Stockholm Syndrome and White Genocide
Stockholm Syndrome is the psychological phenomenon whereby captives bond with their captors even to the point of sympathizing with and defending them. It is thought to have its roots in our hunter-gatherer past, where the experience of being forcibly co-opted into a new band of hunter-gatherers was a not uncommon occurrence.
Usually it is viewed as an individual psychological condition, affecting those individuals who are kidnapped or held hostage, such as the hostages in the 1973 botched robbery in Stockholm that gave the phenomenon its name, but there is no reason why it can’t be extended to much larger groups if they appear to demonstrate the behavior specified by the condition.
The phenomenon is thought to be more common among women than men, for obvious reasons, but it is unclear whether it has a racial aspect, although this seems likely. To date the most famous examples — Patty Hearst, Jaycee Lee Dugard, etc. — have typically been young White women.
There is a certain rationale to Stockholm Syndrome. If a person is captured or abused in some way, and if he or she is essentially powerless to prevent this, then, the act of bonding with the captor or abuser will help to make an unbearable situation more psychologically bearable. It may also encourage the captor or abuser to be more sympathetic to the captive or abusee. Read more
Learning from the SPLC
It may enrage most all readers to hear it — but I like the$PLC. Let me revise that statement — I like the website of the $PLC. I have never, and will never give them a dime. I have never, and will never buy any of the junk they sell on their stupid corner of Cafe Press. Though I would certainly buy a t-shirt with the $PLC logo on it should I ever bump into one at a second-hand shop or some such — the irony of it would be too rich to pass up.
I must also admit that I loathe the $PLC itself a great deal. Trust me, I write under a fake name and they would love to reveal my real identity to the whole world in attempt to make me as destitute as possible. Jared Taylor, Wayne Lutton, and many others have commented on how vile the group is, and how they seem much more interested in financially destroying those who disagree with them as opposed to convincing in any way. Even staunch leftists have written about how the group is a shamelessly self-promoting money racket. Read more
Philip Weiss on Samantha Power
Samantha Power’s nomination as UN Ambassador is not going over well with some in the Israel Lobby. The JTA reports that the hardline Zionist Organization of America is opposed to her. As a neophyte in championing human rights, Power made the mistake of applying the logic of intervention on behalf of human rights to Israel. In response to a question of “what she would do if ‘one party or another” seemed ready to commit genocide. At the time [2002], Israelis and Palestinians were mired in the second intifada.”
“It seems to me at this stage, and this is true of actual genocides as well and not just major human rights abuses which we’re seeing there, you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line,” she said. That meant taking the billions of dollars “serving Israel’s military” and investing it instead in the state of Palestine and a “mammoth protection force.” Power also noted that taking such a step “might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import.”
What?? Jews have power? And they use it to compromise the rights of the Palestinians? And you’re suggesting funding a military force to protect the Palestinians from the Israelis? Perish the thought. Read more
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
A Few More Individuals
I was unimpressed by the murder of a British soldier in London. Two blade-wielding Muslims, one dead infidel? Come on, my brothers! Did you miss the extensive coverage given in 2012 to what a real warrior of Allah can do if he puts his mind to it?
Groomed for sex at 12, stabbed to death at 17: Shocking life of white teenage mother murdered after Asian lover rejected her child
… Asghar talked about buying a “shooter” for £400 and he boasted about bringing his “hit list” out. In fact, said Mr Campbell, the murder weapon of choice turned out to be a knife. In one message Asghar [sent] to Hussain the day before she died, [he said]: “I’m gonna send that kaffir (non-Muslim) b**** straight to hell”. Mr Campbell QC described Laura as “embracing life with gusto and she was an attractive and popular girl”…
Daily Mail caption: Ashtiaq Asghar (pictured) admitted killing Laura Wilson…
Oh, sorry — my mistake. That’s the wrong kaffir bitch. This is the right one. The right two, in fact:
Sadistic Afghan asylum seeker made ex-girlfriend watch him stab her sister and friend to death because she wouldn’t take him back
A “sadistic” asylum seeker who forced his former girlfriend to witness him stabbing her sister and her friend to death after she refused to take him back has been jailed for life. Afghan national Ahmad Otak laughed and spat on 17-year-old Kimberley Frank’s body after stabbing her 15 times at her home in Yorkshire while her sister Elisa watched helplessly. He then tied his ex-partner up with electrical flex and lured her friend Samantha Sykes, 18, to Kimberley’s flat in Wakefield, where he stabbed the teenager repeatedly before slitting her throat. Read more
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in “The Switch”
We all know that the Jewish domination of Hollywood leads to consistently positive portrayals of all things Jewish and invidious portrayals of Christianity and anything touching on White identity or interests (see here, p. 53ff). But part of the art of Hollywood is to embed Jewish attitudes and values in other characters. After all, non-Jewish audiences are not going to relate to yarmulke-wearing, overtly Jewish characters preaching to them on the superiority of supposed Jewish values. So a more subtle approach is needed.
One such approach is to present characters that are Jewish in every way except that there are no explicit assertions of Jewish identity. Seinfeld was a great example. Although Jerry’s character was overtly Jewish, the character of George Costanza was obviously Jewish but presented as not Jewish. George is presented as Italian, but he is played by a Jewish actor whose parents on the show are also played by Jewish actors exhibiting stereotypical Jewish family patterns; George’s character was based on the show’s co-creator, Larry David who is quintessentially Jewish. It always seemed to me that the same could be said of the Elaine character, but perhaps less obviously so. She is played by a Jewish actress but is often seen wearing a crucifix; her name suggests she is Czech and in one episode she explicitly states she is not Jewish. But her character, her appearance, her interests, her mannerisms, her voice, and her rapport with Jerry and George seem obviously Jewish. None of this could be said about the Kramer character played by Michael Richards. Clearly a goy.
Such characters might be called implicitly Jewish—ways of expressing a Jewish sensibility without being overtly Jewish. Read more
Boycotting General Mills
Readers of TOO have by now no doubt read about the recent controversy of the Cheerios commercial featuring a mixed race family (Black father, White mother, mixed child). This has provoked a so-called “racist backlash” from people justifiably outraged by this celebration/promotion of miscegenation. Of course, the “racist backlash” has itself provoked the usual hysterical hand-wringing from the “morally superior” denouncing the “backwards backwoods racist rednecks.”
Let us make no mistake – there is an agenda behind the Cheerios commercial. General Mills – the company that owns the Cheerios brand – and their supporters state that the commercial merely celebrates the different types of American families that exist.
However, that assertion does not seem on its face to be wholly accurate. How about other types of American families not represented in these commercials? After all, as the negative comments to the cereal ad show, there are plenty of “racists” out there. Why not celebrate a skinhead family making denigrating remarks on multiculturalism, gay marriage, and miscegenation?
However, for some mysterious reason there has not yet been a Cheerios commercial featuring an American family like that. No “celebrating different types of American families” when the family type is not supportive of multiculturalism.
But, why not? Such people do exist in America, do they not? One would think that they, like many others, are consumers of breakfast cereal.
But they won’t be celebrated, as that would be “offensive” and “send the wrong message” and “promote hatred.” Very well. But by normalizing mixed families, which are still in the small minority, isn’t the Cheerios ad at least indirectly promoting a lifestyle that some (re: all the negative comments) find highly offensive? Read more
Also available at Barnes & Noble
Also available at Barnes & Noble
