Tag Archives: andrew joyce

Gaslighting

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.

Fear and Genocide

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.

Pathology and Pathogen

biohazard

Andrew Joyce’s recent article, The Bizarre World of Dr Theodore Isaac Rubin, is mostly excellent. It’s about how jews explain “anti-semitism”:

Although written in 2009, Ted Rubin’s Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind,[1] is in several respects a relic of a by-gone era in that it is a classic work of old-school Freudianism and psychoanalysis. Kevin MacDonald has noted in The Culture of Critique that:

One way in which psychoanalysis has served specific Jewish interests is the development of theories of anti-Semitism that bear the mantle of science by deemphasizing the importance of conflicts of interest between Jews and gentiles. Although these theories very greatly in detail — and, as typical of psychoanalytic theories generally, there is no way to empirically decide among them — within this body of theory anti-Semitism is viewed as a form of gentile psychopathology resulting from projections, repressions, and reaction formations stemming ultimately from a pathology-inducing society.[2]

Rather than antipathy being a natural and normal result of real conflicts of interest, antipathy towards Jews is thus seen as a psychological illness — owing absolutely nothing to the behavior of Jews, and everything to Western culture. This is the central thrust of Rubin’s book.

Rubin wastes no time in applying medical and psychiatric language to anti-Jewish attitudes. They comprise (11–12) a “malignant emotional illness,” a “psychiatric illness,” and a “chronic, pandemic and incredibly destructive disease.”

I agree with Joyce and MacDonald’s assessment. Antipathy is a natural and normal result of real conflicts of interest. I would add that the key word in “conflicts of interest” is conflict, and the roots of the antipathy and conflict are racial. More than anything else, Joyce’s article brings out the clash between White and jewish mentality – the completely different way each group sees the conflict between the groups.

These are racial differences in mental processes. MacDonald explains some of these differences in a recent article of his own, On the HBD Chick Interview. There he summarizes part of a chapter from the first volume of his trilogy on jews, A People That Shall Dwell Alone:

Briefly, the idea is that Jews, or at least Ashkenazi Jews, are high on several personality systems, resulting in 1.) tendencies toward personalities that react intensely to environmental contingencies (i.e., high on the emotionality system), 2.) strongly attracted to dominance, social status, reward (including sex), and prone to aggressiveness (i.e., high on the behavioral approach system), and 3.) able to have strong top-down control over modular systems related to emotions and behavioral approach (i.e., high on the conscientiousness system).

. . .

I updated some of this material in “Background Traits for Jewish Activism” (2003) which focuses on traits that are most important for the success of Jewish activism: hyper-ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity (emotionality), and aggressiveness.

To put it in less genteel terms, the jews are a race of ruthless crooks and liars, at least when it comes to dealing with Whites.

Jews are instinctively collectivist and assign jewish interests the highest priority, to the point they have co-opted science and committed fraud to serve that end. In the jewish mind emotionalism trumps rationalism. They also tend to project their negative thinking onto the Other.

Whites, in contrast, are relatively individualist and universalist, with a higher regard for objectivity. In the White mind rationalism trumps emotionalism. Whites tend to project our positive thinking onto the Other. These are tendencies, partly encoded in our genes, partly inculcated into our minds after birth. The big difference is group consciousness. The jews inculcate their own with an unapologetic preference for their own kind and distaste for the Other. Jews inculcate most Whites too, but with exactly the opposite moral standards.

This kind of lopsidedness, or asymmetry, is characteristic of the entire history and nature of the conflict between Whites and jews. Jews have continuously aggressed against Whites. Whites, for the most part, have been oblivious of this. As Joyce observes, jews unabashedly distort reality and invert the conflict, placing 100% of the blame for it on Whites. Jews use the most harsh-sounding biomedical terms, describing their enemies not as participants in a conflict with an opposing point of view, but as pests who should be simply silenced and even exterminated.

Whites, in contrast, have generally reacted to this kind of bombast by recoiling defensively, in denial, trying to argue that they aren’t the congenital monsters the jews accuse them of being. In accordance with our instinct for objectivity, Whites consistently step outside and above the conflict, to seek out some less harsh-sounding explanation for it. We imagine, for example, that the jews aren’t so different and must be deceiving themselves, because that’s how Whites tend to deal with unpleasant realities.

The real root of this asymmetry, as the jews recognize, is biomedical. The jews are racially distinct. They are far more racially conscious, far more aware of racial distinctions. They not only see the distinction between themselves and others more clearly, they are more willing and able to ruthlessly exploit those differences.

The jews dedicate a great deal of effort not only to nurturing their own consciousness, but to tearing down such consciousness in their hosts. The jewish pseudo-science of psychoanalysis Joyce examines is an example of both – excusing and leveraging their own consciousness and ethnocentrism while at the same time they psychopathologize White consciousness and ethnocentrism.

Joyce calls attention to the key component of this psychopathologizing:

Another of Rubin’s assertions, and this is equally common among many Jewish psychologists and academics, is that those holding anti-Jewish attitudes are low in self-esteem and are (31) “desperate for simplistic explanation and solutions, especially for those they may find outside themselves.” But ‘anti-Jewish theory,’ if one wants to call it that, is far from simplistic. The assumption is made by the psychoanalysts that since the only problem causing conflict with Jews exists solely in the mind of the ‘anti-Semite,’ then the ‘anti-Semite’ needs only a ‘symbol’ to cure his own inner conflicts — this symbol is the Jew. He is said to cling to the simplistic belief that “the Jews” are behind all of his personal problems, and thus he can externalize his internal conflicts by ‘hating’ Jews, and somehow raising his own self-importance and self-esteem in the process. But this assessment is built on a deeply flawed assessment of both anti-Semitism and the holder of anti-Jewish attitudes.

Overall I think Joyce is very perceptive, but in this I think it’s his assessment of jewish behavior that’s flawed. The jews are not making a mistake. It is about esteem.

First of all, by blaming “anti-semitism” they are excusing themselves, placating and even feeding their own already enormous collective esteem for themselves as a people. Second, they are deliberately attacking the esteem of “anti-semites”, in other words, those Whites who are most racially conscious and most aware of the jews. The attack the jews make elicits a defensive posture, causing their enemy to question themselves. That the jews cloak their attack in scientific terms, as a medical diagnosis, is an intentional deception. Such fraud is a feature of their aggression, not a flaw.

The psychoanalysts never acknowledge that some of the most high-profile anti-Jewish writers of the past have been at pains to blame their own people and nation before the Jews — there has never been a rush to ‘externalize’ all blame for the ills of society.

The jews get the defensive response they seek: “B-but we’re not stupid or crazy. A-allow me to provide some objective arguments and examples.” Joyce supplies several paragraphs in this vein, and it’s as eye-opening and edifying as his writing usually is. He perceives the jews as enemies, but the examples he cites demonstrate the point. Throughout history even the most notorious “anti-semites” have been far too willing, in the attempt to be objective and fair, to blame our own people, to fruitlessly seek some built-in flaws our race simply must have, somewhere.

The irony is that in striking such a defensive posture it is self-esteem which keeps us from accepting that this behavior is the flaw we’re looking for. Whites don’t have an inherent racial lack of self-esteem relative to jews, we have a relative lack of group-esteem. We have a relative willingness to accept responsibility, especially guilt, especially collectively.

I don’t think this lack is entirely inborn. I think a large portion of it is induced by jews pushing the psychological button Joyce has noticed but mistaken the significance of. Jews have been moralizing and lecturing Whites for millenia now that, “It’s all your fault, you stupid/crazy/evil goyim.” While some Whites are able to shrug it off, few actually see it for the purposeful guilt-tripping, the aggression, the assault it is.

Contrary to the arguments of the psychoanalysts, the problem always contains a very significant internal element, and thus the holder of anti-Jewish attitudes is rarely free to simply blame all on ‘the Other.’

This phenomenon continues today. 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 is the problem. The jews shamelessly attack and blame everything on their enemies. And in response their enemies, not wanting to appear simplistic, try to rationalize and intellectualize and demonstrate how fair-minded they are. That is “white pathology” in a nutshell.

As I’ve said before, where there is a pathology there must be a pathogen. So what is it? If we’re going to speak of this phenomena in biomedical terms, then let’s grab the bullshit by the horns, shall we?

Jews clearly see that there is a conflict of interests, first and foremost with Whites. Whites are now so deracinated and ennervated that they are afraid to see any conflict whatsoever, because that would make them “racists”. Jews hate Whites. Whites worship jews. Whatever anyone thinks caused this situation, this lopsided Stockholm Syndrome relationship with jews, it’s clear that to the extent most Whites even see it as a problem, they blame jews for approximately none of it. Instead, the popular explanation is the jewish explanation: Whites are to blame for all of it.

“White pathology” is a non-explanation for this situation. For one thing, the idea forgets or at least downplays the racial conflict. Joyce at least brings it up while discussing the jews. More often it is used alone, without any mention of jews or their aggression, implying there is some “suicidal” problem baked into Whites and only Whites.

The idea is solipsistic. It is a self-satisfying pathologization of Whites. It plays on the same psychological mechanism behind the jewish explanation of “anti-semitism”. It’s an attack on our self-esteem, our fear of being seen as “stupid” for seeing an enemy as an enemy. Which, if you think about it, is what’s really stupid.

What’s also really telling about the falseness of the idea is that the term itself has a completely different meaning to most Whites. When racially conscious Whites say “white pathology”, they mean Whites as a group aren’t racially conscious enough. But if you try and explain “white pathology” to a typical deracinated White they’ll take it as confirmation that Whites, especially Whites like you, are too “racist”.

The “white pathology” idea appeals to the racially aware because there is a grain of truth to it. It’s a diagnosis that comes close but literally gets stuck on the pathology, the symptoms, and too often neglects to ever identify the cause, the pathogen. If Whites are behaving pathologically, well-meaning Whites should be doing their best to identify the pathogen causing this behavior. We should be seeking, without fear, ways to neutralize the cause, rather than ourselves.

The problem is not that Whites have blamed the jews too much. Quite the opposite. It’s clear that the jews have encouraged this solipsistic attitude exactly because it serves them. Thinking Whites alone, right now, determine White destiny is a notion that appeals especially to the most racially conscious Whites. But it is a fantasy as long as most Whites remain, as they are, unconscious of any collective destiny.

Calling the jews pathogens or parasites it is not an idle insult. Nor is it an excuse for Whites, their hosts. In fact, it’s a degrading and humiliating situation that is painful for Whites to acknowledge. Such terms are simply more honest and explicative. It is an acknowledgement not just of the conflict but its asymmetric nature. Among the benefits of calling a parasite a parasite is parasitology – an existing body of understanding based on true science, which offers practical insights and potential solutions no amount of “white pathology” navel-gazing ever will. Another benefit: Rather than misdirecting White resentment toward ourselves, it is directed at the cause, where it belongs – the detestable, whiny, self-obsessed, manipulative, exploitative jews. Without jews Whites would still have problems – but these “anti-semitism”/”white pathology” bugbears wouldn’t be among them.

Examples of this pathogen at work are easy to find in the mainstream jewsmedia:

UK must ‘wipe out’ anti-Semitism – Home Secretary

BERLIN: Europe’s Jews ponder: Is it time to flee again?

Do we really mean ‘never again’?

On Jewish Deception

believe_what_you_want_to_believe

Andrew Joyce’s thought-provoking series of articles, “Reflections on Some Aspects of Jewish Self-Deception”, is posted at The Occidental Observer in five parts: Part 1. Introduction, Part 2. Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography, Part 3. Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography (continued), Part 4. Self-Deception in Jewish Participation in Secular Culture, and Part 5. Self-Deception in Jewish Participation in Politics.

Joyce notes that jewish self-deception is a common theme at TOO and “a major component of [Kevin] MacDonald’s analysis of Jews”. He hopes “to widen its application as an analytical tool to different historical and contemporary contexts”.

He begins by examining the meaning of the term, especially in the context of the apparent double-standards of jewish moralizing:

While the basic premise of lying to oneself remains central, [Ann] Tenbrunsel and [David] Messick describe self-deception as the state of “being unaware of the processes that lead us to form our opinions and judgments. Such deception involves avoidance of the truth, the lies that we tell to, and the secrets we keep from, ourselves.”[7] Self-deception, on some scale, is “common, normal, and accepted as constant and pervasive in individual’s lives. We are creative narrators of stories that tend to allow us to do what we want and justify what we have done.”[8]

Crucially, they add that self-deception serves a purpose by allowing “one to behave self-interestedly while, at the same time, falsely believing that one’s moral principles were upheld.”[9] This statement alone will have immediate resonance with anyone remotely familiar with the nature of Jewish interference in the cultural and demographic life of White countries. Tenbrunsel and Messick state that this “internal con game” aids a process where ethical aspects of a situation, and their moral implications, are entirely obscured.[10]

One of the key questions confronting anyone studying self-deception is the relationship between a conscious deception of others and an unconscious deception of the self. Tenbrunsel and Messick state that “it is unclear whether such deception is the result of a conscious act or an unconscious process. Self-deception is paradoxical in this sense, for to deceive oneself somehow implies that one must know that something needs to be hidden or kept secret.”[11] Or as other scholars have asked: “how can the self be both deceiver and deceived?”[12]

For our purposes, we would face the dilemma of whether influential Jewish historians, politicians, etc. are simply lying to us, or whether they truly believe what they are saying.

This paradox, at least with regard to the jews, can be unravelled by asking two fundamental questions: Who/whom? And cui bono? Who is lying to whom? And who benefits from these lies? In short, the paradox arises in trying to describe collectivist psychology in individualist terms.

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. In the extreme it can be psychopathological.

The controversy and supposed paradox begin when the same term is applied to a seemingly related but qualitatively distinct behavior – lying to oneself to facilitate lying to others. The motives are still selfish, but others are now directly affected. In this sense it is on the cusp between psychology and sociology, an especially devious way one may deceive others. In the extreme it can be sociopathological.

Joyce notes that “scholars have identified and delineated four enablers of self-deception”, and that the first is “the employment of language euphemisms”, “careful use of language”. I agree, and thus see a corrective in paying careful attention to the use of language, and especially the term self-deception.

Joyce’s subject is really jewish deception, which includes jewish deception about jewish deception. Yes, the jews promote a narrative which tends to allow them to do what they want and justify what they have done. But it differs from ordinary self-deception in that the behavior is consistent and collective. It is about jews collectively lying to non-jews collectively to serve the interests of jews collectively. To call this plainly sociopathological behavior self-deception is to stretch the term beyond reason. Better to simply call it jewish deception, or jew lies, though even lie fails to capture the repetitive, in-your-face, black-is-white, now-white-is-black nature of it. Deception of others is at the very heart of jewish identity. It is a feature, not a bug.

To the extent either of the truer senses of self-deception plays a part, it seems to apply best to how non-jews try to cope with the otherwise inconceivably awful reality of jewish behavior. We may hypothesize, for instance, that the jews must be unconsciously deceiving themselves, that they know not what they do. Or we may say that jewish behavior is simply instinctive, that they can’t help what they do. But the reality is that jews behave as they do exactly because they are hyper-conscious of their collective identity and interests, not unconscious. Whatever portion of it is instinctive is very deliberately supplemented by indoctrination.

White minds recoil from such thoughts, but the lies jews tell about why jews lie are, in fact, just more jew lies. Jews tell these lies upon lies with the best interests of jews in mind, implicitly if not explicitly. It’s that simple.

In Part 2 Joyce introduces a good example of this:

Robert Wistrich (born 1945) is the current Neuburger Professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the head of the University’s Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism. Born to Polish leftist Jews in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, Wistrich emigrated to France and then Britain while still a youth. He grew up in England, and received his PhD from the University of London in 1974. Between 1974 and 1980 he was Director of Research at the Wiener Library, a piece of biographical information which is quite significant in itself.

In fact, the bulk of Joyce’s “Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography” concerns the work of this professional jew, who makes his hyper-consciousness of jewish interests quite explicit. In Part 3 Joyce writes:

Moving into the Enlightenment and the modern era, Wistrich becomes entangled in the increasingly complex and bizarre, self-deceiving “Christian virus” theory. Attempting to explain why anti-Semitism persisted into a period in which adherence to Christian dogma weakened radically, he proposes that the Christian virus remained dominant but had “pagan, pre-Christian anti-Semitism grafted on to the stem of medieval Christian stereotypes of the Jew which then passed over into the post-Christian rationalist anti-Judaism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”[29]

This is certainly an impressive mouthful, but in the absence of evidence it is completely ad hoc; it actually means and proves nothing and is instead typical of the attempts of Jewish historians to evade the rather obvious fact that in all eras and in all places the themes of anti-Semitism are unwaveringly similar. Talk of anti-Semitic themes “grafting” onto “stems” which ‘evolve’ and “pass over” into new forms simply can’t explain away, for example, the fact that we find evidence and complaints of Jewish avarice from ancient Rome, early Christian Syria, medieval England, and early modern Germany. Anti-Semitism is immutable.

Indeed, this behavior is typical. And it has nothing to do with these jews lying to themselves about what they’re doing. Jewish behavior is parasitic. The jews are virulent in the most literal biological sense of the word. While some work directly on extracting the resources of their host, others, like Wistrich, work more indirectly on damage control, spinning a narrative which shifts the blame onto their hosts. Inverting reality is a hallmark of the jews and jewish deception. Wherever jews cause pain, even more jews flock to cry out that jews are the ones who are the real victims.

My quibble about terms aside, Joyce’s articles are a masterful review of many facets of jewish deception. There are quite a few details and insights which were new to me, and thus I found it well worth reading.