Tag Archives: psychology

The Politics of Fear, The Psychology of Treason

(((donor class)))

In Fear and Loathing and Treason – Part 1 and Part 2 I discussed the psychological motives and mechanics of the White traitors aiding and abetting the invasion and colonization of Europe by “refugees”.

(((Corey Robin))) has written an article for the Jew Republic, What’s in it For The Collaborators?, getting inadvertently at what I was try to get at more deliberately. I’ve just taken the liberty here of deobfuscating (in the current year even the jews admit “elite” is just code for “jews”) and excerpting those portions which well describe the interplay of host collaboration and jew parasitism:

By conventional understanding, a collaborator is one who assists an enemy, helping groups to which he does not belong threaten groups to which he does belong. But this definition, it seems to me, is too restrictive. It presumes that a group is a discrete whole, that once in it, we can’t get out of it or have competing affiliations. Collaborators, however, cannot be so neatly bound.

Whether we belong to one group or another in some existential sense, in the course of our lives we do incur moral obligations to our comrades and friends, whom we betray when we aid our opponents.

But to avoid the question of identity that restrictive definitions of collaboration entail, I will use the definition contained in the word’s Latin root collaborare: “to work together.” By collaborator, I simply mean those men and women who work with jews and who occupy the lower tiers of power and make political fear a genuinely civic enterprise.

The collaborator confounds our simple categories of jew and victim. Like the jews, the collaborator takes initiative and receives benefits from his collaboration. Like the victim, he may be threatened with punishment or retribution if he does not cooperate.

Many collaborators, in fact, are drawn directly from the ranks of the victims. Perhaps then we can distinguish between collaborators of aspiration, inspired by a desire for gain, and collaborators of aversion, inspired by a fear of loss. The first are akin to jews, the second to victims. But even that distinction is too neat. Jews also fear loss, and victims hope for gain, and as the economist’s notion of opportunity costs attests, the hope of gain often informs the fear of loss.

Collaborators serve two functions. First, they perform tasks that jews themselves cannot or will not perform. These tasks may be considered beneath the dignity of the jews: cooking, cleaning, or other forms of work. They may require local knowledge—as in the case of informers, who provide information jews cannot access on their own—or specialized skills.

Second, collaborators extend the reach of jews into corners of society that jews lack the manpower to patrol. These collaborators are usually figures of influence within communities targeted by jews. Their status may come from the jews, who elevate them because they are willing to enforce the jews’ directives. More often, their authority is indigenous. Figures of trust among the victims, they can be relied upon to persuade the victims not to resist, to compound the fear of disobedience the victims already feel.

Because their functions are so various, collaborators come in all shapes and sizes. Some travel in or near the orbit of jew power; others are drawn from the lower orders and geographic peripheries. One common, though unappreciated, influence upon their actions is their ambition. While some collaborators hope to stave off threats to their communities and others are true believers, many are careerists, who see in collaboration a path of personal advance.

Whether the payment is status, power, or money, collaboration promises to elevate men and women, if only slightly, above the fray.

Though ambitious collaborators like to believe that they are adepts of realpolitik, walking the hard path of power because it is the wisest course to take, their realism is freighted with ideology. Careerism has its own moralism, serving as an anesthetic against competing moral claims. Particularly in the United States, where ambition is a civic duty and worldly success a prerequisite of citizenship, enlightened anglers of their own interest can easily be convinced that they are doing not only the smart thing, but also the right thing. They happily admit to their careerism because they presume an audience of shared moral sympathy.



We’re going to compare and contrast two recent controversies, one involving Bruce Jenner, the other involving Rachel Dolezal. And of course we’ll also discuss what this all has to do with the jews.

The two controversies revolve around the same core issue – the poisonous concept of fluidity, an extension of identity politics, which is itself an extension of the constantly metastasizing jewish intellectual movement known as cultural marxism or multiculturalism. Fluidity is the idea that individuals have a right to choose who they are, to be what they want to be, that social considerations or even physical biological realities are not or should not be any real constraint. It’s the idea that what what you think and believe and imagine you are matters more than anything else.

This idea of fluidity is part of a larger social context in which integration, mixing, blurring, “diversity” – anything degenerate, really – is put forth by cultural and political elites as right and good, and thus something that can and has been compelled by force. Meanwhile anything separate, homogeneous, with clear borders – anything necessary for the continuity and survival of a people, really – is portrayed as wrong and even evil, and thus can and has been targeted for destruction.

Such an abstract and objective description is really just the universalist sugarcoating over a deeper fraud, a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the racial animus that’s behind multiculturalism, driving it all. The driving force and it’s goals are not at all universalist but utterly particularist. It is really all about tearing down and destroying anything and everything European or White. It’s about marching through the institutions created and formerly dominated by Whites, now dominated by jews, and using those positions of authority to denounce Whites, to make the world safe for the jews first and foremost.

Clouding the issue is the fact that the jewish nature of this aggression has all along been largely disguised, cloaked by the earlier promotion and preeminence of “liberalism” – particularly secularism, individualism, and pluralism. The aggression has advanced most recently under the pretense of promoting “freedom” and “tolerance” and “equality” for everyone, even as the efforts have become ever more especially and obviously to secure special preferences and privileges for various “minorities”, and accompanied by ever shriller condemnations of “White supremacy”, “White privilege”, and Whites generally.

Identity politics is only superficially about everyone having and celebrating their unique identities equally. Behind the facade it’s a thoroughly jewish construct. It’s about jews with a strong jewish identity and racial animus for Whites spinning a historic narrative of victimhood and oppression. Jews and their holocaust narrative are at the absolute center, serving as the template, defining and driving a larger coalition of narrowly self-interested deviants, degenerates, feminists, and non-White “people of color”, inciting and uniting and directing them against Whites, and especially White heterosexual men.

So it’s against this cultural backdrop that we have in the first instance this idea of fluid gender in the spotlight, focused at the moment on Bruce Jenner, a famous White man, Olympic gold medal winner, married three times, father of four children. Jenner declared that he had long wished he was a woman and had finally resolved that he would undergo surgery to make himself look more like one physically. He then appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, dressed in a woman’s swimsuit, sporting breast implants, long hair, and makeup. The caption read, “Call me Caitlyn”, the new name Jenner has selected for himself. The jewsmedia celebrated.

Unfortunately, most of us have heard of this kind of sexual deviance before – transexuals, trannies, the T in LGBT – but Jenner’s fame and the jewsmedia’s hoopla took the already toxic contemporary popular culture to a whole new level of bizarre. What’s new about transgenderism is that it goes beyond tolerating a mentally deranged individual’s desire to be something they’re not, and becomes a metric by which everyone else’s value is measured by their willingness to say they approve of behavior that should repulse anyone healthy and normal. Abnormal and unhealthy are the new normal and healthy.

Late last week the other controversy sprang up, this one around a relatively unknown local leader of a black political organization named Rachel Dolezal. The initial report concerned her claim that she was the victim of “hate”, her 8th or 9th such complaint in as many years. This time around she claimed she had received a letter whose contents she found offensive. Pictures of nooses or whatever. This time it was also almost certainly a hoax, since the letter was supposedly received at a post office box that only herself and her staff had access to, and yet it’s stamp had not been cancelled, signifying that it had not actually been handled by anyone at the post office.

The jewsmedia regularly announces “hate” crimes, and almost as regularly but more quietly and ambiguously announce the corresponding hoaxes, when the supposed victim actually turns out to be the perpetrator. What made the Dolezal story stand out was the revelation that she had all along been hoaxing her blackness, that she was in fact a White woman who had simply frizzed her hair, darkened her skin, and passed herself off as black.

In Dolezal’s case the spotlight is shining on transrace, the fluidity of race. Coming so soon after the celebratory circus the jewsmedia had made about Jenner, the glaring similarity of their bizarre pretense is easy to see, and easy to mock. A glaring contrast is also clear. The jewsmedia which hailed Caitlyn Jenner has been either ambivalent or disapproving about Dolezal. The most common theme is an irrational insistence that the two situations are completely different.

The size, swiftness, and character of the public response has been telling in it’s own way. However relentless and pervasive the jewish promotion of the lie that neither race nor gender are rooted in biology, it is a lie, and many people aren’t buying it. The general consensus, in social media for sure, but even in the jewsmedia, is that Dolezal is a fraud, that she can’t possibly be black because she has no black ancestors. In other words, when it comes to racial identity, genes are the decisive factor. What Dolezal’s case demonstrates is that you can feel black, marry black, go to a black school, dedicate your life to serving blacks, you can look and act and you might even be mistaken as black, but none of that can actually make you black. For that you have to have black ancestors.

The case is similar for Jenner, though the jewsmedia treats it as though it is different. Despite Jenner’s surgery he’ll never really be a woman. The jewsmedia hype about him will in fact make it less likely he will even be able to even sincerely fool anyone. Just like Dolezal now that she’s been outed.

There are a few articles about these controversies that I’d like to cite, read excerpts from, and comment on, tying into and adding to what I’ve already said. However tempting it may be to simply disregard what’s happening and chalk it all up to insanity, the overarching point I’d like to make is that there is some sense that can be made of this if we read between the lines.

Paul McHugh, the former Psychiatrist in Chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital, wrote an article about Jenner titled, Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme, published on the web site Public Discourse. McHugh noted that what is today called transgenderism used to be a rare phenomenon but has dramatically increased in recent years. He describes this pathological behavior as “mental unrest” and attributes it’s spread to the spread of a pathogenic meme:

The champions of this meme, encouraged by their alliance with the broader LGBT movement, claim that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons.

. . .

But the meme—that your sex is a feeling, not a biological fact, and can change at any time—marches on through our society. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the Hans Christian Andersen tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of special beauty imperceptible to the rude or uncultured, paraded naked through his town to the huzzahs of courtiers and citizens anxious about their reputations. Many onlookers to the contemporary transgender parade, knowing that a disfavored opinion is worse than bad taste today, similarly fear to identify it as a misapprehension.

I am ever trying to be the boy among the bystanders who points to what’s real. I do so not only because truth matters, but also because overlooked amid the hoopla—enhanced now by Bruce Jenner’s celebrity and Annie Leibovitz’s photography—stand many victims.

. . .

Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

Emperor’s clothes indeed, but even McHugh’s truth-telling is couched in semitically correct compassion for the most botched. The suicides are only the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of the harm is being done to the many more otherwise healthy men and women whose minds are more subtly poisoned by this pathologenic transgender meme, who as a consequence will never form a proper family, and thus never reproduce.

McHugh does at least try to identify the source and driving force. He notes that:

both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters


The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.

But gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.

McHugh’s diagnosis of transgenderism dovetails very well with Kevin MacDonald’s description of the jewish culture of critique. A comparable diagnosis surely applies to transracialism. At the center of the moral fury in both cases is the jewish holocaust narrative.

Another psychologist commented was quoted in an article at People.com titled, Psych Expert: Rachel Dolezal Not Like Caitlyn Jenner. The author claims that “most people” think Jenner and Dolezal have “very little in common” but:

Some commenters on the internet likened Dolezal to someone who is “transracial”

To explain how “very different” transracial is from transgender she quotes a “racial identity expert”, who says:

“I would say being LGBTQ, there is strong evidence that there is a biological [reason behind it],” . . . “Caitlyn Jenner is not identifying with being a woman because of the upbringing and cultural conditioning.”

This is at odds with what McHugh described as the pathogenic meme behind transgenderism, “the idea that sex is a feeling, not a biological fact”. I think McHugh’s view is far more credible for reasons I’ll describe in a bit.

Concerning the problematic internet comments connecting transgender to transracial:

“I think [the comparison] is all an attempt to not really see the issue. The issue is deception, honesty and pretense. You have to get to the bottom of that.”

The “expert” is referring here to the jewsmedia talking point, popping up in many places now, that the big difference is that Dolezal was a fraud, dishonest. The reality is that Jenner, if he’s telling the truth now, has admitted that he has been lying to his friends and family for a much longer time.

The reality is that the idea that gender is not essentially biological is just as false as the idea that race is not essentially biological. Both ideas are a very deliberate deception. As McHugh puts it, anyone who confronts the deception faces fury.

The issue here is honesty, says the “racial identity expert”. The name of this expert, according to the article, is Derald Wing Sue. The article fails to identify Sue as a professional non-White anti-White. As his page at Wikipedia describes him:

Sue was born in Portland, Oregon to a Chinese American family. He lived in a predominantly white neighborhood, with his parents, four brothers, and one sister[3] where was reportedly bullied and teased on a regular basis, due to his race[4] which later influenced his studies in cross cultural counseling.[5] Two individuals who influenced Sue’s path of study were Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.[3]

. . .

first president of the Asian American Psychological Association

. . .

Sue’s ethnic minority status was his biggest influence in pushing for multiculturalism in psychology.

What’s more, Sue teaches this pathogenic meme known as “White privilege”. It’s the explicit premise of a presentation of his on the internet titled, What Does It Mean to Be White. It describes how he did some “research” that sounds like a stripped down version of the Whiteness Project I wrote about in November of 2014. In academia the word Whiteness is a deception. What it really describes is anti-Whiteness.

When this chinaman asked Whites what Whiteness means to them they mostly claimed they didn’t know, didn’t care. They were visibly disturbed and agitated by the question. He also asked non-Whites, and they revealed their sympatico with the “White privilege” meme Sue teaches – they see Whites as oblivious of their “privilege”, and they think being White means always being right, never having to explain yourself or apologize.

The fact that a racial alien who has not only demonstrated his anti-White animus but is actually paid to do so is called upon by the jewsmedia to comment on the behavior of White people in any way is a good sign that Whites do not have any tangible political power, never mind privilege.

The NAACP Statement on Rachel Dolezal came shortly after she was outed as White:

One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership. . . . the NAACP remains committed to securing political, educational, and economic justice for all people, and we encourage Americans of all stripes to become members and serve as leaders in our organization.

More deception. This is a good example of a particularist organization trying to cloak itself with universalist-sounding rhetoric. What the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is claiming is that it doesn’t discriminate against anyone who is willing to help them advance black interests.

On Monday Dolezal announced her resignation. She made no apologies. Instead she reiterated her commitment to “human rights” and advancing black interests.

Dave Chappelle a black who has made a career out of joking about race was serious about Dolezal:

“The world’s become ridiculous,” he told the awestruck grads at George Washington University’s Lisner auditorium. “There’s a white lady posing as a black lady. There is not one thing that woman accomplished that she couldn’t have done as a white woman. There’s no reason!

I think this reflects the poisonous effect that “White privilege” propaganda has even on blacks. They see even deranged Whites like Dolezal as golden, simply because she’s White. The false assumption is that Whites have even one university which teaches a positive view of our race, or even one organization that can provide us a with a stable career working for the advancement of our race. The truth is that Dolezal’s anti-White career was, materially speaking at least, far easier to pursue and more lucrative than any pro-White career. The race-based “storm” she says she’s experienced for a few days, and couldn’t take, is a taste of what she would have faced on a regular basis as a White woman openly trying to advocate for the advancement of her own race out of an office in Spokane.

The New York Times, the belly of the jewsmedia beast, ran an article titled Black or White? Woman’s Story Stirs Up a Furor:

Faking a racial history, in either direction, raises difficult questions about what race is and why it matters, and about the assumptions people make.

Jim Crow laws often imposed a “one-drop rule” so that people with even a sliver of black ancestry, no matter how white they appeared, were legally considered black. It is only because of that history that Ms. Dolezal could be accepted as black, said Martha A. Sandweiss, a history professor of Princeton University.

“There was very little to be gained by identifying yourself as black, so if you did, no one questioned it,” said Ms. Sandweiss, author of “Passing Strange,” an acclaimed book about a man who did just that in the late 19th century. “It shows how absurd racial classifications often are.”

What the Dolezal incident demonstrates is that there is something to gain, and there’s a new one-drop rule. No matter how black you appear, you need at least a sliver of black ancestry. So far as I know the current anti-White regime has squelched or avoided any legal challenge of it. Dolezal sued Howard University for discrimination against her, as a White woman. She lost.

Martha Sandweiss is another one of these deceptive “experts” on race. In fact, it appears she’s transracial, like Dolezal but different in an important way. From what I can tell she’s actually a jewess who’s posing as “white”. And like the chinaman “expert”, her expertise, her profession, is being critical of Whites.

There was an article about Sandweiss in the Princeton Alumni Weekly in 2009, with a title based on her jewsmedia-acclaimed book, Passing Strange: A Gilded Age Tale of Love and Deception Across the Color Line. American Renaissance reprinted it in 2009 under the title A Strange Double Life. The jewess’ double life as “white” went unmentioned.

If this story reminds readers of The Human Stain, Philip Roth’s novel about a half-black, half-white man passing as white and Jewish, you’re not alone. Sandweiss thought of it frequently during the four-and-a-half years she spent writing Passing Strange, especially with the number of times she had to fill in historical blanks.

“That was absolutely an inspiration for this book. I admire that book so much, how Roth gets inside of his character’s heads and imagines their motivations. Certainly many times working on this book I wished I was a novelist so I could narrate with a kind of a magnificent omniscience what’s really going on here.

“But I’m not a novelist, and I’m certainly not a brilliant novelist like Philip Roth. I’m a historian who lives and dies by her footnotes. This is a history book.”

(Uptown Girls is Sandweiss’ 2013 NYT review of Miss Anne in Harlem by Carla Kaplan. More of the same – concerning the “fiction of race”, the “absurdity of the one-drop rule”, and effusive praise for a tribemate spreading similar poisonous memes.)

Here’s why the jewsmedia attitude toward the transracial idea is generally negative even while their attitude toward transgender is positive. The jews deliberately promote fluidity of both race and gender, but the fluidity of race is of more critical importance to their parasitic lifestyle. Promoting a certain one-way belief in the fluidity of race helps enable jewish infiltration and manipulation of their hosts. The promotion of gender fluidity comes later, as part of the exploitation and parasitic castration of their hosts. Naturally jews are interested in racial identity and passing, thus they set themselves up as authorities on these subjects. They think deeply about these things, but they don’t want their hosts thinking too deeply about it.

Last week Andrew Joyce published a good article following up and expanding on a point I took issue with in Gaslighting. In Jews, Communists and Genocidal Hate in “Whiteness Studies” Joyce examines not just Noel Ignatiev but the jewy clique around him. He doesn’t directly address gender or race fluidity, but he does at least identify the jewish source and driving force behind these poisonous anti-White memes.

The open pursuance of ‘Whiteness Studies’ must be perceived as nothing less than an act of extreme, even violent, aggression against the White race.

Joyce gets less coherent toward the end when he tries to tie it in with his previous description of “White pathology” and “suicide”:

One major factor facilitating this ethnically suicidal behavior is the ongoing Jewish domination of academia and the constant mutation of what may loosely be termed ‘Frankfurt School’ ideologies into superficially novel intellectual movements. There is really nothing novel at all about ‘Whiteness studies.’ It is simply the latest guise for the radical critique of White culture and, all Talmudic logic about ‘race as a construct’ aside, the active promotion of White genocide. The hypocrisy of the Jewish architects of ‘Whiteness studies’ is self-evident — made clear in their total lack of identification with Whites, and in their very strong identification with Jewish culture and group interests. It is tragic, criminal in fact, that this corrupt cabal of ethnic activists and dysfunctional Communist wannabe-Jews has hijacked positions on faculty, has obtained access to elite publishing outlets, and with it, significant power and influence over culture.

The second factor at play in the success of ‘Whiteness studies’ is the ongoing problem of White pathology. One side of white pathology is altruism towards other races. The even more insidious side is the tendency towards self-hate.

Even according to the details of his own description of the non-jews who were involved as wannabe-jews, it’s really the same single factor – a jewish intellectual movement. I find it frustrating that a mainstream figure like McHugh won’t mention the jews, but will at least identify the ideas jews promote as pathogenic, whereas Joyce will bluntly identify the jews and what they’re doing, but still talks about the pathological behavior of Whites as if it’s something separate.

To conclude, the jist of what I’m getting at this time, which bears repeating, is that abnormal is the new normal. Trans-reality is a jewish construct.

Now more clearly than ever before in history, the problem is jewish rule. The fact is that jews are so powerful and privileged that hardly anyone in any position of power dares to openly challenge them or any of their cultural or moral dictates, no matter how obviously destructive. When supposed leaders and pundits aren’t snickering nervously, mocking “conspiracy theories” about “the jooos”, they’re loudly proclaiming their respect and admiration for jews, as a group, as a people, and denouncing anyone who doesn’t as the enemy, as literally evil. It’s more bizarre really than even the controversies around Jenner and Dolezal.

My point is that jews clearly use their influence in media and academia to define and promote pathogenic memes – the fluidity of gender and race are just two prominent examples. They do this because it’s good for the jews. They benefit from the almost-anything-goes atmosphere they create. In particular, they are the foremost practitioners of transracialism. They’ve used it throughout their history, not just recently, and not only to infiltrate and manipulate White hosts.

Solipsism and Narcissism


A further examination of the rational and emotional machinations which enable White genocide.

There’s an old joke I wanted to tell, to make an analogy, and when I went searching for an example to read here I found that there’s a name for the analogy. It’s called the streetlight effect. The joke goes like this:

A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “this is where the light is.”

As the Wikipedia article describes it, the streetlight effect is a type of observational bias where people search where it is easier, rather than where it would be more fruitful.

Over the course of the past year or so I’ve laid out what I think has been a thorough and fairly stated critique of what others refer to as “White pathology”, and specifically what they call “pathological altruism”. The key point I return to, again and again, is that there is a pathogen, an Other, an enemy. The jews. My criticism, to put it simply, is that much of what is labeled “White pathology” is a result of enemy action.

In fact I’ve gone farther and pointed out that if Whites exhibit any behavior which could justifiably be called pathological, symptomatic of a collective mental disease, then it would be how Whites collectively fail to perceive jews collectively as a mortal enemy. And this in spite of the jews’ relentless expressions of alienation and hostility, made most plain in the victim narrative jews never tire of recounting. In essence the jewish narrative portrays the jews as entirely blameless and eternally oppressed by “anti-semites”, which by their own telling includes every people they’ve ever come into contact with, but most recently is primarily Whites. Their holocaust narrative is the latest, most specific, most in-your-face example of this narrative.

In other words, jews clearly see Whites as their enemy, and you can hear them more or less openly lecture everyone about this in their media and from their privileged perches in universities and corporations and government any day of the week. Yet even Whites who have demonstrated some greater than average racial consciousness and even an awareness of the jews seem prone to discount the impact of jewish hostility, their influence, or both. Instead they hypothesize some mysterious inborn defect in Whites, some baked-in weakness that makes Whites vulnerable, with the premise that it has nothing to do with the jews. As I’ve pointed out, this desire to search within their own collective – to look where the light is best so to speak – is itself, I think, a symptom of the very weakness they’re looking for.

It also seems to me that there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why this happens. The word for it is ethnocentrism, an anthropological term:

the technical name for the view of things in which one’s own group is the centre of everything

There is another recurring theme, or to put it more bluntly another elementary error, which occurs in many attempts to understand and explain collective behavior using terms which are ordinarily used to describe the motives and behaviors of individuals.

Using the term suicide instead of genocide is a good example of both mistakes – blotting out the jews and personalizing the problem at the same time.

The psychological term “self-deception”, as in “jewish self-deception” is another. I’ve argued that it should really just be called jewish deception. The real “self-deception” is in White individuals who misinterpret the persistent and collective nature of jewish lying.

The error in such individualistic terms is that it inevitably personifies and thus distorts the problem, even if only in the minds of listeners. The speaker may simply be grasping for words, with a preference for familiar terms, where there seems to be more light. In my opinion blunter language is ultimately more fruitful, even if we must invent or call in other terms so as not to misunderstand or misrepresent what is in truth a collective phenomena.

A few months ago I spoke about Stockholm Syndrome and Gaslighting, trying to address these errors and to offer some other psychological terms and concepts which I think better fit the relationship between Whites and jews. In particular, that it is a relationship, and that it is an asymmetic, abusive parasitic relationship in which jews benefit and Whites are harmed.

To refresh your memory about 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.

The obvious analogy is that the jews and their holocaust guilt-tripping and 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 various “white pathologies” as a result.

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 analogy 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.

Here’s a bit more about these kinds of relationships, specifically to the point of anyone who says what I’m presenting is an arguement that Whites are blameless.

When You Love Your Abuser: Stockholm Syndrome and Trauma Bonds, via Psychopathyawareness’s Blog:

So far I’ve used the word “victim” to describe the women (or men) who suffer at the hands of psychopaths. Yet I don’t really like this word for several reasons. It tends to imply a certain passivity, as if the woman herself had nothing to do with the decision to get involved with the psychopath or, worse yet, to stay with him even once his mask of sanity started to slip. It’s rare that a psychopath physically coerces a woman to get involved with him or to stay with him. Although he intimidates and brainwashes her, generally the victim cooperates.

A victim of Stockholm Syndrome irrationally clings to the notion that if only she tries hard enough and loves him unconditionally, the abuser will eventually see the light. He, in turn, encourages her false hope for as long as he desires to string her along. Seeing that he can sometimes behave well, the victim blames herself for the times when he mistreats her. Because her life has been reduced to one goal and one dimension which subsumes everything else–she dresses, works, cooks and makes love in ways that please the psychopath–her self-esteem becomes exclusively dependent upon his approval and hypersensitive to his disapproval.

As we know, however, psychopaths and narcissists can’t be pleased. Relationships with them are always about control, never about mutual love. Consequently, the more psychopaths get from their partners, the more they demand from them.

“The combination of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ and ‘cognitive dissonance’ produces a victim who firmly believes the relationship is not only acceptable, but also desperately needed for their survival.

This calls to mind recent statements by Manuel Valls in France and Joe Biden in the US concerning how absolutely essential jews are.

In criticizing the rhetoric of “White altruism” I’ve argued against what I’ve described, grasping for the proper language, as a form of racial solipsism:

Solipsism (Listeni/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning “alone”, and ipse, meaning “self”)[1] is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist.

Metaphysical solipsism is the “strongest” variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.

In the view of a White racial solipsist other races have no independent existence, no agency. It is a form of extreme ethnocentrism, a focus on the collective self to the point of ignoring enemies – a pathological ethnocentrism.

Gorgias of Leontini

Solipsism was first recorded by the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:[3]

Nothing exists.

Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it.

Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can’t be communicated to others.

Much of the point of the Sophists was to show that “objective” knowledge was a literal impossibility. (See also comments credited to Protagoras of Abdera).

The foundations of solipsism are in turn the foundations of the view that the individual’s understanding of any and all psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, etc.) is accomplished by making analogy with his or her own mental states; i.e., by abstraction from inner experience. And this view, or some variant of it, has been influential in philosophy since Descartes elevated the search for incontrovertible certainty to the status of the primary goal of epistemology, whilst also elevating epistemology to “first philosophy”.

There an element of what the jew fraud Freud called projection in there. And the common understanding of the word comes with quite a bit of individualist and philisophical freight. Rather than trying to tack a racial qualifier on solipsism I think a term like pathological ethnocentrism is the better fit.

Another term comes to mind that came up in the discussion of gaslighting, but which reflects an ancient European archetype, originating in a European myth. It even has to do with “suicide”. The term is “narcissism”, which comes from the archetype and myth of Narcissus:

In Greek mythology, Narcissus (/nɑrˈsɪsəs/; Greek: Νάρκισσος, Narkissos) was a hunter from Thespiae in Boeotia who was known for his beauty. He was the son of the river god Cephissus and nymph Liriope.[1] He was proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. Nemesis noticed this behavior and attracted Narcissus to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus drowned. Narcissus is the origin of the term narcissism, a fixation with oneself.

The self-attraction/self-infatuation of narcissism is broadly understood. That this weakness is exploited and made fatal by a hostile Other, a nemesis, is not as well known.

Multiple versions of the myth have survived from ancient sources. The classic version is by Ovid, found in book 3 of his Metamorphoses (completed 8 AD); this is the story of Narcissus and Echo. One day Narcissus was walking in the woods when Echo, an Oread (mountain nymph) saw him, fell deeply in love, and followed him. Narcissus sensed he was being followed and shouted “Who’s there?”. Echo repeated “Who’s there?”. She eventually revealed her identity and attempted to embrace him. He stepped away and told her to leave him alone. She was heartbroken and spent the rest of her life in lonely glens until nothing but an echo sound remained of her. Nemesis, the goddess of revenge, learned of this story and decided to punish Narcissus. She lured him to a pool where he saw his own reflection. He didn’t realize it was only an image and fell in love with it. He eventually realized that his love could not be addressed and committed suicide.[1]

Again, the Other plays a key role. In this case there is a gaslighting Other as well as the vengeful Other. There are other versions. All end in the death of Narcissus – which is the moral of the story.

The Language of Racial Psychology


This short article, How Evolutionary Psychology Illuminates Everyday Life, by Glenn Geher, highlights a few common idioms which have to do with group relations. These two are particularly interesting:

4. Eye for an eye.

I’ve written extensively that we are giving, altruistic species (see Geher, 2015). But we’re not dumb. The nature of altruism in a species like ours is conditional – we tend to help in a strategic manner. We tend to help people who have helped us in the past. Helping others who don’t help you leads to a scenario of possible exploitation, and evolutionary forces would have selected against such non-reciprocated helping (see Trivers, 1971). Similarly, it’s not good social policy to be a punching bag. If you let someone walk all over you and don’t retaliate, then (a) that person learns that he or she can continue to be a jerk to you and (b) others come to see you as exploitable. The whole “eye for an eye” things helps us understand all of these dynamics.

2. Tail between your legs.

Across many species, dominance hierarchies exist in social contexts (see Geher, 2014 for a summary of this concept). And lots of non-verbal behavior is associated with dominance-related contexts. When two dogs squabble for dominance, the loser takes on a unique and highly observable posture – it walks away with its tail between its legs. This is a signal that it has tried to achieve a higher status position than it really warranted – and is now signaling all this information to the others. When a person makes a bold social move that fails, you can see it in his or her face – as if he or she is a dog walking with its tail between its legs.

It’s easy enough to apply these terms to the anti-White/pro-jew zeitgeist. In the wake of the last big squabble for dominance seven decades ago the non-reciprocating eye-for-an-eye jerks have dominated and exploited the dumb punching bag losers, flaunting “our” altruistic norms not only without retaliation but with Whites instead tucking tail.

This way of describing the psychology seems more illuminating than the “pathological altruism” rhetoric I’ve been criticizing recently.



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.


The Interplay of Ideology, Biology, Guilt and Shame

In whatever happened to european tribes? hbd* chick posits that Christianity discouraged inbreeding, which in turn triggered the dissolution of European tribalism and consequent shift in emphasis to the nuclear family.

We can see in this the give and take between ideology and biology – the roots of identity are genetic, but memes, over generations, do shape the underlying gene pool. To the extent outbreeding produces a relative shift in identity rather than simply destroying it, this also provides a partial, biological explanation for why Whites tend toward both broader (nationalist, racialist) and narrower (individualist) forms of identity. An even more proximate and substantial cause lies in decades of anti-White propaganda, and it encourages more extreme shifts, whether outward into humanism or inward into solipsism.

hbd* chick has been writing thought-provoking articles about the nature and origins of Europeans for some time. This article on European tribalism is from 2011, part of her inbreeding in europe series. More recently she has written about what she calls the outbreeding project, a subset of her general theory of the west – all based on the realization that clannishness goes hand in hand with consanguinity.

Two of her more recent posts, more on the origins of guilt in northwestern european populations and the transition from shame to guilt in anglo-saxon england (and “core” europe), are a critique of Peter Frost’s The origins of Northwest European guilt culture and Part II.

Frost begins Part I by noting the crucial difference between shame and guilt:

Shame is the primary means of behavioral control in most societies. If you are seen breaking a social rule, you will feel shame, and this feeling will be reinforced by what people say and do (gossiping, malicious looks, spitting, ostracism, etc.). Shame is much less effective if you break a rule without being seen or if you merely think about breaking a rule.

Guilt is more important in European societies, particularly those of Northwest European origin. It operates even when you act alone or merely think about breaking a rule. Behavior can thus be regulated in all possible situations with a minimum of surveillance.

Put more plainly, shame is the means by which more particularist/collectivist non-Whites maintain group cohesion, whereas guilt is the means by which more universalist/individualist Whites are encouraged to selflessly maintain a civil society in which everyone but Whites can thrive. Shame is something groups inflict upon themselves, for their own benefit, whereas guilt-tripping is a weapon of group warfare, used by non-Whites to discourage White group cohesion in any form between family and race.

Ironically, Frost cites Ruth Benedict on how shame compares to guilt:

Ruth Benedict first made the distinction between “shame cultures” and “guilt cultures”. Pervasive feelings of guilt are part of a behavioral package that enabled Northwest Europeans to adapt to complex social environments where kinship is less important and where rules of correct behavior must be obeyed with a minimum of surveillance.

Benedict helped establish cultural anthropology, which has since largely displaced physical anthropology, substituting jewish pilpul and narrative for the objective science developed by Northwest Europeans. If nothing else Benedict’s cultural theorizing helps explain her own mindset, moved by her “guilt culture” to work with members of a “shame culture” – jews like her mentor Franz Boas, her colleague Gene Weltfish and a swarm of other social science activists who were more or less openly obsessed with advancing the interests of their own tribe.

In order to prevail these cultural anthropologists literally made up stories and falsified data. They shamelessly leveraged tribalist networking, using their power and authority to advance pseudo-science while denouncing, shunning, defunding and otherwise tearing down their opponents. What’s more, they never expressed the slightest twinge of shame or guilt about it. They were far too busy feeling morally righteous about themselves and their cause.

The “behavioral package” of jews is adapted to parasitism. They do not empathize with their hosts. They will use shame, guilt, or any other mechanism they can in order to marginalize their enemies and hijack or hoodwink others into serving their interests. In contrast to Whites, who actually do feel guilt and shame each other mercilessly over “racism”, jews feel guilt and shame each other for not being obsessed enough about what’s best for the jews.

Frost argues that Northwestern European “guilt culture” predates Christianity. hbd* chick argues the origins are more recent, a consequence of the avoidance of cousin marriage. I’m intrigued by the subject and recognize some truth in both arguments. What leaves me vaguely annoyed is the calm Northwestern European detachment with which they discuss the subject. The “guilt culture” is only one facet of White pathology, the more general attribute of which is the absurd pretense that everybody is, or with enough effort on our part can become, “us”. The affliction isn’t unique to either Northwestern Europeans or Christians. It also, frankly, doesn’t seem to be either shame or guilt which keeps Whites who are so intelligent and knowledgeable about history and science and conscious of Northwestern European distinctiveness from taking more notice of the jew elephant in the room.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the main mechanism lies even deeper in the psyche, below guilt and shame. In pain. In the fear of pain. In the fear of even mentioning those things we suspect might cause us pain. Here too I can see the interplay of evil thoughts and breeding. The dysgenic consequence of two centuries of fratricidal revolution and war selecting out Europe’s most fearless and noble. The sterile fruit of parasite-fomented, parasite-serving materialism and “enlightenment”.