Alabama
Here’s a brief explanation of why I lean toward “Bicausalism Type B”:
The short answer is Southern history. Jews have always lived in the South, but Southern Jews only played a marginal role in the downfall of our social institutions. The most obvious example would be the abolitionist movement, the War Between the States, and the destruction of the Confederacy.
Jews were never perceived as the major threat to slavery by antebellum Southerners. Try real hard to think of the Jews who were behind the abolitionist movement. Prominent Jews like Judah Benjamin of Louisiana and David Yulee of Florida resigned from the Senate when their states seceded from the Union. Jews fought for the Confederacy in the War Between the States.
During Reconstruction, Southern Jews joined the Ku Klux Klan. Montgomery was redeemed from Reconstruction by its first Jewish mayor, Mordecai Moses, who ran as “the true White man’s candidate.” Throughout the Jim Crow era, Southern Jews were part of the commercial elite in cities like Montgomery and Selma, and never seemed to have any problem accommodating themselves to segregation and white supremacy.
When the Civil Rights Movement erupted in the 1950s, Southern Jews were embarrassed by the sheer number of Northern Jews who came to the South, particularly in Selma and Montgomery, and many of them even joined the White Citizens’ Council. In the South, the Civil Rights Movement was never associated with the Jewish population. It was seen as the work of “outside agitators” – Jews, Quakers, Catholics, Northern Protestants, Unitarians – Jewish and Yankee radicals who arrived in the South from some point of departure in the Northeast or Midwest.
The history of the South is different from the history of the North. The threat to the South’s racial order has always come from the outside – through the existence of the Union – whereas in the North it has always come from the enemy within.
Basically, I don’t see Jews as the primary infection because, if it were not for the existence of the Union, I just don’t see Southern Jews overthrowing slavery, destroying the Confederacy, or rising up to overthrow the Jim Crow system.
Update: Here’s an excerpt from one of the most fascinating books about the Jewish Question in the South that I have ever read, Fight Against Fear: Southern Jews and Black Civil Rights:
“Opposition to Northern intrusion was also indicative of the fact that some southern Jews were intensely skeptical, if not openly scornful, of the need for immediate integration. Over half the interviewees included in sociologist Alfred Hero’s survey of southern Jewry argued that desegregation was proceeding “too fast,” admitting that they felt emotionally ill at ease about integration even when they accepted it as inevitable and in the long run desirable.” The ideological differences between northern and Southern Jews clearly expressed in a letter addressed to the American Jewish Committee by Montgomery, Alabama, Jewish Federation. “The White community in the South is generally opposed to desegregation,” read the letter. “The Jewish community in the South is part of the white community in the South.” …
Al Vorspan recalled one particularly heated discussion with Montgomery’s leaders that took place behind a locked door of a downtown hotel room. Having hoped he might convince his audience that the national Jewish organizations were taking the moral highground in supporting integration, Vorspan was horrified to hear himself and other New York Jews described as being “worse than Adolph Hitler” because of the way they “stirred up anti-Semitism.”
Here’s another revealing excerpt about the integration of Atlanta:
“For Charlie Leb, the Civil Rights Act was the beginning of the end. His intransigence had been a cause of considerable embarrassment to the Atlanta Jewish community. Marvin Goldstein shakes his head as he concedes that Leb was a “rabid” segregationist. “He shouldn’t have been,” asserts Goldstein. “He came from humble surroundings.”
Leb had always insisted that his business remained segregated only out of respect for the sensitivities of his white customers. This was nothing if not disingenuous. Situated on the same street as Leb’s was another restaurant called Harrod’s, which had desegregated before the sit-ins ever began. Almost every day, those who tried to eat at Harrod’s had to first pass through a Klan picket line. By contrast, the Klan posed no threat to Charlie Leb. As Charles Wittenstein explains, “He was getting a lot of admiration and attention and was the hero of the white race and that segregationist crowd, and he bought into it and continued to do so.” On January 27, 1965, a dinner was held in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., who had recently been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Among those who organized and attended the dinner were many of Atlanta’s Jews. Outside on the street, Klansmen paraded in protest. Marching alongside them was Charlie Leb. …”
Here’s another excerpt from Mississippi:
“This might initially appear a rather contentious remark. We have already seen that Jews ordinarily joined the Citizens Council not out of any ideological conviction but as a means of deflecting attention from their true feelings on the race issue. Yet in Jackson itself one of the most articulate spokespersons in defense of segregation was indeed a Jew, Al Binder. Binder, an attorney, was closely associated with the power structure, not only in Jackson, but throughout the state. It was he who led the prosecution of the Freedom Riders in 1961. “Al’s one of us,” asserted the leader of Mississippi’s massive resistance movement. “He’s our Jew.”
HW
“If the Jews are able to mold our minds through their control of the Mainstream Media, how do we explain the existence of Single Jewish Causers and Type A Bicausalists?”
Some people are naturally contrary – which is part of the problem with WN. The people least effected by the media trance are naturally cantankerous. Normal people need cognitive dissonance to knock them out of their consensus trance – hence the media needing to lie. If the media told the truth the cognitive dissonance between multicult propaganda and the reality would snap the trance.
It’s starting to happen now anyway as the media is side-stepped because of camera phones and the internet .
“Isn’t it obvious that multiple factors are at work?”
Sure but most anti-monocausalists – which is 95% a straw man anyway – are monocausalists themselves and to no useful purpose.
Europe is the fountainhead of most of the crazy ideas which eventually wind up over here.
A man can be forgiven for being a tad more geographically precise when pinpointing Lutheranism, Marxism, Zionism, Nazism…
I have no problem identifying Jewish media influence as a causal factor in White racial and cultural decline. It is obvious to me that the effect of Jewish media influence will vary across individuals and across populations.
A man can be forgiven for being a tad more geographically precise when pinpointing Lutheranism, Marxism, Zionism, Nazism…
I disagree with your implications, but comments like that are why I really enjoy your stuff.
Has anyone here ever changed their racial views after watching a movie or a television show?
Except that Muslims in our very century, even in 2013, still don’t sell their MSM to the tribe.
I guess none (because he’s Type-B) but I cannot speak for him. Only Types-A, like Kevin Mac, believe that more than half of blame is due to Jewish influence (and only a residual percentage to what he calls “white pathology”).
Incidentally, Helvena has been a regular AOT commenter.
I did after reading Bernal’s Black Athena.
I’ve always like Zulu though, but the consciousness of blacks was generally subconscious.
My own theory is that Yankee liberals are much more easily influenced by Jewish liberals because they are perceived as being “on their side.” The other side of the coin is that Southern conservatives are more easily influenced by Jewish neocons because they are perceived as being “on their side.”
Chechar,
I am not following you. You speak a lot of military conquest and used the examples of Iraq and Germany to prove that they never “handed over” their media to the tribe.
I’m disputing the claim there is an inherent white pathology that causes whites to do things like turn over their media.
No one turns over their media to aliens. Aliens take it when they can.
Test, wrote:
If the problem was White people the media wouldn’t need to lie.
Which the media does 24/7/365 with an unending tsunami of anti-white/Christian propaganda.
The mass media is mostly controlled by Jews. This is well known. No need to go into this.
I read your response as implicating whites as somehow responsible for the Jewish control based on this question:
How is it that, unlike the Islamic countries so plagued with Semites, the Muslims never handed over their media to the subversive tribe? – Chechar
The answer, again, is that the Islamic countries that retain control haven’t been conquered by alien outsiders, other than in Iraq, where Jews and their proxies have taken over the media.
There is nothing special about Islam or being non-white that allows them to resist Jewish subversion.
It helps not to be conquered.
Also, if Sunic assigns no specific blame to Jews at all, then I think that makes Sunic a straight-up “we whites did it to ourselves” monocausalist (no distinct contribution from Jews to white decline at all). That’s a pretty weak position to put it charitably.
What would it take to move you from Type B to Type A in terms of evidence? Care to speculate?
HW
“Has anyone here ever changed their racial views after watching a movie or a television show?”
I think the racial views of Europeans in the 1950s and 1960s who later became part of the multicult were explicitly constructed by the stream of anti-white Hollywood movies like “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Twelve Angry Men.” They had no other experience to compare it with so they swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Hollywood was the root of the whole thing.
Truth be told, almost the whole catastrophe that was the twentieth century can be laid at the feet of good old Kaiser Bill.
Names like Churchill, Roosevelt, Lenin, and Stalin are higher on my list.
Chechar
“Except that Muslims in our very century, even in 2013, still don’t sell their MSM to the tribe.”
Still doesn’t effect my point. If the problem was White people the media wouldn’t need to lie.
Woodrow Wilson and his “advisers.” Germany wins without US intervention, and we’re probably not having this conversation.
I love that mantra. Who coined that?
Jewish influence of media is pretty much in the general conscience. Simply put. They provide entertainments and so forth as long as the public demanded.
Lew
“I love that mantra. Who coined that?”
If you mean the media one i saw it on a blog a couple of days ago.
“Hollywood was the root of the whole thing.”
At least in Europe – not necessarily the states.
[quote]Has anyone here ever changed their racial views after watching a movie or a television show?[/quote]
No. Hasn’t had any affect on me at all.
My views have changed more based on meeting people irl. I basically moderated my racial views in that I still am interested in anthropology but no longer am interested in political racialism.
lol
damn blockquotes
This is kind of funny. We have been discussing the issue now in various threads and here at OD one of the commenters in one of the earliest threads wrote a magnificent paragraph as to how whites sold their media (and more) to the Jews. I don’t want to dig it but you can at least reread what Hunter said above about the US media.
I said “funny” because it reminds me Tan’s words in one of his earliest radio shows with Carolyn. He said that ethno-suicide is an absurd concept “because it is not logical”. His statement reminded me a Spanish-speaking communist who a few years ago told me that the Gulag could not have happened “because it doesn’t make sense”.
In other words, forget the facts! Forget the fact that the US committed suicide by selling its MSM to our ancient enemy. Stick to common sense (“No one turns over their media to aliens”).
You have not even read MacDonald’s trilogy! Have you? Kevin talks a lot about collectivist cultures; for instance, how the Chinese and Muslim cultures are collectivists in contrast to the West’s (suicidal I would say) individualism.
I didn’t say that. My impression when reading him is that Jews are toxic in direct proportion as we empower them.
Think of Bicausalism as a formula:
Type-B = suicide + homicide (“assisted suicide” if you want to see it that way).
On the other hand, true monocausal bloggers like the late Auster and the gentile Dymphna would blame whites and whites only.
This is a good example of blame it all the Joos trolling.
This is the J Richards approach, peddle absurd claims using bits, pieces and kernels of truth, combined with lies, half-lies and distortions.
I suspect most of the people who literally blame it all on the Joos are Richards type trolls trying discredit founded criticism of Jews and pollute the topic since the net can’t be censored.
To me, a misguided, monocasualist victim type would be one who really believes this:
“America is owned by us Jews. We issue the orders. The Attorney General is a Jew, the Head of Homeland Security is a Jew, the White House Chief of Staff is a Jew. All the major newspapers, magazines and TV stations are owned by us Jews. Six of the seven major Hollywood studios are owned by Jews.
Pornography, as everyone knows, is more or less a Jewish monopoly. Jewish Professor Nathan Abrams openly boasts about this in the 2004 winter edition of the Jewish Quarterly where he points out that the main motivation of Jewish pornographers is “to weaken the dominant Christian culture in America by moral subversion.”
Al Goldstein, publisher of Screw magazine, went further: “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that CHRIST SUCKS.” [My capitals].
So this is what we’re doing: using pornography to corrupt your children, drive your young men insane, and make the rest of you into compulsive masturbators and sex addicts! Thus we emasculate you, thus we demoralize you, thus we destroy you — and there’s nothing you can do about it!
The idea seems to be to encourage people who are skeptical of Jews for good reason to swallow nonsense and spread it around so they discredit themselves (the nonsense here is the Joos are all powerful and you can’t do anything about it).
It affects it because, as I’ve just told Lew, MacDonald has demonstrated that collectivist societies are immune to Jewish subversion. On the other hand, in an individualist, capitalist society there’s nothing wrong about selling media to the best purchaser. And with the exception of Sparta & the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church reigned, and National Socialism (according to Mac’s 2nd trilogy book), white cultures have not been collectivists.
Have you read any introductions to basic logic?
Type B defined that way is a logical absurdity. You have whites initiating a collective act of suicide as a premise, the act of which is then assisted by Jews. It’s fallacious because your conclusion that whites are suicidal is also a premise.
Your turn counselor.
Chechar
“It affects it because…”
It doesn’t. If the problem was White people the media wouldn’t need to lie.
We have been discussing the issue now in various threads and here at OD one of the commenters in one of the earliest threads wrote a magnificent paragraph as to how whites sold their media (and more) to the Jews
It doesn’t mean anything anyone said on this topic is correct.
You do remember I hope the burden of proof is on you not me. You’re the one claiming ethno-suicide is true. I don’t have to disprove it. You have to prove it. Which you have not done so far.
I disagree. These are the lead paragraphs of my entry “Assisted suicide”:
“Mental AIDS” is the collapse of a people’s immune system in the face of their enemies. Practically all whites throughout the West suffer from mental AIDS insofar as they are not defending their sacred lands against an invasion of millions of non-whites. However, some white nationalists get mad when hearing the expression “suicide” as a value judgment about the pathological passivity among present-day whites. Most nationalists speak, instead, of “homicide”: the Jews being the primary infection that infected the white soul.
But what if they are a secondary infection? After all, the white people contracted Christianity (HIV) in the 4th century, which after a long incubation period eventually developed into liberalism (AIDS) during the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Liberalism, or Neochristianity as I like to call it, weakened the West’s immune system. After Napoleon, Neochristians opened the door to the subversive tribe throughout continental Europe—Jews—: a “mental AIDS”-related opportunistic infection, such as pneumonia is an infection of the somatic equivalent of AIDS.
See the HIV link above [linked only at my original article]. If Christianity and its secular offshoots are massively involved in the West’s darkest hour, and I cannot conceive a biggest blunder than emancipating the Jew, why not start diagnosing the situation as “assisted suicide,” with the Jew only being too happy to comply the deranged Neochristian’s will to bring about his own death?
I am not alone in this apparently wild opinion. Below, my abridgment of Tom Sunic’s “Race and Religion: Awkward Friends of the White Man,” published in three parts at The Occidental Observer:
(You can read the rest of the entry here.)
Is the cricket committing suicide or is it driven to its death by the parasite that inhabits it?
http://boingboing.net/2008/07/15/video-gordian-worm-l.html
Good question, Desmond.
But why are whites so susceptible?
Why haven’t we learned any better?
Maybe its more like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUnhfvGdmmw
Deo Vindice
I do so love reasoning by analogy.
If indeed we have AIDS, then there is no cure, so why worry? If it’s just parasites on the other hand, then it all depends. On the other hand, if we are only allowing ourselves to be duped when we should know better, then…
I think Lew is winning this one.
Deo Vindice
LONDON
By William Blake
I wander thro’ each charter’d street,
Near where the charter’d Thames does flow.
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.
In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg’d manacles I hear
How the Chimney-sweepers cry
Every blackning Church appalls,
And the hapless Soldiers sigh
Runs in blood down Palace walls
But most thro’ midnight streets I hear
How the youthful Harlots curse
Blasts the new-born Infants tear
And blights with plagues the Marriage hearse
Deo Vindice
“If whites are bad, why does the media have to lie.”
That’s the one that hung me up.
Genetic domestication or pacification.
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP08376389.pdf
Indeed. It’s a lethal formulation. We ought whoever said deserves credit.
But how can I discuss with someone who, in addition to not having read MacDonald’s trilogy, has not read either any of the two books available on the history of the white race? Had you read any of these histories you could have been persuaded by now that there’s something horribly wrong going on in the white psyche since the times of Sumer insofar as, with the exception of Sparta and the pre-Christian Goths (which never committed ethno-suicide), we have lost all racial wars when entering in contact with non-whites, and precisely because of pursuing “economics over race” policies.
And why you say the burden is on me? Blaming everything on a specific group and claiming at the same time that we have little issues of our own strains credulity beyond the breaking point. (A more commonsensical view than Type-A would be to say that we must have huge issues, a sort of “Mental AIDS” as I said in my previous comment.)
Jones, since you are a newcomer to this discussion I’ll iterate what I said in the other threads. Let’s use an example from Majority Rights.
While at first thought the fact that Jews have higher IQs than most Whites appears to assign plausibility to the hypothesis that their psyops have converted Whites, as James Bowery put it, into “extended phenotypes” of the tribe—like crickets infected with gordian worms committing suicide—, how would monocausalists explain that throughout the latest thirteen centuries the “worm” (i.e., the Jew) has been unable to infect the minds of people of even lower IQs, the Muslims? The fact is that they have never behaved like suicidal crickets (“What is good for the worms?”) in their nations.
In contrast to the monocausalists’ psychological reductionism my hypothesis is that, in addition to the Jewish problem, there are other factors for Western malaise.
Take a look at Arthur Kemp’s study, which I have excerpted in my blog. Although he is conscious of the Jewish problem, it shocked me to learn in Kemp’s book that the same suicidal tendencies among Whites that we see today have happened since the very first civilizations in Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, and always because of White greed: easy work through the slavery or second-class status of Semites, Nubians and Arabs in the lands conquered by peoples of Indo-European origin. The same thing happened in Greece, Rome, and, later, in the American subcontinent conquered by the Iberians.
MacDonald is no promoter of the single cause hypothesis. On the contrary, I find it fascinating that some of MacDonald’s sentences in his Trilogy hint that Whites have some unique hardware characteristics such as individualism and universalism that, historically, have weakened their ethno-centric defenses.
I believe that, together with the egalitarian software that I call the Christian/Secular Christian problem (liberalism run amok after the French Revolution) and the One Ring of greed and power (economics over race), these factors constitute part of the ingredients of the formula that’s killing us—plus the Jewish ingredient.
From this point of view the Jewish problem would be a very strong catalyst that has accelerated the process in the last centuries since the emancipation of Jewry, but certainly not the only active ingredient in the brew.
An improvement might be
If it was suicide the media wouldn’t need to lie.
If it was suicide the media wouldn’t need to lie—and does not lie in Muslim nations because unlike whites they’re not crickets!
how would monocausalists explain that throughout the latest thirteen centuries the “worm” (i.e., the Jew) has been unable to infect the minds of people of even lower IQs, the Muslims?
But they did. It’s the Abrahamic meme/serpent called Islam. Muhammad, as an Arab, it is believed, is descended from Abraham’s son Ishmael.
Jones,
That’s not the issue. The issue is ethno-suicide. In the last comments I used the subject of the mainstream media in my debate with Lew and Test to show that Muslims have not been dumb enough to sell their MSM to the subversive tribe. It’s a fact, not a theory of mine, that Kevin Mac claims that collectivist societies are much better prepared to resist the “worm” (so to speak) than us.
Jewish influence of media is pretty much in the general conscience. Simply put. They provide entertainments and so forth as long as the public demanded. – G Prune
Are you referring to Hollywood making every effort to block Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ from reaching mass audiences even though it was a guaranteed money maker with millions of people demanding it?
Next I suppose you’ll be telling us the white public demanded Hollywood swap father knows best for Archie Bunker and Homer Simpson.
And yet Islam, a direct descendant of Abraham, is a worm that has infected Arabs, an apparently collectivist people and others of the ancient near East. Islam also is universalistic and miscegenation is acceptable. What then is different except that found in Mendelian genetics?
“If it was suicide the media wouldn’t need to lie—and does not lie in Muslim nations because unlike whites they’re not crickets!”
Judaism does not possess the same animus for Islam as it does for Christianity. The current friction between Muslims and Jews exists as a byproduct of Zionism and the creation of the Jewish state in Palestine.
There is also significantly less perception of historical “persecution” among Jews regarding Islam, not to mention a greater compatibility based upon the perception that both are more purely monotheistic and both cultures are identifies as “Semitic.”
Whether any of these distinctions are true or not, the Jewish perception is one of greater affinity, kinship, and identification with Muslims. Or perhaps, Muslims are not perceived as a threat. Therefore, greater amity exists between the two than would first appear.
Most Jews prefer to live in Christian nations, due to the greater quality of life provided by white nations and despite their greater antipathy toward the dominant culture. No guarantee that if they lived elsewhere, the dynamic would be reversed. Nevertheless, it looks like a case of familiarity breeds contempt.
Which means Jewish emancipation was a disaster of the first magnitude for whites.
To put it another way and to borrow a line from the mantra:
Why white countries for everybody? Because that’s where the Jews are.
Deo Vindice
That’s part of the problem for sure: the tribe. But you are forgetting the other side of the equation, “In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible.”
In other words, Jews were not the main culprits in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, but the Romans’ lust for the “Ring”.
People who complain about Jews are just losers.
In the capitalist system you either make it or you don’t.
Hate the game, not the player.
On the other hand complaining about Zionism is legitimate.
Chechar,
I find it fascinating that some of MacDonald’s sentences in his Trilogy hint that Whites have some unique hardware characteristics such as individualism and universalism that, historically, have weakened their ethno-centric defenses.
OK; re: MacDonald, collectivism, individualism
So you’re depending on MacDonald? Let me knock this down to size before moving on back to this idea white handed over their media.
I have not read Kemp’s work. People I consider reliable have told me that his work is flawed. Can’t comment on it.
I have read MacDonald’s writings. I draw different conclusions from it than you seem to draw. We disagree.
I think Kevin MacDonald’s writings stand alone. If we win, he deserves a national monument and a place in history alongside Charles Martel or someone of that caliber.
That said, the genetic, technical portion of MacDonald’s work has been questioned by experts with relevant technical knowledge that you, I and no one here I don’t think has.
For me, it doesn’t matter if Jews do what they do because of culture or genetics. What matters is that they do it. Culture definitely impacts their behavior. Google Yoav Shamir’s Defamation for conclusive proof.
My point for this context is this.
IF, according to technical experts, there is inadequate evidence that the Jews are driven toward their behavior by evolutionary causes, THEN the evidence whites are driven by evolution toward an anti-evolutionary strategy would have to be just as weak.
This follows, no?
KMDs peers don’t regard the technical portions of KMDs work as true or a particularly credible. We should not ignore evidence we don’t like. That’s what leftists do.
MIT Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker:
MacDonald’s main axioms – group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups — are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.
– Steven Pinker
My takeaway: Not enough evidence to conclude that whites are biologically driven toward an anti-evolutionary “ethno-suicide,” and certainly not enough to make this a default premise that people should accept without justification. Please.
What do you have to say?
History also backs it up, whatever Kemp may have said. I’m not putting Kemp above Pinker who among other things has crushed the The Blank Slate theory. Not exactly a trivial contribution to contemporary intellectual water table.
Consider an idea like individualism.
My reading of history is that whites have always been inclined toward individualism, however, for most of history it has been restrained forms of it. The white embrace of the radical, post-French Revolution strains of individualism that dominate our own times must be weighed against the limited forms of it that prevailed in Greece, Rome, Catholic Europe.
Advanced white societies have not embraced extreme individualism, or modern egalitarianism until recently. That fact, I think, undermines the notion there is a primal suicide flaw operating in whites at a biologically level.
Two other examples from intellectual history (the ideas or “software” that have rippled across the west): Aristotle regarded the family as the foundation of society, not the individual. Plato promoted what I think can fairly be called forms of collectivism. Both of their ideas ripped across western history.
This portion of your argument has serious problems. I feel like I’ve knocked it down or, at a minimum, shown based on Pinker this idea of a primal suicide flaw you seem to be treating as definitely true is not.
“If it was suicide the media wouldn’t need to lie—and does not lie in Muslim nations because unlike whites they’re not crickets!”
We’re talking about White nations though and if it was suicide the media wouldn’t need to lie.
It should be this:
If it was suicide the media could tell the truth.
I like the original better, though.
In other words if whites were going to commit suicide regardless it wouldn’t matter what the media said.