Vanguard News Network

I personally don’t think there is anything innately within Northern European people (“WASPS” or Germanics) that make them less likely to fight and to be more concerned with fairness, etc.

When the Romans first encountered the Germanic peoples of Northern Europe and the British Isles (as well as the Celtic people there) they (the non Romans) were fierce, warlike, and merciless to their enemies. The Celts and the Germans often mutilated the bodies and cut the heads off their enemies in battle. They were not “wimpy” or over-polite.

The question you then have to ask is what changed the warrior nature of the northern European peoples? Some could argue that it was the civilizing effect of the Roman Empire in places where it ruled, but then you have to ask why this pacifying effect happened in the places where Roman soldiers never set down their sandals. The answer is that the Northern European peoples adopted the weak and weakness worshiping religion of Christianity.

What you are seeing today amongst “WASPS” and Northern European peoples is the result of 2000 years of Christian mind control over people who were originally some of the most fearsome warriors of the ancient world.

I think the problem is not neccesarily with the WASPS per se, but rather with the bourgeoisie. For the bourgeois, materialism and respectability are everything.

BTW, I guess from what I’ve written above that I view the term WASP almost more as a class designator than as being about race and ethnicity. Maybe WASP isn’t the best word, since what I’m really targetting is a certain class rather than ethnic group.

The WASP ruling class only seems to care about preserving its own wealth and power for however long it can before the ship sinks. That it has embraced jews should come as no surprise, since the only criteria it uses to judge a man’s worth is the size of his bank account and where he went to school. Jews score highly on both.

“When did the transition come, from the WASP ruling class hating jews to practically fawning over them?”

It came in the ’60s. And WASPs were a class not a religious denomination or a race. The ’60s lasted from 1967 to about 1975 and it was an international youth movement inspired and led by Jewish radicals. Jews will never cop to getting the Bolshevik revolution in Russia underway, but they’re still crowing about the ’60s. The best places to learn about the ’60s kulturkampf is from the memoirs of Jewish radicals who have become neoconservatives. In The USA three names come to mind, David Horiwitz, Ronald Radosh and radio talkshow host Michael Savage. Horowitz and Radosh have written engaging and informative autobiographies. Savage is a blowhard who mostly gasses on about his misspent youth in Berkeley on the radio. It goes without saying that these ex-hippies are now staunch Zionists. Actor Peter Coyote (aka Peter Cohan) has also written extensively about the ’60s from the organizational inside, but he’s still a Leftie.

Igor and Blackshirt make good points, but I think Blackshirt is a bit closer to the truth.

After all, Christianity posits that it is what you believe, or make public confession of believing, that is important. What you do is not that important since we are all damnable sinners. In Christian thought, Plato is just as much a sinner as Ted Bundy, and both need saving. Indeed, if Bundy “accepted Christ” before he was electrocuted, he would be in paradise. Plato did not have that opportunity , so he is hell-bound, no matter what.

So this confession of what you believe–this public emoting–is so much bullshit. It is the direct grandmother of all this negro shouting, dancing and emoting in their church services. It is in the end, what is was in the beginning–hot air and a desperate stirring of a hot, emotional stew , hoping thereby to clutch “eternal life.”

But I can see how the concept of belief being more important than action, evolved into political correctness.

And I can see how its opposite is “thought crime”.

Christianity is the grandmother of all this. In the present day, a grandmother who has been sent off to the old-folks home, more-or-less forgotten, but the grandmother nevertheless.

Give me men who act, not those who babble about what they believe, or how noble their beliefs are, and then expect accolades, or some holy spirit to descend on them in the form of a dove, or the people in church to embrace them after their public confession.

Excellent points, Igor and Antagonistes!

Igor said:
“OTOH, Christianity was a violent movement/religion from its inception, and it never would’ve become the dominant religion of the West if it hadn’t used force. Some of the biggest bloodbaths in Western history were perpetrated by Christians. If Christians were capable of playing hardball as recently as 200 or even 100 years ago, why aren’t they able to today? What changed?”

What I think has changed is that people who see themselves as “Christians” seem to be taking the bible more seriously than in the past. Let me explain- in the past it seems as though people paid more lip service to Christianity, and they certainly didn’t believe in it’s egalitarian concepts. I’d wager to say you wouldn’t have found may Christians 300 years ago (except some abolitionists) who would have accepted the premise that blacks and whites are equal.

What you had in the 60s was a younger generation who were taking the egalitarian concepts found in the US Declaration of Independence and the Bible and holding the older generation responsible to those concepts. The “all men are created equal” and “we are all children of God” concepts weren’t new and weren’t created in the 1960s… these were all concepts straight out of the Christian tradition.

Just like Antagonistes says, this holding the older generation to these egalitarian concepts and the age of technology have taken us to the place we are now. You take a softer, easier life and combine it with Christian egalitarianism, and you get the mess we have today. The roots of egalitarianism and multiculturalism don’t go back to Marx, or the “Enlightenment”, but to the Christian bible and it’s admonishments to “love your enemy” and “the meek will inherit the earth” philosophy.

In the past life was much harder than it is now… it was shorter, work was more difficult, and death was never too far out of the conscience. Christianity gave the dirty, diseased and abused masses a “pie in the sky” to look forward to after death. It gave them a sense of hope that the pagan religions couldn’t deliver on. But even as these masses embraced the salvation that Christianity promised, very few took the egalitarian elements seriously. Christian philosophy says to “love your enemy”, “thou shalt not kill” and yet “Christians” have been killing and fighting wars for thousands of years.

Without the foundation that Christianity laid, you would not have modern Marxism, Multiculturalism, or Egalitarianism. IMO this is mindset that has given us the worthless WASP we see today.

Igor Alexander Says:

[…]

I still haven’t figured out if the guilt complex that is killing the white race was instilled in us by Christianity, or if this exaggerated susceptibility to feeling guilt is a racial charateristic that predates our adoption of Christianity. Maybe whites are more susceptible to guilt than other races because they live in a higher intellectual plane that makes them more receptive to abstract concepts like justice and fair play. When a nigger talks about “justice,” it usually just means that he has his hand stretched out for a donation from your wallet. I truly believe that niggers have no understanding of justice beyond just knowing that they can use the word to extort wealth from us by making us feel guilty.

I think generally in our circles guilt is given too much credit as an explanation for what we see. It’s completely the wrong word, both objectively and even subjectively. For example, in what sense can you objectively be guilty of and be punished for the actions of someone else, whom you never knew, let alone authorized to act for you? The very idea that whites of today should feel guilty for the Holocaust or for slavery is ridiculous on its face. It is even ridiculous to think that they are able to feel such guilt. They literally had nothing to do with either event. That some of them may say they feel guilty is proof of nothing except maybe a susceptibility to hysteria. I don’t doubt they feel something, but guilt? C’mon, gimme a break!

That said, we are left with the task of explaining white complaisance in the face of their dispossession. If it’s not guilt, what is it? I would suggest that it’s just another facet of conformism: lemming see, lemming do. This is a powerful motivator of human action that should never be dismissed lightly, stemming, in evolutionary terms, from the high adaptive value of being a member of group. Instead of in terms of guilt or innocence, we should understand it in terms of stimulus and response.

OTOH, Christianity was a violent movement/religion from its inception, and it never would’ve become the dominant religion of the West if it hadn’t used force. Some of the biggest bloodbaths in Western history were perpetrated by Christians. If Christians were capable of playing hardball as recently as 200 or even 100 years ago, why aren’t they able to today? What changed?

The explosive growth of the technological system, which has built-in egalitarian tendencies. The white man’s true genius, in world-historical terms, was to systematize technique; however, through discovery of the scientific method he became like the sorcerer’s apprentice, unleashing forces he could not control. Scientific technique is egalitarian both on the input and the output side. Consider the internal combustion engine, for example. You need 1)fuel and air under 2) proper compression, and 3) spark. Under these conditions, in a well-constructed engine, the cylinder will fire. It will fire every time, no matter the race, age, sex, or level of expertise of the person who is trying to fire it. It will output the same amount of horsepower, regardless of who is using it. Any sort of inequality in these latter two conditions that may at first exist is regarded as a defect, and the tendency will be for the technique to become simplified more and more, so that an ever-increasing body of people can use it, and use it to get the same results, irrespective of their personal details.

Two other factors that I think have greatly contributed to whites’ wimpification in the last 60 years are technological progress (we’ve become soft because life has become too easy for us and we’re too removed from the basics of survival) and the ever-increasing social and political influence of women. Men have started to think like females and society stigmatizes male thought and male values.

The political influence of women is itself a consequence of the growth of the technological system. The first, and perhaps the most powerful blow to man’s role in the family was struck by the Industrial Revolution, which physically removed him from the household for large stretches of time each day, and in so doing disrupted a biocultural entity – the family – which had stood unchanged since the earliest days of humanity. The growth of the political technique of “democracy” as a method of crowd control, which up until recent times has been quite rare as a form of government, but which the working out of the egalitarian tendencies of the rest of the technological system made more or less inevitable, necessitated giving suffrage to women. With suffrage to women came the voting-in of a welfare state, which still further reduced the role of the man in the family, since woman no longer needed a man as provider. The final nail in the coffin was the invention of truly effective means of scientific birth control, which for the first time in human history liberated women from the biologically-enforced dependencies of pregnancy.

The values of men – truth, honor, courage, nobility, and so forth – are the values of a pre-industrial age. They will not return unless the technological system is either abandoned, or smashed beyond repair.

Why don’t you start by smashing that computer you’re now using. Then, go turn off your master circuit breaker.

Here is the real problem:

“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens … Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of over-turning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Author: John Maynard Keynes, Source: Economic Consequences of the Peace, pp. 235, 236, [1920],

shabbos s shabazz Says:

Why don’t you start by smashing that computer you’re now using. Then, go turn off your master circuit breaker.

Author: John Maynard Keynes, Source: Economic Consequences of the Peace, pp. 235, 236, [1920],

The “real problem” isn’t confined just to capitalism, obviously. I am content to leave the project of smashing capitalism to communists and their fellow travellers.

That said, Lenin and Keynes have a point, albeit an oblique one. If one can force an abandonment of the economic technique of money, through whatever means, then that will go a long way to disrupting the technological system in its entirety. Unfortunately, I think there’s every reason to believe that such a disruption would be only temporary. Also, while one may manage to debauch a currency or two, in order to be truly effective, ALL world currencies would have to be debauched at the same time. It’s not clear to me how that could be done.

Execrable claptrap.

Lenin was only part Jewish. He was also part Mongol, as you can see from his eyes.

And despite Keynes’ bi-sexuality, I think his economic philosophy is still preferable to Milton Friedman’s.

“Scientific birth control” includes all techniques of preventing or stopping pregnancy, including abortion, condoms, IUDs, diaphragms, etc. All of them, taken together, were the final nail in the coffin of man’s control over women, which had been ultimately rooted in the biological facts of pregnancy and child-rearing. Without these techniques, “women’s lib” as a political and social movement would have been inconceivable. These techniques developed over time, and were very much collective efforts. Some of the players were Jews (Pincus, Djerassi), and some were not (Goodyear, Searle, Rock, Sanger, McCormick, Colton). It’s a fascinating story. Check out the links below for more.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/timeline/timeline2.html
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~nicoleg/history.htm

Oops! I guess that’s “Aspartame,” not “Aspertame.”

“I think generally in our circles guilt is given too much credit as an explanation for what we see. It’s completely the wrong word, both objectively and even subjectively. […] I don’t doubt they feel something, but guilt? C’mon, gimme a break!”

I think guilt is the right word, keeping in mind that I view feelings of guilt as mostly the result of social conditioning.

People feel guilt at using the “n-word” in the same way they feel guilty for not donating to a children’s soccer team at the checkout counter of the grocery store, or in the same way a girl feels guilty the first time she has sex.

How else can we explain the phenomenon of white couples going out of their way to adopt non-white children?

When I first woke up to the Jewish Question, I literally, physically felt sick to my stomach and thought I was going to puke. That’s the sign of some serious conditioning to have a visceral reaction like that.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/timeline/timeline2.html

“December [1967]: The Pittsburgh branch of the NAACP charges that Planned Parenthood clinics, which provide the Pill and other forms of birth control in low income and minority neighborhoods, are devoted to keeping the black birth rate as low as possible. In a public statement the organization declares that birth control is being used as an instrument of racial genocide. A strong accusation, it touches a cord in minority communities and the term ‘black genocide’ catches on.”

Didn’t take the blacks long to figure out what it was all about. Whites are still puzzling over it: “Birth control = genocide? No way. Birth control is about human rights and equality of the sexes.” Ironic that a race that is so advanced in many ways can be so clueless when it comes to issues affecting basic survival.

I know some in this movement would like to cut Margaret Sanger some slack because she was a eugenicist and so on. Well the fact remains that birth control is killing off the best and brightest of our race and has done little if anything to slow the reproduction of the blacks and browns.

“1970

January – March: Influenced by Seaman’s book, U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson convenes Senate hearings on the safety of the Pill. Radical feminists disrupt the male-dominated hearings and demand women taking the Pill be informed of all the potential dangers and side effects.

June: In a victory for feminists and the women’s health movement, the FDA orders that all oral contraceptive packages must contain a patient information insert detailing possible side effects from the Pill.”

Well, at least we have that to thank the feminists for.

“I know some in this movement would like to cut Margaret Sanger some slack because she was a eugenicist and so on. Well the fact remains that birth control is killing off the best and brightest of our race and has done little if anything to slow the reproduction of the blacks and browns.”

…………………………………………………………………………..

I really hate seeing healthy, unborn White babies get aborted, too, but there is no evidence that “the best and brightest of our race” have been killed off by abortion. Those women did not want to be mothers. If they were forced to give birth, most likely their kids would’ve been abused, neglected or sent to an orphanage or foster home. There are more than enough abused and unwanted kids in the world as it is. What we need as a Race is QUALITY, not quantity.

And don’t worry about Black overpopulation. AIDS, malaria, diabetes and heart disease, along with Black on Black gang violence and general Black irresponsibilty, all help to keep their numbers managable.

Igor Alexander Says:

“I think we should see it and talk about it for what it is: a conditioned response.”

Ahem. As I said, guilt is a conditioned response. Obviously when I refer to the word guilt, I am referring to the feeling of guilt, as in white guilt, not to guilt as in “a guilty verdict.”

Are you trying to be difficult or something? I am not using the word guilt outside of its ordinary, common-day meaning. No one is playing into a “language game” by using the word guilt in this way.

By accepting the Jew-originated idea of there being such a thing as white “guilt”, you make it difficult to resist demands for atonement. Look at it this way: Although real guilt and fake guilt (i.e., “white guilt”) may both be conditioned responses, only one merits any attention to claims for atonement. By not using the word “guilt” for fake guilt, but instead referring to it as conditioned response, clarity of thinking is promoted.

Igor Alexander Says:

“Not as effective, but still having an impact.”

OK, let me put it another way: the pill makes women barren; condoms do not. Do you get that distinction, and why it matters?

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Read what I said again.

“Even the women’s suffrage movement in America may have gained some of its force from better methods of birth control such as condoms.”

How so?

If women of that era felt freer to have sex without marriage – and the evidence is that they did – it was probably due to such techniques. This undermined male control over women, and was a precursor to feminism. Isn’t that obvious?

“…anything necessarily to do with Jews and certainly doesn’t appear to have anything to do with some kind of Jewish plot or malevolence…”

I beg to differ. Both of the inventors — the actual inventors — of the pill were jews.

What about Dr. Rock? Dr. Rock was already trialling the pill as an oral contraceptive when Pincus came to him. Rock was a non-Jew, a Catholic.

If the story of Henry Morgentaler is any indication, jews were actively involved in promoting abortion on demand.

You said yourself that you weren’t aware of any evidence. Your anecdote about Morgentaler is just that.

As for the rest of your statement, it’s a strawman. I never said that all birth control was a jewish plot, or that jews did all this alone.

There’s that reading comprehension thingy again. I didn’t say you did. Why so defensive?

In fact, the heading of this thead is how WASPs caved in and even acted as willing accomplices to the jews.

You sound like an apologist for the jews. You could use that exact same line of argument to dismiss claims that Boasian anthropology was a jewish plot.

Except that MacDonald presents evidence that Boas was a strongly identified Jew pursuing a Jewish agenda. He was ideologically driven. The birth control issue is quite different, as I’ve shown. To my knowledge, there isn’t any evidence that either Pincus or Djerassi were doing anything other than pursuing their own individual interests. They were mere technicians, toiling in the vineyards of the technological system, just like Dr. Rock – who, by the way, is also sometimes credited as “father of the pill”. But since the Jews are proud of their involvement, you hear more about the Jews Pincus and Djerassi, just as you hear more about the Jew Einstein than the non-Jew Heisenberg.

Igor Alexander Says:

Here’s how “guilt” is defined in the World Book dictionary:

When we talk about “white guilt,” we’re talking about definition #3, not #1 and #2.

If that’s the only definition to apply to “white guilt”, then definition 3 should read “3. a baseless feeling of having done wrong or being to blame.”

My point is when you use that word it becomes easy to elide the difference between the definitions. Even accepting the existence of such an entity as white guilt implies there’s something to be guilty about. It’s a bad rhetorical move.

But, really, if you can’t understand what I’m saying, don’t worry about it. If you don’t want to distinguish between fake guilt and real guilt, you’ll fit right in in our politically correct world.

“If that’s the only definition to apply to ‘white guilt’, then definition 3 should read ‘3. a baseless feeling of having done wrong or being to blame.'”

Why? It may be baseless or it may not be. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a feeling of guilt. The word communicates what it’s supposed to communicate; there’s no need to alter the definition or to stop using the word.

Igor Alexander Says:

“If women of that era felt freer to have sex without marriage – and the evidence is that they did – it was probably due to such techniques. This undermined male control over women, and was a precursor to feminism. Isn’t that obvious?”

So somehow being free to have sex made them want to vote? I don’t see the causal connection, and you still haven’t made it.

Being sexually free made them feel independent; it made them feel more in control of their own destiny, and entitled to a voice in it. That’s not so hard to understand, is it?

I didn’t say I wasn’t aware of any evidence; I said the topic needs to be researched.

If you are aware of the evidence showing a Jewish effort to promote abortion, then why not share it? Why be so coy? And if you already have such evidence, then what is the need for research?

My thesis, in case you don’t get it (and it appears that you don’t), is that jews, collectively, are nation-wreckers who encourage every vice, every weakness, every disintegrative trend or tendency in the host society in order to destroy it.

While that may be true, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Nothing, that is, unless you are stark raving mad enough to think that Pincus and Djerassi saw in advance all of the bad societal effects that the technical advance represented by the birth control pill would bring, and then purposely set about to invent it for that reason. For my part, I don’t think so. But I’m willing to change my mind if that’s warranted. Do you have any evidence?

Where have you shown that Pincus or Djerassi weren’t “ideologically” driven?

I don’t need to, unless you are arguing that we must assume that ALL Jews are ideologically driven until proven otherwise. MacDonald doesn’t assume that, and neither do I. You, however, evidently do. I’d say that’s pretty foolish.

“They were mere technicians, toiling in the vineyards of the technological system, just like Dr. Rock…”

Just like the kikes who developed the atomic bomb, which had nothing to do with pursuing a jewish agenda, I’m sure.
;-)

That’s right, it didn’t. You will note that MacDonald doesn’t try to make the case that Einstein was pursuing a Jewish agenda in coming out with relativity theory, even though Einstein was a strongly identified Jew and otherwise fits the profile of Jews such as Boas and Freud. He wisely decides to leave attacking “the kikes who developed the atomic bomb” to guys like you.

“But since the Jews are proud of their involvement, you hear more about the Jews Pincus and Djerassi, just as you hear more about the Jew Einstein than the non-Jew Heisenberg.”

I fail to see what you’re trying to communicate here, or maybe more accurately, why you’re trying to communicate it. You think I don’t know that jews like to toot their own horn?

Apparently not, since you seem fixated on Pincus and Djerassi, to the exclusion of Rock.

“If that’s the only definition to apply to ‘white guilt’, then definition 3 should read ‘3. a baseless feeling of having done wrong or being to blame.’”

Why? It may be baseless or it may not be.

If you think it may not be, you are no friend of the white race.

“But, really, if you can’t understand what I’m saying, don’t worry about it.”

I understand perfectly what you’re saying.

If so, you’ve shown no sign of it.