IN Bonn in 1978, at the height of the Jewish “dissident” noise in the USSR, an exasperated White reporter, in private conversation with a few other non-Jews, forgot his place to the extent of asking the following excited questions: Is there any doubt in your minds that this is part of a pattern? That the format is always the same? That first the Jew creates the situation himself by breaking some law or ethical understanding, and then howls persecution when the transgressed society holds him responsible? That the media and the government — up to and including the President — would not pay any attention to the “Russian” dissidents were it not for Jewish pressure?
He glared at us challengingly, and we stared blandly back. In the state to which non-Jews have been reduced, no one dares acknowledge such remarks, let alone agree with them. (The correct technique is to change the subject, to turn to your neighbor and start talking about something innocuous, to ignore the black sheep completely, at least until he comes to his senses.) We are as careful as those in the Communist countries on their forbidden topics. As careful, and certainly more cowardly.
Amusingly (and sadly) enough, the reporter abased himself next morning with all of us, saying he must have had too much to drink (he hadn’t), in manner not unlike a brainwashed recanter in a staged Moscow trial.
We are very well-trained serfs, as adept at the ingratiating cringe as any in history. Why are we so? I think because we have been taught from birth that we must keep our mouths shut in order to succeed, and to hold what we have. This applies to the monied, socially prominent, and professional classes — the rulers of the country. (Well, once the rulers — now the collective managerial class for the actual rulers.)
Before the minorities took over, we only had to put up with the drawbacks of the system itself. Conditioned to passivity, we then permitted the insolences of the minorities and finally gave in to them entirely because we thought (and think) that we must stay quiet in order to enjoy our material well-being. The attitude is the fatal flaw of the European stock, perhaps especially for North Europeans, far more sinister and repulsive, really, than the succumbing to tyranny of those races with no background of personal freedom.
Interestingly enough, as Shaw continually pointed out about the English, if you threaten the European physically, he will fight. (Or he would have until recently; now he may well be too comatose.) But if you threaten him with the loss of respectability (synonymous with material possessions), he will roll over.
This is the Achilles’ heel discovered and exploited by the minorities, especially the Jews, who made themselves and all their works in every field so ultra-respectable that no “refined” White would dream of questioning them or their products. They and those products — from Freud’s science to Israel to Elliot Gould’s acting — are so entwined in the White man’s mind with his social and financial position that he could no more criticize them than he could tear up his checkbook and give all his worldly goods to charity.
It is a fabulous cowardice, of a type and on a scale unprecedented in human history. Perhaps someday it will be comprehended in retrospect. And perhaps not. In the meantime, we shall very probably remain cowards as long as the country has the resources for the material possessions game, no matter the minority excesses. If that game comes to an end, as it well may, we might then turn on the “minorities.”
* * *
Source: based on an article in Instauration magazine, October 1978