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”.

Australia is gone

by Pat Hannagan

The following is a recent comment at Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer:


Australia is rapidly being shutdown in terms of any “free speech” that is not in full concordance with the ruling media and political dynasty of communist anti-Western / anti-White policy and propaganda.

We have the media inquiry instigated by Labor PM Ms Gillard, driven by the appointed Jew Mr Ray Finkelstein QC. (link)

We have NSW “conservative” Premier Mr O’Farrell “…who is concerned there have been no successful criminal prosecutions in the history of the NSW laws and that they have fallen out of step with community expectations”, now demanding an “inquiry that will consider strengthening anti-discrimination laws to make it easier to convict people for serious racial vilification”.

Note well: The inquiry has been welcomed by the president of the Anti-Discrimination Board, Stepan Kerkyasharian, as “a great opportunity to deal with this matter”. Mr Kerkyasharian is, of course, a Jew. (link)

As is the Chairman of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, Mr John Searle.

It is illegal in Australia to point out what I have above, that certain drivers of anti-discrimination legislation and proponents of racial vilification laws in Australia are Jews.

The prominent neoconservative opinion writer Andrew Bolt, himself a lover of Israel and all things Jewish, was himself set upon by a coterie of Jews and taken to court for “hate speech” towards Aboriginals.

You can read about that also in Quadrant, and note all the Jews who orchestrated the campaign against him, as well as the aforementioned Justice Finkelstein. But, Bolt will never note that the Jews, on the whole, despise and revile him—he loves them! (link)

Furthermore, it is illegal to do so in Australia. That is why it is important that blogs such as Occidental Observer, administered out of the U.S.A. continue to allow comments.

You cannot rely on Australia to lead anything. Our bi-party system is in lock-step to shutdown White Australia, and criminalise White Australians.

Published in: on January 24, 2013 at 6:40 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags: ,

Homo debate continues

After James O’Meara told me at The Occidental Observer that “Only the Jews have demonized all forms of male affection” I responded:

HomoNegro


So what’s your model society?

Yesterday I watched Pride and Prejudice (the 1995 TV series) and experienced great emotion at the very end during the double marriage of Elizabeth Bennet with Mr Darcy and Jane Bennet with Mr Bingley.

That’s the world I would aspire to live in after the vindictive Day of the Rope and a brief interregnum of Lycanthropes chasing over the naughty feminists turned now into Sabine women in order to found large families. Once the violence is all over after the racial wars the Austen world makes sense in a future ethnostate, except that instead of Christianity we might have something like Nazi Aryanism as the cement for holy heterosexual marriage (as holy as the Austen series I saw yesterday; yes, traditional family values).

You propose the Athens model of Pericles? Not Spartans, who unlike the Athenians did not commit the mortal sin of mongrelization? What do you propose exactly? (The Burroughs novel you use in your blog depicts an altogether violent and degenerate, non-Athenian homo world that would be easy prey for the enemies of the white ethnostate.)

While posting this entry I’m still awaiting a response to the above. Meanwhile, this is what I responded to Lew at VNN Forum about a month ago:

I said…

I agree that the level of some criticism in this thread is 7th grade. However, why doesn’t Greg Johnson allow at Counter Currents a much more discrete criticism of the homo agenda he’s promoting by publishing James’ book? Why doesn’t he say a real word, not the evasive way he dismissed my point (“strawman”), about the problems presented in my linked article, “On classic pederasty”?

Lew said…

If a particular white male homosexual is not interested in pushing the modern gay agenda, supports traditional man / woman marriage as the societal ideal, and is willing to work for society and the collective good, what possible harm could he cause?

I said…

But there’s the rub. James O’Meara doesn’t seem to support traditional marriage (he recently published an article at Counter Currents critical of 1950s family values). Instead, he theorizes that real western families must be a kind of pagan homophiliacs.

Greg Johnson said…

James O’Meara’s startling thesis is that the male groups that create and sustain civilization have been destroyed not just with the hammer of feminism but also on the anvil of “homophobia.” For today, any all-male group is stigmatized as “homoerotic” (usually by the same people who want to normalize homosexuality). Thus, to exorcise the specter of homosexuality, male groups have been pressured to accept female members. Merely excluding actual homosexuals is not enough, because the problem is the mere possibility of homosexuality in groups of men who live, work, and fight together. Thus O’Meara points to the conclusion that the only way to maintain all-male institutions is to de-stigmatize homosexuality.

Of course this is a non-starter for the conservatives who posture as defenders of Western civilization, because there is something they want to conserve even more: Judeo-Christian “family values,” including homophobia. Thus O’Meara argues that the homophobic conservative “family values” agenda actually undermines the foundations of Western civilization. As an alternative, O’Meara urges us to look to the other West, the real West, the West before it was conquered by a Near Eastern religion, namely the pagan West, for a model of civilization that managed to integrate all-male institutions with family life, due in part to more fluid conceptions of sexual identity and tolerant attitudes toward same-sex attractions.

I said…

The above sentence demonstrates that Greg was wrong when claiming that my piece [“Gitone’s magic”] was “so off the mark, such a straw man argument” because it’s James himself who’s placing “the pagan West”, i.e., the Greco-Roman world, as a “model” of civilization: precisely the claim that I debunked in my article, insofar as classic homosexuality was mainly pederasty—not the transvestite behavior that James provocatively and unabashedly boasts visually in his blog, even in the “About me” page.

As I said in my article on classic pederasty, I read a couple of Latin-Spanish translations of the first long novel in the western world. And although Petronius depicts the Roman provinces in altogether decadent times—perhaps under the reign of Caligula—, the main character, Encolpius, and his epheboy Gitone are described as feeling a great deal of revulsion towards a queerfag who tried to seduce them (during the banquet of Trimalchio if I remember correctly). If The Satyricon is a window to the past we can conclude that, even in those degenerate times, when vomitoriums were introduced in the Roman homes as depicted in Petronius’ novel, the lovers of the story—a 25-year-old young man and a 16 year-old teen—still felt incredible revulsion for obvious queers.

It’s James the one who makes use of the classic world as his pivotal argument for his hypothesis. Thus, if I could demonstrate that he was arguing from a false analogy, I reasoned out when writing my essay, his hypothesis would be falsified by History itself.

Something similar could be said of how the pre-Christian Germanics handled the fags (say, like those who made Encolpius and Gitone almost throw up). Tacitus wrote, “Traitors and deserters are hanged; cowards and those guilty of unnatural practices are suffocated in mud under a hurdle.”

Published in: on December 31, 2012 at 11:47 am  Comments (11)  

From St Francis to Himmler

At The Occidental Observer (TOO) a commenter wrote:

Here’s an idea: what if our problem is not our sense of fairness or individualism or egalitarianism, but moral fanaticism? This is something I’ve been thinking about lately: the idea that Whites are moral fanatics. More so than other races, we desire to be “good” no matter what the consequences are.

I replied that, though I have quoted the following passage several times, I will continue to quote it to convey the idea that the moral grammar that has been killing us has unconscious roots in Christian axiology.

A Swede that is now retired from the boards wrote in a counter-jihad blog:

With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity [i.e., liberalism] each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.

We should remember that our progressivist paradigm, which is always going left, is based on Christian ethics. [my emphasis] And Christian ethics means the inversion of values. So it’s the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil.

Since I was a Christian, actually an admirer of St Francis in my Catholic years, I think I’ve developed a psychological knack to decipher the progressivist paradigm that has infected the West. Every time I look at example after example of deranged altruism throughout the West, especially toward the non privileged races, I cannot separate it from my own biography, when I admired the poor saint of Assisi’s acting out his emotional issues through eccentricities that, presently, could only be labeled as self-harming.

Remember my comment about Wuthering Heights in a TOO thread about crazy Swedes? The eccentricities of the Fraticelli, so well depicted in Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose, were barely tolerated by the Church in the 13th and 14th centuries precisely because, if accepted by the mainstream, this inversion of values inspired directly on the gospel would destroy Europe. (St Francis himself aged and died prematurely as a result of his extreme mortification of the flesh.) Alas, once secular Christianity was established after the French Revolution and each westerner had to be like St Francis himself, doing self-sacrifice, moral fanaticism ran amok among the deists and the atheists starting with the fateful emancipation of the Jew by the same gentiles who had sanctioned anti-Semitism in Christendom.

It is my belief that, presently, we are suffering from a secular form of runaway Franciscanism throughout the entire West.

A Nietzschean revaluation of all values back to saner times is what whites need. (That’s why the young Hitler, who also was born Catholic, carried a copy of the Zarathustra in the trenches of the First World War.) Since what we now need is the scorched-Earth scenario, I am tempted to write a book that shows my spiritual odyssey under the provocative title From St Francis to Himmler. But, paraphrasing the gospel, who would be able to hear such hard word?

Update of December 2016: Re the first line: “At The Occidental Observer (TOO) a commenter wrote…” I am afraid to say that Kevin MacDonald deleted the whole thread, so the quotation is now only available here with no context at the TOO comments section.