With and without Jews: The same old story

Or:

There are other histories and pre-histories
besides the American story



In a recent article at Counter Currents George Hocking said:

The current tendency of American whites to embrace their self-destruction clearly resembles past suicide cults but is a phenomenon on such a vastly larger scale that it even dwarfs the fratricidal slaughter of World War I trench warfare. Its origins are no mystery since Kevin MacDonald thoroughly and brilliantly described them. They are almost entirely a direct consequence of a Jewish Establishment and its supporters gaining increasing dominance of American intellectual discourse and media during the last century.

This is what in my recent posts I have called “monocausalism,” the belief that there’s nothing wrong with us and that the Jews are the main culprits of the runaway liberalism that is destroying the West (“almost entirely a direct consequence of a Jewish Establishment”).

In a sense American monocausalists are right: the Jewish influence on American society has been overwhelming and ubiquitous. And it has been a malign influence. The trouble I see with monocausalism is perspective and meta-perspective.

Perspective

Monocausalists focus almost exclusively in the United States of the 20th and 21st centuries. On the other hand, I include the history of Latin America, where the native Iberian Spaniards and the criollos (pure Iberian whites born in the Americas) sans Jews betrayed their ethnicity through massive mestization.

The beauty of studying the history of the Americas conquered by the Spanish and the Portuguese is that, since the Jews were ruthlessly persecuted and literally eliminated by The Inquisition, it is not possible to blame them for what happened on this side of the continent. (For an introduction to a racial history of the blunders committed in New Spain by people of pure European origin see this brief piece that I translated for Counter-Currents.)

Monocausalists are not only myopic about what happened throughout the whole subcontinent conquered by the Spanish and the Portuguese, but of what happened at the other side of the Atlantic as well. The story of the Spanish conquests in the Americas is not the only story that can be described as “ethno-suicidal without the Jews.” Yesterday I purchased a copy of Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and it surprised me to learn that Gibbon starts his history from the 1st century of the Common Era, when Rome was at its apex and when, at the same time, an embryonic cult was formed in one of Rome’s provinces, the Jesus cult. (I look forward to read the six volumes of Gibbon’s magnum opus, which surely will give me ammunition to annotate what I have already said about Porphyry and Julian.)

Meta-perspective

The fall not only of the Greco-Roman world in Europe but also of the Roman Empire at the East is another textbook case of the suicidal tendencies among the white people where Jews, who were emancipated only after the French Revolution, cannot be blamed either. (Burning whole libraries of classical knowledge, as the Christians did once they reached political power, was nothing short of cultural suicide.) What I find most intriguing is that people like Hocking are completely missing that MacDonald, in addition to his approach to the Jewish Question, has laid the basis for a scientific understanding of our suicidal traits in his studies about “altruistic punishment” and our “out-group altruism”: inseparable traits from the mental causes of why Whites emancipated the Jews in the first place. Studying the white psyche beyond history, well into prehistory, as MacDonald and others are starting to do, is what I would call “meta-perspective.”

What I am trying to say is extremely simple: to understand the white people there are more histories than the American history or the Jewish influence in Europe since the 19th century. Never forget the history of Rome, the history of Spain, let alone how the white psyche was formed in the glacial eras…

My family’s priest

I would like to end this entry with a personal vignette.

This photo, that I uploaded for the Wikipedia article of Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, was taken during my First Communion of May 12, 1966. As can be read in the Wikipedia article, Fr. Sáenz was a harsh critic of the Second Vatican Council and of the post-conciliar popes; was declared excommunicated in 1972, and presently is considered one of the founders of sedevacantism.

Fr. Sáenz, who died in 1976 not very far from my home, helped my father to study music in Madrid thanks to his old Jesuits friends in Spain. Fr. Sáenz also celebrated the mass of the wedding of my parents, baptized me and blessed my home of the Street Palenque at Mexico City (I have a super-8 homely film registering the event). What the Wikipedia article omits is that Fr. Sáenz abhorred that the Second Vatican Council made official peace between the Catholic Church and Jewry after centuries of enmity. After the council, Fr. Sáenz started to see Jews everywhere, even Jewish symbols on the Pope’s chasubles. At the Archdiocese of Mexico City the late Fr. Faustino Cervantes Ibarrola once told me that Fr. Sáenz estaba trastornado” (“became a disturbed person”).

I mention all this because Fr. Sáenz was both right and wrong. I very much doubt that Paul VI wore malicious Jewish symbols at his chasubles, which reminds me the monocausalists’ paranoia of smelling Jews under every stone and even labeling “Jew” anyone whom they strongly disagree with (I myself was once called “Jew” in a featured article at Majority Rights… because I don’t believe that the Mossad orchestrated 9/11!). But Fr. Sáenz, like Mel Gibson’s father—another sedevacantist—, was certainly right that something horrible wrong happened in the Church after the council.

Of course: I have lost my Christian faith since Fr. Sáenz gave me the communion and am not approaching the subject from a sedevacantist viewpoint. To my present mind, both pre-Council and post-Council Catholicism are possibly legit interpretations of Christian doctrine (“Catholic,” it must be remembered, means “universal”). Both Torquemada and St Francis may be considered legitimate interpreters, albeit opposite, of the New Testament and the legacy of the Church Fathers.

Finally, I must say that my childhood memories of Fr. Sáenz’s lovely home, which I recount in Hojas Susurrantes, are nothing but idyllic.

13 Replies on “With and without Jews: The same old story

  1. Gibbon’s account of Julian is a page-turner. He refers to Julian as “the Hero”.

    Aurelian’s 5 years were pretty intense also.

  2. The internal enemy is more dangerous than the external enemy. Both the Christian Right and the Atheist Left are more dangerous than either Judaism or Islam. The former two should be eradicated, the latter two should be put into dhimmitude (Pact of Umar).

    1. I do agree with you on the noxiousness of the petit-bourgeois Christian-Conservative types, who are in certain aspects much more dangerous and vile than ardent leftists and revolutionaries. They are useful as low-level servants of the State due to their conservative nature, but they must be expelled from the political life as well as high hierarchy, as Hitler understood.

  3. Maybe monocausal explanations aren’t the complete truth, but it might be a good strategy to recruit a critical mass of WNs to actually begin the fight.

    Mike

    1. Sure. But the trouble starts when these guys start claiming everybody they strongly disagree with is jewish. I really love Alex Linder’s banning anyone in his site shouting “jew!” at another commenter without proper proof. The other problem is that our suicidal traits are either spared or blamed on the jew, for instance Christianity’s universalism. If a friend of yours is partly suicidal and partly brainwashed by jewry, you cannot save him by merely “naming the jew”: you have to address his suicidal tendencies as well.

  4. AWM
    Basically I agree with you, noticing YKW is a good starting point, but not more than this. It is really easy to ridicule and absolutely not sufficient to create any long term strategy. I think it is important to see that our enemies have strategies too. I think money, power and secrecy are crucial. Central banks gave them a strong grip on the economy, a new financial and intellectual oligarchy replaced or absorbed the old one and became center of power and secret societies are developing and implementing further strategies across the board. Anybody can be integrated into this mechanism because the booty is rich. Those that can’t be integrated meet the glass ceiling or rebel and die. Talmudism probably plays important role, as so to speak spiritual blueprint, but personally I think that YKW don’t ever want to be the totality of rulers, the role of Controllers is sufficient for them. On our side we should really analyze the role of Freemasonry – question of their allegiance and values. They are the shabass goys par excellence. The principle of compartmentalization keeps the majority of them from any knowledge of ultimate goals.
    Worth noticing is the fact that the tabu surrounding Freemasonry is also extremely strong and probably as dangerous as the other one, if not more. At this point I remember the Machavelli aphorism: if you want to know who really rules, find out about whom people don’t want to speak. I am pretty sure that it was Machiavelli, I might be wrong though.
    Chechar
    Concerning race mixing. I guess Iberian history gives us a clue why they were prone to miscegenation: first the Mediterranean or Roman traditions of slavery, then the necessity of integration of massive numbers of Moriscos and Marranos into already (because of centuries of occupation) heterogenous or impure gene pool. The tabu was already broken, which was not the case in Northern Europe.

    Btw. Isn’t Internet a game changer? I imagine some truth seeker centuries ago, searching all his life for information we can have almost instantaneously…

    1. Great Machiavelli quote, and yes: internet completely changed my mind (how naive I was when we met at Gates of Vienna in 2009…). By the by, what is “YKW”?

  5. A propos Church: I read somewhere that John Paul II lifted the ban on freemasonry membership for Church officials in the 80s. Probably when Communism started to lose its charm. This ban lasted for centuries. Makes one think, doesn’t it?

    1. John Paul II and all modern Popes making friends with old foes can only mean that Christianity (not only Catholicism) is so weak and dying…

  6. I thought it was common a expression: You Know Who! The Jooos!
    2009 indeed, July I think. Not even 3 years! Like Alice – the labirynth goes deeper and depper. I think at the bottom I will find basic human feelings, love, hate, pride and all the rest.
    What we lost is the cult of the Holy Trinity: The Truth, The Beauty and The Good.
    Entartete Kunst replaced it.

    We have to question everything. And a hard work it is.
    As Fritz Springmeier says: who created your frame of reference?

  7. You are completely right about Christianity unfortunately. Unfortunately, because there isn’t anything to replace it.
    I still hope that there is a spark somewhere out there to renew the fire, but increasingly it seems it would require such drastic, deep cut through the massive layers of materialism collected over centuries, that it would be like National Socialist revolution.
    Jesus as a Hitler, Hitler as Jesus.
    Anyway, we have no other choice as to deepen our knowledge, spread it, build networks of exchange.
    I am afraid we are playing the role of Cassandra, but it doesn’t matter. There are many Troys we still can save.

  8. In spite of despising Christianity as a religion, I do have some respectful sympathy for Christian sedevacantists like your family’s priest. They are wrong, but much more coherent than those who stayed loyal to the Vatican, not realizing that its post-60s ecumenism is the explicit admission that all religions are equal, and that Christianity as an empty shell is therefore condemned to be replaced by a more proselytic and aggressive religion.

    Non-sedevacantist Christians are clearly sheep, while sedevacantist ones are the smartest of the bunch.

    As to what happened to the Vatican, I highly doubt its suicide was natural. It was probably corrupted by Freemason or Jewish capital after WWII.