"Intellectual subtlety"

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...

America as the birthplace of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness

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.

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.

Read further...

Geza: "The Austerites value Christianity over Europe"

[This ended up as a rather long post. Make sure to read all of what I have written after Geza's comment.]

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.

Geza:

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.
(Read this and the several following comments to see what I mean by that.)

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:

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?

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.

In another exchange Roman from Poland says:

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?

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...

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.

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.

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!

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.


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 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.

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.


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.
Read further...