Sunday, 23 April 2017


I am going to start this article with two seemingly unrelated topics, but which, as you will see, form parts related to the title. The first is that I had chance to listen to some of the Savage Hippie podcasts in which Ann Sterzinger, whose talents have been featured in Mjolnir Magazine, participates. The show is run by Edwin Oslan, a Jew, also features David Cole Stein, a Jewish historian with a few minor revisionist views on the Holocaust, and simultaneously denies and alleges being Alt Right in spite of its non-White elements. Oslan plays the usual dual role of claiming to be White and having no group preference while simultaneously claiming privileged status as a Jew and oy veying about muh Holocaust, but it was Episode 12B that was most questionable. In it, Oslan suggested Whites should adopt black babies, a narrative that is also being pushed by other Jews like Ezra Levant of Rebel Media. The second is that this is the time of year when many have just celebrated the fact that a Judaic festival has usurped a European one.




Ann Sterzinger sadly seems to have been taken in by Oslan, who introduced her to the source of her current woes, the Forneycator, Matt Foreskin. She thus agreed with him wholeheartedly, as it was put in such good humour. As if to fear that someone would catch him out, Oslan immediately went into the Jewish stereotypical behaviour of oy veying about anti-Semitism. These people behave like clockwork automatons. Adopting non-White children is precisely how the series of events that lead to the downfall of Europe begins in Jean Raspail's Camp des Saints and I am sure the likes of Edwin Oslan and Ezra Levant are not ignorant of this. As I pointed out in the Mjolnir Magazine Issue III Editorial, adoption of non-White children also creates aberrations like Rachel Dolezal. Oslan argued during his rant that people like me dislike the Jews simply for being Jews, when it is precisely this relentless deconstruction of our European norms that rustles our jimmies. I do not even think Oslan is conscious of what he is doing; I believe the deconstruction of the Other is an intrinsic part of Jewishness, and this is something I wish to explore now.


The father of the twentieth-century theory of deconstruction is Jacques Derrida, a French-Algerian Jew who used post-modernist semiotics as a means to break down Western society at its most basic level, by perverting the connection between language and meaning:


Every sign, linguistic or nonlinguistic, spoken or written (in the usual sense of this opposition), as a small or large unity, can be cited, put between quotation marks; thereby it can break with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts in an absolutely nonsaturable fashion. This does not suppose that the mark is valid outside its context, but on the contrary that there are only contexts without any center of absolute anchoring. This citationality, duplication, or duplicity, this iterability of the mark is not an accident or anomaly, but is that (normal/abnormal) without which a mark could no longer even have a so-called “normal” functioning. What would a mark be that one could not cite? And whose origin could not be lost on the way?


It is indeed Western culture, Western religion and Western reason itself he specifies as the target for deconstruction, as I have mentioned in speeches before, and here again in his De la Grammatologie:


The idea of science and the idea of writing—therefore also of the science of writing—is meaningful for us only in terms of an origin and within a world to which a certain concept of the sign (later I shall call it the concept of sign) and a certain concept of the relationships between speech and writing, have already been assigned. A most determined relationship, in spite of its privilege, its necessity, and the field of vision that it has controlled for a few millennia, especially in the West, to the point of being now able to produce its own dislocation and itself proclaim its limits.


Deconstruction theory has now been applied to every aspect of Western art and Western culture. Everything is to be deconstructed and turned on its head, including architecture (see below), literature (including interpretation of old texts through criticism), philosophy, education, religion (which we will explore in more detail) etc., but also things that are grounded in the material, like and especially race and gender. These latter two are important to deconstruct for our enemies, because both target procreation and the ability for the Ethnic European peoples to reproduce themselves at the material level. This is why what we are facing is nothing less than genocide.



Yet, as said, deconstruction is part of the Jewish psyche, as is projection and genocide. One can readily observe this in their very religion, which shapes and moulds them just as they have shaped and moulded it as a reciprocal reflection of themselves (something that Professor Kevin MacDonald as a Christian skirts around). The fact that many Jews have deconstructed their own religion and even themselves ought to come as no surprise, hence the stereotype of the self-hating Jew, for, when there is no Other available, there deconstructive nature will turn in on itself. As I have previously mentioned in my speech on Ted Hughes at the Yorkshire Forum, projection, as that phenomenon allegedly observed in White Gentiles by Sigmund Freud, is itself a projection by Freud and his tribe. This is why Jewish intellectuals like Derrida accuse White Europeans of Othering and genocide while doing precisely that themselves. 


In reality, the first recorded genocide is that of the Amorites by the Jews. Genocides have gone on throughout history, perpetrated by diverse peoples, but what is interesting about Jewish genocides is that their god Yahweh always endorses them - in fact not only endorses them, but mandates them. The story of Saul related in the Books of Samuel tells us that Yahweh's punishment for refusing the complete genocide of the Amalekites by Saul was the dispossession of his kingdom and death of his line. Equally, what is peculiar about Yahweh is the denial of other deities. Non-Judaic thought is that distinct gods and religions pertain to distinct peoples and that all peoples have their own gods as spiritual incarnations of themselves and their divine relationship to Nature. In the Judaic tradition, which includes Christianity and Islam, all gods but Yahweh are false gods. Yet simultaneously, Yahweh lets the cat out of the bag when that deity gives the Commandment to Moses:


Thou shalt have no other gods before me.


So there are other gods then - even if they are false. The non-existence of other peoples' gods is as false as the current claim that there is no White Race. Simultaneously, of course, the White Race is the cancer of human history while (((Tim Wise))) plays White and deconstructs himself as a White. Yet in Jewish thought, there must always be the need for an Other - an outsider, an enemy - even if the Other simultaneously does not exist, yet exists as false. As everything divine outside of the Hebraic tradition is false for those within the tradition, this necessitated the creation of Satan - Yahweh's divine Other. Some Whites have seen Satan as a liberator from Yahweh's authoritarianism, but both entities are part of the same cancerous Herbraic thought.


Unlike with the White European Gods, who in part reflect and magnify the existence of White European mortals onto a grand divine scale, Yahweh is also 'Other' in relation to mortals, whose ways are not the ways of men (Isaiah 55:8), which may also account for the Jews' mass rejection of their own god. Yet simultaneously, they cling to their deity through their adherence to Jewish culture as divine and an intrinsic part of themselves. This is why Jews would always be Other to us and always unassimilable even if they were racially Same. Yet their culture is a product of their intrinsic racial Otherness and why they must be excluded. Their inclusion would only result and has only resulted in the madness of doublethink, where alien thought processes exist alongside indigenous thought processes in the creation of culture.


As a last thought, White European pantheons have both Gods and Goddesses. Yahweh started as leader of the heavenly hosts (warriors) of Semitic tribes in similar fashion as Odin for Nordic tribes, but was elevated to a single omnipotent deity that deconstructed all other religiosities beginning in the 9th century BC onwards. One of that deity's methods of deconstruction was through absorption. His former consort Asherah was thus absorbed into himself. Yahweh is thus hermaphroditic. Christians ought to ask themselves the question: if Adam was made in Yahweh's image, in whose image was Eve made if only Yahweh exists? This also explains the postmodern Judaic obsession with gender equality and gender neutrality. Transhumanists even go so far as to explore the possibility of creating a single gender through science. And thus when Christians talk of Baphomet in its transgendered representation as evil, and of transgenderism as a secular extension of this, it is as much a critique of the Semitic deity they worship and an admission that, deep down, their instincts are still European and that they have betrayed their own Gods and Goddesses - and, in doing so, have betrayed themselves.

1 comment:

  1. I think something that might help people understand the JQ and other issues surrounding mixing groups and allowing another group to rule you is Emergent Behaviour. A single ant on its own has very simple patterns and behaviour, almost no mind to speak of, yet with a large group of them complicated structures and behaviours can form. None of this requires any real communication or understanding. No ant sits down to a meeting with slides or applies to the local government for planning permission to expand the nest in one direction or to dump waste. The many come together instinctively as a connected whole and complicated behaviour above and beyond any individual's understanding forms. None of the individuals would be aware they are part of a group effort. In this same way it could explain the dangers of mixing groups and allowing groups to infiltrate while simultaneously answering the frequently used rebuttal of criticism of allowing non native influence and control to reign over Europeans. Even if many were innocent and well meaning when individually spoken to, the problem is group dynamics and the whole. People have become obsessed with the individual to the point that they've forgotten groups and group results exist. It's the same reason that people are perpetually puzzled by the outcomes of having large non native groups within or in power and end up having to lay all blame on some mysterious and always moving target of a bad egg that somehow masterminds it all themselves. If you could interrogate a million ants no one ant would be the mastermind of the nest building project or the plan to steal your egg and cress sandwich from the picnic blanket. Yet it happens and can happen consistently and predictably for a million years.

    It's partly by ignoring groups and ignoring nature itself and assuming that somehow, uniquely, that Man is untouched by nature and its rules and results that we've ended up in such a sorry state today. Once aware of such a thing it seems like madness to assume these large natural group emergent behaviours do not appear in any form with something as numerous and complex as us and of course all the various tribes who, just like different groups of animals all have their own emergent behaviours springing out of their genetics, cultural teachings and racial memory. Millions of choices made in a day, most of which we are barely aware of or not at all. Multiply that up by millions more over generations and you've got huge scope for emergent behaviour. Especially as the human form allows for longer lasting results even than an ants nest, with art, writing and cultural legacies.

    This group element and emergent behaviour can apply to the European and the Gods that he forms and the worlds that he shapes when left to it. When the European was placed in Australia or South Africa he made Europe. When placed in Canada or America he made Europe. All far apart and different lands and even different mixes of European stock at different times but the distinctly European forms emerge each time, corrupted and drifting from that only when other groups become dominant or begin to replace the European within those lands. Like constantly adding almonds to a cake mix, the cake tastes more like almond over time. Somehow that last statement is a shocking and surprising thing to those who think open borders have no consequences. Modern Cultural Marxism is a mile wide and an inch deep in the population. It can only exist because it is not questioned every day, because no child is there to point out the nudity of the Emperor every day.