Search Results for: lawrence auster

Age of Treason Radio

Intersectional Jewing

76 Comments

Concerning the jew victim narrative, AKA the jew version of history, which provides the much longer-term foundation for the past century’s jew-defined/jew-driven anti-White “anti-racism” and post-WWII identity politics. The latest twist in the jew narrative concerns intersectionality, which encompasses all the bitter squabbling over rank in the anti-White victim hierarchy. The Occupy Wall Street movement […]

Age of Treason Radio

Gaslighting

Audio 64 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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.

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 4

Audio 14 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

dawkins_examines_a_judaism

A recent twit from Richard Dawkins to his 1.05 million followers (retwitted by 325, favorited by 498):

Biologists disagree over how, or whether, to define race. But there is NO sensible definition whereby either Judaism or Islam is a race.

This is intellectual sleight-of-hand, a word game in which Dawkins has substituted “judaism” for “jews”. It is the same trick the jews themselves use – emphasizing the ideological, the religious disguise, to distract from the biological, hereditary nature of the group itself. Dawkins is a world-famous biologist, specializing in evolution. He is too intelligent to not comprehend the fallaciousness of this game.

He may have been trolling, intentionally mocking the fallacy. More likely he was lamely trying to defend himself from the jews and muslims who call him a “racist”. Jews deliberately conflate jewishness with judaism, encouraging others to do the same, but they also don’t hesitate to cry “racism”, because they understand better than anyone that their connection to each other is racial.

The pretense that jewishness equates to religion falls apart as soon as you start asking questions. Which religion? What about so-called “jews of no religion”? For a more detailed examination see Pew Polls Jews, as well as Jewish Crypsis – Religion – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Kevin MacDonald’s article, Get into Twitter. Be Depressed., elicited a comment from James Reinfeld calling attention to my recent work:

Tanstaafl at Age of Treason is doing podcasts on intellectuals such as Francis Parker Yockey and their thoughts – or really their lack of adequate thoughts – on the Jews. The impression I get from these confirms the frustration I had myself in looking up the wise old men of the white race for thoughts that might help us in this crisis.

A pithy summary. I’m also disappointed with the feeble criticism of wise old “anti-semites” like Wilhelm Marr.

Before Kevin MacDonald, no one knew anything about the Jews, and the danger to whites as whites. Attempts to grapple with a Darwinian challenge using theological mental tools, passing references to Jewish attitudes and habits with no development on the potential danger they posed and no advice on how whites should defend themselves as whites, or at most inclusion of Jews on lists of alien peoples who really posed nothing like the same threat – these just didn’t cut it. Nor is there guidance to be had in hyper-nationalist perspectives, that had no notion of whites as an endangered in-group, and rather saw some particular nation as in competition with all others (merely including Jews).

Jews are and have been conscious of themselves as a collective with shared interests and enemies, while we have been unconscious. This has given Jews an enormous advantage over us.

From the publication of the Culture of Critique trilogy and the additional material that followed, we can say that at least tiny numbers of whites had for the first time a matching awareness. That’s quite new. Really, it’s a 21st Century phenomenon only.

Kevin MacDonald is a refreshing exception amidst the cowardice and ignorance that prevails today. MacDonald’s analysis is both comprehensive and coherent, but the general thrust – that the jews are biologically alien and conspire to advance their own interests, against the interests of their White hosts – is not new.

Many Europeans have seen the jews for what they are – implacably alien, harmful, an existential threat – especially since the Enlightenment. In Germany the National Socialists, the “nazis”, understood the jews in this way, and organized to defend themselves.

Reinfeld’s point about “hyper-nationalist perspectives” is that it plays into the divide-and-conquer tactics jews use. If Americans, Britons or Russians had awakened and recognized the jews as the Germans did then World War II might have been averted, or at least the jews might have lost. At any rate the world would be a very different place today.

Andrew commented on the previous installment:

I am unsure about the degree of Jewish self-deception versus conscious deception. I tend to side with Dr. MacDonald here. On the micro level, I am sure they know very well that they are slithery and deceptive in their conduct. But on the macro level, I think there is a lot of self-deception at play.

. . .

I see their need to destroy Europeans as an emotional compulsion that they are mostly not self-aware of. A circumspect, self-aware, not self-deceiving organism would not be hell-bent on destroying its host (or undertaking the other ultimately self-destructive policies that we see).

Note how difficult it is to believe that the jews are self-destructive and contrast this with the premise of the suicide meme, that Whites are inherently self-destructive. The truth is that no organism evolves to destroy itself.

Jews, like any group, exhibit a range of behaviors. Applying their favorite adage to their primary concern we could say, “Two jews, three opinions about what’s best for the jews.” Whites should be wondering whether it’s good for Whites that any jews are free to run around, pretending to be White, telling Whites what to think and do, regardless of whether all jews are hell-bent on destroying Whites, or why.

On the one side are jews like Tim Wise. Wise’s “White Like Me” shtick serves as the barest disguise for a resentful mischling who is quite literally hell-bent on destroying Whites.

On the other side are jews like Lawrence Auster. Auster was the quintessential “good jew”, a self-professed Christian convert, (neo-)conservative, and race realist. Like Wise, Auster insisted that jews are “white”, though only because he was hell-bent on defending the jews, and thought Whites could still be of some service to this end.

As I wrote in On Jewish Deception:

Self-deception, in its most literal sense, is about lying to oneself to protect oneself. It is a personal mechanism for dealing with a personal problem – avoiding mental anguish by mentally avoiding reality.

The primary problem for Whites is not in trying to distinguish between jewish deception or self-deception, it is White denial, the propensity of Whites to deceive themselves, to imagine ways to avoid facing the harm and pain caused by jewish deception.

“It’s not the jews! There is no jewish conspiracy. That’s just craaaazy talk.” This line of thinking is strongly and constantly encouraged by the jews. It is a line eagerly adopted by those who wish to avoid the very real pain the jews readily inflict on those who refuse to accept it.

Speaking of conspiracy, let’s return to Eric Goldstein’s book, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity, page 16:

Race as a Framework for American Jewish Identity

Jews had long been understood as a “race” in Western societies. According to Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, racial terminology was applied to the Jews as early as the fifteenth century, when Purity of Blood Statutes were enacted in Spain to restrict Christians of jewish descent from holding certain privileges. By the mid-nineteenth century, the opposition between “Aryan” and “Semite,” which had grown out of the study of philology, had become an orthodoxy of racial science in Europe. In America, however, where racial theories grew in response to a history of colonization, slavery, and westward expansion, Jews did not become a primary focus of racial discourse. White Americans spoke of the Anglo-Saxon heritage that had endowed them with a talent for good government and contrasted themselves to African Americans, Native Americans, and other peoples of color. But despite the national preoccupation with these groups, by the mid-nineteenth century there were also a number of European immigrant populations—mainly the Irish, Germans, and Jews – who began to be referred to in racial terms as they became more prevalent on the American scene.

The evidence of just how distinct jews are from Europeans is in archaeology and biology as well as philology. This is beside the fact that jews are most clearly distinguished by the way they distinguish themselves. It was the collective behavior of jews and their quick rise to power that alarmed White Americans and distinguished them from other immigrants.

The “Purity of Blood Statutes” are also known as Limpieza de sangre. The Iberian Reconquista and Inquisition is one of many instances in history, better known than most, where jews were at least partly exposed, recognized for what they are: racial aliens living among and preying upon their hosts. As MacDonald put it:

Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians.”

Jews have long been understood as a race because it fits reality. This understanding didn’t start in Spain or 19th century America. It started when the jews started. Even today jews euphemize their racial nature as “peoplehood”. They see themselves as a people connected by heritage, by genetic descent – a connection that transcends language, religious beliefs, or current place of residence.

Goldstein’s book could just as well have been titled “White Like Us”. Reading between the lines we find an expose of jews hyper-conscious about identity, obsessed not only with how best to see themselves, but how to best manipulate others into seeing them.

Age of Treason Radio

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 2

Audio 2 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Napoleon_stellt_den_israelitischen_Kult_wieder_her,_30._Mai_1806

We make here a brief digression to provide some context for Francis Parker Yockey’s quotes from Napoleon.

First, we’ll consider an explication provided by Eric Voegelin. Who is Voegelin? Eric Voegelin and Ancient Israel:

Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) has been described as a political philosopher and a philosopher of history. His magnum opus Order and History is regarded by partisans in terms of scientific scholarship combined with theological insight.

He watched the Austrian and German republics fall in the 1930s when the Nazis gained power. Voegelin loathed the irrationality and racism of Nazism, and eventually lost his admiration for Nietzsche, of whom he was very critical in some of his later writings. However, it was not merely the “will to power” that aroused his disdain. Although a Lutheran in his upbringing, Voegelin came to distrust the ecclesiastical establishment. During the 1930s, all except one of the Christian clergy he knew were Nazis. (3)

He exposed himself to danger in being unwilling to align himself with Hitler’s cause. In 1938, he was dismissed from his professorial post at the university of Vienna, and narrowly escaped from the Gestapo. Fleeing from the Nazi environment, Voegelin moved with his wife to America, where he lived for the rest of his life, becoming an American citizen.

Any opinion-shaper Lawrence Auster approved of must be regarded with suspicion:

Auster revered Eric Voegelin, another epic-level falsifier of reality. Voegelin was the source of most of Auster’s stupid ideas about “gnosticism”. Voegelin claimed that gnosticism was responsible for Marxism.

Voegelin’s discussion of Napoleon is part of a broader examination of Auguste Comte:

Isidore Auguste Marie François Xavier Comte (19 January 1798 – 5 September 1857), better known as Auguste Comte (French: [oɡyst kɔ̃t]), was a French philosopher. He was a founder of the discipline of sociology and of the doctrine of positivism. He is sometimes regarded as the first philosopher of science in the modern sense of the term.

Comte’s social theories culminated in the “Religion of Humanity“, which influenced the development of religious humanist and secular humanist organizations in the 19th century. Comte likewise coined the word altruisme (altruism).

Thomas Huxley described Comte’s religion as “Catholicism minus Christianity”.

The following excerpt is taken from Voegelin’s History of Political Ideas: Crisis and the Apocalypse of Man, the section titled The Apocalypse of Man: Comte, p. 204:

Napoleon – Russia and the Occidental Republic

More specifically, the political program of [Auguste] Comte is related to the ideas of Napoleon. This is a question of which Comte is strictly reticent; Napoleon appears in his work only in order to be condemned as the “génie rétrograde” [retrograde engineering]. Nevertheless, the relation exists. In particular Comte’s conception of the Occident is hardly conceivable before the consolidation of the Occidental idea through Napoleon’s struggle with the new Orient, that is, with Russia. Let us pass in review a few utterances of Napoleon: “There are only two nations in the world. The one lives in the Orient, the other occupies the Occident. The English, French, Germans, Italians, and so on, are governed by the same civil law, the same mores, the same habits, and almost the same religion. They are all members of one family, and the men who want to start war among them, want a civil war.” 43 The means for abolishing this state of Occidental civil war would be the political unification of the West. “There will be no peace in Europe except under a sole chief, under an emperor who has kings as his officers and distributes kingdoms to his lieutenants.” 44 The political should be followed by the institutional and civilizational unification. “All the united countries must be like France; and if you unite them to the Pillars of Hercules [at the Straight of Gibraltar, southern tip of Spain] and to Kamchatka [far-eastern Russia, a pennisula jutting into the Pacific ocean], the laws of France must extend everywhere.” 45 And in retrospect: “Why did my Code Napoléon not serve as the basis for a Code européen, and why my Université impériale not as the model for a Université européenne? In this manner we would have formed in Europe one and the same family. Everybody, when traveling, would have found himself at home.” 46 This Occident is a unit not only because of its internal history and coherence; it is forced toward a still more intense unification because of its defensive position against Russia.

Napoleon elaborates this problem on the occasion of the Russian plans with regard to Turkey. The ideas of the tsar revolved around the conquest of Turkey. “We discussed several times the possibility and eventuality of its partition, and the effect on Europe. At first sight the proposition attracted me. I considered that the partition would extend the progress of civilization. However, when I considered the consequences more coolly, when I saw the immense power that Russia would gain, and the great number of Greeks in the provinces now subject to the sultan who then would join a power which is already colossal, I refused roundly to have a part in it.” The principal difficulty was Russia’s design on Constantinople, for “Constantinople, c’est l’Empire du monde.” [is the Empire of the world] It was obvious that France, “even if she possessed Egypt, Syria, and India, would be nothing in comparison with what these new possessions would make of Russia. The barbarians of the north were already much too powerful; after this partition they could overrun all Europe. I believe this still.” 47 In another mood he sees this danger present even now. “If Russia finds an emperor who is courageous, impetuous, capable, in brief: a tsar who has a beard on his chin, then Europe is his. He can begin his operations on the German soil itself, at a hundred leagues from Berlin and Vienna, whose sovereigns are the only obstacles. He enforces the alliance of the one, and with his help he will defeat the other. From this moment he is in the heart of Germany.” At this junction, Napoleon puts himself in the place of the conqueror, and continues: “Certainly, if I were in this situation, I would arrive at Calais according to a timetable in moderate marches; and there I would find myself master and arbiter of Europe.” Then, in the conversation, the dream of the conquest of the Occident separates from the Russian problem. He is now himself the conqueror who is master and arbiter of Europe. And he addresses his interlocutor: “Perhaps, my friend, you are tempted to ask me, like the minister of Pyrrhus asked his master: And what is all this good for? I answer you: For founding a new society and for the prevention of great disasters. Europe waits for this relieving deed and solicits it: the old system is finished, and the new one is not yet established, and it will not be established without long and violent convulsions.” 48 Let us, finally, recall that Napoleon also dreamed of making Paris the seat of the spritual power of the Occident as of its temporal power. With the pope in Paris, the city would have become “the capital of the Christian world, and I would have directed both the religious world and the political. . . . I would have had my religious sessions like my legislative sessions; my councils would have been the representation of Christianity; the popes would have been only its presidents; I would have opened and closed these assemblies, approved and published their decisions, as it had been done by Constantine and Charlemagne.” 49

43. This and the following quotations are taken from the collection Napoléon, Vues politiques, introduction by Adrien Dansette (Rio de Janeiro: Amérie-Edit, n.d.). The original edition is Paris, 1839. The passage quoted is from September 1802, p. 340.

44. “A Miot de Mélito,” 1803, in ibid.

45. “Au conseil d’état,” July 1805, in ibid., 341.

46. “A las cases, Sainte-Hélène,” in ibid.

47. “A O’Meara, Sainte-Hélène,” in ibid., 339 f.

48. “A las cases, Sainte-Hélène,” in ibid., 337 f.

49. “A las cases, Sainte-Hélène,” in ibid., 181 f.

Roman Bernard’s Nation-States, the European Union and the Occident (1/3) asks, “how we get from stato-national feeling to Pan-Occidental awareness”:

Western European nations originate from the Carolingian Empire, which was shared out in 843 A.D. between the three grandsons of Charlemagne.

From the dislocation of the Western Empire, as it was then named, emerged thus three states. These were Francia Occidentalis (which would become France) and Francia Orientalis (later the Holy Roman Empire, which was Germanic). Lothair kept an awkwardly-shaped strip in the middle, including all the regions European powers would seek to conquer up to WW2: what would later become the Low Countries, Rhineland, Alsace, Switzerland, Northern Italy.

Francia Orientalis, AKA East Francia, comprised most of contemporary Germany, Austria and Croatia.

A comment on the previous installment from Marcus linked Napoleon I: Visionary Racial Nationalist:

In the bolded quote, Napoleon makes the right case for ethnonationalism, in contrast to many White Nationalists of today who look to moral or scientific justifications for their ideology.

“Years later, questioned by his friend Truguet about what he had done in Saint-Domingue, an enraged Bonaparte declared that, had he been in Martinique during the Revolution, he would have supported the English rather than accept an end to slavery. “I am for the whites because I am white; I have no other reason, and that one is good,” he said. “How is it possible that liberty was given to Africans, to men who had no civilization, who did not even know what the colony was, what France was? It is perfectly clear that those who wanted the freedom of the blacks wanted the slavery of the whites.”

This is a moral justification based on a particularist, group-centric understanding of right and wrong.

Napoleon and the Jews, at Wikipedia, describes the jews’ positive regard for Napoleon and his candid expressions of his negative regard for them:

Napoleon Bonaparte of the First French Empire enacted laws that emancipated European jews from old laws restricting them to ghettos, as well as the many laws that limited Jews’ rights to property, worship, and careers.

The net effect of his policies, as a result, significantly changed the position of the Jews in Europe, and he was widely admired by the Jews as a result. Starting in 1806, Napoleon passed a number of measures supporting the position of the Jews in the French Empire

This attitude can be seen from the letter he wrote on the 29th of November 1806, to Champagny, Minister of the Interior:

[It is necessary to] reduce, if not destroy, the tendency of Jewish people to practice a very great number of activities that are harmful to civilisation and to public order in society in all the countries of the world. It is necessary to stop the harm by preventing it; to prevent it, it is necessary to change the Jews. […] Once part of their youth will take its place in our armies, they will cease to have Jewish interests and sentiments; their interests and sentiments will be French.

Privately, in a letter to his brother Jerome Napoleon dated 6 March 1808 he makes his views explicit:

I have undertaken to reform the Jews, but I have not endeavoured to draw more of them into my realm. Far from that, I have avoided doing anything which could show any esteem for the most despicable of mankind.

Napoleon’s indirect influence on the fate of the Jews was even more powerful than any of the decrees recorded in his name. By breaking up the feudal trammels of mid-Europe and introducing the equality of the French Revolution he effected more for Jewish emancipation than had been accomplished during the three preceding centuries.

Whatever the reason, from his presumption that they could be assimilated or changed it is apparent that Napoleon misunderstood and underestimated the jews. The results have been disastrous for European man.