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.”
I have already explained that “monocausal” in that sense would be people like Larry Auster and the gentiles of Gates of Vienna (GOV); not us. Do I have to repeat that with Tanstaafl himself, the admin of Age of Treason (AOT) I tried to refute GOV-ers in their own site?
Following your percentage paradigm I would say that:
1. AOT-like monocausalism blames Jews 100%. Whites are 100% innocent
2. Bicausalism Type-A assigns a blame percentage above 50% to Jews
3. Bicausalism Type-B assigns a blame percentage above 50% to Whites
4. GOV-like monocausalism blames Whites 100%. Jews are 100% innocent
Of course, in bicausalism you can either blame one or the other in diverse ratios depending on the specific bicausal individual, say, 90 / 10 percent or inversely 45 / 55 percent, etc.
You will be surprised to learn that in my head I am constantly (intuitively of course) varying these ratios while studying the literature in field.
Decent comment, Greg.
But this contradiction is what stands out:
“Whites are prone to universalism: the idea that there is one humanity and one moral law that transcends differences of race and culture.”
BUT
“Christianity, which is a universalistic religion grafted on the trunk of Jewish tribalism, and infected with Jewish fanaticism and intolerance.”
This means that properly practiced, Christianity is extremely intolerant. Of Jews, of sin, of nonsense. In other words, Christianity, properly practiced, is specifically designed to counter whites’ predilection for universalism.
Was universalist America particularly suitable for Jewish hegemony? Absolutely. Are the foundations of America anti-Christian? Yes. Does this mean whites committed suicide? No.
I do not argue in bad faith, rather I pride myself on legitimate criticism of WNism.
It has again been proven impossible to argue with those that have decided they should rule society while lacking the capacity to do so.
This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFQ2x-CeA2E
This: “I hate Hitler.” – Matt Heimbach
I still say that “Bi-causalism” is like bi-sexuality: Just as a bi-sexual is still a sodomite, a “Bi-causalist” is still one who names White people (I this case, the whites who originate NORTH of the Line) as the Enemy.
I ran across this, on the cause, in Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography: “The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and ‘THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS’ was the Prime reason for the Revolutionary War.”
Thomas Jefferson, on the “BANKERS”: “The system of banking is (…) more dangerous than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy (…) I am an enemy to all banks, discounting bills or notes for anything but coin. If the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered (…) Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction (…) Those who labour in the earth are the Chosen People of God, if ever he had a chosen people.”
But the Bicausalists, who identify white people who originate north of the Line as the Enemy, regard very highly the Talmudists who are an essential (banking and mercantile) part of the “Golden Circle” system that creates “immense wealth” for a white-and-Talmudic elite through the exploitation of an immense multiracial underclass.
In other words Greg, Christianity can’t be both universal and intolerant.
“(I this case, the whites who originate NORTH of the Line)” should be:
“(In this case, the whites who originate NORTH of the Line)”
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/05/the-blessings-of-diversity-muslim-sex-crimes-101-with-statistical-sue/#more-19289
TPTB tried desperately to keep this out of the news. Since it first started coming out the UK’s equivalent of the GOP has split in two and the more anti-immigration version is on c. 20% in the polls and rising.
On No-Man’s Matt Heimbach quotation: http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2013/05/21/racist-who-attended-racist-conference-in-tennessee-still-being-racist-back-at-school
From the article linked above: ” ‘I hate Hitler,’ Matthew told me at his apartment, in an African-American neighborhood in Baltimore about 15 miles from Towson’s campus. He resents being classified as a ‘racist’….”
“Since it first started coming out the UK’s equivalent of the GOP has split in two”
Their vote has split in two i should say. The party itself hasn’t split.
I disagree.
I don’t know if you have missed it but in a recent, previous OD thread I mentioned the case of how Iberians committed ethno-suicide inside the European peninsula itself in times when they were persecuting Jews! As Revilo Oliver used to say every time that he delved deeper into the subject — “It is worse than what I thought” — my conclusion is that whites have a record of racial suicide even when Jews have been completely disempowered in inquisitorial societies.
Have you read the article “Portugal and the One-Drop Rule” where we elaborate these points? It is pivotal to see how Iberian whites committed suicide and why I feel Bicausalism Type-B is more reasonable that Type-A. (“Type C” doesn’t exist. If you have not seen my original classification in the other thread see it here where you are classified as “Type-A”.)
Notice how the “anti-monocausalist” turns into an anti-white monocausalist. They will always end that way because
if it’s not entirely suicide then it’s still partly genocide.
Occigent,
It is possible to be universalist and intolerant—intolerant of the particular, the national, the ethnic, and other religions as was the Catholic Church especially in its early history.
Christianity has had an abominable record for the race. But that would be a subject for another thread (there are already lots of off-topic distractions in the above comments).
If leaders don’t have enough care to ensure a mental and cultural paradigm of whiteness intolerant enough to protect the people from the enemy that looks like them than defining an enemy on the relatively spurious grounds of color will be impossible. Your discenment has already been co-opted.
If Christians were bad they wouldn’t demonize Christians.
Maybe you’re right Chechar, but the Church still maintained enough cultural authority in the people to expel Jews, and insofar as the present discussion is concerned, isn’t that all that matters?
Greg Johnson,
Focusing on the 10% is a form of deception and self-deception, because it nurses the idea that the liberal capitalist system is fundamentally good if we could just get those gol-durned Jews to play fair.
Not my point.
I suppose one could say Americans “legally handed over” their media in the same sense Germans, a people with no history of following American capitalism or liberalism, “legally handed” over their banking system.
Jews have gained power under many systems. Is every system fundamentally “not good,” or just the capitalist one? Or, perhaps, the problem is Jewish behavior, as it always is, and this is where we should keep the focus instead of a particular system.
Occigent,
Read the MacDonald book I have been mentioning in these threads. While he agrees that the Old Church provided a collectivist defense against the tribe, when you reach his chapter on National Socialism you will see that NS-like collectivism is an improvement of the Church tactics, insofar as in NS Christian universalism is gone.
“If Christians were bad they wouldn’t demonize Christians.”
Excellent point, Occigent. Chechar, your axe to grind has you attacking the Catholic church almost as much as…the Jews. Pre-Vatican II Catholicism is one of their most favorite targets.
The more I reflect upon the excellent comments here, one thing strikes me.
It is more a case of willful blindness than suicide.
Deo Vindice
“It is more a case of willful blindness than suicide.”
Either way, it’s “Bicausalist” thinking.
You have misread me. The Old Catholic Church did his job by creating a defense mechanism against Jewry. That Aryan mechanism started to break out when Protestantism re-introduced the Old Testament in Christendom. The big tragedy was that precisely a form of that Calvinist Christianity conquered parts of NorthAm (according to Sunic this caused that Americans sided Jewry against their kind during WW2).
You might find refreshing to know that Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, the priest that married my parents, baptized me, gave me the First Communion and blessed my home, was one of the founders of Sedevacantism: criticism of post-Vatican II Catholicism by traditional priests.
Chechar,
What’s the point of an attempt at Nationalist Socialism when Jews control the rest of the world? Hitler, as cognizant of Jewish power as he was, should have seen that Fail coming a mile away.
Let’s look at Hitler style National Socialism in that light, not in MacDonald’s strictly genetic vaccuum. Though MacDonald is an academic powerhouse with balls of steel and a white hero, I concur with Lew’s criticism on his work. (With the caveat that had MacDonald not framed his work as he did, it never would have seen the light of day.)
Hitler ripped off the early catholic austro-fash organizational methods pretty shamelessly. Those parties were all about preventing anschluss with those they viewed as culturally inferior, de-Europeanized protestants…. It’s true that without a strong Church there isn’t a whole lot protecting zee race. Also true that without the Church there just isn’t much about zee race that warrants protection.
The “revolutionary” German glamorization of the worker, that continues today with their massive corporate unions might appeal to some but it’s not traditionally European. It’s due to a lack of sufficient noble manners in their elite. The worker knows he is a worker, he will be happy toiling so long as he may rest assured that those in classes above him shoulder the burdens of high culture and statecraft. When some German speaking lands were torn from Europe during the reformation and Thirty Years War the inability of Prussians to cultivate a proper Aristocracy was obvious to everyone in Europe. The cultural contributions from their Aristos is non-existent. Max Weber called Germany “a nation of plebeians or if it sounds more agreeAble a nation of commoners”. He was ready to admit Germany lacked the culture of AngloSaxon aristocracy and “latin courtiers”. This is due to the leveling of lutheranism. For instance there Re many great German universities but no known “premier”. It is Jante Law/IKEA mentality. Kant never travelled fifty miles from Konigsberg where he was born to his plebe family.
Apuleius is too kind. All of you Germanophiles are simply half-educated cretins. It’s really fucking sad and I personally hate Jews in a cultural sense but you are dogs that will never amount to anything unless you accept civilization and Christ.
If you shirk at the responsibilities of your inheritance then follow Houston Chamberlain. Become a teuton. It is a sign of good blood but bad taste.
*traveled
“..you are dogs that will never amount to anything unless you accept civilization and Christ.”
– LOL!
The only thing I agree about the catholic church is their promotion of celibacy.
There’s a lot to be gained from not following the path of chasing women. What if you develop some talent or hobby instead.
For those who like Greg have not seen my original classification in the other thread, here we go again:
1.- Monocausalists – Most of the commenters at Age of Treason, and people like Dave Duke whom I deeply respect. These people believe that there’s but one cause of our woes: the subversive Jews.
2.- Bicausalists Type A – Those who, like Greg Johnson, Alex Linder and some commenters at Linder’s VNN Forum, believe that Jews are the primary cause of our woes, though there are other important factors as well. Unlike monocausalists, these bicausalists also blame our parents’ religion.
3.- Bicausalists Type B – Those who, like Tom Sunic, Manu Rodríguez and I believe that there’s something seriously wrong with us, extremely wrong actually. Whites’ mental issues (which include a Calvinist type of Old Testament Christianity that conquered North America) are the primary infection, and the Judaization of the West, a secondary infection (like AIDS / pneumonia, etc).
COROLLARY
Below, a simplified corollary of one of my comments above. Note that compared to the original classification I have added a #4, which means an antithetical monocausal stance to the one mentioned above. (Keywords: AoT = the blog Age of Treason; GoV = the blog Gates of Vienna):
1. AoT-like monocausalism – blames Jews 100%, Whites 0%
2. Bicausalism Type-A – assigns a blame above 50% to Jews
3. Bicausalism Type-B – assigns a blame above 50% to Whites
4. GoV-like monocausalism – blames Whites 100%, Jews 0%
Of course, in bicausalism you can either blame one or the other in diverse ratios depending on the specific bicausal individual, say, 90 / 10 percent or inversely 45 / 55 percent, etc.
Thanks Chechar. And if we work backwards from possible solutions:
1. AofT type monocausalism believes genetic testing is the only way a truly white culture can evolve from whites.
2. Type A’s believe some kind of expulsion or legal containment of Jewish influence will allow whites to retake their destiny.
3. Type B’s believe fixing whites is first and foremost. (This what I believed previously, but removing the poison will go a lot further towards fixing whites than “talk therapy.”)
4. GoV? I don’t know.
The Jews in the South were probably analogous to the Jews currently in Iran. They tell the West and and Israel: “Get the hell out of here. We like it here.”
Music break:
I don’t see where Type B is falsifiable, and I think the folks you are call the monocausalists are Type A or Greg Johnson’s C. My tentative foray for the United States specifically would be 80% Jews / 20% whites starting the data set at about 1910. From 1861 to 1910, 100% whites (subset with Yankee the world view), 0% Jews. You give your percentages. Let’s go from there.
Music break for neanderthals like myself:
Thanks, G Prune. J.S. Bach rules.
If you listen to his music close enough you can hear the infinite joy that emanates from God’s pleasure in His creation.
Bach himself would agree.
“All music should have no other end and aim than the glory of God and the soul’s refreshment; where this is not remembered there is no real music but only a devilish hubbub.”
? Johann Sebastian Bach
Even better, Bach’s music is like negro kryptonite. Pure. White. Music.
Sorry for the misunderstanding Chechar. We are of like mind when it comes to the Church then. The tragedy of Vatican II was concurrent with the tragedy of the Civil Rights Movement. Coincidence? I think not.
Deo Vindice
I feel like I inflict damage here at times with my comments which is the opposite of my intention and am truly sorry if anyone is ever upset by my views. Please don’t allow my occasional outbursts to color your opinions of whatever ideological associations you’d presume me to represent.
I think you bring a fresh and needed perspective to criticism of WNism and analysis of the issues. Other than the so and so is trash stuff, I think your comments add a lot of value.
If you want to see my harsh criticism of Gates of Vienna, just click on that category at my blog.
Now we are communicating! Obviously you are not a “single J causer” as I previously thought.
I took the trouble to think about these subjects because, as you know, I was once involved at GoV and then, after I became Jew-wise, at AoT. It struck me to see that the admins at both sites disliked discussion of anything that could assign percentages (intuitively of course: not scientifically) other than 100% / 0% or vice versa. Just one example: GoV’s admin Ned May even stopped publishing my articles about the Aztecs after I became Jew-wise.
By the way, Denise has just posted a charming criticism at WDH:
Lol 🙂
Do you mean Denise who comments here? What site is that?
Thanks Lew.
http://i.imgur.com/RErTuEP.jpg
I actually agree 100% with Denise and have only participated in this thread to enjoy the ultimate rightosphere irony of a thread about Jews going off-topic into non-jew related discussion.
*mwah* Denise come back!
Yes: the same Denise.
WDH = West’s Darkest Hour.
I know I’m being nignored but I checked out your site and saw an article about anglo betrayal of Germany…. Even Hitler understood the Kaiserreich had long provoked the UK at sea. Like Treitschke who could be called the godfather of German anti-Angloism Hitler recognized how Britain viewed war “as sport”. He actually stole that from Treitschke and similarly admired Britain for that, begrudgingly. Hitler was repulsed by the Weimar concept of a defensive army that functioned as little more than a strike-breaking force for the Versailles penal colony.
Hitler chastised the Kaiser for even building a hopeless “romantic” navy, viewing total investment of resources into the army as preferable. He also saw Kaiser Bill for the fool he was, floating rumors about converting to Islam, then visiting European islamic colonies and then Kaiser Bill’s 1908 newspaper interview where he frothed at the British to such a degree that it created a movement in Germany against him….
So on your site you ignore not only the Kaiser, or the intellectual tradition that clearly could be traced to Treitschke…you ignore Hitler’s own appraisal of the situation.
Germany is a winner or a loser, but never a victim.
Hunter Wallace,
It looks “suicidal” to a non-believer, but seen from inside the cult it is a glorious triumph of liberalism to the ideological fanatic.
The “inside” view versus “outside” view is an under-appreciated distinction in the white genocide debate. The arguments against white genocide are weak without a normative assumption white folks are worth saving in the first place and their disappearance matters.
Most liberals tell me they’re indifferent to white genocide by “breeding or blending out.” Andrew Sullivan wrote last week his ideal is white folks miscegenating themselves out of existence. Sullivan has millions of readers and often sets national discourse.
In terms of disentangling the Jewish versus the Yankee contributions to the various poisonous ideas that are destroying the West, I bet the meme “miscegenation is good!” is distinctly Jewish in origin not Yankee Liberal.
I am not referring to the idea “we should all tolerate miscegenation based on human equality under the law.” This idea can be traced to the Yankees based on their repeal of miscegenation laws going back to the 18th century. But encouraging people to tolerate race mixing based on legal equality is not the same as promoting race mixing as an ideal, or promoting the idea you should be indifferent to the physical survival of people like yourself.
I would be interested in knowing the Yankee attitudes toward miscegenation as a general social custom in the 19th and 20th centuries, before Jews began running content in mass media.
I understand Yankees had no formal laws against it, but there are no formal laws against a lot of things people rarely do in practice. In practice,how often did white Yankees encourage it and actually do it as a general rule? Is there data? Would the typical white Yankee of 1875 Vermont or 1953 New York been thrilled to find his daughter tied up in the sheets with a negro male?
In the 1970s, the Yankees in Boston rioted against forced bussing. I don’t get the impression from that that the typical 1970s Bostoner would have been big on race mixing in his own home.
I’ll venture a guess Yankees pushed equality, capitalists sold the media and Jews hit on promoting race mixing (not merely tolerating it) as an ideal all by themselves.
I just read your ‘review’ of Hellstorm. Yes, the lesson is not to lose wars. Graphic depictions of rape of pure Fraus by “brutish” and “filthy” Sovjets doesn’t really add to the discourse, it’s just gore for the choir. Would have been nice for Hitler to invite other nations on a crusade against the communists instead of playing irredentist small-ball with a Catholic anti-semitic country like Poland.
Lew,
Checkout Rhinelander V Rhinelander to understand upper class Yankee views on race in the 20’s.
Leonard Kip Rhinelander, a wealthy white society man, pursued and in 1924 married Alice Jones, a working class woman with British parents—one white, the other of mixed ethnicity. Only one month after their marriage, Leonard sued to annul the marriage, claiming that Alice had misrepresented her racial background.
Leonard’s family had objected to the couple’s relationship throughout their courtship, but had failed to break them up. By marrying Alice, Leonard caused her to be the first African American woman listed in The Social Register.
Although many individuals were against mixed-ethnicity marriages and laws existed to block them in many states, interracial marriage was not illegal in New York. That said, racial classification was so important to white society at the time that knowledge of an individual’s background was considered crucial in understanding a marriage contract—to the point that annulment based on a lack of this knowledge was considered acceptable.
https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/blog/index.php/2012/12/05/on-this-day-rhinelander-v-rhinelander/
Yesterday’s radicalism is today’s mainstream:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/mobile/REwright.htm
Some aspects of Wright’s community were extremely controversial, especially her decision to encourage sexual freedom. She came to believe that miscegenation was the ultimate solution of the racial question. Wright saw marriage as a discriminatory institution and started advocating free love.
Wright also developed her own dress code for women. This included bodices, ankle-length pantaloons and a dress cut to above the knee. This style was later promoted by feminists such as Amelia Bloomer,Susan Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Wright spent her entire personal fortune on her Nashoba co-operative community. She hoped it would become economically self-sufficient but this did not happen and in 1828 she was forced to abandon her experiment. Wright and Robert Dale Owen arranged for the former slaves to be sent to the black republic of Haiti.
In 1829 Wright settled in New York where she published her book, Course of Popular Lectures. She also combined with Robert Dale Owen to publish the Free Enquirer. In the journal Wright advocated socialism,the abolition of slavery,universal suffrage, free secular education, birth control, changes in the marriage and divorce laws. Wright and Owen also became involved in the radical Workingmen’s Partywhile living in New York.
Some of the most extreme abolitionists were advocates of miscegenation:
http://books.google.com/books?id=E5yjxPd17gAC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA138&ots=qzOVbpNiDy&dq=advocating+miscegenation&output=html_text
As to the exact chronology of miscegenation promotion, it is a very complex issue that I am sure varies across national lines.
Interesting Democratic monograph on miscegenation published in 1864:
http://archive.org/details/miscegenationind00newy
Download the pdf and read.
Nary a Jew in sight.
Deo Vindice
Re: “disentangling the Jewish versus the Yankee contributions to the various poisonous ideas that are destroying the West”:
“The Yankee contributions” is very “Bi-causalist”!
Just as “bisexuality” is still sodomy, “Bi-causalism” is STILL identifying WHITES as the enemy!
“Bi-causalism” identifies (1) some Whites as the Enemy of the multiracial “Golden Circle” system, and (2) some Talmudists as INTEGRAL to the multiracial Golden Circle system.