Western Greatness and Its Enemies  

F. Roger Devlin

Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age
by Ricardo Duchesne
London: Arktos, 2017

Prof. Ricardo Duchesne’s first book, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (reviewed by Kevin MacDonald in TOQ 11:3, Fall 2011) argued that the West was already a uniquely creative culture several millennia before the industrial revolution led to today’s vast differences in wealth and living standards between it and most of the rest of the world. The West’s uniqueness lay not in institutions such as democracy and representative government, nor in great books and abundant artistic production, nor in free markets and a ‘work ethic’—but in a more primordial Faustian drive to overcome obstacles and achieve great things. The original historical expression of this drive is the heroic ethos which informs Homer’s Iliad and Germanic heroic poetry: the overriding ambition of the aristocratic warrior to achieve immortal fame by engaging in battles for prestige in contempt of his own mortality. This ethos the author traces back to the Proto-Indo-European pastoralists of the Pontic steppes.

Following publication of The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, the author turned his attention to the decline of the West. He notes the prescience of Oswald Spengler, the major theorist of civilizational decline of the past century, who anticipated

the eventual exhaustion of the West’s energies in the rise of internationalism, quasi-pacifism, declining birth rates, hedonistic lifestyles, coupled with the spread of Western technology in the non-Western world and the rise of ‘deadly competition’ from Asia.

All this is, of course, right on target. But Duchesne sensed something missing from Spengler’s account. There is one major factor at work in the contemporary West which goes well beyond the spiritual, political, economic or geopolitical exhaustion that was the fate of Rome, China and other ‘old’ civilizations: the massive immigration of cultural and racial aliens. As he remarks, this is “a new variable with truly permanent implications.”

But why should immigration be so decisive if the West lacks any ‘fixed ethnic boundaries,’ as the author had maintained in The Uniqueness of Western Civilization? This earlier statement of Duchesne’s reflected academic orthodoxy, which allows two ways of accounting for the success or failure of nations and civilizations. One is geographical explanations which emphasize, e.g., the number of domesticable plants and animals in various regions of the earth and the difference between a balkanized geography encouraging small, competitive political units (characteristic of Europe) and a more easily connected geography that tends to favor centralized administration (characteristic of Asia). This style of interpretation has been popularized in recent years by Jared Diamond, and tends to portray the rise of the West as a matter of geographic luck.

The second is the institutional approach which emphasizes free markets, democratic governance, the rule of law, and so forth. On this view, the West owes its success to the ‘values’ embodied in such institutions. European man may have been the first to discover the right combination of institutions, but other races can achieve similar success by adopting them; once they do so, they too will be fully ‘Western.’ Partisans of this institutional approach see nothing wrong with mass immigration so long as new arrivals are ‘assimilated’ to Western ways of thinking. Some of them, such as Niall Ferguson and Mario Vargas Llosa, even consider universal racial panmixia the ultimate consummation of Western civilization—and devoutly to be wished.

Neither approach satisfied Duchesne, who had come to agree with Samuel Huntington’s observation that successful modernization in non-Western countries had actually encouraged indigenization and ethnic confidence rather than Europeanization. Looking at the country where he currently resides, Duchesne noticed that

non-European immigrants arriving into Canada were interested in assimilating only to those aspects of Canadian culture that allowed them to keep their ethnic identity and advance their own ethnic interests.

Observations like this seemed to belie the approach of traditional Western Civilization textbooks of treating as ‘Western’ all lands and peoples who happened to be under Western governments at any particular time. Egypt, for example, was depicted in such textbooks as part of the West during the centuries it was under Macedonian and Roman rule, but not before or after. But had Egypt really changed its nature during those centuries? In fact, Middle Eastern populations, certainly including Jews, retained their collectivist tendencies, including cousin marriage, even after centuries of Greek and Roman domination.[1] With the rise of Islam, these cultures returned to their Middle Eastern roots.

Duchesne attempted an historical essay on the location of the West through history, but could not attain any consistency in his views until he began to look into the forbidden subject of race. He began visiting websites like VDare, American Renaissance, and The Occidental Observer and reading taboo authors such as Steve Sailer and Guillaume Faye. Eventually, he retrieved a copy of the 2nd abridged edition of Rushton’s Race, Evolution and Behavior which had been sent to him years previously only to be laid aside as a ‘racist’ tract. He learned that the races of mankind were populations which had lived in reproductive isolation from one another and been subject to different environmental pressures over thousands of years, thereby evolving innate statistical differences in behavior, intelligence and personality.

Paul Kersey’s Escape from Detroit convinced Duchesne that the character of a place is closely dependent on its racial makeup. Detroit was one percent black in 1912, rising to 25 percent in 1960. As late as the 1970s, the city still hosted universities, museums, good schools, a symphony orchestra, parks, beaches and other public amenities. But in that decade, Blacks captured control of the city government and Whites began leaving en masse. The downtown core of Detroit is now 92 percent Black; half its population is classed as functionally illiterate and many children attend school only to take advantage of subsidized lunches. Violent crime is extremely high, and entire neighborhoods have been abandoned and fallen into ruin. The city only avoids bankruptcy thanks to regular federal handouts.

Mainstream explanations of Detroit’s decline point to the downturn in the automobile industry. But as Kersey shows, Pittsburgh was simultaneously being hit much harder by the loss of its steel industry, yet the effects have not been as drastic. The city diversified its economy and prospered to the point of being named ‘the most livable city in America’ by The Economist in 2004. The difference is that Pittsburgh is 65 percent White; the figure for the metro area is 90 percent.

Duchesne found it hard to avoid the conclusion that today’s Detroit is no more part of the West than ancient Egypt had been under the rule of a tiny Greek-speaking elite. The same goes for majority-Chinese Vancouver, where the remaining Whites are being forced into small apartments as foreign Chinese millionaires buy up the city’s housing stock, pricing them out of the market. A city can no longer meaningfully be considered Western when the majority of its population is pursuing interests opposed to those of its European-descended inhabitants.

Duchesne began investigating what the academic literature had to say about the phenomenon of ethnocentrism. As early as 1981, Pierre L. van den Berghe produced a sociobiologically informed study called The Ethnic Phenomenon, which concluded that ethnic and racial sentiments are an extension of kinship sentiment and a universal tendency among humans. Yet van den Berghe, like most scientists, is a political liberal and agrees with the supposed need to suppress ethnocentrism. In his view, the usefulness of a neutral scientific explanation of such behavior lies in helping policy makers combat this natural tendency more effectively.

Turning to contemporary psychology textbooks, Duchesne found ethnocentrism treated differently from all other behavioral traits. Everything else was considered a product of biological evolution, but ethnocentrism was depicted as “an irrational disposition to be understood within the context of a cultural background … and to be eliminated through proper education.” Indeed, some textbooks championed the usefulness of psychological techniques such as B. F. Skinner’s ‘operant conditioning’ for creating a new type of human being who welcomes racial diversity. Others offered guidelines on how students could overcome their own prejudices. Some textbooks featured photographs of hooded Klansmen, but none provided any examples of racial prejudice on the part of non-Whites. The average unsophisticated undergraduate is being given to understand that the struggle against White ethnocentrism enjoys the authority of ‘science.’

But the instinct to organize into in-groups and out-groups along lines of genetic relatedness is found in all living things, from bacteria to elephants. This is because it helps organisms survive, and is therefore consistently favored by natural selection. Why, asks Duchesne incisively, should such a behavioral disposition be viewed as a ‘problem’ only among humans—or, even more specifically, only among White people?

A generation ago, sociobiological perspectives were viewed with deep suspicion by the academic establishment, and this continues to be the attitude of many social scientists. But a survey of recent literature convinced Duchesne that today’s ruling ideology has made its peace with biologically based explanations of human behavior as long as they avoid the subject of race. Cultural Marxism has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to assimilate scientific findings; what it will not tolerate is any challenge to efforts to equalize outcomes by race or import massive numbers of non-Whites into White nations. Academics can do all the research they want in evolutionary psychology, but they had better not question why the defenders of one set of ethnic interests are ‘civil rights activists’ while those of another are ‘haters’ and ‘supremacists.’

By 2014 Duchesne was reading Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests, with its call to incorporate the evolutionary interests of ethnic groups into political theory and its recognition that the best strategy for preserving ethnic interests is “a well-defined territorial state.”

It became obvious to me after reading his book that the ‘ultimate’ factors in Western decline were not cultural, economic or even environmental, but the complete control of Western nations by elites dedicated to mass immigration and the dissolution of the racial interests of Europeans.

Duchesne even goes so far as to recognize the cogency of Michael Polignano’s reservations about Salter: that universal nationalism is more likely to appeal to fair-minded Whites than to other more competitive and ruthless groups.

This was a long journey to make in three years, and the first chapter of Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age, in which he recounts it, is for me the most compelling part of the book. In the second chapter, he carries out his old project of an historical essay on the location of the West through history—taking race into account this time around. Europeans are a subgroup of Caucasoids which evolved on the European continent during the past 45,000 years. The “first Europeans” of the Aurignacian era (45,000 to 28,000 years ago) were less European than later populations, since fewer distinctively European traits had yet had time to evolve. Duchesne suggests that the Magdalenian era, from 18,000 to 11,000 years ago, may have been the most fertile for the development of such traits, possibly because of increasing intelligence. He also makes some shrewd observations on the way the mainstream media spin discoveries in this domain to make ancient Europe appear both non-White and open to ‘immigration.’

Duchesne’s third chapter reviews the desperate efforts of cultural Marxist historians to deny the West credit for the scientific revolution, portray the enlightenment as a global phenomenon, and interpret classical Greek culture as derivative of Egypt and the Near East. This material first appeared in the Fall 2013 and Winter 2013–14 issues of TOQ (13:3–4).

The later part of Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age highlights the seminal historic importance of the Indo-Europeans in contrast to other, later inhabitants of the steppes, such as Turks and Mongols. These groups were influenced by the sedentary peoples with whom they came into contact far more than they ever influenced them.

Finally, Duchesne considers geographical exploration as a useful subject matter for elucidating the Faustian spirit of Europe. Much writing on Western achievement, such as Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment, focuses on the arts and sciences, but these are later, sublimated expressions of the primordial European heroic ambition. The history of exploration not only brings us closer to that primordial ambition; it shows up the contrast between the West and the non-West at its most stark.

Almost all the explorers in history have been European. Concise Encyclopedia of Explorations lists a total of 274 explorers, of which fifteen are non-European, with none listed after the mid-15th century. World Explorers and Discoverers, a bibliographical dictionary containing profiles of 313 of the most significant individuals in the history of exploration, lists only 7 non-Europeans.

But European writing about exploration is entirely free of racial pride or boosterism, commonly depicting the drive to explore the unknown as a human universal. In New Found Lands (1998), Peter Whitfield writes that “the desire to penetrate and explore the world’s wild places is a fundamental human desire.” Numerous general histories of exploration present themselves as accounts of “man’s” progress into the unknown, but contain few or no accounts of non-European exploration.

As Duchesne points out, this projection of European drives and ambitions onto humanity at large is precisely the sort of error academics would decry as ‘Eurocentrism’ in other contexts. Perhaps embarrassment at the overwhelming reality of European dominance makes them reluctant to point it out in this case.

Duchesne catalogues for us some of the techniques employed by cultural Marxist scholars in order to conceal Western greatness in the field of exploration. Some portray European exploration as nothing more than a quest for gold; others portray non-European migrations within the known world as ‘exploration.’ Zheng He’s fifteenth-century expeditions meant to impress foreigners with Chinese greatness are elevated above Henry the Navigator’s stated determination to make ‘great and noble conquests and to uncover secrets previously hidden from men.’ The fourteenth-century Arab Ibn Battuta, who recorded his visits to scattered shrines within the Islamic world is championed at the expense of Marco Polo, who brought home a greater body of new geographical knowledge than any other person in history.

The resentment aroused in the cultural Marxist by European excellence in exploration can be studied in the writings of a curious character named Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, a faithful mirror of the current academic Zeitgeist who has seen his work translated into 27 languages and been loaded down with awards and honors. In 2006, he published Pathfinders: A Global History of Exploration. Early on, he is content to ignore the Greek achievement in cartography and equate non-European trade and migration with European exploration of the unknown; but

as his narrative reaches the modern era, with only European explorers holding center stage and outperforming the Chinese, there is a conspicuous change in attitude toward the whole business of exploration. The tenor becomes extremely cynical and disparaging.

Fernandez-Armesto accuses modern explorers of ‘amateurism, naivety, credulousness, bombast, mendacity [and] sheer incompetence.’ Concerning one of David Livingston’s expeditions, he writes that it ‘failed in all its objectives: no trade, no converts, no suitable sites for British colonization, no new geographical discoveries resulted. … His meanderings took him nowhere.’ Duchesne then lists several geographical discoveries of Livingston’s which Fernandez-Armesto somehow missed.

Elsewhere in Pathfinders we read that Henry Morton Stanley ‘spent his patron’s wealth and his men’s lives with equal profligacy’ and that Ernest Shackleton’s exploration of the Antarctic was a ‘failure’ and ‘pointless.’ Robert Falcon Scott is charged with orchestrating his own death and that of his men as ‘the best career move’ for a man who ‘preferred to die dramatically than live in obscurity.’

If men can be judged by their enemies, the defenders of Western greatness have little cause for concern.

Duchesne concludes with a call to restore the history of exploration to the curriculum, ‘not to elicit self-satisfaction among [European] students but to teach them the meaning of endurance and hardship and the inimitable European thirst for adventure and risk.’ If young men are bored with college today or prefer to avoid it altogether, it may be because higher education is in the hands of resentful mediocrities who feel compelled to tear down the achievements of the past in order to shore up their own egos.

[1] Ladislav Holy, Kinship, Honour, and Solidarity: Cousin Marriage in the Middle East (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1989), 12, 13.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

44 Comments to "Western Greatness and Its Enemies  "

  1. JRM's Gravatar JRM
    June 18, 2017 - 8:34 am | Permalink

    Great article! I’m reminded of a PBS presentation (a “Nova” episode if I recall correctly) which purported to explore new ideas about the Neanderthal.

    It did present some interesting information, mainly the good news that the Neanderthal contribution to modern Europeans was much more promising than the old “brute” stereotype ever allowed.

    But as one might expect from PBS, there was an admixture of mendacity. Going to a classroom filled with kids both White and black, the producers did DNA tests which revealed that the White kids had Neanderthal DNA but the blacks did not. However, the producers apparently let the children cling to their now outdated notions of Neanderthals as savage, subhuman evolutionary disappointments.

    As the White kids bemoaned the “caveman” genes they carried, some black kids triumphantly basked in celebratory exclamations of relief and joy at their apparently “superior” genetic heritage.

    At least in the televised edit, the entire point of the program, that Neanderthal DNA was a “good thing”, was left undisclosed to these schoolchildren. Another example of subtly downgrading European heritage and flattering blacks about their own qualities.

    I haven’t watched a PBS program since.

  2. Jack Highlands's Gravatar Jack Highlands
    June 18, 2017 - 8:55 am | Permalink

    Suppose the drive to explore is the greatest of all expressions of Western man, and exploration of atoms via accelerators and quasars via telescopes are necessarily sublimated forms of that drive. Then it follows that, having left Europe and explored the planet in a mere blink of the historical eye, it makes sense that Western man faces a major hiatus while we await means, and it could be a long wait, to become something that can travel faster then some ten miles per second.

    Not saying that’s all there is to it. But I am saying.

    • June 20, 2017 - 1:49 am | Permalink

      The culture that practices science & systematic technological innovation gave up its social order and almost every form of solidarity; with the losses in the social order it also gave up its cultus and mysticism and, instead, lives in a pantheistic reality utterly stripped of joy and life in abundance–exchanging awe before the creation with excitement about mechanisms, often with an implicit “nothing but…” Everything except orgasm and proper daycare centers (maybe) is a means: without the cultus and a happy intact community, all we’ve got for our scientific edifice and ethos is means. (The proper discussion of this was provided by Joseph Pieper, “Leisure: the Basis of Culture.” We lost the sacred groves and gained abundant board-feet of lumber.

      • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
        June 20, 2017 - 7:38 am | Permalink

        You’re actually describing a pretty standard differentiation between the urban and the rural: the mystical and the commercial. Historically, the urban environment provided the center of commerce, development of knowledge and skills, and alienation from the land. The rural environment provided a common, distinctive, and intuitive culture, a connection with the land, and individual character, including courage.
        Also, historically, the development of the urban and commercial tended to push out the rural, resulting in depopulation, over-centralization of authority, and the deterioration of the citizen soldier in favor of the professional mercenary.

        I think there’s not only room for both, but a need for both. But, that takes changing some conservative thinking. For example, the totally free international markets favored by libertarians and classic liberals will push out the rural farmer who can’t compete with cheap foreign agricultural goods. This makes a case, which I won’t go into, for a certain amount of protected markets.

        The concepts I’m describing can be found in Coudenhove-Kalergi’s “Practical Idealism” and Brooke Adams “Law of Civilization and Decay”. Yes, I know Kalergi’s writings form the basis of the EU and the push for ending the European peoples through migration, but his observations were nevertheless extremely interesting.
        Practical Idealism
        Law of Civilization and Decay

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        June 20, 2017 - 9:54 am | Permalink

        When Philo Farnsworth- a farmer- was plowing one day, he discerned a pattern in the field that led to the development of television. Was he rational, or mystical, or just living the White way?

        Philo’s patents ended up in the hands of (((David Sarnoff))), head of RCA.


        90% of our problems stem from the (((fake money hegemon))).

        Here, Lord Keynes explains:

        Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become ‘profiteers,’ who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

        Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

        And here, Copernicus, four centuries earlier:

        ALTHOUGH THERE ARE COUNTLESS MALADIES that are forever causing the decline of kingdoms, princedoms, and republics, the following four (in my judgment) are the most serious: civil discord, a high death rate, sterility of the soil, and the debasement of coinage. The first three are so obvious that everybody recognizes the damage they cause; but the fourth one, which has to do with money, is noticed by only a few very thoughtful people, since it does not operate all at once and at a single blow, but gradually overthrows governments, and in a hidden, insidious way.

  3. David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
    June 18, 2017 - 11:20 am | Permalink

    The question is whether the brilliant Spengler, who had the eye of an artist and the pen of a poet, was correct in predicting an inevitable doom for the Euro-American civilization.

    In my view at the time of writing he was too attached imagining the historical predecessor cultures, especially the Classical, and failed to think through the full implications of our unique Faustian character – constant exploration and unlimited science. The proper use of technics in biology and economics may give us a longer extension of life than suggested by his comparative timelines, if there is sufficient will and organization.

    The prophetic conclusion of “Jahre der Entscheidung” (1933/4) gives hope: optimism may not be cowardice, after all.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      June 18, 2017 - 1:10 pm | Permalink

      We have no doubt that science and technology will continue to develop in the West, however how “western” will that West be if the majority of its inhabitants will be non-white. Keep in mind that a substantial part of the population that will be still white will also consist of degenerates. A civilization led by a creative white minority, but consisting mainly of non-whites, mongrels and white degenerates is not an attractive prospect, no matter how “advanced” its technology. At the end of the day it is only race that matters.

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        June 19, 2017 - 3:59 am | Permalink

        @ Franklin Ryckaert

        While I would not go quite so far as Disraeli’s “All is race”, you have put the problems facing us quite succinctly. The solutions are (1) exclusion of alien colonists and (2) a subsequent eugenics program.

        Aware of the continued growth of the obstacles, ideological and practical, put in their way since my own contrarian student days, I realize the difficulties, but agreement on these main objectives and discussion of serious efforts of how to “get to Yes”, despite recent setbacks and enemies astute enough to forestall them, are now – however belatedly – imperative.

        Incidentally, a quibble: Niall Ferguson has not studied Spengler (nor LeBon, Danilevsky, Ibn Khaldun, Tenney Frank, &c) with sufficient care, but he has emphasized the dangers of Muslim mass-immigration, as a sort of neo-con, while some of his writing (despite the deterrence of his marriage to a Somali) does encourage opposition to miscegenation).

        • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
          June 19, 2017 - 9:17 am | Permalink

          You have to be very, very careful in advocating a system eugenics program, especially if the government is involved. Once you start a government tampering with mating and birth, you run into multiple problems:

          1) Any government agency or program is subject to capture by the population under focus. Imagine a government agency devoted to eugenics captured by cultural Marxists.
          2) A government agency, even if operated legitimately, would probably focus on a single, well-defined measure, such as an IQ score. A selection based on IQ scores would ignore the public virtues and personality characteristics so important in progress and civilization. Imagine a population of Tony Blairs, Vanessa Mays, Barak Obamas: highly verbal, highly persuasive, highly adept at organizational manipulation, moral cretins.

          • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
            June 19, 2017 - 3:31 pm | Permalink

            Depends on the government and its aims. Traditional mainstream eugenics outlived the Nazis in several democratic countries, and is coming back in China. Elimination of crippling genetic diseases and improving the birth-rate of productive and creative people (especially OUR lot) are better than what is happening now. Let us at least participate in the already on-going policy debates.

            And PS – it has NOTHING to do with “The Holocaust” TM.

          • June 20, 2017 - 10:52 am | Permalink

            Endogamy among “that extended family”, the ethnic state, ensures the perpetuation of the race; further endogamy among admirable enclaves, dynasties, or even castes used to usually achieve an eugenic effect.

          • silviosilver's Gravatar silviosilver
            June 20, 2017 - 3:38 pm | Permalink

            Cultural Marxists are already more or less “in charge.” Contemporary fertility patterns look very much like something a cultural Marxist fanatic would ordain – the worst outbreeding the best, and by a comfortable margin. Just how much worse than this could a real cult Marx ‘eugenics’ (dysgenics) program possibly be?

          • historian's Gravatar historian
            June 22, 2017 - 3:29 pm | Permalink

            I’m with Ronald on this topic. I don’t think it is in our best interest to having a policy wonk dictating from a desk following some Frankfurt school theory. Like minded people with similar expections and values is still the best way to go. I am not against genetically solving disease but after that I don’t trust anyone.

        • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
          June 27, 2017 - 4:17 am | Permalink

          historian – would work if people could self sort into different regions according to politics/belief system

  4. Bruce's Gravatar Bruce
    June 18, 2017 - 12:01 pm | Permalink

    I’ve had this book on my to-read/buy list but have not gotten around to it as of yet. It sounds wonderful per the review, will be reading it soon!

    I find it fascinating that Duchesne went through a similar journey as many have. First denouncing certain topics as beyond the pale, then slowly and eventually arriving to them with an appreciation at some later point.

    • silviosilver's Gravatar silviosilver
      June 20, 2017 - 3:46 pm | Permalink

      Have you ever reflected on what sort of presentation of the facts of racial reality might have expedited your acceptance of their importance?

      Such acceptance in itself is not necessarily enough to make one care about white racial interests, but it’s hardly uncommon for whites to grow concerned for their race after becoming aware of certain racial home truths.

  5. Charles's Gravatar Charles
    June 19, 2017 - 7:32 am | Permalink

    I am reading Bernard Diaz now who was among the conquistadores of New Spain… They saw themselves as superior to the natives, who were cannibals that sacrificed humans in temples all over what is now Mexico, but at the same time they married the women and took them as brothers if the indians worshipped the cross. The amount of worthless glass beads that were traded for all the gold in the country is incredible, how were the Indians tricked? They must have thought the beads to be diamonds… Ultimately one cannot conclude anything other than that the conquistadors were the highest type of men, being that a few hundred of them conquered hundreds of thousands and founded a country that still exists today.

  6. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    June 19, 2017 - 9:00 am | Permalink

    I believe there’s something missing that needs to be addressed, “biracial privilege.” This is something we are subjected to daily.

  7. RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
    June 19, 2017 - 9:35 am | Permalink

    Deterioration of the population.

    There is a natural rate of genetic mutation that affects all genes. The consequence of this is that any population trait not continually selected for will disappear. This is graphically illustrated by the existence of eyeless fish in subterranean caves.

    The existence of the welfare state, and to an extent the success of medicine and the easy availability of food and medical care results in the deterioration of salient population characteristics, even in the absence of mass immigration, which certainly speeds up the process. Thus, the aggressive instincts of the Indo-Europeans, rewarded so richly for centuries, is likely in decline now through natural processes.

    As a seat-of-the-pants example, take Sweden, isolated through location and previous immigration restrictions, but a tremendously wealthy and beneficent welfare state, totally unable to defend itself from external and internal pressures to change its fundamental nature.

    My point is that the European aggressiveness and other characteristics we love so much will eventually disappear, even with total immigration restriction, unless there is some selection for these characteristics. A government targeted program to this effect would undoubtedly do more harm than good.

  8. Realist's Gravatar Realist
    June 19, 2017 - 3:39 pm | Permalink

    “Yet van den Berghe, like most scientists, is a political liberal and agrees with the supposed need to suppress ethnocentrism.”

    Van den Berghe is a social scientist not a true scientist.

  9. Peter's Gravatar Peter
    June 20, 2017 - 9:32 am | Permalink

    “Fernandez-Armesto accuses modern explorers of ‘amateurism, naivety, credulousness, bombast, mendacity [and] sheer incompetence.”

    Another great article from this great website. As my fellow Europeans / whites begin to recognize the hatred, animosity and jealousy many non-whites feel towards them, I feel closer to other whites than ever before. Fernandez-Armesto apparently has the contempt for whites that I noticed towards my fellow Germans, most noticeably, for the first forty years of my life. And I think Jews are largely responsible for both situations.

    Several sentences were particularly interesting and enjoyable to read, including that Professor Duchesne “Eventually, he retrieved a copy of the 2nd abridged edition of Rushton’s Race, Evolution and Behavior which had been sent to him years previously only to be laid aside as a ‘racist’ tract.” I think many people’s thinking has developed the same way, which isn’t surprising. We’ve all received the same instruction in school and society.

    • Peter's Gravatar Peter
      June 20, 2017 - 9:39 am | Permalink

      I wish my deceased parents were still alive so they could read the articles on this website, particularly my father, who died in the mid 1990’s. We argued about the war, “racism” and the “holocaust” constantly and I owe him many apologies which it is now too late for him to hear.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        June 21, 2017 - 12:05 am | Permalink

        @ Peter:
        Thanks, your comment struck a resonant chord.

  10. Amasius's Gravatar Amasius
    June 21, 2017 - 2:25 am | Permalink

    Armesto is terrible. I read his “Civilizations” book and in it he actually claims (doesn’t argue, since he doesn’t know what he’s talking about) that there was no Indo-European people or Indo-European homeland, furthermore there isn’t even an Indo-European language family and the resemblances are all just a coincidence. He’s basically a pseudo-educated imbecile.

    • George Kocan's Gravatar George Kocan
      June 21, 2017 - 8:01 am | Permalink

      The relevant academic term here is ‘deconstruction.’

  11. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    June 21, 2017 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

    “…The original historical expression of this drive is the heroic ethos which informs Homer’s Iliad and Germanic heroic poetry: the overriding ambition of the aristocratic warrior to achieve immortal fame by engaging in battles for prestige in contempt of his own mortality…”

    You know this sounds a little like SJW think. Even though nulticultural immigration hurts them they defend it. How can we turn this feeling or behavior over where it’s eugenic instead of dis-eugenic?

  12. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    June 21, 2017 - 7:02 pm | Permalink

    The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all, maybe not even the majority, but a lot. I keep saying this constantly but the psychopathic mentality is so different from most of our way of thinking that we have a hard time believing it.

    Now we are beginning to have proof in genetic studies. Read heartiste article on genetic testing of races.(It’s not too long)


    The long term behavior of Jews, as a group, can in no way be differentiated from a tribe of psychopaths. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud “great enlightenment” basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they’re Jews and their lives don’t matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.

    They’ve been thrown out of every single country that they’ve been to in any numbers. Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking “surely they will reform or repent” like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don’t have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.

    Start over.

    Even if it’s wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and Jew’s behavior will make sense.

    Once you understand the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths their silly assed schemes become transparent. You just have to see them for what they are. Never listen to what they say as they are complete liars. Look at the media coverage of Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia, if this is not an absolute premier textbook definition of psychopathic “gas-lighting” then I don’t know what is.

    • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
      June 22, 2017 - 12:00 pm | Permalink

      I liked your reference on genetic traits corresponding to personality traits, and particularly the idea that IQ is not, by far, the only determinant of the success and dominance of a nation or culture.

      I think your generalizations on Jews is a bit over the top. You begin with

      “The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all, maybe not even the majority, but a lot. ”
      and go on to say “Never listen to what they say as they are complete liars. ”

      So, you generalize from a broad description of a tribe which you state may not even be descriptive of the majority, to a general statement that not one Jew should be believed. A generalization which is overly broad is not useful.

      The complexity of personality genetics makes it unlikely that any government eugenics program designed to uplift the population, as opposed to weeding out actual physical or mental defects, is as likely (more likely) to be harmful as to be helpful.

      As for Jews, I think their leaders have served them ill. The major Jewish organizations support Muslim immigration. There’s no way you can put a shine on this piece of feces. It’s like the affinity scam of Bernie Madoff on stilts. And the idea the Jews can make a mess and escape to Israel also doesn’t make sense. As the US is the main defender of Israel against a UN resolution pile-on targeting Israel, for the US Jews to be replaced with Muslims would obviously take the US out of Israel’s corner with respect to UN sanctions and boycotts. So there is no benefit to Jews as a people to pursue policies destructive to the US. That doesn’t mean they don’t do it, but naked self-interest is not a credible factor.

      • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
        June 22, 2017 - 2:18 pm | Permalink

        “…I think your generalizations on Jews is a bit over the top. You begin with…”

        “…So, you generalize from a broad description of a tribe which you state may not even be descriptive of the majority, to a general statement that not one Jew should be believed. A generalization which is overly broad is not useful…”

        You are using one of the tools of the Jews. Niggling over this and that point to thwart the general meaning of a statement. I reject your criticism. It is a verbal trick designed to confuse and push cognitive dissonance. I perfectly and adequately covered why you should consider everything the Jews say lies. Look.

        “…The long term behavior of Jews, as a group, can in no way be differentiated from a tribe of psychopaths…”

        “…Even if it’s wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and Jew’s behavior will make sense…”

        So as a group and long term the Jews as a group are a pack of liars and psychopaths. You pretending they are individuals is a Western idea for Whites. They are not White Northern Europeans and don’t deserve to be treated as such. They are not us. They don’t deserve the benefit of a doubt because of their long wretched past history of abusing us. They themselves don’t think, act or respond as individuals so to treat them as if they are is futile and aberrational. You’re thinking about the Jews is aberrational and doesn’t respect reality. If you’re Charlie Brown and Lucky is holding a football for you to kick what do you do? The only rational response is to not play the game at all with her. The only known rational response to psychopaths is not play with them at all. They need to be deported. Let them live in their shitty little country without our support and let’s see what happens. Let them reap the fruit they have planted.

        RonaldB,”…So there is no benefit to Jews as a people to pursue policies destructive to the US…”

        And yet they do. They do so because they are a tribe of psychopaths. This is normal behavior for psychopaths. You would have to be an imbecile to not know that 9-11 was an Israeli operation. We know that at least one building, building #7, was demoed. Why? Because it fell the same speed as a rock dropped in air. There being only two variables to something falling, 1. the force of gravity and 2. the resistance or density of the material below whatever is falling. Building 7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped in air therefore the density of material below building 7 was…Air. Well we all know the building wasn’t floating in the air. We all know the fires weren’t so big they boiled all the columns and concrete supporting the building into the density of air. The bottom was demoed out from under the building. There is NO other function that could make the building fall as it did but that the bottom support was removed. None.

        They do these things because they have a bunch of psychopaths running things for them(and us at this point). Psychopaths do these sort of crazy assed things because they think they can get away with them and they have total contempt for empathetic humans.

        The Jews will suffer the effects of these attacks on us in the end just the same as all groups do. People in the North are attacked by Blacks constantly because “of racism” yet their forefathers fought to free the slaves. They’re attacked in the North solely because they’re White. So the Jews not stopping their psychopathic leaders who I, as easily as they, can see are attacking us ARE LIARS along with them. They know. Most of them know the life cycle of the Jews is to loot, pillage and attack the civilizations they reside in. They know this. To believe different is to be naive to the extreme.

        You will see in the future, if it’s not censored, more and more evidence that I’m right. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths.

        • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
          June 23, 2017 - 12:05 am | Permalink

          “You are using one of the tools of the Jews.”

          Well, genetically, I’m fully Jewish although religiously I don’t practice any religion. But nevertheless, it’s not quite appropriate to refer to “us”, ie, you and myself, against “them” as referring to Jews.

          I still think your inconsistency on making a general statement about the untrustworthiness of all Jews when by your own statement, a majority may not be like that, is an inconsistency of Aristotelian logic, rather than Jewish logic, whatever that is.

          As far as Israeli agents bringing down the towers, all I can say is, it doesn’t pass the sniff test. Iraq was a nuisance but not really a threat to Israel. When Iraq threatened to develop a nuclear capability, Israel acted directly and forcefully to take out the Osirus reactor.

          Also, concerning the possibility of the towers being the result of a demolition, not being a structural engineer, I can’t asses the technical arguments very fully. I read a long article making the case they were demolished, including the assertion that no real chemical analysis of the buildings was carried out before all the evidence was destroyed. An analysis would have found, if any were present, the signs of thermite, generally used to melt metal to the temperatures it would have taken to melt the steel beams.

          But, I read another paper certified by structural engineers detailing how the collapse of the buildings was entirely possible with subterfuge.

          So, we’re left with a thought experiment. Would the US have been any less aroused if two full-sized jetliners were flown into the towers, and the buildings remained standing? In other words, given the success of the hijacking that we know about, a risky covert demolition was completely unnecessary. And such a demolition would have exponentially increased the risk of such a plot being detected.

          But, let’s get to the heart of your case: “Most of them know the life cycle of the Jews is to loot, pillage and attack the civilizations they reside in. ”

          Actually, Jews have a pretty positive recognition for scientific and medical contributions to the society within which they live. There are Jewish bankers we could all name, but are they more representative of being Jewish or being bankers. A very good book, written about a century ago, but eminently worth reading
          Law of Civilization and Decay
          makes the case that the bankers and moneylenders in any civilization will eventually drive the people to ruin. He talks about the Rothschilds as one example among many.

          But, at the root, there is a pretty strong dysfunction in the US Jewish community. 70% of US Jews voted for Hillary, and the largest and most influential are strongly in favor of Muslim immigration, despite the fact Muslim immigration is ruining the country for Jews in Sweden and France for starters. Your explanation is that Jews are psychopaths and psychopaths can’t be expected to act rationally in their own interest. That explanation is a bit too glib for my blood. It also doesn’t have much predictive power.

          I’d actually like to see the US do away with dual citizenship. Let people know if they take out Israeli (or Iranian, or Mexican) citizenship, their US citizenship would be revoked. I think Jews, or anyone else, would think twice about fouling their own nests with Muslims if they weren’t assured of another country they could pack their bags and run to. And I know Israel has a law of return for Jews, but US Jews have a completely different personality profile from Israeli Jews, and any mass influx of US Jews would completely change the political landscape of Israel. Netanyahu, for one, would be out. So, my suspicion is, Israelis will start getting second thoughts about admitting every random Jewish leftist if the prospect looks imminent.

          As far as your being censored, I certainly hope you aren’t. I think you should make your best case. So far, I’m not very persuaded on anything I didn’t think before, but by all means try to develop a logical case for your views.

          • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
            June 23, 2017 - 5:05 pm | Permalink

            It’s obvious that you’re Hasbara. It’s also obvious that you’re not one of the paid ones. If you are they’re not getting their moneys worth.

            “…But nevertheless, it’s not quite appropriate to refer to “us”, ie, you and myself, against “them” as referring to Jews…”

            That’s because you make the mistake of considering “Me and You” us. There is no “us” between me and you.

            “…Jewish logic, whatever that is…”,

            Jewish logic is a method of clouding the truth, it’s a method of confusing a situation by quibbling over semantics or applying logic that is inappropriate to a particular situation as if it were a general situation. It’s also a method of ignoring one smaller part of an argument and focusing on another that is less definitive, attempting to destroy the argument as a whole by breaking it into incomplete parts as you have done. Remember I said,”…Even if it’s wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised and Jew’s behavior will make sense…”. This is of course the same method a psychopath would use. Thanks for the illustration.

            As for logic. Humans are much more likely to follow Bayesian inference as a means of determining the truth. Not with pencil and paper but with a intuitive grasp of the odds of a situation and the odds are that since lots of Jews are psychopaths and Jews tend to follow their psychopathic leaders then the odds are the Jews are lying to you is extremely high. Advice from people who have been proven over long periods of time to consistently lie when it either supports those not Jewish or to be detrimental to those that are Jewish drives the value of such advice to be effectively zero. It’s no good that every now and then they will mix a little truth with a huge pack of lies. You exhibit this yourself here by ignoring one section the argument and going off on a tangent that is immaterial. “Aristotelian logic”…please. Aristotle also said the Earth doesn’t move so I’m not so sure he would be pertinent in this case. Bringing him into the situation as some “defining authority” is just throwing words at the page and assuming primacy of argument. I reject you’re primacy. So you and Jews use the mystery casserole method of throwing words around without specifying any sort of meaning for them at all then proclaiming,”Aha I won!”

            “…As far as Israeli agents bringing down the towers, all I can say is, it doesn’t pass the sniff test…”

            OH SHIT. I give up. You have sniffed!

            Maybe not. To your sniff I say,”Ni!”

            “…Also, concerning the possibility of the towers being the result of a demolition, not being a structural engineer…”

            So what you’re saying is you’re such an imbecile that you don’t understand that a building falling through a large mass of steel columns and reinforced concrete can not fall at the same speed as a rock falling through air without the support being removed. If you’re that stupid and believe that only Mechanical Engineers can understand such behavior then why should we listen to anything you say? You buffoonarize your own argument. (I don’t believe buffoonarize is a word but I sure like it’s description of your argument so I’ll leave it).

            While I’m at it I’ll destroy you’re other Hasbara arguments on why building 7 fell, just for fun. I’ll let people see for themselves what happened. Here’s some info that doesn’t violate the guidelines on crazy conspiracy theories. It’s based only on observable facts, the density of air and the force of gravity.

            On 9-11 building #7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped beside it in free air for roughly 108 feet. This means the building had no resistance to falling except air.

            All materials fall the same speed in a gravity field disregarding air friction which I don’t thing we need to worry about for a building falling. So the speed of our imaginary rock falling next to the building is just gravity related. The speed of the buildings falling, the exact same as the rock, is just gravity also. This means that there was NOTHING to slow the fall of the building. The density of the material under the imaginary rock falling was air. The building fell the same therefore the density of the material under the building was also air. We know this is not true. Building #7 was not hovering in the air.

            It’s makes NO difference how big the fires were. The buildings density never reached the same value as air! The fires did not boil away the building structure where they were light as air! All the talk about damage, fires, this, that, all bullshit because the building fell with all four corners almost level the same speed as a rock in AIR. If a building falls as fast as a rock and the rock is falling through JUST AIR then the building is falling through JUST AIR also. Simple equivalence. 1=1, 2=2, big rock falling in air=small rock falling in air=building falling in air. One problem is people sometimes believe that a really heavy thing will fall faster than a lighter thing. Not true. Look at this video of the Apollo astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer on the Moon. They land at the same time.


            Here’s a video of reporters going into building #7 AFTER the North tower supposedly fell on it and destroyed it sufficiently enough for it to collapse completely. Look at :54 you see the #7 for the building on the door.


            Now you’ve seen video of the inside where there is NO massive damage to make all four sides of the building fall. You want pictures of the back? Here’s a picture of the South side of building #7, facing the North tower, after it had fallen. There is no huge gaping hole. There is no massive fire going all the way up the building. So you can’t say it’s the South side and we have plenty of video and pictures of the North side of building #7 pictures with no damage at all.


            Here’ another NIST FOIA released video taken between one and two hours before building #7 fell. There’s around three floors on fire.


            (Watch the reporter pan up at 2:54. You can clearly see the whole building is not on fire. This side shown is the North side of building #7. Later you can see the fires mostly around three or four floors only and in isolated spots.)
            If the fires were hot enough to melt steel then why isn’t the glass in the windows melted? Glass melts at an extremely lower temperature that steel. Ever put a metal can and a glass bottle in a campfire? The glass bottle melts but the steel can will still be intact. These fires were no hotter than a campfire. One last video of all sides from 23 angles also showing the miraculous collapse.


            Fireman retired so now he can talk. He was right next to the damn building. Says,”…there was an explosion and the building came down…”


            For more info look at a site by some engineers that lay out the evidence.


            “…Actually, Jews have a pretty positive recognition for scientific and medical contributions to the society within which they live…”

            We can do without you. Easily. The harm you cause is not worth any, not one, scientific advance. It’s likely that large amounts of destruction of science pushed by the Jews harms more than helps science. You have nothing we need.

          • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
            June 23, 2017 - 5:10 pm | Permalink

            I forgot to mention it’s not just the long experience of Jews acting like psychopaths that we have to determine their psychopathicness. We now have genetic evidence.


            “…Low-activity MAOA genes (2R and 3R) are associated with impulsive aggression and psychopathy….”

            “…The population, which has the highest frequency of the combination of the “worrier gene” (low-activity COMT (Met)) and the “warrior gene” (low-activity MAOA), as far as I could ascertain, is the Ashkenazi Jewish population…”

            “…The Hoaxin’ have on average a much higher incidence of both the genes which predispose to paranoia and the genes which predispose to psychopathy and aggression…”

          • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
            June 23, 2017 - 5:16 pm | Permalink

            My humble apologies and I beg your forbearance. I left out a link pertaining to Ni! which is most pertinent to the case. I did proof read but…I failed to see I left out this most important link. The link goes after,
            “…OH SHIT. I give up. You have sniffed!

            Maybe not. To your sniff I say,”Ni!”…”


            As you can see it adds greatly to the discussion. I don’t know how I missed it.

          • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
            June 23, 2017 - 5:32 pm | Permalink

            I think sometimes maybe I write too much. Maybe all these words confuse people so here I give you Jewish civilization strategy in one gif picture file.


          • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
            June 23, 2017 - 8:54 pm | Permalink

            Acting psychopathic and having genes associated with psychopathy are two different things. One would have to ask the strength of association and how predictive it is for individuals and even populations.

            Just like one would have to ask about how representative the psychopath in the airport was, who represented himself as an aboriginal Jew (Lightest aboriginal I’ve seen). Seems to me he should have gotten hard jail time for what he did, but I know quite a few Jews, and none of them would do anything like that.

            I’m sounding a bit frazzled, and it’s because your assertions are so vague and general: “They do so because they are a tribe of psychopaths. ” “Most of them know the life cycle of the Jews is to loot, pillage and attack the civilizations they reside in. ”

            It’s fuzzy. Hard to defend against because it’s so general and vague. By the way, the nations that expelled the Jews eventually invited them back in. Which should we take as most reflective of the consequences of having Jewish inhabitants: the expulsion or the later invitations?

            And anytime I point out your fuzzy generalities and vague assertions, you say I’m using a trick the Jews use, which is a good way of getting around the argument.

            By the way, I have nothing against criticisms of Jews or Jewish organizations, as long as the criticisms tell me something. I’ll give you a figure: 70% of US Jews voted for Hillary. I’ll give you a fact: the main US Jewish organizations support Muslim immigration. You can see it on their websites. It’s not what someone else says about them. It’s what they say about themselves.

            But, when someone tells me I have a psychopathic personality, I knew they’re wrong and consider whatever else they say to be suspect. And, if you say that a preponderance of MOAO allele in a population does not imply a particular phenotype, then your generalities about all Jews go out the window. I’m bringing myself into it not to make your argument uncomfortable, but to simply point out at least one exception to a generalization.

            I’ll go a bit further and say, I think at this point, it’s extremely unwise for any country to allow in large numbers of foreign immigrants, including Jewish immigrants.

            Lastly, be assured I’m not trying to change your mind about Jews. I’m simply trying to get some usable material, facts, or reasoning that I already don’t know.

          • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
            June 24, 2017 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

            “…Acting psychopathic and having genes associated with psychopathy are two different things…”

            So…you want to risk your country and life on people that have psychopathic genes? Go ahead.

            Let’s try an experiment. I also say that Black people in the ghetto are violent and dangerous so why don’t you move into Baltimore Maryland and live there for a while as “it’s fuzzy” thinking to say all Blacks are violent.

            “…trick the Jews use…”

            See you’re doing it again.

            “…And anytime I point out your fuzzy generalities and vague assertions, you say I’m using a trick the Jews use, which is a good way of getting around the argument…”

            And again.

            “…But, when someone tells me I have a psychopathic personality, I knew they’re wrong and consider whatever else they say to be suspect…”

            Notice I say the “…the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths…”. This is a “group”. A group can vary somewhat inside the “group” and still be classified as “whatever” trait. A simple example. Dogs are wolves. Well Dogs are a subset of wolves but they’re not exactly the same. I wouldn’t call a Beagle a wolf…yet it is. You’re characterization of what I said is dishonest. It’s a lie, but that’s to be expected because you can’t believe a damn word the Jews say. Every time you open your mouths, or write, you have to pile more deception on top of deception. A prime example of psychopathy.

            The facts of matter are it’s EXTREMELY likely that you are playing the same old tired game the Jews do when confronted about their hideous psychopathic behavior and arguing over small points that add up to nothing to fog or confuse the main issue. Now this has worked well for you over the years but most of the people who read stuff here and other Alt-Rightish type sites have a long experience with this and we don’t believe a damn word you say. We don’t believe you’re honestly “exploring” the situation. This your own damn fault. You’ve lied so much it’s insane to believe anything you Jews say. A good example pf this is the big Jew press lies of Trump being in thrall to Russia,Russia, Russia. I hope they keep this up. Already we have polls saying the majority of people don’t believe the press and don’t believe the Russia, Russia, Russia narrative. If people realized that Jews owned all the media and control it then we ,can and will, eventually transfer this distrust to the Jews. You guys are stuck. Hideous mass murderers over all of your history who have been thrown out of EVERY single country you’ve gone in any numbers. Because. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths.

            Your complete dropping of 9-11 when it is shown conclusively that it’s a huge inside job is a big blinking light. You see the way this going so you just ignore it. Another Jew trick.

            Psychopaths(Jews) do fairly well in confusing people who don’t suspect them as being psychopaths but the various verbal tricks they prefer become transparent after people understand them a little.

          • June 24, 2017 - 4:32 pm | Permalink

            Well, genetically, I’m fully Jewish … it’s not quite appropriate to refer to “us”, ie, you and myself, against “them” as referring to Jews.

            It is certainly not appropriate to refer to you and him as “us” against “them,” Jews.

            It’s appropriate to refer to he and I, “us” against you and other Jews, “them.”

            While I personally won’t concede Sam J. point about psychopathy, he’s completely correct that it’s pointless to engage you or other Jews in a “debate.” There’s no upside for us.

          • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
            June 26, 2017 - 7:50 pm | Permalink

            “…While I personally won’t concede Sam J. point about psychopathy…”

            All of you will come around eventually about the Jews being a tribe of psychopaths. After all there seems to be no discernible difference over long time periods between the behavior of the Jews and a tribe of psychopaths.

            I’m fully aware of the onus against those who would provide “simple” solutions to problems but keep in mind the people who use these sort of phrases never do anything useful for any problems except to proclaim how hard they are working on these “difficult” problems.

            Sometimes the simplest solutions are the most accurate if not 100% accurate. If three or four are not it doesn’t change a thing.

            The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths.

          • George Kocan's Gravatar George Kocan
            June 27, 2017 - 6:30 am | Permalink

            I have know many Jewish persons over the years and found most of them to be wonderful people. I have a great problem with the idea that they were conspiring against me and trying to take over the world. I see a great gap between the kinds of Jews I read about and those that I have met.

          • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
            June 27, 2017 - 1:11 pm | Permalink

            “…I have know many Jewish persons over the years and found most of them to be wonderful people…”

            Maybe they’re fooling you. It has been remarked that psychopaths are known as some of the most wonderful people that have been ever known, unless you are in their sights as one of their victims or in the way of their plans. Why wouldn’t they be disarmingly charming to those that don’t directly effect their plans? When you read sites like Love Fraud and https://pathwhisperer.info they all talk about how the psychopaths that torment them turn everyone against them because “they are such good people” and no one can believe such nice people are evil.

            “…I see a great gap between the kinds of Jews I read about and those that I have met…”

            Then how do you explain their actions? Just who is it that’s doing all this stuff? Who runs the whole entire media. Do you not realize that the whole MSM is run by Jews and it’s one big “gas light”? Don’t you see the “gas lighting” and deception in the movies and on TV. Who do you think these people are? If I can see this why don’t the Jews you say are so good come out with a huge hue and cry and smite them for being so evil?????????? Where the hell are they when Jews say all Whites need to be killed? If they’re not speaking up against the Jews attacking us then they ARE conspiring against you. If we held them to the same standard as the Jews hold Whites to, then anything Jews did to injure us that the “nice Jews” didn’t exclaim loudly against would be a damnation against the all Jews. Yet somehow we are held to these high standards and they are not. We should hold them to the same standards. This means all of them are guilty of what they’ve done to us just like they hold all Whites to account for the (thing I can’t mention here that I don’t believe in).

            I’m a White nationalist not because I hate all others of color but because I don’t see any other way to survive. The history of the Jews is that if they get power they will start murdering as many people as they can. This is a multi-thousand year Jewish personality pattern. In today’s world it could be most all of us. They don’t offer us anything of value compared to the risk of having them in our country much less running it. If things go on as they have you may wake up one day with your nice Jew friends holding a gun to your head telling you how they always liked you right before they pull the trigger.

          • George Kocan's Gravatar George Kocan
            June 28, 2017 - 6:11 am | Permalink

            The Jews that I have known do not control the Democrat Media or anything else of much importance. And then, many non-Jews are involved in the control of the Media and are just as enthusiastic or more in pursuing their goal of corrupting the culture. And, I cannot ignore the Jews who have taken leadership roles in defending Western Civilization. This may all be a ruse, but I do not read minds.

          • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
            June 27, 2017 - 1:25 pm | Permalink

            I need to add something. This cognitive discognisense, “they’re such nice people” and the actual long term actions of these people is a defining characteristic of psychopaths. Maybe George Kocan is Hasbara, maybe not. It not my apologies and you need to read this in order to predict Jews behavior. It’s the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity”. Here’s a chapter you should read. It’s about the psychopath Stanley. Who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look at the astounding array of things he’s able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. “They’re pulling a Stanley”. The whole book is on the web and worth reading. The chapter below is not very long and very illuminating.


            Even clinical psychologist say they have trouble decided whether patients are psychopaths or even if they are manipulating them or not. Assuming that Jews, being nice to you, are not involved in some serious destruction of you and your people is not rationally valid knowing what we know about psychopaths. It also is irrational knowing what the Jews have done long term to our people. We KNOW they have murdered millions and millions when they have had the power to do so. They are not transparent and show none of the animus towards those they hate physically. They mask it.

  13. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    June 23, 2017 - 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Another example of Jews destroying others around them even though they live in the country.

    Look at this Jew bringing in infected leaves into Australia. What he was bringing in could destroy all the Eucalyptus trees. Now are we to believe that the Jews who are so smart, so they say, would pack up infected leaves, just the leaves, and smuggle them in the country by accident? I believe he did this on purpose. I would have never thought such a thing before I became Jew wise. I believe they do stuff like this all the time if they feel they can get away with it and harm anyone not Jewish. All their advice is rotten. If someone believes different then explain what he would be doing carefully packing up infected leaves?

    He wants to skip ahead in the customs line. He claims he’s an Aboriginal??? But he’s a Jew.



  14. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    June 27, 2017 - 4:28 am | Permalink

    These two explanations are the currently acceptable ones (in modern thinking):

    (1) article quote: “and tends to portray the rise of the West as a matter of geographic luck.”

    (2) Article quote: ““The second is the institutional approach which emphasizes free markets, democratic governance, the rule of law, and so forth”

    The third explanations that is not acceptable in modern lefty/globalist thinking is:

    (3) Article quote: “Paul Kersey’s Escape from Detroit convinced Duchesne that the character of a place is closely dependent on its racial makeup. “

    Whilst I fully agree that the ‘unacceptable’ explanation number 3 is the correct one (the ethnic one), there is perhaps an extra point to make, which is that these successful Europeans have a racial makeup that includes completely different genes within the population – like Labradors and pitbulls – like honest people and thieves, the good and the bad, the higher and the lower, (the ‘lower’ being what Franklin Ryckaert describes above as ‘white degenerates’ – these are part of the white race but nothing to admire), and the Europeans are only successful when their better types are in charge, and are no better than the most primitive tribe that ever existed when their worst types are in charge. We cannot say that communists who got to high positions in the Soviet union with IQs of 120 were ‘better’ or ‘higher ‘ than some tribe in Africa that have an IQ of 60.

    It is like domestic dogs saying: “we are so much better than those nasty Jackals on the plain – we are loyal to our owners and can do tricks and understand human orders and have so much self-control that we can guard livestock without attacking any of them. We are so superior. Look at what we have achieved with our cleverness and self-control. These qualities have made us so successful compared with jackals”

    “All very true”, we reply to the domestic dogs so proud of their race, “but remember that you also have in your domestic dog population pibulls that attack the children of their owners and pick fights with other dogs at random – so your so called better genes include some that are far far worse than the jackals.”

    We achieved success in the West when the human equivalents of the alsation and Labrador and sheep dog were in charge – we are now seeing failure as we have let the human equivalents of the pitbulls take over our institutions and government. How are we better if in the end we commit national suicide?

    Humans did not Naturally Select into homogonous groups, unlike lower animals. This means that whilst mice in a mice population end up all pretty much the same as each other – BY NATURAL SELECTION – this does not apply to humans and they end up having DIFFERENT TRAITS that are kept different WITHIN one population again, fully ‘enforced’ BY NAT SELECTION. In humans you need some warrior types, but you also need other types who are interested in spending their whole lives making tools sharper Eg how to get the kiln the right temp to make the metal strong – this itself can take 20 years of devotion and requires an obsessive approach quite different from the warrior’s. The same obsessive approach we see in bird-watchers who seem to be white males. You need different types in a human population to be succesful. When everyone is the same (eg a warrior) the population cannot thrive as it is too homogenous and no-one to do all the other tasks. With mice they can be all identical as their lives are simple and do not require specialisation.

    In this context we see that a white population is made up of subsets. When one subset – a ‘good/better’ subset, (or ‘superior’ subset to use an almost banned word) had the upper hand (with warrior thinking), the West thrived and was successful. This success was due to a ‘good/better’ subset of the population having dominance. The ‘good’ subset being the type that were attracted to the concepts of morals and disliked cheating, lying and dishonesty (the foundations of many arab cultures) – hence the fondness of this good/better/superior subset for Christianity as the basis for interactions and behaviour – it was individualistic and anti-corruption. And this subset went all the way through the classes including the poorer people embracing it also such as the farm labourers who did not like cheats and liars any more than wealthier people did. (The same working class types today cheering for Trump). The ultimate hero was a knight – strong brave honourable – ie full of VIRTUE combined with strength. A hero to the poor as well as the rich.

    (The rule of the warrior class had one major disadvantage that was once wars got mechanised the killing of warriors got out of hand, culminating in the closely related Germans and British killing off each other’s best young men)

    But now a different subset from within the population has taken over dominance. This is because the state, now powerful and rich, favours those who seek to get on by having lefty views, and the state never employs anyone or promotes anyone on the basis of what they can do. Just look at any government job application form – it is all about checking if you have the right opinions and nothing to do with if you can get things done. (A question for a housing officer is ‘how would you react if a person complained of discrimination?’ etc etc and not ‘have you a track record in organising and running an office?)

    So now the current elite is drawn from a different genetic subset.

    The aim of this elite is described in the article: as follows “t became obvious to me after reading his book that the ‘ultimate’ factors in Western decline were not cultural, economic or even environmental, but the complete control of Western nations by elites dedicated to mass immigration and the dissolution of the racial interests of Europeans.”

    Evidence that a different subset are in charge is that they DESPISE the knights as representing everything they are not. This elite is HOSTILE to its own race and makes allies with any other group that is also hostile (Islam). They are not actually allies with Israel even though so many Jews help them in bringing down the West, as they see Israel also as civilised like themselves, and therefore to be brought down also, but nevertheless this hostility of our left to Israel does not stop lefty Jews joining on the side of the left and joining in with gentile-lefties in the big effort to bring down the West. The lefty Jews are quite willing to co-operate with the lefty gentiles even though the lefty gentiles hate Israel. The hatred of the left for Israel does not stop these Jews from remaining in their team.

    So the last quote above from the article is very significant and accurate – the CURRENT ELITE is the cause our downfall/national suicide. Perhaps important point to emphasise are that (a) these elites are a genetic subset of the whites that has always been in the population (b) they are a minority (c) due to various factors, especially state wealth, this subset has taken over (d) the old subset that had dominance has been ousted from power and influence (e) the new elite is squeezing the people like a balloon into a contorted shape that is not the natural state of the people (it is not natural to self-hate) (f) The people could easily reject this new elite that is currently squeezing them into hating themselves and successfully persuading them to commit national suicide (g) the outcome of the struggle depends on who controls the media – with the internet being the only way the patriots can spread their thinking. Another factor in determining for how long can the elite squeeze the people into the unnatural state of self-hate is that when the people in the West are no longer safe, rich and pampered, they will think differently.

    So when we talk of being patriotic to the white race, we must remember that the white race contains in its population some terrible genes, and the owners of these genes now have the upper hand and are causing our downfall. These genes are a burden and nothing to be proud about, like pitbull genes in dogs.

    Kevin MacDonald’s approach can explain everything that is happening – ie explanations of human behaviour that arise from our genes determining our wiring/behaviour, rather than the more traditional approach which is to think of ourselves as above all that and as reasoning logical creatures.

Comments are closed.