I’d like to revisit and expand here on a point I made two weeks ago at the end of Pathology and Pathogen. The very last part of Andrew Joyce’s article I quoted was:

Critics of Jews are equally concerned with developing an understanding not only of Jewish power and influence, but also of the pathology of Whites that has facilitated Jewish power and influence as well as the current disaster of displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism. The emphasis is on the identification of multiple sources and origins of the current societal malaise, and on evidence-based intellectual and scientific investigation of all aspects of the interactions between Jews and non-Jews in all locations and throughout historical time. This activity can in no way be seen as the seeking of simplistic answers.

This, as I said, is the problem. It is an acknowledgement that there is a problem and at the same time it is a misconstrual of the nature and source of the problem.

As Joyce’s own description alludes, in the interactions between jews and non-jews in all locations and throughout historical time the sole common element is … the jews. Yet he also take pains to avoid this simple point – to emphasize that he, and other critics of jews seek “multiple sources and origins” which “can in no way be seen as the seeking of simplistic answers”.

But the answer is simple. No pathogen, no pathology. Or to put it slightly less simply, the impact of jewish pathologization and manipulation is so enormous that it’s difficult to imagine what problems would remain if they were removed.

At any rate, as the earlier portion of Joyce’s article made clear, and as I can attest to myself, an objective critic of jews can dig into as many details and develop as complex an understanding of jews as they like. But from the beginning jews will pathologize them and their effort as “anti-semitism” – as a congenital mental disease which has nothing to do with the jews. My argument is that the simple answer to such single-minded hostility is, first of all, to recognize it as such. Second, to recognize that whatever appeal objectivity has to Whites, however inborn it may be, it is in this case part of the problem.

In the face of jewish aggression, Whites have historically capitulated and are now prostrate exactly because we have internalized the fundamental thrust of the jewish critique. Whites have blamed ourselves and our societies for not being tolerant or accomodating enough. The political term for this misguided belief is “liberalism”. The simple answer is to steel ourselves and advise our collective to be less prone to tolerance and accomodation, to resist the urge to blame ourselves and our collective, and instead to recognize manipulative alien collectives, first and foremost the jews, as an endless source of threats and pathology from which we individuals who are aware of the situation have a responsibility to defend ourselves and our collective.

I must emphasize now, again, that I credit Joyce with at least connecting his own discussion of “white pathology” to the jews and jewish power. This connection is obvious and simple to make. Yet it is missing from the diagnosis provided by many other pundits who like to use terms like “white pathology”. This is especially glaring for those pundits who insist on using terms like “white suicide” to push the suicide meme, as I discussed in Fear and Genocide. Pundits like the jew Lawrence Auster and the jewhadi Fjordman come immediately to mind.

I’m also thinking of pundits like Ricardo Duchesne and Jared Taylor, who more or less pretend the jews don’t exist or are “white”, and in either case the jews don’t play a significant role in anything they have to say about “white pathology” or “white suicide”. Duchesne and Taylor were among the handful of writers Kevin MacDonald asked to address the issue in late 2013, in Recently in The Occidental Quarterly: Special Sections on White Pathology.

MacDonald has written about it himself. In an article from October of 2014, Psychopathology and Racial Self-Hate among Whites, he begins:

A prominent feature of the Frankfurt School was the ideology that ethnocentrism among Whites (but not Jews) was a psychopathology. This weapon was taken up by the organized Jewish community which claimed that pro-White and anti-Jewish attitudes were literally public health problems and popularized phrases like “virulent anti-Semitism,” analogizing anti-Jewish attitudes to the spread of a virus.

This campaign has been incredibly successful among Whites. Whites who have internalized this pathogen naturally suppress such attitudes, and they do so despite their universality, and despite the reality that ethnic self-interest is eminently rational from an evolutionary perspective. And even despite the fact that many of those promoting this pathogen are proudly ethnocentric themselves.

But the campaign has been very effective: No one wants to publicly express attitudes that mark one as a psychiatric case.

So far, so good. He even identified jews as the pathogen, or at least as the source of a pathogenic campaign. But then he seems to balk and backpedal, showing some signs that he too has internalized a bit of the pathogen he just described:

Given the rationality and the evolutionary imperative of ethnic interests, there is the opposite suggestion — that at least some of the Whites who express such attitudes are suffering from a psychopathology. After all, the great majority of humanity is, to varying degrees, ethnocentric. and proud of it. What’s wrong with Whites?

This isn’t the opposite suggestion. It’s the same suggestion: There’s something inherently and unfixably wrong with Whites, and it is not caused by the jews. That’s the suggestion. The main example MacDonald focuses on is Pastor Renita Marie, who in response to the jewsmedia propaganda about Ferguson, wrote an article for the jewsmedia expressing guilt about her Whiteness. MacDonald describes her as a “genuine liberal”, a term he says was used by the Frankfurt School. He then explains how the Frankfurt school pseudo-science was wrong, that they “create an upside-down world where ethnocentric Whites had parents who didn’t love them”. But the woman had an ethnocentric upbringing and still turned out to be a race traitor. Therefore, MacDonald seemed to be presenting this as a case of “white pathlogy”, minus the jews. As he puts it:

Rev. Marie has dropped out of the White race and has become a crusader against it. Of course, that means a good career and lots of praise from elites in the contemporary environment. But it’s pretty clear that her motivation is far deeper than merely taking advantage of all the opportunities available these days from hating Whites. A genuine race traitor. Noel Ignatiev would be proud.

But it isn’t at all clear that Marie’s motivation runs any deeper than the jewish pathogenic factors MacDonald himself describes. Instead it seems, as I previously discussed in the case of Joyce, that MacDonald simply doesn’t wish to accept that it is that simple.

Another indication is that MacDonald links Noel Ignatiev’s name to a search of his website. The first hit is an article of his from 2009 titled Promoting genocide of whites? Noel Ignatiev and the culture of Western suicide. He notes that:

the effort by a professor, Noel Ignatiev, and his journal, Race Traitor, to promote the “cultural and psychological genocide of whites.”

Amazingly, MacDonald refuses to take this seriously and argues instead that Ignatiev’s use of the word genocide and his anti-White arguments and activism are just so much hyperbole and nonsense. MacDonald describes how he sees Ignatiev and his allies:

Their hatred assumes a surface legitimacy because the hated “whites” are just a “social construct.” It’s not really about killing people, so where’s the beef? The “genocide” of whites is not about homicide or suicide; it’s only about getting white people to stop thinking that they are white.

Our interpretation is that Ignatiev’s views are nothing more than ethnic competition. As a leftist Jew, he is part of a long tradition that has opposed white interests and identity — the culture of critique that has become the culture of Western suicide.

The culture of critique is a jewish construct, not a White construct. Jews deliberately attempting to induce Whites to stop thinking of themselves as White is genocide, not suicide. This should be obvious to someone who is actually explaining the role played by the jews.

So I have to say – never mind what’s wrong with Whites, or what’s wrong with Duchesne and Taylor – what’s wrong with Joyce and MacDonald? Physicians, heal thyselves!

When I first discussed “white pathology” (in Pathology and Pathogen), I acknowledged that many Whites are clearly behaving pathologically. My point was that the pathogen, the jews, explains this. Furthermore, jewish psychological influence is visible even in Whites who are conscious of race and the jews, even in those who attempt to explain jewish psychological influence, like Joyce and, as I’ve just described, MacDonald.

The most negative response I’ve gotten was, “We know already what is wrong with the Jews … we should now ask ourselves what is wrong with us”. This is precisely the suggestion Joyce and MacDonald have made and that I’ve taken issue with.

I consider it a problem that even White men as knowledgable about the jews and jewish power as MacDonald and Joyce are can, for fear of appearing simple-minded, come across instead as overeager to buy into the less plausible idea of a congenital “white pathology”, independent of the jews. An idea which is primarily promoted by jews themselves and others who seem most interested to ignore or at least downplay the role of jews.

So far I’ve been reiterating and fleshing out of points and arguments I’ve already made. I’d like to add a new twist now, another way of seeing the relationship between Whites and jews that I think dovetails with this discussion. It also fits my previous suggestion that Whites need to confront the parasitic nature of that relationship, and not shy from taking the White side in it.

I first discussed Stockholm Syndrome in The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 3. It was trying to understand and explain the behavior of men like John Derbyshire (see John Derbyshire and The Suicide Thing), who is well aware of jewish power and the fear they induce, but who in spite of that, or rather because of it, minimizes the role of the jews and denounces braver and more honest men than himself who don’t, men like Kevin MacDonald.

Stockholm syndrome:

or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.

At the time I quoted a portion of an article describing the Symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome, which I’ll quote again here, because it can be seen as a metaphor for the broader mainstream media and political zeitgeist, well beyond Derbyshire and MacDonald:

Included in these traits are the prisoner’s belief (correct or incorrect, it doesn’t matter) that he or she cannot escape, which means that survival must occur within the rules set by the all-powerful captor; and the prisoner’s isolation from people not being held by the captors, which prohibits any outside view of the captors from infringing on the psychological processes that lead to Stockholm syndrome.

In the current zeitgeist the White “prisoners”, or hosts, dare not question their jew “captors”, the parasites, who quite literally dictate and diligently enforce the rules of “proper” discourse. This is popularly referred to as political correctness, though the term semitic correctness is more fitting.

The crux of capture-bonding is that the “prisoners” don’t see their “captors” as wrong-doers, but out of ignorance or pity come over time to sympathize and make excuses for them instead.

There is a related psychological phenomenon whose symptoms are just as much or more relevant to the relationship between Whites and jews, and specifically the discussion of “anti-semitism” and “white pathology”. It’s called gaslighting:

Gaslighting or gas-lighting[1] is a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted/spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception and sanity.[2] Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

The term owes its origin to the play Gas Light and its film adaptations, after which it was coined popularly.

Sociopaths frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but typically, are also charming and convincing liars who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their perceptions.

The obvious analogy is that the jews and their psychoanalytic theories of “anti-semitism” are the mental abusers, the sociopathic liars who deny any wrongdoing, and Whites are the victims of their mental abuse, and exhibit “white pathology” as a result of it.

Another definition of the term explains in more detail:

Gaslighting – The practice of brainwashing or convincing a mentally healthy individual that they are going insane or that their understanding of reality is mistaken or false. The term “Gaslighting” is based on the 1944 MGM movie “Gaslight”.

Casting You as the Crazy One

In the classic suspense thriller, Gaslight, Paula (Ingrid Bergman) marries the villainous Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer), not realizing that he is the one who murdered her aunt and is now searching for her missing jewels.

To cover up his treachery, he tries to persuade Paula that she is going mad, so he can search the attic for the jewels without her interference. He plants missing objects on her person in order to make her believe that she has no recollection of reality.

Essentially, it describes forms of manipulation which are designed to make the victim lose their grip on the truth or doubt their perception of reality.

Among the examples of what it looks like that fit the jews:

A person acts threateningly and then accuses you of abuse when you react in self-defense.

How it Feels

Gaslighting can be a terrifying experience. It can quickly put you on the defensive – trying to justify your own actions or behaviors – when you started out by challenging someone else’s questionable behavior.

A gaslighting perpetrator’s fabrications may be presented so convincingly and with such conviction you begin to question yourself and your own memories and judgment.

Among a list of points advising what NOT to do:

Don’t waste your time trying to convince someone who has already made up their mind about you that they should reconsider.

In other words, don’t bother arguing with jews or other true-believer anti-Whites.

Don’t blame yourself for what the other person is feeling or how they are behaving. Don’t look for ways to change yourself to try to fix another person. As the OOTF 3 C’s mantra says: “You didn’t cause it, you can’t cure it and you can’t control it.” You are only responsible for your own words and actions.

In other words, don’t go searching for “white pathology” when the effort jews make to create it is staring you right in the face. If you do, then you are responsible for that.

I’ll emphasize again right here that I’m drawing an analogy. It’s not a perfect fit. For one thing, gaslighting ordinarily describes a relationship between two individuals, whereas the analog I’m making is for the relationship between Whites and jews collectively, even though within those collectives there are a broad spectrum of individual motives and attitudes.

I do think however that the analogy is useful because it fits the most relevant and important aspect of the relationship between Whites and jews, the relatively conscious and lopsided relationship between White and jew elites.

Another description from a blog called Narcissists Suck:

Gaslighting occurs when a person you trust to tell you the truth about reality, is, in fact, bending reality with lies. When this happens consistently over a period of time it causes you to question your sanity.

This is important. For whatever reason one participant in the gaslighting relationship trusts the other. They do not expect and cannot accept that the other could lie to them. The other participant, in contrast, is deliberately manipulating and exploiting that trust.

Driving the victim insane may not be their main intent, as it is described elsewhere, but can instead be seen as a long-term result of the primary ingredient, the unrequited love, the one-sided abuse and deceit.

If you find yourself often questioning your own sanity you need to suspect you are being gaslighted. In the absence of any who will support what you are seeing, hearing, and knowing, please give yourself permission to believe yourself. Gaslighting is a deliberate and evil tactic. So when you’ve determined that someone is doing this to you, it is past time to remove yourself from this person’s sphere of influence.

I found a description connecting narcissism, gaslighting and Stockholm Syndrome. Once again, there are some obvious parallels to the relationship between elite Whites and jews – in particular the description of narcissists fits the jews.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disease (DSM) – 5 2013 Changes:

Narcissistic Victim Syndrome (NVS)

Is the result of the damages that occur to a person who is closely connected or involved with or works with a Narcissist. A narcissist is someone who needs total control and believes the world revolves around them and them only. The narcissist craves constant praise, admiration, honor and respect, even when they do not deserve it. They will use any means within which to obtain this constant control including the following: intimidation, abuse (physical, sexual, emotional and more), isolation, deprivation, financial/economic control and anything else that they can use to keep the victim under their thumb and control. One of their best tools is Gaslighting or the denigrating of the victim so they believe they are crazy and that only the Narcissist is capable of taking care of them or being with them. The narcissist is also always right and the perfect person, thus they could never possibly be wrong. This lends well with the theory of Gaslighting as the Narcissist will have the victim believe that they are too weak, or crazy, or delusional and more. They will actually cause the victim to distrust their own selves and ability to think for themselves. Narcissists are about total and complete submission of control to them. They do not recognize any boundaries or borders between them and others. They are the border control

Some of the signs and symptoms of NVS include:

A victim of NVS can exhibit Stockholm syndrome or cult-like behavior joining up with the aggressor. They will defend and protect the narcissist for fear of not being loved or part of their inner circle. The victim’s self-esteem is so torn down by the Gaslighting and other crazy making behaviors of the Narcissist that it is just easier for them to follow along. They often are so emotionally beaten down they do not realize what is even happening to them, just that they are angry or sad all the time, and feel like they have no persona or sense of self.

They will/can show signs of Cognitive Dissonance, which basically means that they know that the situation they are in is no good, but they continue to stay it, using false rational. Yet, they are angry, scared, confused, lost and do not know where to turn to. They fear things that never happened or even exist but because the Narcissist says they did, the Victim is programmed to believe it is so. [calls to mind “RAMPANT ANTI-SEMITISM!” and “THE HOLOCAUST!” -T] Their ability to think clearly has been disrupted and taken over by the Narcissist.

There’s much more I could say about this analogy, but as with what I had to say about parasitism, the main point is that it is not only more explanative than some vague “white pathology”, but prescriptive as well.

When You Love Your Abuser: Stockholm Syndrome and Trauma Bonds, for example, offers some further advice:

the only way to escape this dangerous dependency upon a psychopath is to remove yourself permanently from his influence. Any contact with him keeps you trapped in his web of manipulation and deceit. In some respects, however, this is a circular proposition. If you have the strength to leave a psychopath and the lucidity to reconsider your relationship with him, then you’re probably not suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

As we recall, psychopaths establish control of their victims BITE by BITE, like emotional vampires. Once again, “BITE” stands for “behavior, information, thoughts and emotions.” Psychopaths attempt to control all aspects of their partners’ experience of reality.

To counteract their dangerous influence, you need to BITE back. Give the victim a true perception of reality and real emotional support.

Whites need to produce our own media, which offers a true perception of reality and real emotional support. Explain what the jews are doing, and how they are doing it. Counter the lie that they’re just an odd kind of “white” people who are, or could ever be, on the same side. Point out that the jews are gaslighting Whites – that their anti-White narrative about “racism”, “anti-semitism”, “blood libel”, “the holocaust”, and more is manipulative, abusive. Whites shouldn’t put up with this because it obviously isn’t good for Whites.

Fear and Genocide


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bronze Age Pervert: “When you use made-up words like “genocide” remember to whose tune you’re dancing, there’s a reason word didn’t exist”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathology and Pathogen


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’?

The Jew Menace


The big news this week is that the jews have very openly and collectively, as jews, called upon governments everywhere, but especially in Europe, to provide them special treatment, to protect and serve the jews specifically by suppressing and punishing any expression of whatever the jews decide to define as “anti-semitism”.

Effectively the jews and their worshippers are calling for a ban on blasphemy against the jews. They’re seeking to criminalize any expression of irreverence, disrespect, distaste, disagreement, or even mere disregard for the complaints and demands that jews are constantly making. Complaints and demands such as the ones they’re making this week – which we’re going to critique in some detail. This is precisely the sort of critique that the jews are demanding goverments illegalize. Everywhere.

Let’s start by noting that there are two very specific kinds of blasphemy that the jews are most keen to stop. The first they call “holocaust denial”, by which they mean any form of challenge to or rejection of their version of history, their narrative about the period of European history which used to be known as World War II. The second kind of blasphemy they want governments to stop is any and all forms of criticism of their ethnostate, Israel.

This is actually old news in that the jews have been making these same complaints and demands for decades – especially since the war ended. It is a difficult fact for White people to face – and even 70 years after that war most still will not think about it in such terms – but the White race, all European peoples whatever their nationality and wherever they may live today, lost that war. The jews won.

There is no clearer indication of this than the unrivalled position of power from which the jews have been able to dictate to Whites everywhere what can and can’t be said about jews or virtually anything jews feel impinges on their interests. Most especially having to do with that war. Thus it is less and less even referred to as World War II, and more and more “The Holocaust”, or “Shoah”. Because that is how the jews see it. And, as everyone can see now, if only because the jews’ media and political power compels it, that war was all about the jews.

The most elementary point I’d like to make here is that these three things – the jews, Israel, and their holocaust narrative – are connected. They come in a package. And it is this way because the jews themselves insist upon it. Yet they also insist that if anyone else makes this connection it is “anti-semitism”. As I mentioned the last time, when describing jew-worship and blasphemy, the double-standards jews promote seem surreal, almost magical in nature. But I think it’s really just a reflection of their dominance.

Speaking of dominance, and old news, I’m recording this the night before, but tomorrow is a special day for jews and jew-worshippers. When this special day was first declared by the UN in 2005, Robert Faurisson wrote a short article about it titled The UN Decides a Universal Ban on Revisionism:

On November 1st, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 nations making up the UN adopted — or let be adopted — an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust”.

Moreover, the resolution “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part”.

Faurisson’s conclusion:

This extraordinary UN resolution also constitutes proof that historical revisionism is a reality that can no longer be bypassed, denied or played down. Its notoriety has become global. Still, let us take care to recognise that the revisionist researchers who remain active are now but a handful and, with each passing year, their future grows darker.

Faurisson was being optimistic. Here we are in that dark future. The jews are still at it. More aggressively pushing for more banning. More directly connecting it to themselves, their Holocaust narrative, and their ethnostate. Let’s take a closer look at three jewsmedia reports on the menace jews have been making of themselves this week.

Prosor calls on European leaders: Take a stand against anti-Semitism, quotes Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor:

“Let the message echo from the halls of the UN to the streets of Europe to the capital of every nation – stand for human rights and human dignity by taking a stand against anti-Semitism,” Prosor said.

This rhetorical fraud – jews cloaking their concern for their own particularist interests in disingenuous universalist language – can be found throughout their pronouncements this week. It’s a constant feature of what jews do and how they do it.

To see just how transparently brazen this statement is you simply have to substitute one word: Let the message echo from the halls of the UN to the streets of Europe to the capital of every nation – stand for human rights and human dignity by taking a stand against anti-Europeanism.

Is there even one European politician, in power, who would claim he himself is taking a stand against anti-Europeanism, much less lecture the rest of the world that they should do so?

Prosor asserted that “The struggle against anti-Semitism must be a priority for every nation because the hatred that begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews. History has shown us time and again that when a nation’s Jews are not safe, the entire society is at risk.”

The main struggle of the jews is to ensure that the harm the jews cause others is never attributed to the jews. To do this jews shift the blame elsewhere, in this case, as usual, to “anti-semitism”.

The argument Prosor is making here is that everybody else must make it their priority to stop somebody else from even complaining about what the jews do.

History has shown us time and again that jews are parasites who infiltrate, manipulate, and ruthlessly exploit other nations, that they have cared only for their own interests as they have undermined and ultimately brought to ruin and fled every other nation they have ever lived amongst.

History has shown us time and again that jews pose a special menace to hosts which attempt to look after their own safety and defend themselves against the depredations of the jews. Even those who succeed in reclaiming control over their nation as the national socialists did in Germany find that the jews never forgive and never forget. In Germany’s case, world jewry declared war in 1933, began agitating Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States to war, to teach them all the lesson Prosor alludes to: “when a nation’s Jews are not safe, the entire society is at risk”.

The jews blame their hosts for resisting them. That they bribe and lobby and propagandize and even succeed in taking control of the host’s leaders and crucial organs and makes them more culpable and harm they cause more insidious, not less.

“Europe is being tested,” he said. “We don’t need any more monuments commemorating the Jews who were murdered in Europe, we need a strong and enduring commitment to the living Jews in Europe. If the governments of Europe succeed in defending their Jewish communities, then they will succeed in defending liberty and democracy.”

Prosor cites the jewish victim narrative even as he denies it.

Jews actually want, and get, both – worship and defense. They get monuments and holidays commemorating them, and special security. It is sponsored by governments, funded by taxing others.

It is jews telling Europeans what to think and what to do – in this case Prosor literally defines “liberty” and “democracy” and even success as the defense of jews.

And vowed that “The days when Jews were the world’s victims are over. We will never again be helpless and we will never again remain silent. Today we have the State of Israel standing guard.

Victimhood again, this time couched in menace: “We don’t need to incite others to war against you, we have weapons of our own now”.

The article explicitly mentions the attack on the “kosher supermarket” in Paris a few weeks ago, giving the impression that this is what triggered the jews to action this week. It isn’t. The bombing of Gaza this summer was not explicitly mentioned, though that was the actual impetus for the UN meeting. It is hinted at indirectly in this paragraph toward the end:

The meeting was requested by 37 countries who sent a letter to assembly President Sam Kutesa on October 1 calling for a meeting in response to “an alarming outbreak of anti-Semitism worldwide.” They said they wanted a meeting because “a clear message from the General Assembly is a critical component of combatting the sudden rise of violence and hatred directed at Jews.”

This simple statement, in both what it says and doesn’t say, reflects the incredible power and influence jews have over dozens of other governments outside the single government they officially control. Jews have enough control over the govts of 37 countries (most crucially the US) to manipulate them in this fashion.

That they could orchestrate such a show of force in response to the murder of four jews in Paris would be amazing enough. But in fact it was actually orchestrated in defense of Israelis who murdered thousands of non-jews in Gaza. The Israeli military bombs Gaza and then jews worldwide join with Israels to organize a UN meeting to literally shift the blame to “anti-semitism worldwide”.

UN meeting challenges world to stand up to anti-Semitism, describes the result:

But 40 mainly Western countries issued a joint statement afterward urging all nations to “declare their categorical rejection of anti-Semitism,” strengthen laws to combat discrimination, and prosecute those responsible for anti-Semitic crimes.

“The determination to eradicate the conditions that gave rise to the Holocaust was a guiding principle among the founders of this organization over six decades ago,” their statement said. “Let us rededicate ourselves to that principle and endeavor to eliminate anti-Semitism in all forms.”

I could find no UN source for this UN declaration. All the pages containing “declare their categorical rejection of anti-Semitism” are variations on this AP story.

Note the unequivocal, uncompromising language used to compel others to serve jews.

In the keynote speech, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy said blaming Jews “is once again becoming the rallying cry of a new order of assassins.”

Levy, who is Jewish, called for new arguments to counter anti-Semites who say “Jews are detestable.”

These anti-Semites call Israel an “illegitimate state,” deny the Holocaust, and believe Jews give far too much attention to Holocaust victims and stifle other people’s martyrs, including the Palestinians, he said.

Dozens of speakers echoed his call to address the root causes of anti-Semitism as well as wider religious intolerance, hatred and extremism.

The jews try to dictate what others are permitted to find detestable. That’s detestable.

Levy offers no arguments, and his call for arguments is disingenuous anyway. The whole point of the UN meeting was for jews to make public their demands, which amount to telling everyone else they must “reject” and “prosecute” and “eliminate” blasphemy against the jews.

Levy is one of the many jews who unambiguously connects jews to Israel and to their holocaust narrative.

France’s minister of state for Europe Harlem Desire urged the world to act “with the utmost firmness, wherever anti-Semitism rears its head in the world.”

“Without the Jews of Europe, Europe would no longer be Europe,” he warned.

Harlem Desire, which is his real name, is a semitic-looking mulatto.

The premise of Desire’s argument is that “the world”, and especially European govts, should be more worried about what’s best for the jews than what’s best for Europeans; that “the world”, and especially European govts, should see a Europe without jews as unthinkable, and literally not think at all about what Europe will be like without Europeans.

A host can survive without a parasite. A parasite cannot survive without a host. Thus the jews equate expulsion to extermination. Jews, without the wealth and security wheedled out of Europeans, would cease to exist. Europe, without the parasitic load of the jews, would thrive – as Spain did after expelling its jews in 1492, and as Germany did as well in 1933.

Roth and Desire called for a new legal framework at the European Union and internationally to address the diffusion of racist and anti-Semitic speeches and material.

This is needed today, Desire said, “to put the responsibility on those passing the message” such as Google and Twitter.

This the closest thing to a “new argument”, though it’s just the old methods applied to new technology, new forms of communication. The tactic suggested here is to leverage the influence and power jews already have over some governments in some places and couple it with the influence they have over certain internet corporations in order to impose the priorities and interests of jews over and above everyone else, everywhere else, all at once.

Jewish leaders call for Europe-wide legislation outlawing antisemitism, describes a separate but related push:

European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are to call for pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism amid a sense of siege and emergency feeding talk of a mass exodus of Europe’s oldest ethnic minority.

Let’s decode “Europe’s oldest ethnic minority”.

“Ethnic” is a euphemism for race – an ethnic group is a genetically and culturally (in other words racially) distinctive group.

The oldest ethnic groups in Europe are the Europeans, not the jews.

Jewish roots, genetically and culturally, are in the Levant, not Europe. Jews have quite consciously preserved their distinctiveness from Europeans for more than two millenia while living amongst Europeans.

The words “minority” and “exodus” allude to the jews’ victim narrative, and a reminder that it stretches back to Egypt, far more than 70 years ago and outside Europe.

The fact is that the jews, whomever the host among whom they live happens to be at any point in time, see themselves, organize and operate as a collective. This international lobbying, using their influence over some governments to influence other governments to “combat anti-semitism” is a perfect example.

The fact is that the jews have collectively imposed themselves upon virtually every European nation at one time or another. They have infiltrated, manipulated and exploited Europeans, moving and concentrating physically in each and every place Europeans have ever been or have ever gone. Today they manipulate Europeans collectively, via the EU.

“Europe’s oldest ethnic minority”? No. The jews are the oldest and most hostile alien interlopers in Europe. The jews have parasitized Europeans, who have for millenia served as their primary hosts.

A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent three years consulting widely and drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. They are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.

The proposal would outlaw antisemitism as well as criminalising a host of other activities deemed to be violating fundamental rights on specious religious, cultural, ethnic and gender grounds.

This is essentially an echo of the demands the jews put forth at the UN, but aimed more specifically at the EU. It is also more fleshed out with ready-made answers to those demands – an indication of the long-term, premeditated nature of the effort.

These would include banning the burqa, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, polygamy, denial of the Holocaust and genocide generally, criminalising xenophobia, and creating a new crime of “group libel” – public defamation of ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Women’s and gay rights would also be covered.

This is the traditional approach jews have taken, disguising their concern for their interests by wrapping them up and conflating them with others. It’s not clear whether they want to ban burqas, or ban the banning of burqas. It hardly matters because whatever it is it’s subject to change depending on what the jews running the show demand tomorrow.

The proposed legislation would also curb, in the wake of the Paris attacks, freedom of expression on grounds of tolerance and in the interests of security.

“Tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a group who wish to benefit from tolerance must show it to society at large, as well as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other members of their own group,” says the document.

“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.”

“Tolerance” and “freedom of expression” as defined by the jews, in the interests of security of the jews.

Amid acute European angst over multiculturalism, fundamentalist violence perpetrated on alleged religious grounds and the response of the state, the call for uniform rules across Europe is to be initiated this week in Prague at events commemorating the Holocaust and the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Yet another reminder, amidst all the disposable universalist platitudes, that it is the holocaust narrative, the jews-as-victims-of-Europeans narrative, that the jews themselves provide as justification for the contempt and hostility they so constantly and freely express toward Europeans.

Decoding Jew-Worship and Blasphemy


Picking up where we left off last week’s discussion of the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

That discussion was specifically focused on jews getting on their jewsmedia soapboxes to pontificate and moralize about the virtues of “free speech”, while at the same time distinguishing and arguing in favor of punishing “hate speech”, with jews literally and figuratively defining what “hate” means, cloaking their concern for their own particularist interests in disingenuous universalist language.

“We’ve” got to ban “hate” because that’s what’s best for “us”.

It’s a sleight of words, a moral and linguistic fraud. Like many frauds, it’s not complicated once you see the trick.

What jews want said they label “free speech”. What jews don’t want said they label “hate speech”. It’s that simple.

Jews use their power, their money, their media, their positions of authority in politics, academia and in law, to foist their collective views, values, and interests on everyone else. When doing this they claim a right to “free speech”. But when they hear or see something they don’t like, they argue instead that it is “hate speech” and should be banned.

Some jews are more harsh, some more loose in making their argument either way. But the general consensus on what jews don’t like most of all is telling. The most common element of so-called “hate speech” is race. The hatiest hate of all hateful things is “racism”. And the most hateful kind of “racism” is “anti-semitism”.

As the saying goes, anti-“racism” is a code word for anti-White. There are other code words. Words like “diversity”, “discrimination”, “intolerance”. Calling it “code” is simpler than describing the specific trick that’s being played, the particularism-disguised-as-universalism fraud. But you can see who’s behind it, who’s driving it, in the close, peculiar relationship between the terms “racism” and “anti-semitism”.

This report was published a week before the Hebdo attack. French president vows to fight racism and anti-Semitism:

French President Francois Hollande has used his New Year’s Eve television speech to say that the fight against racism and anti-Semitism will be his national cause for 2015.

The president of France’s New Year’s resolution was not to protect the French, but the jews and muslims, the alien interlopers in France. Protect them from who? From the native French.

This is just one timely reminder of the general rule about “racism” and “anti-semitism”. On the one hand, Whites merely speaking in defense of Whites, even without mentioning any other group, is regarded as “racism”. On the other hand, jews speaking in defense of jews is not regarded as “racism”. They’re just combatting “anti-semitism”.

Even when jews explicitly criticize Whites, as a race, it isn’t called “racism”, it’s called “whiteness studies”.

Jews are “white”, we’re told, because saying they’re not is worse than “racist”, it’s “anti-semitic”.

This power jews have over the meanings of words is almost magical. Substitute White for jew in some form of political expression and “satire” instantly transmutes into “hate”.

But this isn’t magic. It’s money. It’s media. It’s politicking. It’s also the knock-on effect of jew-worship, a consequence of jews not just being simply unopposed, but of actually being aided and abetted by others, the non-jew jew-worshippers who police and punish heretics on the jews’ behalf, expressly in their defense.

I’m using the word worship in a looser sense than usual, but not lightly.

Recognition and encouragement of this jew-worship was evident in the free speech/hate speech heebdo I talked about last time. Blasphemy was a recurring theme in that heebdo. Beside defining “hate”, jews define what is or isn’t blasphemy. The epitome of “hate speech” is blasphemy againt jews.

The mulatto comedian Dieudonné was arrested in France last week. Commenting at the Daily Stormer, Armor wrote:

The pretext is that he said he felt like he was Charlie Coulibaly (link). Coulibaly is the Blackman who was killed the other day after killing a black policewoman as well as four people in a Jewish supermarket in Paris.

Being black, with the relative immunity to charges of “racism” this confers, was not enough to protect Dieudonné. Whatever the official charge turns out to be, Dieudonné’s crime in the eyes of jew-worshippers is irreverence for the jews.

Armor also linked and translated a snippet of what the Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls, had to say in response to criticism of the arrest:

“Justice must be implacable towards those preachers of hatred,” he pleaded. Manuel Valls refused the comparisons that have been made here and there, under the pretext of freedom of expression, between Dieudonné’s polemical shows and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons.

“There is a fundamental difference between freedom of impertinence -blasphemy is not mentioned in our law, and never will be-, and anti-Semitism, racism, advocacy of terrorism, revisionism, which are criminal offenses that justice will probably have to punish even more severely”, he said.

Another example that English readers were more likely to have run across came from hyper-jew Jonathan Chait, less than 24 hours after the attack. The punchline of Charlie Hebdo and the Right to Commit Blasphemy is in his conclusion:

The Muslim radical argues that the ban on blasphemy is morally right and should be followed; the Western liberal insists it is morally wrong but should be followed. Theoretical distinctions aside, both positions yield an identical outcome.

The right to blaspheme religion is one of the most elemental exercises of political liberalism. One cannot defend the right without defending the practice.

That identical outcome is “free speech, not hate speech, jews define hate”. All the heebdo isn’t intended to change that. And it isn’t going to change that. Almost all of it is offered in defense of the status quo, where the ongoing shift in political and legal attitudes is toward this conception of “hate speech”, not away from it.

Many others chattered about blasphemy, agreeing, as Chait put it, that “the right to blaspheme religion” is elemental. But if that’s true, why is it the subject of so much debate? What is all the arguing really about?

flippityfloppity, commenting at my blog, took a stab at making sense of it:

so blasphemy is an attack on religion which is ok and protected by free speech. antisemitism is hate speech which is an attack on persons so its not ok, not protected and should not be tolerated.

My argument is that the arguing is about the meaning of blasphemy. It’s word games. Again. Empirically, irreverence for the jews is the only thing the jewsmedia and the current governments of Western countries actually regard as blasphemy. Blasphemy against anyone or anything else can be seen as either “free speech” or “hate speech”, depending on what consensus the jews come to about whether it’s good or bad for the jews.