Search Results for: pathology

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

Fear and Genocide

Audio 18 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

white_pathology

I argued in the last installment, Pathology and Pathogen, that jewish psychoanalytic theories of “anti-semitism”, as a form of inborn mental disorder that afflicts non-jews, are not just a pseudo-scientific fraud, a one-sided view of jews as blameless dressed up as disinterested and authoritative science, but that behind that fraud, driving it and enabling it to work effectively, are real racial differences in consciousness and mentality.

In short, the jews deliberately psychopathologize Whites to manipulate Whites. And they generally get the defensive, demoralized, ennervated reaction they seek. As an example, even some Whites who have a greater than average understanding of race and the jews pay lip service to a vaguely defined “white pathology”, a loaded term which to a degree adopts the jewish view, seeing Whites as afflicted with a congenital mental disease which is the ultimate source of any problem we complain about.

Andrew Joyce’s article, which I was responding to, at least implied a connection between White pathological behavior and the jews. I only drew a line connecting those dots. In many other cases, however, the use of the term “white pathology” seems to have the effect if not intent to distract anyone from making a connection to anyone but Whites. The very idea of pointing a finger at anyone besides Whites is seen as irresponsible, as a sign of stupidiy or insanity, or even “white pathology”. It is in these more blatant examples that the solipsistic and tautological nature of the term “white pathology” becomes clear.

I didn’t know until today that when you google “white pathology” the top two hits are to Tim “White Like Me” Wise, a jew who literally makes a living at psychopathologizing Whites. I’ll leave it to the pro-White people who continue to use the term “white pathology” to try and distinguish their thinking and purpose from Tim Wise’s.

One response I got to Pathology and Pathogen reminded me of an important point, another connection, which I’ve neglected to mention.

Tanstaafl is still caught up in his monocausal explanation of White pathology : it’s all the fault of the Jews. … There must exist some congenital weakness in Whites, but Tanstaafl refuses to acknowledge that. In this he is remarkably similar to the Jews themselves : the own group is never at fault.

This kind of comment is an illustration of the jewish psychopathologization I’m talking about. The term “monocausalism” is another way of saying “anti-semitism”. It’s more psychoanalysis. The implication of the term in either case is that it’s stupid and even crazy to find fault with the jews – the only difference is in how much fault.

I took this comment as an attempt to use the very psychological mechanism, the weakness I described Whites as having relative to jews. Jews exploit the White tendency to objectivity and even-handedness by cultivating a truly pathological fear, the fear that siding wholeheartedly with our own race against its enemies is stupid or crazy.

At the root of all this, and the point I’m trying to emphasize this time, is the comforting delusion that Whites don’t have any real problems or enemies but ourselves. In fact, this term “monocausalism” was actually coined a few years ago by someone who was upset that I had identified and criticized the promotion of this delusion, which I called the “suicide meme”. What I had noticed is that certain pundits use the term “white suicide” as a way of blaming Whites and excusing the jews. The idea is that something’s wrong. What’s wrong? Whites are killing themselves! Therefore, not the jews. This kind of thinking is particularly popular with pundits and in forums which allow some limited expression of racial awareness but more or less actively suppress criticism of the jews.

There’s a connection between “white suicide” and “white pathology”. They operate on the same psychological mechanism. The rationale is that we’re supposedly smart and sane if we take responsibility, if we DON’T blame someone else, or at least as long as we don’t blame the jews. So instead we’re encouraged to do something truly stupid and insane, and blame our own race. Not ourselves personally, mind you. That’s a key part of the trick. It’s an appeal to SELF-esteem as opposed to GROUP-esteem. This idea is that our poor race is ill, but not we individuals who are capable and enlightened and accept “white pathology”.

Seeing these mind games and finger-pointing as part of a “conflict of interest” between Whites and jews is a way to explain what’s happening objectively. It’s accurate enough. But perception of the conflict really shifts when you shake off the urge to stick to an objective view, above and outside the conflict. When you recognize jewish manipulation and fraud and take it personally rather than detaching yourself from it. When you recognize the insidiously stealthy and consciously aggressive hostility of an implacable racial enemy. Once you see it this way it’s impossible to justify inaction. When you see the asymmetric relationship between Whites and jews as essentially parasitic, when you realize it has gone on for millenia, then attempts to excuse and shift blame become beside the point. Do you side with your own kind, or with the parasite, the pathogen afflicting them?

Here is another reason why recognizing the long-term, parasitic, asymmetric racial conflict for what it is is more useful than any amount of demoralizing hand-wringing about “white pathology”, “white suicide”, or “monocausalism”. The inevitable fallback, the next false fear that gets played up whenever the “not the jews” trick fails, is that Whites will become “just like the jews”, “as bad as the jews”. The host will turn into a parasite? Wouldn’t that be a neat trick. It’s based on the same premise as Boasianism – the jewish fraud that racial characteristics are superficial and plastic. Who would Whites parasitize even if we could start thinking and behaving like parasites? The other parasites? How would that be worse than being preyed upon and blaming ourselves into extinction?

The nonsense of the “suicide meme” really comes out when compared and contrasted with the more apt term, genocide. I ran across an excellent example this week on Twitter.

Bronze Age Pervert: “When you use made-up words like “genocide” remember to whose tune you’re dancing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin there’s a reason word didn’t exist”

Indeed, let’s never forget and never forgive the jews for coining and promoting the word “genocide”, which like “racism” they have used to guilt-trip and psychopathologize Whites. But at least “genocide” captures the essence of the phenomenon, the group conflict, and doesn’t let anyone else off the hook like “suicide” does. I’d be happy to use another word. We could call it “jewicide”, death by jewing. That would fit the toxic effect jews have even on non-White groups. But there’s no good reason for Whites to care about any other genocide more than White genocide. Decrying White genocide is an appeal to White sanity, not a plea for mercy from the jews.

Bronze Age Pervert: “You don’t have to be Frankfurt skrewl Marxist pro-diversity/whatever to be turned off by silliness of “white genocide”/”love your race” bs”

Here’s the pervert’s real problem. He doesn’t identify positively as White. He doesn’t love his race. Even overhearing somebody else saying they do “turns him off”. It’s somebody else’s fault that he’s a narcissist.

Bronze Age Pervert: “@caseysuperstar It’s trite stuff savages do, other races with no history of achievements. White people who need this boosterism are fucked.”

Only “savages” have the good sense to cheer for their own team. “Civilized” folk sneer at their own team. Deny they even have a team. This is how rootless cosmopolitans actually think.

Bronze Age Pervert: “@caseysuperstar It’s sappy victimology, gives comfort to enemy, worst of all false. Problem is white suicide, not genocide.”

That’s the crux of it: “sappy victimology, gives comfort to enemy, worst of all false”. Stupid, stupid, stupid. But that same criticism applies just as well to calling it “suicide”.

I summed up this pervert’s line of thinking: “I wish they’d stop complaining about genocide, it’s suicide”. If it’s suicide, something voluntary, why is anyone complaining about it? Why complain about that complaining? How does that help?

Casey, a self-professed national socialist, didn’t see it my way – he liked the pervert’s twits, and retwitted that last one, which is how I found the rest. Casey summed up his own rationale this way:

Casey: “@eurorabbit @BronzeAgePerv If you want all the good men to run away, don’t take responsibility for anything and create a victim complex.”

“Victim complex”! Psychoanalysis again. We might turn into jews!

Calling it “white suicide” is the opposite of taking responsibility. First, it’s excusing anyone but Whites from having any role. Second, and probably more important, it’s about running away. By calling it “suicide” you’re excusing yourself from having any role in doing something about it.

I’ll wrap up this installment with a few minutes from a recent podcast by Bill Rhyes (“Anders Behring Breivik 2”, 12:12-16:50, 6 Feb 2015). Rhyes addresses the importance of getting our heads straight and offers a clear, unblinking view of the harsh reality of our situation. For that very reason his attitude is an inspiration to good men, good White men.

Fear of genocide. Fear that you’re responsible for not doing anything about it, that you won’t even recognize it for what it is. These are legitimate fears for good White men to have.

Age of Treason Radio

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 9

Audio

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

crypto_colossus

Recalling Yockey’s observation, previously discussed in Part 4:

The proud Civilization which in 1900 was master of 18/2Oths of the earth’s surface, arrived at the point in 1945, after the suicidal Second World War, where it controlled no part whatever of the earth.

In Yockey’s view this “crisis of the Western Civilization” was caused by the conflict between “the 19th century outlook” and “the 20th century outlook”.

As I have tried to point out throughout this series focused on Yockey, the real cause of the crisis has been the jews, who all along have been perfectly conscious of their own separate identity and interests as a people, not as some amorphous Capitalized Idea. Though jews had possessed considerable political power at various times and places previously, their struggle to take direct control over “the Western civilization” in its entirety became overt during the 19th century. Until the mid 20th century their ambition was overtly resisted. Since then jewish rule has not been challenged or even seriously questioned. It is taboo to even speak of it.

War Looms – RPO on FPY is an addendum to this examination of Yockey. I’d like to reiterate and call attention to a few of the points Revilo Oliver made:

… if there is a dominant characteristic of our civilization, it is the capacity (in good minds) for rigorously objective observation of nature and strictly rational inferences and deductions therefrom–the mentality that has made possible our science and technology.

… If we look for this rational view of the world in other civilizations, we find no trace of it

This characteristic rationalism is what Yockey actually misidentified as the problem.

Oliver on Yockey and Spengler’s misunderstanding of race:

This attempt to minimize the biological nature of men is paradoxical in writers who not only recognize that the greater part of human conduct is determined by instincts and tropisms that are largely subconscious, but so restrict the function of reason as to make it virtually without effect on the course of history. We are told–and the proposition is illustrated by examples drawn from the history of our race–that great men, who determine events rather than chatter or write about them, have a ‘tact’ or instinct that enables them to make correct decisions with so little reliance on their rational powers that they may not know why they took the action that made them victorious or successful in a given undertaking. Their strength comes, not from superior powers of cognition and cogitation, but from a faith in their own destiny. The psychological problem cannot be analyzed here, (28) but if we accept the claim that even the greatest men are basically irrational, we thereby attribute to heredity an absolute power over human conduct, of which it becomes the sole determinant, since it is beyond question that in all mammals, including men, instincts are innate and genetically transmitted. The logical conclusion to be drawn from Spengler’s psychology, therefore, is that biological race is supremely important. Granting that “the race one feels in oneself” is what counts, what one feels (as distinct from what one may simulate) is genetically determined.

In sum, the argument that great men are great because they are driven by irrational instincts, which are heritable, is an argument for importance of biological race.

On Spengler’s total misunderstanding and Yockey’s shallow understanding of the jews:

Spengler asked his readers to believe that the Jews are a dwindling and disintegrating people, a negligible force in world politics and the struggle for power. I have always thought the Jews’ aspersions of Spengler’s memory a good example of their habitual ingratitude toward their most effective apologists.

Yockey, educated by events that Spengler did not live to see [WWII, Nuremberg trials], regards the Jews as the dominant force in the world of 1952. He has very little to say, however, about their unvarying activity through all the centuries since they first appear in history, and he focuses his attention entirely on the present.

We touched on an example of Yockey’s blindness to jewish influence in the 19th century the last time, in Part 8:

From Cromwell to Joseph Chamberlain — the beginning and the end of that high political tradition which built the great British Empire, which at its highest point exerted its control over 17/20th of the surface of this earth — England was the example of the possibility of tradition in politics as well as in philosophy, music, and the arts of form.

A pair of articles by Andrew Joyce outlines the increasing influence jews had over this empire. Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 1:

We should first bring the Anglo-Jewish elite, referred to by Macaulay, into sharper focus. From the early 19th century until the First World War, English Jewry was ruled by a tightly connected oligarchy. Daniel Gutwein states that this Anglo-Jewish elite comprised some twenty inter-related Ashkenazi and Sephardic families including the houses of Goldsmith, Montagu, Nathan, Cohen, Isaacs, Abrahams, Samuel, and Montefiore.[14] At its head “stood the House of Rothschild.”[15] This network of families had an “exceptionally high degree of consanguinity,” leading to it being termed “The Cousinhood,” and among them “conversion and intermarriage [with non-Jews] was rare.”[16]

By the mid-1830s, English Jews led by the Cousinhood began to press for the removal of Christian oaths in Parliament and this for their ability to enter the legislature.

In 1858 a “damp jew”, Benjamin Disraeli, became leader of the House of Commons and removed its “Christian oath” restriction. By 1874 Disraeli was prime minister.

Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 2:

By 1899, Britain found itself at war with the Boers of the Transvaal over the vague cause of securing political rights for foreign gold miners.[41] Because of the obvious shared ethnic heritage of the mine owners and the diplomats who trod the path to war, “the view that the war was a Jewish war was commonplace among its opponents.”[42]

This opinion was reinforced by the fact that one of the conflict’s earliest supporters was J.H. Hertz — Chief Rabbi in South Africa. Hertz would later be rewarded for beating the war drum with an appointment to no less a position than “Chief Rabbi of the British Empire.”[43] In February 1900, Members of Parliament were openly acknowledging the Jewish complexion of the hostilities, with John Burns emphatically declaring before a full House of Commons that “Wherever we examine, there is a financial Jew operating, directing and inspiring the agonies that have led to this war…the British army which used to be used for all good causes…has become the janissary of the Jews”[44] — a comment that rings true today as a description of the American armed forces as a tool of Israel and its powerful American lobby in the war in Iraq and the looming war with Iran.

The same year, the Trades Union Congress issued a statement that the war was being fought to “secure the gold fields of South Africa for cosmopolitan Jews who have no patriotism and no country.”

Here we see the flaw in Yockey’s historiography. The empire Yockey saw as an exemplar of “the Western Civilization” was actually a political organism which danced to the tune of a judaized elite. As Yockey described:

The Law of Sovereignty is the inner necessity of organic existence which places the decision in every important juncture with the organism, as opposed to allowing any group within to make the decision.

Returning to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (Murphy translation), Volume I – A Retrospect, Chapter 11: Nation and Race, page 240:

All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the blood.

The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.

He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.

Hitler saw culture as an expression of a people. The inverse, which Hitler identified as the most profound cause of decline for a culture/civilization, is the belief Yockey espoused.

More from Hitler on culture and race:

It would be futile to attempt to discuss the question as to what race or races were the original standard-bearers of human culture and were thereby the real founders of all that we understand by the word humanity. It is much simpler to deal with this question in so far as it relates to the present time. Here the answer is simple and clear. Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the architype of what we understand by the term: MAN. He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth, always kindling anew that fire which, in the form of knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing aside the veil of mystery and thus showing man how to rise and become master over all the other beings on the earth. Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness will descend on the earth; within a few thousand years human culture will vanish and the world will become a desert.

If we divide mankind into three categories–founders of culture, bearers of culture, and destroyers of culture–the Aryan alone can be considered as representing the first category. It was he who laid the groundwork and erected the walls of every great structure in human culture. Only the shape and colour of such structures are to be attributed to the individual characteristics of the various nations. It is the Aryan who has furnished the great building-stones and plans for the edifices of all human progress; only the way in which these plans have been executed is to be attributed to the qualities of each individual race.

Note the contrast with Yockey. Hitler clearly saw people, the Aryans, as founders and creators of culture, not as mere bearers of it. In the subsequent paragraphs he explains his understanding of how the Aryans conquered and subjugated other peoples, eventually mixed with them, and thus disappeared – true to the consensus on European racial history which had taken shape since at least the middle of the 19th century.

Returning to Imperium, from the section Yockey titled “Race, People, Nation, State”, page 273:

The 19th century concepts of race, people, nation, and State are exclusively of Rationalistic-Romantic provenance. They are the result of imposing a thought method adapted to material problems on to living things, and thus they are materialistic. Materialistic means shallow as applied to living things, for with all Life, the spirit is primary, and the material is the mere vehicle of spiritual expression. Since these 19th century concepts were rationalistic, they were basically unfactual, for Life is irrational, unamenable to inorganic logic and systematization. The Age upon which we are entering, and of which this is a formulation, is an Age of Politics, and hence an age of facts.

The broader subject is the adaptation, health and pathology of High Cultures. Their relationship to every type of human grouping is a prerequisite to examining the last problems of Cultural Vitalism. The nature of these groupings will therefore be looked at without preconceptions, with a view to reaching their deepest meanings, origin, life, and inter-connections.

Instead of confronting the facts about jews and race – that jews are racially distinct, possess their own identity and pursue their own agenda, have a long-established pattern of infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting hosts – Yockey denied these facts and instead imagined that the problem was Materialism and Rationalism (driven by unexplained forces toward unexplained ends for unexplained reasons).

Blog

Jews and “New Jews”, The Poisonous Victim Narrative

24 Comments

James Kirchick explains Why ‘Islamophobia’ in Europe Cannot Be Equated With Anti-Semitism, Either in Nature or Degree, at Tablet Magazine: Much of what passes these days for “Islamophobia”—a conversation-stopping word meant to render any and all criticism of Islam as “racist”—simply cannot be equated with anti-Semitism, either in nature or degree. To express qualms about […]

Blog

The Interplay of Ideology, Biology, Guilt and Shame

21 Comments

In whatever happened to european tribes? hbd* chick posits that Christianity discouraged inbreeding, which in turn triggered the dissolution of European tribalism and consequent shift in emphasis to the nuclear family. We can see in this the give and take between ideology and biology – the roots of identity are genetic, but memes, over generations, […]