Posts Tagged ‘judaism’

Roots Of Modern Anti-Semitism

Friday, February 17th, 2017

While anti-Semitism makes no sense because it scapegoats one group for the failure of the much larger phenomenon of Western Individualism, it is easy to see how it came about in the modern time because of the unfortunate affinity of a large percentage of Jews for egalitarian ideologies which also reveals the eternal tragedy of the Jewish people in Europe and Eurasia:

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

When 2% of the population represents nearly 40% of the Communist Party, they will be targeted. Herzl recognized this when he noticed that among national populations, those who do not fit the national profile are attacked whenever things go wrong. But even more, when a stereotype becomes somewhat true, the brutality that follows seems justified or at least forgivable to most people, despite being unrealistic.

Naturally the tragedy of the Jews comes into play here. The Jewish diaspora began before the Jewish people were exiled from Palestine. It lies in the mixed-race nature of the Jewish population, who were probably once European but became merged with Asiatics and Asiatic-African hybrids because of Israel’s place as the center of world commerce at the time.

The Jews are a bourgeois tragedy: successful in business, they accepted everyone, which led to them changing from a European population to a mixed one. This guaranteed them a home on none of the continents and, when their homeland in the middle east was dispossessed from them, a wandering group who could never point to an origin and say “there, alone, we belong.”

Like the good businesspeople of the West today, the original Jews accepted diversity because it made good business sense. Thriving businesses do not turn down customers because of their national origin. But in doing so, the Jewish people invited in the hybridization that ensured they would never have a racial home or continental home except themselves.

This fundamental alienation led to a fascination with anti-majority movements for many Jews, explaining their higher participation in Leftist movements. However, their lack of an identity in one of the four root races — Australid, Caucasian, Asian and African — then turned against them, as even the Communists recognized the power of nationalism.

While this seems like a problem without solution, nationalism solves this problem. A new race was made: the Jewish people. It belongs to no one but itself, and it needs its own homeland, whether in Israel or Madagascar. It will never be European again, but it can be the best of what it is, and this begins with a divorce from the alienation that has led it into so many disasters.

In the meantime, these historical events prove how nonsensical anti-Semitism is. Our problem in the West is that we are following the path that the ancient Jews did because, as individuals, we are willing to “succeed” at the expense of civilization. We cannot blame others for our own moral failing, and indeed, doing so obscures what we must do, which is to change our ways.

Bill (((Kristol))) Is A Really Bad Answer To The Jewish Question

Thursday, February 9th, 2017

Ah, The Jewish Question. Oy gevalt! Should we be mean to the Jews? Are they the noble breed of people that gave us Einstein and Mendelssohn? Are they conspiring with the (((Illuminati))) and the (((Banksters))) to secretly do away with us all? One of life’s sad tragedies is that the answer to this question is both.

If what Bill (((Kristol))) had to say for himself is indicative of the majority of American Jews, then maybe, just maybe Jolly Old Reinhard Heydrich had a point. Heck, if President Donald J. Trump is ¡LITERALLY HITLER! then it’s time for Der Father-Fuhrer to put over-priveleged fat-fvck Bill (((Kristol))) on the Treblinka weight loss plan. The calories don’t just get burned, they get Shoah’d!

Now maybe I’m blessed with merely Upper Middle Class aspirations and have mostly only met Jewish People who are modest, intelligent, patriotic, decent and really hard-working. Like Mr. Rogers… you want guys like this to be your neighbor. They are frequently the sort of people I want my son and daughter to take after more than they ever take after me. My middling academic credentials and simple homespun goals have prevented me from meeting the hyper-yuppie cloaca maximae that really put the motivation into the online anti-Semite.

You’ve known the walking stereotype. It’s described in the off-color joke below.

Q: What does a JAP* do with her @$$-hole every morning?

A: She sends him off to work.

And who could blame Mrs. Kristol? Who in the hell would want to spend more then 10 minutes in a room with Bill (((Kristol)))? It would be about as much fun as a fishin’ trip with Sheriff “Bull” Connor and Senator Bilbo. The only noticeable difference between “Conservatives” like (((Kristol))) and Kevin Williamson and the Old-Fashioned ‘Bama Democrats like Sheriff “Bull” would be the skin color and genetic heritage of the people they’d like to see barbecue in the shiny, efficient, German-engineered crematorium ovens over at the Shoa Shop. Sorry #Cucks; it’s not just Democrats who are the ¡REAL RACISTS!

Of course there’s a major-league difference between genocider bigots like Connor, Bilbo and even the execrable Heydrich and the newer, more-polished genocider bigots such as Williamson and (((Kristol))). Senator Bilbo, is about as dead as his famous namesake the Tolkienesque Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins. Sheriff “Bull” is safely out to pasture. Heydrich has been found condignly guilty. Beelzebubba roasts hot dogs over the smoldering remains of his wretched, bureaucrat soul. Kristol and Williamson still enjoy pulpits within the (((#Cuckservative))) Movement to preach their establishmentarian version of #WhiteGenocide.

Now they’re more subtle and better paid than the previous generation of American Haters. They don’t publicly advocate serving the fair-haired denizens of Gorbutt a heaping dose of Jim Jones Murderade. They just want their communities to die out. That won’t hurt if you smoke enough meth, drink enuff Mountin’ Doo and watch Professional Wrastlin’ to waste the time until it’s done with.

They don’t publically recommend machine-gunning the dumb white trash and burying them for their dirt naps. They just want to bring in the “Hard-working” immigrants who are “natural Conservatives” to hire instead of the Numb-Fvck Whiteys. Now I know what I’ll hear back. Heydrich actually killed people. Lot’s of people. (((Kristol))) and Williamson just stroke the elitist egos to afford their Gay Yuppie Lattes at the coffee shop. Well, where in the hell does a prick genocider like Heydrich ever get the public support to off the Bad People? It takes years of escalating propaganda to achieve such demonization.

I need to offer the tremulous snowflakes who haven’t recoiled from this post in disgust yet a ¡TRIGGER WARNING! My concluding message to Bill (((Kristol))) is coming straight from the ever-lovin’ heart. My family comes from the stock of people that Netflix ridicules in “Dear White People.” And what does suck Redneck Fuggery entail? It entailed seven fvcking combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan for my Master Sergeant Brother-In-Law. He’s lucky his young boy still remembers who daddy is. It entailed fvcking combat tours in Desert Shield and Desert Storm for my Father-In-Law. It entailed being the MP Duty Officer in Munich the night after Kennedy got shot and the Black Horse Cavalry went DefCon 1 and rushed to succor The Fulda Gap.

This means the dumb whiteys Bill (((Kristol))) wouldn’t deign to hire as his groundskeepers stand between him and an entire religion bursting at the seams of absolute blood-thirsty savages who would like nothing more than to permanently attach your Yarmulke to your head with a handful of 10 penny nails. Dumb, replaceable people of the disposable Caucasian Persuasion stand between your sorry, kosher @$$ and this….


* — Jewish-American Princess. Gotta keep the offensive racial epithets straight here.

Jewish Self-Hatred And Anti-Semitism

Monday, January 16th, 2017

In light of the recent doxxing fiasco in which members of the Alt Lite, neo-Nazi fringe and far-Left came together to destroy the life of an internet broadcaster, it is time that we on the Alt Right had a conversation about anti-Semitism and other forms of scapegoating.

It is in human nature to scapegoat. We play tennis and score badly, so the racquet is to blame, or maybe the net, possibly the fuzz on those tennis balls from the new brand that we are not yet sure we like. Dinner turned out badly? Must be the chicken, or the stove. These scapegoats live with us because they are plausible, but only tell part of the story in some cases, which means the wrong thing is being blamed.

For example, it is perfectly possible that the stove is really bad, and that the chicken is not great. However, those things alone do not make a bad meal. We knew of those challenges before we started. Also, maybe the racquet is not so good, and the new balls have less bounce. But these things alone can be compensated for. Failures come from several factors, A + B + C, and to blame any subset of that group is to scapegoat.

Scapegoating screws us in two vital ways: we fail to solve our problem, and we create other problems by chasing after the wrong culprit, including the ugly fact that we deplete our energy and will to solve the problem in the miasma of disappointment and confusion that occurs after a non-solution excites the crowd. Scapegoats doom us to perpetuate problems and create new ones.

How do you determine when you are using a scapegoat? The simple test is to correct for the factor you think is to blame and then run the equation again. If you suspect that A is wrong in A + B + C, fix A, and then re-run the test. If you would still end up with failure, or at least still be most likely to fail, then A is a scapegoat, or a contributory cause misidentified as the whole cause.

For this reason, our test for anti-Semitism is this: If all Jews died tomorrow, would our problems cease to be?

Waking up in a world without a Jew would mean that many prominent Leftist figures would be gone, true; it would also mean that the Democratic party would lose its major group of donors, and that Palestinians would both have zero restriction on their movement and no one to target for terrorist attacks. But look what remains.

The West would still be in decline, because we did it to ourselves by pursuing wealth and power instead of moral goodness. We would still have diversity, tolerance, equality, pluralism, neurosis and Leftism among us. Our civilizations would still be in the grips of an undeclared caste war, with a lack of purpose, ruled over by the democracy that makes every truth into a simplistic emotional symbolism that veers away from reality.

We would still have overpopulation, pollution and civilization collapse to wrestle with. Did Jews cause those things? They did not cause civilization collapse in Athens, nor in Tenochtitlan, nor in Chichen Itza, and probably not in Cahokia either. Civilizations tend to die when they become successful, lose purpose, and substitute with ideology and control to keep the franchise going. All civilizations die this way.

For this reason, anti-Semitism is not an accurate depiction of our problems. Worse, it fits into the form of an ideology, and is as addictive as drugs, over-eating, promiscuity or any of the other human pathologies we see around us daily. If allowed among us in a serious form, anti-Semitism becomes a replacement for realistic thinking and will lead us astray.

On the other hand, there are benefits to anti-Semitism as a conversational trope. First, it smashes a sacred cow that impedes nationalism, namely The Holocaust. Second, like most ethnic humor, it is funny because there is usually some truth to stereotypes. Finally, it widens that “Overton window” by allowing us to be critical of other ethnic groups and diversity again.

And when done by talented guys like the The Right Stuff fellows, it becomes a form of unity. People groove on the anger and mockery of a group that has been given perhaps a bit much focus in the years following World War II because of the attempted genocide that occurred during that war. You can fight over the numbers, details, dates, methods… whatever. Something happened, to our shame.

But The Holocaust has become a kind of scapegoat for Jews, too. It forces them to identify as victims, which puts them in a passive-aggressive mental state which will screw up any otherwise thriving group. It removes their initiative toward their own goals, and makes them fear “hypocrisy” for conducting necessary ethnic relocation, like that of Palestinians. The Holocaust is worse for Jews now than it was in 1945; then, it represented the loss of many people, but not the soul of a people. Now, it seems to have replaced Jewish identity with a type of self-pity that makes Jews hate themselves.

Jewish self-hatred is a widely-known phenomenon that tends to shock us goyish types when we see it. But Jews, as a group, are highly intelligent and tend to be very realistic. They know their position is dubious, since they are the results of a wealthy commercial society collapsing and, through miscegenation, converting itself into an Asiatic and African hybrid that will never again be fully European, despite having roots in what looks like populations from Italy and France. Jews also observe the behavior of fellow Jews and, much like white people, are frequently pained by it.

Perhaps the best description of Jewish identity comes from Alt Zionist, who writes of a practical Jewish identity that does not hit either of the erroneous extremes of denying mixed European heritage, or assuming that a unique and vital ethnic group has not been forged:

Instead, it is obvious that to be White is simply to be part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Europe many thousands of years ago, just as to be Jewish is to be a part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Judea many thousands of years ago and to be Black is to be part of a certain group of people of people who share a common set of ancestors in West Africa many thousands of years ago. That, at a certain point in the past, various people who had the right sort of ancestry in Europe were not called ‘White’ does not prove that Whiteness is membership in some sort of sinister social club, but only that people used to use the term ‘White’ in a different way than we do now. Analogously, we now consider many more people to be disabled than we once did, and on that basis give many more people disability benefits, but this does not in any way suggest that being disabled just is a matter of receiving disability benefits. Rather, we simply have found that the meaning of the term ‘disabled’ includes many more people than we previously thought it did.

There is much anthropological and philosophical complexity to the question whether racial terms like ‘white’ refer to biological groups or merely social constructs, and it is not my intention to settle the issue here. Rather, I should like to remark only on the disingenuity and hypocrisy of any Jew who adopts Brodkin’s stance on race. For such a Jew, inasmuch as they consider themselves to be White, attains to the privileged position of being able to, just as Brodkin does, decry Whiteness and slander White identity not as a hostile outsider but as an apparently repentant insider. Because Brodkin considers herself White, she must surely feel no compunction in admitting that her Whiteness is something hateful, bigoted and shameful. In other words, Brodkin’s self-identification as White allows her to make attacks on White people and their identity; whether or not these attacks are warranted by historical systems of power and oppression and present-day instutions of privilege is not germane to the issue: what is relevant is that Brodkin takes herself, as a White person, to be in a position to attack other White people.

But unlike the great majority of those White people in attacking whom Brodkin takes herself to be justifed, Brodkin is not truly attacking herself. For Brodkin has a competing identity behind which she can retreat in the face of her own invective: namely, Brodkin identifies also as a Jew. Brodkin’s own fears about anti-Semitism are evidence that she does not see herself as responsible for any history of power, privilege, and oppression, but rather as a precarious minority in the midst of a potentially hostile majority – a minority sometimes accepted as equals, but always separate and in danger of oppression. As such, Brodkin herself does not bear the personal weight of her attacks against White identity, and whatever justification those attacks might have obtained in virtue of her supposed Whiteness is merely disingenuous illusion.

The writer sees the error in assuming that Jews are “white” because it enables them to criticize whites from behind a protective alternate identity, like dual citizenship, where they can claim to be different from what they criticize. This is a dangerous position, and mirrors Theodor Herzl’s observation that to live among a national group and not be of that group would provoke retaliation, as it has with anti-Jewish pogroms in the past. It is bad to be different because each group needs to feel it is the same, and therefore, can work together as a civilization.

It does not take much of a leap to see that much Jewish self-hatred arises from this dual identity. They are mostly European, mixed with Other no more than your average Southern/Irish or Eastern European, but Jews have an identity of their own, which both makes them not “white” (a troublesome vague definition in itself) and part of a group united by commonality.

This duality confuses Jewish identity, and resentment over The Holocaust being the defining factor of modern Jewish life weaponizes the resulting discontent. For this reason, it is not surprising that many of the most virulent anti-Semites have had Jewish heritage. Witness the troubled past of Frank Collin:

Frank Joseph Collin is most often associated in the public mind as the neo-Nazi who threatened in 1977 to march and rally in Skokie, a predominately Jewish suburb of Chicago.

…The Illinois Corrections Department released Collin after three years, a “minimum time served,” from his 1980 conviction of sexually molesting young boys…For Collin’s role in the Marquette Park rallies in Chicago, the pamphlet distribution in Skokie with its “Death To The Jews” message, the media-manipulation after winning a Supreme Court decision allowing Collin to wear a swastika in any neighborhood of his choosing, Collin was never accused of anything other than being a nuisance, nor has he publicly spoken of those years since. Collin was once quoted as saying, “I used it [the First Amendment] at Skokie. I planned the reaction of the Jews. They are hysterical.”

Frank Collin was born in Chicago, Illinois on November 3, 1944. His father, Max Simon Collin (formerly Cohn or Cohen), a Jew who is said to have spent time in the Dachau concentration camp, may have had a major impact on his life. On Chicago television, one Illinois psychiatrist interviewed Collin during his neo-Nazi period and found him to be consumed with a “hatred for his father,” and thought Collin’s proposed Skokie march was, in effect, “an anti-Collin demonstration.”

Most people do not know that Up to 150,000 Jewish-descended people fought for Hitler and that many were decorated for their contributions. This leads to the obvious question of why someone who is partially or wholly Jewish would fight for a movement that is, to put it mildly, fervently anti-Semitic?

The answer can be found in looking at logical facts through history: Jews prefer the Western Civilization way because it fixes something that they find to be broken in Jewish history. A population ends up being mixed-race only if at some point, it believed in equality, and therefore encouraged admixture between ethnic groups so long as the offspring upheld the politics, culture and ways of the host civilization.

Jews have been bouncing back from that state for thousands of years. Although the diaspora was kicked off by Roman occupation, the attraction of Europe seems more than economic. Jews are in some way trying to rediscover and recapitulate their roots, as if hoping to end the dual mentality created by a mixed-race parentage even hundreds of generations later. In this outlook, strong nationalism is appealing even if it causes conflict with Jewish identity.

For this reason, Jewish people are formalizing their relationship with nationalism despite the dual attack of Holocaust fears and guilt over the Palestinian situation. They know that if left outside of their own communities in an increasingly secularizing world, they will soon cease to exist through outbreeding; if not vigilantly, Hitlerianly nationalistic in Israel, they will be outbred and thus out-voted by Palestinians who seek to destroy them.

The kerfuffle over anti-Semitism is thus temporary for two reasons: first, strong nationalism is about to be normed across the world, which means that resentment of other groups will become normal and through that, find a saner articulation — along the lines of “we want to be with ourselves, with no types of Other among us, no matter how nice they are” — instead of the moribund practice of emotional anti-Semitism. Second, as Jewish nationalism finds a voice, it is going to drive out the suicidal Leftist threads within Judaism and their reliance on multiculturalism.

This leaves us only with another question: what to do about doxxing? The destruction of Millennial Woes’ life by UK media which insisted on revealing his name and the addresses of his family homes showed us that doxxing is a tool of the Left. Only on the Left do people believe that some ideas are so seductive that they must be banned, which is separate from normal taboos that remove “words/images as deeds” activities like child pornography and easy home nuclear bomb kit instructions.

In other words, we need to simply cease destroying people for opinions, period. If we are to purge ourselves of defectives, we should do that on the basis of their behavior, much as we might have done to Frank Collin for his apparent molestation of young children. But we will only be able to get to the bottom of any political issue by allowing it to be aired fully and frequently from all sides.

Our only successful strategy here is to make sure the stigma is removed from all beliefs. Even if we hate anti-Semitism, we must defend anti-Semites, and we must abstain from destroying Leftists no matter what crazy stuff they say, if saying it is all they have done. In this way, we open the political window to its furthest possible extreme, and with it bring the hope of finally articulating the suppressed issues of the last century.

On Jewishness And The Alt Right

Tuesday, November 1st, 2016

diversity_irony

The messages started almost immediately.

As my piece went live, new Twitter accounts begun for this purpose began reaching out. “I’m a Jew, and I’ve always felt this way but I’m afraid to say it” was one common refrain. This was followed up by Facebook messages, invitations to shadowy right-wing Jewish forums, and furtive Kahane supporters verifying my right-wing credentials. Was I really a spy? The right wing Jew is such a rare breed in the wild, some simply didn’t believe it.

The comment section of my article attracted a not-so-rare breed: the “get in the oven” trolls, there to let me know they weren’t cutting me any slack and a Jew remains a Jew. Even here there were gems. One insightful commentator noted that I wasn’t a REAL racist like they were, I’d merely made the calculation that the modern right was less dangerous to Jews than the modern left. While this fellow underestimated my genuine support of the West qua West, he wasn’t totally wrong, and his next observation was keen: “Do you realize how incredibly neurotic your people are, including yourself?”

Well… yeah!

There are those in the alt-right who define their movement entirely in respect to White Nationalism. To them, the alt-right is the political vehicle in the battle for white “ethno-states” which will replace current democracies in Europe and possibly North America/Australia. Many self-consciously model these states on the example of Israel. The least extreme version of an “ethno-state” need not be racially homogeneous, but the political, economic, and cultural power in the state will remain in the hands of the dominant race/ethnicity, who will decide for themselves what will constitute citizenship. As some call this “white supremacy,” the alt-right points out that it’s simply how most of the world works:

weev

So what is an “ethno-state” and why would figures in the Alt-Right look to Israel for an example?

The idea has been around for some time, in different names and reiterations. For Alt-Right leaders such as Richard Spencer, (head of the National Policy Institute, a “pro white think tank”) defining European and North American states using racial criteria is necessary. Spencer, called the “Karl Marx of the Alt-Right” by Glenn Beck, has written at length about the situation facing American and European Whites. What situation? Minority status, loss of culture, and loss of identity in a multi-ethnic state where the standard of living has fallen for everyone. The solution? Make race or ethnic identity the core organizing principle of the state. Germany for the Germans, France for the French, Japan for the Japanese, etc. The policies of these states can vary, but the bedrock principle would be the maintenance of a majority for the dominant ethnic group.

Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly.

To the Alt-Right, this solves many problems at once. In his book The Ethnostate, Wilmot Robertson (deceased, 2005) talks about what such a state would look like and what policies it would have. The specifics are less important than the idea that race is a “shortcut” to fix other issues. Problems with Wall Street? Less of a problem in a White ethno-state, where high trust and cultural/ethnic pride lead to better behavior from executives. There’s less of a need for regulation in the first place. Where to put educational resources? Easier question when we aren’t dealing with issues of race and immigration, isn’t it? In an ethno-state, the focus of the government will be a more efficient affair. The time and effort put into bridging ethnic and racial divides in our public institutions will evaporate, leaving societies’ energy focused on more productive issues. The well-being of such a country could be more objectively measured. What’s the standard of living? What’s the pay gap? How’s inequality? These questions are easier to answer without issues of race.

Does any of this sound familiar? Do any states exist with policies intended to keep one ethnic/racial group as a majority? Policies that favor this group? The example given by many Alt-Right figures is Israel. Spencer claims to “respect Israel” as a “homogenous ethno-state.” Israeli policies discouraging non-Jewish immigration and encouraging Palestinians to move away from disputed areas are cited by alt-right leaders as examples for their own ethno-state.

Immigration/emigration are part of the story for Israel, but its commitment to the Jewish population is deeper than that. A good description comes from author Sammy Smooha, in the Journal “Nations and Nationalism”. Smooha writes:

Contrary to its self–image and international reputation as a Western liberal democracy, Israel is an ethnic democracy in which the Jews appropriate the state and make it a tool for advancing their national security, demography, public space, culture and interests.

This is what the Alt-Right theoretically wants. A state in which White people, however defined, have control over the public spaces, the culture, the politics, and the demographic future of their country.

What’s that you say? Israel’s not really an ethno-state? They have minorities? Well, of course. Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly. There’s no need for such a state to be free of minorities, as long as the state itself is defined around the majority. Israel, which encourages (and pays for) large orthodox Jewish families, and calls itself the “Jewish State” is certainly such a country.

So why isn’t the alt-right thrilled to have more Jews among its ranks? Surely we could provide the guidance they need to set up their ethno-states. If they are impressed with Israel, why not more engagement with sympathetic diaspora Jews?

Many in the Alt-Right fear Jewish influence on their movement, citing the Neoconservative “takeover” of traditional Conservatism, and the change in the movement’s character as a result. They fear that Jews may “dilute” the ethno-state they ultimately want to build.

Kevin McDonald, ex Cal State professor and Alt-Right theorist, has written a piece on Jews and the Alt-Right that mentions nineteenth century Austrian-Jewish politician Victor Adler. Adler’s Austria was the seat of the multinational Austro-Hungarian Empire, and was under strain from the repeated influx of “Slavic” immigrants and refugees.

Merely preserving German language and administrative customs wasn’t enough. Actual German people needed protection as well.

Difficult questions of identity revolved around German-speaking Austrians. Should “German” policies, German language, German culture, predominate? Should loyalty to the Emperor and the state trump ethnic loyalty? Adler was a “cultural” nationalist, part of the Linz Program of 1882, explicitly calling for the primacy of German culture, language, and policies in the Austrian State. One of Adler’s co-signers to the Linz Program was Georg Schönerer, who advocated for the inclusion of an “Aryan Paragraph” which would make explicit the connection between German culture and people of German ethnicity.

So what does this have to do with the ethno-state? Schönerer’s concerns are a model for the concerns of the Alt-Right today. As Austria took in more and more refugees from the east, the relative power of the German-speaking population was reduced. To Schönerer and even Adler, the Slavic “Hungarian” side of the Empire was distinctly inferior to the “German” side. To allow more Slavic influence at court, and to allow more Slavic people into the intuitions of the state would invariably weaken and degrade Austro-Hungary. The Linz Program signers made their feelings explicit:

We protest against all attempts to convert Austria into a Slavic state. We shall continue to agitate for the maintenance of German as the official language and to oppose the extension of federalism…[W]e are steadfast supporters of the alliance with Germany and the foreign policy now being followed by the empire.

Adler agreed with Schönerer regarding the “inferiority” of Slavic culture to German culture, but Schönerer took things a step further. Merely preserving German language and administrative customs wasn’t enough. Actual German people needed protection as well. His “Aryan Paragraph” provided that Germans would receive privileges in the empire including more access to government positions.

Schönerer also advocated for a breakup on the Empire along ethnic lines, and his ideas are said to have motivated Polish and Hungarian Nationalists, as well as providing a model for Zionism. Today’s Alt-Right also feels the need to go beyond “cultural nationalism” as well — which means that their ethno-state will not be welcome to any but those who are genetically of its founding ethnic group. To them, race and ethnicity are biological facts.

There’s something genetically distinct, for example, about a German person, and this genetic distinctiveness expresses itself in German culture, which then influences what will be the German state. A majority Black country in Africa could attempt to become a German “culturally nationalist” state, but in the eyes of the Alt-Right, this would end in failure. Only Jews can make a Jewish state, only Zulus a Zulu State. We can speak each other’s languages, eat each other’s food, but there will always be a deep distinction between us.

There’s something genetically distinct, for example, about a German person, and this genetic distinctiveness expresses itself in German culture, which then influences what will be the German state.

Adler broke with Schönerer over the Aryan Paragraph and soon ended up leading the Austrian Labour Movement and publishing an influential Marxist journal. MacDonald and other Alt-Eight commentators fear that Jews in the Alt-Right would exert a similar influence to that of Adler. It’s not the disagreement between cultural/ethnic nationalism in and of itself that bothers them, but the possibility that Jews will push the former and vilify the latter, all while taking on the mantle of the alt-right. Seems a bit farfetched? Perhaps, but who would have thought that Neoconservatives would take the mantle of American Conservatism from John Birch?

The Alt-Right is mixed on Jewish help, but nuanced. MacDonald is still open to the idea of Jews “allied” to the alt-right, assuming they are “vocal critics of the Jewish community and its role in the dispossession of European-Americans.” More nuance comes from a recent press conference given by top alt-right luminaries including Spencer and Jared Taylor. In Taylor’s own words:

“I tend to believe that European Jews are part of our movement,” Taylor said. “I think it is unquestionable there has been an overrepresentation by Jews [among] individuals that have tried to undermine white legitimacy.”

But, he said, the same is true of Episcopalians.

“Does that mean all Jews are enemies of the white race? I reject that,” Taylor said.

Taylor has long been a “white nationalist” writer, well known for being one of the “moderates” in the movement. His views were well-expressed in a recent NPR interview. What he wants is fairly simple: freedom of association on private property. If (non-Jewish) whites wish to have an all-white club, private school, or neighborhood, government shouldn’t intrude. Is this, in and of itself, anti-Semitic? Will I be on my way to the oven? Not sure, but I managed to avoid oppressing the Goyim on my way to Jewish Summer Camp, so who’s to say Whites couldn’t exhibit similar restraint? This really isn’t terribly different than current American policies. Taylor’s “ethno-state” would be far milder than Israel!

Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly.

Regardless of individual feelings on the Alt-Right, White People, or ethno-states, there is more nuance here than most will give credit for. Media accounts (Betsy Woodruff in Daily Beast) of the NPI Press Conference claim the participants “hate Jews”, despite Taylor’s clear stance to the contrary:

woodruff

Covering the NPI Press Conference for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ron Kampeas writes:

“I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents,” Taylor said, “not like Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg or Anwar Sadat.”

There were nods of agreement and more pledges to continue the conversation in the Willard bar.

As the room emptied, I prayed silently that Taylor would enjoy good health long enough to behold a grandchild with a pointed goatee, thick braids, foot-long fingernails and a prayer bump, and I recalled his opening remarks, and his overarching predicate for the existence of racial differences.

Most Jewish people would have a similar reaction to Woodruff and Kampeas. Hostility, referring to the Alt-Right leaders as “racist”, mocking their desire for racial and ethnic purity. But why? Are figures like Spencer racist for wanting a White ethno-state? Is Taylor to be condemned for wanting his grandchildren to look like him? (and, it could be assumed, wanting the same or better standard of living for them?) Why can’t we turn the lens around for a moment? What are we really quibbling over? Is it the location of Spencer’s hypothetical ethno-state? What if it was Norway? Is it a problem that White people want to be around other White people? Want their grandchildren to be like them?

I want my grandchildren to be Jewish, I want the Jewish state of Israel to retain its majority Jewish population and character. I want Israel to be there for me and my grandchildren. I want Judaism and the Jewish people to survive. Am I any different than Spencer? Are you?

John Derbyshire Destroys The Jewish Question

Sunday, September 25th, 2016

Over at The Unz Review, notable Alt Right author John Derbyshire pens an explanation of ethnic clashes between European-Americans and Jewish Americans:

I cherish my Jewish friends, and I have publicly—and again, I think, more than once—expressed gratitude in print for the positive contribution Jews have made to our civilization, way out of proportion to their numbers.

That said, I know the following thing, which anyone who has observed the American political scene surely also knows: A subset of American Jews—a subset, a minority—suffer from a kind of psychological deformation that keeps them trapped in a particular, strangely atavistic type of paranoia, of victim mentality.

In this mentality, it’s always 1881 and we’re still in Russia. The Jews are cowering behind their doors in fear as the Cossacks rampage through the town, or Christian peasants with pitchforks and flaming brands march on the Jewish quarter.

Jews will never have confidence in their host nation unless it is entirely Jewish, at which point they can trust the people around them to have similar interests, including protecting Jewish people, culture, language and religion.

As the Left gears up for a new round of anti-Israel propaganda, Jewish Americans find themselves wondering if they are safe from anyone. Initially they assumed that with the Left, and its embrace of diversity, they were safe, but now they are seeing that equality including racial equality always means taking from high-performing groups and giving to lower-performing groups. Jews are a high-performing group, and thus, are targets.

The solution here as with all diversity questions is to recognize that every group acts in self-interest, and that these self-interests are incompatible between groups. For this reason, as Theodor Herzl noted, Jews need their own ethnic state — and until that day, they will always be unstable and tempted toward “easy answers” like Leftism.

Diversity creates endless clashes. The solution to these is to recognize that there is no universal society, and that each group needs its own space and self-rule. In other words, to save diversity, we must abolish diversity. Instead, we can have diversity where each group has its own nation, and none are thrust into the kind of instability that afflicts the Jewish mind in the West.

((( = )))

Wednesday, September 14th, 2016

equality-or-zionism

The Alt Right struggles to define itself in the wake of being given massive media exposure by ill-advised candidate Hillary Clinton. As part of this, it returns to the “Jewish Question” or JQ which has troubled underground rightist movements for centuries.

Amerika has consistently taken the position that, whatever Jewish injuries to the European civilizations exist, the real problem is degeneracy within those European civilizations. We did this to ourselves, and we pursue it through ideas like equality, individualism, democracy and pluralism which are perennially popular human illusions.

This angers some people. For example, Counter-Currents ceased reprinting my articles after an attack by someone who thinks the Jews are the root of our problem. My response then as now is:

I don’t know for sure whether or not the Jewish people are spawn of Satan, or black people are Uruk-Hai, but I know this for certain: the root of our problem in the West is white liberalism and its corrupting influence on all issues.

Rather than try to fight out a highly polarizing issue by blaming the Other, I’d like to point out that our problems are all ideologies of the left: diversity, egalitarianism, tolerance, and pacifism.

This position has led to some fairly entertaining statements from the underground right, including ones of this nature:

Like Guillaume Faye and Jared Taylor, Stevens has a history of being coy on the Jewish issue and has even made pro-Israeli statements: this agenda is slyly pushed by members of the bourgeoise and WASPs in general within the alternative right and needs to be watched closely when considering who is suitable for leadership roles within the movement. Along with Scott McConnell of The American Conservative, he went full Zionist during the 2014 Gaza crisis, rushing to the defense of the Jews to kill Palestinian babies in the Gaza Holocaust.

What seems universal: the position that I have taken is not taken seriously enough to be analyzed for what is being said.

On the Alt Right, we face a number of existential threats. The biggest is assimilation by what is popular, which is always an illusion. There is a mainstream version of this, including the usual stuff Republican neocon cuckservatives pursue, and an underground version, which is the Hollywood neo-Nazi approach. If either becomes accepted, it will dominate the Alt Right and convert it into yet another variety of Leftism.

Why is anti-Semitism Leftism? Because it exonerates Leftism and individualism — the root of Leftism, when collectivized, since egalitarianism is individualism converted into policy — while simultaneously bashing a scapegoat whose demise will do nothing but strengthen Leftism.

In addition, it is appalling to our people, and morally appalling to me. White people dislike cruelty and pointless savagery. Many of us realize that too much “naming the Jew” is going to create a chain reaction that will rage out of control, as it allegedly did in Eastern Europe and Nazi Germany, and end in dead Jewish families.

We are however excited by the prospect of nationalism: Us, and only Us.

That means that all other groups exit. However, this is achieved through indirect means at first, and then outright deportation, usually with reparations to make the disunion a happy one for all parties. Indirect means include the ill-named “freedom of association,” at which point country clubs and law firms will go back to not hiring anyone but WASPs. Direct means include revocation of citizenship and arrest and deportation.

When we signal a (((coincidence))) we are missing the point, and doubly dangerous, focusing on the wrong thing. Take a look at a highly erudite and accurate criticism of Jews in America:

Neoconservatives have been staunch supporters of arguably the most destructive force associated with the left in the twentieth century — massive non-European immigration. Support for massive non-European immigration has spanned the Jewish political spectrum throughout the twentieth century to the present and, as noted below, Jewish organizations and activism were responsible for the sea change in immigration policy resulting from the 1965 immigration law. A principal motivation of the organized Jewish community for encouraging such immigration has involved a deeply felt animosity toward the people and culture responsible for the immigration restriction of 1924–1965 — “this notion of a Christian civilization” as Samuel Francis characterized it. The comment of neoconservative Ben Wattenberg indicates the emotional commitment that many Jews have to the ethnic transformation of America: “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”

We have to look at this logically: many Jews have been involved in Leftist politics; all of those Jews were Leftists. While that is not all Jews, it is something close to the majority. However, what we are most likely seeing is a clash of cultures, and the effects of diversity itself. Any group that feels an outsider acts against the majority; this is why all minority groups exclusively vote Leftist.

The solution to that is to recognize that diversity, not Jews, is the problem. That does not detract at all from Dr. MacDonald’s excellent research, or from the Walt and Mearshimer writings on the influence of the Israeli lobby, or even the criticisms by Hemingway, Eliot, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Heidegger and other great writers on the character of Jews and the culture, religion and ethnicities of Judaism.

The real question is how relevant it is, and if there is something more relevant, which is reversing decay.

In a decay-reversed West, Jews would not want to be here. The place would be ragingly European and invested in its own agenda and image to the point that outsiders would feel alien and isolated. Any Jews who did want to come, then, would not be the mental health success stories of Judaism, but its failures, and on that basis alone would be turned away, in addition of course to the iron rule of Nationalism, which is “This land is for Us; if you are not Us, go away or face the sword.”

Naming the Jew puts us in the Leftist camp where scapegoating, guillotines, gulags and mass executions are the new normal. White Nationalism misses the point and drives itself insane by chasing Jews instead of looking at the obvious problem, Leftism. This absolves our people of responsibility when they should be looking at what caused our decline, specifically, underclass rebellion by white people. We have to solve that problem, and any scapegoating avoids mentioning this actual problem in order to chase symbolic/emotional issues instead.

Even the Nazis understood that anti-Semitism was a quest to remove a materialistic and impulsive spirit from within us, more as symbolism than literal execution. Our problem is intangible, and we cannot beat it by attacking groups; we must attack policies such as democracy, diversity, civil rights, pluralism, welfare and human rights instead, because these are the root of the ethnic problem.

Unfortunately, most people — even in the underground far-right — are afraid to do this. They support Leftist policies for the same reason nearly everyone else does: they want equality, freedom and a “safety net.” The price of being free of the racial problem is that we must give these up because they are destructive, in addition to being false framing of a more vital question, which is civilization health. This is why people desire to crush the Jews: because then the rest of the system can keep on keeping on and no one needs be inconvenienced.

Truth however is inconvenient by nature, which is why it is also elusive. Socialism makes people lazy and dependent; welfare states make them entitled; democracy makes them careless and inert; freedom makes them passive; equality destroys the best and promotes the mediocre. These are the true enemies. Everything else is a symptom of the infection with these horrible ideas that make even worse policy.

Equality equals human pretense that the individual is the supreme being who decides what is true and real. This forms a mental virus which eats away at sanity and individuality, leaving only a robotic person who pursues what will make them popular with others, therefore affirming the equality they assert but cannot truly believe. This is what eats our people, and is consuming our civilization.

If outsiders have a way of subverting us, it is through this vector and it alone. Until we fix it, we go down in flames. When we target intermediates, like the Jews or any other minority group, we miss the point: the error is ours, the solution is in our hands, and all we must do is start acting against these illusory assumptions and we can restore the greatness of Western Civilization.

This knowledge dovetails with the JQ in that a healthy society, for Jews or Gentiles, will involve only one ethnic group. Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. As the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wrote:

The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for instance, France—so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.

Jews cannot assimilate because no group can assimilate, at least without genetically destroying the host group. The sane solution is separation, not enmity, and definitely not the kind of morally bankrupt and sadistic behavior that has happened when Eastern European and possibly German populations took revenge on Jewish people who were over-represented in the Communist Party and in industry. This type of “lashing out” does nothing but perpetuate our problem and turn us into monsters.

As a wise man wrote:

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.

Whatever monstrosities we see in other groups, we do not want to adopt for ourselves. The abyss — sadism, small-mindedness, vengefulness, rage — will make us into a mirror image of everything we (rightfully) hate and fear. If we want to defeat materialistic thinking, we must destroy equality as an assumption. ((( = ))) has brought the downfall of the West, and no amount of killing will save us from it until we defeat the thing itself, and not merely destroy its proxies.

inequality-and-naturalism

Zionism 1.0 Versus Zionism 2.0

Monday, August 8th, 2016

zionist_poster

Since I am fortunate not to be a puritan or self-righteous person, I can say things as they really are, without any fear of social disapproval, because I have little — or nothing — to lose: I don’t like the Jews.

In my humble opinion derived from both real-world experience and extensive reading of history, they are a bunch of hustlers, charlatans, and parasites. They invent the most intricate theories and postulates in order to avoid picking up a shovel and working like ordinary people.

On the other hand, as a paleoconservative I see morality as an expression of the culture and society that produces it, and not as a universal and shared human value. When people tell me about how evil Zionism is, I shrug because Jews are not my tribe, and therefore Zionism is not my concern. No “I am not an anti-Semite, but an anti-Zionist” for me.

As I do not believe in magic, I won’t speak about of Judaism as if it were a religion of demons (what the hell?) and other nonsense which has been spoken over the centuries. Instead, I confine myself to the earthly things, since I’m not even sure to have a soul or a spirit chained to matter (I don’t think matter is pernicious in any way, but quite the opposite: I enjoy it and I hope a part of it will endure in time, as for instance, my genes, my pets, my books, and also my compact discs).

The Jews, just like any other people who feel that they have a common destiny and a cohesive force that transcends the merely territorial, have the right to have a homeland for their people, for their children, for their grandchildren, for their forthcoming generations and all those beautiful and honorable words we heard when they come from our mouths, but dangerous and virulent when they come out from theirs.

Despite my admiration for the Roman Empire, I think one of the larger challenges for Europe — as both blood and soil attest — was the expulsion of Jews from Judea after the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, consolidating the Diaspora we all know (Diaspora 1.0).

While other civilizations preferred the military occupation of territory, which required them to collect tribute but gave them the benefit of internal self-determination, Jews chose revolution and for that were exiled from the Roman realm. This was allowed because the Romans considered them useless — for example, the hysterical religious observance, the persecution of charlatans with messianic aspirations — which made it useless to even kidnap and enslave the population, common currency in ancient times. Instead the Jews were exiled as neurotics and petty criminals.

The expulsion of that bunch of troublemakers relieved the temporary tension and satisfied the Roman Empire: the desert territory was taken as spoils of war and a mockery against hordes of local fanatics. The Romans were admirable in their convictions, but also created headaches for European civilization.

We know well how the Roman Empire ended despite its greatness. Wwhen all has been conquered and pacified, and it is not possible to continue with the dynamics of the gang of Romulus and Remus1; imagine a yeast dying in their own alcohol, unable of eating more sugar. The sons of Zion took another path. Although they were not very skilled in buildings nor art (from the Western perspective, of course), they survived because their smallness, with a common element giving cohesion to hundreds of generations: to return to their homeland.

Over the centuries, the visually evident crossbreeding of Jews with Europeans made them more biologically white. They survived as an ethnic group by not forgetting their founding myths and the living memory of the moment in which the Diaspora 1.0 began. Despite the miscegenation, this idea of superiority and difference from the rest was never forgotten, but, even more, was emphasized, much as admixture with whites brought out the fundamentally Jewish character with greater intelligence.

Particularly, the idea of a bunch of Jews (from all races and colors) living together, happy and away from me not only does not bother me, but it pleases me. As a matter of common sense: isn’t better that they are all together at the same place, rather than dispersed around the world, being detrimental to the rest? If someone wants to accuse me of being a Zionist because of these thoughts, that person is probably accidentally correct. But, if so, I’d like to be accused of being a Zionist 1.0.

As a White Nationalist/Identitarian, how could I be against the idea above mentioned? The Jews are neither magical, and definitely they will not sublimate themselves, and as such, they will not disappear suddenly in the air. Indeed, a Holocaust to bring the final solution to the Jewish question (this time, a real one) won’t happen. Then, what is problem when boats, trains, omnibuses, airplanes and carts with Jews from all corners of the world leave their host lands, heading to Eretz Israel? For this reason, I am a Zionist 1.0 and not a Zionist 2.0, since I support the idea of a state for Israelis in Israel, and not in other place in the world. Or maybe somewhere else, but away from me. And away from my people. And away from the allies of my people.

Since the building of a Zionist state in the southern cone is my reality, honestly, I prefer a Jewish state in Palestine instead of a Jewish state in Patagonia disguised as communities with an increasing interest on ecological conservation2.

Being objective, to us, Zionism 2.0 is as dangerous as anti-Zionism: the first one wants an Aliyah of thousands and thousands of Jews going down to the Southern Cone, and the second one seeks the disappearance of the State of Israel, which leads to a Diaspora 2.0. In simple words, both Zionism 2.0 and anti-Zionism converge in the same result. When it comes to us, I’m against the State. When it comes to them (Jews), I am in favor to a State which keep them united, tight and within its current physical borders (sovereignty).

And what about the Palestinians?

Let’s be honest: no occupation is worthy; worthy men cannot live under occupation, but must be free and forge their own destiny, and it is logical that, being witness of the invasion of thousands and thousands of Jews, the Palestinians would react equally violently. Palestine is still in the third world, and while Diaspora 1.0 helped the Jews to acquire the successful methods of the First World3, it is consequently not possible that these two peoples coexist in a territorial overlap anymore. Israelis and Palestinians cannot co-exist side-by-side or comingled.

But Palestinians need a homeland, and that homeland should not be Chile; it should not be South America, nor should it be America. Currently, there is a diaspora of ten millions of Palestinians, and the place of those people should be Palestine, not any other place. From our position, we cannot and we should not advocate for any of the two sides, in fact, it is not our business. Being crude, it becomes our problem when one of them (anyone of the both sides of the coin), leaves its territory to get to ours.

Today, it is not an issue of being anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinian, is about being pro-Us and that leads necessarily to be anti-diaspora, Diaspora 1.0 as well Diaspora 2.0. As I am neither liberal nor self-righteous, I cannot base my argument in human rights, civil rights or the casualties of war. I can speak only common sense and logical reality.

I cannot tear my clothes upon seeing a lot of Israelis watching and cheering as military drops bombs on Gaza. We cannot pretend that they cry for those death toll. Palestinians are their enemies and it is normal to celebrate these bloody deeds. I expect that Palestinians celebrate the death of Israelis similarly and would be shocked if they did not. The world is cruel. Why should it be a wonderful place full of rainbows? We are animals. Aren’t we all?

Palestine needs a home and a State on its homeland. Israel needs a home and a State on its homeland. Probably, as Europeans, we are harvesting today what we sow yesterday, after the Bar Kokhba revolt, but it is time to end our sense of responsibility for the displacement of others and to look towards ourselves.

And with that, we realize that all diasporas must end, and only worldwide Nationalism can do this.


1 Jack Donovan. “Thug Life: The Story of Rome”. The Way of Men. 2012
2 “Chilean senator accuses IDF soldiers of mapping out country.” The Times of Israel.
3 Brett Stevens. “Gaza Everywhere”. American Renaissance, August 4, 2014

Zionism Is Nationalism And Worth Defending

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016

The internet, which is now a social interaction, like all social interactions distills complex ideas down to the viewpoint of the herd: we fear this, we do not fear that.

As a result, on the Right there is often talk about “Zionism” as being a horrible evil which intends to take over the world, forgetting that Zionism is an assertion of Nationalism — the idea that Jews need their own state, and all Jews belong there, where they can control their destiny and live according to their ways.

Its opposite is diaspora thinking, or the idea that Jews should live in every country on earth and try to be dual citizens there. The extreme of diaspora thinking is the idea that Jews must be exterminated because they corrupt these nations, and having them have a nation of their own is impossible.

Back when Ben Shapiro was writing most ardently on this issue, he stated the case for Nationalism as a way for high-IQ populations to defend themselves against assimilation by the much numerically superior third world populations:

Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. And it is far less ugly than the prospect of bloody conflict ad infinitum. When two populations are constantly enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that somehow deep-seated ideological change will miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live together.

Unfortunately, this insanity is generally accepted as “the only way forward.” President Bush accepts it because it is politically palatable. The Arabs accept it because for them, it is a Trojan horse. The Israelis accept it because they are afraid that if they expel the Arabs, they will be called Nazis.

In Israel, Jews have the ability to live as they want according to their cultural mandate. The more people act against Israel, the more the diaspora persists, creating the usual diversity conflict which is that multiple groups living in the same place prevents a value system from being chosen and upheld.

In the West, we live through the same invasion, not just of Muslims but of many other third world groups who reproduce faster than we do, and will replace us with a mixed-race population that has third-world levels of ability, moral character and inclination to social order.

For Israel to survive, it must adopt a policy of exclusion not just of Palestinians but all others. When this happens, the presumptive victims of Nationalism during the Second World War will have validated it as a necessary principle, and the rest of us can begin to adopt it from our countries, which are also under risk of third world assimilation.

The Complexity Of National Identity

Friday, July 15th, 2016

From an email exchange between a writer and an actress comes an affirming view of nationalism as not just practical ideal, but transcendental goal:

You know, the word “Hebrew” (ivri, as in a nationality, like Abraham the Hebrew) comes from the root for “to cross over” — la’avor. I think it’s related to Jews being nomadic people, or maybe Abraham being the first one to cross a river in the Bible? But it does feel like a state that is emblematic of our people, and maybe all people — that we are always in the midst of replacing one fulfilled desire with a new desire, accepting a new piece of knowledge with another question.

When I first encountered Buddhist thought in my 20s, I was so confused. I’m supposed to be content with what’s going on here and now? I realized how much Judaism for me was connected to yearning — to wanting what you don’t have — which is maybe why Israel is so complicated emotionally for Jews: It’s built into the emotional structure of our religion to yearn for a homeland we don’t have.

So then if we have it, what do we yearn for? We say “next year in Jerusalem” as if we are still in exile. But maybe Jerusalem as an idea is never attainable — so we can keep longing for it even when we have it, like a spouse you desire eternally. You keep feeling that you can’t get them, as if it were the perpetual beginning of a flirtation. Jerusalem does have an aura. The air feels thicker there. It feels like the city, itself, is manipulating, pushing passions around.

This sense of yearning is central to all conservative visions of civilization: always seeking for an excellence that rises above reactivity to the world and its material demands, and instead seeks to create an emotional and moral experience in which striving for improvement becomes a joy.

In this vision, self-discipline and civilizational nurturing become one and the same, based in identity as a people. We are ourselves, it says, and we will always have an infinite horizon of potential toward which to aim. There is never an ending, only an ongoing task in which we find pleasure in taking part.

In their zeal to condemn internationalism, of which the Jewish diaspora is the most potent symbol, Nationalists have mostly ignored the Jewish experience of return to a homeland and the loss of their historically temporary identity as the nationless, persecuted and victimized. In this return, we see the soul-nourishing aspects of Nationalism, and how it commands us toward a primitive conservatism, or conservation of excellence.

The (((Echo Chamber))) Reveals Itself

Friday, June 10th, 2016

realist_in_a_world_of_social_zombies

Some time ago, some alternate-right/dissident-right types began using an ASCII trope that involved putting certain names in tripe parentheses to indicate that these were Jewish voices. The mainstream of society finally discovered this and predictably, misinterpreted this.

Before I go further, it makes sense to offer the usual disclaimer with a twist: I find anti-Semitism repellent for two vital reasons:

  • It is impractical. Anti-Semitism identifies what is at most a subset of the problem we face, namely the decline of Western civilization through individualism and now Crowdism manifested in Leftism, with a scapegoat. This means that instead of attacking the actual problem, we will be fighting a phantom and even if we completely defeat it, the core of our decline will remain. The problem is us: our individualism led us down this path, and the solution is a rejection of egalitarianism, restoration of cultural standards and hierarchy, and booting from among us the thieves, liars, corrupt merchants, opportunists, jerks and morons who are blighting our society. We cannot solve this problem through purges alone, as the Communists tried to do, but by first raising standards and having a purpose, and then exiling those who do not fit that goal.
  • It is immoral. Mass murder is not an Indo-European trait, but it is a Leftist one. I appreciate the rage at living in a dying society, as I have felt it my whole life. Engaging in Holocaust 2.0, or rhetoric which will in the hands of the less-competent become that, will make us into monsters and the type of zombie robot hatred-parasites that populated the French Revolution and the Bolshevik spectrum because Leftism, as philosophy of revenge, attracts such people. We are not murderers. Placing blame for our decline at the feet of The Jews™ is not only moral cowardice for not owning up to our own failures, but will lead to the moral cowardice and third-world ethics of burning witches at the stake for our own refusal to man up and face our error.

One of our own writers, J.P. Wilkinson, fought back against this usage by generalizing it. He used the triple-parentheses to indicate any speech by members of the faux elites or “Cathedral” who make their parasitic living by parroting the dominant paradigm. In doing so, he was more consistent with the original usage.

Now let us look at the mainstream protest:

The name of the Chrome extension appears to have been intended as a reference to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that Jews somehow dominate the media and entertainment industries, and control them from within to the detriment of society.

…As Mic described in a separate story, the use of two or three brackets around the name of a suspected or confirmed Jewish person is called an “echo” in right-wing and anti-Semitic groups and communities online, and is a way for such groups to single out Jews in a way that doesn’t attract a lot of attention.

The original usage recognized a simple truth: every person and every ethnic group acts in self-interest, especially when claimed otherwise. For this reason, any voice outside of my tribe — Western Europeans — is to be treated with suspicion until translated from our perspective. This does not mean that all foreign voices are inherently bad. That means that flagging someone who is merely Jewish, and not both foreign (Jewish) and of the Cathedral is only scapegoating and will lead to the hateful mindset described above.

I have for over two decades written the plain truth that our problem is not other groups, but the conditions that force us together with them, namely multiculturalism and diversity (also called internationalism and globalism). These are simply bad policy. With bad policy, only one solution exists, which is to reverse that policy, which means that per nationalism, all who are not of the tribe must be deported. Israel does this where it can given the complex political environment of our time, and if they deported all Palestinians and other non-Jews tomorrow I would cheer them heartily.

I also recognize that there are many good people among other races and tribes. We should encourage the growth of these people, as they are likely to — like most Jews I have known — encourage a separation of tribes. Were Israel more stable, most American Jews would move there, but right now they see a tiny nation surrounded by enemies who are supported by the UN and Western liberals. That is a dodgy prospect. If Israel were restored to its historical borders, giving it more space, and enabled to have theater stability i.e. dominion over the crazy third-world Muslim states surrounding it, American and European Jews would likely move there voluntarily. That is a nationalist solution.

The point of using the echo parentheses is, at its core, to show that voices whose self-interest conflicts with those of my tribe are speaking as if they were from among us, when really any sane interpretation shows that they like every other population on this earth is acting in self-interest. Diversity is self-interest for liberals because it advances their class-war agenda, but it does so not only at the expense of Western Europeans, but of other groups invited here to get mulched up by the diversity miscegenation machine and spit out as generic Brazilians with no future except as third-world labor, ruled by a cynical elite who — like Jews, Italians or Eastern Europeans — represent a mostly-white, partially-Asiatic and Semitic mixed-race population.

I do not refer to the Cathedral as Brahmins because they are not Brahmins, but Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudras who have raised themselves to positions of power through commerce, which is empowered by demotism or the bulk vote of individual choices, which always favors the lower echelons of our society. Western civilization is bottom-heavy, with too many r-selected individuals overwhelming our population of K-selected individuals that made Western civilization great. In the past, through aristocracy, the K-selected kept the r-selected herd at bay, but with egalitarianism, the vote of an idiot is equal to that of a genius, and so the r-selected crowd always wins (the equivalent of “the house always wins” for gamblers).

Our only solution to this problem is to escape politics — the counting of votes, purchases and social popularity that benefits the r-selected — by restoring aristocracy, hierarchy, cultural standards and through those, a focus on quality over quantity. Quantity is always more popular; quality is the only path away from civilization extinction. This is important to the individual because civilization is the tapestry on which individuals write their deeds, and without that context to support them, anything good is lost and the transient and novelty-based triumphs and then falls into the fifteen-minutes-of-fame memory hole.

This idea is more controversial than any racism or Holocaust 2.0 jive you can cook up.

The root of anti-Semitism is a desire to create a Left for the Right, or in other words, the type of rebellion against power and authority that fuels the popularity of the Left. A scapegoat is always the most popular option because:

  • It absolves the individual of responsibility. The problem is not individual choices, as we see daily is the culprit, nor is it the tendency of groups to behave like idiots, but this strange external force which means the problem is not our fault. We do not need to change our behavior; we must only purge the Other. This type of thinking leaves bad behavior intact and compounds it with mass murder.
  • It presents a simple target. Mentally, it is far easier for us to blame some other force than it is for us to sort our own behavior into productive and unproductive categories. Crowds respond to simple targets because they are a lowest common denominator that unites the group on monkey behavior, much as we see lynchings, witch hunts, riots, pogroms, bank panics and mass delusions have been popular and powerful throughout history.
  • It unites the group on equality. An external target is a way of saying “we are all in this together” which implies equal acceptance — a liberal trope — of people despite their varying behavior. Criminals and saints alike can participate in the great Other beat-down and feel vindicated as morally good despite not having fixed their own wayward or useless behavior. This is a form of dysgenics, as it accepts the mediocre as equally important to the good.

This denialism on the Right consists of a conflation between method and goal. The Leftist method is popular and therefore easier, so the tendency is to want to adopt it without realizing that hybridizing with Leftism is like adding motor oil to your milk: any contamination, because Leftism is simpler and therefore more polarizing, takes over the whole of your agenda. It may take some time, but it does. It is worth mentioning that Leftism as a whole is a form of denialism that operates by scapegoating power so it does not have to look into the bad behavior of the citizens as a whole.

We must escape bottom-up orders like politics and replace them not with exclusively top-down orders like pure theory, but with organic growth: have a goal, reward the good and demote the bad, and let nature do her work. This is a message consistent between Darwinism, Christian morality, and pagan sensibility. It is not universal, because it is both esoteric or based on cumulative knowledge not accessible to all, and highly reliant on particularized solutions or those with uniquely adapted methods to specific situations. This is different from an ends-over-means calculus because while the ends remain more important than the means, the means must be parallel or synergistically compatible with the ends.

For this reason, I suggest we extend the echo-parenthesis indicator, as J.P. Wilkinson did, to all who are of the Cathedral or faux elites. They look like us, they walk among us… and yet, as agents of the delusion that is our enemy, they are an immediate threat. Removal (exile) of them is not a solution in itself, but eliminating their voices through shame and ostracism is a good start, and when we regain our discipline and goal, we can fix ourselves and then remove the parasites who will never do anything but act in self-interest against us.

This is separate from the reparations/repatriation idea of nationalism, which is that in every nation all of those who are not of the indigenous tribe will be relocated to their continents of origin, with mixed-race people residing in North Africa as is customary.

We call the echo by that name because the Cathedral is a giant echo chamber which parrots back to our bottom-heavy population what it wants to hear, which is that our decline as a civilization is not our fault and that the solution is to just pour on more egalitarianism, because that idea always makes a happy hive mind buzz. The echo chamber wants us to be anti-Semitic and to demand equality through ethnic unity, because then have programmed our minds with the egalitarian assumption, it will merely recreate itself and also discredit the Right.

Our goal is not to fight against things, but to fight for something: the restoration of Western civilization. This requires work done within ourselves, and when we fight scapegoats, we have effectively delegated power to the egalitarian impulse that works in the opposite direction. Thank you for listening.