Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Thursday, April 07, 2011

Gamer Excuses "The Jews", Blames "Whitey"

Mangan's Ferd Throws Whites Under the Bus provides the link and some context on Ferdinand Bardamu's Whites Are Their Own Worst Enemies, posted at his anti-feminist/manosphere/gamer blog called In Mala Fide. Bardamu writes:
The reason why the beauty of the white Aryan woman may perish from the earth before this century is up is not because of the Jews, or the blacks, but because of white people themselves. It was whites who let third-worlders swarm into their lands, forever altering the demographic makeup of their nations. It was whites who gutted protections for workers and transformed the economy into a scam designed to bleed the middle-class dry and make the richer even richer. It was whites who conjured up feminism, driving a wedge between men and women, driving down the birth rate and leaving immigrants and illegals to pick up the slack. Every problem whites suffer from is self-inflicted.
The small subset of race conscious, jew-saavy Whites vex him especially:
“But but but it was the Joooooooos! The Jews are the ones who’ve destroyed the white race, and everyone knows the Jews aren’t white! Durrrrrr…”

First off, the only people who claim Jews aren’t white are you folks, but let’s take your thesis at face value – the Jews are the cause of all our woes. But guess what? Even if they are, it’s STILL your fault! Why? Because last I checked, the Jooooooos didn’t forcibly send armies to capture our cities, destroy our governments and enslave us. Whites were the ones who LET Jews settle in their countries and gave them equal rights, allowing them to ascend to the highest rungs of politics, education and finance. Ever wonder why Jews were few and far between in European history prior to the 19th century? It’s because they had zero rights and were forcibly segregated from gentile society, like the Gypsies. When revolutionary France emanicipated its Jews in 1791, that opened the floodgates. So whining about the Joooooos doesn’t let you off the hook, whitey.
The logic here is so twisted I find it difficult to take seriously. Bardamu mocks it himself. Just take his thesis at face value. He's one of "you folk" who doesn't consider jews to be White. He thinks the Whiiiiiiites are the cause of all our woes. But whining about Whitey doesn't get him off the hook.

Bardamu deserves praise for providing, unwittingly or not, the clearest, most extreme example of the suicide meme I've yet run across. Usually it occurs in a less complete, less direct form. Briefly stated, the suicide meme is the slanderous suggestion that Whites are destroying ourselves. It is an expression of the "politically correct" zeitgeist and the judaized, anti-White regime which promulgates it. It is the final touch in the epitaph our despisers wish to carve in our headstone: "Here lies the stupid, evil White race. They stole our land, enslaved us, gassed us, and then they killed themselves."

Calling what's happening suicide is a way of preempting a more accurate diagnosis, namely genocide, as part of a stealthy, long-term ethnic war perpetrated by a hostile overclass, "a transglobal community of peers who have more in common with one another than with their countrymen back home" and "are increasingly a nation unto themselves". Calling it suicide implicitly excuses this overclass by not mentioning them, never mind "the jews" who are in it up to their eyeballs. At worst "the jews" get lumped in with the imaginary "we" who are supposedly doing this to "ourselves".

Bardamu is apparently familiar with the argument but wanted to change it up. In the process he lost the plot, clumsily and spectacularly highlighting "the jews".

Though the title and a large chunk of Bardamu's point are classic suicide slander ("Every problem whites suffer from is self-inflicted") he offers this only as a corollary, after setting "the jews" apart from Whites and excusing them right up front ("not because of the Jews"). He cites three problems - immigration, finance, feminism - which jews are deeply complicit in. He acknowledges that jews are in "the highest rungs of politics, education and finance". He even traces the cause back as far as the emancipation of jews - tarring "France" and "Whitey" for the unpopular actions of a Rothchild-backed Napoleon.

Bardamu helpfully offers all this and more in support of his unshakable premise that jews are not to blame, perfectly encapsulated in this little gem: "Even if they are, it’s STILL your fault!"

Bardamu doth protest too much. His logic is tautology, his argument unintentional self-parody.

"This has nothing to do with the joooooos. To demonstrate I'll explain all about the jews."


- - -

About In Mala Fide:
an online magazine dedicated to publishing heretical and unpopular ideas. Ideas that polite society considers “racist,” “misogynistic,” “homophobic,” “bigoted” or other slurs used to shut down critical thinking and maintain the web of delusions that keep our world broken and dying. We’re here to put their myths to rest
with or in bad faith.

Labels: , ,



Blogger Chechar said...


The “homicide or suicide?” subject has been tormenting me since the last year. When I used to discuss there, critics of the single cause hypothesis told me at Mangan’s that both the French Revolution and the American Civil war refute the view that the Jews caused it all. Also, months ago Fjordman responded to us claiming that Whites, not the Jews created Eurabia.

I would be interested in your take about all of these objections.

4/07/2011 08:25:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"critics of the single cause hypothesis told me at Mangan’s that both the French Revolution and the American Civil war refute the view that the Jews caused it all."

A phrase you will find helpful to know and remember is "false dichotomy". It is a logical fallacy to pretend there are less possibilities than there actually are. Often it takes the form of polarizing an argument into black/white positions, with no allowance for shades of gray.

I realize you are paraphrasing but I note the "single" and "all" in your description. Keywords like this are signs of false dichotomy.

The people I most regularly see argue that "the Jews caused it all" are the people who act as if that strawman is the only alternative to their own position, which is that "the jews" caused nothing at all. There is in fact a whole spectrum between the two extremes that they don't wish to acknowledge. They won't abide anything other than their own extreme. They try to disguise this by projecting their own uncompromising mentality onto their boogeymen and then making a big fuss about it.

Bardamu provides a perfect example.

4/07/2011 09:34:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"months ago Fjordman responded to us claiming that Whites, not the Jews created Eurabia"

You mean this comment?

This was my response.

My conclusion was:

"Fjordman's Why Israel’s Struggle Is Our Struggle, Too invokes Eurabia, Bat Ye'or, and "shoah" guilt-tripping to urge the White man to fight and die for Israel.

A defense of European civilization worthy of the label would oppose all anti-White guilt-tripping, not strive to preserve the jewish franchise on it.

That Struggle piece is absolutely mind boggling. I called him out on it at GoV.

Fjordman acknowledges "there is a large-scale international campaign supported by the ruling oligarchs of the Western world to break down the white majority population of all Western nation-states with Multiculturalism and mass immigration". For whatever reason he just cannot accept that some portion (not zero and not all) of those oligarchs are jewish, that most of the non-jews are as self-abnegating and deferential toward jews and their ethnostate as he is, and that this explains the hostility they direct at the rest of us. Instead Fjordman is determined to direct his hostility at those of us who see what he won't.

BTW, here is Fjordman using false dichotomy and extremist projection at GoV:

"The difference between you and me is that I am rational enough to realize that there is no such thing as a giant hydra with nine heads called "the Jews." If Noam Chomsky is a Leftist moron then you criticize that, but you also support brave Israeli soldiers who risks their lives to defend their country against an evil enemy. I don't see any problem whatsoever in doing both. The problem exists entirely in your head because you see all Jews in the entire world as one giant organism. I don't."

Noam Chomsky is many things, but he is no moron. Nor am I imagining things. When somebody's argument consists of nonsense like this it's because they don't have anything of substance to offer.

4/07/2011 10:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, the worst example is the "white people just aren't having enough babies" response to the policies of racist colonialism that are destroying us.

4/07/2011 10:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The other side can't win an open debate. We know that. Over the years I've seen a number of bloggers who think they can beat WNs in a fair debate, make an honest attempt at it, realize they are getting clobbered, and then proceed to ban everyone and go back to business as usual.

But it looks different this time. The WNs aren't getting evicted from the "manosphere" blogs. Looks like they're there to stay. This could be interesting. White nationalism may finally be breaking out of its intellectual ghetto.

4/07/2011 11:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Chechar, of course the single cause theory is false. To blame the Jews for everything is an ignorant position as stated by William Pierce.

They are'nt supermen. They aren't the Kryptonite to our cause. They are acting in their interests and we need act in ours. We have always been divided due to religious and ethnic allegiance and once we created the world thought all was resolved by us uniting in our dissolvement of difference.

But we dissolved and the Jews didn't. Other people at this blog point out correctly, Catholic disagreement and causality in our problems. They are correct. Just as correct that WASPs dissolved themselves to seek peace and quiet in retirement.

But there is no peace, nor retirement for us. We are all united now in our negative discrimination as Whites. And in that negative discrimination we can find common cause beyond our atheist or religious factions. Cause none of that matters to those who oppose us. What matters is our race to them, and accordingly, we shall unite - in Race.

White is a unique combination of race, religion and culture, though not contingent on religion.

4/07/2011 11:16:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

Thanks Pat and Tan for responding. It is a little late and I will have to reread your responses tomorrow morning when I am in a fresher mode.

What worries me the most is the American Civil War. It shatters my current paradigm. The French Revolution, which culminated in Napo’s granting citizenship to die Juden, was a bona fide blunder that I can understand (like a bona fide blunder in a Chess World Championship that makes the world champ lose his crown). But the war that started in 1861… that’s beyond me.

As you know I was not born in the US and therefore have huge cultural/historical gaps. Does anybody know a good historical work, or scholarly paper preferably by a WN, that explains such a colossal blunder, granting citizenship to blacks??

I mention this because since the Jews were not involved in Lincoln’s actions this really looks like “suicide” in the sense of the competing paradigm of MacDonald, that of blogger Conservative Swede (explained in his blog and in the previous incarnation of my blog).

P.S. Dr MacDonald has granted us permission to translate to Spanish the Preface of his CofC. I am tempted to translate the whole book (if he gives us the ok)…

4/07/2011 11:42:00 PM  
Blogger Justin said...

Giving blacks citizenship was hardly a nationally popular stance. Almost every state in the northern Union had anti-black laws on the books at the time of the Civil War. Black citizenship was forced on the nation by a radical Republican party that was not even representative of the North as a whole, and quickly passed from power after the war.

Primarily, black citizenship was seen as a political maneuver by the Republican Party. About forty percent of South was black, including absolute majorities in a couple states, so they figured they would be strengthening their party by giving Blacks the vote.

If you are looking for the origins of White American suicidalism, going to the Civil War is too far. America as a whole remained a perfectly contented White Supremacist nation until after WW2.

And, well, we know what happened after that.

4/08/2011 01:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Petronius said...

The suicide theory certainly has some truth to it.

* The "overclasses", working on that genocide are to a large extent white, in the US as well as in Europe, here even more so.

* Anti-White and "Guilt" propaganda would not work so effectively, if there wasn't a response inside many white people already. Jewish influence mostly works as a catalysator here. There is definitely a decadence and a decline, maybe even a death wish within the white race that cannot be reduced to outer influence alone.

4/08/2011 01:48:00 AM  
Blogger Robert said...

You are not an American unless your ancestors fought in the Indian Wars.
The man who shouold be Presient:

Russell Means: Welcome To The Reservation

What we need in America:
Ezay by Mohamed Mounir

4/08/2011 02:59:00 AM  
Blogger Robert said...

Oops. President. Sorry.

4/08/2011 04:01:00 AM  
Blogger dudhduddhd said...


Jews were actually overrepresented as slave owners in the South, overrepresented in the triangular trade, and overrepresented in Southern politics.

Jews in the Civil War

Judah P. Benjamin

4/08/2011 06:16:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Suicide (Latin suicidium, from sui caedere, "to kill oneself") is the act of a human being intentionally causing his or her own death.

Suicide best fits that small subset of the White race who A) believe there is a White race, B) believe they belong to it, and C) intentionally endeavor to destroy it. This best describes those Whites who buy the "White privilege" poision, and even in this case the metaphor is a bad fit because many of them believe "the White race" is a fabrication and that by destroying it they are destroying a mere bad idea - helping people, including Whites, not harming them.

The small subset in the overclass work to further their own interests at the expense of others. In a comment at Mangan's Svigor well described the situation for these self-absorbed, treasonous overclass Whites and the majority of Whites of more modest means. For these people:

"White racial consciousness isn't controversial, it's taboo. Abortion is controversial. Thinking Obama's a dick is controversial. White racial consciousness is forbidden.

And "white racial consciousness" isn't particularly apt, either. Whites are supposed to be racially conscious - conscious of their racial duty to submit.

Who created this state of affairs, who maintains it, who thinks it's a good idea, who benefits from it? Why are dissenting Whites punished?

The minute you start thinking critically about it you very likely become one of the growing subset of Whites who see that it isn't right and isn't what you want. You see some people alienated from and repressing other people, trying to destroy them. You see apologists pretending they're allies trying to make excuses and blame the victims.

If you wish to use a metaphor, then fratricide fits better than suicide. But there is no need for metaphors. A jew created the word genocide specifically to describe situations like this. Suppose jewish group consciousness was made taboo and forbidden, we were all lectured in schools and media that jewish group consciousness is stupid and evil, and that jews should feel guilty and repent for the unforgivable crimes of their fathers. Wouldn't jews call that genocide, even if some jews were helping perpetrate or passively going along with it? Why shouldn't Whites regard it the same way when it's done to us?

4/08/2011 08:35:00 AM  
Blogger Chechar said...

I had in mind articles originally published at Occidental Dissent (republished here), Occidental Observer (rep. here) and TOQ (rep. here). All of them, especially the most philosophical (O’Meara’s piece), suggest that the problem is much larger than the JQ, as if the JQ was the tip of the iceberg of something larger and recondite. The iceberg analogy is apropos: what’s beneath the tip is the classic metaphor of the subconscious, monsters from the Id (now that I want to translate MacDonald I cannot put aside from my mind what he calls altruistic punishment among whites).

I believe that Alex Linder is in error here. He said on a radio show that he sees “nothing wrong with whites”, i.e. he blames the Jews a hundred percent.

While I agree with Svigor (another 2010 Mangan’s thread) that during a revolution of consciousness we must tackle FIRST the Jewish Problem, I still smell a rat somewhere within the self-consciousness / self-understanding of the Whites.

Perhaps Petronius is right. The Jews are only “catalyzing” something very wrong within our psyche. Watching Bill Clinton celebrate that whites will become a minority in front of a non-white audience of immigrants goes far beyond the mind of a mere “Snatched” white by the Jew (with small “w” since no sane White would say that). And what about those whites (e.g., the Swedes) who are openly celebrating that they will genetically disappear among the in-coming mass of non-Aryans?

This level of suicidal self-hatred goes far beyond PC brainwashing by die Juden and must have, to my mind, a distinct etiology.

And there’s the rub… because nothing disturbs me more than the hypothesis that the cause of Western malaise is multiple (cf. what I say at the top of the republished TOO article linked above).

@ Robert,

I cannot trace my forefathers back to the 16th century but if some of them fought in the bloody war against the Aztecs I might be considered “American” too. Lol.

4/08/2011 08:54:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Wandrin on Whites at Majority Rights.

4/08/2011 11:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

"Watching Bill Clinton celebrate that whites will become a minority in front of a non-white audience of immigrants goes far beyond the mind of a mere “Snatched” white by the Jew"

Change the word "suicide" to "martyrdom."

I think White societies have internal mechanisms that cause them to adapt to change. I think three of those elements are:

1. Liberal gene. Liking novelty and change for it's own sake. Compulsion to be contrary to the majority view.

2. Universal gene a la MacDonald.

3. Sympathy gene.

You could also call the sympathy gene the justice gene as i think it leads to it and maybe (2) and (3) are somehow connected.

I think the sympathy gene leads to a balance of sympathy which is the mental equivalent of an actual scales, like the ones the goddess of justice holds, and all the bad stuff group A has done to group B gets puts on one plate and all the bad stuff group B has done to group A gets put in the other and they're weighed and whoever has the heaviest plate owes the other and owing, in the justice sense not the loan repayment sense, causes mild distress or discomfort to the people who have this trait.

Jewish domination of the education system and media since WWII has created a situation where the black vs white scales have effectively got a house brick placed on the White side of the scales so they're set to perma-owe.

I think you see this in real world behaviour all the time.

Looked at in these terms a lot of kin+ White behaviour looks like an endless and futile attempt to pay off a debt that can never be repaid because the scales are fixed, and at the extreme kin++ end you get young women going off to martyr themselves in Haiti.

Debt slavery. Sacrifice. Martyrdom.

If black crime was reported i think the scales would balance very rapidly because present sympathy would carry much more weight than past sympathy. I'd guess they could maybe hold the line with "they're like it because of slavery so it's still you're fault really" for maybe six months but then the scales would start to tip pro-white and that aspect of our "suicide" would begin to come to an end.


I don't think the civil war was Jews though (except as in so far as they were responsible for slavery). I think slavery put a pebble in the shoe of moral universalists that - sans a scientific justification - could only have one of three logical outcomes in the long-term: massacre, expulsion or equality. I think Jews have exploited that inner conflict but didn't cause it. I think the conflict is genetic imo.

4/08/2011 08:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"here is Fjordman using false dichotomy and extremist projection at GoV"

I'd be willing flip a coin as to whether the above is the case or Fjordman does in fact realize the massive extent of Jewish culpability for White racial decline but just doesn't want to admit it. At Mangan's he basically conceded that Jews concocted many of the anti-White ideas which plague us today. I think it is plausible to say that Fjordman believes malignant Jewish influence is mostly an American phenomenon, and not so much a European one, so there is not enough 'bang for the buck' of bringing Jews into his analysis as would sufficiently benefit Europe to make it worth his while.

4/09/2011 02:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Fjordman apparently believes a civilizational collapse is imminent that will be of such catastrophic proportions that Western civilization itself will be totally destroyed. He said he would not lament the loss. In surviving that, he implicitly affirms that the White race will be reborn in strength or perish. Needless to say, were that to occur, he believes what he is prepared to acknowledge of Jewish power would be smashed for all time. This is quite telling of his level of demoralization at what he believes to be the impossibility of dislodging the international (Jewish) oligarchs except by such extraordinary means which are ultimately not under our control. He places his faith in Ragnarok.

That, at least, is my conception of what it is that Fjordman believes based upon comments he has made at Mangan's.

4/09/2011 05:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"Change the word "suicide" to "martyrdom.""

I'm afraid this is not a satisfactory explanation for what we see of many White liberals. I mean the ones who relentlessly dehumanize rural and working-class Whites, and would never dream of bearing the burdens of their alleged "sympathy" for non-Whites in any meaningful sense. These are the White liberals that make no bones about their desire to see European-derived people genetically merge with non-European-derived people. In the long-term, objectively speaking, of course all that these White liberals wish to see come to pass would be suicidal for them. But that is not the way they think of it. Theirs is a millenarian vision in which they, consciously or unconsciously, believe all injustice allegedly born of "white racism" will be abolished once the Universal Man is realized. The Universal Man is to be bred into existence via the genetic abolition of ancient genetically distinct peoples. That is, through global panmixia. It is not "martyrdom" (they would never dream of risking their own asses) but beatification. These would be saints need their witches to burn. It is in extirpating evil as they see it, unreconstructed Whites, that they exalt themselves. This is something entirely more sinister than an excess of "sympathy".

4/09/2011 06:21:00 AM  
Blogger Chechar said...


Your response is pretty close to I had been looking for. I had sensed something quite along with what you said but without any scientific framework, only intuitive psychology.

If we are right, what we need is to break the Judeo-liberal hold on the media. Advertizing not only black crime in America, but the genocide committed against the German people by the allied forces after the combats ceased—just imagine films depicting the historical info of Thomas Goodrich’s Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944–1947—would produce such a shock within white consciousness that values would be revaluated.

Alas, we don’t own the media. Or Hollywood. Underground tactics: Linder-like street demonstrations on black atrocities and YouTube videos on the history of Hellstorm, something analogous to Duke’s videos but with the unstated, psychological goal of balancing the scales as you say.

@ Change the word "suicide" to "martyrdom."

But here’s where the problem starts. According to the Swede referred to above, we are in the last stage of Christianity. “We are witnessing the historical demise of Christianity. When a star dies, in its last phase it expands into a red giant, before it shrinks into a white dwarf. Liberalism is the red giant of Christianity. And just as a red giant it is devoid of its core, it expands thousandfold while losing its substance and is about to die.”

I used to be a Christian. Actually, an admirer of St Francis. That was long time ago. Only after I wrote an in-depth psychological autobiography I comprehended that stage. Presently St Francis’ behavior, as well as the mortifications of the flesh of many other Middle Ages ascetics, would be labeled as self-harming. I’ve very specific ideas about what causes self-harming that cannot discuss in a post, but the point is that Swede used to say that in modern times the secular liberals “try to be like Jesus”.

We don’t know exactly how the historical Jesus was. So let’s take the historical St Francis as a paradigm. The self-harming ways of St Francis (“asceticism”) literally killed him as a young man. Presently liberals, including secular liberals living within that thousandfold expansion of neo-Christianity that loses Christianity’s substance, “try to be like St Francis” so to speak. You can call it hunger of martyrdom. Ultimately it is suicide.

Here’s where deep psychology enters the scene, and why I feel that there is a hidden factor in all of this liberalism, a monster from the Id so to speak. Think of the other Swedes who celebrate that the Aryan race will disappear in their own nation. This seems to go even beyond your genetic scheme. It is pure, vile, pathological self-hatred analogous to the self-hatred of the self-harmers in psychiatric clinics.

The whole problem is twofold. The Jews’ surviving (homicidal) strategies make perfect click with the whites’ martyrdom (suicidal?) wishes.

Fortunately, if our theory of the mind is accurate, whites only need to break the grip that the Jews have on MSM. After watching the film Hellstorm the “justice gene”, as you call it, would do the trick. (I would say that the “monster from the Id” would be exorcized back to the times before the Jews took over.)

4/09/2011 10:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

"I'm afraid this is not a satisfactory explanation for what we see of many White liberals"


Sure. In reality there's a long list of sub-groups:

change junkies - change for its own sake

natural contrarians - like swimming against the tide

superior moralists - same as natural contrarians except they use it to feel morally superior

cost/benefit conformists - they become SWPL simply because of jobs and cost / benefit.

bandwagon bullies - wimps who want to bully people but don't have the guts unless they're backed by an institutional idealogy.

universalists - can be liberal, conservative or revolutionary

justice junkies - can be liberal, conservative or revolutionary

sympathetics - can be liberal, conservative or revolutionary

(i'm not sure the last three aren't all connected somehow)

The conformists and bandwagon bullies aren't relevant as they don't create idealogy they just adapt to whoever wins. If space nazis took over tomorrow they'd be NS. if victorian moralists took over tomorrow they'd be victorian moralists.

I think the change junkies / contrarians / superiority contrarians are personality types independent of Jews but obviously usable by them. (Although as PC becomes ever more dominant i'd expect the natural contrarians to start changing sides). An example of this would be a comedian who likes to shock by going against the dominant idealogy.

I think it's the moral superiority contrarians who fit the kind of liberal you're talking about. They take the opposite view to the mainstream one and then wrap it in moral superiority *but* the thing about them is *they're* not suicidal. They protect their jobs. They make sure their living space is all-white. They make sure their kid's schools are all-white.

They're like a corrupt priesthood. They're hostile to the point of being genocidal towards the laity but they're not personally suicidal at all.

4/09/2011 09:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...


So i think to say western civilization as a whole is suicidal is equivalent to saying that this last group are dominant in their own right without any critical outside assistance and they became dominant without any critical outside assistance and if they became dominant through common assent that common assent was gained without any critical outside assistance.

To the first point, are this corrupt priesthood physically numerous enough to run the state without critical outside assistance? If you look outside America the answer is obviously yes. America is like looking at the 1921 politburo and seeing 20 Jews out of 60. Then you look closer and you see it's 20 obvious and 10 crypto. Then you look closer and it's 20 obvious, 10 crypto and 20 with Jewish spouses. But that's just America.

Since the 30s most of the rest of the Anglosphere has more Jewish influence in government than continental Europe but still a lot less than America and apart from France most of the rest of Europe has fewer again. They are often prominent but not in enough numbers to be dominant.

So the corrupt post WWII priesthood
is numerically sufficient to be dominant without Jewish help but did they become dominant without critical outside assistance? Did they only become dominant because assent to their dominance was manufactured?

4/09/2011 09:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...


Back to the universalist / justice / sympathetic group of liberals. (For simplicity i'll assume for the moment that this group are somehow inter-connected and somehow all stem from the same root of evolved distress at child or kin distress.)

What if they're not liberals in any intellectual sense?

What if humans have a common trait which varies in quantity in each individual and higher quantities make those individuals more inclined to extended sympathy and that inclination to extended sympathy creates a potential weakness to guilt-based conditioning.

Then what if white people simply have a different distribution of this trait such that larger percentages of white people have larger amounts?

So the great white flaw would be having a larger percentage of people who felt higher levels of distress at babies crying.

I think this fits observed white behaviour. Most of the individual behaviour that is used as evidence of suicide could just as easily, and i'd say more easily, be described as guilt, obsessive attempts to repay percieved moral debt, sacrifice and martyrdom.

(The connection between sympathy, justice and universal morality would be something like extended sympathy leads to a balance of sympathy when there are two parties involved. The balance of sympathy leads to distress at injustice. Distress at injustice leads to the need for justice to be universal (or something along those lines).

The behaviour of the liberal elite doesn't fit the martyrdom thesis but the liberal elite is only in power because of the changes among the population, a change brought about through manipulating the balance of sympathy in the larger population.

In a nutshell, if it's suicide it's induced suicide (or martyrdom) and if it's induced suicide it's murder.

4/09/2011 09:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

So dramatic shifts in white civilization would take place when the balance of sympathy shifted on some issue and a bloc of sympathetics sided with the perennial minority of natural contrarians.

4/09/2011 09:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

"If we are right, what we need is to break the Judeo-liberal hold on the media...but with the unstated, psychological goal of balancing the scales as you say."

Yes, except i don't think we can compete with the media (and education system) directly when it comes to manipulating the balance. For every ounce we can put on one side of the scales the media can put a pound on the other.

So the options are to try and increase our weight or we can try and reduce theirs. I don't think we could ever hope to increase our weight enough without our own satellite TV station so the critical thing is to reduce theirs.

I think reducing the weight they can add to the scales revolves around reducing their moral authority and i think that is achieved by constantly pointing out their double standards - so it's a two step process even if both steps use the same information.

Step 1: 30,000 black-white rapes with the emphasis on the media's double standards when reporting inter-racial crimes.

Step 2: after the moral authority of the media has been broken (however long that takes) 30,000 black-white rapes used simply as evidence to shift the balance of sympathy out of the self-hating white zone.

I think everything needs to be geared at undermining their moral authority first until they're weakened enough to compete with directly.

4/09/2011 10:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...


I'll look at your other points from the sympathy gene angle.

"But here’s where the problem starts. According to the Swede referred to above, we are in the last stage of Christianity."

If the sympathy thesis is correct then Christianity would have been adopted in Europe because it was a good fit with the sympathy gene.

The do-gooder aspects of modern liberalism would look like atheist Christianity because it always was.

As science reduced belief in God the sympathy gene tortoise simply walked out of the Christian shell.

"I used to be a Christian. Actually, an admirer of St Francis"

Yes, same here. From a sympathy gene point of view St Francis would be a classic case of kin++ extending sympathy to animals etc. I think extended sympathy could lead to guilt in situations where that person can't do enough to reduce visible suffering and guilt can lead to self-harm.

I've known numerous police officers, nurses etc who self-harm in some way (alcohol usually) because they couldn't do enough to save someone. There was no fault involved they were just not physically capable of doing enough.

There are very many paths to guilt but from guilt to self-harm is a very well-worn single path (imo).

"You can call it hunger of martyrdom. Ultimately it is suicide."

The distinction matters if the causes are different. If it's martyrdom through guilt and the guilt is induced then that is an external not an internal cause.

Given the complete phase shift in Western civilization since WWII i'd say the onus is on people to prove it wasn't an external cause.

"Here’s where deep psychology enters the scene...Think of the other Swedes who celebrate that the Aryan race will disappear in their own nation. This seems to go even beyond your genetic scheme."

I don't know. To me it's just a more extreme form of self-harm. If someone is persuaded that all the evils in the world are caused by Whiteness then the most extreme kin++ people will see the death of Whiteness as a good thing. If you imagine extended sympathy on a scale going from 1 to 100 the people at a hundred are going to look completely crazy to the people at 20, 40 and probably even 60. They'll look like a completely different category of human but maybe it's just a larger quantity of sympathy gene.

"The whole problem is twofold. The Jews’ surviving (homicidal) strategies make perfect click with the whites’ martyrdom (suicidal?) wishes."

Yes i think it is a combination of Jewish manipulation and the White sympathy gene. It's not the sympathy gene itself that's the problem it's the excessive guilt induced by manipulating the sympathy gene.

(If the scale goes from 1 to 100 then yes, people who score 90+ on that scale i can imagine being capable of generating excessive amounts of guilt on their own but what Jews have done (imo) is pump the guilt up so far that even mid-range people are behaving suicidally.)

"Fortunately, if our theory of the mind is accurate, whites only need to break the grip that the Jews have on MSM."

Yes, except as i mentioned above i think while their moral authority holds then people will reject information that contradicts the MSM's information. The first step is to reduce their moral authority by focusing on information that illustrates their double standards.

4/10/2011 12:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

" I think it is plausible to say that Fjordman believes malignant Jewish influence is mostly an American phenomenon, and not so much a European one"

If he himself is not susceptible or not strongly susceptible then his position makes perfect sense. There aren't physically enough Jews in a place like Sweden to have done this so if he's not susceptible he won't realise how the beginning came long distance through Hollywood.

My guess is he should ask PC Swedes of the right age group about films like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Twelve Angry Men" and other Hollywood "race" pictures then watch their reaction.

4/10/2011 12:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chechar writes (Blogger doesn't allow me to post normally):


I would like to baptize the following response to you. “From St Francis to Himmler” (Lol: this could have been the title of my autobiography):

In part you are right. But the whole process cannot be genetic. The next books I’ll order from Amazon are MacDonald’s first and second of the trilogy. I think that he makes an excellent point by comparing the polar opposite frames of mind—yes: this is genetic—between the Jews’ surviving strategies and the whites’ altruistic self-punishments. But the genetic model cannot explain everything.

Yesterday I watched a TV documentary about twelve animals that kill people in Australia: extremely nasty and repugnant spiders, serpents, medusas, poisonous fishes, crocodiles, etc. It is shocking to see the older black-and-white footage of a few decades ago with Australian whites simply killing any crocodile on sight.

Your genetic theory, which I repeat is partially right, is about the human “hardware” (genes). My field of interest is the human “software” (I was the main contributor to Wikipedia’s article on “trauma model of mental disorders”). The transformation of the Australians, unabashed killers of mortal animals a few decades ago to those insane protectionist agencies that try to preserve them from extinction (even in the documentary you see blond children as vulnerable victims in their encounters with those poisonous species) is, obviously, a virus of the mind, not of the brain or the genes. The whites’ genetic hardware of a couple of generations ago is exactly the same. A virus for the software, a cultural virus, has obviously been implanted in the Australian, and Western, psyche.

I am a ruthless exterminationist. If I lived in a continent plagued with such poisonous neighbors, I wouldn’t doubt for a single second to exterminate that filth the first time the thought entered my mind that one of them might sting one of those beautiful children.

Americans used to be exterminationists too. I remember another TV documentary that recounted how in the early 20th century Americans were hunting and destroying a river fish they believed had attacked some of their children. Today any mention of wanting to exterminate another species would sound like you are a Neanderthal when, in fact, those who care more about the survival of other species above their kin are the ones who are truly insane.

Exact the same with immigration, where present-day Westerners try to “imitate” St Francis (my very autobiography demonstrates that the whole process is cultural, not genetic: St Francis was my idol in my teens and today I want, oh boy! to read David Irving’s study on Herr Himmler). As a recent article in Majority Rights put it, this promiscuous out-group altruism is at the height of absurdity when a white person rejects the company of another white person (a nationalist) who advances both of their shared interests.

This is not the reign of genetics, Wandrin. It is the reign of psychiatry. And the change of animus towards our enemies in the animal kingdom in a couple of generations is only one example that explains why I believe that studying the software is as important as the hardware.

4/10/2011 12:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Sheila said...

Last anonymous - fascinating comment and excellent points: "those who care more about the survival of another species" than their own kin are insanity personified. The same thesis is behind PETA's slogan that a "cockroach is a rat is a baby" or some other such nonsense. While I don't wish harm on other children, I would save my own before anyone else's in extremity.

Your points about hardware vs. software are very apt. To what do you attribute the initial software change, and what would your proposals be to get rid of the virus?

4/10/2011 03:16:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...


The “last anonymous” is me (Blogger is behaving weirdly these days when I try to post a comment in this site).

The cause of my change was, of course, a long night of my soul. It is almost impossible to convey a spiritual odyssey in a whole blog, let alone within a mere comment.

The popular neurologist Oliver Sacks has complained that in classical neurology we will find a thousand descriptions of the pathologies that correspond to the left hemisphere of the brain for a single pathology about the right hemisphere. He adds:


And yet, as Luria says, they are of the most fundamental importance. So much so that they may demand a new sort of neurology, a “personalistic,” or (as Luria liked to call it) a “romantic,” science; for the physical foundations of the persona, the self, are here revealed for our study. Luria thought a science of this kind would be best introduced by a story—a detailed case-history.

/end quote

A detailed case-history is what I have done in a substantial part of my book Hojas Susurrantes even though Sacks approaches the hardware problems of the despised right hemisphere of the brain, the hemisphere of the emotions, while I approach software problems. Sacks’ field of study is the damaged brain. My field is the damaged mind.

Although Sacks studies hardware, I mention him because his quotation about studying the right hemisphere as a “romantic science” or “foundations of the persona” hits the nail when we come to speak of sane people and how the “software” is changed for good (cf. e.g., how Solzhenitsyn recounts his long night of the soul in his magnum opus).

In my own case, I would need as many pages as the Archipelago from my own autobiographical narrative to make the whole point. (That’s why I have some PDFs in my webpage.)

4/10/2011 03:42:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

It's memetic poison exploiting genetic weaknesses.

Probably the most important example is jewish crypsis, whereby jews feign in-group sympathy with Whites and most Whites accept their moralizing as if it is coming from their own kind. The poisonous meme that facilitates this subversion is the idea that it's pathological ("hate") for Whites (and Whites alone) to resist such infiltration, to be at all attentive to group identity and membership.

This is what Bardamu's "But but but it was the Joooooooos!" bit is about. It's an attempt to ridicule those who notice jewish infiltration and the subsequent negative consequences for Whites.

Jews aren't pathologized for being vigilant about their group, nor are they mocked for being obsessed with "nazis". Even if they were they seem to be wired differently than Whites, with a keener sensitivity to aggression and a stronger sense of their group's interests. Even the mildest defense against jewish aggression (as such) is sure to produce cries of "anti-semitism". These cries are intended and interpreted as an attack signal by every jew in earshot. Post-WWII this cry also mobilizes many Whites who have been taught that jews are their poor, weakling cousins who need protection more than anyone else.

The cure to any bad idea is exposure to competition from other ideas. Once dissimulation and manipulation are revealed their power and effect are not only negated, they produce resentment and a backlash.

4/10/2011 03:43:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...


@ “…and what would your proposals be to get rid of the virus?”

As I said above, we need to show the content of allied atrocities against the Germans (cf. Hellstorm) and also of the millions of gentiles genocided by Stalin’s Jews to kill the virus. It is the only way (along with documentaries on black rape on white girls in America, etc).

4/10/2011 03:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

"But the genetic model cannot explain everything."

Sure. I don't think it does. What i'm looking for are political keys which unlock particular segments of the White population.

WN tries to appeal to the already ethno-centric but they're not the problem. They're already onside in theory. However they know they're a minority among White people so in practise most of them retreat into their individual bunkers.

I'm looking for keys to the next segment because if they can be turned then the bunker people will come out automatically.

I think the key to the people in the next segment lies in resetting the balance of sympathy so those people no longer feel bound by the weight of a moral debt.

(And if you doubt the balance of sympathy and resultant moral debt argument just listen to what the anti-whites say - it's *all* about moral debt.)

If correct (to at least some degree) then it leads to the political conclusions that WN rhetoric and argument should be geared to the psychology of
- balance of sympathy
- justice
- unversality

which in practical terms means hit their double standards first (universality) and keep hitting them until they've been weakened and then pile sympathy arguments onto the pro-white side of the scales and let the natural justice trait automatically re-balance.

4/10/2011 04:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

"It's memetic poison exploiting genetic weaknesses."

Yes, except i always quibble a bit on the weakness as i believe it's both a weakness and a strength. It's a strength in that it allows greater large-group co-operation. It's a weakness in that the strength eventually leads to the sort of society (universal public education and mass media) where small hostile groups can take it from you.

So the strength part is always there. The weakness part is only there under certain conditions.

The cure, i believe, is a rational scientific and biological understanding of race and ethnicity that acts as a logical barrier to the sympathy gene - out-group charity fine, but only at arms length.

It also makes me wonder if replacing white people with same or higher IQ people will work. It might work in 98% Korean Korea, or 98% Japanese Japan or 98% Chinese China but will it work in a completely fractured and balkanised America? Can the level of co-operation of 25% high IQ Whites be matched if that 25% segment is replaced by 5% Korean, 5% Japanese, 5% Chinese, 5% Indian and 5% White?

4/10/2011 04:58:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...


The Mesoamerican mythology of the great transgression by some gods to create life without parental consent (are you familiar with my online book?) exemplifies what Ivan Strenski has pointed out in Contesting Sacrifice: originally all cultures have had at its basis universal guilt, and thus require of purification rituals to repair the broken bond with the divinity.

If what you say (“…the balance of sympathy and resultant moral debt argument just listen to what the anti-whites say - it's *all* about moral debt”) is true, then my worst fears—a monster from the Id has been unleashed throughout the Western psyche—have become reality.

Killing that monster will be very hard indeed. All Mesoamerican cultures disappeared precisely because Amerindians never came to grips with the guilt meme.

We must start right away to upload videos talking about Hellstorm and Stalin’s Jews in YouTube and elsewhere. The more compassion toward whites we can attract the easier it will be to kill it.

4/10/2011 05:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

"...allied atrocities...genocided by Stalin’s rape on white girls in America, etc"

One thing i'd say to that is i think if you drill down to the mechanism involved in this process and try and formulate it numerically to make the options clearer you get something like this:

wgt = TI x TS x V

wgt = total weight
TI = truthiness of information
TS = trustworthiness of source
V = volume.

If the scales are all 1-10 then currently that gives something like this.
MSM = 1 x 10 x 10 = 100
WN = 10 x 1 x 1 = 10

The four options that follow from this, assuming that maintaining the maximum truthiness of our information is a given, are
1) Reduce media trustiness
2) Reduce media volume
3) Increase our trustiness
4) Increase our volume

There's no legal way of doing (2) so that leaves three options.

However i think trustworthiness is a zero sum game. If the media is completely trusted then the public won't trust other sources. If the media loses trust then other sources can expand to fill the gap.

So as long as we stick to truthful information i think reducing the trustworthiness of the media will automatically lead to an increase in ours. If so then options 1 and 3 both follow from 1.

So in terms of the equation a 2pt increase in our volume gives
MSM = 1 x 10 x 10 = 100
WN = 10 x 1 x 3 = 30

whereas a 2pt drop in their trustworhiness (and a consequent increase in ours) gives
MSM = 1 x 8 x 10 = 80
WN = 10 x 3 x 1 = 30

Hence why i think focusing on attacking their double standards is the most efficient.

The same truthful information can be used to make different points it's just a question of how it's presented. For example the 30,000 black-white rape stats the media covers up can be presented in different ways
1) As an attack on the media for their double standards reporting the tsunami of racial crime directed at White people.
2) As an attack on black people.
3) As an explicit balance of sympathy / moral debt argument i.e "we've paid them back for slavery enough already now we need to separate to protect our kin."
4) As empirical data that diversity kills.
5) and maybe others.

I think the first gives more bang for the buck, at least initially. If it works then later the same information can be used to make a different point.

4/10/2011 07:54:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...


Your equations may be right. I was advocating an increase of the “volume”: the emotional input: the polar opposite of what Majority Rights does (of course: the target audience is so different). The ultimate goal would be the creation of a myth, as understood in the first chapters of Michael O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic (cf. esp. what he says about the lucid, albeit limited, intellectual articles of TOQ).

But that’s too ambitious for the moment. We must start to speak out openly and publicly, as David Duke does but with a fairly amount of emotion increased (the paradigm would the oratory power of Uncle Adolf). It is the outspoken word about white interests what could, at least in theory, galvanize again the masses as the Chancellor did when my grandma was young.

Anglo-Saxons had the equivalent of this sort of rhetoric among the fire and brimstone preachers, and we need a later day (i.e., a secular WN) incarnation of the preacher. You can imagine the impact of someone talking about the atrocities committed by Stalin’s Jews if the right sort of fiery emotion is added to the info (the same with black rape or the genocide against the Germans in 1945-1947).

I can see that Duke’s videos are already hitting a nerve. But Duke is a mere adagio. The time for an allegro con brio is coming. But who will be our fiery orator? I have in mind something that far surpasses BNP’s Jonathan Bowden since he doesn’t speak with the utmost force in civil wars: hate (again, cf. Hitler). Although Norman Finkelstein is a liberal Jew, he exemplifies what I have in mind.

It is frustrating that I am handicapped to do the job because of my foreign accent.

4/10/2011 09:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

"of course the single cause theory is false"

In fact, it is true. Jewish activists receive plenty of help from white people, but we wouldn't be in the midst of a massive race-replacement crisis if it wasn't for the jews.
There is something wrong with white people. But, as Svigor said somewhere, when old people get tricked by crooks, we blame the crooks, not the gullibility of their victims.

Chechar: "All of them suggest that the problem is much larger than the JQ"

The obvious problem is the destruction of traditional society. What we need is to go back to a smaller, self-reliant, tightly-knit, racially homogeneous society. I think people tend to become more suicidal, nihilistic and destructive as traditional society disappears. The destruction of traditional society was caused by industrialization, the disappearance of farming communities, the concentration of people in big cities, the invention of television, and so on. It was made worse by Western governments, by Jewish activism, and by the race-replacement policy.

"critics of the single cause hypothesis told me at Mangan’s that both the French Revolution and the American Civil war refute the view that the Jews caused it all."

Nesta Webster and Joseph Lémann have written books about the role of Jews in the French Revolution. Apart from that, I think the French Revolution was a result of the elites having too much time on their hands.

Today, as society keeps disintegrating, I think it will create more and more leftists: crazy people who don't have a feeling of belonging to anything, and who want to destroy what's left of society. At the same time, the Whites will become more race conscious as they become a minority. I don't know who will win.

Maybe our phony (non-Jewish) elites are even more removed from traditional society than most people. If they don't have any sense of belonging, it is no wonder that they behave like traitors.

4/10/2011 09:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Last month, Matt Parrott had an article titled Nation of Idiots where he quoted Alain de Benoist :

"The notions of citizenship, liberty, and equality of political rights, as well as popular sovereignty, were closely interrelated. The most essential feature of citizenship was one's origin and heritage: Pericles was the 'son of Xanthippus from the deme of Cholargus'. From 451 BCE, one had to be born of an Athenian mother and father in order to become a citizen. Defined by his belonging, the citizen (polites) was opposed to the idiotes, or non-citizen—a designation that quickly took on a pejorative meaning (from the notion of the isolated individual with no belonging came the idea of the 'idiot'). Citizenship as a function thus derived from the notion of citizenship a status which was the exclusive prerogative of birth. To be a citizen meant, in the fullest sense of the word, to belong to a homeland - that is, to a homeland and a past."

Matt Parrott's comment: "We're regressing from true citizens with a common heritage into isolated individuals . . . idiots. We no longer have the power or the will to direct this government, a government which no longer belongs to us in any meaningful way."

It reminds me of Robert Putnam, who says in "Bowling Alone" that racial diversity means less social capital.

And it also makes me think of Durkheim, the Jewish sociologist who popularized the word 'anomie' (from the Greek: a='without' + 'nomos'=law).

"Émile Durkheim used [the word 'anomie'] in his influential book Suicide (1897), outlining the social (and not individual) causes of suicide, characterized by an absence or diminution of standards or values (referred to as normlessness), and an associated feeling of alienation and purposelessness. / In Durkheim's view, traditional religions often provided the basis for the shared values which the anomic individual lacks."

4/10/2011 09:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Wandrin: "Sure. In reality there's a long list of sub-groups: change junkies / natural contrarians / superior moralists / cost/benefit conformists / bandwagon bullies / universalists / justice junkies / sympathetics"

I think it is mostly a problem of cowardice and dishonesty. The system tends to promote people who are like that. Besides, people who adopt a phony moralistic attitude are not really aware that they are responding to (mostly Jewish) intimidation. It isn't only Jews who practice self-deception.

4/10/2011 09:27:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

But we dissolved and the Jews didn't. Other people at this blog point out correctly, Catholic disagreement and causality in our problems.

The Jews seem to have played a large and mostly unexplored role in the splintering of the Church.

4/10/2011 11:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...


"The Mesoamerican mythology of the great transgression by some gods to create life without parental consent (are you familiar with my online book?)..."

Missed this bit. If it's the one serialised on your blog, yes. The bits about their behaviour towards their children is one of the things that started me thinking about sympathy.

4/11/2011 06:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...


Keep missing bits.

"Your equations may be right. I was advocating an increase of the “volume”: the emotional input:"

"You can imagine the impact of someone talking about the atrocities committed by Stalin’s Jews if the right sort of fiery emotion is added to the info (the same with black rape or the genocide against the Germans in 1945-1947)."

Yes i understand your point now. I thought you meant volume as in simply producing more information.

I think you are right that increasing the volume through emotional / moral overloading, Hellfire preacher style, fits the theory perfectly and could work with the right preacher.

4/11/2011 05:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...


"I think it is mostly a problem of cowardice and dishonesty"

I think that's part of it and maybe it's most of it but i also think some of it is guilt-based conditioning which can possibly be unpicked with the right tactics.

"Last month, Matt Parrott had an article titled Nation of Idiots...reminds me of Robert also makes me think of Durkheim, the Jewish sociologist who popularized the word 'anomie' (from the Greek: a='without' + 'nomos'=law)."

I think those related issues are part of it too - isolation and the loss of community.

I'll save that Durkheim quote for future suicide over genocide arguments as it reads almost like a thinly disguised cultural marxist PhD thesis on how to induce suicide within a culture.

4/11/2011 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

Wandrin et al,

In this YouTube clip you can listen to what I am talking about, especially the first section: the right tone when we address the white traitors.

My idea is to talk like this, a latter-day Uncle Adolf for the American people, in public, yes: showing your face

4/11/2011 07:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Tanstaafl: "It's memetic poison exploiting genetic weaknesses."

Maybe 40 years ago, the main problem was Jewish propaganda exploiting white people's liberal streak. I think this is no longer true. Today, the real problem is their control of the media and of the government by bribery and lobbying.

I have two arguments :

1. In spite of everything, most white people are still against race-replacement. They don't believe the propaganda. But what they think no longer matters to the government.

2. Most liberals are phony liberals. They don't feel higher levels of distress at babies crying. On the contrary, they are sadistic. As Captainchaos says, "these would be saints need their witches to burn". What makes them self-righteous is that they have power on their side.

Jewish liberals are not liberal at all: they are Jews. Most non-Jewish liberals are not liberal either: they are witch-burners. I accept there's still something characteristically white in the behavior of the phony liberals who fight against their own race. But they are not high-minded.

Wandrin: "The cure, i believe, is a rational scientific and biological understanding of race and ethnicity that acts as a logical barrier to the sympathy gene - out-group charity fine, but only at arms length."

I think the cure will be violence. At some point, white people will turn violent. Even if it is only mild violence, it will help other white people rebel against the government, and there will be a chain reaction, and most former white traitors will withdraw their support from the anti-white system.

4/11/2011 09:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

On another thread, Daybreaker mentioned the story of the emperor's new clothes :

"The modern version of the trick is for supremely high stakes, and has many improvements, including a mighty media orchestra constantly blaring to shout down inconvenient little boys, compulsory mass education in the right kind of gullibility, and ultimately race replacement to create a new majority with a stake in upholding the official lies.
In the face of all this, the silent witness of reality is inadequate.
That's why we have to spell out even very simple and obvious things."

I think the lesson from Andersen's tale should be that collective action has to be preceded by explicit, public discourse. That is to say: even if no one believes in the legitimacy of race-replacement, we cannot stop the policy as long as Jewish intimidation and censorship keep us from speaking up.

The reason we have to speak up is not to tell people something they don't know. But we can only rally around public discourse. Public speech is necessary in order to build a collective will and take action. That's why the main job of the Jewish media and of Jewish-controlled universities is to stifle free speech.

Or course, Andersen's tale isn't very realistic. It isn't enough to have people in the streets stating the obvious to each other. We need institutions and public figures to rally around.

4/11/2011 09:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...


"In this YouTube clip"

Yes. I'd guess you know of Pat Connell from counter-jihad who has that moral certainty thing

I was thinking more hellfire than that. The best modern examples of that are the Leftists like Abbie Hoffman who copied that whole fiery Baptist schtick in America

4/11/2011 11:29:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...


I have watched every single video by Condell. I used to like him. Not anymore. Reasons:

(1) Condell has stated vehemently that there are no races and that he wouldn’t tolerate going back to the times when in the United States negroes had to take the back seats in the buses.

(2) Condell has also stated that he spares the Jews from his anti-religious diatribes because in his opinion they are decent people.

If you are familiar with my recent blog posts, you will see that counter-jihadists [like Condell] are still Neo-cons, not true Western patriots.

4/11/2011 11:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...


"Maybe 40 years ago, the main problem was Jewish propaganda exploiting white people's liberal streak. I think this is no longer true. Today, the real problem is their control of the media and of the government by bribery and lobbying."

You're right they have power now and can use that to enforce their rule but at the same time the reality they are trying to cover up is much worse. I think they need conditioning *more* today to keep the lid on - more extreme conditioning *and* more threats.

"1. In spite of everything, most white people are still against race-replacement. They don't believe the propaganda. But what they think no longer matters to the government.

I agree this group exists however i think the number among them who *completely* reject the multicult is no more than 20%. I think most of them are still partially hamstrung by their guilt-based conditioning.

"2. Most liberals are phony liberals. They don't feel higher levels of distress at babies crying. On the contrary, they are sadistic. As Captainchaos says"

Yes, that was part of my point. There are the liberals who don't act suicidal and there are the "liberals" that go off to Haiti to get martyred. My point is the second group aren't liberals they're that part of the standard White population who are the most susceptible to the guilt-based conditioning.

At one end of the spectrum are people who are immune, in the middle are the ones who disagree with the multicult but won't fight it and at the far end are the ones who martyr theselves trying to pay a manipulated moral debt.

"Jewish liberals are not liberal at all...phony liberals who fight against their own race. But they are not high-minded."

Agree on both points.

"I think the cure will be violence."

When i talked about a cure for the sympathy gene i meant after that, as in a scientific rationale for an EGI based constitution etc to reduce the chance of this happening again.

Last point. When they talk about African slavery here they minimize the African involvement, they minimize the Arab involvement, they leave out the Arab slaving in Europe entirely and they maximize the White involvement.

Why do they do that?

Because they're adapted to us.

4/12/2011 12:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...


Sure. My point was about the delivery.

4/12/2011 12:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Tan: "shoah guilt-tripping"
Wan: "guilt-based conditioning"

I don't think many people have sympathy for Jews on account of their "holocaust". Last month in France, the government decided to raise the pension of orphans whose parents were the victims of "antisemitic persecution" to 492 € per month. I suppose Roman Polanski will now receive 492 € every month from the French government. It has nothing to do with white guilt, and everything to do with Jewish power. It is for the same reason that school textbooks have to tell children about the Jewish holocaust, and not about the rest.

I don't think white people feel any guilt toward the third-world either. I can think of only one area where they are swayed by the propaganda: the question of deportation.

White people don't like third-world immigrants but they are afraid we may break their hearts if we kick them out. But it's easy to explain to naive white people that the immigrants are here for the money and comfort, not because they love us. They had no problem leaving their home country for money.

If an Arab has to leave Paris to take a job in Marseille or Lyon, no one thinks it is a problem. It doesn't matter if he doesn't know any one in his new city. But if he must go back all the way to Algiers, it suddenly becomes a problem. It doesn't make any sense.

4/12/2011 04:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We do need to stop blaming the other. We know that guilt is one of the biggest motivators of the modern day white person. You're not going to get rid of that guilt, so use it. Let's get us all to flagellate ourselves for not protecting our own interests. Let's all weep in shame as we retake our lands. Out-guilt the guilt-trippers. Who cares how we get there, let's just leave the place better than we found it. Let's take 1000 times the guilt so our kids don't have to.

Use the guilt to our own ends. WE'RE GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! Now excuse us as we get rid of affirmative action...

4/12/2011 09:56:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"If an Arab has to leave Paris to take a job in Marseille or Lyon, no one thinks it is a problem. It doesn't matter if he doesn't know any one in his new city. But if he must go back all the way to Algiers, it suddenly becomes a problem. It doesn't make any sense."

Great point. However the problem does makes sense in light of the judaized media's 24/7 propaganda most people are exposed to and unwittingly swallow. Jewish power generates and cultivates ignorance. The two are not mutally exclusive - they go together hand in hand.

4/12/2011 10:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

"You're not going to get rid of that guilt, so use it."

Yes. That's the point of trying to identify the nuts and bolts of the mechanism.

4/13/2011 02:24:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home