Solipsism and Narcissism


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[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.

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.

This calls to mind recent statements by Manuel Valls in France and Joe Biden in the US concerning how absolutely essential jews are.

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”)[1] 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:[3]

Nothing exists.

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.[1] 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.[1]

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.

29 thoughts on “Solipsism and Narcissism”

  1. “A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight”

    William Pierce used the same joke to make a similar point in his 1978 piece: “The Trouble With Conservatism”. It is basically an argument against the tactic of mainstreaming (which should be called jew-streaming). The issue he addressed was not White Nationalists who won’t name the Jew, but conservatives who won’t acknowledge the centrality of race.

    Conservatives’ fear of the truth, whether in South Africa or America, totally undermines their position. They are morally defeated before they begin, because they have allowed themselves to be convinced that their true motivations are disreputable and must, therefore, be concealed — either from others alone or from everyone, including themselves.


    And why don’t American anti-bussers, instead of trying to maintain their pretense that they don’t care whether their children are forced to go to school with Blacks, just so it’s a neighborhood school, simply admit: “We don’t want our children intimidated, beaten, and shaken down for their lunch money. We don’t want our daughters forced to submit to fondling and pinching by Black males in hallways and on playgrounds. We don’t want our sons picking up Black gutter language and ‘jive talk.’ We don’t want our kids coming home with drugs and head lice. We don’t want the opportunity to arise for them to date Blacks.”?

    If you take a conservative acquaintance aside and ask him why, he’ll glance nervously over his shoulder and then explain that that wouldn’t be smart. The newspapers would crucify them. The you-know-whos would be after their hides. By being moderate, he’ll explain, they get a lot more support for their position.

    Which is just another way of saying that the enemy may go easier on you if you are careful not to pose a real threat to him and if you agree beforehand to fight according to his rules. It reminds me of the old joke about the man who is down on his hands and knees on the pavement under a streetlamp one dark night looking for his lost wallet.

    Further in the text, Pierce says the problem is worse than a lack of courage ; people are confused: “the conservative’s lack of a race-based world view invariably leads him astray”.

    And also: “Beyond this, conservatism suffers the serious drawback of being an inherently defensive position.”

  2. Armor,

    They are morally defeated before they begin . . . the enemy may go easier on you if you are careful not to pose a real threat to him and if you agree beforehand to fight according to his rules

    Yes. That’s the essence of it. Go along to get along. Why stand out and risk getting hammered down? There are massive incentives (as MacDonald has put it) to staying under the streetlight, inside the jewstream bounds, and massive disincentives to straying beyond.

    The “White pathology”/”pathological altruism” rhetoric is a false search for answers, poking around under the streetlight. Here’s another recent example of the genre from Gregory Hood at Radix. A Cat Lady Culture. Hood waits until the end to fully reveal his false premise:

    In our society, we end up with SJWs and their Cat Lady morality destroying their own people in order to feed their mental illness.

    . . .

    when you let Cat Ladies who get off on suffering run your country

    The enemy isn’t really an enemy, (s)he’s just mentally ill! How reassuring. The delusion Hood is selling (with the help of some self-deception maybe) is that these mentally ill “SJWs” rule, that they are the cause of what’s happening rather than a symptom. The resulting confusion makes for an endless stream of articles though, and the Alt-Fright types really lap it up.

    Hood comes close. He shows a glimmer of understanding that this “Cat Lady morality” is mostly a fraud, just before he insists it’s really real:

    The cynical motivations behind all of this, from the corporate desire for cheap labor, the Left’s need for welfare dependent votes, the economic motivations for Christian “refugee” groups that are actually for-profit businesses, and the sneering contempt for Whites by organized Jewish groups are all part of this. But we should not underestimate the degree to which many Europeans and European-Americans really believe this and take pleasure from the dispossession of their own people.

    The emphasis is Hood’s. And indeed, it is exactly this desire to really believe that cat ladies are the real problem that is a real problem.

  3. This is basically why I’m abandoning the AltRight. I’m just sick and tired of these people continually ignoring the 6 million pound elephant in the room. They spend their time writing movie reviews and articles about how sick modern society is, but they don’t mention who made it sick. If you criticize them for not talking about the JQ, they’ll call you a Nazi or conspiracy theorist, as if the World Jewish Congress was something Alfred Rosenberg made up.

    The guys at Radix, AltRight, AmRen, isteve, etc. think the Jews will let them have their little quasi-racialist movement if they don’t mention the Jews. This is crazy, not to mention cowardly. Can we imagine the National Socialists having any sort of success with that approach? Or any political group, ever? How can you win a war if you don’t attack the enemy?

    Jews have created a system across three continents- Europe, North America, and Australia- to prevent exactly that. There is literally only one objective of the current Western political system, and that’s to prevent White nationalists from coming to power. If the goal of the AltRight is to simply write articles, the Jews will let them, and the AltRight will decay due to lack of energy and a dwindling following. The AltRight is sowing the seeds of its own demise by not defining the enemy.

    What is our goal? White nations for White people. Who is standing in the way? Jews. No one else but Jews. They have their traitorous White servants for sure, but these people have no actual power. The current system is founded on Jewish money, Jewish influence, and Jewish hatred. They give the orders and they decide who runs our countries. SJW’s do not. The AltRight can either accept this struggle and build an actual movement, or it can ignore the struggle and decay the way libertarianism, NRX, and the other lukewarm movements did.

  4. Have you ever noticed …:

    Have you ever noticed that basically everything you are supposed to believe in these days — feminism, diversity, etc. — turns out in practice to just be another way for hot babes, rich guys, super salesmen, cunning financiers, telegenic self-promoters, and charismatic politicians to get even more money and power?

    Yes, it’s a fraud. A cover. Those who really believe are dupes, not leaders. Those who really believe the opposite are falling for or going along with the fraud rather than calling it out as such.

    I’ve noticed that Sailer won’t notice (out loud) that jews are the source, the archetypical “minority”/”diversity”, perched atop the money/power/media pyramid screeching about their victimhood. But he does at least regularly notice parts of the jew elephant that the Amren/Alt-Fright types regularly ignore.

  5. I think the easiest and most direct answer to our behavior is ‘herd instinct’. Humans are herd animals and behave in herd manner, both physically and psychologically. We follow the perceived leaders of the herd. Since jews control the primary instruments of perception , TV, madison ave, education, etc. they can control the direction of the herd, us!

  6. Here’s an insightful article by Don Logan at Aryan Skynet, In Defense of David Duke. This subset of the article could be called, “In Defense of Directly Confronting the Jews”:

    Duke believes, along with Kevin MacDonald, that there can be no reversal of the current decline without explicitly identifying the overwhelming Jewish influence in the anti-White system that currently exists and has been strategically fostered to maximize Jewish advantage and bring about conditions where Jews feel secure. Duke’s YouTube videos relentlessly (detractors would say monomaniacally) attack Jewish deception, hypocrisy, and their collective efforts against White interests, robustly defining an enemy in the Schmittian sense, an essential preliminary for any political action. Of course, that enemy distinction was made long ago by Jews vis-à-vis Whites; unfortunately, it’s now late in the fourth quarter and Whites still don’t know whom they’re competing against.

    If consciousness of Jewish identity is raised and an explicit ethnic link is made to the anti-White agenda, their power is significantly weakened and can eventually be broken. Tribal identification among Whites can be reawakened and reinforced by a conscious opposition to Jewish power. The zealous, true-believing Whites that totally embrace the Jewish program are relatively small and could hypothetically be readily neutralized once they are widely seen as traitorous collaborators. The much larger toadying cohort that acts out of self-interest and holds no particular ideology will probably be easily swayed by which way the wind blows, jumping ship when the time is auspicious. A positive byproduct of this dynamic is that the identification of a set of anti-White beliefs directly with an obvious “Other” is a much more powerfully motivating psychological force for the promotion of racial awareness than an amorphous mass of people that simply hold anti-White beliefs. In short, according to Duke, without confronting explicitly Jewish group strategies in Western societies there can be no real fight for the future of Whites since they will always be beaten by the more cohesively organized “team”. Furthermore, history shows that they cannot be enlisted for our cause; they have been and will forever be opposed to our people and the maintenance of our own heritage. You must take them on.

  7. A positive byproduct of this dynamic is that the identification of a set of anti-White beliefs directly with an obvious “Other” is a much more powerfully motivating psychological force for the promotion of racial awareness than an amorphous mass of people that simply hold anti-White.

    This is crucial. Compare websites like AltRight and Radix- lukewarm conservatives- to something like The Right Stuff. Radix articles get maybe 40 comments on average. The average AltRight article is lucky to get 20, and if it’s a Nowicki article he’s lucky to get five. I leave out more intellectual sites like TOO and CC because they’re aiming for a more elite readership than Radix or AltRight.

    Meanwhile TRS, which is openly and brazenly antisemitic, to the point of mocking the preposterous stories of “holocaust survivors,” gets hundreds of comments for most articles. Their latest podcast has over 800, and one article they just posted today already has 99.

    All the energy of the pro-White movement is found where there’s the most willingness to directly confront Jews. Spencer, Lidell, Taylor, etc. don’t understand this. They prefer to operate around the periphery and waste everyone’s time with pointless articles about classical liberalism and biker gangs.

    Furthermore, history shows that they cannot be enlisted for our cause; they have been and will forever be opposed to our people and the maintenance of our own heritage.

    And yet fools like Derbyshire claim that Jews will eventually wise up and come to our side… as if Jews aren’t deliberately doing all this to annihilate our race.

    Let’s just call this what it is: cowardice.

  8. Right stuff does get a lot of comments but most are the same few who have conversations in the comments.

    Not taking away from them. I like what they do. But also with all those comments the few good ones get buried in the sometimes lame conversation that have nothing to do with the topic.

    I like them because they are witty, smart and present a good position. With good humor.
    On the recent shoah Enoch laid out a great stance for us Americans in the second part that Shoah.

    The other “leaders” who side step or down play the jew or who flat out will not name them are a waste of time. They get in the way of the answer which is known as gatekeeping.

    Tan, have you ever thought of going on their show?

  9. There’s a good reason these rats fear exposal. They are WEAK and tiny in number. Almost all their “males” are homosexual. Even with unlimited resources their population is laughably small. They will all be dead quickly when the War comes.
    At this point, there is no way for them to stop it. When they started celebrating the end of White dominance in White countries, especially Europe, they signed their own death warrants! Who will save them now? America? England? Nope.

  10. HSGW,

    Would you plz give us complete URLs for the sites you mention and a brief one or two word rating (your opinion of them).

  11. Fred Wilson: “I think the easiest and most direct answer to our behavior is ‘herd instinct’. Humans are herd animals and behave in herd manner, both physically and psychologically. We follow the perceived leaders of the herd. Since jews control the primary instruments of perception, TV, madison ave, education, etc. they can control the direction of the herd, us!”

    – Psychologically, most White people are on our side. They have not been persuaded by the Jewish media. Unfortunately, the predominant view is not allowed in the media. Otherwise, the herd mentality would play in our favor.

    – Physically, normal White people are not the ones organizing the third-world invasion. The police, the airports, the crazy legislation, and everything else, is controlled by the government in spite of White people’s opposition to the race replacement program.

    At the same time, even though the herd mentality doesn’t explain everything, it’s true that what rules our behavior is largely conformism and automatism (auto-pilot). If we are in the company of many people who don’t seem to notice the elephant in the room, then we tend to ignore it too, even though everyone is acutely aware of its presence, and would like something to be done about it. And also, we’re afraid to start a scandal, and we are aware that we may be punished if we make a fuss over the problem of race replacement.

    At the same time, I think that local politicians and school principals often find it easy and convenient to say a few words in favor of diversity even if they don’t believe in it, or don’t have any opinion. That’s like reciting a catechism lesson.

    It makes me think of the movie Three to tango (dialog transcript), where Matthew Perry plays an architect working for a tycoon called Newman. Perry is mistakenly rumored to be a homosexual. Because of that, he is interviewed by a journalist who encourages him to repeat the silly gay propaganda that we’ve heard a million times.

    (Female) Journalist:
    – What about working for Mr. Newman? Is he everything he’s reputed to be?

    Matthew Perry:
    – Oh, everything and more.

    – And you’re an openly gay firm? Will this have any impact on the competition?

    Oliver Platt:
    – We just try and do our jobs.

    Matthew Perry:
    – It’s not important what other people think of us personally.

    Journalist over-eager to do her job:
    – Don’t you feel you have a certain responsibility as a gay professional?

    Exaggeratedly sincere reply from Matthew Perry:
    – If we’re talented, we shouldn’t have to pretend to be something we’re not. People have to understand that we are individuals. Who cares if we’re gay or straight? Why can’t people accept us for who we are?

    Oliver Platt whispering in Matthew Perry’s ear:
    – You do know you’re not gay, right?

    In the movie, Matthew Perry is not homosexual, but has no problem giving a speech that you would expect from a homosexual activist. I guess not everyone will understand what that movie has to do with the subject! It’s a funny scene, but it’s difficult to explain why if you don’t see it for yourself.

  12. Fred:

    They’re just conservative sites run by semi-racially-aware cultural commentators. Their basic message is “Western Civilization is messed up” and “look at how stupid liberals are.” They don’t offer any probing insight into anything.

    For example AltRight recently had an article featuring an interview with some woman from the Azov Batallion, and not once did the article mention the fact that the entire “Ukrainian” independence movement was funded by Jewish billionaires like George Soros and Jews like Victoria Nuland from the US state department. For God’s sake, even mainstream websites like Valuewalk and Examiner reported on Soros’ involvement in Ukraine. Why didn’t AltRight?

    In my opinion there is no New Right, and there never was. The “New Right,” represented across the West by PEGIDA in Germany, FN in France, UKIP in Britain, are simply repackaged conservatism. They don’t confront Jews and they don’t rally on the basis of race, but instead blubber about “culture” and the economy. Actual rightists see them as weak, impotent, and possibly controlled opposition, while everyone else sees them as disgruntled bigots. The result is that these groups enjoy no popularity with anyone, and accomplish absolutely nothing.

    The left has crystallized into a de facto anti-White movement. The left has embraced racialism while the “New Right” continues to sputter about money and culture. Like typical conservatives, they let the left frame the argument. That’s why, like conservatives, they always lose. And yet they consider the Old Right to be a “failure,” no realizing that the
    Old Right was defeated militarily, not intellectually. At least the Old Right enjoyed actual power; these New Rightists can’t even get elected or influence popular opinion.

    We are fighting the same battle that the Old Right fought 80 years ago. Our enemies are exactly the same. Our goals are exactly the same. The New Right rejects this, and so they fail before they even open their mouths. Our struggle is racial; either accept this, or get out of the way. Hitler, Mussolini, Codreanu, Franco, and Quisling fought against our enemies. Farage, Wilders, and le Pen do not. The Old Right is the only Right.

  13. Any person/group that doesn’t identify jews as main root of our major social problems is either a deceiver or too dull to listen to. Either way, both can be dismissed as useless.

  14. Excerpt from “My Journey to Race Realism”: The Burden of Brown goes to one of the points in Armor’s quote from Pierce:

    I should acknowledge one more thing. The Burden of Brown was written in sober prose that befit a scholarly book published by a university press. But the book was prompted by a profound sense of grievance.

    . . .

    My wife and I had no problem when our children attended schools with Black students from Newark. But we instinctively knew we could not allow the assignment of our children to classes where 30 percent of the students would be children from the ghettoes of Wilmington. The more we heard about the ways “desegregation” was unfolding, the greater the threat to our children loomed.

  15. OT

    Today I got this comment from John Engelman, a very frequent pro-jew commenter on Jared Taylor’s site, Amren. The comment was made on my post, Fred Reed – Not Naming the Jew


    2 Responses
    John Engelman
    The only people who have problems with Jews are people who cannot compete with them. Anti Semites resent Jews because of the superior intelligence of Jews, and the prosperity it earns them.

    Thanks for the laugh, John.

    You’re spouting an anti-goy canard, as they say.

    Amren is looking like a pro-jew, anti-White organization, more and more.

  16. Typical double-think. The prevailing jew-originated/jew-serving line at AmRen, as it is with “conservatives” and Whites generally, is that jews aren’t competitors at all but “white”, just like us, only better. Then when someone manages to point out some aspect of jewish hostility toward Whites the fall back is this second line, which only partly contradicts the first, that you’re just jealous because, ha ha, you’re a whiny loser who’s being outcompeted by your betters.

    “Competition” implies an equal footing. In that sense a parasite doesn’t compete with its host. It enervates. Its purpose is to evade, undermine, or overwhelm its host’s defenses, feed on its resources, then move on to the next host. Such behavior inspires revulsion, not envy.

  17. Which to me proves jews conspire to offset the “equal footing”. If not, Whites wouldnt be in the position we are presently.

    By that I mean, the idea that jews dont conspire, which I hear rather frequently and all they do is inborn, to me, doesn’t hold much water.

    Yea, some things jews do may be inborn but the vast majority of what we see happening in all White countries all at the same time, is conspired to take place.

    Maybe the conspiring is the inborn tendency?

  18. The common assertion that jews don’t conspire, especially in relation to or compared with Whites, is ridiculous. The plain purpose is to counter reality.

    Jews quite obviously organize, as jews, in every conceivable way, and a sizeable chunk of that organizing is aimed against Whites, to pathologize and demonize whatever form of White identity or organizing they haven’t yet been able to outright criminalize.

  19. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone argue that Jews don’t conspire, this seems to be a deliberate twisting of words to counter the argument that some make, including myself, that Jewish behavior isn’t a result of a vast conspiracy.

    All of what they do to our countries is just them following their racial agenda and racial instincts, i.e. fanatically pushing anti-White guilt, cultural Marxism, liberalism, etc.

    This is all basically done in the open.

  20. If jews could compete with Whites then why do they need the hundreds of jewish organizations that exist? If jews could compete with Whites why lie about history? The answer is: jews are only successful because of collusion and deceit. They cannot compete on a first principles basis.

  21. Ben,

    My most recent experience was Hunter Wallace held up an example of jews conspiring while asserting: “This isn’t a Jewish conspiracy”.

    As I pointed out there:

    1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

    No secrecy required. Conspiracy can even be legal – as much of the wrongful subversive acts jews engage in are.

    Note that vastness isn’t a requirement either – two conspirators suffice.

    At any rate, vast certainly does apply to the number and size and budgets of jewish organizations, only some of which perform their activities in the open. See, for example, the “Community Security Trust”, described in Greville Janner update.

  22. I’ve never seen conspiracy defined as planning something subversive before, but that’s interesting. My point though, is that I’ve never really seen anyone who’s Jew-wise make the specific argument that “Jews don’t conspire,” no matter what the definition (except for maybe Hunter there but I can never make heads or tails of what he’s trying to say anyway). Of course they do, but it’s unlikely that there is anything like an overarching Protocolian-type conspiracy going on, is mine and others argument, and it’s usually taken out of context.

    My view is similar to what Chris Taylor alluded to: the conspiracy is genetic. I don’t really make a distinction.

  23. Ben G.
    9 JUNE 2015 AT 5:58 PM
    “I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone argue that Jews don’t conspire, this seems to be a deliberate twisting of words to counter the argument that some make, including myself, that Jewish behavior isn’t a result of a vast conspiracy.”

    Ben G.- 9 JUNE 2015 AT 7:37 PM

    “Of course they do, but it’s unlikely that there is anything like an overarching Protocolian-type conspiracy going on, is mine and others argument, and it’s usually taken out of context.

    My view is similar to what Chris Taylor alluded to: the conspiracy is genetic. I don’t really make a distinction.”

    Ben, there’s two separate issues here:

    1) The motivation, the driving force behind jewish hatred and consequence conspiracies against non-jews, and;

    2) The mechanics of the conspiracies.

    The first issue is the old nature vs nurture debate. How much of jewish hatred is hard wired and genetic and how much of it is the result of brainwashing. I’d say it’s a self-reinforcing feedback loop of both factors.

    The second issue is how the conspiracies are carried out. It obvious in the case of 9/11, for example, that jews carried out this operation only as a result an incredible amount of planning, organization and control over all the “moving parts”.

    Jews are the most highly organized group of people on the planet, as Tan indicated in an above comment. That enables them to carry out such attacks as 9/11, engineer WW I and WW II, maintain the Holohoax, etc. They have people in all key positions ready to squash dissent and exposure of their acts to the general public.

    So, I’d say there are many “jewish conspiracies” operating separately and in parallel, secretly and in the open that combined make up a “mega or vast conspiracy” with the aim of total jewish tyranny over the world. Their own writings tell us that somewhat openly.


    For my latest blog post, Our Seditious Cartoon Book, click here >>> KATANA


  24. The Jewish hidden hand behind Muslim ethnic antagonism in the UK:

    You could fill the pages of TOO with examples of hostile Jewish strategies designed to advance the cause of White dispossession, but here are two case studies from the UK which are particularly instructive.

    One involves an organisation which has been exposed for false or exaggerated claims about White violence towards Muslims. The second involves the concealment of the ethnic dimension of grooming gangs which targeted White girls. In both cases it is the role of the Jewish hidden hand in exploiting these ethnic conflicts that is interesting.

  25. So my question is: Can it be determined how much of what the jews do is inborn and what is not?

    Can it be summed up to what I pondered, that the jews conspiring is their inborn trait? Or are there outside factors that contribute to the conspiracy that jewish culture/people create for their agenda? Factors that would be considered seperate or are not part of their genetic make-up?

    Is there really a distinction to be made from inborn traits to conspire or just following the heard, go along to get along? I hope what Im saying makes sense?

    Jews obviously conspire on a vast scale but how much of that is an inborn trait or a necessity to win against Whites?

  26. The tendency to conspire is an inborn racial trait, universal really to virtually all life, though the form and intensity are not expressed uniformly. Similar/related concepts include ethnocentrism, “racism”, clannishness, folkishness, etc. Jews are a stark example of this tendency, and furthermore, are acutely aware of its importance, thus their constant sniffing out and attacking of it in all non-jews.

    The negative connotation of conspiracy comes from the association with hostility, and that the word is generally used from an adversarial point of view. It is grievance which turns mere cooperation into conspiracy.

  27. “You could fill the pages of TOO with examples of hostile Jewish strategies designed to advance the cause of White dispossession”


    Or equally Amren. But Taylor – who says he thinks Jews are White – suddenly decides he can’t be a heretic over two issues at once … even though he writes and pods about the madness of suicidal Whites freely.

    “Whites are doing it to ‘themselves’; Jews are White; but Jews aren’t doing it to us.”

    We’ll know we’re finally getting serious when the likes of Taylor are hanging from lamp posts.

  28. Even when they conspire it still falls under the banner of them pursuing their ethnic interests, except maybe when they are just running a scam on the goyim, in which case they may just be acting out of greed.

    The conspiratorial aspect is always there, of course, but to me it clouds the racial aspect. Take the example above, that they engineered WWII. There’s not much reason to see a conspiracy there because HItler was an open enemy of the Jews, therefore they all automatically knew to go after him, without having to consult and conspire with each other first.

    This is also the case with many of the more devastating operations they have carried out against us, such as Boasian Anthropology, Cultural Marxism and Freudianism, etc. The Jewish community accurately perceived these ideologies as beneficial to their interests and so they promoted them to victory over the social order. If millions of Whites were to decide that National Socialism is beneficial to our interests and then promote it to victory over the social order, would that be an “Aryan conspiracy.”

    Jewish behavior does correspond nicely to the etymology of the word conspiracy though:
    “to breathe together.”

    Chris Taylor said:

    So my question is: Can it be determined how much of what the jews do is inborn and what is not?

    I would say no. That’s why I don’t make a distinction. It seems to be some combination of inborn tendencies, hatred, envy, conspiracy, clannishness and Judaism. Basically just Jews being Jews.

    For example, are the Jews in pornography working on behalf of a coordinated Jewish conspiracy to destroy our society or are they just filthy Jews?

    And as Tan said, this is perfectly natural for any creature to do, to conspire and look out for the best interests of their own group, it’s just that this instinct in Whites has been overwritten by Jewish guilt trip propaganda over the years.

    Whites, for all intents and purposes, were the shameless and undisputed masters and conquerors of the world little more than a 100 years ago. Power has just shifted from Whites to Jews. Their way is not our way so it looks like an evil conspiracy from our point of view, but our sense of morality doesn’t count for anything in nature. Jews are hyper-conscious of the eternal and implacable power struggle between them and us while our race has been rendered pretty much clueless about it, or we would (and should) be just as conspiratorial and ruthless right back.

  29. I see what Ben and Tan are saying. And basically my conclusion is the distinction can’t be known and if there is one, its very small.

    Basically it’s just jews being jews, conspiring is the jew racial trait just on a vastly larger scale than others Races because of the power they wield.

Comments are closed.