Midsummer

Midsummer is coming up. Time for a break.



Make sure to look 7:00 and forward, for a traditional, and typical! :-), Swedish Midsummer celebration.

[End of posting for a while] Read further...

Redefinition of citizenship

The discussions, over at GoV, about first the Jews in Bolshevism and then about Kevin MacDonald, triggered the following comment from Armance:

The major flaw that I can see in Kevin MacDonald's work is that it lacks a comparative study of the Jews with the behavior of other ethnic or religious minority groups in the West: because doing a comparative study of minorities, I think one will notice obvious similarities. Particularly in our times, when minorities are encouraged to feel "oppressed" and "discriminated", you will notice that almost all minorities, and particularly their representative organizations, develop an obvious bitterness and hostility towards the majority of the population and their host nations.

So, I would like to see a study of the Jewish organizations in Europe and the USA compared to the Muslims in the West (CAIR, etc.), Hispanics in America (La Raza), Blacks in the US and Gypsies in Eastern Europe, etc. I think all of them tend to have the same behaviour, particularly when encouraged by PCism (and George Soros's institutes and foundations).

This inspired my to write a longer answer, where I line out many of my ideas regarding a future need for a redefinition of citizenship:

Armance,

Good point. I still, however, think that the main flaw of Kevin MacDonald and his kind, is the sheer obsession with the Jews, and their utter detachment from reality. As I have already written:

Jews never succeeded well in looking after their best interests. Jews act according to their nature, not according to what's in their interest. All conspiracy theories about Jews fantasize about how the Jews are extremely clever in controlling things at a global level to turn it into their advantage. This is nonsense of course.

However, next to this I agree with you that the lack of comparative study is the major flaw of Kevin MacDonald. But of course we shouldn't expect that from him since his purpose is not an honest investigation in the first place. Omission and skewed perspective is one of the prime tools of propaganda deception (cf. the MSM).

When we find such similar traits as you mention (at a group level) from such disparate groups as Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Gypsies, etc., it clearly depends on us and not on them (see Russia for a point of reference were things are very different regarding such matters). So instead of dubbing each of them special interest groups, with special protection -- and encouraging them to feel "oppressed" and "discriminated", resulting in bitterness and hostility towards the majority of the population and their host nations -- we should reverse this PC regime all across the line, i.e. including for the Jews. Trying to keep the Jews as an exception for PC protection will only fail.

Once having gotten that out of the way, it would be easier to speak soberly about the actual differences between these disparate groups. Where Jews have a much higher ability for assimilation into a nationalistic Europe. But none should be admitted in as a group! We have to end this "social contract" multiculturalism entirely. People should individually be admitted organically into the ethnic nation. A nation is a higher order family. And a family is first of all based on an ethnic core. But a family also allows for organically including outsiders (e.g. through marriage or adoption), as long as the ethnic core is not threatened. This is in the nature of the concept of a family, and also of higher order families.

This does not only apply to the many good Jews, that are among our most trustworthy allies, but also to e.g. people of Muslim background (better known as ex-Muslims) who stand of for our culture better than the Westerners themselves.

I'm assuming in my reasoning above that due to the utter recklessness of our "Enlightened" elites, in handing out passports for free en masse, that our concept of citizenship will have to be reconstructed. There is bound to come a discontinuity on that point, our elites have invested deeply into that with their recklessness. I assume further that we will look farther back in history to find a stable base for a new concept of citizenship, that is before the French Revolution.

Apart from those of other ethnicity that are individually included as citizens, there will be those who remain in the West as residents, i.e. with substantially less political rights, i.e. they will have no power over political affairs. At this level however, we have to judge at group level. Jews are fine, while Muslims are not. Blacks have a long history in America, and will no doubt remain as residents.

I'm very fond of this old fashioned concept of citizenship, where less than half of the people in a country are citizens with access to political affairs. Best in test through millenia of history! So much more humane and balanced than all these utopian ideologies with roots in the French Revolution, which never can take a moderate position but only flip between extremes, and which always ends up in mass murder (or mass suicide) one way or the other.

Read further...

Takuan Seiyo as Takuan Seiyo as Kevin MacDonald

As Baron Bodissey put it: the reader response to “Road Rage” post at GoV prompted Takuan Seiyo to write this: Critique of the Culture of Kevin MacDonald. Rather surprising choice to be "promted" to criticize Kevin MacDonald based on that thread, since i) Kevin MacDonald didn't participate, and ii) no one in the thread came of with ideas like MacDonald's. Instead the many intelligent commenters of GoV in that thread sounded like Takuan Seiyo in what he writes in his very good article, most of which I agree with, especially his criticism of Kevin MacDonald, something I brought up several times myself.

So Seiyo's article is good, but the rather tone-deaf aspect of it was how it was "prompted". Since the commenters in that thread sounded like Takuan Seiyo himself. Except for the ones, of course, that thought that the ones sounding like Takuan Seiyo reminded them of Kevin MacDonald. Curuiously enough, Takuan Seiyo himself belongs in both these catatgories:

1. Takuan Seiyo sounds like Takuan Seiyo
2. Takuan Seiyo thinks that people that sound like Takuan Seiyo reminds him of Kevin MacDonald.

[End of post]

Read further...

Ape Genius -- who's mindlessly aping?

Ape Genius is a fascinating documentary by National Geographic. Watch it here (5 parts). It shows intellectual and even cultural skills by apes that we wouldn't expect. In terms of making and using tools and weapons, intelligently solving puzzles, learning to operate complex machines, in learning to understand language and symbols, and even in cooperation and the sense of social fairness. Surprisingly they seem to have many of the essential skills needed to build a real culture. The narrator says "Their mental rocket is on the launch pad. Why isn't it taking off?" But the documentary answers that question too, by pinpointing the significant mental gaps that -- in spite of their great abilities compared to any other animal -- inhibit the apes from building anything like the human society.

There are many interesting things to be discussed based on this documentary (and I recommend you to watch it entirely, why not straight away before reading on?) but I will focus on a specific experiment here, by the end of the documentary, which tells more about human nature than about apes. The instructor shows how to operate a puzzle-box, by tapping, slotting and poking with a stick, and then finally a treat, a gummy bear, can be fetched from a slot at the front of the box. Watch it here (at 7m35s), and continue here. In the first version of the experiment, apes and human children act exactly the same way, copying every step of the instructor and successfully getting the treat.

Next the original opaque puzzle-box is replaced by an identical one, but with see-through walls. The instructor once again shows the procedure, but it is now evident that all the tapping and poking is meaningless and that the treat can be taken from the slot in the front immediately. What happens? Well, the apes cut to the chase and take the treat immediately. As it is said in the documentary "Apes don't just mindlessly ape, they also understand something more about cause and effect". The human children however continues following the same procedure they have been taught, even though it's obvious that all the tapping and poking is meaningless. The apes do not mindlessly ape, but humans can easily be made into doing that, however.

This does not imply that humans understand less of cause and effect, only that there is something that is much more important and dear to them than following the logic of cause and effect. And that is to follow the authority, and thereby following their social group. For a human the loyalty to the authority and the commitment to the social group is more important than the obvious reality before their very eyes. Watch how very proud the children are of exactly following the instructions shown by their mentor.

The documentary continues to show how this aspect of the human nature has been a great strength in building an advanced civilization. While apes are very good at learning by imitation, the concept of teaching each other does not exist among the apes. Among humans the teacher-learner relation is at the core of our life form. This a very special relation, and the social bond (and the impact of symbols) is stronger than the impact of reality. Through our ability to teaching/learning we can carry on our knowledge from generation to generation, in a cumulative way, and reach heights unreachable for the apes. The documentary continues to show the fundamental importance of pointing among humans, a communication ability that apes completely lack. Watch the example of the instructor pointing at the cup with the treat under it, where the apes never get the message; they simply do not understand that communication is going on. While human toddlers, even before they can speak, always get the message and take the right cup. Apes act as individuals and follow their impulses and the reality they observe. Humans, wired towards communication, follow the directions of their master before anything else. This is both our strength and our weakness; it's simply our nature.

So apes do not mindlessly ape, but humans can easily be made into doing that. Whatever an ape does, it has to have an objective purpose, given reality and his biological interests. For a human, however, the social purpose of following the authority and the group is sufficient; the objective purpose is actually secondary. For the ape this severely limits his ability to build a sophisticated culture, based on symbols and intellectual achievements. For the human it opens up all sorts of possibilities, including the building of a symbolic world for the collective mind, that is a virtual Platonic cave, where the shadow figures displayed by the masters are observed rather than reality.

The example with the see-through puzzle-box shows that just about any story can be sold to the human mind as long as his respect for the authority is intact. As long as the respect for the authority is kept intact, humans can be trained to believe virtually anything, no matter how contradictory and counter-reality it is, no matter how much it counters her biological and social interests. And the more we get detached from reality in our way of life, the further this can be taken. In the Industrial Age we have seen this developed into far-going utopianism and conceptual delusions, making the Westerners strongly committed to their own civilizational suicide.

I'd say that this is the most important aspect of the human nature -- our inclination and commitment towards mindlessly aping by the direction of our authority -- to take in account in order to understand how our civilization can be at the absurdly Orwellian point that we are in now.

We need to understand why we are in this predicament -- the fundamental reasons for it -- in order to understand how to being able to change it. So take this aspect of the human nature in account if you want to understand the conditions for real change.

Read further...

Traian Ungureanu: "Enough is enough!"

In order to give you some more background on where the Romanian MEP candidate Traian Ungureanu stands on Islam, here is an article he wrote during the Danish cartoons affair. It was published in the newspaper Cotidianul, one of the most popular dailies in Romania. It's one of his prime pieces, reminding us well about who they are, who we are, and what it's all about. And Traian is not holding back his words. It's a pleasure reading it. Many thanks to Armance who translated the article. So here you're sent by time warp back to early 2006:

For the laughter of the civilized world
By Traian Ungureanu

It mutilated children. It found in the subway the common citizen, commuter in his way to the office, and disfigured him. It humiliated women. It persecuted fearful minds and brought to the point of desperation noble souls. For all these reasons, the fear and the horror have suffocated in us the healthy life of our conscience. But all this has happened until a day of Friday, the 30th of September 2005, when a Danish newspaper had a simple and strong idea: the daily “Jyllands-Posten” published a series of cartoons on Islamic subjects. The prophet is sitting on the top of a cloud and is shouting, overwhelmed by the endless queue of suicidal terrorists who arrive in Heaven after finishing their job: “Stop! We’ve ran out of virgins!”

Yesterday, after 5 months of indoctrination [since the cartoons had been first published], the crowds set ablaze the Danish embassies in Damascus and Beirut. In London, mobs of families with mothers in burqas, scary fathers and children diapered in suicide belts protested in the centre of the city. Their slogans: “Fuck freedom!”, “We promise you the real Holocaust”, “The enemies of Islam must be beheaded”, and a question as an offer: “Do you want again bombs in the subway?” Libya has closed its embassy in Denmark, and Saudi Arabia has called back home its ambassador. All the Islamic world, from Jakarta to Tripoli, has an outburst of fury, but has enough lucidity to follow two goals: apologies for an insult and a law of obligatory respect for the Islamic religion in the West.

Enough is enough! These sinister clowns have made too much fools out of themselves. What does this fury planned in the capitals of the Arab world want to impose on us? The concern for the good reputation of the prophet? But for that we have, all over the civilized world, laws which the Arabs should worship 5 times a day. Because it’s these laws which establish – in Denmark, in France, in England or in Romania – the right of every Muslim to worship their prophet in mosques that the believers built incessantly and without restrictions. But it’s also the laws of our countries that establish – in Denmark, in England or in Romania – that nobody has the right to silence someone who wants to ridicule, to gossip or to contradict. This is our European spirit: polite, but at the same time addicted of debates. Some of them might be pleasant, some of them not. Who wants the dark discipline of the moral police who forbids the jewels in shape of crucifixes and confiscate Bibles should leave Europe immediately (the same Europe where they learned very well to use a passport and to take advantage on the social benefits). If Europe is not good enough, they are free to feel as gods in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

I repeat: what do these apocalyptic buffoons want from us? Do they believe that they can hide into vandalism the tyranny from their own homes? More than that: Islam lives an era of offensive delirium. In Damascus, the regime took action and succeeded to blow into pieces the Lebanese ex-prime-minister. In Teheran, a fanatic has three hands, one of them to keep the vote ballots which brought him into power, the second to hold the Quran and the third to use nuclear weapons. His trick won’t deceive us. We know which hand is the false one. In Gaza, Hamas has won the elections and the Ministry of Terrorism is going to have the best team of experts. And from all these sources is flowing, in combination with oil, a hatred that is eager to stop the world from her movement and to put a burqa on her face. All these beasts of a deformed humanity want to change the values of the countries that welcomed them. The war of the Danish cartoons began because the Islamic mindset is willing to move the censorship from the Arab jailhouse to the heart of Europe.

They are the ones supposed to learn us how to live. Their visiting card is the 2002 Report of the UN Agency for Development. It reveals that in the last thousand of years the whole Arab world has translated into their language as many books as are translated in Spain in only one year. The furious ones under the green flag are actually very insecure. They know very well inside who is to blame in front of their prophet and who triggered the outburst of laughter from the pages of the Danish newspaper. Nobody ridiculed so well and so powerful the holy things as the Muslim demagogues who made of Islam a knife to behead people and a factory of bombs. We were afraid too much and the humour has liberated us. All that we needed was the pages of a Danish newspaper to go back to normality and to re-discover our sense of humour. Europeans have an unmatched civilization also because we know how to laugh: from Rabelais and Caragiale [a Romanian satirical playwright] to Hasek, the Czech who made fun as a genius of the First World War. We have re-found our specific and our humour, the one which makes the difference between us and the barbarians. Drowned in oil and economically impotent, big-mouthed and filled with weak states, the Islamic world is now a subject of laughter up to the next galaxy. When someone is making a fool of himself to such an extent, all that a person with some common sense can do is to laugh.

Read further...

Ekeroth, Clausen and Ungureanu

As you can see the sidebar of my blog I'm supporting Kent Ekeroth in the EU election here in Sweden. He's the clearest voice among the Sweden Democrats against the Islamization of Europe. Vote for him! Or at least make sure to vote for the Sweden Democrats. And vote! Many people opposing the EU say they won't vote. To me that is crazy. Given the low turnout in the elections, this is a great chance to make a difference. If we get one of our men in, they'll get loads of resources for a good cause. They will get a budget to employ 4-5 people working full time in research and lobbying for the most important cause in our time. Don't miss out on this opportunity!

In Denmark you should of course vote for the Danish People's Party (and vote!!!), and "my" candidate in Denmark is Henrik Ræder Clausen, one of the guys behind EuropeNews.dk and a frequent commenter over at Gates of Vienna. Here is his presentation of his candidacy. An obvious choice.

Both Henrik and Kent have a tough race, and for them to enter it will require their respective parties to get two MEPs into the EU parliament, and for people like you checking them in the ballot as your preference vote (they are number 8 and 6 respectively on their parties' lists). Do it!

Someone who is much more likely to be elected, however, is Traian Ungureanu in Romania. And he's as good on Islam and Islamization as Kent and Henrik. He recently started his blog, where he's got Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal in his blogroll. Traian is a journalist and is a candidate for the Democratic Liberal Party (EPP), the party of the Romanian president (Traian Basescu). Does that make him sound like an establishment figure to you? Forget about it!

The political landscape in Romania is something quite different. All parties from the left to the right, are controlled by the oligarchy, i.e. the former Securitate officers, except the party of Basescu. And of course they control the media too (not so different from the West if you think about it). The president Traian Basescu has been like a lonely Churchill against all the other traitorous Chamberlians and Halifaxes. When he opened the Securitate archives. When Romania officially condemned Communism (the only country which did so far, all thanks to president Basescu). And many times Traian Ungureanu has been the only journalist defending the president. Of course the Securitate controlled media has tried to crush president Basescu (yes including an impeachment of course), and Ungureanu is seen as a big threat too, and has therefore ended up as a real loner. It even got to the point where the Romainan media implied that "the Traians" were so tight that they must be in a homosexual relationship. Based on them having the same first name, and given how childish the media always is... And given that they are the two really truly brave men in Romania.

But yes, president Basescu, and his party, has got a lot of support by the people. Unlike in the West they are not as mesmerized by the establishment's PC/Securitate ploys (although this is deteriorating at a very fast rate in Romainia too, mainly thanks to George Soros).

Here is what I wrote about the political situation in Romania over at Gates of Vienna back in 2007:

I'm very glad to see so many Romanians here (I count to four). I hope you stay around so that you can help me telling the story of Traian Basescu. I see it as a gospel.

Cobra, So President Basescu is not blemish free? Such an utterly redundant thing to say. What are you looking for: an angel, a god? Traian Basescu is more flawless than Winston Churchill and that is good enough for me.

There are several good lessons to learn from President Basescu about good leadership. Knowledge that used to be known in the West but that is now all lost, but that can be found today in Romania. The moral lesson is: i) that good leadership is possible in these times, ii) how it is done, and iii) that the PC elites in Western Europe acts exactly in the same way as the ruling oligarchy of former Securitate officers in Romania. I haven't found any major differences in their modus operandi so far.

Traian Basescu stands up against this oligarchy of former Securitate officers, the billionaires, as one single man. The oligarchy controls all other political parties except for Besescu's party, and virtually all journalists except for Traian Ungureanu. All the other parties together with the journalists are at war against President Basescu. But he is a tough guy with strong will power. This is a very good and morally educating story to tell to the whole world. It illustrates better than anything else what politics is all about and shows what is possible. It's a story of hope for the hopeless.

Winston Churchill was just as alone in May 1940 as Traian Basescu is today in Romania. The image of the audience applauding the Blood, Sweat and Tears speech in the parliament is a lie. It was received very coldly. Everyone else of importance wanted to sign a peace treaty with Hitler. Churchill was alone in pushing for what he believed in. This is real leadership. The single man showing the right way.

I hope one day soon that the Romanians will drop their idiotic inferiority complex and tell the world this very important story that needs to heard. It needs to be told by someone else than a Swede. So far when I requested this from Romanians I get to hear the lament of how very unimportant your country is and how nobody wants to hear about it, yada yada. I have to tell you that I'm sick of hearing that, and that it's utter BS. Tell the world about what's happening in your country! I cannot think of any more important country to know about for the best educational experience about politics and leadership.

My prediction is that Traian Ungureanu will enter the EU parliament. And that when this happens a lot of Romanians (those in their right minds) will actually start taking pride in their country and think that they are important, and think it will be important to tell the world the story about their brave Traians and their amazing achivements. And they will be able to do that so much better than me.

Read further...

More videos from Luton

Here is another video from the Luton manifestation. This is a good one. I like the intensity.



Here are all the videos in this series.

Watching it, I can't help but thinking of Tiananmen Square 1989. First of all the same demonization of decent people in our sort of tyranny as under Communism. Secondly how the police are ordinary people, not so different from the young men protesting. Eventually this would demoralize the policemen if the Luton protesters keep going. This happened in Tiananmen Square too. Remember that they had to bring in troops from outside of Beijing to brutally crush the demonstrators (well, we might see that sort of step coming in Luton too...).

Here is another video you should see, which was made before the demonstration, providing all the background, and what the movement stands for. I like it very much.



Hat tip Lionheart. There are loads of more information about this, and more videos, at his site. Read further...

More social responsivity in Luton

The healthy moral outrage continues in Luton!

It started back in March when the Luton borough council and the Bedfordshire Police gave permission to Muslims to heckle the homecoming parade of British troops from Iraq. Two members of the public were arrested when tensions boiled over as the Muslims tried to ruin the homecoming parade. Next, in April, the people of Luton, unlike the Muslims, were denied permission for their manifestation in support of the soldiers, but marched anyway. This is yet another manifestation.



Hundreds of protesters in Luton's city centre yesterday stormed the streets. Many wearing balaclavas, England shirts, brandishing England flags and chanting at officers:



It's good to see them waving the English flag, which is the real nationalist symbol, rather than the British flag which is more of a political abstraction, and more corrupted.

From the Daily Mail:

Masked mob on the march against Muslim extremists turns violent

The streets of Luton descended into violence yesterday as hundreds of anti-Islamist protesters clashed with police.

The crowds in the town centre hid their faces behind balaclavas, brandished England flags and chanted at officers.

Some wore masks with the horned face of Sayful Islam, a hardline Muslim activist in Luton who took part in an anti-war rally in March which disrupted a homecoming parade for troops.

A depiction of Sayful Islam (a hardline Muslim activist in Luton)

The chaos broke out when a crowd of around 500 ran away from police who had been escorting the protest along its route, and ran down side streets towards the town centre.

Officers on horseback and police dogs were deployed, and policemen drew batons to defend themselves.

A spokesman for United People of Luton, Wayne King, said: 'We decided enough was enough after the soldiers got heckled as they marched through the town centre by the Muslim extremists. We want laws brought in to stop preachers of hate operating here.

Update: Since I posted this the Daily Mail has updated their article. It now says Nine arrested after masked mob's march against Muslim extremists turns violent. The text is longer and with more pictures. Follow the link.

Lionheart has several posts about it. His last 5-10 posts are about Luton. It will be very interesting to follow the development in Britain in the coming weeks. Read further...

Ongoing discussions

There are several ongoing discussions under my recent posts. Insightful people are commenting and interesting topics are being discussed at length. This is why you don't see new blog posts from me right now.

Here me and Geza are discussing whether Gert Wilders will turn out as a Kerensky or not. It's my turn to reply. (Update: I have now answered Geza).

Here me and El Ingles are discussing whether Europe is under US occupation or not. It's El Ingles' turn to reply. There are also several other commenters involved, most notably a very interesting comment by Islam O'Phobe.

Here Rolf Krake gives another take on how to match The Lord of the Rings to our present time. There are so many ways to interpret this. Krake's version is a very good one. I especially like the idea of small bloggers like us being the hobbits. But I'll stick to my version with George Soros as Saruman, Obama as the Ring, and Mecca as Mordor. I should add that Muhammad is Sauron.

Here is an aggressive Quisling-wannabe who is threatening to report me and Jean-Baptiste to the Norwegian secret police, based on his delusional fantasies. It's like a Monty Python sketch.

And the discussion under the post Anthropologist out in the fields is still ongoing.

To follow the ideas of this blog it is as important to follow the comments as it is the articles. I write as much there, and at length. Either check the section "Recent Comments" further down in the sidebar (which is automatically updated whenever there's a new comment) , or subscribe to my comments feed (at the top of my sidebar). Another way to subscribe to the comments made here is to send me an email, conswede (at) mailbolt.com, and I will enlist you for receiving all the comments by email.

[End of post] Read further...

Rollory's take on the downfall of the USA

I have a bit of a backlog with highly interesting emails and other things that I have not had the time to handle, since I have been away from blogging most of the time the last few weeks. One of them is the post by PRCalDude in reply to our discussion about Christianity/ethnicity. That one will probably take me the whole summer to answer properly, and I will indeed spend all this time in addressing the issue; since it touches upon what will be one of my main topics henceforth. There will be many posts, the first one in a near future, is my ambition.

The email I bring up today comes from Rollory. This email was sent to me two weeks ago. It was a response to the comments I had made in the GoV thread The Self-Defeat of the United States, and blogposts I made back then. But it also fits nicely into the context of the dialog I'm having with El Ingles here.

Rollory:

Regarding your criticism of the USA, as an American, I think you're right on the money. I'm not convinced the USA is even going to exist four years from now.

This is in large part going to be triggered by the economic situation, but the ground has been laid socially and politically for a long time. Karl Denninger at market-ticker.org has been writing for quite some time about how and why the current behavior of the US FedGov is going to lead the entire country straight into disaster, largely due to the consequences in the bond market - if you have not read him before, I strongly encourage it:

• His predictions in Dec 2007, so you can judge his accuracy.
• His predictions in Dec 2008 for this year.
• Some more predictions.

He has quite a few other good articles that go into depth on how and
why the massive government spending increase underway since last
October, and the refusal to admit the existence of a bubble economy
for the past two decades, is incredibly destructive. Now this is all
from a strictly economic perspective, it tells us "how" though not
"why". He doesn't really address social issues much - some of the
commenters on his forum have hinted at sanity regarding racial
matters, but it's a discussion he doesn't really allow (and one can
understand why, it would take the focus off the specifics of the
capital markets, which is what he wants to discuss).

I also recently came across this: The Worst Case Scenario (Someone Has to Say It), which is very much in line with what Denninger has been predicting, and what I have been thinking.

The thing is, the USA has not really been stressed for a long time.
We have not faced a serious challenge since the 30s, and even that
wasn't so bad. The fall this time is going to be sudden and hard and
it is going to happen to a society already fractured and
disassociated, leaving it without any ruling ideology at all. There
are quite a few (on the net, anyway - not sure about IRL) militia
types and gun nuts who talk about restoring the Founder's Republic,
often by means of overt violent resistance to the current form of
government. But the one thing they refuse to consider, the one thing
they forbid considering, is the idea that such a restoration must of
necessity be racial and ethnic as well as political - that the
political cannot happen in the absence of the racial. So in that
sense they are still fundamentally liberals. But they are hard-core
believers. So they are going to try to do their impossible thing, and
probably smash that dream to bits even more than the collapse by
itself would.

I wholeheartedly agree with what Rollory says here. Especially in the last paragraph he makes many good points. And yes, these people do not understand the forces they unleash. But to use a Marxist term I learned from Trifkovic, they are objective agents of transformation. I see Geert Wilders in the same way, he's a typical liberal, however an honest one. I don't think he's aware of the forces he'd unleash if he comes into power. The rule of him and his kind would be very short, something like Kerensky in 1917. Liberalism cannot be saved and these honest liberals will be the objective agents of transformation to make the downfall of liberalism happen. However, many of them will change to our side in the process, quite as many of us have already transformed ourselves in just this way.

And yes, ethnicity will become the central and defining aspect of our identity. That's why I have started working on a framework for the greater mythological narrative for my ethnic group.

America has an even more difficult situation to deal with than Europe. America never properly turned into an ethnicity such as the European nations. The cake was baked together and put into the oven, but too shortly to create a proper crust that could stick together. Instead America turned into a propositional nation. This is why Americans would take to arms to defend their constitution (i.e. their state) rather than their ethnic nation. This is also why Americans, when gotten over their constitution and turned into real contra-revolutionaries, identify by race rather than ethnicity. Ethnicity is simply not readily available for you as it is for Europeans (just under the surface). However, Americans will be back on track baking that cake once the USA has fallen. The USA is dying, long live America!

Read further...

Our times through the prism of LOTR

Fjordman inspired me to write this:

Mecca is Mordor and George Soros is Saruman. José Manuel Barroso is nominated as Gollum together with Gordon Brown and Sarkozy.

And Obama? He's the ring!

One Child to rule them all, One Child to find them,
One Child to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mecca where the Shadows lie.

[End of post] Read further...

Discussion about future scenarios, part 2

In reply to my comments here, I got the following answer from El Ingles:

swede:

you should indeed write more if you are inclined to do so, especially about the US occupation of europe, as you call it. i am sceptical about this thesis, but would be interested in hearing more.

thnks to everyone else as well, for the many interesting comments.

So the discussion continues, and here's my reply:

El Ingles,

Thanks or your interest, and yes I will write about it. But it's not a thesis, it's a fact (as pointed out by Jean-Baptiste earlier in the discussion). There are indeed US troops occupying Germany, Italy and several other European countries.

Gaventa's theory of power shows that power is established in three stages: 1) first by the superior means to apply violence, 2) secondly, once the occupation is a fact, by the building of institutions, and 3) finally by mind control so that the opressee no longer sees himself as oppressed.

The United States always call their occupations liberation. The fact that the oppressees buy into this and are in denial about the fact that we are occupied by US troops shows how completely the US power over Europe is established, it has reached the third step since long ago.

Furthermore, according to Gaventa's three-step approach, each stage rests upon the fundament of the previous stage. It is not possible to build your institutions before you have militarily defeated the country you invade (try to imagine the US building institutions in Germany before 1945). The institutions in turn supports the brainwashing. So all power ultimately rests upon the superior ability to apply violence. So if you want to analyze the power situation, look for who's holding the gun. He's the one calling the shots. Only someone having reached stage-three brainwashing could miss such an obvious fact.

So let's repeat Gaventa's three stages of power. At the first stage the losing side has access to the arena and are struggling there. The arena could be the battlefield or a political arena (this model works equally well to describe the situation of e.g. the Sweden Democrats). At the second stage the losing side tries to enter the arena but is effectively blocked out by the institutions built by the winner. At the third stage the losing side has even lost its awareness of its self-interest and is no longer even trying to enter the arena. They have completely accepted to be oppressed, but actually do no longer see themselves as oppressed. They no longer see it as a conflict; the power of the winner has eaten itself all the way into their brains. This is the moment when the power is total and complete. But also the moment when an inattentive observer will say that there is no conflict of interest in such a place -- only peace, harmony and friendship.

Allegedly the US troops are in Germany as their friends and allies. But you would find that it would be as impossible to put German troops in the US as building a church in Saudi Arabia. What does that tell you?

This power structure has to be fought by unwinding it in the reverse order that it was built. At the third level the brainwashing makes the people consider expression of their self-interest as thought crimes. This hampers people from joining the Sweden Democrats or even to vote for them. At the second level the Sweden Democrats (once people have joined the party in substantial numbers) are blocked out from the medial arena, and thereby effectively blocked out of the political arena. At the first level -- which the Sweden Democrats have not entered yet, but probably will in the next election -- they will continue to lose for quite a long time more. And the brainwashing and the institutional oppression will still be operative until they have won on the political arena, that is until they are in government.

The same applies to the US occupation of Europe. First the people has to be made aware of the fact that we are indeed occupied by US troops (I'm sure I will be able to provide people who doubt about this with documents and pictures that would convince you that there are indeed US troops in Germany, Italy etc.). But we have to get to the first and basic level to break the power, i.e. the US troops have to leave Europe. And the best way to get to this is to break the power-holding institutions, in this case specifically NATO, which is the fundament for all the other power-holding institutions.

Finally, if the US wants to make the point that they are not occupying Germany etc., their best "argument" would be to withdraw their troops. If they use this argument I will admit my defeat in this debate.

Read further...

Discussion about future scenarios

El Ingles has posted an article at Gates of Vienna, To Push or to Squeeze?, discussing future scenarios in terms of three options in which which the number of Muslims in a European could be reduced:

• through pressuring them, in whatever fashion, to decide to relocate (Option 1);
• through deporting them (Option 2); and,
• through large-scale violence which, taken to an extreme, would constitute genocide (Option 3).

Commenter Jean-Baptiste wrote an interesting reply to this:

El Ingles has demonstrated the practical obstacles for any European government wishing to institute Option 1 or 2, but there also exists a theoretical obstacle that renders even the adoption of a meek and mild version of Option 1 a complete impossibility.

Since the end of WWII and the rise of the United States as the sole superpower of the Western world, American values of liberal democracy have become embedded into all of the nations of Europe. All the major European states conceive of themselves as mini-Americas: multi-ethnic democracies which are not allowed to make any distinctions among citizens upon the basis of race, religion or national origin.

There are dissents here and there, Wilders to be sure, Berlusconi in Italy, but these dissents are working against the both the spirit of the age and the instititutionalized powers that be.

In order to adopt even a weak version of Option 1, a European elite would have to first reject the concept of the liberal requirement of the multi-ethnic, non-discriminatory state, a state of affairs so out of the question as to be absurd.

Even if one were to posit such an amazing occurrence, this new European leadership would then have to reject liberal universalism in favor of the ethno-state while under the steely glare of the United States whose—what a coincidence!—military forces happen to occupy the continent, with no challenger even close to being able to stop them.

Which scenario seems to you to be more likely: 1) a French nationalist movement captures the French state, declares the return to the ethno-state, overturns all contrary legislation and moves to deport all Muslims, whatever passport they carry, with force if necessary; or 2) NATO, with US troops providing the backbone, helped restore proper French Republican government after a near-coup by a crazy nationalist colonel who wanted to turn Europe back to an era where countries persecuted, and even killed, members of a disfavored religious minority?

If your answer is anything other than “2,” please see a doctor.

The hard, cold truth is that there will be no peaceful outcome, as we are already in a revolutionary situation. Until we grasp the full measure of what that means, until we understand as a movement that the current governments are completely illegitimate and that we are morally justified in using violence to resist and overthrow them, in short, until we realize to our horror that the time has indeed already arrived for the gun, all this is nothing but noise and fury.

Here is my reply to Jean-Baptiste:

Jean-Baptiste is all correct in his analysis. Europe is indeed occupied by American troops and this determines the whole situation (anyone who does not understand the significance of the military aspect as fundamentally determining for any political situation should indeed see a doctor). It's not until American troops leave Germany that any real change of the situation could happen.

It's not EU that is our problem here, it's NATO. The EU is just a weak shadow; a symptom, not a cause (it has no military power of significance, it does not militarily control its own land!). As Jean-Baptiste pointed out, the European countries had already been turned into mini-Americas -- by the cultural revolution that has been imposed upon us during the American occupation, in the name of anti-fascism -- and would have remained so, with or without the EU.

NATO's first secretary general stated that NATO it is about three things: keeping Germany down, Russia out and America in. And the fall of the Soviet Union didn't change this a bit. The three things sticks together in the same narrative and it all has to be reversed together. I.e. it is not until American troops leave Germany that we will see a situation different than the one described by Jean-Baptiste here. As long as American troops stay in Germany real change is hopeless and impossible.

What is missing from Jean-Baptiste's analysis (and El Ingles' as well) is the impending collapse of the dollar, and how this will fundamentally change the whole situation. And this will most likely happen before any Wilders in power or any Options 1-3.

I intend to write about my take on these future scenarios in my blog during the summer.

Read further...

Anthropologist out in the fields

My, what happened to my blog? I'll tell you what happened, my life came in between. More work than usually, and a lot of travelling. And as if that wasn't enough it will go on like that for some two more weeks. But in spite of the appearance (or rather the non-appearance of updates) I'm full of energy for blogging, and I will continue according to plan.

I will continue my mission as a cultural anthropologist unveiling the deeper mythological structures of our civilization, exposing the core myths and taboos of the current world order and why it is bound to fall apart, and how we from its ashes can restore the great mythological narrative needed for a people to thrive (yes it has something to do with religion).

Yes, cultural anthropologists are generally leftists or liberals, but when detached from their home context and looking at primitive cultures they are using the right approach and method. A primitive society is very "naked" and there are only the core aspects of human society there to study, such as myths, totems and taboos. Social hierarchies and kinship. Social symbols and institutions. Who is what and who belongs or don't belong.

Cultural anthropologists know well that if such core concepts and symbols break apart the tribe breaks apart. However, no Westerner seems to get the idea of applying this knowledge to our own society, to our own tribes. Often benevolent interference from the West has crushed the structure of primitive societies. We have the example of the tribe where woodcutting was a core business, but they had a scarcity of axes. Westerners helped them by supplying lots of axes. Only that the axe symbolized authority in their tribe. Only the men in leading positions had axes. But now suddenly any young guy had an axe. The fabric of their society fell apart. Nobody knew their role anymore and their society couldn't function.

Since the Enlightenment our civilization has more and more engaged in social experimenting. Since the beginning of the 20th century we have been obsessed about it. It started in Europe, but the 20th century and onwards has been the American Age, and the Europeans of America have taken the obsession with social experimenting to a whole new level. Today it's the norm. But what happens with a society when we crack e.g. the marriage institution? When nobody no longer knows their role -- as man or woman, teacher or police, judge or military -- and are afraid to enter an act from a proper position of authority. Not only are people in agony from insecurity about what their role really is and how to act, but the society is falling apart. We are all egalitarian atomized individuals. The vital core anthropological structures have already been broken down. The pieces of it are just kept up by floating on a sea of fat, generated from the vast success of Capitalism and Industrialism. But no new fat is generated. We are sinking.

If our society is stripped "naked" of all impressive technology and achievements, it's a society in the very same sense as a primitive tribe. And the same rules apply. Humans have not genetically changed because of entering the Industrial Age. So our society is also at its core about myths, totems and taboos; social hierarchies and kinship, social symbols etc. Westerners are blinded by our very impressive achievements of the past. They think they are invincible and that there is no limit to how much they can experiment with our core social concepts. Westerners actually believe that their lands can be replaced with people of other tribes and that their societies will still remain. They have even forgotten that they are a tribe. They loathe the concept of a tribe and therefore themselves as a people. This is bound to backfire and fall apart. And from the ashes of it our great mythological narrative has to be reconstructed again.

And my belief is that we need to go to the very beginning to get it right. And in the beginning there was no Christianity, no foreign god, no inversion of values. In the great mythological narrative of Christianity only the Jews are guaranteed to exist to the end of times, and only the the Jews are important for the beginning of the narrative. That's a good story for the Jews, not for us. Germanic, Slavic, Romanic or Celitic people are completely irrelevant in this narrative. And its the fruits of this mindset that we see in the current civilizational suicide. But there is another narrative -- I'm speaking here for my people, for my tribe, the Germanic people -- in which we are the ones that made the beginning, and where we are the ones guaranteed to exist till the end of time. It's also a better narrative since it does not make the proposterous and unsustainable claims as the Christian god.

Religion is about answering many of the deeper questions of people, such as what happens after we die. But the significance of our own people, as a people, is an equally important question to be answered. We need to see ourselves as the lead charachter of the movie, as it were, or we will disintegrate. And the lead charachter cannot die halfway into the movie. We might meet our Ragnarök, but we will be there when it happens. And as we know from the narrative, it's enough with two remaining Germanic persons, Liv and Livtrasir, for a new start to happen and etrance into the new era with the new gods.

This was not the post I intended to write when I started. But it's good so I keep it :-)
Read further...

Unbelievable dancing

Unbelievable, even impossible? Definitely not normal.

Have fun, watch and enjoy. It's Friday night.

It's hilarious!

[End of post] Read further...

The discussion spreads to Sailer's blog

The discussion about the The Self-Defeat of the United States has spread to Steve Sailer's blog. Commenter Togo writes:

As a couple of Europeans explain, "conservatism" in the US is not really conservatism. Which tends to explain why it's in a perpetual state of disorganized retreat.

And then continues to quote me saying:

The reason that we find a strong conservatism in America and not in Europe is that American conservatives are not at all conservative but liberals to the core; French Revolution egalitarians and PC addicts with fear of “racism”, etc. European conservatism is of a essentially different kind, and totally unacceptable under the current world order. In the American mythology, which is the foundation for our current civilizational paradigm, the old pre-WWI Europe is the worst of the evils, much worse than Communism of fascism. After all Wilson and Roosevelt understood and respected Lenin and Stalin. It was the old (and vital!) Europe that was Satan itself in their eyes.(…)

And ends with quoting Geza's thoughts on the topic.

By the way, I've found that I suddenly got a lot of readers from Ireland. Ireland has passed Sweden and is now number two among my readership. All the time I've been blogging since 2007, United States has been number one and Sweden number two, with more than a third of my readers coming from the United States. So I want to welcome all the new readers from Ireland. I haven't figured out yet what triggered this. Also Canada has passed the UK and put itself in fourth place.

[End of post] Read further...

Case study: Robohobo, part 1

I was involved in a controversy recently with the authors of Gates of Vienna. The background is that Fjordman had written an article, The Self-Defeat of the United States. He wrote e.g.:

The USA currently looks more like a defeated nation than the world’s sole remaining superpower. It’s the only nation in history where the majority of the population has elected a member of an organization known for hating the majority population of that country.

[...]

Europeans can and should maintain good relations and cooperate with ordinary North American citizens, who live under the same Multicultural regime as we do, but we cannot and should not rely on aid from the American elites. They are as hostile as the EU elites.

And I picked it up from there and continued a discussion in the comment thread. It was a very good an civilized discussion, mainly consisting of an exchange with PRCalDude, a man that it is a pleasure to disagree with. Part of my argument was in how the current (destructive) world order is upheld by America, the issue of American troops in Germany, and how Germany is the most wing-clipped of all European nations -- where national confidence is effectively in a total coma. Then came the following comment from Robohobo:

ConSwede says:

"...Germany. This is exactly an example of what I am talking about. They will *never* stick up for themselves..."

And the Swedes will? What about the lovely little place called Malmo we hear about on this very blog? Me thinks that this is a case of Pot - Meet - Kettle.

And I have the same question as You New, "How would you best describe your political views?"

That has always escaped me.

I also think that too many including the US elites make the mistake of not counting in the core of the US population, us redneck hicks in flyover country clinging to our families, religion and guns in hard times. Be pretty sure, we have about had enough of The Won. The big Zero that the rest of the world thinks they love so much.

I answered that comment as properly it was possible given the nature of the comment, but my answer got erased by Dymphna, and next Baron Bodissey backed up her decision while describing me as the one lacking good manners. The position of Dymphna and the Baron is that Robohobo's comment was an honest attempt to engage in the discourse, which was dismissed by me in a rude and insulting way.

But this is not what happened, and I can show it wasn't. I will first clarify the nature of Robohobo's comment. Fundamental and essential for Dymphna and the Baron's judgment of the situation is their claim that Robohobo was honestly trying to engage in the discourse. I will show that he wasn't and that they are wrong. Next I will come to my answer to Robohobo and show how this was a proper way of answering such a comment written in bad faith. Two of my previous articles -- The Western weakness, in big and in small and What can be known? -- provide a background for this analysis.

Let's go through Robohobo's comment step by step. Let's start from the beginning:

"...Germany. This is exactly an example of what I am talking about. They will *never* stick up for themselves..."

And the Swedes will? What about the lovely little place called Malmo we hear about on this very blog? Me thinks that this is a case of Pot - Meet - Kettle.

What is Robohobo trying to do here? Did this comment at all have a place in the discourse? Seeing only the answer by Robohobo, without having seen the previous discussion, one would have thought that I had been engaging in a pissing contest between Sweden and Germany, and that I had tried to elevate Sweden at the expense of Germany. But well, anyone who has been following my writings know that I'm the furthest from a praiser of Sweden that you will ever get. And more importantly, with regards to the discourse at hand, Sweden is too insignificant to even enter the discussion.

So how did Robohobo manage to shoehorn Sweden into the discussion? Had he so utterly misunderstood what had actually been discussed that he honestly thought that I had been engaging in a pissing contest between Sweden and Germany, and attempted to elevate Sweden by denigrating Germany? No, of course not! Instead it's clear from the comment by Robohobo (and previous comments by him) that he dislikes my criticism of America as a polity. In spite of how I agreed with Fjordman in how Europeans should maintain good relations and cooperate with ordinary American citizens, apparently he takes it personally, which would most probably be because he's personally identifying with America as a polity. So that's how Sweden enters the picture, Robohobo wants to get back at me at a personal level (a pretty useless attempt since I don't care much for the image of Sweden). This is the general idea of an ad hominem, to deviate from the discourse; instead of dealing with the content of the discussion, go for the person! Use the fact that my country is bad, and paint the situation as if I had tried to elevate my country at the expense of another. The expression "Pot - Meet - Kettle" is indicative of the sandbox fighting level that is intended here by Robohobo.

But Baron Bodissey and Dymphna didn't see this. Is it the blindness of non-judgmental egalitarianism or the automatic sympathy for hurt American feelings, or a combination of both?

And I have the same question as You New, "How would you best describe your political views?"

The background here is that You New, who honestly engaged in the discourse, had asked me "How would you best describe your political views?". I had then answered the question. And then -- after that -- Robohobo repeats the same question. It is easy to objectively conclude that this does not fulfill the requirements of an honest question. Anyone who claims that this is an honest question is either dishonest or a mindless serf of non-judgmental egalitarianism.

Any sane person can see that Robohobo is not the least interested in my answer to the question -- the answer had already been given just before! Instead this is a rhetorical question, the purpose of which was to land in the following statement:

That has always escaped me.

So, as we already concluded, there's no interest in hearing me explaining my political views, instead the combination of "How would you best describe your political views? -- That has always escaped me", in this context, constitutes the speech act of declaring the deliberate intent of having no interest in understanding my political views. And I think, to be honest, that someone that deliberately intend not to understand my views, most certainly won't understand them, or at least won't be caught showing any signs of doing so.

Robohobo ends by writing:

I also think that too many including the US elites make the mistake of not counting in the core of the US population, us redneck hicks in flyover country clinging to our families, religion and guns in hard times. Be pretty sure, we have about had enough of The Won. The big Zero that the rest of the world thinks they love so much.

This is the only part in which he actually engages in the discourse. And this is what his introductory attempts to ritually taking the power out of what I had written -- by bringing it down to a personal level, using sandbox fighting jargon, using a rhetorical question, and demonstratively showing his lack of interest to interpret me properly -- was all about. There was no genuine interest in discussing e.g. Sweden here, after all.

It is a problem, however, for these "redneck hicks" -- if they are going to fight the American establishment -- if they react allergically to a description of how bad off America and its establishment truly is, and their knee-jerk reaction is to attack such criticism (using sandbox fighting jargon etc.). It also notable how Robohobo ties the support of Obama with coming from "the rest of the world". After all Obama was elected in America by Americans (something completely unique and exceptional, as pointed out by Fjordman). So where were this "the core of the US population" when Obama was elected? Where were they even during the Republican primaries, when McCain was chosen?

I think this contributes to illustrate the predicament of America. Keep in mind that, unlike how it is across Western Europe, there's no anti-establishment party of any significance in America. And at the same we see many critical Americans -- describing themselves as "redneck hicks" or whatever -- identifying so strongly with their establishment that they are prepared to go to pretty low levels in defending it, when it is criticized the same way as we criticize our establishment here in Europe. I cannot see but that these two things are connected. It suggests that there simply are not enough Americans with an anti-establishment mindset, in the way we have in Europe, to build the basis of an anti-establishment party of any substance.

In my next part I will continue this analysis and come to what was written in my answer to Robohobo, which was obliterated by the moderation regime at Gates of Vienna.

More:

On the Self-Defeat of the United States

The Western weakness, in big and in small

What can be known?

Moving on, blogging on
Read further...

Luton: Morality reemerging in the West

The police broke up a march on Monday 13/4/09 by British people wanting to reclaim their streets from Muslim fanatics. Officers said it was illegal to stage the protest in Luton where extremists were allowed only last month to shout abuse at troops home from Iraq.



This is the first time I can remember seeing Westerners act morally. All morality is ultimately rooted in moral outrage. Without socially manifested moral outrage there can only be nihilism. All the priestly preachers of the all-encompassing Enlightenment tsunami, and their priestly institutions, have during the last centuries, and especially during the last decades, worked eagerly to deprive the Westerners of all sense of morality, all sense of honour, and left us with nothing but their cynical, destructive and cruel nihilism; which is in the process of killing us as a civilization.

It's good to see the goodness and honour of these young men. It shows the natural sense of morality that after all exists under the surface among the Westerners. Something we haven't seen since the days of Enoch Powell. Something that has been utterly suppressed by the traitorous pharisees in our ruling classes.

Here are more video clips of the event.

Here follows the declaration of the protesters:

Join our next march Bank Holiday Sunday the 3rd May @ 5pm St Georges square.

The whole country witnessed the hate filled scum that gate crashed the soldiers homecoming! Two of there regiment died in iraq and they should of met a heroes welcome when returning to there home town.

Luton borough council and the bedfordshire Police gave permission to these Muslim fanatics to protest. Our council and Police force need to decide if they back this disbanded Terrorist group Al-Muhajiroun or they back the local residents of luton!
The people of Luton are calling for all the scum that turned out that day to dishonour our armed forces to be given an ASBO that bans them from our town centre 24 hours a day and 7 days a week!

Neither soldier nor member of the public should ever have to brush shoulders with these scum ever again. This same extremist group stand outside Don Millers bakery every Saturday recruiting and trying to convert people for there Jihad. Luton Police and the council allow this - WE WILL NOT!

There are future homecoming parades already planned through Luton and these vermin need to be banned from the town centre. If they were to enter the town centre they could then be arrested and dealt with through the courts.
2 members of the public were arrested when tensions boiled over as the Terrorists tried to ruin the homecoming parade. How many more British people will need to be arrested before our council & the Police listen?

Cut the politically correct tape tying everyone's hands and do something about this Terrorist group who hate everything our great county stands for.
We must stress that this is a very small number of Muslim fanatics and not the wider Muslim community so lets unite against these worthless scum and turn out in our numbers be that Muslim, Catholic, Christian, Jewish, White, Black or Asian. Turn out in your numbers so the whole country can see the residents of Luton are fed up and are having no more of it!!

There is no point sitting in your armchair and shouting at the TV. The only way to get the message across is to take it to the streets. This is a chance to show the Poilce and the council the power of public opinion.
The entire country is behind us

The next Protest will be held on Sunday 3rd May! Be there!

Update: Lionheart has a post describing how these people had applied for a permit to parade, but was denied it. Babs summarizes the whole thing at GoV: "[A] permit was applied for to hold a parade in honor of St. George's Day which was denied by the Luton Council. The original parade idea was to be pro country, like a 4th of July parade in the states I assume. The fact that indigenous Brits were denied the right to assemble while "other elements" of their society not only assemble but become violent on a fairly frequent basis so enraged the organizers that they decided to hold a parade without a permit. Hence, rather than a positive parade so to speak, the signage and mood of the parade became reactionary."

Hat tip: Gates of Vienna and Lionheart.
Read further...

Moving on, blogging on

Step by step I have detached myself from the site Gates of Vienna (GoV). For the last two years it's been like a home to me, but I think those times are over and that it's now time for me to move on. For a year and more I haven't been blogging much, instead I have preferred to comment at GoV. This due to a combination of reasons, mainly two: i) that I haven't considered myself having the time to maintaining a blog, and ii) that I preferred to engage in dialog, in a debate, and GoV has served this purpose well most of the time. Now, however, for a number of reasons, this situation has changed; I'm inspired to blog again, and I expect that I will continue to comment very little at GoV compared to the last two years.

This development started during the second half of last year. The changed situation was to a high degree triggered by external events, the pivotal world events of August and September. This shifted the focus quite drastically from unity about the issue of Islam, and more and more onto issues where there was a glaring antagonism among the participants. I felt more and more unease about my participation at GoV. About half of the commenters enjoyed my comments and craved for more, while about half of the commenters hated my comments and attacked me increasingly aggressively for them. Several times during the autumn I intended to bail out, but Baron Bodissey always encouraged me to continue. But by the end of last year the climate had become so hostile, regarding certain hot topics, that reasoned debate had become effectively impossible about these topics.

My criticism of the weaknesses/arrogance of America and Christianity was disdained and often attacked. But the topic that was truly too hot to handle was the one about Russia. Also the topic of anti-German hate -- and how German national identity is effectively suppressed into a total coma under the current world order -- had the potential to freak people out.

Around new year the topic of Russia became too hot for Baron Bodissey, and rather than dealing with the hostile climate which effectively made reasoned discussion impossible, he literally closed down the discussions about Russia. This was a major setback for the previous legacy of GoV and a major surrender of Baron Bodissey's excellent ambitions of having an open and open-minded debate at his blog.

A problem for GoV is that it needs to straddle the situation of being an American site and wanting to encourage a very open debate. They get quite a share of emails from Americans complaining that the atmosphere of the site is uncongenial to Americans. And as far as I understand, almost all such emails are complaints about me and my comments. My take on this is that the truth about America (as a political entity) is not a flattering one -- and this has become more glaringly obvious than ever, since the pivotal world events of August, September and November in 2008 -- but that the truth nevertheless needs to be explored and expressed. But people's reactions are more than anything else rooted in their identity -- and emotions are emotions. This is the situation that Baron Bodissey has to straddle.

So the truth needs to be explored and stated, but not necessarily at GoV (in every aspect). I have no wish to push things at GoV and for Baron Bodissey, and I never had. On the contrary, I have stated so, many times, to the Baron; I have often regretted the situation and I have periodically bailed out due to the pressure. But the Baron has always encouraged me to come back.

But it's not only my mind that has been divided about this thing. There has been this double nature of the Baron's position about me. On one hand he has lifted and encouraged comments by me; he has defended my analyses as often being right and "not mindlessly anti-American", but at the same time made a habit of describing me as abrasive and untactful, and even rude and insulting.

Before the chain of events triggered by the pivotal world events of the latter half of 2008, I had less urge to protest this sort of stereotyping of me as a person. Up until the summer of 2008 I saw the counterjihad movement as one movement, and I saw me and the Baron as two warriors side by side in this common struggle. In such a situation I do not pay too much attention to comments about my person. The common cause, the common struggle, and the duty that comes with it, was above everything else. I even volunteered as "attack dog", for the sake of the common cause, in the LGF affair. I can be nasty if I choose to be so. Maybe this has contributed to the Baron's view of my way of behaving?

I admit that in my role as a "warrior", and also under the pressure of massive attack from many directions at the same time, that I have indeed on occasion behaved more badly than I wished to. And in any case that I have failed and realized so, I have also made sure to say that I'm sorry. But these are the exceptions. The Baron's general description of me is unfair. He is confusing the animosity against my ideas, from commenters and people emailing him, with my personality. His duality in his description of me is something that given his situation, given the straddling that he has to do, might feel balanced to him, but is nevertheless unfair. Surely what I write is annoying to many people, but this is collateral. My intention is not to be annoying, even though it, of course, is meant to be thought provoking.

But the war in Georgia, the financial crisis, and the new world that it opened up -- and the antagonism that these and other things triggered, and the hostility against my views of so many commenters at GoV -- made it clear to me that there was not truly any one movement. This has several consequences. And I will have to come back to it several times in what I write here. E.g. I feel now that I have been too hard on certain people when I before saw them as being too much in breach with what should have been the one movement. Before I also felt the urge in trying to influence the direction of what I thought to be the one movement. I can see now that this was futile, and that there is no one movement. What is left is just me, and my thoughts. Which I can write down -- and which I will, here at my blog! And then there are my friends, and the people I enjoy discussing with. Suddenly it's all very simple.

The breakdown of GoV as the beacon of free debate triggered me into a hiatus that has been going on for the last three months. Effectively I have been disconnected from everything (with a few exceptions). I and the Baron were no longer warriors in a common struggle. Our relation had been "reduced" to being friends. I put "reduced" in scare quotes since this friendship has been one of the most rewarding and inspiring that I have ever had. And in return I have always tried to give back the very best of me, in every way that I could. My only "flaw" has been that my honesty has never been negotiable. But this is also something that the Baron has appreciated (most of the time). Another flaw of mine is that I have to be inspired to have anything to give, and I have not always been inspired.

And before I go on, let me just state that the breakdown, at the dawn of this year, of GoV as the beacon of free debate, is not anything I hold against Baron Bodissey. Very much to the contrary! Instead the Baron should have loads and loads of credit for going so very far in his excellent ambitions of keeping a genuinely free and open debate at his blog. But these excellent ambitions caved in due to external factors. There were too many sea-changing events during the later half of 2008. And there are limits to what a small blog can keep up with.

Now I know there are several people (several of whom I consider my friends) that think that I made too much of a big thing of something that happened recently at GoV, when a comment of mine was deleted and I was then described (I would say stereotyped) as rude, insulting, etc. (All very unfairly according to me, the details of which I will get into in a forthcoming post.) I cannot, at this point, entirely explain why I, in effect, accepted this sort of stereotyping of me before, while I react strongly against it now. But I think it has to do with how, when being a warrior on the battlefield, in the middle of a struggle, such things were insignificant details. While when off the battlefield, such comments are a complete turn off from someone you expect to be your friend.

Having given the best of myself, putting a lot of effort into my analysis, I just cannot accept from a site -- that has unfortunately become increasingly failed due to external pressure, where hostility is lurking under the surface much of the time -- to hear that I'm the bad guy. It's just not fair.

This is the "negative" factor that inspired me to start blogging again. To me discussion at GoV has become a dead end. This sort of forced me to start blogging again, since after all I need an outlet somewhere. Another negative factor -- and bear with me for a few more posts -- is that I want to get into the details of this, probably insignificant, event, that after all was the little stroke that fell the great oak. Both in trying to explain it to myself and to others.

However, among the positive factors that make me start blogging is that I have come to many new thoughts during my three months of hiatus; so there is much to write about. And not only that, I've reached a new, and more easy-going, attitude about the whole thing. I know by now better who I really am, and what my real ethnic and cultural roots really are. I'm a happy person. Also I'm essentially lonely. I'll be writing because this is what I do, and for nothing else. And mostly I won't write for people today, but for people in some future. The only pain is that I will have to moderate my blog, and deal with all the complaints from people in how I do it.

And before I end this post I want to say that before I started writing about this, with the very first post in the beginning of this week, I emailed Baron Bodissey, trying to deal with the disappointment I felt through that private channel. And he answered that he didn't mind being publicly refuted, and that he thought that was a good way to handle it. So this is what I've done. Read further...

What can be known?

Quite a lot can be derived from the nature of things. From the nature of Islam, from the nature of Christianity or America. The essence of Germany can be understood even though its not readily observable in these times. The national characters of Spanish and Swedish people, and their difference, can be observed, and we can derive things from it -- i.e. when speaking in terms of groups, though not about individuals. The same with men and women, etc.

But we live in times where this is not acknowledged. Philosophically, blank slate empiricism has been elevated to the highest truth. Social science is reduced to surveys, followed by advanced statistical analysis; a method that is considered to be the epitome of how to achieve knowledge today. Math is considered neutral so a disproportionate effort is put there. But virtually no effort is put in conceptual analysis of what the concepts used in the survey really means. This since conceptual analysis is considered opinion. So these investigations are consequently grossly blunt, no matter how sophisticated the ensuing mathematical analysis. Junk in, junk out as they say. And typically such surveys start from a blank slate, since the common wisdom is that nothing, in social science, can really be known. There is no essence of things. Every investigation has to start from zero.

So let's have a look at utterances of people. What can be objectively observed about that? What constitutes a lie? A promise? An honest question? In the wake of the latter Wittgenstein, linguistic philosophy became and important branch of 20th century philosophy where things like these were explored. John Austin was first out with his speech act theory -- we are not just simply saying things with words: we are acting! There are certain preconditions that have to be fulfilled for a speech act to be of a certain kind. E.g. was George Bush really lying about WMD in Iraq? Were the preconditions of the speech act "lying" really fulfilled?

John Searle is another philosopher of this school. Here is his analysis of the felicity conditions for promising. These are the most important preconditions for a speech act to constitute a promise:

1. S expresses the proposition that p in the utterance of T.
2. In expression that p, S predicates a future act A of S.
3. H would prefer S's doing A to his not doing A, and S believes H would prefer his doing A to his not doing A..
4. It is not obvious to both S and H that S will do A in the normal course of events.
5. S intends to do A.
6. S intends that the utterance of T will place him under an obligation to do A.

So from the utterance of someone it can be objectively observed and derived whether it is truly a promise or not, for anyone paying attention to the details, in spite of the superficial look of it. E.g. in a normal context "I promise to beat you up!" is not a promise (it breaks rule #3 in above list). If all other criteria are fulfilled, but S says the utterance with his fingers crossed, then rule #5 is broken. Making promises about the past is of course senseless and breaks rule #2. And to promise something one would have done anyway violates rule #3, e..g. for certain men to say "I promise to obey my wife".

So an utterance can be objectively observed and judged, and we can categorize what sort of speech act it is, using such criteria. But as I described in a previous post, under the paradigm of non-judgmental egalitarianism, making a judgment is of course considered as something bad, and therefore often as invalid, and we are implored to pretend that things are not as they are. So such analysis might become called mind-reading, or is considered jumping to conclusions or pure speculation. And in the flow of events this normally becomes the common wisdom. But we can stop the time, and properly analyze people's speech acts. And the analysis can be presented. And so I will. Read further...

On the Self-Defeat of the United States

Here are the reflections from Geza to my comments to the thread The Self-Defeat of the United States at Gates of Vienna. (There are several comments by me in the thread, starting early up. Especially an interesting exchange with PRCalDude.)

Geza has been a trustworthy participant at this blog, and now so again. So here's Geza's take on it:

As for your first sets of comments in the Self-Defeat of the United States thread, I am largely in agreement with you but I have a few quibbles.

Firstly, you are correct that even if the opposite of Obama was elected, American-Euro-Russo relations would probably not improve. Even if we take a look at probably the best electable GOP candidate right now, Mitt Romney, he would still follow the same path as Obama and play along with the multicultis and transnationals in Britain and continue to antagonize France (America and France may be sister nations in ideology, but they are bitchy sisters who fight a lot), Germany, and Russia. Every high ranking American politician disdains Europe, regardless where they fall on the political spectrum. A conservative Republican may admire Poland for its devout Catholicism but would retch at Polish displays of nationalism. Likewise, a socialist Democrat may admire Finland's socialist programs but be disappointed at the lack of diversity in the country. So, even if an American politician admires something about a European country, he will continue to find fault with that country if it does not share a similar charactistic with America such as propositionalism or diversity. In most cases, whatever ails Europe, the American critic, whether he be left or right, insists that the cure can be found in America.

The clash between America and Europe was of course inevitable mainly because America is not an organic nation such as Germany or Slovenia and therefore is incapable of relating to Europe. American culture is not tied to a specific ethnicity and even the day it was founded, anyone could have become an American. If America had remained a WASPish country with the majority of the settlers hailing from Britain then it may have had the potential to become a nation in the European sense but it was not meant to be and this started much earlier than the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Due to the very nature of America, and to a lesser extent, Canada, they simply cannot understand why Europeans do not go the propositional route and are deathly afraid of European nationalism, no matter how benign. Nationalism doesn't exist in America, only jingoism and it is seen as a relatively harmless although most liberals do find it very annoying. Even the furthest of the right in America cannot be accurately described as nationalists (e.g. right wing militia groups) due to their hatred for the government. The majority of nationalists respect the role of the government even if they do not agree with it; they do not entertain paranoid conspiracy theories about what the government may be doing to them like these militia groups. Some may try to use white nationalists as a counterpoint to nationalism existing in America. I think white nationalism is a misnomer mainly because you cannot force an ethnicity into being by collecting a bunch of like minded white people from very different backgrounds and reaching a consensus on culture, language, and religion. Due to the education system and the culture of America, they can never understand the positive aspects of nationalism and always equate any right wing group in Europe that does not tow the multicultural line as fascist.

However, I think Europe can be blamed for quite of bit of their problems with regards to America. I noticed that you mentioned the trauma of the World Wars which should be considered a factor of why Europe gives into America's demands so easily. Europe wanted peace at any price after WWII, so much so that they were willing to put with their immature cousin's antics provided that their immature cousin was strong enough to protect them from each other. But it didn't stop there, did it? Let's take a look at Japan. It also wanted peace at any price after they lost to America, so why is Japan, relatively speaking, more robust as a culture and people than almost any Western European country? I think the main reason is that Japan does not have a culture of self-critique and although the Japanese are capable of feeling great shame over certain things, they do not take it to the same extreme as the Germans (I think this is primarily a German ethnic quirk). The Japanese do not spend a lot of time worrying about what happened in Manchuria. They stopped caring and even if someone did broach the subject, they would defend themselves, unlike the Europeans. I was also attribute some of the European malaise to the downfall of imperialism in the Third World. They realized that they were no longer the "masters of the universe" and this greatly deflated their collective ego.

I do not think that the decline in Christianity contributed to the the decline of Europe. Europe could have been as Christian as America post-WWII and I think both you and I would agree that it would have still allowed for Third World immigration in order to evangelize the heathens or for some other ridiculous reason. Christianity, whether the liberal or traditional sort does not act as a safe guard from cultural decline. It can coexist with a strong culture but for how long before it mutates into something else or becomes irrelevant is debatable.

I will post my answer to Geza's reflections another day. My blog is now active again, and I will continue write a new post here every day

Read further...

The Western weakness, in big and in small

The protean doctrine of egalitarianism is the main virus that creates the pathology of the Western weakness. I have reflected many times when participating in blog discussion about how this is in operation at a small scale even there. Egalitarianism is (and has to be) a game of play-pretend. In the context of discussions, in the West, the doctrine states that every opinion and utterance is of equal value. It's a game of play-pretend where pointing out, or otherwise illustrating, that so is not the case is considered being in breach of good manners.

This gives an advantage to the people who engage in a debate in bad faith, who deliberately deviate from the serious discourse, lower it to a personal level, etc. Because the others must pretend that it is not so, otherwise we are "impolite".

We find the same pattern in the society at large, where when the fair-minded person with good intentions, points out the fault of asocial or bad behaviour in our society, then it's the decent and honest guy, who is protesting, that becomes chastised or even ostracized for it. In effect the people behaving badly gets a special protection by this game of play-pretend. We see it, at the larger scale, in our society, how criminals are elevated at the expense of the victims of crime. And even how we have special interest groups who effectively have a license to behave badly. But the only real crime, under the yoke of post-modern egalitarianism, is for the good and decent person to point out that their behaviour is not "equally good".

This is a pattern deeply ingrained into all ways of thinking of the modern Westerner. He might see the fault of it in specific cases, but it is so built into the very grammar of his moral thinking that, even so, he's inclined to follow the pattern in many other cases.

I used to see myself as part of a movement. Then I saw it as my duty to expose people who engaged in forums in bad faith or otherwise not being constructive and derailing the serious discourse. I have found that people in general are slow to pick up on what was evidently there to see at an early point. But in every case, people within the movement have eventually seen too what I had already pointed out much earlier. The problem is that there is little credit given for pointing out these things beforehand, much more time is spent in describing such a person as someone behaving badly. Quite as the whistle-blowers about the wreckage of mass immigration will be shown to be right, but will still forever carry the reputation of being bad people.

So if you are a good and decent person who see as your duty to take upon a someone acting in bad faith, count on the surrounding Westerners not paying attention to the details, but looking at it through their egalitarian prism, i.e. i) it's seen as a personal quarrel between two people where both are equally guilty and equally bad, a position which is in harmony with and a logical consequence of ii) how the behaviour of person acting in bad faith is seen as "equally good", in the first place. The tolerance of truly bad behaviour is very high in today's society, while the judgment over bad behaviour is regularly met with intolerance, and ironically enough considered as bad behaviour. This is the consequence of this egalitarian game of play-pretend that is so deeply ingrained in the very grammar of the current Western life form.

It's like they say: Don't argue with a crazy person in the street, because the people passing by will see you as equally crazy too. A truly good and decent person with a strong sense of duty, that would often intervene against troublemakers in the street, would be thanked by gaining a reputation of being a troublemaker himself. There's no reward for being good and decent in this way in today's society. Goodness is defined in terms of non-judgmental egalitarianism. However, eventually the other people will be confronted by the troublemaker themselves, and of course at that point they'll get it. However, beforehand they are often unable to do so, unless it's too blatantly obvious. Otherwise they cannot see it (beforehand), they can only feel it (when it happens to them).

So this dynamics has broken down my sense of duty. But this is nothing I regret anymore, because I see the big picture of it all too clearly, with this wall of play-pretend egalitarianism. However, what makes me sad is when people who are supposed to be my friends take the side of people acting in bad faith, while stereotyping me as rude and insulting. People that I have given the best of my friendship, to whom I have gone very far in being generous and supportive, and given the best of my soul. I understand that it's based on routine behaviour and is thoughtless, but nevertheless it saddens me.

This post is a general background to what I want to say. I will continue this week to post a couple of examples of what I'm talking of. Read further...

Everyone is Jesus

[End of Post] Read further...

The social cohesion of the honest anti-Jihadists and the hatemongering of the dishonest ones

An important aspect of the anti-Jihad struggle is how "racism" has in recent decades become the main cardinal sin of our society. The charge of racism is cast very broadly, and being hit by it implies the strongest possible ostracism and effective social exclusion. It becomes necessary for anyone who takes anti-Jihad resistance seriously, and intends to navigate through this minefield, to protect oneself from such charges, and ideally wring this weapon out of the hands of those hatemongering bullies.

There are two main approaches. One is the approach of for example Geert Wilders, SIOE (Stop the Islamization of Europe) and Robert Spencer: the "no racism here!" approach. Such as formulated by Geert Wilders' "no racist organizations allowed". Or by the slogan of SIOE: "Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense." This is one possible way of tearing the weapon of the racism charge out of the hands of the hatemongers.

The other approach is the one applied by for example Baron Bodissey when he writes "We’re All Racists Now". This is the other way of wringing the weapon out of their hands. Accepting the charge -- then what else could they do further? The same kind of approach was applied by Gates of Vienna when they launched their popular badge "Islamophobe and proud of it!"

These are just two different rhetorical approaches to the same problem. These do not represent two different camps (quite as those who accept the "Islamophobe" charge, and those who not, are not different camps). It's one and the very same camp, just different approaches. But there are indeed other camps, one on each side of this critical mass of honest anti-Jihadism. Both of which are socially disconnected from this main camp, as well as dishonest.

One such camp is represented by Charles Johnson and LGF. Most of the honest anti-Jihadists are on the black list of LGF: Gates of Vienna, Fjordman, Pamela Geller, Andrew Bostom, Diana West, and Bat Ye'or is considered a fascism enabler, etc.

Charles Johnson recently quoted Geert Wilders saying "no racist organizations will be allowed", adding his ubiquitous one-liner: "There’s at least one anti-jihad politician in Europe who refuses to join forces with fascists and white nationalists: Geert Wilders."

The edge here is towards those who accept, or refuse to hostilely denounce, Vlaams Belang. The issue of Vlaams Belang became a great dividing line last year in relation to the Counterjihad Summit in Brussels. Those who do not hostilely denounce Vlaams Belang are considered Nazis or Nazi allies by LGF and Charles Johnson. This includes Pamela Geller, Fjordman, Diana West, Baron Bodissey, Andrew Bostom, just to name a few.

Vlaams Belang is also denounced by Geert Wilders, SIOE and Robert Spencer (who rather shows concern than outright denouncement). But there is a whole world between their stances and the one of Charles Johnson, foremostly because of the lack of hostility. Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Baron Boddisey, Andrew Bostom, Fjordman, etc., all belong in the same social network of anti-Jihadism and are supporting each other. Surely there are differences in opinion and approaches, but no hostilities.

In the comments to Charles Johnson's post about Wilders, the Lizards of LGF are attacking their favourite targets: Gates of Vienna, Fjordman and Pamela Geller. Comments exposing to what degree LGF is an isolated glass bubble, detached from factual as well as social reality.

One Lizard writes:

I guess he [Wilders] is on GoV's "shit list" now.

And there are plenty of comments attacking Gates of Vienna and Fjordman in this way, in that thread.

But the fact is that Baron Bodissey just visited a party in honour of Geert Wilders. Geert Wilders was supposed to be there too, but had to decline due to illness. People from his party were there however, and apart from that the "jet set" of honest and constructive anti-Jihadism (but e.g. neither Charles Johnson nor Lawrence Auster were invited). This is simply too much reality for Charles Johnson and his Lizards to take in. They want to fantasize about hostilities between Geert Wilders and Baron Bodissey. They totally need these fantasies ("shit list" etc.) since their stance has no basis in facts; instead facts need to be stubbornly ignored to uphold the charade.

Another Lizard who doesn't get it, and never did, is Pastorius:

Will Pamela Geller write ridiculous comments and posts condemning Wilders, and will Pamela once again go on a rant that proves she doesn't know the difference between Nationalism, and Ethnic Nationalism?

I suggest that Pastorius takes a look at Pamela's interview with Wilders, and get a reality check. Pastorius is just a lonely guy sitting behind the computer, driven by hate, disconnected from the real world, fantasizing about how Pamela is condemning Wilders, while in fact there is nothing but mutual respect between the two, as shown in this interview(watch it! it's very good). He's got nothing to cling to but such fantasies, while shutting out reality.

In an exchange with Pastorius, Charles Johnson says:

I've found nothing on the web that puts Wilders together with the Vlaams Belang, the National Front, the FPO, the BNP, or any other neo-fascist group.

But if I do discover that he's collaborating with them, I'll drop my support for Wilders.

Well, Wilders is friendly with Pamela Geller and Baron Bodissey. Already this will be too much for LGF, of course. So do not expect any photos of Geert Wilder at the sidebar of LGF anytime soon. And in the event of any such photo popping up, expect it to be brought down sooner than later, quite as the photo of Oriana Fallaci was torn down.

There is more to say on this theme, so more posts about it will be coming up.
Read further...

"Geometric logic"

They were all out to get him, but he proved them all wrong by geometric logic:



[End of post] Read further...

Auster's exit from the big thread

The big thread over at Gates of Vienna was a really good discussion. With a wide range of people participating, including people who do not regularly comment at GoV. Me, Zenster and Erich were the ones at the core of the debate, upholding the main theme in the spirit of Westerner's article. The exchanges between the three of us is an example of when a debate is at its absolute best, each of us starting from different positions, thrashing over the problem until the point where we reached a general consensus on the main issues. A debate cannot be more constructive than that, and in this case about a highly important issue. Quite as in other team sports it requires that you keep the mental focus at the ball, and that you are not a thin-skinned person.

There were also several other people involved in this main discussion, of course. And there were also several different side tracks. One such side track was the exchange between Lawrence Auster and Baron Bodissey, which was developing well until at some point Auster was offended by something the Baron had written, halted the discussion and started to send several emails to the Baron demanding that he retracted the comment -- a comment that was not directed to Auster but that Auster felt could have been interpreted as being directed at him. The Baron eventually posted a clarification, but this side discussion was already derailed and never got back on track.

Instead Auster took up his attacks on Zenster. He spends five posts dedicated just for moral hissy fits and personalities on Zenster. The exchange did not move the discussion forward an inch. At this point Auster and his approach had been criticized by several interlocutors, and he decided to deem this whole discussion thread unworthy of him, and drop out. And since then he's continued his own "meta"-discussion over at his site.

I get the impression that Auster does not feel comfortable about the way he opted out of the discussion; that he doesn't feel that he managed to make his withdrawal look valid. The reason for this impression is how he has since posted 6-7 articles at his blog, groping for an angle to frame the whole thing to make his behaviour look valid; mainly different attempts at framing GoV as something objectionable in the eyes of the VFR readers. In a process eventually leading up to a point where he actually shows regret; something so unusual that it supports my impression of him feeling uncomfortable about how he handled this thing.

Auster main approach in framing the GoV community, with some help of his most zealous follower Adela G., has been in using expressions as:

• whacked-out liberal cranks
• "conservatives" who embrace moral liberationism
• loyal denizens of the contemporary liberal pop culture
• [like] the junk posted at Huffington Post or Daily Kos

USorThem described well the problem with this approach of Auster, and how it alienates many good people, who would otherwise be glad to call him an ally. (Read more about it here).

Henrik R Clausen made a more penetrating analysis of Auster spin method in this particular case: "Auster moves from the atypical sample to a judgment of not only the poster, of the entire GoV community, and even of GoV as such."

I will bring up these atypical cases in my following posts on this topic, and show how Auster uses them not only to paint GoV as a haunt of liberal cranks, but in groping for grips from other angles in order to put GoV in a negative light, in an attempt to make his own behaviour look valid. Read further...

Lawrence Auster and his ten little niggers

Auster is alienating what could and should be his allies, one by one. Geza comments about it here:

I saw this post by UsorThem and I think it sums up Auster perfectly:

"Mr Auster, I spend considerable time trying to persuade others to come around to your views on Separationism. I was booted from LGF while trying to discuss the need for muslim immigration and deportation because I believe it is the best solution to the global jihad. When I spend time at other anti-jihad websites it includes time spent convincing others to come around to the Separationist viewpoint. Your knack for pissing off almost everyone who means anything in this movement makes that chore much more difficult. But who am I to tell Lawrence Auster to cool his jets.

I see you through your own writings, no one elses. If anyone is being reckless it is you. Do I really need to go thru VFR to count and list the number of persons you have attacked without provocation. You have alienated many good people, who would otherwise be glad to call you an ally, with your writings about their hypocrisies and dishonesty, and cowardliness. That, sir, is foolish and reckless."

How prickly do you have to be to get people who are with you ideologically to turn on you? Don't you also find it ironic how Auster thinks Spencer has enough time to write articles about aspects of the Islam issue that interest Auster, yet Auster doesn't have the time to read UsorThem's serious email or even respond to Zenster's mini-survey? His personal vindictiveness and arrogance is what turns off even his most devoted followers. This is what happened with Vanishing American and John Savage.

Vanishing American's writing style was criticized at VFR and she became upset about it, and in my opinion,a little too upset. Auster clearly knew this but he could not leave it alone, he had to flog the dead horse until he could prove that his readers were right and VA was just being emotional. Likewise, John Savage, who was pretty much a faithful VFR contributor (read his posts before the whole Tanstaafl drama) became frustrated with Auster for not answering him about a question about American blacks. I believe the question was related to Separationism and how Auster favoured Separationism for Muslims but not American blacks. According to Savage, Auster was ignoring his question for a while and he had to keep resubmitting it until he got some type of response. Auster responded by dismissing his question and affirming that he is a "moral racialist", whatever that means. Savage is a smart guy and although I do not agree with him on quite a bit (he is a traditionalist but not of the Austerian variety), but his question deserved a fair hearing and it didn't receive one. However, quite recently, another contributor asked a similar question at VFR (Radical Thoughts on Race) and it received its own thread.

Auster lost two devoted allies because he simply could not drop a tiny controversy nor did he have the manners to respond to a challenging question from a devoted reader. Why did this happen? With Vanishing American, Auster had to prove that he was right no matter how trivial the battle and with John Savage, he found a huge contradiction in Austerian traditionalism which is a big no no. Auster doesn't like being reminded of how undeveloped his traditionalist ideology really is and when someone points it out, he becomes irate and drops the dialogue.

Not only does Auster make sure to burn his bridges completely with every possible pundit with an anti-Jihad stance, such as Melanie Phillips, Horowitz, Spencer, Pipes, Steyn, etc. But Auster has also made sure to alienate his former allies among smaller bloggers: Vanishing American, John Savage, USorThem, David Yerushalmi, and little me of course, etc. It's like in Agatha Christie's famous book Ten Little Niggers; they are disappearing one by one. Surely Auster still has readers left sending him interesting emails. But does he have any blogger left who is still his ally? That is not just a reader applauding him, but an opinion maker forming his own opinions? I cannot think of anyone, can you?

And soon there were none...

[End of post] Read further...

Auster against properly defeating Islam

It's tiresome with the usual swarm of Austerisms aimed at me, such as"deliberate lies", "crazed attacks", etc., but I will just continue ignoring it. So if we could leave Auster's lamenting about how he is unfairly attacked aside for a moment and look at the factual content of the differing positions.

In his answer to me (here and here) Auster pretends that he doesn't know what I mean by defeating Islam. I speak of a total defeat, and have been doing so all the time, not about a temporary or partial defeat. I guess in the eyes of Truman himself he saw it as having won the Korean war, but it was truly just half a victory. And Truman dismissed MacArthur for wanting to properly defeat the Korean Communists. In a similar manner Auster dismiss the idea of properly defeating Islam and and render it terminally harmless. Auster's idea of "defeating" is rather the Cold War concept of limited war. Which surely means defeating the enemy in several battles and holding him back (like in Korea). But Auster is against the idea of a total war and a total victory over Islam.

Surely he's against the idea of destroying Mecca, but he hasn't even suggested the idea of invading Mecca. How could Islam possibly be defeated without invading Mecca? Of course we could speak in terms of having defeated Islam here and there (quite as America can speak of having defeated Communism in... I can't think of a country right now... Afghanistan?), but not in terms of having defeated Islam as such (the Islamic empire), with less than invading Mecca. Islam won't see itself as defeated with less than that Mecca is invaded. That's a minimum. And if we learned anything in 1400 years it is that what is needed here is a Carthaginian peace, that is the destruction of Islam.

But Auster is an outspoken opponent against a total war against Islam as such and Carthaginian peace. He writes:

For us to aim at literally destroying the entire religion of Islam, as some people advocate, would put us in an insane position. No. We must do what is doable, and what will render us and the rest of the non-Islamic world reasonably safe. To aim at eradicating Islam from the earth is like aiming at eradicating evil from the earth. It is a form of hubristic madness, which the Western tradition has repeatedly warned us against. [My emphasis]

And below Auster even describes crushing Islam as "cultural genocide". I guess he wants to imply that there's something morally wrong with it:

Moreover, this containment of the Muslim peoples can be accomplished without violating their dignity and essence as Muslims. If we sought literally to suppress and destroy Islam, we could be justly accused of practicing cultural genocide. But if we simply contain the Muslims in their historic lands where they can have no power over us, that would not be harming them, even under the terms of their own religion.

But the essence of Auster's plan is described here:

It is no shame for a Muslim to accept defeat, because he views it as temporary, and so he waits patiently for future jihadist opportunities to arise. The wait can be very long--centuries, in fact. And that should be just fine with us.

Auster knows that his plan won't be seen as a proper defeat of Islam by the Muslims themselves. So how could a defeat be a proper one, if the enemy does not see it so himself? It can't of course.

Finally regarding how Auster uses the word "monstrous". He complains about what I had written before. He correctly points out that he only used the word to describe the idea of killing all Muslims. But I already had that covered in my qualifier "in some cases". However, the interesting thing is that in the very same answer he says "I don't think we can destroy Islam, short of killing all Muslims on earth or raining total destruction on every Muslim country on earth." So, indeed there seems to be a strong connection in his mind between monstrous and destroying Islam.

[End of post] Read further...

Social paradigms shift, e.g. our view on race before and after 1945

The “What Can We Do?” thread at Gates of Vienna is one of the most comprehensive anti-jihad discussion held, both in terms of what has been discussed and in terms of the broad range of people who's been involved. It's been a virtual anti-jihad mini-conference.

The discussion is being furthered in the thread The Quiet Game, where Zenster brings up the question of which has to be defeated first, Islam or political correctness / multiculturalism / etc.?

Armance answers to this is that it will happen simultaneously: "I think Islam, immigration and the multi-culti ideology will vanish as a whole. Once we acknowledge that there is an Other who can be harmful to ourselves, the idea of the sacred minorities and the myth of the good savage will perish at the same time."

And I agree with Armance. This is how historical changes usually take place. And all the people who feel despair and cannot imagine such a change have not read any history, or haven't paid attention while reading it. Only last century we had a couple of shifts of this magnitude. When you live in the middle of a paradigm it looks impossible to change it (because all the aspects of it support each other). But if you study history you will find that such changes happened fairly often, and how it works.

To illustrate what I talk about. Louis Armstrong visited Sweden in 1933. In all the news papers he was describe as something monkey-like let loose from the jungle. All across the line! And in the reviews by the most serious music critics.

Who would have imagined in 1933, that twelve years later Western Europe would undergo an America-led cultural revolution which would lead to the common belief that there are no differences between races?

Translation of two of the quotes:

Knut Bäck in Göteborgs-Posten, November 1933:
"This world is strange... No protests are raised against how the jungle is let loose into the society. Armstrong and his band are allowed to freely wreak destruction."

Sten Broman in Sydsvenskan, November 1933:
"Dare I say that he at times had something monkey-like about him and sometimes reminded of, according to our perceptions, a mentally disturbed person, when he pouted with his mouth or gaped it to its widest open and roared like a hoarse animal from a primeval forest."

The third quote compares the concert with a natural disaster, and Armstrong's trumpet with a hell machine. The only good thing coming out of it, he says, is that it solves to old dispute of whether monkeys have a language.

This is what Europe looked like, up until 1945. And since some people will live under the misconception that this was a phenomenon of the '30s, I here provide a quote from the Swedish Encyclopedia, Nordisk Familjebok, the 1876-1899 edition (here and here).

"Psychologically the negro can be said be on the level of a child, with vivid fantasy, lack of endurance, ... can be said to lack morality rather than being immoral ... etc."

Even though the point here has been to illustrate how social paradigms can shift completely in short time (and this is just one out of numerous examples), let me add how up until 1945 all the focus was put on the differences between races, and after that all the focus has been put on what is equal (while ignoring differences). Let's see if the next shift means a synthesis of the two extremes. Will people be able to keep two thoughts in their minds at the same time?

[End of post] Read further...

Auster explained

There is a distinctive pattern to Lawrence Auster's behaviour in relation to Islam, liberalism and other anti-Jihadists. Yesterday I wrote a comment at Gates of Vienna that captures it succinctly.

In a thread at Gates of Vienna where essayist Westerner suggests that Islam must be defeated and destroyed, Auster enters to counter the approach of Baron Bodissey and many others. According to Auster the whole case has to be presented at once, and according to him that's the only way to convince people. Presenting the whole case involves suggesting the deportation of Muslims from our lands. But it also involves stating that liberalism must be defeated (in the world of traditionalist conservatism liberalism is sufficient to frame everything that is wrong with the West today). Baron Bodissey instead suggests that our goal is reached in many smaller steps from A to Z.

Lawrence Auster had written: "we can and should make the whole case right now, including the diagnosis, the cure, and the rejection of liberalism that prohibits a cure." To which I respond:

Isn't the real reason for your approach, that your real goal is to defeat liberalism? That's why you want to jump directly to step P. The steps before interest you little, since they do not specify the terminal ending of liberalism. But neither are the steps after of much interest to you, since you are not interested in defeating Islam. It's liberalism that you see as the real enemy. Islam you see as more benevolent and therefore worthy of surviving; a grace that you are not willing to give to liberalism.

Furthermore, you spend a disproportionate amount of time attacking (and often fiercely) conuterjihad people working on steps A, B and C. Why? For the same reason. People walking up this staircase like 1,2,3 are not seen as having proven their anti-liberal credentials in your eyes. The usage of liberal arguments against Islam is seen as a way of promoting liberalism by you, and is therefore attacked by you. It goes along with your declared agenda. Defeating liberalism--our prime and only real enemy according to you--is your focus.

I think this summarizes succinctly Auster's posture, and the many sides of it, in these debates. It's all derived from the nature of traditionalist conservatism to which Auster adheres. The conclusion is solely based on the nature of traditionalist conservatism, yet it explains all sides of Auster attitude and behaviour in these debates. Auster hasn't answered to this comment yet.

There are many aspects of the collective mental wall that we are up against when presenting our case to the general public: political correctness, people being lulled into false sense of security after so long time under prosperity and peace, fear of change, the decay of Christianity, effects of the industrial age, the bourgeoisification of the entire population, the post-modern distancing from reality, ignorance about Islam and about history in general, etc. In the book of traditionalist conservatism this can all be captured as liberalism. And in the book of traditionalist conservatism no case is worth presenting if it does not include the rejection of liberalism as a whole.

Let's start with what traditionalist conservatism has gotten right. It's true that the whole thing is bigger than just political correctness and the failure to see the true face of Islam. It's also true that the current ruling elites have to be entirely rejected, however this does not necessarily imply the complete rejection of liberalism.

According to traditionalist conservatism liberalism is both a necessary and sufficient criterion to set the whole diagnosis. But while it can serve as a good enough approximation in many contexts it's neither necessary nor sufficient as a criterion. It's not sufficient since liberalism didn't come from out of the blue, but is rooted in deeper structures of our culture. Christian ethics, with it's egalitarianism, universalism and inversion of values is the root of liberalism. And we find how Christianity has weaknesses towards Islam, that has nothing to do with what Christianity has in common with liberalism, but is based on the Abrahamic connection that many Christians feel towards Islam.

But at the same time it's not a necessary criterion. In spite of my criticism of Christianity, I cannot know that Christianity will be rejected as a solution to our problems. This is very much an open question, and a very likely development is that Christianity will be calibrated, such as to mend the suicidal weaknesses of Christianity sufficiently for our civilizational survival (I'm speaking in a century long perspective here). The same with liberalism (which overlaps the case of Christianity predominantly). Already a national liberalism that is rejecting universalism and calibrating its egalitarianism would take us far. Actually this is a good way to describe the new political stance of Denmark today. Denmark has not abandoned liberalism, they have calibrated it, changed it's character to make it stronger for national defence.

The same with my criticism of democracy. It's very much an open question what will happen on that front, in a century long perspective. We might end up with a calibrated version where only the ones paying taxes will have the right to vote. We might end up with a traditional republic. Or we might end up with a more truly mixed constitution. or with a despot or a tyrant.

These are all open questions. What will work will work. And one thing is for sure, we will end up with mishmash solutions full of paradoxes. Social paradigms never change properly into something that is intellectually stringent. Social institutions and concepts are the result of evolution, and will therefore always hold inner contradictions.

Polticial views that are heavily ideologized infallibly fall into becoming permanent opponents to our civilization. Communists see our civilization as Capitalistic, and are therefore enemies of it. They will always be enemies of it since no matter what is its real character, they will always see it as Capitalistic. Libertarians see our civilization as oppression by evil states, and are therefore enemies of it. They will always be enemies of it since no matter what is its real character, they will always see it as oppression by evil states. Traditionalist conservatives see our civilization as liberal, and are therefore enemies of it. They will always be enemies of it since it will never be un-liberal enough for them. This is the reason why traditionalist conservatives will often operate in a similar manner as Communist sectarians within any specific movement. They have an agenda of their own and that's the one they are driving.

Islam is a very real enemy, that has declared total war upon us. The problem of the West though, that is often referred to as "liberalism", is a set of demons that need to be exorcised. These demons are based on fears, which are based on myths; the strongest of which (the hardest nuts to crack) are rooted in WWII, but the roots of these myths go far back.

Lawrence Auster simply cannot make himself say that we are in a total war with Islam, that Islam is wicked, and that Islam needs to be defeated and destroyed. But when it comes to "liberalism" he has no problem in saying that it is wicked and must be defeated.

Auster has gotten it all upside down. First of all his term "liberalism" is just a construction, quite as the term "Islamism" is. The purpose of this construction is to catch a wide-ranging phenomenon of the West that surely is in need of a common characterization and name. So far I'm with him. But when he takes this construction into being the ultimate evil and our ultimate enemy, he has taken this approximate term so far out on so thin ice that it won't carry. And the whole thing becomes as Quixotic as when the neocons declare war on "Islamism".

[End of post] Read further...