In Fear and Loathing and Treason – Part 1 and Part 2 I discussed the psychological motives and mechanics of the White traitors aiding and abetting the invasion and colonization of Europe by “refugees”.
(((Corey Robin))) has written an article for the Jew Republic, What’s in it For The Collaborators?, getting inadvertently at what I was try to get at more deliberately. I’ve just taken the liberty here of deobfuscating (in the current year even the jews admit “elite” is just code for “jews”) and excerpting those portions which well describe the interplay of host collaboration and jew parasitism:
By conventional understanding, a collaborator is one who assists an enemy, helping groups to which he does not belong threaten groups to which he does belong. But this definition, it seems to me, is too restrictive. It presumes that a group is a discrete whole, that once in it, we can’t get out of it or have competing affiliations. Collaborators, however, cannot be so neatly bound.
Whether we belong to one group or another in some existential sense, in the course of our lives we do incur moral obligations to our comrades and friends, whom we betray when we aid our opponents.
But to avoid the question of identity that restrictive definitions of collaboration entail, I will use the definition contained in the word’s Latin root collaborare: “to work together.” By collaborator, I simply mean those men and women who work with jews and who occupy the lower tiers of power and make political fear a genuinely civic enterprise.
The collaborator confounds our simple categories of jew and victim. Like the jews, the collaborator takes initiative and receives benefits from his collaboration. Like the victim, he may be threatened with punishment or retribution if he does not cooperate.
Many collaborators, in fact, are drawn directly from the ranks of the victims. Perhaps then we can distinguish between collaborators of aspiration, inspired by a desire for gain, and collaborators of aversion, inspired by a fear of loss. The first are akin to jews, the second to victims. But even that distinction is too neat. Jews also fear loss, and victims hope for gain, and as the economist’s notion of opportunity costs attests, the hope of gain often informs the fear of loss.
Collaborators serve two functions. First, they perform tasks that jews themselves cannot or will not perform. These tasks may be considered beneath the dignity of the jews: cooking, cleaning, or other forms of work. They may require local knowledge—as in the case of informers, who provide information jews cannot access on their own—or specialized skills.
Second, collaborators extend the reach of jews into corners of society that jews lack the manpower to patrol. These collaborators are usually figures of influence within communities targeted by jews. Their status may come from the jews, who elevate them because they are willing to enforce the jews’ directives. More often, their authority is indigenous. Figures of trust among the victims, they can be relied upon to persuade the victims not to resist, to compound the fear of disobedience the victims already feel.
Because their functions are so various, collaborators come in all shapes and sizes. Some travel in or near the orbit of jew power; others are drawn from the lower orders and geographic peripheries. One common, though unappreciated, influence upon their actions is their ambition. While some collaborators hope to stave off threats to their communities and others are true believers, many are careerists, who see in collaboration a path of personal advance.
Whether the payment is status, power, or money, collaboration promises to elevate men and women, if only slightly, above the fray.
Though ambitious collaborators like to believe that they are adepts of realpolitik, walking the hard path of power because it is the wisest course to take, their realism is freighted with ideology. Careerism has its own moralism, serving as an anesthetic against competing moral claims. Particularly in the United States, where ambition is a civic duty and worldly success a prerequisite of citizenship, enlightened anglers of their own interest can easily be convinced that they are doing not only the smart thing, but also the right thing. They happily admit to their careerism because they presume an audience of shared moral sympathy.
Just ban Greg Johnson. He does not hesitate to ban people who disagree with him. Why waste time on an a-hole who is clearly trying to make trouble? Greg Johnson is a wordy guy who writes a lot but says little. I took Counter-Currents out of my news aggregator.
Your critique of Kevin McDonald was spot on. Keep up the good work.
All Irish rebellions against British rule were destroyed by informers and collaborators until 1916. Although that rising failed the subsequent war of independence was successful. The threat of conscription into the trenches of WW1 made it more costly, on a personal basis, to support the crown than to oppose it. All classes were liable to be called up including the clergy. The huge casualty lists for the Somme onwards made resistance a no-brainer. What unequivocal signal will be required to awaken the white race and destroy the incentive to collaborate?
well, well. My principal disagreement with Tan had been his long-standing refusal to deal with the issue of White collaboration with the Ruling Jew. In my view, the shabbatz goy is a thousand times worse than the Jew. Why? Because the Jew cannot chose what it is. His/her destructiveness is essentially genetic, fixed by both biology and history. The shabbatz goy, though, consciously chooses (((evil))) because “it pays”. And, no, I am not Anglin.
Haxo: shabbos goys for the most part don’t consciously choose to serve evil. There may be some like John McCain who are literal psychopaths who enjoy war and subversion, but most are simply brainwashed.
Shabbos goys have been unknowingly programmed by jews to engage in traitorous and destructive behavior. They don’t wake up thinking, “Today I will serve the enemies of my people.” They do what they believe is good and right. The problem is that their version of good and right has been defined by an enemy parasite.
Jews are the human version of this hairworm that infects insects and drives them to suicide:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0901_050901_wormparasite.html
Scientists say hairworms, which live inside grasshoppers, pump the insects with a cocktail of chemicals that makes them commit suicide by leaping into water. The parasites then swim away from their drowning hosts to continue their life cycle.
nice analogy. But Jews are not hairworms, people are not grasshoppers. The shabbatz goyim who matter – the White political class – are neither stupid nor unaware. They know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it and what the outcome will be. They do not care that they are destroying their own race and civilization in return for a large slice of the (((central bank)))-administered debtpie. In 1948, [[[Winston Churchill]]] looked out over the collapsed White Empires, the ruins of Europe, and a mortally-wounded Western Civilization and said, in so many words, “oh, ah…sorry about that. We killed the wrong pig”. He didn’t, however, return any of the (((Rothschild/book publishers’,etc.)) paychecks he got for arranging the 1914-45 Catastrophe.
Haxo Angmark: “The shabbatz goyim who matter – the White political class – are neither stupid nor unaware. They know exactly what they are doing”
I’m sure the Jews could not remain in power without the support, in the White political class, of a whole lot of misguided cowards and leftists who don’t know what they are doing, even though they are otherwise smart people. You can be smart and still be a conformist who lacks lucidity.
Besides, when we tell normal people about the JQ, it’s easier for them to take in that information if they are told the government is in the hands of an alliance of Jews, traitors, and naive people who don’t know what they are doing. If you describe everyone in the government as evil, it’s depressing and people won’t accept your views.
The Jews are at the core of the political left. Thanks to their media, their networking activists, their positions in central institutions, they get to define the orientations of the left. It works a lot like a religion. Many people are completely taken in. They think the political left represents goodness, and they will defend some destructive political orientations because they are the current orientations of the institutional left. They will also accept the Jewish-imposed taboo about defending the White race. I’m sure there are lots of people like that in the governments of Western countries.
In any case, few people think to themselves: I’m going to help the Jews destroy White countries because I love money and really couldn’t care less about the destruction of the White race.
As for the Jews, there is discussion as to whether they just like to destroy other nations and talk BS all the time, or whether they are good at self-deceit. Here again, I think the self-deceit theory is useful, since many people won’t like the view that the Jews have simply no compassion for non-jews.