White Pathology/Guilt

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.

 

Counter-Currents Interview

/67 Comments/in , , /by

I did an interview with Counter-Currents’ Greg Johnson and Mike Polignano—more of a discussion really. It touches on some important topics related to psychology, the nature of the West, and what kinds of people we want as White advocates.

The Death of Sarah Burke

/21 Comments/in /by

White people, more than other racial groups, seem to enjoy taking big physical risks. I was reminded of this upon hearing of the death of White Canadian female halfpipe skier, Sarah Burke.

She was White, beautiful, 29 years old. Great physical shape, obviously. No children born. But she was willing to fling her body into impossible skyward contortions, risking serious injury and death. I’m only just noting the weirdness of it. We Whites will jump out of planes and off buildings, tackle each other, fly planes upside down, you name it. (See “Extreme Sports as a Context of Implicit Whiteness.”)

But assert our own interests as a people in the political arena? The courage shrivels. We get red-faced and flustered. Ashamed. It does fit with all the evolutionary theories—we evolved as physically bold but socially cautious—concerned about the opinions of others, especially in a context framed as having moral implications—because both traits were adaptive. Still, incongruous.

Notes on Holland: The Mauro Case

/17 Comments/in /by

Holland has seen a slow but steady restriction on immigration since the so-called Fortuyn-revolt of 2002, but the Left is constantly fighting back by bringing up cases of individual ‘asylum seekers’ to gain sympathy from the public. The latest case is that one of the Angolan boy Mauro Manuel.

Mauro Manuel with his Dutch foster parents

Manuel Mauro was born on November 18 1992 in Angola and as a 9-year old boy he was put on a plane to Europe by his mother. In the beginning he was fostered by his half-sister but after several months he was dropped at a police station where he was registered as an “unaccompanied minor asylum seeker.” In this short description of his life so far we can see all the failings which characterize Black societies: fatherless families, mothers abandoning superfluous children for a new partner and eventually a call upon White institutions to prop the whole thing up. (See also Joe Webb’s current TOO article “Addicted to helping non-Whites“.) Mauro was placed in a White foster family which has raised him as their own.

In many aspects Mauro’s youth mirrors that of Barack Obama. Barack’s father left his mother when he was two, Barack’s leftist mother dumped him at the age of ten in favor of a new partner and he was eventually fostered by his White grandparents.

Since his arrival in Holland Mauro has tried to be classified as an asylum seeker but eventually failed in 2007. Nevertheless he has not given up in the hope that the public will pity him so that the government feels forced to give him a residence permit. Read more