White Pathology/Guilt

Psychological Mechanisms of White Dispossession

/4 Comments/in , , , /by

I discuss three mechanisms basic to the psychology of White dispossession — runaway displays of White guilt and abasement, social learning, and being a member of a moral ingroup. Self-interest is often front and center, or at least in the background. For example, it’s pretty clear that many if not most Whites who make effusive declarations of allegiance to the multicultural reign of terror are acting out of self-interest. Such people are plugging into the contemporary structure of rewards and punishments created by our hostile elites. Even White heterosexual males have much to gain by making such displays; simply attending a job talk at a university, especially for an administrative position, makes it clear that explicit affirmations of allegiance to multiculturalism, White guilt, and acquiescence to White dispossession are de rigueur.

Runaway Displays of White Guilt and Abasement

So part of the psychology of displacement among Whites is simply self-interest. Anthony Hilton’s article (“Giving away the farm: Why?”)  adds the suggestion that there can be a runaway process resulting from competition among displayers to the point that their declarations become more and more grotesque and removed from rationality. Just as peahens select for more and more cumbersome, costly tail feathers in peacocks, we can expect that the bar for successful displays of White self-deprecation and guilt to be continuously raised.

One might suppose then, that the White Privilege Conference to be held in Seattle in April would be an ideal arena for such displays. Here are some quotes from some of the presentations that caught my eye. 

“The Color of Empire / The Cost to Our Humanity: Dismantling White Privilege and Class Supremacy Using Cellular Wisdom” … The session begins with mind and body grounding in processes, proceeds to examining the biological wisdom of the human cell  [???], moves to an analysis of race and class oppression / liberation dynamics in the U.S. (with particular attention to class supremacy and white privilege), and concludes with a range of applications of cellular wisdom to participants’ racial and economic justice work personally and professionally. … Read more

The Fairness of Whites as a Critical Weakness

/260 Comments/in /by

Editor’s note: This is a comment on Colin Liddell’s Plasmagoord and the Sigma Signals.

Here is the essence of what I feel is the primary weakness that has somehow been implanted within the genetic makeup of White European people. This foolish idea that seems to exist within the vast majority of our people’s minds – our Aryan sense of fairness, and the clearly stupid idea that Whites can expect to receive fairness and be treated honorably by non-Whites, if only we can manage to explain to them how they are being unfair to us. Our enemies, primarily the Jews, but in the long run – all non-white races who constitute our racial competition – have very cleverly sensed this weakness in our people and they have done everything possible to pour fertilizer on it, to make sure that it blossoms and flourishes among our demographic group. For it is this weakness, this Aryan sense of fair play and honor – that hands these opponents the means by which they can exploit and take advantage of our natural tendency towards treating others fairly, as we mistakenly think they will treat us if they wind up in power and rule over us. It is this stupid and clearly suicidal notion that leads Whites to vote for non-White candidates who are seeking to obtain political power and dominance over societies and nations which Whites built. Incredibly, these kinds of Whites never seem to be able to grasp the extremely deadly and potentially fatal danger of turning over political power to their racial competitors.

News flash: These non-whites have not at any time in world history, and will NEVER treat our race with any sense of fairness at any point in the future, because non-whites are not genetically engineered to possess these kinds of traits.

Yesterday, I was watching the latest speech by Jared Taylor who was invited to speak at Texas A&M University a few days ago. Taylor ran through his usual talking points about how diversity is not a strength, but a source of incredible conflict and misery and that everywhere on Earth where diversity exists, racial, ethnic, and cultural tensions are always at very strained and tenuous levels – and more often than not, these tensions erupt into very bloody violence between ethnic groups. The standard Taylor stump speech.

Read more

Plaasmoord and the Sigma Signals

/89 Comments/in , , , /by

Recently a low-budget piece of cinematic schlock had a vast swath of the world’s population foaming at the mouth, simply because it represented a slight upon their religiously-based identity. Compare this with the almost blanket indifference that has greeted another small film, this one touching on a campaign of genocidal murder against another group

As far as I know the short film Plaasmoord, which means “farm murder” and which shows the aftermath and reaction by relatives to the kind of attack that has become common against Boer farmers, has not led to any South African embassies being stormed or even seriously disturbed. Why is this?

The conventional reason given by various right wingers and nationalists is that there is some kind of leftist, liberal conspiracy by government and media to suppress anything that will adversely impact the “sensitive” state of race relations that invariably develop in all multi-racial states.

No doubt this is part of the reason, but it is not the whole story. Another reason is what I call the “Sigma Signal” that is implicit in the farm murders themselves, and which this film succeeds in heightening. Read more

White Pathology: Special issue of The Occidental Quarterly

/314 Comments/in /by

There will be a special issue on White pathology for the Spring 2013 issue of The Occidental Quarterly. Deadline will be January 15, 2013. Whatever blame for our situation that we place on others, the bottom line is that we are allowing the unfolding disaster to happen. It is unprecedented for a civilization to voluntarily cede political and cultural hegemony to others, particularly when so many of these people harbor hatreds and resentments toward our people and our culture.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of possible topics. (Indeed, quite a bit has been appeared on TOO in the category of “White pathology/guilt [see here and here]). I suggest running your ideas past me before starting on a paper. Please send inquiries to me at editors@theoccidentalobserver.net.

To purchase a subscription to TOQ, please visit the subscription sign-up page. Subscriptions are $60.00 per year for the U.S. print issue, and $30.00 per year for a digital version subscription.

Dealing with the Holocaust

/761 Comments/in , /by

1. White Nationalists need to deal with the Holocaust just as we need to deal with the Jewish Question in general.

It is futile to focus on White advocacy alone and ignore the Jews. Quite simply, the Jews will not return the favor. You might not pick Jews as the enemy, but they will pick you. You might wish to see Jews as Whites, but Jews see themselves as a distinct people. Thus they see any nationalism but their own as a threat.

2. It is futile for White Nationalists to ignore the Holocaust, for the Holocaust is one of the principal tools by which Jews seek to stigmatize White ethnic pride and self-assertion. As soon as a White person expresses the barest inkling of nationalism or racial consciousness, he will be asked “What about the Holocaust? You’re not defending genocide, are you?”

The Holocaust is specifically a weapon of moral intimidation. It is routinely put forward as the worst thing that has ever happened, the world’s supreme evil. Anybody who would defend it, or anything connected to it, is therefore evil by association. The Holocaust is evoked to cast uppity Whites into the world’s deepest moral pit, from which they will have to extricate themselves before they can say another word. And that word had better be an apology. To borrow a turn of phrase from Jonathan Bowden, the Holocaust is a moral “cloud” over the heads of Whites.

So how can White Nationalists dispel that cloud? We need an answer to the Holocaust question. As a New Rightist, the short answer is simply this: the New Right stands for ethnonationalism for all peoples—what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism.” We believe that this idea can become hegemonic through the transformation of culture and consciousness. We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers. Thus we retain the values, aims, and intellectual framework of the Old Right. Where we differ is that we reject Old Right party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.

The idea of ethnonationalism is true and good, regardless of the real and imagined crimes, mistakes, and misfortunes of the Old Right. Thus we feel no need to “deny,” minimize, or revise the Holocaust, just as the New Left felt no need to tie its projects to “Gulag revisionism.” Read more

Gregory Rodriguez on the Arizona Ethnic Studies Law

/56 Comments/in , /by

It’s no surprise that LATimes Latino activist columnist, Gregory Rodriguez, does not like the Arizona ban on ethnic studies in high school (click here to let the Times know what you think). After mentioning Arizona’s “ruthless, racially charged campaign against illegal immigrants,” he tones it down a bit, saying he disapproves of the fact that the curriculum includes  Paulo Freire’s jargon-heavy Marxist Pedagogy of the Oppressed, describing it as “a bit much.”  But then he goes on to say that “I’m all for students being taught that their ethnic histories play a significant role in U.S. history.”

Right, but the problem is that the people teaching these courses hate Whites. And they love their own people and the cultural Marxist rhetoric fomented by authors like Friere. The curriculum also included Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, by Rodolfo Acuña which emphasizes the evil that Whites have inflicted on Mexicans and Native Americans in the past (see discussion here). Read more

Romney and Gingrich compete over who is more pro-immigration

/53 Comments/in /by

If there is any doubt about how destructive the Republican Party is toward White America, tonight’s Florida debate should settle the issue.  The two front runners, Gingrich and Romney, had a heated exchange about immigration prompted when Wolf Blitzer, CNN’s resident AIPAC activist, asked Gingrich if Romney was the most anti-immigrant of the remaining candidates.  Gingrich eagerly agreed,  based on his (Gingrich’s) pro-amnesty stance and Romney’s opposition to illegal immigration. In the video below, Romney says that the charge that he is anti-immigrant is “repulsive,” and points out that his father was born in Mexico. He then expresses his support for expanded legal immigration. Romney loves immigrants as long as they’re legal. Must have more, because, after all, diversity is our greatest strength. (Here’s a  VDARE.com article from yesterday on Black attacks on Whites in the Whitopia of Portland, OR; note the response of clueless Whites.) Despite the fact that immigrants of all stripes will vote Democrat and, along with the rest of the non-White coalition, make the Republicans irrelevant in the very near future. Après moi le déluge. Let’s hope it’s an A3P deluge.

So the two Republicans supposedly trying to appeal to the angry White base of the Party by showing how conservative they are (just what are they conserving?) end up competing over who is more pro-immigration—not to mention their equally insane competition on who is more pro-Israel. (Newt is Sheldon Adelson’s boy, but Romney has actually gotten far more money from Jews than Gingrich; both have surrounded themselves with neocon foreign policy hawks eager to attack Iran).

Pathethic.  If nothing else, it shows the attitudes of those who really have the power in America today.

It’s really a competition over who is more sociopathic: The corpulent, corrupt, infinitely sleazy Gingrich, and the smooth, wealthy stuffed shirt darling of the Eastern Republican establishment. The winner to go up against the poster child of diversity and darling of the New York/Hollywood culture machine. American democracy, 2012 version.