Let's Blame the Jew-Haters
Let's blame the Jews, via Pat Condell on Israel, Jew-Hatred, and Islam at Gates of Vienna.
Pat Condell is a counter-jihadist favorite. He's a proud (if unconvincing) anti-"racist". He mercilessly bashes muslims. He gleefully ridicules Christians. And for some strange reason he just loves "the jews".
Condell starts off mocking the strawman that jews "control the world" because their numbers are so small. By the end he is so overcome with enthusiasm for his (adopted?) tribe that he forgets about the numbers and waxes orgasmic about what a substantial force for good they are. He wishes the world really was ruled by "the jews". It's the most creepy display of jew-worship I have seen since, ohhh how many days has it been since Netanyahu got all those standing ovations from Congress?
Condell makes a point about muslims being taught from childhood to hate jews. So what should we make of jews teaching their children and everyone else that their tribe's time amongst Europeans has been one long string of anti-jew oppression and violence? According to the jewish version of history every conflict jews have ever had with Europeans is entirely to blame on evil Europeans blinded by spontaneous jew-hate. It's fair to say that by teaching this kind of one-sided view of history jews are teaching everyone to hate Whites. Maybe Condell's next video will be about this. It could start with a review of the flash mob of journalists, pundits and politicians who suddenly turned into jewish history experts and explained their seething hate to Sarah Palin a few months ago.
I won't be holding my breath. From the way Condell sneers at Europeans it's clear he's already absorbed those lectures and thinks Whites suck. He's concerned about Europe being overrun by muslims because it's bad for jews. I wonder if this is the only motive behind all his anti-islam and anti-Christian tirades. I've never heard him speak so emotionally or favorably about Britons. Is he not capable of loving his own kind? Or is that what he's doing when he gushes in favor of jews?
There are two final points to make about Condell's "control the world" bluster. First, since he likes to go on and on about Islam it would be trivial to mock him in the same terms. What do earnest counter-jihadists think when somebody paints them as morons who say muslims control the world? Second, Condell titles his diatribe "Let's blame the jews", which he means to be taken ironically. He blames the jew-haters. What he's saying, to use his own dishonest way of characterizing such things, is that the jew-haters control the world. What an idiot.
Labels: counter-jihad, gates of vienna, islam, jewish influence, pat condell
posted by Tanstaafl at 5/27/2011 09:52:00 PM
71 Comments:
Absolutely: Pat is the proverbial idiot. What a shame, but... a couple of years ago I thought exactly like Pat. Yes: I knew that Jews were overrepresented among liberals and that liberalism undermines Western civilization. I attributed this to IQ. But I ignored that the Jews have never been overrepresented in movements that represent our interests, as I wrote in scarlet-red letters in that “lightning” post of February of 2010. It took me time to become familiar with your articles on Larry Auster and with some of the online writing of Prof. MacDonald to realize how had I been deceived by the MSM and the books I used to purchase in regular bookstores—for so long!
Why I became a non-idiot is simple: I am an honest person, and once confronted with the right kind of information I made the change. Counter-jihadists on the other hand, are dishonest. When confronted with cognitive dissonance they have had the chance to research the JQ and reconsider. But no: they are already married to a worldview.
I sent Condell an email linking to my excerpts of Esau’s Tears. In his video Condell says: “Don’t tell me about it: tell a doctor.” In other words, he pathologizes all criticism of Jews. I wonder if he will advice Jew Lindemann to look for a doctor too?
By the end he is so overcome with enthusiasm for his (adopted?) tribe that he forgets about the numbers and waxes orgasmic about what a substantial force for good they are.
This is one of the main contradictions and logical fallacies of the Philosemites/Jew-worshipers:
1) one one hand, they tell you that you might be crazy/paranoid to think about the power of the Jewish influence on our societies, since the Jewish community is so small at global scale;
2) one the other hand, they immediately wax poetic about the Jewish IQ, number of Nobel prize winners, scientists, doctors, inventors, writers, etc.
Logically speaking: if a community is capable to be over-represented in science or literature, why should we ignore the possibility that it might be over-represented in fields that are less respectable, i.e. Bolshevism, leftism, anti-majority political activism?
Condell has finally found religion. For him it as an article of faith that "the jews" stand above him and are in fact his savior. Don't try to tell him otherwise, deceivers.
Israel is in the wrong place? It's in the fucken Bible you ignorant English git!
Funny for a self-proclaimed "atheist" like Condell, isn't it? He goes mad about the religious insanity of the Catholic Church, but he forgets to mention that the place chosen for Israel is based on a religious narrative concocted about 4.000 years ago.
Besides, his favorite past-time is going ballistic about Christianity and Islam, but he never mentions Judaism, the source and inspiration for both of them, the mother of monotheistic fundamentalism.
But Tan is right, it seems the enlightened "atheist" has finally found God, redemption and salvation: the Jews.
I may be hopelessly mired in conventional history, but how did the English start WW2? It's always seemed a pretty clear cut case of Nazi expansionism, starting with the annexation of Austria, the forced concession on Czech lands and then finally driving their tanks into Poland, which is almost always considered the start of the war. The Brits might have been able to slow it down with better diplomacy, but we know Hitler was obsessed with stealing the Slavic lands and driving the Slavic peoples out of them.
By comparison, from the Polish point of view, Chaimberlain was a nice enough fellow, if a weak ally and poor friend when the going got tough.
Wandrin has established that Condell is Catholic and Hannagan that he was educated at CoE schools.
Now he makes a living as a free-lance 'atheist' who is really just engaging in the traditional national pastime of tyke bashing.
Got it. The poor bastard has Stockholm syndrome.
I think what Pat Condell exhibits (besides stupidity, that's established) is the so-called "nationalism by proxy". It can be seen in both pro-Sionist American Evangelists and European counterjihadists.
Briefly, since any normal manifestation of pride, confidence and sense of belonging to your own nation/ethnicity is forbidden and suppressed in the current PC landscape, some Whites have channeled their affection toward a group who is not demonized by the liberal establishment: the Jews. These Whites are fed up with third world immigration and Islam, but they are not allowed to even think about returning to the old nationalism of the past. Then, they found the proxy nation: Israel. That's why in counterjihadists protests in Europe one can see more Israeli flags than flags of the nation where the demonstration takes place. Somehow, it resembles the situation of prison inmates: being deprived of women for a long time, out of necessity, they end up having sex with other men.
Rosalie,
Also for someone as anti-religion as Condell, Judaism - at least in his experience - would seem like a very irreligious religion.
Pat and Wandrin,
Since I consider intuitive psychology my forté I venture to say that Condell’s tirade against the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with the fact that he is British and everything to do with how he was (my educated guess) abused when he was a child.
Condell’s psychological profile can be guessed from my analysis of a traitor white woman (here). In a nutshell, Condell and millions of outspoken atheists like him chase after an unconscious revenge.
Condell et al are just acting out as adults against the wounds they have been carrying since their childhood. I myself passed through the same stage: I was abused in a very Catholic family and became a sort of anti-Christian. But when I discovered that our civilization is in danger I tried to forget those old family wounds and closed ranks with those fellow Christians who fight my kampf.
Condell is just too immature to do that.
BTW, Pat Condell is not British, he's Irish. He may have grown up in the U.K. (thus the accent), but he's Irish:
"He was born an Irish Catholic but educated in Church of England schools."
That's why he doesn't really care about the U.K.
The only time I saw him almost -- almost -- as animated as this Jewish video was the one recently where he talked about Ireland and the EU.
(Hi, Chechar! :-) )
Pat Hannagan and Wandrin,
As much as I disliked doing it, I just deleted a dozen or so comments of yours.
I put a good deal of effort into this blog and will not allow it to be defaced by pissing matches, even between two commenters whose opinions I respect.
Thanks Elieen for the clarification. For a Spanish speaker like myself it’s hard even to distinguish between the accent of an American vs. a Briton’s :)
So he’s Irish. This fits well in my guess that (like me) he was abused in a religious milieu. I wrote a whole autobiographical book on this subject and you cannot imagine how this sort of abuse (eternal damnation dogma, etc) can mess up with your mind. It is a miracle that I don’t suffer from any psychiatric disorder. However, such horrible past experiences have proven to be pivotal now, when trying to comprehend people like Condell.
Chechar said: "Thanks Elieen for the clarification."
No problem! :-) I think a lot of native English speakers (esp. Americans) are not aware that Condell is not British. Most Irish and English can tell by his name and his appearance, but a lot of English might not think of it, either.
I think the fact that he is Irish goes a long way to explaining why he doesn't really care what happens to the U.K. -- Jew-wise, that is. Obviously he doesn't like Muslim immigration, but I think that's because he doesn't like Islam -- because he doesn't like any religion. Other than that, I don't think he gives a toss about the U.K. staying British, which is typical of a lot of Irish people (including many in my own family, I am ashamed to say).
He definitely cares about Ireland, though, as was apparent in his Ireland/E.U. video.
Chechar,
"I venture to say that Condell’s tirade against the Roman Catholic Church..."
I have relatives who are the same way.
My apologies for mistaking Condell for a Briton. Frankly, from his performance in that video it seemed to me he was either a jew or had a brain transplant from one, so I didn't bother to look into his background.
"My apologies for mistaking Condell for a Briton"
He could just as easily be but his motivation would have the same root.
As much as I disliked doing it, I just deleted a dozen or so comments of yours.
Fair enough Tan. I carried on like an idiot and am sorry for all the abuse and swearing.
Here's Pat Condell's line again:
At 3:09 I think Israel is in the wrong place. I've said it before. It couldn't be in a worse place given the hateful mentality of its neighbours, but it's a bit late to do anything about that now.
The fact that a Jewish state needs to exist at all, and it does need to exist, is an indictment of all humanity, and especially the Catholic Church, whose centuries long programme of aggressive Jew hatred has been ingrained right into the European psyche, so that it takes almost nothing to bring it out, and that's why if I were a Jew, even a non-Zionist peace campaigning liberal Jew, and there are plenty of them, I would want to see a strong Israel.
Tanstaafl said: "My apologies for mistaking Condell for a Briton."
Oh, not a problem! I'm sure Condell, himself, would refer to himself as British -- at least in some situations -- having grown up in the U.K. But he obviously also identifies as Irish -- it was he who said he was Irish in the interview I linked to.
He is ethnically Irish. And, either way, he definitely behaves Irish (and I know whereof I speak.... ;-) )
What you have to understand is that a lot of Irish -- a LOT -- either openly hate the English/British, or passively-agressively do. I have a cousin who is ethnically Irish (like myself) but who grew up in England and she behaves very much like a Brit -- sends her kids to public (meaning expensive, private) schools so they can mingle with all the posh kids. But she luuuuuuvs multi-culturalism (while living in an affluent, nearly all-White community, of course) and believes that all people are the same.
Why? 1) Because, being of Irish background, she wants her kids to be able to move up in the world in England and to do that you need to smash the English identity (and class system); and 2) because, like many Irish people, she doesn't like the English ('cause of our islands' history) and would be glad to see them ruined -- multi-culturalism is a brilliant way to accomplish that.
Pat Condell strikes me very much as having that second motivation as well. He's Irish; he identifies as such; he gets all worked up when he talks about Ireland; and he's ok with a mostly politically correct Britain (except for the Muslims) which is run by Jews.
Classic Irish passive-aggressive hatred of the English. (Makes me ashamed of my people sometimes.)
Condell is British. He may be born in Ireland but his accent is English, not Irish.
Wikipedia lists his nationality as "English".
He is not Irish. What are you talking about Eileen. His accent is not Irish it is English.
I said: "Classic Irish passive-aggressive hatred of the English."
And, of course, those same sentiments went with the Irish to the U.S. where, like the Kennedys for instance, they often worked (work) to destroy Anglo-Saxon (i.e. English) America. :-|
Pat H. - Condell is ethnically Irish:
"He was born an Irish Catholic but educated in Church of England schools."
Pat Hannagan said: "Wikipedia lists his nationality as 'English'.... His accent is not Irish it is English."
Nationality is one thing (what country you are a citizen of), ethnicity is something else (and very often more important than nationality).
My accent is not Irish; it is American -- but I am ethnically Irish. 100% genetically Irish, whatever my nationality.
Eileen: you should write a paper, “The Clash of the Ethnic Groups.” It would beat the “clash of civilizations” paradigm.
Yes, I just read that thank you Eileen.
His surname is Anglo, he was raised in England, educated in Church of England schools, lives in England, has his nationality listed as English, speaks with an English accent. He is English.
If he wanted to be known as Irish I would think he'd clean up all the references to him being an English writer, comedian etc and having English nationality.
With respect Eileen, just because he was born in Ireland doesn't make him Irish.
Eileen, when you speak about the ethnic Irish are you including the Protestants planted there by the English to take our ancestor's land? Are you including the Northern Ireland British?
Yes, you have a point about hating the English, I do too. I try not to but they make it very difficult not to. I know quite a few English, some married into the family, have worked with many etc. I don't simply bear an ancient grudge.
The English do not like the Irish. If you started from that premise you might understand why the Irish don't like the English. I don't know what your Irish ancestry consists of, you may well be of the English interloper type for all I know.
What I said about Auster and the English is true. In his early days he had several posts hating the Irish supported by many English. In fact he blamed the Irish for ruining England.
The Irish aren't perfect, and neither are the English. But to blame the Irish for hating English is weird considering the history of invasion and violence inflicted upon them by the English. Most Irish I know do not care to consider it and have moved on.
What I also said about Sailer's theory that everyone likes to be considered Irish is also true: they do so because they think the Irish are stupid, ultimately harmless, and all up a joke. When an Irishman gets aggressive and assertive then they don't like the Irish. The Irish are ok as long as they act like Ewoks.
You yourself have continued the Irish are a bunch of idiots theme several times. Be honest, it gets you places, especially with the English and Anglo-Americans whenever you laugh at the Irish being dumb. That is the only way that they want to consider the Irish.
Many English expressed pure joy at the troubles in Ireland and the EU's rescue package of servitude. It's a sad state of affairs.
Jewish groups in US backing Sharia law | The Jewish Chronicle
Shhhhh. Nobody burst Condell's bubble.
This talk about whether Condell is Irish or English doesn't matter anyway, he is White. I think we all need to acknowledge our hates and grievances and look to our commonalities instead, as we are all faced with the same exterminationist anti-White threat.
The abuse that I directed to Wandrin was not only pathetic on my behalf but also not based in fact. I admire Wandrin for his arguments, wit, intelligence and dedication. I made up all those things I said to hurt him. I am very sorry for that. I cannot take it back but I can apologise and state the truth in the light of the day's sobriety.
Wandrin please accept my apology. I carried on like a complete pork chop and maniac. Yes, I am a twat many times especially if I have been drinking. I will endeavour to stay away from the keyboard when I am drinking in future.
Sorry to one and all at Age of Treason. I'll go away now and bag my head.
Cheers!
Did not Jews work with Muslims in Spain back before my time? An unholy alliance against the Church. I think Christ-hating is a powerful engine for the evildoers, and makes strange alliances possible. They still hate Europe, because as unChristian she is, there is still the whiff of the Church about her.
Switzerland Minus Minarets:
"Switzerland's biggest Jewish groups said Wednesday that a far-right push to ban the construction of minarets here was a "threat" to religious harmony and hindered the integration of Muslims."
I think your extending the phrase flash mob this way is genius. When Palin emerged on the scene it was a hate flash media mob that immediately attacked her and never stopped. Any provocation from her, i.e. her opening her mouth, and the flash mob forms again venting hatred.
They vented the same hatred of her for blood libel as for when she said the words moose, mom and grizzly. They hate her for who she is and the Whites she symbolizes. They despise Whites who like her for being like them.
The flash mob was planned just as they all are before the attack. It was already on the Internet months early that she was a possible VP pick. Obama himself participated from the start when he called her a pig and likely authorized the initial flash mob attack on her in September 2008.
These media flash mob gangs also never disperse permanently. They are still after Pat Buchanan.
Pat Hannagan said: "His surname is Anglo...."
That's true. Condell is an Anglo name. It's quite common around Dublin and Wicklow because, of course, of the Anglos who settled there. Condell is an Anglo-Irish name.
However, Pat Condell is described as having been born into a CATHOLIC family, so right there that tells you that his family is not so Anglo-Irish anymore. The surname is still there, sure, but there has, no doubt, been a lot of intermarriage in his family with native Irish (i.e. the Catholics). Adding to that the fact that his first name is Pat -- i.e. Patrick -- and I'd say we're looking at a pretty native Irish person, with some Anglo thrown in.
Pat said: "If he wanted to be known as Irish...."
It doesn't matter what people want to be known as -- what matters is what people actually are. I might want to be known as a super-model, but I do not have the legs or the body (i.e. the genes) to be one. ;-)
Pat Hannagan said: "Eileen, when you speak about the ethnic Irish are you including the Protestants planted there by the English to take our ancestor's land? Are you including the Northern Ireland British?"
I think we've had this conversation before, haven't we? ;-)
Genetically, historically, linguistically -- any way you look at it -- the ethnic Irish are the native, indigenous Irish, i.e. the people who were there first (since the Paleolitithic or whenever) before other ethnic groups started to arrive. From Wikipedia:
"The Irish people (Irish: Muintir na hÉireann, na hÉireannaigh) are an ethnic group who originate in Ireland, an island in northwestern Europe. Ireland has been populated for around 9,000 years.... The main groups that interacted with the Irish in the Middle Ages include the Scottish people and the Vikings. The Anglo-Norman invasion of the High Middle Ages, the English plantations and the subsequent English rule of the country introduced the Normans and Flemish into Ireland...."
Note the distinction -- the Irish people versus the other "groups that interacted with the Irish." We're talking about different peoples here (who have, of course, interbred to some degree over the years).
And there are distinct terms for all these different groups that used to be in regular usage until politically correct terminology obfuscated everything: Old English, Anglo-Irish, Ulster-Scots.
Seems that Condell's (who I had not heard of before) ethnic origins are strangely vague.
Q: What's English and Irish and LOVES the jews.
A: An English-Irish crypto jew.
Pat Hannagan: "The English do not like the Irish. If you started from that premise you might understand why the Irish don't like the English."
The Irish don't hate the English because the English hated them first. The Irish and English don't like each other because they are two different ethnic groups in competition over the same lands. Sure, the English started it by invading -- and for that reason the native Irish have a good reason to hate the English -- but what I object to is that because of that hatred over things that happened in the past, many Irish today (especially the ones living in England) work to destroy Anglo-Saxon society, partly because (as I described about one of my cousins) they want to rise to the top of English society.
The Irish in England are a foreign group who want to leech off of the English, and even tear English society down, just like many Third World immigrant groups in England. They don't care about English society, because they are not English.
This bothers me because 1) sure, what happened in Ireland's past was terrible, but you don't hold the sons accountable for what their fathers did; and 2) I feel we're (White people) all in a big battle for the survival of Western Civilization together (or at least we ought to be) so we shouldn't be at each other's throats.
Pat Hannagan: I don't know what your Irish ancestry consists of, you may well be of the English interloper type for all I know.
Full disclosure -- going by the surnames in my family and genetic tests that I have had done and that some of my family members have had done, I am probably at least 3/4s native Irish. I'm waiting on some more genetic tests to come back on another family member to determine if that side of the family is Scots or not (I have a strong suspicion that we are). Judging by the remote, West-coast locations that most of my family comes from, though, it's highly unlikely that we're Anglo in any way (although lowland Scots are quite Anglo-Saxon in ancestry, so in that way I may very well be partly Anglo-Saxon -- which might explain my sympathies for the Anglos ;-) ).
Pat Hannagan: "You yourself have continued the Irish are a bunch of idiots theme several times. Be honest, it gets you places, especially with the English and Anglo-Americans whenever you laugh at the Irish being dumb."
In real life (i.e. not on the internet) I actually associate almost only with native Irish people, so me pointing out that we're not so bright and not so hard-working and not so efficient (as, say, the Germans are, for instance) doesn't "get me anywhere." Most of my Irish friends and family understand that, as an ethnic group, we're not the sharpest bunch, but we generally just have a laugh at it. ;-)
Chechar said: "Eileen: you should write a paper, 'The Clash of the Ethnic Groups.' It would beat the 'clash of civilizations' paradigm."
:-D Well, really, if you just pick up and read any history book (especially those written before political correctness became the norm) those do read like clashes of ethnic groups -- because that's what most of history has been about (and still continues to be today).
Worth reeflecting upon:
http://alcuin-constant.blogspot.com/2011/05/astonishing-blindness.html
Robert in Arabia
Pat,
"Wandrin please accept my apology"
Not a problem and returned.
.
Whatever his ancestry Condell always struck me as someone who was *very* ex-Catholic and very motivated by that because i know people just like him.
A lot of the people allied with the other side have some personal axe to grind like this, from homosexuals who feel excluded by their own society to rich kids who got bullied at boarding school by banker's sons or vicar's daughters with a grudge against a hypocritical father.
Thinking about how this stealth conquest of the west happened it's like a much larger scaled version of what the police or security services do to infiltrate criminal or terrorist organisations. They find someone with a grudge or a weakness and that's the way in.
.
However ironic it may seem, it is easier to gain traction with individuals of this mindset in getting them to concede positions friendly to racialism than with fire-breathing secular humanist liberals as the former find an outlet for their repressed ethnocentric chauvinism in the form of Muslim-bashing and cheer-leading for the Israeli ethnic nationalist state.
I don't know if I buy this. I find it pretty hard to get through to people who are into the Muslim-bashing shit, and I don't see many others succeeding at it either, despite the fact that most WN outreach efforts are targeted at conservatives.
"Counter-Jihad" is a competitor to White nationalism, not an ally. There is nothing good about that movement. I think the best way to make inroads with these people is not by pretending to share common ground and telling them that they are fundamentally on the right side in this battle, but by attacking them as the Jew-worshipping anti-Whites that they are and SHAMING them into appropriate beliefs and behavior.
Think of it this way: currently the patriotard Muslim-bashing stuff allows conservatives to satisfy their ethnocentric impulses without the stigma and other downsides attached to genuine White nationalism. The best way to get them to change is to add to the "downsides" and make the patriotard ideological package less appealing. Knowing that there is a group of White people out there mocking them for worshiping Jews and hating the Jews' enemies while America is going down the toilet will nag at a lot of them.
it is easier to gain traction with individuals of this mindset in getting them to concede positions friendly to racialism
From my experience, American Sionists (the Gentile Evangelist variety) tend to be extremely anti-European, and particularly anti-European ethno-nationalism.
How could one go wrong with Hillaire Belloc? He was very Catholic, had deep affection for Europe, prophesied about the danger of Islam, AND made the usual reasonable critiques of the Jews for which he is tarred as "antiSemitic." On top of that he was a critic of the Globalist decracinating Free Market. What's not to love?
"Think of it this way: currently the patriotard Muslim-bashing stuff allows conservatives to satisfy their ethnocentric impulses without the stigma and other downsides attached to genuine White nationalism. The best way to get them to change is to add to the "downsides" and make the patriotard ideological package less appealing."
I can say from personal experience making the transition, there are upsides too. Putting the interests of jews above your own kind is just plain sick. It can only happen because you are manipulated into doing so, led to believe it is the only moral or righteous thing to do. Recognizing this trickery makes it easy to redirect your ethnocentric impulses back where they truly belong. Doing so causes great relief. It makes you feel better about yourself and your place in the struggle. It brings clarity and understanding in matters which were previously confusing and confounding.
@ Anonymous, You are right that “Counter-Jihad is a competitor to White nationalism, not an ally”. In the GoV thread about this Condell video that Tan linked above, see for example the following discussion:
Quote:
Said denigration of the human spirit is most definitely a major player in the suicidal elevation of unconditional altruism which modern Christianity, including the Catholic Church, has foisted upon the West as regards Politically Correct Multiculturalism...
This has been hashed over many times, and it seems people keep forgetting one little problem here: medieval Christianity for a good thousand years was quite capable of robust military defenses against Islam, and quite intellectually capable of condemning Islam and Muslims. While there were exceptions to this rule, that was the rule. Therefore, one cannot simplistically impugn the substance of Christianity for causing PC MC. While Judaeo-Christian universalism certainly contributed some substance to the evolution of PC MC, so too did Graeco-Roman universalism. The only part of our Western heritage that had not developed universalism were the innumerable bickering and bloodily fighting barbarian tribes. I certainly don't want the West to devolve into a Balkanism of tribalism on steroids, just so in the process we might be able to repel Muslims. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory...
At any rate, the evolution of PC MC and its development into mainstream dominance is too complicated to locate the blame anywhere with too much scapegoating focus.
/end quote
Of course: the two guys who wrote the above sentences never mention the Jews as a contributing factor.
@ Eileen, I have just quoted your latest response to me in a C-C thread of an article that I translated to English (here). Genetics and MacDonald’s evolutionary strategies explain part of the problem, but not everything. I am still struggling to discover the root cause of Western malaise.
With all due respect to Eileen, who makes for very interesting reading, it may seem like ethnic groups are clashing, but in actuality it is individuals within those groups. Nothing comes from the group. Everything arises from individual's self-interest. It was not, for example, the entire English ethny that clashed with the entire Gaelic Irish ethny. It was individuals within those groups. Why did the South fight to keep slavery when most Southerners did not own slaves? It's because slaves were a huge financial asset for those who owned them.
Why did Grant and his supporters meet resistance to closing the Mexican border, from his fellow Americans, despite their racial awareness? It was motivated by self-interest.
"From 1926 to 1930, the House and Senate Immigration Committees held hearings on closing the back door. The usual Grantians (Richards M Bradley, Roy L. Garis, Francis
H. Kinnicutt, Demarest Lloyd, James H. Patten, and John B. Trevor) testified, and Harry
H. Laughlin submitted another one of his special reports, showing that ''Mexican immigrants are making a reconquest of the Southwest/*99
Naturally, many of the same groups that testified in 1924 against European restriction also showed up to oppose Mexican restriction, including, as the Immigration Restriction League put it, "racial zealots ... of Hebrew origin" whose "racial interests and
prejudices warp their judgment as to the general interest." But unlike in 1924, the Jews were joined this time by a well-organized and well-funded coalition of sugar beet manufacturers, livestock representatives, produce farmers, railroad executives, and mining interests, who put up a formidable fight in Congress. Few of them denied that the Mexicans were racially inferior, but they all testified that further restrictions would result in economic disaster for the Southwest. And besides, they wanted Congress to understand that
the Mexicans were "timid" workers who always "knew their place" and were willing to work "all day or night and the next day without ever making a kick." Certainly the
"wetbacks" were less dangerous to society than the Negroes. The head of the American Cattle Raiser's Association, for instance, told the Senate that he always let his three daughters ride the range with Mexicans, and the girls were "just as safe as if they had been
with me.... Do you suppose we would send them out with a bunch of negroes? We would never think of such a thing."
Said denigration of the human spirit is most definitely a major player in the suicidal elevation of unconditional altruism which modern Christianity, including the Catholic Church, has foisted upon the West as regards Politically Correct Multiculturalism...
The funny thing is, the counterjihadists blame Christianity for a thing and then for the opposite of it. Condell blames the Catholic Church for the rise and persistence of anti-Semitism, for spreading Jew-hatred in the West; and this commenter of Condell's video blames the same church for "suicidal elevation of unconditional altruism". Now, how can one be hateful of an out-group and suicidally altruistic at the same time?
As someone noticed at Mangan's, it looks like Whitey should be guilty for everything: killing Jews, Indians, Blacks... and finally killing ourselves. Homicidal and suicidal, at the same time.
Anonymous said: "Nothing comes from the group. Everything arises from individual's self-interest."
True. But, there is inclusive fitness, so some behaviors (including aggression) can have the appearance of coming from the group.
What I mean is, for example, it can be in the interest of an individual to help others who share his genes (others from his same family, or even his ethny or race). If enough individuals who share genes get together to help each other out, you get (what appear on the surface to be) group actions.
Chechar said: "@ Eileen, I have just quoted your latest response to me in a C-C thread of an article that I translated to English."
Aw, shucks. :-)
Mr. Hannigan, With a temper like yours, I'd suggest you get involved in the Bugs Swarm at Whitakeronline.com You could do some real stinging for our race, the white race, which is threatened entirely.
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2011/05/30/bugs-swarm/#comments
I just noticed I put.com. That's wrong,it's org.
Anonymous: "Nothing comes from the group. Everything arises from individual's self-interest. It was not, for example, the entire English ethny that clashed with the entire Gaelic Irish ethny"
On the contrary, individual's self-interest counts for nothing in a war. Very often, soldiers don't even know what are the reasons for the war. They are simply loyal to their people.
Anonymous: "Why did the South fight to keep slavery when most Southerners did not own slaves? It's because slaves were a huge financial asset for those who owned them."
The South fought because most Southerners felt loyalty to their people. We can be mistaken in the way we try to defend our people. There can be treachery, manipulation and errors of judgment. But most of us have a natural urge to be loyal to our ethnic group.
In the case of immigration, there is something wrong. I'm told that big corporations support immigration out of economic interest. If so, how come they do not support the murder of their economic competitors? As I see it, genocide by race replacement isn't any more moral than the willingness to kill for financial gain.
If you are interested in the subject of individual and collective interest, you should check out what William Pierce wrote about Ayn Rand's pseudo philosophy.
Someone at GatesOfVienna: "While Judaeo-Christian universalism certainly contributed some substance to the evolution of [Politically Correct Multiculturalism], so too did Graeco-Roman universalism."
I think Judaism is a synonym for Jewish supremacism. It is the opposite of universalism. In a different way, the Roman empire was supremacist too, at least in the beginning. Then it became more and more universalist. And unlike the Jews, it seems the Romans didn't try to preserve their race.
Individualism and Alienation -- Free Speech, November 1999, by William Pierce:
Let me tell you: this rootless individualism is not a "smart" way of relating to the world. It is an infantile way. It is based on the same attitude we see in an infant screaming and throwing things because he didn't get what he wanted. In a normal world, in a healthy environment, as an infant grows up he learns that he can't always get exactly what he wants when he wants it. He learns not to expect that or even to make that his goal. He learns that he is a part of something larger and more permanent and more important than himself. He develops roots in his community, in his race. He learns to see himself in a larger context, in a framework of race and history and culture. His concept of "self" expands to include these things of which he is a part.
That the type of development is normal and healthy, the type of development that leads to a sense of community responsibility and racial responsibility. And it leads to a stronger and healthier community and to a stronger and healthier race, in which the members of the community and of the race care about these larger collectives. But if a child grows up in a world where he is deliberately cut off from tradition and history, so that he cannot develop any sense of rootedness, or if his environment is so polluted with "diversity" and multiculturalism that he cannot identify with his racial community, then he does not have a proper framework within which to see himself relative to the world. He feels no sense of belonging and no sense of responsibility. He becomes an individual in the sense of Ayn Rand and Harry Browne.
There's a name for this condition. It's called alienation. It's what happens to many young White people who attend schools where they are in a minority, who attend universities where "Eurocentrism" is Politically Incorrect, who live in cities swarming with Third World immigrants, who see Black and Brown faces and get the Jewish slant on things every time they turn on the TV. Strong and healthy people react to this alienating environment by seeking their roots anyway, by doing whatever it takes to develop a sense of racial identity anyway, but many weak or confused people become individualists.
And you know, this alienating environment in which we live is not an accident. It was imposed on us deliberately by people who want to increase the level of alienation in our society, by people who encourage our people to become rootless individualists, by people who use all of the propaganda media at their disposal to convince everyone that it's "racist" to have roots, that it's "hateful" to have an interest in the history and traditions of one's own people, that it's practically criminal to be concerned about the welfare or even the survival of one's race -- if that race is White, if it's European.
Individualism and Alienation.... This really explains so well the lawlessness we suffer under and the harmed families we have, I think.
Even if we accept Pierce's assertion about alienation from the group, his estimation of what is "by people who encourage our people to become rootless individualists, by people who use all of the propaganda media at their disposal to convince everyone that it's "racist" to have roots, that it's "hateful" to have an interest in the history and traditions of one's own people, that it's practically criminal to be concerned about the welfare or even the survival of one's race -- if that race is White, if it's European", is significantly different than Grant's. Thus to Grant, Pierce is the purveyor of alienation and Boas and the "racial zealots ... of Hebrew origin" whose "racial interests and prejudices warp their judgment as to the general interest" in a constant effort homogenize the races of Europe.
How can that be if love of people is natural/biologically founded? It's because it's not, it's contrived or manipulated. Whether it is Grant, Pierce, National Socialism or the Old Testament, the notion of love of group is socially constructed and unnatural. Evolution and the process of selection, be it natural or sexual lies with the individual. Any benefit that then accrues to the group, is incidental. Eileen's example of inclusive fitness is one such example. Altruistic signaling, if it provides a fitness advantage, does so for immediate kin, however, is beneficial to the group not directly but incidentally. Humans, however, are not squirrels. Thus evolutionary biologist George C. Williams asserts that "Anyone who makes an anonymous donation of money
or blood or other resources as a result of some public appeal is biologically just as much a victim of manipulation as the snapper in the jaws of the anglerfish”" but, he continues "People can now espouse remote and inclusive ideals far removed from the selfishness that gave rise to the power to do so. It was inevitable that people in the novel civic environments of the last few millenia would develop aspirations for such things as the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the triumph of the master race, or the savings of souls. Because such strivings are beyond the direct action of natural selection, I have some hope that some such cause can provide the humane artifice that can save humanity from human nature". It then becomes a question of choice. By whom or by what should an individual be manipulated?
Taking you at your word, we should interpret your arguments as an attempt to manipulate us.
I don't take Anonymous' comment at 5/30/2011 07:51:00 PM as being so controversial. The basic mental machinery of humans evolved in small extended family groups of around 100 members. For most people, genuine visceral interpersonal concern does not extend beyond a limited circle of family and friends of around that number. (Of course that group is bound to be of people genetically similar to themselves, and hence racially/ethnically similar, in that people are hard-wired to trust those with faces most similar to their own.) Any concern they may have for far flung member of their race (people they do not actually know and therefore could not have bonded with), or the race as a whole (a thing which is composed of so many people that it would be impossible to meet them all and bond with them), from that perspective, really is based upon a learned allegiance to and affection for an abstraction.
Let us say hypothetically, that non-White immigration to White countries was now non-existent, our countries were still mostly or completely White, the proportion of the world's population was still over a third European, and the Jews were up their old subversive tricks. Most probably, all of us who are not cranks would not give a shit about what the Jews were up to and this blog itself would not exist because we would not feel personally threatened nor would we have good reason to believe that our self-interest (this includes the self-interested - in that its locus is inevitably in our selves - emotional incentives we have to concern ourselves with the well-being of our family and close friends) was threatened in any reasonable near-term future scenario. In fact, it is not unreasonable to assume, given that hypothetical, we would not be "pro-White" or "White Nationalist" as we are now but direct our chauvinism against other groups of Whites, and more particularly, eschew the "coming together" of "White racial unity" in favor of the petty interpersonal rivalries and grievances which consume so much time and energy for many anyway. It is all a matter of context and the abstractions to which we attach our basic emotional/mental machinery. Or, as Nietzche would put it, "human, all too human".
The debate over individualism vs collectivism tends toward false dichotmy, as with suicide vs genocide, nature vs nuture, and 0% "the jews" vs 100% "the jews". The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes.
Anon 07:51:00 PM is concerned about his individual circumstances, which he sees as being rooted in the "constant effort [to] homogenize the races of Europe". I'm concerned about my individual circumstances, which I think are rooted in the constant effort to extinguish the races of Europe. I think we should work together to our mutual benefit. Anon's concern is that this is just another form of the effort to extinguish his specific race of Europe by homogenization.
It is an old debate. Desmond Jones used to discuss it with me. I learned alot from him. I wish he'd come around again
I can say from personal experience making the transition, there are upsides too. Putting the interests of jews above your own kind is just plain sick. It can only happen because you are manipulated into doing so, led to believe it is the only moral or righteous thing to do. Recognizing this trickery makes it easy to redirect your ethnocentric impulses back where they truly belong. Doing so causes great relief. It makes you feel better about yourself and your place in the struggle. It brings clarity and understanding in matters which were previously confusing and confounding.
Sure, I don't dispute any of that. But I still think that our attitude towards conservatives is important in getting them to adopt our beliefs. Many racialists seem to think we should try to downplay the differences between ourselves and conservatives, as though this will make our views more palatable to them. But I think we need to make the differences as stark as possible, in order to highlight the deficiencies in the patriotard belief system and make conservatives realize how badly they are being manipulated.
I translated this article into German:
http://fjordman.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/lasst-uns-den-judenhassern-die-schuld-geben/
Thanks Kairos, and don’t forget how people who comment here responded to Jew-blind counter-jihadist Fjordman at Mangan’s (see esp. Captain’s reply, republished here).
Evolution and the process of selection, be it natural or sexual lies with the individual. Any benefit that then accrues to the group, is incidental.
You don't know what you're talking about. Read David Sloan Wilson.
"It is an old debate. Desmond Jones used to discuss it with me."
Desmond Jones is Nordicism's Ayn Rand.
But I ignored that the Jews have never been overrepresented in movements that represent our interests, as I wrote in scarlet-red letters in that “lightning” post of February of 2010.
Yup. "Jews are just like everybody else, only moreso," falls flat when you ask "where are the pro-white Jewish movements?"
If Ashkenazis are so brilliant, and therefore "overrepresented" everywhere, then where are all the Ashkenazi movements that "just happen" to serve, rather than thwart, our interests?
The fact that a Jewish state needs to exist at all, and it does need to exist, is an indictment of all humanity
I don't know about anyone else, but I love this argument. First, it's special pleading (i.e., Jews get a pass, Euros don't, because we're the supreme arbiters of The Narrative, which dictates all morality). Second, it so explicitly binds misanthropy and Judaism; you can choose humanity, or the Ashkenazis.
Let's hope it takes them a looong time to cotton on to how bad this argument is.
you can choose humanity, or the Ashkenazis
That's right. They also put it this way: Everybody Else is Crazy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fj and most counter-jihadists are as blind on JQ as Condell.
Against Fjordman II
A commentator with the sweet nick "gaylord" commented my translation of your article with the following words:
ude jude jude jude jude ude jude jude jude jude jude jude jude jude
jude jude jude jude jude jude jude jude jude jude ude jude jude jude
habt ihr endlich euer lieblingshobby judenbashing gefunden?
Man man ist dieser blog seit einigen artikeln tief gesunken wundert
mich eigentlich,dass ihr hier noch nicht auf altermedia,npd,ariald etc verlinkt.
in english: "jew (...) is your best hobby jew- bahing? Wow, this blog has sunken deep since few articles. I wonder why you do not link to altermedia, npd, ariald etc (german nazi- sites).
I answered something like: Thanks homoboy for suggesting those sites, we will take them into our blogroll.
And the answer was, that gay would be his lastname and not a sexual statement.
Other commentarors wrote it was very low of me to mock someone with the nickname "gaylord."
Well, those commentators seldom give a second or third statement when we show them how to state arguments, but these behaviour shows how deep the anti- German propaganda is within - not even, but especially - the Germans.
Pat Condell and other figures like Geert Wilders are no friends of Europeans. Condell and Wilders hate Christianity just as much as they hate Islam, but they gush over with praise for Jews and Judaism. Neither man is a "conservative". They both abandoned the Church, and would be attacking it at the quickest opportunity. They might say some things about Islam, but they don't fear Islam replacing Christianity in the Netherlands or England, they fear it replacing their beloved leftist, secular society.
informed rational freedom loving people have all the reasons in the world to fear islam...
the twin fogs of political correctness & ignorance must be dispersed before western society better understands this menace. even a brief review of islamic theology & history quickly exposes the deadly roots of this evil ideology.
Mohamhead was a 7th century murdering warlord who rose to power on a river of blood surrounded by thugs and gangsters using intimidation, violence, deception and trickery to expand their criminal empire while mercilessly suppressing and killing their opponents and enriching themselves on stolen booty.
The evil koran is a collection of sayings and speeches by this diabolical madman claiming divine guidance from some mythical sky-god which has inspired generations of crazed fanatics to abhorrent behavior resulting in historys worst ever crimes against humanity starting 1400 years ago and still continuing even today.
Islam is just another fascist totalitarian ideology used by power hungry fanatics on yet another quest for worldwide domination and includes all the usual human rights abuses & suppression of freedoms.
and 2 snappy graphics versions, great for emailing...
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1479/dangermoko.jpg
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/5792/dangero.jpg
Post a Comment
<< Home