Quote:
| I hate to be the bearer of grim news, but White people did this to themselves...through willfull ignorance and cowardice. |
This is not grim news but misdiagnosis in the main part.
The charge of cowardice on the part of American Conservatives from the time of Wilson to the present day is undeniable.
However, this claim ("we brought it on ourselves") is not tenable on its face: it assumes that that Whites are some sort of 'superbeings' who, all other things being equal, will form societies impregnable to hijacking.
The truth is, the fairly well established, or at least widely observed, White tendency towards reciprocal altruism on an individual and not a group basis is plainly genetic.
This means that a White society which controls its own flow of information will generally tend towards structures of power that acknowledge certain obligations towards individual persons that are reflected in the power structures Whites tend to produce: consider the emphasis on liberty as a defining property of Greeks, and their rallying cry when facing the Persians, whom they rightly considered politically dehumanized. They didn't have the term, but they knew Oriental despotism when they saw it.
The Roman Republic and its proconsul system, the German tribes and elective Kingship, Common Law . . . these are all distinctive products of a particular kind of individual. A way we can't help but be, as it were.
However, as MacDonald has pointed out, individual strategies are always outcompeted by group strategies. Therefore a society of the type that is prototypical in Europe or the Anglosphere is very easily subverted by group strategizing, assuming the group in question is very careful to engage in crypsis: the deliberate presentation of themselves as 'not a group': what Jewish conspiracy?
What you attribute to willfull ignorance and cowardice, I submit, is mostly the result of trust and goodwill on the part of Whites. . . the exact same thing that makes their societies so reliable, transparent, effiecient, and productive in the first place.
People believe false things they are told both because they trust their higher status relations to do what is best for the nation, but also because they don't know, and can't imagine, that friendly Jews, who are just like us except for their friendly religion, are actually out to reduce our numbers by any means possible: war, racemixing, what have you. Nor can they imagine that their friendly Jewish neighbor's cousin is the story editor at the national desk of the paper, covering up the news about Amdocs, Franklin, Odigo, the Liberty, and so forth. This isn't a new pattern. If you follow the complaints of anti-Judaics throughout history, you will see that their complaints all follow a similar pattern: the same, in fact.
MacDonald also points out that Middle Eastern societies are not suceptible to the same sort of subversion, because it is a non-porous collection of clans and ethnic groups which compete consciously on that basis: therefore they cannot be undone by the reliable (in the West) Jewish practice of crypsis.
It is unfair and untrue to say we have brought this on ourselves.
That does not absolve the ruling classes of the United States, beginning with the generation that abandoned Charles Lindburgh for telling the truth, of responsibility.
But consider: what is their responsibility? NOT NAMING THE JEW WHEN THEY STILL COULD.
I am very serious about that last point. You say "we did this to ourselves". But what is it exactly, that we have done?
The followup question: are you doing this now?
WM
P.S. We can debate Duke later.
