Tag Archives: jewish influence

Blog

Julius Evola: “the ‘British Empire’ was a creature of Judaism”

15 Comments

crypto_colossus

The significance of the bone of contention over jewish rule of Britain first came to my attention in Majority Rights Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl, and especially in the comments at MR afterward. Months later I came across the issue again in Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 8 and Part 9.

The “British” Empire is one of those elements of European history which resonates very strongly in the European psyche. Racialists tend to see it as an expression of Anglo-Saxon greatness. The jews have turned it into a cornerstone of their guilt-tripping about colonialism. Neither view accords with reality. The jews puppeteered the empire at the expense of Britons, just as today they puppeteer the colonization of Britain itself.

Evola’s assessment, excerpted below, was written in 1940, at which point jewish parasitic infiltration and manipulation of Britain (from the top) was clear enough. Evola’s discussion of the precise who and how provides a welcome contrast to Yockey’s jew-blind account in 1948. Indeed, the false notion that Britons ruled Britain then, and even now, prevails exactly because the jews still rule.

Disraeli the Jew and the Empire of the Shopkeepers:

We know that, wherever economic interests predominate, the Jew rapidly rises and accedes to the commanding positions. The penetration of Judaism into England is not a thing of recent days alone. It was the English Revolution and Protestantism which threw open England’s doors. The Jews, who had been expelled by Edward I in 1290, were readmitted to England as a result of a Petition accepted by Cromwell and finally approved by Charles II in 1649. From this time forward, the Jews, and above all the Spanish Jews (the Sephardim) began to immigrate en masse to England, bringing with them the riches which they had acquired by more or less dubious means, and it was these riches, as we have just explained, which allowed them to accede to the centres of command within English life, to the aristocracy and to positions very close to the Crown. Less than a century after their re-admission, the Jews were so sure of themselves that they demanded to be naturalised, that is to say, to be granted British citizenship. This had a very interesting result : the Law, or Bill, naturalising the Jews was approved in 1740. Most of its supporters were members of the upper classes or high dignitaries within the Protestant Church, which shows us the extent to which these elements had already become Judaised or corrupted by Jewish gold. The reaction came not from the English upper classes, but from the people. The Law of 1740 provoked such outrage and disorder among the populace that it was abrogated in 1753.

The Jews now resorted to another tactic : they abandoned their synagogues and converted, nominally, to Christianity. Thus the obstacle was circumvented and their work of penetration proceeded at an accelerated pace. What mattered to the Jews was to keep their positions of command and to eliminate the religious arguments on which the opposition of that period principally rested ; everything else was secondary, since the converted Jew remains, in his instincts, his mentality, and his manner of action, entirely Jewish, as is shown by one striking example among many others : the extremely influential Jewish banker Sampson Gideon, despite having converted, continued to support the Jewish community and was buried in a Jewish cemetery. His money bought for his son an enormous property and the title of Baronet.

This was the preferred tactic of the rich Jews of England from the eighteenth century on : they supplanted the English feudal nobility by acquiring their properties and titles, and thus mixing themselves with the aristocracy, by the nature of the British representative system, they came closer and closer to the government, with the natural consequence of a progressive Judaification of the English political mentality.

from the inception of imperialism on the large scale, what was less apparent was that the ‘British Empire’ was a creature of Judaism, which a Jew had given as a present to the British Royal Crown.

This Jew was Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria’s Prime Minister

Only one Jew could have conceived the idea of ‘reforming’ the conception of Empire and making of it something plutocratic and transforming it into imperialistic materialism. This Jew was Disraeli – ‘Dizzy’ as he was known. It was he who made of Queen Victoria an ‘Empress’, a colonial Empress, the Empress of India. This indefatigable proponent of the English ‘Imperial’ idea modelled his conception upon the Jewish Messianic-imperial idea, the idea of a people whose power consists in the riches of others, over which they take power, and which they cynically exploit and control. Disraeli always attacked very violently those who wished to separate England from her overseas territories, within which, as a Jewish historian has pointed out, Jews were the pioneers. Disraeli knew who it was that sustained this England which in turn was to dominate the riches of the world ; it is possible that he was among those initiates who knew that it was more than a simple British-Jewish plutocracy which was pulling the strings. One recalls those often-quoted words of Disraeli : “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”

The prudent and noiseless penetration of Jewry into the English upper classes and into the government itself continued. It was Disraeli who performed the coup upon Egypt in 1875 – with whose help? Rothschild. In 1875, the Khedive had financial worries and Disraeli managed to learn that he was willing to sell 177,000 shares of Suez Canal stock. This was a magnificent opportunity to gain certain control of the route to the Indies. The government hesitated. Rothschild did not. Here is the record of the historic conversation between Disraeli and Rothschild (Disraeli had asked him for four million pounds sterling) : “What guarantee can you offer me?” “The British government.” “You shall have five million tomorrow.” The interest on the loan was ‘extremely low’ ; naturally, the real and important interest of the Jewish clique lay on another and less visible plane …

Disraeli did not fail to make more convenient to the Jews of England their ritual observance. A little-known fact is that the ‘English Saturday’ is nothing other than the Jewish Sabbath, the ritual day of rest of the Jews. It was suitably Disraeli who introduced it to England, under an adequate social pretext.

Thus, as the Judaification of old feudal England was accomplished by diverse means, and as the old aristocracy gradually decomposed and underwent inoculation with ideas which would make it an easy prey for the material and spiritual influences of Judaism and Freemasonry, Disraeli did not forget his other task, that of augmenting and reinforcing the power of the new ‘Empire of Shopkeepers’, the new ‘Imperial Venice’, the reborn Israel of the Promise. This he did in a manner which was just as characteristically Jewish. Disraeli was one of the principal instigators of that sad and cynical English foreign policy by means of ‘protected’ third parties and the use of blackmail, which it pushes to the most extreme consequences. The most striking case is that of the Russo-Turkish War. Disraeli did not hesitate to betray the ancient cause of European solidarity, by placing Turkey under British protection. Turkey, defeated, was saved by Britain ; by use of the well-known ‘English’ method of threats and sanctions, Disraeli was able to paralyse the Slavic advance to the South without a single shot being fired, and a grateful Turkey made him a present of Cyprus. At the Congress of Berlin, the Russian ambassador, Gortshakov, was unable to restrain himself from crying dolorously : “To have sacrificed a hundred thousand soldiers and a hundred million of money, and for nothing!” (*) There is a factor even more serious, from a higher point of view. By virtue of this situation, brought about by Disraeli, Turkey was admitted into the community of the European nations protected by so-called ‘International Justice’. We say ‘so-called’ because, until that time, far from being held to be valid for all the peoples of the world, this justice was held to be valid uniquely among the group of the European nations ; it was a form of recourse and of internal law for Europeans. With the admission of Turkey, a new phase of international law began, and this was truly the phase in which ‘justice’ became a mask and its ‘international’ character became a ruse of ‘democracy’, for it was simply an instrument in the service of Anglo-Jewry, and subsequently of the French also. This development led to the League of Nations, to crisis, and to actual war.

UPDATE 20 Sep 2018: The original link from which the excerpts above were taken is down. The new link says this about the original source:

‘L’Ebreo Disraeli e la costruzione dell’impero dei mercanti’ (‘Disraeli the Jew and the Empire of the Shopkeepers’) was published in September 1940 in Vita Italiana. Like the two other articles by Evola on Judaism which appear on this site, it is also included in the anthology ‘Il “Genio d’Israele” – L’Azione distruttrice dell’Ebraismo’ (‘The Genius of Israel – The Destructive Action of Hebraism’) (Il Cinabro, 1992).

Age of Treason Radio

Recap and Reckoning

Audio 11 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

road_through_the_woods

An impromptu review of AoTR themes covered over the past few months.

The example of the Parasite Flight trope I cited is Roger Cohen’s Jew York Times op-ed, The Great Jewish Exodus, published on 19 Feb 2015:

LONDON – They were gone, as completely as from Baghdad or Cairo, Damascus or Alexandria. They had vanished from Budapest and Brussels, from Frankfurt and Padua, from Paris and Manchester, from Antwerp and Stockholm.

As in the Arab world, Europe wondered what it had lost. The texture of life was thinned, the richness of exchange diminished, the flowering of ideas curtailed. There was an absence.

They did not say much. They packed and left, wheeling their suitcases, carrying their bags and bundles and babies, a little wave offered here and there. Rich and poor, religious and not, they sold what they had and went on their way. People looked askance, as their forbears once had in crueler circumstances, a little uneasy at the exodus, unsure what it meant but certain it was the end of a very long story.

Was Europe not the Continent of Disraeli and Heine and Marx (all baptized, but still), of Freud and Einstein, of Rothschild and Bleichröder, of Dreyfus and Herzl, of Joseph Roth and Stefan Zweig? Was it not the home of Yiddish, once the first tongue of millions, a language perhaps unique, as Isaac Bashevis Singer noted, because it was never spoken by men in power?

Was it not the scene of a great 19th-century struggle for emancipation beginning in France and stretching across the Continent to the pogrom-stained Pale of Settlement, a battle that in many instances ushered this stubborn people, with their eternal covenant of ethics entered into with a faceless God, to the summit of the professions, only for this progress, threatening to some, to end in the Nazis’ industrialized mass murder?

Was Europe not, against all odds, the place liberalism triumphed over the deathly totalitarianisms? The land of Isaiah Berlin who quoted Kant: “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” The Continent where this people survived after the attempted annihilation (in which the majority of Europeans were complicit), forming new communities, even in Germany; a Continent of crooked timber, of every expression and experiment in their identity, their partial loss of identity, their embrace of merged and multiple identities?

Yes, there was often a sense of otherness, a self-imposed discretion, but there was also reassurance in being part of a great European convergence that over many decades dissolved the borders across which countless wars had been fought and affirmed the right of every European of whatever faith or ethnicity to equal rights, free expression, and the free practice of their beliefs.

Yet now they were gone. Europe, without the Jews, had lost part of itself. It had lost the very right to a conscience. It had been defeated in its essence. It had rebirthed itself after the 20th-century horror only to surrender.

Jewishness had lost one of its constituent elements, the European Jew of the diaspora. As for humanity, it had lost all hope. Humankind had succumbed to the tribal nightmare, to the darkest of tides. Tribal war loomed.

Israel is indeed the home of every Jew, and that is important, a guarantee of sorts. It is equally important, however, that not every Jew choose this home. That is another kind of guarantee, of Europe’s liberal order, of the liberal idea itself. So it was shattering when millions of Jews, every one of them in fact, as if entranced, upped and left their homes in Milan and Berlin and Zurich.

Beside typifying (and in this case literally fantasizing an extension of) the jewish narrative there are two points I neglected to mention in the podcast. First, Cohen undermines his own reality-inverting suggestion that jews have had a positive influence on Europeans by citing poisonously destructive exemplars such as Marx, Freud and Rothschild. Second, Cohen (dis)credits the jews with inciting and maintaining jew-serving “liberalism” amongst Europeans.

Interloping “cosmopolitan” jews like Cohen build whole careers upon loxism, characterized by a truly schizophrenic alternation between snivelling and gloating. Often, as in the case of this op-ed, it is both at the same time. Yet, while jews like Cohen loudly whine and boast that their poisonous tribe is the very essence of European health, “white pathologists” busy themselves searching for some way, any way, that it’s not about the jews.

Greg Johnson’s critique of my recent arguments about “white pathology” starts here.

I have some things to attend to offline and won’t be producing AoTR installments for the next month or so. In the meantime I invite listeners review my archives, subscribe to TFeed (and the various of sources of audio I include there) and follow me on Twitter.

Blog

Holo-Heretic Hunters: The Faurisson File

an_historical_lie

Holo-Heretic Hunters: The Faurisson File (press CC for English subtitles), a video by Bernamej, via The CODOH Revisionist Forum.

This is a brilliant short video, its wry satire all the more disturbing because it only slightly exaggerates the jew-dominated zeitgeist. The story is set in France, where even the slightest whiff of a challenge to the supposed moral superiority of the jews and their ridiculously one-sided historic narrative is met with swift state-backed force. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. The truth is that in France truth seekers such as Robert Faurisson are demonized, and mere gestures of defiance, such as the quenelle, are criminalized.

From Meet Robert Faurisson:

During an interview in December 1980 with the French radio network “Europe 1,” Faurisson summarized the result of his historical research in one sentence of 60 French words. Here is that sentence, in English:

“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews constitute one and the same historical lie, which made possible a gigantic financial-political fraud, the principal beneficiaries of which are the State of Israel and international Zionism, and whose principal victims are the German people — but not their leaders — and the entire Palestinian people.”

That sentence, he declared 23 years later, “requires no changes.”

I would broaden “State of Israel and international Zionism” to “jews” and “German people” to “White race”, but Faurisson’s statement is only more specific, not incorrect. In addition, this particularly historic lie is rightly seen in perspective as only the most recent and monstrous imposition in a long series of anti-European libels which have been perpetrated by the jews. The jews have, as a collective, always and entirely blamed Europeans, as a collective, though the origin and perpetuation of the conflict is more properly attributed to the interloping, parasitic aliens rather than their unfortunate, indigenous hosts.

Blog

Jews on the Warpath

geysers_real_in_wiesels_mind

It’s overwrought, as jewish political rhetoric usually is, but this Haaretz op-ed gives a truer view of the extent and nature of jewish rule, and jewish consciousness of it, than is ordinarily visible in the mainstream jewsmedia. Beware: Republican Jews on the warpath:

Now it’s no longer a “crisis in the relationship” that they try to paper over; now it’s no longer just “tensions with the White House” that they’re making every effort to reduce in between meetings; now, it’s an open war with the United States. It’s Sheldon Adelson versus Barack Obama, and Israel is caught in the cross-fire.

After Vice President Joe Biden, our greatest friend over there, announced an unspecified trip abroad that will prevent him from being in Congress at the fateful hour, Republican Jewish organizations launched a campaign of intimidation against those lawmakers who had already announced their intent to skip the joint session: Their political fate will be bitter.

Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of nations.

God, save us from our Jews; we can handle the non-Jews ourselves. How easy it is to stir up the highest institutions of democratic America, and how difficult to bomb Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. Ask the heads of your intelligence agencies, or ours, and they’ll whisper it in secret.

From Israel, the land you love so much and are so far away from, we’d like to tell you American Jews, regardless of your opinions and party affiliations – all those of you who won’t openly wash your hands of these risky gambles – that our fate is in our own hands.

Don’t play with fire that will burn us alone, or perhaps you as well: Because of your silence, you’ll be accused of dual loyalty.

In these very moments, the protocols are being rewritten. Rich Jews are writing them in their own handwriting. They, in their wealth, are confirming with their own signatures what anti-Semites used to slander them with in days gone by: We, the elders of Zion, pull the strings of Congress, and the congressmen are nothing but marionettes who do our will. If they don’t understand our words, they’ll understand our threats. And if in the past, we ran the show from behind the scenes, now we’re doing it openly, from center stage. And if you forget our donations, the wellspring will run dry.

It’s not just Sheldon Adelson, or “rich jews”, or Republican jews. As the Daily Mail reports, at the Daily Mail, Elie Wiesel lends support to Benjamin Netanyahu’s U.S. speech:

Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel is lending his support to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to Congress on the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program.

Outspoken New Jersey Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach said on Thursday he is placing full-page advertisements in two leading U.S. newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, featuring Wiesel’s endorsement of Netanyahu’s speech.

The advertisement quotes Wiesel as saying he plans to attend Netanyahu’s address ‘on the catastrophic danger of a nuclear Iran,’ with the author asking Obama and lawmakers: ‘Will you join me in hearing the case for keeping weapons from those who preach death to Israel and America?’

The high-profile ad campaign puts pressure on the White House and congressional Democrats to rethink their plans to skip the address.

Speaking to Reuters by phone, Boteach said: ‘There’s no personality more respected in the global Jewish community and few in the wider world than Elie Wiesel. He is a living prince of the Jewish people.’

‘He is the face of the murdered 6 million (Jews killed in the Holocaust). So I think that his view on the prime minister’s speech sounding the alarm as to the Iranian nuclear program carries a unique authority that transcends some of the political circus that has affected the speech,’ Boteach said.

Here’s the full text of Wiesel’s ad:

Iran’s Plan for the Jews, Ancient and Present

Many centuries ago a wicked man in Persia named Haman advised: “There exists a nation scattered and dispersed among the others… It is not in our interest to tolerate them.”

And the order went out to all the provinces, to “annihilate, murder and destroy the Jews, young and old, children and women.”

Now Iran, modern Persia, has produced a new enemy. The Ayatollah Khamenei has been as clear as his predecessor in declaring his goal: “the annihilation and destruction” of Israel. He is bent on acquiring the weapons needed to make good on the deadly promise.

The disaster of ages past was averted, but the event is remembered in the holiday of Purim. On March 5th, Jewish children in synagogues around the world will shout down the name of Haman when it is pronounced in the Book of Esther. They understand a simple truth that at times eludes world leaders: When someone in power threatens your destruction, you must loudly condemn him.

On the day before Purim the Prime Minister of Israel will address Congress on the catastrophic danger of a nuclear Iran. I intend to be there. Should we not show our support for what might be the last clear warning before a terrible deal is struck? Santayana wrote that those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it. I believe that those who deny history – specifically the Holocaust – are determined to repeat it.

President Obama, Vice President Biden, distinguished members of Congress, I ask you – As one who has seen the enemies of the Jewish people make good on threats to exterminate us, how can I remain silent?

As Queen Esther said when addressing her King: “How can I behold the destruction of my people?”

I plead with you to put aside the politics that have obscured the critical decisions to be made. Surely it is within your power to find a solution that will permit Israel’s Prime Minister to deliver his urgent message.

Will you join me in hearing the case for keeping weapons from those who preach death to Israel and America?

In traditional Jewish families we close the Sabbath with the lighting of the Havdalah candle and a quote from the Book of Esther retelling how danger was replaced by light and happiness, and the blessing: “And so may it be for us.”

Wiesel is demonstrating how the jewish narrative, from the Purim tale to the “6 million” tale, is used as a weapon. Specifically he is using it to instigate a war which will be waged by others for the benefit of jews. He’s being especially brazen (and typically jewish) to invoke Purim, in effect announcing what he’s doing, though in a way that virtually none of the ignorant goyim will understand. As I noted in Jewish Crypsis – Religion – Part 4:

In a nutshell Purim is the celebration of the triumph of jews over their enemies. Specifically, it is a victory achieved by means of deception, seduction and exploitation of others – whereby a single wiley crypto-jewess [Esther] manipulates one group of goyim into warring on another group of goyim in the service of jewish interests. The moral of the story and righteousness of it all rests upon the jewish license noted above: proactively exterminating “mortal dangers” “by any means necessary”.

These three things [Purim, Kol Nidre and Moser] have little or nothing to do with God, or serving God, unless God is understood as the people who are being served, the jews themselves.

When Wiesel concludes by referring to, “how danger was replaced by light and happiness”, he and every jew knows that this means getting goyim to slaughter goyim for the jews. Like World War II. They also know that most goyim don’t know. We must change this.

Age of Treason Radio

Pathology and Pathogen

Audio 25 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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’?