Is the problem in the White mind or in our genes? I think it’s both, but the problem in our mind has arisen more recently and is more easily fixed. Whites aren’t lacking in either competency or courage. What Whites lack is collective self-awareness, and without it we cannot have a proper sense of moral legitimacy rooted in our collective interests.
This lacking comes from a misunderstanding of life itself – that life is competitive, and in any competition groups trump individuals. Along with this misunderstanding comes the failure to recognize the Other, especially the jews. Also, a tendency toward group solipsism, or Eurocentrism, which manifests as a tendency to see and blame only or mostly ourselves, neglecting the competition from others, especially the jews.
And it is not enough to simply recognize the Other. Hugh Dorsey recognized the jews as a race separate and apart from his own, as good but no better, i.e. equal. This attitude, no doubt shared by many Southern Whites in 1913, represented a failure to recognize the jews for what they are, as hostile and harmful to the long-term survival of Whites, as the enemy.
This failure is part of a broader failure to recognize and associate the influence and actions of jews with the jews. This does not happen by chance. It is the result of very deliberate and persistent jewish effort. This is why control over media and education is important to the jews. Maintaining their blamelessness by always shifting the blame elsewhere is the whole point of the jewish narrative. The same end is also served by their crypsis, the various efforts they take to disguise themselves.
Henry Ford’s The International Jew was a wonderful effort to address this failure – to explicitly identify jewish activities and influence and attach them to the jews. Even so, the tenor and tone was at times too concilliatory, or at least too diplomatic.
I consider the final chapter of TIJ, discussed by Carolyn Yeager and Hadding Scott in An Address to “Gentiles” on the Jewish Question – Episode 85, a case in point. It begins:
“Everywhere they wanted to remain Jews, and everywhere they were granted the privilege of establishing a State within a State. By virtue of these privileges and exemptions, and immunity from taxes, they would soon rise above the general condition of the citizens of the municipalities where they resided; they had better opportunities for trade and accumulation of wealth, whereby they excited jealousy and hatred.”
This is, in fact, a recurring pattern throughout history. The privileges don’t just fall into their laps. They whine, bribe, extort, and otherwise lobby for those priviledges. The never stop seeking superior treatment. They mask their push behind the pretense that they and their proxies are uniquely under-privileged and seek only equality.
Bernard Lazare was an apologist for the jews. He could not conceive that the defrauded have no cause to envy their defrauders, or that fraud naturally results in hatred.
From an introduction to Lazare’s notorious book, Antisemitism: Its History and Causes, 1894:
One will find Lazare’s book cited at many anti-semitic websites and in in anti-semitic publications. The reason for this is that Lazare conducted a major reveiw of the history of anti-semitism and, to a very large decree, can be read as having put the blame on Jews themselves.
This, however, is a misreading of his work. From the way he is cited by anti-semites it may come as something of a surprise to note that Lazare, a journalist, was famous as the first defender of Captain Dreyfus – the first Drefusyard. Moreover, he was perhaps the first French Jewish intellectual to commit fully to Zionism as a political solution. Here are comments by Aron Rodrigue.
Bernard Lazare has interested commentators and historians not only for his contribution to the revision of the Dreyfus case but also for his distinction as the first French Jew to make the transition from an almost self-hating endorsement of total assimilation as a solution to the Jewish problem to a full embrace of the cause of Zionism.
In Chapter Ten: The Race Lazare expresses a typically jewish denial of race. Noting that “anti-semites” see the jews as racially distinct, he writes:
Race is, however, a fiction. No human group exists that can boast of having had two original ancestors and having descended from them without any adulteration of the primitive stock through mixture; human races are not pure, i.e., strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a race.
Denial of race is part and parcel of jewish crypsis.
Returning to TIJ:
An Address to “Gentiles” on the Jewish Problem
The heading of this article presents difficulties. The correct use of the term “Gentile” is in question. It is a name that has been given us, not by ourselves, but by Jews, and it is by no means certain that it is accurately given. A very great chance exists that it is not. That, however, is a matter which “gentiles” do not bother to understand; they think, of course, that if one is not a Jew one must be a gentile This is only another instance of the Jewish view being “put over” without the “gentile” understanding or even questioning it.
There is another difficulty: how shall one address “gentiles” collectively?
This scrutinization of “gentile”/jew is interesting to compare and contrast to “people of color”/White.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Note: We get deconstructed quite rapidly. Some weeks ago I came across a lecture which is accusing (they say “revealing”) the famous Immanuel Kant of anti-ZIONISM. Lecturer: Daniel Späth
(I hope the wolve somehow escaped safely without getting killed)
“…how shall one address “gentiles” collectively?…”
Let us call ourselves humans. Thus there is the dichotomy : humans…and jews. The implication is obvious.
I don’t mind being helpful to Jews or Muslims or black people or anyone who’s different. Seriously. I think Christianity is a light the world and we should share that light. But: if you force a choice between me or you, then it’s me.
A synchronicity today following up on a comment I put on your site last week: I was watching the HBO series True Detective and they’re onto human sacrifice. Naturally all the people doing the sacrificing are Christians. And since I know Jews always project their psycho on us: maybe you should investigate the history of Jewish sacrifice of Christian and Muslim children?
And if it turns out to be bogus, then you can really establish of your bona fides by showing that. But I don’t think it’s going to be bogus. I think it really happened and I think it is still happening.
Kikejews deny ‘race’ because jews are not a race!
The term race is today associated mainly with continental-scale groupings. In the loosest sense, however, the term race has applied to various groups linked by heredity. The essence of jewishness has always has been hereditary, so in that sense it is perfectly proper to refer to the jews as a race. The semitically correct term today is ethnic group, which means roughly the same thing race meant a hundred years ago, before the predominance of jew-promoted/jew-enforced taboos around any use of the term.
Lazare’s argument was that race must be pure, otherwise it doesn’t exist. Jews make absurd arguments like this to downplay and obscure the hereditary nature of jewishness. What is the purpose of your bald assertion Bob?
To Bill Krapek: The alleged and highly-contested ritual sacrifices by jews of non-jew children is only a small and unnecessary element to make the link you are suggesting. Unlike those allegations, it is undeniable that human sacrifice was widely practiced by the jews during biblical times and that’s what many of those old testament prophets are railing against, i.e. King David and King Solomon both were criticized for participating in the “worship” of the Canaanite god Moloch/Baal to which they threw babies into a fire. This is probably why that habit persisted in secret into historical times among a small jewish elite who kept such disgusting mystical practices, some of which were caught and those accounts come down to us as the ritual murders by blood letting.
This is off topic, I know, but I just stumbled across it and couldn’t put it in a comment where I thought it more relevant, in your podcasts about organ donation, the comments being closed.
A brief excerpt:
“One local rabbi recently suggested that there is a prohibition to donate blood to general blood banks (though he acknowledged that there is a mitzvah to donate blood to Jewish causes). In order to refute any such claim it is important to identify precisely which prohibitions may be violated in the course of blood donations.”
To me, more telling than the article itself were the comments, filled with “We shouldn’t be putting this where they can see it” remarks and some even adding parenthetical comments in Hebrew, presumably to mask the inconvenient truth.
Your work, tan, is so well done and so very important. I urge people I talk with to listen because you distill The Question in such a way as to make it not just clear but urgent. Thank you for what you do.