Category: crimes of the Jews

The Ratchet Only Moves Left

The victorious Left.

Look at the history of the United States over the last 60 years or so.  When a “liberal Democrat” is President – particularly when coupled with a Congressional majority of like kind – leftist, anti-White policies come fast and furious.  This was especially prevalent with Lyndon Johnson, with the Civil Rights and Immigration Acts, and the other social engineering of the 1960s, including the “war against poverty” that transferred untold amount of wealth from White to Black America (there’s your reparations, right there); it was also prevalent with Barack Obama, with DACA.  But, here’s the point – when a “conservative Republican” is in power, even when coupled with a Republican Congress, the country still moves to the Left, albeit a slightly slower pace than before, but sometimes faster socially and culturally.  Nixon gave us affirmative action and busing, Reagan gave us illegal amnesty and the Martin King holiday, the Bush family were racial liberals, and Trump is a fraud who has done nothing for his base and has made sounds about increasing legal immigration.  Speaking of mass immigration, it – in both its legal and illegal forms – has been in full force, regardless of who is in power. There’s never any attempt to meaningfully reverse any leftist initiative.  Executive orders regarding affirmative action remain in force, despite whatever “conservative Republican” is in power.  Culturally and socially, the country moves to the Left in either case – it certainly did under Johnson (mostly because of the war in his case) – but “conservative Republicans,” despite not actually doing anything “conservative” domestically as regards race and culture, trigger intense leftist social activism.  We saw it under Reagan, and even more virulently under Trump.  We see the same in Europe. Rightist governments never reverse the tide of immigration, never attempt to repeat “hate speech laws” with restrict their own freedom of expression, never leave international agreements obligating them to take in refugees (America is the same) – which is the equivalent of open borders, since any invader can (and do) claim to be a “refugee” and has to be processed as such.

Both the Left and Right attack those on the Right.  Obviously, the Left does so, but when the Right is in power, they love nothing more than do concentrate their firepower on those farther to their Right.  “Based” Austria and Poland attack the Far Right, going so far as to ban Taylor from Europe (Poland) for example.  Trump’s DOJ persecutes his own supporters while giving Antifa a free pass; while people on the right have been virtually begging Trump to do the right (and obvious) thing and declare Antifa a domestic (and international) terrorist organization, he only has eyes toward Iran (we have to satisfy Jews, of course).

Of course, when it comes to actual “extremist” groups, the Left wins again, their groups are wildly successful while the Far Right is comically inept.

The ratchet always move sin only one direction – toward the Left.

The Left has psychological intensity, for the Right it’s a hobby, the Right has no staying power, no drive.  The Left fights for a future (from our perspective a nightmare future), the Right fights for an imagined past.  The Left engages, the Right talks about being “snug in your hobbit hole.”

And, of course, the Mainstream Right is based on the same egalitarian lies as the Left; no wonder they move the ratchet in the same direction.  The Far Right is based on healthier ideas, but is composed of highly defective and unhealthy people and thus is incapable of achieving anything of value.

But, to be fair, the Jewish Question – at least here in America – raises its ugly head.  A thought experiment – imagine that Jews as a whole were right-wing, pro-White, nationalistic, with an agenda to promote wholesome family values – as opposed to the reality which is the complete inverse of all of that. In this bizarre world of right-wing pro-White American Jews, it would likely be the Right going from victory to victory, and the Left being inept and hopeless.  If all the Jewish intelligence, money, power, and influence were channeled to the direction of pro-White interests, it wouldn’t be as helpless as it is now.  But that’s only a thought experiment – Jews are a non-European, non-Western people with a historical – virtually inbred – animus towards Whites and the West, and they will, as a matter of course, as a group, oppose White interests and work for Western degeneration.  However, to be fair, we cannot blame the Far Right for all their failures here in America, although if they were clever and competent, they would find they still have room to maneuver.  European Rightists have less of an excuse, as the Jewish power is not as directly powerful there as here, although it is an important factor, including via powerful, indirect American influences.

The JQ cannot be changed.  How Der Movement deals with it, and the overall situation caused by it, can change.  The JQ is part of the problem, and the Far Right will ultimately be judged by its success or lack thereof, and success has to be obtained in the face of a determined and ethnically cohesive foe. This problem is “baked into the cake” of anti-Whiteness.  It cannot be evaded. Has Der Movement successfully dealt with it, or any other problem for that matter?  Has the Right as a whole understood what it needs to do?  Has it achieved any lasting victories whatsoever?  Or is it hopelessly inept?

If you want to defeat a powerful enemy, then being hopelessly inept is not the way to-do it.  And “hopelessly inept” is the perfect description of the Far Right.

Advertisements

A Call for Desegregation and Other Matters

Observations.  In all cases, emphasis added.

The great and good Jew Judge Sand destroyed Yonkers via “desegregation.”  Very well. I agree: We need desegregation!  Homogeneous communities are unacceptable!  I say we start here.

Let’s build some nice low income housing there, and bring in lots of poor Black and Hispanic families.  Mix it up!  The vibrant diversity will flourish in New Square!  Why not?  Can someone explain why New Square must be bereft of diversity?  New Square would also seem to be a perfect place for relocating refugees and other migrants.  Central Americans, Somalis, Syrians…the more the better.  They deserve a chance at a new life, no?  We can have some nice Black boys in New Square to date the Jewish girls, and nice Catholic Hispanic girls for the Jewish boys.  Again, can someone on the Left please explain to us why that should not occur?  Why don’t you go to New Square and not leave – make your stand! – until the community is properly desegregated? 

Notre Dame as an analogy for the fall of the West?  Perhaps. Blame Der Movement for that – squandering the last chance we’ve had to save race and civilization.  Notre Dame crashing and burning – just like the Alt Right. And do you think it would make any difference if the French authorities would find evidence of terrorism there and admit it?  Whites would enthusiastically flock to the streets – to demand more immigration, protect their Muslim “brothers and sisters” from a “backlash,” and vote to turn what’s left of the church into a mosque. 

An example of a stupid bastard.  Whither those big Nord Brains, Durocher?

Agreed (except for the praise of the Unz site):

Niccolo Salo says: • WebsiteNext New Comment

April 15, 2019 at 2:42 pm GMT • 100 Words

Who is this fucking clown? Hilarious shit.

“If there is even a partial biological basis to (northwest) Europeans’ psychology, which in turn underpins Western culture in all its uniqueness, then the genetic replacement and dissolution of this population through immigration will, eventually, mean the end of that psychology and culture.”

Imagine assigning the greatness of Western Civ to Nords like this guy does.

I read Unz Review daily because it does deliver a lot of quality but this piece has to be one of the most embarrassingly bad ones that I’ve ever come across here.

Congrats Monsieur Durocher.

Meet Ron Unz.  Unz:

…few forces that could so easily break America as the coming of white nationalism.

Johnson and Durocher write for this Jew.  Disgusting.  Now, knowing these type, I can imagine their riposte. First, we’ll be told that my comments (from yesterday) about Pierce not tolerating WN 2.0 hijinks is “low information moralizing” because Pierce dealt with the Jew publisher Lyle Stuart.  Next, we’ll be told that Unz criticizes Jews and allows writers at his site to do the same, so any criticism of the Unz site is more “low information moralizing.” Let’s consider each argument in turn.

From what I can gather about Stuart, he was a type often found in his tribe – intentionally provocative and attention seeking.  Under the banner of being an advocate of unrestricted free speech, Stuart published a wide variety of controversial books on many topics. He was not an ideologue, he did not try to steer Far Right thought in any direction, and he certainly didn’t fund individual “thinkers” to promote a specific worldview.  The Unz site,on the other hand, does indeed promote a spexific worldview that is,ultimately congenial to Jewish interests.  And as far as criticism of Jews goes, that’s not what “rightist”-oriented Jews fear. The main enemy  for them is pan-European nationalism that unites all Whites and excludes Jews.  

Allowing criticism of Jews so as to attract “anti-Semites” to participate in the anti-WN and anti-pan-European HBD project is just sound strategy. I suppose the Quota Queens haven’t noticed that Unz and the various “Amren Jews” – Hart. Weissberg, Levin, etc. – all seem to share certain memetic characteristics.  All are HBDers, all are “race realists,” all would tend to praise Jewish and Asian IQ, all have some level of distaste for hardcore White nationalism, all would seem to favor Jeurasian “cognitive elitism” over pan-European nationalism.  Let’s look at some people funded by Unz.  Greg Cochran, who muses that Israel should conquer Italy for Jewish lebensraum and who, if I recall correctly, was skeptical of “Salterism.”  Steve Sailer – anti-WN “citizenist” and prime HBDer.  “Razib” Khan – whose GNXP was a prime opponent of WN, promoter of “cognitive elitism, and which delighted in attacking any and all manifestations of pan-Europeanism in favor of intra-White division. GNXP also featured scurrilous attacks against Salter. “The Unz Review” has columns by the despicable Jayman – a non-White HBDer who – just like GNXP – attacks Salter, attacks White ethnics, and promotes intra-White division.  Then we have the Judeophile Derbyshire, a prime HBDer who thinks Amren conference attendees are “latrine flies” and who has written in support of miscegenation.  See any underlying connection, perhaps?

So…are you still going to equate Unz with Stuart?  Are you still going to argue that Unz is A-OK because some criticism of Jews can sometimes be found at his site?

You are all absolutely despicable.

Genome sequences are known for two archaic hominins-Neanderthals and Denisovans-which interbred with anatomically modern humans as they dispersed out of Africa. We identified high-confidence archaic haplotypes in 161 new genomes spanning 14 island groups in Island Southeast Asia and New Guinea and found large stretches of DNA that are inconsistent with a single introgressing Denisovan origin. Instead, modern Papuans carry hundreds of gene variants from two deeply divergent Denisovan lineages that separated over 350 thousand years ago. Spatial and temporal structure among these lineages suggest that introgression from one of these Denisovan groups predominantly took place east of the Wallace line and continued until near the end of the Pleistocene. A third Denisovan lineage occurs in modern East Asians. This regional mosaic suggests considerable complexity in archaic contact, with modern humans interbreeding with multiple Denisovan groups that were geographically isolated from each other over deep evolutionary time.

Hmmm…read this.

The only concern shown for the white majority is how to keep them placated as their communities are torn apart by immigration, how to keep them silent when they get angry, and how to keep them from feeling racial solidarity in the face of overwhelming hordes of hostile foreign races swarming into the countries of their ancestors without their consent.

Like giving them a $1000 per month handout? I don’t expect folks who sell out to a millionaire Jew to see any inconsistency in their blog’s positions.

Read this. And in the West, demographics are replacing humans with monkeys.

And so it goes.

(Jewish) Crime and (White) Punishment

Food for thought.

Fyodor Dostoevsky was very prescient. When reading the excerpt below consider that the plague in question could be thought of as Marxism broadly defined – not only traditional Marxism, but Cultural Marxism, Psychological Marxism (Freud, Frankfurt School),  Racial Marxism, every social infection and perversion that has been propagated by a certain Levantine (Asia) tribe (microbes, and the memes are microbes as well) infecting the White race (Europe and then the world). Fyodor the Christian would no doubt be offended by my considering Christianity as one of the egalitarian Marxian creeds emanating from Asia to infect European Man.

Excerpt from the epilogue of Crime and Punishment.  Emphasis added:

He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia. All were to be destroyed except a very few chosen. Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection. All were excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify. Men killed each other in a sort of senseless spite. They gathered together in armies against one another, but even on the march the armies would begin attacking each other, the ranks would be broken and the soldiers would fall on each other, stabbing and cutting, biting and devouring each other. The alarm bell was ringing all day long in the towns; men rushed together, but why they were summoned and who was summoning them no one knew. The most ordinary trades were abandoned, because everyone proposed his own ideas, his own improvements, and they could not agree. The land too was abandoned. Men met in groups, agreed on something, swore to keep together, but at once began on something quite different from what they had proposed. They accused one another, fought and killed each other. There were conflagrations and famine. All men and all things were involved in destruction. The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.

The new pure chosen people – ethnocentric White nationalists?

.. but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.

Maybe because they were censored and deplatformed?

Nutzi Sunday

Type I filth killing racial activism.

Guess who the “your” describes, eh?  All the rest of the quota queens and their enablers, with their wink, wink, nod, nod toward dysfunctionals (because they are dysfunctional themselves).

It’s hard for me to express how much I loathe these Type I retards – whatever little memetic progress Der Movement makes, tiny baby steps, can be ruined, set back, by one thoughtless act.  So, Instead of “screw your optics,” how about “screw your juvenile acting out?”  Can this specimen explain to us – from his jail cell – exactly what he thinks he has accomplished with his little steel city escapade?

Is it fair to blame Der Movement for this?  After all, they’ll say, anyone can assert adherence to a cause and do stupid things.  Fair enough.  However, I make two points.

First, the Type I core of Der Movement, with its crudity, stupidity, quota systems, rigid dogma, etc. attracts and nurtures trash like Mr. Screw Your Optics

Second, the constant failure of Der Movement, its ineptness, its utter lack of any hope of real progress, induces despair in its followers, leading some to act out in frustration. They have no outlet for pent-up activist energies, because there is “no there there” in Der Movement, it is all sound and fury signifying nothing. So, some unbalanced Nutzis create their own sound and fury in response.

So, yes, indirectly, Der Movement is responsible.  And note I am not whining about Christian morality here or, worse, “mourning the victims.”  My concern is with White racial activism, and the constant harm done to said activism by Der Movement and its retarded followers.

And thanks a lot, Type I scum, for giving Mama Merkel, the Queen of Auto-Genocide, the chance to engage in international moral posturing.

Der Movement will NEVER make ANY progress as long as Type I trash are running the show.  The Type Is need to sit down, shut up, and let Type II adults grab the reigns for once.

Johnson and I sort of agree in one sense and disagree in another:

Counter-Currents

‏@NewRightAmerica

 37m37 minutes ago

More Counter-Currents Retweeted Joyce

Disavowing is too weak. We need to morally condemn cranks who go on shooting sprees. Since when does condemning evil NOT help you maintain your moral legitimacy? Doing good and shunning evil is pretty much the essence of a moral life. It doesn’t matter what our enemies think.

Moral condemnation – but only in the sense described below.  Not in an absolute sense.  I don’t consider the shooter “evil” – merely incredibly stupid, reckless, and asinine.  I’m not concerned about how the broader society views my moral legitimacy other than how it affects White racial activism.  So, yes, I am concerned, but only in a utilitarian sense.  My morality is different from that of the broader society, and while I am currently forced to adhere to the latter (most of the time), I do not grant it an inherent legitimacy.  I maintain authenticity by following, in a moral sense, my own inner directives.

Now, how do I judge the morality of a racially relevant action?  Adapting Salter’s “mixed ethic” I propose a two part scheme:

First, does the action advance or harm White racial interests?  If it harms those interests, it is immoral.  If it advances those interests, then –

Second, does the action reasonably, and to the extent practically possible, minimize the harm done to the individual rights of Whites and to the individual and group rights of non-Whites?  After all, one could think of many actions that could in theory advance White interests but do so at costs that would offend most people’s innate sense of objective (aracial and disinterested) morality and human decency – even (possibly) offend my own sense of morality that is different from that of the broader society. If such an action was truly necessary, then the costs would have to be accepted; however, if significant moral cost is incurred for some marginal gain in White racial interest, a cost that would offend the inherent moral sense of Whites, then I argue that marginal advantage – something not existential, not required for racial survival and reasonable racial prosperity – can be foregone.

This idiotic attack on the Synagogue fails test one, and would fail test two even if it did not fail test one. 

At this point people looking to trap me in an inconsistency will say: “hey, I thought you were a Moralpath and such people will accept even war and genocide to do what they feel is right – so why do you reject this action?”  The point is – doing what’s right.  The underlying basis for moralpathy is pursuing one’s moral path regardless of where it leads. That does not have to be the most extreme choice in every instance. In some cases, restraint is deemed right, in other cases, war and genocide. It depends upon context. Shooting up a Pittsburgh synagogue achieves nothing positive that I can see, and instead is a net negative for White racial activism. Thus, it is not “right” as I define it, so I oppose the action.  On the other hand, if White survival in another context required war and genocide, then war and genocide it must be.  Further, if Whites become extinct I say let the world burn and I do not want “high IQ Asians” to rule and prosper; in my view, any human world that allows White extinction does not deserve to survive and prosper.  Context, my friends, context.

I recently critiqued Greg Johnson when he implied that he and his site do not obsessively criticize Richard Spencer. It would seem others share that view.  A partially censored comment by Andrew Joyce:

Greg Johnson…His fixation on Spencer appears almost Biblical, and is inexplicable unless one assumes Spencer occupies a massive role in his psyche. Strange…

I censored part of the comment because I’m not interested in personal ad hominem against Johnson or anyone else; I’m concerned with ideas and actions.  The issue here is the Johnson-Spencer feud, and what I termed the “ugliness” of Johnson kicking Spencer when the latter is at a low point, both “professionally” and personally.  Let it go, Greg.  How about a moratorium on Spencer comments at Counter-Currents?

And this humorous aside from Joyce:

My goal for 2019 is to think about my wife at least half as often as Greg Johnson seems to think about Richard Spencer.

Note carefully the comments to this essay, focusing particularly on those by miguel70, minsc, and, of course, O’Meara.

West Coast White nationalism, I suppose.  The “big tent” (of the circus freak show).

More O’Meara:

The Right of course promotes extermination of the homo; the Left originally promoted promiscuity and hedonism, but when AIDS made this impractical, pivoted to a modified version of the Right’s “family values” — contrary to all historical evidence, the gays always wanted to marry and raise children!

In both cases, society loses the important contributions of the homo to culture and statecraft…

Extermination?  How about not making Far Right activism a front for pushing a homosexual agenda?  This has been going on a long time.  I remember the early days of online Yahoo groups, with “gay National Socialist” groups. What was that?  An intellectual discussion of sexuality and politics?  No, instead it was a disgusting hook-up site with adverts such as “U Piss, I Drink.”  

Contributions to “culture and statecraft?”  How come those contributions were more legitimate in past centuries, when (religious) intolerance to homosexuality was greater?  Sublimation was the real outcome of “The Right,” not “extermination.”  It’s today’s tolerance that brings degeneration. Historically speaking, the evidence is that homosexual contributions to society are maximized in situations far more restrictive than in today’s society…or on certain WN blogs.

Greg Johnson

Posted October 25, 2018 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

I’m approving this comment because I am a connoisseur of jaundiced rants by paranoids. I love it when lunatics act patronizing.

A self-referential “meta” comment if there ever was one.

Pure delusion:

The Cultural Renaissance began more than eight years ago at Counter-Currents. Why not lend your shoulder to the wheel?

If Trump as not a retarded fraud, and if Sessions was not a far-left cuck, this here is all the “legal justification” they need to refuse entry of the Invasion Caravan. The “refugees” were offered “refuge” in Mexico.  They refused.  The want the USA.  They are economic migrants, they are invaders, and they are no different from the Wehrmacht marching through Paris in 1940.  This is a test for Trump.  Put down the Big Mac and act.

They’re …HuWhite.  Meyer Lansky, Antifa…what’s the difference?

I agree with much of what Strom says about the Jews, although we disagree on other issues.  For the most part, I agree with Joyce’s writings at TOO.  But for the sake of consistency, both men need to take on the Alt Wrong.  Why should certain people be sacrosanct and above criticism?  If both Joyce and Strom view Jews as a particularly pernicious influence, then why “hold your fire” against those who bring Jews into the heart of pro-White activism?  

Born in Blood

Strom piece.

They’re…HuWhite!

I assume Strom will continue to discuss the ADL’s perfidy over the next episodes, all of their sordid history.  The problem is we’ve heard all of this before, he’s preaching to the choir.  The net effect on the wider White population: zero.  A more helpful analysis would be this: how was the ADL actually founded, organizationally speaking, how was it structured, how was it funded, how did it network, how did it compromise Gentile elites?  No doubt much of that was due to the Jews’ specific characteristics, their extreme ethnocentrism, and some of the criminal connections Strom alluded to.  But, there must be some lessons in the ADL story that can be educational for White activists wishing to emulate some aspects of ADL organizational structure, fundraising success, and ability to leverage influence over crucial elites.  Even if a pro-White group were achieve only a small fraction of the ADL’s success, this would be an enormous gain over the nothing we have now.  I wish that Strom – an intelligent fellow who has done his research – would help us by dissecting the keys to the ADL’s success with a specific emphasis on those keys that would be possible for us to learn from, adapt, and implement.

The Ascent of Saint Adolf

Brief book review. 

Reading this relatively new Hitler book, which concentrates on the first 50 years of Hitler’s life (1889-1939) I note that it contains the usual snide, conformist, and biased anti-Hitler and anti-NS comments one comes to expect from politicized hacks. The anti-Hitler and anti-NS comments come fast and furious; after all, Mr. Ullrich, the author, has to maintain his status in polite society as a good-white cuck (and also does not want to suffer the same fate as David Irving, eh?).

One example of Ullrich’s gratuitous anti-Hitlerism is his smug labelling of the grand architectural plans of Hitler and Speer as “sheer insanity” and “megalomania.”  In contrast, I view those plans as inspiring, and as a reasonable model of what a European Imperium should build – nay, even greater than Hitler and Speer had planned!  

Hitler and Speer planned for the ages, planned for eternity, planned for what they hoped would be a German Empire.  What would the likes of Ullrich wish to see instead, I wonder?  A “Germany” full of mosques, perhaps, with NECs running wild in the streets and African Negroes swinging from the trees?  If that’s what they wish, they are, thanks to Mama Merkel, well along in those developments. “Germany” as a subaltern cuck nation colonized by the Third World: that sounds like a textbook definition of “sheer insanity” to me.

Particularly amusing is the author’s description of the Nuremberg race laws as an example of “grotesque senselessness” because of some sort of alleged inability of the Nazis to define Jewish ancestry (which, for some mysterious reason, the Jews themselves were perfectly capable of doing).  Modern genetics confirms the validity of the Nuremberg concept, as even quarter-Jews can be genetically distinguished from gentile Europeans.  The bulk of what we know as Jews constitute a reasonably defined ethnic group, and certainly, within that larger grouping, the Ashkenazim, consisting of the vast bulk of those Jews that the Nuremberg laws dealt with, constitute a particularly well defined ethny.  Given the strong correspondence between Jewish identity and Jewish genetics, the Nazi identification of, say, a half-Jew, as someone with two grandparents belonging to the “Jewish religious community,” is actually biologically sound, and far from the “grotesque senselessness” that the scientifically illiterate Ullrich pretends it is.

There are some even more obvious factual errors in the book as well; for example, what to make of September 27, 1939 being described as “several weeks before the beginning of the Second World War” (emphasis added)?

An annoying part of the book is all the sob stories about the “persecution” of the Jews during this pre-WWII period of the Nazi regime. We have the gnashing of the teeth about Kristallnacht, as well as the alleged horrors Jews suffered in Vienna after the Anschluss – university professors made to scrub the streets with their bare hands, or “pious” old Jews made to do “leg squats” in temples while yelling “Heil Hitler!”  But didn’t others have things worse, including ethnies that were the victims of Jewish communist-led genocide?  How many Slavs were slaughtered by the Jews in the Soviet Union?  Was scrubbing the streets or doing deep knee bends worse than millions of Ukrainians being deliberately starved to death in the Holodomor, while grinning Levantines carted off the foodstuffs?   Ullrich doesn’t have the common decency to acknowledge that Nazi “persecution” of Jews was at least in part motivated by the knowledge of what Jewish communists did to Europeans in the USSR, and the fear that they would have done the same in Germany if they had the opportunity. Yes, indeed, I would assume that Ukrainians watching their children die from starvation would have wished they could have got off easy by scrubbing streets and squatting up and down a few times.  But, hey, they were only Slav gentiles, so who cares about them, right?  

Ignoring all of these glaring flaws, the book is fairly well-written and the objective facts buried under the subjective hysteria do shed some light on the Hitler phenomenon, but I came away from this book with a profound disrespect for Ullrich and his “character.”

And Hitler himself?  Saint Adolf was like an individual given a choice of what to do with his money: either put it into prudent, long-term investments; or got to a casino and engage in the most risky forms of high-stakes gambling – and chooses the latter, losing everything.  The money in this case represents the long-term EGI of the German people and of Europeans as a whole, and, also, the money represents the legitimacy of “Far Right” nationalism, particularly fascist thought, and especially the tenets of National Socialism.  Hitler, being the archetype of the Type I “movement” Nutzi and ethnic fetishist, of course took the gambling route, losing all and ruining all; indeed, it is no wonder Saint Adolf is a grand hero and role model for Der Movement, Inc., since the behavioral patterns of he and they are exactly the same.  In summary: Hitler was an idiot.

The Scorpion and the Frog

Europeans are the Frog.  Guess who the Scorpion is.

A summary.

A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

Read this – Quinn’s finale on the MacDonald-Cofnas dustup.

See this article from 2010, which is relevant to the questions and criticisms of Quinn.

Ultimately, in a sense, Quinn is correct in that whether the Jews are, or are not, acting on behalf of their own evolutionary group interests is irrelevant from the perspective of the victims of Jewish behavior.  Maybe the Jews hate Whites more than they love themselves.  Maybe the Jews are dooming themselves by their embrace of, and promotion of, the poisons they are using to undermine European survival.  It could be irrational; it could just be their nature, as like the Scorpion in stinging the Frog.  In Mein Kampf Hitler asserted that if the Jews succeeded in destroying Aryans, they would turn on each other next, in hate-filled struggle.  Of course, whether or not the Jews will destroy themselves does not obligate Europeans to allow themselves to be destroyed as well.  For the victim of murder, a murder followed by the suicide of the murderer is not more palatable than murder alone.

Perhaps Europeans should worry more about defending themselves against Jewish behavior rather than worrying whether or not that behavior is, or is not, evolutionarily beneficial to Jews.  We need to shift the focus on us rather than on them.