On exoteric WN

ds-temp-banner

The following is a comment that the moderator of
The Occidental Observer did not let pass tonight
:

 
Thanks for mentioning The Daily Stormer. Today’s article on The Daily Stormer implicitly takes issue with Dr. MacDonald’s thesis about pathological altruism. Anglin wrote:

The Alt-Right, on the other hand, is driven by well-defined principles, even though we presently do not have a leader. There are different strands of the Alt-Right, of course, but we all agree on a few core concepts:

• White countries will be for White people
• Traditional gender roles will be restored
• The Jews are the prime force behind the collapse of Western civilization.

I agree with the first two concepts. But Anglin does not seem to have taken seriously what, for heavy-weight intellectuals like Tom Sunic, are factors even larger than the Jewish problem: economics over race policies and Christian axiology (see also William Pierce’s only non-fiction book, Who We Are). Then Anglin apparently refers to The Occidental Observer:

Replacing the Jewish Problem with a White Problem

Presently, it looks as though a big part of the strategy to direct us away from the Jews will be the promotion of the concept of “pathological altruism,” a theory which asserts that we Whites simply cannot help destroying ourselves in an attempt to help non-White people.

There is some basic truth within the concept, as we are an extremely empathetic race. But the agenda I see coming is to remove the Jewish question from the equation and replace it with pathological altruism. This ultimately amounts to victim-blaming.

If Anglin has MacDonald in mind he’s speaking nonsense, as the main focus of the professor is still the Jewish problem.

The concept of pathological altruism is interesting on an intellectual and academic level, but that is the extent of it. It is not useful in attempting to address the real plague of our society, which is the Jews. Beware of anyone trying to use this theory to shift the blame from the Jews onto Whites.

Wrong. It’s us who empowered them after the Napoleonic wars. Liberalism, i.e., white suicide, must be studied in addition to the Jewish problem.

Also beware of anyone trying to inject any other type of new concept into the narrative. We have a very stable narrative, and we need to simply stick with it and build on it. We need to stay focused on the Jewish problem, on building a movement based on an awareness of the Jewish issue.

Anglin’s POV is right as a pragmatic tactic for an exoteric site such as The Daily Stormer. The Nazis did about the same, especially Goebbels: sell the Jewish problem to the Aryan masses! But more esoteric NS leaders, such as Hitler and Himmler, in their inner circles also talked about what we might call the Christian problem, often as if it was a more elemental problem than the Jewish problem (see, e.g., here and here).

For propaganda purposes for American Christians The Daily Stormer is ok. But for more subtle tools of cracking the annoying cipher of white decline, the scholar ought to do a careful reading of Sunic’s and Revilo Oliver’s texts and those of this very webzine, including MacDonald’s concept of “pathological altruism”.

On the “white genocide” meme

“Why do White Nationalists insist on mono-causality, as if the Jews were God?”

Jaego


Franklin Ryckaert

It would be nice if a person with the talent of a Prof. MacDonald would write a trilogy on the problem dealing with:

1) The innate psychological characteristics of Whites (individualism, abstract idealism, universal moralism).

2) The influence of Christianity and its secular outgrowth of Liberalism (inversion of values, altruism as the only form of moralism even to a suicidal degree).

3) The Jewish exploitation of both.

Central to the weakness of Whites is what I call naive inclusivism.

It is naive because it not only believes that all non-white peoples can and want to become like Westerners, but also that including them in Western societies will lead to a Utopia instead of racial suicide. This naive inclusivism is as old as the European expansion outside Europe itself:

• Alexander the Great wanted to include all peoples of the Middle East in his Hellenistic ideal, even initiating miscegenation with them.

• The Romans included all non-European peoples in their Empire bequeathing Roman citizenship to all who they thought deserved it. They even had one time an Arab emperor (Philippus Arabs).

• When the Western European peoples began to colonize the world, they made the same mistake. The Spaniards and Portuguese miscegenated with the natives of their colonies on a mass scale and later also with their imported African slaves.

• The Dutch miscegenated with the Indonesians and accepted their mixed offspring as “Europeans.”

• The French accepted educated Blacks, the so-called évolués, as their equals. France doesn’t keep statistics about its ethnic and racial minorities because it considers them all as “Frenchmen.”

• Only the British kept aloof from the natives in their colonies and didn’t allow them to immigrate into the white settlement colonies or Britain itself. But that has now radically changed, the British having become the most extreme both in terms of immigration and miscegenation.

We simply cannot ascribe this suicidal behaviour to Jewish machinations, rather it is the age-old inclination of Europeans to include the whole world in a universal ideal. You aptly describe Jewish destructive influence as an “epiphenomenon.”[1] It couldn’t function as it does without the above-described preconditions.

 

Brad Griffin

A commenter asked:

Why are Jews leading white nations to begin with? What level of idiocy does it take to allow your nation to voluntarily be led by a foreign tribe? That’s the question.

Griffin responded:

Ever since the French Revolution—see what happened in Haiti—, the answer has been liberalism.

Yankees believed in liberal capitalist democracy and their ideology legitimized the Jewish takeover of their society without a shot being fired. Germany put up more resistance under Hitler because Germans were less committed to liberalism.

cropped-schiller

It’s really that simple: Jews thrive in liberal democracies, under communism, and other systems that substitute abstract ideology for ethnic or religious solidarity.

Is Jewish influence bad? Of course.

It is a secondary infection. Jews don’t thrive in the Muslim world, China, Japan and other places because the conditions there aren’t favorable to Jews like they were in early twentieth century Yankeeland.

Yankees believed that Jews had a right to own their newspapers and film industry. They had a right to accumulate vast amounts of wealth and participate on an equal basis in their political system. The rest is history.

For those who don’t believe Whites are capable of imposing this madness on themselves, I will point to France during the French Revolution which abolished slavery in the name of the “Rights of Man” and made every Negro a citizen of the French Republic.

The triumph of anti-racism and egalitarian fanaticism just happened to coincide with the French Revolution and the 1848 Revolution.

 

Occigent

It’s the Jews’ fault Whites let them into Harvard? It’s the Jews’ fault that Whites let them take over academia? It’s the Jews’ fault that Roosevelt was a communist? It’s the Jews’ fault that Whites handed over their civilization?

The only wild conspiracy going on here is that Whites aren’t responsible for their own beds.

Anyone who tells you that the state of the ethnic ship upon which our mind weapons are mounted is not now and has not always been our direct and personal responsibility is a Jew-trained welfare mind white house wigger [2] that should be immediately cast overboard. We’ll be lucky enough as it is to get this rusty old scow to safe harbor without that dead weight.

We are the most powerful people in the world. We can change the future tomorrow. Don’t let the victimcrats hobble your vision, your clarity, and most important of all, that lost Jewel of White Civilization, your personal responsibility. To your people, to your culture, and to God: Do not ever let someone get in the way of that responsibility. They are the enemy. And they will drag you further down into the pits of hell.

Repeat. Our ship is not the Muslim’s responsibility, it is not the Jews’ responsibility. It is our responsibility. So wake the fuck up and stop giving other people power over you.

People: Get real. We love what the Jews do for us. We love the entertainment, we love the laissez faire attitude, we love the sex, we love the drugs, we love the rock and roll. And we get drunk on it, and they take it too far.

But for God’s sake, open your eyes. Get real with yourselves. History is rife with whites who would sell their soul for lollipop, as is Washington DC, and as long as there are such whites, which will be always, there will always be Jews to accommodate them.

Do we wish that Jews would not accommodate us in our sin? Yes. We do. Is it the Jews’ fault that we sin? No. It is not. It is our fault.

Right now, as we speak, there are probably a million Jews engaged in commerce and entertainment to fill the needs of a hundred million white sinners. And we do nothing to stop it. And that’s their fault?
 
Sebastian Ernst Ronin commented:

A plea into the wind, beautifully expressed though. When it hurts enough, then yes, maybe. Until such time, the culture of victimhood serves the purposes of an infantile “White genocide” meme.

Futurodellanazione commented:

Monocausalism seems to be most popular with relatively uneducated/fanatical European National Socialist types. It isn’t nuanced or especially cerebral, but it’s a convenient gate to open for useful idiots. The Islamists use monocausalism to recruit suicide bombers. It’s a smart tack and one that works for certain crowds.

Johan Hoeff commented:

Kudos to Occigent for his presentation; the thread was worthy of note, for the depth and common-sense approach to our present, if not our historical life. We are Masters of our own ship, or we are not.

 

Roger

There was no mention in the Labour Party’s 1997 manifesto of any plan to bring millions upon millions of new people in, but it was still obvious to all observant people that they were social revolutionaries and radical egalitarians with a deep commitment of the destruction of the English constitution (they were highly successful at achieving their ends). There was a clear antecedent from previous decades, however, during which time the Labour Party had started the process of coloured immigration from the ex-colonies.

The Conservative Party had continued to support the process whenever it was in government, and its leaders marginalised Enoch Powell when he made his famous speech in 1968. Nobody can seriously claim not to have known Labour were pro-immigration, although the average voter might not have been able to predict the extent of it. We know, from admissions by a Labour scriptwriter called Andrew Neather, and more recently from the Jew Peter Mandelson, that they deliberately used immigration as a means of “rubbing the Right’s nose in diversity,” and went so far as to send recruitment teams abroad to find people to move here. This was well-known within the party’s leading ranks, but absent from their public statements. When Neather made the rare mistake of being honest to a journalist about immigration, most people paid little attention to it.

The results of their actions were plain to see by the time the next election came along in 2001. By this time, there had been several race riots in Northern England (not for the first time) and a significant increase in the level of net migration—and they still got re-elected. No adult could profess ignorance at this point: a vote for Labour was very obviously a vote for mass-immigration, multiculturalism and the erosion of liberty. Four more years passed, during which time the Iraq war was initiated, another huge wave of immigration came along, and the government revoked a law banning homosexual propaganda from schools (“Section 28”) and decided to give queers the “right” to form civil unions—and they got re-elected again. Their manifesto during that election campaign included a pledge to introduce new laws criminalising “Racial and Religious Hatred,” which would re-enforce the pre-existing Race Relations Acts supported by all three of the main political parties.

By 2010, the voters decided to kick them out and replace them with the Conservative Party, whose leader refers to himself as the “heir to Blair” and does not differ from the Labour Party in any substantial way. The Conservatives did not manage to win a parliamentary majority, and they depend on the support of the Liberal Democrats to get their legislation passed (which is not a problem because the two parties agree about almost everything, but pretend not to as part of the democratic media circus). Since then, mass-immigration has continued unabated, there have been more race riots, crime has continued to increase, and now the government is pushing through homosexual marriage laws while denouncing their critics as “swivel-eyed loons.” If you look at the opinion polls for the next general election to see how people are planning to react against the failed Conservative-Liberal government, you will find that they are going to respond by voting the Labour Party back in! A Labour Party led, no less, by a Jew.

It is unbelievable that people can continue to vote for the enemies of civilisation time and time again. The only reasonable conclusion is that the voters really do support their own national suicide.

Here’s the funny thing: in every election since 2001, less than half of the population has turned out to vote. Tens of millions of people are not even registered with the electoral roll, making them ineligible to vote. These apathetic people cannot complain about our woes if they will not even do something as easy as vote for the BNP. Of the minority of Brits who actually turn out to vote, less than half have voted for the winning party in each of the last four elections. The parties are not popular at all, but the apathy of the non-voters is akin to complicity. If they object to it, they should get themselves on the electoral register and vote for the BNP. There have been plenty of opportunities to do this, but people simply refuse.

Truly, “optimism is cowardice”! I have no idea how the UK (or Sweden) is going to recover from this. People’s brains have been turned to mush. It is intolerable. No wonder Dominique Venner topped himself.

 

______________________

Excerpted from discussions at The Occidental Observer, Occidental Dissent and The West’s Darkest Hour in recent years. Although the above passages did appear at WDH, in the forthcoming 2015 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour I put them together in a single article to make a point.

Notes:

[1] Ryckaert refers to my statement: “The Jewish Problem is an epiphenomenon of the deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values.”

[2] A male Caucasian, usually born and raised in the suburbs that displays a strong desire to emulate African American Hip Hop culture. (Note of the Ed.)

Published in: on February 13, 2015 at 9:05 pm  Comments (5)  

On doctors and quack docs

quacks

“If whites have no responsibility
for their own actions then you’ve
reduced their moral agency
to zero.” —Jack Frost

A monocausal white nationalist has iteratively accused me of “making excuses for the jews” and still worse: he has raised questions that I could probably “be a crypto-jew.”

The charge is so crazy that I would like to respond by means of a personal vignette.

A few months ago I caught an extremely nasty flu. So nasty in fact that my doctor mandated some X-ray photographs checking up for sinusitis (never in my life I had been asked to do radiographs for the symptoms of a flu).

The diagnosis of my doctor was a common viral flu complicated by a secondary infection of streptococcus, a bacteria. While my body’s immune system took charge of the viruses after a week or so, the doc’s treatment focused in killing off the bacteria through fair doses of a pretty strong antibiotic. That is to say: although the primary etiology of my disease was viral, what was knocking me out was a secondary, bacterial infection; and the whole purpose of the antibiotic treatment was to kill every single bacterial pathogen that was irritating my throat so intensely.

Now imagine that another physician, a “monocausal” quack that disbelieves the existence of viruses as the primary etiology of complicated flus, declared that my doctor is “making excuses for the bacteria” even though his treatment meant a “final solution” to the streptococcus problem. Still worse: imagine that the quack doctor imagines that my family’s physician may be a bug himself because that’s the only way the quack can conceive that our physician is unwilling to blame the bacteria as the single cause for the disease!

Silly and crazy as it may seem, that’s exactly how this monocausal nationalist reasons about me. The fact that I postulate the existence of a primary, viral infection of white decline is enough to consider me a bacterial bug! It doesn’t matter the least bit that I promote final solutions to the bacteria or kike problem (see my conclusions about The Fair Race: here) as the way to regain our health. The sole postulating the existence of flu viruses as the primary etiology is enough for this man to see the physician that mandates killing the bacteria as a bacteria himself!

Isn’t it incredible how silly single-causers can be?

Update of September 2014

Good grief! The “quack doc” (Tanstaafl or simply Tan) is now calling me “parasite-apologist Chechar”. I don’t even want to link here where he wrote that to avoid further paranoia from him. Suffice it to say that it is on a comment thread at his blogsite, Age of Treason, on the 3rd of this month.

Update of February 2015

Tan is now saying:

You’re [Franklin Ryckaert] pushing Chechar’s psychoanalytic “monocausalism” meme, basically another name for “anti-semitism”. Fuck off.

Just for the record, it’s the second time this guy insults Ryckaert for not subscribing the quack hypothesis (elsewhere he called him “piece of shit”).

______ 卐 ______

 
Update of May 2015:
Greg Johnson joins the discussion

At Tan’s blog Greg Jonson criticised the quack doc:

I would like to offer a counter-accusation: simple-mindedness or monomania or oversimplification. I think it is more important for Tan to simply “accuse the Jews” in this little corner of the internet than to actually fix the Jewish problem, which requires, first of all, that we fully understand it.

Of Tan’s responses I’ll include only his phrase: “You should go now. You’ve got a war on White catladies to fight.” Greg’s last, sardonic comment was: “OK Tan, I quit. For what it is worth, you are the smartest guy in this room.” See also my article “On Carolyn and Tan.”

Update of December 2015

At The Right Stuff Johnson commented:

My point is that Tanstaafl is quite open about harming his own ethnic genetic interests [he places the ethnostate above his children and half-Jew wife] because of his commitment to the ideology of White Nationalism, but he is dismissive of the idea that other white people might have any innate propensity to this kind of behavior, i.e., sacrificing their children on the altar of ideology. He seems to want to hold that Jews are either forcing such behavior upon us, or bribing our leaders to force it upon us. But he thinks the idea that ordinary white people might have a pre-existing propensity to this sort of behavior is just a plot to blame whitey and excuse the Jews.

Update of 2016

Greg has replied to a comment by Andrew Anglin thus:

Kevin MacDonald published his four path-breaking volumes on the Jewish question and started The Occidental Observer. During that same period, The Occidental Quarterly was founded, which has published MacDonald for years and is now under his editorship. Thus whatever occult power of suppressing discussion of the JQ that you suppose he wields, it clearly was not operative then. So what has changed? Has MacDonald stopped writing about the Jews? A quick look at TOO shows this is not the case. The only thing that has changed is that MacDonald’s theoretical work now focuses on whites. What has made us so susceptible to Jewish manipulation and takeover? Good questions that you think we would want to answer, in order to inoculate ourselves against Jewish subversion.

Unfortunately, a couple of paranoid cranks, Tanstaafl of Age of Treason, and Raven Gatto, who is primarily a Facebook presence, have been promoting the truly nutty idea that MacDonald has now stopped blaming the Jews and is now blaming whites (as if both parties cannot play a role in the current mess), and that MacDonald’s shift in emphasis is due to the evil influences of people like Paul Gottfried, Colin Liddell, and little old me. These paranoid notions are carried into your discussion forum by memetic plague rats such as Cledun (a guy who bats 1000 in picking literally insane mentors), and I think your own thinking has been infected as well.

Indeed!

Published in: on June 19, 2014 at 10:36 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: ,