Saturday, October 20, 2007

The fear of ghosts, and how to resist it

At the thread following the post, at Gates of Vienna, of the press release of the Counterjihad conference in Brussels an interesting discussion followed.

First Chaya posted this:

You have to make sure, however, that you keep out those groups that are racist right-wing groups that are using this movement to 'piggy-back' on. You have to differentiate yourselves from those who hate Muslims as a group from yourselves who see the Islamization of Europe as a danger to freedom and democracy. It's going to be a tough thing to do as you are already being called 'racists.' So, to have outright racist right-wing groups with you will only give Muslims and radical left groups ammunition.
You have seen me fighting ghost quite a lot recently at the GoV comments section, so of course I had to take on this one. Not because the comment of Chaya was particularly bad, but because this kind of comment is so common. Here's my answer:
- - - - - - - - - -

Since people of European heritage are the least racist on this planet, you would have to search really hard to find someone like that. (I do not know where you're coming from ideologically, so I certainly hope you are not referring to Filip Dewinter or Ted Ekeroth).

Where would they come from, these "racist right-wing groups"? Is it Le Pen you are thinking of? Well, duh! He's on the other side isn't he? With the leftists, multicultis, the bobo liberals and that kind of racists. Le Pen clearly differentiate himself from us by embracing the Muslims and Islam. As he did during the Motoon affair, as he did by standing up for Iran's "right" to build a nuke.

Instead we have exactly the opposite problem among us, that too many still see moderate conservative parties, such as Vlaams Belang, as being racist far-right parties who are "hijacking" the cause. It makes people refuse to cooperate, it makes people refuse to come, it makes people have their fear center (of the reptile brain) triggered so that they stop thinking and start sounding like a PC issuing warnings about the "racists right-wing".

Across the political map of Europe we have an excellent selection of parties and organizations in each country to cooperate with, that should all cooperate. But many of them are still missing and not doing it yet, precisely because they are paralyzed by this fear of those other "racist", "far-right" groups. Groups who are exactly like themselves. This is the tragic phenomenon of fear of your own brother. Look back to your school years and you remember the kind of phenomenon. Where the one bullied kid would despise the other one, harassed in the same way by the school yard bullies.

So the problem is exactly the opposite of the one you describe. So I ask you to please not contribute to this counterproductive fear the next time. I can see that you are a sensible guy, so I'm sure next time around you will help us warning about against the fear of seeing your brother as a far-right racist, instead.

We were compared with Jared Taylor recently (or more specifically Fjordman was), in a thread here. Nothing could be more wrong, which is so clearly shown by this conference. Jared Taylor is flirting with anti-Semitism (to say the least). Then you'll get David Duke coming. We are instead the staunchest opponents and revealers of anti-Semitism, because unlike others we oppose all sorts of anti-Semitism from all kind of sources: from the right, from the left, from the Muslism. No one else does that. They say they are anti-Semites, but they will only see certain anti-Semitism, and put blind eye to others because of their ideological blinkers. We are among the very few who take anti-Semitism fully seriously. So the anti-Semites are not the least interested in coming in the first place. And this shows all so clearly how perversely absurd that comparison with Jared Taylor was. These type of comparisons reflect perfectly how screwed up the minds of the Westerners generally are.

So no, Chaya, we do not need to fear that the David Dukes would piggy-back us. Instead we have the opposite problem, of the many parties/groups around Europe who fear to cooperate with each other, due to taking warnings, such as the one issued by you here, overly seriously. We are speaking of people who are overly decent; they even take the leftist/liberal propaganda (the sneers of the bullies) too seriously. And therefore they see their neighbour/brother/friend as a racist far-right ghost. Merely for just standing up for his rights, just as they are doing themselves.

The only group/party that I could think of that would potentially be interested in working with us, but where we would not be interested is the BNP. But, mind you, this situation appears exactly because BNP under Nick Griffin is decisively moving away from anti-Semitism. The old BNP would not have had any interest in us in the first place; but even the BNP is changing. Who else wouldn't we want to cooperate with? Jörg Haider of course; quite as David Duke fond of paying friendly visits to Middle Eastern dictator thugs (in Haider's case Saddam Hussein). But Jörg Haider is a nobody today, so this is not even an issue.

So who is it really that you want to warn us about Chaya? You will have to be specific! Are you thinking of fringe National Socialist mini-parties? If that was what you are referring to, then I must say that you have an exquisite talent for stating the blatantly obvious. Furthermore, they wouldn't want to rub with philo-Semites like us, and they wouldn't want to touch Arieh Eldad anymore than a Muslim would touch a dog.

So congratulations counterjihadists! The fear expressed by Chaya here is a non-issue. Instead we are facing the very opposite problem. This is good news, because this is an easier problem to deal with. We just need to leave our fear of ghosts.
While I was writing this Dymphna had already answered to Chaya, and me and Dymphna are on the same page here. I especially like her expression "perfection is the enemy of good enough".

There will be some less-than-ideal people piggy-backing on this movement to save the various European states and cultures.

So what? Perfection is the enemy of good enough. If we have to wait until everything is "pure" then Europe will fall.

The multi-cultis will call us racist xenophobes anyway. I'm no longer concerned with their labels, nor do I have to prove to those accusers that I'm not what they say. How do you disprove a negative anyway? Just stand there saying "no, I'm not, no, I'm not, no, I'm not"?

I have relegated that defense to the school yard, where it belongs.
In truth, "racism" is hard-wired into the primate brain -- actually it's even lower than that. At any rate, people prefer their own and well they should. That's how the human race has survived.

Notice the PC crowd is most unaccepting of those who don't meet *their* criteria. They call names and spew vitriol with impunity.

To hell with trying to please the eternally, exquisitely offended. Let them stew in their own juices.

Basta! They don't own the game; we just let them take over because we couldn't believe their vile agenda. And now we are past the time to take it back.

Will it be ugly? Sure. As Queen Margrethe said, "we've been lazy." That lack of action has consequences and we're ready to deal with them...

If a few sleazeballs hang onto our coattails, it will be easier to deal with them than it will the despots we face now.
The answer by Dymphna inspired me to go on, and here for the first time presenting my circle model of the left and right in politics, which is part of the motivation for why I refer to myself as a kafircon.
Cheers Dymphna,

I didn't see your answer until I had posted mine. And there's no surprise that we react in the same kind of way. I subscribe to everything you wrote. What I think I added, in my answer, is that apart from this attitude of simply ignoring the ostracism by the school yard bullies, and start seeing the other bullied ones as our friends and brothers, that the very fear of the wrong groups joining our ranks is actually a non-issue. So it's not only right to leave this fear of ghosts, it's safe to do it. Nothing bad will happen.

The only party I could see as a potential issue here is the BNP. But this is also exactly because they are moving into the right direction. As I wrote in my last comment, people of European heritage are the least racist among the people of this planet. So for a party such as BNP to being able to grow, they will have to leave the caricature image a nationalism (shared by the leftists/liberals), i.e. the nazoid idea of nationalism that has been prevailing since WWII (Hitler's secret revenge against us).

We have seen in Sweden how Sverigedemokraterna broke up into two parties, with the anti-Semites going to Nationaldemokraterna, and the remaining party now being the most philo-Semitic party in all of Sweden. I predict the same development for BNP, and that day we could cooperate with the good part after a break-up. But, nevertheless, in Britain we already have UKIP to cooperate with.

The anti-Semitic parties with the nazoid idea of nationalism (a world view they fully share with the leftists/liberals) are not interested in coming to us, they are more interested in going to Mad Jad's Holocaust deniers conference.

The reason for why such opposites can for a period of time co-exists in the same party, as they once did in the Sweden Democrats, and are still doing in BNP, is because the true model of left/right in politics is actually circular. No, not the old circular line cliché, a full circle with the left at the center and the right is the whole periphery, the circumference, of the circle. But in our terminology the whole thing gets projected into a linear scale, i.e. the whole circumference of the circle, the right, being collapsed into a single point. No wonder than that we find blatant opposites there. Opposites that are far more different from each other than from the central, and normative, left point.

But during the last decade these opposites have sorted themselves out and divided across Europe, with a few exceptions such as the BNP. Which leaves us with a much easier landscape to operate in than ten years ago.

I meant for a long time to write a post about this circle model of the left/right. An important insight here is that the linear model is only interested in measuring the distance of a position from the normative left point. It's a leftist paradigm, there no symmetry between left and right in the model of thinking that we are so deeply indoctrinated with. The left position is always right, and the right position is always wrong. And this is the simple reason why the left always wins in the long run, and the right always backs off. This is also the background for my concept "the all-encompassing Left". The self-described right-wing completely share this world view with the left, and this is why they can never win. To be right-wing simply means having adapted the world view of the all-encompassing Left. It means being without the intellectual means to seriously oppose the left, and only left with the ability to temporarily resist the permanent radicalism of the current paradigm.

So leave the right-wing, it's the dhimmi position of the circle model; and right-wing never ever meant anything else. Come join the kafir-wing instead!
I will have to write more about the circle model of left/right and connect all the dots between this and phenomenon of the all-encompassing Left, and why the right-wing always loses.


Dymphna said...

I am having trouble with the metaphor of a circular arrangement to discuss political stances.

*If* I understand you correctly this could also be considered as a spectrum, as in a color line that ends where it began...

Thus, starting anywhere on the wheel of the color mnemonic (a mnemonic in English at least)in Roy. G. Biv you have --


or going the other way (and less euphonious in English) we can do
"VIBGYOR" -- sounds Russian to me:


In a real spectrum it is so hard to see where one part of it ends and the next color begins. They simply blend, but at some point there is distinct difference.

I may be off track here, but is that a way of explaining what you mean by the circle?

Dymphna said...

oh my gosh-- I just saw your "label": kafircon.

I'm stealing it!

nzconservative said...

I'm not particularly about Islam per se, it's been around over 1000 years. It isn't too much of a problem if contained in the Middle East.

I am however, very bothered about large numbers of low IQ, partially in-breed, hot-heads from the Middle East taking over the West.

Racist or realist?

nzconservative said...


that first sentence was supposed to read:

"I'm not particularly worried about Islam per se...".

geza1 said...

I'd say you are a realist NZCon. However, I would argue that a high IQ Muslim population would be an even larger threat. They would be able to use our media and laws against us even more effectively. 9/11 put the Muslim greivance theatre into overdrive. Aside from extra airport scrutiny, they were barely even noticed before then, yet now even countries with barely a 2% Muslim population are caving into their outrageous demands.

I would try to stay away from the "low IQ immigrants are the problem" argument because that opens the door to high IQ Third World immigrants which acts as a brain drain on their respective countries and disadvanges our high IQ citizens at the behest of the lowest corporate bidders.

Dymphna said...

Actuallu, it's the *high* IQ islamoterrorists who are the problem. Take those doctors in the bomb plot in London...(take them please).

And Mohammed Atta attended his engineering classes in Germany while plotting 9/11.

I can't find the reference now, but some psychologist interviewed a group of Al Q's and found them to be educated above the norm.

The dummies are still camel drivers back in the old countries. Just think, Europe has become the New World for millions.

nzconservative said...

"Actually, it's the *high* IQ islamoterrorists who are the problem. Take those doctors in the bomb plot in London...(take them please)."

Good point, in terms of actual terrorism, as opposed to the mob violence stuff going on in France, I would agree, you have to be smart to organise successful terrorist attacks.

On the IQ issue, I agree racial differences are more complex than just than one or two markers like IQ. "Economically or educationally competent" would probably be a better terms to use, as they don't make assumptions about the reasons behind the phenomena in question

Although economically successful immigrants are usually more law-abiding and can make positive contributions, I acknowledge that they can potentially use their economic/intellectual power against the interests of the host nation.

This is a massive issue, which doesn't get discussed much on immigration sites.

In terms of Arab immigration, I think that a lot of Middle Eastern people have very hot-headed temperaments, and it very hard to say whether this is caused by nature or nurture (possibly a combination of both) therefore it is best to air on the side of caution and restrict Muslim immigration.

I don't like to be over-critical of Islam, because I think it may actually serve a useful purpose in terms of providing social stability in overpopulated muslim countries.

If you have a unruly population to deal with then perhaps a "tough" religion like Islam helps with law and order and so on.

I also think that some right-liberals want to demonise Islam so as to justify later day liberal crusades, which will only bleed the West economically, and leave it more economically and politically dependent on China and India.

I am however, in agreement with right liberals in believing that Islam is not compatible with Western liberalism and christianity, since it doesn't acknowlege the division between church and state found in the West.

Hence, I tend to see Islam like an 'exotic pest' which is best kept in the environment from where it came, rather than demonised.