White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad
Fjordman's latest essay at Gates of Vienna, When Treason Becomes The Norm: Why The Proposition Nation, Not Islam, Is Our Primary Enemy seems to be a move in the right direction. He's talking about treason now, eviscerating the suicide meme he previously flirted with, though without directly disavowing it.Fjordman intertwines one sour note with an otherwise sensible conclusion. The sensible portions were highlighted in a comment by Eileen O'Connor:
As Sam Francis reminded us, 'every real nation is a country of a common blood. The only nations that claim to be defined by creeds are — come to think of it — totalitarian states. The Soviet Union, a 20th century descendant of the French Revolution, really was a credal nation, and it survived only because it rested on the same Terror that reigned in France. When the common blood dries up and the civilization founded on it withers, all that’s left is the state.'Chechar had already responded with a spot-on comment probing Fjordman's most glaring blind spot:
Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis. After the Second World War, any talk of genetic differences, of being related by blood or of ties to the soil you live on became associated with Nazism and therefore seen as evil. Out of the many things the Nazis destroyed, this was one of the most damaging, but perhaps least appreciated today. I would be tempted to declare the Nazis the most anti-white movement that ever existed, considering the incalculable damage they did to Europeans and people of European origins.
The main reason why we are threatened by outside forces today is because of the notion that our countries should be glorified shopping centers where anybody should be free to enter as they desire. As long as this situation continues, we will never be able to defeat our enemies.
Our primary enemy is the Proposition Nation, not Islam. The only way to restore sanity to our countries is to restore the concept that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage.
@ “If we make a list of groups or institutions that are promoting the dispossession and destruction of Europeans it would look something like this, starting from the top down: [six culprits]I think this blind spot cannot long endure the trajectory Fjordman is on. Here, for the first time I believe, he crosses a line, stepping away from deracinated counter-jihad and toward ethno-racial nationalism. I thought I might help him, and others in a similar quandry, with the portion of his thinking he finds "unfortunate". I left the following comment:
Why did you left out an important culprit Fjordman, the Jewish involvement in shaping American immigration policy?
As to immigration in Europe, see this video where a Jewess Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement:
Quote:
“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we [the Jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.”
/end quote
Fjordman,This morning I returned to the thread and found the following comment from Fjordman:
I like this essay, especially the portions Eileen O'Connor highlighted in her 6/10/2011 10:06 PM comment. Well done. I hope you continue along these lines.
"Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis."
But you do not believe this line of thinking is wrong. It is unfortunate, but unavoidable, that you're having trouble reconciling this with your belief that "the nazis" are evil. The two beliefs cannot co-exist for long.
I hope you realize sooner rather than later that whatever "the nazis" did does not negate the truth or righteousness of nationalism - including the idea "that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage". It means Germany for Germans, Norway for Norwegians, Europe for Europeans. When you can finally say this in full throat you will be denounced as a "nazi". But by then you will understand who does this and why.
Chechar and Tanstaafl are hostile, dishonest debaters. In fact, I wouldn’t call them debaters at all, but rather spammers. They essentially post the same comment over and over again, and it’s not even an interesting or intelligent comment. Tanstaafl: We have nothing in common and I will NEVER join your “team.” You should have realized that by now. You have your own blog and there are plenty of others where you can write about this as much as you want to. You have no right to hijack this website where good people invest their time with little or no pay to create important debates.My comment was gone.
I will request that GoV deletes Tanstaafl’s latest comment about the Nazis. Some people have mental faculties that require us to protect them from themselves. Tanstaafl clearly falls under that category. Mr. T: Your presence undermines the very purpose of this website. You have no business being here. I don’t spend countless hours of my free time reading or thinking about interesting subjects to write about for you to come here and destroy everything. Take a hike. And that goes for Chechar, too.
I’m sure Chechar will whine and complain about “censorship,” and he’s free to do so….somewhere else, for instance at his own, not terribly interesting blog which he keeps hijacking our posts here by linking to. I’m also sure he will say that I have “no right” to censor him and that doing so is “cowardice.” He’s wrong on both accounts. Yes, I do. I have every right to tell him that his presence is not wanted on my posts, just like a person has the right to decide who he wants to let into his private home. If I try to keep a tidy house and unwanted people intrude and make a mess of it, I have every right to ask them to leave. It’s not “cowardice” to ask bullies to leave, and that’s what Chechar is: a bully. He’s extremely rude and intrudes where he knows perfectly well that he is not wanted, just like the low-IQ Third World thugs he himself despises.
Discrimination is proper and necessary. Our civilization needs more of it in order to survive and prosper. I choose to discriminate against Chechar based on his rudeness, his lack of logic and his general lack of manners. I also choose to discriminate against Tanstaafl based on his lack of a moral compass and above all his lack of intelligence. There should be an IQ limit to posting here, and Tanstaafl does not qualify. He barely has an IQ much higher than that of your average Muhammedan from the Yemen, and he shares much the same obsession with looking for Jews under his bed.
Bye.
As with the puffed-up opprobrium Fjordman heaps upon "the nazis" in his essay, I see in the blind bile in this comment the anger of a man terrified with the implications of his own thoughts. We do indeed have something in common. I passed through counter-jihadism on the way to where I am now. This is why I can see so clearly why his current line of thinking, in favor of nationalism, is colliding with a long-ingrained belief in the diabolical nature of "the nazis". The counter-jihad is a movement focused on what's good for "the jews". I believe Fjordman has claimed to be 100% Norwegian. Whether he considers "the jews" White or Norwegian or not, as long as he stands against the Proposition Nation, especially in preference to "a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage", he will find himself opposed and pilloried by "the jews", not "the nazis".
"The jews" are their own people with their own shared heritage. They have demonstrated time and again that they cannot abide the same in anyone else. Their ancient competitors - the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, and a gaggle of latter day caliphs, kings, queens, czars, and führers - are gone, "the jews" remain.
When Fjordman strikes out at "the nazis" he strikes at an easy target. He telegraphs that he is not an enemy of "the jews". From his previous writings, we know Fjordman thinks highly of "the jews". Whether he holds to this position, it will not fool them. If he is sincere in his move toward a more pro-White/pro-European stand he will realize this eventually. If in the meantime it makes him feel better to imagine himself as a heroic Luke Skywalker rejecting the dirty, rotten, evil, lying Darth Vader, that's fine by me.
Then again it could very well be that Fjordman is insincere - that for whatever reason he still really places the interests of "the jews" above everyone else, but because he has already been criticized for this he is trying to conceal it rather than reconsider it and reorder his priorities. I find this less likely, but time will tell.
- - -
Before I commented on Fjordman's essay, Takuan Seiyo, who I've crossed paths with before, had already made a comment condemning Chechar. Seiyo is of a different, more fundamentally jew-first counter-jihad stripe than Fjordman. He claims to be half-Slav/half-jew, though the latter half dominates both the style and substance of his arguments. As with Lawrence Auster, Seiyo makes the occasional strong statement in favor of native Europeans and critical of "the jews". Then he spends the balance of his efforts making it clear that this is only because he sympathizes with and excuses "the jews". The real problem, in his mind, comes from the evil "anti-semites", "nazis", and other people who criticize "the jews" from a point of view less sympathetic than his own.
With this understanding I made a second comment at GoV:
Takuan Seiyo writes:This comment has also been removed. Just below where it appeared, before the response made by Fjordman quoted above, was this comment from Seiyo:
"The reason people like Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna, myself and others cannot write more about the Jewish contribution to our destruction is precisely because of those who do, like the comrade above. Their lying about Hitler, Holocaust denial, hobnobbing with Ustashniks and Neo-nazis, obscurantism about the horrors of the Romanovs’ rule that engendered the Bolshevik Revolution (and Jewish participation therein), puts anyone who writes critically about their grand idee-fixe -- Der Juden – in a radioactive chamber, and anyone who cares about truth in the camp of untruth.
The antisemites sabotage the task of saving and boosting the Peoples of Europe (and her diaspora) in two more ways. First, by misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Jews’ motivation in their dysfunctional behavior, they muddle the issue and make it far more difficult to mount effective countermeasures. To be brief, the most accurate – and most bitingly damaging -- statement about the Jewish dysfunction was made not by Duke or MacDonald, but rather by a Jewish comedienne, Julia Gorin, and in direct negation of their and Hitler’s spurious theorizing."
I'll believe Seiyo speaks for Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna when they say he does.
"The antisemites" are Seiyo's grand idee-fixe, his "Der Juden". If they would just be silent, even here on the margins of the internet, then he could finally save us all.
For those who would like to hear what actual White nationalists have to say for themselves, I recommend the following podcasts:
The Nationalist Report: Interview with David Duke, Oct 2010.
Kevin MacDonald's speech at the first National Conference of the American Third Position Party, June 2010.
What these men say should appeal to any White person Fjordman's essay appeals to.
It's either you or me. This blog will have to choose. I feel soiled by being on the same page with you. Unless you are bounced from here, I take a hike. Your response, if any, will get no response from me.Probably without intending it, Seiyo echoes and confirms the point I was trying to get across to Fjordman. You can pick European nationalism or "the jews". Those who choose their own kind, their nation, over "the jews" will be forced to face the fact, sooner or later, that their enemies, those who demonize and attack them most vehemently, are those who put "the jews" first.
- - -
Hesperado is another commenter on the Fjordman essay that I've previously crossed paths with. The comments in that post touch on Seiyo, Fjordman, and the counter-jihad as well.
Chechar has also discussed Fjordman at his blog.
Labels: chechar, counter-jihad, fjordman, gates of vienna, takuan seiyo, white nationalism
posted by Tanstaafl at 6/11/2011 11:30:00 AM
179 Comments:
I think you nailed it. He's too intellectually dishonest to reason through the Jewish question - he's chosen to side with the Jews. Your comments make him uncomfortable, so he just pronounces that you are no longer welcome. A pitiful and cowardly response.
Once bloggers side with the Jews, they adopt Jewish tactics, i.e. authoritarian control of 'dialogue', ad hominem attacks, extreme accusations, etc.
You are a good and decent person Tan, and I appreciate greatly the compassion and understanding you have extended to Fjordman given the SHOCKING way he has just attacked you (and Chechar).
I pray the day comes when he will thank you for said compassion and patience, and apologize for speaking to and about you in such a truly shameful fashion. It was such a 'beta-style' rant, that I find myself having to craft an entirely new image of the man! Something along the lines of a nordic Woody Allen comes to mind, lol.
I mean come ON! To accuse you-- you being one of the most intelligent and honest writers in the blogosphere-- of having a "low IQ"--and then to call Chechar's brilliant blog "not interesting", lol....I mean, is the man looking for a career in stand-up comedy or something?
I think you are bang on the money; he has come up against a most difficult inner hurdle, and as he could not bear to be challenged in the very public spotlight of the comments section @ GOV, he instead lashed out at you and made you 'disappear'. I bet he will be seeing you under the bed and around corners from here on in, the poor bastard ;)
I posted this comment on a post at Mangan's a couple weeks ago, but it was in an old thread and I don't think many people saw it, so I'll put repost it here:
"Counter-Jihad" is basically the multiculturalism of the right. Multiculturalism appeals to liberals because it looks and feels like a form of social progress, and counter-Jihad appeals to conservatives because it looks and feels like a pro-America and pro-White movement.
In reality, neither of these perceptions is correct. Both multiculturalism and counter-Jihad are con-jobs perpetrated on Whites by a hostile alien elite that knows how to frame its agenda in ways that will appeal to us. Both multiculturalism and counter-Jihad are harmful to us, and both waste enormous amounts of energy that should be going into positive efforts. And the fact that these two ideologies are superficially opposed to one another makes it very difficult for people to see the scam for what it is. The whole game is rigged.
You pushed his what I call, "quilty button". His reaction shows it. They who suppress the truth within themselves always do this when someone comes speaking truth. This is the "why"of "racist/anti semitic/homophobe" etc., accusations.
You got too close to the truth and they who are guilty of believing the lie can't stand that.
The Greeks are still here.
It seems likely that the Greeks of today have some admixture from other Balkan populations and possibly Anatolian populations, but can't similar statements be made about the Jews you claim to still exist?
Of course they can, especially in respect to the Ashkenazi Jews who clearly have blood from Greek and Roman converts to their religion, some blood from German converts to their religion, and probably if you go far back enough blood from Phoenician converts to their religion.
*I don't think it follows that he has to become an apologist for the Nazis.
"Counter-Jihad" is basically the multiculturalism of the right. Multiculturalism appeals to liberals because it looks and feels like a form of social progress, and counter-Jihad appeals to conservatives because it looks and feels like a pro-America and pro-White movement.
I like this a lot Anon. Thanks.
Like Fjordman you seem disturbed that I think it's ridiculous to heap scorn and blame on "the nazis", to scapegoat a man or a government that was put down 65 years ago, or to join in condemning those who today are smeared, despised, marginalized and have no political or media influence whatsoever, specifically because they recognize and reject jewish supremacy.
This same lame attempt to change the subject to "the nazis" comes up every time counter-jihadis, or almost anyone for that matter, are confronted with the role jews have played in the problems they complain about. In this case Fjordman anticipated being called a "nazi" himself, so he denounced "the nazis" preemptively. He brought them up. He need not have done that, just as he need not become an apologist for "the nazis", as you incorrectly suggest.
"the nazis" conjures up the image of the cartoonish bad guys in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Ain't it funny how that was made by Steven Jew Spielberg?
Since I'm a white European, I am able to fix up this famous thing to how it would have been had I been in Germany:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I wanted the Socialists crushed!
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I know the Jews have been Christianity's enemy of old, and wasn't it about time the Jews got what was coming to them?
And they never came after me, because I was one of their people.
Mary,
Thank you very much for your comment. I might use it soon as an entire entry in my blog.
Cicatrizatic, you nailed it too, and thanks Tan for this post. I was tempted to copy and paste the most notorious comments in that GoV thread but your work here spared me from doing it by myself.
Brandon,
Did you mean "guilty button"?
An article you may find interesting: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/islamization-is-part-of-the-strategy/
Jesus H. Christ that was a blood bath over at GoV. I took particular pleasure in taking Hesperado to the woodshed.
I think Fjordman does well and truly get the Jewish angle, Tan. He's just scared shitless to voice his true opinion. And of course he thinks he is the eminent such and such and those he believes to be his mental and moral inferiors are not to gainsay his allegedly superior strategy for advocating White racial survival and protecting his own ass.
He's probably read some of MacDonald's writing, at least out of curiosity since "the Nazis" keep bringing it up. And what thinking man has not has not said to himself, having done that, "Fuck! If even half of this stuff in true it really is the Jews' fault!" But for Fjordman, mum is the word.
Vaclav Havel's Poster Test:
The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!"
Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world?...
I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient
"Is Fjordman Jewish by any chance?"
Nah. He's a Norwegian bookworm who can't get past the decidedly not nice political gangsterism of National Socialism and who believes an inevitable apocalyptic economic/environmental meltdown (Ragnarok) will do the work of NS for it. He even states (at Mangan's) it will be a good thing if Western Civilization perishes in the process. This obviously includes the historic influence of Jews in the West (e.g., the Judeo-Christian tradition). Basically an "act of God" will have dispensed with Jewish power and he won't have to feel guilty about being not nice. Typical Walter Mitty bourgeois bullshit.
What has Christianity to do with Talmudic Judaism? They are at sharp odds, and always have been. Even as Christianity was starting the top persecutors were Jews. Talking about a Jewish-Christian tradition is like talking about a Nazi-Bolshevik Tradition.
Oh, and this: Anyone who feels the urge to give Fjordman the scorched-earth treatment (and who hasn't from time to time?) may wish to pull on the thread of his sheer misanthropic lunacy which exceeds even the most unflattering portrait of "the Nazis" in his contention of the desirability of the death of Western Civilization in a seething cauldron of Malthusian bloodletting. Some friend of the West Fjordman is! (Not to be tried at Mangan's. And you didn't hear it from me.)
"Our primary enemy is the Proposition Nation, not Islam."
How true! Gates of Vienna should stop the nonsense about how we need to organize a counter-jihad. We need to expel the third-world immigrants, period.
Captainchaos: " I think Fjordman does well and truly get the Jewish angle, Tan. He's just scared shitless to voice his true opinion."
Maybe Fjordman went directly from total ignorance of Jewish malfeasance to abject fear of Jewish power. There are many white nationalists in Europe who think it is impossible to win against the Jews. That's why they are trying to find Jewish allies. Maybe that's what Fjordman is now trying to do. Maybe he hopes mainstream Jewish activists will finally change their minds over the immigration question when they finally realize that it is bad for the Jews too. But the first step would be for Jewish "allies" like Auster and Seiyo to denounce the Jewish role in the immigration disaster. Instead, they are trying to prevent non-Jews from mentioning the Jewish problem. Not very helpful.
Tanstaafl said: "The sensible portions were highlighted in a comment by Eileen O'Connor."
I nearly cut out the sentences about the Nazis when I quoted that section, but then I left them in because it is sort-of correct. The mistake in the reasoning, of course, is that it wasn't the Nazis who destroyed thinking along the lines of genetics, but the reaction of many people since the war who decided they don't like that line of thinking (because of some of the policies the Nazis implemented once they had drawn their conclusions).
There are probably some very good (in terms of biology) reasons why genocide happens. Not everyone is ready to think about these, though.
Which is too bad, because until we all really understand what drives human behaviors, we are never going to solve any issues we might have with our behaviors.
For me, it defies reason why a bully and intelellectual terrorist like Takuan Seiyo is considered respectable, accepted and praised in the counter-jihad community - and in any group of decent people. Compared to Seiyo, Larry Auster almost looks like the Good Samaritan.
Everytime I read one of his comments online, I feel the need to intervene because my head almost explodes with anger seeing so much dishonesty, cunningness and obfuscation. Basically, everything he's ever written might be summed up as "Whites everywhere feel the need to pay for pogroms, the Cossacks and Auschwitz with their suicide - and don't even think about surviving until you uproot this evil from your hearts and minds". Each and every of his essays or comments starts with a few sugarcoated paragraphs about the necessity to save the Western civilization, and then he comes back to the main point: don't forget the pogroms, the Cossacks, Auschwitz.
It's not only the transparent cunningness that makes my head explode - but also the unmatched Judaic thirst of revenge. Pretending that you want to save the Western civilization while reminding Europeans incessantly their tradition of "psychotic anti-Semitism" (the most painful issue for whites - the Holocast guilt) is like pretending to help a drug-addict in recovery while admonishing him all the time "and never forget what a junkie you used to be - and you are a potential junkie for the rest of your life". I prefer any time of the day a honest enemy to a destructive fake friend like this.
Seiyo makes me understand the mentality of the Jewish Soviet commissars and why Jews are capable to hijack any movement where they are accepted, from the Politburo to the Republican Party, at the expense of naive Gentiles, otherwise at least as capable of leadership as them. The virulence, hypnotic verbosity (talk as much as possible, never address the point), the fervor in silencing the opponents misrepresenting their arguments, character assassination as the main tool to stop the debate, sentimental blackmail and whining ("my parents, who survived the Holocaust"), etc. - all these aspects make me understand the mindset of many, from Trotsky to Alinsky, from Horkheimer to Bernard-Henri Levy.
Last but not least, it makes me understand the troubled Jewish-Gentile relations, in a nutshell. I don't exclude the possibility that deep inside, at a subconscious level, intelligent, articulate Gentiles like Fjordman or the Baron might simply be afraid of the bully and others like him. Not consciously, but as a suppressed reaction of protection.
Gates of Vienna has recently bee banned in Saudi Arabia. It is still available in Oman ahd the U.A.E.
Robert in Arabia
Chechar: Yes, thanks. Senior moment....
I've been reading Fjordman's work for years. I've been banned from GoV several times for my comments to him. Finally he seems to be moving, slow and steady, in the right direction.
Thank you Rosalie, great insights.
Fjordman, the Baron, and others with Jekyl/Hyde "friends" like Seiyo might read the deeper treatment in Understanding Jewish Influence, by Kevin MacDonald. Fjordman likes how Sam Francis thinks, so he should be interested to know that Francis wrote the introduction for this monograph, praising MacDonald's work.
It is available as a PDF download.
The abstract for the first essay, Background Traits for Jewish Activism, reads:
"Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within Western societies. I will discuss Jewish background traits conducive to influence: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, with most of the focus on ethnocentrism. I discuss Jewish ethnocentrism in its historical, anthropological, and evolutionary context and in its relation to three critical psychological processes: moral particularism, self-deception, and the powerful Jewish tendency to coalesce into exclusionary, authoritarian groups under conditions of perceived threat."
The other two essays are Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism and Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement.
The soi-disant (to use Seiyo's favorite $10 word) counter-jihad has several characteristics of a jewish movement, and can be seen as largely an outgrowth of and having much overlap with both zionism and neoconservatism.
Since a lot of the very finest people I work with in the Counterjihad are Jewish conservatives, it does not align with my strategic interests to create any more flypaper for Jew-haters.
Says the good Baron.
I know they are kinda struggling financially too judging by the sharing they do about their personal lives during 'blegs'.
I was however a bit impressed he let the thread stand, despite the shameful selective deleting of Tan's posts.
I really enjoyed your contributions to the that thread Rosalie, especially the 'old man in a disco' analogy, lol....so funny, so true!
Fjordman, the Baron, and others with Jekyl/Hyde "friends" like Seiyo
Jekyl/Hyde is an apt characterization. You can notice his attitude towards me in the GoV thread. In the beginning he's very friendly, with an almost father-like attitude. Then, when he realizes what I'm saying and that he can't beat me with arguments, the wrath comes over my head: "I've believed that you might be saved, but it seems that I'm mistaken". Notice how finally he placed me in the category of the unredeemable - the "Nazis".
I can go on and on about his dishonest tactics and strategies. For example, when you respond to one of his posts and he's unable to answer back with arguments, he disappears for a short while, then he's back with a long diatribe against you consisting mainly in the accusation that you see "a Jew under every bed", plus a panegyric praising the Jewish contributions to the Western civilization, plus a lachrymose eulogy dedicated to the victims of the pogroms and Auschwitz, like you're personally responsible for them. Thus, the people who participate in the conversation don't even know how all this started (he ducked out from the original conversation), and the impression that remains is that you're a paranoid anti-Semite who blames Jews for all the ills of the world.
I'm glad Chechar was able to quote this bit from Trifkovic at GoV. From Is the Alt Right Anti-Semitic?:
"To claim that the traditional Right is “anti-Jewish” is to imply that it is gripped by an irrational prejudice. Such accusation is untrue and unfair. […]
Historically, Talmudic Judaism’s insistence on the Jews’ racial uniqueness — emphasized by the ritual and dietary laws of Talmudic Judaism and on its view of Christians as idolaters — has ensured that a Jew steeped in his own tradition could not view traditional European or American conservatism with sympathy. His tradition was a form of elaborate survival mechanism based on the zero-sum view of a world divided into “us” and “them.” The Gentile was "the Other" ab initio and for ever.
In addition, since the late 1800’s the Jews have had a disproportionate impact on a host of intellectual trends and political movements which have fundamentally altered the civilization of Europe and its overseas offspring in a manner deeply detrimental to the family, nation, culture, racial solidarity, social coherence, tradition, morality and faith. Spontaneously or deliberately, those ideas and movements — Marxism (including neoconservatism as the bastard child of Trotskyism), Freudianism, Frankfurt School cultural criticism, Boasian anthropology, etc. — have eroded “the West” to the point where its demographic and cultural survival is uncertain. The erosion is continuing, allegedly in the name of propositional principles and universal values, and it is pursued with escalating ferocity.
Only one group and one nation-state remain exempt from the dictates of pluralism and diversity, and from the condemnation (heading towards criminalization) of any form of group solidarity based on blood, culture and faith."
Trifkovic's The Sword of the Prophet is one book I have recommended to anyone who wants to understand Islam from a Euro-centric point of view. The bio notes describe Trifkovic as "has been an outspoken advocate of the Jacksonian enlightened nationalism in world affairs and a stubborn upholder of the unsurpassed legacy of dead white males at home."
(THE NEW JACKSONIAN BLOG: Jacksonian Nationalism and American Empire: Review Essay)
Auster went Seiyo on Alt-Right and went bananas particularly over Trifkovic's statement in My preliminary responses to the Alt-Right symposium on anti-Semitism and the far right:
"The interviews show again how the paleocons are stuck forever in the same dead slogans and the same obsession with the neocons. But they go beyond that. They all say now that it's the Jews themselves that are the problem. Jews are the source of all political/cultural evil in the world.
The anti-Jewish statements made by Taki and by Paul Gottfried (the anti-Semites' favorite Jew) are, disgustingly, what you would expect. What is utterly shocking and appalling is Serge Trifkovic's statement. He has never been visibly an anti-Semite. But in his contribution to the symposium, he engages in a demonization of the Jewish people that goes beyond Kevin MacDonald, if that is possible. He portrays the Jews as quite simply the cause of everything bad. He describes the Jewish people as coextensive with the principle of evil and the various harms caused by leftism. The Jews are the enemy, period."
Disgust! Shock! Appall! Extreme emotional language he then uses to justify projecting his own tactics onto "the anti-semites": Demonization. All evil. Everything bad. The enemy, period.
Auster goes beyond Kevin MacDonald's factual, dispassionate description of jewish personality traits.
Hesperado's old man in the disco is an act. He has been droning on and on about "PC MC" for years, autistically focused on Islam, desperately refusing to identify it as part of the broader anti-White regime of "minority" privilege, which jews sit atop. His nose for "anti-semtism" works perfectly well. He will be among those who condemn Fjordman, "PC MC"-style, if he continues down the path Sam Francis took.
Extreme emotional language he then uses to justify projecting his own tactics onto "the anti-semites": Demonization.
Well, one can see clearly, from the way Auster treated and described Trifkovic, what treatment is reserved for Fjordman and other counter-jihadi Gentiles if they ever cross the line. The Jekyll/Hyde treatment: now my friend, then my anti-Semite mortal enemy.
But I found something amusing in Auster's article. When he's confronted by Dennis Mangan about the mischaracterization of Trifkovic, Auster writes:
Note: I have not been feeling well lately and am not up to writing the full length article on this subject that is needed. I hope to be able to do so in the near future.
Funny, heh? The same excuse and tactics he used with Manfred Kleine-Hartlage in the discussion about "Germans - promoters of liberalism". He's out of arguments, he realizes he will lose in a civil, honest debate, so he's ill.
Jesus, expecting honesty and moral spine from these people is like expecting the Second Coming. Seiyo often claims that the main obstacle to save the West is the fact that paranoid anti-Semites are still around: they are the only reason the battle is lost before starting. The irony is, it's exactly people like Auster and Seiyo that make any pro-Western movement impossible - and there are thousands like them. As long as we don't have the strength to tell them, as a group, GTFO (it's as simple as that), we're dead.
Rosalie is on fire. I cant read Seiyo - his dishonest, effeminate indignation is too sickening, reading him I feel like when I had a moutful of Skoal once and my dad walked in and I had to swallow it. I can't bring myself to waste energy commenting on a site like that. So, I second Mary's comment above praising Tanstaafl's buoyancy and composure in the face of these constant cowardly attacks.
I don't share the confidence that guys like Fjordman will ever see the light. I'm convinced that those who come around are generally the ones who haven't yet been exposed to the truth, very similar to how most young conservatives make a point of praising Martin Luther King before someone sets them straight about the mythoology they are unwittingly promoting. It's too obvious - such conversions shouldn;t take too long. Eventually even the hypothesis that Fjordman is jewish becomes more likely than that he'll ever come around.
There are two separate matters here; one is exemplified by Mac Donald's (and obviously many others') historical analyses of who caused what with what motivation by which means etc with all the historian's questions (was it inevitable? etc.); the other is, never mind the past - who is defending anything from being done about our predicament right now? Many neoconservatives can blame the frankfurt school or the federal reserve all they want and make it appear like they are on our side, but when it comes to actually doing anything about these civilization destroying movements, you'll get nowhere if you don't explicitly point out the jewish (and to a great extent jewish qua jewish) interests deeply vested in the status quo. There's a colossal bulwark of jewish leadership behind every cultural, legal, and political institution (led by the shady, behing-the-scenes global banking elite). It's like we're in a high school football game, and a Pro Bowl offensive line has joined the opposite team. Any quarterback has all day to complete a pass; any garbage running back can gain big yards through mile-wide holes. The other players hardly matter, and to focus on them is, practically speaking, hardly different that doing nothing at all. Go ahead, take out the first second, and third string quarterbacks - see what happens. These guys are talking about nuking Mecca. It's depressing beyond words.
Against Fjordman III
(the following was posted at GOV's new "attack the Nazi jooooo haters" thread and stayed up for about 10 minutes---which was 10 minutes longer than I thought it would, lol. It not at all noteworthy as comments go,it is actualy quite boring, but as it was deleted I figured I would share it anyways.
I basically just wanted her to know: I know yer lying!)
************************************
"evil jooooos"
" jew-haters"
etc etc......
These are not quotes from anyone on that thread---they are in fact an obvious mischaracterization of what was actually said. I never once saw anyone say they "hated all jews". All I saw them say was that they loved our own people more than doing what is in the best interests of jews.
Why does that equate to "hate" in your eyes?
It must be exhausting having to keep deleting those you disagree with, all while demanding 'Freedom' and condemning those who silence and ostracize you. A true 'double-life'.
I get it though, as Baron said, you work with a lot of Jews and "it would not serve your interests" to piss them off I guess.
Btw: Both Fjordmann and Takuan came off as complete frauds in that thread, and no amount of damage control and censorship of honest commenters by you can change that.
Despite all this, I wish you well. You seem like nice people caught between a rock and a hard place. I hope life gets easier for you.
*************************************
You know, it really is a bit sad to see Dyhmpna admit publicly that "Gates of Vienna is how we make a living"....and this right after the Baron admits he "works with a lot of jews".
When that is your financial reality, your means of survival, what else CAN you do but attack 'the jooooo haters'! Gotta earn that rent money somehow....
Beats standing on a corner I guess, but the situation is not all that much different really, now that I think about it.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/06/serbia-standard.html
Here's an choice contribution by one 'Conservative Swede':
To stop any [defecating] dog you'll need to use profiling and discrimination, and essentially bully the dog out of his bad behaviour (alternatively make him leave, it's up to him really).
A good bully'er won't even been seen as a bully, but as a kind and wise leader (that's how power works).
Apparently, no matter how high one thinks his "IQ" is, when you don't get it, you don't get it. This guy Fjordman engages in the same namecalling and insults, as any other brainwashed moron who hasn't figured out what's going on. On top of it, he's too ignorant to debate the topic. The only thing Fjordman understands about Nazis, or Muslims, for that matter, is what the jews have told him. Or perhaps he IS a jew.
Thank you Mary for letting us know of this new entry at GoV.
The moral standards of the GoV-ers are much, much worse than I expected. Obviously Baron and Dymphna have a Jew sponsor —and perhaps that’s also the reason why Fjordman cannot talk about the Jews. Who else sponsors the Norwegian bookworm?
The Baron is saying in that new thread that, since Zenster requested further discussion on the already discussed Question, he’s opening this new thread in honor of Serbian Serge Trifkovic (whose quotation on the JQ Tan reposted above). But now the Baron and his wife are saying that in the new thread about Serbia… the JQ is forbid.
A new Rule in GoV!
So the Baron is effectively pronouncing the doublespeak of telling Zenster that the Question will be further discussed at his request on the condition that, under the New Rule, the JQ is… taboo (Dymphna has already deleted the comment Mary kindly pasted above).
Worst of all is Conservative Swede, a regular GoV-er that, after quitting commenting at GoV for a long time, just reappeared tonight.
And just like Fjordman, Swede has just engaged in a lengthy diatribe, but this time against all of us. He is literally saying that we defecated on the GoV commentariat box. But Swede used absolutely zero arguments about the JQ. Just what Fjordman did.
In a 2009 GoV thread Swede had already used exactly the same metaphor against me, defecating on the GoV carpet, when I said something politically incorrect about Hitler and his Reich.
It’s incredible the level of self-delusion among these people. We did good the last two days. Congrats to Eileen, Tan, Captain, Rosalie, Mary and… The Sentinel—whoever you are in other blogs. In fact, it was a debacle for Team Counter-Jihad. That’s why they are discussing now that under other circumstances the Baron would have deleted all of our comments (even if, incidentally, we didn’t violate any of the old GoV rules).
Yes: the Baron is now saying that he has lots of Jewish friends, and that a Jewess from Israel emailed him concerned about the recent debate on the JQ (probably the last JQ debate at GoV ever).
/cont…
I doubt that Fjordman is a Jew (not sure about it) but in 2009 Swede exploded so furiously against me when I mentioned the H-man that now I am starting to believe he is a Kike or that at least he has some Kike blood in his veins.
Even if he’s not, as I have heard elsewhere it may be said that every Gentile who behaves like a Kike is, in all practical terms, a Kike: and must be treated as such.
I mean: in our thread I refuted the Baron with the Trifkovic quotation after he claimed that Trifkovic didn’t have anything to do with Jew critics. This fact alone, that a truly major intellectual figure in counter-jihad recently made a turn into our camp, should have been enough to move Baron et al to harbor second thoughts. But Trifkovic’s change didn’t have any effect on them.
I am not a Christian, but Christian terminology comes handy and I must say that this people have surrendered their will to Evil.
That new post at GoV and the Swede comment really made me sick.
I don’t want to have anything to do with those Kikes or Judaized Gentiles.
Gates of Vienna has died today but… there might still be there a clean soul.
Let me quote Egghead’s latest post before the Iron Woman deletes it (perhaps she won’t dare):
Egghead said...
[comment 24]
Oops! Am I a wolf?! I feel more like Little Red Riding Hood trying to avoid the wolf....
Truly, the shock and horror that some people here have expressed about the recent 'topic-that-must not-be-named' is the EXACT same response that I receive when I try to get the PC MC crowd to discuss Islam and Muslims. To wit, 'we must not tar all Muslims with the same brush' - EXCEPT where that argument falls apart with Islam, I genuinely readily admit that there are both positive and negative groups in the 'topic-that-must not-be-named.'
I have the same opinion about the 'topic-that-must-not-be-named' as I do about the Serbs: All those who fight Islam, open immigration, and hate speech laws are the good guys. All others are questionable characters with very questionable motives.
If I caused anyone pain here, I readily apologize. Please forgive me. I meant well. :)
/end quote
Thanks Egghead, if you ever read this comment.
It's obvious that any truth that harms someone's interests runs the risk of being expediently buried by that someone. Therefore, if truth is what you're after, the stronger a group's potential to bury the truth--whether they're actually doing it or not-- the more you should (out of principle alone) allow criticism of said group.
So clearly these brave counter-jihadis aren't interested in truth as a matter of principle, because we all know jews are so weak, that they'll crush you if you accuse them of being strong.
Maybe these guys have another game plan, though, which a constant broaching of the JQ mars. As others have brought up here, maybe they must ban JQ discussion from a purely machiavellian perspective. Maybe they aren't especially philo-semitic at heart, but they see opposing the jews as too herculean a task, and so want to partake in the art of the possible.
If you see as your most urgent task getting third worlders out of Europe, you want to undertake that in the simplest way possible, which, given how powerful jews are, might be by not alienating them. (A book in China was published recently that the Rothschilds have a trillion dollars in assets. Who knows?)
So, the idea might go: "Whether we like it or not, Jews already have so much power in the West now, that if we can just convince them that our WN movement has no problem letting their tribe keep building their wealth and influence, if we just give them to understand that we're fine with them as a permanent ruling class, they'll see that we share some interests (like expunging Muslim anti-Semitism)."
Incidentally, that's basically why guys like Seiyo and Auster appear to be on our side. We all know these guys would be Bolsheviks in the previous century, when skepticism of jewish motives was widespread and the population still had a sense of identity. As it so happens, now that that identity is going the way of the mammoth, there has arisen a small minority of jews who realize that "acting in a traditionally jewish subversive way has become bad for the jews." So the idea might go, convince more jews of this, save Europe, in exchange for accepting jews as a permanent ruling class.
Little do they know, though, that the already tiny minority of powerful jews who would even consider allying with WNs will only do so as long as there's a muslim threat. They want to ban the koran; they don't give a damn about immigration per se.
I guess what I'm getting at is, are these guys cowards, traitors, or dupes? Probably a mix of all three.
In honor of Rosalie:
Beware of Takuan Seiyo!
And this one is in honor of Armor:
Against traitorous Counter-jihad
In The Serbia Standard, Bodissey writes:
"Those who are gung-ho about the Jews and Israel but refuse to support the Serbs and Serbia (or who actually vilify them) are intellectually inconsistent and incoherent, so their arguments may be justifiably disregarded."
Disregarded? He has harsher words for the occasional nobody who comes by and posts a few comments he doesn't like.
And why such a weak standard? How many zionists won't be able to shrug and mouth support for Serbia, especially after hearing that Serbs-and-jews-victims-together story Bodissey tells? Can they say "Serbia for the Serbs" without crossing their fingers behind their backs? Not likely.
It's also an incomplete, incoherent standard. How about The Any and All Western Nations Standard? The people at GoV style themselves defenders of the West. They insist Israel is part of the West. They support jewish nationalism to the hilt. So why is the standard not support for nationalism everywhere in the West?
I think Bodissey knows why not. I think he knows that the vast majority of zionists can't abide any kind of nationalism for Whites. Many might be able to say they "support Serbia", but most would fail a broader standard, even one that's perfectly equitable.
That's the inconvenient truth the GoVers can't bear to hear. The bottom line is that they want Whites to support "the jews" no matter how "the jews" behave. End of debate.
Well, well, well... Since probably I'm already persona non grata on GoV, considering my opinion about the Big Bully Seiyo, and from now on I am not interested in that blog anymore, because I've had enough, I will share some impressions about the outcome of Fjordman's essay - Baron's "The Serbian Standard" - which claims that Israel and Serbia represent similar situations.
Which is so comical and false that I don't know where to start from, so I will try to address it point by point just to deconstruct the lie.
1) Israel and Serbia have already been judged on different, hugely different standards by the "international community". That's because the Serbs don't have AIPAC and other myriad lobby organizations, plus the Democrats and Republicans competing who's going to support them more, plus the American Congress at their feet (like in the 29 standing ovations for Netanyahu in his last speech in the Congress, on a par with Stalin's apparatchiks - see Steve Sailer humorous take on the whole problem, at his blog).
2) Serbia was fiercely bombed for fighting on the ground surrounding Muslim populations. In exchange, Israel bombed ITSELF surrounding Muslim populations, which was "punished" by a threat with mild sanctions in the UN, quickly vetoed by the US.
3) The Serbs, collectively or individually, in the country or in diaspora, have never lobbyied for punishing Israel or applying sancions against it. While ADL, the World Jewish Congress, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Elie Wiesel, etc. (all Israel-firsters) have PUBLICLY demanded Bill Clinton to bomb Serbia, in order to hinder "a new Holocaust" against the Kosovars.
4) Why these double standards of cosmic proportions, ladies and gentlemen? Probably because the Serbs belong to the demonized group - white Christians, while the Jews belong to a protected, PC privileged group, considered perpetual victims of white Christians? Just sayin'
5) And how can one explain, or at least discuss, this clear, in-your-face double standard, without mentioning a) how Whites and Jews are held accountable in different ways, because nobody believes they belong to the the same group b) the Jewish influence.
6) yes, Baron, how do you explain this double standard yourself? And how do you envisage a honest discussion about this, without mentioning AT ALL the Jewish influence?
Rhetorical questions, of course.
Chechar writes:
It’s incredible the level of self-delusion among these people. We did good the last two days. Congrats to Eileen, Tan, Captain, Rosalie, Mary and… The Sentinel—whoever you are in other blogs. In fact, it was a debacle for Team Counter-Jihad.
Thank you for your work Chechar, and to all the rest of you here. I wouldn't put myself in the same class as commenters on the 'Jq' (or anything else for that matter) quite yet, but I am happy to be a cheerleader on this occasion. When faced with such unscrupulous foes, we need a few cheerleaders!
I agree with you that this new post is beyond belief in its dishonesty, hypocrisy and double standards. I could feel my temper rising while reading the insults and open disrespect being heaped upon good people who merely shared their genuine thoughts and opinions on a difficult topic.
I agree too that, on the whole, this has been a very good showing for 'our' side and they have not come out of this well at all, despite what they appear to think. Baron said that these threads "serve no useful purpose" and that "they never change anyones mind", but I suspect he is dead wrong on that account, as this episode has already changed my mind about retaining the last few strands of sympathy I had for GOV and the 'counter-jihad'.
Thank you all again your hard work. Rosalie, if you have a blog, I would really like to read it? If you don't, I hope you start one.
Ps: I am not sure if they are still up, but Pat Hannigan's comments on the new thread, (especially his amusing jousting with that yukky Takaun fella) put a big smile on my face this morning! :)
Rosalie: "Thus, the people who participate in the conversation don't even know how all this started (he ducked out from the original conversation), and the impression that remains is that you're a paranoid anti-Semite who blames Jews for all the ills of the world."
I wasn't participating in the conversation, but I read both threads, and while that may be the impression Takuan Seiyo intended to create, the impression I got was that The Sentinel was telling the truth and he never received a satisfactory reply.
The polite dissidents Tanstaafl and Chechar did well, and team Takuan Seiyo came off as nasty and shameless in exploiting the fact that the Gates of Vienna can't afford to be seen countenancing anti-Jewish opinions.
Remember when you are strong-armed out of a discussion and seem to be at a moral disadvantage that while there certainly will be those who want to get on the bandwagon, there will be others who are repulsed by such methods of arguing and would rather listen to the "losers" who were politely making good points.
I found the threads enlightening. I hadn't realized the anti-jihadists were that weak. In the face of a few reasons why a list of six hostile groups should have been a list of seven hostile groups (which is surely on-topic), they were quickly reduced to abuse, bluster and the ever-popular "shut up, they explained."
Nobody thinks Jews are the only problem, including Kevin MacDonald, who has written eloquently on the self-destructiveness of typically White universalism and "altruistic punishment" carried beyond reasonable bounds. Fertility is a problem for advanced societies, even the Japanese, who nobody thinks are responding to Jewish pressure not to have kids. Feminism can create severe problems independently of Judaism. Political correctness and the sort of one-sided liberal philosophy that sees autonomy as the supreme good rather than one item in a basket of goods are real menaces. "Black Run America" may be an exaggerated label, but there are plenty of White people who are experiencing problems along those lines, in cities where the political machine has gone Black, and "Black Run Southern Africa" is a brutal reality. Islam is still there and still a menace, and any European would be a fool to ignore it, if only because it's the religion of Arab ethnic supremacism and thus at least dubious for White people. And so on.
So it's not only Jews that get blamed.
Rather it's only Jews that demand that they be above blame, and that will attack to the point of derailing threads repeatedly unless they are set above the ordinary standards of criticism that are applied to everyone else. If there's a list of six or seven items, and all of them blame somebody, count on the ones that blame White men to go through without any objection from anyone, and most of the other items to go through with varying minor degrees of objection, but don't be surprised when the one that mentions Jews ignites a lasting firestorm of verbal punishment. The whole thread gets derailed, over and over, so that the only way to get relief is either to establish some explicitly non-Jewish discussion space (which I guess institutions like the Catholic Church have done, historically), or else ban, demonize, marginalize and discourage whoever refuses to let Jews play by special rules that advantage them over everyone else.
And then comes the amazing claim that it's the Judeo-skeptics who have one-track minds.
Anti-jihadism, with Jews seen as an indispensable part of the coalition (that is, with the power of veto) cannot transcend this problem. At least, it obviously hasn't. If the Jews are indispensable, and it's unacceptable (or at least too wearing on the nerves of relatively conflict-averse Whites) to have the fights that Jews will start whenever they aren't privileged enough, then everybody and everything displeasing to Jews has to go.
Then anti-jihadism must become in time, a Jewish front, in effect. It will take on jihadism and mass immigration only as and when that suits Jews. If Jews don't think ending mass immigration in general should be part of the program, it won't be, even if that would be the only principled and practicable way to keep Islamic hordes out of White countries.
In time an anti-jihadist front may even include other items that aren't logically connected with protecting Whites from jihad at all, because Jews and crypto-Jews can't be kicked off the team (because they're the ones with the money and connections), and they'll make life unbearable for everyone else until they get their way.
Anti-jihadism as a coalition including Jews and Whites is hollow. It can't defend itself in straight up intellectual terms, as seen in these Gates of Vienna threads.
And in the long term it won't defend White interests. It's a "coalition" that only exists while one side has the money and sets the rules and gets what it wants (or else), and the other side supplies warm bodies and labors on despite the fact that its needs are not being met, in frustration over lack of alternatives and in the vain hope that things will somehow get better.
This has been the Jewish ethno-political style for century after century, for millennium after millennium, in different states, on different continents, and in dealing with vastly dissimilar groups of Whites.
It's not profitable for Whites, collectively and in the long run, to enter coalitions on these terms.
Tan, advance apologies if this is getting too 'soap-operaesque' for your blog, and I won't mind one bit if you feel the need to delete it, but I feel compelled to share this new bit of wretchedness by Fjordmann. In this new attack, he straight out lies and I am starting to wonder if the man has really lost his marbles--why is he so threatened by Chechar?
This is part of his new entry:
I was genuinely annoyed by the fact that certain people hijacked a post that took me many hours to write, and quite frankly years to think about, thereby destroying what could otherwise have been an interesting and fruitful discussion of a highly important subject. If I regret anything it’s not deleting Chechar when he started hijacking the thread after just five comments. It’s not the only time he has displayed this characteristic bully behavior and he should be called on it immediately. A person has every right to ask a bully to leave his private home and should offer no apologies for doing so. It’s quite rude to derail other people’s work when you know quite well that your presence is not wanted, and although he has his flaws, Chechar is not so stupid that he doesn’t know that. He even admits himself that he was rude.
And this is another part:
The simple fact is that when it comes to giving birth to the Proposition Nation, which was the subject of my original essay, Jews were quite irrelevant. This means that people like Chechar hijacked the thread and destroyed what could have been a promising discussion by spamming it with largely irrelevant issues. I have every right to be angry about that, give him the middle finger and ask him to leave. He has no right to whine and complain for this, none whatsoever. He is a bully who intrudes where he knows he is unwanted, yet pretends to be a victim and wallows in self-pity when the owner asks him to leave. This is Muslim-like behavior.
Tanstaafl and his ilk believe that I am an “apologist” for the Zionists. I’m not. I am a Zionist. At least, if by that you mean that I think Jews should have a country of their own.
Although it is obvious how ridiculous so much of this is (Chechar did not "derail" or "hijack" the thread) it is his deceitful statement that "he even admits he was rude" that has given yet another sad glimpse into the empty character that is 'Fjordman', for Chechar said something very different that what he is trying to insinuate:
Chechar said...
I plead guilty to the rudeness charge, Fjordman: but my rudeness against you was limited to my blog and once at Tan’s, where you have never commented on in any of our threads. But I have never insulted you here at GoV (as you now are insulting me).
It is actually difficult for me to wrap my head around this revelation of Fjordman as a slinky, sneaky scoundrel.
I echo Daybreakers comment where he observes: " I found the threads enlightening. I hadn't realized the anti-jihadists were that weak.
Here's my critique, based solely on the title of Fjordman's essay:
It's great that he's moved beyond a defense of a "proposition nation"; the next step is to reject the notion of a "proposition enemy". We're not being attacked by ideas; we're being attacked by a living organism that wields those ideas as weapons.
Fjordman: "The simple fact is that when it comes to giving birth to the Proposition Nation, which was the subject of my original essay, Jews were quite irrelevant."
The simple fact is that that was not a "simple fact" but an assumption that was bound to be controversial, given that Jews have been highly relevant to issues of immigration, "pluralism" and so on in White countries.
Fjordman should have anticipated that inevitable controversy. He could have given reasons for his assumption. (It is entirely unsupported in his post.) Or he could have said (in the original post) that he wasn't ready to discuss the Jewish issue and asked people to confine discussion to other aspects of his new thinking, where he was ready to respond. (I'm sure someone would have asked why he wasn't ready to respond to such an obvious problem. But if he had stuck to saying that he needed a discussion on other aspects of the proposition nation as he had described it, I think Tanstaafl for one would have respected that.) Or he could have asked that his sixth point be taken as covering the Jewish issue for the time being, and requested that those commenting try to address all six points evenly, not just one.
What he did was pretend, with an unsupported controversial assumption, that no problem exists, and then when this odd move was questioned he supported rhetorical hostilities including exclusion for those puzzled by his assumption.
In effect, he hijacked his own thread by managing it badly. And he took no responsibility for this.
If things had gone down as Fjordman said, I would feel sorry for him.
But as Mary points out, you can line up what he said Chechar confessed to with what Chechar said, and it's obvious that Fjordman is making serious misstatements about things in our plain sight, and worse, using these invented facts to justify a lot of discourteous behavior by himself and others.
That creates a pathetic impression. When you can't respond to reasonable requests such as those from The Sentinel for reasons, not abuse, when you can't defend your thesis and in effect you need abusive rhetoric from yourself and others as a way to justify lowering the curtain on a discussion where you are not coming off well intellectually, and when you need to misstate the very plainly stated opinions of those who dissent in order to justify this rhetorical abuse and this silencing, then you are in sad shape.
I see in the blind bile in this comment the anger of a man terrified with the implications of his own thoughts.
Yep. Intellectual cowardice is not to be underestimated.
As Cicatrizatic ably points out, there are two sides here, the Jews, and everybody else, and everyone has to pick a team. That choice is forced because right now the Jews are winning, so they have the power to force that choice. It serves their purposes because actually discussing the JQ is very much an epic fail for Jewish interests. They've got everything to lose, and nothing to gain (because things have been going very much their way for some time now), by people tabling the JQ as if it's something normal people can discuss like adults.
That's the down side of a perfect season, you've got nowhere to go from there but down.
What's really funny about guys like Fjordman and Cornelius Troost is the airs of moral superiority they put on. It would be interesting to study the demographics of the other people they speak to that way (in terms of righteous indignation, especially). It's instructive what people hold onto the longest on their journeys away from LINO (Liberalism In Name Only). Seems kind of consistent, no?
Me, I retain the right to a White Zion, similar to the rights of Jewish Zion, regardless of the character of Jews.
ben tillman: "...the next step is to reject the notion of a "proposition enemy". We're not being attacked by ideas; we're being attacked by a living organism that wields those ideas as weapons."
It might be a next step, but is it a correct step?
Whites surely do have ethnic rivals, but that doesn't mean that ideas can't develop a life of their own and also be "enemies" worth discussion. For example, Communism has had a vast and bloody history in Asia, where Jewish Bolshevism was irrelevant.
I am quite sympathetic to the idea of discussing "the proposition nation" as an enemy independently of who came up with that idea.
There's a couple of good comments at Mangan's by Kevin V that seem on-topic, here.
While I think Whiskey’s comment above is not correct, I have no doubt that he is on to something. Living and working as I do in Central Europe, in an industry and city that is very much pan-European, with large groups from all over the EU working side-by-side, I have been given a very good vantage point to watch Europeans on the ground level.
First, Americans simply do not understand how overwhelmingly powerful their country is, not only in terms of raw muscle, both militarily and economically, but socially and politically was well. The modern, post-Liberal Revolution U.S. view of what democracy, representative government, civil society, free media and human rights means in both theory and practice, that we are all depressingly familiar with, has been accepted as the only legitimate model by both the European elites and a good-sized chunk of the common European people.
Do not let the fact that most European states are ethno-states in origin confuse you. As crazy and manifestly absurd as it may strike American right-wingers, these nations’ leaders have fully internalized the modern American model as the only legitimate model.
This means that a country like Sweden now sees itself as not just the nation for the Swedish people, but a modern representative democracy that values diversity and will treat every citizen the same regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or national origin.
The importation of Third World immigrants is understandable in this context; Swedish ruling elites cannot demonstrate to their EU colleagues and their U.S. superiors their complete and dedicated adherence to this model unless they have non-Swedes in significant numbers in the nation that they rule.
I would be interested in continued discussion along those lines in the context of Fjordman's new thinking.
But he and his allied derailed his own thread, and blamed others for it.
Try to imagine a white telling a Jew "the Jews do not exist" the way they routinely tell Whites that "whites do not exist," must obey LINO rules, etc.
Since I'm a white European, I am able to fix up this famous thing to how it would have been had I been in Germany
I prefer Judo:
First they came for the anti-semites,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an anti-semite.
Then they came for the racists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a racist.
Then they came for the conservatives,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a conservative.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Here's my message to people like Fjordman and Cornelius Troost who, while afraid of or otherwise deferential toward Jewish sensibilities, are otherwise obviously more on our side than not:
Do not behave as if you have the moral high ground vis-a-vis your moral superiors.
Simple, ain't it? Sure, go ahead, be tactical. Work within your limits I don't begrudge Jared Taylor his (onstensible) policy. But don't act like you're the moral, right, just, educated, sensitive, intelligent one by dint of the fact.
Lie to me, but not to yourself. When you do, I can tell.
Daybreaker's right, of course, and that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. If people would stop packaging Jewish interests and Jewish arguments into their ideas, people like me would have less reason to respond. I'm compelled to respond when people inject Jewish propaganda into their posts or comments. Otherwise, unless I'm at a blog like this one, I tend not to bring up the JQ.
Political correctness and the sort of one-sided liberal philosophy that sees autonomy as the supreme good
Talk to me about this. When I see "autonomy as the supreme good" I get a big question mark over my head. You mean individual autonomy, and group slavery (at least for whites), right? Which in effect, is no autonomy at all. Nothing whatever like "the pursuit of happiness." That's the thing about rights, if you let TPTB abrogate them in one thing, they'll just expand that thing to cover the entire right eventually. So it is with autonomy and "anti-discrimination" (anti-freedom; anti-autonomy) law. That's why the state will continue to fall in line behind PC, unless something better comes along.
Beats standing on a corner I guess, but the situation is not all that much different really, now that I think about it.
Quite different. As a street walker, a person can retain his mind, his interior life, as his own.
A mind-whore cannot.
Himmelkreuzsacrament! After a long day of work in a third-world country to put some bread on my humble table — not like the Barons who make a living thanks to Jewish $ponsors — what do I find? That GoV has gone completely, absolutely nuts!
Baron:
“Oh -- in case you were wondering, I no longer believe in free speech… Deal with it.”
Conservative Swede:
To be clear regarding what I wrote above. I'm in no way against discussing things that are taboo. But it has to be done intelligently and constructively. Defecating dogs [i.e., us] need to be sent out of the room.
Fjordman:
This is not a spam blog for people who have an obsession with Jews.
/end of quotes
And then the Barons, who no longer believe in free speech after their debacle, deleted more than 25 comments posted by our friend Pat Hannagan, who dared to talk back to Taksei and ConSwede’s insults.
Oh, and our old friend Wormtongue responded to Fjordie thus:
@Fjordman,
Re: The simple fact is that when it comes to giving birth to the Proposition Nation, which was the subject of my original essay, Jews were quite irrelevant.
Quite right. Nevertheless, if you are an American, discussing the JQ within the context of “Proposition Nation” is germane. –Takuan Seiyo
--------
A huge concession, but then Wormtongue-Seiyo told Hesperado: “I really feel that the debate should be raised in Jewish circles and on a Jewish website.”
Only Jews can criticize Jews and if non-Jews like us dare to enter the thread we are "defecating dogs", “flies”, “Nazis” and “Muslims”. As Mary put it in a comment that miraculously survived the largest culling I’ve ever seen at GoV, “ just because you [GoV-ers] don't agree with them makes you appear a bunch of whining hypocrites”.
Thanks Mary for defending me after Fjordman’s lies.
Well, well, well… Gates of Vienna has finally cracked. I have awaited for this moment since the Baron expelled me when I shifted sides on the JQ. Let’s work on the crack and soon GoV will be smashed wide open :-)
Talking about a Jewish-Christian tradition is like talking about a Nazi-Bolshevik Tradition.
A perfect analogy, sir. Consider it purloined.
Tanstaafl and his ilk believe that I am an “apologist” for the Zionists. I’m not. I am a Zionist. At least, if by that you mean that I think Jews should have a country of their own.
He thinks Jewish whites should have a country of their own, because that's good. But non-Jewish whites should not, because that's evil.
Call it what you will: extended phenotype, shabbos goy, racist hypocrite, Jewish supremacist, Uncle Tom, etc.
Does anyone have any thoughts on stuffblackpeopledontlike?
Is it a worthy attempt to focus more narrowly on one idea - black run America (BRA)? Or is it a variant of the anti-jihad idea, focus only on blacks and their white liberal enablers and ignore jews altogether?
Daybreaker says about Fjordman:
In effect, he hijacked his own thread by managing it badly. And he took no responsibility for this.
Exactly.
I am glad I got to tell him that, and I share Chechar's surprise that they actually left it up, lol! btw Chechar, you have nothing to thank me for, their venomous attacks on you were without merit and I am just glad now that much is fairly obvious to everyone it seems except the 'counter-jihad elite'
*cue the rolling laughter* ;)
Truth is I can't thank you all enough, I continue to learn so much.
You guys (and gals) are good role models. I know a lot of you don't go for the 'God stuff', but God Bless you anyways.
Ps: it really is sad that so many of Pat's comments were trashed, some of them were comedy gold!
fjordman: "... a post that took me many hours to write, and quite frankly years to think about,.."
Fjordman is to be pitied if that was the best he could do after years, yes, YEARS of work.
people like Fjordman and Cornelius Troost who, while afraid of or otherwise deferential toward Jewish sensibilities, are otherwise obviously more on our side than not
I don't buy that. In fact I think that's a very dangerous way of viewing the situation. People like Fjordman and his ilk just as much our enemies as the most viscerally repulsive anti-racists. In fact, people like Fjordman are worse, because people who are not as perceptive mistake him for the real deal. He's a decoy. His entire raison d'etre is to lead people away from us. The fact that he agrees with us on some things does not make him our friend, it merely makes him a more effective opponent.
Alex Linder has the right idea: ATTACK CONSERVATIVES. I think this little incident with Gates of Vienna demonstrates the validity of that approach. Make the distinction between us and the fakers as stark and as obvious as possible and people will choose our side.
In the comments to The Serbia Standard, Fjordman wrote:
"Mary: "he didn't derail or hijack anything, as anyone who reads that thread can see."
Oh really? Did I say anything about Jews in the essay? No."
Fjordman introduced "the nazis" in When Treason Becomes The Norm: Why The Proposition Nation, Not Islam, Is Our Primary Enemy, before anyone else said anything:
"Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking [White nationalism] was discredited by the Nazis. After the Second World War, any talk of genetic differences, of being related by blood or of ties to the soil you live on became associated with Nazism and therefore seen as evil. Out of the many things the Nazis destroyed, this was one of the most damaging, but perhaps least appreciated today. I would be tempted to declare the Nazis the most anti-white movement that ever existed, considering the incalculable damage they did to Europeans and people of European origins."
This, of course, has to do with "the jews" and their one-sided "blood libel" version of history. The scapegoating of Whites, the centerpiece of which is the demonization of "the nazis", which Fjordman himself so eagerly engages in here, is what's doing the incalculable damage. It provides moral support for the anti-White proposition regime.
"Tanstaafl and his ilk believe that I am an “apologist” for the Zionists."
I would describe Fjordman as an apologist for "the jews". An example in support is provided below.
"I’m not. I am a Zionist. At least, if by that you mean that I think Jews should have a country of their own. On the other hand, I believe the Serbs, the English, the French, the Swedes and, yes, the Germans and the Austrians should have a country of their own as well."
It has been clear Fjordman is a zionist ever since he wrote Why Israel’s Struggle Is Our Struggle, Too. In that piece he goes well beyond offering his personal support for jewish nationalism - he invokes the jewish "blood libel" version of history to guilt-trip Whites everywhere into fighting for Israel.
"The only people who have a problem with the above mentioned position are those who think that there is really just one giant organism called “the Jews,” but with millions of heads in order to confuse everybody else. This is, frankly, not a very rational position. If people don’t like me questioning their intelligence then they shouldn’t display such a blatant lack of it."
I accept the fact that countless jewish organizations and tireless individual jews have long sought what they each deem to be best for "the jews". I believe they have been effective. Fjordman would rather not discuss such things rationally. He's apologizes for "the jews", implying they do not coordinate in pursuit of their collective interests, or are not effective at it.
Almost a year ago Fjordman published The Meme of the Living Dead at GoV. Here's what he wrote about "the nazis":
"And let’s face it: when the detractors of Vlaams Belang say “fascist”, they deliberately conflate the word with “Nazi”, with the ultimate goal being to bring the Holocaust Cone of Silence down over the party so that its message can never, ever be heard by anyone who hopes to remain respectable.
This shunning of “Nazis” is very effective. It results in what I call the Screaming Nazi Heeber-Jeebers, a highly contagious affliction that causes anyone so accused to run and hide under the bed and keep very, very quiet until the fever passes.
The appropriate response to the Nazi accusation is not to deny it, because denial implicitly acknowledges the validity of the assumptions behind the accusation. The proper reaction is to ignore the accuser, or even better, laugh in his face."
A year ago Fjordman was aware that guilt-by-association with "the nazis" has to do "the jews".
I left some comments. His responses then were the same as now:
"Tanstaafl: You have your own blog. If you want to spam your own site by writing the same comment a zillion times then by all means do so, but don't do it at this blog. It's rude."
. . .
"The difference between you and me is that I am rational enough to realize that there is no such thing as a giant hydra with nine heads called "the Jews." If Noam Chomsky is a Leftist moron then you criticize that, but you also support brave Israeli soldiers who risks their lives to defend their country against an evil enemy. I don't see any problem whatsoever in doing both. The problem exists entirely in your head because you see all Jews in the entire world as one giant organism. I don't."
"Alex Linder has the right idea: ATTACK CONSERVATIVES. I think this little incident with Gates of Vienna demonstrates the validity of that approach. Make the distinction between us and the fakers as stark and as obvious as possible and people will choose our side."
I agree, but would call it ATTACK FAKERS. Or DISASSEMBLE DISSEMBLERS and DISCOVER DISSIMULATORS. In other words focused take downs of individuals, with the goal of cleaving off the mistaken and misled, rather than broad-based attacks, which tend to reinforce the estrangement of our potential sympathizers.
The simple fact is that when it comes to giving birth to the Proposition Nation, which was the subject of my original essay, Jews were quite irrelevant.
Real high IQ at work there. So, will he focus only on the jews when attacking Marxism?
any thoughts on stuffblackpeopledontlike?
"Black Run America" describes a real phenomenon, alright. But let's not misunderstand it.
It is the price we pay so that jews may rule. Simple as that.
there are two sides here, the Jews, and everybody else, and everyone has to pick a team. That choice is forced because right now the Jews are winning, so they have the power to force that choice.
Michelle Bachmann has made her choice:
"I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle."
When a group has the power to force truth around onto its head like that, it's indecent to keep silent about them.
Tanstaafl: "Here's what he wrote about "the nazis"
Fjordman: "there is no such thing as a giant hydra with nine heads called "the Jews."
I think we have a problem with "the Jews" collectively, and that we need to break Jewish power over the West. We also need to get ethnic separation. It doesn't mean that we have a problem with every Jew. No one is saying that.
Jews like to play on words, and Fjordman has picked up some of their bad habits. In fact, when we say that the Americans have been on the moon, we don't mean all Americans. And when we say "the Jews", we don't mean every Jew. But still, there is a problem with the Jews. It comes from more than a few of them.
White Nationalists often say that the problem is "the organized Jewish community". They take pains to make clear that they don't have a personal grudge against every Jew. But even so, the organized Jewish community is an offshoot of the larger Jewish community, and we know that their behavior has been consistent over the centuries.
Usually, I like to blame "Jewish activists" who are at war with the white race. When I blame "Jewish activists" for precise political actions, I like to think that it will make it more difficult for them to bring me to court than if I blamed "the Jews" (as if Jewish lawyers and judges cared about little details like that). But the fact is that Jewish activists are wholly in keeping with traditional Jewish ideology, and they come from the Jewish people, not from the Javanese people.
By contrast, it is dishonest to stigmatize "the Nazis" collectively for killing 6 million Jews, but that is what "the Jews" are trying to do. They don't take pains to show that they don't have a grudge against every "Nazi". On the contrary, they try to spread the blame to all White people, even 65 years later. If I want to preserve my nation against race-replacement, it makes me complicit with the Nazis! It is even worse if I complain about the Jews. In several countries, they have passed laws that make it illegal to express doubt that "the Nazis" tried to kill all Jews, and managed to kill 6 millions of them. In the real world, it seems likely that most members of the Nazi party had little idea of the Jewish role in Germany's troubles. Most of them probably never thought about Jews. But they must be demonized anyway.
According to Irmin Vinson, National Socialism was a specifically German movement...
"The basic principles of national socialism are, nevertheless, universal: that God (or Nature) has assigned each of us to a racial group and has endowed each group with distinct qualities; that a nation is not simply a geographical concept, a set of lines arbitrarily drawn on a map irrespective of the people living within them, but instead derives (or should derive) its political institutions and national objectives from the character of the people themselves; (...)"
Irmin Vinson quotes Hitler, and it sounds a little like the recent writings of Fjordman :
"The [Nation-] State in itself," Hitler wrote, "has nothing whatsoever to do with any definite economic concept or a definite economic development. It does not arise from a compact made between contracting parties, within a certain delimited territory, for the purpose of serving economic ends. The State is a community of living beings who have kindred physical and spiritual natures, organized for the purpose of assuring the conservation of their own kind and to help towards fulfilling those ends which Providence has assigned to that particular race or racial branch" (Mein Kampf, I, iv)."
I think that even people who believe in the 6 million narrative should reject the idea that what made the Nazis tick was the urge to kill 6 million Jews.
It's ironic that Baron Bodissey at GoV said he doesn't want his site to become "flypaper for Jew-haters," because that's pretty close to how I've always viewed the counter-jihadi movement: flypaper for potential Jew-skeptics.
Just as real flypaper exploits the fragrance-chasing instincts of flies, so the counter-jihadi movement exploits the patriotic instincts of gentiles. The difference being, flies are merely rendered harmless, whereas the gentiles'instincts for ethnic self-preservation are channeled into serving jewish ends.
Classic bait and switch. Lure them in by talking about "the new phase of a very old war" (quite a new phase indeed, seeing as we're inviting the enemy into our nations), then have them participate in fiascos like this while failing to notice this.
I am thankful for every leader or clique that defeated an invasion of Europe from the Greeks to the present. However, that doesn't mean I want them all to rule me.
Counter jihadis regularly speak up for Charles Martel and all sorts of leaders who stopped invasions. Does that mean they are responsible for the methods of punishment of prisoners of those leaders?
Clearly one can pick and choose from the past. It isn't all or nothing.
A typical item in the news: David Mamet, newly redeemed conservative, is asked asked:
"Does he believe that anyone who disputes Israel’s land claims and believes in reallocation of territory to the Palestinians is anti-Semitic?
Uncharacteristically, Mamet hesitates slightly as he starts to answer and I wonder if he will back down, or at least hedge his answer. “Well, at some level ... listen ...” He throws his head back and looks briefly at the ceiling before emitting a grunt of relief as he abandons caution.
“Yes!” he exclaims. “Of course! I mean you Brits ... ” He smiles ruefully. “I love the British. Whatever education I have comes from reading your writers and yet, time and time again, for example reading Trollope, there is the stock Jew. Even in George Eliot, God bless her. And the authors of today ... I’m not going to mention names because of your horrendous libel laws but there are famous dramatists and novelists over there whose works are full of anti-Semitic filth.
“There is a profound and ineradicable taint of anti-Semitism in the British ... The paradigmatic Brit as far as the Middle East goes is [TE] Lawrence. That’s just the fact. Even before the oil was there, you loved the desert. It had all these wacky characters ... But there is a Jewish state there ratified by the United Nations and you want to give it away to some people whose claim is rather dubious.”"
Is that kind of answer normal in terms of Jewish ethnocentric perspectives? Yes.
Can we expect much better than that a Jew who has thrived mightily in the Anglosphere and always been treated well by Whites, and who professes to "love" the British in the next breath presses the demonizing charge of "a profound and ineradicable taint of anti-Semitism in the British"? Obviously not. If you thought be would refrain from Nazi-fying even those gentiles he "loves" you were wrong.
Can it be without consequence when key figures in a people's cultural, creative elite are aliens intensely protective of their own national interest and ready to demonize the founding stock of the people they dwell among? I think that's unrealistic. When those who shape a people's dreams damn their founding stock viciously even when they say they "love" them, of course there are going to be long term, subtle consequences, in the shaping or undermining of patriotism, and in the formation or malformation of the ideas of the national patrimony and the national interest.
I don't think it's necessary to show more than that to say that "the Jews" do exist, at least as a cultural force that needs to be taken account of.
Well said, Old Atlantic Lighthouse.
To understand where we are now,all one has to do is research "the Frankfurt School." After the proletariat failed to revolt to overthrow the established order during the First World War and instead fought for their respective nation states, the jewish Bolsheviks realised that they would have to adopt other tatics if their dream of world-wide communism was to come to fruition.
They realised that they would have to destroy the concepts of family, the nation state and also the Catholic Church which historically had been a vehement opposer of Communism. Using the work of Gramsci they realised that in order to achieve World Communism they would have to change the cultural norms.
The family was broken down by the normalisation of divorce, sex outside marriage, single mothers homosexuals and the welfare state. The Nation state was to be broken downby third worldimmigration and the creation of supra-national agencies. The Catholic Chuch was infiltrated in the thirties by masons, communists and homosexuals. Durin g the thirties, because of anti-jewish feeling the Franfurt School set up it's headquarters, the University of Columbia.
The rest as they say "is history"
I suspected David Mamet would turn neocon back around 2003. He wrote a couple of bizarre articles - one for the Guardian IIRC - in which he seemed to be trying to get his head around supposed European and Muslim antipathy towards Israel/Jews. It was clear then the direction he was going in. Of course now he says it was all Thomas Sowell!
Speaking of Hollywitz. From the LA Times Does it matter that most Hollywood liberals are Jews?
There are a few good comments.
Rosalie,
As to your wish of a new thread on the Americanization of Europe that the Baron declined at GoV a few minutes ago, I recommend one of the best blogsites in the nationalist scene, Counter-Currents. Try it. You won’t be disappointed. If the Barons make a living thanks to Jewish sponsors they are condemned never to touch topics that even border on the JQ.
Daybreaker, you nailed beautifully above (I collected your posts here). Thanks!
P.S.
Rosalie,
I see that the Baron is very distressed because of what I’ve said here. But he’s the one who allowed Con Swede to insult all of us with his reiterative scatological metaphor.
Since you want to “play chess” let me tell you (besides the Counter-Currents tip) that I have an international chess rating of 2109, which is not too bad. Do you play chess in real life?
When World War II ended, millions of people had died horrible deaths. The survivors knew that. It has taken 60+ years of propaganda to make it seem like these were the worst deaths of the war surpassing every other death in horror and uniqueness and importance.
In 1945, the survivors also had survived World War I. In many countries there had been other mass killings such as Turkey and the Soviet Union.
The survivors in 1945 knew better than to think that the only bad deaths or guilty actions were against the Jews. Now to say this is almost anti-Semitism. Moreover, to some, writing the words in one place is worse than another place.
That was not the attitude in 1945. It took decades of propaganda control to do this. In subtle ways, that was already under way even before 1939 and all through the war.
Daybreaker, thanks.
The history that Dymphna gives for GoV with regard it's income is interesting, and sad, genuinely sad.
The pair of them are next to destitute, with a tragic personal history that arouses my sincere sympathies. They, Dymphna and the Baron, are obviously sincere in their efforts, and rely on what must be a meagre income from their blog for sustenance:
When the donations stop, then we close the Gates and the Baron goes to work in the produce section of a food market near by.
As they state in the opening of the "Serbia" post Since a lot of the very finest people I work with in the Counterjihad are Jewish conservatives, it does not align with my strategic interests to... and in conclusion Gates of Vienna is where we make our living.
Regardless of Dymphna and the Baron's attempts to state that they are pure when it comes to their strategy the lesson as we all know is: he who pays the piper calls the tune.
That is not to say as the con Swede says Fjordman,
you've been accused of being a group(!) of CIA agents. But I've been accused of being a Jew who is about to mass deport himself. I think I win :-), as we know CS is so demented that he attempts to debate people who keep having their comments deleted while his remain, but does state the obvious: GoV relies on Jewish subscription to maintain their pantry.
It's not an enviable position. It's also an apt metaphor for the USA today where a Presidential hopeful in the form of Bachmann categorically states that her own nation, her own people's destiny is completely subordianted to that of a foreign power in Israel:
"I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle."
Very much reminiscant of Lindbergh's wife who prefered a second world war and the destruction of her own young men to the distorted genocidalist notion of "anti-Semitism" that she'd had inculculted in her head through years of propoganda and a perverted interpretation of Christianity.
A truly pitiable situation all round. And the true pity is that our own children's future is by necessity caught up in their perverse dreams of Israel or death.
As mad and twat like as "Mad Pat" can get at times, not even he wishes such a false dichotomy on anyone, let alone his own people.
Old Atlantic Lighthouse: "It has taken 60+ years of propaganda to make it seem like these were the worst deaths of the war surpassing every other death in horror and uniqueness and importance."
Off-topic, but have you read this excellent piece on the course of that transformation?
@ Pat:
They, Dymphna and the Baron, are obviously sincere in their efforts, and rely on what must be a meagre income from their blog for sustenance. “When the donations stop, then we close the Gates and the Baron goes to work in the produce section of a food market near by.”
I agree with you Pat. But a few years ago the Scientologists hired me (never been a Sciento btw) because of my anti-psychiatric knowledge. After more than two years I realized that I could not edit my antipsych webpage because I harbored lots of anti-Scientology ideas in my mind. I never reached the level of a mental whore though, because even when hired by them as an external advisor I was actively writing anti-Sciento stuff in the hope of publishing it as soon as I could quit. When I finally quit I felt so liberated… (and published my anti-Scientology stuff) even though that ruined me financially for the moment.
@ Pat:
That is not to say as the con Swede… as we know CS is so demented that he attempts to debate people who keep having their comments deleted while his remain, but does state the obvious: GoV relies on Jewish subscription to maintain their pantry.
It was unbelievable to see that Swede continued to respond to your comments even though most of them had been deleted by the Baron. He only exposed himself by telling lies à la Fjordie about us (such as the one you quoted and more). But I am glad that he made that spectacular comeback after his long absence. Now we can say that the whole Team-GoV was defeated, though mostly by forfeit since, despite his sophistry, only Taksei tried to engage us with arguments, not insults or metaphors (“defecating dogs” – Swede; “flies” – Taksei & BB’s “flypaper”, etc).
About a couple of hours ago I eliminated GoV from my watch-list bar --this time forever.
The history that Dymphna gives for GoV with regard it's income is interesting, and sad, genuinely sad.
The pair of them are next to destitute, with a tragic personal history that arouses my sincere sympathies. They, Dymphna and the Baron, are obviously sincere in their efforts, and rely on what must be a meagre income from their blog for sustenance.
I agree.
In some ways I feel regretful today of how this whole mess has played out, but I was so annoyed over the rude and flat out deceitful attacks by Takuan, Fjordmann and ConSwede being permitted to stand unchallenged --that to have just let all that go without a pushback of some kind would have been a bit pathetic. I am still a bit shocked that not one of them has had the spine to man up and apologize; instead, they keep attacking.
Anyways, this is neither here or there but one of the most beautiful posts I ever read on grief was by Dymphna: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/03/pennies-from-heaven.html
I recommend one of the best blogsites in the nationalist scene, Counter-Currents.
I like CC, especially their articles dedicated to the classic names of the intellectual right or to almost forgotten thinkers and writers like Evola or Céline.
The problem I have with most WN sites is that, at least in the comments section, they think according to the axiom "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (well, more or less it's the same in counter-jihad). They accept Muslim commenters or whites with favorable opinion about Islam. For example, that Iranian for Aryans character is a sort of Muslim Takuan Seiyo. I was equally enraged when a harmless and good article like that about implicit whiteness in hard rock and heavy metal made him say that he would hang the members of AC/DC for cultural treason! Not mentioning his lobby for polygamy and other Islamic idiocies. He destroys all the threads where he appears with his souless, non-European radicalism. Basically, he's a Muslim Iranian in the West who believes that following some WN memes and listening Wagner turned him into some sort of prophet for the West. But it's not only the genes, I realize that the difference in spirit and worldview is too huge to be crossed. And I can give other examples of Muslims or Muslim-lovers, from other WN sites.
The best, in my experience, are the HBD sites, if you ignore the annoyance of a few liberals and Asian or Jewish supremacists who troll there (like "we have the highest IQ, worship us!"). And then I realize again that it's not only the genes or the iQ, but the difference in worldview that counts.
Other examples of Muslims who destroy all the threads where they appear on WN sites are Rehmat on TOO and Ivan on Majority Rights. Another characteristic is that they are born bullies. Once you contradict them, expect the usual bile "Jew!" or "Jewish plant!" repeated ad nauseam, and no arguments at all. The same as, for Seiyo and Auster, any opinion or judgement about Jews as a hostile outgroup and not mere "liberals" or "gnostics" will turn you into a "Nazi" for eternity.
Svigor: "I have never had a Jew or their fellow travelers acknowledge reciprocal rights (i.e., forbid Jews the way they forbid us in Israel) for non-Jews."
They won't even acknowledge our right to have a big pro-White non-Jewish TV station.
In fact, they have a word for those who complain about such double standards and the lack of reciprocity: antisemite.
@ The problem I have with most WN sites is that, at least in the comments section, they think according to the axiom "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
In the comments section, yes. But I remember an article in Occidental Dissent that carried the title "The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend" in reference to Muslims.
Kevin MacDonald has said that, although he likes to see Muslims criticizing Israel like no other people in America, “They [the Muslims] should not be here in the first place”.
In my blog Armor asked: “In spite of Sauron’s shenanigans, do you still believe that we should worry about jihad and the religious beliefs of the invading Orcs?” I replied:
This is an important question. And the response is tricky, paradoxical and Machiavellian.
Since Muslims are Jews’ main enemy, we’ll need their friendship when revolution for a white ethno-state starts. Hopefully, after all of the Maghreb countries fall under the Muslim Brotherhood, real Showtime will begin when, one by one, they join the nuke club.
It would be unwise to fight the Muslims when the shit hits the fan in the Middle East, with Israel at its very epicenter.
Some European countries will fall to Sharia. This is good in one sense: whites will start to, finally, gain some ethnic consciousness to fight back.
The situation will be really messy. My educated guess is that, if Sauron is nuked, the Orcs will be fair play throughout the conquered West.
/end quote
But on the other hand I have criticized those WNs who go too far, to the point of blaming the Jews for 9/11.
Yes: I discussed with that Iranian guy against his bigamy ideology. If I said something unflattering about women in that thread it was because I was irritated with the effeminate articles of Parrott and Kurtagic. (As to the war of the sexes I believe in reverting history back to Jane Austen times, or perhaps to the 1940s and ’50s in America, but not as far as the Iranian.)
Of the differences between WNs and counter-jihadists about Islam I believe that Laura hit the nail in my blog (here).
Since Muslims are Jews’ main enemy, we’ll need their friendship when revolution for a white ethno-state starts.
This is the point I disagree with. You'll never get the friendship of the Muslims, not in eternity. I used to know some Turks who were completely secular, atheists, kemalists, intellectuals. Well, when a subject like the crusades, Cyprus or the Armenian genocide surfaced, their opinion was not too much different, I guess, than that of bin Laden. Really, I'm not exaggerating. I said to myself "OMG, if this is how this elightened type of Turk thinks, what about a Turkish usual Muslim? And if the Turks think this way, what about Arabs or Somalis?".
Besides, personally I think that a state for the Jews should exist. I don't have any problem with Israel or the Israelis per se. It's the Jewish influence in the West and the unconditional support America gives to Israel that bother me. Besides, you don't solve anything going to war with Israel, actually things will get worse - 7 million more soldiers for the culture of critique in the West, because they will come back here.
And I don't have anything against "We support Israel" for the counterjihadis. It's just the defenseless, perpetual victim description of Israel that is false. As I suggested in the "Serbia Standard" thread, for the sake of clarity, we can't compare a minor pain in the as# like the Goldstone Report to bombing to dust the infrastructure of a country for similar approaches to the Muslim problem. And see the quotation of Michelle Bachman above: what other country on earth receives this kind of staunch support from the American elite, and how can one pretend that such a country is defenseless and victimized, on a par with Serbia? I mean, c'mon!
The problem with counterjihad is that they won't solve anything as long as this double standard exists. Geert Wilder's party is part of the coalition in power for a year (well, not oficially, but they back the current cabinet, which means they have some influence) and the demented PCism and immigration continue in the same way. Meanwhile, he gives speeches, like a star, in American evangelist churches or in synagogues about the greatness of Israel and he declares his virgin-like purity for refusing to cooperate with "fascists" like BNP. Obviously, a dead end.
Rosalie,
Of course Muslims won’t ever be our friends. I wrote that response to Armor in a rush. And I am not advocating to nuke Jerusalem since Jewish power resides more in NY and LA. But if an ethno-state is ever created in the Northwest or wherever, a couple of nukes would come handy in our hands. And nobody in the West will help us in an all-white State. We’ll have to compromise with the Muslim Bros once Egypt, Libya and others besides Iran join the atomic club.
But the only way to imagine that grim scenario is to read a couple of futuristic novels by, say, H.A. Covington or Ward Kendall.
Daybreaker 6/14/2011 05:31:00 PM.
I may have seen it before, I am not sure, but thanks for pointing it out to me. Jewish celebration of the uniqueness of the Holocaust (except when saying it was going on forever) is a manifestation of Jewish bullying.
They make it the central aspect of their time among us and of us as part of their bullying of us. This has been going on forever. Moreover, it can only stop by separation.
There are probably some very good (in terms of biology) reasons why genocide happens.
Another interesting perspective:
Bowery on deep cultures and genocide
I used to think along those lines regarding anti-Israel liberals: that, in spite of their overall idiocy, they might be useful in some way, because criticizing the Zionist project they will undermine the moral authority of the Jews and thus the whole PC paradigm, which is based on the Holocaust.
Uh, I think it's pretty obvious that the Jews' moral authority is taking a beating over the Palestinian issue. I don't know how anyone could see it otherwise. There's also lots of discussion on the left of how Jews use the Holocaust as justification for treatment of Palestinians - e.g. The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein, and even he is regarded as a "lite Zionist" and phony opposition by many on the left.
I went to online group discussions dedicated to Rachel Corrie, to see anti-Israel liberals in their nest, so to speak. But no: liberals are as inflexible as Muslims and as silly and hoplessly altruistic as their hero Rachel C. They would replace Israelis with Palestinians, but, at the same time, they would build thousands more Holocaust memorials in the West.
Frankly, I think you're making that up. I'd like to see one example of a Rachel Corrie supporter calling for more Holocaust memorials to be built. In any case, it would be very atypical as a even a quick search will show.
They are unable to make the connection between America's unconditional support for Israel and the moral authority of the Jewish organizations.
Again, rather obviously false. The paper and book by Mearsheimer and Walt, for instance, make it quite clear that the Israel Lobby is so effective in large part because people are afraid of being perceived as "anti-Semitic".
Bachmann sounds jewish. Maybe she's a jew. I believe some zio christians are actually crypto jews and their job is cheerleading leading the flock for Israel. Pretty obvious she has been being groomed and prepared for something.
There was so much heavy duty jew bashing going on they had to close the comments.
Thanks for that link. I copied it and as the election heats up I'm going to post it everywhere I see her name mentioned.
I used "thousands of Holocaust memorials" as a metaphor that liberals' grovelling to a certain minority which leads to grovelling to all minorities won't stop with preferential treatment of the Palestinians over Israel.
So, anti-Zionist liberals grovel to Jews? That's a rather strange form of groveling, I'd say.
White-guilt Holocaustianity is too dear to liberal hearts and too important to their narrative because that's what they point to to prove the dangers of ethnonationalism. If you debate slavery or colonialism with a liberal, you can still show that other groups practiced slavery and colonialism. But the Holocaust-as-the-ultimate-evil-of-modern-times and the perfect tool for guilt-tripping is their main argument in favor of "never again ethnic states with a patriotic ruling class".
Well, I'd really like to see some examples of anti-Zionist liberals making a big deal out of the Holocaust. A few might pay lip service to it for cover, or compare Zionists with Nazis. But as a general thing? I don't see it.
I'd also like to see an example of a pro-Israel conservative who does NOT make a big deal out of the Holocaust.
But even those liberals who criticize the Jewish lobby will freak out if you dare to touch the subject "hostile outgroup, disastrous influence".
That's not true at all. I think you'd have to be pretty thick to read what Mearsheimer and Walt have to say and not draw the conclusion "hostile outgroup, disastrous influence". Furthermore, they might not come right out and say it, but 90% of people who criticize "The Israel Lobby" think Jews are a bunch of pricks in general. You must not know any anti-Zionist liberals in real life.
To understand where we are now,all one has to do is research "the Frankfurt School." After the proletariat failed to revolt to overthrow the established order during the First World War and instead fought for their respective nation states, the jewish Bolsheviks realised that they would have to adopt other tatics if their dream of world-wide communism was to come to fruition.
My theory about the Frankfurt School is that, only 10 years ofter the Bolshevik Revolution, Marxists of Jewish background realized that the big Bolshevik hydra called the USSR will implode at some point. The main reason of the defeat, they imagined, would be the fact that the proletariat, the workers are more attached to their people and their nation than to an abstraction like class and class struggle, the same way as the peasants and the patriotic part of the intellectuals. (And later on, after decades, their fear was confirmed when an association of workers, the Polish Solidarity, gave the final blow to Eastern European imported Bolshevism, besides, the anti-communist street revolutions in Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic States, Romania, etc. were led and formed mainly by workers). Briefly, the proletariat does not have enough historical grudge and resentments to dismantle and destroy the society. And the workers will realize sooner or later that Bolsheviks, like the Jacobins, do not have organic, grassroot legitimacy.
Then the Frankfurt School'ers made a brilliant for them and disastrous for us move: they had to choose those groups who hold the maximum of historical grudge against their societies. And thus they replaced the proletariat with the ethnic, religious or sexual minorities.
It's one of the greatest tragedies that ever occured in the white world and the reason why Frankfurt School is dozen of times more dangerous, intellectually speaking, than old school Marxism. And that's why the Bolshevik-occupied Eastern Europe preserved in good shape their ethnic majorities and sense of identity, in spite of Communism, while the Frankfurt School's dream - dismantling the society - has become true in the West.
But in the last 2 decades Eastern Europe was equally infested by Frankfurt School ideology, promoted by the school curriculum, the media, the academe especially because of the money, influence and lobby of George Soros's Open Society Institute. Since immigrants have not come yet in sufficient numbers to be used as hostile minorities, they used what material they already had, especially the Gypsies. If you follow the developments in Eastern Europe since the fall of Communism, you will notice step by step the strategy implemented earlier in the West - affirmative action, group privilege and entitlement, erosion of the national identity, etc, meanwhile preparing the ground for mass immigration. Poor and naive Eastern Europeans, after decades of Red Terror, have been trapped in a fate darker than Communism. And they don't realize, many believe this means freedom, democracy, the West, what they dreamed about in all those gloomy decades.
It should be clear to all, ladies and gentlemen: NWO wants us dead, and the Frankfurt School is their religion.
Well, I'd really like to see some examples of anti-Zionist liberals making a big deal out of the Holocaust.
Then, you can try going to Huffington Post or Salon and say something negative about the Jewish influence and the Holocaust industry. Then see what happens.
You must not know any anti-Zionist liberals in real life.
I know plenty of anti-Zionist liberals in real life, I work with them. If they knew 1/10 of my opinion about the JQ, in the next moment I'd be fired and probably none of them would talk to me for the rest of their life.
Reading over the comments at The Serbia Standard I see several points to take issue with, but let me focus on Fjordman, whose essay started this discussion, and who continues to bring up these particular points.
"The problem is when you get all the weirdoes who see a Jew under every bed, which will destroy any intelligent discussion of these very difficult subjects. If you look at the European Union, for instance, the Jewish contribution to creating the EUSSR was relatively minor. That doesn’t make the problem any less, though. The white elites are generally hostile to common whites and don’t give a damn about our well-being. Do you think George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Angela Merkel or Sarkozy care about white schoolchildren? They don’t, any more than Tony Blair did, and people sense now this."
. . .
"I can see all the ingredients in place for a new world war within the coming generation. These are the stakes we are dealing with here. And precisely because the stakes are so high, we need to be smart and careful in how we talk about these issues. Given the fact that my previous essay has now generated hundreds of comments in a few days, most of which were more or less irrelevant to the issue at hand, I have to wonder whether I should perhaps close comments for a few of my upcoming essays."
When I step back from the argument, setting aside the insults and strawmen, what I see is a man who says XYZ but who cannot abide those who say XYZ and J. He opposes XYZ but reserves his strongest condemnations for anyone who opposes J along with XYZ. He projects his own desire to constrain the discussion onto others. To exclude J he will even end the disscussion.
It's fair to conclude from this that he considers J not only important, but of supreme importance.
Setting aside pseudononymous nobodies arguing on the internet, why do Bush, Rove, Merkel or Sarkozy do what they do? What are their motives? Do they behave as they do because they are paid, in fear of being condemned as "nazis", or because they're just convinced it's the Right Thing to Do? Fjordman identifies them as traitors. Traitors to whom? Isn't it true that Bush, Rove, Merkel, and Sarkozy all treat "the jews", even the ones who live in other countries, as a single living entity? Don't they treat "the jews" with a deference, respect, fealty and loyalty that they would be vilified and demonized for if they directed it instead toward their own native White populations?
Yes, they do. It's the native Whites these politicians are betraying, not "the jews". This is the nut Fjordman has not yet cracked. Will he? I doubt it. In retrospect, over the past few years I have dropped this nut into the regular threads at GoV where the latest outrage against the jews living in Europe was the center of the discussion. "Hey, what about the suffering of the Europeans?" It was Fjordman who several times came forth to greet this with hostility and abuse. That's odd for a man who otherwise talks as if he cares about Europeans, but no odder than here today decrying the hostility of elites toward commoners while in the very same paragraph exuding that attitude himself.
There is a why, a motive behind Fjordman's behavior. The more he insists we share nothing, the more I suspect we probably do.
Tan,
It’s fascinating to see that the Barons share quite a lot of their fate. Fjordie is a mystery. He shares nothing. I mean: Just look how much our old friend Taksei has shared in those threads (Jewish father, etc). Con Swede once phoned me to Spain and we talked for a long time (this was before he got upset when I shared my Hitlerist proclivities). Dymphna herself shared intimate stuff of her life that I cannot make public in open forums. And so on (as you did in your linked article).
But Fjordie? IIRC Taksei once disclosed Fjordie’s real name. I didn’t pay much attention and didn’t save it. I wish now I had registered it.
There’s something odd in Fjordie. You know that my forté is deep psychology. The way he panicked with zero arguments (see how beautifully Daybreaker summarized the recent AoT/GoV exchange) makes me feel that, as a person, the Norwegian bookworm is far weaker than what I expected. I mentioned chess to Rosalie. I gave up chess long time ago because chess players, despite their high IQ, are so schizoidily queer, so introverted, so brilliant in some ways but so detached from reality in many other ways…
My intuition tells me that, as a person, Fjordman won’t ever mature. I have seen so many cases of introverted intellectuals (not only chess players) that precisely because they have huge character limitations they cannot see stuff that’s pretty obvious to non-introverts. The inner change I endured is a metamorphosis of the soul, not of the intellect. But not everyone is capable of what Solzhenitsyn calls “the ascent of the soul”.
Fdesouche, the French nationalist site, recently started a discussion regarding funding. They've been depending on voluntary donations for the past year, they got 8000 euros in donations, of which 1000 from a single person. The problem they're trying to solve is how to get donations up to a level that can support one or more of the people behind it making running the site their full-time occupation (right now it's split up between various guys in their free time, in addition to day jobs).
(I have donated to them and plan to again, because they have real-world impact on the French political scene. I'm not going to disclose here at what level.)
Fdesouche gets a _lot_ more traffic than GOV. (Alexa traffic rankings of about #15000 versus about 177000. Also, compare the commenter populations - these are always a subset of the actual readership, but at GoV you always find the same names; less than 20 regulars. When a topic at FDS is hot the comments are getting posted faster than anyone can read them all.)
If Fdesouche gets 8K euros (about 12K dollars) in a year, from voluntary donations from ordinary people - think for a bit what it takes to support at least two older adults. (I don't know if their son is self-supporting now or not.) Doing it on 12K a year - well, I can imagine it, with plenty of personal agriculture - big vegetable garden, home-raised chickens and rabbits, and so on; and foregoing utterly any serious expenses like plane tickets. I am not aware of any evidence that they actually live this way; for one thing, Dymphna has often talked about her health making her basically an invalid. That just makes the numbers even harder to reconcile.
Conclusion: if they actually are living entirely off of donations, there is a significant chunk of money coming in that is not in line with their traffic or results. (When has a GOV posting resulted in outraged citizens swamping a school administration's phone lines, or been so unavoidable that the nightly news programs find they have to denounce it? FDS has had these things happen.)
Talking about being "bought" is thus not unreasonable.
Hmm, did Blogger's antispam stupidity munge my finance comment?
"Hmm, did Blogger's antispam stupidity munge my finance comment?"
It did, temporarily, as well as Rosalie's comment on the Frankfurt School.
Can you still be considered a leftist when you start to understand the Jewish problem?
Exactly. If liberals of the anti-Zionist stripe understood fully what the JQ and outgroups in general impply, they would crowd around ethnonationlist sites. If complete independence from the lobby is what they wanted, they would vote in droves for Ron and Rand Paul. Instead, they criticize Israel and the lobby for the wrong reasons: not for the priviliged place the Jews occupy in the post-WWII narrative, but for being "Nazi-like" and "the rogue apartheid state". They want to abrogate the double standard, it's true, but in the sense of keeping the West and Israel to the same liberal standard, while preserving and emphasizing minority privilege. The outcome will be the Israelis coming to the West, possibly in the US, as if we don't have enough problems with that.
You will never see a liberal anti-Zionist coming here because for them we're the ultimate evil - "Nazis". The JQ can be fully understood and explained only in the frame of ethno-politics.
David Mamet
Mamet sounds exactly like Takuan Seiyo: "I love your people so much, I want to save you... but pogroms, Cossacks, Auschwitz".
Coming to think of it, the funniest thing that could happen on GoV would be the standard "never mention the Jews AND the Nazis in your posts". The first who would suffocate and implode is - guess who?
@ Coming to think of it, the funniest thing that could happen on GoV would be the standard "never mention the Jews AND the Nazis in your posts".
Back in 2009 when I confessed I felt Third Reich nostalgia in one of the GoV threads I linked above, Con Swede suffered a fit of epileptic spasms and vomited on my face like the possessed girl of The Exorcist (his own metaphor in other contexts). The Baron emailed me and asked not to mention my sympathies for the Reich in his threads. Of course: they can talk about the Nazis but under the orthodox narrative after WW2 (btw, have you noted that Con Swede posted a comment above under the sockpuppet not a jew?).
Fjordie got almost panicked after Tan’s first post, and despite of the fact that it was a civil post Fjordie asked the Baron to delete it.
Quote:
Fj: "Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis."
Tan: But you do not believe this line of thinking is wrong. It is unfortunate, but unavoidable, that you're having trouble reconciling this with your belief that "the nazis" are evil. The two beliefs cannot co-exist for long.
/end quote
If Tan, behaving like Gandalf, could break the spell of Saruman’s grip on Théoden’s mind, the Denethors of counter-jihad will suffer horrible fits to make sure that their inner daimons get never exorcized.
I have come to believe that this is exactly the reason why, in 2009, Swede got inexplicably panicked and angered with blind vomiting bile for the tacit implications of his own thought.
Of course: they can talk about the Nazis but under the orthodox narrative after WW2
Another thing is that they say adults should understand the delicate matter and not mention the Jews. It's fine with me, I can obey such a rule or any other. But then, the fair rule would be to avoid mentioning the Jews in a negative OR in a positive way, on topics unrelated to the JQ. Again, Seiyo would be the first to implode. He mentiones the Jews all the time, on completely unrelated topics, just to highlight their qualities or terrible history. Actually, it's sort of amazing how he succeeds to mention them on such diiferent issues. Like: the early Church persecuted the pagans... like they did to the Jews, the high IQ of the East-Asians... the same as the Jews, the Romans... brought Jews as slaves, Germans' beneficial historical influence in Central Europe... like that of the Jews and I can go on and on. Basically, he can talk about French cuisine, Red Riding Hood or Greta Garbo, and he would still find a means to praise those-that-can't-be-named. Ah, and don't forget the pogroms, Cossacks, Auschwitz.
Totally off topic, Tanstaafl - but have you seen this: bonald.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/remembering-antisemitism-and-nothing-else/
Nobody obsesses about "the jews"/"Der Juden"/"the jooooos" more than jews do.
Thanks Sheila. I left a comment there.
@ “He [Fjordman] projects his own desire to constrain the discussion onto others. To exclude J he will even end the discussion. It's fair to conclude from this that he considers J not only important, but of supreme importance.” - Tan
Fjordie is the intellectual son of Jewess Bat Ye’or. His book Eurabia recapitulates Ye’or’s thesis.
I understand that popularizers of counter-jihad Robert Spencer or Geert Wilders feel the need to bow to the Jews in today’s climate. But why should an intellectual do the same? We have now discovered that the Barons might have been inadvertently corrupted by their J sponsors. But Fjordie doesn’t share a peep about who sponsors him. Anyway, four years ago Robert Reis wrote in an article at Majority Rights:
Quote:
“Fjordman” asserts there is a powerful “anti-Israeli and sometimes outright anti-Semitic current that is prevalent in too much of Europe’s media”. “Fjordman” does not define what he means by “anti-Israeli” or “anti-Semitic” nor does he provide any examples of what he obviously wants his readers to believe are twinned thought-crimes.
Correction:
His Book Defeating Eurabia
I would echo the comments that you guys' work there will not have been in vain. Fjordman's clearly unlikely to admit his error but at least a portion of the onlookers will already be querying their own prejudices in favour of Jewry.
I laughed out loud at Seiyo's last comment:
Such a code exists ... So how can a conviction for murder be tossed out because the prosecutor queried witnesses about what is in fact a feature of reality relevant to the case? Do you realize the implication of that insane judicial decision? Its full weight behind a refusal to let certain non-PC features of reality be acknowledged?
He is unable to name a single point made by Tan or Chechar that is not equally a fact of relevance -- but insists that their evidence be tossed out of court. Love it.
As a former "white liberal" who used to hang out and post at liberal sites, I can attest to what Rosalie says.
You can see them switching back and forth from article to article. They'll be crying for Palestinians in one context and crying holocaust tears the next.
One of Fjordman's arguments is that even though Scandinavian countries have few Jews living there they are suicidally liberal. I understand that Masons are very influential in Scandanavia. Same difference.
Again totally off-topic (sorry, I don't know how else to contact you Tan) - I seem to remember you listed a website a year or so back that broke down each individual school's student body (both public and private) by race by year - so you could track declining enrollment/increasing minorities over the years. If I recall, you could type in the zip code and each school (elementary, middle, high school, private school) would come up. I can't find this using google; could you please give me the web address again if I'm correct in remembering it was your blog that wrote about it? Many thanks - Sheila
And notice the adulatory nature of the article ! What have we come to!
Sheila, the blog you linked above is very good, thanks for sharing. "Altar and throne" type of old European conservatism.
Sheila, SchoolDigger.com - School Rankings, Reviews and More - Public and Private Elementary, Middle, High Schools
Dymphna writes "I hate to disappoint the paranoids but there are no wealthy supporters hiding under the bed, Jewish or otherwise. As for our editorial content, check back to our first few posts; the mission statement for Gates of Vienna hasn’t changed, and way back then we never dreamed of blegging for a living.
It’s as simple now as it was then: we stand with Israel. We always have and always will, no matter what happens."
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/06/late-for-supper.html
Hmmmmm. Seems awfully defensive. Maybe she's been reading this Age of Treason thread?
It's an interesting post. At least partially addresses what I was talking about.
How much is it reasonable for someone on a tight budget to spend on food per day? $10? $20? Judging by my track record, if I'm active and doing things instead of lazing about all day, $20/day is not unreasonable if I don't want to feel hungry. I can manage on $10 but it's either pretty thin, or very centered on cheap canned goods. (I cook all my meals from raw materials, too) At 10/day for two people, that's $73K/year. Add in utilities and house/vehicle maintenance costs - that's why I found the numbers troubling, just from extrapolations from other donation-based sites I know of. (Bay12Games has an Alexa ranking of ~134000 and gets ~30K a year in donations, but that guy has an absolutely rabid fanbase, and is putting out a product definitely unlike anything else in the market) But drawing down the retirement funds would help cushion that.
What would really be interesting, in the interests of proving all this to be mere nutcase ranting, would be disclosures of the size of individual donations (without revealing the sources). But I see no reason they'd bother.
Incidentally
"We gave away the really, really old one (1993) "
I drive a 1989. So there. Still runs fine, although various bits and pieces have fallen off.
Sunset Over Europe said...
@ "Gates of Vienna is where we make our living."
I really didn't know this, and I must say it changes a lot. Or maybe explains a lot.
If any kind of public outlet accepts money, their objectivity can be influenced. But if it is their living, well then their objectivity can be bought.
I wonder how many politicians, journalists have started off with the best of intentions, but found money, career and just plain survival is more important then the reasons they started in the first place. The road to all our destructions.
I find it bizarre, to say the least, that this blog can be so frank about a large section of society but reduced to such overt fear and policing when dealing with just one section of society.
Fjordman said...
Sunset Over Europe: Believe me, I could make a decent living working for the other team and make a lot more money than I have done over the past six years. The fact that you suggest that the Baron and Dymphna have been “bought” is downright insulting. Quite frankly, I think you owe both of them an apology. I know very few people who have taken so much crap for so little money over such a long period of time.
Sunset Over Europe said...
I have now read the last thread, and couldn't see one answer to straight question's. I really cannot understand why that would be, or why people would want to censor (and yes I do believe it is censorship) what seems to be a perfectly legitimate line of debate…
Dymphna writes: "I hate to disappoint the paranoids but there are no wealthy supporters hiding under the bed, Jewish or otherwise. As for our editorial content, check back to our first few posts; the mission statement for Gates of Vienna hasn’t changed, and way back then we never dreamed of blegging for a living. It’s as simple now as it was then: we stand with Israel. We always have and always will, no matter what happens."
This image for a GoV post two months ago is interesting.
@ Gates of Vienna hasn’t changed… we stand with Israel. We always have and always will…
Fair enough. But even some WNs approve the existence of an Israeli state. I mean even some Nazis of the 1930s were Zionists. As I said above the problem is not Jerusalem. The problem in America is New York—corporate capitalism often led by the Jews—and Los Angeles—the Hollywood industry led by the Jews as the main source of PCMC propaganda.
It looks like Dymphna doesn’t even understand what the JQ means.
It may be trivial to point out that she seemed to totally not 'get' what the SWPL blog was about, as if was just about rating TV shows or something.
Or maybe thats a wilful anti-race realism thing.
As a former "white liberal" who used to hang out and post at liberal sites, I can attest to what Rosalie says.
You can see them switching back and forth from article to article. They'll be crying for Palestinians in one context and crying holocaust tears the next.
Interesting how so many people can "attest" to this alleged phenomenon yet nobody can provide a single example of an anti-Zionist liberal crying Holocaust tears.
I always thought D Duke's message was pretty "liberal," and I suspect if he weren't so stigmatized, he'd resonate with some "bleeding heart" liberal types as well as with libertarians who gave him a fair hearing (obviously, never with the vengeful type of liberal whose raison d'etre is essentially to make everyone as unhappy as himself (or more often, herself)). Duke's sense-to-stigmatization ratio is off the charts, and there's a reason for that.
LOL - don't know if anyone saw the comment at Chechar's GoV link, from one Dr. Shalit:
"I have had a revelation today. As it seems that the Arabs and the Persians are about to go to War against each other, I look at this conflict as Vermin vs.Vermin - Badgers against Skunks. May they KILL EACH OTHER and STINK UP THEIR SANDBOX FOREVER. The Saudi "Royals" - May They Soon See Their End Strung up Like Livestock by their ankles a/la/Mussolini. As to the rulers of "so-called Iran" May THEY be turned into Glass at Ground Zero of THEIR Well Deserved Demise.
In a REAL WORLD there is a word for that outcome - JUSTICE. That which Ha-Shem - The REAL G-d dispenses in his own time and Manner."
If we "defecating dogs" spoke like that about individuals whom we perceive as our enemies, we would be pathologized instantly by the same arbiters who let stand that kind of genocidal venom directed at entire nations.
May They Soon See Their End Strung up Like Livestock by their ankles a/la/Mussolini.
OMG. As I said - unmatched thirst of revenge. If I said that I wished this fate for the enemies and the traitors of the Western civilization, probably I'd be banned for being a "Nazi" and denounced as inhumane on a separate, special thread. But this kind of apocalyptic language is allowed only coming from a member of a protected, privileged group.
And notice how the point of reference is always, always those "European fascists". Saudis should have the fate of Mussolini, not because they are enemies of the West, but because they are the new "fascists", the new "Mussolinis" - enemies of a certain group that can't be named.
I always thought D Duke's message was pretty "liberal," and I suspect if he weren't so stigmatized, he'd resonate with some "bleeding heart" liberal types as well as with libertarians who gave him a fair hearing (obviously, never with the vengeful type of liberal whose raison d'etre is essentially to make everyone as unhappy as himself (or more often, herself)). Duke's sense-to-stigmatization ratio is off the charts, and there's a reason for that.
That's one of the reasons I'm glad Duke's doing all these videos. In addition to whatever specific message he's conveying in any given video, there's also a meta-message in that you wonder why such a reasonable, likable guy has been so demonized.
And notice how the point of reference is always, always those "European fascists".
Ah, good catch! I missed that, buried as it was in a sea of bile. I just downloaded Buchanan's Unnecessary War e-book after reading a segment Pat Hannagan posted at Mangan's. I know it's gonna make my head explode. Mac Donald's review, and his terrible verdict on Churchill, is a must-read by the way.
terrible verdict on Churchill
This fragment chilled me:
When Polish patriots, whose sons had flown with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, went to Winston Churchill to demand that he get answers from Stalin about the atrocity, he brushed them off.
"There is no sense prowling around the three-year-old graves of Smolensk," said the Great Man.
So, the Great Man advised the Poles to keep their mouths shut about Katyn, for the sake of his alliance with Stalin and for the sake of the victory in the great war.
I hope the ghosts of Katyn haunted him in his last moments. Unfortunately,the ghosts of Katyn haunted his innocent fellow-countrymen: the same man who ordered the Poles to keep their mouths shut buried the British Empire.
Anon 6/16/2011 06:52:00 PM + 6/17/2011 01:23:00 AM,
"nobody can provide a single example of an anti-Zionist liberal crying Holocaust tears"
"I dispute the idea promoted by some here that this is somehow insincere or not valuable."
The argument you're making calls to mind Jimmy Carter, a quintessential "liberal" White, and one of his accuser/tormentors, Deborah Lipstadt, a quintessential "liberal" jew:
"Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," while exceptionally sensitive to Palestinian suffering, ignores a legacy of mistreatment, expulsion and murder committed against Jews. It trivializes the murder of Israelis. Now, facing a storm of criticism, he has relied on anti-Semitic stereotypes in defense.
One cannot ignore the Holocaust's impact on Jewish identity and the history of the Middle East conflict. When an Ahmadinejad or Hamas threatens to destroy Israel, Jews have historical precedent to believe them. Jimmy Carter either does not understand this or considers it irrelevant.
His book, which dwells on the Palestinian refugee experience, makes two fleeting references to the Holocaust."
Your point is valid, but the same divide occurs on the other side of the judaized mainstream political spectrum. "Conservative" jews tend to be more likely to hector and lecture more emotionally about the specialness of jews and jewish suffering than "conservative" Whites. Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol versus Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul come to mind.
The divide is that jews, no matter their politics, are much more enthusiastic not only about accepting the "blood libel" narrative but extending it, whereas Whites who wish to operate in mainstream politics come across as merely mouthing the minimum, in which case they are given a pass, for now - or they don't mouth enough, as in the case of Carter, Buchanan, or Paul, in which case they are condemned as "deniers" and "haters".
This divide gets glossed over whenever generalizations are made about "liberals" or "conservatives".
And of course anyone who actually speaks against the "blood libel" narrative, even if only in defense of his own people - and I'm thinking now of David Duke or Jean-Marie Le Pen - is immediately and forever treated by the judaized mainstream as radioactive, to use Seiyo's euphemism for "hated and vilified by jews".
Rosalie, in my answer I'm relying on Churchill's doctor's book on him. Lord Moran (Churchill's doctor) shows Churchill as a great but flawed man, and his treatment of the Poles as Churchill at his worst.
On Lord Moran's account, which I believe, Franklin Delano Roosevelt deserves far more blame than he usually gets. He was a serious, viscerally unsympathetic enemy of the British Empire, and in a position to squeeze it to destruction, which he largely did. He was also sick unto death, and deluded by ill health, bad advisers and dogmatic hard Left / liberal ideas. In this frame of mind, in talks among the Big Three, he became a partner with Stalin as a fellow progressive and an enemy of reactionary imperialism.
This left Churchill in a desperate situation, as he was trying to do something big. Due to his classical education and naval perspective, he had great love of and put great importance on Greece, which he was determined to spare from Communist control. Bluffing and blustering, he ultimately succeeded in that, but his frame of mind was very bad, suspended between the "black dog" of serious depression, and the wildest, most unrealistic fantasies about how he could charm Stalin into becoming a good guy, or equally unreal dreams - anything to stave off depression or a mental collapse over how bad things really were. He had to, HAD to believe there was a way, evidence and reality be damned.
With Churchill in this bad frame of mind, Poland looked to him something like this. First, it was a country he couldn't do much about anyway. The power of Britain was little in comparison to that of America and the Soviet Union. Second, to get far more than he was really entitled to on Greece, he needed a concession, he need to throw a country to the wolf, or rather the bear, and it had to be a country the bear was hungry for. Third, Poles were asking him constantly, in justified fear of their country's fate, for help and protection.
Churchill responded by taking out his humiliation, his frustration and his anger on them. He was not just unsympathetic, he was spitefully, viciously, ostentatiously so, to their faces and behind their backs.
So condemn, because the Poles did get much less than justice or even sympathy from Churchill. But please remember too that in the face of the Soviet-American front, Churchill never had the possibility to just tell Stalin no all along the line. And look at Churchil's general conduct of the war, and tell me whether the special sympathy he had for Greece wasn't genuine.
That was an awful war that never should have been fought. Once everybody was committed to it, terrible tradeoffs were inevitable.
Chariot of Reaction explains history:
"...what we call history is actually the ongoing struggle over who gets to control society's mythic narratives. Control over these narratives is very important, because they are analogous to favorable and unfavorable terrain in the team sport that is the battle for status. One-sided deconstruction of your mythic figures while leaving the opposition's figures fully constructed is strongly to be avoided---in fact I daresay it's practically an act of war."
I daresay I agree.
In this war, we are not the aggressors. We are constantly portrayed as aggressors because (there is an ethnocentric, emotionally intense, active and verbally dexterous population that is going to attack us whatever we do, because of its own nature, and) because we're far too passive and not cohesive enough. We don't defend each other enough, and we don't attack in the cultural war and make aggression on us (collectively) too costly to sustain.
It shouldn't be possible to practice critical culture warfare against us Whites and our history without attracting an equal or greater critical attention to the misdeeds of the accusers.
Please forgive this 'beg', but I wondered if anyone would share with me (or post on the blog itself) how they would answer this kind of response when discussing a 'plan of action' by (presumably) Whites who want to "do something" about the demise of our people:
Sure, Jews were/are over-represented in the bad things going on, but same goes for the good things as JP says. I can assure you that large numbers of Jewish people are heartily fed up with, and apprehensive of, the sort of society that liberalism has created.
And
Disagree with the anti-Semitism. Jews preserve Western civilization - look at any major Philharmonic and see who the main contributors are. Ditto art, cuisine, architecture, literature...Sure, enough Jews are involved with the slop (like post-modern art, pop music, trash culture, etc.) but their numbers are disproportionate in preserving European heritage/high culture. I bet per capita they contribute more towards Shakespeare's reputation and works then the average Englishman. Whites have only themselves to blame for not turning off the TV and turning their children on to the Bard.
And
I agree that Jewish influence has been and remains a critical component of the problem. But I'm against explicitly joining them in the action, so to speak - for a number of practical reasons:
The 'enemies list' becomes too wide. This leads to a diffusion of the message, renders the accuser liable for 'right-wing nutcase' status, hence marginalization, lands us firmly on the 'third rail' and all that that entails, and alienates those Jews - a high and growing number in my opinion - who are themselves appalled at what's happening.
The reason I ask is that I am not confident enough yet in my ability to argue this topic against good men, and I am about to be the busiest I have been in months this coming week and I do not have time to do the necessary digging to counter what they are saying----but I "feel" they are dead wrong in this type of thinking. If the discussion about GOV and the counter-jihad has taught me anything, it is that the LAST thing we need is another website like theirs.
So I need help, lol. If anyone might like to assist , thanks, and if not--please ignore and I will get back to work in a couple of weeks time and try to answer in a respectful, but effective way.
By the way, this is the link:
http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2011/06/plan-of-action.html
Mary: This line of reasoning, that the “bad” Jews are balanced with the “good” Jews, has been refuted so overwhelmingly that it was precisely the refutation what made me change my mind on the JQ last year, as you can see here (follow the white rabbit / scarlet-red letters here too if you wish). It is the old “category error” of confusing apples with oranges. Two months and a half ago at GoV I told the most faithful and regular GoV-er:
Quote:
Zenster, this line of argument has been responded ad nauseam in other blogsites. In a nutshell, you are confusing apples with oranges. Do the disproportionate number of discoveries in math and astronomy (apples) erase the barbarity of the Amerindians toward their kind (oranges)? Of course not. Do the disproportionate number of scientific discoveries in Nazi Germany (apples) erase how they treated other ethnic groups (oranges)?
/end quote
The fallacy of the guys you quote is obvious. They’re saying that if the Jews are overrepresented in, say, the Philharmonic orchestras (a *neutral* behavior in the clash of two ethnic groups) this “balances” the lobbying other Jews have done to open the gates of mass immigration (a clearly *subversive* behavior against the ethnic group that is their main competitor).
Understanding this fallacy lies at the cornerstone of why some of us have flipped sides on the JQ.
Mary, frankly, I'm tired of arguing with these people. If they can't make the difference between a behavior that is, ethically speaking, neutral (a composer) and one that is, ethically, harmful and destructive (promoting immigration, nation-replacement) or if they can't make the difference beween the suicidal white liberal who promotes nation-replacement in his own country and a cunning Jewish activist who promotes nation-replacement in his host country but he wants an etnostate in the Middle East, than maybe they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over. Or they deserve to be bullied in impossible alliances with members of a group that can't be named. Nobody can change their mind until they can follow basic logic and observation themselves.
Many thanks, Tan.
The plan of action is separation. The jews have an ethnostate. We must have ours.
Sorry Tan, that was me saying thanks - hit the wrong key.
Mary, re purported "positive" Jewish influence outweighing the negative: I don't have lots of facts or links to hand, but I think this can be easily argued with and disproven. My immediate reaction would be to demonstrate the success and vitality of America prior to mass Jewish immigration. My second argument would be that although Jews think they are mainstream and just like everyone else, they're not. You'll notice that in every article written by a Jewish reporter, almost every person they quote or choose for an example is another Jew. That's all they know, that's all they socialize with, and they truly think they typify the "average American." Whether they're on the left or the right is irrelevant; they have a distinctive Jewish experience and Jewish point of view, and it's unarguable that 2% of the population of this country (which holds values contrary to most of the rest of the country, as per the article I linked in a comment at Tan's previous posting) should not be debating or deciding for the rest of us. Even Auster, the "great Jewish defender," gives a reasonably good exposition of the Jewish mindset behind open immigration (while, of course, noting that it's perhaps excusable and anyhow, only because they're liberals) and notes how they, more than any other immigrant group, identify with Ellis Island. Ellis Island versus the Puritans and Founding Fathers.
Finally, you need to deal with the issue that culture is a product of race. Jews are distinct genetically (proven fact), and they are distinct culturally (also proven fact - either through their disproportionate numbers in various fields, or opinions contrary to most Christian Americans). Even if they do support symphony orchestras or art museums, much of this is in support of Jewish musicians, composers, and artists. Don't forget, there are a number of Jews who won't play Wagner's music - their "Jewish conscience" won't let them. For what it's worth, there are also a tremendous number of Asians studying classical music too (perfect example - "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua Rosenfield and her daughters). They didn't create that music, and many consider their playing to be rather mechanical, but some claim they're keeping this Western cultural tradition alive. Is an orchestra composed of Jews and Asians truly Western, and can it truly transmit Western culture?
Personal anecdote re Jews and culture. My local community has voted repeatedly against a proposed "arts hall" and all the public monies necessary to build it. The local elites and a disproportionate number of Jews keep pushing this. Each city involved has voted against funding the proposal repeatedly, but it just won't die. They just keep bringing it back, insisting we (i.e. they) need this to remain a viable and vital city. Of course, they can't/won't fund it themselves - it's got to be taxpayers' money, although only the Jews and Asians will use it.
It all comes back in the end to the same thing: Is it good for the Jews? Some of them genuinely think this is the same thing as "Is it good for Americans?" Whether it's due to ignorance or malevolence, it is still a dangerous confusion and still wrong.
Do you remember in the first GoV thread what I said in a comment about German and Spanish counter-jihad bloggers?
Quote:
Exactly the same paradigm shift occurred in another notable counter-jihad site, this one in Spanish, La Yijad en Eurabia (The Jihad in Eurabia). The Spanish admin, now fully conscious of the Jewish Problem, changed it ten days ago to La Sexta Redoma.
/end quote
Tonight, in the “late supper” thread, the admin of La Sexta Redoma has responded to Dymphna:
AMDG said...
The austerity and living values that you show are really laudable, but I find this is deplorable:
> we stand with Israel. We always have and always will, no matter what happens.
Then it is easy to foresee what will happen to you: you will fall with them.
It is pitiful to read it, but it is a personal decision that everyone should respect. Because there are many like you we find a country with 300 million citizens that has bound its exterior policy to the interests of a distant country with 6 million inhabitants. It is probably the most astonishing geopolitical blunder in the whole history of the West. The first empire to cramble down for supporting the interests of a small distant alien population.
Let us hope that the rubble falls only on your heads, and not on ours, as it has happened with serbs and Christian Iraquis.
/end of AMDG quote
Rosalie,
I can no longer find your comments in the recent “news feed” thread when you asked the Baron to open a post on the Americanization of Europe. Do I have the wrong “feed” link or has he deleted them all?
It looks like my last comment got stuck in Blogger's spam bug.
Mary, a society is a dynamic entity, much like a living organism. It's a function of many variables. Whereas in social science we hold all but one variable constant to see how that one variable (e.g. IQ) improves the society all else being equal, in reality, other variables aren't so accommodating as to remain constant. Think of it like music. Sure, there is such thing as music in the abstract; it will feature instruments, vocals, a rhythm section, etc., but in reality, the ethnic/genetic composition of who fills those roles (instrumentalist, vocalist, songwriter) changes everything. You have songs like this and songs this.
So, Jews, with their high IQs, come to dominate cultural, political, legal institutions, which, in the abstract, keep their same names (the way music is called music whether it's Mozart or reggaeton), but these institutions aren't static entities merely to be filled interchangeably by the most talented people to come along. Who leads those institutions changes its character. When women enter the business world or academics, for example, they change its character. So there are really two points here, as concerns the Jews. One: do they change these institutions, in net, for the better? Has the influence of Jewish theorists helped education, for example, or did they, in sum, fashion it to serve their needs at the expense of ours? The second point is, does it even matter if Jews improve these institutions according to some set of criteria? This is where pride comes in: I for one would rather not be ruled by a Jewish overclass, thank you. I'll accept a "lower standard of living" if I have to. Of course, it would be a massive understatement to say our ancestors did just fine without Jewish conductors guiding us.
Anon,
That is not the point. Take for example the best Jewish film directors in recent history, Kubrick and Spielberg.
While it can be argued that films like Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) with an all Anglo-Saxon crew and Dave Bowman as the chosen among the mortals for the ultimate metamorphosis, as well as the family scenes of Spielberg’s Jaws (1975) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) are good for the white psyche, the Jews always overreach themselves.
Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971) caused several copycat incidents. The U.K. had to ban it. Both Dr. Stangelove (1964) and Full Metal Jacket (1987) are criticisms of the American army (not of the Soviet army of course), and in Eyes Wide Shut (1999) you can see the Jewish hatred on the Christmas tree in many scenes.
Similarly, Spielberg’s The Color Purple (1985) and Amistad (1997) make whites guilty for their treatment of blacks. Never forget that The Color Purple catapulted the career of Oprah Winfrey to mainstream TV (a phenomenon that has metastized throughout the MSM).
Spielberg also contributed to the promotion of Holocaustianity with both his Schindler List (1993) and his presentations of Holocaust documentaries. At Kiev in Ukraine Spielberg talked about a documentary about the Nazi massacre “of tens of thousands of Jews at the Babi Yar ravine in Ukraine” but said nothing about the 7 million of Ukraine people murdered by Stalin’s Jews. (Spielberg also was a key financial backer of a woman who delivered a blow to David Irving’s libel action.)
Comparing apples with apples, a Jew apologist might argue that Kubrick’s magnificent 2001 “balances” his other films, or that Spielberg’s all-American family scenes in his first films “balances” the message of his later films. Apples with apples.
But that is not the point.
The point is that, on the whole, a couple of good films by Jewish directors or philharmonic orchestras, or their contributions in cuisine, architecture or literature (apples) will never, ever balance, to quote Trifkovic again, “the ideas and movements — Marxism (including neoconservatism as the bastard child of Trotskyism), Freudianism, Frankfurt School cultural criticism, Boasian anthropology, etc. — that have eroded the West to the point where its demographic and cultural survival is uncertain” (oranges).
Remember the scarlet-red phrase by Avery Bullard in my blog:
“But they are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority”
Thank you so much Eileen, Rosalie, Scott, Chechar, Tan and everyone who responded. I really, really appreciate it :)
Chechar - my understanding was that it was actually Kubrick himself who was instrumental in getting the film banned in the UK.
Anon,
Not exactly: I was living in the UK when Kubrick died and remember how his wife, Christiane, recounted on TV how in the 1970s they had received threats from outraged Britons because of the copycats. Only the threats moved Kubrick to ask Warner & Bros. to remove the film. Christiane commented that her husband “felt really hurt” because of the threats. It was a move oriented to Kubrick’s protection of his own family, not out of concern for the victims.
I'm just glad that Fjordman is now putting race first. Hopefully, he takes most of the "counter-Jihad" movement with him.
"Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971) caused several copycat incidents. The U.K. had to ban it. Both Dr. Stangelove (1964) and Full Metal Jacket (1987) are criticisms of the American army (not of the Soviet army of course), and in Eyes Wide Shut (1999) you can see the Jewish hatred on the Christmas tree in many scenes."
William Pierce seemed to think Kubrick was a good guy, or at least as close to it as a Jew could be for Pierce.
I'm Rosalie, but my Google account does not work, for reasons that escape me. Anyway, I want to comment on this:
we stand with Israel. We always have and always will, no matter what happens.
I emphasized that "no matter what", because Dymphna's statement represents exactly the Kantian paradigm that has almost buried the West.
One can find some reasons to support Israel which, while debatable and opened to discussion, at least try to be internally consistent - i.e. offer a reason for your action. For example, a counterjihadist might say "we stand with Israel because we consider it an intrinsic part of the Western civlization", "we stand with Israel as long as it fights Islamic supremacism", etc., etc. Reductio ad absurdum: if tomorrow Israel declares war against your country or forms a privileged alliance with Saudi Arabia, would you still stand with it? Yes, the Kantian would answer, no matter what. "Standing with Israel" is Counterjihad's categorical imperative.
In essence, Dymphna's statement is not too much different from Michele Bachmann's, quoted above. The categorical imperative is the divine commandment in secular, philosophical clothes. Forget collective and personal interests, mutual advantages, reciprocity, motives, realpolitik. It's an issue of life and death, unconditional love, sacrifice, moral principle of the highest order, no matter what. We're good Christians after all, aren't we?
"we stand with Israel"
This is not the whole truth, because they also stand with "the jews", generally and collectively, in similar "no matter what" fashion.
This "my country/tribe/ethny/race, right or wrong" is perfectly natural, normal patriotism, but only when it is directed at your own country/tribe/ethny/race. It comes across as creepy, misplaced loyalty here because neither Bodissey nor Dymphna profess to be jewish.
@ William Pierce seemed to think Kubrick was a good guy, or at least as close to it as a Jew could be for Pierce.
Because of my favorite film ever is 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick was my idol when I was much younger. But in the book Stanley Kubrick: A Biography Vincent LoBrutto writes that “Violent acts that mirrored A Clockwork Orange began appearing in England…” (page 368) and in the next page he writes: “Kubrick didn’t respond to the charges that the film was inciting the youth of England to violence.”
In 1993 Kubrick began to move toward the production of a new film, based on Jew Louis Begley’s novel Wartime Lies. The film was to take place in 1944 as a young boy, a Polish Jew, wandered the bombed-out countryside. LoBrutto writes: “Kubrick had been looking for a novel on the Nazi era for more than ten years… Begley’s spare, poetic prose would allow Kubrick to create the haunting imagery of the nonstop, real-life terror wrought by the Nazis… Kubrick named his new film Aryan Papers” (pages 497-8). But when Kubrick learnt that Spielberg was also filming a film on the Nazis that year, Kubrick seems to have stopped production of his new film.
@ Folks, this crackpot form of passive, self-sacrificial Christianity is the curse of us all… WTF is worse than dying?... Yet for wanna-be martyrs and Jesus freaks like Bachmann or Dymphna, their very right to existence stands or falls with their sacrifice in the name of a foreign group (which doesn't even reciprocate to their principles)… that's how the mind of the bloddless, castrated, self-immolating Jesus freak works. Wackos.
Have you read the recent exchange at Counter-Currents about if Christianity is a religion that makes it easier or more difficult for Jews to destroy Europe?
Hmm... philo-semites trying to suppress free speech - SHOCKING.
Something similar to A Clockwork Orange happened with half-Jew Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers (1994). According to the USA Today of 10 July 1996 “A Louisiana woman left paralyzed by a robber who shot her after watching Natural Born Killers hopes to hold Hollywood responsible… Edmondson told police that she and her boyfriend Benjamin Darrus took drugs and went on a killing spree after watching the Oliver Stone movie Natural Born Killers over and over.”
I dont doubt that violent movies influence people but I suspect the influence is subtle and cumulative.
I think with movies like ACO and NBK there is a simplistic media reaction. Violent simpletons when arrested seek to pass the blame, or more likely their legal representitives sieze on the possibility.
Im not exactly disagreeing with you Chechar, great respect for you and your own website, always read your comments with interest.
How much is it reasonable for someone on a tight budget to spend on food per day? $10? $20?
On a tight budget, you need to keep it under $5.
William Pierce seemed to think Kubrick was a good guy, or at least as close to it as a Jew could be for Pierce.
Yeah, and Yggdrasil had some very interesting interpretations and comments on Strangelove and Clockwork.
And Eyes Wide Shut was probably subversive of the existing power structure rather than of White people and culture. My conspiracy-theorist friend loves to point out that it was released after Kubrick died, and it presumably had been cleaned up and neutralized in some respects.
At 10/day for two people, that's $73K/year. Add in utilities and house/vehicle maintenance costs - that's why I found the numbers troubling
???????? $73,0000 ????
Mary, my response is late but I'll pitch it in anyway.
Sure, Jews were/are over-represented in the bad things going on, but same goes for the good things as JP says. I can assure you that large numbers of Jewish people are heartily fed up with, and apprehensive of, the sort of society that liberalism has created.
The first sentence is a dodge. Jews aren't just "over-represented" in some of the bad things going on. If you read Culture of Critique, you'll see that many of the bad things going on are in fact Jewish movements. There are no good (i.e., working directly for Euro interests (never mind against Jewish interests)) Jewish movements to "balance" out the bad (working directly against Euro interests and in favor of Jewish interests) Jewish movements. In this context, the guy who discovered the polio vaccine in no way balances out the guy who made a living demonizing and manipulating Europeans. The polio vaccine works in China. Even without a Jew to stir the petri dish. So why should the Chinese take the polio vaccine as black ink on the ledger of "should we open our country (in every sense) to the Jews?"? And if the Chinese have no good reason to thank the Jews for guy who discovered the polio vaccine, why should Euros? Salk was rewarded for his service. Has Horkheimer been punished for his aggression? The Jews take credit for Salk to defend themselves. Why shouldn't Euros demand Jews take credit for Horkheimer, too? The nature of the red ink on the ledger is far more a collective thing for Jews, than the black ink is. The black ink is always some Jew in a lab, doing his own work. The red ink is always a team, communal Jewish sport, the sort of thing that groups always tie up into their identities. Salk in his lab was not a "Jewish movement." You could exchange his Jewishness for Tibetan-ness, and, HBD/IQ aside, it would have had no impact on his performance. If you exchange the Jewishness of the Culture of Critique for some other -ness, you don't get a Culture of Critique.
In short, the misdeeds we hold Jews accountable for are quintessentially Jewish; the good deeds others attribute to them in their defense are not. The bad we're concerned with is inextricably bound up with Jewishness, and the good is not. This is an important distinction.
Disagree with the anti-Semitism. Jews preserve Western civilization - look at any major Philharmonic and see who the main contributors are. Ditto art, cuisine, architecture, literature.
Yeah, that's great. They're going to keep our stuff after we're dead. They know how valuable it is, so that means it's okay that they want us dead.
Sure, enough Jews are involved with the slop (like post-modern art, pop music, trash culture, etc.) but their numbers are disproportionate in preserving European heritage/high culture.
As if a Jewish museum curator cancels out Murray Rothstein!
I bet per capita they contribute more towards Shakespeare's reputation and works then the average Englishman. Whites have only themselves to blame for not turning off the TV and turning their children on to the Bard.
I like the "whites have only themselves to blame" thing. And I agree. Whites have only themselves to blame for trusting Jews. Whites have only themselves to blame for thinking Jews were anything at all like themselves. Whites have only themselves to blame for putting up with Jews' shit, trusting them, allowing them into their institutions, and thinking Jews would play fair. And they have only themselves to blame for water-carrying stooges like you, who put Jews ahead of their own folk. I hope whites wake up, decide to stop acting stupidly, and kick you and the Jews to the curb. Then they won't have themselves to blame anymore, because they'll have solved the problem.
I agree that Jewish influence has been and remains a critical component of the problem. But I'm against explicitly joining them in the action, so to speak - for a number of practical reasons:
The 'enemies list' becomes too wide. This leads to a diffusion of the message, renders the accuser liable for 'right-wing nutcase' status, hence marginalization, lands us firmly on the 'third rail' and all that that entails, and alienates those Jews - a high and growing number in my opinion - who are themselves appalled at what's happening.
I think maybe some context is missing here, but I'll press on anyway. I could give a shit about "right wing nutcase" status. Simple as that. If I'm kicking your ass in a debate, name-calling isn't going to help you any. I'm going to mock and belittle you for it. As for the Jews who are appalled at what the vast majority of their fellow Jews are doing/supporting, their numbers are not "high." There's one way, one way only, to get a fair shake from Jews vis-a-vis ethnic interests; you force them to give you a fair shake. That's it. Nothing...else...will...work. Moral appeals will not work. Shaming will not work. Ideals will not work. Carrot and stick, that's all you've got. A sense of fair play does not enter the picture. If you think it does, you're naive.
Chechar: Zenster, this line of argument has been responded ad nauseam in other blogsites. In a nutshell, you are confusing apples with oranges. Do the disproportionate number of discoveries in math and astronomy (apples) erase the barbarity of the Amerindians toward their kind (oranges)? Of course not. Do the disproportionate number of scientific discoveries in Nazi Germany (apples) erase how they treated other ethnic groups (oranges)?
Re-contextualizing that bit of "logic" as you did is a good idea. In fact, that's a general rule in arguing with philo-Semites; always re-contextualize their logic and arguments using different players, at least in your head.
The fallacy of the guys you quote is obvious. They’re saying that if the Jews are overrepresented in, say, the Philharmonic orchestras (a *neutral* behavior in the clash of two ethnic groups)
Yes, the ethnic-active vs. ethnic-neutral point is another one I should have made above.
If you're looking for a short, take-home talking point on this, here's mine:
You want me to be grateful to the guy who slipped a hundred bucks in my pocket when he shot me in the face.
Well, I can't put it at Chechar's blog so I'll put it here:
Jewish guy says:
The sophistication of the Judeocritic community is window dressing, the majority of their adherents are not intelligent and they are only tolerated because of their hatred for Jews; the smart anti-Semites basically babysit them. Of course, they will not admit this to you and I will probably get flamed for mentioning this but it is the truth.
Interesting. But of course, the sophistication of the Judeo-philic community isn't even window dressing; they unabashedly, openly censor their critics, avoid argument in favor of name-calling and shaming language, etc. The majority of their adherents are less intelligent than the majority of the "Judeo-critical" community; they share a brain with the "smart" philo-Semites (Jews and their intellectual whores). Of course, they won't have to admit anything, or flame anybody; they'll just censor and abuse and shame the problem away.
Well, I hate to break it to you but the world is more nuanced than that. Jews do not control everything and they are not the ones who are giving the marching orders to the elites of the West. The Judeocritics may break some taboos and open your eyes to certain things were you blind to but they do not have all the answers to what ails the West, and they certainly don't have all the solutions.
It wouldn't be Judeo-philia without some straw men. "Jews controlling everything" is, ON ITS FACE, a straw man argument. Judeo-philes proudly use this straw man argument; it's a mocking way to refer to the acknowledgment of out-sized, illegitimate, hostile Jewish power. "All the answers" is another straw man.
I read an article at Wikipedia not too long ago about some Indian conflict where a small, powerful white minority was decisive. It was interesting, given how I was using that as a hypothetical to illustrate this very argument, long before I ever heard of the real thing. Basically, an Indian tribe fell into civil war over, among other things, whether to fight the encroaching white man, or cooperate with him. One side wanted to fight the white man, and the other wanted to cooperate with him. Guess which side the small, but disproportionately powerful local white minority joined? Guess which side they opposed? Guess which side won?
I trust the argument is self-evident? The fact that it took one half of the Indians PLUS white men to defeat them and decide their fate is unlikely to get whites off the hook with the losing faction, yes? Would it be honest for a white guy to tell Indians, "you have only yourselves to blame"? Would it be wrong for the losing faction to point out that without the interference of the whites, we would have won"? Especially if they were in fact winning before the whites jumped in (I can give you a good hint that this is the case in our present situation)?
In this light, a much more sensible approach to "is it good for the Euros?" becomes possible.
Same thread:
Takuan:
I think it’s okay to blame the Frankfurt School, among others, but the overall point I am making is that you cannot treat the Frankfurt School in a vacuum. It’s a movement that arose as a counterpoint to Nazi ideology, and it reached its apotheosis after WW2 and in response to the Holocaust. No Nazis, no Frankfurt School. That’s what the Jew-haters refuse to consider.
Of course we'd have a Frankfurt school without the Nazis. It just wouldn't be quite as aggressive. You sound like a guy who skipped right past APTSDA and SAID and went right for COC...at best. More historical truths: no tolerance for Jews, no 1965 immigration law. No brown tide. No march through the institutions. No counterculture. No tolerance for Jews, no Jew-hating Germany, no Hitler, no WWII, no Jewish holocaust. No tolerance for Jews, no Bolshevik victory, no Stalin, no Holodomor, no Red Terror (no Mao?).
Tekuan probably thinks he's selling us on Jews. He isn't. We'd have been better off if no Jews had ever immigrated here.
The Spanish author’s book I cited relays that that Jews did open the gates in several Spanish cities to besieging Moors. The Polish author’s book I cited relays that Jews did collaborate in “over-represented” numbers with the ruthless Soviet conquerors of Eastern Poland in 1939 -1941. But this is the same story like with the Frankfurt School.
I'm starting to like your "no X, no Y" logic. I have some more this time, too: no tolerance for Jews, no Moorish victory; no tolerance for Jews, no ruthless Soviet conquerors in Poland/Hungary/Ukraine/etc.
More:
I therefore don’t begrudge the crypto-nazis their collating and disseminating tales of Jewish treachery or malfeasance, as long as true. What I begrudge them is falsifying the genesis of such actions as well as omitting tales of Jewish sacrifice and beneficence, thereby working toward the repeat of the same white society’s errors in the future, with the same ultimate failure for the Western peoples.
Genesis is the genesis of such actions, Tak! The Jews bring it with them. They sojourn into our territories uninvited and settle in as the worst sorts of guests. Colonizers, really. Jewish colonialism & supremacy. Every once in a while the hosts give better than they get and it goes into the Jewish progrom/atrocity/holocaust ledger for eternity. Then you read the ledger back to us.
If you were Team White, instead of Team Jew, you'd know as well as we do that the drunk who's been thrown out of every bar in the state is to blame, not every bar in the state.
All such men don’t fit in the Jew-haters’ neat and simple picture, so they just clip the picture to exclude such Jews.
I don't clip them. I just know you'd have to spend the rest of your life citing men and their deeds to make the case you think you're making with three.
Russel
My hope is one day all this energy that goes into discussing the Jews (look at this f...ing thread again), thoroughly wasted energy, can go towards securing a future for Europeans and a fulfillment of European potential.
Russel, you can't countenance the idea that the energy isn't wasted, that the JQ is itself a way to ignite the tinder of "a futre for European," but don't think it isn't so. The JQ is what made me into an ethnopatriot. I saw what Jews do for their own people, and realized it was okay for me to start (rhetorically) fighting for mine. And we're underdogs to the Jews, which hits the "white altruistic" button harder than anything IMO. Blacks and Mexicans aren't big enough game for me. SWPLs are okay but they're not players. Jews are players.
That's another one Jews and their intellectual whores don't like hearing; that I get to scrub the names off of the Culture of Critique and turn it back around at the authors.
At least Tak acknowledges our rights, reciprocal to those expressed in Israel.
And More:
No, we certainly don’t agree on that point. Just to unravel the misconceptions and hodgepodge of misinformation in your sentence above would take 1000 words. To begin with, “Jewry” is not organized and you have to be nuts to believe that it’s hostile. There is such a thing as “Jewish organizations” – but they represent a minority not majority of Jews. And if you believe that Jews are harmful, you’d have to qualify in what ways and whether intentionally or as a byproduct of ideas that they believe in sincerely and, in their minds, benignly. Lastly, even when you have isolated those harmful ideas, behavior and such, you would have to explain why you are limiting the attribution of harm to Jews, but not to non-Jewish American liberals, at least ¾ of Western Europe ‘s population, and all mainstream Christian churches – all of which share precisely the same ideas, voting patterns and other behaviors.
Wow, how's that for disingenuous drivel? This is pre-high-school-yard level argumentation. "Jewry is not organized"? Really? That's how he responds to criticism of "organized Jewry"? This is how adults argue?
The Culture of Critique didn't mind treating me and mine with a broad brush. Why should we mind returning the favor? Majority/minority of Jews my ass. If Jews don't like their leadership, they change it. They've got exactly the sort of "organized Jewry" they want, believe you me. In the relative sense, the only sense that matters, of course; for who is "organized," if not the Jews? Who is better represented in their interests by their leadership than Jews are?
They DEFINE these terms, these ideas.
Then we get the bullshit about how we have to give a rat's ass about what self-deceptions Jews go through to contort themselves into thinking the damage they do us is Tikkun Olam.
Then we have to explain ourselves to Tak if we criticize Jews more than liberals (which many of us don't). But he doesn't have to explain why it's okay for conservatives to criticize liberals, but not Jews. Mr. "balance" (really, his absurd, unprincipled-exception-filled assertions about balance are risible) doesn't like the idea of anyone balancing out anyone else; everyone must be "internally" "balanced," and hope the world "balances" on its own.
Tak is a lying, sneaky, conniving little fuck. Living proof that you can't serve two masters.
@ Well, I can't put it at Chechar's blog so I'll put it here
Odd. After I fix it a couple of months ago I thought that that February 2010 post allowed comments again. But it’s better to see your comments here where more people can read them.
When you quote Russel, Do you realize that you are probably responding to an Auster sockpuppet?
Taksei never read KMD’s trilogy, as you can see in his response in GoV’s recent thread after I mentioned it.
Too bad that the Barons forbade discussion on the JQ. After a long time of interacting with Zenster I felt he had seen a glimpse of light.
-----------
This thread is approaching 200 comments, which means that unless the code is edited, as a GoV webmaster did, after comment #200 the next ones won’t appear in the comment box: they’ll be only visible in email.
…but please continue to debunk Taksei here, Svigor, even if we exceed the 200 "limit". Do you know that I collected some of your 2010 responses to the same thread here?
Rosalie here, again.
Regarding T. Seiyo - I've exposed here one of the traits of his modus operandi: write a few sugarcoated paragraphs about the necessity to save the West, then declare that the Westerners are paying for what they did to those-who-can't-be-named.
I'll give an example that will really make your blood boil and your head explode. The fragment is from an essay published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4488).
At some point, he discusses the current multicultural madness of Sweden. Then, ladies and gentlemen, he says this:
Some contest the Hitler revenge theory by pointing out that Sweden -- perhaps the most self-disemboweling country in Europe -- had no part in the Holocaust. But they forget that Jews were not allowed to live in Sweden before 1782, their emancipation did not arrive until 1870, widespread antisemitic sentiments were common well into mid-20th century, with the remarkable actions of Wallenberg and Bernadotte acting as a counterfoil to a popular sentiment that until the end of 1942 had closed off Sweden to Jewish refugees from Nazi persecution, produced antisemitic student protests, and gave rise to the Swedish Anti-Jewish Action League (Sveriges Antijudiska Kampförbund) founded by Einar Åberg. It’s germane that the law prohibiting "incitement against an ethnic group" under which the Swedish state prosecutes its anti-Islamization dissidents was enacted due to Åberg’s widespread antisemitic activities in the late 1940s and 1950s
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you read it well: Sweden is paying with national extinction for past anti-Semitic sins. It's worse than everything Larry Auster ever said about the Germans, and that's why I stated that L. Auster himself is the Good Samaritan compared to this hateful character. It's beyond my comprehension how otherwise intelligent and respectable people can believe that this disingenuous individual would ever have a genuine appreciation for the peoples and nations of the European Man, except as a place where his co-ethnics can thrive and prosper.
Something changed deeply in me when, in one of the above-linked threads of my blog, Taksei said to Tan: “…You are my mortal enemy.” When I was more active at GoV, in our email correspondence Taksei had said something similar: I told him I was reading William Pierce and he answered that he would “shoot Pierce on sight”.
Taksei never expressed such level of hatred toward PCMC traitors. The fact that he reserved his real hate toward those on his right made me wonder even before my awakening.
Great stuff.
Svigor = fearsome practitioner of jew-jitsu.
Rosalie here.
I told him I was reading William Pierce and he answered that he would “shoot Pierce on sight”.
Seiyo's opinion is consistent with the level of hatred shown by that GoV's Jewish commenter, and it exemplifies perfectly the Judaic unmatched thirst of revenge:
May They Soon See Their End Strung up Like Livestock by their ankles a/la/Mussolini.
And these people call others "haters"!
Noticing the same mindset over and over again, one can fully understand the basis of the Holodomor or the revenge against the civilian Germans and other countries of the Axis after WWII. Actually, on German Views, M. Kleine-Hartlage has a few telling articles about the experiments in "de-Nazification" (actual experiments on people, not theoretical ones), carried in Germany when the thinkers of the Frankfurt School went back in Europe. The naked facts will give any sane person goose bumps.
M. Kleine-Hartlage has a few telling articles about the experiments in "de-Nazification"
any links, Rosalie? iI'm too drunk to use google.
Actually, I'd say that pre-internet, the entire media and education system became an experiment in "de-nazification." There's this jewish professor, couldn;t be more obvious from his face or his constant attack of conservatism where it has no place, yet 90% of the people i mention he's jewish hadnt even thought of that. This whole blank slatist madness that conservatives bitch about cannot be understood apart from the interests that promoted it so fiercely. Keeping in mind, of course, that some degree of blank slatism, vs, fatalism, is inherent to Western civ - but how badly was it co-opted and corrupted. Shit like that doesnt happen by accident. Even with the internet, look at the effect powerful jews have on discussion at GoV, the effect of guys like Auster and Seiyo on policing paleoconservatism, just by force of energy and slick rhetorical tricks...
Rosalie, whose Google account is still blocked.
Scott,
the link is: http://www.german-views.de/2011/05/20/the-third-war-against-germany/
The article is called "The Re-education of the Germans as a Part of Psychological Warfare".
Some parts have a strange syntax since it seems like a first-hand translation from German, but you'll understand it. Pay attention particularly to the part about the criteria for hiring journalists in post-war Germany, and you'll understand the state of the media today, and I've left a comment after the article, if you're interested.
Yes, you are right: after WWII, all of us have been "de-Nazified". It's been a huge experiment with Europeans and people of European descent as guinea pigs, in the name of "never again". And what gives you goose bumps is how the Frankfurt Schoolers were practically involved in the experiment, coming back from their refuge in the US with the unmatched thirst of revenge I've mentioned.
Then the experiment was applied all over the West. We are all Germans now.
Me, Rosalie.
The left used to present itself as the side defending the lower class. Now they want to race-replace the White lower class. The left used to be hostile to the bourgeoisie. Now they are hostile to White people. Where is the continuity? I think it lies in the Jewish identity of the left.
Absolutely. It happened when old-school Marxism was hijacked by the Frankfurt School, and consequently the proletariat was replaced by minorities as "agent of the revolutionary transformation of the society". Then, a movement which was supposed to be pro-working class suddenly turned into an anti-white "privilege" one.
I think it was a discussion once at Mangan's (if I'm not wrong) about how a pre-Frankfurt School Socialist would look like. The answer was that a typical Socialist of this kind had been Jack London: a harmless leftist who was able to appreciate Nietzsche and to believe in the civilizational mission of the WASPs.
Everything was hijacked and derailed in the last 50-60 years, from Marxism to conservatism, from Socialists to Republicans.
At the same time, the neocons now get to decide who can be considered as a respectable member of the right
This is the "Jonah Goldberg strategy". According to the blabbering in his book "Liberal Fascism" (a seminal volume in shaping the neocon ideology), everybody who's not a neocon is a leftist - including fascists, National-Socialists, paleoconservatives, ethnonationalists, traditionalists, "altar and throne" Christians. Only the neocons are the real and legitimate right-wingers.
From an article on Alternative Right about Goldberg's lunacy, which is respected like the Bible in the neocon circles:
About ten years ago I gaped with astonishment when I read a commentary by Jonah Goldberg explaining that the Catholic counterrevolutionary Joseph de Maistre was really a far leftist. It seems that Maistre questioned the idea of universal human rights und dared to note that human beings were marked by different national and ethnic features. These quirks, according to Goldberg, belong exclusively to the left, like “liberal fascism.” When the intellectual Right can come up with such nonsense and then parley it into a fortune, it is hard to imagine any lower depths of cultural illiteracy to which it could sink.
(http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/dead-right/)
Russel is almost certainly not Auster. Russel capitalizes White whereas at his blog Auster actually edits comments made by others to ensure that word is always lowercase.
@ Russel is almost certainly not Auster. Russel capitalizes White whereas at his blog Auster actually edits comments made by others to ensure that word is always lowercase.
If he is Auster and so conscious of editing it that way in his blog, could he cunningly have written White capitalized in my blog to avoid been detected? I remember that last year I got the impression that he was Russel because of the IPs I read on my stats page and because he stated almost the same opinions in my threads (e.g., those of “white female beauty”) of what we were corresponding thru email at the same time. Anyway: those could be coincidences of course and may be different persons.
---------
So this comment of mine is #200 or #195? The above discussions are so valuable that I wouldn’t like post-200 comments became invisible for AOT visitors.
My final word to Baron Bodissey:
“A gentile baron under the spell of the Jew”
Chechar, there is not one objection to our higher truths which the best of us could not quickly slap from the hands of those who oppose us and reduce them to inner trembling - though they make every attempt to not show it outwardly. Not Auster, not Takuan, not Fjordman (and certainly not the semi-autistic Hesperado). Tan's method alone accomplishes that, hence their censorship. It is the hammer wielded by the moral metaphysician which would be finally annihilating to their stance, however, in that according to our good justice they would have naught to fear from us besides the forbearing removal of their personnages from influence over our lives. The metaphysician who reasons according to the moral nature of our people, I mean. To go against one's nature, assuming one is of healthy constitution, can only and ever be self-injurious. Our race is not only a great race but also a (morally) good race. In no small measure we owe our greatness to the latter, which in fact is inseparably a part of the former. And besides, in its own right, at least in my eyes, goodness has a majesty all its own - according to the (moral) nature of our race, at least as I see it.
This is the answer unanswerable to the churl Auster's personal taunts which clearly had the subliminal intended effect of asking "What if the shoe were on the other foot?" in addition to being mere indulgence in schadenfreude. Auster is capable of being a subtle thinker, when he wishes it. Subtlely, then, and subliminally, he implied that "the shoe" may not only be on the Jewish "foot" but perhaps a 'jackboot' on the "foot" of some fanatics of our own race who would transgress every boundary of our moral nature for fanatical reasons. It was a muted warning to those who pull back the curtain on his Jewish verbal wizardry to "Turn back while you still can. You don't know what they are capable of. You don't know what they might do."
The answer unanswerable: the best of us (gladly the vast majority of us) could not constitutionally do as he implies we might were we to act according to, and instructed by, the moral nature of our race. The implicit warning concealed in Auster's taunt is thus definitely answered. None have any to fear as we reclaim the life of our race from those who would wish to extinguish it so long as we - all of us - adhere to what is objectively morally correct, according to the moral nature of our race.
I hope this comment was not too subtle for it to be less than edifying on all levels intended.
It is true, our race is genetically bound to seek meaning in and governance by abstract ideals. And the high priests of that pursuit are genetically bound to exult - at least unconsciously - in their own moral and intellectual superiority as they pursue their priestly duties. I won't hold it against them nor would I be inclined to deny them that emotional incentive - not that I could deny them the latter even if I wished. What I wish is to marry this impulse to a true understanding of our moral nature as serves our ultimate interests according to Salter (our ethnic genetic interests), our genetic interests (familial), and personal interests. A true understanding, I emphasize. An understanding which most (most are constitutionally morally sound; most cannot reason on their own, yet will listen to the fruits of reason when presented correctly - of course when cloaked in authority), if not all (there are some who are not constitutionally morally sound; there are some who cannot be reasoned with), can agree exhorts what is objectively morally correct as serves the aforementioned interests. That which produces wide-spread moral deformation can be said to objectively not serve those interests.
Now that is a church, so to speak, which I could worship in, though I would not wish to be a priest in it.
Hopefully some good tobacco for the pipes of aspiring theocrats, of course assuming that they are constituionally morally good men.
This thread has been translated to German:
http://fjordman.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/weiser-nationalismus-und-der-counterjihad/
Thanks a lot Ace of Swords!
"Salk was rewarded for his service."
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-enders-jonas-salk-and-eradication.html
Post a Comment
<< Home