Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Mars and Hephaestus

Le Serment des Horaces

or Oath of the Horatii (1784)

painter: Jacques-Louis David

Excerpts from “Mars & Hephaestus: The Return of History” by Guillaume Faye:

The twenty-first century will be a century of iron and storms. It will not resemble those harmonious futures predicted up to the 1970s. It will not be the global village prophesied by Marshall MacLuhan in 1966, or Bill Gates’ planetary network, or Francis Fukuyama’s end of history: a liberal global civilization directed by a universal state.

The Third Age of European Civilization commences, in a tragic acceleration of the historical process, with the Treaty of Versailles and end of the civil war of 1914-18: the catastrophic twentieth century. Four generations were enough to undo the labor of more than forty. Europe fell victim to its own tragic Prometheanism, its own opening to the world and universalism, oblivious of all ethnic solidarity.

The Fourth Age of European civilization begins today. It will be the Age of rebirth or perdition. The twenty-first century will be for this civilization, the fateful century, the century of life or death.

Let us cultivate the pessimistic optimism of Nietzsche. “There is no more order to conserve; it is necessary to create a new one.” Will the beginning of the twenty-first century be difficult? Are all the indicators in the red? So much the better. They predicted the end of history after the collapse of the USSR? We wish to speed its return: thunderous, bellicose, and archaic. Islam resumes its wars of conquest. China and India wish to become superpowers. And so forth. The twenty-first century will be placed under the double sign of Mars, the god of war, and of Hephaestus, the god who forges swords, the master of technology and the chthonic fires. This century will be that of the metamorphic rebirth of Europe, like the Phoenix, or of its disappearance as a historical civilization and its transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.

The beginning of twenty-first century will be the despairing midnight of the world of which Hölderlin spoke. But it is always darkest before the dawn. Let us prepare our children for war. Let us educate our youth, be it only a minority, as a new aristocracy.

Today we need more than morality. We need hypermorality, the Nietzschean ethics of difficult times. When one defends one’s people, i.e., one’s own children, one defends the essential. Then one follows the rule of Agamemnon and Leonidas but also of Charles Martel: what prevails is the law of the sword, whose bronze or steel reflects the glare of the sun.

Parents and psychiatrists

I have sligthly revised the syntax of the chapter (in Spanish) “Perpetrators and Psychiatrists: An Obscene Alliance,” a translation from my book chapter How to Murder Your Child’s Soul which I wrote in 1999-2000. The manuscript was accepted for publication in 2002. However, I committed the blunder of telling the editor in Mexico City that I was awaiting the answer from a major publisher in Spain and, like the fable “The Dog and the Bone,” I lost both opportunities.

While today I don’t reject what I wrote as wrong or inaccurate, correcting the Spanish syntax made me see that the chapter is a good marker about why people rebel against their parents’ culture and become liberals or even extreme leftists (originally, antipsychiatry was a leftist movement). It is true that, by analyzing Teresa in a long essay, a far-leftist Iberian woman who hates the West, I had already started to ponder into the subject. But I believe that to understand suicidal liberalism it is much better, and far more painful, to follow the commandment inscribed at the Delphi oracle: to know oneself.

The spiritual odyssey of knowing myself drove me to write the five-volume Hojas susurrantes (Whispering Leaves), of which How to Murder Your Child’s Soul is the second book.

It is impossible to introduce the subject of my book in a single blog entry (my recent posts on “More on Western self-hatred” gives a clue). The purpose of this entry is rather to show how I used to write a decade ago, long before I discovered that the white people are an endangered species and that, to boot, many whites—like Teresa—are even celebrating their dispossession. Like all of them, a decade ago I held standard liberal views about the slavery in the United States, the liberation of women, and even the hippie movement of the 1960s.

Here there is my Spanish-English translation of the chapter:

Perpetrators and Psychiatrists: An Obscene Alliance (edited)

Since the terrible happenings in my family [in the late 1970s] I was left under the impression that Amara [the crazy shrink that recommended the medicalization of family problems] was simply incompetent in his profession. More than twenty years had to pass before I read Thomas Szasz and Jeffrey Masson, the critics of psychiatry and psychoanalysis.

The biggest surprise I ran across by reading these authors was the discovery that, since its beginnings, psychiatry has sided parents during conflicts with their children; and it has sided them independently of the moral or sanity of the parents. This means that Amara was not incompetent in his profession. He behaved as psychiatrists have been behaving centuries ago.

In the 17th century the admission regulations to two French insane asylums for minors stipulated that:

Children of artisans and other poor inhabitants of Paris up to the age of twenty-five, who used their parents badly or who refused to work through laziness, or, in the case of girls, who were debauched or in evident danger of being debauched, should be shut up, the boys in the Bicêtre, the girls in the Salpêtrière. This action was to be taken on the complaint of the parents.[1]
In the same way, in the 18th century parents could appeal to the king with the purpose of, by means of a lettre de cachet, confine a rebel child in the Bastille.[2] In the nineteenth century the same situation appears in America. In 1865 the Boston Times Messenger described the McLean Hospital as a “Bastille for the incarceration of some persons obnoxious to their relatives.”[3]

This bizarre history could be comprehended if we see psychiatry from an unfamiliar viewpoint: not as psychiatry presents itself, an objective science, but as an extralegal system of penalties which, since its origins, has allied itself with the status quo. I do not refer only to the alliance of psychiatrists with parents, but with husbands in a sexist society. In America’s 1850s, for instance, Illinois’ commitment statutes indicated:
Married women... may be entered or detained in the hospital (the state asylum of Jacksonville) at the request of the husband of the woman... without evidence of insanity required in other cases [my italics].[4]
In the 20th century psychiatry has gained even more power and influence in Western civilization. Furthermore, it has become a gigantic psycho-pharmaceutical industry, which acts within the tough arena of market and the laws of supply and demand. The key word is demand. When family problems arise the parents, and only the parents, have the economic means to hire professionals. Thus, from its origins it has been very convenient for these professionals to indulge in self-deception and see family problems as biomedical problems. Pediatrician Robert Mendelssohn observed: “teens are Big Business for psychiatrists.” [5] Psychiatry is not oriented to defend teenagers during family problems. That would place psychiatrists in conflict with the parents, their income source. Paul Fink, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), put it bluntly: “It is the task of APA to protect the earning power of psychiatrists.” [6]

That psychiatrists have played the role of lawyers of the parents and the status quo can be seen with extraordinary transparency with the psychiatric labels of the 18th and 19th centuries. A few examples will illustrate this point.

When slavery was legal in the United States, Dr. Samuel Cartwright discovered that slaves who ran away from their masters suffered from drapetomania, a disease that only afflicted blacks who had “an insane desire to run away from their owners.” [7] Other blacks suffered from dyasthesia Aethiopica, whose pathological symptom was “paying no attention to property.” Benjamin Rush, another consummated racist and the father of American psychiatry also discovered various nervous diseases. He called one of them anarchia, and defined it as “the excess passion for liberty.” Rush’s portrait is still seen in the official seal of the American Psychiatric Association.

In 19th century Europe the situation was no better. It was a sexist society where women had no right to vote. Women who didn’t comply with the role assigned to them were labeled folie lucide in France and moral insanity in England and its equivalent labels in Switzerland and Germany. Many were confined in insane asylums at the request of their husbands, fathers or brothers. Indeed, in the 19th century women were the main target of organized psychiatry (just as in the 20th and the dawn of the 21st centuries children are). Jeffrey Masson unearthed some testimonies from the victims of these mercenary inquisitors: women that managed to escape the asylums and exposed both their families and the psychiatrists. One of them, Hersilie Rouy, confined for a dispute with her brother, testifies in a book published in 1883 in Paris that:
For fourteen years I have lived under incarceration that cut me off from the real world, took away my civil rights, deprived me of my name, took away everything I owned, destroyed my entire existence without even being able to say why.[8]
Another piece of information that caught my attention in the books by Masson and Szasz was that since those times there has not only been an alliance between the parents and husbands with psychiatrists, but another alliance between psychiatrists and the state. For instance, after escaping and publishing her book Rouy appealed the French Ministry of Justice. But the ministry sided the psychiatrists:
Our doctor who knows more about it than we do has the conviction that she is mad and we bow before his infallible science.[9]
The case of Hersilie Rouy was not the only one that Masson unearthed in his investigations, but the pattern is very similar: perfectly sane young women diagnosed as suffering from “moral insanity” in spite of the fact that the doctors acknowledged (as it was the conflict in my family) that there wasn’t anything wrong with their intellects. This is why it was named “folie lucide” in France (literally, lucid madness).

Another curious psychiatric label for unmarried maids in the high society with fiancés from lower social status—and here I cannot help reminding the film Titanic—was nymphomania.[10] In some cases these maids were confined in their bloom of youth to be liberated to old to homes for the aged. Following next I quote an excerpt from a letter of Dr. Massini to Dr. Binswanger to confine Julie La Roche to an insane asylum in Switzerland:
In mid-January she ran off from there, supposedly with her brother, but in fact with the adventurer von Smirnoff, and suddenly appeared in Basel, presenting him as her fiancé. Here of course the relationship was not approved [...].

All this leads me to conclude that Miss La Roche, who is otherwise a thoroughly lovable girl, is heading toward “moral insanity,” which makes medical supervision advisable [...]. She will surely attempt to escape, perhaps at the least pretend to commit suicide. It will therefore be necessary to put her in charge of incorruptible guards who will watch over her very closely [...].

I do not believe that Mr. La Roche ever mistreated his daughter.[11]
It might be thought that these are relics of a barbaric psychiatric past already surpassed that have nothing to do with our civilized age. But Binswanger’s last line reminds me Amara’s posture: to proclaim with all of his authority my parents’ innocence despite our most anguished testimonies. This was La Roche’s testimony:
My father abused me in a terrible manner [...] after he had thrown a sharp object at my head with such force that my face was covered with blood, to which a deep wound testified. There are witnesses to all these events [...].

One day in Saarburg, where we returned after our marriage [with von Smirnoff], and where I had to remain in bed, we were surprised by the police and then by my father [...]. Though sick, I was dragged off through storm and rain by Mr. La Roche [her father]. My marriage certificate, everything was in vain. With court transportation, I was taken to Kreuzlingen, which is a private insane asylum (as can be ascertained by looking it up in any directory). There, on the first day, I was diagnosed as melancholic and insane.[12]
Like Hersilie Rouy, La Roche managed to escape, thus inheriting us her testimony, originally published in the Swiss newspaper Thurgauer Tagblatt. And just as the Rouy case, the united psychiatrists dismissed her. Julie La Roche never was vindicated. The newspaper where her testimony appeared had to publish a shameful recantation stating that La Roche suffered, in effect, from moral insanity.[13]

Masson comments that if there existed such moral insanity it came from Julie’s father and the psychiatrists; not from Julie. I would add that before such psychiatric outrages the extraordinary passivity of the Swiss citizenship, or French citizenship in the case Rouy, should be considered insane as well: the society was biased in favor of the family institution represented in those times by the father, the medical institution and the state.

The labels of the 19th century were not always invented to cause stigma on second-class citizens, sometimes they were invented to avoid stigma in the favored classes. For instance, when a daughter of a rich family stole something and was arrested, a psychiatrist was asked to diagnose that the poor girl suffered from kleptomania, an illness which symptom was an uncontrollable compulsion to steal. [14] But like the stigmatizing labels, it is notorious how authorities went into overt complicity with psychiatrists to avoid or cause social stigma.

These diagnoses—“drapetomania,” “dyasthesia Aethiopica” and “anarchia” for blacks (anarchia, the disease invented by the father of American psychiatry was applied on whites as well), and “folie lucide,” “nymphomania” and “kleptomania” for women—seem ludicrous today. Social values have changed so much that the essentially political character of the labels and the role of psychiatrists as agents of the system and the affluent classes is altogether visible.

However, despite the obscure technicalities of present-day labels, the situation at present is basically the same. To label “hyperactive” a boy and “schizoid” an adolescent only mystifies realities that can be said in plain English: mischievous boy, very shy teen. Moreover, just as the societies where blacks and women were discriminated, each one of these pseudo-medical diagnoses also hides the political actions to be taken. I say “pseudo diagnoses” because never has a psychiatrist seen in the microscope the sick nerve tissue of an “ADHD” child or a “schizoid” teen (I will deal with the claims of biological psychiatry in the appendix). Psychiatrists have not seen it for the simple reason that these diseases are as chimerical as the old ones: they exist only in the minds of ideologues that people call psychiatrists but that, in reality, are agents of those parents who want to undertake some punitive action with their children.

It’s true that there are children that withdraw from the unpleasant milieu or youngsters that temporarily lose their minds, but there is no such a thing as biomedical entities for “Attention Deficit Disorder” or “schizoidism,” just as “dyasthesia Aethiopica” or “nymphomania” never were biomedical entities. The concealed objective of psychiatry, both past and present has been to control the potentially rebellious members of society: escapee blacks or liberated women of a previous century or rebellious boys and teenagers in our time. That this policy persisted in the 20th century can be gathered from the statements of Francis Braceland, a president of the American Psychiatric Association during the hippie movement in the 1960s:
It is a feature of some illnesses that people do not have insight into the fact that they are sick. In short, sometimes it is necessary to protect them for a while from themselves... If a man brings his daughter to me from California because she is in manifest danger of falling into vice or in some way disgracing herself, he doesn’t expect me to let her loose in my home town for that same thing to happen.[15]
I could not have said it more clearly. Notice how psychiatrists have not changed since the 17th century when they sent these daughters “who were debauched or in evident danger of being debauched” to the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris. Let us see psychiatry in more recent times. Following next is a quotation from the brochure Schizophrenia published in 1998 by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship of England:
How do families react if a son or a daughter, a brother or a sister develops schizophrenia and becomes odd and unpredictable? They may regard the change in behaviour as rebellious, perverse and unacceptable without at first realising that it is due to mental illness.[16]
This brochure, destined to the masses, expresses more clearly the commitment criterion for a “schizophrenic” than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM, the “Bible” of psychiatrists.[17] The brochure does not ask how the adolescent perceives his parents. It does not ask, for instance, “Is your mother so reluctant to her ‘psychological childbirth’ that treats you like a little boy?” “Is she possessive, tyrannical and harass you quite often?” Or “Is your old man a codependent husband that consigns all judging to your mom?”

Psychiatrists would never do a brochure for youngsters who cannot remunerate them. The professionals who wrote it only have ears for what the parents say, who are euphemistically called “the family.” It doesn’t even occur to them that the youngster’s version of the family problem exists, or that his rebelliousness might be justified. The equation: rebellious / perverse / unacceptable = schizophrenic reminds me that during the rule of Brezhnev the political dissident’s rebelliousness, an unacceptable perversity for Russian authorities, was officially considered symptom of schizophrenia.[18]

The brochure states that the parents “may regard the change in behavior as rebellious [...] without at first realizing that it is due to mental illness.” In other words, adolescent rebellion might be considered, by definition of the most reputable associations of psychiatry in England, an illness: schizophrenia or schizoidism; the feminist liberation of the nineteenth century was an illness, moral insanity; the anxiety of the black slave to escape was an illness, drapetomania. All of these illnesses require medical intervention, which frequently ends up in incarceration without legal trial. The same brochure states:
People with schizophrenia do not always realise they are ill and may refuse treatment when they badly need it. In these circumstances, the Mental Health Act (in England and Wales) [enacted in 1983] and similar legal arrangements in other countries, permit compulsory admission to hospital.[19]
Take notice that this is a brochure published in 1998, and that they gave it to me in 1999 when I studied a mental health course in Manchester’s Open University. As I said above, psychiatric barbarities have not changed since American slavery or European sexism, only the social values have changed. Psychiatrists have behaved, and continue to behave, as agents of the current status quo: be it landlords at the south of the United States, bourgeois parents that abhor the plebeian affairs of their liberated daughters, or harassing mothers that cannot tolerate any rebelliousness in their children.

More direct evidence that an alliance exists between parents and psychiatrists, an alliance not declared to the public, comes from a man who defrocked himself from the lucrative profession of psychoanalysis and that I have already quoted, Jeffrey Masson. In Final Analysis, a book I treasure because it helped me to understand Amara [the Italian-Mexican shrink], Masson writes:
“When a child manifests gross pathology...” these words startled me into consciousness. They were enunciated, for emphasis, very slowly, and in a booming voice. There could be no doubt about it, the department chairman was a fine orator. He had acted on the stage. His voice, his urban wit, his friendliness, his poise, his great knowledge of literature were all admirable. He laughed a great deal. He liked to make jokes. You had to like him. But you did not have to like what he said. And I did not. What was it to “manifest gross pathology”? In this case, an eight-year-old boy was the “identified” patient. The word “identified” was a popular and venerable psychiatric term. He had been “identified” as the patient by his mother and father, simply because he was not doing well at school, he had few friends, and he was a “problem” at home. How was this, I wondered at the time, “gross pathology”? Where was I? I was at grand rounds.[20]
The grand rounds were the visits to psychiatric hospitals in the city of Toronto during Masson’s training for analyst. The hospital staff met and a senior psychiatrist presented a case of one of the hospitalized patients. As Masson observed, this was humiliating for the patient:
It soon became apparent that every presentation of therapy was only good as the intellect and heart of the presenter. You did not, you could not, learn about the patient, but you learned plenty about the presenter [...].

So here was a department chairman talking about still another “patient,” Jill, nineteen, “who was admitted to the hospital with a schizophrenic psychotic decompensation.”
The department’s chairman who presented these cases was a respected psychiatrist who advocated electroshock. Masson continues:
How did we know, for example, that somebody was “sick”? It was simple: they were brought to the hospital. The chairman made it clear that a person who had been “identified” as a patient by the family, was, in fact, disturbed in a psychiatric way. People apparently did not err when it came to making these kinds of home diagnoses. Thus, he told us, speaking of the “maladjusted” (a medical term?) child, that we should accept
that the “identified” patient is “sicker” than the others. A study by S. Wolff (in the British Journal of Psychiatry) lends support to the family’s identification of its most disturbed member as the “sick one.”
To me, this was suspiciously convenient for the psychiatrist. What gave the psychiatric community this power? [21]
Who gives psychiatry these inquisitorial powers against children and teenagers? Society and its laws, of course; the state, our very culture! Masson is the only former analyst of the world that I know who has exposed how is the “indoctrination process” of this “semisecret society” as he calls the formation of Freudian psychoanalysts.

Another piece of evidence of the alliance of parents and psychiatrists is suggested by the fact that American psychiatry, represented by the American Psychiatric Association, has entered collaboration with one of the most reactionary organizations in the country, NAMI, about which I will talk later. NAMI is formed by parents that, like Julie La Roche’s father, want to undertake psychiatric action against their offspring. NAMI’s position has been so extreme that it advocates lobotomy and has harassed the few psychiatrists who are not practitioners of the bioreductionist faith.[22]



[1] Quoted in Thomas Szasz, The manufacture of madness: a comparative study of the Inquisition and the mental health movement (Syracuse University Press, 1997), p. 14.

[2] Ibid., pp. 48f.

[3] Ibid., 308.

[4] Ibid., p. 307.

[5] Toxic psychiatry (op. cit.), p. 298.

[6] Ibid., p. 360.

[7] This, and the following diagnoses, appear in Mind games (op. cit.), p. 105.

[8] Quoted in Jeffrey Masson, Against therapy: emotional tyranny and the myth of psychological healing (HarperCollins, 1997), p. 57. The alliance between parents and psychiatrists is exposed in chapters 1, 5 y 6.

[9] Ibid., p. 60.

[10] Roger Gomm, “Reversing deviance” in Tom Heller (ed.) Mental health matters (The Open University, 1996), p. 80.

[11] Against therapy, pp. 70f.

[12] Ibid., pp. 72f.

[13] Ibid., p. 76.

[14] Mental health matters, p. 80.

[15] Quoted in The manufacture of madness, pp. 46f.

[16] Schizophrenia (National Schizophrenia Fellowship & Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1998), p. 12.

[17] Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

[18] Thomas Szasz, The therapeutic state (Prometheus Books, 1984), p. 223.

[19] Schizophrenia, p. 9.

[20] Jeffrey Masson, Final analysis: the making and unmaking of a psychoanalyst (HarperCollins, 1991), pp. 48f.

[21] Ibid., p. 51.

[22] Toxic psychiatry, pp. 425f.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

European race seriously facing extinction

This post:
an English translation
of a previous incarnation
of my webpage’s index

My last name is French and I may look
like an Iberian white, definitively not like a guy with the skin of an Aryan blond or a WASP. Nevertheless, a finding I made the last year with regard to the demographic dilution of the white people—both Nordish whites and Mediterranean whites—transformed my inner life. I refer to the massive importation of non-Caucasians into the West. Such population replacement threatens with extinction the most beautiful specimens of Homo sapiens, like this pair of nymphs that Maxfield Parrish painted beside a youth in more civilized times.

Visualize in your mind the current situation in a pie diagram. The white race covered more than 30 percent of the world population when my grandmother was born. Our generation, the result of the so-called sexual liberation of the 1960s, was reduced to 15 percent and the trend is that both the Nordish and the Mediterranean Caucasians will shrink to 5 percent in the near future! The Demographic Winter of the people of my ethnic group is an issue censored in the media, which fears everything related to race as if it were the devil himself. Understanding the taboo moved me to write a number of entries in my blog (a more extensive treatment appears in hundreds of articles in other blogs, linked to The West’s Darkest Hour).

The population replacement currently being perpetrated in Europe, North America and Australia is the greatest betrayal in history from the elite—government, academia, media—against its people. Along with feminism, such immigration policies for a suicidal population rate are prompted by liberalism, and ideology overrepresented by the members of an ethnic group that owns most of the media (“non-Gentiles”).

What I have read to date in the blogs I linked in The West’s Darkest Hour has made me see that unless we secede to create an ethnic state in, say, North America, or expel the millions of migrants from Europe, the Nordic and the Mediterranean Caucasians are heading toward extinction.

Since combating such treason requires every ounce of our energy, the previous incarnation of this site [my webpage, not this blog] has receded into the background. That does not mean I’ve forgotten what originally motivated me to write. It means that from now on what I write will have as a starting point the West’s darkest hour: even darker than the fall of the Roman Empire because our ethnic group was not endangered then.

* * *

A picture is worth a thousand words. I recently watched the movie The Sound of Music, which I had first seen over forty years ago in the then splendid Manacar Theater of Mexico City. Considering that every day I see in those blogs how hordes of third-worlders invade the European soil, a deep agony covered my spirit when I thought, during the first minutes of the movie, how these once sacred and green Austrian lands are now inundated with a swarm of non-whites.

Take a specific example. The anti-music, which includes not only the black rap but the crappy music composed by brown or white people, reflects the extreme degree of degradation to which we have fallen today. Music is worth a thousand syllogisms. This family scene with the Von Trapp family, the perfect antithesis of the current degeneration, conveys why all and each one of us who identify with high culture in our civilization—exemplified in this Hollywood idealization of Salzburg—must fight.

Not to mention Christopher Plummer and Julie Andrews dancing the Ländler. Every time I see it, albeit in homely mini-screens so far from those great old theaters of yore, I can only think of its antithesis: the heinous “disco” dancing through which, compared with the elegance from a bygone era, makes it evident that the westerners have lowered to truly Dantesque cultural nadirs. If through a radio telescope an extraterrestrial listened such anti-music light-years away, it would be obvious that those who are fond of it are in their final stages of civilizational exhaustion, cultural suicide and spiritual death.

* * *

The guiding theme of the previous incarnation of my site had been the abuse of children by their parents, and the psychiatrists hired by them. I’ve moved most of my critique of psychiatry to an external blog, so that anyone who wishes to offer comments may do it there. “Moved most” I said but not all. In this new page I will publish the first chapters of that book when I have time to review and correct the text. Also, here I will also publish half of another book I wrote about the universal blindness with regard to the hell endured by children at home.

True, I have suffered a genuine political conversion since the last year, when I discovered white nationalism. But something compels me to upload to the Internet texts I had originally intended for the printed press. I am convinced that parental abuse of children and adolescents is related to the hatred that, as adults, many feel for the culture of their parents. Among the people of my ethnic group the transfer of these emotions to runaway liberalism (like this crazy Spanish woman) is related to the darkest hour of our civilization.

The subject is complex, but in my spare time the next days, weeks and perhaps months I will add to this new site [again: my webpage, not this blog] some texts that I wrote thanks to the legacy in depth psychology of Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause.

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

On exterminationist anti-Semitism

I have spent the last couple of days reading the long threads about last December’s affair that moved Hunter Wallace of the Occidental Dissent blogsite to remove links from the sites of Jim Giles and Alex Linder. Wallace’s action was provoked by Giles and Linder’s views on exterminationist anti-Semitism. After the storm in several forums, Giles inexplicably removed more than a year of his recorded radio shows from his site, while Wallace had been reprimanded by one of his comrades for giving a warm Shalom hug to an apologist of Jewry (Guy White). Wallace of course didn’t see his fateful interview with Giles in Radio Free Mississippi that way. “In my entire life,” Wallace wrote, “I have rarely felt so guilty or ashamed, or embarrassed” for having promoted exterminationists like Giles and Linder in his blogsite.

Personally, I profoundly dislike the way Linder treated Greg Johnson, who taught me to think more kindly about uncle Adolf of what I previously did (see e.g., my previous post on Hitler where Johnson’s views occupy a privileged place). However, had I been in Wallace’s shoes during the radio interview I’d simply have responded to Giles’ invasive questioning thus: “Hey dude: you are to the right of Hitler himself! His original plan was not to kill the Jews but to deport them to Madagascar. Only after he felt betrayed by a world that he so much admired—his dream alliance was with the British Empire—, with some reluctance he okayed Himmler’s 1942 nefarious memo for a final solution.”

I have stolen some posts from what several commenters said in two threads about Hunter’s atonement. Pay special attention to Trainspotter’s posts: genuine gems about the White Nationalist movement in general and the radioactive Jewish Problem in particular (no ellipsis added between unquoted excerpts):

Trainspotter says:

“The main reason I am taking a break is not to have a stupid overreaction.” —Hunter Wallace

I think this is wise. Frankly, you have already overreacted to a certain extent, no need to paint yourself further into a corner. Keep your options open.

In the real world, nothing has changed. Our enemies still pursue the same old policies, knowing full well that these policies are leading to white destruction. Our people are still being raped, tortured, and murdered literally on a daily basis. They are still being degraded and undermined at every turn. They are still facing displacement, marginalization, and ultimate extinction. Those who stand up to this are still being fired, abused, and ruined. Depending on the country, even jailed or murdered outright.

People can quibble about calling this “genocide.” I have no such quibble: it most certainly is genocide. It is simply done in a more indirect, dishonest way. I don’t believe that genocide requires that an official order or memorandum be issued. I don’t believe that our enemy has to type out proclamations advocating our murder and dispossession, complete with wax seal and fancy calligraphy. That they knowingly pursue policies which have this effect is quite enough. Not only do they know this, they celebrate it. And in what must be a new low in perversity and chutzpah, they demand that we celebrate it as well. We must laud, with furious applause, our own dispossession.

Good times.

Imagine, for a moment, doing this to some other nation. What if we were in a position to do this to the Japanese? We deliberately pursued policies that would lead to the ultimate extinction of the Japanese people. We deliberately pursued policies to undermine their culture, encourage their women to bed down with Africans, and covered up the dramatic rise in rape and murders of Japanese women. And when some courageous Japanese speak out against what we are doing to their people? We get them fired, we get them jailed if possible, we ruin their lives and their ability to function in their own society.

This ain’t genocide? Really?

I think it is. Hell, I know it is. And once you understand that (and I think you do understand), and fully appreciate the magnitude of the evil being done to our people, you should also understand the great anger that is welling up in some of our more radical brethren. It is understandable. It is very understandable. I don’t agree with their solution, but I understand—and feel—their anger. [Chechar’s emphasis]

Now, if some of the hotheads on our side of the aisle advocate things that harm our cause, then of course one may choose to disassociate from them. This too is reasonable and understandable. If Alex [Linder] becomes a net liability to a given group’s mission, fine. But to be furious with Alex, to have intense anger towards Alex, is misplaced. I am amazed at the raw and righteous anger directed at something that Alex advocates (I strongly disagree with him too, for what it is worth), while being calm and dispassionate about the murder and rape of our own people which is the daily reality of our present situation. I think this is telling. Dispassionate analysis as our own innocents are raped and slaughtered, furious indignation at a hothead who merely advocates a violent reprisal.

Bottom line: the name of the game is to preserve our people. It’s self determination for whites. Obviously, pro-whites disagree on how to go about achieving this. At this point it seems obvious that we need to try different approaches. There is no reason why Linder can’t keep doing what he is doing, and [Kevin] MacDonald keep doing what he is doing, and you keep doing what you are doing. They are not mutually exclusive, they are not even inherently in conflict.

We aren’t a unified party or hierarchical organization. Rather, we are a loose constellation of individuals and groups that are, more or less, pulling in the direction of a nation for whites. Some will get along better with their neighbors than others. Some won’t be on speaking terms at all. If someone makes himself or herself radioactive, then fine. Why should this undermine one’s core beliefs? How does this change the facts on the ground? How does it change the magnitude of what is being done to our people? It doesn’t.

Captainchaos says:

“I’m not ready to accept the view that Jews are biologically programmed to undermine White nations.” HW [Hunter Wallace]

I’m afraid the contention that the overall Jewish group dynamic when left unchecked is in its decisive impact on European peoples genocidal cannot reasonably be argued with. If as our iron standard we say that the best predictor of the future is what has happened in the past, we have our answer.

Re Giles and Linder: We do not know at this time, however strongly we may suspect, that they have gone beyond the pale in having betrayed us unforgivably in their alleged capacity as System-controlled/directed agent provocateurs. Why do I say that and formulate it thus? Well, it is self-evident to me that such men as are Linder and Giles, assuming they are not guilty of having transgressed as is alleged and described above, are an evolved type of White man whose type was and is adaptive at the decisive moment of defense of the life of the group when it is faced with total destruction of its enemies or the total destruction of the group. I will call them the Dogs of War. Yet, as Nietzsche remarked regarding scientists/scholars as relates to philosophers, the former is seen aright as, however valuable, but a tool in the hand of the philosopher. So too the Dogs of War in the hands of Leaders. It is not prudent to give them over to be unleashed. And if they are incapable of being leashed then they are Mad Dogs, do more harm than helping, and must be put down. This is perhaps the situation Adolf Hitler was faced with in the person of his friend and once comrade Ernst Rohm. I mean that, in this instance, of course only in a figurative sense. Still, if we ever regarded them as brothers, and we still can regard them as brothers in the sense that they have not betrayed us unforgivably and utterly, then I think we are honor bound to see if they can’t be rehabilitated. If they cannot, and after our most earnest effort to so do, then we may regard them as Mad Dogs (if indeed they have not betrayed us)—and do what must be done.

“In 2004/2005, I allowed Neo-Nazis at VNN Forum to push me over the edge. I became an FDR apologist and supporter of the Allied war effort. I started downplaying the Jewish Question and emphasizing other angles of White racial decline.” —HW

It is my opinion that you went too far in that direction.

“I’ve modified my view of Guy White. I can see now that a lot of what he says is a needed corrective to people like Giles and Linder.” —HW

You must come to a decisive understanding of just what your role is. You know and I know damn well that Guy White and Ian Jobling are actively engaged in a process of obfuscation to conceal what is the whole truth for whatever reason. If so, then know, your knees can never buckle, and/or be seen to buckle.

The above is perhaps harsh, perhaps hard to swallow, yet it is manifestly the truth—as I see it. I don’t envy your choice, I would not want the responsibility. May the wind be at your back in making your decision.

Hunter Wallace says:

Friedrich Braun is right in his conclusion that the White Nationalist tree needs to be pruned. A clear line in the sand needs to be drawn. The exterminationists must be shorn off and cast into the fire.

Mr. Dithers says:

Giles and Linder are independent operators and I’m still baffled that HW feels like an enabler to them so much so that he’s considering dropping the Jewish Question altogether. There’s no reason to shy away from the topic based on the words and actions of a couple of individuals.

I’ve had a little more time to digest the events of the last two days and I believe the whole interview was a set up with bad intentions from the start. I never would have expected that and obviously neither did HW. Given Giles’ “aw shucks” and semi-retarded comportment in previous interviews I would have had my guard down like HW.

But what I find most troubling is HW’s reaction. The mention of Jewish genocide struck a raw nerve with him but Susan Sontag with her “The white race is the cancer of human history” was much ado about nothing. Since cancer is usually cut out or burned the implication, at least to these ears, was that whites are villains who must be removed. Keep in mind Susan Sontag wasn’t some obscure person with a website. She was a very prominent author who rubbed elbows with America’s cultural elites. Yet, she was never rebuked or upbraided by her fellow “good” Jews or anyone else that I’m aware of.

Funny how her anti-white invective was downplayed but had a WN [white nationalist] said that Jews are the cancer of human history then it would have been time for soul searching, teeth gnashing and censorship. Guy Blight, Friedrich Flinstone and other philo-semites would have used this as evidence to assert that anyone critical of Jews wants to see them dead and denies the Holocaust. Jews are held to a much lower standard and that is total hypocrisy.

Then we have Jewish professor Noel Ignatiev whose stated objective is to “abolish the white race”. Of course he cleverly skirts around the idea of physical extermination by stating that whiteness is defined by white identity and white privilege but I think it’s safe to assume he’d like to see white people dead. At a minimum he wants to see us completely dispossessed so I guess he’s not as bad as Linder.

Unfortunately none of this seems to be a smoking gun to HW. I don’t know what else it takes to convince someone that some prominent and successful Jews have very bad intentions towards us. Go ahead and be indignant over calls for genocide but at least be consistent. Don’t get uppity when Linder says something but then be totally dispassionate, objective and stoic when non-whites or Jews slyly insinuate or suggest the outright genocide of whites. There is a glaring double standard at work here.

Luke says:

What to do about the Jewish Problem? A question that has plagued this world for how long, now: 2000 years or more? If you notice that the roof on your house has been leaking, how many times is it wise to just patch the hole or two that is causing the leaks? At what point do you decide that it is time for a new roof, so as to really solve the problem—as opposed to delaying the pursuit of the best remedy?

And, what is the proper and logically best remedy to pursue, when confronted with attempted genocide of your race and the complete destruction of the entirety of Western Civilization? Is not attempted genocide an extreme offense? Should the response be tame, mild mannered, and gentlemanly? Isn’t this the same kind of thinking that ultimately lead to the defeat of the Old South under the leadership of General Robert E. Lee?

One of Jim Giles’s best interviews, I thought, was with John de Nugent—and during that interview, de Nugent pointed out that we are not fighting a chivalrous enemy. We’re dealing with something so evil, so stupendously diabolical that, in order for us to survive in the end, we are going to have to adjust our tactics and our thinking, and understand that if we do not abandon our genetic inclination towards fairness and sportsmanship when fighting this battle, then we are going to lose. This enemy has no such restraints on their tactics; they lie, they cheat, they infiltrate, and they play dirty. They are willing to kick us in the nuts and knife or shoot us in the back—and they feel absolutely no remorse or guilt for having done so. They play to win, and winning is exactly what they will do—if we continue to use tactics that do not match up to theirs.

So, how do we fight an enemy who is “not chivalrous”? Certainly not by inviting them into our camp, as the Jared Taylors, Nick Griffins, and Arthur Kemps would do. And, the poster who pointed out that it has been the Jews who declared war upon us—and they did so by choice—and whites can either do whatever is necessary to survive, or we can roll over and let the Jews exterminate us.

Tough decisions lie ahead of us, friends. Like Braveheart said, we can either fight and possibly die, or we can run and then surely be destroyed.

What’s it going to be?

Hunter Wallace says:

Jim Giles has lost his fucking mind. There is no other way to put it. He is saying all of this shit on air… in the wake of Bill White going to prison. In this latest broadcast, I think there is a damn good chance he just broke the law.


Chechar comments for this blog: In one of the radio shows that he would remove later, Giles was calling to exterminate specific persons. I didn’t listen to it, but if Wallace is right perhaps I have also broken the law in this very blog.

In Alex Linder’s forum for tough guys the opposing view to Wallace’s was discussed.

Wallace continued to discuss the subject in another article. Although the Occidental Dissent commentariat went off topic after a while, I consider the next post very empathetic: a window to the tormented soul of Jim Giles:

White Preservationist says:

Since some of you think Giles might be a Neo-Turner informant-type, go ahead and pick him apart like a good investigative debater here in OD’s very own “School of Athens” [formerly Wallace had used Raphael's painting for Occidental Dissent]. No one is stopping you from doing so. I’ve listened to most of the last couple of Giles’ aptly named “Rebel Rants” (great choice of name, man) and we ought to review some of the info and background about him which could’ve pushed him over the edge as of late:

Jim Giles

1- He lost what was likely a very good and lucrative job at IBM, probably sleazily pushed out by a non-White affirmative-action hire or bureaucratic Jew who could’ve nepotistically lobbied upper-level IBM Jews for his Jewish job over White Giles’ job

2 - He went through a divorce, which is of course very traumatic for all involved: not sure how long ago

3- He was forced to leave NYC and elsewhere (?), places he said he much enjoyed living in, to move back home to backwater Mississippi near his parents to live in a trailer with a bunch of hound dogs and assorted other animals: surely a huge ego crushing blow to a grown man’s mind, especially a smart and driven person like Giles

4 - He says he “don’t need/want friends, he has his dogs” (“ain’t nuthin’ but a hound dog…”)—yet he stated that he is indeed pretty lonely living out in the woods… yup, take it from me, these sylvan Southern thickets during the wintertime can sometimes try a man’s soul…

5 - On air he goes over and over and over extremely graphic official crime reports of Black on White crimes, including rapes/assaults/murders of White children and women, crimes which he (mistakenly?) perceives to be genocidal against Whites—this is what seems to make him the most angry and unhinged at times; then he sees and talks with a nice young single White mother with kids who is genuinely hungry and yet you have all these Black and Mestizo welfare leeches getting all of these food stamps, welfare, etc from ZOG, meanwhile this young White single mother who was too proud to ask for welfare

6 - Though he has a thick accent and talks slowly (which I think is perfectly fine by me, in fact it shows character and an unwillingness to submit to Jewish “newspeak,” those Jewsmedia accentless cosmopolitan coastal-types who looks down upon all White “provincials”), yet despite all that he has at least two college degrees (maybe three if you count MBA?), played a very violent and high impact sport (football) amongst lots of huge and powerful people which shows definite courage, etc (SIDE NOTE: one should always distrust fast-talkin wily confusing Jews who seek to mentally befuddle you, they do this in an intentional manner… you can always better trust the slow-talking and thoughtful Whites in whatever accent they speak in)

7 - In earlier, more innocent American times Giles would’ve certainly made an excellent Southron lawyer, judge, and/or preacherman (he is indeed oratorically eloquent, you cannot deny him that), but he chased the big city livin’ corPIRATE faux Jew “Amerikwan Dream” which is pushed by the Jewsmedia of lies and illusions and was seemingly disappointing by his inability to “make it” there: he seems to take all of this personally, as possibly a personal failure on his part?

8 - He is angry, isolated living in a trailer in the woods with a pack of loud hound dogs, all hopped up on black coffee, possibly suffering from SAD due to the very short days this time of year (as many people do), and he’s lashing out a what often appears to him (and us) to be an increasingly hostile America to genuinely intelligent and insightful White Southern men like him (and some of us), especially someone of a definite Northern-Euro phenotype such as him?

9 - Some of the richer and more notable White locals in his Mississippi town/region, people like cops, judges, lawyers, etc, look down upon him sneeringly and snobbishly like some of the NYC Jews probably did despite his clear ability, drive, intelligence, brutal honesty, and so on—he sees himself languishing in a backwoods MS trailer whilst these brown-nosing Jews and corrupt White “good ol” boys’ live it up on the taxpayer’s dime, corrupt tools of The System who sympathize more with Black murderers/rapists/etc than a White man trying to make a real difference in the USA, etc.

I am not trying to be an apologist for Giles’ rather unhinged on-air behavior or possible insinuations toward “genocide” in some of his radio shows, just trying to gather some reliable evidence… Anyone else have more to add? Please by all means correct any and all of the above [if] it is incorrect. Some of it is just speculation corroborated by what Giles said in a few of his rants and interviews (the ones I have listened to anyhow, which isn’t all of them).

Friedrich Braun says:

“We don’t need yet another Guy White or Fjordman, Brussels Journal or Gates of Vienna.”

Certainly not! A successful strategy is the hobgoblin of small minds, let’s stay wedded to what we know doesn’t work and will never work: anti-Semitism, Holocaust-denial, Hitler-worship, Nazi nostalgia, genocidal fantasies, and overall thuggery and hobbyism! Now we’re talkin’!

Trainspotter says:

Braun, it would be helpful if you could address a few issues so that us skeptics could better understand your take on things.

It seems obvious to me that the Jews have done very, very well under multiracialism. They are wealthy and are vastly overrepresented in the “power” and prestige positions in our society. It’s not unfair to say that they basically control the popular media, and through it the broader culture. Along with their great wealth and cultural/institutional control, they can more or less destroy any opposition that arises. Not too shabby. Pretty good times, eh?

Some might counter that the multiracial monster will devour the Jews in time, and point to Arab immigration, or large numbers of Hispanics with anti-Semitic views. But really, can’t the Jews dodge those sorts of bullets without taking the far more risky step of supporting an all-White nation? I mean, if you were a Jew, who would you fear more? Paco the illiterate anti-Semite, or a White nation full of racially conscious men and women, determined to survive as a people? Is it any wonder that Jews fear Europeans more than a vast assortment of mongrelized third world critters? I think the question answers itself, but of course you may disagree. The point is that, when faced with the choice of managing a multiracial sewer in which they are already on top, versus dealing with a revived White population that is conscious of itself and its right to survive, which is the bigger risk from the Jewish standpoint? Again, the question answers itself.

One of the basic problems that you have is that you are asking the Jews to go against their own self-interest. Why would they do that? How stupid do you think they are?

Are they really better off supporting an all-White (plus Jews) nation, in which they would remain as a tiny minority, sticking out like a sore thumb? How is that better for them than Brazil North, with themselves on top, living in gated communities and managing the mongrelized population, a population that will happily gulp down Jewish entertainment products and media? A population that will respond perfectly to the Jewish carrot and stick. A true nation of consumer/slaves, that at most will riot once in a great while, burning down some local liquor stores and perhaps necklacing some other mongrelized, swarthy critters that get in their way. Or, better still, a few blonde Whites if any are available. Those are good for raping, too. Point is, Brazil North provides a population far too dumbed down and degenerate to offer any intelligent and determined opposition to the Jewish elite. They’ll import Chang or Apu to handle the technical jobs. No problem.

I don’t know, Braun. If I were Jewish, Brazil North is looking pretty good to me. I’d figure I could handle Carlos the child molester a lot better than Charles the determined White.

So at the end of the day, were I Jewish, would I support a revived nation of racially conscious Whites? Um…no. More like no fucking way, not in a million years. Persuade me that I’m wrong about that. More importantly, convince us that you can persuade the Jewish community. Convince us that the Jewish community would prefer to be a tiny minority in an otherwise homogenous land of racially conscious Whites, rather than the Big Dog that they clearly are today. Otherwise, you are expecting Jews to go against their own interests, something that they are manifestly not going to do. They’ve proven that much.

Now, in fairness, I’ll say that this is only one objection amongst many to your position. So it’s not like you are going settle the broader issue by addressing this particular question of self-interest. But the issue of self-interest is quite basic, and is certainly a key hurdle that you would have to overcome in order to bring people around to your position. Frankly, I don’t believe that you can do it, but I’d be interested in what you come up with.

Andrew says:

Hunter, I just listened to the interview. My take on it is that Jim Giles is overwhelmed with anger from the gruesome Newsome & Christian murder, and other crimes committed by blacks on whites (probably quite a few in Mississippi). He blames Jews for these, and I think his reasoning is that, “they are killing us, so we should kill them”. He is seething with anger, and in his “warrior mindset”, this idea, supported by Linder, seems to make sense to him. This isn’t very deep thinking though, and Giles can’t seem to comprehend that being in favor of genocide is going to make him and people associated with him radioactive, and is completely counter-productive.

There is nothing that you have written that I have seen that suggests killing anyone, and I don’t think this is a sign that you are doing anything wrong. It is probable that Alex Linder is a net negative in White Nationalism, sort of a free radical that attacks others, tries to drag the conversation into vulgarity and provides the ADL and SPLC with material to write about to increase their funding. There is no reason for you to be upset or rethink everything due to this interview. It’s unfortunate that Jim Giles was “beguiled” by Linder’s ideas, but it does not reflect badly on you.

Trainspotter says:

“It’s the ethnostate that holds you back.” Iceman [a commenter who’s a quarter Jewish]

I don’t see it this way at all. In America, racialism was defeated even though racialists were not advocating an ethnostate. Instead, racialists focused on far more “moderate” positions such as curtailing non-white immigration, or at the most defending segregation. We want our own water fountains!

Result? Cataclysmic defeat.

Sure, there was the occasional victory, such as the immigration law in the twenties. But racialists weren’t going for the ethnostate, so they left the non-whites that were already in the country in place. This meant powerful non-white pressure groups within the nation and culture. Result? Those pressure groups worked to undermine white society and promote their own interests instead. In time, they won. Look around. Boy, did they win.

That’s what the moderates can’t accept: moderate policies have been fought for in the past, and the result has been defeat after defeat after defeat.

It reminds me of what happened in Switzerland recently with the minaret ban—an apparent victory. Don’t get me wrong, I was thrilled with the vote. I hope it is a harbinger of bigger and better things. But in and of itself, it will amount to very little. Banning minarets, while continuing to allow the Third World to flood in, will not work at all. Only if the Swiss slam shut the doors and work on repatriating the invaders will a true and sustainable solution be achieved. Otherwise, the non-white pressure groups that the Swiss leave intact within their borders, indeed allow to grow in number and strength, will over time manage to undermine the Swiss. Helped along by traitors, of course, who exist in every nation. It might take six months, or it might take twenty years. But it will happen. Those non-white pressure groups will have nothing more important to do than undermine Swiss solidarity. And the traitors will have invaluable tools—masses of Third Worlders—to work with.

Moderate policies don’t work. Having your own nation does. The ethnostate is the solution, and it is the only solution that has long term sustainability.

This is not to say that I would recommend hitting the typical Kwa with the ethnostate concept right off the bat. That would baffle and shock him. But hey, that’s true of many concepts, not just the ethnostate. And further, I question the way that you are bringing this up to people. If you said something like, “Around the world, most people have a homeland. The Japanese have a homeland, the Jews have a homeland, the blacks have numerous homelands. Isn’t it only fair that Euro-Whites have a homeland too?” I’ve said that sort of thing before, in real life, and have never gotten a hysterically negative reaction.

Our real problem is that we seek to upset the status quo. That is always the fundamental problem that revolutionary movements face—not their message per se. Upsetting the status quo will always make people leery, unless and until they no longer have faith in that status quo. Some may say that the masses are stupid. That’s not entirely true. The reality is that they know, or can at least vaguely sense, that an upset in the status quo is likely to be accompanied by a lot of suffering and risk. They are right about this, which is why they tend to be suspicious of all revolutionary movements—Right, Left, or what have you.

All this changes if and when they lose sufficient confidence in the status quo. The good news is, this seems likely to occur over the coming years. Let’s make sure that we are ready with a real solution, a sustainable solution, an appealing solution, when discontent reaches critical mass.

Read O’Meara’s article on the ethnostate again. A real vision is there, something that can compete with Leftist universalism (which also has appeal, clearly). Having our own water fountains again just ain’t gonna cut it in the vision department. Whites aren’t inclined to support policies that they see as petty or unfair. Well, the ethnostate is fair. Almost everybody has one but us. And it’s more than fair, it’s grand. It offers a thousand possibilities and a singular promise. A nation of our own!

White Preservationist says:

Trainspotter is exactly correct—Jews want to turn White North America, Europe, and other White nations throughout the world (Australia/NZ, South Africa, etc) into places which racially resemble Brazil North (or much of mongrelized Latin America in general), a place chock full of masses of miscegenated morons who have no hope to ever oppose total Jewish domination of the economy, mass-media, academia, the legal system, medicine, etc.

And Trainspotter is also correct that they will do everything they can to oppose a pro-White awakening amongst the White masses of North America, Europe, Australia, and elsewhere… Jews seek to subvert the White race so that they can eventually take over all White nations and rule over the mongrelized masses, living behind security fences, traveling from place to place removed from the miscegenated rabble in their armored vehicles and helicopters, and most importantly staying strictly separate from the racially-mixed masses by keeping important Jewish bloodlines intact—all of this whilst the rest of the racially mixed (subverted) population lives like near-animals in their mongrelized urban-slums.

To state it again: organized anti-White Jewry wants to turn all White nations into places resembling Brazil North, heavily mongrelized Latin America in general, India, Central Asia, North Africa, and everywhere else in the world which are racially-mixed cesspools of anti-culture, corruption, and decline due to the extensive miscegenation that has occurred therein. Organized anti-White Jewry seeks to mongrelize Whites out of existence so that they can rule over a world full of these moronic racially-mixed masses entirely unopposed.