Once I realized where white self-hatred comes from, the mystery vanished.
To a young person who realizes that hating the very survival of white people is the highest ideal of today’s youth, the whole thing literally looks like a Satanic Plot, a nightmare.
But as the years passed, I took a clear look at our Traditional Values.
All of our most traditional values are summed up best by the villain in The DaVinci Code:
“Pain is good.”.
We learn as children that what tastes bad is what is good for you.
The entire Calvinist theology states that almost every human is created to spend eternity in unimaginable agony, including those who go to their Calvinist churches regularly, and that this is GOOD.
Please note that the entire process of what we call becoming adult consists of learning to do thing we would not normally WANT to do. Getting out of bed early, going to bed when you least want to, eating less of things that taste good and more of things that are boring, sitting and learning things instead of enjoying the energy and play of childhood.
The Puritan Tendency is inevitable whether the Puritan Tendency is expressed in Calvinistic Righteous Misery or in the old Trappist self-torture as a way of life.
Trappist or Presbyterian, “Pain is good” is our Traditional Value.
We do not feel we are being really moral unless it hurts. That is where the total glorification of cheering on a black and a blond who are producing ugly children comes from. It hurts and is therefore good.
Traditional Values are sick, because they are based on masochism.
Trappists and Puritans and anti-whites are mentally four years old and stay that way.
I am out of patience with people who are so dumb they can’t see the obvious development of our baby learning that we must learn to do what is unpleasant into the sick morality of self-torture. It is not a warp produced by The Elders of Zion. It is total failure to grow up.
#1 by Jason on 12/01/2012 - 6:25 am
I’ve seen this among a few pro-Whites. They will reject the term genocide because they say it sounds like “whining”. I mean, good God. Instead, they complain about how morally wicked young people are today, and if we just returned to the Good Book, all our problems would go away.
I see the same thing with the New Left that hates industry, especially the energy business. They’ve got to force us back to a lower standard of living. They can’t stand scientific and technological conquest. It strikes them as imperial and ego-centric or phallo-centric or something. The image of a commanding Roman general, a Pioneer conquering the West, or an astronaut walking on another planet all infuriates them.
I assume long ago, people who embraced harsh self-discipline must have outbred everyone else, so perhaps there is some genetic basis. But it has obviously become pathological.
#2 by Conrad on 12/01/2012 - 11:09 am
I am quite sure that leftists / Communists /anti-whites hate anything that tries to raise itself above mediocrity. That is why they are against eugenics, which is by the way the very thing that our race needs most. Eugenics & the Mantra are twins working to stop our genocide.
………….
Jack’s War
#3 by Daniel Genseric on 12/01/2012 - 4:17 pm
You can find prior references to mediocrity and economic/societal stagnancy becoming normalized right here in this blog space.
#4 by Vale on 12/01/2012 - 8:02 am
“Traditional Values are sick, because they are based on masochism.”
That’s true, but only because when most people say “tradition” they mean “Christian tradition”.
There are plenty of pre-Christian/non-Christian “traditions” which promote loyalty, kinship, brotherhood, courage. In Europe these traditions are growing because (some) people are fed up holding religious beliefs which end up destroying their race/country.
#5 by BGLass on 12/01/2012 - 10:48 am
There are ways to read/interpret Jesus that are not anti-life, but few take that avenue.
Also– many refuse to look at what psychiatry would call, “secondary gains,” of raising the Whites in all this confusion and pain.
They become cut off from their instincts, their history, they become “dis-integrated” (in the real sense of the word)– so their thoughts have nothing to do with their feelings have nothing to do with their actions, etc. And this is not an entirely un-useful thing.
The edginess, the buried hate, the confusion, the pain— can then be harnessed—for consumerism, for edgy obsessive work habits, for the “two-minute hates” that drive the voters, etc.
So, socially and economically, we get quite a lot out of creating so many little confused, angry, animals. Even the angry little animals get a lot of stuff.
Admitting that is grownup, too, imo. Maybe a step on the road to saying this 2000+ year old way of doing it is costing us too much psychologically as a race, in the final analysis. Now we want to “free up” all the lost energy we are spending on feeling bad. We do a lot now, but we will get more, make more, create more— when we have possession of our whole selves.
No longer “cut off” from the vitality of self, from our full true history, our own narratives about ourselves, our own myths and stories, positive energy will be unleashed.
The main argument, imo, for “wn” or any ethno-nationalism (for anyone)— is that one would simply FEEL BETTER.
Lol, it is predictable that this very simple, very enticing argument is never made by Whites. After all, they reject FEELING GOOD. No matter how much the 60s was successful with “if it feels good do it,” —even when it’s the “whites” whose feel-good program would really work (would not be the lie of the drug culture, but rather, an “in-touchness” with one’s real history and one’s real self.
#6 by seapea on 12/01/2012 - 12:55 pm
LOST ENERGY, hmmm… That’s an interesting angle considering all the time our people waste in which they “indulge” their pet forms of masochism. “White masochism” morphs into various activities, organizations, movements, etc. that could certainly be characterized as LOST RACIAL ENERGY.
Reminds me of the talk Sam Dickson gave at the last Stormfront conference where he mentioned our people’s talent for abstract thinking. This talent has allowed our people to do some wonderful things but has gotten us into some trouble as well. I suspect some of that trouble occurs when our people get lost in their mental creations, creations that have little to no basis in reality. You combine “White masochism” with that abstract thinking talent and you’ve got a people engaging in all kinds of weird and potentially self-destructive behaviour.
I’m starting to understand why black folks say “White people be CRAY-ZEE!”
#7 by Epiphany on 12/01/2012 - 3:19 pm
Well, we Whites also have lots and lots of imagination and creativity. Notice, all of the imaginative fiction written by the English!
#8 by Conrad on 12/01/2012 - 2:15 pm
Excellent piece. I have hinted at this in Jack’s War, in fact there are quite a few positive messages in the book. This book also contains the Mantra.
#9 by BGLass on 12/01/2012 - 10:57 am
At any rate—
—individuals, at least, can do themselves the favor of simply DECIDING they will be in touch with themselves, their history, their arts, and other expressions of their race at this moment.
All it takes is DECIDING.
If every white person simply DECIDED this second that they would simply live that way, that they would take the personal responsibility of simply returning themselves to their music, their arts, their literatures, their true friendships, their real thoughts, and speak them, and not meanly… well, something undefinable would be in the air immediately, a sense that something was somehow different, somehow more positive, more creative, more promising, and yet absolutely no one would be able to say quite what it was.
#10 by Epiphany on 12/01/2012 - 10:58 am
The Roman Catholic Church is not what it once was. In atonement, I suspect for the sins of a couple of their most infamous members– Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler– the Church gutted most of its traditional beliefs. Not least of which is the Doctrine of the Supercession: the idea that the Church replaced the Jews as the Chosen. Now, the Jews are– according to the Church– the Chosen People again.
#11 by BGLass on 12/01/2012 - 11:07 am
Rising to the bait, but—
That supercession idea evolved its own problems, Epiphany, as Mr. Whitaker says, in the universalist Proposition Nation that emerged and the killing of “heretics” (anyone who disagreed with the Idea).
Judaism is tribal; RC and most christianity is not, and frankly, it shows NO SIGNS of retrenching as such. It is not European. Who would hold to what will not allow them to survive?
Let’s move on, Epiphany.
#12 by Epiphany on 12/01/2012 - 11:27 am
Perhaps, you are right BGLass. Still, the SSPX could be useful allies!
#13 by Dave on 12/01/2012 - 12:16 pm
Many do not realize that their involvement in conflict is NOT their choice.
That choice belongs to the enemy.
The fact that anti-white whites are under the influence of atrocity stories belies the anti-white dream of reconciliation with non-whites.
The nonwhite enemy has to put his atrocity claims to bed to make reconciliation possible.
This involves the tearing down of cemeteries, memorials, and shrines, something the enemy is NOT going to do.
So the enemy himself stands in the way of reconciliation.
PC whites have no understanding of this.
Whether they have failed to “grow up” is irrelevant.
They will die in a conflict they don’t understand without ever knowing why.
#14 by daedalus on 12/01/2012 - 12:44 pm
Good old Jean-Jacques, who said “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they.”
churchianity has long been a perversion. Read the actual book. If you don’t like it. Fine. Show all of us by your actions that you are worthy.
This endless kicking of the easy castrated enemy is of no use.
#15 by Conrad on 12/01/2012 - 2:50 pm
What does the Mantra sound like when a liberal awakens to our message?
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/12/where-is-the-historical-west-part-1-of-5/#comment-115274
………
Jack’s War
#16 by John White on 12/01/2012 - 4:04 pm
I always welcome bold, thought-provoking writings of outstanding thinkers like Mr. Whitaker, even when I might not agree with some or all of what is being said.
In this case, I disagree to a certain extent with what Mr. Whitaker identifies as the cause of White self-hatred. That is irrelevant because I’m a nobody who disagrees with an important man.
However, I do want to say that it would be most unfortunate if this kind of discussion ended up in yet one more of those eternal debates about Christianity being something to be defended or a hindrance to be destroyed for White survival.
I have my own opinions in that respect, but I’ll leave them for later.
However, I do disagree with Mr. Whitaker in this case. In my opinion – and I might as well be wrong – Western societies are more atomistic and hedonistic than ever before. Immediate, unrestricted pleasure has been enthroned as the highest value. The only important thing is having fun, right now, forever.
Churches might be as sanctimonious as they want to, but they are nothing in comparison to Lady Gaga. Less than nothing.
The only thing in which the Church and Lady Gaga agree on is in that they are both equally anti-White. Just like a mafia who controls both the police and the criminal gangs, the anti-Whites control both the saints and the sinners.
The Church is not bad because it teaches self-sacrifice for a greater cause. The Church is bad because it has become anti-White.
That is just my opinion.
#17 by Daniel Genseric on 12/01/2012 - 4:08 pm
“We do not feel we are being really moral unless it hurts. That is where the total glorification of cheering on a black and a blond who are producing ugly children comes from. It hurts and is therefore good.” – Bob
One exception to this rule of Bob’s is BUGS. I have learned that we must be doing something effective if they dish out pain. We buck the anti-white system. Our reward? MORE pain.
In this case pain, in the form of defamation and threats of physical violence, financial ruin and being socially-ostracized, is actually good. Running these risks is the only way through to the other side of their genocidal designs, to a future for ours. Luckily for us this is a temporary condition.
Try explaining that to a N&J-er and you will get the equivalent of the deer-in-the-headlights.
#18 by Wm White on 12/01/2012 - 4:58 pm
Very few people seek truth. What they seek is affirmation of their held views (confirmation bias). You can’t EVER prove anything to anyone unless they are first willing to accept your argument, which when discussing white genocide is a rare occurrence. Even if you ask a person what it will take to prove something to them, most deceive themselves and will find some way to reject it “even if proven” –for that is the way of most people. They want to argue, not learn. The argument is a mere contest to see who “wins”. Debates are always ego trips. (paraphrased from Bob Frenz)
To control the masses, Lenin (Uh-oh a non-white) said he would exploit the natural ‘vanity’ and ‘ambition’ of people to forward his agenda without them knowing what they were really doing. He called these types of people “Useful Idiots.”
Are white people going to have to have their lives blasted by pain and forced to grow-up to see the reality of white genocide and the plethora of sophisticated methods and pink rabbit “subterfuges” that have been employed to further that agenda?
I don’t have an answer. All I know is streets and cities that were once white are now filled with non-white people (who care little for OUR white children’s future survival). And I for one am NOT mixing in.
“Everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “*ASSIMILATE,” with all those non-whites.”
–the Mantra (excerpt), for those who haven’t used it in awhile.
*Assimilate, (verb): to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes, etc., of a group, nation, or the like; adapt or adjust: to assimilate the new immigrants.
#19 by OldBlighty on 12/01/2012 - 7:40 pm
@John White on 12/1/2012 – 4:04 pm
Bob isn’t anti-Christian, he has identified this self hatred/self sterilization behavior, going back thousands of years – long before Christianity existed. So this behavior of Whites Is Racial.
Hunter Wallace has been documenting, the voting patterns of Northerners and he claims it proves they are majority, anti-White. So it makes me wonder, what is the difference between the religious traditions of White Northerners vs White Southerners, that would account for the differences in behavior?
Or is it simply, Whites that have zero experience living around non-Whites, are always the most anti-White?
#20 by Daniel Genseric on 12/01/2012 - 10:00 pm
Well!
If Hunter Wallace says it’s True, then who am I to contest such an esteemed Intellectual?
Being from the Great White North and all, dontchyaknow, I think I have a vague idea of my surroundings.
I don’t think all the snow we get up here causes our anti-whites to be any more rabid than their southern counterparts – if that helps at all.
#21 by OldBlighty on 12/02/2012 - 12:18 am
@Daniel Genseric
No that did not help. lol
If the voting habits of the North and South and their histories show a consistent pattern, then it should be looked into.
For anyone that knows, what is the difference between these two places? Because I can’t ignore what I am seeing. Is the protestant tradition in the South, so different to the protestant tradition in the North?
Previously I have explained this as Whites living around non-Whites, know better than the rubes that have always lived in majority White strongholds. Yet Bob keeps bringing up the self flagellation theory and I cannot reconcile the differences I am SEEING in these two places.
The recent secessionist petitions came from the South because the Black guy got back in. Southern Whites refuse to vote for the Black guy in overwhelming numbers, while Northern Whites vote for him in large numbers.
So naturally, I want to know where the self hate angle fits in. Hunter Wallace has put a mind worm in my head and it either needs to be understood, or debunked as the rantings of an intellectual that wants his theory to be true.
#22 by Daniel Genseric on 12/02/2012 - 1:26 am
You gave a choice between Hunter Wallace’s “astute” geographical distinction and something at least somewhat plausible. I chose choice B.
That was my not-so-clever way of saying it IS the lack of exposure to the consequences of that which they espouse.
#23 by c-bear on 12/02/2012 - 1:22 am
Another one of our many qualities is self-sacrifice. . A man who takes a bullet to save a friend or loved one knows this one all to well. Unfortunately, we take it to the extreme. Taking a bullet for someone who would just as well see you dead isn’t self sacrifice. It’s retarded.
#24 by OldBlighty on 12/02/2012 - 2:51 am
@Daniel Genseric on 12/2/2012 – 1:26 am
I hope Bob will write an article about it, because Southern Whites have been subject to the same mass media brainwashing, as everyone else and yet they always seem to be the fly, in the White Genocide ointment. Good for them! 🙂
#25 by Daniel Genseric on 12/02/2012 - 9:59 am
What am I chopped liver?
I despise ALL anti-whites, not just ‘those especially nasty ones from the North.’
Why are we trying to create a dividing line here?
#26 by Daniel Genseric on 12/02/2012 - 10:03 am
This is almost as bad as David saying “White Genocide IS the JoooooS!”
He is implicitly saying “WHITE anti-whites get a free pass.” No way. Nor will Southern WHITE anti-whites get out of jail free either because there “are fewer in the South than the North.”
That’s just lunacy.
#27 by Jason on 12/02/2012 - 4:22 pm
I embrace ALL pro-Whites wherever they are, including Russia or South America, There are areas up North that seem to have more anti-Whites, Not sure why. There ARE liberal anti-Whites in the South by the way, but not as many.
But I want to save all Whites everywhere on earth. Except for race traitors, no matter where they are – in NYC or Dallas.
#28 by Dick_Whitman on 12/02/2012 - 10:54 am
Bob did write a recent article about this subject and his explanation was exactly what DG has suggested. Northern Whites do not have the same exposure to non-Whites that Southern Whites have.
#29 by OldBlighty on 12/02/2012 - 10:20 am
@Daniel Genseric on 12/2/2012 – 9:59 am
Hunter’s claim, according to the evidence he has gathered, is Whites in the South are voting for the White man, in almost the same numbers as Blacks everywhere, vote for the Black man.
I am asking this question, because the self flagellation theory does not apply universally, despite the brainwashing ALL Whites are subjected to.
I am asking this question of Bob.
#30 by Daniel Genseric on 12/02/2012 - 1:31 pm
Ask Bob all you want, but let Hunter worry about voting politics while we change the game.
#31 by OldBlighty on 12/02/2012 - 11:01 am
@ Dick_Whitman
I didn’t see that article, but that’s what I thought.
If anyone remembers the name of it, please let me know.
#32 by Jason on 12/02/2012 - 4:10 pm
Romney won 90% of the White vote in Mississippi. He won the White vote by a huge margin in the Confederate States. On the other hand, in Maine, a majority of Whites -57% – gave their vote to Obama.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/11/11/supplying-a-little-political-science-for-charles-blow/
#33 by OldBlighty on 12/02/2012 - 10:08 pm
I found it disturbing is all. In my country, large areas switch back and forth between left and right and its no big deal.
Yet when I look at the USA, its like you have completely different countries forced together, that never had anything in common in the first place.
And worse, one small area is imposing its liberal values on all the rest. To an outsider like me, it looks bizarre.
#34 by BGLass on 12/02/2012 - 11:23 pm
The rural-industrial split is large also (south v north) and it happens to fall on a protestant-catholic divide now, before north-south was more Puritan v Episcopal and other protestant groups (except deep south, like Louisiana with a strong Latin base.) It played out that way, different people coming to the country at different times— pioneer-settler versus industrial revolution. So, the rural-industrial differences are noticeable (in how people think, how they think government should be, etc.)
The protestants are not all the same, by far—and calvinist/ new england on the top of Very Punishing scale.
—Why I’m not so hard on the Enlightenment that many wn bitch about. No matter how dopey the liberal “noble savage,” and the “innate goodness of Man,” it seems a needed reaction to all the “DON’T EXIST!” punishing crap. Reactionary, yes. But at least they were trying to get out of a ghetto understanding of original sin (everyone just born bad). And to restore a sense that it was ok to live. So, you have to give the enlightenment that much.
Of course, it would be better for a person to see they are A PERSON, and they DO good things, or bad things, and are capable of both. But Whites seem plagued by this “either-or” sense of self: all Good, all Bad, and swinging back and forth.
Other thing is, people not from u.s. often don’t realize how truly huge u.s. is. Also, while “urbanized” now, with 85% of people or something in the cities—- this is a reversal from 1965, I think (fewer in cities, the rural more populated). That number totally reversed at some point. In other words, large groups of different ethnics had huge enclaves before. (Like Upper North is Scandanavian, German, or WV is Scotch-Irish, Virginia was English, etc.)
States are the size of European countries. So they have that much difference. As much as countries.
Only Central Planning seems to have pushed people (unhappily) into “cities”— big work complexes built, then huge population transfers (for work) but no real communities, as those are broken up in the process.
Unnatural, inorganic policies imposed on such a large land space is an interesting aspect of life there.
#35 by OldBlighty on 12/02/2012 - 11:35 pm
I think I understand what the USA is now. It is not a country, where everyone has something in common, it is an Empire composed of vassal states.
#36 by BGLass on 12/02/2012 - 11:32 pm
—The Northeasterns are “liberal” WHETHER THEY ARE IN areas of high exposure to non-whites (NYC, Chicago, LA, south florida) or NOT (i.e. Vermont, Connecticut.)
Vermont and West Virginia are both around 96% white, but every county in WV carried Romney, the exact opposite of Vermont.
Exposure is not the only factor
#37 by OldBlighty on 12/02/2012 - 11:39 pm
“Exposure is not the only factor”
Yes, Hunter went right down the the county level and identified what he calls “Northern Transplant Areas” in the South that voted Obama.
#38 by Dick_Whitman on 12/02/2012 - 11:53 pm
Another major reason for NE Whites voting Obama is that the NE is still a heavy unionized area. Many of the most racially aware Whites(blue collar men) in the North will still vote for the Democrats because their economic interests still lay with the left.