This weekend, I was having a civilized debate with a liberal friend of mine. I cited some facts to support my point and linked to an article to verify the facts. She pointed out that the article was on a conservative news site, so how did she know it was trustworthy? Of course, conservative news sites are the only ones that are at all trustworthy, but rather than try to convince her of this, I spent a few minutes digging up articles on “mainstream” (i.e. liberal) sites with the same facts in them. With the facts established, we were able to get on with debating our interpretations of them.

But if you tell a Kevin MacDonald groupie that “Kevin MacDonald said so” is not good enough for you, they have nowhere else to go. Sure, they can find evidence in any history book that for the past century and a half, Jews have joined corrupt Gentiles in promoting progressivism, a belief system invented by Gentiles while my ancestors were shut up in shtetls, and that progressivism and all its elements – socialism, the insistence that all races are equal, etc. – is clearly bad for humanity. This is, unfortunately, true. But if you want to contend that progressivism is all our fault, or that we’ve been plotting to dominate Gentiles for hundreds or thousands of years, the evidence just isn’t there. Any history book will yield facts that support the contention that black people are not intelligent enough to invent things or create a civilization; the debate between race realists and egalitarians is over the interpretation of those facts. Finding evidence of harmful Jewish behavior from before the publication of The Communist Manifesto (which was a rip-off of works by two Gentiles, Thomas More and Plato) is very difficult. Finding evidence that now we are trying to take over the world or ruin Gentiles also requires selectively interpreting the facts. Kevin MacDonald has to use numerous factual errors and ignore major historical events to support his claims. History books by anyone else, whether they like Jews or not, are not going to contain the same factual errors or ignore the historical events that go against his theories.

So when you point out that Kevin MacDonald is not a trustworthy source, which he isn’t, his groupies have nowhere else to go. His books, and perhaps a few written by his groupies, are literally the only ones which will support his worldview.

Over at Counter-Currents there are at least two articles claiming that St. Paul repackaged Christianity and marketed it to Gentiles to achieve Jewish domination with the Christian ideals of universalism and equality of all humans. None of the gaping holes in this thesis are so much as mentioned. The claim that St. Paul’s goal in life was to dominate Gentiles is not supported except by mentioning that he was a Jew. So of course all he wanted was to dominate Gentiles! That’s what all Jews want, everybody knows that! Haven’t you read Kevin MacDonald? That Christianity was not interpreted to mean that everyone was equal until the Gentile enterprise known as the Enlightenment, a movement which made Christianity weaker than it has been since the time of Constantine, is not explained. Christians spent the better part of the next two millenia depriving Jews of citizenship, expelling us from one country after another, confining us to ghettoes and shtetls and pales, sending the Inquisition to torture us into converting, and conducting the occasional pogrom. This means that if Christianity was indeed an attempt to dominate Gentiles, it was a laughable failure. This is not explained by the articles I mentioned. The only rebuttal I can think of that my enemies might make is that it was only when Europe became more secular and the Nazis led a bit of a pagan revival that the Holocaust happened, and that would require the antisemite making the argument to admit that the Holocaust happened.

That my people have behaved badly since the early 20^th century (before that it was only a microscopic handful, i.e. Karl Marx, who were behaving in an antisocial manner) is true. Believe me, I wish it weren’t, but it is.

But saving the White race depends on Whites who acknowledge this without entertaining flimsy theories about the Jews being the sole cause of all bad things. The committed antisemites – that is, the ones who believe we are innately bad no matter what – can’t do it, for a few reasons. One is that they can’t be bothered to gather facts before accepting loony theories, like the Counter-Currents authors mentioned above. Another is, like them and MacDonald, that they are not very logical. Even if they were right about us, when they apply that kind of logic to other things, they will inevitably bring about disaster to Gentiles, never mind us. And finally, they can’t take responsibility. I have, several times in this blog, admitted and deplored the fact that many of my people have behaved in a harmful way in the past century and a half. The antisemites refuse to accept that White Gentiles have done most of this stuff to themselves, or that much of what they deplore is contained in human nature – the nature of all humans. For instance, some of these people believe that a “command economy” will actually work as long as there are no Jews around to muck it up. That every command economy in history has been an abysmal failure, because it goes completely against innate human urges to competition and acquisitiveness, they ignore. The corruption of the modern West is simply the same inevitable decline of every civilization, but this, too, they refuse to admit; nothing would ever decline if Jews didn’t make it decline, according to them. Progressive ideas are also the unavoidable ego-saving mechanism of humans who know themselves to be corrupt and inferior, not a plot from us:

And this answer is that, in the last analysis, civilization always depends upon the qualities of the people who are the bearers of it. All these vast accumulations of instruments and ideas, massed and welded into marvelous structures rising harmoniously in glittering majesty, rest upon living foundations — upon the men and women who create and sustain them. So long as those men and women are able to support it, the structure rises, broad-based and serene; but let the living foundations prove unequal to the task, and the mightiest civilization sags, cracks, and at last crashes down into chaotic ruin.
Civilization thus depends absolutely upon the quality of its human supporters.

This fact is that, while hereditary qualities are implanted in the individual with no action on his part, social acquirements are taken over only at the cost of distinct effort. How great this effort may become is easily seen by the long years of strenuous mental labor required in modern youth to assimilate the knowledge already gained by adults. That old saying, “There is no royal road to learning,” illustrates the hard fact that each successive generation must tread the same thorny path if the acquirements of the past are to be retained. Of course, it is obvious that the more acquirements increase, the longer and steeper the path must be. And this raises the query: May there not come a point where the youthful traveller will be unable to scale the height — where the effort required will be beyond his powers?
Well, this is precisely what has happened numberless times in the past. It is happening to multitudes of individuals about us every day.

Now, among our human categories we have observed that progress is primarily due to the superiors. It is they who found and further civilizations. As for the intermediate mass, it accepts the achievements of its creative pioneers. Its attitude is receptive. This receptivity is due to the fact that most of the intermediate grades are near enough to the superiors to understand and assimilate what the superiors have initiated.
But what about the inferiors? Hitherto we have not analyzed their attitude. We have seen that they are incapable of either creating of furthering civilization, and are thus a negative hindrance to progress. But the inferiors are not mere negative factors in civilized life; they are also positive — in an inverse, destructive sense. The inferior elements are, instinctively or consciously, the enemies of civilization. And they are its enemies, not by chance, but because they are more or less uncivilizable.

The word inferior has, however, been so often employed as a synonym for degenerate that it tends to produce confusion of thought, and to avoid this I have coined a term which seems to describe collectively all those kinds of persons whom I have just discussed. This term is The Under-Man – the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives. And this term I shall henceforth employ.

Now how does the Under-Man look at civilization? This civilization offers him few benefits and fewer hopes. It usually affords him little beyond a meagre subsistence. And, sooner or later, he instinctively senses that he is a failure; that civilization’s prizes are not for him. But this civilization, which withholds benefits, does not hesitate to impose burdens. We have previously stated that civilization’s heaviest burdens are borne by the superior. Absolutely, this is true; relatively the Under-Man’s intrinsically lighter burdens feel heavier because of his innate incapacity. The very discipline of the social order oppresses the Under-Man; it thwarts and chastises him at every turn. To wild natures society is a torment, while the congenital caveman, placed in civilization, is always in trouble and usually in jail.

Such is the Under-Man’s unhappy lot. Now, what is his attitude toward that civilization from which he has so little to hope? What but instinctive opposition and discontent? These feelings, of course, vary all the way from dull, unreasoning dislike to flaming hatred and rebellion. But, in the last analysis, they are directed not merely against imperfections in the social order, but against the social order itself. This is a point which is rarely mentioned, and still more rarely understood. Yet it is the meat of the whole matter. We must realize clearly that the basic attitude of the Under-Man is an instinctive and natural revolt against civilization. The reform of abuses may diminish the intensity of social discontent.

Lastly, there is the “misguided superior.” He is a strange phenomenon! Placed by nature in the van of civilization, he goes over to its enemies. This seems inexplicable. Yet it can be explained. As the Under-Man revolts because civilization is so far ahead of him, so the misguided superior revolts because it is so far behind. Exasperated by its slow progress, shocked at its faults, and erroneously ascribing to mankind in general his own lofty impulses, the misguided superior dreams short cuts to the millennium and joins the forces of social revolt, not realizing that their ends are profoundly different even though their methods may be somewhat the same. The misguided superior is probably the most pathetic figure in human history. Flattered by designing scoundrels, used to sanctify sinister schemes, and pushed forward as a figurehead during the early stages of revolutionary agitation, the triumph of the revolution brings him to a tragic end. Horrified at sight of barbarism’s unmasked face, he tries to stay its destructive course. In vain! The Under-Man turns upon his former champion with a snarl and tramples him into the mud.

Source: The Revolt Against Civilization by Lothrop Stoddard

If the White race is to have a future, it is up to White Jews and Whites who can accept that Jews are not the source of all bad things to secure it. Those who blame us for everything cannot do it.

On another note, a couple of the KM groupies have, as I suggested, come up with criticisms of Jews which don’t rely on citing an author who not only pretends not to know that gentiles developed most of today’s destructive ideals during the Enlightenment with no help at all from Jews, but also thinks the Enlightenment started half a century (or more, depending on your source) after it did. Those comments are approved, if anyone cares to read them – they’re on the last few posts.

So yes, I will keep on, and I’ll try to post at least a couple of times a week. Thank you all.

Here’s a couple of links I stumbled across this morning.

Is it still wrong if another culture says it is right? A teacher’s surprising discovery

A teacher discovers the downside of multiculturalism. Like having Canadian college students unable to condemn a Muslim cutting off his wife’s nose and ears.

Indiana 2008 Presidential Primary Election Fraud Probe Heats Up

The prospect that theirs are two of an estimated 150 signatures that may have been forged on the petitions has raised the question of whether President Obama actually reached the legitimate number of signatures needed to be placed on the ballot in Indiana. Under state law, presidential candidates need to file 500 signatures from each of the state’s nine congressional districts. Indiana election officials say that in St. Joseph County, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton’s camp had 704. The certified signatures were never challenged.

Especially since I wasn’t only troubled on my own account, but also on that of the entire White race – gentiles and Ashkenazi alike. Because if a majority of Whites have drunk the liberal anti-White Kool-Aid, and most of the rest are dumb enough to think Kevin MacDonald should be taken seriously, well, we might as well just crack a beer and tune in to American Idol for the rest of our lives, because our race would have no hope.

I’m going to post just a small handful of the many sites I know of debunking MacDonald’s sloppy scholarship, but really, I shouldn’t have to. The burden is on him to explain why he couldn’t look up basic facts – indisputable things like dates and places, not stuff that’s at all open to interpretation – before publishing, so that anyone with the most basic knowledge of history can easily catch errors in his work. And didn’t any of his groupies feel some confusion when he kept alternating between declaring that individualism was an evil Jewish plot to undermine gentile solidarity, and other times declaring that individualism was a noble gentile trait that we tribal Jews just couldn’t get?

Posting the links here, and after this I’m not going to bother to talk about that idiot anymore. And I’ll automatically delete any comment that relies on citing him as a source, because citing him amounts to admitting that 1) you have no actual facts at your disposal, and 2) you are a moron.

Incidentally, you’ll find that many of the links below include a lot of criticism of Jews. Much of it, unfortunately, valid. See, it is possible to criticize Jews without relying on the contradictory and factually incorrect arguments of MacDonald! Seriously, antisemites, you can do better. You don’t have to embarrass yourselves by propping him up.

Really, a much better case could be made that everything bad is the fault of the Irish or the Freemasons.

Professor of Anti-Semitism

Scholarship as an Exercise in Rhetorical Strategy: A Case Study of Kevin MacDonald’s Research Techniques

Critique of the Culture of Kevin MacDonald

MacDonald’s anti-Semitism

Answering Anti-Semites

The Marx of the Anti-Semites by John Derbyshire

Some – SOME – of the criticisms and outright attacks on Jews on sites like Counter-Currents have SOME merit to them. I hate to admit it, but it’s true. But most of them are as stupid as the ones in Cambria Will Not Yield, or the comments I refused to approve here. I just got a comment (unapproved) on the post where I stated that I read Kevin McDonald’s books to find out what the fuss was and discovered that they shouldn’t have been able to con a 12-year-old; the comment asked if I had read Kevin McDonald. Another contested my (correct) assertion that Jews rarely commit violent crimes by citing a total of ONE Jew who committed a violent crime!

Someone else complained that I hadn’t posted his lies, which he described as “criticism”. I’ll approve comments with criticism, but not lies. By “not lies” I mean “facts that are verified by sources more reliable than Kevin McDonald”. The bar could not possibly be set lower without ceasing to exist.

Someone else complained vaguely, apparently that I am too pessimistic. He didn’t explain just what he was getting at, but if he wants cheery optimism, what is he doing in the race realist blogosphere?

I dunno; maybe if I read enough of this tripe, I’m supposed to conclude that even though I have never met even one Jew who even remotely resembles the creature such ravings describe, that their ravings are the reality and what I actually encounter in real life is inconsequential. In other words, exactly the same kind of thing that antiwhite white liberals want us to believe about blacks, Muslims and Latinos: “Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?”

It isn’t as if I’ve just discovered that blog comments get a lot of hostility and stupidity. I actually used to keep a more general political blog (no longer online) that got a LOT of attacks because it was on a semi-popular multiblog site and lots of people from all over the spectrum followed it. Some of the comments were actually pretty hilarious in their idiocy. Maybe I’m just too old and grouchy now to feel like putting up with it. But even if I don’t bother to post again, I won’t delete this blog this time. Just leave it here to fossilize.

Why “Racism = Prejudice + Power” Is The Wrong Way to Approach the Problems of Racism

Turns out this equation is quite popular among academics, and it originated in a 1970 book by Pat Bidol. At that time, black people had very little political power, so by the equation above, it was impossible for black people to be racist since they had no (well, little) power. They could be prejudiced, but not racist. A silly semantic game, but we all know how much can be made out of such semantics. It’s being used nowadays, by people who have probably never even seen the equation let alone its origins, to defend anti-white racist policies.

This was a useful piece of information, so I read several pages of this blog. The blogger, while a socialist, is unusually intelligent for a leftist. That just means that he does a better job than most of defending his insane ideas. In the article I’ve linked, he claims that working class whites and blacks are “natural allies”. He claims that the federal deficit is not a problem, a view Democrat politicians have certainly taken to heart, and that it will only be those horrible rich people who pay it off, not the lower and middle class, honest this time we mean it, keep voting Democrat mwahaha. He has the typical left-wing masochistic love of Islam, through which brown people shall lead us whiteys to new levels of enlightenment.

I stopped when he described people who oppose the murder of unborn babies as “fascists”. Of all the ways to defend baby-killing, lumping the protectors of said babies in with mass murderers who often forced the “racially unfit” to have abortions has to make the least sense.

But at least I acquired the above useful piece of information.

More importantly, one can observe that America (and indeed the entire West) has been steadily moving to the Left since long before the Jews had significant influence. For example, the emancipation of black slaves in the 1860s followed by the original civil rights legislation; giving girls the right to vote which culminated in 1920 but was the result of a large movement for many years earlier; and so on.

The anti-Semites would have us believe that whatever process was moving the West to the left magically stopped in 1950 and after that it was the Jews. Of course this goes against common sense and Occam’s Razor, which says that it’s been the same process the whole time.

Thank you, Fortaleza84!