Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Problem with the Jews Is Not the Culture of Critique but Culture of Subversion

The social psychologist Kevin MacDonald argues that Jews pose a problem to gentile majorities through the Culture of Critique. There is indeed a COC at the core of modern Jewish culture, but that isn’ the main problem. Problem is not Critique but Subversion, for Critique can be positive and even necessary for the health, survival, and regeneration of a community.
It is critique that allows people to understand themselves and their societies. To ponder what works and what doesn’t. Critique isn’t the same as criticism or condemnation. It is a penetrating analysis of ideas, values, or conditions to understand them better. Better understanding can lead to reform and progress or better and more intelligent reasons for holding onto one’s ideas and values. Crucial to Western Civilization have been change and progress, and neither would have been possible without the practice of critique. All high cultures have some degree of culture of critique, but the West took it the furthest, which explains why the West advanced the most. The West was never fully content or -centric in their Western-ness. Westerners always wanted to know more, understand better, fix the bugs in the system, come up with new paradigms, come up with better justifications, etc. Hindus had their rigid caste-bound religious system. Muslims were content with their Islamo-centric view of the world, which is why their world never experienced the Renaissance. The Chinese became arrogant and enclosed in concept of the Middle Kingdom. From the very beginning, the West was different, and this difference must be credited largely to the Greeks(who originated the Culture of Critique) and white genetics. If Asian genes favor submission/obedience and if black genes favor wildness/chaos, the whites genes lie somewhere in between–a balance of order and chaos. If there’s too much order, progress is slowed by rigid dogmatism and subservience. If there is too much chaos, progress is made impossible by violence and mayhem. The West had its historical and social share of oppression and violence, but the core consciousness and heart of Western Man have been somewhere between order and chaos. This explains why, even after the greatest war that ever was(WWII of course), Europe recovered rapidly.
Under ideal conditions, nothing can beat the West. It also explains why the West has long generated change and progress from within. Asia has achieved much progress in the 20th century, but how many of the ideas that changed Asia actually came from Asia itself? Almost all of the ideas–scientific, political, economic, etc–came from the West to the East. If the East ceased to exist, change would still occur in the West. But, if the West ceased to exist, change in Asia would slow down, and Asia would slowly revert back to its ‘feudal’ mentality.

Critique, for this reason, is generally good. Critique can be negative or positive, corrosive or constructive, made in bad faith or good faith. Critique in and of itself is not the problem. Indeed, it must be said that much of Jewish COC has been good. Not all Jewish intellectuals have been crazy radicals or hateful subversives. Indeed, Kevin MacDonald is also a practitioner of the COC–and admits as much–because he approaches Jewish culture, history, and ideas in the way many Jewish intellectuals have approached gentile societies. There is nothing wrong with a people critiquing other societies, cultures, ideas, or values. And, there’s nothing inherently wrong with critiquing one’s own society, values, history, and so on. Indeed, the Right wouldn’t be in such a sorry intellectual and cultural state if it had practiced more of the Culture of Critique on itself. Without constant critiquing, ideas and values grow stale(or phenomenon such as Rush Limbaugh or idle questions like ‘Gee, what would
Reagan do?’). Critiquing doesn’t necessarily mean an assault or rejection of traditional ideas. It simply means looking at them from new angles and perspectives, reconsidering them, understanding them better, and finding new arguments for or against them. Only through constant critique can we keep our ideas and values fresh. Regularly inspecting a restaurant or one’s car is a good thing. Constantly checking and cleaning the parts of a gun is essential too. We don’t just want to have blind faith in our culture, ideas, values, etc. We want to take it apart, study them, see why they are dear to us, why they’ve worked for us, why they’ve failed us sometimes, why some of it must be preserved and improved, why some of it must be discarded, and so on. No set of social ideas or values are fool-proof, perfect, or infallible. All have bugs and defects or disadvantages. Only through the Culture of Critique can we properly understand them, fix them, or revitalize them–and keep doing so in a never ending tune up of the system. Muslims don’t practice a COC, and look what’s happened to them in contrast to the West or Israel. Muslims and Arabs generally have trust in Islam or in their Tough Guy Leader; they don’t ask too many questions. It’s no wonder that Israel is mightier than all of the Islamic Middle East combined. Jews examine, analyze, and reform their own societies. Muslims don’t.

So, why are Jews problematic to us? It’s not the COC but COS(culture of subversion). Much of Jewish critique has been subversive than constructive, deviously toxic than helpful in a good-willed manner. They’ve been analyzing, criticizing, studying, examining, and experimenting with us to weaken us and bring us down than to save or empower us. Of course, this cannot be said of all Jews or even most Jews. But, it’s true enough that a sizable number of Jews have been involved in the most radical and hateful ideologies and movements in modern times, and these hostile Jews have often been the most influential elements of the Jewish community. Why is Jewish critique different from that of others? Why has it been so subversive to the majority culture?

Possibly, the answer can be found in the fact that Jews have been a nomadic people–a minority in foreign lands; they were ‘rootless’. Also, Jews are smart and have had a tendency to look down on gentiles in the way that humans look down on apes or sheep. Also, the nature of Jewish economic life–money lending, tax collecting, middlemen professions, etc–made Jews very distrustful of goyim who were, in turn, distrustful of the Jews. Also, Jews were not a physically strong or warrior-like people; since they couldn’t fight and win with brawn, they had to rely on brains–especially since they were outnumbered by the goyim. Also, there was something in Jewish religion and culture which instilled Jews with a sense of superiority toward others. The Jewish Book told the Jews that there is only one God and that Jews are the chosen people of God. So, Jews always felt a certain degree of frustration. On the one hand, their Holy Book said their God is the ONLY true god and that Jews are God’s favorite people. But, Jews were often in foreign lands dealing with hostile people who had power of life and death over them. Of course, to the goyim, Jews often seemed the hostile minority. So, Jewish COC developed in opposition to the goy majority culture.

Many Jews, especially modern Jews, had great respect of goy culture and wanted to become a part of it. Many Jews assimilated into Christian or gentile society in the late 19th and early 20th century. But, many did not. And, even the many Jews who did assimilated or tried to assimilate kept and practiced the Jewish impulse to undermine and bring down the goy order. (It was a psycho-structural trait so deeply ingrained throughout Jewish history that even modern and secular Jews could not dispense with it; some modern Jews were aware of it and even proud of it; they relished their role as ‘special’ radicals fooling the stupid goy masses. Other Jews thought themselves completely assimilated and weren’t conscious of the buried Jewish structural mentality impelling them to act in radical and subversive ways; they sincerely understood their radicalism as mere progressivism to improve the lot of mankind, but in truth, it was a case of old Jewish habits trying to undermine the goy order and gain power for the Jewish kind, though modern Jewish power was disguised as ‘socialism’, ‘communism’, ‘anarchism’, ‘bohemianism’, or ‘finance capitalism’. Jews who knew about the animating spirit beneath the veneer of the secular, modern, or ‘assimilated’ Jew were acting venal; the Jews who were unaware of the Jewish spirit that really commanded their radicalism were naive and idealistic. But, their aims as far as white goy society was concerned were one and the same.) So, even Jewish converts to Christianity or secularism turned to ideologies like Marxism, decadent bohemianism, anarchism, and other such ideas, fashions, and movements in greater numbers(proportionally anyway)than gentiles did.

It could be argued that the COC actually began as a full-blown philosophical or scientific approach with the Ancient Greeks. Consider people like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and countless others who sought to question, analyze, discuss, argue about, and understand everything. Socrates challenged all assumptions, raised all manner of questions, and didn’t think any topic or issue was so sacred or holy as to be left untouched or accepted on faith. So, COC originated with non-Jewish Hellenic folks than with the Jews.
To be sure, there was an element of COC in Judaism too. How could this be when Judaism is all about believing in God and obeying Him? After all, Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sought Knowledge and got punished badly. The fall of the Garden of the Eden is the greatest tragedy in the Bible. Bible emphasizes the need to obey God, to submit to this commands, and so on. So, how could Judaism have inspired Critique? Actually, it was more a semi-culture-of-critique but it was critique enough. Jewish tradition and culture spawned critique because God was said to be perfect and all-powerful. In other words, there were Utopian or perfectionist elements in the Bible. Of course, many cultures had stories about the Age of Gold and all that, but only the Jewish religion said God is All-Knowing, All-Perfect, and All-True. The Jewish Book said there is only one God and no other. And, the Only God is the Perfect Being. And, Jews are his favorite people. So, what’s the problem? Jews couldn’t have but realized 24/7 that the world was far from perfect, and they themselves were far from being the happiest or the most powerful people in the world. If there is only one God and if he’s Good and Perfect, why is the world so rotten? And, if Jews are His favorite people, how come Jews suffer along with the rest of mankind–or suffer worse at some times, especially at the hands of filthy goyim? It was this concept of Perfection which led Jews to question the world, man, morality, history, and etc. Of course, the Jews could NOT question or critique God himself(at least not directly), but they could question, criticize, scrutinize, and examine mankind and the world to find the bugs in the system(which was a rather indirect or devious to critique God in a roundabout way; it may be another reason why Jews became so devious; unable to question or attack God directly, they had to find ways that were reverent towards God yet were actually complaints. Notice that the God becomes more distant from and less powerful over the lives of people as the Bible progresses. Even as each Biblical text pays ever greater respect to God as a Being of Supreme Perfection, God’s power over mankind grows weaker... to the point where the Hebrews seem to be on their own and in control of their own destiny. Ironically, the more Jews turned God into a more perfect, abstract, and infallible being, the less God became relevant over the lives of the Hebrews and other humans. Since God was said to be perfect, it became ever more necessary to divorce him from the world which was imperfect. Similarly, the more that radical and liberal Jews idealize the United States or Western Society in utopian terms, the more the original creators/inhabitants/settlers [white folks] lose their power. Since the Modern West is supposed to be perfect in justice and equality, and since white people are tainted with ‘historical sins’, it’s necessary to divorce the Modern West from White Power; the Highest Hope of the West cannot be achieved or attained by white people who’ve lost their moral authority. In other words, The West [and all the great things it stands for] is too good for original Western Man. Just as Perfect God had to be divorced from the Imperfect World, the Perfect Future of the West must be divorced from the Imperfect Record of Tainted White Folks. The future of the West is to be determined not by whites but mainly by Jews and blacks, who are said to be the rightful moral heirs to Western power and wealth since they suffered at the hands of White Folks and carry no historical guilt whatsoever themselves. If the West is a Christian Civilization, and if Christianity is about nobility of victims, then it’s only right that the West should fall into the hands of Jews and blacks, the main victims of White Folks.)

Socrates and the Greeks went further in the Culture of Critique than the Jews did because the Greeks went all out and critiqued even the sacred religious principles of their society. The nature of Jewish culture being what it was, Jews could not dare criticize God. Indeed, to even say God’s name was punishable by stoning. But, because their God was supposed to be perfect, Jews had to wonder why the world failed to live up to God’s ideal and vision? It couldn’t be God’s fault. In the Bible, prophets appear and ‘critique’–judge, extol, threaten, analyze, pontificate, etc–the world around them. Prophets sometimes blame the goyim for standing in the way of the Jews, God’s chosen people. But, the prophets sometimes attack the Jews for having drifted away from the laws and values given to them by God. So, there has long been an element of self-criticism is Jewish culture as well. Jesus was the greatest COC-ist in Western religious tradition. We don’t know what the REAL Jesus was like, but the Jesus of mythology didn’t merely try to bring forth paradise for the Jews but for ALL MANKIND. As such, he became Jew who transmitted Jewish moral and religious tradition to the goy kind. Anyway, Jewish critique always had a utopian, radical, or totalitarian underpinning; and, it tended to be morally judgmental because of its religious roots. Jewish critique wasn’t merely a means to understand reality and society better but to CHANGE THE WORLD–as Karl Marx said of philosophy. Since Jews had to serve God and realize God’s promises and commands on Earth, their philosophy could not be about ‘idle’ or merely academic/theoretical matters. They had to serve a grand purpose. This may explain why Marxism became what it did. Though Marxism rejected God and was supposedly a science, there was the quasi-Biblical aura that Marx had figured it all out, he was all-knowing, and his ideas/dogmas only needed to be obeyed and followed–or forced if necessary. Though there have been Marxist critics who’ve been critical of Marx or used his theories selectively for understanding certain social phenomena, the central thrust of the Marxist movements all over the world was that MARX HAD IT RIGHT AND IT’S THE DUTY OF MAN TO MAKE THE ENTIRE WORLD COMMUNIST ACCORDING TO MARX’S DICTATES. This was Culture of Critique as Culture of Confrontation. Not even the French Revolution–led by goyim–was this extreme or radical.

To be sure, there have been two kinds of Jewish subversives: the idealists and the individualists. The Jewish idealist subversives seek to undermine the status quo(especially that of the goy majority) for the sake of creating a just utopia for all mankind(but especially beneficial and empowering to Jews who will gain most power in the new order favoring intellectuals and radicals). Karl Marx, Trotsky, and Chomsky belong in the idealist Jewish subversive camp. This type of people seek to tear down society to build a new one, one they believe to be better for all of mankind(though especially for the Jews).

The individualist Jewish kind, in contrast, are generally anti-utopian and anti-totalitarian, but they can be dangerous too. Though conservative goyim often embrace the anti-totalitarian Jewish individualists, the latter can be corrosive and damaging to the moral fabric and fiber of the community. Think of Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, Alan Dershowitz, Sandra Bernhardt, Woody Allen, Ron Jeremy and other Porn Meisters, and so on. NOTHING is sacred to these people–though talented they may be in terms of wit and entertainment value. Libertarians may love such people for what they stand against(political correctness), but what are these individualist-subversive Jews FOR? Certainly not for values that we embrace and hold dear. Their values tend to be actually ‘liberal’–miscegenation, open borders, gay marriage, and etc. And, think of that monster Ayn Rand. Many goyim worship her as some kind of goddess(and she was a uniquely gifted novelist; we must give credit where it’s due), but she was a monster whose cartoon idea of America–money grubbing titans of capitalism–really insults us. True, she was opposed to the totalitarianism of the state, but she was for the totalitarianism of the individual(or, at least that of the SUPERIOR individual). Most people are not giants, geniuses, or titans. The idea of conservative Americans reading her books and thinking they are in the same league as the Big Rich Guys and Geniuses is laughable. Also, just look at the Big Titans of our society: George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Donald Trump, the Walton family, etc. Congrats to their mega-wealth, but are they better or superior to us in anything other than moneymaking, techno smarts, financial trickery, or having the luck of growing up rich?
So, we must keep in mind that Jewish individualist subversion can also be damaging to our society. Of course, this is difficult for many people to grasp because the media are owned by Jews and tell us that Jews only do good for society(and that all people MUST love some Jews; so, if you don’t like commie Jews, you MUST prove that you’re not antisemitic by showing that you just LOVE Jews such as Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, or Alan Dershowitz).
Also, subversive individualist Jews happen to be very witty, funny, and entertaining. We have a hard time believing that someone that makes us laugh can be bad for us. But, when these subversive individualist Jews mock and make us laugh at the very values and ideas that have been most dear and precious to us, we need to come to our senses and see the danger. No, I’m not for censorship or turning off the TV. It’s okay to find entertainment or a good laugh anywhere, but we must always remind ourselves that no amount of snarky wit or nasty humor invalidates the values and beliefs that have been crucial to our survival as a people, race, and nation. Go ahead and laugh, but don’t confuse laughter with truth or wisdom; after all one can even crack jokes about the Holocaust or someone’s funeral, but the joke doesn’t alter the true nature of such matters.

At any rate, both the idealist Jews and individual Jews tended to see the vast goy society as an obstacle to their agenda or absolute freedom. Radical subversive idealist Jews wanted to undermine and destroy goy institutions/icons to set up a new order based on higher justice and truth(as mostly developed by Jewish thinkers). Crazy subversive individualist Jews wanted to undermine and destroy goy institutions and icons to expand anarchic freedom whereby the clever individual(generally the Jew) would have advantage over the goyim. In a totally individualist society unmoored by social or traditional norms, the smartest and the wittiest come out on top; the hustler or the wheeler-dealer becomes numero uno. Radical intellectual Jews sought power through violent revolution, and crazy individual Jews sought power through anarchic freedom. Though ideologically at odds, both sides have complemented each other at times. Notice how the leftist intellectual Jews–those for big government, political correctness, socialism, etc–got together with the individualist Jews–Hollywood, music industry, TV, defense lawyers, computer industry, etc–to put Obama in power. The Jews mastered the Art of the Schvartze. Obama is the compromise between the radical Jews and the individualist Jews. Obama as the first black president undermines white American power and values, opening up to new anarchic possibilities. Obama as the socialist promises big government for left-wing intellectuals. Obama as a globalist will allow the economic elite to keep making their fortunes around the world. Obama the Progressive is the face of Socialist Idealism. Obama the Hipster is appealing to the crazy individualist Jews. Obama is a man of many faces, and he has a few faces that appeals to many goyim as well. His image as The One has won the hearts and minds of many white Christians who are suckers for religious iconography.

Anyway, the Greek Culture of Critique was different from the Jewish Culture of Critique. Though the ideas of Socrates and other Greek thinkers were considered subversive by some quarters of Greek society, all Greek philosophers were also proud Greeks and thus committed to the power, wealth, and success of Greek society. So, whether their ideas were ultimately good or bad, they sought to serve the Greek state, Greek people, Greek power, or Greek something. A Greek philosopher may have been eccentric and stood apart from others, but he too was part of the Greek order. He may have come up with some bad or radical ideas, but he was not a hostile outsider. He was to the Greeks what the Jewish prophets were to the Jews. He could be critical and harsh, but his critique was to serve or save the Greek order than to destroy it. He could be very wrong, and his ideas could be damaging, but he acted in good faith. Similarly, Jewish prophets acted in good faith in relation to their own kind.

But, Jewish critique and advice to the goy kind were not made in good faith. Those were merely devious means by which Jews could gain advantage for themselves. Pretending to serve others while really serving oneself is no great sin. All peoples have done this, and the foreign policy of most countries still function on this level. All nations disguise their policy of national self-interest in the language of international morality and humanitarian principles. Where Jews were unique was that they didn’t have a country of their own, and the scattered populations of Jews developed social relationships that were fundamentally devious. Since Jews were minorities in all places, they had to act as though they were always serving the interests of the goyim though they were actually looking out for themselves. (To be sure, Greeks and Armenians acted the same way under the Turks, but Greeks and Armenians were content to keep to themselves other than in economic matters. There was something in the Jewish genes–higher intelligence, a more restless disposition, a strange way of seeing the world, a powerful will, a cunning temperament, etc–that propelled them to seek something more than favors and wealth from their relations with other peoples. Jews wanted to gain total mastery over the goy majority either violently through communist revolution or gradually through capitalist accumulation–and media dissemination. Perhaps, this was because Greeks and Armenians could one day look toward their own national territory and independence. Since this option was not possible for Jews–at least not in the heart of Europe–, Jews were condemned to exist only as minorities in foreign lands. Since they could not be total masters of their own land, they sought to be masters of Ideas, Wealth, and Cultural Power. Those three forces would also come to command politics since political power in a capitalist democratic country derives mainly from money and media. Democracy is about the people, but the people think and feel as they are told by schools and the media. So, those who control the media in effect control the politics since politicians have to play to the emotions of the masses shaped by the media and schools. We saw this with Obama. The reason why so many whites voted for Obama is because they’ve been softened up to accept a black socialist after many yrs of liberal Jewish media control. Of course, Jews did eventually get a land of their own, but it was too small, too hazardous, and too distant from the West where the Jews gained most of their freedom, power, and wealth. So, Israel is more a symbolic prize for most Jews than their real homeland. It is a trophy nation.)

The fact that Jewish religion stressed the need for Jewish separation from and contempt for goyim made Jewish deviousness all the more nasty. Most people who owned their own national real estate(homeland) understood full well the difference between ‘our interest’ and ‘their interest’. Everyone who owns a home has his own home-centered interest. But, someone who must live in the homes of other people must act as though his interest is that of the owner of the home. Because Jews didn’t have a home(country)of their own, they had to live as servants or guests in someone else’s home. No people could be happy as permanent guests or servants, but Jews were especially unhappy because their Holy Book said they are the chosen people, the favorite of God. So, even as Jews served the goy masters and pretended to be like happy ‘house niggers’, they concealed a poisonous wounded pride. Also, as Jews were very smart, the Jewish servants grew richer than the master of the house. In many European empires, the kings and noblemen had to borrow money from the Jews to wage wars, build monuments, throw parties, and etc. Also, the Jewish Holy Book said there is only one God, and all the lands of the world belongs to Him. So, even if Jews were nomads, going from one place to another and living as a minority among the goy majority, Jews thought the world(and its goyim) existed for the sake of the Jews(because all the world was the House of God, and Jews were the Chosen of God. So, Jews thought they had a divine right to economically and culturally take over other nations. Not all Jews understood the nature of their own psyche and how it operated, but this accounts for the Jewish insatiability when it comes to power, wealth, and control.)
The Bible says Jews shall wander the world and grow fabulously rich from doing business with the goyim. In other words, the Bible tells the Jews to see goyim as the cows see grass. Grass exist for cows to wander about and eat. Goyim exist so that Jews may wander around and grow rich off them.

Kevin MacDonald believes that we too need a culture of critique to be used against Jewish power or the Jewish COC, but I would go further. We need a COC on our own culture and values as well. Again, COC isn’t necessarily subversive. Trying to understand reality more deeply or better is not necessarily subversive though such exercise can always shake the foundations of our beliefs and convictions. But, that is the price we must pay for being humans with rational minds. And, it must be said that if we don’t examine ourselves ourselves, others will and in bad faith. Intelligent people are attracted to analysis, thought, intellectualism, etc. They become the most important journalists, academics, artists, etc. Because the COC has been dominated by Jews, Jewish thought has influenced elite culture for everyone. Because so many on the Right stuck to old time religion, received habits and values, or generic ideas about liberty and freedom, the Right has lost intellectual respect. Kevin MacDonald talks about how even the best gentile students gravitated toward radical Jewish professors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It was because the radical Jewish professors were interesting and exciting EVEN IF they were wrong about history, society, economics, and etc. They were willing to engage with and challenge the status quo and open people’s eyes to new ways of seeing things. If this task had been taken up by the Right, the Left would have been less influential and dominant in the intellectual and cultural life of this country. Critique of our values, culture, and heritage doesn’t necessarily mean rejection, hatred, or dismissal of what we hold dear. It means discovering its strengths and weaknesses, its relevance and irrelevance in the changing world. It shows us what must be changed, what must be reconsidered, what must be maintained. It also helps us come up with better rationale for holding onto what we believe in.
This is why the fascism is preferable than conservatism to the modern Right. Fascism isn’t about dogmatically clinging to the past or resisting the future or modernity. Fascism accepts the future, change, and modernity. But, fascism, unlike radical leftism, doesn’t try to trash or reject everything about the past, the traditional ways, or what’s sacred to a people. Fascism went very wrong with Mussolini and Hitler because they institutionalized it as state dogma. Instead of cultivating a fascist COC, they demanded that everyone just blindly follow the great leader. Communist governments did the same to the COC of the Left. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao didn’t want independent leftist thinkers in their domains. Under communist rule, there was only the Culture of Command, not Culture of Critique.

As a result, the most important Right and Left thinkers arose not in Fascist or Communist nations but in democratic capitalist nations–because freedom to think was allowed. Though some of these thinkers sympathized with or supported the far-right or far-left regimes, they would not have been able to think and express themselves freely had they been living under those regimes. Even so, the Left far outshone the Right when it came to intellectualism and COC, especially after WW II. To some extent, this is understandable because the Left, more than the Right, stands for challenging and opposing the status quo. But, it’s also because Left had more Jews, the most intelligent people on Earth. Also, as Jews were nomadic rootless outsiders, they were bound to see the goy world from more odd and interesting angles. Kafka was indeed one of the greatest artist-thinkers of all time. Even as we reject Jewish ideas, we must admire and respect their insightful, tantalizing, and provocative dimensions(and learn from them). A central concept of the Right, in contrast, is sacredness, and sacredness, though fascinating and productive in a visionary way, doesn’t promote rational thinking so crucial to the COC. Also, there is a tendency in sacredness to turn sublime visions into rigid dogma. This has been the danger of Judeo-Christian-Islamic order. Because of the totalitarian nature of Judeo-Christian-Islamism–its belief in ONE God and His PERFECTION–, it tends to mummify spirituality or visionary power than keep it organic and fertile. It stresses the sacredness of rigid dogma than the sacredness of spontaneous vision, imagination, artistic creativity, and so forth. Judeo-Christian-Islamism favors an End of History view of the world. Judaism promised the Messiah who would fix all the problems. Christianity promises the return of Jesus and end of history. Islam has a similar End of Days scenario. And, communism, which developed out of the Judeo-Christian tradition also imagines an End of History. It offers a linear view of history that finally culminates in utopia which ends history and time itself. The pagan view of history is more cyclical, organic, ever-growing, ever-shifting, alive, and fertile. It is rooted in the way of nature itself. The danger of paganism is its amoralism as nature is amoral. But, paganism, if properly revived and utilized, can energize the life force of a civilization that has grown decadent or rigid. If we don’t revive healthy European paganism, other forms of paganism will rule supreme that will destroy European soul of the West. Afro-paganism is at odds with Euro-paganism. Euro-paganism is reverent, noble, and deep whereas Afro-paganism tends to be wild, crazy, and destabilizing. Actually, there is much to admire in African tribal paganism, but the strain of Afro-paganism that is most widespread around the world is the American ghetto variety which is utterly trashy, ugly, demented, filthy, and obscene. African paganism at least has something to do with the rhythm, the beauty, and wonders of nature. Afro-American paganism is just about guns, drugs, pimps, whores, and ‘niggaz’.

A major problem of both Fascism and National Socialism was that both were deeply influenced by a totalistic view of the world even as they rejected Christian dogma and communism; communism, everyone should know, was essentially a secular totalitarian ideology based on Judeo-Christian moralism. Though Marxism was conceptualized and promoted as a ‘science’, its sense of worldly mission was religious and zealous in the old Christian mode of redeeming mankind through the one true faith that would bring justice and equality to all of mankind. Even as Fascism and National Socialism were neo-pagan and anti-communist, both adopted certain ideas, methods, and outlooks of Judeo-Christian spiritual totalitarianism and communist social totalitarianism. As such, both Fascism and National Socialism did more to stifle than stimulate creativity, renewal, and rebirth.

Another big blow to Rightist culture and intellectualism was WWII and the defeat of Germany and Italy(and Japan). Because of the loss of prestige upon defeat and the revelation of all their terrible crimes(especially by Germany and Japan), nearly all of the Right(even mild conservatives)came under suspicion and dishonor. It just wasn’t fashionable to be on the Right in most European countries and in the United States through much of the postwar era.
To be sure, the Right had a golden opportunity in the 1950s with the expansion of communist infiltration in the West, but people like McCarthy gave this noble cause a bad name through lazy demagoguery. McCarthy and his supporters were the best gift to the communists and Left. By overplaying their hand in an irresponsible manner, the liberals and leftists were able to portray anti-communists as a bunch of paranoid lunatics.
Notice that the most of the interesting thinkers and artists–even if you disagree with them–came from the Left since WWII. The so-called towering intellects of the Right such as William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk are not really all that interesting in comparison. They may have been right about history and society, but they weren’t stimulating or truly inspirational thinkers.
Provocative stuff attracts the best and the brightest in society who come to control the top institutions which influence how 100s of millions think. The Right hasn’t been intellectually or culturally interesting. There were interesting thinkers on the Right like Ernest Junger and Carl Jung before WWII, but people like Hitler and Mussolini had stifled them. After WWII, because Nazism and Fascism had been associated with neo-paganism, the Right rejected paganism and clung to old-timel Christianity. Christianity is a great religion and a crucial component of Western moral system, but it had turned into dogma long ago; it had become an intellectual dead end in and of itself, especially in the modern world with so many new possibilities, freedoms, and ideas. The Right could not be intellectually interesting by regurgitating Christian theology over and over, especially if it was done without the spirit or culture of critique. For there to be fresh visions, ideas, and imagination, the Western Right must back to pagan mode. (Joseph Campbell, the neo-fascist intellectual, demonstrated this. Campbell respected Christianity but approached it from the angle of critique. He analyzed and appreciated it as myth, poetry, narrative, history, etc. Because he had an active mind, he made Christianity live again. For him, it was something to think about, respect, value, criticize, explore. For Campbell, Christianity was not just a museum piece to bow down to in blind reverence and faith.)
Paganism doesn’t have to be totalitarian. Indeed, the problem of both Fascism and National Socialism is they violated the fundamental principle of paganism; in true fascism, the individual and his visionary power must be respected. Among the pagan tribes to whom nature is sacred and mysterious, it is incumbent for every individual to undergo his own vision quest, find his own special and sacred place in the world-as-corner-of-the-universe. Fascism may produce great leaders, but they must not be someone who tells the people to bury or suppress their own individuality and blindly follow the headman. Neo-pagan fascism must be modern and respect the freedom of the individual. Fascism is the rational understanding and acceptance of the sacred soul and imagination of mankind. It must be poetic and visionary but not literal minded and superstitious. Fascism is essentially mythic than religious. Religion literally accepts the supernatural whereas mythic consciousness poetically reveres the ‘mystery’ and beauty of the world.

To be sure, not all people are equally capable of imagination or the vision thing, but all people must be given the freedom to seek their own truth and vision if they so desire and possess the will power to do so. The horrors and extremes of Nazism would not have been possible if every German had the right and freedom to find his own meaning in the new German Spring. Instead, all Germans were to abandon their own vision quest, sacrifice their individuality, and mindlessly merge with Hitler’s totalist vision of Germany.
People think individualism and communalism are incompatible, but that isn’t necessarily true. Though the two ideas are opposites, opposites also attract. A community is, after all, made up of individuals, and it is the contributions of individuals that make up a community. And, an individual is always a part of a community, socially and temporally. None of us created ourselves but are the products of past generations; and through us, future generations are created. And, even the most extreme individual cannot do everything on his own. There is a FREE way in which each person can be both an individual and a communal. Ultra-individualism of the Ayn Rand variety is a fantasy, and ultra-communalism of Nazism or communism is a prison of the soul.

There’s another reason for the loss of prestige of the Right. In the West, the Right has been synonymous with white power, white values, white interests, white pride(namely of gentile whites). But, as the 20th century progressed, it became obvious that white gentiles were intellectual inferiors to the Jews and physical inferiors to the Negroes. So, the prestige went more to the Jews in the area of ideas & culture and more to blacks in the area sports and pop music. We all know that ideas are very important in a country like the US which is known for its famous universities. Also, the giant US media–owned by Jews who are also better businessmen than gentile whites–have the awesome power to disseminate ideas and values like no other force or people on the planet. Liberal Jews have defacto tyrannical power over us through the media, and leftist Jews have defacto tyrannical power over us in the universities.

Sports are very important in America. Though America is famous for its universities and publishing, the masses tend to be non-intellectual or even anti-intellectual. Therefore, their idea of what’s right or wrong, what’s cool and uncool comes from TV, movies, music, and sports. There has been an alliance of Jews and blacks in the media and sports. The two most influential musical forces in the 20th century have been Jewish and Negro. Many of the hit songs, Broadway musicals, and so forth have been penned by Jews. Jews also came to own all the music industry. Blacks paved the way for rock n roll, rock music, soul music, and many others that whites came to admire, emulate, imitate, or find inspiration from. Even Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Sweet Home Alabama owes something to black beat and rhythm. (Of course, black music was also greatly influenced by white music, something we don’t hear much about. Anyway, before interracial sex happened on a large scale in the US, there was interracial music, and rock is the product of black musical father and white musical mother. And, Jazz before that. Blacks were the ‘father’ in the Jazz equation because black Jazzmen tended to be more forceful and led the way. In Rock, however, white artists came to dominate and lead the way, and indeed most blacks never really cared for mainstream rock and stuck to soul and funk... before they eventually moved onto hip-hop and rap.)
We may be tempted to blame the Jews and blacks for some evil conspiracy to take over the musical culture, but that won’t do. The fact is some of these Jewish and black artists were genuine giants and great innovators. We must not be petty or churlish; we must give credit where it’s due.
Of course, the West has a truly profound heritage of classical music, but even most conservatives don’t listen to that stuff. Indeed, a leftist or a liberal is much more likely to listen to classical music, write about it, or pursue careers in the field. For all the talk of Western Heritage, there is woefully little appreciation or understanding of Western culture and history on the Right. Though liberal and leftist Jews may be committed to destroying what we call Western Civilization, they generally know a lot more about Western culture than we do(just like many white educated liberals know more about blues and African history than most American blacks do). They read more, listen to more serious/sacred music, study it more, and appreciate it more even as they try to undermine the power/prestige of the West. The White Left has a love/hate relation with Western Culture. In some crazy way, they think that they are the genuine heirs of Western culture and civilization since the West is supposed to be all about change, progress, equality, justice, and so on. The French Revolution was a major chapter in Western Civilization and has been worshiped by the Left ever since. Indeed, many on the Left believe that their current commitment to progress is a struggle to fully implement the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity(with all of mankind). First, it is to turn all of Europe into one political and economic entity. Next, it is the entire world.

Anyway, sports also played a role in the loss of prestige for the White Right. We don’t look upon athletes as mere individuals but as our heroes, as figures representing our collective power, might, strength, dreams, etc. This is why every nation lionizes their gold medal winners at the Olympics. They become National Heroes. They are seen as bringing glory not only to themselves but to the nation as a whole. This is why Japanese were worried when bigger and fatter Hawaiians dominated sumo in the 90s and when stronger Mongols took it over in the 2000s. Sumo used to be a sacred National Sport, but it’s been taken over by foreigners. Similarly, whites used to look up to white heroes in sports. White victory in sport came to be synonymous with white power, prestige, and pride in general. But, the white man got beaten by the blacks in sports. At first, whites identified with the losers like Jim Jeffries. Though whites got beaten by Jack Johnson, whites refused to worship black power that destroyed the white man in the ring. Whites still rooted for the fallen white athletes. But, as time passed and as Jews came to control the media, increasing numbers of whites began to see the white losers as a bunch of ‘faggoty ass white boys’ and started to look upon black athletes as the true mythic heroes of America. Europe held out with white athletes and pride longer than we did, but with increased black immigration to Europe, Europe also came to look up to black athletes as figures of National Honor and Pride. So, US, Canada, France, Holland, and UK all send black sprinters to the Olympics. The whites in those nations delude themselves that the blacks they’re rooting for are competing for National Honor when, in fact, it’s all about the glory of black power. What’s next? Will Asian nations also import and send black athletes to the Olympics for the sake of Asian National Honor. (If some black guy won the gold medal for Japan in the 100 m race and if Japanese acted like it meant glory for Japan, wouldn’t we laugh at the stupid deluded Japanese? Well, how do you think United States, Canada, and European countries look like when they send and root for black athletes in the name of national glory? And, isn’t it odd that though liberals and Jews generally attack nationalist sentiments, they fan and fuel such passions as much as possible if the national honor is borne by black victors or by someone like Obama? Isn’t it odd that white liberals are all of sudden very patriotic ONLY BECAUSE a black socialist globalist committed to destruction of white America is at the helm?)

The fact is, though black athletes may win medals for America, the real winners are blacks and the losers are whites. The Dream Team may be seen as an American team but it’s really a Black Team that says, ‘non-blacks need not apply’. It’s come to a point where whites kids worship and lionize blacks as the true National or Hometown Heroes. Even conservatives are glued to sports where blacks males dominate and white cheerleaders shake their asses for black males.
The White Right talks about black rape of white women, but the far greater shame is the much larger number of white women who lust after black men and have babies with them. Many white women listen to black music because black singers/dancers seem tougher and sexier than dorky white guys in country music or tired rock music. And, white girls watch a lot of sports too. (It’s hilarious that so many conservative white guys watch sports with their white girlfriends. Don’t they realize that the only message their girlfriends are getting is, ‘why am with a faggoty ass flabby white boy when the real men are like those tough black guys on the court?’ Any proud white guy who watches the NBA or NFL is an idiot. All the glory–athletic and sexual–go to blacks, and the money of the white goyim go to the Jews who own nearly all the franchises. These rich Jews, like Mark Cuban-owitz, gave millions to Obama!! I say boycott the sports and all the products advertised during the broadcast.)

It’s the Law of Nature. In nature, males fight for the right to sexually possess the most attractive females. Despite all our civilized pretensions, human males also compete with each other for the right to have sex with the most attractive females. Women are attracted to brain power/ money OR brawn power/money. Jews beat white gentile males in brain/money power, and blacks beat white gentile males in brawn/money power.
So, the main interracial or interracist problem is not black men raping white women but white women jumping into the arms of black men. White women watch Oprah and voted for Barack Obama over John McCain. Their white traitor bitch cunts are hungry for black cocks and they wanna give birth to little Obamas. The liberal media(especially the Jewish feminist gang) have promoted and sanctified Obama’s mudshark of a mother as the ideal white women.
The White Right can bitch all it wants; the fact is the liberal Jews own the media and control how white kids think from a very young age when most impressionable. And, it’s only natural that the smartest amongst us would gravitate toward Jewish-dominated culture since Jews seem to be intellectually most interesting and gravitate toward black-dominated sports and music since human nature worships power-that-attracts-sexual-passions(and blacks are the toughest).

The White Right must understand that the rise of Jewish-Negro power isn’t just the product of some conspiracy but the natural result of freedom and competition. In a free society such as the United States where meritocracy is still the name of the game–despite affirmative action–, the best and most talented tend to the rise to the top. It was only natural that the smarter and more creative Jews would make more money and snatch control of media and academia away from white goyim who had once controlled them. And, it was only natural that the stronger and tougher blacks would take over sports, the streets, and popular music whose main themes are toughness, power, and sex.
Though there was a degree of artificial social manipulation–mainly by the Jews who run the media–, the Jewish-Negro domination is, in many respects, the natural product of individualism and freedom. In the past, whites gentiles discriminated against Jews in universities and against blacks in sports. That’s how white people had kept their dominance. If blacks had been granted total equality long ago, they would have dominated sports and become the National Icons of Top Manhood since the 19th century right after slavery. But, white males feared the Negroes and artificially curtailed and suppressed black freedom and rights. Also, white gentiles in the elite institutions favored the less intelligent white goyim to the smarter Jews well into the 1970s. Alan Dershowitz isn’t wrong about his experience. Why was it that less intelligent white goy graduates of law schools were able to find better positions than Jews who graduated at the top of the class? It was because the WASP-controlled elite law firms favored their own kind over the smarter Jews.
This system changed that favored whites over Jews and blacks changed for two reasons. One was lawsuits and social agitation. The other was the natural law of competition. Those firms that recruited the smarter Jews did better, and so other firms also had to recruit smart Jews to compete and survive. Eventually, Jews came to dominate many firms at the expense of the less intelligent white goyim.
Same happened in sports. Though most teams were initially reluctant to recruit black athletes, the fact was that teams with black athletes had a better chance of winning than those teams without blacks. So, even teams that didn’t want to hire blacks were forced to hire blacks to stay on par with the competition.

In due time, Jews took over many of the elite institutions because they were the smartest. Most of the computer innovation also came from Jews. Just about all the top internet sites were created by Jews. This is why most of the superduper rich today are liberals; they are Jews in high-tech, pharmaceuticals, bio-engineering, etc. Old Industry run by white goyim are on the way out. A great many of the super giants of new capitalism(that relies on super brain power based on cutting edge science, math, and computer wizardry) happen to be Jews. Of course, there are many non-Jewish geniuses and tycoons too, but since they get their education and culture from the Jews who control the top universities and popular culture(Hollywood, TV, books, etc), they too become ideological clones of the Jews.
Even the internet technology which the White Right use to get their ideas across were created by the Jews.

And, eventually, blacks took over all of pop music and sports. Even if a sports team were allowed to discriminate against blacks today, it would be suicidal to do so since a team without simply won’t have a winning season. Just look at what the ‘Dream Team’ does to white European teams.
And, as our popular music became more sexual, pornographic, and macho, blacks were bound to take over that realm too. Women are attracted to masculinity, and black men are simply faster, tougher, more muscular, more commanding, and more powerful than ‘white boys’.

The White Right wonders why all of this is happening, but it’s not hard to understand why. It’s the Law of Nature. It’s is disingenuous for the White Right to insist on a genetic-based, biological, and realistic analysis/understanding of human beings and then be shocked by the fact that so many whites have become sheepish slaves of Jews and blacks. It’s the obvius outcome of natural processes. In a free society, the best win. Jews are best in brain power, and blacks are best in brawn power. Blacks take white women for the same reason that white men take Asian girls. Many Asian girls prefer the taller and stronger white men to the dorky and geeky Asian males with nasal voices and small penises. For the same reason, white girls prefer black men who are more muscular and have bigger penises. This is why there is so much porn with black males and white females. Though we can pretend that such filth exists ONLY because Jews who control the porn industry want it that way, that’s not the only or main reason. After all, suppose Jews tried to peddle porn with Asian males and black females and marketed it vigorously. Would there be much demand for that even with extensive marketing(except as something to laugh at)? No.
The black male/white female porn is popular–even among white males–because there is the belief that it’s the ultimate natural-sexual ideal/order whereby the toughest male takes the most desirable female. And, this is why Obama is the such a popular guy among the castrated white males and jungle-fevered white females. He is seen as the natural/historical product of a masterful Black Man and an attractive White Female. In the new secular Garden of Eden, the New Adam is the Black Man and the New Eve is the White Female. Why do white liberal men get off this? Don’t they feel humiliated? No, because they’ve been brainwashed since childhood to worship blacks as the nobler race; therefore, deferring to blacks comes naturally to them. Also, many white liberals are affluent and privileged, therefore still in a position to patronize blacks as a poor, powerless, and disenfranchised people. Since white liberal males grew up in social setting which is mostly white and privileged, they feel less threatened by black men taking white girls. Indeed, they think they are being generous and compassionate in welcoming such social development; they flatter themselves for their ‘tolerance’, open-mindedness’, and respect for ‘diversity’ when in fact, it’s a simple case of black guys taking their girls and leaving them to look like a bunch of faggoty ass white boys. To be sure, some white liberal males know full well the nature of what’s happening, but they don’t want to sound ‘racist’ since they’ve been told that whites must be ever so sensitive. Since they are losing their girls to blacks anyway, white liberal men wanna act like it’s all happening because they’ve encouraged and allowed it. It’s a less of a blow to their ego if they act like they voluntarily gave away their girls to blacks out of generosity and progressive sentiments. This explains why a piece of shit like Lawrence O’Donnell had the daughter of US president make out with a black guy in The West Wing. The faggoty ass white liberal boy O’Donnell is trying to make it seem like the growing interracism between black males and white females is happening thanks to the wonderful and noble blessing of decent white liberal men. Pathetic.

The White Right must not live in denial and simply try to blame Jews or blacks for the growing interracism. And, the White Right will not regain its power simply by promoting meritocracy, individualism, and anti-affirmative action. If we totally got rid of affirmative action, the main beneficiaries in the academia will be Jews and Asians, not whites. And, it’s the total lack of affirmative action which has made sports and popular music to the domain of black power and pride.

Fascism is crucial because only it understands the true nature of power, human passions, biology, history, psychology, etc. The Christian Right is a hokey, flakey, dweeby pile of crap. Jesus was a pacifist Jew, and the Christian message to the White Right is feel guilt, feel sorry, turn the other cheek, pray meekly, share with the poor around the world, let go of tribalism and racism, etc. I will give credit to the noble and beautiful aspects of Christianity, which is why we should not abandon or reject it totally; there are indeed deep and profound ideas about mercy, defeat, love, forgiveness, and so on in the Christian religion. But, Christianity must not be the central tenet of the White Right.

The other big force in the White Right has been libertarianism, but as a core philosophy and policy, it is useless to the White Right because it atomizes us. We cannot win or regain our power by dreaming of ‘smaller government’ and everyone ‘minding his own business’. Whenever there’s a political vacuum, someone or some force will fill it. A nation like ours has no choice but to have a big government(just like it has no choice but to have a big military), and it’s better that we accept the importance of political power in this country and try to take over government ourselves and EXPAND IT FOR OUR BENEFIT. Also, the idea of everyone leaving others alone is a fantasy. If someone is trying to get in your way; the best way to fend off such people is to preemptively get in their way. Put them on defense instead of waiting for them to put you on defense. Leave-me-alone-ism always puts one in a defensive position. It’s better to go into activist mode and force the other side into a defensive position. Launch a 1000 lawsuits on a daily basis. Bleed them dry. We need something like the ACLU, indeed many like it. Sue everything we hate on sight whether the lawsuit is merited or not. Drive them batty like they drive us batty. And, we need to find countless ways to attract attention and bully those who govern institutions. We need a thousand Acorns of the White Right to harass the Left and Liberal order endlessly. And, call for boycotts on everything black, Jewish, or leftist.

Look back at the 20th century, and it’s rather pitiful that the even the best COC against the Left came from the Left. Is the Right so pitifully lacking in wit, brilliance, insight, and analysis? Who wrote the most famous and effective critique of communism? A Rightist? No, a leftist socialist named Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The most famous anti-communist Frenchman was the liberal Raymond Aron. The best books detailing the horrors and crimes of communism in both Europe and America came from the Left.
The problem on the Right is the lack of curiosity and empathy for other cultures. It is because leftists tend to be more curious and concerned with the world and all of humanity that some of them had the courage and integrity to research and write about the evils of communism. Even as the Right opposed communism, it has done so in a shrill, dogmatic, and repetitive manner. It took the liberal and leftist journalists and historians to actually do the heavy lifting, the extensive research, and much else to dig up the dirt about the evils of communism. The Right was content to just attack communism from afar.

And, though liberals and leftists actually cared about the victims of communism, the Right was ONLY concerned about using the issue of communism for their own narrow interests. I’m all for racial and national self-interest and survival, but we cannot be truly human or civilized unless we are curious about the whole world, other cultures, other ideas, and other peoples. Even if we can’t save the world, we need to know more about the world and learn from it. From such comes greater knowledge. And, having greater knowledge wins the respect of the best and the brightest of our society. The smartest people in our society–even those from conservative families–are naturally attracted to liberal and leftist professors because the Left seems to be more interested and engaged with the world, with finding the truth.

Of course, things have changed in recent times. Political Correctness has totally corrupted much of the Left. Dogma reigns supreme in many academic departments, and the national media have become a propaganda arm for the megalomaniac political pimp Barack Obama. If ever there’s been a golden opportunity for the Right to regain prestige for its brand of Culture of Critique, it is now. But, much of this has been squandered by a Right that still embraces silly stuff like Intelligent Design, Creationism, Ban on Stem Cell Research, Pro-Life mantra(who cares about abortion if most babies aborted are children of liberals and blacks?), celebrity worship(Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc), or idiot Libertarianism, especially of Ayn Rand variety. Ultra-individualism is all fine for the rare people with supreme intellect, talent, or creativity. For most of us, individualism is best in moderate doses. Most of us are followers and users of pre-established ideas/systems, not Zarathustra-like prophets who’ve discovered fire to light the world anew.

We need fascism. And, there’s something to be learned from Asians, though we must be careful not to ape them. Asians are not particularly good looking, strong, intelligent, nor creative. Any black guy or an average white guy can beat up an Asian guy. Asians tend to be studious but their IQ is on par with whites and lower than that of Jews; they are not a genius race. As a further disadvantage, Asians tend to be sheepish or slavish; as such, their societies are not very innovative. There is much competitiveness in Asian society, but it’s about getting ahead in a pre-arranged game, not a contest to come up with new grand ideas. Maverick innovators are less common in the East than in the West
Even among the most successful Easterners, conformism is a big element in how they operate.

Nevertheless, Asian unity, power, pride, and progress are undeniable. It is proof that a people don’t have to the most beautiful, most noble, most intelligent, most powerful physically, or the most creative in order to rise in the world and gain great wealth and power. A people need to stick together, watch out for another, have a strong sense of racial and cultural identity and pride. Asians have that. It’s not Asian individualism in brain power or brawn that has led to the rise of Asia. On an individual basis, a black guy can destroy an Asian guy or a even a whole bunch of Asian guys. On an individual basis, a Jewish guy can run circles around an Asian guy. But, why do Asians have much power in the world? They stick together and watch out for one another. There is a strong sense of group unity. That is what’s lacking among whites. On an individual basis, whites may be the most attractive, which is why Jewish men and black men lust after white girls, and why many non-white women around the world seek to be inseminated with expensive sperm of Nordic men. So, whites are popular and desired in that sense.

But, it is this precisely this desirability that may lead to the demise of the white race. Black men want to have more semi-black babies with white women. Blacks prefer other blacks with white features. And, though black men may be uglier than white men, women have this natural attraction to power, ugly or pretty. So, many white women prefer to go with ugly strong black men than with pretty weaker white men.
And, white people are targeted by Jews because Jews have long been jealous of white beauty. Ugly Jewish hags would love to see white beauty defiled by total miscegenation. Ugly Jewish girls have often felt insulted by the prettier blonde shikses. That’s essentially been the real psychological underpinning of radical feminism cooked up by mostly ugly Jewesses. Though feminism is ostensibly about the liberation of all women, its main impact has been the destruction of the sacred unity between white males and white females. It fills ugly Jewish women with glee to see blonde women go with black men to give birth to mongrels. Since the Jews cannot possess beauty themselves, they want to defile the beauty of those who have it.

Liberal Jews will claim that what I say is a sick, pornographic fantasy, but just look at the culture as promoted by Jews–Howard Stern, interracism in porn, rap music, black athletes and their fashions and styles, feminist dogma, Woody Allen, TV sitcoms, Sarah Silverman, Sandra Bernhardt, etc. What can be more demented, ugly, and pornographic than this? Jews try to undermine our power and our culture with such filth, and then accuse us of seeing the world through some kind of pornographic fantasy! We are not fantasizing because it’s all so obvious for people to see if they have the honesty to see. But, many of us don’t have the honesty because we’ve been brainwashed since childhood to think that Jews are all noble, saintly, and good NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. So, even if a Jew spat on your mother’s face and molested your daughter, you’d have to say he’s the nicest person in the world; if you thought otherwise and accused the Jew of filthy behavior, then YOU who would be accused of having a filthy mind that hallucinates sick things. A Jew is like someone who blows a nasty fart, but if you notice and complain about the fart, YOU are said to be foul one for ‘fantasizing’ such.

To be sure, we have to be careful. We must not go down the path that Hitler took and come up with false racial theories or blame all Jews or claim that we are perfect or without problems. As humans, we have the same problems of rest of humanity. White folks committed their share of evil and stupidity. We can be just as evil as the rest of humanity, and other peoples are capable of doing great things. There is nothing inherently noble about being white or nothing necessarily awful about being non-white. Evolution created different races because different environments required or favored different traits, and in that sense, all of humanity has a rightful place in the world.

But, it must also be acknowledged that certain civilizations were envisioned and created with qualities unique to a certain race. In that sense, Western civilization wasn’t simply a random outcome but the product of something unique to white people. Given the diversity of European cultures, we must avoid the deterministic falsehood. However, it is most certainly true that all races have certain intrinsic traits which shape the development of their civilization in a certain way. Even when white people adopt ideas from other places, the ideas take on a uniquely white personality or characteristic. We can certainly see this in the development of Christianity. Though Christian values and ideas may be the same all around the world, it drastically changes according to races/cultures. Even when blacks adopt a white form of Christianity, it sooner or later takes on a black style. And, even when whites adopt the black form of Christianity or music, it takes on aspects of whiteness. White blues, for this reason, was never the same as black blues. And notice that Japanese rock isn’t the same as white rock. Heavy Metal, for instance, took many ideas from blues music, but came to embody the unique emotional and rhythmic(or lack of such)qualities of white people.

Anyway, the White Right needs to revive the Culture of Critique which is old as the Greeks themselves. If the left-wing and liberal Jews employ COC to undermine and subvert our culture, we can use COC to do the same to their agenda, power, and interests. But, more importantly, we need to apply COC to our own culture, history, heritage, assumptions, values, ideas, and etc. If we don’t critique–analyze, explore, examine, contemplate, challenge, and ponder–our own civilization, history, and culture, then OTHER people–especially the Jews–will do it for us, and the hostile Jewish analysis or critique of our society and civilization will become the standard image of the West for most people. We can practice COC to save Western Civilization and White People than to sink them–what the liberal and left-wing Jews are trying to do. Critique is good, and we always need more of it. It’s good for the mind to get some exercise. Also, it’s good to study and re-think our values and civilizations from as many angles as possible. Indeed, we should even pay attention to critiques of our civilization from non-Westerners and non-whites–just as Latin Americans, Asians, Africans, and Arabs have learned much about themselves by reading and learning what the Western/white people have written about them. We need to guard our borders and protect our race, BUT we must not culturally or mentally shut ourselves from the world. We must not create the Cuba or the North Korea of the Mind. The problem of Nazism was it promoted a cultural ghetto where ONLY ‘Aryan’ stuff was appreciated. That is really stupid. We know that all races and all cultures produced its share of geniuses in the arts, music, literature, and etc. We need to study and appreciate them. We should not dismiss other cultures in wholesale fashion though, of course, we must reject the egalitarian or multi-cultural notion that ‘all cultures are equal’.

Publications like "American Conservative" are most welcome because it offers contrarian views from the Right. In a way, it’s a good thing that the Right is in exile again, because only such condition can inspire the people to come to their senses, think and re-think their assumptions, revise their methods and tactics, and understand the true nature of where they are in the political, social, and cultural playing field.
We need not a staid right but an organic Right that is not afraid of new ideas or renewed debate. I’m going to throw up if I hear the likes of Sean Hannity yammer about, ‘gee, what would Reagan do?’ again. How stale and lame. Consider the fact that neo-conservatism too had its glory days and relevance because it brought new ideas into the Right. We may now reject many neo-con ideas as not truly conservative or too Zionist, but at a time when the Right had grown moribund intellectually in the 60s and 70s, it was necessary that people like neo-cons entered the picture to infuse new blood into the movement. Anyway, the point isn’t that neo-cons are always right, or paleo-cons are always right. The point is that we must constantly keep our minds open, think new ideas, reconsider and revise our values and ideas, etc. Though some of our ideas and values may indeed be eternal and timeless, we must constantly rethink and remind ourselves as to why they are timeless and eternal. Only the Culture of Critique can allow that to happen because only when we keep challenging the ideas and values we hold dear can we examine or test them time and time again and prove their worthiness through the thread of history.


  1. Conservatism hadn't grown moribund in the 60's and 70's so much as it had succumbed to attack from within and without, and underwent an identity crisis in the failures of Goldwater and the failed resistance to the civil rights movement. From without the attack came from progressives advancing the Johnson agenda and carrying forward the cultural revolution, marginalizing the old guard "isolationist" anti-war right, and from within by Fusionists such as Frank Meyer, and the rising neocons, such as Buckley and Kristol.

    The intellectual resources that were available in men such Russell and Nisbet were left unused, unfortunately. These were contemplative men, not men of action. Their ideas were unable to be modified into a practical program by conservative leaders, or perhaps the effort was never undertaken. The "problem" is that genuine conservatism doesn't lend itself readily to trite, neat political or social formulas. It isn't ideological, as T.S. Eliot noted. When Kevin MacDonald uses the term "critique" he is using it in the sense in which it is employed in the academic community, by post-structuralists and the like, meaning the activity of condemnation. This is subversive in itself, for it destroys the morale and intellectual vigor of the inherited order.

    Conservatism itself is a degenerated form of tradition created by the activity of critique, as it develops a self-consciousness and reflectiveness it does not possess when healthy. Its establishment when healthy simply IS, and the conception that somehow critique improves tradition by awakening in it self-consciousness is an idea necessitated only by progressivism and modernity themselves. It is disease that calls forth physicians, not health. Conservatism is the physician of tradition, and its very existence is a sign of disease, perhaps terminal. Traditionalism has not consciousness of "otherness" within itself, only in that which is actually other. Tradition being non-ideological, its defense is therefore non-ideological, and therefore is at a disadvantage against progressivism's poltical manifestations, such as Marxism, as it provides a comprehensive program that replaces (fashions substitutes for) each value, institution, or aspiration from the old order. Conservatism, by definition, is only operative in the presence of surviving elements of the former order. It is arguable whether there are any such survivals. In the absence of a surviving tradition (of whatever kind) conservatism lacks the ideological comprehensiveness to offer a total worldview alternative to Marxism. This is its chief weakness, and the reason it finds itself perpetually fighting a holding action, a rear-guard action against total collapse.

    Thus it is that conservatism really has no answers anymore, and positive programs of revolutionary regeneration (atavistic, perhaps) must be undertaken. There is no more tradition to preserve. The victory of modernism (liberalism) is already complete. Thus where conservatism mistakenly considers itself counterrevolutionary, its replacement must consider itself revolutionary, that is, overturning an existing, established order in favor of another. In the face of the overwhelming odds that face such an action, personal, familial, and community secession is to be recommended. This secession is from the prevailing value system of modernity, materialism, and offers a return to the prioritization of the spiritual and the social, over the material and individual. Kinists call this their cultural antithesis.

  2. That's mighty interesting. Thanks.

  3. Congoleeza RiceMay 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM

    Two things:

    1) I don't think your point about blacks having larger penises is backed by much. In fact, I suspect it is propaganda you unwittingly repeated.

    The Kinsey report found otherwise, although it had only a small sample of blacks. Not that I'm insecure on the matter :) I like to read about racial differences in anatomy, and your statement is one I have seen a lot of. The only scientific literature I have consists of a few studies suggesting neglible differences (except for Asians), with some finding whites are larger than blacks, and some finding vice versa.

    That said, blacks ARE more masculine than other races, in the same way that prison is the ultimate masuculine place. While there are a number of lowly white women that are attracted to strong brutes, I don't think the bulk of mudsharking in society is due to some natural masculine advantage blacks have over whites. Rather, a lot of white women probably sense that white men grovel before blacks. That, however, is due to brainwashing, not some intrinsic characteristic of blacks. Plus, most women want a guy who is capable of earning more than a 15,000 salary through welfare.

    2) Same basic point on Jews. Jews are undoubtedly smarter on average than other groups, but this intelligence advantage does not fully explain their dominance in American life. What explains this dominance is this intelligence coupled with their version of the good ol' boy network. See Wall Street for the most obvious example of this Jew network. The legal world is also subject to this network. In short, having a meritocracy does not mean that whites operate beneath Jews. In absolute numbers, whites can go toe to toe with Jewish intelligence very easily. It took more than simple merit for the Jews to acquire their dominance in American life.

    All that said, I find your posts very interesting. Always nice to see a woman who isn't brainwashed.