Age of Treason
February 4, 2015
Andrew Joyce’s recent article, The Bizarre World of Dr Theodore Isaac Rubin, is mostly excellent. It’s about how jews explain “anti-semitism”:
Although written in 2009, Ted Rubin’s Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind, is in several respects a relic of a by-gone era in that it is a classic work of old-school Freudianism and psychoanalysis. Kevin MacDonald has noted in The Culture of Critique that:
One way in which psychoanalysis has served specific Jewish interests is the development of theories of anti-Semitism that bear the mantle of science by deemphasizing the importance of conflicts of interest between Jews and gentiles. Although these theories very greatly in detail — and, as typical of psychoanalytic theories generally, there is no way to empirically decide among them — within this body of theory anti-Semitism is viewed as a form of gentile psychopathology resulting from projections, repressions, and reaction formations stemming ultimately from a pathology-inducing society.
Rather than antipathy being a natural and normal result of real conflicts of interest, antipathy towards Jews is thus seen as a psychological illness — owing absolutely nothing to the behavior of Jews, and everything to Western culture. This is the central thrust of Rubin’s book.
Rubin wastes no time in applying medical and psychiatric language to anti-Jewish attitudes. They comprise (11–12) a “malignant emotional illness,” a “psychiatric illness,” and a “chronic, pandemic and incredibly destructive disease.”
I agree with Joyce and MacDonald’s assessment. Antipathy is a natural and normal result of real conflicts of interest. I would add that the key word in “conflicts of interest” is conflict, and the roots of the antipathy and conflict are racial. More than anything else, Joyce’s article brings out the clash between White and jewish mentality – the completely different way each group sees the conflict between the groups.
These are racial differences in mental processes. MacDonald explains some of these differences in a recent article of his own, On the HBD Chick Interview. There he summarizes part of a chapter from the first volume of his trilogy on jews, A People That Shall Dwell Alone:
Briefly, the idea is that Jews, or at least Ashkenazi Jews, are high on several personality systems, resulting in 1.) tendencies toward personalities that react intensely to environmental contingencies (i.e., high on the emotionality system), 2.) strongly attracted to dominance, social status, reward (including sex), and prone to aggressiveness (i.e., high on the behavioral approach system), and 3.) able to have strong top-down control over modular systems related to emotions and behavioral approach (i.e., high on the conscientiousness system).
. . .
I updated some of this material in “Background Traits for Jewish Activism” (2003) which focuses on traits that are most important for the success of Jewish activism: hyper-ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity (emotionality), and aggressiveness.
To put it in less genteel terms, the jews are a race of ruthless crooks and liars, at least when it comes to dealing with Whites.
Jews are instinctively collectivist and assign jewish interests the highest priority, to the point they have co-opted science and committed fraud to serve that end. In the jewish mind emotionalism trumps rationalism. They also tend to project their negative thinking onto the Other.
Whites, in contrast, are relatively individualist and universalist, with a higher regard for objectivity. In the White mind rationalism trumps emotionalism. Whites tend to project our positive thinking onto the Other. These are tendencies, partly encoded in our genes, partly inculcated into our minds after birth. The big difference is group consciousness. The jews inculcate their own with an unapologetic preference for their own kind and distaste for the Other. Jews inculcate most Whites too, but with exactly the opposite moral standards.
This kind of lopsidedness, or asymmetry, is characteristic of the entire history and nature of the conflict between Whites and jews. Jews have continuously aggressed against Whites. Whites, for the most part, have been oblivious of this. As Joyce observes, jews unabashedly distort reality and invert the conflict, placing 100% of the blame for it on Whites. Jews use the most harsh-sounding biomedical terms, describing their enemies not as participants in a conflict with an opposing point of view, but as pests who should be simply silenced and even exterminated.
Whites, in contrast, have generally reacted to this kind of bombast by recoiling defensively, in denial, trying to argue that they aren’t congenital monsters the jews accuse them of being. In accordance with our instinct for objectivity, Whites consistently step outside and above the conflict, to seek out some less harsh-sounding explanation for it. We imagine, for example, that the jews aren’t so different and must be deceiving themselves, because that’s how Whites tend to deal with unpleasant realities.
The real root of this asymmetry, as the jews recognize, is biomedical. The jews are racially distinct. They are far more racially conscious, far more aware of racial distinctions. They not only see the distinction between themselves and others more clearly, they are more willing and able to ruthlessly exploit those differences.
The jews dedicate a great deal of effort not only to nurturing their own consciousness, but to tearing down such consciousness in their hosts. The jewish pseudo-science of psychoanalysis Joyce examines is an example of both – excusing and leveraging their own consciousness and ethnocentrism while at the same time they psychopathologize White consciousness and ethnocentrism.
Joyce calls attention to the key component of this psychopathologizing:
Another of Rubin’s assertions, and this is equally common among many Jewish psychologists and academics, is that those holding anti-Jewish attitudes are low in self-esteem and are (31) “desperate for simplistic explanation and solutions, especially for those they may find outside themselves.” But ‘anti-Jewish theory,’ if one wants to call it that, is far from simplistic. The assumption is made by the psychoanalysts that since the only problem causing conflict with Jews exists solely in the mind of the ‘anti-Semite,’ then the ‘anti-Semite’ needs only a ‘symbol’ to cure his own inner conflicts — this symbol is the Jew. He is said to cling to the simplistic belief that “the Jews” are behind all of his personal problems, and thus he can externalize his internal conflicts by ‘hating’ Jews, and somehow raising his own self-importance and self-esteem in the process. But this assessment is built on a deeply flawed assessment of both anti-Semitism and the holder of anti-Jewish attitudes.
Overall I think Joyce s very perceptive, but in this I think it’s his assessment of jewish behavior that’s flawed. The jews are not making a mistake. It is about esteem.
First of all, by blaming “anti-semitism” they are excusing themselves, placating and even feeding their own already enormous collective esteem for themselves as a people. Second, they are deliberately attacking the esteem of “anti-semites”, in other words, those Whites who are most racially conscious and most aware of the jews. The attack the jews make elicits a defensive posture, causing their enemy to question themselves. That the jews cloak their attack in scientific terms, as a medical diagnosis, is an intentional deception. Such fraud is a feature of their aggression, not a flaw.
The psychoanalysts never acknowledge that some of the most high-profile anti-Jewish writers of the past have been at pains to blame their own people and nation before the Jews — there has never been a rush to ‘externalize’ all blame for the ills of society.
The jews get the defensive response they seek: “B-but we’re not stupid or crazy. A-allow me to provide some objective arguments and examples.” Joyce supplies several paragraphs in this vein, and it’s as eye-opening and edifying as his writing usually is. He perceives the jews as enemies, but the examples he cites demonstrate the point. Throughout history even the most notorious “anti-semites” have been far too willing, in the attempt to be objective and fair, to blame our own people, to fruitlessly seek some built-in flaws our race simply must have, somewhere.
The irony is that in striking such a defensive posture it is self-esteem which keeps us from accepting that this behavior is the flaw we’re looking for. Whites don’t have an inherent racial lack of self-esteem relative to jews, we have a relative lack of group-esteem. We have a relative willingness to accept responsibility, especially guilt, especially collectively.
I don’t think this lack is entirely inborn. I think a large portion of it is induced by jews pushing the psychological button Joyce has noticed but mistaken the significance of. Jews have been moralizing and lecturing Whites for millenia now that, “It’s all your fault, you stupid/crazy/evil goyim.” While some Whites are able to shrug it off, few actually see it for the purposeful guilt-tripping, the aggression, the assault it is.
Contrary to the arguments of the psychoanalysts, the problem always contains a very significant internal element, and thus the holder of anti-Jewish attitudes is rarely free to simply blame all on ‘the Other.’
This phenomenon continues today. Critics of Jews are equally concerned with developing an understanding not only of Jewish power and influence, but also of the pathology of Whites that has facilitated Jewish power and influence as well as the current disaster of displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism. The emphasis is on the identification of multiple sources and origins of the current societal malaise, and on evidence-based intellectual and scientific investigation of all aspects of the interactions between Jews and non-Jews in all locations and throughout historical time. This activity can in no way be seen as the seeking of simplistic answers.
This is the problem. The jews shamelessly attack and blame everything on their enemies. And in response their enemies, not wanting to appear simplistic, try to rationalize and intellectualize and demonstrate how fair-minded they are. That is “white pathology” in a nutshell.
As I’ve said before, where there is a pathology there must be a pathogen. So what is it? If we’re going to speak of this phenomena in biomedical terms, then let’s grab the bullshit by the horns, shall we?
Jews clearly see that there is a conflict of interests, first and foremost with Whites. Whites are now so deracinated and ennervated that they are afraid to see any conflict whatsoever, because that would make them “racists”. Jews hate Whites. Whites worship jews. Whatever anyone thinks caused this situation, this lopsided Stockholm Syndrome relationship with jews, it’s clear that to the extent most Whites even see it as a problem, they blame jews for approximately none of it. Instead, the popular explanation is the jewish explanation: Whites are to blame for all of it.
“White pathology” is a non-explanation for this situation. For one thing, the idea forgets or at least downplays the racial conflict. Joyce at least brings it up while discussing the jews. More often it is used alone, without any mention of jews or their aggression, implying there is some “suicidal” problem baked into Whites and only Whites.
The idea is solipsistic. It is a self-satisfying pathologization of Whites. It plays on the same psychological mechanism behind the jewish explanation of “anti-semitism”. It’s an attack on our self-esteem, our fear of being seen as “stupid” for seeing an enemy as an enemy. Which, if you think about it, is what’s really stupid.
What’s also really telling about the falseness of the idea is that the term itself has a completely different meaning to most Whites. When racially conscious Whites say “white pathology”, they mean Whites as a group aren’t racially conscious enough. But if you try and explain “white pathology” to a typical deracinated White they’ll take it as confirmation that Whites, especially Whites like you, are too “racist”.
The “white pathology” idea appeals to the racially aware because there is a grain of truth to it. It’s a diagnosis that comes close but literally gets stuck on the pathology, the symptoms, and too often neglects to ever identify the cause, the pathogen. If Whites are behaving pathologically, well-meaning Whites should be doing their best to identify the pathogen causing this behavior. We should be seeking, without fear, ways to neutralize the cause, rather than ourselves.
The problem is not that Whites have blamed the jews too much. Quite the opposite. It’s clear that the jews have encouraged this solipsistic attitude exactly because it serves them. Thinking Whites alone alone, right now, determine White destiny is a notion that appeals especially to the most racially conscious Whites. But it is a fantasy as long as most Whites remain, as they are, unconscious of any collective destiny.
Calling the jews pathogens or parasites it is not an idle insult. Nor is it an excuse for Whites, their hosts. In fact, it’s a degrading and humiliating situation that is painful for Whites to acknowledge. Such terms are simply more honest and explicative. It is an acknowledgement not just of the conflict but its asymmetric nature. Among the benefits of calling a parasite a parasite is parasitology – an existing body of understanding based on true science, which offers practical insights and potential solutions no amount of “white pathology” navel-gazing ever will. Another benefit: Rather than misdirecting White resentment toward ourselves, it is directed at the cause, where it belongs – the detestable, whiny, self-obsessed, manipulative, exploitative jews. Without jews Whites would still have problems – but these “anti-semitism”/”white pathology” bugbears wouldn’t be among them.
Examples of this pathogen at work are easy to find in the mainstream jewsmedia: