The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Lawrence Archive
An Antidote to the Jewpill (Part I: Group Evolutionary Strategy)
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

So my last post, a critique of white nationalism, was republished at the Unz Review to an overwhelmingly hostile comment audience. I wasn’t expecting the repost, but the response was all too predictable.

In spaces dominated by WN – like the Alt-Right and the Dissident Right – there are unspoken rules about criticising it. It is OK to bring up the fact that it has accomplished practically nothing since the end of the Second World War. It is OK to blame bad optics (Nazi larping!), bad leaders (grifters, narcissists, feds!) and bad supporters (too hidebound, too juvenile, too reckless, too cowardly, too lumpenproletarian, too autistic!). Some very harsh missives can be written along these lines, and still be more or less accepted as ‘constructive criticism’, as long as they conclude by affirming the core ideas of the Movement and laying out some last-ditch victory plan for it.

What is not OK is to conclude, as I did, that white nationalism is built upon bad ideas; that these ideas attract bad optics, bad leaders, and bad supporters in the same way that shite draws flies; and that the Movement will never stop failing and dragging down the Dissident Right until those ideas are radically changed. This is ‘blackpilling’, a.k.a. ‘demoralising the Movement’ – and who but a ‘shill’, a ‘Jew’, or some other bad-faith actor would want to demoralise a cause that has accomplished practically nothing since the end of the Second World War?

My answer is this: someone who has not forgotten the original motive force behind the Movement, namely the defence of the European peoples and the salvation of the West.

White nationalism is meant to be a collective strategy to these ends a means to an end, like the ancient Macedonian phalanx. It was never meant to degenerate into a self-perpetuating cult, handing down the same old practices and dogmas like a sacrosanct tradition – an end in itself, like the Christian community of the saints. Or was it? The Movement likes to think that white nationalism is about practicality, survival, Darwinian adaptation to circumstances – but none of this was in evidence when WNs took over the Alt-Right, and threw away its successful decentralised strategy in order to return to the failed Neo-Nazism of George Lincoln Rockwell.

But perhaps there is a deeper, and narrower, practicality involved here. By pretending to be a practical strategy, white nationalism gets to hold a sword of judgement – inscribed with the words “Is It Good For Whites?” – over all other ideas on the Right, from libertarian economics to Russian Orthodox Christianity. These ideas are all very well, it tells us, but the existential threat to our people demands that they be temporarily subordinated to white nationalism. Thanks to the very inability of WN to get rid of the external threat that justifies it, this cult of biological race becomes permanent – and its claim to temporary priority over other ideas becomes a permanent devaluation of them, ‘smuggled in’ as it were with the Darwinian assumption that truths and principles are tools to be judged on their practicality in the racial struggle for life.

The important point here is not practicality, but the primacy of race over every other idea. If you want first-hand proof of this, just try subjecting the Race Cult to its own ‘sword’, by making the unassailable point that white nationalism itself has failed to pass the is-it-good-for-whites test. The typical response of the cult, as evinced by those commenters, is to shout bad-faith accusations from behind the safety of its ‘shield’ – that is to say, its claim to represent white people and their best interests, which allows it to pre-emptively dismiss all opposition as ‘anti-white’.

This shows, I would say, that we are dealing with a fixed idea (the cult of biological race) masquerading as a practical strategy (white nationalism). At one level, the obssessive monomania of the Race Cult is exactly what it claims to be: a collective reaction to an existential threat. But as experience should have taught us by now, it is a maladaptive and self-defeating reaction – analogous to the blood clot or autoimmune response that brings about death, or the porn addiction of an incel, or the narcissism of a depressive, or the morbid jealousy that suffocates a love relationship.

Let’s settle on a single analogy, and say that white nationalism is a modern-day cargo cult. In this, it resembles mainstream conservatism (which also plays a similar double game of pleading practical utility when it suits it and claiming to represent inviolable abstractions when it doesn’t). Both of these cults are founded on sincere attempts by rightists to preserve the social order in the same way that leftists destroy it: by waging revolution within the liberal democratic system.

The problem is that the system is not truly open or neutral, but rigged in favour of leftism and social destruction. In light of this, the main achievement of the cargo-cults is to make sure that the kulaks and tax-serfs of liberal democracy respond to its depredations by doubling down on their faith in it. And those well-meaning people who join rightist cargo-cults end up in a worse state. Like Faust selling his soul to the Devil, in order to access the infernal powers, they must pledge troth to the religion of the Sovereign People in order to practice mass revolutionary politics.

Of course, every such activist has his chalk line – his unprincipled exception – by which he hopes to prevent this religion from reaching its logical conclusion, i.e. the granting of power and legitimacy to any cause that can rally a majority of ballot-wielding morlocks. So in white nationalism, for example, the sovereignty of the people is commanded to stop at the boundary of the white race. But like a tributary flowing into a river, this eccentric little heresy ultimately feeds into the mainstream democratic religion – in which the sovereignty of the people is universal, and whites are scapegoated as a ‘privileged’ mass-aristocracy, to be crushed between the anvil of the non-white world majority and the Western governing elites acting in their name.

If whites have such high IQs, then WNs are evidently only pretending not to understand that their weird race cult ≠ the collective good of whites, just as a cargo cult ≠ boxes of food.
If whites have such high IQs, then WNs are evidently only pretending not to understand that their weird race cult ≠ the collective good of whites, just as a cargo cult ≠ boxes of food.

Having learned from both Trumpism and Brexit that rightist political ‘victories’ are all but irrelevant to governance, dissidents should stop bidding for illusory political advantage at the price of compromise with liberal democracy. The pure wish to defend Europeans must be extricated from the white nationalist cargo cult – just as the wish for liberty and moral renewal must be extricated from the the conservative cargo-cult – and injected into a new type of anti-democratic dissidence that is at once more principled and more practical, and that has as its object the complete destruction and replacement of the liberal democratic regime. This new dissidence would seek to defend our people in much the same way that a doctor defends a patient – not by building him an altar, but by getting rid of the cancer that eats away at his life.

This will do as a restatement of my case against white nationalism. Now let’s explain why none of it can possibly persuade a committed white nationalist.

Counter-Semitism: The Negative Manifesto of the Movement

It cannot persuade, of course, because my argument so far has made no mention of the Jewish Question. This really will not do, considering the extent of the Movement obsession with the Jews. In my defence, it comes from my insistence on critiquing white nationalism as if it were any other political philosophy – such as libertarianism, anarchism, Randian objectivism, etc., all of which are assessed on their own truth-claims and positive principles and not by their opposition to anything else.

As a matter of fact, white nationalism does have a manifesto, and there is a body of deeper theoretical work in the Social Darwinist tradition that lays out its philosophy of biological tribalism. As I detailed in my last post, the racial extended family and the ethic of racial loyalty are theorised in Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests, and the dual moral code of helping the ingroup and harming the outgroup is provided with moral and practical justifications in Sir Arthur Keith’s Evolution and Ethics. But what is different about white nationalism, relative to other political philosophies, is that this core theory is given scanty attention and seems to play little role in creating new converts.

Instead, white nationalism tends to make converts by presenting itself as a natural reaction to the behaviour of other races. Take, for example, Jared Taylor’s classic article “What Is Racism?” At no point does this article resort to direct exhortation of whites, although this is clearly the intent of the argument (and it was considered so effective that it used to be appended to the front page of Stormfront). Instead, Taylor simply takes for granted the permanent anti-white race war in democratic politics, and asserts the prerogative of whites to respond in kind.

The result is a negative manifesto, in which description of non-white behaviour serves as indirect exhortation to whites:

“When non-whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of “hating” any other group. Blacks can join “civil rights” groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are “anti-white.” … All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage.”

But this sort of thing can never be more than a gateway drug. It is capable of drawing in a wide, shallow outer layer of semi-converted people, who want to defend whites at a practical political level – and are liable to quit in frustration when it becomes clear that they cannot do so by cargo-culting non-white race-hustlers. Only at the lowest reaches of white society – skinheads yesterday, ‘wignats’ today – does the Movement find people who are willing to imitate black and brown ghetto tribalism on a permanent basis.

The hard core of biological tribalists in the Movement – who hand down its dogmas like sacred traditions, believe that its victory is forever around the corner, and respond to all criticism with poison and paranoia – have been converted by a more ‘esoteric’ version of the negative manifesto. This we can call the White Nationalist Theory of the Jews – or, more colloquially, the Jewpill.

The Jewpill is simple and effective. Instead of trying to present the ethics of Keith and Salter as a positive ideal for Europeans, it simply attributes those ethics to Jews, and tells Europeans to respond in kind. The Race Cult portrays the Jews as a negative mirror-image of its own ideal for Europeans: a tribe of individual ciphers for collective interests, armed with a fake religion based on self-worship, observing the dual moral code while superficially pretending to conform to universalist principles.

Simultaneously, the Jews are identified as the ultimate motive force behind the progressive movements destroying Western culture. As experience has taught me, the only thing a Jewpiller hates more than someone who doesn’t ‘name the Jew’ is someone who does talk about Jews, but identifies higher motives and structures in progressivism to which Jewish activity is subordinate. This hatred of anything that ‘blames the victim’ or ‘minimises the guilt’ is all part of the negative manifesto: our problems must all be traced to Jewish biological tribalism, so that they can all be solved by European biological tribalism. Knowledge of higher powers than the Jews is as dangerous to the Race Cult as is the knowledge of airstrips and aircraft carriers to a cargo cult.

To use a topical metaphor, if white nationalism were a virus, then the Jewpill would be its viral envelope. When presented in the form of a positive doctrine, such as Salter’s On Genetic Interests, biological tribalism looks weird and comedic at best (“[f]or how many drowning co-ethnics is it adaptive to risk one’s life?”, OGI, p.59-60) and amoral and philistine at worst (“the major religions are…like the mutualistic gut flora that aid in digestion”, OGI, p.103). The mind generates a thousand objections out of its natural resistance to the Procrustean blade and rack of monomania. To overcome and silence them all, the doctrine must hijack the logic of competitive struggle, specifically the hostile mimicry that comes from playing an enemy at his own game.

At first, the conversion to biological tribalism may be a shallow and reluctant one. But once it becomes clear that the imitation of perceived Jewish behaviour isn’t delivering the goods – something that would, ordinarily, lead to scepticism – then it is time for the cult to rush in with its own self-serving explanations for failure. The problem is not that the strategy doesn’t work, or that something is missing in the theory of Jewish political power. No – the problem is that we Europeans are too individualistic by nature, too distracted by universalist delusions. And the solution, naturally, is to double down on biological tribalism. We must throw out Christianity and retvrn to paganism; no, we must make up a new racial religion; no, we must reinterpret all culture and mythology as racial allegory, and extend our paranoia about ‘Jewish influence’ even to Thor and Odin.

The basic gist of this purity-spiralling is that we must sacrifice anything in our culture and individuality that stands at odds with the Race Cult, until the fabled goal of Salterian ‘adaptiveness’ is reached and we can start to take it all back. If lib-prog racial disarmament resembles the Moriori Law of Nunuku, then white-nat race obsession resembles the Xhosa cattle-killing movement of Nongqawuse. Ultimately, both fold into the same general category of millennarian lunacy.

Despite his A+ chutzpah, lachrymose myth of Nazi Germany, and expulsion from 109 comment threads, the ‘Counter-Semite’ is as far from power as ever.
Despite his A+ chutzpah, lachrymose myth of Nazi Germany, and expulsion from 109 comment threads, the ‘Counter-Semite’ is as far from power as ever.

Note that the longer the Movement spends failing to launch at a practical level, the more deeply it can conquer the soul through this ever-increasing devotion to racial monomania. And it need fear no competition from truer or more practical ideologies on the Dissident Right, as long as it can Jewpill its followers into such extremes of paranoia that they never dare go anywhere else.

After all, where are dissatisfied WNs to go? Libertarianism echoes with names like (((Ludwig von Mises))) and (((Murray Rothbard))), and the recent revival of non-democratic reaction is indebted to (((Curtis Yarvin))). Of course, such names can be found everywhere outside the Race Cult itself: even Holocaust revisionism has (((David Cole))), and the founding of the Alt-Right is partially credited to (((Paul Gottfried))). All that this suggests to anyone with common sense is that Jewish intellectuals are relatively numerous these days (whether this is down to high IQ, institutional nepotism, or some combination of both is irrelevant), and are likely find their way into the ranks of major thinkers on the Right despite the fact that the vast majority belong to the Left.

But to a fully Jewpilled white nationalist, every single one of those names in triple brackets is tainted with the dreaded bacillus of ‘Jewish influence’, which he has passed to every single one of his non-Jewish fellows in his movement or school of thought. And it is not good enough to extract the truths from such a tainted source while discarding anything specifically Jewish, because every good Darwinian biological tribalist knows that ideas are just tools and weapons in the racial struggle for life. The only safe option is to reserve your trust for the one political movement that excludes all Jews on a biological basis. This logic is very convenient for the Movement, establishing as it does the only litmus test of bona fides on which its fed-ridden, charlatan-led, dysfunctional activist griftshop could possibly come out looking better than its rivals.

And this well-poisoning trick can be extended as wide as you like, because the West is a post-Christian culture that has not been free from Jewish influence since late antiquity. Every belief-system after paganism is potentially tainted, unless it has been run through the filtering system of the Race Cult and pronounced to be more Aryan than Jewish. Whether or not it is carried to its logical extreme, this sort of thinking creates an ideal mental state for dupes, paypigs and Kool-Aid drinkers: abject intellectual dependence on the cult, defended by ferocious paranoia towards everything outside it.

And with this mental isolation bubble firmly in place around the hardcore Jewpillers, there is only one direction from which dissenting voices might still reach them: the ‘exoteric’ layer of semi-converts to the Movement and fellow travellers in the wider Dissident Right. Unfortunately, these people are all too easily dismissed. If they grow exasperated with the monomania, and try to change the subject, they are accused of cowardly deference to the mainstream taboo on ‘anti-Semitism’. If they make more serious attempts to push back against it, they are accused of pushing some sort of hidden Jewish agenda – for why else would any self-respecting Aryan want to defend the Jews against any accusation at all? The Jews think the worst of you, goy, so why not just think the worst of them? And surely the worst you can think of them is that they are uniformly compelled by biology to seek their tribal interest at your expense. Once you have accepted this proposition, however, you have accepted the Race Cult.

Now, the dissident scene has clearly been devolving into crackpottery over the last few years, and the last thing I want to do is to add to the baseless suspicions wafting around it. But all the same, if Jewpillers are so quick to accuse others of bad faith, then shouldn’t those others start questioning the good faith of the Jewpillers? Sometimes dissidents really are being cowards and pretending not to notice the Jews. And sometimes Jews really are trying to badger dissidents into a philo-Semitic ‘safe space’. But when some Jewpiller crashes into a comment-thread, shrieking about his favourite subject and telling other people that they aren’t discussing it enough, he should be treated as what he is: a propagandist, a cult member, ‘one of those people’, no less than if he had barged in sperging about the Nonaggression Principle or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He should not be allowed to pretend that his negative manifesto is just an objective commentary on relevant facts.

After all, many Jewpillers are more or less aware of what they are doing, as is suggested by the following snippet from the “Daily Stormer Style Guide”:

“[P]eople will become confused and disheartened if they feel there are multiple enemies. As such, all enemies should be combined into one enemy, which is the Jews. This is pretty much objectively true anyway, but we want to leave out any and all nuance. So no blaming Enlightenment though[t], pathological altruism, technology/urbanization, etc. – just blame Jews for everything.”

Chutzpah aside – at least one part of the cargo cult is going well – this is certainly not an instruction to speak the pretty-much-objective truth. It is a sales pitch for the Race Cult and its vehicle, white nationalism: a failed strategy that has sucked up dissident energies and pissed them into the gutter for six decades, and which not five years hence commandeered a brand new rightist movement and drove it off a cliff. Those who devote themselves to this stagnant ideological fetish are not harming the Jews, any more than a bunch of OnlyFans subscribers are fucking their favourite e-thot. The only damage they are doing is to the soul and substance of the Dissident Right.

What’s Wrong With MacDonaldism?

Having said all this, at the end of the day, I’m not inclined to attribute too much conscious manipulative intent to those who propagate the Jewpill. I agree with the Movement that most ‘anti-Semitism’ originates in a response to actual misdeeds by Jews, which are magnified and universalised through the normal human tendency to react more harshly against bad behaviour by outsiders. It is a certain set of ideas that are responsible for turning this reaction into monomania, and thence into a madness that reacts not just against Jews but against most aspects of European culture as well.

Both the facts and the ideas that go into the Jewpill are exemplified in the work of Dr. Kevin MacDonald, who had no intention of taking that pill and becoming the intellectual guru of the Race Cult. He simply began to apply evolutionary psychology to the history of the Jews, and ended up writing The Culture of Critique (hereafter CofC), in which the support of Jews for progressivism is interpreted as a ‘group evolutionary strategy’ that undermines European culture to Jewish advantage.

MacDonald’s work, not Salter’s, is the true theoretical cornerstone of the Movement.
MacDonald’s work, not Salter’s, is the true theoretical cornerstone of the Movement.

Recently MacDonald was embroiled in a debate with Nathan Cofnas, who broke the mainstream academic taboo on his work. Much of the content of this debate is quite pedantic and niggling, and revolves around such questions as whether MacDonald overlooked Chomsky or misrepresented Freud on the subject of Zionism and Israel. But those who can be bothered to read through it will find a strong defence of Jews against a straightforward charge of practicing the dual code, in this case by promoting leftist degeneracy for Europeans and the West while reserving ‘evolutionary fitness’ for the Jewish diaspora and Israel. As Cofnas points out, Jews are neither monolithic nor always hypocritical in their opinions, and their own community is far from immune to the leftist social poisons spread by Jewish intellectuals.

But I would not say that Cofnas succeeds in explaining away Jewish leftism by his ‘default hypothesis’ – which is simply that Jews, being highly intelligent and urbanised on average, are likely to be overrepresented in any political or intellectual movement that does not drive them away with anti-Semitism. This theory treats the tendency to anti-Semitism on the Right as some sort of independent variable, like leprosy, when it ought rather to be seen as an artefact of the social-political struggle that has sorted so many Jews onto the Left. And it throws out, in the name of ‘parsimony’, an important grain of truth in MacDonald’s theory: the fact that there is little love lost between a dominant culture and a population of ‘outsiders’ or ‘foreigners’, and that the latter are more susceptible to radical siren-songs that promise to upend that culture.

Thus, I’m prepared to grant MacDonald the factual content of CofC: the overrepresentation of Jews in socially-destructive modern leftist movements, and the existence of some vital connection between their leftism and their Jewish identity. My sole objection is to the theory into which he seeks to fit those facts. To get a handle on this theory, we must go back to the first two books in his trilogy on the Jews, A People That Shall Dwell Alone (PTSDA) and Separation And Its Discontents (SAID).

PTSDA is about the premodern Jewish religious tradition, and originates the overarching idea of the trilogy, i.e. ‘Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy’. This straightaway poses a problem, because MacDonald is writing from more or less the same frame of reference as Salter, for whom religions are “tools serving the organism” that exist to “organize adherents into ‘adaptive units'” (OGI, p.99/102). In theory, there is no reason why evolutionary psychologists should not study religion from this materialistic viewpoint, while respecting the fact that most historical religious adherents did not share it. MacDonald doesn’t manage to do this, though:

“For the Israelites, there was really only one purpose for God – to represent the idea of kinship, ingroup membership, and separateness from others. … In a very real sense, one may say that the Jewish god is really neither more nor less than Ezra’s “holy seed” – the genetic material of the upper-class Israelites who were exiled to Babylon. … Israel’s God is thus spiritual [!] and can be understood as a representation of the continuation of the kinship group…[the] oppressors [of Israel] could never destroy the Israelite God. Only the destruction of the Israelites themselves could accomplish that.” (PTSDA, pp.64-66, my emphasis)

This is a perfect inversion of the theology of the Old Testament, in which God is anterior to Man, and the reason-for-being of the Jewish people is nothing but the fulfilment of its covenant with God. In MacDonald’s view, Man is anterior to God; God is dependent on Man; and Jewish religion exists for the sake of Semitic flesh and blood. Please do not assume that any of this stands upon detailed Biblical (or Talmudic, or Kabbalic) analyses omitted by me. What you see is what you get; MacDonald, writing in the ‘Darwinian fairytale’ tradition, simply decides to project a modern and atheistic idolatry of genes onto the ancient Jews from the very beginning of his study.

But the focus of his study isn’t Jewish theology or the ancient Jews, so what does it matter? Well, I would say that this ‘interpretative framework’ – to put it as charitably as possible – consistently distorts the tissue of facts and argumentation that MacDonald goes on to bend around it. Because his core theory about the Jewish religion flies in the face of what premodern Jews actually believed, he must find serpentine calculation in things that look more straightforward from a religious point of view. His favourite recourse is to the concept of “self-deception”, which becomes the precarious linchpin of the theory by the time we reach SAID and CofC.

Take the fourth chapter of PTSDA, in which MacDonald questions whether historical Judaism was morally universalist and whether it welcomed converts. He reminds us at the start that this is an important point for this theory: “in order to qualify as an evolutionary strategy, genetic segregation must be actively maintained by the strategising group.” (p.85) Not surprisingly, he goes on to dismiss the notion that Jews tried to convert gentiles in the ancient world, and retreated into separatism after failing to attract enough adherents. Now, I can’t say whether the ancient Jews did or did not “compass sea and land to make one proselyte” (Matthew 23:15); the only thing evident to me about this question is the way in which MacDonald begs it:

“We must then suppose that only a pure sense of religious idealism prevented the Jews from abandoning this [proselytising] strategy once it failed in its universalist aims, even though failure to abandon genetic and cultural segregation resulted repeatedly in resource and reproductive competition…between genetically segregated groups. [MacDonald’s emphasis] … At a very basic, common-sense level, such a view is extremely difficult to accept. … [I]f Jews wanted to avoid resource and reproductive competition based on…genetic segregation…an obvious solution would be to adopt the religion of the host society

“From an evolutionary perspective…one is left to conclude that this Jewish sense of moral and religious idealism, which results in genetic segregation, is in fact a mask for a self-interested evolutionary strategy aimed at promoting the interests of a kinship group that maintains its genetic integrity during a diaspora.

“[O]ne might suppose that part of this strategy would be to prohibit conversion entirely… [but] Judaism perceived a need to present itself in intellectually defensible terms. … Social identity researchers have also emphasized the point that it is often in a group’s interest to attempt to foster perceptions of group permeability even when actual permeability may be minimal or non-existent… One might therefore reformulate the ideal strategy for Judaism as a fairly closed group evolutionary strategy as follows: Allow converts and intermarriage at a formal theoretical level, but minimize them in practice.” (PTSDA, pp.94-97)

The Amish have a universal religion, even a revolutionary one, but they interpret it as mandating a way of life that separates their community from others.
The Amish have a universal religion, even a revolutionary one, but they interpret it as mandating a way of life that separates their community from others.

None of these conjectures make much sense except through MacDonald’s evo-psych lens, in which religious motives appear as so much insubstantial flim-flam. “Adopt the religion of the host society” – this decision is not so simple when you are strategising to get into Paradise, and have doubts as to whether the dominant religion will get you there! When a minority believes that it is right, and that the majority is wrong, then how does its decision to erect its barriers and hold to its own path contradict moral idealism or universalism? To draw a materialistic analogy, when the Kuomintang lost the Chinese mainland to the Communists and ended up creating a separate ‘Taiwanese’ country, was this some sort of teleological conclusion of their military strategy? Was it proof that they didn’t really want to control the rest of China?

When MacDonald then goes on to review the factual evidence, he employs questionable argumentation to shoehorn it into his theory. For example, immediately after interpreting an anti-convert statement in the Talmud as “indicat[ing] hostility” (p.102), he goes on to interpret a pro-convert statement as “evidence that actual Jewish attitudes towards converts were often negative so that there was a need to remind the Jewish community to be friendly towards them” (p.104). Despite this less-than-fair play, he makes a strong case to the effect that converts were subjected to ethnic discrimination in mediaeval Jewish society. But Christians of the time also held disparaging ethnic views of Jews, and subjected Jewish converts to suspicion – none of which means that this conversion was not desired, or not considered to trump racial differences in principle.

What MacDonald really lacks is proper historical attention to the nature of the Jewish religion – which tends to get lost in all his writing about endogamy, identity, xenophobia, and other evolutionary issues. Traditional Judaism demands life-consuming adherence to a complex religious law, derived from intellectual mastery of a massive corpus of writings. It stands to reason that any religious community whose claim to sanctity stood on such practices would “repulse [converts] with the left hand and draw [them] near with the right” (quoted on p.99), not out of confusion or self-deception but out of a desire to avoid importing laxity and ignorance. It would seem that the difficulty of following Jewish law has always been a major barrier to converts, which is why the ancient world contained a halfway-house of ‘God-fearers’ who believed in the Jewish religion but could not practice it.

But did the Jews insist on Jewish law as a means of maintaining ethnic purity? Or was ethnic tribalism solidified by the segregation needed to follow Jewish law? There is no answering such a question, but we might shed some light on it by turning to the seventh chapter of PTSDA, which describes the “ecological strategy” by which mediaeval Jewish society was geared to the production of intellectual elites. Why did Jews grant such reverence to scholars? Why was “an illiterate amorets (from ‘am ha-ares, meaning ignoramus…)…at the absolute bottom of the hierarchy, despised as not really being a complete Jew” (pp.273-4)? MacDonald gives no answer. But since mediaeval Jews could not have foreseen the transformation of the world into an urbanised bureaucracy, or the ascendancy of their secularised descendants within it, we must conclude that they were ‘strategising’ to fulfil religious ideals that required intellectual ability.

All of this illustrates, I think, that the word evolutionary begs the question as to the ultimate object of a group strategy. Although MacDonald gives a very wide definition of the term group evolutionary strategy (in PTSDA, p.27), what we gather from his actual usage is that the term refers to 1) a relatively genetically-segregated group with 2) a distinct group identity. The historical groups to which he applies it include the Spartans, the Indian Brahmins, the Amish, and the New England Puritans (in Diaspora Peoples, an article appended to PTSDA) before their loss of cultural segregation in the early waves of immigration to America. We get the impression early on that the term is just a convenient category into which almost any distinct group can be thrown.

But it would seem that there are hidden criteria, subtly indicated by the fact that MacDonald never attributes a distinct group evolutionary strategy to gentile elites (unless they are mirroring the ethnocentric Jewish strategy, e.g. in late-mediaeval Spain or Nazi Germany, a major theme of SAID). When he discusses alliances between Jews and gentile elites – such as the usury and tax-farming that enriched both these groups at the expense of mediaeval peasants and artisans – it is always the Jews who are ‘strategising’, whereas the gentile elites are ‘individualists’ defecting from the wider gentile group strategy. To take a typical example, he says in PTSDA (p.376) that “the Spanish and Polish nobility protected the Jews and allowed them to compete economically with the lower orders of their own people. Such behaviour is individualist in the sense that the nobility is utilising the Jews in a self-serving manner that compromises the interest of the lower orders.”

Whence comes this blind spot? Well, I would guess that MacDonald sees gentile elites and commoners as a single ethnic group, and can see no evolutionary reason for such a group to oppress itself – ergo, there must be nothing to see here but ‘muh individualism’. But to expose this reasoning to the light of day is to show how fragile it is. Elites tend to separate themselves from commoners both culturally and genetically, thus we have a distinct group; and in the form of wealth and power we surely have sufficient object for a strategy. And the argument becomes much more compelling in the event that some self-defining idea is bound up with an elite group strategy – such as Sarmatism and Golden Liberty in the case of the Polish nobility, or revolutionary secular religions in the case of modern Western elites.

None of this logic is at all beyond the ken of MacDonald, but he consistently rejects it out of hand. In CofC, he sums up the ideal Western gentile group strategy as a “social organization of hierarchic harmony” that is nonetheless “inherently unstable” (CofC, p.318). This self-contradictory language suggests to me that he is mixing up disparate elements, like oil and water, under a misperception of common identity. But perhaps it’s best to let him speak for himself:

“The most common threat to hierarchic harmony has been the individualistic behaviour of elites – a tendency that hardly surprises an evolutionist. Thus the early phases of industrialization were characterized by the unravelling of the social fabric and high levels of exploitation and conflict among the social classes. As another example, the slavery of Africans was a short term benefit to an individualistic elite of southern aristocrats in the United States [!], but it resulted in the exploitation of the slaves and has been a long-term calamity for the society as a whole. We have also seen that Western elites in traditional societies have often actively encouraged Jewish economic interests to the detriment of other sectors of the native population… Recently, writers such as Peter Brimelow…and Paul Gottfried…have called attention to an elite “New Class” of internationalists who are opposed to the nation-state based on ethnic ties and highly favourable to immigration that decreases the ethnic homogeneity of traditional societies. The self-interest of this group is to cooperate with similar individuals [!] in other countries rather than to identify with the lower levels of their own society . Although this type of internationalism is highly congruent with a Jewish ethic agenda – and Jews are undoubtedly disproportionately represented among this group, gentile members of the New Class must be seen as pursuing a narrowly individualistic agenda.” (CofC, p.319, my emphasis)

No further reasoning is provided to justify that last line; what you see is what you get. Jewpillers ought to muse long and hard on this paragraph before ever again accusing others of ignoring what is right in front of their eyes. But presumably MacDonald is just focusing too hard on the Jews, who in his perception never stop strategising, just as gentile elites never start.

Strictly speaking, ‘Semitism’ (which stands to Judaism much as ‘anti-Semitism’ stands to Christianity) would be a better term for the purely racial identity of ‘liberal diaspora Jews’.
Strictly speaking, ‘Semitism’ (which stands to Judaism much as ‘anti-Semitism’ stands to Christianity) would be a better term for the purely racial identity of ‘liberal diaspora Jews’.

Given that PTSDA describes the premodern Jewish group strategy as being consciously designed, and contained in Jewish religious texts (see chapter 8, esp. pp.394-6), the transition to the modern era in SAID and CofC would seem to present a tricky theoretical jump. How can secularised Jews, who have lost all but a vestige of the Talmud, Torah, Jewish law, etc., continue to pursue the same group evolutionary strategy? How can they pursue any group evolutionary strategy at all, at least according to MacDonald’s segregationist usage of the term, when “in the period from 1985 to 1990, 52 percent of Jews married a gentile who remained unconverted” (SAID, p.319)?

Well, in the last chapter of SAID, MacDonald sets out to square this circle by subjecting his theory to logical torture. He piles up evidence that the Jews are engaging in all the modern dysgenic behaviour that is destroying ethnic cohesion among gentile whites, while constantly assuring us that this is fine, and that the Jewish evolutionary strategy is okay with the events that are unfolding currently. There really is no substitute for reading it in full, but here are a few highlights (all from SAID, pp.320-7, my emphasis):

“Interestingly, non-conversionary marriages [i.e. in which a Jew marries a non-converted gentile] are much more common in second and third marriages…suggesting a strategy [!] in which Jews begin their reproductive careers with inmarriage to a Jewish partner followed by an outmarriage to an unconverted gentile….significant percentages of Jews are “having their cake and eating it too” by entering an endogamous marriage yielding ethnically Jewish children followed by outmarriage…

Surely it borders on self-parody to describe the breakup of Jewish families as a ‘strategy’. And the trend of subsequent outmarriage to gentiles would seem to indicate that Jews are trying, failing and eventually giving up on traditional Jewish marriage.

“Lieberman and Weinfeld also point out that low fertility amongst the most assimilated sectors of the Jewish community…is highly adaptive [!] because it is associated with high-investment parenting, upward social mobility, and wealth… Low fertility helps perpetuate middle class status for Jews… Judaism is a high-investment, high-intelligence reproductive strategy, which in the modern world implies low fertility

So the most intelligent and successful Jews are having the fewest children, and reversing the mediaeval Jewish fertility pattern described in PTSDA as evolutionarily strategic. But this isn’t “extremely dysgenic because high fertility tends to terminate middle-class status”, it’s “highly adaptive because low fertility helps perpetuate middle class status”!

“I conclude that…Judaism may well end up retaining its ethnic coherence even in the face of high levels of intermarriage if, as appears to be the case, a high percentage of the children and grandchildren of intermarriage eventually leave Judaism either because they become completely assimilated or because they feel unwelcome in the Jewish community.”

So the seed of the Jews is being dissipated among the gentiles – but that’s okay, things are going to be okay, because only the purest and most committed Jews will be left. This is a bit like saying that an army would be strengthened by the loss of most of its men on campaign, because only the toughest elite soldiers would be left. This logic may well be ‘evolutionary’, but it isn’t very ‘strategic’, at least not for any group afflicted by low fertility and high intermarriage.

In light of all this, we can now examine the famous idea outlined in the first chapter of CofC: that Jews have a collective interest in subverting gentile power structures and diluting gentile ethnic cohesion, because a weak and loose gentile social order presents fewer dangers to themselves. This is a powerful idea because there is an unmistakeable kernel of truth in it. These words of Jewish intellectual Earl Raab expose what would seem to be a common Jewish train of thought:

“The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible…” (quoted in CofC, p.244; my emphasis)

But the more we consider this sentiment, the more we come to realise that something is missing in MacDonald’s explanation of it. The Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture in America is one of the most philo-Semitic in history, and has surely advanced Jews much more than it has restricted them. Yet Jewish subversion works to undermine it in favour of a protean leftist coalition composed of Catholics, Muslims, blacks, East Asians, etc., i.e. peoples either hostile or indifferent to Jews. Even MacDonald says that the anti-Zionist sentiment of non-white leftists represents a “cloud on the horizon” for Jewish power, although he gives his usual rationalising explanations for why this is all part of the evolutionary strategy.

Add to this the fact that modern Jews are succumbing to all the dysgenic and multiculturalist poisons, and we begin to understand that ‘Jewish interests’ is quite a nebulous and subjective concept. Beyond a basic threshold of survival, easily attainable in the modern world, such perceived group interests are largely determined by the context of political power and religious authority. Modern Jews perceive a Jewish group interest in importing anti-Semitism, just as modern women perceive a female group interest in becoming childless drug-addled freemartins, and modern dissidents perceive a white male group interest in self-defeating thumotic masturbation. But these perceptions are not natural outgrowths of evolutionary strategies; they are determined by the power and authority of liberal democracy, which may be able to push everyone’s buttons, but ought not to be believed when it claims to be in everyone’s interest.

The Non-Democratic Theory of the Culture of Critique

In his pro-WN summary of the Cofnas-MacDonald debate, Spencer Quinn rightly concludes that the ‘group evolutionary strategy’ argument isn’t really necessary to CofC. That is to say, it may be necessary for MacDonald’s thesis; but the real value of the book to white nationalists comes from its factual analysis, which demonstrates heavy Jewish involvement in subversive leftist movements. As long as Cofnas’s ‘default hypothesis’ doesn’t explain this away – and I basically agree with Quinn that it doesn’t – MacDonald’s core theory could be entirely detonated, and the facts about Jewish subversion would simply float in the idea-space of the Dissident Right until they coalesced around a different theory.

Therefore, it is time for us to switch to a different tack, and provide that alternative theory. We don’t have to look very far, because just such a theory emerges with compelling force from the pure factual material presented by MacDonald, and links the beginning, middle and end of his trilogy in a way that his original theory does not. It’s not a theory that the Jews dindu nuffin, but it does break the link between their actions and the core presumption of the Jewpill: that biological tribalism is the only real problem and thus the only possible solution.

By way of introduction, let’s go to the “Preface to the First Paperback Edition” of CofC, in which MacDonald explains the change in his attitude to the Jews over the course of his study:

“I think there is a noticeable shift in my tone from the first book to the third simply because (I’d like to think) I knew a lot more and had read a lot more. People often say after reading the first book that they think I really admire Jews, but they are unlikely to say that about the last two and especially about CofC. That is because when I wrote CofC I had changed greatly from the person who wrote the first book. … Resource competition and other conflicts of interest with other groups are more or less an afterthought [in PTSDA], but these issues move to the foreground in [SAID], and in CofC I look exclusively at the 20th century in the West.”

When MacDonald studied premodern Jewish usury, he would not have forgotten that the Jews had to grind the Christian lower orders so as to lend cheaply to the elites.
When MacDonald studied premodern Jewish usury, he would not have forgotten that the Jews had to grind the Christian lower orders so as to lend cheaply to the elites.

Far be it from me to read the mind of an evolutionary psychologist, but I think there might be something more to it. PTSDA devotes its whole fifth chapter to “resource and reproductive competition between Jews and gentiles”, including such things as Jewish tax-farming and usury at crushing rates of interest, and anticipates at least some of the arguments of CofC (in pp.195-7, describing Jewish over-representation in the 20th-century American elite). Obviously, a certain emotional detachment is lost in the shift of focus from the premodern era to the 20th century, but that is not all. What MacDonald really loses sight of in SAID and CofC is one of the most important historical themes of PTSDA: the unequal alliance between gentile power-holders and the Jews under their protection.

Indeed, as we gather from PTSDA alone, this alliance recurs so frequently and in so many disparate cultures and time periods that it ought to have been a central theoretical pillar of CofC. MacDonald finds it in the relations of kings to Jews (“in medieval England, the Jewish population was utilised as a source of revenue for the king”, p.172), and of Jews to kings (“laws on Jewish informers generally prohibited actions that would benefit Christians. The exception, however, was the king”, p.203). He finds it in the relations of Jews and aristocrats (“[t]he Polish nobility welcomed the Jews as estate managers and toll farmers, bankers, and moneylenders”, p.185). Outside Europe, he finds it in Muslim despotisms and European colonial governments (“in the Muslim world…foreign rulers used Jews as intermediaries over subject populations”, and “in 20th century Morocco, [the Jews] formed a layer between the colonial government and the Muslim population”, p.174). Finally, he has no qualms about finding it in the modern Soviet Empire: “in the post-World War II era Jews were useful to the Soviets in establishing anti-popular satellite governments in Eastern Europe” (p.174).

When he discusses the history of anti-Semitism in SAID, MacDonald notes that these power-holders often unilaterally abrogated their alliance with the Jews, usually after beginning to suspect their loyalty or establishing more harmonious relations with the rest of their subjects. He finds that the Mongol and Ottoman dynasties disprivileged the Jews after becoming “more assimilated to the native population” (p.37), and that mediaeval kings like Philip Augustus of France “despoiled the Jews and expelled them” under the influence of the Catholic Church (p.49). In the third chapter of CofC, which addresses the Jewish role in Soviet communism, he notes that Stalin sharply reversed the Soviet policy of favouring the Jews in the 1950s (p.99) and that a similar turn against the Jews took place in Poland in the 1960s (p.100).

All of this shows, first and foremost, that the non-Jewish power-holders were the senior partners in these alliances and reserved the prerogative to throw the Jews under the bus. But it’s also possible to formulate a general principle from these facts, which might be roughly sketched as follows: an ‘alien’, ‘unassimilated’, or ‘insecure’ ruling elite will tend to utilise outsiders and foreigners as loyal agents against the resentful majority of its population. This arises purely and simply from the exigencies of mobilising people to take hostile action against others; conversely, when a ruling elite mobilises the dominant ethnic group in hostile action against foreigners, it will tend to promote an ideology of nationalistic solidarity.

It is appropriate to speak of general principles, because the Jews are not the only group in history that has found itself riding this unstable wheel of fortune turned by power. At this point we hardly need mention the mamluks in Fatimid Egypt, the janissaries in the Ottoman Empire, the Germans in Tsarist Russia, the Central Asian nomads and Muslims in Mongol China, and – for that matter – the Chinese cukong organisations in modern Southeast Asia described by MacDonald in Diaspora Peoples. The more antagonism between a government and the majority of its people, the more demand for outsiders and foreigners who can form a buffering layer between the two.

This holds true for the early Bolshevik government of the Soviet Union, so often misrepresented by Jewpillers as being more Jewish than it actually was. All “formerly oppressed nationalities” excluding the Russians were privileged by the government, and in the brutal Cheka secret police, the most overrepresented group was not the Jews but the Latvians (see Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century, p.247 and p.177). Conversely, when the later Soviet government turned against the Jews under Stalin, this followed a general crackdown on minority nationalities that involved mass deportations and execution quotas (Slezkine, p.274). All of this accords quite well with our general principle – for the communists were effectively an ‘alien’ ruling elite when they were inflicting the revolutionary secular religion on Russia, whereas by the end of the war against Germany they had largely made their peace with Russian patriotism and the social order.

At this point we can better imagine the intellectual dilemma that might have faced MacDonald when he turned to write 20th-century Western history in CofC. Having begun his study of the Jews as a true-believing democratic conservative (“a sort of ex-radical turned moderate Republican fan of George Will”, according to the aforementioned preface to CofC), he had made a disturbing discovery: that modern Western democracy, theoretically a government of the people by the people, exhibits a political mechanism much more typical of governments ruled by Oriental despots, alien ruling elites and murderous totalitarian revolutionaries.

Wat do? Well, on the one hand, he might have sidetracked his thesis into strange, nebulous, unrelated vistas of political theory, and ended up losing his faith in democracy. On the other hand, he had the option to stay on-topic and go on attributing more and more strategic omnipotence and deceptive machinations to the Jews (necessary, of course, to account for the weakness of the populist, majoritarian ideology that ought to dominate liberal democracy according to its own theory of itself), and so cling onto his pew in the democratic church at the price of becoming a persecuted heretic. Redpill or Jewpill? Obviously, he chose the latter – not the easier option, by any means, but the hard way of fidelity to his ideological Dulcinea.

This is just fanfiction, of course. But it is true to say that MacDonald has a deep attachment to liberal democracy, which he accepts as a natural outgrowth of European culture, and never subjects to fundamental questioning in the same way as Biblical religion or Jewish ‘self-deception’. Take a laugh at this graph (shown in CofC, “Preface to the First Paperback Edition”, p.xxxi):

It’s all very well to argue that democracy, republicanism and individualism (i.e. liberalism) are specific to Western culture. But MacDonald in CofC projects them onto Europeans at a racial level, despite the fact that they have not been anything like the norm for most of our history. The idea of universal-suffrage democracy is revolutionary and unprecedented, and the ongoing racial suicide of Europe is more or less coterminous with its ascendancy. If you can imagine Russians of a hundred years ago believing that communism was a benign natural outgrowth of the mir system, but that those scheming Jews and diabolical Latvians were twisting it into something tyrannical, then you can understand how hard MacDonald is coping here as he struggles to blame democracy’s evils on a suitably foreign agent.

MacDonald also seems to believe that democracy is basically what it says it is: a passive and neutral state, pulled this way and that by aimless voting blocs and volatile public opinion trends, threatened in its anarchy only by the propensity of ‘collectivist cultures’ to show up and game the system. Take his brief overview of the US political situation in the 1930s (in pages xii-xv of the “Preface…” to CofC). When he describes the Jewish effort to press for war with Germany, and the marginalisation of those who wanted isolationism or alliance with Hitler, we hear a lot about “decline of ethnic consciousness” and “change in attitude” and even “Jewish influence on the media and government” – but no hint is given that the American state might have had its own vested interest in allying with Soviet Russia and conquering Europe from the Germans, as opposed to allying with Nazi Germany and conquering Siberia from the Soviets. When he alights, oh-so-briefly, on FDR – a visionary who pulled off a power-grab comparable to that of Hitler and Mussolini, and manouevred the US into a wildly successful war of world conquest – he attributes zero personal agency to the great man, and instead speculates about malign Semitic influences coming from Jewish advisors (that he appointed!) and the Zionist lobby (which did not even have a formal state at the time).

Jewpillers close ranks to defend their failed journo-activist cargo-cult against the conspiracy of people noticing things.
Jewpillers close ranks to defend their failed journo-activist cargo-cult against the conspiracy of people noticing things.

Finally, MacDonald is just as credulous on the supposed unity of interests between white elites and commoners – which is, of course, just another aspect of liberal democratic propaganda. He says (in CofC, “Preface…”, pxx) that prior to rise of a “hostile, adversary elite” in the 1960s, “the old Protestant elite was not at war with the country it dominated” because they “saw themselves and Christians and Europeans, and…didn’t see the need for radically changing the society.” Presumably, 20th-century Protestants had fully recovered from their hostile and adversary elitism of the previous century, which led them to literally go to war with other Christians and Europeans in order to radically change the society. And this despite the fact that the ‘Reconstruction’ of the South, which took place before the late-19th century mass Jewish immigration to the North and was opposed by Southern Jews, pioneered the technique of black empowerment against whites that would later characterise the ‘Civil Rights’ movement.

What happened to all that Protestant radicalism? Well, nothing at all, except that it got more radical. By the early 20th century, progressive liberalism was in full swing among white American elites, and the Protestant churches were splitting into a retrenched conservative ‘fundamentalism’ and a victorious progressivist ‘modernism’. In our time, of course, white progressives have abandoned all but a vestige of the Christian heritage – but if Jews can abandon God, the Torah, the Talmud and almost everything else about the Jewish religion and yet remain in some sense ‘Jewish’, then there is nothing but wordplay in MacDonald’s dismissal of a native ‘Protestant’ impetus to revolution.

At least one of the books cited in CofC The Fatal Embrace by Benjamin Ginsberg – ought to have shaken MacDonald’s faith in liberal democracy and huwhite racial unity. Ginsberg starts by laying out the history of the ‘fatal embrace’ between Jews and the state, which tends to cultivate the Jews as its own loyal agents before abandoning them to popular anti-Semitism. He then goes on to apply the model to 20th-century American history. He explains how Jewish journalists, intellectuals and politicians helped the Progressive movement establish the power of the bureaucracy (pp.92-3), and how Jewish lawyers, politicians and civil service appointees played a similar role in expanding that power via the New Deal (pp.104-8). This deployment of Jews as loyal outsiders by centralising, power-grabbing elites is entirely consistent with the historical patterns identified in PTSDA.

But it is MacDonald’s position that sets the tone for CofC – the bulk of which simply examines various strands of the New Left and points out the Jewish connections and motivations. As I’ve said, I don’t dispute any of this at a factual level; the problem lies in the assumption that all of it took place in a basically free, open political market, as opposed to a centralised totalitarian empire that was already dominated by a native revolutionary elite. If memory serves, MacDonald says nothing about the role of central government and the CIA in promoting Trotskyism and the New Left, nor about the wider international context in which the US (like Maoist China) was striving to wrest the mantle of world revolution from an increasingly conservative Soviet Empire. Even the 1965 reversal of the 1921 immigration restriction (on which MacDonald’s case for Jewish motives is strongest) has to be seen in this wider context: the ‘Red Scare’ of 1919-20, in which conservative isolationism briefly prevailed, versus the post-World War II expansionist vigour of the American Empire and its rivalry with the Soviet Empire for the allegiance of the Third World.

It is this selective blindness resulting from the ‘evolutionary perspective’ – and not any new facts about Jewish overrepresentation in the Left – that makes CofC so useful to Jewpillers pushing the negative manifesto of white nationalism. All WNs must believe in liberal democracy, even if only to the point of misconstruing it as a weak Weimar-like system that might be overthrown by conventional fascist tactics. They must believe that the white ruling class and subject populace are basically one group, divided only by individualism and Jewish influence, because a distinction between Demos and People would contradict their own dogma that identity comes from biological race. And as we know by now, they must believe that the Jews took power through a group strategy of racial tribalism, fake religion and self-serving morality, because this is a mirror-image of the white nationalist group strategy for taking power.

Postscript: MacDonald Against The Jewpill

To be fair to MacDonald, he didn’t set out to write this sort of agitprop, and his more recent work corrects a lot of his early blind spots on the deeper causes of Western degeneracy. Nothing in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition is intended to contradict the previous books; one might say that, if CofC argues that Jewish influence is the ‘virus’ destroying European culture, then this book tries to explain the ‘immunodeficiency’ of that culture. But once again, the factual material lends itself to a reading that grants more agency to native Western elites.

In the first three chapters of the book, MacDonald revises his views on the racial origins of individualism, democracy, and republicanism. He divides the founding European stock into three distinct groups, and attributes “egalitarian individualism” to the oldest group: Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHGs), especially the ones in Scandinavia, who developed a kind of social organisation with relatively low emphasis on extended kinship. I found this idea quite fascinating, because it suggests that modern Western democratic and communistic movements represent a kind of atavistic decadence, akin to the old age that echoes and parodies childhood.

The rest of IATWLT discusses Western religious movements that lent helping hands to this resurgent primordial tendency: first mediaeval Catholicism, then Anglo-American Puritanism, and finally such movements as Transcendentalism and Unitarianism that sparked off from Puritanism in the United States. Although MacDonald evidently thinks all of this is consistent with his previous work, the dissonance is never far from the surface. Here are a few brief examples:

“The [mediaeval Catholic] Church…projected the image of chastity and altruism while assiduously pursuing power over secular elites. Its power and wealth were not directed at reproductive success. Reform of the sexual behaviour of the clergy was real… Married clergy even at lower levels were exceptional during this period in England, and low levels of clerical incontinence continued into the Reformation.” (p.182; my emphasis)

Here we have a ‘tribe’ with a strong collective identity and a successful capacity to strategise, yet its activities cannot possibly be directed to evolutionary ends because all of its members are celibate. Surely the concept of ‘reproductive altruism’ is woefully inadequate to the task of understanding it, and it would be better to simply admit the possibility of non-evolutionary group strategies.

“Nineteenth-century American intellectuals tended to have what Ralph Waldo Emerson called a “double consciousness” – a tendency to think of America as committed to a non-racial liberal liberal cosmopolitanism as well as a tendency to identify strongly with their Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. This fits with individualism because the ethnic tendency is to assimilate others rather than to erect strong ethnic boundaries.” (p.268)

‘Double consciousness’ in 19th-century Anglos sounds a lot like ‘self-deception’ in 20th-century Jews, a concept that MacDonald employs in CofC whenever he comes across a Jew who mixes universalism with ethnocentric sentiments. The common ground, I would suggest, is the consciousness of belonging to a race that stands in the vanguard of revolution – but revolution tends to win out whenever it comes into conflict with a racial identity that has been shackled to it. Though you may dispute that this is happening to the Jews in our own time, in this case too it would seem that “the ethnic tendency is to assimilate others”, at least if those Jewish outmarriage rates in SAID are anything to go by.

“Beginning in the late nineteenth century, WASP intellectuals began interacting and making alliance with first- and second-generation immigrant Jewish intellectuals… Ultimately, the leftist intellectual scene…became dominated by Jewish intellectuals…” (p. 282)

That may or may not be so (Dewey? Rawls? Foucault?), but in any case, whose ideas were those Jewish intellectuals propagating? If we are to understand “leftism” as egalitarianism, individualism, democracy, etc., then by MacDonald’s own lights these ideas have no basis in Jewish racial heritage at all. It was the Anglo elites in transition between Puritanism and Progressivism who converted the Jews to their religion, not the other way around.

“My view is that the moral communities observed at the origins of Western history and surfacing recurrently in later centuries tap into a pre-existing tendency among individualists to create such communities as a force for cohesion that does not rely on kinship relations. … Beginning after World War II and accelerating greatly in the 1960s and thereafter, these moral communities have been defined by the intellectual left…to the point at which academic departments and scholarly associations…can be accurately described as “tribal moral communities” [!] in the sense of Jonathan Haidt. … The negatively evaluated outgroup need not be defined by kinship…” (pp.374-6; my emphasis)

By this point MacDonald’s argument is chafing against the whole concept of individualism as he conceives it. A moral community is nonetheless a community, just as a gas is no less a substance than a liquid. As he says, “these cultures may exert strong controls on individual behaviour to ensure conformity to the norms of a moral community” (p.455). And the identity of a moral community comes from its ideas and institutions and ideas, so it can preserve a viable ingroup while recruiting members from different biological communities (see the example of the Catholic Church, which recruited its members from all three of MacDonald’s fundamental European groups). Once the ‘Puritan-Protestant-Progressive’ tradition is identified as a more or less continuous moral community, which dominated America from its founding and which allied with (and largely converted) the Jews, then the focus on Jews as a causal agent collapses and MacDonald’s work no longer supports the Jewpill.

But the nature of that ‘moral community’ would be best explored in the language of religion, rather than in concepts and metaphors repurposed from biological evolution. And that makes it a more fitting subject for the concluding part of this post, in which we will look at a religious variant of the Jewpill.

(Republished from Affirmative Right by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 160 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Too much time setting up the key takeaway to be quite honest.

    But the author’s thesis (as I understand it) is correct. And I like the direction that he is going in terms of looking at the phenomenon of religion as a better model of understanding than simple Darwininan group survival strategies.

    These “moral communities” exert a far stronger influence on the huwhyte mind than any racial loyalty. In the Jews’ own religious prophecies, they are quite content with throwing away 2/3s of their own population to usher in the Davidic messiah prophesied by the demon-priests of Yahweh in the Old Testament. They are quite willing to vax their own population with the mystery juices and make Tel Aviv into a dysgenic gay mecca as well. Where does group evolutionary survival fit into this materialist reductionist theory of the world?

    Looking forward to the next piece.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  2. Anonymous[366] • Disclaimer says:

    Can every rational person agree that “shite” is super gay and should not be said because it is so effing annoying to normal people?

    • Replies: @Notsofast
  3. How is John Hagee doing these days? Jews and Christians are the same people accoring to the Texan biblical scholar — Lurch claims to have found it whereas I lost it —about the time all those kids being molested and the hierarchy was silent for a long long time.

  4. Now, if we could only have HUMAN NATIONALISM! Because the threat is not from blacks or whites or browns or Asians or Latinos or Afros or Europeans or Native/Eskimos/Aboriginals or even assimiated Jews…but from TRANSHUMANS! The ones trying to push the DNA-changing “vaccines” on us, maybe? (But, yes, Talmudic Jewry and Noahide are also enemies; both transhumans and Noahiders serve Satan.)

    • Replies: @3y3
  5. Article was a bunch of incoherent yammer that went on for way too many words. Sorry. Game over. Put in another quarter if you want to play again

  6. Diego says:

    Another viewpoint, great research, but in the end people always compare theories and hypothesis with what they see with their own eyes and observe in real life.

    • Replies: @Checheno
  7. saggy says: • Website

    I wonder how much of this article actually makes any sense at all. I got lost early with the talk of ‘cargo cults’, and looking it up didn’t help. What, pray tell, does this

    Let’s settle on a single analogy, and say that white nationalism is a modern-day cargo cult.

    mean?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  8. Ocko says:

    He has his own stupid idea of how people have to live, which then would it make it easy and comfortable for him.

    What he doesn’t realize is that there is a racial war going on. Jews and their dogs against Aryans.

    When Aryans defend their way of life then it is ‘Whitey’ who is evil. Aryans need to be ‘reeducated’ and changed so that the invaders can live comfortably.

    The world needs Aryans, But Aryans don’t need any of you creeps.

    Why don’t you stay in your countries? It’s so bad there that you run away and then want to preach how Aryans have to behave, and have to be ‘reeducated’ so they fit brownies and blackness?

    Why is it that creeps like you don’t go to China and tell the people there how they have to be, so the rest of the world invaders can live there nice and comfortable?

    We know how jews invade countries and attack the original people. Just look to Israel.

    We don’t want hooknosed, slanted eyes, and dark skinner. We have our own culture and are very comfortable with it. We feel good in it.

    We don’t want you. Go home.

  9. FvS says:

    Here are some responses from Ted Sallis defending Salter. Hopefully, he won’t mind me posting them.

    Defending Salterism and Against Fetishism
    https://eginotes.blogspot.com/2021/07/defending-salterism-and-against.html
    https://eginotes.blogspot.com/2021/07/behold-dishonest-retard.html
    EGI: Setting the Record Straight (Again)
    https://eginotes.blogspot.com/2021/08/egi-setting-record-straight-again.html
    In Defense of Group Evolutionary Strategy
    https://eginotes.blogspot.com/2021/11/in-defense-of-group-evolutionary.html

  10. Pheasant says:

    ‘What is not OK is to conclude, as I did, that white nationalism is built upon bad ideas; that these ideas attract bad optics, bad leaders, and bad supporters in the same way that shite draws flies;’

    Spotted the Jew. The scatalogical outs them again.

    Shut up yid.

  11. Mephisto says:

    To free yourself from Jews, first free yourself from Jewsus.

    Do it if you dare.

    • Thanks: Stan d Mute
  12. Tucker says:

    There is one gigantic advantage to being fully red pilled on the JQ.

    Which is this: It makes it much easier to recognize the verbal and written ‘hair splitting’ that jews are so famous for resorting to when they sense that the target of their hatred is waking up and is discovering the identity of who is engineering their genocide.

    This painfully lengthy article emits this kind of aroma.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Weave
  13. Dumbo says:

    Wow. An extremely well-written, thoughtful and reasoned article on that topic, which is something very rare indeed for UR, at least on the “Jews” issue.

    It’s probably going to be hated by the local Darwinists or HBDrs, but I found it interesting and I’m looking forward to the next part. I would comment more, but since the article lacks the conclusion and thus does not fully show where it is going, I will wait for the next one. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Nancy
  14. Anon[357] • Disclaimer says:

    Ethnic solidarity used to be strong among various Christian sub-groups – Irish, Italian, Greek, and even Scandanavians were all taught to support one an other economically as well as socially. Blacks practiced the same business and social solidarity. It was a virtuous self perpetuating cycle.

    Somehow in the last generation, this solidarity vanished among Christian ethnics. One can guess at the whys and wherefores. Perhaps some wise academics can uncover what happened.

    As individuals we can quietly return to supporting each other by giving our business to like minded Christians and boycotting that (((other))) ethnic group. Simply do not engage in any commerce with them.

    • Replies: @Nancy
  15. “The Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture in America is one of the most philo-Semitic in history, and has surely advanced Jews much more than it has restricted them. Yet Jewish subversion works to undermine it in favour of a protean leftist coalition composed of Catholics, Muslims, blacks, East Asians, etc., i.e. peoples either hostile or indifferent to Jews.”

    A parasite walks a fine line between killing the host (and ruining its food source) and weakening the host enough so that it cannot expel the parasite. Multiculturalism weakens the host (us), but too much may harm the parasite by killing it, or in this case, by allowing muslims too much power. Its a fine line and so far they are walking it without issue.

    • Agree: anaccount
  16. cortesar says:

    But perhaps there is a deeper, and narrower, practicality involved here. By pretending to be a practical strategy, white nationalism gets to hold a sword of judgement – inscribed with the words “Is It Good For Whites?”
    —————————————–
    Lolzzzz
    I think you are a jew, only a jew could lack a self-awareness to the point of writing something like this
    Otherwise you must have been aware that that very question has represented the credo of the chosen people from the time immemorial to this day
    Here you can buy a beginner guide you poor misguided creature

    As far as I am concerned you may well be this fella Hazony who recently organized another goyim deception society, naming it after E Burke, peddling the very same ideas
    Looks like “Is it good for Whites?” is the question that scares (((you))) to death
    I kinda understand that just imagine a world in which if all peoples would start asking the same questions that you have for millennia

    • Agree: Charon
  17. Miro23 says:

    Finally, he (MacDonald) has no qualms about finding it in the modern Soviet Empire: “in the post-World War II era Jews were useful to the Soviets in establishing anti-popular satellite governments in Eastern Europe” (p.174).

    True. Stalin wanted loyal servants who 1) would happily oppress the people of satellite nations 2) ethically different and mutually disliked – forcing them to find their security with himself.

    Example: “The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland”. Jaff Schatz. University of California Press 1991

    When he discusses the history of anti-Semitism in SAID, MacDonald notes that these power-holders often unilaterally abrogated their alliance with the Jews, usually after beginning to suspect their loyalty or establishing more harmonious relations with the rest of their subjects.

    Exactly what Stalin did in the 1950’s when he saw “his” Jews showing greater allegiance to Israel than to his own dictatorship.

    In the third chapter of CofC, which addresses the Jewish role in Soviet communism, he notes that Stalin sharply reversed the Soviet policy of favouring the Jews in the 1950s (p.99) and that a similar turn against the Jews took place in Poland in the 1960s (p.100).

    When Jews were rooted out of positions of power in the Soviet Union, the Polish Jewish elite also lost their Soviet backing and were removed by ethnic Poles.

    At least one of the books cited in CofC – The Fatal Embrace by Benjamin Ginsberg – ought to have shaken MacDonald’s faith in liberal democracy and huwhite racial unity. Ginsberg starts by laying out the history of the ‘fatal embrace’ between Jews and the state, which tends to cultivate the Jews as its own loyal agents before abandoning them to popular anti-Semitism.

    Except that it’s usually the other way round. Organized Jewry loses its subsidiary status and takes over the state (until it’s eventually ejected by organized ethnic nationalists).

    Elite Anglos may have thought that using Jewish activist allies would augment their power (which it probably did for a while) but the evidence shows that Jewry was only looking for a fast track to power for their own account. For example, Jews were “more German than German” (until they gained power). Same with the Austro-Hungarian Empire “the respected and beloved Emperor Franz-Joseph”. Or engineering the radical change of the late 1960’s+ US social environment (neoliberalism – greed is good) allowing the excess profits of uncontrolled corporate outsourcing.

    In this view Jews are the loyal agents until they gain sufficient power – at which point they are no longer loyal agents – and destroy their host society to try to consolidate their dictatorship.

    The current game is probably being played out as much in the WEF/Davos as the US.

    The global billionaire elite are promised unlimited wealth and power – the neutralization of Russia and China and a world of modern serfdom (debt, lockdowns, digital permissions) – all enabled by Jewish political power/finance/media for elite benefit – or at least for the moment – until Gates, Bezos and the rest of them, get hijacked in their turn.

    • Agree: Sick of Orcs, John Regan
  18. “Because his core theory about the Jewish religion flies in the face of what premodern Jews actually believed, he must find serpentine calculation in things that look more straightforward from a religious point of view.”

    It is not a requirement that people understand the purpose of religion for it to be effective. Many men do not understand the fact that they experience so much anger when their partner cheats because it threatens their genetic interests, but getting really angry is effective at discouraging it nevertheless. Religion is an effective evolutionary strategy because it benefits ethnic groups through the promotion of social order, the alleviation of death anxiety and grief, and providing a sense of purpose and direction. In a pre-industrial world, this benefits ethnic groups whether they realise it or not.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  19. Dumbo says:
    @Mephisto

    LOL. It’s kind of funny that the main criticism to this interesting if a bit lengthy article so far are: “You must be a Jew”. As predicted by the article, I guess. On the other hand, we do have Jewphisto urging people to abandon Christianity, but I suppose that is expected too.

  20. Dumbo says:
    @parasite enthusiast

    There are no “genetic interests”, just as there is no “evolutionary strategy” (an oxymoron if ever there was one). It’s the other way around, stupid. People do things because they believe in them, not because there is some secret “evolutionary strategy” at work. People follow a religion because they believe in God and in religious rituals. People feel jealousy because they feel their love is threatened, not because their “selfish genes” are acting up. Darwinists are the idiot ones who rationalize everything into their stupid “evolutionary strategy” teleology box.

    • Replies: @parasite enthusiast
  21. gotmituns says:
    @Mephisto

    Jesus was a great man (I don’t know about him being God). It was those who set up the Christian Church who were the ones who made gibberish out of it all. But all anyone has to know is it was Jesus’ moral code that made the jews kill him. No jew anywhere will confine himself within a moral code. If he did, then he wouldn’t be a jew.

  22. Belchazar says:

    A couple of the points he makes are fair enough, but it doesn’t add up to anything actionable. The only thing that still remains to alert people to the fact that if they want whatever it is the jews want keep doing what you did yesterday…..nothing. If you want something else, get educated and push back. That the Jews have religious objectives doesn’t change anything for me. I dont have that religion, you see that’s the thing, none of us do.

  23. anonymous[233] • Disclaimer says:

    In both this and his previous article, dis-organised, wordy James Lawrence quite overplays the degree to which white ethnic advocates support the ‘democracy’ church.

    Slamming and laughing at ‘democracy’ as something easily manipulated by oligarchs and their mafias (including Jewish ones), is a major theme of, e.g., Unz writer Andrew Anglin and many others. Insight that democracy is flawed, easily undermined, and tends to implode, goes back to Aristotle.

    Lawrence also misses how his idea of ‘keeping your head down, making money, quietly white-flight re-locating to live amongst co-ethnics’ and ‘selling a vision of hearth, home, and children to twenty-something white women’ (his previous piece), is becoming increasingly impossible

    The ability of hostile elites to manipulate society and especially women’s brains, in turn links to social catastrophes perhaps inevitable from women voting and women’s equal rights, as brilliantly argued in Oxford scholar J D Unwin’s 1934 ‘Sex and Culture’.

    Unwin pointed out how ‘women’s rights’ was tried numerous times going back to the ancient world, always ending in social catastrophe – female hypergamy destabilising everything, e.g., today’s ‘incel’ problem as women have 500 boyfriends for 20 years, with contempt for most men in youth and after, the men devalued by gov’t power, mentally wrecked by being blocked from normal stable family formation.

    It’s good to recall the Marxist insight that the wheel tends to turn when the current order stresses into collapse, not before

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  24. @Dumbo

    “People do things because they believe in them”

    Yes but those things work and survive because they are evolutionarily advantageous

  25. @Tucker

    That “kind of aroma” is present in all articles of Affirmative Right of which James Lawrence is a habitual writer. I strongly suspect that outfit of being crypto-Jewish and anti-White Nationalist. In all its articles it tries to undermine WN while at the same time exculpating Jews. For example it tried to prove that Jews played no major role in the Communist take over of Russia at all. Criticism of Andrew Anglin went so far as accusing him of being a negro (!). This article of James Lawrence tries the same, albeit on a highly sophisticated level. Whites are being attacked as a race and therefore they should defend themselves as a race, but that is what Jews fear most, hence their efforts to discourage that.

    • Replies: @DaveE
  26. When the overall initial assumption is wrong, there’s no point in pursuing a long winded diatribe destined to build a straw man. I could only stomach about 10% before I gave up reading because there is no white nationalism, at least not in any quantity above a rounding error.

    This author is just like the race hustlers that see racism everywhere they look. They are wrong and so is this author. Why someone would just make up a new and exciting group that doesn’t exist worth mentioning is a mystery.

    All most white people want is for the laws that purposely discriminate against them be eliminated. White people are what make the country function and they provide the physical and mental muscle that keeps the minorities alive. White people are just tired of being forced to carry an ever increasing load of useless eaters, made so by edict that simply gives them their existence with little to no actual work involved. The protected minorities vote for a living while white people work for a living; that needs to stop. White people just want a more equitable sharing of the load and to jettison the freeloaders. There is absolutely nothing wrong in that attitude.

    To the author – go peddle your straw man abilities with the minority community. They want to read the fairy tale you can concoct.

    • Replies: @xyzxy
  27. Dr. Doom says:

    On the contrary, White Nationalism is now alive and growing.
    White Nationalism is what America was founded on.

    Watch the Lugenpresse and you see only Jewish distortions and Big Lies.
    Truth is there is a stark choice between White Nationalism and Planet Gulag.

    Planet Gulag is globalism and the Rothschild funny money conspiracy.
    Destroy the funny money and Jews are surrounded by those that want them dead.

    The blacks and Hispanics HATE the Jews since they meet them often.
    As landlords, government clerks, supervisors and other nosy goblins.

    Unhook from the Jewish yoke. Barter and trade with other White Volk.
    Avoid corporations and sabotage the economic chains by lowering your taxes.

    Crush the Planet Gulag nutjobs by going off their control grids.
    Sabotage, subvert, and smile. DO NOT ASSIST, RESIST!!!

    • Replies: @Anon
  28. I read the text very early this morning before waking up completely. I must say that I have never read the books by MacDonald and am not really familiar with such discussions. I try saying something.

    1-The author starts the text talking about WN as if he cared about WN. But the only purpose of the text is to talk about Js and Jism. I thought immediately of the neoconservative who never cared about conservatism and could change their party as easily as you change a shirt. They were only looking for wars that the US could fight for The Country. One or two years ago a political scientist wrote a book saying that nationalism was good, at least in his country (i think he said that we in our countries don’t need to be very nationalistic). His real purpose was to defend The Country in a time when most intellectuals view nationalism with some suspition.

    2- Of course, theories in the field of the social sciences are complicated matters and you can easily reject them with any argument, even with very weak arguments. I can imagine that you can doubt the biological backkground of McDonals theories or of some such theories (Social Darwinism etc). I myself ask if such foundations are necessary and sound. I don’t think that Js form any race and maybe there isn’t even any instinct of group preservation or group advantage. But such theories could be reformulated in terms of social ideologies and of group ideologies. Groups may be very different and ideologies are very different from each other. Otherwise there would be no point in discussing socialism against capitalism or any such discussion. So, Jism can be a very different ideology than European ideology, independently of any question of biology and of race. And it can also have changed with time. Maybe Jism tried to spread enough to be the dominant religion in the Roman Empire, or at least to be able to corner Christianity, but after loosing the race to Christianity they decided to follow another path. Maybe they accepted much more easily conversions for a few centuries afterwards, after their defeat to Christianity. However at some point this became more difficult, maybe the religion had reorganised itself and adapted itself to new environments and new strategies. In spite of that, conversions never stoped until today.

    3- One very questionable assumption of the author is that Jism is a religion at all. I once mentioned here Marc Ellis who wrote that a considerable part of rabbis are atheistic and that this is no problem as their function is to care about the interests of Js. I also read somewhere that if a J. stops believing anything that has to do with Jism, they don’t care what are his new beliefs, they don’t care if he begun eating pork of will even accept that the boy wasn’t circumcised. All that matters is that he comes back to the “religious” community. It doesn’t matter whether he believes in God or not, or whatever he believes. It’s like the neoconservatives: it doesn’t matter what they believe, only the wars that they want. Years ago when the situation in The Country wasn’t so good they accepted Indian converts from Peru, but only under the condition that they would leave Peru and live in the most exposed parts of the new territories which they try to take from the indigenous population.

    The difference with Christianity is huge. For a Christian what matters about being a Christian is what you believe and nothing else. For Jism, you can hardly convert unless you are a “valuable” person. Tipical Germans can convert easily to Js if they want and show that they are valuable, but I doubt that they would accept that Africans convert to Jism. Usually it takes hard work to convert and you have to show that you care about things that most Js don’t care about. Why? Because they want to be sure that you enter a community, not that you enter a religion. It’s like the Japanese mafia. The small finger of a new member of the Japanese mafioso is cut and he gets tatoos. He must accept that in order to show his commitment to the group and that he won’t leave it again. It may take a year to convert to Jism. Jacqueline du Pré could convert to Jism in 24 hours because she was a beaultiful famous blonde woman. There was a group called Jish humanism. I thought, how nice, what social projects do they support? I took a look and they didn’t support any social project. Their only purpose was that Js are nice to each other whatever their differences among each other.

    4- continuing the points above: The Italian mafia in Italy a century ago shows that you can have a predatory group which doesn’t have any biological basis. Italian mafiosos were as Italian as any Italian that they explored. Scientology is a group that spreads in the world as a closed group, even if they accept converts. They failed because they didn’t keep the right balance between infiltration of society and insulation to keep distance from society. Js had much more success in that. It’s funny that when Germany tried to stop Scientology, Js seemd to defend it and to attack Germany (the US was sent to threaten Germany):

    “In the 1930s it was the Jews. Today it is the Scientologists.” So read a full-page open letter, published in the International Herald Tribune on Jan. 9, 1997, to then-German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Signed by 34 prominent figures in the entertainment industry—none of them Scientologists and many of them Jews—the letter went on to accuse the German government of “repeating the deplorable tactics” of Nazi German

    5- This is just an initial answer to the article. I think that some historical points are also not very convincing, but would have to read the article again, maybe I write later the second part of my commentary (possibly not).

    • Replies: @Pierre de Craon
  29. Belchazar says:

    I don’t think the dual code thing is something that our argument hangs on. I think they do and say whatever they feel they need to at the time or in the moment, not a hard and fast strategy religiously employed, its more just something that becomes apparent later in certain contradictory actions. By the way, most of us dont think that elite Jews care all that much about Jews as a group ultimately, they care about themselves, they want to go under the radar themselves. It comes out of their own personal paranoia. The fact that they inject each other with mystery vaccines or try to homosexialiae each other is not proof against the fact that they use the strategy. It’s just proof of their stupidity. The ones that actually force these actions are looking after their own vision for the world and most other Jews are just pawns in that also. Maybe Kevin would disagree to some extent. But his book does a good job of showing how its personal paranoia which creates the action. It doesn’t matter, its clear that they behave in a contradictory manner significantly enough for the charge to stick. To make too much of it is not right, but it is there to see.

  30. What a lot of words! I didn’t understand it. But I liked one word: badger! Thank you for that. Was it about Jews? The people in that photo were certainly ugly.

  31. geokat62 says:
    @saggy

    What, pray tell, does [cargo cult] mean?

    Cargo cult definition:

    (In the Melanesian Islands) a system of belief based around the expected arrival of ancestral spirits in ships bringing cargoes of food and other goods.

    It’s analogous to the Qanon cult, whose motto is “trust the plan.” It’s meant to motivate its followers to do absolutely nothing to extricate themselves from the Jewish Supremacist matrix, but to leave that job to some nebulous group of people who will never lift a finger.

    • Replies: @saggy
    , @Irish Savant
  32. alphas says:

    You take too long to get to the point and the article isn’t well structured. Do i really have to read 2000 words of “some comments were mean to me” to get a glimpse of what your actual issue is?

  33. an end in itself, like the Christian community of the saints.

    Ignorance about this doctrine has found a nesting place in his noggin.

    Because they are saints we know they are in Heaven and, as such, they can intercede with God for us on our behalf which is why we members of the Church militant pray to them.

    Church Militant alive on earth
    Church Suffering in purgatory
    Church triumphant in Heaven

    It is best this author stay away from truths he does not understand

    • Replies: @gotmituns
  34. onebornfree says: • Website

    “At one level, the obssessive monomania of the Race Cult is exactly what it claims to be: a collective reaction to an existential threat.”

    As a complete, and completely cynical, outsider, an amused onlooker, I see the whole fight between the “new left” and the “alt right” in general as nothing more than a fight for ultimate control of the government by two groups of halfwitted racists, and nothing more.

    Which makes for a highly entertaining spectacle, at least.😆

    “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage – the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.” Ayn Rand

    And of course, the underlying , never questioned assumption of both collectivist (i.e. pro state), racist “sides” is, of course, that government solutions work, as long as the “right” (i.e. from either the “left” or “right”) people are making all the “right” (appropriately racist) rules, when the never revealed truth is that GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS NEVER WORK, and only, inevitably, make everything even worse than it was before!:

    Book: “Why Government Doesn’t Work”:
    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    And so the whole fight between these allegedly opposite sides is, in the end, nothing more than a complete distraction from the truth that it is not blacks, whites, or Jews ( or whomever) that are the real enemy, it is the very state itself.

    “The State is, and always has been, the great single enemy of the human race, its liberty, happiness, and progress.” Murray Rothbard

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Thanks: Kali
    • Troll: Bert
  35. Anonymous[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Lawrence also misses how his idea of ‘keeping your head down, making money, quietly white-flight re-locating to live amongst co-ethnics’ and ‘selling a vision of hearth, home, and children to twenty-something white women’ (his previous piece), is becoming increasingly impossible

    He isn’t missing. Lawrence is a regime toady and just wants the occupied to shut up and fall in line.

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  36. xyzxy says:
    @RoatanBill

    To the author – go peddle your straw man abilities with the minority community. They want to read the fairy tale you can concoct.

    The only ‘minority’ that has the desire and ability to sort through this discombobulated blather would probably be the author’s ‘fellow whites’. LOL

  37. Oracle says:

    The basic problem is that all of the ways to achieve the slow genocide of the host population—Western Europeans—were initiated, fostered and perpetuated by the hostile interlopers. The historical footprints—like the presence, for instance, of Israel Zangwill at the suffragist’s mud march in London in 1907 cannot be erased. It’s fairly simple to work backward to discover the modus operandi and the motive.

  38. Anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Doom

    ‘…. The blacks and Hispanics HATE the Jews since they meet them often.
    As landlords, government clerks, supervisors and other nosy goblins…..’

    The challenge is to make certain that these Blacks and Hispaniards recognize these oppressors are not white Christian rather their oppressors are (((those people)))

  39. Some brief thoughts:

    After all, where are dissatisfied WNs to go? Libertarianism echoes with names like (((Ludwig von Mises))) and (((Murray Rothbard))), and the recent revival of non-democratic reaction is indebted to (((Curtis Yarvin))). Of course, such names can be found everywhere outside the Race Cult itself: even Holocaust revisionism has (((David Cole))), and the founding of the Alt-Right is partially credited to (((Paul Gottfried))). All that this suggests to anyone with common sense is that Jewish intellectuals are relatively numerous these days (whether this is down to high IQ, institutional nepotism, or some combination of both is irrelevant), and are likely find their way into the ranks of major thinkers on the Right despite the fact that the vast majority belong to the Left.

    Let us examine this little list in slightly more detail, since it’s apparently presented as a counter-argument to those who are skeptical of Jewish influences…

    –Libertarianism: A dead end philosophy that serves only to make whites waste their energies on efforts that are impractically utopian at best and more often completely contrary to their own long-term interests. Promoting this is not a good thing. (As an aside: Why no mention of Ayn Rand here?)

    –Curtis Yarvin: Interminable and awful writer whose one and only original point was that anti-Semitism is plebeian, and the real power behind leftism is Anglo-Protestants (who supposedly are the ones who really control the universities, finance and the media). And also we should try to get monarchy back for… reasons?

    –David Cole: Took up a major position in the “Holocaust Denial” camp and then did a one-eighty and a public recantation. Whether one believes in that cause or not it’s pretty obvious he didn’t help it.

    –Paul Gottfried: Purveyor of milquetoast “We need to defend our Judeo-Christian Western Civilization against those awful leftists!” points that help no one. While at the same time speaking up for poor, misunderstood Herbert Marcuse and the others in the Frankfurt School when anti-Semites attack them.

    I think I’m starting to see a pattern here that “James Lawrence” appears not to have noticed… Or maybe he did.

    What you see is what you get; MacDonald, writing in the ‘Darwinian fairytale’ tradition, simply decides to project a modern and atheistic idolatry of genes onto the ancient Jews from the very beginning of his study.

    That the ancient Jews claimed their race to be the “Holy Seed” like MacDonald writes is not his invention. It’s from the Old Testament itself, specifically Ezra 2:9. According to the Law of Moses race mixing is literally blasphemy. Only pure-blooded Jews would enter Paradise, while the goyim would be either enslaved or slaughtered like cattle on Judgment Day. Also forced to drink the blood of their own children. Compare the prophecy of Isaiah 49:

    They will bow to the earth before you and lick the dust from your feet. Then you will know that I am YHWH. Those who trust in me will never be put to shame… I will feed your enemies with their own flesh. They will be drunk with rivers of their own blood. All the world will know that I, YHWH, am your Savior and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Israel.

    I don’t think even Lenin ever wrote anything quite that sadistic. Certainly Hitler didn’t.

    But the more we consider this sentiment, the more we come to realise that something is missing in MacDonald’s explanation of it. The Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture in America is one of the most philo-Semitic in history, and has surely advanced Jews much more than it has restricted them. Yet Jewish subversion works to undermine it in favour of a protean leftist coalition composed of Catholics, Muslims, blacks, East Asians, etc., i.e. peoples either hostile or indifferent to Jews. Even MacDonald says that the anti-Zionist sentiment of non-white leftists represents a “cloud on the horizon” for Jewish power, although he gives his usual rationalising explanations for why this is all part of the evolutionary strategy.

    “James Lawrence” hasn’t read the writings of the ethnic activists themselves. Or he pretends he hasn’t. The answer is: “Never Again!” Among the promoters of this slogan there is an immense hatred and fear of even the most philo-Semitic Germanics (whether Anglos, Swedes or of course Germans). Part of it as revenge for Christianity, banishment of Jews from England in the 13th century, the “Voyage of the Damned” and Grandpa not being allowed into the golf club in 1938, et cetera. But of course the one big thing above all others are World War II.

    In 1933 the one previously most philo-Semitic country in the world had a sudden change of mind. The entire multicultural project ever since then has been aimed at making sure there will be no nation-states left in the future where a similar ethnic solidarity can ever again awaken to compete with their own.

    whose ideas were those Jewish intellectuals propagating? If we are to understand “leftism” as egalitarianism, individualism, democracy, etc., then by MacDonald’s own lights these ideas have no basis in Jewish racial heritage at all. It was the Anglo elites in transition between Puritanism and Progressivism who converted the Jews to their religion, not the other way around.

    I suppose the moral here is that if a lying sociopath fools you by appealing to your innate tendencies toward fairness and compassion, you are to blame, because he has no idea what those words really mean and uses them only to manipulate you? So it’s your own fault for giving him that toolbox. If you hadn’t invented fairness and compassion first, he couldn’t have used them against you!

    Not only is this gaslighting in its purest form, but “James Lawrence” also provides here perhaps the clearest window into his own moral universe.

    And so it goes. This post is getting too long to address every point. But summarizing this entire thesis-length piece of obfuscation, without the extraneous verbiage and “Poopyhead!” level insults that make up an exhaustingly big part of it, we get something like:

    –There is no Jewish agenda. It’s just a pure coincidence that Jews just happen lead all the anti-White movements. Probably it’s somehow connected to their superior intelligence.

    –We should be grateful that some intelligent Jews are willing to make common cause with us and become ideological leaders of our movement. We can trust they have our best interests in mind.

    –The anti-white project is all those awful white elites’ fault. Leftist Jews are naive victims of white elite intellectuals.

    –More importantly, anti-Semitism just sucks anyway. You don’t want to be one of those embarrassing squares who talk about Jews, do you, my fellow white Americans?

    Well, do we? Do we indeed?

    • Agree: Irish Savant
    • Thanks: Bert, Mike Tre
  40. saggy says: • Website
    @geokat62

    That’s not the wiki definition …. which is …

    A cargo cult is an indigenist millenarian belief system in which adherents perform rituals which they believe will cause a more technologically advanced society to deliver goods. These cults were first described in Melanesia in the wake of contact with allied military forces during the Second World War.

    which is probably better than your definition because ‘cargo’ represents the goods brought by the military forces (not ancestors).

    Given the better definition, I don’t see how you can equate it to ‘trust the plan’. Or even ‘do nothing’, any more that any ‘pleading to the gods’ equates to do nothing. But, I do think you’re right in that ‘do nothing’ is what the author is trying to say (and that had eluded me).

    • Agree: ziggurat
  41. Weave says:
    @Tucker

    Indeed. If we white nationalists are so dumb and ineffective why does the author need to protest so profusely our weak and stupid efforts?

    • Replies: @alfa
  42. Mr. Lawrence’s article is wide of the mark: he takes no account of Jewish self-importance and contempt for us goyim. The term “group evolutionary strategy” may be a bit flowery, but the phenomenon is real.

    • Replies: @Bert
  43. @John Regan

    Indeed, suspicion is justified that “James Lawrence” is in reality (((James Lawrence))), trying to disarm rising White Nationalism. Infiltration, mimicry (“fellow white”), and sophisticated concern trolling are his weapons, but we can see through it. Typically he offers only criticism, but no solutions.

    • Agree: ariadna
    • Replies: @FvS
  44. Way too long and discombobulated. It’s a war on Christ – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2021/03/in-essenceit-always-wasand-still-isa.html?m=0 – always has been – in and out of the church – and continues to this day.

  45. Notsofast says:
    @Anonymous

    no. shite is used by the english, irish and scotts, effing on the other hand is gay as fist fucking.

  46. After ten thousand words of meandering, one comes to the conclusion that this harangue is about promoting a group that represents 1/20 of 1% of the humanity.

  47. Jon Chance says: • Website

    Judaism is a superstition — not a race, not an ethnicity, not a nation.

    The “Old Testament” is a hoax.

    Just because Jews tend to inbreed does not make them a race, an ethnicity, or a nation any more than Hillbillies.

    The Cult of Judaism

    Judaism Studies:

    [MORE]

    Thirty-Three Resources for Understanding the Modern World

    1 – Zbigniew Brzezinski – The Grand Chessboard

    2 – Robert Carroll – Fools’ Gold

    3 – Dwight Eisenhower – The Military-Industrial Complex

    4 – William Engdahl – A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics & The New World Order

    5 – Henry Ford – The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem

    6 – Benjamin Freedman – The Third World War

    7 – Henry George – Progress & Poverty

    8 – Anthony Hitchcock – The Synagogue of Satan

    9 – Norman Jewison – Fiddler on the Roof

    10 – John F. Kennedy – National Security & Secret Societies

    11 – Arthur Kestler – The Thirteenth Tribe

    12 – Leopold Kohr – The Breakdown of Nations

    13 – Martin Luther – On the Jews and Their Lies

    14 – Pauline Maier – Ratification

    15 – George Orwell – Animal Farm & 1984

    16 – Thomas Paine – Common Sense

    17 – Don Peretz – Oil & The Foundation of Imperial Interests in the Middle East

    18 – Michael Collins Piper – Final Judgement

    19 – Monty Python – The Life of Brian

    20 – Carroll Quigley – Tragedy & Hope

    21 – Alfred Rosenberg – Track of the Jew Through the Ages

    22 – Shlomo Sand – How I Stopped Being a Jew

    23 – Israel Shahak – Jewish History, Jewish Religion

    24 – Gary Sick – October Surprise

    25 – Aleksandre Solzhenitsyn – Two Hundred Years Together: The Crucifixion of Russia

    26 – Albert Speer – Inside the Third Reich

    27 – Bill Still – The Money Masters

    28 – Mark Twain – Letters from the Earth

    29 – Mikki Willis – Plandemic 2

    30 – Dennis Wise – The Greatest Story Never Told

    31 – Tim Wu – The Master Switch

    32 – Oden Yinon – The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

    33 – Stephen Zarlenga – The Lost Science of Money

    http://Libertarian.Org

    • Thanks: Irish Savant
  48. 10k words when he could have just said “I’m scared of jews and their power. I would rather lie about them and run cover for them.”

  49. Hard to wade through the article….but overall some pretty good jewing.

    He admits that KMAC has the facts straight. We already know that.

    We already know that gentile elites have utilized jews throughout history….but jews take over and then the SHTF:
    “In this view Jews are the loyal agents until they gain sufficient power – at which point they are no longer loyal agents – and destroy their host society to try to consolidate their dictatorship.”

    jews are motivated by faith in God? Oh yeah. Adam Schiff is surely motivated by his deep love of God. Chuck Schumer….Jerry Nadler…..Merrick Garland……Barbara Lerner Spectre…..Tim Wise…..these are some God loving humble kind jews!

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/06/29/jews-and-competitive-victimhood/



    Video Link

    https://archive.org/details/BitChute-VMZsq9HgopN5

    http://www.timwise.org/2010/11/an-open-letter-to-the-white-right-on-the-occasion-of-your-recent-successful-temper-tantrum/

  50. ariadna says:
    @John Regan

    Your “brief thoughts” are my very thoughts but it is probable that you expressed them better than I could. Thank you.

    • Thanks: John Regan
  51. Bert says:
    @traducteur

    Much of the article’s criticism of a group evolutionary strategy is based on current Jewish marriage being less than completely endogamous. That isn’t sufficient to disprove the idea that a portion of the Ashkenazi population is indeed pursuing an anti-goyim strategy, the alleles for which were selected for in Eastern Europe over a span of 40-generations. People nowadays eat too much salt and sugar as well as too many calories because prior to a few thousand years ago all three of those components of diet were hard to obtain and it was selectively advantageous to consume any that were available. Now, without rabbis and fathers controlling Ashkenazi women’s mating opportunities, some Jewish women do not want to restrict their prospects to Jews, or they actively want to avoid marriage to a Jew. An Ashkenazi woman who was interested in me as a husband (“Do you think we’ll get married?”) told me that she didn’t like Jewish men. Unfortunately I didn’t obtain a list of her objections to them.

    In my opinion, it is almost impossible that Ashkenazi psychology was not modified specifically for tax farming, loan sharking, tavern keeping etc., which modifications would have been towards reduced empathy to native counterparties. Further such a selective process could have been rapid through the control of daughters’ marriage partners by fathers; this would be a special case of Fisherian runaway sexual selection.

    • Agree: John Regan
  52. After how many paragraphs,what the hell is lawrence talking about!! I think I will convert to judaism to spare me from reading anymore gobbly gook from this turgid author.

    • Agree: Dingo bay rum
  53. FvS says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    He does have a solution. We should stop resisting the Left, focus on our own happiness (have children and whatnot), lay low so *crosses fingers* your family survives, and then hope a Stalin or Deng arises to restore some semblance of sanity after the Left has achieved complete hegemony.

  54. TheIdiot says:
    @Mephisto

    Read “Das Kapital” (KM), followed by adjusting it and superior to it

    “Political Economy” (RL)

    It will make you free from anything you mentioned and did not

  55. Alrenous says: • Website

    “White” isn’t even a race. It’s an American legal category, crafted for the convenience of Progressives. “English” is a race. “Frenchman” is a race. “Spaniard” is a race. “Slav” is a race. You can make a decent case for a grouping of Europeans from inside the Hajnal line. “White” is FUD.

    White Nationalism doesn’t work because Progressivism is Fascism and WN is Fascism. WN merely recapitulates every bad idea a Proggie has ever had, except with some signs flipped.

    Fascism can be recognized by six features:
    1. Dogmatism and xenophobia.
    2. Utopianism.
    3. Obsession with the Plot of the State Enemy.
    4. Monogenderism.
    5. Newspeak.
    6. Divine right of king mob, with unprincipled exceptions.

    W-nationalism only differs from Progressivism by having a different State Enemy and being monogendered male instead of monogendered female. They’re practically twins, and this is no coincidence. This “alternative” right isn’t an alternative, nor is it right. It’s just Leftism with a different coat of paint.

    Some other names you might recognize Fascism under:
    Fundamentalist egalitarianism.
    Secular humanism.
    Unitarian universalism.
    The cult of envy.
    Apotheosis of narcissism.
    Reign of Sophists.

    Turns out being monogendered female is less destructive, because women aren’t principled. They don’t take the catastrophically awful ideas of Fascism very seriously, so it lasts longer.

    • Replies: @FvS
  56. TheIdiot says:

    I like the word Antidote and I like the word Defund

    It is also how Ghandi defeated British Empire

    Defund means simply stop working and stop paying tax

    The latter is exactly what your adversary has been doing for centuries whilst getting richer by day?

    Defund the system is the way to freedom =

    stop working and stop paying tax,

    like they all do

  57. Recommend this book, The Protocols of Zion by Douglas Reed, it can be had on amazon also read the The Protocols of Zion.

    • Agree: Kali
    • Replies: @Kali
  58. saggy says: • Website
    @John Regan

    David Cole played a MAJOR role in holohoax denial. There is no reason to let your beliefs overrule reality … even now if you go to the CODOH bitchute channel you’ll see that his vid exposing the fake Auschwitz gas chamber is the most viewed TODAY … (note – combatting the hoax is not about ‘discovering’ the truth, the truth has been obvious from the start, it is about publicizing the truth)

    And, as much as I hate to admit it …. he has a great column on takimag ;;;; kind of comparable to Andrew Anglin in that you may not agree with everything he says but wow, he can find a lot of things to write about and very frequently has an interesting angle on it.

    • Replies: @Liosnagcat
  59. FvS says:
    @Alrenous

    White means racially European. English, French, Spaniard, etc. are European (white) ethnic groups. All English are white, not all whites are English.

    • Replies: @Alrenous
  60. Well, look what we have here, a Shabbos Goy pretending not to be a Shabbos Goy (or perhaps an actual card-carrying member of the tribe playing the crypto game?), promulgating another layer of Talmudic dialectic to further confuse and disorient the Aryan people. Her method, taught to her by masters of pilpul, is to shoot several shots from several directions and let the intended targets create the perceived wound, and then she will latch on to that as “thesis.”

    It is always the Jews. They play both sides and on multiple layers vertically and horizontally. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

    • Thanks: Nancy
  61. Chris Moore says: • Website

    Strictly speaking, ‘Semitism’ (which stands to Judaism much as ‘anti-Semitism’ stands to Christianity) would be a better term for the purely racial identity of ‘liberal diaspora Jews’.

    No, because a lot of ((Jews)) aren’t Semites, and as has been pointed out by Palestinian activists, are technically anti-Semitic in their genocidal war against Arabs.

    And when one considers that Moses is the founder of Judaism and thus the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the religion–as perfected by Jesus–((Jews)) aren’t even Jewish.

    So what are ((Jews))? In religious terms, they’re Satanists disguising themselves as Jews (an ironic and sadistic trick befitting their evil). In biological terms, they’re a mixed bag, but brainwashed to believe they’re a pure-blooded “chosen” race destined to rule the world, but in reality are parasites not only upon Judaism, Christianity and Islam (the Abrahamic religions) but now upon the entire planet.

    This is why they fear and loathe populism and democracy, despite claiming (again, ironically) to be “spreading democracy.”

    Which is a “tell” that all Zionists who knowingly engage in such artifice are ((Jews)) or in the process of becoming ((Jewish))/Satanic.

    Where the Plandemic fits into all of this it’s hard to say, but the “vaccine” may be a means for ((Jews)) to remove the human conscience and replace it with a Zionist/Satanic one (which at best is the absence of conscience, ie sociopathy, and at worst is psychopathy).

    You see, misery loves company. And ((Jews)) are miserable.

    • Replies: @Jon Chance
  62. Exile says:

    I stopped reading at “obsession with Jews.”

    No one who uses this phrase is honestly addressing the Jewish Question.

    White criticism of hostile, self-serving Jewish influence is constantly pathologized with pseudo-psychological smears like “obsession” and “hate.” That’s proof in itself of Jewish brainwashing and propaganda efforts.

    The “antidote to the Jew pill” is native White populations pushing Jews out of their bottlenecks of influence in White societies and restoring White sovereignty.

    • Agree: Trevor Lynch
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  63. Petr P. says:

    @onebornfree

    Please go away and take your dumb quotes with you.

    As already mentioned, the author displays an astounding lack of self-awareness when he criticizes WNs for asking the question: “but is it good for the whites?” considering that the guys in the tiny hats ask that exact question about their own interests. If not for that, I would have probably tried to tackle the points raised in the article on their own merits (or lack thereof, as the case may be).

    There is one issue with WN, though – perhaps through no fault of its own per se, it currently fails to inspire whites to action. Whites are currently still too comfortable to fight back; they may be hearing about atrocities committed by orcs or other POCs againt other whites, but it does register as a potential threat to them specifically… or actually, maybe some of them do – and maybe they even experience certain feelings of dread as a result, but the point stands: it is currently not big enough an issue for them to go “I need to act NOW and I need to get other people behind me!”

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  64. Nancy says:

    I think there is something shady about the ‘message’ when it is deliberately made as indecipherable as possible…. pilpul?

    • Agree: RedpilledAF
  65. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:

    What utter bullshit.

    A trillion words of mental diarrhea… masquerading as argument.

    Go to Hell with your Jew masters, you stooge.

    • Replies: @Shafar Nullifidian
  66. MacDonald did not, IMHO, turn Darwin on his head
    (though with “evolutionary psychology” the danger is always there).

    – The Bantu did not wake up one morning and say “Let us rape and loot and
    destroy whatever it is we cannot rape and loot lest it be of use to others, so
    that We may come into the Promised Land from the River Niger to the Sambesi”.
    They are there because they ate the preexisting diversity.
    – And so it is with the Jew; they are not there because their Yahu is a
    particularly sophisticated design but because the genocidal prescriptions of
    their monolatry* worked.

    After wading through the downright Talmudic Wust I offer that we should
    welcome criticism from the opposition – as the most honest and perceptive
    (even though this one is transparently geared towards sowing division between
    “Christians” and Bad Catholics).

    *It does not rise to the level of monotheism because
    – the existence of other gods is a given
    – ethic universalism (how ironic they always bash us with it)
    – the Commandments are pre- and the halacha is actively anti-neolithic
    i.e. undermining the foundations of civilization.

  67. Jon Chance says: • Website
    @Chris Moore

    Genuine Christianity is essentially a rejection of Judaism.

    Please examine The Jefferson Bible and Martin Luther’s book on Judaism.

    What is it about the myths of Abraham, Moses, Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, and the collection of sick fairytales known as “The Old Testament” that you regard as respectable — other than the fine art and cathedrals?

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  68. @Anonymous

    Whaddya mean, “the occupied”?
    Workers? People with an occupation? People infested by parasites? I musta woked up this morning wiv a bug up my ass.

  69. @Petr P.

    You and the author claim that WN does not inspire whites to action.

    There are many reasons for this.

    First of all, the majority of whites have never been exposed to full on white nationalist thought. Oh, they might get a hint here and there….but the Jmedia and the educational system make sure that wrong think is censored.

    The Jmedia demonizes all white advocates. They would have you believe that David Duke eats jewish children for breakfast. TBH….when I first started listening to Duke I was shocked at how soft spoken and reasonable he actually is. The jews had always told me that Duke was the devil incarnate.

    And….I disagree that WN thought has not inspired whites to action. WN thought inspired me to become an immigration activist. I’ve attended many protests, made thousands of calls to Senators and Congressman, written countless letters, and I’ve educated everybody in my circle.
    (I can only hope that my efforts made some impact in the aggregate)

    To say that whites are not active….you’re totally ignoring what happens when whites DO get off their asses…..you get Charlottesville and Jan.6th
    You get innocent white men thrown in jail because organized jewry cannot tolerate ANY form of white protest.

    This is not a game for kiddies.

    • Replies: @Petr P.
  70. I have mixed views on the author’s position but one thing I am sure of: There’s too much purity testing in the broader movement. Anyone who deviate from a particular narrow position is called out as a shill, a sellout or a Jew. The fact that the accused might on balance bring great value to the movement is ignored. Which is a great pity.

  71. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @Jon Chance

    Please examine The Jefferson Bible and Martin Luther’s book on Judaism.

    Neither would have been possible, including Christ, without the realization that ((Jews)) were Satanic. Jesus believed he was in alignment with Moses’ righteousness, and then went on to perfect it. ((Jews)) had him killed for demonstrating them moral frauds, hypocrites, and the “Synagogue of Satan.”

    ((Jews)) would describe his crucifixion today as a “reset.” They’re constantly “resetting” Christian progress, to their advantage and Christendom’s detriment, while simultaneously holding themselves up as moral standard bearers.

    I view history as a morally progressive line from Moses to Jesus to Christendom to the West, with the Synagogue of Satan desperately attempting to sabatoge and destroy it every step of the way, and take credit for its accomplishments, while simultaneously casting itself as “persecuted” for its righteousness.

    The greatest trick Satan ever played was first convincing the world he didn’t exist (Communism), then convincing the world he was righteous and persecuted (Zionism).

    It’s no accident that top ((Jews)) were decisive in both.

    • Agree: Nancy
    • Replies: @Jon Chance
  72. Jon Chance says: • Website
    @Chris Moore

    I agree with almost everything you say, but I question the value of anything in “The Old Testament”, including the myths of Abraham, Moses, and all the other Jews.

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  73. Alrenous says: • Website
    @FvS

    There’s using your enemy’s language for a laugh, and then there’s centering your worldview on a piece of enemy jargon.

    “You know, I don’t think Dawkins was pwned enough, and I want to be pwned harder.”

    Or rather, it makes more sense if WN is only LARPing as dissidence. Fascists gonna Fasc – it has no real beef with the Progressive Inquisition.

  74. @geokat62

    Very good analogy (i.e. to QAnon).

    • Thanks: geokat62
  75. Nancy says:
    @John Regan

    Thanks for clarifying the smoke and mirrors 🙂

    • Thanks: John Regan
  76. Nancy says:
    @Dumbo

    You are being sarcastic….. er, I hope!

  77. Nancy says:
    @Anon

    Excellent advise… slightly impossible. A commenter here, high level employee at a Termite business, was trusted enough to be told that “we give our money to our own, and take money from ‘them’.” Also, check out E. Michael JOnes’ ‘Slaughter of Cities’ to see how the Termites took out ethnic enclaves.

  78. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @Jon Chance

    I don’t judge Moses by contemporary standards. He was tryingto carve a way of life out of a ruthless environment some 3,000 years ago, wich included battling against lawless, money-crazed Hebrews–the Synagoge of Satan before there was a synagogue.

    • Replies: @Liosnagcat
  79. This was an impossibly pretentious and incoherent article. Overly long. Deeply dishonest by omission and design.

    [W]hite nationalism is built upon bad ideas.

    Is this really true? Bad ideas?

    Yet these fundamentally ‘bad ideas’ work exceedingly well for myriad other racial/ethnic groups, especially Jews.

    Indeed, Whites have only lost their collective mojo since WWII, as any whiff of white solidarity is declared incipient Nazism. But this tactic is a kosher ruse. Politicized double standards have popped up like weeds. What’s good for the goose is no longer good for the gander. But double-standards are toxic and divisive. Yet these double standards are now embedded in American culture and law.

    Indeed, as any Black, gay, Asian, Jewish or Hispanic American will concede, there is nothing inherently wrong with racial identity, group cohesion, and double-standards–as long as it benefits them. Their political fortunes are tied to it.

    So James Lawrence is obviously dissembling. I bet that even his rabbi would agree.

    Indeed, racial solidarity works quite well for the Chinese and Japanese then and now, wherever they live. And nepotism is surely in keeping with all traditions within the ‘Jewish community’ too–wherever they reside. Tribal/racial cohesion is functional and purposeful. But only Whites get scolded for it.

    A deep sense of peoplehood clearly motivated the secular Jews in their conquest of Palestine. This unity nourishes as their ongoing actions, which includes the subjugation of gentiles there even today. Massive xenophobia and ethnocentrism are essential for such a project to succeed. The Jews are not giving up. And you can bet that they will not be producing TV programs in Israel which celebrate miscegenation. That kind of programming is designed exclusively for the goyim.

    What, pray tell, does James Lawrence make of Jewish nationalism’ (Zionism)? Bad idea?–or not?

    Racial solidarity is actually normal and natural. It’s universal. Some parties however want it both ways. These people are our enemies.

    For European-descended Whites, racial identity was essential to the ‘winning of the West’ (1500-1900AD). It produced one of the greatest civilizations in human history. This is kin selection in action.

    Oddly, in Zio-Washington today, Jewish nationalism sacred and good, but it is forbidden for Whites follow this winning formula, even as our nation spills blood and treasure fighting/annihilating the enemies of Zion (Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iran).

    Does James Lawrence detect a political distortion here?

    Does Lawrence even have an opinion about the various, trillion-dollar murder sprees that Israel has orchestrated between Jerusalem and Washington over the past 29 years? Perhaps he will discuss this small matter in his next installment.

    And after that, please give your take, Mr. Lawrence, on the peculiar machinations of AIPAC, of the unrivaled funding of both political parties in America by Jewish sources–and of the vast overrepresentation crypto-Israelis throughout American mass media. These are significant matters, don’t you think?

    And what about the sinister of rise of political censorship by Jewish-dominated NGOs? Worrisome?

    Ongoing and immense distortions in political life indicate that White solidarity and a renewal of White identity in America are far far overdue. This is a vital idea and a good one.

  80. “But it’s also possible to formulate a general principle from these facts, which might be roughly sketched as follows: an ‘alien’, ‘unassimilated’, or ‘insecure’ ruling elite will tend to utilise outsiders and foreigners as loyal agents against the resentful majority of its population. This arises purely and simply from the exigencies of mobilising people to take hostile action against others; conversely, when a ruling elite mobilises the dominant ethnic group in hostile action against foreigners, it will tend to promote an ideology of nationalistic solidarity.”

    Now 20,000 words into Word Salad, Part II, I’ve found a small nugget of hope that this fellow, who is clearly in love with himself, has something worthwhile to say.

    Why use 10 words when 150 will do?

    • Replies: @Old Brown Fool
  81. @SWPL Hater

    Oddly enough the Torah is the font of the virulent homophobia in the West. Yahweh, ie the Jewish Bronze Age elites, don’t like queers at all. You could see the comparative liberalism in Israel as a welcome development, or a cynical tactic to drive Islamophobia by an appeal to ‘Woke’ ideology. Or both, I suppose.

  82. @mark green

    Ethnic, religious, ideological etc identities work well enough for the in-group(although they tend to factionalism themselves), but we live in a world of various groups. Unless there is a basic human solidarity above all, upon which particular ‘identities’ can rest, we’ll just end up in unending internecine conflict, from sporting allegiances up to ‘Clash of Civilizations’ race and civilizational war, and that ends in Mutually Assured Destruction.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  83. @Exile

    But there is an obsession with Jews. First of all the Judeophobes attribute near supernatural powers to Jews, which no doubt pleases the troublesome Jews no end. Then there is the constant refrain about ‘the Jews’, not ‘Jews’ or ‘elite Jews’, who are the principal architects of Judaic and Zionazi malevolence. Jews are just fellow human beings, who, like adherents to Scientology or Falun Gong or some other malevolent cult, need rescuing from their lifelong brainwashing. Over the millennia many Jews walked away from the cult, or kept tenuous contacts with kith and kin, or converted to other cults, such as Christianity, Islam or Austrian economics. That was why the Rabbis kept Jews in ghettos, and controlled them with violence. Once Jews are deprogrammed they can probably retain some kernel of their cult, but the xenophobia, misanthropy, supremacism etc, must go. Otherwise catastrophe looms.

  84. @UncommonGround

    This is just an initial answer to the article.

    You’ve made a pretty darn good start. Congratulations.

    One very questionable assumption of the author is that Jism is a religion at all.

    Well spotted. Here and elsewhere, the author is lying in his teeth. He is, without a doubt, fully aware that Jews have been insisting that they are a race, not a religion, for centuries. After all, how could anyone refer nonrisibly to a collective as a religion when more than half of its members dismiss with scorn the very idea of an eternal and uncreated Supreme Being?

    Apropos the religion grift, one long-standing ploy of the Jews that has always struck me as egregious in its brazenness is the way that when an article focusing on or even mentioning Jews appears in a newspaper, magazine, or learned journal, you can fearlessly bet any given amount of money that if the article has referred to the Jews as a religion, two or three people will write polite-looking letters to the editor explaining that Jews are a racial grouping, not a religion—and of course, the pattern also holds true in a mutatis mutandis situation. The point, I need hardly add, is to embed in each brainwashed reader’s mind the utter centrality of Jews and their chitchat to human existence.

    It is literally almost sixty years ago that I spotted this pattern, which seemed to be on display in every single Sunday edition of the New York Times Book Review. I was in college then, and total naïf that I was, I thought that reading the Times was a good way to discover what was happening in the adult world and why it was happening that way.* Well, kommt Zeit, kommt Rat.
    _____________________
    *I still regularly make stupid mistakes of judgment, of course, but at least they are different mistakes—and they no longer ever include crediting Jews with having good intentions when they act destructively and abominably.

  85. DaveE says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Best comment on this thread – THANKS.

    This piece was nauseating (((bullshit))).

  86. @John Regan

    Thanks for the comments. You’re a better man than I because I could only get halfway through the disjointed article with its excessive verbiage and strawman arguments. I’ve read other articles by the same author, and in large part they are marked by pseudo intellectualism.

    • Agree: John Regan
  87. E_Perez says:

    Mr. Unz should require that the authors he publishes precede their articles with an abstract, something which is standard in serious publications.

    10700 words and still most of the commenters (including yours truly) don’t know what he really wants to get at.
    And no end in sight, since the intention of this pretentious author seem to bore us with more of that.

    Too many incoherencies to spot them all.

  88. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    There isn’t going to be a “basic human solidarity above all” as long as organized jewry is at the wheel.

    Mark Green’s response nailed it perfectly.

    Organized jewry deliberately breaks down human unity, atomizes people, alienates groups from one another.

    And they are doing this all over the planet, in every country on earth.

  89. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    ‘Austrian economics’ very funny Mulga.

  90. I gave up halfway through.
    Tighten this up. Find an editor. It seemed to be headed somewhere interesting and important, but the wall of text is too dense, incoherent, and rambling at times to ever get there.

    I’ll keep my more unkind thoughts and suspicions about this author to myself.

  91. @Anon

    A Jew’s stooge is a Jewge. Pass it on!

  92. @saggy

    David Cole played a major role in debunking only those aspects of the holocaust he chose to debunk. He then ceased his debunking effort and advocated strongly for the “truth” of the remainder of the holocaust myth. This is from a December 10, 2019 Takimag article of his entitled “The Holocaust Is Not the “Pill” to Die On”:

    “Yes, actual Holocaust revisionism (not denial) is a fascinating field and a worthwhile endeavor. But if you’re looking to advance some nonsensical claim that only 300,000 Jews died due to epidemics caused by Allied bombing, you’re not going to find backing for that from any serious revisionist. Tens of thousands of Jews did die at the war’s end from diseases prevalent in desolated Germany. But years prior, healthy Jews were killed en masse at camps like Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and Chelmno, as well as in the Ostland ghettos and on the Einsatzgruppen killing fields. By April 1943, the death toll from the premeditated murder of Jews was 2.4 million. We know that for a fact.”

    Here’s the link: https://www.takimag.com/article/the-holocaust-is-not-the-pill-to-die-on/

    Of course the deaths at the camps he named and in the Ostland ghettos and “Einsatzgruppen killing fields” is anything but fact, but Cole seems to have lost his appetite for such truth telling.

    • Replies: @saggy
  93. @Chris Moore

    Moses is a fictitious character whose alleged oral tradition served as the basis for the Talmud. Let him go.

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  94. Thrallman says:

    Well done. Self-hating white leftism has a long history and it wasn’t invented by Jews. It can be traced back in the US to Samuel Sewall’s horrified apology for the Salem Witch Trials. To deny witchcraft was to deny Puritanism, which in turn was to repudiate his nation’s reason for existing.

    By the early-mid 1800’s, Nathaniel Hawthorne was able to build a literary career on being horrified at his ancestors. Longfellow’s progressive leftism showed in works like the Song of Hiawatha. He was soft on Catholicism in Evangeline. Celebrating the victim was established tradition in Harvard before 1850.

    Liberal democracy requires that the people have independent minds and shared interests. Before the Civil War, Americans were largely self-employed, taught in one-room schoolhouses, and electronic media did not exist. Today, the people are told what to think from an increasingly monolithic establishment. The conditions suitable for democracy were not the end of history, they were an era that came and went.

    I look forward to Part 2 and hope that Mr. Lawrence has suggestions for what will replace liberal democracy. Which will not, of course, be chosen in a poll.

  95. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Methinks you have it bass ackwards (“teleological fallacy”).
    That it is advantageous (and everybody and his mama wants) to be Jewish
    is an exceedingly recent phenomenon; over the untold generations before,
    all halfway agreeable Jews have been assimilated and the refractory
    (the “remnant”) are beyond redemption
    (Marx would have said “their very existence is reactionary”).

  96. @Mephisto

    The Jews hate Jesus, the short story being for calling out all the worst aspects of their religion and urging change. So even if one chooses not to fully embrace Christianity’ you know what they say – “the enemy of my enemy” and all that.

  97. Petr P. says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Thanks for your comment.

    I agree with almost everything you’ve said – totally agree that the Jewish system of banning, ridiculing and shaming of all WN thought has prevented WN thought from reaching a wider audience.

    As an aside, I was also shocked upon tuning into David Duke’s podcast for the first time by the discrepancy between his public image and what I actually heard during that podcast.

    On the topic of inspiring to action, I did not mean to suggest that there is some inherent problem or another with the WN movement that WN’s need to resolve so that it can become more effective at inspiring whites – my words were meant more as a description of the current situation that WN finds itself in, through no fault of its own (I reject the author’s idea that WN needs to do SOMETHING to stop attracting “bad people”, “bad optics” – it’s the existence of the aforementioned system of banning, ridiculing and shaming of all WN thought that generates those “bad people” and “bad optics”). So yes, you were inspired to action by the WN movement (as most of us on this site, have been, for example), but it is specifically because you went around that system of banning, ridiculing and shaming of all WN thought.

    I’m a bit iffy on the Jan 6th protest thing – yes, it has shown that whites do act when inspired. Was the Jan 6th protest a WN protest, though?

    And you are absolutely correct that this is not a kid’s game. If all whites miraculously decided that they would stand up and deal with all of their enemies here and now, many if not most would be physically incapable of putting up much of a fight.

  98. Checheno says:
    @Diego

    Even if you don’t accept MacDonald’s theory of group strategy, it doesn’t disprove JQ in the least. This article is poorly researched.
    Everyone knows about the Latvian riflemen and their role in the Cheka, please know that there were even Chinese in the Cheka, that does not refute the Jewish influence that Bolshevism had. In fact, the roots of Marxism in Russia lie in the Russian nihilist movement. The Jewish influence on this movement has been explored in several books. Like the relationship between Russian populism, the Vpred and the Jewish revolutionaries.
    https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781618116901-004/html
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F868304B9CA75117EA326DDCE3FA0FF9/S0020859000002881a.pdf/div-class-title-jewish-socialists-around-span-class-italic-vpered-span-a-href-fn01-ref-type-fn-span-class-sup-1-span-a-div.pdf

    Similarly, the academic literature shows the radicalism of Jewish women in 19th century Russia.
    Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance, p.35

    Jewish radicalism grew significantly as a result of the 1868–69 student rebellions at St Petersburg and Moscow universities, and this proved to be the beginning of a substantial Jewish contribution to the Populist movement. Jews played important roles in the movement as organizers, propagandists, technicians and financial managers, constituting about 7 per cent of the populists by 1875–76. In 1877, an official of the Tsarist political police in St Petersburg estimated that Jews constituted more than 15 per cent of the second-most-serious group of over 1600 political criminals. Jewish participation would grow to about 25–30 per cent by the late 1880s

    We do possess meticulous numbers on The People’s Will, a notorious radical organization from the 1870s and 1880s. These figures reveal that Jewish women were spectacularly overrepresented in this circle. The People’s Will attracted 2,193 activists during the decade of the eighties. Among these two thousand some radicals were 95 Jewish women, who represented almost a third of the 348 women in the party.
    See Erich Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 273-276.

    Most of the the outstanding Jewish women among the populist revolutionaries of the 1870s and the terrorist groups which followed them—a doomed generation—came from what Jewish historians describe as balabatishe—well-off, respectable families, daughters of those successful Jewish merchants and professionals whom the czarist regime had allowed to settle in the larger Russian cities, or girls who had somehow made their way out of the Pale of Settlement.

    Historian Naomi Shepherd describes something really interesting regarding the socioeconomic status of these radical Jewish women. A Price Below Rubies: Jewish Women as Rebels and Radicals, p.74

    When Russian high schools were opened to all classes in the 1860s, the appetite of educated Jewish girls for Russian literature, produced a small but pioneering cadre of young Jewish girl revolutionaries during the 1870s and 1880s. While the Jewish populists never exceeded, in the movement, their proportion in the population as a whole (about four per cent), the number of Jewish women who fought Czarist rule was out of all proportion to their numbers. With the exception of Rozenstein, the women were not leading figures, like the Russian Orthodox women Perovskaya or Figner. What was remarkable was the price they paid, particularly in the last stage of Czarism. Between 1907 and 1911, of the 72 political prisoners in the Mal’tsev (Siberia) women’s prison, 23 were Jewish. By comparison, 37 of the prisoners were Russians (categorized separately from Jews). Only 14 of the prisoners came from the gentry; most were petit bourgeois, of whatever nationality

    While Jewish representation in Russian Social Democracy was slightly higher within Menshevism, the number of Jews in the Bolshevik elite during the early state-building years was nevertheless considerable. Of the ninety-three Bolsheviks, at least i fteen were of Jewish background. Finally, I must point out that the Jews were, numerically and politically, the most important ethnic contingent after the Russians. The Moscow Evkom influenced the response against “anti-Semitism” in the USSR. See Antisemitism and the Russian Revolution, p.69

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Commissariat_for_Nationalities

    To deny the existence of groups like the General Jewish Labor Bund in Poland, the United Jewish Socialist Workers Party, the Poalei Zion, the Polish Bund, and other Jewish groups is simply dishonest.
    Jewish socialists like Martov and Trotsky adopted the same tactic as Marx, they rejected Jewish identity in order to adopt a universal proletarian identity. This is mentioned by Orlando Figes in his book on the Russian revolution.

    • Thanks: Kali
  99. @Miro23

    The global billionaire elite are promised unlimited wealth and power – the neutralization of Russia and China and a world of modern serfdom (

    China is not an enemy of those peoples, they are their allies. Russia maybe.

  100. It is quite possible for a small, self-aware, endogamous group to infiltrate every idea, ideology, movement or even science, take them over in a conscious, nepotistic way, and then perpetrate their domination practically for ever, by the usual divide and rule formula. This can be done even in the teeth of opposition from a working class, even if it has a good majority and even if endowed with its own intelligentsia. It has been done before.

    • Agree: Irish Savant
  101. @Maple Curtain

    Sooner than later, every multi-ethnic kingdom will discover that there is a big majority that is the backbone of the kingdom; then the small minorities start complaining; and it does not take long for the ruling family to get alienated from the majority, even if it is from the same majority stock, because its interests are not the same as that of its population. Then the aristocracy of the majority will start opposing the ruling family or clan; the ruling family has to raise to aristocracy some people from among the minorities; but then this minority aristocracy usually joins the majority aristocracy. Then the ruling family has to have a trustworthy alien as general of the army; then it has to raise a palace guard from among some minorities to save itself from the general. Then someone or other – majority aristocracy, minority aristocracy, general or the palace guards – succeeds in killing the king and chasing his family into exile. The next king is usually an alien, but the kingdom survives…

  102. saggy says: • Website
    @Liosnagcat

    Cole seems to have lost his appetite for such truth telling.

    Regarding the holohoax that is for sure, but that is now. By showing and documenting that the gas chamber at Auschwitz was a hoax, he destroyed the holohoax. Not to say he was the first by any means, as Butz’s book was written in 1976 !!! But his vid is still one of the best red, blue, green (I don’t know my pills) pills for the holohoax. I just think we should give credit where credit is due and not harp on backsliding, which for Cole came natural as he is a Jew after all.

    Since my posting is restricted I going to double up ….

    Who in the hell is James Lawrence? He has written one other article for Unz, in which he endorses the ‘Stop the Steal’ idiocy in the first paragraph. Other than that I don’t know how to find out who this character is. I think Unz should supply us with a little info. My guess he is a (((mystery columnist))) that writes nonsense on purpose, like ‘Larry Romanoff’, but who knows. Presumably Unz.

    • Replies: @Liosnagcat
    , @Irish Savant
  103. Hard to take seriously someone who writes about the “cult of biological race” given the overwhelming population genetic evidence for genetic differences between groups that have been separated for evolutionarily significant periods. On my work in A People That Shall Dwell Alone, I see he rejects the possibility of an evolutionary analysis in favor of an emic analysis of religion thereby ignoring endogamy, horror of intermarriage, competition for resources, policing group boundaries, the drumbeat concern with reproductive success, etc. as having any evolutionary implications. There’s no talking with someone who rejects the entire framework and calls it a fairytale. Can’t bother to read the rest of it.

    • Thanks: John Regan
  104. ..D.. says:

    The biggest reason of the failure of the new right is because theye have embraced the same short sighted rationalist ideology that your british grandfathers did in the past . the new right has failed to attract quality followers when its basic ideology seems to have been fabricated by a gray, second-rate civil servant tabulating excel tables, It is not an ideology that is going to attract warrior poets or even real scientists.

    Nazism had its roots in a romantic movement that renounced the ultramaterialism of the enlightenment and nourished for two centuries the awakening of nazi Germany, it is incredible how you can writte one article after another defending and morally absolving Nazism but without adopting any of the maxims of German idealism that could give birth to a new founging myth for european people.

  105. This is essentially a replay of Brad Griffin v Andrew Anglin.

    Instead of trying to impose latter-day Anglican conformity just ignore people whose views you don’t like.

    There’s no accounting for taste.

  106. Kali says:
    @Desert Fox

    Recommend this book, The Protocols of Zion by Douglas Reed, it can be had on amazon also read the The Protocols of Zion.

    I think you mean “The Controversy of Zion” by D.Reed, which can also be read on this website in html format, or downloaded free at archive.org (highly recommended reading!)

    I’d be intetested to read Lawrences responce to/review of that book.

    Best regards,
    Kali.

  107. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Very few Judeophobes attribute near supernatural powers to Jews. But even the dispassionate observer has to be in awe of their ability to worm themselves into positions of power over Whites while inducing us, or most of us, into believing we’ve always given them a raw deal.

    • Agree: HdC
  108. @mark green

    How did you get a yellow box around your comment? I’d love to have that!

  109. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @Liosnagcat

    Moses is a fictitious character whose alleged oral tradition served as the basis for the Talmud. Let him go.

    Moses didn’t exist but his oral tradition is the basis of the Talmud? How does that work?

    I’ve got a better theory: Moses was delivering the written law of the Ten Commandments, and his act of slaughtering facile Hebrew quick-buck artists and grifters laid the groundwork for Jesus’ violent thrashing of the same bunch of grifters and moneychangers from the temple. But it turned out the temple had by then become the Synagogue of Satan.

    We’ve got a similar scenario today: The Founders wrote the Constitution and laid the groundwork for the prosperous nation that followed, but over time the Synagogue of Satan infiltrated that nation and is today in the process of crucifying it.

    No, I don’t think I’ll “let it go” until a new Moses arrives to again deliver retribution and justice to the Synagogue of Satan.

    • Replies: @Liosnagcat
  110. Anon[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    I am surprised that this comment, a pack of strawmen (did you read all the article, or stopped early on, when something it said angered you?) and name-calling got highlited by the… site’s editorship lol.

    Your critique is absolutely alien to the points made by the article, by the way.

  111. I am surprised by this… pack of strawmen.
    Your critique is absolutely alien to the points made by the article, by the way.

    I haven’t the time nor interest to engage in a blow by-blow refutation of every peripheral criticism made by James Lawrence about Kevin MacDonald and ‘white nationalism’. But Lawrence missed the boat and he missed it by and mile. Perhaps this was his intention all along.

    Was there some profound insight that I missed in his article? If so, what was it?

    Lawrence did circuitously attempt to denigrate ‘white nationalism’ (thereby negating White political interests) while attempting to refute (again quite indirectly) the core thesis of Kevin MacDonald. As an intellectual venture, this article was a complete time-waster. Instead, Lawrence dragged the reader through mountains of discombobulated mumbo-jumbo and secondary political issues.

    Lawrence’s key failure is that he avoids tackling the central contentions of Kevin MacDonald as well as the primary objectives of the Alt-right movement (which includes so-called ‘white nationalism’.) This is why my comment focused on the actual conduct of organized Jewry, rather than the peripheral outliers examined by Lawrence.

    With that in mind, allow me to provide to you (and every reader at this site) the opportunity to reexamine MacDonald’s most famous tome, ‘The Culture of Critique’, in condensed form. The book review below brilliantly dissects MacDonald’s seminal treatise. ‘The Culture of Critique’ should have been examined openly, thoroughly, and honestly by Lawrence. It deserved to be central to his critique of MacDonald and the Alt-right movement it has inspired. But Lawrence actually avoided the book’s major contentions altogether.

    Perhaps you and Mr. Lawrence would care to refresh your memories (and provide alternative explanations) to MacDonald’s assessment of the overwhelming Jewish presence (and undisclosed agendas) in Marxism and far-Left politics, borderless immigration policies (in America, not Israel), the Frankfurt School, Freudian theory, Boas anthropology, and other intellectual movements which have profoundly affected Western civilization (and its core populations) over the past 100 years. Keep your eye on the ball, please.

    https://heretical.com/miscellx/culturec.html

    • Thanks: geokat62
    • Replies: @Anon
  112. @Chris Moore

    You wrote, “Moses didn’t exist but his oral tradition is the basis of the Talmud? How does that work?”

    I wrote “Moses is a fictitious character whose ALLEGED oral tradition served as the basis for the Talmud.”

    Alleged. . . get it? You copied it well enough. . . it’s a pity you didn’t read it.

    Of course a fictitious character couldn’t have had a REAL oral tradition; to suggest as much would be just silly. Moses’s oral tradition was alleged by those who would go on to shape it to their purposes.

    Recommended reading: Laurent Guyenot: “Our God is Your God Too, But He Has Chosen Us” and “From Yahweh to Zion”; also Douglas Reed: “The Controversy of Zion”

    Friendly tip: Read the words they actually wrote, not the ones you want to see.

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  113. @saggy

    I agree that Cole did a service to holocaust revisionism, even if he didn’t quite “destroy the holohoax”.

    Further, I don’t think he is guilty of backsliding; he stands by his work on Auschwitz.

    It’s just that the stories about deaths at Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and Chelmno, the Ostland ghettos and the “Einsatzgruppen killing fields” totaling 2.4 million are just as specious and devoid of supporting evidence, but he cites them as proven fact, seeming to have lost the fire in his belly for debunking false narratives. It might be due to his ethnicity, or maybe he’s just getting old and tired. Either way, he lacks consistency.

    By the way, I salute your citing of Butz, a tower of truth amidst the rubble of lies.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  114. Anon[193] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green

    I think he says that as far as the facts are concerned, he has no contention about what MacDonald informs his followers organized Jewry have done and do.
    And nowhere does he deny their important presence, where they are importantly present.

    While criticizing “white nationalism”, he says he takes to heart the interests of Whites: just, and this has been proven and proven again over dozens of years, “white nationalism” fails to reach its goal(s). It doesn’t fail because of bad luck, or President X or Supreme Justice Y being “traitors”; it fails due to structural reasons.

    The thing is, where the focus should be. On the outcomes, or the originary causes of what then comes?
    Even in sports, the mindset of the great teams (and team managers) never is on the opponents — not even on the perhaps unfair refereeing. It is on doing better and better, maxing their own performance.
    “White nationalism” behaves like those team who not only always lose, but aree fated to keep losing, because they never manage to be sincere to themselves about their previous defeats’ genuine, root, causes.

    This is where he is right; this is the primary issue.
    I could concede that he is not fully fair in his handling of MacDonald’s writing — perhaps he is biased against it: but such bias isn’t… larger than MacDonald’s own. Good old Kevin, for one, speaks only of Jewish self-deception, and deceptively or self-deceptively turns two blind eyes to white self-deception. Then (as if it weren’t enough) he goes on attributing Whites’ moral laziness and indifference to their kin to some noble altruism… and, even, to such noble altruism alone.

    • Replies: @Petr P.
  115. Petr P. says:
    @Anon

    “Even in sports, the mindset of the great teams (and team managers) never is on the opponents — not even on the perhaps unfair refereeing. It is on doing better and better, maxing their own performance.”

    You defeat your entire argument with this paragraph.

    The analogy is flawed, because in sports, even if there are some obstacles on the way to victory, such as e.g. unfair refereeing, these can usually be attributed to the imperfection of humans as referees and not to the whole game being rigged.

    A more appropriate analogy would be to say: imagine if your opponent in a sports competition (or the opposite team) did their damndest to make sure that you didn’t get the change to prepare by e.g. sabotaging your training sessions, messing with your diet AND buying off the referees as well as other officials.

    Under those circumstances, you can “max your performance” as much as you want, but you simply ain’t getting past a certain point.

    • Agree: John Regan
  116. geokat62 says:
    @Liosnagcat

    … seeming to have lost the fire in his belly for debunking false narratives. It might be due to his ethnicity, or maybe he’s just getting old and tired.

    … or it might be due to something else.

    Introductory paragraph to, History through Intimidation: The David Cole / JDL Affair:

    IN JANUARY 2, 1998, David Cole renounced Holocaust revisionism and all of the work that he had done for the cause of historical truth. Many people are wondering what happened. What brought on this change of heart? From all appearances it was a result of threats made against him by the Jewish Defense League (JDL).

    http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/cole.html

  117. @mark green

    This webzine’s publisher himself put up this post:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-bankruptcy-of-american-white-nationalism/

    So – it’s a real puzzle as to why this comment got the gold square treatment – really, among the other comments, there’s no Kobe burger in here – it’s the same old mash nothing special at all.

    Meanwhile – this article is getting the memory-hole treatment while Anglin tripe goes straight to the masthead in quick succession of Guyenot and Giraldi.

    Weird. Really weird.

    This article is rightly criticized for being overly long. It’s actual points are very clear and not too difficult for non-nihilists to understand, so they deserve to be made simply and clearly and without much ado. The author does a disservice by failing here. Since most WNs and anti-semitists are nihilists it comes as little surprise so far that no articulation of those points can penetrate their calcified neural cobwebs.

    We are, as they say, dealing with the short-school-bus set. Not the “we wuz kangs”, no – they never were, these are the “we willz be kangz we willz we willz!”

    Sure you will “Proems”. Get on the bus.

    The article is also rightly criticized for it not being clear, 10000 words later, where the author is even going.

    Otherwise, the memory-hole treatment contrasted with the magnification of tripe, against the backdrop of what one would otherwise call a moment of written clarity on the part of the publisher – all difficult to account for.

  118. @saggy

    Agree entirely. David Cole was incredibly brave to do what he did. He was attacked so fiercely he had to change his name. How many of us would do that in the cause of truth?

  119. Reading this salt mine of critical replies – the vast majority of which are devoted to the baseless lie that this author is a Jew, or writing at the behest of Jews – I’m reminded of why I put so much emphasis on the views of paranoid loons in this post and the one on White Nationalism, something that seemed excessive to me when Spencer Quinn called me on it at Counter-Currents.

    In retrospect, I should have dealt with the loons in one post and discussed serious thinkers like MacDonald in another, so that there could be no inference that I was conflating the two. But there is certainly good reason to treat the loons as the average representatives of Jewpilling, and the likes of MacDonald as the rare outliers. If you look at the Jewpilled “community”, as it were, it divides into 1) a small minority of deep thinkers who can take the Jewpill and keep their sanity, and 2) a vast majority of average thinkers who almost always descend into paranoid lunacy, and develop a toxic habit of casually lying about people’s identities and motivations without proper grounds for suspicion. It’s like a virus that destroys all but the strongest minds, and you have the lucky few who can take it and survive walking around extolling its health benefits and offering to infect other people, and wondering why they tend to run away in horror.

    This argument won’t convince anyone here, because I’m obviously playing into the Jewish agenda of pathologising gentile collective threat-perception n’shit, by admitting the obvious fact that most Jewpillers are stark raving bonkers. (That logic always works out well for dissidents, doesn’t it – if the enemy says one thing, you deny it and say the opposite, then just rinse and repeat until you end up with “never punch right” and “WWG1WGA”.) But God knows that this author is not a Jew, nor writing at the behest of Jews, and therefore that almost everyone in this thread is a lying toerag. Not a good look for a movement that has never had any weapon to hand but the truth.

    Now let’s deal with those who actually tried to come to grips with my argument. The most disappointing showing is from @Kevin MacDonald (comment 106) – who, by his own admission, plowed through 3000+ words on WN, cargo cults and basic-bitch comment-thread cranks, then encountered my very first counterargument to his theory and immediately stopped reading. Would it be uncharitable to put this down to an excessively thin skin, as opposed to an intolerance for my verbiage? Either way, the objections he offers me don’t make any sense.

    To criticise the “cult of biological race” does not mean denying the evidence that race exists – it means, of course, criticising those who want to make it the object of a cult (compare “cult of reason”, “cult of individuality”, “cult of youth”, “cult of personality”, etc. etc.). And my “emic analysis of religion” – a.k.a. taking people’s conscious religious motives seriously, instead of attributing all their actions to other motives that are more in line with modern evolutionary theory – does not commit me to ignoring endogamy, ethnocentrism, or anything else, because in principle, none of these contradict the religious motive of preserving a separate community that follows the Jewish law. If MacDonald had bothered to read further, he would have encountered my argument that it is very difficult to explain the Ashkenazi “ecological strategy” of favouring scholarship and purging illiterates, unless you take seriously the belief that sanctity comes from knowing the Talmud and following the hundreds of Jewish commandments by memory.

    Finally, although “Darwinian fairytale” might sound provocative, I provided a link showing that this phrase comes from a work by the philosopher David Stove – whose other work MacDonald saw fit to cite in The Culture of Critique! Stove’s argument is not that Darwinism is a fairytale – he mostly accepts it as far as the non-human natural world is concerned, and gives short shrift to religious and idealistic objections – but only that it cannot fully explain the behaviour of human beings without resorting to casuistical nonsense. Since he’s no longer with us, I’ll link the whole book here and you can judge for yourselves if it is worthy of consideration:

    http://maxddl.org/Creation/Darwinian%20Fairytales%20-%20Selfish%20Genes,%20Errors%20Of%20Heredity,%20And%20Other%20Fables%20Of%20Evolution.pdf

    Anyway, to come back to my subject, there you have it – three complete non-sequiturs and reading comprehension failures, from the man whose interpretation of Jewish intellectual discourse forms the cornerstone of modern White Nationalist theory. And those who can be bothered to read the rest of my poast will find plenty of evidence that this is consistent with the rest of his thought. Like I said – it’s not a good look.

    Elsewhere, @John Regan (comment 39) tries some refutation. Or rather he tries to present the appearance of refutation, by making a big song and dance about beating strawmen of his own imaginings, so that readers even more prejudiced than him need not feel too insecure about dismissing my entire post out of hand. It’s the same modus operandi as any basic-bitch prog fact-checker upholding the official line on “white privilege” or “the Capitol Hill insurrection” – and to judge from the expressions of gratitude from others that he has received so far, it seems to have succeeded in its purpose.

    Regan’s first gambit is to address my claim that Jewpillers are intellectually shackled, because excessive paranoia about Jewish influence makes it impossible for them to engage with anything except the anti-Semitic White Nationalist movement. He doesn’t dispute this, but says it’s all good, because libertarianism is worthless and there’s nothing worth reading in Yarvin, Cole or Gottfried. Well, okay. Never mind the necessity of good-faith engagement with many points of view, so as to build up an accurate worldview; never mind the process of ideological cross-pollination that created the Alt-Right big tent (which I’m sure Regan thinks was worthless as well). Just stay trapped in the ideological prison of a movement that has failed for 60+ years and counting, because you can take the word of your prison guards that there’s nothing worth seeing outside the walls anyway.

    Next comes the strawmanning. In my post, I dispute MacDonald’s claim that the Jewish God is “really neither more nor less than Ezra’s holy seed – the genetic material of the upper class Israelites who were exiled to Babylon” (PTSDA, pp.64-66). At no point do I dispute the existence of the “holy seed” doctrine in the Hebrew Bible – what I dispute is the claim that it is identical with a God that is described as existing prior to all mankind, never mind the Jewish race, and as choosing the Jews for an essentially spiritual purpose that is dependent not just on genetic continuity but also on religious practice. Regan makes a sleazy bait-and-switch between my argument and his strawman, because he knows his fellow-Jewpillers won’t call him on his bullshit.

    The rest of his post is just non-sequiturs and misrepresentation – evidently he couldn’t be bothered to keep up the pretence of good faith for long – so let’s move on to @mark green (comments 82 and 114), who is being “deeply dishonest by omission and design” when he acts like he has actually read my post instead of lazily skimming through it. Pay attention here, Jewpillers, and learn the difference between rational suspicion and baseless slander, which stands or falls on the presence or absence of evidence. Exhibit A for my claim that this lazy git didn’t even read my post is his first comment, which falls straight into the trap of cargo-cult thinking that I criticise early on in my argument. Exhibit B is his second comment, which accuses me of “failing” to refute the “central contentions” of CofC.

    But why would I want to refute them? This is what I said in the post:

    But it is MacDonald’s position [on the relation of Jews to the democratic state and Western elites] that sets the tone for CofC – the bulk of which simply examines various strands of the New Left and points out the Jewish connections and motivations. As I’ve said, I don’t dispute any of this at a factual level [emphasis added]; the problem lies in the assumption that all of it took place in a basically free, open political market, as opposed to a centralised totalitarian empire that was already dominated by a native revolutionary elite.

    Yes, that’s right – I’m not even trying to dispute most of the content of CofC, whether it is the factual assertion that many progressivist movements were disproportionately staffed by Jews, or the interpretative argument that their involvement was partly bound up with their Jewish self-identification. What I dispute is the wider context into which MacDonald seeks to fit these facts and interpretations. And since my theory – unlike, say, Nathan Cofnas’s – would seem to leave a fair bit of leeway for anti-Jewish opinions in those who are opposed to progressivist movements, you have to wonder why there is so much salt in these replies and so many accusations that I am trying to distract people from even thinking about the Jews.

    Could it be that I have hit the mark in my theory of the Jewpill? Could it be that biological “anti-Semitism” does, in fact, occupy the suspiciously empty space in which one would expect to find a positive body of White Nationalist theory? And could it be that this “anti-Semitism” cannot play such a role unless it is inflated into an all-embracing monomania?

    Finally, at the risk of trying the reader’s patience, let’s take a look at @FvS (comment 9) who links to the blog of Ted Sallis – basically a glorified comment account in which a rather unhinged White Nationalist veteran spews the bitterest vitriol against everyone he reads, only from the safety of a no-comments-allowed blog where his victims cannot take him to task and puncture his delusion of being right about everything.

    Follow the first link, and you will Ted’s vehemently insulting reaction to my post on White Nationalism, in which he accused me of being an “ethnic fetishist” for Nordics with an “ethnic animus” to Southern Europeans (both tendencies I despise) on the basis of a single offhand comment about racial admixture that he twisted out of its proper context. This led me to conclude that he was intellectually dishonest, but I also speculated – either irreverently, or charitably, depending on your perspective – that he could also be “intoxicated”, “semiliterate”, or “retarded”. This resulted in the outraged huffing and puffing that you see in the second link – for Ted has developed a soft, thin skin in the padded cell of his insulated blog, and like a stereotypical bully, is not used to being hit back with anything like his own habitual ferocity.

    The third linked post on Salter is more reasoned, but still exhibits the same basic intellectual dishonesty (or, if you prefer, “self-deception”). Ted is basically moving the goalposts, setting up a rigid distinction between Salterian prescription and description – i.e. between the theory of EGI-adaptive behaviour, and the reality of actual human behaviour – that is all but impossible to distinguish in most parts of Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Technically, of course, it’s possible to defend Salter in this way – like a Renaissance astronomer before the Inquisition – by saying that theory is theory, reality is reality, and the former just posits more or less accurate hypothetical models of the latter. But this is downright disingenuous if you are Ted Sallis, who has written elsewhere about the need to capitalise EGI into “biopolitics”:

    https://counter-currents.com/2011/04/ethnic-genetic-interests/

    What it looks like to me is a classic setup for a motte-and-bailey fallacy. When we try to pin Salter down on his statements about Bantu immigrants and drowing children, Ted whisks his guru off to the “motte”, by telling us that Salterian “adaptiveness” is purely theoretical and is mediated through various “proximate proxies” for EGI in practical life. Okay…so let’s say we assume that humans have evolved a crude predilection for people with similar external characteristics to themselves, which originates as a proxy for EGI as theorised by Salter, but in practice can be ‘hacked’ by anything from linguistic similarity to political similarity to cultural similarity. And then let’s say we make this the basis for a milquetoast conservative proposal to force non-white immigrants to adopt local language, culture and customs, since as far actual human beings are concerned one type of similarity is more or less as good as another. Presumably, at this point Ted will come storming out into the “bailey”, to tell us why we should be modelling our real-life behaviour on the underlying EGI instead of the non-genetic proxy.

    Now that we understand these sleazy hand-waving tricks, let’s look at the fourth linked post on MacDonald. Once again, Ted whisks his guru off to the safety of the “motte”, this time by expanding the concept of “group evolutionary strategy” to be as nebulous and unfalsifiable as possible. Now, according to his rules, we must include practically any type of group behaviour under the definition of a group evolutionary strategy – whether it is collectivist or individualist, endogamous or exogamous, evolutionarily beneficial or evolutionarily disastrous.

    Now, to be fair, something like this definition of a group evolutionary strategy is actually provided by MacDonald in PTSDA. I didn’t use it in the post, because it is contradicted elsewhere (e.g. p.85, “in order to qualify as an evolutionary strategy, genetic segregation must be actively maintained by the strategising group”), and is irrelevant to MacDonald’s consistent usage of the term in which individualist behaviour is excluded. But if Ted wants to shift my theory onto this new Darwinist ground, then it’s all good, because it can still beat MacDonald’s theory game, set and match. All of my original objections still stand, and need only be couched in a slightly new language, in which the “moral community” of progressive Western elites that patronised the Jews is now conceived as an “individualist group evolutionary strategy”.

    Anyway…that was a lot of salt to dig through. No doubt I will be accused of verbosity and “word salad” again. But I know that if I kept things short and succint, and pitched my posts at the lowest intellectual level, then I would simply be accused of superficiality and crudity instead. Prejudiced, deceptive, mala-fide thinking will always find its way to its destined foregone conclusion, like water finding its way down to the lowest level.

    To be fair to you lot, I understand the basic hostility. No-one likes having his cherished beliefs trashed (I know, it’s happened to me), and I am just some obscure blogger with no especial claim to intelligence, erudition, or credentials, so you’ve no obligation to put up with my shit.

    But here’s the thing: this “movement”, by which I mean the Dissident Right dominated by WN and the Jewpill, has been a chronically failing stuckment for nigh-on seventy years now. To look at the insufferable complacency of its leaders and followers alike, you would think that it was still riding high on the illusions of 2016-17 – not licking its wounds after yet another effortless beating at the hands of the Left. And to look at the way it shuts its ears to critics, you would think that it was secure in its connection to the truth and its ability to accurately assess reality – not hastily wiping the egg off its face after being collectively played for a fool by Dicky Spencer, Blormpf, QAnon, etc.

    Let’s be honest: the Dissident Right is just another niche in the vast cubicle matrix of well-fed, smug, dissatisfied-but-basically-contented white Western males, who are happy to occupy their time with self-gratifying masturbatory fantasies while one of the worst governments in our history pisses our collective civilisational inheritance into the gutter. So I’m sorry for interrupting your larp with all my immersion-breaking talk about truth and reality, and normal service will shortly be resumed. But anyone who wants something more – and I see a handful of such people in this thread, like gems in the salt mine – is encouraged to check out my latest post at Affirmative Right.

  120. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @Liosnagcat

    Moses’s oral tradition was alleged by those who would go on to shape it to their purposes.

    Ok. I maintain those Hebrews and Semites who did this were the Synagogue of Satan. Who do you think they were?

    If you’re going to say “Satan” doesn’t exist, try to think them as the Synagogue of Sociopaths. It’s really semantics anyway, eg substitute good for god, evil for devil, etc

  121. @James Lawrence

    As others have said, you think too complicated and talk too longwinded. And as I have said, you offer only criticism, but no solutions.

    • Replies: @James Lawrence
  122. Petr P. says:
    @James Lawrence

    “To criticise the “cult of biological race” does not mean denying the evidence that race exists – it means, of course, criticising those who want to make it the object of a cult”

    …and yet you fail to address the fact that the cult of biological race has worked extremely well for the Jews, but you criticize it as a maladaptive strategy in the case of White Nationalists all the same… what exactly is the logic here?

    Sure, it may very well be the case that the only reason why this strategy has worked so well for the Jews is because they can keep garnering sympathy for themselves from non-Jews by continuing to talk about the Holocaust, and how anything that goes against Jewish interests is essentially a threat of the repetition of that event – White Nationalists most certainly don’t have any such mechanism of perpetual, widespread emotional blackmail of non-WN’s at their disposal that could be used to advance the White Nationalist cause – but you NEVER make the argument that because Whites cannot rely on any such emotional-blackmail mechanism, they should try another strategy instead!

    It has been pointed out to you that you ridicule White Nationalists for trying to adopt a strategy of viewing everything through the lense of: “but is it good for the whites?”, yet you fail to state that Jews have adopted the very same strategy of looking out for THEIR best racial interest to great effect!

    I was criticized by one commenter here for seemingly being in agreement with you that the White Nationalist movement has failed to bring about any significant victory in decades – and you are correct in that it has not – but as I explained in another comment, the situation White Nationalists currently find themselves in is a dead-end rigged game in which the opposing team has bought off the referee AND claims that the game is rigged against THEM!

  123. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Lawrence

    Does Peter Thiel pay you by the word, Jimbo?

  124. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @James Lawrence

    If you look at the Jewpilled “community”, as it were, it divides into 1) a small minority of deep thinkers who can take the Jewpill and keep their sanity, and 2) a vast majority of average thinkers who almost always descend into paranoid lunacy, and develop a toxic habit of casually lying about people’s identities and motivations without proper grounds for suspicion. It’s like a virus that destroys all but the strongest minds, and you have the lucky few who can take it and survive walking around extolling its health benefits and offering to infect other people, and wondering why they tend to run away in horror.

    You’re either a purveyor of Zionist propaganda, or been trained like one of Pavlov’s dogs to internalize self-serving ((Jewish)) angst.

    So ((Jews)) shouldn’t be criticized because the superstitious goyim might pogrom them? What about rational goyim who might bring them to justice because the corrupt authorities and institutions won’t? Would they be acting irrationally or out of their own survival interests and instincts?

    You’re second mistake is embracing the Zionist lie that ((Jews)) are practicing Judaism as founded and enforced by Moses; because in reality, they’re not. They’re practicing conspiratorial and murderous “Judaism” consistent with the values and ethics of what true Jew Jesus Christ called the Synagogue of Satan.

    Why you’re repeating Zionist narratives and propaganda, I’m not sure. Perhaps you’re a crypto-Zionist or on the Zionist payroll, or perhaps you’re just a useful idiot like most other people who’ve internalized ((Jewish)) propaganda and take ((Jewish)) and Zionist lies at face value, and hence “think like a Jew.”

    The 9/ 11 Zionist inside job is a prime example. If you refuse to believe you’re own eyes and instead look only at Zionist “evidence” that institutional Islam is entirely responsible for the attacks, then the War on Terror makes sense.

    Additionally, if you look at ((Jewish)) Holocaust “evidence” without considering the possibility that it’s mostly Zionist propaganda and lies, then your fears of irrational anti-Semitism breaking out are warranted.

    But if you recognize both events as Zionist productions (and few can see through both) then you’ll know we’re living in a mass false conciousness.

    Your false conciousness would include the fear that “irrational” anti-Semitism is constantly in danger of breaking out like a “virus” — a constant ((Jewish))/Zionist refrain, aka propaganda, aka dogma.

  125. @James Lawrence

    I’d rather prefer not to join a dogpile. But since the author specifically addresses me I think it’s fair enough if I respond.

    But God knows that this author is not a Jew, nor writing at the behest of Jews, and therefore that almost everyone in this thread is a lying toerag.

    If “James Lawrence” really isn’t a Jew he must be trying his best to make us believe he is. Never one word where fifty will do just fine and endless epithets and florid messianic fervor. What Jewish comedian could have done the stereotype better?

    Perhaps he is being honest and writing in good faith. Perhaps he really does think that anti-Semitism is our biggest problem in this day and age for purely Gentile reasons. Perhaps he really does think that, for example, rehabilitating the Morgenthau Plan as a kind and beneficent act toward Germans (as his fellowcountryman “Colin Liddell” tries his hand at over at his blog) is a pressing and important issue for our times.

    But somehow it seems unlikely.

    At no point do I dispute the existence of the “holy seed” doctrine in the Hebrew Bible – what I dispute is the claim that it is identical with a God that is described as existing prior to all mankind, never mind the Jewish race, and as choosing the Jews for an essentially spiritual purpose that is dependent not just on genetic continuity but also on religious practice.

    According to the Old Testament itself YHWH did not choose the Jews for an “essentially spiritual” purpose. He chose them to rule over the world, and all other peoples would either be enslaved by them and lick their bootheels (it literally says that) or be slaughtered in horrible tortures. Reading Isaiah 49 again:

    They will bow to the earth before you and lick the dust from your feet. Then you will know that I am YHWH. Those who trust in me will never be put to shame… I will feed your enemies with their own flesh. They will be drunk with rivers of their own blood. All the world will know that I, YHWH, am your Savior and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Israel.

    The hatred, conceit and sheer sadism of this “essentially spiritual” religion’s greatest prophet still astonishes me every time.

    It’s quite true that the Old Testament does not say YHWH = the Jews in so many words (though that view is actually common in the gnostic Kabbalah). But this is also hairsplitting. To Western sensitivities at least the belief in yourself as a chosen and holy race infinitely above all others is both shocking idolatry and megalomania. It is also a radical dehumanization of everyone else (as graphically illustrated by Isaiah above). If it’s not literally making yourself into God then it’s the next best thing and has much the same practical consequences. That was MacDonald’s point.

    Never mind the necessity of good-faith engagement with many points of view, so as to build up an accurate worldview; never mind the process of ideological cross-pollination that created the Alt-Right big tent (which I’m sure Regan thinks was worthless as well).

    Only the self-promoters of “NRx” (and some of their shills in the media) ascribed any great importance to its thinkers in the formation of the old Alt-Right.

    That aside: I advocate censorship of no one. Let Jews write their books like anyone else. My point was simply to hint at the results of the various Jewish thinkers the article seemed to be recommending. Then the reader can draw his own conclusions.

    It is good to engage with differing viewpoints. But in my experience it is rarely a good thing to assume good faith from intellectuals these days. Very little that is allowed to be published is written honestly. It may or may not be worth reading but it should be read carefully and critically if so.

    Just as the Jew asks himself, “Is it good for the Jews?” it makes good sense for us to ask ourselves when we read his books, “Is it bad for us?” They have proved the necessity of this often enough historically to lose the benefit of our doubt.

    Just stay trapped in the ideological prison of a movement that has failed for 60+ years and counting, because you can take the word of your prison guards that there’s nothing worth seeing outside the walls anyway.

    It is ironic for “James Lawrence” to accuse others of being gatekeepers and prison guards when his own main positions enjoy the full support of the entire army of gatekeepers populating the education establishment and mainstream media. “Four Jews good, two Nazis ba-a-ad!” is hardly a controversial message in our society. And yet at the same time he seems to pretend to be some kind of embattled truthtelling maverick rebel because he takes up and ferociously champions the approved mainstream position?

    One might ask: If engaging in so-called anti-Semitism is really only self-sabotage and playing into the hands of our enemies, why then is this the very point they fight hardest of all to suppress? Why does any hint of so-called anti-Semitism bring about deplatforming and endless smears and even actual imprisonment in many countries? While burblings about esoteric spiritual traditionalism or abolishing taxes or whatnots get shrugs and yawns at worst. The model fails to explain the observations.

    We can also turn the writer’s own favorite argument (besides namecalling) on its head here: Precisely what great victories has philo-Semitism brought about for those who practice it? Or just ducking the issue altogether? After thirty years in the wilderness is Jared Taylor anywhere close to the mainstream for scrupulously avoiding the dreaded Jewish Question? Or as the example of Donald Trump ought to prove once and for all: Even the most ridiculously milquetoast philo-Semitic nationalism that goes out of its way to support Our Greatest Ally the whole ten yards will invariably be smeared with the Racist-Fascist-Nazi epiphets no matter what.

    “James Lawrence” thinks so-called anti-Semitism is for losers. To me it seems that on the contrary philo-Semitism is a much bigger loser philosophy. Biting the hands that feed you (the deplorables) while licking the boot that kicks you (the You-Know-Who).

    A perfect philosophy for shabbos goyim enjoying their eternal reward on their knees in the paradise described in Isaiah 49.

    • Agree: ziggurat
    • Replies: @James Lawrence
  126. FvS says:
    @James Lawrence

    On the Jews, to quote Sallis:

    I look at Stephen Miller – there is someone doing good work on the immigration issue. If Miller has been spending time obsessing about “anti-Semites on the Right” then I must have missed it. If there are sincere Jews on Der Right, they would be better served demonstrating their sincerity through their actions on behalf of Whites and the West, rather than doing what Cofnas does. Certainly, those Jews have the right to promote the view that Jews should be considered part of the White West (I’m not saying I agree with that view, merely stating that the Jews in question are well within their right to include their own interests in their activism – why should they sacrifice themselves for other folks?).

    But if they believe this, if they believe that they belong, then do something of value. I don’t consider misrepresenting the role of Jews in White decline to be of value, promoting the HBD fraud is not of value, promoting multiracial “White separatism” (sic) is not of value, telling us to accept the “racial status quo” is not of value. If you don’t want to be accused of sabotaging the White Right, then the first step is to actually stop doing it.

    We are all not just imagining the war of ethnic aggression of Jews against Whites. If Cofnas is correct, we should be seeing plenty of Jews heavily involved with promoting Der Right, and with the Jews’ power, influence, wealth, cunning, etc., the Right would be doing much better than it is. But, no. Jews are overwhelmingly on the Left, and most of those that are on the Right do more harm than good.

    Some questions for you. If you had the power, would you institute white nationalism for white countries or multi-racial, civic nationalism? If the latter, why do you think East Asians and Israeli Jews seem to prefer racial or ethnonationalism to multi-racial, civic nationalism? . After all, Asians and Jews are supposed to be the high IQ groups beloved by HBD types. China, South Korea, and Japan are like 99% Asian.

    You strike me as a typical race realist à la Jared Taylor or John Derbyshire. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if you had an Asian girlfriend or wife. Remember folks, HBD “race realism” is a political movement designed to privilege the interests of Jews and Asians over those of Whites. Or maybe this is simply about Yarvin? It’s clear from your work that you hold him in very high regard. A little piece of advice, if you’re actually just frustrated with white nationalists for failing to fully appreciate Moldbug (Yarvin) because of a (rightful) bias against Jews, you would have been better served by just explaining why you think he’s an exception (I doubt you really care that much about Cole or Gottfried).

    Side note: That a political movement has failed to supplant an oppressive regime for a certain length of time is not proof that principles of the political movement are wrong.

    • Replies: @James Lawrence
  127. 3y3 says:
    @omegabooks

    read Nick Land “Hyper-Racism”

  128. @John Regan

    You show precious little awareness of the fact that the Hebrew Bible is not some modern book by a triple-bracketed name to be mined for ‘gotcha quotes’, but a mass of traditional writings discontinuously stitched together into a more or less coherent whole. So on the one hand, yes, we can look at the racial purism in Ezra and the ethnic cleansing narrative in Joshua; on the other, we have to take into account the injunctions against mistreating foreigners in Exodus, and the idea of blessing all the nations through Abraham in Genesis. In the same way, on the one hand we see strict monotheism, and on the other, passages in which Yahweh presides over a council of gods like Zeus in the Iliad. I’m not saying we should treat religion with too much reverence, but it demands a bit more subtlety than the Darwinist reductionism of MacDonald, or the crude binary thinking of someone like you who has modern political struggle on the brain.

    To cite another instance of this black-and-white thinking on your part: what gives you the idea that I am coming from an “approved mainstream position” of “philo-Semitism”, supported by “the entire army of gatekeepers populating the education establishment and mainstream media”? The ADL et al certainly don’t agree with you, as they have banned Affirmative Right from most social media and taken down the site a couple of times (although we tend to take these things in our stride, and not to make a big song and dance about being oppressed like Jewpillers tend to do when “ZOG” has the discourtesy to delete their blogs.) Tell me, am I “hairsplitting” again when I point out the yawning chasm between Affirmative Right and mainstream political discourse?

    Going back to MacDonald, this remark from the preface of CofC may help us to understand where he was coming from in PTSDA:

    “The first book [i.e. PTDSA] is really only a documentation of theoretically interesting aspects of group evolutionary strategies using Judaism as a case study (how Jews solved the free-rider problem, how they managed to erect and enforce barriers between themselves and other peoples, the genetic cohesion of Judaism, how some groups of Jews came to have such high IQs, how Judaism developed in antiquity).”

    What this suggests to me is that the literal truth or falsity of “YHWH = Jewish biological race” wasn’t too important to MacDonald in PTSDA, because he was just engaging in the scholarly exercise of looking at Jewish history through the prism of evolutionary theory. But when he comes to the modern era in SAID and CofC, this doctrine seems to play a more important role in his thinking, although it is something of a hidden role as he doesn’t bring it up for discussion. Having described Jewish evolutionary strategy as being contained in religious writings, MacDonald would ordinarily be forced to admit that secularised Jews with a purely racial identity are no longer following the same evolutionary strategy. But if “YHWH = Jewish race” is literally true, then we can say that the old Jewish religion continues to stand and has just changed a few of its doctrines (as long as we shoehorn the evidence on intermarriage, assume that Jewish belief in progressivism is “self-deception”, etc.).

    Now that MacDonald has spent two decades in a WN echo-chamber, with a mob of screaming witch-hunters outside it, what originated as a thought-experiment has become such a calcified dogma in his mind that he literally could not stand to read my attempt at critical examination. Of course, a bigshot like him can afford to ignore a no-name blogger like me. But let’s see what he says when others with more credentials (Cofnas?) pick up on the importance of PTSDA to his theory, and start aiming at the heart of his thesis instead of inflicting minor flesh wounds on CofC.

    Lastly, regarding my habit of “namecalling”, I strongly suggest that you adopt it and hit me with all you’ve got. Obviously nothing beats good faith and intellectual charity. But when you think someone is pushing an agenda and spinning a line of bullshit, the honest thing to do is to come out and say it. A passive-aggressive mask of “civility”, combined with poisonous insinuations and disqualifying tactics (come on, just put my name in triple brackets, you know you want to) and topped off with a schoolmarmish attention to the more open hostility that this behaviour is bound to attract from honest men, is nothing but a parody of true civility and intellectual charity.

    • Replies: @Petr P.
    , @John Regan
  129. Petr P. says:
    @James Lawrence

    The ADL et al certainly don’t agree with you, as they have banned Affirmative Right from most social media and taken down the site a couple of times (although we tend to take these things in our stride, and not to make a big song and dance about being oppressed like Jewpillers tend to do when “ZOG” has the discourtesy to delete their blogs.)

    So are you saying that this strategy – in contrast to petty White Nationalism – is actually WINNING?

  130. @FvS

    If I got my hands on power, I would institute the dream of Yockey, Mosley, and others: the unification of Europe into a single independent nation-empire. This state would identify as white and Christian, but it would also be non-democratic, so it would not need full racial purity to avoid the mobilisation of non-white races as “votebanks”. Presumably it would take much the same attitude to immigration as modern-day Japan or China: so on the one hand, you wouldn’t have non-white settler-colonies taking over big cities, but on the other hand, your Asian wife (no, I don’t have one myself) wouldn’t be hounded back to Asia by caliper-wielding weirdos.

    Power fantasies are all very well, but I try not to confuse them with real life, and in real life the White Nationalist power fantasy is an absolute failure. It is obsessed with tribal unity, yet is a squabbling mass of paranoids calling each other Jews; it is obsessed with reproduction, yet is full of people who don’t reproduce and don’t help others to do so; it is obsessed with power, yet only in the same morbid way that an incel is obsessed with sex. If it were based on higher truths than tribal unity, reproduction, and power, then you could salvage its principles from the wreckage, but it isn’t based on anything higher and ought to stand or fall on its practicality.

    But WN doesn’t want to die by its own sword and take its Darwin award. Having failed to do anything useful for our tribal unity, reproduction, and political power, it now seems intent on mutating into a religion (see Creativity, Cosmotheism, Savitri Devi, Apollonism, etc. etc.) and fscking up our efforts at restoring sanity in this sphere as well. You correctly perceive that I am driving at something in these posts, and this is what it is. Yarvin plays a negative, indirect role – he separates us from the democratic religion – and I have no intention of selling him as an “unprincipled exception”, as he is much more useful as a pons asinorum for those who are capable of graduating WN.

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  131. @Franklin Ryckaert

    “You talk like a fag, and your shit’s all retarded” is, once again, not a good look for a movement trying to present itself as an intellectual rival to progressivism. I know I’m longwinded, but at least there’s something behind the verbiage, beyond endless rehashing of the same old WN talking points.

    As for your claim that I have no solutions, take a look at this:

    https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2021/11/know-do-survive-response-to-spencer-j.html

  132. You guys are arguing with a shabbos goy who rambles to drown out the other side, and more importantly, throws several things at you hoping one or some will catch to then zero in on that or them.

    She is engaging in a not very subtle aggressive apologia for Jewry in the form of aggressive in house polemic.

    This author is part of a very dangerous and growing element that Jews are utilizing, far beyond traditional crypto-jew and powerful shabbos goy utilization: the sending behind “enemy lines” of agent provocateurs who are neither crypto jews or powerful shabbos goys. They are dangerous because their sabotage is masked by their idiocy, which is itself masked by pseudo-intellectual absurdities. These useful idiots are not aware they are useful idiots. They fancy themselves as intellectuals, which makes them ripe for manipulation by our dear rabbis.

    I will also add that I am still not completely certain this isn’t a crypto-jew. However, that is inconsequential, as it is in fact more dangerous if she is an unaware useful idiot.

    Beware of “whites” bearing gifts…

  133. @James Lawrence

    Sorry, but that is the same kind of complicated and longwinded talk, entirely theoretical and still offering no concrete solutions.

    Perhaps this is your problem:

    https://www.autism-society.org/what-is/aspergers-syndrome/

  134. @James Lawrence

    You are trying to reason with delusional people.

    Why are you doing that?

    • Replies: @James Lawrence
  135. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @James Lawrence

    Power fantasies are all very well, but I try not to confuse them with real life, and in real life the White Nationalist power fantasy is an absolute failure. It is obsessed with tribal unity, yet is a squabbling mass of paranoids calling each other Jews; it is obsessed with reproduction, yet is full of people who don’t reproduce and don’t help others to do so; it is obsessed with power, yet only in the same morbid way that an incel is obsessed with sex. If it were based on higher truths than tribal unity, reproduction, and power, then you could salvage its principles from the wreckage, but it isn’t based on anything higher and ought to stand or fall on its practicality.

    Was Nazism these things? Of course it wasn’t, other than also being obsessed with the ((Jewish)) enemy. This is why corrupt Anglo elites, ((Jews)) and hybrids got together with Communists and ((Jews)) to destroy it.

    Let’s call the ((Jews)) and their collaborators ZOG. This is why ZOG destroyed Nazism, and attempted to destroy “Islamofascism” (and failed bigly), is attempting to destroy Russia, and has now fallen out with China.

    ZOG is also trying to destroy its former English partners in crime, and going a long way toward succeeding.

    We can identify the kind of Judas scum that got into bed with ((Jews)) formerly, are today counting their blood money, waiting to die a disgraceful and ignoble death like David Amess, by their mockery of the concept of “ZOG.”

    In fact, David Amess is the perfect example of Anglo Judas treachery.

    The reason White Nationalists are pathetic is that they refuse to acknowledge the reality of elite Anglo Judas treachery, and to confront Judas Anglos as well as ((Jews)).

    Moses only had the slightest hesitation when it came time to execute Hebrew/Semitic scum on the road to laying the foundation for the Christian West. Would that Hitler been less credulous of Anglo Judas scum. But he wasn’t. And he lost.

    When Christianity gets its groove back, I’m confident its Moses instincts will kick in and it will do what needs to be done to every Judas cockroach in its path (as well as the ((Jewish)) ones).

    • Agree: Petr P.
  136. @James Lawrence

    So on the one hand, yes, we can look at the racial purism in Ezra and the ethnic cleansing narrative in Joshua; on the other, we have to take into account the injunctions against mistreating foreigners in Exodus, and the idea of blessing all the nations through Abraham in Genesis

    There’s no actual contradiction between these ideas though. According to Jewish values the “blessing” of the nations is the great grace (for the chosen few shabbos goyim) of being allowed to be their slaves. Instead of being drowned in the blood of their own children and whatever which is what the goyim really deserve.

    The exact same law that says foreigners shouldn’t be “mistreated” says that it’s perfectly all right to enslave their children “forever” even so. That isn’t considered mistreatment. Compare Leviticus 19:

    When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.

    And Leviticus 25 a few chapters later:

    You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

    The realization that “Do him no wrong” = “Enslave his descendants for eternity” explains a lot of what looks like odd Jewish mental gymnastics to us. It’s not that they ignore the commandments that say that Gentiles should be treated nicely. They take them very seriously. It’s just that those commandments don’t actually mean what we might easily think they mean when quoted out of context.

    The Old Testament is a book of many authors but with a remarkably consistent message.

    But when you think someone is pushing an agenda and spinning a line of bullshit, the honest thing to do is to come out and say it.

    With that I can agree.

  137. @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    Finally someone makes a good point.

    I think it’s time I left this sorry lot to wallow in their own muck.

  138. @James Lawrence

    Adios, Shlomo. Thank you for stopping by.

  139. Seraphim says:
    @James Lawrence

    Please don’t do it before you publish the promised conclusion about ‘religious variant of the Jewpill’.
    Otherwise, I know that there is not point in reasoning with delusional people. But that shouldn’t stop us to expose the delusions for the benefit of rational people.

    • Agree: James Lawrence
  140. Pheasant says:
    @James Lawrence

    ‘Reading this salt mine of critical replies – the vast majority of which are devoted to the baseless lie that this author is a Jew, or writing at the behest of Jews – I’m reminded of why I put so much emphasis on the views of paranoid loons in this post and the one on White Nationalism, something that seemed excessive to me when Spencer Quinn called me on it at Counter-Currents.

    In retrospect, I should have dealt with the loons in one post and discussed serious thinkers like MacDonald in another, so that there could be no inference that I was conflating the two. But there is certainly good reason to treat the loons as the average representatives of Jewpilling, and the likes of MacDonald as the rare outliers. If you look at the Jewpilled “community”, as it were, it divides into 1) a small minority of deep thinkers who can take the Jewpill and keep their sanity, and 2) a vast majority of average thinkers who almost always descend into paranoid lunacy, and develop a toxic habit of casually lying about people’s identities and motivations without proper grounds for suspicion. It’s like a virus that destroys all but the strongest minds, and you have the lucky few who can take it and survive walking around extolling its health benefits and offering to infect other people, and wondering why they tend to run away in horror.

    This argument won’t convince anyone here, because I’m obviously playing into the Jewish agenda of pathologising gentile collective threat-perception n’shit, by admitting the obvious fact that most Jewpillers are stark raving bonkers. (That logic always works out well for dissidents, doesn’t it – if the enemy says one thing, you deny it and say the opposite, then just rinse and repeat until you end up with “never punch right” and “WWG1WGA”.) But God knows that this author is not a Jew, nor writing at the behest of Jews, and therefore that almost everyone in this thread is a lying toerag. Not a good look for a movement that has never had any weapon to hand but the truth.

    Now let’s deal with those who actually tried to come to grips with my argument. The most disappointing showing is from @Kevin MacDonald (comment 106) – who, by his own admission, plowed through 3000+ words on WN, cargo cults and basic-bitch comment-thread cranks, then encountered my very first counterargument to his theory and immediately stopped reading. Would it be uncharitable to put this down to an excessively thin skin, as opposed to an intolerance for my verbiage? Either way, the objections he offers me don’t make any sense.

    [MORE]

    To criticise the “cult of biological race” does not mean denying the evidence that race exists – it means, of course, criticising those who want to make it the object of a cult (compare “cult of reason”, “cult of individuality”, “cult of youth”, “cult of personality”, etc. etc.). And my “emic analysis of religion” – a.k.a. taking people’s conscious religious motives seriously, instead of attributing all their actions to other motives that are more in line with modern evolutionary theory – does not commit me to ignoring endogamy, ethnocentrism, or anything else, because in principle, none of these contradict the religious motive of preserving a separate community that follows the Jewish law. If MacDonald had bothered to read further, he would have encountered my argument that it is very difficult to explain the Ashkenazi “ecological strategy” of favouring scholarship and purging illiterates, unless you take seriously the belief that sanctity comes from knowing the Talmud and following the hundreds of Jewish commandments by memory.

    Finally, although “Darwinian fairytale” might sound provocative, I provided a link showing that this phrase comes from a work by the philosopher David Stove – whose other work MacDonald saw fit to cite in The Culture of Critique! Stove’s argument is not that Darwinism is a fairytale – he mostly accepts it as far as the non-human natural world is concerned, and gives short shrift to religious and idealistic objections – but only that it cannot fully explain the behaviour of human beings without resorting to casuistical nonsense. Since he’s no longer with us, I’ll link the whole book here and you can judge for yourselves if it is worthy of consideration:

    http://maxddl.org/Creation/Darwinian%20Fairytales%20-%20Selfish%20Genes,%20Errors%20Of%20Heredity,%20And%20Other%20Fables%20Of%20Evolution.pdf

    Anyway, to come back to my subject, there you have it – three complete non-sequiturs and reading comprehension failures, from the man whose interpretation of Jewish intellectual discourse forms the cornerstone of modern White Nationalist theory. And those who can be bothered to read the rest of my poast will find plenty of evidence that this is consistent with the rest of his thought. Like I said – it’s not a good look.

    Elsewhere, @John Regan (comment 39) tries some refutation. Or rather he tries to present the appearance of refutation, by making a big song and dance about beating strawmen of his own imaginings, so that readers even more prejudiced than him need not feel too insecure about dismissing my entire post out of hand. It’s the same modus operandi as any basic-bitch prog fact-checker upholding the official line on “white privilege” or “the Capitol Hill insurrection” – and to judge from the expressions of gratitude from others that he has received so far, it seems to have succeeded in its purpose.

    Regan’s first gambit is to address my claim that Jewpillers are intellectually shackled, because excessive paranoia about Jewish influence makes it impossible for them to engage with anything except the anti-Semitic White Nationalist movement. He doesn’t dispute this, but says it’s all good, because libertarianism is worthless and there’s nothing worth reading in Yarvin, Cole or Gottfried. Well, okay. Never mind the necessity of good-faith engagement with many points of view, so as to build up an accurate worldview; never mind the process of ideological cross-pollination that created the Alt-Right big tent (which I’m sure Regan thinks was worthless as well). Just stay trapped in the ideological prison of a movement that has failed for 60+ years and counting, because you can take the word of your prison guards that there’s nothing worth seeing outside the walls anyway.

    Next comes the strawmanning. In my post, I dispute MacDonald’s claim that the Jewish God is “really neither more nor less than Ezra’s holy seed – the genetic material of the upper class Israelites who were exiled to Babylon” (PTSDA, pp.64-66). At no point do I dispute the existence of the “holy seed” doctrine in the Hebrew Bible – what I dispute is the claim that it is identical with a God that is described as existing prior to all mankind, never mind the Jewish race, and as choosing the Jews for an essentially spiritual purpose that is dependent not just on genetic continuity but also on religious practice. Regan makes a sleazy bait-and-switch between my argument and his strawman, because he knows his fellow-Jewpillers won’t call him on his bullshit.

    The rest of his post is just non-sequiturs and misrepresentation – evidently he couldn’t be bothered to keep up the pretence of good faith for long – so let’s move on to @mark green (comments 82 and 114), who is being “deeply dishonest by omission and design” when he acts like he has actually read my post instead of lazily skimming through it. Pay attention here, Jewpillers, and learn the difference between rational suspicion and baseless slander, which stands or falls on the presence or absence of evidence. Exhibit A for my claim that this lazy git didn’t even read my post is his first comment, which falls straight into the trap of cargo-cult thinking that I criticise early on in my argument. Exhibit B is his second comment, which accuses me of “failing” to refute the “central contentions” of CofC.

    But why would I want to refute them? This is what I said in the post:

    But it is MacDonald’s position [on the relation of Jews to the democratic state and Western elites] that sets the tone for CofC – the bulk of which simply examines various strands of the New Left and points out the Jewish connections and motivations. As I’ve said, I don’t dispute any of this at a factual level [emphasis added]; the problem lies in the assumption that all of it took place in a basically free, open political market, as opposed to a centralised totalitarian empire that was already dominated by a native revolutionary elite.

    Yes, that’s right – I’m not even trying to dispute most of the content of CofC, whether it is the factual assertion that many progressivist movements were disproportionately staffed by Jews, or the interpretative argument that their involvement was partly bound up with their Jewish self-identification. What I dispute is the wider context into which MacDonald seeks to fit these facts and interpretations. And since my theory – unlike, say, Nathan Cofnas’s – would seem to leave a fair bit of leeway for anti-Jewish opinions in those who are opposed to progressivist movements, you have to wonder why there is so much salt in these replies and so many accusations that I am trying to distract people from even thinking about the Jews.

    Could it be that I have hit the mark in my theory of the Jewpill? Could it be that biological “anti-Semitism” does, in fact, occupy the suspiciously empty space in which one would expect to find a positive body of White Nationalist theory? And could it be that this “anti-Semitism” cannot play such a role unless it is inflated into an all-embracing monomania?

    Finally, at the risk of trying the reader’s patience, let’s take a look at @FvS (comment 9) who links to the blog of Ted Sallis – basically a glorified comment account in which a rather unhinged White Nationalist veteran spews the bitterest vitriol against everyone he reads, only from the safety of a no-comments-allowed blog where his victims cannot take him to task and puncture his delusion of being right about everything.

    Follow the first link, and you will Ted’s vehemently insulting reaction to my post on White Nationalism, in which he accused me of being an “ethnic fetishist” for Nordics with an “ethnic animus” to Southern Europeans (both tendencies I despise) on the basis of a single offhand comment about racial admixture that he twisted out of its proper context. This led me to conclude that he was intellectually dishonest, but I also speculated – either irreverently, or charitably, depending on your perspective – that he could also be “intoxicated”, “semiliterate”, or “retarded”. This resulted in the outraged huffing and puffing that you see in the second link – for Ted has developed a soft, thin skin in the padded cell of his insulated blog, and like a stereotypical bully, is not used to being hit back with anything like his own habitual ferocity.

    The third linked post on Salter is more reasoned, but still exhibits the same basic intellectual dishonesty (or, if you prefer, “self-deception”). Ted is basically moving the goalposts, setting up a rigid distinction between Salterian prescription and description – i.e. between the theory of EGI-adaptive behaviour, and the reality of actual human behaviour – that is all but impossible to distinguish in most parts of Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Technically, of course, it’s possible to defend Salter in this way – like a Renaissance astronomer before the Inquisition – by saying that theory is theory, reality is reality, and the former just posits more or less accurate hypothetical models of the latter. But this is downright disingenuous if you are Ted Sallis, who has written elsewhere about the need to capitalise EGI into “biopolitics”:

    https://counter-currents.com/2011/04/ethnic-genetic-interests/

    What it looks like to me is a classic setup for a motte-and-bailey fallacy. When we try to pin Salter down on his statements about Bantu immigrants and drowing children, Ted whisks his guru off to the “motte”, by telling us that Salterian “adaptiveness” is purely theoretical and is mediated through various “proximate proxies” for EGI in practical life. Okay…so let’s say we assume that humans have evolved a crude predilection for people with similar external characteristics to themselves, which originates as a proxy for EGI as theorised by Salter, but in practice can be ‘hacked’ by anything from linguistic similarity to political similarity to cultural similarity. And then let’s say we make this the basis for a milquetoast conservative proposal to force non-white immigrants to adopt local language, culture and customs, since as far actual human beings are concerned one type of similarity is more or less as good as another. Presumably, at this point Ted will come storming out into the “bailey”, to tell us why we should be modelling our real-life behaviour on the underlying EGI instead of the non-genetic proxy.

    Now that we understand these sleazy hand-waving tricks, let’s look at the fourth linked post on MacDonald. Once again, Ted whisks his guru off to the safety of the “motte”, this time by expanding the concept of “group evolutionary strategy” to be as nebulous and unfalsifiable as possible. Now, according to his rules, we must include practically any type of group behaviour under the definition of a group evolutionary strategy – whether it is collectivist or individualist, endogamous or exogamous, evolutionarily beneficial or evolutionarily disastrous.

    Now, to be fair, something like this definition of a group evolutionary strategy is actually provided by MacDonald in PTSDA. I didn’t use it in the post, because it is contradicted elsewhere (e.g. p.85, “in order to qualify as an evolutionary strategy, genetic segregation must be actively maintained by the strategising group”), and is irrelevant to MacDonald’s consistent usage of the term in which individualist behaviour is excluded. But if Ted wants to shift my theory onto this new Darwinist ground, then it’s all good, because it can still beat MacDonald’s theory game, set and match. All of my original objections still stand, and need only be couched in a slightly new language, in which the “moral community” of progressive Western elites that patronised the Jews is now conceived as an “individualist group evolutionary strategy”.

    Anyway…that was a lot of salt to dig through. No doubt I will be accused of verbosity and “word salad” again. But I know that if I kept things short and succint, and pitched my posts at the lowest intellectual level, then I would simply be accused of superficiality and crudity instead. Prejudiced, deceptive, mala-fide thinking will always find its way to its destined foregone conclusion, like water finding its way down to the lowest level.

    To be fair to you lot, I understand the basic hostility. No-one likes having his cherished beliefs trashed (I know, it’s happened to me), and I am just some obscure blogger with no especial claim to intelligence, erudition, or credentials, so you’ve no obligation to put up with my shit.

    But here’s the thing: this “movement”, by which I mean the Dissident Right dominated by WN and the Jewpill, has been a chronically failing stuckment for nigh-on seventy years now. To look at the insufferable complacency of its leaders and followers alike, you would think that it was still riding high on the illusions of 2016-17 – not licking its wounds after yet another effortless beating at the hands of the Left. And to look at the way it shuts its ears to critics, you would think that it was secure in its connection to the truth and its ability to accurately assess reality – not hastily wiping the egg off its face after being collectively played for a fool by Dicky Spencer, Blormpf, QAnon, etc.

    Let’s be honest: the Dissident Right is just another niche in the vast cubicle matrix of well-fed, smug, dissatisfied-but-basically-contented white Western males, who are happy to occupy their time with self-gratifying masturbatory fantasies while one of the worst governments in our history pisses our collective civilisational inheritance into the gutter. So I’m sorry for interrupting your larp with all my immersion-breaking talk about truth and reality, and normal service will shortly be resumed. But anyone who wants something more – and I see a handful of such people in this thread, like gems in the salt mine – is encouraged to check out my latest post at Affirmative Right.’

    You know Mr Lawrence if you want people to not see through you completely (and it is very obvious you are a Jew) you could try writing a little more dispassionately. Your psychological projection, utterly hostile tone and hysterical double standards are a clear indication of what your motives are (taking Moldbug- that bullshitter of all people in good faith lol). I can say confidently that after a decade of dealing with people like you online that your writing betrays exactly what your motivation is. anybody writing in good faith could have said their piece in a comment half the size.

    amazing that people like you would even try this in 2021.

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  141. Pheasant says:
    @Pheasant

    ‘Let’s be honest: the Dissident Right is just another niche in the vast cubicle matrix of well-fed, smug, dissatisfied-but-basically-contented white Western males, who are happy to occupy their time with self-gratifying masturbatory fantasies while one of the worst governments in our history pisses our collective civilisational inheritance into the gutter. So I’m sorry for interrupting your larp with all my immersion-breaking talk about truth and reality, and normal service will shortly be resumed. But anyone who wants something more – and I see a handful of such people in this thread, like gems in the salt mine – is encouraged to check out my latest post at Affirmative Right.’’

    This is quite literally the intellectual dark web. After ten years it still amazes me when I come across a Jew projecting. It always reminds me! How different they are inside!

    • Agree: Bert
  142. Pheasant says:
    @James Lawrence

    ‘I think it’s time I left this sorry lot to wallow in their own muck.’

    Just like pigs do!

    Damn goyim!

  143. Anon[352] • Disclaimer says:

    If you wish to really critique White Nationalism, you need to deal with the best arguments for it, not the worst. Wake me up when Lawrence addresses my arguments in The White Nationalist Manifesto: https://counter-currents.com/the-white-nationalist-manifesto-order/

    There are facts and there are theories offered as explanations for facts. MacDonald’s explanation of facts about Jewish behavior in terms of evolutionary psychology is a theory. It is actually a theory that is somewhat exculpatory since it posits that Jews are by and large unconscious of their heinous double standards and destructive behavior. If this theory is discarded, the facts still remain, and they remain damning to the organized Jewish community and sobering to the nations they live among. Re-read everything MacDonald has written and bracket out the evolutionary psychology bits. You’ll see what I mean.

    Claiming that problems with evolutionary psychology entitle one to ignore MacDonald’s work as a historian of ideas is a form of the straw man fallacy.

    — Greg Johnson

  144. @James Lawrence

    If I got my hands on power, I would institute the dream of Yockey, Mosley, and others: the unification of Europe into a single independent nation-empire. This state would identify as white and Christian, but it would also be non-democratic, so it would not need full racial purity to avoid the mobilisation of non-white races as “votebanks”. Presumably it would take much the same attitude to immigration as modern-day Japan or China: so on the one hand, you wouldn’t have non-white settler-colonies taking over big cities, but on the other hand, your Asian wife (no, I don’t have one myself) wouldn’t be hounded back to Asia by caliper-wielding weirdos.

    1. Presumably, to create that imperium, you would be using your power to suppress European nationalism. Ceasar murdered more than a million Gauls to add their lands to the Empire. How many Europeans would you be willing to murder? By embracing the grandiose crankery of the imperium, you make yourself the enemy of every actual European nationalist movement. You alienate the natural constituency you need to cultivate in order to liberate Europe from its enemies. You and Richard Spencer have something in common after all.

    2. You don’t have to get rid of “democracy” to maintain power if alien elements are kept to a small percentage of the population or disenfranchised entirely. An ethnostate does not have to be 100% homogeneous. It is a normative, not a numerical concept. Sweden could be an ethnostate tomorrow simply by declaring that it is the homeland of the Swedish people, dedicated first and foremost to their survival and flourishing, and the rest of the people there are merely along for the ride. Of course, the vast bulk of them are parasites and troublemakers who should be repatriated, but Sweden could still be an ethnostate simply by adopting normative ethnonationalism. You could call it Swedish supremacism. Since when is Swedish supremacism in Sweden a problematic idea?

    — Greg Johnson

    • Replies: @James Lawrence
  145. @Trevor Lynch

    If you wish to really critique White Nationalism, you need to deal with the best arguments for it, not the worst. Wake me up when Lawrence addresses my arguments in The White Nationalist Manifesto

    Evidently you think they are the best arguments. I found them to be among the most persuasive ones for converting normies – I’ll give you that – but they are not the deepest arguments, and they defend safe, ecumenical positions that I tend to agree with (e.g. non-white colonisation should be stopped) instead of getting to the heart of what white nationalism really is. In this post and the last one, I was looking for a Das Kapital, not a Communist Manifesto. And by finding it in MacDonald, I could not possibly have picked a more highly-regarded target, so I don’t know where you’re coming from with this notion that I am just going after the lowest-hanging fruit.

    In any case, it ill behoves you to come in this thread and tell me that I need to read your book again – or that I am strawmanning the four books of MacDonald’s that I re-read in meticulous detail to write this post – when you evidently cannot be bothered to read my humble blogpoast before jumping on your keyboard and blasting me. “When the theory is discarded, the facts still remain”? “Re-read everything MacDonald has written and bracket out the evolutionary psychology bits”? Isn’t this exactly what I was going for in this post? And it wasn’t at all unclear, because I came right out and said that this is what I was doing:

    That is to say, it [i.e. the GES theory] may be necessary for MacDonald’s thesis; but the real value of the book to white nationalists comes from its factual analysis, which demonstrates heavy Jewish involvement in subversive leftist movements. As long as Cofnas’s ‘default hypothesis’ doesn’t explain this away – and I basically agree with Quinn that it doesn’t – MacDonald’s core theory could be entirely detonated, and the facts about Jewish subversion would simply float in the idea-space of the Dissident Right until they coalesced around a different theory.

    Therefore, it is time for us to switch to a different tack, and provide that alternative theory. We don’t have to look very far, because just such a theory emerges with compelling force from the pure factual material presented by MacDonald, and links the beginning, middle and end of his trilogy in a way that his original theory does not. It’s not a theory that the Jews dindu nuffin,….

    Could this possibly be misunderstood by anyone as intelligent as you who read the post (and didn’t ragequit or skim to the end)? I even explained to the other commenter that I was not trying to exculpate the Jews, or deny the basic reality of what MacDonald observed in CofC, just to put it in a wider context. To fail to even read my post properly, then come in here to tell me to do a load of reading and re-reading, and top it all off with the actual words “straw man fallacy” shows a complete lack of self-awareness on your part. Is the Delphic maxim a joke to you?

    As for European unification, it sounds larpy in Spencer’s mouth because Spencer is a larper. To my mind, it is already a reality to a certain extent, because Europe is under the US imperial and ideological yoke. I explained my position on the modern ‘Church’ and ‘Empire’ in this post (with background information in the first part):

    https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-demise-of-nationalism-part-2.html

    What I want, obviously, is for Europe to get out from under the thumb of this Church and Empire, as China has largely (but still incompletely) managed to do. To do so, like China, it will have to become something more unified and powerful than a mass of squabbling petty states. As for what most people want out of nationalism – “Swedish supremacy in Sweden” – it can easily be solved at the provincial level in a unified European state (in India, for example, Maharashtrans have certain preferences in Maharashtra, etc.). Even if that didn’t work out because of the lack of democracy, and the European peoples got mixed with each other, I can’t see how that would not be preferable to the progressivism and non-white colonialism being foisted on them by the modern petty states following the lead of the US imperial order.

    As for the question of how to set up this state, obviously I hope it will be done as peacefully as possible. But if you are going to insinuate that I want to “murder” Europeans, then I will just turn round and say that your Universal Nationalism is a plan to condemn them to perpetual internecine slaughter. It is simply not serious to believe that you can take away external imperial oversight from a bunch of petty states, and expect them to all stay in their lanes following ideologies of self-interest that never infringe upon the interests of their neighbours. It sounds every bit as larpy as the notion that the Nonaggression Principle would be able to keep private individuals from fighting each other in a state of anarchy. And most people in Europe, who look upon the history of the nationalist wars with horror, will dismiss it as such.

    With friends like you, what need has Europe of enemies?

  146. Bert says:
    @James Lawrence

    So I’m sorry for interrupting your larp with all my immersion-breaking talk about truth and reality, and normal service will shortly be resumed.

    By implication you are inciting violence. You are a provocateur.

    • Troll: James Lawrence
  147. alfa says:
    @Weave

    Because he cares about our cause?
    I am a WN and I agree with him. Jews are catalysts, but they aren’t the starting factor in the antiwhiteness of the left. I would say that antiwhiteness is inherently part of any egalitarian movement because whites are the top dog hence they will be its target.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  148. geokat62 says:
    @alfa

    Jews are catalysts, but they aren’t the starting factor in the antiwhiteness of the left.

    Not the starting factor?

    Decent mothers are being seriously intimidated for the crime of trying to protect their children.

    Excerpt from, It Begins: FBI raids house, terrorizes family of mom who protested local school board, elections:

    An FBI SWAT team raided the home of an activist mother of four in Colorado on Tuesday, Nov. 16, knocking down her door, bursting into the house with guns and handcuffing her while she was homeschooling her children.

    This is the first known case of the federal government making good on its promise to not only intimidate but actually carry out a raid on a mom who was involved in her local school board politics, said Brannon Howse, who interviewed Sherronna Bishop at Lindell TV Wednesday night. 

    The U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland* issued an Oct. 4 memorandum directing federal, state and local law enforcement to look for parents to prosecute nationwide who may have made “threats” and made “harassing” phone calls to school board members nationwide, equating such parents to domestic terrorists.

    https://leohohmann.com/2021/11/18/it-begins-fbi-raids-house-terrorizes-family-of-mom-who-protested-local-school-board-elections/

    *Early Life:

    Garland was raised in Conservative Judaism, the family name having been changed from Garfinkel several generations prior. His grandparents left the Pale of Settlement within the Russian Empire in the early twentieth century, fleeing antisemitic pogroms and seeking a better life for their children in the United States.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland

    • Thanks: RedpilledAF
    • Replies: @alfa
  149. but i like my jewpills…

  150. alfa says:
    @geokat62

    Leftist ideas started in Europe among intellectual circles of white europeans. Radical abolitionists in New England were not jews. Degenerates in Paris & New York were not jewish. Jews contributed but they didn’t invent the Left. The Left is a psychology, a metaphysic, a method to accumulate power by lying to the masses. It’s something evil inherent in human societies.
    Saying it’s all a cartoonish plot by jews and only jews is cope.
    To think everything was fine and it alla started after WWII or WWI is cope.
    You’ll always lose if you don’t get how politics works and why we have this situation.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  151. Saying [Left wing extremism] is all a cartoonish plot by jews and only jews is cope.

    Most UNZ readers would surely agree that radical Left-wing political activism is not exclusively Jewish. But Jewish involvement was, and remains, a critical factor and a necessary condition for past and present Far Left political gain.

    The trenchant observations about Jewish involvement in the radical Left by Geo and others is not a fantasy–nor are their additional claims without substance.

    Nearly half of the Chicago Seven, for instance, were gentiles. But four of the seven were, in fact, Jewish. The radical SDS and other violent groups were a mixed ethnic bag, too; but there was always a large Jewish presence there. Ditto on the entire, global, communist movement. Marxism–a falsely utopian/egalitarian movement–consumed tens of millions of lives. And it’s still with us.

    Yet today, powerful Jews worldwide are using American and European power to doggedly pursue 95-year-0ld ‘former-Nazis’. At the same time, ex-commies feel no shame and receive no opprobrium; even though many got away with murder. Mass murder.

    This is not fair. This is not justice. It is something dark and sinister–especially when one considers the ongoing, Jewish-orchestrated pograms in Palestine. Nazis are old, weak, defamed, and dead. Zionists however are rising, connected, proud, and powerful.

    History and morality have been turned on their heads. It’s been going in this direction for decades. I blame Organized Jewry for this. Kosher gaslighting and triumphalism are real and ongoing.

    Indeed, many Americans–perhaps most–are totally clueless about the startling correlation involving Jews and radical politics (not to mention vast Jewish overrepresentation in mass media.) So please don’t deny Jewish power. Doing so enables Jewish non-accountability. Do we really need a hot war against Iran?

    It’s time for tough talk, accompanied by open-ended discourse. This requires unfettered Free Speech. And courage. Bold action is required–not calls for ‘softer and gentler discourse’.

    • Agree: HdC
    • Thanks: geokat62
  152. geokat62 says:
    @alfa

    Jews contributed but they didn’t invent the Left.

    This was your original statement to which I responded…

    Jews are catalysts, but they aren’t the starting factor in the antiwhiteness of the left.

    Isn’t Noel Ignatiev the biggest proponent of the concept of anti-whiteness?

    His family’s original surname, Ignatiev, was changed to Ignatin and later back to the original spelling. His family was Jewish. His grandparents were from Russia…

    Noel Ignatiev… was best known for his theories on race and for his call to abolish “whiteness”. Ignatiev was the co-founder of the New Abolitionist Society and co-editor of the journal Race Traitor, which promoted the idea that “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev

    You’ll always lose if you don’t get how politics works and why we have this situation.

    Agreed. Have you read The Culture of Critique?

    • Replies: @alfa
  153. alfa says:
    @geokat62

    You keep mentioning instances of anti-white jews.
    I don’t dispute that. I see it constantly on twitter.
    What I dispute is that antiwhiteness has an exclusively jewish origin in the sense that one day some jews united in a room and decided to engineer an anti-white plot or something.
    I think leftism breeds antiwhiteness because leftism is a political strategy of the elites where they attack the middle class (in a social, omnicomprehensive way, not just economic) using the lower classes. You see it with leftists parties being voted by the very rich and the poor, and the righist parties being voted by the middle class. High and Low vs Middle.
    It doesn’t have to be like this. In a good regime, the elites work together with the middle class without stoking up resentment in the lower class.
    The ideologies that arise in an environment are in large part caused by the structure of the regime.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  154. geokat62 says:
    @alfa

    What I dispute is that antiwhiteness has an exclusively jewish origin in the sense that one day some jews united in a room and decided to engineer an anti-white plot or something.

    Have you read The Culture of Critique?

  155. ROT says:

    Another hit out of the park from Mr. Lawrence. Touches on a lot of the problems I had always had with Culture of Critique (itself the best academic synthesis of white nationalist/alt-right ideology available), mainly that the white nationalist theory of history seems to begin in 1890, with a few scattered references to medieval treatment of the Jews and so forth. They have no explanation whatsoever of the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the French Revolution or the importance of the Enlightenment at all— and in fact align (they hate to admit it) with progressives on many of these.

    The unfortunate effect of aligning with Lawrence and Yarvin on the topic of true dissidence on the right—becoming clearpilled— is the pessimism that comes with understanding how large and complicated our problems really are. I am young, however, and have already had my fill of leftist evil and rightist fraud. I promise you there is an audience for this type of clearsighted work. We must start anew and harbor no untruths if we will succeed, for we weaken by the day.

  156. hillaire says:

    If one references so called white nationalism, it should be clear to even the most jaded miscreant that you actually suffer from terminal imbecility… (whites live in and create white nations).. and of course indulging in sophism and pilpul…(most likely as a bad actor)

    even haha… so called white nationalists and ethno nationalists (and costumed imbeciles hired by ‘jews’) do themselves a dis-service when chunnering this drivel…

    Essentially whites don’t need to excuse themselves in the countries they created, that of course should be obvious and if you are a ‘guest’ here, then kindly behave yourself…the problem envious alien race-baiters have with that is purely their own… life isn’t a free for all..

    perhaps they should go and live in china..

    you see.. it’s a matter of power and projection.. and whitey does neither nowadays (he’s poorly).. he leaves that to the ‘jewish financialists’ that he gave his nations away to…

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Lawrence Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World