The Suicide Meme
At Gates of Vienna, Fjordman tells us Why I Write About History:I have published perhaps a million words on the Internet, yet the only book to appear in print so far based on my material is Defeating Eurabia, part of which is available online in German. For Scandinavian readers, I have contributed a long chapter in Norwegian to the book Selvmordsparadigmet (“The Suicide Paradigm”), published in May 2010 by the writer Ole J. Anfindsen who runs the website Honest Thinking.The ruling ideology after the Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, is increasingly genocidally anti-White. The ideology demands self-abnegation from Whites for the purpose of protecting jews and other non-Whites. Under this regime Whites are pathologized and attacked for any attempt to organize or pursue our interests. Meanwhile non-White groups, both independently and collectively as "people of color", are encouraged to organize and pursue their interests.
Anfindsen believes that the Western world is in the process of committing suicide and that the ruling ideology after the Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, has been suicidal. I agree with him. The main emphasis of his book is not on Islam, but on Politically Correct censorship and the Multiculturalism of the Western oligarchs. The same goes for my contribution to it. No, I haven’t lost my focus, but I admit that I have changed it somewhat.
The ruling ideology is fundamentally dishonest. It was sold initially as a righteous step toward "non-discrimination" and "anti-racism" and has only gradually revealed itself as overtly discriminatory and anti-White.
I'm glad for Fjordman's shift. Something is wrong, but it isn't suicide. I left the following comment at GoV.
suicide:To call what's happening "suicide" flies in the face of the reality that many Whites are either ignorant of what's happening or continue to labor under the "non-discrimination" deception, and that others are subjected to punishment for speaking out in opposition. When a group of people is deliberately guided toward extinction by deception and coercion that's genocide, not suicide.
the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind
I have not decided to take my own life, not voluntarily, and not intentionally. Likewise for the vast majority of Whites, most of whom are afraid to have more than the vaguest thoughts about what has gone wrong. This situation is imposed - it is not voluntary.
We are betrayed by leaders who lie to us about what is happening and why. They are in a position to know the truth, and they have a duty to tell it, but they do not. Instead they tell us nothing is wrong, or that the symptoms of our "suicide" - genocidal levels of immigration and anti-White discrimination - are "strengths" to be "celebrated"! Only irrational, psychopathic "racists" think something is wrong.
If you're going to talk about this honestly instead of denying or lying about it like they do, then call it genocide. Don't add insult to our injury by slandering us as suicidal.
Labels: fjordman, gates of vienna, genocide, suicide meme
posted by Tanstaafl at 5/26/2010 08:56:00 AM
56 Comments:
"Suicide" doesn't work as an explanation in terms of the ordinary Darwinian framework that we use in explaining other biological events. The simultaneous suicide of formerly successful populations all round the world is not a Darwinian prediction.
"Suicide" is convenient rhetorically, because if you don't challenge this claim the critic is excused from explaining many things.
"Suicide" is an easy explanation if you want to take a light, humorous tone like Mark Steyn, because pouring scorn on losers is easy.
But it's unserious unless you follow up with an explanation of why the laws of natural selection have been suspended in this case.
- Daybreaker
I don`t understand why someone as intelligent and well read as Fjordman doesn`t understand the role of Jews in our destruction.I initially started off as anti-muslim and pro Jews but my research (originating with you Tanstafl)led me to understand the pivotal role of Jews in the demise of Western civilisation. Hasn`t Fjordmann heard of the Frankfurt school?
As far as I am concerned a person`s understanding of Jews and Israel is a litmus test as to whether I take them seriously or not. I have stpped following many so-called `right-wing`blogs when I realised they were pro-Jewish and pro-Israel.
What has to be explained is why Whites on five continents (North America, Southern Africa, Australia, Russian Asia and Europe) found themselves living under policies inimical to their genetic interests over a period of half a century (1960-2010, give or take for individual developments in each state) when up to this time, whatever other faults they had, they had persistently displayed extreme willingness to take turf and hold onto it for themselves and nobody else.
What was a bit under a third of the world's population, that is a very, very successful kind of human being, is now in single digits as a percentage of the world population and falling, while its territories, once firmly held, are coming into play or are outright lost (in Southern Africa).
An event on this scale can't be explained in the same way as a few teenagers over a period of a few weeks offing themselves over a romantic poem.
- Daybreaker
Nor does it do to say that other peoples too develop aging populations when they become wealthy, unless they are also putting their lands up for grabs through persistent mass immigration.
It's implausible to give a bottom-up explanation for the "suicide" of the White masses world-wide when the decisive actions were out of their hands. Immigration is notoriously a policy area where persistent majorities want one thing (restriction), and (in defiance of idealistic democratic theory) the parties persistently and in different countries deliver something else.
Since the explanation isn't bottom-up, it has to be something related to the top-down aspects of our post-WWII political and cultural evolutions.
Modern communications might have something to do with it, and the shift in power that's implied when political parties need money for mass advertising far more than they need lots of activists. I think that's an important part of the story. Small numbers of people with enormous amounts of money and with great communications skills were able to be far more effective than ever before, while politically active poorer masses of the kind that forced the White Australia Policy on reluctant politicians were effectively shut out of political influence.
But first, being shut out of political influence =/= suicide, and second, why shouldn't a shift of power to a smaller, more skilled, more politically willing and wealthier (on average) elite not have made Whites even more formidable competitors than before? After all, small, unrepresentative elites like the House of Lords in London have successfully promoted White ethnic interest in past ages, and the new, post WWII elites would be even better qualified to strategize in the interests of their posterity.
If they were simply incompetent, why should they have been incompetent everywhere at once and generally in the same way over a fifty year period? And even if they were, which is not likely, incompetence =/= suicide.
- Daybreaker
"An event on this scale can't be explained in the same way as a few teenagers over a period of a few weeks offing themselves over a romantic poem."
There is precedent. It has happened before, and it appeared that ultimate (genetic) interests were served by the pursuit of proximate (life, liberty and happiness) interests. A reading of Lincoln Electric Cord speech is very illuminating.
The population had grown to ~30 million. Half of whom were were not "blood of our blood" but certainly our equal, according to Lincoln. The country had expanded, was wealthier and generally more powerful. The founding Americans (overwhelmingly English in 1776, having a population of some 2-2.5 million), had grown to 15 million largely prosperous and happy souls regardless of the fact 15 million immigrants or the sons of immigrants lived among them. The link then between the founding Americans and these new men of Europe was not blood but the love of freedom.
"In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, (loud and long continued applause) and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world."
By what stretch of reasoning do you call that a precedent?
- Daybreaker
Why is it that White countries, and only White countries, have for half a century on five continents generally moved to "multicultural" and / or anti-White policies; generally against the will of the mass of Whites, especially when the new system was brought in and before mass immigration had imported substantial non-White populations to agitate for it and vote for it?
Why has this happened most where modern communications have the most sway?
- Daybreaker
In evolutionary terms, its called a fitness benefit.
Compare it to the UK. In 1770 the UK population was ~6 million. Today it's about 60 million of which ~10% is non-white. The founding Americans comprise ~25% of today's US population which is ~75 million. Fromm 1770 to today the founding Americans, essentially British, grew larger than the motherland. In Darwinian terms it's adaptive behavior.
Ditto Italy or France. The Italian population in 1770 was ~14 million. Today it's ~60 million of which 95% is Italian. From 1770 with mass immigration through to 2010 the founding Americans outnumber and are far more prosperous than Italians whose nation is essentially homogeneous.
The point is not to use Darwin to make your case because it'll bite you in the butt.
"The point is not to use Darwin to make your case because it'll bite you in the butt."
That's like saying not to use science to make your case "because it'll bite you in the butt."
- Daybreaker
"1770 to now" is not homogenous data.
There's 1770 to c. 1960, and then there's the cultural, political and demographic revolution, and government-imposed multiculturalism and relative and in some cases absolute White decline, with the state systematically subsidizing and empowering non-White power blocks while breaking up and stigmatizing any effort by Whites to organize as Whites for their collective interests in their posterity.
By no reasonable construction can the 1960s+ multicultural revolution be called a "fitness benefit" for Whites.
The issue is whether it's "suicide" or not. I agree with TANSTAAFL that it's not.
For many reasons, but here are three:
* The people taking the bulk of the demographic damage had no say over the decisive policies and generally were against the key policy of mass immigration whenever they were asked. So "suicide" is not appropriate language for them.
* The people pushing the cultural and policy changes doing the worst damage were not of the same ethnicity as those taking the damage. So "suicide" is not the appropriate language for what the new elite has been doing. They are indeed strategizing in favor of their own posterity, as Darwinism would predict.
* In post-Soviet Russia, where the unchecked reign of the oligarchs was so devastating, the Russian ethnic "White" population went into very severe decline, but since Putin intimidated the oligarchs into passivity and bloodlessly purged those who wouldn't be intimidated, the government has been openly pursuing pro-Russian, pro-traditional morality and pro-natalist policies (with, from the links I've been following from this blog, more success than is generally recognized outside Russia) and fighting (however brutally and ineptly) only in the narrowly defined national interest, which is more than Americans can say about their government's military policies. The Russian government is still far from ideal, but it seems to have attained a level of pre-modern mediocrity and unabashed ethnocentrism that historical precedents suggest will be enough eventually to let Whites thrive there again.
What kind of "suicide" is it that one group of people does to a different group of people, and that stops when the first group of people is intimidated into passivity?
- Daybreaker
You gave a great answer, Tan. It is nothing to do with suicide. It is everything to do with treason.
Just because some of "our own" seem to swallow the treason delivered to us within our own country and to rationalize that it is good because it has been so gradual and "painless because of our privilege", doesn't make it anything less. It just makes them witless dupes and accomplices who have now become traitors themselves.
Flanders
@ “I don’t understand why someone as intelligent and well read as Fjordman doesn’t understand the role of Jews in our destruction.”
Maybe because the Jews are not as powerful in Norway. Maybe because... I believe it’s high time to ask Fj and the other bloggers at GoV what’s their ethnic group exactly. Dual loyalties could explain their willful blindness (remember how Taksei behaved in my blog last February).
Chechar said...: "Maybe because... I believe it’s high time to ask Fj and the other bloggers at GoV what’s their ethnic group exactly."
I think that's a terrible idea.
- Daybreaker
@ "I think that's a terrible idea."
Of course it's terrible. I had in mind last month's article on Hitler in OD where a nationalist asked Jackson about his ethnic group. Of course: only among friends that's possible.
Fj et al should disclose it without any asking.
"I don`t understand why someone as intelligent and well read as Fjordman doesn`t understand the role of Jews in our destruction"
There are very few Jews in Norway, so their has to be some other explanation.
"There are very few Jews in Norway, so their has to be some other explanation."
Bonnier is an influential media group in Scandinavia.
"Bonnier Books is the leading publishing group in the Nordic region and one of the leaders in Germany...The business area also includes Norway's leading publishing group Cappelen Damm with the bookshop chain Tanum...The business area includes Swedish Film company Svensk Filmindustri (SF) with operations in all of the Nordic countries; SF Bio with cinemas in Sweden and Norway;..."
" Bonnier is a taken name; originally the family was named Hirschel.
Of the seven largest daily newspapers in Sweden, the seven with a daily circulation of over 100,000, the Bonnier family owns four, Dagens Nyheter (the Daily News), Expressen (the Express), Sydsvenska Dagbladet (the Southern Swedish Daily News) and Dagens Industri (the Industry of Today). The largest of the private channels in Sweden is TV4. The Bonnier family directly holds 21,6% of TV4 and through their ownership of the Finnish based Alma media company they hold an additionally 23,4%, totalling up 45% and a virtual control. As head of TV4 we find the Jew Jan Scherman. Through Alma Media, Bonnier also controls MTV3, the most popular channel in Finland with 39,1% of the total viewing time (in 2001) and Subtv, the third largest commercial television channel in Finland, aiming mainly at young adults.
Apropos Finland, Bonnier also owns 23% of MTV in that country. In Finland, Bonnier also controls the leading daily Iltalehti and Kauppalehti, Finland’s largest business media with a circulation of 85.000 per day. Bonnier also control the printing house Lehdentekijät, that produces 40 regularly published magazines in Finland. In addition to that they own five regional papers, 15 local papers and nine free-distribution papers in Finland alone. They further control the Baltic News Service, the leading news bureau in the Baltic region, providing the world with news about the Baltic with a Bonnier touch.
Beside the Bonnier family in Sweden there is the Jew Peter Hjörne (Kaplan), owner and chief editor of Göteborgs-Posten (the Gothenburg Post; GP), the fourth largest newspaper in Sweden with a circulation of 253,700, reaching 600,000 readers daily. GP is furthermore the only newspaper in Sweden’s second city, Gothenburg. Hjörne is also the owner of two local newspapers, Bohuslänningen (32.400) and Strömstads tidning (5,200); both distributed in the Swedish north-west coast area. In addition he controls 22% of Liberala tidningars konsortium (the consortium of liberal newspapers) and thereby Nerike Allehanda (The eighth largest newspaper in Sweden with a circulation of 66,300), Motala tidning/Vadstena tidning (12,800), Bergslagsposten (10,600) and Nya Ludvika tidning (9,500). Finally he also holds 9% of Hallandsposten (31,000).
Hjörne is a part of the old Jewish establishment in Gothenburg and has his way to influence the Gentiles of that city. For instance, when the Jew Steven Spielberg¹s movie Schindler¹s List reached the screens Hjörne personally paid so all senior high school students would see it. The Bonnier family owns 30% and Hjörne owns 10% of The Swedish News-agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå (the Swedish Central News Agency), the mainly news source for the none-local news stories in most minor papers in Sweden.
The largest newspaper in Sweden is Aftonbladet (the Evening Post), jointly owned by the Swedish Labour Union and the Norwegian Schibstedt company. The chief editor, however, is the Jewess Helle Klein, great granddaughter of the former grand rabbi of Stockholm, Rabbi Gottlieb Klein. Her father, Ernst Klein, is influential in Swedish media as well. 1990-1999 he was the chief editor of Östgöta Correspondenten, the ninth largest newspaper in Sweden, and now he sits on its board. He furthermore is president of Svensk Presshistorisk Förening (Swedish association of press history)."
This post that Fjordman has just posted at Mangan’s proves he’s willfully blind on the JQ.
And thanks Tan for engaging with Fj at GoV today here about the JQ.
How can anyone intellectually honest be 'wilfully blind'?
I have met various Scandinavians and without exception they have been atheists. Liberalism,anti-discrimination,the welfare state, sexual liberation,female equality,the basic goodness of man etc. are the tenets of their faith and they get very touchy if you question their beliefs;they are genuinely astounded that anyone would question them.A kind of atheist fundamentalism Perhaps this is why Fjordman refuses to see the Jewish question because he is scared of recognising the importance of religion in our history and culture.Though how anyone would claim to defend Western civilisation without acknowledging the role of the Catholic Church in it`s foundation is beyond me.. It`s like those Wasps who refuse to acknowledge the role of Protestantism in the emancipation of Jews.
The number of jews in Norway is no more the deciding factor than the number of jews in Phoenix, AZ.
The control mechanism is largely economic - as in, you don't dare do what we don't like (for instance, enforcing immigration laws) and everything will be fine, otherwise you'll be in a world of hurt.
Anonymous 4:56:
Yes: Scandinavians are the most notorious Body-Snatched Pods of the West. I really look forward to see these poor bastards meeting The Wall and enjoying their future pain. But atheism per se cannot be the etiology of Scandinavian (Fjordman’s and the like) blindness since I myself am an atheist and can see the JQ. And NS Germany was unchristian too. The Nazis tried to remove the crucifixes from the schools but, at the same time, they wanted to protect the ethnicity of the German people and were fairly conscious of the JQ (see e.g., this beautiful promotional poster of the NS party at the middle of my latest blog’s entry).
I don't know if I would call the Catholic church the founding institution of the West.
I was educated to see our tradition and history stretching back to Rome and Greece. We had at least 1,000 years of Hellenism as our religion, or the Germanic/Norse/Slavic and Celtic paganism of the northerners, before the advent of Christianity. (1000BC - 1AD)
Then we had another 1000 years where both belief systems co-existed, with Christianity on the rise from the time of Charlemene on, culminating in the Northern Crusades cica 1150 and final capitulation of the last Slavic and Baltic pagans in Prussia, Poland, Estonia and Lithuania.
Call it 1AD - 1000AD.
Then we've had roughly another thousand years (1000AD to 2000AD) of Christian civilization.
The secularists seem to gain the upper hand sometime in the 20th Century. It's hard to say we are still a Christian civilization, perhaps.
So even if you take the last 1000 years the Catholic Church was surely important, but so was the Protestant Reformation and it's religion, ideology and leaders. So the Church's undisputed heyday was really quite short in terms of the entire history of the west.
It certainly should not be written out of our history. It was clearly the key institution bridging our culture from the fall of the Western Roman Empire until the late modern period, but neither should it be over-emphasized, neither the importance of Christianity to the West, nor the Catholic Church proper.
"If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles," says Sun Tzu. The problem is that counter-jihadists like Fjordman don’t want to see the enemy. For example, they complain about the Muslim presence in America but rarely, if ever, discuss at length who lobbied to open the immigration gates.
There are only three or four original antique Latin manuscripts in existence.The only reason we have any knowledge of Greeks and Romans is because Catholic monks painstakingly copied by hand ancient Roman and Greek literature.So how could you have Hellenism in Scandinavian countries before the arrival of the Catholic Church?
The Scandinavians were latecomers to Christianity but the Catholic Church baptised Clovis the king of the Franks in 496AD, only ninety years after the Visigoths sacked Rome.Under Charlemagne, the bishops organised schools and encouraged education and arts which lead to the Carolignian Renaissance. After the resurgence of barbarian invasions, the great monastries especially those in Southern Germany remained islands of intellectual life.
The Church founded the first universities,Bologna, Oxford etc.the first hospitals and libraries and influenced the devlopment of Western law.
What is Western civilisation without Chartes,Raphael,Michaelangelo and DaVinci without Dante and Goethe The Protestants contributed no great works of Art, Music or Architectureto Western civilisation
I don`t know how anyone can claim to be a defender ofWestern civilisation without acknowledging the role of the Catholic Church in its foundation!
Regarding Chechar and Daybreaker's exchange above, here's A Personal Disclosure.
Anti-jihad venues tend to attract people who abide double standards for Whites and jews. One example common in general society that gets pushed to an absurd extreme in the anti-jihad milieu is the taking of a firm stand against White racial awareness or nationalism butted right up against an unapologetic, unqualified defense of jews and Israel. With the "suicide" meme we see another glaring double standard - the blaming of whole groups, especially Whites, is perfectly acceptable, as long as it isn't jews.
Based on past encounters I assume the people most actively promoting and defending these double standards are indeed jewish, in whole or part, or likely have one or more close jewish relations. Based on the confessions of former kool-aid drinkers (including myself) I'm sure there are plenty of people, especially those with the more tenuous connections to jews, who are simply confused and conflicted. They sense something is wrong in their world. They want to understand. Anti-jihadism provides one avenue for a patriotic Westerner to feel like they're figuring things out. As long as they profess to be motivated by a love of jews and the righteous defense of Israel it's also perfectly politically correct.
Jews and their useful idiots have long promoted the idea that extremism in the defense of jews and Israel is no vice. That's a healthy sentiment, for jews. Whites going through an anti-jihadi phase can't help but get a heavy dose of this jewish "racism", but also find it alienating. It does however help prime them for an eventual discovery that recognizing and defending their own group and its interests comes more naturally and feels more normal. We can help them along by pointing out the history of our disastrous, compulsory "alliance" with jews.
For the rest, I rarely find it necessary to ask what their jewish link is. The stronger that link, the more quickly they tend to cite it themselves. Even those who don't come clean eventually reveal themselves. They simply can't hold back their fear and loathing at any suggestion that we Whites have our own interests, independent of jewish interests.
I had read your January disclosure before, Tan. But that was not what I am talking about. (To be absolutely fair with disclosures, I am an Iberian white with no Jewish ancestors or family.)
What I had in mind is having or not X ethnic blood. For example, in the OD Hitler thread, a nationalist disclosed that because he was a Slav, he hated the Nazis even if he had no Jewish blood in his veins. I understand him much better after his disclosure. At least Auster and Taksei have disclosed themselves: that’s why they have dual loyalties.
If Fj or other anti-jihadists who are reluctant to see the JP—I mean, just look at Fj’s words today: that he’s a “Semite-ignoro” —disclosed their ethnic group it would be easier to try to understand their blinders and bind spots.
But perhaps, as you say, sooner or later they themselves will confess it...
Oops. I should have written: "ignoro-Semites"
I am reading online" Behind Communism" By Frank L. Britton. Very intersting. Thank God for the internet.
http://www.sunray22b.net/Behind_Communism.htm
Read the excerpt in Britton's book "Propaganda in the Movies" and remember this was written in 1952!
Propaganda in the Movies
For many years Hollywood limited its activities to the more subtle types of propaganda, but in recent years this has changed. Hollywood has now committed itself to producing at least four "race" pictures annually. Most of these pictures are destined beforehand to lose money, and are made for purely propaganda purposes. Some are so inflammatory they cannot be shown in certain sections of the United States.
Typical examples of this type of picture are: "Intruder in the Dust," "Pinky," "Crossfire," "Gentleman's Agreement," "No Way Out," and "Home of the Brave." Invariably these pictures seek to inflame minority groups by portraying them as being abused and persecuted by white "bigots." Such propaganda is frankly designed to arouse race hatred among Negroes, Mexicans, Jews, and other so-called minority groups. These people are being systematically taught to think and act in terms of race—they are being taught a hate philosophy. But there is another aspect to this kind of propaganda. While minorities are being taught race consciousness the white majority is instilled with a sense of guilt for these "wrongs" committed against minority groups. We are taught that consciousness of race is "un-American" and a manifestation of bigotry. We are told that all races are the same, and that we should discard the concept of race.
In this respect, all Jewish propaganda squares exactly with the communist line. There is a popular misconception to the effect that communism strives to set one race against another. This is a half-truth, which means it is more dangerous than a lie. The one thing communists fear more than anything else is a rebirth of race consciousness among the great white majority of the Christian world The communists remember that the very instant the German people became race-conscious, they turned with deadly fury against Jewish-communism. They know the same thing could happen in this country. Therefore, all communist—and Jewish—propaganda is directed in an effort to destroy every vestige of race consciousness among the white people. That is what red propagandists seek to achieve with their propaganda movies and their "tolerance campaigns."
From F.Britton 'Behind Communism" 1952
How can Fjordmann ignore Jews now?
@ “I am currently working on a major book about European cultural achievements, from the Stone Age to the nuclear age and from chocolate to quantum mechanics... The full work will probably be between 700 and 1,000 pages long” –Fjordman
Let’s stick to the original subject of this thread. What kind of intellectual is someone who openly boasts at Mangan’s that he’s a willful ignoramus about Semitism and anti-Semitism? Also, what kind of intellectuals are those who in the counter-jihad blogosphere have been worshipping Fjordman with terms such as “erudite blogger,” “notable blogger” etc? This man who has written about the most unlikely subjects (even a “History of beer”) is overtly reluctant to approach the JQ even though there are several blogsites like Age of Treason, let alone the more academic work of KMD. Mangan’s for example has surprised us all with the sudden “lightning” that Dennis experienced, which resulted in that he is now posting quite a few threads on the JQ and allowing anti-Semites to comment.
Fjordman avoids such threads...
I don’t want to be rude but, to my mind, it’s increasingly obvious that the counter-jihad community is basically made up by intellectual cowards. And I am not talking only about Fjordman. Just look at the Brussels Journal. Have these guys published an article discussing the JQ citing both sides of the debate? I mean: one single fuc***g article?
Tan: I have a question. I understand that you dislike the word suicide. But how would you explain the mind of these gentile, counter-jihad intellectuals who sincerely believe they defend western interests while at the same time are ignoro-Semites even when someone like you or Fellist calls their attention to scholarly works published by mainstream publishing houses (such as KMD’s and Albert Lindemann’s)? If these counter-jihadists are not “suicidal,” what are they?
"How can Fjordmann ignore Jews now?"
A lot of people who come into the right via anti-jihad come from the liberal left. I certainly did. My first motivations revolved around things like honor killings and female circumcision being covered up and ignored.
The liberal opposition to islam stems from islam's extreme hostility to the values they hold dear - values which include not being racial for example.
Eventually some of us realise there are active forces that are using mass immigration for their own purposes and then eventually those forces separate out into the cultural marxists of the left and the global capitalists of the right and then it turns out both of these two groups have the same blood and the same aim.
However some people can't make that last step because their whole life and sense of identity has built on being on the other side of the race argument.
People aren't 100% rational.
@ A lot of people who come into the right via anti-jihad come from the liberal left. I certainly did. My first motivations revolved around things like honor killings and female circumcision being covered up and ignored... However some people [counter-jihadists] can't make that last step because their whole life and sense of identity has built on being on the other side of the race argument. People aren't 100% rational.
Wandrin,
We may agree to disagree about what you posted today in my blog on the Churchill/Hitler debate, but inadvertently you have responded my question to Tan. Thanks.
I too come from the far liberal spectrum of westerners. As you can see in my online Quetzalcoatl book, my original trajectory was child abuse.
This moved me to take a look at child abuse and abuse of women in the Muslim world; which in turn took me to Bruce Bawer (yes: at that moment of my development I could only tolerate reading an anti-Christian far liberal homosexual); which took me to Robert Spencer, which took me to Gates of Vienna: whose administrators are openly philo-Semites and non-racists.
Then I started to read TOQ Online. I liked most of what I read but received a shock nonetheless. And this was even before I could wrap my head around the JQ...
Yes: people aren't 100% rational. Fjordman isn’t one hundred percent rational. But I still think that, unlike us, besides behaving irrationally counter-jihadists are also intellectual cowards.
Two interesting articles about Israel and nuclear weapons. It seems that everyone is waking up to Israel's deviousness; everyone except Fjordmann that is.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/25/watching-israel-delegitimize-the-u-s/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/25/gordon-duff-the-arms-circus-keeping-the-world-in-turmoil/
@ “It seems that everyone is waking up to Israel's deviousness; everyone except Fjordman.”
Speculations about his ethnic group aside, last February, at the heat of the flaming in my blogsite about the JQ, I received an email telling me that a sponsor of a major blogsite that focuses almost exclusively in counter-jihad was Jewish.
This makes me think about Fjordman’s sponsors. Are the Jewish? Surely he must have sponsors. No major blogger who makes a living out of his blogging does it without a sponsor.
The video I include at the bottom of this entry has footage that a Jew (a typical Jew with hat, etc.) entered the room where Auster delivered his conference—presumably the owner of the house, as can be guessed in the video. (BTW, Auster’s was not the blogsite that the sender of email referred to.)
If one of Fjordman’s sponsors is also Jewish, that would solve the enigma of his self-deception, of his cowardice and dual loyalties, right?
@Chechar: "This moved me to take a look at child abuse and abuse of women in the Muslim world...."
Re.: (at least some of) the treatment of women in the Muslim world:
On relatedness and control of reproduction
Is what Fjordman (as well as others) is doing actually a variation on the "Red Herring"? In this instance, the Red Herring is our fellow Whites. The White audience being addressed is the "intelligent and the forward-looking non-racist who is not an anti-semite, but who has an instinctive protective mechanism for Israel - and is tired of the muslims trying to overrun the White countries".
"Also, whenever an individual or group of any prominence criticizes Jewish power or behavior, Jewish organizations associate other races, or groups in with the Jews being criticized, so they can portray the accuser as haters of everyone. This is a smoke screen to cover up the original complaint against Jewish supremacists activities with a false counter accusation of "racial hatred", in order to discredit the accuser and his complaint. This tactic is more widely known as the 'Red Herring' technique. Below is an example of a Red Herring being used to discredit Louis Farrakhan after a speech he gave denouncing Jewish domination of American media and government. From the ADL website - Nation of Islam Leader Reprises "Vintage" Anti-Semitism; ADL Says Farrakhan's Racism 'As Ugly As It Ever Was'."For nearly 30years, Farrakhan, 76, has marked himself a notable figure on the extremist scene by making hateful statements targeting Jews, whites and homosexuals, according to ADL."
In conclusion.
It is hoped that this information will help patriots of all races confront the psychological warfare campaign that is being waged against humanity, and allow freedom organizations to not only maintain the moral high ground by holding a respectable position on the issues, but also to take the fight to the enemy by exposing their schemes to manipulate people for their own selfish purposes. Purposes which include the exploitation and suppression of all the non-Jewish races in the world."
I recommend that full article above, as well as other materials from "The Resistance Report" website.
http://resistancereport.com/index.htm
Flanders
The name of that article I was referencing is:
"How They Wage War"
April 24, 2010
in the Commentary section.
By the way we have had two crypto jewish priministers in Norway, Harlem and Stoltenberg.
On my first visit to Saudi Arabia many years ago, I visited a fast food restaurant that served pancakes. An old truck pulled up. Out came a Saudi with a long white beard with his 2 year old daughter or granddaughter. While waiting for his food he put the child on the table. She spent five minutes pulling his beard as hard as she could. He spent five minutes laughing. Arab cruelty to children is grossly exaggerated.
Any genital mutilation is barbaric. Female genital mutilation is even more cruel than circumcision.
Chechar is right that female genital mutilation is prevalent in Egypt ( although now illegal )and in African Muslim countries and is practiced to varying degrees in many other Muslim countries. It is not mandated in the Koran. In the hadith it is reported that Mohammed said that IF you cut, you must not cut too much.
I have never visited Egypt and I know no Egyptian Muslim ladies, the Sudanese and Somali Muslim ladies I have met had an aura of hostility and fanaticism that is foreign to the Arabian Muslim ladies that I meet. Naturally, I have never spoken to a Saudi lady socially. Although the Saudi lady physician who did an ultrasound test on my prostate did laugh when I asked if I was having a boy or a girl.
@ "Your line is practically yes, since Brits and Americans get the blame for everything."
I blame them *and* Jews. Surely Churchill and FDR aren't entirely blameless, aren't they?
As part of my University course in England in the early seventies I studied Russian history. At no time during that course or in the books I read did I learn that Bolshevism was a Jewish movement. Many people still don't know that, especially the right wing supporters of Israel.
I had had no contact with Jews so I hadn't recognised any of the surnames and many Jewish Bolsheviks had russified their surnames. Now I realise my lecturer, "Kagan" was Jewish.
However, if you read any books written before the 2nd World War such as John Buchann's "39 steps" Bolsehvik and Jew are automatically written together . It is Orwellian how the Jews have managed to erase fron our history their part in the genocide of nillions of Russian Christians and of 100 million more anti-communists since the end of the 2nd W.W.
It makes me question Churchill's motivation in entering the war aginst Hitler. Surely, Fascism was less of a threat than Communism? During the Spanish civil war, Britain had been benevolently neutral although many thirties equivalents of our "useful idiots " volunteered to fight for the Jewish communists. Perhaps, "Peace in our Times " British P.M. Neville Chamberlain, was not the rank coward history has made him out to be.
As a result of the war, Jewish Communism ruled half of Europe. It is very unnerving to discover that our collective post 2WW history has been based on lies and deceptions.
Truly Orwellian, yes. It’s embarrassing to see how long it took me to discover that Red Terror was mainly Jewish Terror (it was not my fault: it’s the elites fault). If images of Jewish Terror hit the silver screen with several movies, the current Weltanschauung would crack immediately (I like to imagine it as a gigantic statue) and collapse afterwards.
And yes: Chamberlain was the hero and Churchill the villain, as I imply in the latest entry of my blog.
Anonymous: "It is Orwellian how the Jews have managed to erase from our history their part in the genocide of millions of Russian Christians"
Wandrin on another thread (Obama on Israel and Arizona): "The Bolshevik holocaust a few hundred miles from Germany's eastern frontier was a factor in the rise of Hitler too. That bit always gets left out."
Today, the question often asked is : How much did we know? Who knew what? Did the Pope know? And so on.
The question refers to the plight of the Jews, usually with the assumption that Hitler had a plan to kill them all, even though he didn't have any reason at all to dislike them. It implies that the plight of non-Jews is secondary, and it prevents us from asking the other question: Who knew about the slaughter of millions in Eastern Europe, and the crucial Jewish participation in it? I think every government and most people in Germany and the United States knew about that. In France, I suppose right-wing types who read the right newspapers knew about it, while most of the communists refused to know. I wonder if the English were told the truth or kept in the dark by their media.
France needs more immigrants.
http://www.minutodigital.com/noticias/2010/05/30/agresion-a-una-joven-por-parte-de-inmigrantes-en-francia/
I wonder if the English were told the truth or kept in the dark by their media.
I suspect it wasnt common knowledge in Britain at the time.
Because, maybe...
Britain has always been quite insular when it comes to continental goings on, certainly more so in the world after WW1. Less so than France. While in the US I believe there were more eastern Europen emigres than here.
I couldnt say for sure, after all I've only come to hear about it since I awoke, WN style, from my lifelong liberal slumber. At school in the '70s & '80s I can only remember hearing about vaguely about the "problems of collectivisation" in the USSR. Mass murder wasnt mentioned. And Idont ever recall it coming up on TV, radio or in any grown ups conversation.
McDonalds corners homosexual market in France.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBuKuA9nHsw&feature=player_embedded
McDonald's ad decoded:
Your dad is a bigot. It is thus right and proper for you to end the line. We support that.
teacher.paris
You should submit that to:
antiwhitemedia.blogspot.com
Michael Hudson wrote the financial equivalent of Tan’s refutation of ethnic suicide a few weeks ago. I re-read it last night and the parallels between the financial and ethnic attacks are striking. Makes sense, the two phenomena are closely related and originate with the same people. A sample:
“The money is being provided by other governments … mainly the German Treasury … to pay foreign bondholders … They will make a killing… It will be a model for other countries to impose similar economic austerity … Financial lobbyists are using the Greek crisis as an object lesson … This is the opposite of what the Greek demonstrators are demanding … Greek labor is not yet so pessimistic as to give up the fight … If labor – the demos – loses its spirit, power will be relinquished to foreign creditors to dictate public policy by default. And the more the bankers’ interest is served, the worse and more debt-burdened the economy will become … Their gain is bought at the price of domestic austerity … This worldview already has been delivered to Europe’s northernmost periphery, where it has elicited a fiscal masochism that banks hope to see in Greece … what is unfolding is a Social War on a global scale – not the class war envisioned in the 19th century, but a war of finance against entire economies, against industry, real estate and governments as well as against labor” and so on.
Worth reading for the economic analysis, but the resonance with this debate is an amusing bonus.
Sorry, the link:
http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson05112010.html
The last Spartan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxBDsr6T-AE
Auster is losing it
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016703.html
"Auster is losing it"
Yea and his hubris is growing (like his other tribesman) at a astounding rate.
Auster is gleefull and almost euphoric of the idea of bringing Turkey into the list of Israel's enemies.
He reminds me of some of the Christian Zionists I know that get excited everytime a bomb drops on a Muslim country. I think the ultimate thrill for these people wll be the day Israel and the US decides to use nuclear weapons against their enemies. That would really get their blood pumping.
Auster would get out of his chair and dance for 10 minutes before the counter attack hit New York City.
>The Protestants contributed no great works of Art, Music or Architecture to Western civilisation.<
Johann Sebastian Bach was a Lutheran.
First, those who are anti-Islam/pro-jew are as likely to compartmentalize and disregard "self-hating jews" as they are "anti-semites".
If so quoting Shahak is as likely to work on them as speaking for ourselves.
More important, I oppose the privileged status of jewish opinion and don't wish to reinforce it.
Amen to that. But it's a process, and for some people, and I don't think they are an insignificant portion of the readership of blogs like BJ or GoV, Jewish support is a useful psychological aid as they move through progressively less pro-Jewish stages.
Shahak's criticism is based on literal anti-"racism"...
Clearly I wouldn't endorse Shahak's total worldview, just his take on Jewish attitudes to us and other non-Jews.
***
once you wrap your head on it it’s unnecessary to cling on how Jews criticize Jews
That's the plan. And of course some don't need Jewish permission to think for themselves in the first place.
Fj once stated that only Jews can criticize themselves
Some people are probably beyond our reach however we approach them.
Post a Comment
<< Home