“Why do White Nationalists insist on mono-causality, as if the Jews were God?”
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.” It couldn’t function as it does without the above-described preconditions.
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.
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.
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.
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  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.
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.
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.
 Ryckaert refers to my statement: “The Jewish Problem is an epiphenomenon of the deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values.”
 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.)