Serious Besides a list of Jewish feminist authors...

[Fontaine]

by what criteria do you conclude that Israel is a feminist country? Its inhabitants certainly don't seem to be under the spell of liberal democratic values that Jews so cherish in the west. Last time I checked, 48% of Israel's Jewish population (that is, a plurality of Jews in Israel) wanted to expel Israel's arab population, where as Jews here in the west overwhelmingly support mass migration, and they use the instruments of mass media, which is in their hands, to promote this depravity, effectively amounting to white genocide

48% is a surprisingly low number for a country that was explicitly funded on Jewish identity. And it proves that there is no Jewish hivemind, that not all Jews share the same opinions.

 

[BrendioEEE]

"why have the goyim enthusiastically gone along with the writings of obscure intellectuals"
Because the academic fields have not been infiltrated for thousands of years, there was no future proofing against Marxist infiltration.

Fontaine is such a Jewish shill, he tries to immediately dismiss it, and thus all the low IQ posters in this thread never bring up the logical inconsistency. There has never been such level of subversion in history, so nobody thought to create any proper countermeasures, people succumbed to the Jew out of ignorance of the enemy, not a lack of intelligence or willing participation.


Also reminder that Fontaine is a volcel millionaire, and shouldn't even be on this website.

 

[Fontaine]

@BrendioEEE

Life isn't a video game. Conspiracies mostly fail, and enacting such a wide, long-lasting, successful conspiracy is exceedingly unlikely to work.

You also deny goyim their intelligence and autonomy by making everything revolve around the Jews. Where were the goyim? Oh wait, they voted for Jewish laws even though they weren't even obligated to do so.

As to your diagram - it is almost endearing by its childishness. I can do the same by selectively collecting leftist statements from a large pool of whites.

 

[Fontaine]

@notafed

I'm not Jewish. Do you want a picture of my uncircumcised cock to prove it? I'd rather not.

 

[BrendioEEE]

@BrendioEEE

Life isn't a video game. Conspiracies mostly fail, and enacting such a wide, long-lasting, successful conspiracy is exceedingly unlikely to work

If a close nit group of a people that have evolved together for over 2000 years, constantly try and enact the teachings of their Religion which is based off of subversion and deceit, statistically speaking they are much more likely to have one of their plots if not many succeed over any other attempt at a conspiracy by any other groups or parties, ESPECIALLY when they keep failing over and over and getting kicked out of hundreds of nations, eventually a plan will be refined and work based on a multitude of factors, it's just statistics, and the statistics were in their favor.

You also deny goyim their intelligence and autonomy by making everything revolve around the Jews. Where were the goyim? Oh wait, they voted for Jewish laws even though they weren't even obligated to do so.

Nice projecting, as I said in my post there has never been this level of subversion in history, it's not about intelligence, it's about ignorance. Intelligent people can still be ignorant, Intelligence is merely the ability to acquire knowledge/skills, understand things, and apply this information in the real world. If people who have a natural born intelligence are manipulated and subverted, especially from childhood for generations, in a society that had no countermeasures for deceit and subversion, it doesn't matter at that point, only a small minority will be keen and perceptive enough to see the truth. Believing people can't be manipulated on a massive scale is such a cope.

As to your diagram - it is almost endearing by its childishness. I can do the same by selectively collecting leftist statements from a large pool of whites.

Not an argument, especially when said white leftists and their ideology stem from a very centralized group of people in the past that happened to have quite a lot of connections to Ashkenazi Supremacist Jewish Fundamentalists, but I guess that's just pure (((COINCIDENCE))), huh Fontaine?

 

[Deleted member 2047]

Soros pays the Femen

Soros is antisemetic and antiIsrael.

 

[Deleted member 12355]

48% is a surprisingly low number for a country that was explicitly funded on Jewish identity. And it proves that there is no Jewish hivemind, that not all Jews share the same opinions.

48% is very high relative to other western democracies (I don't know if you'd go as far as to call Israel a western democracy). My point is that the main promoters of liberal values here in the west (ie feminism, antiracism egalitarianism etc.) have been and are Jews. Yet in their homeland, they act and think contrary to these values.

 

[Opus132]

@Opus132

Just finished reading your magnum opus. I agree that Anglo-Saxons created feminism, or rather were the first to destroy the "old world" (Church, State and Honor). To support what you say, the first mass feminist movement to occur after almost one millennium and a half of medieval torpor was during the French revolution, a revolution of Anglo-Saxon origins (in many respects), in which even the most dedicated antisemites have failed to discover a meaningful Jewish presence.

For the rest, while you make exceedingly interesting points and seem to be a well-learned individual, I think your perspective is too warped by the writings of René Guénon. In my view, you can't reduce a thing as complex as history to any single cause, whether it be Jews or the failure of esotericism. While you acknowledge other causes, your extreme focus on Guénonism takes something away from your brilliance.

In my view, the evolution of Western civilization must be attributed to at least four causes: gradual loss of religious faith, technological progress, exhaustion from wars, and natural entropy. You evoke the first cause and the third cause only a tiny bit, and are completely silent on the second and fourth.

Well, i had to try to keep it brief, and still ended up writing a novel.

I'll just narrow it down to few points. First, i don't believe that there's such a thing as an inherently evil race. I'm a Godcel, and to me all human beings are Imago Dei. This is no to say that racial differences do not exist and that they do not determine certain attitudes or behaviors but race is a neutral factor regarding any question of good or evil. Guenon (heh, sorry, gotta keep mentioning him) hypothesized that the reason Jews are so overrepresented in movements and ideologies of a "dissolving" or "disintegrating" type was owning to the natural nomadic instincts Semites as a whole posses, which, in a deviated state, led to those particular forms of decadence. The key element of course is that Jews behave like this not because they are Semites specifically, but because they are Semites in a deviated state, precisely.

One could make a similar argument regarding the affinity Aryans have for fascistic ideologies, since Aryans are by nature settlers and not nomadic. But again it's not that Aryans are naturally fascistic per-se, but that this particular racial trait comes out like that in a state of deviation or degeneracy.

I think this is an important point that most people today don't understand, which is the source of a lot of confusion in regards not only to race but also differences between the sexes and how those determine certain behaviors. I've seen a lot of right-wingers for instance make the argument that women can rape too. While this is true in some rare cases it's really a bad argument because everybody recognizes that rape is mostly something only men can do, but this is not a condemnation on the male gender as a whole, for there's nothing inherently "toxic" about masculinity as such, but individual toxic males can only display said toxicity in a masculine manner by virtue of the fact they are males.

Now, the second point is the recognition that Jews are in fact culpable of many of the things they are being accused of. I've tried to go into detail with this and we can still go over the facts but the central element in my argument is that for me the "reality" of Jewish behavior cannot violate my previous principle. Thus, my efforts have been towards explaining Jewish behavior in a way that doesn't condemn the entire race a priori, while also pointing out that whites are not just the victims but also in part the artificers of modern decadence, for whites can be deviated too, given that if there's no such thing as a purely evil race there's also no such thing as a purely virtuous one. Jews didn't do the Renaissance. They didn't do the Enlightenment. They also didn't invent Nominalism, which is at the heart of the modern ideology:



The way i see it, decadence has a force and possibly also a will of it's own (if you want to involve supernatural causes), and it just uses whatever cultural and racial material it has at it's disposal at any given time. The foundation of Jewish decadence occurred after the destruction of the temple, much like the stage for white decadence occurred during classical times, and the corruption that occurred during those historical periods acted as a latent poison that exploded in full force when each respective race became fully deviated. The result is modernism, and the true reasons for why Jews have had such a great success in "destroying" the west, if such is the case, is that westerners poised themselves for said destruction in the first place. A criticism of Jewish culture without a criticism of western culture just doesn't make any sense if you understand why modernism is bad, and you are not just motivated by blind tribalism.

 

[whatiamnotgoingtodo]

Or because they stand to win from greater freedom?

What is there for them to win. 100 years of hedonism before they get replaced by groups who still have kids?

 

[Opus132]

My point is that the main promoters of liberal values here in the west (ie feminism, antiracism egalitarianism etc.) have been and are Jews. Yet in their homeland, they act and think contrary to these values.

Some of them are genuinely right-wing, and some of them do criticize Israel.

But the phenomena you describe is in fact common. Many Jews will criticize nationalism on one side, and support Israel on the other (i just discovered that Sam Harris is guilty of this for instance). Some will come out identifying as "white" in order to degrade white people but will speak of their "proud Jewish heritage" in other cases. Seen a lot of instances like that. I even remember a case of a pedophile rabbi who posed as a catholic priest every time he committed his crimes.

This is all true, and it all stems from the long history of duplicitous behavior that the Talmud fostered among diaspora Jews for more than 1500+ years. That Jews are so fiercely tribalistic is also the result of their religion and cultural tradition being based purely on the supposed mystical origin of their ethnic stock. Hitler and the Nazis tried to create a similar racial mythology for Aryans but they couldn't compete with something that had persisted for millennia, especially since Europeans had no conception of race or Aryanism in the first place.

With all that said, you cannot argue that this behavior is determined by their genes. I don't believe Kevin McDonald is a genocidal Nazi, but if you follow his theory through, that Jewish behavior is an "evolutionary" survival strategy, what alternative is there besides expulsion is not outright extermination? If baby Moshe is guaranteed to turn into a subversive revolutionary, you have to get rid of that baby somehow, right?

I would argue that the reason people like @Fontaine or many others have a problem with the idea of Jews being subversives "by nature" is that it runs counter of an intuition regarding the universality of human nature that one may not be necessarily conscious of but which one feels deep down whenever such arguments are made.

 

[Deleted member 12355]

.

With all that said, you cannot argue that this behavior is determined by their genes. I don't believe Kevin McDonald is a genocidal Nazi, but if you follow his theory through, that Jewish behavior is an "evolutionary" survival strategy, what alternative is there besides expulsion is not outright extermination? If baby Moshe is guaranteed to turn into a subversive revolutionary, you have to get rid of that baby somehow, right?

We can't let human sensibility get in the way of objective truth. If it is in fact their genes, which I think is a viable hypothesis, that leads to their parasitic tendencies, then I can only say that the situation is a very unfortunate one. This does not mean, however, that it isn't an avenue worth exploring. In fact, it's the opposite. We need access to the full picture in order to act rationally. That's always been my philosophy

 

[Opus132]

It's not a question of human sensibilities, but objective truth. Human nature is universal. Races may be different but those differences can only be relative, not fundamental. Race cannot for instance determine things such as good and evil, it may best color the way goodness or evil comes out of a person.

It is a "fact" that many Jews are engaged in warfare and it is a "fact" that a lot of them act in a duplicitous manner but it is not a fact that either of those things are determined by their race. Many people will find such arguments to be counter to what they perceive to be the truth, that human nature is universal, hence why white nationalism has never gained universal acceptance, even back in it's heyday.

I posted this in another thread but it is relevant here as well:

Ethno-culture in the Light of Tradition

"Nor do we speak of the 'different gods' of different peoples, or of the gods as 'Barbarian' and 'Greek,' but as common to all, though differently named by different peoples, so that the One Reason that orders all these things, and the One Providence that oversees them, and for the minor powers [i.e., gods, angels] that are appointed to care for all things, there have arisen among different peoples different epithets and services, according to their different manners and customs." - Plutarch, Isis and Osiris

"One must not lose sight of the fact that peoples with a very 'differentiated' and 'cerebral' civilization are lead to underestimate certain modes of intelligence to which they are unaccustomed. There is more intelligence in African rhythms than in most psychological novels." - Frithjof Schuon, Thought and Civilization

"The anthropologist is rather too much inclined to consider the particularities of "primitive" people in isolation, neglecting the possibility or probability that these particularities may not be of local origin, but may represent only provincial or peripheral survivals of theories held by some or all of the more sophisticated communities from which the primitive peoples may have declined." - Ananda Coomaraswamy, "Spiritual Paternity" and the "Puppet Complex"


Here then is the question: what exactly does race and culture (for the two can hardly be separated) mean from the traditionalist perspective? Furthermore, what are the limitations of ethnic nationalism as an ideology?

An answer can be found to the first question if we begin by examining the perspective necessary for the "transcendental unity of religions," which all genuine traditionalists (in the sense that the traditionalist is also de facto a perennialist) should have an understanding of, and thus come face to face with this fundamental principle; that the inward unity is not compromised by the existence of an outward plurality. So while the transcendent unity of religions requires an esoteric conception of all the world's sacred traditions, so would a "transcendent unity of races" be found from an esoteric understanding of all cultural customs and religions. What this means is that any and all ethno-cultures truly connected with Tradition can be rightfully said to be "inwardly equal." With this point of view, true (inward) inequality only ever arises if one race severs itself from its vital connection to Tradition, which is what has happened in large part to the Western European race (particularly Germanics) since the end of the Middle Ages. This is why we can rightfully say that Australian aborigines or Balinese tribesman (both of whom are mentioned in the aforementioned Coomaraswamy essay) have more in common with Dante or Plato than most modern Europeans have with Dante or Plato. Similarly, in the realm of art, Chartres cathedral and the Parthenon are more akin to the Dome of the Rock and the Taj Mahal than modern concrete factories are to Chartres and the Parthenon, despite being manufactured by the same race. One could think of dozens of similar examples (including the one by Schuon above). The case in point is that the "race of the Spirit" always takes primacy over the race of the body.

So here is the caveat: despite this "inward equality," we must never lose sight of the fact that the existence of bodily race is still part of reality. Similar to the existence of outward or exoteric religious forms, ethno-culture is certainly a relative reality, but a reality nonetheless. As such, we should realize that this is diametrically opposed to the modern notions of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" that became popular during the French Revolution. The fact is that race, like gender or exoteric religious form, can only ever be transcended from within, not simply denied from without. This latter is the opposite of unity, it is uniformity. It should also go without saying that the current popular notion of "multiculturalism" (which in reality amounts to a cruel, dehumanizing, crypto-totalitarian agenda) should be entirely rejected on this same principle. The operative assumption behind these various "Wills-to-Uniformity" is that the only way to harmonize and pacify two struggling opponents is by effectively strangling them both to death (to borrow another saying of Schuon). We must also reject the liberal pseudo-tolerance that pretends to "respect other cultures" only insofar as said cultures do not to any significant degree contradict the fundamental morality of the West (the current controversies over clitoral circumcision, corporal punishment, and other so-called "human-rights violations" are among only a few examples). We can only ask, what is the point of maintaining outward diversity amongst peoples if all said peoples are inwardly Westernized?

This then leads into the second question, regarding ethnic nationalism and its limitations. Obviously the traditionalist would be in complete agreement with the nationalist regarding the reality of race and its subsequent interconnectedness with culture. However, whereas the liberal makes the mistake of assigning no reality to race, the nationalist commits the exact inverse mistake and assigns absolute reality to race. The nationalist is then inclined to suppose that interracial unity is only possible on the political level (via all respective peoples embracing nationalism). But where he can be said to most radically differs with the traditionalist is in the latter's all-too-frequent kind of racialist solipsism, which conveniently assumes that each ethno-cultural group creates its own entirely distinct reality (based on cultural norms), perhaps completely and in all ways incompatible with with those of another ethno-cultural group. This is because the nationalist often times actively denies any universalism and the very reality of Tradition as such. From this perspective, it may very well be impossible for an Italian to have any spiritual dialogue with an Arab, a Chinaman, a Peruvian, or a Jew simply because of his ethnicity! An observing person should only reject this type of assertion as ludicrous, but nonetheless it is important to understand that when one takes a relevant truth as an absolute, one is bound to wind up with these kinds of absurdities. By a similar principle, the traditionalist would also naturally disagree with the nationalist's common presumption that all religion and mythology is merely a product of a "collective racial unconscious," and therefore has no universal, but only relative value. The tendency to reduce every myth and every religion to a kind of isolated "cultural relic" (while at the same time never bothering to penetrate its transcendental essence) is precisely the method of the "religious anthropologist" whom Coomaraswamy so rightly denounced in the above quotation.

We can say in conclusion that I now only ever make one absolutely fundamental distinction between peoples: who are Traditional, and who are not. Thus if we are ever going to arrive at any kind of genuine interracial, intercultural, or interreligious understanding, we will first and foremost have to entirely reject modernity, which is hostile to all three categories. The so-called "West" has done more to annihilate and vandalize Tradition in the last 500 years, not only within its own race but also within the races of others, than any transnational empire of the past. This is not due to some inherent "evil" within the white race (as has been supposed by some), but rather the inherent evil within modernity. Secondly, Westerners (who unlike any other people actively deny the reality of race) will have to start accepting the validity and relevance of race, culture, and religion, not only in their own people, but also in the other peoples. Once this is accomplished, they will in fact cease to be "Westerners" and simply become stations of Tradition clothed in European ethnicity. As I see it, this is the only way to create anything resembling a genuine World Citizenry, so far from the extortive, uniformist, passive-aggressive crusade against Tradition in all its forms that currently passes as such.

Both the racists and anti-racists are right and wrong at the same time basically, with the truth being outside the scope of the arguments of both the ultra-right and the ultra-left.

 

[OwlGod]

insane