doing there).

    I suspect the difference making it a White vs Jew issue down through history is:

    1) Jews can pass for “white” and/or Mediteranean
    2) Whites created disproportionate wealth making us a favoured target
    3) Whites project Aryan traits onto non-Whites revealing a lack of natural racial protectionism

    We are perhaps tailor-made victims, so if you could add anything in another podcast focusing on response strategies to parasitism I would be eager to hear your thoughts.

    Thanks regardless.

  30. Mark,

    I’m not clear how you can claim nothing wrong with our race

    I have made no such claim.

    what I’m getting at is it appears Whites lack any evolved way of recognising and responding to Jewish parasitism. In that sense surely there is something wrong with Whites?

    Lack? The parasite has been expelled many times.

    If you contest this then where are the other races in this parasitism down through the ages?

    It’s not black or white but a matter of degree. Since antiquity the jews have infiltrated and established colonies in every corner of the civilized world, manipulating, exploiting, and in some cases exterminating every race along the way. The apparent preference for Whites probably has more to do with the value of the human capital, the resources available for exploitation, than anything else.

  31. Apols regarding “no such claim”. Unfortunately written in haste and poorly worded.

    Your actual point @4:22 mins in to “resist the urge to blame ourselves” is what I should have cited and I accept this. To be clearer however, my own concern was that yes while blame is not applicable, perhaps some innate vulnerability is an issue, and you have not yet discussed response strategies to parasitism in nature which I really think could be interesting.

    Regarding “Lack? The parasite has been expelled many times.”. Accepted, but why so “many times”? It is as if we never learn surely? Our collective experience being of only expelling each time after damage has been already done. Let’s face it, in the past, our own elites prevaricated, appeased and accomodated until popular outrage forced them to act. Why do so many European cities an old “Jewish quarter” if this were not so?

    ————- Speaking of elites, historical rant follows. SNIP HERE – perhaps —————-

    Just my understanding but, the rise of the Ashkenazis took Jewry’s power to a new level in that they began touting themselves as “pass-for-White-independent mediators” in diplomacy between European monarchs, and in doing so via agitation, became king-makers then able to manipulate puppet kings into war/debt by feeding on internecine nationalistic narratives finally obtaining full servitude from the victor. Compounding this, eventually marriage into enough of the aristocratic rump that remote control of the power base in many European countries became entrenched.

    Oblivious to the full extent of this, along comes our modern caricature of cartoon-goose-stepping scary Adolf Hitler, and if he was guilty of anything I suspect it was primarily gambling our entire posterity on a woeful underestimation of the above (yes so convenient with hindsight – accepted but still) he naively and repeatedly offered negotiations for peace and post-Versailles-justice again and again. Hitler was screwed from the outset as three Jewish controlled empires then afforded him false confidence only to swiftly re-fashion the former media superstar into a worldwide golem waiting to be crushed along with Europe itself. Jewry’s single regret probably being that due to timing they didn’t get to nuke Germany – an orgasm missed.

    I do wonder that if the Jewish masses came to know that their own leaders sanctioned the deaths of at least 250K of their own to war-deseases (the Holohoax) curteousy of the most intensive arial bombing ever committed against civilians/infrastructure, if that might divide them? It’s surely like breaking a code of honour amongst criminals.

    I doubt the complete genocide of Europeans will come to pass because, when it comes to demand for Northwestern-European-looking people in the sex/paedophile/ritual sacrifice market towards the end of the century, surely the laws of supply and demand will make it far too lucrative to miss out on a White human ‘farming’ opportunity (if managed dicreetly of course).

    Meanwhile our atomised race bathes in the internalisation you describe because sadly for every day folk, it is the microcosm that is their real world. They know only the day-to-day ‘rules’ of conduct and know the consequences of breaking them so to enter Stockholm Syndrome is probably attractive. I get so tired of WNs calling for people to “do something”. Do what? Get fired/banklrupted, lose family/kids, get ostracised and/or jailed for “hate speech” (esp. UK, Europe)?

    The relevant context is the macrocosm of course, but that’s been headed off even in thought by White racial atomisation. Until we become “us” in the macrocosm we are done for, and it needn’t be all of us, just enough for our genetic breeding pool to survive in a consious state.

    To the upside, and bizarrely, we do exist as “us” as a collective group in the enemy narrative – one for blame and never for credit (satire never had such fertile ground). The three canards I see are:

    1) World dominating genocidal ‘nazis’
    2) Slavers
    3) Colonial empires

    Other than that, Whites are squeaky clean and each Jewganda item is rejectable to me as outright lie, lying by omission, and supressing universal standards of the day respectively.

    Where is the real credit? Gifting that little thing, “modernity” to the entire World at breakneck speed comes to mind. Our race has done nothing collectively to be ashamed of and everything to be proud of. If that sounds militant – then good.

    I think all of this is actually quite easy to propogate (despite all considerations above) but for one thing, money – the first thing Jews seize and corrupt with. It looks to me like everything remains in suspended animation until financial power is undermined, because politics and idealogy are nothing compared to the lure of money and its control over common people.

    Perhaps this is our key to escaping parasitism, accepting that a currency based on nothing but debt-based pieces of worthless paper can be replaced by some kind of non-taxable usury-free Bitcoin-like system (if there could be such a thing). Or if not, encourage WNs to invest in Bitcoin as it is? Got to be better for donations than accepting toilet paper as money long term I’d have thought. After all, having asset stripped America, Jewry appears to be grooming China where they still need deep penetration. Could provide trigger points for a crash in the US although I dare say they intend to manage it, but this is a really big game for them now. Do Jews sweat?

  32. Mark,

    why so “many times”? It is as if we never learn surely?

    It is a consequence of a relative lack of White racial consciousness, which the jews actively expend a great deal of energy to suppress. Each ethny/nation has tended to see themselves as exceptional and their situation vis-a-vis the jews in isolation, rather than seeing themselves as yet another instance of an age-old pattern. A widespread and firm biological understanding didn’t dawn until the 19th century, and I don’t think it’s any coincidence that this is precisely when the jews swarmed forth from their ghettos and shtetls into Western institutions, i.e. to seize broader physical control over the European nervous system.

    The lesson the White race still has yet to learn – and this is the metapoint my lesser points are intended to support – is that its persistent flaw is in overestimating themselves and underestimating the jews, not the reverse (as jewish psychoanalysts and “white pathologists” argue).

    There is little hope in outjewing the jews and dividing them. Better to recognize and thwart their efforts to exploit their host’s divisions. The jews first ingratiate themselves to the elite, intermix and co-opt them, and ultimately dispose of them. This is the key mechanism of their parasitism. Awareness of it is the first step toward disrupting it.

  33. why so many times?

    According to a DNA study, there was an approximate 350-person bottleneck in the Ashkenazi population about 700 years ago. That would be around the year 1315. If it is true, it would mean that it was much easier to expel them. It was only a small tribe of crooks. And they didn’t look like much of a threat for the neighboring countries where they would resettle.

    Edward I expelled the Jews from England in 1290. Wikipedia says their number was 2,000 people, but most of what wikipedia says about Jews is rubbish.

    The 350 crooks were good at leeching off European society. While fighting persecutions, pogroms and holocausts, they expanded until there were several millions of them in Eastern Europe. I wonder if they were still able to survive without doing any farming for themselves.

  34. Tanstaafl writes,

    My point is that “anti-semitism” (as jews use it) and “white pathology” (as MacDonald and Joyce use it) refer to the same CONDITION: There’s something inherently and unfixably wrong with Whites, and it is not caused by the jews. The jews think this condition is bad for the jews. The “white pathologists” think this condition is bad for Whites. The underlying condition they’re talking about is the SAME.

    Outstanding point and well taken. I’m beginning to think that these white pathologists have internalized Jewish criticisms of our race to the point that they have been reduced to the status of useful idiots. After all, if there was some kind of congenital or hereditary weakness in us, our race would have perished long ago.

    I think the problem is not that Whites have failed to engage and debate jewish bullshit. The problem is that they have. White intellects are especially prone to the delusion that we just have to argue with the jews harder, better and more – when, in the end, it is not about arguing with them but recognizing them as the enemy and defeating them. Whites need leaders who realize that Whites are in an existential struggle with the jews, not a fucking classroom debate.

    Correct again. BTW, this is the same point the Roman Catholic scholar E Michael Jones made in his book ‘The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit’ with regard to the Church’s capitulation to the Jews as an end result of “dialogue.” Engagement with the Jews has led to Catholic appeasement which in turn has led to more outrageous Jewish demands resulting in a near total collapse of traditional Catholic teaching and subservience to Jewish interests.

    Most of the discussion of “white pathology” is vague. It seems to be more about blaming Whites and excusing (or ignoring) jews. It is hardly at all about identifying vulnerabilities, and even less about fixing them.

    Right, and I think it helps to contrast the writings of today’s post-modern white pathologists with the remarks of earlier commentators regarding our race’s so-called “vulnerabilities.” One that comes to mind is Revilo P Oliver’s essay/speech entitled ‘What We Owe Our Parasites’ where he identifies seven unique qualities in us that have been perverted over the years resulting in the strange manifestations we see in so many of our people today.

    What’s important to take away from this speech is that he defines these seven elements of our mentality that are currently being exploited as ‘good qualities’, not pathologies, and ends the discussion regarding these peculiarities by stating that the greatest single obstacle we face is “the perverted collective masochism that has been incited in so many of our people.” Note the use of the word “incited” which means stirred up, instigated, provoked, encouraged, et cetera. This begs the obvious question: Who is doing the inciting? The answer: Jews!

    What We Owe Our Parasites: http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/wwoop.htm

    PS: Also note the last line of the speech — something that we would never hear out of the mouth of a white pathologist who would shudder at the thought of harming one hair on the chinny chin chin of an angelic, violin-playing member of G-D’s Chosen People:

    “We are Americans. This is our country. He who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose — nay, it is our duty to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity — it is our duty to use all feasible means to destroy him.”

    Priceless!

  35. Greg Johnson writes,

    Is it really a question that whites are vulnerable to Jewish subversion? Is it really a question that whites would be better off if we could understand and, if possible, fix these vulnerabilities? It strikes me that you are hung up on a single word: pathology. . .

    Greg, regarding our race’s so-called “vulnerabilities,” I shall provide you a quote from Revilo P Oliver’s speech “What We Owe Our Parasites”:

    It is compounded, it seems to me, of a perversion of seven different qualities; a perversion effected and fostered by certain misunderstandings in the peculiar circumstances that resulted from the prosperity, power, and world dominion we of the West achieved for ourselves and enjoyed in recent centuries. All of the seven elements of our mentality that I shall enumerate are good qualities, at least in the sense that they are born in us, that we could not eliminate them from our genetic heritage if we wanted to, and that we have perforce to accept them.”

    Why would you attempt to “fix” that which is part of our very essence, that which is innate to our very being, “that which we could not eliminate from our genetic heritage if we wanted to, and that we have perforce to accept them”?

    You say such things because you are essentially a reactionary conservative and it’s much easier and safer to obfuscate the fact that we are in a struggle for our very existence with a race of nation-wrecking and soul-destroying parasites out to exterminate us rather than deal directly and forthrightly with the matter at hand. As a reactionary conservative, you know what’s best for business every step of the way — till the end!

    Keep in mind, it was not Tanstaafl who initiated this “pathology” nonsense but your ilk over at the Occidental Quarterly. Tanstaafl has responded to it cogently by simply applying a healthy dose of Aristotelian logic: pathology denotes pathogen. It’s cause and effect. A cause is WHY something happens. An effect is WHAT happens. It’s common sense, really.

    It is you who are hung up on the word “pathogen” because its use clarifies the matter and implies the next logical step in the sequence of events. Once the problem has been identified, we can move to a solution and we know what that means:

    http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/HistoryJewishPersecution/

    And that kind of talk ain’t good for business!

    So, how can we immunize ourselves against the Jewish pathogen

    Immunization implies no action on the part of the host that is infected other than accepting an initial treatment that makes it immune from the deadly effects of exposure at a later date. Sorry, but we are dealing with an agent of disease that is not amenable to immunization efforts. Nor is it possible to build up an immunity to it via the process of mithridatism — the practice of protecting oneself by building up tolerance via nonlethal amounts of exposure.

    Our only choice is a form of treatment consisting of the following: (1) identify the pathogen, (2) quarantine it, and (3) expel it wholesale from our body politic. Once recovered, we can then formulate a longer term solution to the “Jewish Question” that ensures this kind of thing doesn’t happen again. (Granted, that’s easier said then done.)

  36. Tanstaafl,

    Regarding Revilo P Oliver, I was unaware that you had previously discussed the great man on an earlier show and, after listening to it, was delighted to discover that your views are identical to my own.

    Compared to today’s racial nationalist pundits — Taylor, Johnson, Spencer, MacDonald, etc., RPO is a giant among pygmies. He is Moby Dick in a gold fish bowl and his autobiography America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative stands as one of the most important books of the 20th Century given that it discusses how the Jews sabotaged the last conservative effort to restore the values and way of life of our ancestors. Here’s a quote from the book for your readers to ponder:

    “After the conference between Welch and myself in November 1965, I determined to verify conclusively the inferences that his conduct had so clearly suggested, and with the assistance of certain friends of long standing who had facilities that I lacked, I embarked on a difficult, delicate and prolonged investigation. I was not astonished, although was pained, by the discovery that Welch was merely the nominal head of the Birch business, which he operated under the supervision of a committee of Jews, while Jews also controlled the flow, through various bank accounts, of the funds that were needed to supplement the money that was extracted from the Society’s members by artfully passionate exhortations to ‘fight the Communists.’”

    http://jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/AmericasDecline.pdf

    Incidentally, I greatly enjoyed listening to your ‘White Pathology’ discussion with Carolyn and highly recommend it to all. Speaking of your former co-host, Carolyn Yeager conducted an interesting podcast last month during which she made her own biomedical analogies comparing Jews to disease carrying ‘germs’ that could not survive in an oxygen rich, alkaline pH environment. While discussing the foulness of the Jeffery Epstein/Alan Dershowitz sex slave scandal, she argued the need to establish a truly clean, morally strict environment in order to get rid of the Jews. “Terrain is everything; the germ is nothing.” While I agreed with her on the importance of a morally healthy terrain, I countered by pointing out:

    “Jews do have the ability to survive in a morally uncontaminated environment, albeit in a dormant state of suspended animation, as was the case throughout European history until their predations came to the fore and they were then persecuted and expelled wholesale. Microbiologists refer to this period in the life of a virus as the ‘incubation period’ which is the time between exposure to a viral infection and when symptoms first appear in the host.”

    http://carolynyeager.net/whites-need-transform-terrain

    A recent story on NPR’s ‘Morning Edition’ regarding Iran’s Jewish population confirms my point. Unlike its Arab neighbors, which expelled Jews en masse after World War II, Iran still retains its Jewish population, albeit in much smaller numbers relative to pre-1979 Revolution figures. Although barred from holding high governmental and judicial positions, Jews are living quite well but, as always, are still clamoring for more “rights.”

    To quote from the broadcast’s transcript:

    “Moreh Sedgh says he prefers to focus on slowly improving Jews’ daily life, and their secondary status in Iran. They may freely practice their faith and vote, but they cannot hold high office. So they gradually push for more rights. They recently won permission to keep their children out of school on the Jewish Sabbath. And Moreh Sedgh says he would like it if Jews could someday serve in cabinet posts or as judges. ‘It’s not a problem that affects our day-to-day life, but we think that people with good knowledge and a high degree of ability, from a religious minority, can help the country to be a better country,’ he says. Moreh Sedgh says it’s best to seek improvements ‘little by little, step by step.’”

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2015/02/19/387265766/irans-jews-its-our-home-and-we-plan-to-stay

    Yep. Little by little, step by step. And thus the cycle begins anew.

  37. Tan, maybe you can help a bit? What is the difference between NRx and White Nationalism? I follow some of these NRx people on Twitter like Mike Asimminov(sp)? But I don’t quite get what NRx main goal is? New reaction to what or whom?

  38. Chris,

    NRx is a jewed reaction to jewing, so naturally their two most important tenets are that it’s not jewing and they’re not jewed. Two recent examples of NRxers making this case themselves: Why NRx is Winning and Neoreaction is a Jewish Conspiracy to Thwart the Incipient National Socialist Revolution.

    This jew-excusing/anti-WN character of NRx traces back directly to Moldbug, the half-jew who staked it out. When I wrote about him in White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism in 2007 I was just starting to wake up to race and the jews. It’s embarassing to recall how naive I was, but even then I could smell something rotten. Three months later (after my first run-in with Auster) I saw much more clearly and wrote Race Realism Meets Tribal Denial.

    NRx attracts some awakening Whites, potential WN. Those with healthy instincts don’t stick with NRx. Those who do stay there very likely have some non-White/anti-White reason.

  39. Thanks, Tan.
    I stick to the 14 words if that is not being spoken about or in ways to achieve it, it’s pointless banter.

    First Google searches took me to pharmacy sites.lol.

    They make some good points at first glance but upon further reading it comes across as pseudo-intellectual jerking off.

    So it’s a reaction to anything that doesn’t involve talking about the 14 words and the jews as the main problem? So it’s kosher approved.

    Though in that link you put, it denounces any outright jewish conspiracy within NRx. Not talking about jews is what jews want. NRx is a waste of time.

    Same goes for the Right stuff dot biz. They come across the same way. Mock the 14 words focus on Muslims and kinda sometimes address jewish power, be racially aware, talk about the non White plague on us.

    But don’t focus on jews even though they are why we are talking about all the symptoms jews bring to US Whites. Which is probably why NRx is so hip and guys talking like we do really don’t have a large audience.

  40. In reply to Africanus, I myself was thinking about Oliver’s account of white vulnerabilities as an example of the work that has to be done. All the traits that Oliver lists are indeed strengths of whites when we were dealing with other whites, or weaker non-white races. But they are disadvantages when dealing with non-whites or parasitic white tribes that are highly intelligent and enjoy high solidarity among themselves.

    When Jews came along, they realized that these traits can be exploited, and hacked them, at which point they became disadvantages to our survival. One sense of the word “pathological” is to describe a trait or behavior that has become disadvantageous to bearer. The hardest pathological traits to correct are those that lie close to our sense of identity and morality, like the traits listed by Oliver.

    So what are we to do? Of course we have to totally separate ourselves from Jews. But until we get there from here, every one of those traits listed by Oliver is going to be a liability every step of the way. Getting rid of the Jews means fighting the Jews, and that means that our imagination, chivalry, compassion, objectivity, generosity, etc., which they are so adept at using against us now, will be liabilities then as well. So the question returns: what can we do now, to correct these vulnerabilities? Because even if they will no longer be vulnerabilities once we are free of the Jews does not change the fact that they are vulnerabilities now, and unless we address them, we are not going to be free of the Jews.

  41. Greg,

    So what are we to do? … what can we do now, to correct these vulnerabilities?

    You can stop pretending everyone already understands the jews. You can stop pretending that whenever someone says “white pathology” what they really mean is “jewish manipulation of White vulnerabilities”. You can stop allowing vague, jew-excusing lectures about “white pathology” go uncriticized. You can ask what the pathogen is. You can point out the jewish pathogen. You can urge the “white pathologists” to confront “jewish manipulation of White vulnerabilities” rather than simply wringing their hands about our poor, incurably pathological brothers and sisters.

    The only one keeping you from doing these things is you.

  42. You’re the one doing the patronizing here. I’ve tried to make an argument and all you want is a catfight.

  43. Your reading of Kevin MacDonald’s “2009″ article (actually 2008) is obtuse–almost unbelievably so. After quoting the article’s opening, in which MacDonald says Noel Ignatiev’s journal Race Traitor promotes “cultural and psychological genocide of whites” (the phrase being in quotation marks in MacDonald), you write as follows:

    “Amazingly, MacDonald refuses to take this seriously and argues instead that Ignatiev’s use of the word genocide and his anti-White arguments and activism are just so much hyperbole and nonsense. MacDonald describes how he sees Ignatiev and his allies:”

    After that, you present two of MacDonald’s paragraphs, the first of which is the following:

    “Their hatred assumes a surface legitimacy because the hated ‘whites’ are just a ‘social construct.’ It’s not really about killing people, so where’s the beef? The ‘genocide’ of whites is not about homicide or suicide; it’s only about getting white people to stop thinking that they are white.”

    Huh? MacDonald’s not stating, in that paragraph, how he himself “sees Ignatiev and his allies.” He’s characterizing the faux-innocuousness of Ignatiev’s stance. If that weren’t obvious from the passage you quoted, MacDonald’s sentence that precedes that passage (and introduces the paragraph the passage completes) is as follows:

    “All this has allowed [Ignatiev] and his protégés to vent their hatred for whites without being accused of doing so.”

    It could hardly be more obvious: MacDonald is doing the exact opposite of what you charge him with. He’s not failing to take Ignatiev seriously; he’s taking him quite seriously. He’s rejecting the weak subterfuge by which Ignatiev apparently avoids being charged, in the mainstream society, with advocacy of white genocide. MacDonald could hardly make it clearer that he himself knows very well what Ignatiev’s advocating:

    “[W]hen only whites are left without an identity and hence without weapons in the racial/ethnic struggle, it doesn’t take much imagination to suppose that actual genocide of whites is the next step.”

    “So do read Paul Craig Roberts first essay beginning below, and his second, and ask yourself where cultural critique leaves off and de facto support for, say, blacks murdering whites begins?”

  44. John,

    That article is from 2008. My mistake in saying 2009.

    He’s characterizing the faux-innocuousness of Ignatiev’s stance.

    Yes, I agree.

    It could hardly be more obvious: MacDonald is doing the exact opposite of what you charge him with. He’s not failing to take Ignatiev seriously; he’s taking him quite seriously. He’s rejecting the weak subterfuge by which Ignatiev apparently avoids being charged, in the mainstream society, with advocacy of white genocide. MacDonald could hardly make it clearer that he himself knows very well what Ignatiev’s advocating

    Actually, it could be more obvious and he could easily have made it clearer. You, for example, do so. But then you’re not MacDonald, so what you say MacDonald knows about Ignatiev is no more authoritative than what any other reader might take away from it. I linked it so others could judge for themselves.

    My point in even following that link is two-fold.

    First, that in his 2014 article I started at, MacDonalde is trying to make a point that there’s something deeper to Marie’s “white pathology” than jewish manipulation – by linking to the 2008 article he wrote about jewish manipulation.

    Second, MacDonald is uncomfortable using the word genocide, and does not state flatly that that’s how he sees it. In fact, it’s not at all “obtuse” to read “it doesn’t take much imagination to suppose that actual genocide of whites is the next step” as meaning he doesn’t see (or want to say out loud) that what’s already going on, including what Ignatiev is doing, as actual genocide. But maybe with a little imagination.

    I’m more concerned that I’ve misinterpreted MacDonald’s 2014 article, specifically on the point of “white pathology”, though I don’t think I have. As I’ve said, he seems to me to be trying to make the case that “white pathology” is something deeper and thus apart from jewish manipulation – which is why it’s odd that the context he wraps around it is all about jewish maniupulation. But then, as I noted before even getting to MacDonald, Joyce does something similar – talking about the jews just before invoking “white pathology” as if it’s something different. And I also pointed out that MacDonald points approvingly at Duchesne and Taylor’s discussions of “white pathology” – though they don’t even mention the jews.

    My main point stands no matter how you read MacDonald, because it goes beyond MacDonald: The “white pathology” meme is about something other than “jewish manipulation”.

  45. The terrain in which bacteria/viruses can thrive matters, too (Read the ideas of Bechamp.) Indeed, this way of looking at things must be a threat to TPTB – or why would they name it “Germ Theory Denialism”? Used to be people, including scientists, just had different opinions or interpretations of things, but now such differences are pathologized (not to mention in some cases banned) as “denialism”.

  46. Thanks for the reply, Tanstaafl. Because I’m not familiar–yet, anyway–with what you’ve said about MacDonald re Duchesne and Taylor, I’m not in a position to respond to everything your reply addresses; in reading your recent post about Joyce’s piece, I was struck by your translation of Joyce’s defensiveness. (“B-but we’re not stupid or crazy. A-allow me to provide some objective arguments and examples.”) On target.

    You’ve made me reconsider how “clearly” MacDonald stated that Ignatiev’s stance is, let’s say, Genocide Step 1. Whether, as you suggest, MacDonald doesn’t see that or doesn’t want to say it out loud, I don’t know; if I knew a little bit more about him or if I knew the contents of the Paul Craig Roberts pieces that his article was introducing, I might know whether he had some reason for simply suggesting the possibility, i.e., allowing the reader to draw his or her own conclusion. Regardless, I was incorrect in saying he “could hardly make it clearer”; you read what he said there more carefully than I did.

    For the moment, I’ll add a few comments about the subject Greg Johnson and you have gone back and forth on in this thread.

    Power, as I said in a comment I recently posted at Hunter Wallace’s Occidental Dissent is a matter of what one avoids. It’s not a matter of goals, not a matter of what one pursues.

    Observe the jews. Have you ever seen a jew–even a comparatively unintelligent jew–scorn intelligence? I never have. Have you ever seen a white scorn intelligence? If you haven’t, then you’ve never been in a schoolyard full of whites. Even the most capable jewish warrior knows he is of the second rank, below the jew of intellect. He knows intelligence is what connects his people–any people–to the future.

    Have you ever seen a jew trifle with his child’s mind? Ever seen a jew tell his child that a man flies in a sleigh to every child’s house on the evening of December 24, to deliver toys to the child?

    “What are you saying, John? Whites are perishing because they speak to their children of Santa Claus?” Yes.

    Above, Tanstaafl, you quoted Greg Johnson as follows: “So what are we to do? … [W]hat can we do now, to correct these vulnerabilities?”

    The first thing to do is to avoid using “we.” The correct question is this: “What is one to do? What does one do now, to correct these vulnerabilities?”

    One avoids failing to identify those vulnerabilities. Because they are defects of mentality, one avoids exhibiting any one of them that one identifies. Avoid scorning intelligence, avoid trifling with a child’s mind, avoid harshness with children, as Kevin MacDonald advised in his piece about Pastor Renita Marie ( http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/10/psychopathology-and-racial-self-hate-among-whites/ ), though MacDonald didn’t say it that way. Those are not all the things to avoid; you’ll come to notice what to avoid. The future is won or lost at every moment–by what one avoids. Any jew knows that.

  47. To say that the jews’ exploitation of whites is due to white pathology is like saying that whites catch malaria or tuberculosis due to white pathology.

    It doesn’t make sense.

    Just because our natural characteristics are being exploited by a pathological parasite does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that our natural characteristics are even remotely pathological.

    When faced with a deadly disease with known vectors, the thing to do is eradicate the disease and its vectors.

    Rational steps include quarantining or killing carriers and vectors, and immunizing potential victims.

    Rather than engaging in the baseless self-flagellation of believing white characteristics to be pathological, we should focus on getting rid of the pathogen.

    A good place to start is by spreading intellectual immunization, which Tan and Prof. MacDonald do par excellence.

    Just as TB, malaria, etc. will come back after being largely eradicated (as subsequent generations forget the severity of the problem and grow lax), so the Jews come back time and time again for the same reason. It’s got nothing to do with white pathology, and everything to do with the virulence of the pathogen.

  48. Greg Johnson writes,

    “So what are we to do . . . what can we do now, to correct these vulnerabilities? Because even if they will no longer be vulnerabilities once we are free of the Jews does not change the fact that they are vulnerabilities now, and unless we address them, we are not going to be free of the Jews.”

    Greg, the problem is not our “vulnerabilities” which are innate qualities and therefore a fixed part of our nature, but rather the Jews who are exploiting them. You seem obsessed with correcting that which is a fundamental part of our nature rather than dealing directly with the source of the symptoms manifested in our people.

    Besides, such a desire to “correct” our “vulnerabilities” presupposes that these qualities can be altered or modified in the first place and I contend that they cannot.

    While identifying and discussing these racial qualities does help provide us with an understanding of ourselves, it does nothing to impair the Jewish assault on our people that is taking place at a breakneck pace.

    Even your earlier question, “how can we immunize ourselves” makes little sense given that we are already infected by the Jewish pathogen and thus past the stage of preventative medicine. If a patient is diagnosed with a case of syphilis, the medical doctor treating him doesn’t worry about immunizing the patient, but treats the bacterial infection with antibiotics to heal him.

    [Correction: My earlier statement on the subject should read, "Immunization implies no action on the part of the host that is not infected other than accepting an initial treatment that makes him immune from the deadly effects of exposure at a later date.]

    I’m afraid the Jewish disease, like a malignant tumor, has metastasized and is now threatening the very life of the body politic. Oswald Spengler’s ‘hour of decision’ is fast approaching and either we confront it in an uncompromising manner spoken with forthrightness and integrity to the best of our abilities or call it quits.

    You seem to be obsessed with what’s wrong with the patient’s immune system rather than freely discoursing on the nature of the disease causing parasite for one of the following reasons:

    1. You truly believe that our race suffers from an ‘Achilles Heel’ that has been exploited by the Jews, and that by identifying and somehow fixing this alleged weakness, our race will suddenly become immune to the predations of the parasite and heal itself, thus relieving you and your ilk of all the unpleasantries that naming the Jew as public enemy number one entails; or

    2. You are a reactionary conservative at heart, intoxicated on Jared Taylor’s infamous ‘white lightning’, a corrosive blend of philo-semitic hooch coupled with intellectually compromised, conservatively stale-tasting moonshine that clouds the judgment and dulls the senses, leaving one unable to think clearly about the issue at hand. Although ostensibly genteel and respectable to the palate, extended exposure to JT’s ‘white lightning’ has been known to cause complete and permanent blindness to all facets of the Jewish Question.

    Regardless of the reason, no amount of psychoanalyzing our people will change the fact that we are under assault by a hostile foreign entity that has taken the reigns of political power and is out to annihilate us.

  49. “Have you ever seen a jew–even a comparatively unintelligent jew–scorn intelligence? I never have. Have you ever seen a white scorn intelligence? If you haven’t, then you’ve never been in a schoolyard full of whites.”

    It depends on what you mean by scorning intelligence. Jews scorn brilliant European thinkers, artists, and leaders all the time for racial reasons.

    “Even the most capable jewish warrior”

    The concept of the warrior, at least in the heroic sense, is totally alien to Jewish culture.

    “knows he is of the second rank, below the jew of intellect. He knows intelligence is what connects his people–any people–to the future.”

    No, Jews are connected to their future by their ability to live off of host populations. If Jews were smart, they’d figure out a way to be self-sufficient.

    “Have you ever seen a jew trifle with his child’s mind?”

    Yes, when they teach their children that their tribal deity chose them, that Aryans killed 6 million of them during a “holocaust,” that an ancient Jew used his superpowers to part a sea, and any number of inanities. 90% of Jewish history is a laughable falsehood, but it gets taught as fact to Jewish children.

    “Ever seen a jew tell his child that a man flies in a sleigh to every child’s house on the evening of December 24, to deliver toys to the child?”

    No but I have seen images of rabbis biting off bits of their children’s genitals as a sign of devotion to their deity. Which is dumber and more harmful: a bit of whimsy during a holiday season or the physical and psychological harm that results from pointless infant genital mutilation?

  50. Wyandotte writes,

    The terrain in which bacteria/viruses can thrive matters, too

    Yes, it certainly matters. A healthy terrain will no doubt keep the Jewish pathogen in abeyance for awhile, but eventually it will begin ravaging its host as all of history has demonstrated. If the target population is healthy, it will respond with persecution and expulsion of the parasite. If it is sickly, it capitulates, leading to further parasitism and exploitation.

    One of the primary reasons why the United States was so susceptible to the Jewish pathogen is on account of a domestic terrain that stressed monetary success and gain over other important considerations in life. The lack of a home grown Aristocracy to keep the mercantilist/capitalist classes in check also contributed to this environment. As Francis Parker Yockey so eloquently opined in The Enemy of Europe regarding the dearth of American resistance to the Jewish takeover of the country:

    “For the most part, the resistance to the progressive distortion of America is merely passive — the resistance which any material whatever opposes to that which is acting upon it. Where the resistance is active — and the dimensions of such resistance are scanty — it finds little support, since idealism and heroism do not flourish in an atmosphere wherein economics is the ruling spirit.”

    http://www.solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/enemy-of-europe-francis-parker-yockey.pdf

  51. “It depends on what you mean by scorning intelligence. Jews scorn brilliant European thinkers, artists, and leaders all the time for racial reasons.”

    Obviously, that’s not what I mean by scorning intelligence.

    “The concept of the warrior, at least in the heroic sense, is totally alien to Jewish culture.

    Not totally alien–strategically alien. Their King David is heroic–and their warriors know their place.

    “No, Jews are connected to their future by their ability to live off of host populations. If Jews were smart, they’d figure out a way to be self-sufficient.”

    Meaningless–but keep whining, if you’d like. That’s just what the jews want you to do.

    “Yes, when they teach their children that their tribal deity chose them, that Aryans killed 6 million of them during a ‘holocaust,’ that an ancient Jew used his superpowers to part a sea, and any number of inanities. 90% of Jewish history is a laughable falsehood, but it gets taught as fact to Jewish children.”

    True–but oddly enough, the jews didn’t wait for another of their supermen to come along and destroy their opponents, the Nazis. They got whitey to send his sons to do it–his sons who’d spent their Christmas Eves waiting for gifts to come out of the sky.

    “Which is dumber and more harmful: a bit of whimsy during a holiday season or the physical and psychological harm that results from pointless infant genital mutilation?”

    Gee, I don’t know. Who’s faring better, whites or jews?

  52. “Obviously, that’s not what I mean by scorning intelligence.”

    So what did you mean? There are intellectuals and dullards in all races. I knew quite a few Jews growing up who were extremely lazy and had no interest in anything beyond video games.

    “Not totally alien–strategically alien. Their King David is heroic–and their warriors know their place.”

    King David is probably every bit as historical as Moses.

    “True–but oddly enough, the jews didn’t wait for another of their supermen to come along and destroy their opponents, the Nazis. They got whitey to send his sons to do it–his sons who’d spent their Christmas Eves waiting for gifts to come out of the sky.”

    That’s because Jews and Whites operate on different levels. Jews are collectivist and egalitarian, seeing little or no difference between Jewish man and Jewish woman, Jewish child and Jewish adult, etc. They’re all on the same wavelength. To put it in crass pop culture terms, they’re the Borg. Whites are hierarchical, discriminatory, and elitist. This is why Whites are the civilization-creators and the artistic and scientific geniuses, but the stratification is also why we are susceptible to Jewish parasitism; we simply cannot think the way they do, but at the same time, they are incapable of reaching the heights we have.

    “Gee, I don’t know. Who’s faring better, whites or jews?”

    Jews, but not because White children celebrate Christmas.

  53. Whites are not pathological, jews are. They operate exactly the same under any and all conditions. Defeating them is amazingly simple and easy. Don’t cooperate or engage them at all. They are simply an animal passing for human really. Their “strategy” is simply to focus on a weakness and ride it for all its worth. Get their money and guards away from them and they are just easy prey to anything. They are slow, lazy and weak. Their brains are limited to talking crap and using confusion to allow their escape. They cannot adapt and have no imagination. Look at any period where they exist and its exactly the same game over and over again.

  54. “So what did you mean?”

    What I meant was clear: a jew does not scorn intelligence. He himself might lack intelligence, but he does not scorn it.

    “King David is probably every bit as historical as Moses.”

    So, what? (And PS: Your point that the heroic warrior is alien to jewish culture wasn’t a rejection of my point; it was a restatement of it.)

    “That’s because Jews and Whites etc.”

    Can’t respond to this paragraph. Dropped off to sleep in the middle of it. At this point in history, the last thing whites need do is protest that their decline is a product of their wonderful qualities.

    “Jews, but not because White children celebrate Christmas.”

    Obviously, I disagree.

    Avoid reflexively speaking. Avoid not pausing, to consider.

  55. Contrary to their claims, there have hardly been any Jewish intellectuals in history, at least, if you define an intellectual as someone who seeks objective truth and empirical understanding. Most Jewish “intellectuals” have merely been priests pushing moral scams and ideas to subvert whatever host nation they happen to live in at the time. To put it simply, whatever intellect Jews have they use only to increase their power within a host society. And nowhere did I insinuate that our decline is a product of our positive qualities.

  56. “And nowhere did I insinuate that our decline is a product of our positive qualities.”

    You said this:

    “Whites are hierarchical, discriminatory, and elitist. This is why Whites are the civilization-creators and the artistic and scientific geniuses, but the stratification is also why we are susceptible to Jewish parasitism ….”

  57. Alternative media is a very good idea.
    It would be easier if we had rich uncles who control the printing of money.
    If the central banks could be taken from them it would be like removing one leg of a stool.

Comments are closed.