About Hunter Wallace 12392 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

19 Comments

  1. Institutional liberal organs, like the New York Times, consider paleos in the mold of Buchanan to be racist, so what’s the point of relegating oneself to innuendo? Fear of being called a super-racist?

  2. Good point by notuswind: you get called every name if you’re so much as one micron to the “left” of where the Jew York Times editorial staff are. (I put “left” there in quote marks because I no longer see things in terms of “left” and “right” or “liberal” and “conservative” but in terms of “normal” and “degenerate,” and in terms of tribal war, Jews attacking Euros.) The names you get called won’t be “worse” if you come right out and say what you think, rather than sticking with “innuendo.”

    The other thing, as I see it, is the phrase “institutional liberal organs, like The New York Times,” misses the point. I see the problem not as “the liberals” but as the Jews. What’s going on is tribal warfare. Rather than think of The New York Times as “a liberal organ” I think of it as part of the Jewish press. Everything falls into place perfectly when viewed like that.

  4. The Jew York Times is as much a Jewish ethnocultural expression as Isaac Bashevis Singer’s work was, the only difference being they don’t write in Yiddish.

  5. Fred Scrooby wrote: What’s going on is tribal warfare… Everything falls into place perfectly when viewed like that.

    Indeed. Well said. That’s how it happened for me. It’s so obvious, it’s surprising more Whites don’t realise it yet. Outsiders such as Arabs know all about the Jews, though, and they will tell you about it, behind closed doors of course. American conservatives have been soaked in decades of movement conservatism and liberal Christianity. If conservative honchos don’t actually features genuine Jews running their main media and organisational system for them, they take care at least to pander to Jewish Neocons and a mythical “Judeo-Christian” heritage where Jews and Christians live in harmony.

  6. Scrooby,

    Point taken.

    However, I am in disagreement with this notion that the Ashkenazim are the be all and end all of our problems, much less modern liberalism.

    Although I am not a professional historican on such matters, it is abundantly clear to me that different historical elements came together in order to form the sickening anti-White broth that has come to characterize the modern Left. Yes, the Ashkenazim were a primary ingredient in the modern Left’s formation but there were others; to wit, the universalist principles behind secular humanism can be more naturally attributed to an idealistic Protestant Christianity rather than a chronically cynical European Jewry. 17th century American Christian theologians at Princeton advocated mass miscegenation with Indians (and probably Negroes too) in order to thoroughly Christianize the continent. If you don’t believe me check out Prozium’s own timeline of American Racialist History (circa 1550-1860), where he repeatedly notes Quaker influence in antislavery thought, the intellectual roots of modern race-denial couldn’t be more clear.

    So, I think, it is just as much a mistake to be like Jobling, who willfully ignores Jewish influence as such and instead attributes the modern Left to a vague Western cosmopolitanism, as it is to take the track that Jews explain everything and are behind everything, where they become a sort of magic skeleton key that allows someone to unlock all the riddles of Western decline.

  7. Buchanan is published/appears on mainstream print and TV outlets. If he were more explicit, he would not be allowed to do so, and he would be reduced to writing an obscure blog (like Auster) or self-publishing an obscure magazine.

    I found Buchanan useful when I was still a liberal, but with shaky faith in liberalism. I would not have known about him if he had been posting his writing at stormfront.

    Bottom line: he’s more useful doing what he’s doing than explicitly making a charge and losing his mainstream audience.

  8. Notuswind, whacked-out Euros who don’t consciously intend harm (they’re just whacked out, not evil or calculating, and end up only harming themselves) get the same ideas of whacked-out, totally insane stuff to do as calculating Jews get who are looking for tactics to kill off Euros — all groups have their wackos — but Euro wackos don’t prevail unless something else has gone terribly wrong somewhere. They’re laughed at, normally. They don’t end up in charge of things.

    That the whackos are in charge of things today is an indication something somewhere has gone terribly wrong. That “something” that puts the whackos in charge of things is around 70% the Jewish influence.

    It’s not just the Jews. It’s also other things, like women’s suffrage. Women don’t have the us-them kind of nation-feeling men have because that’s a testosterone effect. Only men have it. No testosterone, no us-them type of nation-feeling. So women don’t see, they don’t/can’t “sense,” nation or race.

    As a result women will NEVER vote to preserve nation or race. With women’s suffrage in effect the only way to preserve your nation and race is to have iron-clad rules taking certain issues off the electoral table, so to speak, so you can’t change them by voting on them: they’re graven in stone — sane race-and-nation-preserving immigration laws, for example.

    The minute you get women voting, the Jews know just how to sway the women’s vote in order to pry the borders open.

    So if you give women the vote you have to simultaneously either eject all the Jews so they can’t organize the women for evil, or take immigration laws off the table of what can be changed through ordinary voting.

    Without safeguards in place, women’s suffrage is the biggest nation-exterminator to come down the pike since Attila the Hun and the biggest race-annihilator since that meteor hit 60 million years ago and wiped out all the dinosaurs.

    Look, in the 1830s-40s you had that epoch’s version of the hippies, the New England Transcendentalists who believed in free-love, no marriage, sharing spouses, communal child-raising, women doing men’s work, men doing women’s work, degenerate stuff like that. Percy Shelly, George Sand, that other gal who wrote Frankenstein, and many more like them, were all into it or stuff like it.

    And you had the Mormons, whose polygamy was something degenerate.

    But the Transcendentalists and the Mormons didn’t wind up in charge. Sane people stayed in charge, because back then, as at any other given moment, the sane outnumber the whacked-out. Yes the whacked-out exist. Always did, always will. But they’re not in charge under normal conditions. Why, then, are they in charge to day? Jewish influence is why.

    That the modern-day counterparts of those weirdos are in charge today is 70% thanks to the fact that since the 1880s we’ve had waves of Jews swarming into this country and now have some six million of them.

    What I have against Jim Kalb (but didn’t use to, before I realized what was going on) is, though he’s an analyst of “liberalism” without equal, and he shows with such crystal-clarity how “liberalism” is totally whacked-out, he doesn’t say how it is that a totally whacked-out abnormal el-sicko thing is in control.

    Normally, whacked-out el-sicko things aren’t in control because most people aren’t whacked-out or el-sicko and resist them. That stuff is in control now because of the Jewish thumb on that side of the scale.

    No Jews, no whacked-outness in power. Jews, whacked-outness in power.

    The Jewish thumb on the scale makes it that way.

    When Jacqui Kennedy was First Lady she used to go horseback riding, which generated lots of newspaper and magazine photos of her on her horse. From the ranks of the whacked-out came demonstrations outside the White House, demanding her horse’s privates be covered with some sort of diaper, on grounds it was indecent to show in public. (This really happened, according to what I’ve read: I’m not making it up.)

    Notice those particular wackos didn’t end up in power, because normal people prevailed over them. But had the Jews perceived they were useful to them, today we’d live in a society which held as mankind’s highest obligation the covering of horse genitals with diapers when in public just as the Jews have made white-Negro miscegenation mankind’s highest obligation. They’d be teaching it in schools, in universities, there’d be hate-speech laws against protesting it, and so on.

    Those particular whackos would be in power thanks to the Jewish thumb on the scale pressing it down on that side of things. But the Jews didn’t deem those particular goy whackos useful, so that particular batch of off-the-wall weirdos remained strictly a sideline in our society.

    All the wackos of the ’60s, who were, every single one of them, as whacked-out as the horse-diaperers, rose to prominence and eventual entrenchment in power over us. What was the difference, given that they were just as whacked-out? This: they rose thanks to the Jewish thumb on the scale pushing things down on that side: the Jews found them useful.

    The whackos are always there. The question is, why are they in power? Wackos don’t normally get into power. They’re too whacked-out. The answer is, not entirely, but predominantly, the Jewish influence.

  9. Scrooby,

    “The whackos are always there. The question is, why are they in power? Wackos don’t normally get into power. They’re too whacked-out. The answer is, not entirely, but predominantly, the Jewish influence.”

    Of course, the Ashkenazim’s influence on the West, in the 20th century, can only be described as catastrophic.

    Perhaps, my only point, is that we would do well to remember that the North American continent saw several racial catastrophes before the coming of European Jewry to the U.S., as can be easily seen in the arrival of Negro slave labor and the Civil War. We Americans have no one but ourselves to blame for what happened here before the 20th century.

  10. Institutional liberal organs, like the New York Times, consider paleos in the mold of Buchanan to be racist, so what’s the point of relegating oneself to innuendo? Fear of being called a super-racist?

    You’re 100% correct, but what are the odds that Buchanan doesn’t realize this? He’s not an idiot.

    The difference between the liberals and the paleocons is that the paleos do differentiate between different “degrees” of “racism”. Pat Buchanan gets published at palecon rags like Taki and Chronicles, while someone like Jared Taylor won’t be.

    So Pat Buchanan realizes this and holds back because he knows that the issue is race but desires to keep his writing gig. This could be a case of pure self-interest, if he needs the money or fears the ostracism that would come if he spoke out, or he may have made the strategic decision that he will do more good speaking in code to a much larger audience.

  12. [quote]“we would do well to remember that the North American continent saw several racial catastrophes before the coming of European Jewry to the U.S., as can be easily seen in the arrival of Negro slave labor and the Civil War. We Americans have no one but ourselves to blame for what happened here before the 20th century.” ( — Notuswind)[/quote]

    Not to belabor the point, but slavery and The Second American Revolution (that’s what some historians call Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression), though appallingly wrong and destructive, weren’t catastrophes anywhere near the scale of the current Jewish-imposed one of forced race-replacement. Anglo-Saxon North America had recovered nicely from both and was doing quite well when, in the 1960s, the Jewish invaders wrested hegemony in many key areas away from the Anglo-Saxons and began methodically imposing social destruction, natiocide, and genocide. Had slavery never existed there would of course have been no Second American Revolution, Dixie would’ve been a very different place since whites can’t do field labor under the kind of broiling sun and sweltering heat and humidity Congoids can (the South would’ve been totally different, since you also wouldn’t have had the pseudo-aristocracy that rose along with Negro slavery, so all that whole Gone-With-The-Wind mythos never would’ve come into being), and there wouldn’t have been Negroes for the Jews to force on Euros and use as a bludgeon against them in the 1960s. No matter: the Jew would’ve pried open the borders anyway and imported them, and before long we’d be faced with the same race-replacement crisis. The Jews are importing Negroes into the U.S. right now. The Ancient Nations of Europe never had Negro slavery, but that’s no obstacle to the Jews who control those countries either directly (the U.K. and France) or indirectly via U.S. proxy (Jewrmany, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden, etc.) as the Jews controlled the 1945-89 Soviet “satellite” nations of Eastern Europe via Soviet-Moscow proxy, forcing communist insanity on the latter and miscegenation insanity on the former. (Communist insanity led, the Jews hoped, to miscegenation, so we see the underlying goal of the Jew is always first and foremost to get Euros miscegenated.)

  13. I didn’t finish my thought there: that last sentence should have ended thus:

    “The Ancient Nations of Europe never had Negro slavery, but that’s no obstacle to the Jews who control those countries either directly […] or indirectly via U.S. proxy […]: those Jews are simply importing Negroes and mulattoes into those countries hand-over-fist and forcing the Euros, especially the Euro women, to miscegenate with them by all the well-known Jewish techniques (Jewish brainwashing, Jewish mind-control, and Jewish psy-ops techniques as well as lots of even more coercice Jewish techniques; the mere reducing of the proportion of white men in a place coupled with the legal interdiction to racially discriminate in any way whatsoever — hiring, renting, promoting, etc. — is a coercive Jewish way of literally guaranteeing that a certain fraction of white women will miscegenate thanks to the laws of mathematics combined with those of biology.”

  14. Scrooby,

    We’re in relative agreement on all the substantive issues.

    “Not to belabor the point, but slavery and The Second American Revolution (that’s what some historians call Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression), though appallingly wrong and destructive, weren’t catastrophes anywhere near the scale of the current Jewish-imposed one of forced race-replacement.”

    Of course, almost nothing compares to the damage done to our people in the 20th century.

    However the arrival of negro slave labor and the fratracidal civil war that followed, were racial catastrophes nonetheless.

  15. The race-replacement crisis is not happening by itself, nor would it have emerged as official policy in the absence of Jews any more than diapering of horses would have. It’s 70% Jewish-driven. Yes there’s that 30 non-Jewish percent who are Euro whackos who’d love race-replacement completely independent any influence from Jews — they think it up on their own (Euros like Thaddeus Stevens, the Second-American-Revolutionary-War-era U.S. Senator; probably John Brown the abolitionist; and many others; maybe the Beechers and Beecher-Stowe, and so on), and yes there are Euro wackos who insist horses be diapered in public. No one disputes that. But in the absence of Jews the first would no more be in overlordship today than the second.

  16. This paleo hinting around and innuendo in regards to race is very harmful to our cause. After all, if you refuse to ever explicitly say that the white race in America has to be preserved, you end up sounding as though you are ashamed of that notion.

    In other words, you play right into the hands of the Left.

  17. So women don’t see, they don’t/can’t “sense,” nation or race.

    Again Scroob, the evidence suggests that vis-a-vis mating, women see race FAR more clearly than men.

    Women are just soft, inherently socialist, and incapable of making “hard” decisions. And they find anything but groupthink to be alien. Politics is a man’s job.

  18. And this makes sense. A woman has a very limited reproductive capacity compared to a man. A man can father many children, whereas a woman has to be selective. Hence, the inherent “racism” of women when it comes to dating and mating.

  19. Which reminds me, the way to women’s hearts might be via the mating urge. I.e., white women are naturally repulsed by non-white males, and this may be their Achilles heel vis-a-vis race-denial.

Comments are closed.