The psychological power of PC groupthink, Swedish version
(Part of this post is in Swedish)
Jihad i Malmö commented upon the Jan Milld discussion at Gates of Vienna. He publishes fragments of the discussion in a confusing way (here and here), with the whole chronology put upside-down. Without backing it up, he declares Jan Milld a Holocaust-denier, and then me as a defender of this position. And finally Baron Bodissey as being weak on such horrible people. The old PC format once again. I didn't even bother to comment, but yesterday I ended up in a discussion with Knute at Every Kinda People. And Knute decided to side with Jihad i Malmö on this. In spite of not having a single Swede who gets what I'm saying at my blog--it's only among Americans, Eastern Europeans and Jews that I have found proper understanding so far--and in spite of Knute being a Swede (and therefore, statistically speaking, probably a hopeless case), I see him as one of the best, and therefore worthwhile to take the discussion with. I see Knute as little bit of a Swedish Baron Bodissey, in his personality type. So I have a positive image of him. But even so I will have to criticize him when he falls into common PC behaviour patterns, whether it is out of laziness or thoughtlessness. Our discussion started in this thread, about other things. Here is my reply to Knute. It's actually the very same criticism I put forward to Baron Bodissey:
Jaha. Istället för att läsa själva diskussionen på Gates of Vienna, väljer du alltså att läsa lösryckta fragment av den på Jihad i Malmö. Jihad i Malmö som vänt bakofram på hela händelseförloppet och överhuvudtaget inte fattat vad diskussionen gick ut på. Men trots att jag redan hade påpekat detta, väljer du alltså att att göra en helt ytlig bedömning baserat på detta känslosvammel.
I PC-världen anses man finare och heligare ju mer vårdslöst man använder begrepp som t.ex. rasist. De som slänger ur sig det helt utan täckning, helt baserat på känslor anses mer trogna den "rätta saken". Den som ödmjukt påpekar det vansinniga i sådan vårdslöshet med begreppen, anses av känslosvamlarna vara ond, och därmed rasist själv. Kronan på verket i hela PC-hierarkin är begreppet förintelseförnekare. Jihad i Malmö slänger vårdslöst ur sig, helt utan täckning, att Jan Milld är förintelseförnekare. Och du hänger glatt på.
Det var detta som diskussionen handlade om. Hur PC-reflexerna sitter mycket djupt bland västerlänningar, inklusive hos sådana som dig och Baron Bodissey. Baron Bodissey fattade iallafall till slut min poäng, och kanske kommer du att göra det också. Anklagelserna mot Jan Milld, från IceViking, byggde helt på intryck och antaganden. Det blir rena inkvisitionen att driva ett mål, och hänga ut någon som förintelseförnekare, helt baserat på ett resonemang som går ut på att "jag känner att det är så".
Knute: Lät som du trampade över i diskussionens hetta.
Läs hela diskussionen i sin helhet! Varje sak jag skrev hade sitt syfte i att väcka upp folk från sina känslobaserade villfarelser. Och det lyckades. Slutresultatet är den ömsesidiga respekten mellan mig och Baron Bodissey vuxit sig mycket starkare. Även om jag kan vara skarp när jag framför kritik, så har jag mycket stor respekt för någon som kan ändra sig och erkänna att han gjort fel. Baron Bodissey är en mycket stor man i mina ögon. Och jag växte i respekt i hans ögon när han hade sett min poäng. Och då skall man minnas att vi hade stor respekt för varandra redan från början.
Knute: Åtminstone ur min synpunkt som står på judarnas och Israels sida.
Min gode herre försöker antyda att jag inte står på Israel och judarnas sida? Du har uppenbarligen inte läst min blogg särskilt mycket. Då hade du kunnat följa det eviga påhoppandet på mig från Political Junkie's sida för mitt stöd till Israel. Jag intar en mycket moderat pro-Israelisk ståndpunkt, men det är samtidigt något som jag under inga omständigheter ruckar på. Det är såklart för mycket för Political Junkie.
Efter amerikaner är judar den gruppen bland vilka man hittar flest som hänger med och fattar själva grejen med mina skriverier. Det kan kontrasteras med att det hittills inte har dykt upp en endaste svensk som begriper sig på mig. Jag får positiva email inklusive ett meddelande från en judisk site som bad att få länka mig. I Sverige är gruppmentaliteten, konsensandan, stark stark. Även om viljan finns att avvika sitter mönstret så djupt. Man läser något ytligt, förvridet och känslosvamlande i Dagens Nyheter eller på Jihad i Malmö, och så hänger man på utan att ifrågasätta. Det just så PC-regimen upprätthålls. Utstuderade manipulatörer som Chomsky och Guillou är en liten minoritet. De flesta bra hänger på i den riktning som vinden blåser, simmandes mitt i stimmet. För jobbigt att kolla fakta själv. För jobbigt att tänka utanför boxen. Gå på det ytliga allmänna intrycket. Du kan nu titta in i dig själv, Knute, och få förståelse för hur dessa mekanismer ser ut. Det är en bra lärdom, för att förstå komplexiteten i det vi kämpar mot.
When I speak above about how there are no Swedes that gets me, you have to take in account that many people who support me do not get me. Some people support me for the wrong reasons or only understand singular aspects of what I'm saying. This is true also specifically about this here discussion at Gates of Vienna. I even had David Duke fans who emailed to support me. (However, in one of the cases I managed to get a site to decide to stop publishing David Duke, since I managed to get through to them how utterly moronic it is.) These people do just as much to uphold the PC shadow theater as the PC elite themselves. As I wrote at the GoV disussion:
[The Holocaust-deniers] are the most moronic people of them all. There's no people helping cementing the reigning PC rule more than them. They voluntarily jump up on the stage of the shadow theater in the Platonic cave with a self confessed "I'm evil". Nothing helps the dynamics of the shadow theater more than that. These are the greatest friends of the PC elite. Without them, the PC elite cannot uphold the image of themselves as brave fighters against evil (in fact a superficial fight against something completely harmless).The way to counter the myths and dogmas around the Holocaust is not by creating another myth: that the Holocaust didn't happen. But this is how 99% of the people react. A sound rational view upon facts is extremely rare, people fall in either of the two mythological categories. Emotionalism, mythology and groupthink is the greatest huggy bear to humans. This is why the Platonic cave is the most accurate scientific model of a human society.
This is a deeply Christian pattern. We saw the same play under the heydays of the Catholic Church. Self-confessed sinners, satanists, etc. People with a negative self-image and full of Christian guilt (quite as your average neo-Nazi), indulging in the Christian concepts of self-sacrifice and original sin, throwing themselves onto the stage of the shadow theater. I cannot imagine any people who are more stuck in the box of Christian ethics. They just cannot leave the box. They stay within the box, but switch side to "evil" (and this is also how they see themselves). And listen to their arguments against Israel. The worst sort of Christian inversion of values where power is evil and the weak are good: Israel is bad because it shows strength; Israel is "racist", etc. Precisely as the worst sort of leftists. Perverted! And very very supportive of the reigning PC rule. The PC elite loves them.
When I criticize America I'm bound to get cheers from some moronic anti-Americans, people whose worldview is far more different from mine than the one of Americans themselves. Likewise when I criticize Christianity, I'm bound to receive cheers from Christianity and religion haters, that I have nothing in common with. As I have repeatedly stated, Americans and Christians are over-represented among the people that gets me. And again, when I criticize the way the Holocaust has been made into a myth, the very core myth of the PC regime. I'm bound to get cheers from moronic anti-Semites. These people who do more than anyone else to uphold the PC world order. And apart from being leftists, permeated by slave morality, they support radical Islam. They are clearly a main enemy. As I wrote in one of my emails:
I see that you publish David Duke. You might as well have published Cindy Sheehan or Ahmadinejad. David Duke is an explicit ally of the Jihadists, our eternal enemy. I wouldn't publish in the same place as him.
Look at these video clips from MEMRI-TV. Follow the link, or go to http://www.memritv.org and search for "david duke". See the clips or read the transcripts.
He's very comfortable speaking in front of a Muslim mob, declaring his explicit support for them. And apart from his support for "the peace-loving people of Syria" and their president, he also informs us that he admires Ken Livingstone.
I'm all in favour of diversity of opinion. But why don't you publish Cindy Sheehan and Ahmadinejad too then? They are the ones that would go along with David Duke. I cannot publish at a site that is so openly flirting with Islamists and leftists.
Update: Knute has already answered my comment. He writes "Jag vet inte hur pass medvetet provokativ jag var, men nog fick jag svar på tal!" Translation: "I'm not sure how consciously provocative I was, but CS certainly answered back!" So why do I confront nice and non-confrontational people such as Baron Bodissey and Knute? Why do they deserve it? They deserve it because they are thinking people who can take an argument. I do it because it gives result. While e.g. an eternal tit for tat with IceViking or a David Duke fan would just be a complete waste of time.
[End of post]
12 comments:
Wow! Compared to The Great Baron! I feel flattered but not too much flattened.
In spite of not having a single Swede who gets what I'm saying at my blog
That's not necessarily true. I'm fairly certain Oskorei is sympathetic to your views... I have it from a good source that he reads your blog ;)
CS says that he takes a very moderate pro-Israel position.
That position to me boils down to that we have to ally ourselves with Israel against Jihadism. Otherwise we're doomed. Groovy. I'm all for that.
But I expect some reciprocity too.
When did Israel speak out against Muslim immigration to Europe? I expected that to happen when I started reading about all the torched synagogues of France in the Weekly Standard six years ago.
But, no, not a word on the subject from Tel Aviv. And since we are in the war against Jihadism together with the U.S., how can we tolerate that Israel demonstrates contempt for the U.S. by giving an American who has spied for Israel an Israeli citizenship? If you don't react negatively against that, you certainly are also a very moderat pro-American.
This as some background to my criticism of CS's uncritical defense of Israel.
Oh, and then we have the trial of two former AIPAC employees coming up this September. More about Israeli spying on its main benefactor. Some chutzpah, eh?
Hereticus:That's not necessarily true. I'm fairly certain Oskorei is sympathetic to your views... I have it from a good source that he reads your blog ;)
I'm very glad that Oskorei reads my blog and is sympathetic to it. And there are many Swedes who are. But I haven't seen any signs that he gets what I'm talking about. And this was really the issue.
Poltitical Junkie,
Since we go over this again and again, I'll just give a short answer this time: My support for Israel is a constant. No matter what. Reciprocity is not something for us the expect but to create. Mexicans, Muslims, Jews, Chinese, Russians, etc., screw with us because we let them screw with us and encourage them to screw us. Thusly it's not a Jew issue, but totally an issue rooted in our Christian ethics. If we show confidence, strength and will power instead of weakness and self-hate, everything is already changed. I fail completely to understand the obsession with Jews. Why blame the Jews that they cannot change us, when its us that must change? How the hell could they do this for us?
It's like, Patrick do not do his homework, so let's blame Albert who lives in the other side of the town that he cannot make Patrick to do it. Well, there's also the aspect of Albert screwing with Patrick since Patrick is a total wimp and doormat; destructive in every possible way. But everybody screws Patrick. Why blaming Albert for that Patrick doesn't do his homework? This is merely simplistic
scapegoating. Myths of the most primitive kind.
And you don't get my point either, which is "Sweden first"!
I don't blame the Jews for anything, more than I blame the Muslims for coming here. I'm just telling you about what I lack from Israel, and that is support for Europe against our leaders and less contempt for the U.S., a country I really love. And which I owe my freedom to. If America hadn't entered WW II, you and I would be having this conversation in German, not English. And I probably would have been deemed racially unpure. And my soon to be three year old granddaughter would have been killed through a euthenasia program, because of immune deficiency. So pro-Nazi underneath it all I'm not.
I do blame "ourselves" for Muslims coming here. I'm merely pointing out that UNCRITICAL support for Israel is suspicious. Why this sucking up to Israel when it isn't
exactly sucking to us or anyone? They don't seem to give a hoot about us, other than when it comes to us supporting them? So why this unconditional love, I'm asking.
If every now and then in an anti-Jihadi text "and then I think we should support Israel" turns up, people will start wondering why. Most people aren't that friendly towards Israel, and they don't give a damn about Palestinians either (I don't anyway). Because, to quote an old pop ditty, "there's not enough love to go round".
I don't blame Israel for the likes of Per Ahlmark, a former Swedish government member who definitely is more patriotic towards Israel than Sweden, who has a street named after him in Israel, and who Claes Ryn, a Swedish paleo-conservative Catholic professor living and working in the U.S., in a Swedish TV interview mentioned as a Swedish example of a typical neocon.
The first question in all international relations must be: what's in it for us? Altruism and patriotism is like fire and water.
It's impossible to discuss Israel without being reminded of the Jewish cosmopolitan tradition, namely that most Jews outside Israel are
immigration liberals. Makes sense if you need other countries to flee to in case you're persecuted. But at the same time you know, that if you as a European is cheering on Israel, you're doing it together with people who are bent on destroying your own nation through Muslim mass immigration. (Now read that carefully - I didn't imply only Jews but a lot of guilt-ridden white liberals and Conservatives as well.)
To be in denial of this, to deny that most Jewish and non-Jewish Zionists are pro-immigration, creates a sort of masochistic impression - - to put it mildly; to put it bluntly would be "because you are scared of being seen as an anti-Semite".
Because we have this taboo about Jews and Israel. You can critize them at your own peril, but you can never ever show anything but unwavering support for Israel. Not as a member of the European or American Right anyway.
And the more younger generations of assimilated Jews in mixed marriages feel un-Jewish, because they don't practice Jewish
traditions, the less support Israel will have outside Israel and the more desperate the Zionists will become. And the more intolerance they will show.
I can understand and fully respect Jewish nationalism, but I can't understand and respect non-Jews being as much Jewish nationalists as Jews. That is, putting the fate of Israel above the fate of their own nations.
If you haven't read all of Stephen Steinlight's very revealing account of the link between Jewish nationalism and immigration liberalism, you can't understand what I'm talking about.
The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography
Etcetera, ad infinitum
I have lurked before, but I don't think I have commented. I find your thought quite fascinating and will certainly be back. I read about a dozen varied posts on this trip. I don't wish to argue (just yet. I seem to get going on that eventually), but I do have some comments which I hope will be satisfying.
Identity, in case it matters to anyone: Christian American of Swedish descent. Ex-socialist, now postliberal, happily married father of four grown sons, two adopted from Romania. Employed as a psychiatric social worker.
You have some distress that you do not seem to fit comfortably into any known group or political persuasion. That seems a very European worry to me. Americans are more used to having multiple group identities which overlap, perhaps. We cluster and band together like all others, of course, but I don't think the drive is as strong here. Nonliberals especially are quite used to alliance or association with clusters of people who agree greatly on two issues and disagree completely on a third. There are a dozen varieties of conservative here, and we find it quite endurable. I'm not sure I fit any of them fully.
Next, in your observation of history you seem very concerned with identifying cause and effect: did Christianity cause A or impede it? Does limited warfare create situation B or situation C? I greatly understand this, as this is how my mind works as well, striving to see the mechanisms of history, psychology, or office politics. But just because it is congenial to my mind does not make it a productive way to look at the world.
I have come to believe that events are much more random, fluid, and unstable than we usually think. We impose narrative as both an aid to memory and a comfort to bind our anxieties. Derbyshire's comment that he suspects that the world might not be so terribly different if Jesus or Muhammed never came to their current influence strikes me as a very high height of stupidity. An extra random death even 150 years ago would likely change our current history dramatically. We see an inevitability and pattern in retrospect that is quite illusory. Much is in the balance with tomorrow's actions.
You seem to have something in common with libertarians, and might turn out to be an off-brand of theirs.
As to your relationship with those who question the usual Holocaust narrative, I think the answer will reveal itself to you over time. The questions that people raise seem to be quite legitimate academic and social questions at first. Only as they go on does one discover that these folks have a variety of hobbyhorses and pet causes, usually anti-semitic. You will find them impervious to the usual reasoning that one employs in discussion. They seem so curious, open, and adventurous of thought, and many of their opponents reason poorly or dismiss them unfairly. But time and again, I have found that those who are concerned with recalculating the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust are unable to give ground on even peripheral points. There is a quiet, eerie paranoia about them that enjoys the persecution. I overgeneralize, of course, but I think you will find that the observation holds up.
Again, thank you for interesting and challenging thought.
AVI wrote:
"As to your relationship with those who question the usual Holocaust narrative, I think the answer will reveal itself to you over time. The questions that people raise seem to be quite legitimate academic and social questions at first. Only as they go on does one discover that these folks have a variety of hobbyhorses and pet causes, usually anti-semitic."
I'm sorry but that's not the point. Whether Holocaust revisionists are anti-Semites or not is not very relevant to the issue. The dogma of the Holocaust is considered sacrosanct by liberal regime and it is the founding myth of our liberal society. It serves as a cautionary tale as to why nationalism and discrimination can lead to a potential Holocaust. Even if you were a philo-Semite but curious as to how we came up with the figure of 6 million, you would not be to investigate this yourself in an academic setting without getting ridiculed. Every portion of history is open to revisionism except the Holocaust and I find that very troubling. It elevates it to the status of being the most important event in world history and that is not right and with the universal bent of liberalism, it will lead to many more genocides receiving the same treatment. Instead of a specific event during a specific time, the Holocaust becomes and axiomatic bludgeon the liberal elites can use to justify their twin-ideologies of multiculturalism and white guilt. This is why we are more afraid of fascists today than communists or Muslims who have committed far worse crimes than Hitler.
Perhaps in regards to the Holocaust we need, as lefties might put it, a new "narrative" in which the Holocaust is "reframed". The Holocaust happened, but what does it, or rather should it, mean.
Lefties have done this with Muslims in Europe by comparing them to Jews in the 1930's. Totally silly.
So the Holocaust should be studied, but not as mean of denial or anti-semitism but rather as part of our understanding.
For instance, "White Studies" in the US, which basically denigrates Whites, looks like the anti-semetic crap you could find in a German university in the 30's.
I agree. The issue isn't whether it happened or not, nor is it what sort of a person raises the questions about it. The issue is that the questions that do get asked (if they come from the right) just get ignored. If someone would just answer the questions as fully and reasonably as possible (without all the immotive fluff that gets thrown in, because quite frankly very few of us really know what it was to be in a Concentration Camp or for that matter understand any of it).
A truthful unbiased and unemotional study of the Holcaust has yet to be started (let alone concluded). Over time the horror and indignation will just become a series of platitudes (it already has with most peopl) until eventually it will be ignored altogether, forgotten about, mythologised beyond recognition or it will serve to increase resentment.
If the Holocaust has taught us anything it has taught us what the the results of mixing unbridled and concentrated hatred with modern industrial scale methods of execution are and how destructive this force is when applied to the object of those emotions.
The Holocaust is abused these days. I am fairly sure that is not what those who went through it (not just the Jews by the way, although they do get the lion's share of the sympathy and they certainly are very protective of it) would have wanted.
It was not meant to be a lesson about politics it was meant to be a lesson about ethics and morality. Leftists, including fluffy and friendly Liberals could quite easily do exactly the same things if they thought the situation waranted it. Likewise so could any other person who is that fanatical about what they believe in.
Likewise the people as a whole have always been and will always be suseptible to such things (from any source). The thing we must learn is to not compromise our own morals in dealing with a percieved enemy. That enemy could be anyone by the way. Prevention is far too difficult (especially as one of the preventitive measures is inevitaby the extermination of the offending party).
Someday it will happen again (not necessarily to the Jews and not necessarily in the West). Despite all the platitudes. When it does some of us will no doubt weep, perhaps for the victims too, but more than likely because once again nothing has changed and because those who could have changed things didn't. They just used it as a political tool through which near total dominance of the political stage could be achieved. When events spiral once again out of control and this sort of thing happens again it will be up to those people who have learnt the lessons to apply them and at the very least yoke the proverbial beast.
I think the questions related to the Holocaust are legitimate. I think that the method in order to answer these questions is flawed on both sides. It's one of those things that you talk about that when people don't agree with something, they expect the opposite. So instead of taking the official version, they say it didn't happen. Same with the 9/11 'truthers'. It either happened as the government said or the government did it.
Post a Comment