A further examination of the rational and emotional machinations which enable White genocide.
There’s an old joke I wanted to tell, to make an analogy, and when I went searching for an example to read here I found that there’s a name for the analogy. It’s called the streetlight effect. The joke goes like this:
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “this is where the light is.”
As the Wikipedia article describes it, the streetlight effect is a type of observational bias where people search where it is easier, rather than where it would be more fruitful.
Over the course of the past year or so I’ve laid out what I think has been a thorough and fairly stated critique of what others refer to as “White pathology”, and specifically what they call “pathological altruism”. The key point I return to, again and again, is that there is a pathogen, an Other, an enemy. The jews. My criticism, to put it simply, is that much of what is labeled “White pathology” is a result of enemy action.
In fact I’ve gone farther and pointed out that if Whites exhibit any behavior which could justifiably be called pathological, symptomatic of a collective mental disease, then it would be how Whites collectively fail to perceive jews collectively as a mortal enemy. And this in spite of the jews’ relentless expressions of alienation and hostility, made most plain in the victim narrative jews never tire of recounting. In essence the jewish narrative portrays the jews as entirely blameless and eternally oppressed by “anti-semites”, which by their own telling includes every people they’ve ever come into contact with, but most recently is primarily Whites. Their holocaust narrative is the latest, most specific, most in-your-face example of this narrative.
In other words, jews clearly see Whites as their enemy, and you can hear them more or less openly lecture everyone about this in their media and from their privileged perches in universities and corporations and government any day of the week. Yet even Whites who have demonstrated some greater than average racial consciousness and even an awareness of the jews seem prone to discount the impact of jewish hostility, their influence, or both. Instead they hypothesize some mysterious inborn defect in Whites, some baked-in weakness that makes Whites vulnerable, with the premise that it has nothing to do with the jews. As I’ve pointed out, this desire to search within their own collective – to look where the light is best so to speak – is itself, I think, a symptom of the very weakness they’re looking for.
It also seems to me that there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why this happens. The word for it is ethnocentrism, an anthropological term:
the technical name for the view of things in which one’s own group is the centre of everything
There is another recurring theme, or to put it more bluntly another elementary error, which occurs in many attempts to understand and explain collective behavior using terms which are ordinarily used to describe the motives and behaviors of individuals.
Using the term suicide instead of genocide is a good example of both mistakes – blotting out the jews and personalizing the problem at the same time.
The psychological term “self-deception”, as in “jewish self-deception” is another. I’ve argued that it should really just be called jewish deception. The real “self-deception” is in White individuals who misinterpret the persistent and collective nature of jewish lying.
The error in such individualistic terms is that it inevitably personifies and thus distorts the problem, even if only in the minds of listeners. The speaker may simply be grasping for words, with a preference for familiar terms, where there seems to be more light. In my opinion blunter language is ultimately more fruitful, even if we must invent or call in other terms so as not to misunderstand or misrepresent what is in truth a collective phenomena.
A few months ago I spoke about Stockholm Syndrome and Gaslighting, trying to address these errors and to offer some other psychological terms and concepts which I think better fit the relationship between Whites and jews. In particular, that it is a relationship, and that it is an asymmetic, abusive parasitic relationship in which jews benefit and Whites are harmed.
To refresh your memory about gaslighting
Gaslighting or gas-lighting 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.
The obvious analogy is that the jews and their holocaust guilt-tripping and 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 various “white pathologies” as a result.
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 analogy 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.
Here’s a bit more about these kinds of relationships, specifically to the point of anyone who says what I’m presenting is an argument that Whites are blameless.
When You Love Your Abuser: Stockholm Syndrome and Trauma Bonds, via Psychopathyawareness’s Blog:
So far I’ve used the word “victim” to describe the women (or men) who suffer at the hands of psychopaths. Yet I don’t really like this word for several reasons. It tends to imply a certain passivity, as if the woman herself had nothing to do with the decision to get involved with the psychopath or, worse yet, to stay with him even once his mask of sanity started to slip. It’s rare that a psychopath physically coerces a woman to get involved with him or to stay with him. Although he intimidates and brainwashes her, generally the victim cooperates.
A victim of Stockholm Syndrome irrationally clings to the notion that if only she tries hard enough and loves him unconditionally, the abuser will eventually see the light. He, in turn, encourages her false hope for as long as he desires to string her along. Seeing that he can sometimes behave well, the victim blames herself for the times when he mistreats her. Because her life has been reduced to one goal and one dimension which subsumes everything else–she dresses, works, cooks and makes love in ways that please the psychopath–her self-esteem becomes exclusively dependent upon his approval and hypersensitive to his disapproval.
As we know, however, psychopaths and narcissists can’t be pleased. Relationships with them are always about control, never about mutual love. Consequently, the more psychopaths get from their partners, the more they demand from them.
“The combination of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ and ‘cognitive dissonance’ produces a victim who firmly believes the relationship is not only acceptable, but also desperately needed for their survival.
In criticizing the rhetoric of “White altruism” I’ve argued against what I’ve described, grasping for the proper language, as a form of racial solipsism:
Solipsism (Listeni/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning “alone”, and ipse, meaning “self”) is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist.
Metaphysical solipsism is the “strongest” variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.
In the view of a White racial solipsist other races have no independent existence, no agency. It is a form of extreme ethnocentrism, a focus on the collective self to the point of ignoring enemies – a pathological ethnocentrism.
Gorgias of Leontini
Solipsism was first recorded by the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it.
Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can’t be communicated to others.
Much of the point of the Sophists was to show that “objective” knowledge was a literal impossibility. (See also comments credited to Protagoras of Abdera).
The foundations of solipsism are in turn the foundations of the view that the individual’s understanding of any and all psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, etc.) is accomplished by making analogy with his or her own mental states; i.e., by abstraction from inner experience. And this view, or some variant of it, has been influential in philosophy since Descartes elevated the search for incontrovertible certainty to the status of the primary goal of epistemology, whilst also elevating epistemology to “first philosophy”.
There an element of what the jew fraud Freud called projection in there. And the common understanding of the word comes with quite a bit of individualist and philosophical freight. Rather than trying to tack a racial qualifier on solipsism I think a term like pathological ethnocentrism is the better fit.
Another term comes to mind that came up in the discussion of gaslighting, but which reflects an ancient European archetype, originating in a European myth. It even has to do with “suicide”. The term is “narcissism”, which comes from the archetype and myth of Narcissus:
In Greek mythology, Narcissus (/nɑrˈsɪsəs/; Greek: Νάρκισσος, Narkissos) was a hunter from Thespiae in Boeotia who was known for his beauty. He was the son of the river god Cephissus and nymph Liriope. He was proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. Nemesis noticed this behavior and attracted Narcissus to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus drowned. Narcissus is the origin of the term narcissism, a fixation with oneself.
The self-attraction/self-infatuation of narcissism is broadly understood. That this weakness is exploited and made fatal by a hostile Other, a nemesis, is not as well known.
Multiple versions of the myth have survived from ancient sources. The classic version is by Ovid, found in book 3 of his Metamorphoses (completed 8 AD); this is the story of Narcissus and Echo. One day Narcissus was walking in the woods when Echo, an Oread (mountain nymph) saw him, fell deeply in love, and followed him. Narcissus sensed he was being followed and shouted “Who’s there?”. Echo repeated “Who’s there?”. She eventually revealed her identity and attempted to embrace him. He stepped away and told her to leave him alone. She was heartbroken and spent the rest of her life in lonely glens until nothing but an echo sound remained of her. Nemesis, the goddess of revenge, learned of this story and decided to punish Narcissus. She lured him to a pool where he saw his own reflection. He didn’t realize it was only an image and fell in love with it. He eventually realized that his love could not be addressed and committed suicide.
Again, the Other plays a key role. In this case there is a gaslighting Other as well as the vengeful Other. There are other versions. All end in the death of Narcissus – which is the moral of the story.