Well I haven't been posting much here, have I?
But since last time around I have been making some comments over at GoV and even more at Mangan's place. Today Dennis Mangan brought up one of my comments and made a blog post of it.
This month I have commented in several threads over at Mangan's: here, here, here, here and here.
I have written there about things that will interest anyone fond of following my blog.
[End of post] Read further...
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Well I haven't been posting much here, have I?
Thursday, October 01, 2009
By Conservative Swede At 01:25
Friday, September 04, 2009
Unlike the impression Lawrence Auster wants to give here, me and him were good friends and pretty close from the end of 2005 to the summer 2007. There were hundreds of emails going back and forth with very inspiring intellectual exchanges -- much of which was published at VFR, but even more wasn't, some of which was considered too hot. I teamed up with Auster, as I had done before with Ali Sina and later with Baron Bodissey, and I sometimes helped him with practical things and we even had projects together.
In 2006 I came up with the idea of writing a proper right-wing manifesto, as an answer to the leftist manifesto of the twelve against Islamism (with Bernard-Henri Levy etc.). This inspired Auster to write a new version of the manifesto. We worked together on this project for some time. I focused on rallying people as participants--since I had a better network of contacts and more time--with the purpose of creating a "new twelve". In the end the whole thing was a failure, and not even I and Auster could agree upon how the new manifesto should be written.
Also I helped Auster with practical things such as digitally recording a radio show, where he appeared, for him (posted here, search for "KFNX").
And when his site was taken down for period of time by his web hosting company, and he was put in a totally Kafkaesque situation without access to his articles and without knowing if he ever would get them back. He was nervous about the whole situation because he had forgotten to take backups for more than half a year. Then I helped him reconstruct his whole blog from the Google cache by writing a script. Well, actually I had to use a macro recorder since Google had blocked the possibility to automatically save web pages using a script. It was sort of a fun challenge, since at several points it looked impossible to achieve. And it was for a good cause. Auster was once again very grateful for my help, for having "magically" retrieved his whole website, as he put it. Which was a relief to him during the whole uncertainty about what was going to happen with the whole affair.
- - - - - - - - -
These are the sort of things I have been doing all along behind the scenes. There is a pattern of how I teamed up with more important bloggers, both for inspiring intellectual exchanges and for providing practical help for their activity.
In 2003-2004 I teamed up with Ali Sina and became his right hand, taking care of all practical aspects of running his website: technical issues, web marketing, forum moderation, the news section, etc. I set up a whole team of people helping me with this, with the purpose of eventually making myself dispensable.
The two years after Auster suddenly decided to end our friendship, I teamed up with Baron Bodissey instead. Once again, many emails back and forth with inspiring intellectual exchanges, projects being done together, and practical help being given.
There's much more to say about my friendship with Auster. But now he denies the whole thing. Given how he always treat people he suddenly decides to excommunicate (such as recently Dennis Mangan) I'm not surprised over the sort of things he throws in my direction. But I think that this time he takes the prize in the sort of blatant distortions he engages in. As usually he writes about how I turned against him (something I never did, he excommunicated me, I didn't have a say), but this time he says "The change apparently resulted from his shocking discovery that I am for traditional Christianity and against modern liberalism." Yes, he actually claims that I "turned against him" because he is against modern liberalism!!! That must me the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If anything, I'm even more against modern liberalism, in all its garbs, than he is.
And he even claims that I had spent more than one and a half year in following his blog and exchanging hundreds of emails with him, before I found out that he was for traditional Christianity!!! I have no idea what Auster thinks he's achieving with engaging in such outright and even silly lies, that are so easily disproved. As anyone can see from what he posted from our exchanges I was attracted to his site exactly because he was a traditionalist Christian. Back in 2005 I was a Christian civlizationist, so this was what I was searching for. And the rest of his post he goes on with these sort of lies and distortions. I dealt with some of it here. But as for the rest, I have already spent too much time for today on his nonsense, and I think most people know how much his smears are worth by now.
Anyway, this whole string of Austerisms started after my comments in a thread at Dennis Mangan's site. I have written six comments so far. The first on is here.
By Conservative Swede At 17:28
Thursday, August 20, 2009
I was just told over at Gates of Vienna "But teaching some intellectual subtlety is impossible, once we get an impatient student" -- the impatient students being me and Felicie. The intellectual subtlety, which came from Czechmade, was a two-step accusation against me and Felicie: i) you are racists, and ii) therefore you are like Muslims.
Gates of Vienna is an excellent place for the most essential discussions. But nevertheless there are quite a number of hopelessly liberal people -- deeply invested in all sorts of liberal myths, while clueless about our dire situation -- commenting there. In fact, many of the most talkative and frequent commenters at GoV are.
This is not the first time Czechmade got the PC rash. In fact, he's rather easy to trigger. Felicie and I were discussing the situation in Russia, and as part of that we discussed the relation (in numbers and otherwise) between white people (with whom we identify) and other ethnic minorities. This triggered a comment by Czechmade where he said to us "Your concept appears to be rather islamic - if you read this:" referring to an article with the title Hautfarbenrassismus – ein Import aus dem Islam (Skin-colour racism – an import from Islam). I.e. "our concept" being "skin-colour racism" (that's the first accusation) according to Czechmade, and by implication (and by the power of the provided link, as imagined by Czechmade) me and Felicie are acting in an Islamic way (that's the second accusation). So much for subtlety.
Once again we see someone identifying as a right-winger -- who is only animated by fighting leftists, collectivism etc. -- not being part of the solution to the problem, not even being aware of the problem, but being exactly part of the problem. In fact, among the so-called right-wingers we find the worst cases of universalist dreaming. If Marxism had been our biggest problem, then George Soros would have been our greatest friend, having been such a staunch anti-Marxist for decades. But it isn't. Our biggest problem is this right-wing universalist dreaming (all based in French Revolution ideals), which by being more accepted than opposed by the left, therefore beomes all-encopmassing in our societity's value system.
[End of post] Read further...
By Conservative Swede At 04:33
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I have touched upon this many times. An ongoing discussion over at Gates of Vienna inspired me to make a more complete and systematic argument. The subject of that discussion is slavery. It was pointed out how in America, unlike in many other places, the slaves were not castrated. To which I answered:
As Dymphna touched upon, the slaves in America were treated very humanely in comparison. A relation of caring and respect could often develop between the black slave and the white owner. But a modern Western European cannot allow himself to know that, he must see this slavery and all of its expressions as evil evil evil. And neither an American today either, at least not under the current Presidency.
By not castrating the slaves America today has got some 40 million descendants of these slaves living among them, as a people within the people, who forever hold a grudge against their former imprisoners, no matter how well they are treated or fawned upon. There are fundamental reasons of human psychology why it is so.
In addition this made America the international scapegoat of "evil" slavery. It's very simple: people associate slavery with America, since in America you can see loads of traces of slavery, such as 40 million black people (in essence every time we meet a black American we have the issue of slavery at the back of our head). Nobody thinks much of the slavery by Britain, France, etc. Or by the Arabs. Since there's nothing there to remind us. Btw Rocha, I think the blackness found in Yemen can be because of its climate zone, quite as for black people in southern India (look at your own map).
So this has been the reward for the kindness Americans shown to their slaves.
Certain things should be done properly, or not at all. E.g. going to war. Either one abstains from it or one does it properly in the responsible way. Doing it as a half-measure is the worst thing. Same with slavery, in my view. The half-measure has the worst consequences (as seen above). Treat them kindly by all means, but make sure to castrate them. Or better, have no slaves.
I think this is one more example of how this sort of goodness leads to not only wrong but potentially devastating results.
But it doesn't stop there. After the Civil War the Americans did not only free their slaves, but actually made them citizens!! (once again the modern men do not grasp the vast significance of this second step!). And that was the embryo of the first multicultural state. Multiculturalism and race-sensitive political correctness was being born, and in place early 20th century in America. And subsequently these ideals where spread / pushed upon Europe after WWII. The American race-mixed society became the ideal, and the Western European nations followed suit. And so we are where we are today.
Here are some evidence of the prevalence of PC + MC in America before 1945, while the opposite was in place in Europe:
1. Agatha Christie publishes a book called Ten Little Niggers in 1939 in Britain. It was immediately renamed And Then There Were None when released in the US in 1940. Such a über-sensitive politically correct "translation" of the title was not adapted in Great Britain until 1967, and in Sweden only in 2007.
2. See here a collection of reviews of Louis Armstrong's visit to Sweden in 1933. In all the news papers he was described as something monkey-like let loose from the jungle. All across the line! And this in the reviews by the most serious music critics. Hardly PC, nor MC.
3. The first expression in art of multiculturalism, that I know of, is from the American movie Birth of a Race from 1918. In the scene staring at 5:30 Jesus is speaking to all the races of the whole world. Watch it here! Check out the Chinese sitting there listening to Jesus, that's hilarious! And it's hard to blame the Frankfurt School for this one :-)
- - - - - - - - -
These are clear evidence of both PC and MC in America in the interwar period, while evidence of the opposite attitude in Europe in the same period. What does that suggest about the origin of MC + PC for the impartial observer? It is important to realize this, since most right-wingers see America as the one that could save us from the horrible evils of MC + PC. Which is unfortunately an upside down view. Which more and more right-wingers have woken up to with the ascendence of Obama.
It took the post-WWII anti-Nazification campaign and Adorno's "F-Factor" to wash out traditional European attitudes and install MC + PC in their place. As I have written elsewhere:
America is seen as right-wing in the current political theater, however historically America together with France has been the main force in pushing our civilization to the left.
After WWII European patriotism was seen as the root of the evil, which had to be held down. The only permitted patriotisms where American and Israeli. Britain and France got away with some, but after the Suez crisis in 1956 they were effectively out of the picture too. Now offensive military actions were only accepted from America and Israel.
In the 50s and the 60s America and Israel were celebrated as model countries of progressivism. European conservatism had been rooted out in the cultural revolution imposed upon America in Western Europe. Adorno's The F-Factor describes European conservatism as a psychological pathology related to fascism. But the Europeans learned fast. First they learned to follow the American example and see America as the model country. The Europeans could pick this up fast since the ideas were rooted in the Christian gospels. But soon they learned that America didn't live up to code of moral goodness that they had imposed on the Europeans. And left-wing anti-Americanism was born. And to be precise, even anti-Americans wasn't born in Europe but also imported from the US.
The problem for America was that in their quest to end all "evil" empires, they had effectively become the big empire themselves. E.g. inheriting the role of maintaining the Pax Britannica. Then they had to do all the sort of things they had taught the Europeans were wrong. The Europeans soon learned to beat the Americans in their own game, becoming the leading in progressivism and "holier than thou". And curiously enough, thus America ended up being seen as right-wing. The original right-wing had been rooted out in a collaboration between America and the European socialists in the wake of WWII.
The turning point came by the end of the 60s -- the Vietnam war and the Six-Days war. The image of America and Israel shifted, and they were no longer seen as the model countries of progressivism, but as "evil" right-wing countries. We should remember that our progressivist paradigm (which is always going left) is based on Christian ethics. And Christian ethics means the inversion of values. So it's the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil. In WWI and WWII America had defeated all the strong (and therefore evil) European empires. The job was completed in the Suez crisis in 1956 by turning against their former allies. But you can never win with Christian ethics, because now America became the strong one, and therefore the evil one.
So now American and Israeli patriotism becomes highly questioned and opposed. But not based on restoring any other patriotism, but by going even deeper into deranged progessivism. Thus, in effect, American and Israeli patriotism are still the only permitted patriotisms. Surely now the holiest priests of our leftist paradigm now condemn the actions of America and Israel. But in effect it is tolerated. While if any other (white) country acts militarily offensively it's seen as a major global crisis (e.g. Serbia, Russia).
I will conclude with something I wrote last year:
1918 and 1945 have been the recent paradigm shifts at civilizational level. The civil war for America. 1989 for Eastern Europe. 1968 was a minor transformation.Read further...
1918 and 1945 are better seen as two steps of the same shift, with 1945 as the concluding step, and therefore a more decisive change. In fact, the American civil war was a pre-step to all this, its resulting "patch" was made universal across the West from 1945.
The embryo of multiculturalism was dreamed up during the enlightenment, but was first institutionalized by the result of the American civil war.
As Diamed has written:
"If we had combined freeing the slaves with deporting them, they could hardly complain since they had never been citizens in the first place. Unfortunately Lincoln was assassinated, the plan was abandoned, and the window of opportunity vanished. Now blacks are equal citizens of the USA and, so long as the USA exists, it is as much black as it is white."
And multiculturalism was born, and out of its rib bone political correctness had to be created.
By Conservative Swede At 22:02
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Lawrence Auster has made this and this post in comment to my expositions in the famous long GoV thread. Here is Geza's reaction to those posts by Auster. My own comments follow below.
I grow tired of the paranoia over at VFR. According to Auster you are on the path towards Nazism! Well, to be more specific, M. Mason is saying that but Auster apparently agrees with him. After reading his post and comments, I now realize that European self-hatred cannot be blamed entirely on liberalism, it has deep roots within Christianity. Pre-Christian Europe is seen as something as evil, something of little to no value with pagan Germans obviously being the worst of the bunch because they are Germans of course. This is reminiscent of jahiliya in Islam but with a Christian traditionalist twist. To Auster, the original religion of the Germanic race, that foul cult that sees a cosmic significance of the Germanic people as opposed to the multiracial paradigm of Christianity, would have been better off if it never existed because according to Auster it is Christianity that defines us, all else is bunk. Auster used to make a big deal about how liberals would bemoan America's non-liberal (in their minds) past and indict pre-60's America as evil. Well, he is doing the same thing here, he is indicting pre-Christian Europe, and by extension, Europeans as evil. Europeans in his mind need Christianity in order to be not-evil and due to his Abrahamic bias, he might even prefer a Muslim future for Europe over an organic pagan one.Now I would like to spend some time with some of the comments Auster's peanut gallery have made concerning Germanic paganism."A person who truly embraces the old pagan Norse and Germanic gods and that cosmology is also going to gravitate toward some level of involvement in the pagan rites and practices associated with it, which includes occultism, spiritism and magic. Which isn't merely "weird" or "icky"--it's far worse than that. From an evangelical Christian perspective, it cannot be overly-stressed that any connection to this sort of thing is extraordinarily dangerous spiritually."This is rich coming from a fundie. Speaking in tongues, "miracle" healings, and exorcisms are somehow not considered magic because it's Christian magic and therefore good. Meanwhile, non-Christians, specifically Nordic pagans are somehow conjuring up demons and sacrificing little animals or something. M. Mason needs to drop the whole "evil magic" pretense because it is quite obvious that he would find define any pagan practice as evil due to his bias as an evangelical Christian."I would argue that the telos of such a revived, volkish ideology rooted in the old paganism and incarnated on a national level will be absolutely sinister. We've already seen how this plays out. It was early Romanticist interest in the Old North that gave rise to Germanic neo-paganism, mysticism and occultism in the 19th and early 20th centuries; other sects centered around Theosophy and Ariosophy also began to proliferate and these esoteric societies had a massive influence on Hitler and the theoreticians of National Socialism."Hitler was interested in a wide variety of non-Christian and non-Jewish traditions ranging from Hinduism to even, yes, Islam. His spiritual guru was a white woman who converted to Hinduism and saw him as the reincarnation of Vishnu. To say Germanic paganism is an important part of the "mystery" of why Germany went down the dark path of Nazism is ludicrous when its contribution to Nazi ideology was negligible at best."It's even more shocking when we consider that those Germans, taken as a whole, were very intelligent. Many of them were well-educated and well-versed in the arts and high culture; in fact, they seemed to typify just the sort of individuals that non-Christians could point to with pride and say: "See, we told you man was inherently good, and that, if you educated him, exposed him to the better things of life and gave him a philosophy of enlightened self-interest, he would naturally evolve and progress toward human perfection". They were very sure of themselves in that assessment. Over one hundred million casualties in two bloody world wars and the horrifying evidence of Belsen and Buchenwald proved otherwise."I particularly like how he begins with a compliment. Germans are intelligent... intelligent monsters! It is really difficult to determine what he sees as evil here, secularism or paganism. Well, I doubt that it matters, as long as Germans fail to become evangelical Christians, M. Mason will continue to see them as a fallen race."Paganism (in all its various manifestations) is now the fastest-growing religion in the Western world. The widespread embrace of an occult worldview has become an acceptable social position. Sometimes in the endless discussions at VFR about the all-pervasive liberalism, menacing Islam and the fringe (but very vocal) proponents of militant atheism it's easy to overlook this"It's easy to overlook because there is no pagan threat except in your fevered imagination and I find it particularly disgusting how you would equate Germanic paganism with the threat of Islam. One religion is foreign and will destroy Europe forever while the other will not.James P. wrote:"we should note that Christianity was once a central force in the defense of the West (along with the educational system and many other institutions that have been subverted) and even the "offense" of the West, i.e. spreading Western ideas throughout the world."Yes, Christianity once was a defender of the West, but those days are gone because once it left the confines of Europe, it ceased it be a European religion any longer. Spreading the gospel to the Third World did not help Europe, it castrated it and Europe became beholden to the world. This is now irreversible because as Conservative Swede has said, your Christian ethics demand you to love the Christian Nigerian, Christian Mexican, and Christian Indian as you would love your fellow Christian Americans. Since the Austerites have made it clear that they value Christianity over Europe and since there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christianity, then their racialist complaints about Nigerians, Mexican, Indians are irrelevant and I might even say evil. Their living standards will inevitably decline but that is okay because you can comfort them by telling them they are imitating Christ in their suffering. I'm sure that will make them happy.
I agree with much of what you say here, Geza. The sad thing with the discussion over at VFR is that it is entirely based on a distorted image of what I said, given by M. Mason, by use of snippet quotes out of context, and his consistently twisted characterization of what I said. There's too much twisting and distortion to bring it up all. But I will take up a few. The best way to get a fair idea of where I stand is to read the long thread at GoV.
My supposed denigration of Christianity
In his second post, Auster characterizes what I have written, by using M. Manson's words, "Conservative Swede called Christianity a silly 'myth' along with its ethics that you must let go of in order fully to embrace ConSwede's glorious 'New Paradigm.' "
First of all I'm not describing Christianity as a "silly myth". Unlike most people I take myths, and their importance for human societies, fully seriously, in fact my whole reasoning is based on that! To miss that is to miss entirely what I'm saying. Here is an example of how I see things:
- - - - - - - - -
The Western Christian civilization is what happened when Germanic people met Christianity. But nothing lasts forever. Quite as the Roman Empire it can be compared with a fruit, going through all the stages: bud, flower, incipient fruit, green fruit, ripe fruit, overripe fruit, rotten fruit. With this I'm saying: i) indeed Western Christian civilization has meant many good things, and ii) it's all over now.So what I'm saying is that Christianity has blossomed in Europe, and lead to many good things. But that those days are over. But even so I'm not the one throwing away hundreds of years of tradition, since I take our historical legacy seriously. Thus I persist that our Christian legacy should be treated with respect. E.g. here when my thoughts had been compared with Nietzsche's anti-Christian attitude:
(Read this and the several following comments to see what I mean by that.)
Mussolini was much wiser. He treated Christianity with respect. We cannot erase our history, we must treat our traditions with respect. In Sweden 90% of cultural history buildings are churches. Imagine a lunatic anti-Christian leader who would tear them down, what would be left of our historical memory?In another exchange Roman from Poland says:
I would use the churches for Pagan ceremonies. I understand that would not be considered respectful in the view of some Christians, but that problem is in their head.
Anyway, it is also imaginable that some hybrid crusader Christianity version arises, something like new Reconquista spirit burning in the hearts of Northern Avengers?My answer to this shows how I look widely for possible solutions. How I'm not against Christianity as such, it still serves the Russians well. It's the Christianity taken through the Enlightenment by the Germanics that I find problematic, which is today a rotten fruit:
Well, anything that solves the problem is fine. But after Western Christianity went through the Enlightenment etc. I cannot see this happening. Christianity cannot even affirm it's position within the Western societies, it effectively excuses for itself. How could it then be used to affirm anything externally?And regarding my supposed "glorious 'New Paradigm'". Anyone who reads what I have actually written knows that I see this whole thing as the greatest tragedy. There's nothing glorious about it. The Western Christian civilization (which I define as "Germanics meet Christianity") has reached the end of the road. The situation is most dire for the Germanic people. The only thing we can know for sure is that there will be a major catastrophe and trauma, and from this there will necessarily come a paradigm change. I'm merely speculating about what it could be. There's nothing glorious about it. In fact, most of our advanced industrialized society will fall at the same time. No one will perceive this as glorious. What I'm speaking of is the most fundamental matter of live or death for us as a people. This will become our focus once the Western Christian civilization has fallen.
However, in the case of Russia they do not have this problem. They can still use Christianity in this way.
Maybe we will all be taken over by the Russians, and remain Christians in that way? That's another thought...
So we need a functioning great mythological narrative to make things work for us. Is it really impossible to use Christianity? No, it's not. As I have already pointed out:
First of all, White Nationalism is a stance of people who feel victimized. And it's something white people would turn to while still inside the mental box of Christian ethics, and the weakness it implies. Also White Nationalism is more typical of Americans than Europeans, but that is another discussion.I.e. it still works for Russia. But for Germanic people it's way passed expiry time, for reasons I have expleined at lenght in the long thread. Western Christianity has turned into a rotten fruit. And there's no return after having let the genie out of the bottle.
White Nationalism is a weak concept for weak and defeated people. What we need is something strong. To find what that is we should look at Russia. Russia is a multiethnic country, but still entirely Russian. This since Russian culture is dominant, normative and nobody questions it, and it does not blink. Therefore the different peoples within Russia (and the old Russian empire) do not question this, not any more than most Westerners today question their quest for "universal goodness". As described at this site by e.g. Russkiy, Khazars, Tartars, etc. obey and submit to this. Even Muslims find it natural to convert to Christianity in this context.
That's the way!
The Nazi association
Indeed it is not only at VFR that the idea of Europeans returning to a European ethnocentric religion is associated with Nazism. This is an idea deeply rooted and animated by the post-WWII mythology, and thus ranging all the way from the left-wing and into VFR. But this view is upside down. Hitler was to Germany what Stalin was to Russia, both putting their horrific ideologies at the center, without any regard for their own people. Hitler essentially tried to conquer the whole world. He was not acting in the interest of the German people. Instead he destroyed for them at a pyramidal level. And that was not due to "bad luck". His actions were reckless by design. As I have written in the long thread:
I cannot help but thinking of Joseph Goebbels when I saw the Untergang. How he killed himself and his whole family, since without National Socialism there was no longer anything to live for. The fact that Germany and the German people (his own ethnic group!) were still around didn't mean a thing to Goebbels. In fact this was never important to the Nazis in the first place. Their adulation was for Hitler and National Socialism. Germany and the German people were just expendable tools for their ideological escapades, quite as Russia was for Stalin. There was no love or respect for their ethnic group.Something that strikes anyone watching the Triumph of the Will from 1934, is how the whole show is an idolization of Hitler and National Socialism, but not of Germany and German people. By the end of the movie we hear Rudolph Hess saying "Hitler is the Party, Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler". It cannot be put more clearly than that.
Any responsible leader, with the slightest shred of love for his own country and his own people, would have negotiated peace with the Russians in 1943 or at least in 1944. But Hitler had no such concerns. Even in 1945 when the Soviet tanks were just outside of Berlin, he was prepared to sacrifice millions of German lives in the name of his ideological quest. He didn't care the least if the result of his war meant to utterly destroy Germany and German people. And it did. Any responsible leader, with love for his country and people, would have made sure Germany had not been overrun by Soviet tanks, and their women raped. But Hitler didn't care for his country or his people. It was all about him and his National Socialism.
Had I lived in Germany in 1934, seeing where things were going, I would have felt the same sort of despair as I feel today. Due to where things were going (which could be clearly seen from the start), and the blindness of the people (combined with how they had been scared into silence). The reaction by the true German nationalists (as in loving their country and people) was to try and assassinate Hitler. There were 17 such attempts. Very much to our regret, these failed. And in today's situation there is not even such a simple solution in reach.
With the post-WWII mythology, everything that could be associated with Nazism was considered evil. In this way of thinking, European nationalism was the root of the problem. That's why any form of European ethnocentrism is considered evil. These myths are the root and the core of PC mythology. The demonization of the Germans is the blueprint for the demonization of European and white people in general. As I have written:
Funny thing. In the liberal mindset, the Muslims are seen as the first victims of Islam (for those liberals who's woken up about Islam). But the Germans are never seen as the first victims of National Socialism, even though the situations are exactly parallel. Instead ethnic Germans get demonized (and by extension all people of European descent).These Nazi associations are at the core of the PC mythology. All such Nazi associations has to be evaporated, like a Gordian Knot, before we can be free. This is the very hang-up that makes us all march into our living hell. Indeed there are even people who cling to neo-Nazism. They are of course the greatest losers (and not only for explicitly adhering to the big loser in WWII). However, the point is that they are animated by the very same post-WWII mythology of all the rest, i.e. that European ethnocentrism equals Nazism. It's only that they have opted for the "bad side" of the equation, which makes it even worse. This is not a matter of choosing sides, given the theater presented by the mythology. It's a matter of scattering this mythology into pieces. And as I said, this will only happen through a major trauma.
These sort of things are at the very fundament of the current paradigm. And it's not until these knots are untied that the paradigm can fall over. People think that they can get anywhere with combining an anti-Islam position with hate/despise/fear of Germans, in accordance with the great mythological narrative since WWII, that our current paradigm is built upon. They can't. By their hate/despise/fear of Germans their feet are still firmly stuck in the mud of the current paradigm. And furthermore, hate of Germans is the blueprint for hate of white people in general in this prevailing mythology. So by continuing to hate/despise/fear Germans, the Westerners continue to gravitate towards white guilt and self-hate. These myths strike people at the sub-conscious level, which makes them defenseless against this gravity. It's not until the Westerners thoroughly revise their view on WWII that a change of paradigms can take place. Another trauma is required for this to take place.
On race-based Christianity
I'm not fond of race-based identity. In fact it's a trap that could even lead us into the arms of Islam (cf. also Hitler). As I write in my exchange with Takuan Seiyo:
Some race-obsessed people (and often antisemitic) think that we should adapt a narrative about the Arabs instead of the Jews, i.e. Islam. In their view this would boost the white race, with breeding and fighting spirit. However, what would be the point of the survival of the white race if it has lost its soul? Race isolated is completely uninteresting in my view. To me it's all about ethnicity (of which race is integral, of course). Islam is a peg that would effectively erase our ethnicity, and make us into pseudo-Arabs. Compare with Christianity, which indeed makes our ethnicity unimportant, but does not erase it for us.In the long thread, Baron Bodissey wrote one of the most important things:
Part of the modern Liberal ideal is the foolish notion that we can simply abolish by fiat millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition.I.e. life as we know it is based on millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. But not only the liberals, but also many anti-liberals, who see the fall of the current world order, and fear that it will be the end of all, have forgotten that these things cannot be erased. Neither the rise nor the fall of liberalism can take away millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. It can only happen if we literally perish as a people (and how to avoid that is very point, the only point, that I tried to address in the long thread).
Especially in America, where the ethnic experience is weak, different sorts of ideologal positions based on white race are common as opposition to the current order (while ethnic identification is the common thing in Europe). Race takes the millions of years of evolution in account, but might miss the thousands of years of culture and centuries of tradition, so we find White Nationalists falling into neo-Nazism, and even, in some extreme cases, Islam.
VFR is promoting a race-based Christianity, and thereby takes the centuries of tradition in account. But by rejecting our traditional Pagan religion and customs, much of thousands of years of culture is also rejected. And we get a big hole in our existential pyramid, as described by Baron Bodissey. As I have already described, the Western Christian civilization has respected most of our thousands of years of culture. But a race-based Christianity, so hostile against our traditional Pagan religion and customs, is a bigger threat to these thousands of years of culture. It becomes hostile to a vital part of our identity.
By Conservative Swede At 13:47
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
It's been a while. Recently I got inspired in a discussion thread of Gates of Vienna, and I managed to write about most of the thoughts that that are currently on my mind in that thread. Here it is: Reversal is Possible
There are currently 165 comments in the thread. I have probably written a third of it. This thread is highly recommended for those interested in my ideas. There are so many things that I intended to write during the last six months, that I finally wrote about there.
Today Baron Bodissey posted a new article, Hellish Saviours, inspired by my ideas from the other thread. The discussion is now continuing there.
[End of post] Read further...
By Conservative Swede At 23:14
Friday, July 10, 2009
Will New York commemorate Sept. 11 as an Islamic celebration day? Well, the New York City Council just passed a resolution which leads to this, pressed by CAIR. All but one voted in favour of it.
Stupidity meets dhimmitude in a way that makes the UK and Sweden look almost sane. The UK used to have the world record in perverted and deranged self-degradation, but this reaches truly coprophilic levels:
NYC forced to honor Islam on Sept. 11?
Can you imagine what NYC will look like next year while celebrating Sept. 11 as an Islamic holiday?
I congratulate the New Yorkers since I'm sure it will make them feel like the exemplary specimens of patented goodness, and cleanse them of their distressful guilt feelings for having provoked 911 and their sin of evil thoughts about the ones who actually did it. Such a perfect gesture in tribute of multiculturalism!
Hat tip: Every Kinda People
[End of post] Read further...
By Conservative Swede At 00:28
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
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.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:
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).
- - - - - - - - -
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.
By Conservative Swede At 21:20
Saturday, June 13, 2009
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:
- Takuan Seiyo sounds like Takuan Seiyo
- Takuan Seiyo thinks that people that sound like Takuan Seiyo reminds him of Kevin MacDonald.
[End of post]Read further...
By Conservative Swede At 11:26
Saturday, June 06, 2009
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.
By Conservative Swede At 14:34
Monday, June 01, 2009
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.Read further...
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.
By Conservative Swede At 22:41
Sunday, May 31, 2009
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.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.
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.
By Conservative Swede At 19:18
Monday, May 25, 2009
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...
By Conservative Swede At 22:29
The healthy moral outrage continues in Luton! 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.
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 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...
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.
By Conservative Swede At 08:26
Sunday, May 24, 2009
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.
[End of post] Read further...
By Conservative Swede At 14:11
Saturday, May 23, 2009
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.
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: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.
He has quite a few other good articles that go into depth on how and
- His predictions in Dec 2007, so you can judge his accuracy.
- His predictions in Dec 2008 for this year.
- Some more predictions.
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
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!
By Conservative Swede At 10:25
Friday, May 22, 2009
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...
By Conservative Swede At 20:01
swede:So the discussion continues, and here's my reply:
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.
El Ingles,Read further...
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.
By Conservative Swede At 15:37
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.
By Conservative Swede At 12:13