About Hunter Wallace 8801 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

13 Comments

  1. The great tragedy is that Jews are genetically predisposed to subvert their host societies. It is in their genes; any reconciliation between our peoples is without hope.

  2. I believe CC above is correct: it’s in their genes. In fact, I believe it’s possible also that hatred of Eurochristians is actually embedded in their genes the way a dog’s wariness of snakes is embedded in dog genes. A Jew’s wariness and hatred of Eurochristians may be embedded in his genes. Two thousand years of enmity should be enough time to bring about the embedding.

  3. Let me be clear: A Jew may actually have an inborn, genetically predisposed loathing of Eurochristians and of symbols such as the Christian cross and others. When a Jew sees, for example, a Chrisitian cross it’s possible he actually has a genetically influenced feeling of revulsion, something he’s born with. You have to wonder sometimes at the way Jews go after Christians so immediately, so unreasonably, and so aggressively, and without provocation. It’s like the way a mongoose instantly goes after a snake the moment he sees it, without provocation. One glimpse of the snake and the mongoose is on him instantly, aggressively trying to kill him. That’s the same as Jewish behavior on seeing a Eurochristian: the Jew instantly goes after the Eurochristian very aggressively and without provocation. That’s not entirely “learned” behaviour but partly inborn. It’s something that ought to be able to be confirmed experimentally.

  4. I agree with you. Clearly the Jews harbour a biological predisposition, or an eliminationist gene, that compels them to subvert and liquidate Euro-folk. But surely this doesn’t let them off the hook. It’s enough to show anyone, even the lay observer, that Jews are unfit to participate in gentile society. They are a real menace. Their presence will always lead to hostility and aggression towards the host society, due to the Jews’ eliminationist gene.

  5. It might simply be that they are of foreign DNA, and “tightly packed” foreign DNA at that, combined with an ideology or “religion” that enhances it. That genetic difference & supportive religion manifests itself in hostility towards us.

  6. “A Jew may actually have an inborn, genetically predisposed loathing of Eurochristians and of symbols such as the Christian cross and others.”

    This is just nuts.

  7. The great tragedy is that Jews are genetically predisposed to subvert their host societies.

    The greater tragedy is that those aware of it could not and cannot contain their anger long enough to make sense to the uninitiated, whether in countering the fiction the subversives have cooked up or in exposing the subversives’ role and motives in concocting that fiction or in proposing solutions to the fiction’s effects, particularly since the subversive fiction contains within it a self-defense mechanism which functions to make opposition to it seem unreasonable and unworkable.

    It might simply be that they are of foreign DNA, and “tightly packed” foreign DNA at that, combined with an ideology or “religion” that enhances it. That genetic difference & supportive religion manifests itself in hostility towards us.

    At the simplest level it requires no more than that Jews recognized their racial foreignness and genetic incompatibility and rightly judged that racially sentient whites, particularly those who take a long view, would seek to exclude them on that basis. It is unclear to me why anyone would think the result would have been much different had it been, say, Sicilians who possessed Jewish smarts.

    Of course, it can be as difficult to live with the knowledge that one is a subversive (or “bad person”) as it is to live with a knowledge of a racial reality which cannot help but exclude one, thus Jews, with their high-powered intellects, have successfully imagined themselves to have done good.

    This is just nuts.

    Much like all else that man has to say.

  8. “It is unclear to me why anyone would think the result would have been much different had it been, say, Sicilians” ( — Silver, up to his old tricks)

    Sicilians are Euros. Big difference. (Of course, a Paki posing as a Serb might not always remember to keep that in mind.)

  9. For it to be Sicilians, a supremacist religious orthodoxy is required, that holds the Other in contempt while re-enforcing devotion to the welfare of the in group. An example is the behavior of the Hasidim in Postville, Iowa.

  10. Sicilians are Euros. Big difference.

    There isn’t a ‘big difference’ at all, as a matter of fact, as American, Canadian and Australian history attests — and that remains true regardless of who is saying it.

    (Can your curious brand of irrationality be traced to your quarter jewish ancestry, do you think? It really does scream out for explanation.)

    For it to be Sicilians, a supremacist religious orthodoxy is required, that holds the Other in contempt while re-enforcing devotion to the welfare of the in group. An example is the behavior of the Hasidim in Postville, Iowa.

    Supremacist religious beliefs would certainly enhance the effect but the uneasiness about race would still be there; at most you could expect silence, at worst you would still have a significant amount of anti-racism.

  11. There is a profound difference. Competing for neighborhoods in a straight up mode of victor/vanquish ethnic aggression that is evident in places like S. California, is one thing. However to employ state coercion as a weapon to deny host resistance, is something quite different and becomes, for example, Title VII of the Civil Rights legislation. In other words the Sicilian migration carves out a space for itself in the foreign host nation, but, the Jewish migration, inhibits the host from defending itself in any part of the nation it founded by changing the law.

  12. You’re only describing what transpired, not responding to my counterfactual: Sicilians have had a similarly reflexive aversion to racialism, thus if Sicilians, by a combination of smarts (equal to Jews’) and ethnic nepotism, had managed to work their way to the apices of government, the judiciary, academia and the media, they would have had a similarly racially corrosive effect — not precisely the same, similar.

    How would a Sicilian Franz Boas have responded to Madison Grant, for example? He’s different, his kind are breeding out and replacing the founding stock, the founders don’t like it — does he just agree, pack up his belongings and get a ship back home? Or does he attempt to refute Grant? Will his fellow Sicilians accept or reject his theories?

    On the other hand, Sicilians would not have responded the same way to World War II or Israel, for instance, and Whites would have stood a greater chance of prevailing, so I’m not blind to Jewish peculiarities.

    As it was, of course, it was Jews who did the bulk of anti-racist legwork for the “Euro” minorities, who, as a result, were able to coast through the racial travails of early 20th America without blackening their names, to the point where modern WN lore recognizes them as equals in the battle against Jewish tyranny.

    Now, I don’t mean to “pick on” Sicilians. I’m in the same boat, as are plenty of (back in the day, most) other southern and southeastern Europeans. It’s just that Sicilians arrived in far larger numbers than anyone else and are the most familiar face of white-but-also-not-quite-white, so I use them to illustrate my point.

    But anyway, “so what?”, you might ask. It’s my view, Bunston, that these discussions, left at this, are almost pointless. Racialists, like Prozium here, have only succeeded in describing the racial landscape; the point, however, is to change it. Changing the racial landscape requires power, and power can only be obtained with sufficient numbers, including sufficient numbers of intelligent men. What can be done to entice a greater number, a critical mass, to racialism (to a ‘solutionist’ racialism)? Well, I have a few ideas. One of the simplest is just the sight of intelligent men discussing these issues without obvious (or unhinged) animus, so consider this my own little contribution.

  13. How can intelligent men discuss these issues, in a more public forum w/o facing unhinged animus (SPLC, ADL, CJC or Victoria Human Rights Commission)? Example, James Watson.

Comments are closed.