Conservative Swede

Nazification Spells and Philosemitic Assurance: The EDL Case and Theory

2011-07-02T23:36:00.008Z

The English Defence League (EDL) constantly has to defend itself against being smeared with the Nazi card. Their defence against a recent intense round of Nazification spells – written by their leader Tommy Robinson, posted at JihadWatch – sheds some insight of how one must do to protect oneself, as far as possible, from such charges. The remarkable thing with the text is that it is 100% about Israel and Jewish people. Actually not a single word about defending England against Islamization, or in any other way. So this is apparently the way to convince the world that the EDL is a valid and legitimate organization. When EDL has to defend its raison d’être in sharp mode, the text is 100% about Israel and Jewish people. I’m using that text here for my analysis, since it is the clearest case of a common phenomenon. One that we also see for example with Geert Wilders, and politicians of his kind, in how strongly he expresses his pro-Israel stance etc.

I have nothing against Wilder’s and EDL’s expressions of strong support for Israel and Jewish people. I express the same support, by supporting Israel’s right to exist, etc. But the amount of emphasis on this can be rather different. E.g. supporting the right of Israel to exist does not necessarily imply sending a lot of state money there, etc. And it is possible to support Israel without supporting it more than Russia and China, or your own country... I see quite some people on the Internet who display extremely strong allergic reactions to any kind of expression of support for Israel. From their point of view, apparently, they seem to have heard this too many times, ad nauseam and with too much emphasis. And for too many of them, it has bent them out of shape; eventually rendering them with an oversensitive allergic reaction to any expression of support for Israel.

However, I do not have such a problem. I can fully see the point of the rather extreme emphasis put on support for Israel and Jewish people expressed by e.g. EDL and Geert Wilders. They need it as a magic shield to protect them against evil spells. For strategic reasons it is impossible for them to work in any other way than how they do it today. So I support their strategy, but it is also interesting to observe and reflect upon the mental landscape that we reside in, that makes this strategy the only viable one today (actually we’d need to dig deeper into the core mythological narratives that drives us, to fully understand this). The following analysis came to me naturally after following the many aspects of the recent affair with the EDL, its Jewish Division, Charles Johnson and Geller/Spencer.

Maxim #1:
Any white right-wing group critical of MC/PC/Immigration/Islam must protect itself from Nazi charges by putting the support of Israel and the Jewish people among its top objectives.

- - - - - - - - -

Additional observations:

This is not at all necessary for leftist groups or groups of non-white races.
This is an incantation which creates a magic protective shield against hostile Nazification spells.
It is a very powerful incantation, but no magic shield is 100% bombproof. As in any magic, in the end it all depends on the relative magic powers of the combatants. So if the magic power of your adversary is great, he/she will break through your shield and cause you severe damage, nevertheless.
Therefore it becomes indispensable to take every possible precaution to strengthen the power of the incantation. The first and obvious way to do this is to repeat the incantation over and over. Especially if a hostile Nazification spell has just been cast against your group, you’ll need to do nothing else but repeating the incantation, until the storm is over.
It is essential that you do not put any other objective of your group higher than the support for Israel and the Jewish people – such as the interests of your own group or the struggle against Islam – because that is a sure way of rendering the protective shield too weak. To be on the safe side, make sure that the support for Israel and the Jewish people, at every time, is 50% or more of your stated objective.
Moreover, the incantation is probably useless if you do not have Jews within your group. The Jews within your group generate the magic energy without which your magic protective shield will not raise. If the Jews would leave you, the magic shield is bound to plummet like a failed soufflé.
Let us name this incantation the Philosemitic Assurance.

Corollary #1:
A non-Nazi white right-wing group (critical of MC/PC/Immigration/Islam) which hasn’t pledged allegiance to Israel and hasn’t Jews in their ranks, etc. – i.e. hasn’t incanted the Philosemitic Assurance – has zero magical protection against Nazification spells. This is the kind of group most easily defeated in magic combat.

The result of the Nazification spells is that the group will appear as Nazis to everyone, by the smearing of a Nazi aura upon them.
It doesn’t matter what their opinions are – specifically it does not matter at all how friendly they are towards Jews. Their failure to invoke Philosemitic Assurance incantations, together with the fact that they are white and right-wing, will render them Nazis in everybody’s eyes.
By disregarding the pivotal role of magic in this world, this becomes the most instable of all the positions. It is actually more radioactive then being an real Nazi, since the rate of radioactive decay here is the fastest of all. It is possible to uphold it by pure will-power for a limited time, but eventually the group will succumb to any of the two extreme points. It’s a sort of in-the-middle anomaly that our world of magic abhors.
Being an actual Nazi is of course the other way of protecting oneself against hostile Nazification spells. To cast such a spell on a Nazi type is of course as pointless as casting a spell to transform a frog into a frog. So being any form of Nazi (neo-Nazi, Nazi-wannabe, Nazi troll, Nazi-Clown, etc.) is the other form of protection against Nazification spells – if Philosemitic Assurance hasn’t been applied. However, for the groups described in this section there is no magic protection whatsoever.

Corollary #2:
To the degree that a non-Nazi white right-wing group (critical of MC/PC/Immigration/Islam) hasn’t been able to protect itself sufficiently using Philosemitic Assurance incantations, then by means of being successfully bombarded by Nazification spells (which makes them appear as Nazis to any onlooker) the group’s attraction on real Nazi types will increase proportionally with this; not seldom to overwhelming proportions.

By their respecting the reality of magic, the power of these invading Nazi types will be stronger than that of the group in question. Thus, if the protective shield is low, the Nazi types are likely to break through it. Thereby actually making the Nazification spell self-fulfilling. And herein lies one of the reasons why Nazification spells are so effective: by having this second-wave effect, which can continue even after the power of the actual spell has waded off. So there are two steps to a fully successful Nazification spell bombardment: 1) making them look like Nazis, and 2) making them gradually become Nazi types. The second step will either be due to invading Nazi types, or due to the recipient of the spell deciding to make use of a magic protection against Nazification spells. Which means either becoming a Nazi type (which makes the spell self-fulfilling and permanent) or by setting up an effective Philosemitic Assurance shield (which will make the caster of the spell equally satisfied).
A group without any Philosemitic Assurance (as in corollary #1) normally does not stand a chance in this. While a group applying it, even with all the sorts of precautions taken (as described under maxim #1), can still undergo a veritable storm of Nazification spells and formidable weakening of the protective shield – especially when the spells are cast by powerful magicians – and the Nazi types will immediately crowd around this group, feeling the smell of magic weakness, looking to parasitize on it. This symbiosis between the casters of the Nazification spells and the Nazi types is not surprising, since they gain their powers from the same branch of magic.

It is because of these rules of magic that we have this strong gravity, virtually irresistible, from two endpoints. As if we were in a dual system of two black holes – the Abe Foxman and the David Duke sides – where eventually people will be sucked into any of them, devouring their souls and everything becomes darkness. The people who haven’t yet been sucked into any of the two black holes are clinging to the bulwarks with white knuckles – so strong is the storm of the power of magic. It’s like in my other analogy, with the trench war of the WWI. Try to place yourself in the middle of the two lines of trenches, in the field. You will be introduced to the complete meaning of the word crossfire. Both sides will consider you an extremist, and fair game, simply for attempting to take a middle position of moderation.

I hate blogging. That’s why I haven’t been doing it much the last two years. But if you encourage me, I should continue this theme that I started here by:

Applying the theory described here to more real world examples
Describe more closely the varieties of Nazi types
Describe further how this makes any independently thinking person end up between a rock and a hard place (it’s hard not to be at any of the end points)
How I thought at times that I had seen some light regarding all this – but how I was wrong
And eventually, showing after all how there is reason for optimism in the longer run.

I have described here the rules of magic, in present time. Use them for your own protection, but use them wisely. Excessive use will screw your mind. Compare it to the use of a hard drug. The obvious advantage is that the application of magic will take you to any of the two endpoints, and you will be in a warm and cozy place in a circle of friends. And since the worst thing for a social ape, such as the human, is to end up alone, this becomes the preference of most people. But it screws your mind. So I’d like to warn against excessive use of magic. Use it, but use it in moderation.

----------

Finally, I'd like to add how I have supported EDL from the very beginning as can be seen from these blog posts from two years ago:

Luton: Morality reemerging in the West
More videos from Luton

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

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

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

Joe Bloggs on the EDL Jewish Division affair

2011-07-02T18:13:00.006Z

Dymphna just closed the comments to the post An Open Letter to Pamela Geller and deleted some of the comments (relating to Jews). And while I have recently expressed strong sympathy for the idea of staving off discussions in this way, before they go out of bounds, I found that some of those deleted comments were worth saving. Here follows the comment by Joe Bloggs. He was the one setting up the Jewish Division of EDL: "...JewishEDL set up by the wondrous Joe Bloggs who set up the LGBT EDL." His GoV comment appears authentic to me, and in accord with what he is writing in the EDL forum, so I post it here:

Joe Bloggs said...

I will show you how unreasonable some of the people involved in this have been.

A non-jew, I met several jews on EDL demos, and on talking to them realised that they had been fighting islamisation in ones and twos for up to 7 years (and in my opinion, getting nowhere). They were angry about a specific event, and I suggested to them that if they joined EDL and headed up a jewish division they would have a far more effective platform to crush that event (the event was crushed), And their Division would serve to flush out any hidden Nazis in EDL (the rump neo-nazis groups have been circling EDL from the beginning and have been rebuffed with extreme violence from EDL, but that didn't mean there were not some inside pretending to be borderline moderate). EDL hierarchy welcomed the creation of the Jewish Division, and whilst I was sharing some admin functions at the start, within weeks the Division was run only by jews.

Over the following 12 months I have had an unimpeachable record in supporting jews, Israel and that Division (I'm proud to have become a believer in zionism.) However, upon the resignation of Roberta Moore, one of the remaining admins of the Jewish Division denounced me as a "retarded, dhimmi, kapo, Nazi turd". It is that type of insane response that leads others to be hostile to the Jewish Division. And if Pamela Geller was getting her information from someone with such a distorted grasp on reality, then no wonder Geller has been misled. On an individual level, there are different opinions about Israel, and that issue divides our conventional parties, student politics, and even friends. Yet one cannot name someone "Nazi" just because they disagree with one about the morality of some Israeli actions. Even worse, in the context of an organisation that must constantly be on the lookout for infiltration by undesirables, spraying the term "Nazi" around permits any real Nazis (should they be there) to conceal themselves amongst all the innocent people wrongly being called Nazi.. There may be no Nazis in EDL, but there are undoubtedly government agents who are planted in such organisations to manipulate, spy and disrupt. As in such stories (google '"Mark Kennedy" police'), these agents go undercover for up to a decade (maybe longer). No matter if an apparent Nazi is genuine or a government destablising agent, calling all those you disagree with "Nazi", just provides cover and makes the leadership's job harder.

It is quite clear that the EDL leadership take steps (often unannounced) to render powerless those who they suspect of being against the mission statement - 6 months ago it looked like some dodgy people (not conclusively Nazi) were attempting disloyal activities against Tommy - they were neutralised (they weren't killed, but their power was greatly diminished).

The job of rooting out enemies. is made harder the more such terms are bandied about in a totally unfounded manner. Pamela Geller served nobody but the Nazis (real or government) by making her unfounded claims. Whoever fed Geller those claims must admit fault and recognise the stupidity of providing cover for any real Nazis, or should simply leave the EDL, since that person has no confidence in the leadership's abilities and sincerity.

Geller should admit that her actions were wrong, and that she has simply invited Nazis to join EDL, and have made the EDL's job of neutralising such enemies more difficult. No-one gained from Geller's actions except her enemies and ours.

7/02/2011 3:34 AM

The admin of the Jewish Division mentioned by Joe Bloggs is Robert Bartholomeus. Also Armance had a comment on him and other aspects of the affair (before it was deleted):

- - - - - - - - -

What's interesting regarding the resemblance between EDL and the Tea Party is not only their grassroot movement traits, but also the fact that, it seems, their leaders' and members' main fear consists in being called "racists" or "fascists". Thus, when they have minority members they pamper and spoil them to no end, always ready to meet their demands, to the point of endangering the very premises on which the organization was founded. As far as I understand, Roberta Moore and a few others were basically like Herman Cain in the Tea Party: she was listened to with religiosity and fear and paraded around as a trophy member, no matter how adsurd her stances were (well, unlike the Tea Party, some people couldn't stand it anymore).

But an organization based on the fear of being called names will implode at some point, or it will be transformed into something unrecognizable. The Tea Party is on the point of becoming the popular branch of Neocon Central or the WASP worshippers of MLK, and EDL has just avoided, after many hardships, the fate of being transformed into the English division of Kahanism (I don't know for how long).

The funny thing is that probably the "robertamoores" share the same contempt for the British "hooligans" (the basis of EDL) as the British liberal upper class: they've just believed that the "drunk idiots" (as an angry pro-Jewish Division poster called them these days on Atlas Shrugs - finally, he admitted what he thought about his colleagues in all these years) would be easy to manipulate. But the "drunk idiots" proved to be a nut harder to crack than initially believed. Their common-sense was underestimated and they refused to let their organization to be transformed into something unrecognizable. That's where the "neo-fascists, anti-Semites" atlashrug-ish outburst came from. Basically, it can be translated as "Stay in line, drunk idiots! What, do you dare to THINK? You were supposed just to go in the streets, there are others who can think for you".

Here is where Robert Bartholomeus talks about "drunk idiots". And in the EDL forum he said to a female EDL member: "I hope a muslim rapes you", among other things.

Some of my #1 rankings at Google

2011-06-30T10:12:00.003Z

The most common Google searches taking people to my blog are of course conservative swede and conswede. And I'm hit #1 at Google for those.

But this week it was called to my attention that – interestingly enough – I'm #1 also for the following searches:

pearly boys and islam – taking you to Islam—perverted parasitical psychopathy
perverted islam – same as above
Gudrun Schyman peed – taking you to Part 5: Sweden and Denmark, closed and open systems

Other ways in which people came here was by searching for certain people. During the years these have been the main entry points; in descending order:

jim kalb
takuan seiyo
traian ungureanu
caroline flint cleavage
tina hallgren bengtsson
lars vilks

A bubbler name is Ferdinand Bardamu, which renders a #7 Google ranking to my blog. And furthermore, many people came here by searching for catholic birth rates.

[End of post]

I'm a vicious antisemite!

2011-06-22T23:50:00.021Z

I'd like to nuance a generalization made by Ferdinand Bardamu, quoted in my previous post. Because not all antisemites are nutty conspiracy mongers. Bardamu mentions Dennis Mangan as a sensible guy, who's not at all a moron such as e.g. Richard Hoste. And I agree with this. He also brings up how balanced people, such as Mangan, gets unfairly accused of being anitsemites, and provides a link to how Mangan complains about that.. Mangan has complained fairly often about this at his blog. He thinks it is a wretched thing to falsely accuse someone of being an antisemite (at least when it concerns himself).

To nuance it even more: not all antisemites are vicious. Let's say for example that Dennis Mangan (who's got good credentials from e.g. Bardamu) says that Kevin MacDonald is not of the vicious kind, but that e.g. Conservative Swede is a vicious antisemite -- well, then that's probably true. Just as an example! I'm just trying to show here how we can actually use this more nuanced language in practice. So it's possible to be either a nutty antisemite or a vicious one; or just an ordinary gray mouse antisemite. And even one that is both nutty and vicious (oof!).

Anyway, two beautiful Romanian girls are currently criticizing the proposition-nation concept of citizenship in another thread of this blog. I have often myself argued for that the traditional pre-French-Revolution concept of citizenship is the only viable one. I.e. no special rights at group level for any ethnic minority group, i.e. no mass citizenship granting at group level, giving them access to influencing the political affairs. Anyone who wants to struggle his way into the political rights of a new country will have to do it as an individual, the old-fashioned long and winding way. The point here is that all ethnic minority groups should be treated equally, fairly and squarely. Still, for some reason, I always have to point out that the Jews should NOT be an exception to the rule here (and this for a whole number of reasons: among them mercy for the future plight of the Jews; it's a way of taking them out of the heat. Ferdinand Bardamu has described well the background reasons for this).

Well it's funny how life is full of coincidences, because exactly in that thread at Mangan's (linked by Bardamu) the same two girls and me were discussing the traditional concept of citizenship. The discussion spilled over into the next thread, and there I also took the opportunity to criticize Kevin MacDonald. Dennis Mangan answered me as follows:

Con Swede, after criticizing MacDonald for supposedly saying that "the Jews did it", wants to strip Jews of their citizenship. That's arguably far more anti-Semitic than anything MacDonald has *ever* written.

Oops, I must really be a very bad person then. If Dennis Mangan says it, it's probably so. Bardamu lifts up Dennis Mangan (together with for example Pat Hannagan!!) as one of the sane and balanced ones in the Alt-Right/WN crowd.

And I like the logic of Mangan's reasoning: If no ethnic minority group is going to have special political rights attributed to them at group level, then the Jews won't have it either, therefore it is antisemitic!

What makes Mangan's rating of my degree of antisemitism especially credible, is how strongly he dislikes false accusations of antisemitism (at least there is evidence that he does so, when it's directed at himself). So I must be a vicious antisemite then (I'm still desperately clinging to the word "arguably" here...)

Anyway, I found this funny fellow who is video-blogging, and who also seems balanced and reasoned. He's called Ramzpaul, and one of his vlogs relates to what I'm discussing here. It's called Is Ron Paul a Vicious Anti-Semite?:

This case is parallel to my own. Ron Paul suggested that the USA should withdraw foreign aid from all countries. But that would imply that the aid is withdrawn from Israel, therefore the suggestion is antisemitic! (this time this razor sharp kind of argument was used by David Horowitz).

Furthermore, Ron Paul is a vicious antisemite (once again credit to Horowitz). As Ramzpaul points out: "coz some antisemites can be not vicious". So that's just like me again. Given that Kevin MacDonald is of the "not vicious" kind, and I'm "far more anti-Semitic" than KMac (as Mangan suggests), then I must be at least as vicious an antisemite as Ron Paul.

Pay attention to the phone call made by Ramzpaul by the end of the clip, where he -- by using Horowitz/Mangan style reasoning -- uncovers covert antisemitism in his own life. Such as at this store, that does not allow Jews entering after 10 p.m.

[End of post]

Ferdinand Bardamu on the foolishness of anti-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism

2011-06-22T19:53:00.003Z

Here is some more from Ferdinand Bardamu . Over at In Mala Fide he wrote last year both about the moronic nature of anti-Semitism as well as the intolerant, inquisition-like nature of anti-anti-Semitism. I find Bardamu's remarks of interest since he's clearly on the outside of both these camps. The words and opinions are his -- I think he takes some of his generalizations too far -- but I'm providing them here to give us all perspective. Because he writes well, does not shy away from saying what many will hate him for saying, and since he's made several pertinent observations regarding this whole soap opera (pertinent = observations I have also made myself).

Regarding anti-Semitism Bardamu starts with saying:

Alone among prejudices, anti-Semitism makes total and complete morons out of its adherents. With the notable exceptions of Hunter Wallace and the crew at Occidental Dissent, just about every anti-Semite I’ve read on the Internet is two whips short of a BDSM kit. I think the hysterical, fact-free nature of anti-Semitism is part of the problem. People who hate or distrust blacks/NAMs at least have the facts on their side – Jew-haters have to make stuff up about conspiracies to take control of the world and deracinate white people in order to justify their paranoia. When someone comes along to debunk their idiocy with cold, hard facts, they attack them in the most insane ways possible. This is why I don’t bother arguing about the Jews with anti-Semites – it’s as productive as arguing with Truthers about 9/11.

He then continues to go on at length about Richard Hoste. And there is indeed plenty to be said about the spectacular stupidity of this man. I have probably never encountered anyone as unbelievably moronic as Richard Hoste. There's enough material for a whole seminar about him.

Bardamu continues:

- - - - - - - - -

This allows me to segue into another thing that blasts anti-Semites’ credibility into pieces – their inability to be intellectually consistent when it comes to the Jews. Let’s take the question of Israel as an example. Just about every paleocon Jew-baiter loves to kvetch about how those evil Israelis are war criminals and how they’re violating the human rights of the Palestinians. It’s quite amusing to see the likes of Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos, who couldn’t give a shit about the human rights of any other group of darkies on the earth, turn into weepy, bleeding heart liberals when it comes to the Palestinians. I could understand it if the Palestinians were of European extraction, but so far as I can tell, they basically look like garden variety Arabs. From the perspective of a racist, the Palestinians are just another group of sand-niggers, so why do they get so much love from the Jew-haters? Answer: these sand-niggers are a stick with which the anti-Semites can beat the Jews. The Undiscovered Jew brought this issue up at Half Sigma’s recently.

Here is an example he provides of the kind of moronic conspiracy theories that could come out of the Jew obsessed mind:

I don’t want to beat up on [Occidental Dissent] too much, because the bloggers there are smart, rational people (save for that insufferable mangina Matt Parrott/Wikitopian), but their commentariat is batshit insane. Those idiots think that ~~Roissy~~ Chateau is a Jew, Mystery is a Jew, and game is a Jewish strategy to destroy the white race, among other things.

He concludes by saying:

I could go on and on, but you get the point. I find it increasingly difficult to take anti-Semites seriously. While I acknowledge that some Jews have had a deleterious influence on Western culture and society (most notably when it comes to feminism), the idea that the whole of Judaism is united to get whitey is just fucking ludicrous. If the race realists, white nationalists, and other related groups want to gain any political traction, they need to read the crazier Jew-haters out of their ranks. Affiliate yourself with dummies and people will think you’re one too.

Well of course, to Bardamu feminism is what is considered the problem of the highest concern :-)

After this lambasting of anti-Semtism some people expected Bardamu to join the anti-anti-Semitism camp. But nope, not Ferdinand Bardamu. Instead he wrote an article lambasting anti-anti-Semitism:

... I think anti-anti-Semitic hysteria is a growing melanoma on the American body politic. While I’m not fond of the conspiracy-mongering on the anti-Semitic right, I’m not stupid – a group of basement-dwelling losers having a circle jerk on a blog aren’t a threat to anyone but themselves. Jim Giles will not be spearheading the rise of the Fourth Reich from his trailer out in the ass-end of Mississippi. Those lunatics are marginalized and have no influence beyond their social circles, which are only populated with people as crazy as they are. The biggest problem with anti-Semitism of that variety right now is that it threatens to clip the wings of the alternative right.

Anti-anti-Semites on both the left and right, on the other hand, are very powerful and very committed to shouting and shutting down anyone who has a less-than-hagiographic view of the Jews. Anti-anti-Semitism is bolstered beyond the usual minority-loving anti-racist whinging by the semi-unique instance of the Holocaust. Liberals and neocons have spent the past sixty plus years constantly picking at that Holocaust wound in one of the biggest and most ignored examples of scar worship in Western society. The Holocaust cult is so powerful that an entire European nation isÂ forced to self-flagellate constantly for a crime that the majority of its inhabitants had no role in. And anyone who questions the influence Jews have on modern society gets a roundhouse kick in the face from the Foxman-Schlussel-Victimologist crowd: “OMIGOD YOU FILTHY NEO-NAZI SCUM YOU WANT TO STUFF JEWS IN OVENS YOU AWFUL PERSON YOU!”

[...]

... so long as the Jews remain visible minorities in gentile societies, anti-Semitism will persist. It will fluctuate in intensity, but it will never go away. If the anti-anti-Semites really wanted to accomplish their goal, they’d launch a campaign to get every Jew outside of the Holy Land to make aliyah, combined with a political push to get the U.S. government out of Israeli affairs.

The biggest sin of the anti-anti-Semitic crusaders is their insistence on painting all gentiles with the same broad brush. Their worldview is as Manichean as it gets, and doesn’t account for the differing treatments of Jews in various countries and regions of the world. On one end of the spectrum you have Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. [...] On the extreme other end is the U.S., the most philo-Semitic nation that doesn’t have a Star of David in its flag. [...] The anti-anti-Semites don’t care about any of this historical nuance, though – to them, Americans, like all other goyim, are two steps away from arbeit macht frei.

This intolerant, inquisition-like treatment of anyone who criticizes the Jews is problematic because it turns ordinary people into frothing-at-the-mouth Jew-haters over time.

At this point Bardamu mentions the example of Kevin MacDonald, and how Robert Lindsay wrote:
"My theory is that the increasingly vicious and malign Jewish attacks on MacDonald (almost completely specious on intellectual grounds) gradually drove him to anti-Semitism. This is how it works so many times. People start criticizing the Jews. The Jews will brook no criticism not of their own, and since the Holocaust, anyone who says boo about them obviously wants to kill em all, right?"

Bardamu concludes by saying:

As of right now, the anti-anti-Semites are in the seat of power. The marriage of left-wing multiculturalism and Holocaust worship ensure that anyone with an opinion of the Jews that isn’t Abe Foxman-approved will spend the rest of their lives in the shadows. [...] If Kristallnacht comes to America, the Jewish elite will have only themselves to blame for behaving like inquisitors burning heretics at the stake. As I have said before, I write this not to threaten but to warn. (And I bet that despite writing all that, I’ll get some assclown accusing me of being a Nazi within the first hundred comments on this post. Bring on the hate, bitches. I’m ready.)

In a final note he says that he will review Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique. But I have never seen him do that. Was this potato too hot even for Ferdinand Bardamu to deal with?

Ferdinand Bardamu: "White people are their own worst enemy"

2011-06-22T00:46:00.007Z

Quick recapitulation:
1) Fjordman wrote a highly interesting article about the Proposition Nation, and how this made treason against ourselves the norm among white people. Putting his blow torch under the asses of USA, France and the Enlightenment.
2) Señor NaziUniform enters the room claiming that we should instead put blame on the goblins. (The thing is that Señor NaziUniform will always bring up the goblins in every discussion even if the topic had been Medieval Celtic beer production. And he will always blame any problems on the goblins. He is constitutionally unable to talk about anything else.)
3) The minds of the other people there went into red alert mode (as it always does whenever goblins are brought up) and they were unable to focus on the discussion that Fjordman had intended. The room becomes a pandemonium of heated arguments about how many problems that are due to goblins, while others claim that goblins do not exist (at least not as a group, at least not if you say something negative about them as a group). Next someone calls out that there are actually goblins present in the room, and the goblin says that this is a goblin room, and someone else says that we should always stand by World of Warcraft, etc. No one manages to focus on Fjordman's article, or on America, France or the Enlightenment.

This is what happened so far... except that it wasn't about goblins. It was about... this other ethnic group... the Finns?

Naturally, Fjordman was disappointed, and he wrote as follows:

It is an objective fact that the Idea Nation or Proposition Nation as a concept is a child of the Western Enlightenment and has been disproportionately spread by the USA and France in particular. That was the subject of my original essay. I have gradually come to realize that some of the crucial problems the West suffers from today can probably be traced back to the Enlightenment era. It is an objective fact that the direct intellectual input of Jews when it comes to shaping Enlightenment thought, with the possible exception of Spinoza, was tiny.

The Enlightenment was a creation of Europeans, and if we suffer from its effects today this is largely our own fault. We shouldn’t blame others for it, be that the Chinese, the Muslims or the Jews.

Well, no surprises there for anyone who knows history. No goblins behind the birth of the Proposition Nation. And this is all in line with what Ferdinand Bardamu wrote a year ago in his article "What's wrong with white nationalism?"

- - - - - - - - -
Quoting from the article:

And there we run into our first problem with white nationalism – it doesn’t confront the core of what is wrong with the West. White nationalists are right that multiculturalism and ethnic infighting are serious issues, but they don’t recognize that the tribal soup that America, Britain and other white nations are drowning in is not the cause of those nations’ decline, but a symptom. To demonstrate this, I will use the time-honored method of the Socratic dialogue:

White Nationalist: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children!

Ferdinand Bardamu: Tally ho, chap. I say, what are you agitating about?

WN: I want my white brothers and sisters to throw off their shackles and fight the enemies who are trying to wipe them out.

FB: I see. And just who are the enemies of the white race?

WN: The Jews! They control the government, the media, and Wall Street, and they’re trying to ethnically cleanse us from our own nation by robbing us, importing foreigners to replace us, and encouraging miscegenation with lesser races. And the Negroes! They’re slaughtering us in the streets and raping our women!

FB: Okay, Jews and Negroes are bad. But weren’t white people responsible for letting the Jews in this country and allowing them to participate in public life to begin with?

WN: Uhhhh…

FB: And the Negroes – weren’t they brought here from Africa as slaves and later emancipated by white people?

WN: Errrrr…

FB: Wouldn’t this mean that these problems that white people suffer from are basically self-inflicted?

WN: Ummmm…WHITE POWER!

White nationalism doesn’t address why all of these alien tribes have popped up in our midst. WNs like to blame these and other problems on the Jews, and while I acknowledge that they’ve had a disproportionate, malign influence, the fact of the matter is that the ideology that wrecked the West, liberalism, originates from whites. (Note: for the purposes of this essay only, I will regard Jews as a separate entity from whites.) The intellectual forbears of modern liberalism and its offshoot ideologies like multiculturalism and feminism were all gentiles – 17th and 18th century thinkers like John Locke, Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Adam Smith. The Jewish establishment in the modern West is merely a vector for a white-created disease of the mind.

And even if we accept the premise that Jews and Jewish influence are primarily responsible for the mess we’re in, that doesn’t absolve whites from blame. The Jews didn’t invade America, Britain or any other country en masse and forcibly take over their institutions – they were invited by the natives. Prior to their emanicipation in the 19th century, Jews were despised and persecuted everywhere they went, and had little to no influence on the societies they settled in. That’s why the neoconservative description of the West as “Judeo-Christian” should make educated people laugh – Jews had about as much influence on pre-Enlightenment Europe as the Gypsies. Jewish emancipation was a product of liberalism, as the first European state to grant them full legal rights was revolutionary France in 1791. If Jews have fired the bullet into the head of white civilization, whites themselves are culpable for letting them touch the gun to begin with.
The fact of the matter, that white nationalists are either unwilling or unable to address, is that white people are their own worst enemy.

The whole article is worth reading. Read it here. There is much more to why White Nationalism is problematic.

So how can we have a proper discussion about how white people are the ones destroying ourselves, and the memes driving it? Well, clearly we'll have to send anyone in Nazi uniform or anyone obsessing about goblins out of the room. Even someone obsessing about Muslims or Hispanics will be useless and disruptive in this discussion. Quite as those obsessing about the Jews. But the last one is worse since it will take the whole room into red alert mode (as described above).

The only thing that the energetic writing and commenting by Chechar and Tanstaafl have lead to is to make open blog discussions about Jews a dead end. I didn't think in this way before, but they have changed the landscape now. Some people who would otherwise say something about the issue will be repelled from it by them. And in this polarized situation, some people who would otherwise have kept a more balanced stance will be sucked into their warp. This since, at least to newcomers, Chechar and Tanstaafl will appear as the brave ones who dare bringing up the "truths".

It's really a pity it has gone this way. A few years ago there were several very informative discussions about the Jewish question over at Gates of Vienna. Plenty of people from Eastern Europe made great contributions there back then.

The whole series:

When is discussing useful anyway?

2011-06-20T17:37:00.005Z

I'm a Hellenist in the sense that I hold thinking, reasoning and discussing in the highest regard. My view is clear: everything is open for exploration. But nevertheless there is the right time, place, context and participants for any meaningful discussion. To start with, certain rules of civilized society apply, e.g. we do not come naked with a hard-on to a debate. If certain fundamental conditions are not met, it's not a debate at all. Then there are the debates that are not good debates, due to lack of intelligence or intellectual honesty of the debaters. Or the inability to listen to what one's opponent actually said. Typical for the most interesting topics is that the majority of the participants cannot control their deepest emotions of fear and hate, which get triggered by touching upon taboos which set their core myths in berserk mode.

Certain topics are so infected by wackos that an open public debate is effectively impossible. Try discussing with 911 Truthers. Or with Hindutvas about how Christianity is not at all exactly like Islam. Or try pointing out to Sikhs that they have a proselytizing religion. The Jewish question might not even be as bad as some of the other examples I gave here. But bad enough to -- as a rule of thumb -- generally avoid open public debates about it. And that's what I referred to with the title of my previous post.

In any debate, arriving at the debate in Nazi uniform and greeting the participants with a Hitler salute, is always a bad idea. Regardless of what you intended to say. And for the rest, this debate is not worth having -- leave the room.

- - - - - - - - -
During the years I have had much use of Internet debates. Partly by learning from people, and partly for studying them; studying them more or less like an anthropologist. By finding what taboos set them off in emotional berserk mode it is possible to identify and describe their core myths. It's been a dirty job, but now it's mostly done. Even for a devoted zoologist, after studying a few hundred times how hyenas eat, shit and copulate, it does not make sense any more to be there out in the field to see it again.

For many reasons I have reached a point where my personal view is that Internet discussions are mostly meaningless. My participation in blog comments sections is minimal. And if I would start writing seriously again, then I'm not particularly interested in having people commenting on what I say. And the duty of moderation is like keeping a hyena farm, and takes too much time and energy. And apart from the moderation, most people who comment will have grossly misunderstood what had been said, and will go on and on about some pet hang-up of theirs. One reason why Internet discussions mostly get stuck in meaningless tirades is that people with serious emotional or psychiatric problems are overrepresented -- not in numbers, but in volume! It's like fighting a multi-headed hydra, and mostly a waste of time.

So how can we go forward without debates? Well, we need to qualify that. First of all, people that recently awoke and started exploring taboos etc. will have a great net gain by Internet discussions (such as I had a decade ago). And myself I keep on thinking, reasoning and discussing. But I'm much more exacting about the context of a debate today. I generally avoid open Internet debates altogether.

But there is a more important point to be made here. The problems that face the West will not be solved by public debates or discussions. We will not be saved by 1) the people finally being enlightened through insightful public debates, and then 2) them voting the right political party in power, that will 3) fix all the problems and set everything straight again. We are far far beyond that possibility. What will happen is a convergence of catastrophes (which will happen in this century). And then we will have to rebuild our societies from the ashes of that.

So, debates are completely pointless with regards to solving our political problems (within the system). But they can help a lot for how mentally prepared we will be after the convergence of catastrophes have happened, and for what we do during and after that.

Open discussions on the Jewish question (JQ) are particularly useless. There is always someone who will enter the room with the metaphorical Nazi uniform. And then the discussion is already dead. And even if that doesn't happen, there will be someone with the reverse emotional hang-up imagining someone in the room having a Nazi uniform on. Either way the end result is just the same. An hysterical quarrel with people going emotionally berserk. We witness a human behaviour here which makes a herd of chattering chimpanzees look good in comparison. And even if the topic of the discussion is not the Jews, there are enough people with such an obsessive hang-up on the JQ, that they will shoehorn it into many other discussions. With the very same devastating result as above.

Once the two sides of the JQ get started it is like listening to a quarrel of a married couple. There are certain wounds in each of them, that will be triggered as soon as there is an argument. And infallibly the whole thing escalates into a hysterical quarrel, and at this point it has nothing at all to do with how the argument started. But all to do with the structure of the wounds on each side, and how they get triggered (like a wildfire). So it's the very same quarrel every time. It's a constant. Precisely the opposite of intelligent debate. I'm not interested in listening to the quarrel of a married couple, or anything resembling it (to the advantage of the married couple is that they can have make-up sex afterward).

I've previously used the analogy of two black holes, with gravity so strong that virtually everyone will be sucked into any one of these extremes. I'll now present another analogy for these discussions about the JQ. It's a trench war with each party deeply entrenched on each side of the battlefield. It's a situation of complete deadlock. No one is really trying to come to a common view of things, just fervently dismissing each other and dig deeper into the trenches. And here comes another analogy from the First World War: anyone who crosses the battlefield between the two lines will be met by crossfire. I have been placing myself at that field a number of times. Being a man of moderation, I've been wanting to present a balanced view. But generally I have been dismissed from both sides as an extremist. Of course there's no logic to that. But then there's no logic to the two trenches where these combatants have put themselves -- no more than a quarrel between a married couple. It's all deeply emotional.

And when strong emotions of fear and hate enters, the possibility of an intelligent debate walks out of the door. When people start acting like a bunch of chattering chimpanzees -- or worse -- there's no point in participating in that.

PS. The issue of Jews as a minority group can be addressed without explicitly calling them by name. E.g. by discussing how to deal with ethnic minority groups in general. I've done so before, and I'll get back to this. This is a way of keeping the berserk emotions of the chimpanzee crowd in check. Of course, sooner or later someone will bring up the Jews (be it the husband or the wife) if it's an open Internet debate. The brains of all the participants subsequently switches into red alert mode and nobody's able to think clearly anymore.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen

2011-06-19T20:58:00.010Z

My first impulse was to call this post something relating to "Lösung der Judenfrage" as a tribute to my house god Theodor Herzl, but in the end I fell for a different title. But it's still in an evil language :-)

The title translated into English says: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

My point being: To the degree that we cannot speak intelligently about the Jewish question (der Judenfrage as Herzl would have said in his evil language), we had better leave it aside.

During recent eruptions over at Gates of Vienna I stated "The Jewish question is a dead end". Rebellious Vanilla protested against this in an email, so I'll need to explain. I'm not at all saying that it's not an interesting topic, highly pertinent to explore and with many important insights with regards to what makes the West fall apart. I'm simply saying that people are evidently unable to discuss it. (And if they can't, they had better not.)

I'm trying to find a proper analogy. It's like saying that we should have lessons in school with everyone being naked. In theory that should work fine (at least in the Germanic north). But in practice everyone will be so distracted by the nakedness, that they cannot really focus on the teaching. Some students will be so obsessed about it that they will promptly act in a way making no teaching possible at all. And quite as with the JQ there will be two opposite kinds of obsessions: i) the ones whose sex drive reach an uncontrollable peak and go crazy for that, and ii) the ones who disintegrates into moral fits over the indiscretion of the first group (or anyone they choose to see as belonging to it).

It's our eternal soap opera of The Nazis and The Jews continuing untiring, with the same old dramaturgy. People of today have an insatiable craving for the simplistic and superficial patterns of this drama. It is the most defining mythological narrative for Westerners of today -- the mythological narrative which leaves the deepest imprint in their minds and soul -- no matter what positions they take in the drama (and there is a strong gravity towards extremes here).

- - - - - - - - -
My position has always been that it's pointless to take positions in this drama, since the drama is phony; that this whole soap opera and its excesses should just be thrown away. That we instead should focus on real issues, instead of having our minds getting lost in this mythological maze, fed into our minds through the shadow theater in the Platonic cave.

This mythological drama controls the minds of modern Westerners, by invoking the most primitive emotions: fear and hate -- it plays their emotions like a violin. And where the reptile brain turns on -- coupled with religious style zeal -- sound reason is all gone. And this is equally true regardless of which side of the drama that people identify with. I.e. it's equally true for both Abe Foxman and David Duke. And for virtually everyone in-between. Because the gravity of the two extreme points is so strong that virtually no one is able to resist it. It's like a dual system of two black holes where eventually people will be sucked into any of them, and everything becomes darkness.

I've seen such a long line of people in the blogosphere (both blog owners and commenters) who imagine themselves -- and create the expectation among others (who are after all heavily worn out by this frantic drama, and would like to find a way out of it) -- as dealing with the "issue" reasonably, detached and evenhandedly. But sooner or later the mask falls off, and their gravity towards one of the black holes become obvious.

Victimization-mythology about the Jews and fixation about Jews as "the cause of all our problems" are, after all, just two sides of the very same coin. And the coin could be named "obsession about Jews", a fixation about the soap opera of "The Nazis and The Jews".

The solution is not to choose a side of the coin, the solution is to throw the coin away. I have always suggested to move away orthogonally from the issue. Philosemitism and antisemitism are just two sides of the very same coin, and closely related; quite as love and hate are. Philosemitism will easily flip into antisemitism. Making 180 degree turns just makes you go back and forth along the same line, in the same vicinity and according to the same narrative. "The opposite" is too similar to what you are trying to oppose. Move away from it orthogonally (I assume the readers know basic geometry), scrap the narrative and the mythology that drives it (Christianity is a main factor in driving both antisemitism and philosemitism). Get over it and make the Jews irrelevant -- that's the most merciful solution both for us and them.

Fjordman wrote a great article, published at Gates of Vienna, discussing how the Proposition Nation might be our most fundamental enemy. Someone brought up the Joooos immediately and the whole thread turned into a mixed sauna of presumptive rapist and priestly moralists wreaking havoc. The content of the article was never properly discussed. The JQ and intelligent discussion are like oil and water. And the JQ enters discussions where it is not the topic, thanks to certain fanatics who are unable to discuss anything else but the JQ, and will make it the topic whatever else was argued. And once that point is reached it's like if a dog had come into the living room shitting on the carpet. The stench will dominate the existence of the whole room and the discourse for clear thinking and reasoned arguments will be all gone.

This has to be stopped. Incurable sex addicts need to be restrained. Same thing here. In civilized societies we keep our clothes on. Whenever a naked man with a hard-on runs into the room, throw him out. Not because we are ashamed of what is under our clothes. But because his behaviour shows that he's unable to control himself.

Anyway, back to Wittgenstein and the title of my post. Why am I talking about something that I suggest we should be silent about? "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen". Well, Wittgenstein wrote a whole book about it to come to this conclusion. And this is what he wrote in his penultimate paragraph:

"My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)

He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly."

What I write here is of the same kind. However, I have no intention of throwing away the ladder for quite some time. Instead I will make this into a series of posts. (Yes, I'm back blogging. At least for a while.)

Finally, my moderation policy will be as follows: your comment will be deleted! If it hasn't been, consider it as providence. (NB: This is entirely consistent with the ideas I express in this post.)

Open thread, March 2011

2011-03-16T00:56:00.011Z

OK, so my Zionism vs. Bolshevism post is now up to 236 comments. Mainly thanks to Polymath and Rebellious Vanilla (AKA Tasty Glamgirl and nowadays AKA UltimateAwesomeness). But also thanks to The Wandering White and lately the NY Untermensch (in my view a horribly tasteless and sickening moniker).

Anyway, the point is (which motivates my posting after almost a year of hiatus) is that (1. Blogger sucks, and 2. Blogger sucks, and 3. Blogger sucks, and...). You have all experienced the new Blogger spam filter -- IT SUCKS!!! However, that is just yet another one of hundreds of examples of horribly tasteless and sickening Blogger bugs. Another bug that we have seen during the years is connected to the comment threads that go passed 200 comments. Before you know it, the comments over 200 won't be seen at all. Just watch Blogger screw it for you -- it's not so much a question of if, but of when. And even though I planned not to write anything more at this blog, I cannot have Blogger messing up things for you. So I'm hereby opening a new thread.

I somewhat feel like a reanimated mummy (something like from a Frankenstein movie). Polymath and RV scared life into a blog that was supposed to be dead. It's a really strange experience, since my idea of a blog was to have a place where one WRITES to others. But now for me my blog turned into a place where others have me READ stuff they write. However, I cannot say that I'm not enjoying it :-)

Anyway, here's something for you to go at:

It's from Wings of Desire (Himmel über Berlin). The scene tells us why Peter Falk decides to no longer be an angel. He says (here in Italian), as a way of explaining the essence of life on Earth: "Have a smoke, have a coffee, and if you do it together it is fantastic!" These where the reasons he chose to no longer be an angel.

[End of post]

ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM -- A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people

2010-05-08T00:04:00.007Z

Dennis Mangan posted an article where he claims that "Jews were greatly over-represented among the early revolutionaries and later among the leaders of the Soviet Union, including the various incarnations of the secret police." I have heard this claim over and over by Eastern European commenters over at Gates of Vienna, not only about the Jewish dominance in the Soviet Union but in Bolshevism all across Eastern Europe. But is it really so? If it is, Dennis Mangan is making several points that are right on target in his article.

Dennis' brother Dave entered the discussion bringing up the Holodomor, that is the forced starvation of some 7 million Ukranians in 1932-33. Which Dave Mangan claims was enacted by Jewish commissars. But was it really so? Well, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency it was. They write about how in July 2008 the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of the high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine, and most of the names on the list were Jewish. (The Ukrainian Jewish Committee, however, called on the secret service to revise the list, which "incited interethnic hatred", in order to clear up the “inaccuracy”.)

But back to Dennis Mangan's article. It is interesting to find that his claims are backed up by someone I consider probably the most sound political thinker of the 20th century: Winston Churchill. Churchill published in 1920 an article named "ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM -- A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people", where he detailed the Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution. Churchill discusses in this article the split between Jews: some are Communists, he wrote, while others are Jewish nationalists. Churchill favored the Jewish nationalists and he appealed to what he called "loyal Jews" to ensure that the Communist Jews did not succeed. Churchill went even further and blamed the Jews for "every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century". He also pointedly accused Leon Trotsky of wanting to establish a "world wide Communistic state under Jewish domination" in this article.

Under the subtitle of "Terrorist Jews" Churchill writes:
- - - - - - - - -

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

This backs the claims made by Dennis Mangan (and Slezkine, who he is quoting) by someone considered credible by most people (who counts). That should cue anyone in doubt about the Jewish character of Bolshevism to look more closely into the matter. Furthermore, this whole story, as suggested by Mangan, "puts a crimp in the Jewish notion that they have been unique victims, and in the notion that Germans have been uniquely evil."

Today the Jews that Churchill refers to as International and Terrorist Jews have shifted from Bolshevism onto multiculturalism, neoconservatism and other destructive internationalist causes (George Soros anyone?). So the same thing still applies, albeit in new shapes. Likewise, in my view, Churchill's endorsement of "national Jews" and Zionism is the remedy and the way forward. Churchill ends his article by writing:

But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.

So yes, Zionism is the answer. However, in these sick times even that isn't without issues and problems, especially for America . (More about the role of America and Israel in our current mythology here: four subsequent comments). Churchill, however, was all through his life a firm pro-Zionist (see Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship) which he was absolutely right to be.

In parallel to this discussion I'm having another discussion with Chechar (and to some extent Rollory). One of the problems I have with Chechar is the way he takes Hitler and Nazism as the starting point for the reconstruction of a revitalized and healthy Europe. I cannot understand why he wouldn't take Churchill (whose outlook largely harmonizes with Dennis Mangan's) as the starting point instead. For starters Churchill denounced and warned about Islam while Hitler and the Nazis admired it. Go figure....

What do we get if we would add together Chechar's two latest fads?

2010-05-05T10:34:00.004Z

For some reason Dennis Mangan wouldn't let through this comment in the discussion thread, so I post it here:

Chechar,

Regarding what I wrote about "full-blown Nazi", I said that either your obsessions are whimsical (and not to be taken too seriously) or you are a full-blown Nazi. I do not know which, but one has to be true.

During your previous fad, when you described yourself as a non-anti-Semitic white nationalist, you where very fond of bringing up "Hitlerian views", "4th Reich scenarios", how you "can appreciate WN’s Third Reich nostalgia" and mottos such as "Himmler is my friend!". You seemed to believe that you brought up important truths that no one else dared to say. But at the same time you were eager to solemnly declare how you were non-anti-Semitic, which you apparently considered the only evil of Nazi-Germany. Now you have reversed that. So where do you end up then? Since you begun your new MacDonald fad you haven't talked about Hitlerian views and your 3rd Reich nostalgia. But I couldn't help thinking already back then: Where would he end up if he removes his non-anti-Semitism from all that? And now you have indeed removed it.

Here are some examples of what you used to write:

- - - - - - - - -
We would restore and re-inaugurate Auschwitz and Birkenau but this time showing through the television the cremated remains at the top of Birkenau’s chimney of the white traitors who created Eurabia. [...]
As you can see, no legal or moral law is broken in my 4th Reich scenario. But our ethnic cleansing would be as effective as the 3rd. Our beloved children would thus remain pure Aryan, uncontaminated with the genotype of the ugly races.

In this thread you insisted on describing German people as uniquely evil, "infected with a malicious sort of anti-Semitism". By doing so you perpetuated the most fundamental PC myth, the very standard example for all anti-white racism.

And you wrote:
...my Aufheben statement, which both suppresses the evils of the German anti-Semitism of the 1930s and at the same time recovers the pride for one’s own ethny.

Now you have given up your Aufheben. So according to our own writings, where does that make you end up? Or are we not supposed to add together the writings of your two subsequent fads, but just consider them as two separate and incommensurable obsessions?

Youthful injection

2010-03-15T10:25:00.002Z

My blog is suddenly alive again thanks to a 19 year old girl from Romania, who's written ten comments in two days, to old articles. And very insightful ones. Use the "overview" or the "recent comments" in the sidebar to find them.

[End of post]

Over at Mangan's

2009-11-25T23:22:00.002Z

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]

On ethno-centric mythology

2009-10-01T23:46:00.004Z

I made two new comments in the thread over at Mangan's place. The first one starting here.

[End of post]

Under Christianity it's not a problem if Europeans die and become extinct

2009-10-01T01:25:00.002Z

Haven't been blogging much recently, the place I have been writing at is instead at Dennis Mangan's very nice and interesting blog. Here's my latest comment there.

[End of post]

My friendship with Auster

2009-09-04T17:28:00.008Z

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.

"Intellectual subtlety"

2009-08-20T04:33:00.005Z

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]

America as the birthplace of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness

2009-08-13T22:02:00.008Z

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.

Geza: "The Austerites value Christianity over Europe"

2009-08-05T13:47:00.009Z

[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.

All my thoughts in one thread

2009-07-29T23:14:00.002Z

Hi all!

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]

Will New York commemorate Sept. 11 as an Islamic celebration day?

2009-07-10T00:28:00.004Z

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]

Midsummer

2009-06-18T00:24:00.002Z

Midsummer is coming up. Time for a break.

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

[End of posting for a while]

Redefinition of citizenship

2009-06-15T21:20:00.004Z

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

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

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

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

- - - - - - - - -

Armance,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Takuan Seiyo as Takuan Seiyo as Kevin MacDonald

2009-06-13T11:26:00.003Z

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]

Ape Genius -- who's mindlessly aping?

2009-06-06T14:34:00.015Z

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.

Traian Ungureanu: "Enough is enough!"

2009-06-01T22:41:00.003Z

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

For the laughter of the civilized world
By Traian Ungureanu

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

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

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

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

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

Ekeroth, Clausen and Ungureanu

2009-05-31T19:18:00.010Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More social responsivity in Luton

2009-05-25T08:26:00.009Z

The healthy moral outrage continues in Luton!

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

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

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

From the Daily Mail:

Masked mob on the march against Muslim extremists turns violent

The streets of Luton descended into violence yesterday as hundreds of anti-Islamist protesters clashed with police.
The crowds in the town centre hid their faces behind balaclavas, brandished England flags and chanted at officers.
Some wore masks with the horned face of Sayful Islam, a hardline Muslim activist in Luton who took part in an anti-war rally in March which disrupted a homecoming parade for troops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing discussions

2009-05-24T14:11:00.008Z

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]

Rollory's take on the downfall of the USA

2009-05-23T10:25:00.001Z

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

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

Rollory:

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

This is in large part going to be triggered by the economic situation, but the ground has been laid socially and politically for a long time. Karl Denninger at market-ticker.org has been writing for quite some time about how and why the current behavior of the US FedGov is going to lead the entire country straight into disaster, largely due to the consequences in the bond market - if you have not read him before, I strongly encourage it:
His predictions in Dec 2007, so you can judge his accuracy.
His predictions in Dec 2008 for this year.
Some more predictions.
He has quite a few other good articles that go into depth on how and
why the massive government spending increase underway since last
October, and the refusal to admit the existence of a bubble economy
for the past two decades, is incredibly destructive. Now this is all
from a strictly economic perspective, it tells us "how" though not
"why". He doesn't really address social issues much - some of the
commenters on his forum have hinted at sanity regarding racial
matters, but it's a discussion he doesn't really allow (and one can
understand why, it would take the focus off the specifics of the
capital markets, which is what he wants to discuss).

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

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

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

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

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

Our times through the prism of LOTR

2009-05-22T20:01:00.002Z

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]

Discussion about future scenarios, part 2

2009-05-22T15:37:00.003Z

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

swede:

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

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

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

El Ingles,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion about future scenarios

2009-05-22T12:13:00.005Z

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.

Anthropologist out in the fields

2009-05-12T23:02:00.002Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unbelievable dancing

2009-04-24T23:15:00.000Z

Unbelievable, even impossible? Definitely not normal.

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

It's hilarious!

[End of post]

The discussion spreads to Sailer's blog

2009-04-22T23:46:00.003Z

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

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

And then continues to quote me saying:

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

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

[End of post]

Case study: Robohobo, part 1

2009-04-20T17:59:00.005Z

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

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

[...]

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

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

ConSwede says:

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

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

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

That has always escaped me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That has always escaped me.

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

Robohobo ends by writing:

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

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

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

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

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

More:

On the Self-Defeat of the United States

The Western weakness, in big and in small

What can be known?

Moving on, blogging on

Luton: Morality reemerging in the West

2009-04-20T16:16:00.005Z

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

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

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

Here are more video clips of the event.

Here follows the declaration of the protesters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat tip: Gates of Vienna and Lionheart.

Moving on, blogging on

2009-04-19T01:20:00.004Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can be known?

2009-04-15T20:05:00.016Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Self-Defeat of the United States

2009-04-14T18:37:00.003Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Western weakness, in big and in small

2009-04-13T20:45:00.006Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone is Jesus

2009-01-13T14:27:00.002Z

[End of Post]

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

2008-10-08T17:22:00.008Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Lizard writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an exchange with Pastorius, Charles Johnson says:

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

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

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

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

"Geometric logic"

2008-08-06T21:41:00.003Z

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

[End of post]

Auster's exit from the big thread

2008-08-04T23:32:00.007Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawrence Auster and his ten little niggers

2008-08-03T00:03:00.004Z

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

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

I see you through your own writings, no one elses. If anyone is being reckless it is you. Do I really need to go thru VFR to count and list the number of persons you have attacked without provocation. You have alienated many good people, who would otherwise be glad to call you an ally, with your writings about their hypocrisies and dishonesty, and cowardliness. That, sir, is foolish and reckless."
How prickly do you have to be to get people who are with you ideologically to turn on you? Don't you also find it ironic how Auster thinks Spencer has enough time to write articles about aspects of the Islam issue that interest Auster, yet Auster doesn't have the time to read UsorThem's serious email or even respond to Zenster's mini-survey? His personal vindictiveness and arrogance is what turns off even his most devoted followers. This is what happened with Vanishing American and John Savage.

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

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

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

And soon there were none...

[End of post]

Auster against properly defeating Islam

2008-07-31T23:06:00.005Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[End of post]

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

2008-07-31T19:21:00.006Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation of two of the quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[End of post]

Auster explained

2008-07-29T14:31:00.005Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[End of post]

On black culture, Islam and "moral thinking"

2008-07-21T01:39:00.000Z

For some time I had a side job in the entertainment business, and with reference to this I wrote "and while I'm at it I'd like to affirm my recognition to black culture for their wonderful and essential contributions to music and dancing".

Apparently Lawrence Auster took this recognition of a positive contribution by black culture as being offensive and wrote at his blog about me: "Entertainment? Recognition of black culture and dancing? Isn't this the guy who just the other day was expressing his total disillusionment with American conservative Christians because they lack the steel to send the nonwhite hordes packing? Intellectual vagabond indeed."

Apparently Auster sees a contradiction in stressing the value of and need of self-affirmation of white culture, and at the same time applauding black culture for their positive achievements. I see no contradiction at all. It's just how things are. Black people, as a group, can e.g. be failures in creating a good civilized society, while at the same time excelling in rhythmical music and dancing. This is what a very consistent historical record tells us. Is it really so hard to see both sides at the same time? Human life is a wonder. There's no example of it leading to plain junk.

And regarding the "send[ing] the nonwhite hordes packing". Well, that's the usual Auster misrepresentation. I have never suggested that all "nonwhite hordes" should be sent packing. Is he suggesting so himself?

And later on Auster appears even more warped by my fair description of black culture, and describe me as "getting into black culture". Well, I was not into black culture. It's just that a lot of music have roots in black culture. How is that offensive?

I think the mistake of Auster here, regarding black culture, is what I refer to as the fallacy of "moral thinking". What I mean by that is the use of the concepts of good and bad as prime categories of thinking. If things are immediately seen in terms of good/bad, pure thinking gets inhibited. Instead in the first phase of our thinking we should look at the nature of things: the nature of black culture, the nature of Christianity, the nature of Islam. And only in the second phase sort out what is good or bad.

People who are inclined towards moral thinking tend to see contradictions where there are none. E.g. statement A about X which is considered as bad, and then statement B about X which is considered as good. A moral thinker might end up seeing them as contradictory, while in fact they are not. A moral thinker might see it as jumping between extremes, while it is nothing but a lining up of facts.

Another example of how moral thinking leads wrong is Auster's and Kalb's reaction vis-a-vis Islam. Auster and Kalb simply cannot take in all aspects of Islam, such as e.g. anal rape of young boys. Auster objected strongly to my description in the article Islam—perverted parasitical psychopathy. To Auster this made Islam become reduced to just a cult, while he himself takes a Abrahamic position of how "Islam is indeed a religion devoted to a transcendent God".

A main argument by Auster and Kalb is that Islam wouldn't have been able to sustain that long if it had been so inherently bad. Here I think these two fellows are in urgent need of reading some Machiavelli. Things do not work well based on whether they, from a standpoint of Christian ethics, are judged as good or bad. Things work well if they take social and other realities well in account, "the mechanics of life" if you wish. Once again it's the fallacy of moral thinking in operation here.

Another aspect of how moral thinking inhibits Auster's ability to see a clear view, is in how he shuns the idea of seeing Islam as a cult. This since he thinks it must lead to a position urging the physical destruction of Islam. So he looks first at what he sees as the moral consequences, instead of just looking disinterestedly at the evidence at hand. He see his perceived moral consequence as forbidden area, and therefore he backs away from the conclusion about the nature of Islam. Thereby it hampers his thinking.

[End of post]

Auster wants to publish private emails

2008-07-19T22:46:00.005Z

With reference to my comment at Atlas Shurgs, Auster writes:
"Notice how Swede, without garnishing a single fact to back up the charge, equates me with Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, saying that Auster, just like Johnson, does not "have any shame or any limits in how deeply [he] will degenerate into dirty games."

But the way Auster is prepared to go all the way down in dirty games is a well-known fact. And it supports the comparison with Charles Johnson. But there is more to that comparison. In spite of the stark differences between Auster and Johnson and their respective followers, they have several interesting features in common. I will have to write an essay about it.

Auster continues:
"And notice how, in the manner of the Big Lie, he is doing to me what he falsely accuses me of doing: observing no limits on how low he will go in order to tear down a former colleague."

First of all, my major point here is in the part of that quote that Auster cut out: "They [Auster and Johnson] both regularly attack any and all other anti-Jihadist of importance. They are both destroying for the movement (each in their different way and from different directions), and thereby isolating themselves. OK, Johnson still accepts Spencer, and Auster still accepts Fjordman, but let's see for how long. In the end they can only accept themselves as the only prophet. They each have their respective sort of purism that by the end of the day will make them fall out with everybody."

I keep friendly relations with other anti-Jihadists (Auster and Johnson are the exceptions). The notable thing with Auster and Johnson is that they generally don't. The vast majority of anti-Jihadists are "former colleagues" to them. So yes, this time around I'm prepared to go all the way down with Auster. But that is only for the common good. And I'm not the one here setting the rules of the game.

Then Auster announces:
"Perhaps the only way to put this particular lie of Swede's to rest will be to quote the e-mail exchange which led up to my saying that I would not speak to him any more."

Sure. Go ahead! I have nothing to hide. And we should make sure to publish all emails relevant to this, and not just some convenient cherry-picking. But even so it's hard to see how what I wrote could be described as personally hostile. I never wrote a single hostile word. The exchange consists of Auster using threatening language, because I had written blog posts critical of him, while I'm expressing regret that we did not get along and ask if we couldn't just continue the discussion.

Whatever Auster considers an hostile act, a personal attack on him and the whole of his work, etc., is found in my blog posts of June 2007. Apparently the worst personal attack on him was when I wrote: "I've been forced, by his way of acting, to criticize Auster strongly here. But I should add that in spite of Auster's serious flaws at display here, he's still at the overall level a person that encourages debate, and wants to play it fair, and is open to differing opinions. This has not changed. But I think Lawrence has been a bit shocked and shaken by some of the things I have said. So this whole thing might take some time."

Anyway, this way of Auster--which is so characteristic of him--to take the thing into publishing private email exchanges, is a perfect example of what I mean with having no shame or any limits in how deeply he will degenerate into dirty games. While I don't mind it in this particular instance, most people do not view this favourably, to say the least. They see it as a serious breach of good manners, and as a personally hostile act. Auster of course, fails to understand this. He's got his special double standard when it comes to good manners.

A final note. When I wrote my last post referring to John Savage and Vanishing American as two friends of VFR who, a year ago, were then easily led into seeing chimeras of how rude I was, just because Auster had declared so, I had overlooked the fact that since then Auster has made sure to ravage those good relations and burned the bridges to them. (Yet another similarity between VFR and LGF, btw.)

Auster ravaging a personal relation, coming soon to you too! And watch what you write in emails to him! Probably best to not write any emails at all.

[End of post]

Now I'm Hamas!

2008-07-15T11:30:00.005Z

Lawrence Auster wrote: Calling [Conservative] Swede merely my "critic" is like calling the leader of Hamas a "critic" of Israel.

For someone who likes to dish out so much criticism to so many people, he sure can't take much criticism back.

The quote is hilarious of course, but also tragic. The man is unreliable. But still, many VFR readers really have a problem in seeing that Auster can be fully sensible in his articles, but equally haywire in his interaction with other people, and in his description of those interactions. If you have a critic that is asking you questions you are unable to answer, creating a scene and then breaking the communication is of course a way to escape the embarrassment. By labeling me "Hamas", Auster wants to declare me as not being a critic and that my questions therefore need not be answered. I wonder how many people buy that. It surely does not give the impression of being open for debate and willing to turn every stone.

In the same thread Sir Henry Morgan suggested to Auster:

Can't you [Auster and Spencer] just agree to differ, shake on it--metaphorically if necessary, physically if possible; and publicly (that's important)--and get back to the common cause? You have more important things to spend your time and effort on, and so does he.

But Auster does not have more important things to do, and here he explains why:

So, to repeat, when a screaming mob has falsely accused a man of lying, misrepresentation, character assassination, pursuing a personal vendetta, ignoring evidence because he's not interested in facts but rather is driven by unsavory, dishonest, or sick personal motives to demonize another person for the sake of demonizing him, to conclude that these accusations are nothing more than meaningless "bickering" and that the man should ignore it all and say, "peace, peace," is not realistic.

This is how Auster honestly and genuinely view the situation. And, mind you, this is Auster in the mode of getting the Spencer controversy in perspective, intending to put it behind him, as he says.

Nobody's describing Auster's intentions as he claims above. The disasters he creates do not stem from bad intentions, but serious flaws in his personality. There is certainly important and constructive criticism of Spencer to bring forward (an ongoing dialog within the anti-Jihad movement is key to our success). But the way Auster is conducting it, he messes up the whole thing. And he doesn't even understand it.

The quote above reveals a man who interprets disagreements in terms of personal dramas centered around himself; the poor victim. And a man who is simply devoid of the ability to back off. Many times this has a good outcome, such as when it is important to stand firm for a claim he has made. But Auster doesn't know the difference between being brave and when it's lunacy to continue. He's just literally unable to back off, the concept is unknown to him. He's not a normal person.

Earlier Auster wrote about me:

But Swede is the most extreme case by far. Other situations were not ongoing. Swede has been in psycho mode about me now for a whole year, and no one gainsays him.

He really has a problem with sticking to the simple truth, doesn't he? As I have already pointed out, there's not been anything "ongoing" for a "whole year". For the whole year that he's referring to I have simply ignored him (as so many other people do). I have not written about him in my blog or anywhere else. I have not sent him any emails. Nothing, nada, zilch. Exactly the opposite of what he claims!

But I think we have learned enough about Auster's emotional life by now, to understand that when I criticize him now, it feels to him as if it has been going on for a whole year. And it feels like "Hamas" and "psycho mode" and all those things he writes. But why doesn't he just drop this self-pity and noise-making and just address the questions I posed to him?

And the reason why "no one gainsays [me]", well go figure!

I have written elsewhere that Auster is a phenomenon in need of being explained (which is an interesting intellectual challenge). Another phenomenon in need of explanation is how otherwise intelligent people are prepared to accept his insane descriptions of his brawls with other people. What makes them buy Auster's premises entirely uncritically? (He surely doesn't foster the attitude of wanting to turn every stone.)

One example is from a year ago, after Auster had excommunicated me and declared to the VFR readers that I'm "rude" (along with a string of other adjectives). And some of them bought it to the degree when they started seeing things, imagining things (quite as Auster himself with his "Hamas" and "psycho mode").

So Vanishing American wrote to John Savage and complained about how rude I had been to her:

[Conservative Swede] visited my blog once and left a sort of snarky comment mentioning Christianity negatively; I don't remember the substance of it.

To which John Savage replies:

VA, I'm sorry that CS was rude to you. I understand why he probably would be, and I won't be surprised if he ends up doing the same to me

But let's have a look at what I actually wrote at Vanishing American's site. VA had published Fjordman's article "A Christian Background for Political Correctness?", where I was mentioned. And I made the following comment, and VA answered.

Conservative Swede:
For those interested in the discussions I had with Fjordman, about the role of Christian ethics, I invite you to read my blog: Conservative Swede. Is Christian ethics truly a major force behind the suicide of our civilization?

Vanishing American:
Conservative Swede, interesting blog. I agree with much of what you say.
However I think the problem is not Christianity per se but the modern, liberalized variation of it, [...]

Well, we sorted the whole thing out. But it still serves as a good example of how easily led people are, and how easily they are made to start imagining things. Also otherwise intelligent people.

[End of post]

La Mer

2008-07-14T00:21:00.002Z

In the summer I like to go to the ocean. So much, the ocean.

La Mer. Charles Trénet

(Hat tip: Every Kinda People)

[End of post]

If I were Robert Spencer...

2008-07-13T21:42:00.005Z

If I were Robert Spencer I would just ignore Lawrence Auster, quite as most other people of importance do. But since he's e-mailing, or rather cc-ing, him anyway, I have to say that what he writes is very good and to the point.

Here's what Spencer wrote to Erich, most of which applies to Auster too. Erich is the author of the site Jihadwatch Watch, and Auster describes him as someone that everybody "knows that he is rational and analytical in his writings and avoids personal attacks". This is VFR code language for saying that he does not criticize Auster. Here's Spencer e-mail (as presented at VFR):

Fact is, my boy, is that I said, many times, "Muslim immigration should be stopped." You charge me with unclarity on that, unjustly and falsely.

Fact is, my boy, that you started a website dedicated to showing that what I was doing was wrong, inadequate, misguided, whatever, without proposing a coherent alternative. That you would dedicate a whole website to this, when our movement is so small and embattled as it is, is to me a breathtaking display of poor judgment, sour grapes, and worse.

Fact is, my boy, that the list of people whom Auster has alienated would fill several phone books. That you dispute this contention only means that you haven't done adequate research, or are willfully blind, or both. And the fact is that I have not alienated anything like that number. I may be a far worse jerk than he is, that I will grant you, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it is he who has the (well-deserved) reputation as someone who savages people on his side.

Of course, given your record, I can see why that would not seem like a big thing to you.

You are NOT on my side. You are NOT my ally. You are a HINDRANCE to the anti-jihad effort in general. You are a TOOL of those who would destroy us.

Face the facts.

Yes indeed, such are the facts. And the fact that Spencer refers to Erich as "my boy" and Auster as "honey", in e-mails, just show refreshing signs of humanity (not understood at VFR).

Auster is able to go on forever about the personal dramas he creates and the little details of them (and the past is always so much more important than the future, or even the present, to him). And when he says he's going to leave aside his attacks on Spencer, it just means that he's going to increase and magnify them, as we can see. Sure, Spencer didn't call for ending Muslim immigration two and a half years ago. But now he does. The question is how long it is constructive to whine about what happened two and a half years ago, in the context of this brawl created by Auster.

Auster misses the big picture. Spencer is down there fighting in the open hostile fields, spreading his message where it's most needed, among the uninitiated. While Auster is sitting safely in his tower philosophizing. And while it's true that we need both kinds, how come then that Auster is spending so much of his time throwing stones from his tower at Spencer, while he's taking the good fight in the battlefield? We surely do not need this kind of backstabbers.

[End of post]

It's really hard to take this seriously

2008-07-13T19:58:00.004Z

It's hard to find any substance in Auster's reply to the criticism of him. It's mostly about how I'm a madman, how Atlas is an idiot, etc. But let's have a closer look at this long sentence:

Conservative Swede, of course, is the person who posted regularly at VFR for a couple of years and was very friendly to me, and then, on the basis of single point I made about Islam that he didn't like, suddenly became personally hostile to me and began launching a series of deranged attacks which have continued for the last year, culminating in the below comment, which he concludes by calling me an egomaniacal cult leader and wishing for my intellectual extinction.

Well, that's quite a load -- a stink bomb, should we say?

Let's start with "which have continued for the last year". Well, for the past year I have not mentioned Lawrence Auster at all in my blog. I have ignored him. That's quite the opposite of what Auster claims. The last time I mentioned him was in this post: The clash of the cleavage. And that one was rather making fun of Bernard-Henri Lévy.

Then about "on the basis of single point I made about Islam that he didn't like, suddenly became personally hostile to me". Well, what happened is that Lawrence Auster had enough of my questions to him that he couldn't answer and decided to "excommunicate" me. For the sake of the theater, to make it look "valid", he decided to make a lot of noise and hurl a long string of adjectives at me. I was simply left watching this, while trying to continuing in constructive dialog.

So much for a year ago. And indeed up until then we had had a good and very interesting dialog for a year and a half (most of it by email and never published). We had chosen to focus on our similarities rather than on our differences, and we indeed had many views in common. I had also chosen to overlook the negative sides of Auster, such as his obsessive attacks on Spencer, which were going on already then. In any given situation there are always compromises that you are prepared to make.

But after the noisy personal drama the Auster decided to create in relation to me, it was no longer possible (as well as pretty pointless) to overlook to what extent that he distorts and manipulates his accounts of his interaction with different other pundits. And after his latest excessive, unfair and disrespectful attacks on Robert Spencer, I had enough and decided to speak out. Auster gets away with a lot -- at least in the eyes of his small circle of most devoted readers -- since other pundits do not have the time or the energy to go as far in these brawls, in correcting the distortions of Auster in every single detail, in using his method of bringing up private email conversations, etc. They have more important things to do. So on his little stage, Auster will be declaring himself the winner, as well as the only one being rational, fair and respectful, etc. It's not so hard really considering the methods Auster use. The key is in being devoted, i.e. investing a lot of time and energy into it, while making sure most of the world ignores him.

Auster does not take criticism well. And he hurts the anti-Jihad movement with his excessive behaviour. Take the example of David Yerushalmi of SANE. When he used words as "failure" and "irrational" about certain aspects of Auster's position, Auster takes it as an "aggressive and personal attack". This is not the way to conduct a debate, Lawrence. Just to exemplify what Auster's standard means. He described my theory of the origin of religion as "terribly defective". With Auster's own view, I should see this as an openly hostile and personal attack on me. That's ridiculous.

Auster's standard is, and will always be, a double standard. And you will have to be a VFR devotee in order not to see that. Auster's skin is too thin; he's too good at creating schisms, and at the same time unable to put them aside.

In the case of the brawl with me, the whole affair was a one man show by Auster. I had not done much more than passively watching the different stages of his act of breaking up with me. Part of his act was to claim that it was me who made the decision to "break decisively" with him. This never happened. I've been sitting in the audience, all while Auster has been on the stage, throwing himself on the floor, rolling around as if in pain, then standing up launching an attack, and finally breaking up with me. All of it quite surprising to me. The words he used to describe the situation was all part of this exaggerated theater: such as "aggressive and personal attack" and "openly hostile", his descriptions about "insulting language" in e-mails, me denouncing him as a groupie of a “fifth columnist”, me by implication declaring all of his work as mistaken, etc.; all equally false.

It's really hard to take this seriously.

And regarding how I'm supposedly wishing for his "intellectual extinction". Well, that's the usual Auster exaggeration. I just said that, quite as with Charles Johnson, we do not need him anymore. Quite frankly I do not think we do.

[End of post]

Geza answers Kristor about Austerian Separationism

2008-07-12T03:08:00.004Z

So Kristor has answered Geza at VFR. And here comes a reply to that from Geza.

Auster's only contribution this time has been to twist the title--of what is otherwise an interesting general discussion--into an attack on Spencer. Of course, the title does not at all describe the content. So let my only contribution here be to say: How very characteristic of Auster.

Here's Geza's reply to Kristor:

By Geza:

Regarding the two paragraphs where Kristor discusses my comments, I think the "argument" between us is based on a misunderstanding.

On Separationism. I was critiquing the Austerian version of Separationism and Kristor endorsing it as a logical conclusion. I do not think it is a logical conclusion because Austerian Separationism does not go far enough and its primary focus is devising methods to remove the Muslim population from the West and keep them out. Auster states that he wants to have as little to do with Muslim countries as possible but he is still open to the possibility of military strikes whenever a Muslim dictator poses a threat. That is fine but Fitzgerald's version also focuses on reducing the political and economic power of the ummah as well. Auster's version of Separationism does not address this in any meaningful way. Fitzgerald also advocates promoting apostasy. Granted, Auster has flirted with this idea himself but it is not part of the major flank of Austerian Separationism much like it is with Fitzgerald's policy suggestions. I would like to add that I do not fully agree with all of Hugh Fitzgerald's proposals such as intervening in Darfur because it serves no purpose. I also do not agree with Fitzgerald in forming an alliance with the Arab Christians because I know that the majority of them are like James Zogby and not like Brigitte Gabriel. Auster's policy suggestions focus almost entirely on immigration reform whereas Fitzgerald's suggestions focus on immigration reform and so much more.

I was under the impression that Kristor fully endorsed Austerian Separationism without any qualifications based on that single sentence. As for the comment where Kristor was called a "Mongol general coolly prepared to wipe out millions of people" by Auster for his policy proposals, well... he was all over the place in that post and speaking mostly in hypotheticals. But I do remember that post, however I had forgotten that it was Kristor who wrote it. So yes, Kristor wants to go beyond Austerian Separationism. That's great, but it is not the point. The point is that is not what Auster wants, based on his articles. I think Conservative Swede is correct in arguing that Auster is not the standard bearer for anti-jihadist thought because he is mostly focused on ending Muslim immigration, not beating back Islam. Open borders and liberalism is the enemy of the West, not Islam. Auster has stated himself that we cannot hate Islam because it's in its nature to act the way it does but he sure hates liberalism. Anti-jihadism only happens to coincide with Auster's traditionalist ideology, mostly immigration restrictionism, and that is why he doesn't propose doing anything more than that. That is also why he calls any anti-jihadist who doesn't write an article on Why We Must Stop All Muslim Immigration Now! a Usual Suspect. For Auster, it's all about traditionalism, not anti-jihadism.

[End of post]

Geza: Does this man have no idea of how rude he is?

2008-07-11T23:15:00.008Z

Lawrence Auster has answered to the criticism of his obsessive attacks on Spencer. Here's Geza's comment to that:

By Geza:

Auster is becoming a parody of himself. It seems that he has decided to flail around wildly attacking anyone who dares criticize his attacks on Spencer. It really makes me wonder how this man acts in public. What does he do when he loses an argument in real life? Pamela becomes an idiot, you are a madman, and Fjordman who was both defending Auster and criticizing his ridiculous behaviour is lumped in with both of you "crazies". Every single time he supposedly analyzes a pundit whom he disagrees with, he always has to dredge up the personal drama with said pundit and how nobody has criticized that pundit for the ad hominems directed against poor Larry Auster. He has done this to everybody, simply because they don't tow his narrow traditionalist line. Some of his targets are smart about it like Steve Sailer who doesn't respond to his personal attacks and John Derbyshire who simply laughs it off. And he wonders why only his most devoted followers stick around. Does this man have no idea of how rude he is? I also find it ironic how he is shocked that you just wished he would disappear from the scene. This coming from the man that demanded that the National Review fire John Derbyshire because he is an atheist.

I am thinking of writing an answer too. But after a first reading I'm lost since there is no substance in the article. So where should I start? And it's amazing since there are lies and distortions in every second sentence, even about small peripheral things. Is he such a compulsory manipulator that he just cannot stick to the simple truth?

[End of post]

Geza on Kristor's comment

2008-07-11T14:31:00.009Z

Lawrence Auster has published a comment by Kristor, "comparing the Auster/Spencer brawl to the Arian controversy" (also Paul Belien has linked to it).

The second writer on this blog, Geza, my one and only guest columnist, has read it and analyzed it. I will add my comments later, but this is an excellent starting point for a good debate:

By Geza:

Kristor has submitted an interesting comment to Auster and Auster misses the point again.

Although, I do agree with Kristor that Spencer has not really given a 10 point plan to deal with the Muslim problem but he has given suggestions here and there and Hugh Fitzgerald has given a very detailed plan in his articles, and I would say, it is a better approach than Auster's Separationism policy. But what Kristor fails to realize is that Auster's Separationism itself is only a starting point because he only vaguely states what we would do to weaken Islam such as a few surgical strikes here and there i.e. more rubble, less trouble. Fitzgerald is better in this regard because he has given many suggestions on how to weaken Islam abroad without the use of Wilsonian style intervention, such as a propaganda war through sattelite TV. Spencer, like Arius, may not see the logical conclusions of his scholarship because of his commitment to egalitarianism & individual rights but Auster has the same problem due to his traditionalist bias. Spencer cannot condemn Islam as wicked because he would be condemning individual Muslims and Auster cannot condemn Islam because he would be condemning an organic culture. The only thing Austerian and Kalbian traditionalism is capable of condemning is liberalism and its offshoots like socialism, "Darwinism", communism, etc.

Spencer has seen that jihad is the fundamental bone of contention in world history...He has not seen that if he is correct about Islam, then like it or not we are at war with more than a billion people; a war to the death. He has not taken the deeply shocking leap from a world essentially at peace to a world essentially at war.
-Kristor

This is probably one of the most important comments ever posted at VFR. Auster has not made this life-or-death struggle argument about Islam, though he has made it about liberalism. Until Auster writes an entire article articulating why we are in a real war against Islam, then I will only consider him a Usual Suspect.

If we are at war, then our policies must be shaped, not to support our enemies, not to welcome them, but to destroy them (-ed). In that case, all sorts of policies that would have seemed outrageous in time of peace become mere common sense; as Japanese internment during WWII was mere common sense; as Austerian separation is now mere common sense.
-Kristor

"Destroy them" is the key phrase. It doesn't necessarily mean destroying all Muslims, even though there is a possibility that many would die, but it would mean weakening Islam to a point to where it would either be dealt a crushing blow and have no relevance to world affairs. Auster's Separationism if executed perfectly, which is really doubtful, will only remove Muslims and weaken their ability to come here. It will not stop the oil sheiks from buying more assets in the West, it will not stop nuclear proliferation among Muslim countries, it will not stop Muslims from overbreeding, etc. There is more to this struggle against Islam than immigration policy but since that is the major plank of Austerian traditionalism he cannot see that if we remove them, they still won't leave us alone.

But Islam has not been "hijacked" by jihad. Jihad is essential to Muslims. They define themselves as utterly Other to us. And since the Muslim Other--unlike, say, the Inuit or Samoan Other--is inimical to our essential civilization, it forces an abandonment of Western liberality. We cannot afford to be liberal to Islam, or to Muslim nations, as we are liberal to Inuits, or as we were liberal to the Germans after WWII. The only long-run alternatives open to the West in respect to Islam are to convert Muslims to some apostasy or other, or to destroy them. Indeed, these are the very terms in which Mohammed framed Islam's long-run alternatives with respect to us. Thus they give us no option: they force us to the realization that one way or another, sooner or later, either Islam will be eliminated from history, or we will. It is a war of civilizations, and the only way it will ever end is if one of them dies.
-Kristor

Kristor then goes on to blame liberalism for our problems with Islam. Liberalism does prevent us from defending ourselves from Islam, but the problem with the West is much deeper than that. The war against Islam should have never stopped even if Islam seemed too weak to threaten Europe and colonialism against the Muslims should have been much harsher than it actually was e.g. conversion to Christianity should have been mandatory to all occupied Muslim nations. Europe was too busy fighting/competing against itself and felt pity for its rival. It was a combination of many things that made Europe forget the danger of Islam and liberalism was tertiary at best. This is the one problem with Austerian traditionalism; it sees liberalism as the root of all evil that is destroying the West. It's much more complicated than that and if anything, liberalism is only a by-product of Europe's fratercide, cultural malaise, technological advancement, Christianity, and even arrogance. This is why Auster cannot understand the reason why we are losing to Islam is not because liberals won't let us change our immigration policy but because the West (which includes most conservatives) does not have the heart to fight for itself anymore.

UPDATE:

Here's my take on it:

Regarding Spencer and Auster. My overall point here is that the product "Spencer" keeps what it promises, while the product "Auster" does not. Spencer is a specialist, an Islam scholar and critique, and does not claim to have an overall solution. Auster on the other hand does. But as I have shown in previous articles, his position is seriously flawed. As Geza said, he is patently unable to condemn Islam as evil, or to speak in terms of a life-or-death war on Islam. He even degenerates into ugly Islam apologism (something Spencer would never do).

From this swampy position Auster imagines that he's entitled to take the high road and take everyone else to task for their failures (and the Auster way of doing this is to tear them down in the dirtiest sort of way), even if the criticism does not even apply (tone deaf, remember?). Auster imagines that Spencer must show his anti-Jihadist credentials by writing a full length article on Muslim immigration (only Auster and his acolytes think so, no one else has got that idea). But Spencer does not profess to be an expert on immigration policy. How exciting, and more importantly, convincing would an article on Muslim immigration be if the only two points made were: we must stop further immigration from Muslim countries and we must convince the Muslims already here to leave. It's ridiculous, of course. Instead, Spencer provides the platform for Hugh Fitzgerald to write about these things (and about overall solutions) at his site. And with solutions that are more solid than Auster's. But what does that matter to Auster, who's got tunnel vision and is obsessed by attacking and tearing down Spencer.

All in all, Spencer is better aware of how we are in a total war with Islam, simply because he knows Islam better than Auster. And of course since Auster doesn't even have the focus on Islam as the main enemy.

[End of post]

Auster's moral dilemma

2008-07-10T21:39:00.013Z

I was going to make a compilation of Lawrence Auster's Islam apologism. But there is so much, and each case is so good that it deserves a post of its own. I think the funniest one is in how he presented as a difficult moral dilemma, a hypothetical case of a society where the churches had been forced to marry homosexuals (the true evil according to Auster), and the Muslims waiting outside the city gate to attack. Should one let the Muslims in? A very difficult moral dilemma according to Auster. After all it's liberalism and not Islam that is the true evil to Auster.

Here's how he presents it:

Jim Kalb's position certainly raises interesting considerations, and even possible plots for a futuristic movie that may well happen some day. Let us imagine a community of Christians living in a city in a Europe in which Christianity has been effectively banned. This Europe has homosexual marriage, and requires churches to perform homosexual marriages, so that the still-believing, orthodox churches have officially shut their doors to escape this requirement. Meanwhile the Moslems are outside the city gates, trying to take over. They promise the Christians within the walls dhimmi status, freedom to follow their religion (with of course, all the dhimmi restrictions such as not being allowed to ring church bells, not being allowed to repair churches, having to pay jizya and get slapped on the face while paying it, and so on and so on), if the Christians will open the gates and help the Moslems take over. What should the Christians do? If Jim Kalb were their leader, what would he do? If I or David G. were their leader, what would we do?

Gee, gay marriage vs. stoning to death for adultery, pedophile marriage, anal rape of young boys, and all the "complex truths" we get through Sharia. It's so hard to decide really. Truly a moral dilemma, isn't it? In addition the Hadiths recommend cutting the clitorises off young women, regulate things as the shaving of Muslima pussies, and say that it's OK to sodomize an infant and to mix animal excrements in food.

Auster thinks is a tough shot -- after all it's modern liberalism that is the true evil; Islam is not exactly evil. It's almost a toss up, but he might decide for not opening the gates for the Muslims after all. But he sees it as a genuine moral dilemma, so he wouldn't think of holding it against anyone else if they did open the city gates for the Muslim attackers.

Also, Auster has got a naive idea of the dhimmi status of Christians after and Islamic conquest (including the jizya and the slap on the face). His mentor Jim Kalb has told him that Islam has "a theoretical place for Christian communities" (unlike liberalism). But everything is "theoretical" with Jim Kalb, isn't it. Let's have a look at the real world. Recent conquests by Islam have been Kosovo and Libanon. In Kosovo there are soon not any churches left that has not been desecrated in the most vile ways and burned down (but I guess it's still modern liberalism that is the true evil and threat against Christianty).

And regarding the "place" of the Christian community in Lebanon, Brigitte Gabriel has written about it in Frontpage:

They started massacring the Christians, city after city. Horrific events the western media seldom reported. One of the most ghastly acts was the massacre in the of Damour where thousands of Christians were slaughtered like sheep. The Muslims would enter a bomb shelter, see a mother and a father hiding with a little baby. They would tie one leg of the baby to the mother and one leg to the father and pulled the parents apart splitting the child in half. A close friend of mine was mentally disturbed because they made her slaughter her own son in a chair. They tied her to a chair, tied a knife to her hand and holding her hand forcing her to cut her own son's throat. They would urinate and defecate on the altars of churches using the pages of the bible as toilet paper. They did so many things I don't need to go into any more detail. You get the picture

So much for the "theoretical place" for the Christians. Does Auster still think it is a difficult moral dilemma whether the Muslim attackers should be let in through the city gates?

[End of post]

Pamela and Fjordman weigh in on Auster

2008-07-10T18:32:00.010Z

Pamela Geller posted today and weighs in regarding Auster's tone deaf attacks on Spencer:

Spencer vs Auster: Smoke out the Imposters, I say

The post includes a comment by Fjordman. Read the post, it's very good.

I have also added a comment to it, debunking the idea that Auster is willing to turn every stone. And with a comparison between Lawrence Auster and Charles Johnson. I will have reason to come back to this, because there's quite a lot to be said on that theme.

In the meantime, Auster, after having read my first post, decided to weasel out of his attacks on Spencer. But we have seen him playing these sort of games before, and then soon be back again with his obsessive and deranged attacks on Spencer. So we don't buy that anymore. First he stirs up his readers so they get agitated against Robert Spencer, and then he steps in and plays the role of the Man of Moderation. It's all a theater. He's systematically playing everyone around him.

For an odyssey of Auster's failure to turn every stone, his liberal style dirty tricks, and his Vatican II style Islam apologism, I refer first to the comments I made to my previous article, and then to the articles I wrote about it a year ago:

Jim "D'Souza" Kalb
Islam—perverted parasitical psychopathy
Jim Kalb and Islamic perversion
Lawrence Auster, Kalb and Islam
Geza1 on Kalb and Islam
Answer to Auster's comment
More questions for Lawrence Auster
Auster shuns the idea of Islam as a cult
Like Night and Day
Geza responds to Auster's post
Appreciating Auster while criticizing him

[End of post]

Auster's tone deaf attacks on Spencer

2008-07-08T17:06:00.005Z

I hate it when people are overly obsessed by a too simplistic concept, like IQ. Any intelligent person knows that intelligence is far more complex and diverse than that. Psychologist Howard Gardner suggest that we should speak in terms of seven different intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal.

Lawrence Auster is extremely talented in some of them, while failing miserably in others. This explains for the fact of how he in one situation will appear as brilliant and in the other as utterly tone deaf. His obsessive attacks on Robert Spencer is such a case of Auster being totally tone deaf.

The fact that a person with such comparatively high mainstream profile, as Robert Spencer, speaks out clearly for ending all Muslim immigration to the U.S., should be applauded. But how does Auster decide to play that ball? He makes it into a pretext for the goriest sort of attacks, ending up on the lowest sort of personal level.

While there is definitely a point in criticizing fellow counter-Jihadists, when they haven't rooted out liberalism or political correctness sufficiently from their minds, the way that Auster completely torpedoes every personal relation with every anti-Jihadist there is, is a sign of (should we say) as serious lack of intelligence, in an important respect.

I know what I'm talking about here, because if there is something that is typical of me it is how I use most of my time in criticizing fellow counter-Jihadists and pointing out any poisonous sign of liberalism or political correctness I find with them. I'm an exorcist, but I'm a friendly sort of priest. My aim is to encourage people to better themselves. Yes, exorcism hurts, but the purpose is good. And if I find that I'm about to lose the contact with the subject, I stop the treatment for a while. I never burn any bridges (well, the bridge to Lawrence Auster is burned down, but guess who burnt it?). My relations with people such as Baron Bodissey, Paul Belien and Robert Spencer have at times been tense, but never lead to a complete break. Instead the dialog over strong disagreements rather intensify the relation and the trust. The talent here is not so much in me as in people as the ones I mentioned above, but at least I'm wise enough not to close the window (or smash it apart) to the opportunity of a continued constructive dialog.

I do not think that Robert Spencer should be the least worried about Auster's obsessive tirades. There's not a single anti-Jihadist of importance on this planet that takes it seriously. Everybody knows that Auster falls out with everybody. I might as well ask Auster himself, since I know he will be reading this (he always searches for his own name at other blogs): Can you name a single anti-Jihadist of any significance that takes your attacks on Robert Spencer seriously?

Lawrence Auster is as isolated from the rest of the anti-Jihad movement as Charles Johnson. While Robert Spencer is one of the most important front soldiers of it. People like Robert Spencer and Melanie Phillips are waging the battle in the hostile open fields, proselytizing among the uninitiated, while Auster is sitting philosophizing in his castle. Auster is clearly completely tone deaf to the fact of how you have to weigh your words if you want an article published in e.g. the Daily Mail. Auster should try to get something published in the Daily Mail himself. But he seems to think that it is preferable not to publish in such mainstream papers. He seems to think it is superior to just write at a small blog, while pondering upon what he consider to be the "objective truth" (he seems to think that he thereby, somehow, would find a transcendent key to reach all people). In this respect he reminds me of the all-or-nothing attitude among liberals (in how, if they cannot get metaphysically unconstrained freedom, they rather not have it at all).

An important, and impressive, quality of Lawrence Auster is in how early he saw through the PC/liberal charade and spoke out against it (under his real name). But it is only interesting for so long to repeat how he certainly said so first and long before the person he's currently attacking. When it ends up being his main argument against that person, it's only childish. Auster with his pioneering brilliant analyses, had the potential of becoming an important intellectual leader. But due to the deficiencies of other sides of his personality, he seriously blew that possibility. And now he's dug himself too deep into the trenches to get out. But there is a way out even for Lawrence Auster, and that way goes through Christianity. Christianity offers the concepts of regret and forgiveness that offers a way out even from the trenches that Auster has dug himself down into. He should try it. He would find that there are many people who are willing to welcome him back into the crowd.

[End of post]

Charles Johnson: The Dan Rather of the Blogosphere?

2007-12-13T17:30:00.000Z

The LGF squabble has generated quite some discussion, and I have been over quite a lot at Gates of Vienna to discuss it (you know by now that this is where you find me when I'm not posting here).

The whole affair has now been summarized eloquently by Baron Bodissey in two articles. One yesterday named Suggested Corrections for Charles Johnson, and then today Charles Johnson: The Dan Rather of the Blogosphere? A question which I find very appropriate at this point.

Baron Bodissey starts his article with some background:

The downfall of Dan Rather in the fall of 2004 was brought about by the hard work of a lot of ordinary people, by men and women without any J-school credentials or experience in the field. It was a triumph of a new form of media.

And Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs was the hero of that triumph.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Needless to say, Mr. Johnson wasn’t the only star of the show. The initial exposé of the Killian memo came from Free Republic. Other prominent bloggers were in the thick of it doing important work, including Power Line, Michelle Malkin, Roger Simon, and Instapundit. Bill at InDC Journal played a crucial role when he contacted an expert on typewriters who made mincemeat of the CBS in-house expert’s laughable assertions. Many other smaller blogs, commenters, and forum posters contributed to the effort. It truly was “an Army of Davids”.

He continues:

So what has gone wrong with this process as it applies to the conflict with LGF about Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna?

As mentioned yesterday, Charles Johnson has left standing a number of erroneous posts on these topics, without posting a public retraction or correction. These are not mere opinions, nor interpretations of photos or rat cartoons. These are actual errors of fact, ones that can be easily confirmed as false if anyone bothers to look up the cited sources.

So why has fact-checking failed in this case?

And concludes:

What are the options for Charles Johnson, or for any other prominent blogger who makes significant factual errors?

I see the same three possibilities that faced Dan Rather when the forged Killian memos were exposed:

1.
Acknowledge the errors and accept responsibility for them, even though they were committed by subordinates. This was not the road taken by Mr. Rather.
2.
The infamous “fake but accurate” defense, which acknowledges that the “facts” were bogus, but asserts the underlying truth of the accusations. Dan Rather attempted this strategy, but it never gained any real traction, not even in the MSM.
3.
Stonewalling. This was the method most favored by Mr. Rather, and which he persists in to this day, as witnessed by his lawsuit against CBS.

So far Charles Johnson has preferred option #3, failing to take up any of the suggested corrections posted here yesterday.

But I’m optimistic that this situation might change. After all, Mr. Johnson gained a well-deserved reputation for ferreting out the truth, and letting the chips fall where they may.

I'm not so optimistic as the Baron here. Charles Johnson has let himself become a mouthpiece for the hard left. Charles sees them as brothers in "anti-fascism". They despise him, but see him as their useful idiot. Charles seems to have gone too deep into this, and shows no signs of turning around. He is impervious to arguments as well as to seeing the bigger picture here.

[End of post]

A short note to Charles

2007-11-16T22:42:00.000Z

Charles Johnson answered to my blog post yesterday:

Here's another attack on me:

[Link: conswede.blogspot.com...]
Apparently, something about my statements that I missed the invitation to the Brussels conference offends Conservative Swede (another brave anti-jihad warrior who doesn't use a real name). But it's a fact -- I saw several emails from GoV about the conference, but don't recall specifically seeing an invitation. With 500+ emails in my Inbox every day, it's impossible to read every one.
None of this matters anyway, it's just more peripheral crap to distract people's attention away from the real issues. Note that "Christine" and her friends are now scouring LGF comments for any hint of contradiction, so they can play "Gotcha!"

The issue is not whether Charles understood that the emails from Gates of Vienna were invitations or not. The issue is whether he was aware of the participation of Vlaams Belang before October 19th or not. Charles claimed in the Shire interview that he was "paying attention to the story" of those emails. It seems incredible that he could have payed attention to the story, while missing that Vlaams Belang were attending. In fact, Vlaams Belang was all over the story of those emails since the conference took place in their home turf, and they took care of the arrangements for the venue and security of the conference. This just couldn't have been missed by someone paying attention to the story in those emails.

If Charles was aware of the participation of Vlaams Belang at the time he got the emails, it will make him look less than serious as an anti-Jihadist. A valid question then is why he didn't bring up his concerns as constructive criticism to the organizers before the conference took place. The way he dismisses such a valid question as an "attack" and "peripheral crap", and the way he continues to tell different stories about what happened, makes him look even less serious and honest. The issue is of course irrelevant to whether Vlaams Belang are neo-Nazis or not, but it's all relevant for assessing Charles' sincerity regarding the cause of forging a common anti-Jihadist movement. And I think this issue is important enough, and so should Charles, for his own good.

Regarding the way Christine is keeping a record of LGF comments: The thing is that one cannot search among LGF comments without having an LGF registration (by Charles' design). And most people on the other side of this argument with Charles have been banned from LGF (also policy by Charles). So this has been setup to more easily facilitate web searches. Surely Charles Johnson is a man who can appreciate the value of web searches, when investigating a matter. Or is there a special reason why web searches are unjust if they concern Charles and LGF? Is there a special reason why investigation of the statements of Charles Johnson are morally objectionable and shouldn't take place?

[End of post]

Looks like damage control to me, Charles

2007-11-14T23:15:00.000Z

Charles Johnson of LGF professes himself as a leading figure of the anti-Jihad movement. But how serious is he really about anti-Jihad resistance in practice?

The Counterjihad Summit in Brussels was the first of its kind. A very important effort indeed. Not just presentations and talking -- it was a working meeting! Networks were being built, action plans were being worked out, people could come together and feel that there are many of us, even though we are a marginal minority in each place where we operate. This is precisely the way to do it, and much needed. Of course there had been discussions before the conference of whom to invite and whom not to invite, for example it was clear that BNP or Le Pen's Front National should not be invited. No anti-Semites were invited to the conference, only expressly philo-Semitic people were attending. Apart from being repugnant, anti-Semites are the worst possible allies you could have, since they are obsessed by one single theme, all animated by hallucinational fear of ghosts, disconnected from the real world. And anyway, anti-Semites have no interest in attending "icky" philo-Semitic conferences as ours.

Charles Johnson was being kept in the loop about this counterjihad conference from the very start. He got his first email with an invitation to participate from Baron Bodissey already three months before the conference. In total he got three emails. But unlike the majority of the invitees Charles never answered a single email.
- - - - - - - - - -
It was only when Dymphna of Gates of Vienna informed him that the conference had taken place and gave him a link to what Baron Bodissey had written about it, that he acted. And then by suddenly publicly questioning of the whole thing. In his first post about the conference the immediate sneering smackdown, from some commenter of LGF who calls himself "Dave of Sweden", was put on the front page of the post itself. And since then he has continued an ambitious campaign against the conference, more resembling a witch hunt than anything else. All about guilt-by-association charges (mostly using highly questionable sources) most of which were completely faulty, none of which he admitted or corrected, and the remaining ones still just "by association". Gates of Vienna was de-linked from LGF, and Dymphna and Baron Bodissey banned. Fjordman became banned too. A whole bunch of people were banned for not toeing to the line of Charles Johnson.

There are still different opinions about Vlaams Belang among anti-Jihadists. Some think we should work with them, some don't. This is absolutely a valid discussion, and we respectfully exchange the different opinions among each other. So this is not the problem with Charles Johnson and LGF. The grave problem is in how he abstained from giving any constructive criticism before the conference, and how he launched an aggressive campaign against the conference after it had taken place.

But Charles is an intelligent man, and clearly by now he has come to realize how bad this looks. He's been facing a lot of criticism, also from within PajamasMedia by Richard Miniter. Apart from the whole train of people Charles banned, equally many left LGF voluntarily since they found Charles' modus operandi repugnant and dishonest. The reaction against his behaviour has been so strong and widespread that even Charles realized that there is a world outside of LGF -- the echo chamber that he has carefully tailored for himself. He's realized how bad it looks for someone professing as a serious anti-Jihadist to not forwarding any constructive criticism to the epicenter of the anti-Jihad resistance about their pivotal conference, but instead immediately going public with it, striking a decisive blow against the whole effort. So he decided that he needed to do some damage control.

Tom Paine of Shire Network interviewed Charles Johnson this Monday. The very first thing Charles said in the interview was this:

"It actually started because the people who run Gates of Vienna were emailing me about this counterjihad conference that was being organised in Belgium. And so I was paying attention to the story, and really hadn't noticed the guest list too much until I posted something on, I believe it was October 19th, about the conference. And at that point is when I actually read the people who were included in the conference. And realized that there were problems around a couple of them, just because I've been paying attention to what happens there. And I posted that. Then I thought maybe that some of these people were hitching a ride for less than honourable reasons. And after that everything just all blew up (laughter)."

Charles here decides to immediately open with countering the impression that he was fully informed about the conference beforehand, but didn't react until afterwards. He claims that he wasn't fully informed since he hadn't "noticed the guest list too much". The essence of his claim is that he was not aware of the participation of Vlaams Belang until after the conference had taken place, and that this is the reason that he didn't forward constructive criticism to his fellow counterjihadists beforehand. Still he claims that he had been "paying attention to the story" of the emails (but apparently didn't find it important enough to answer any of them).

If we assume that Charles' account of what happened is true, here's the strange thing: even if one didn't read the guest list of these emails at all, but only payed attention to the story, Vlaams Belang is all over the story. The conference was going to take place in Belgium. Security concerns was a major issue, since these kind of meetings regularly gets attacked by leftist stormtroopers (largely egged by more or less obscure Internet campaigns where we are "framed" as Nazi-like). Therefore it was carefully explained early in the story of these emails how Vlaams Belang would take care of the arrangements for the venue and security of the conference. This since they were able to grant us access to the highly secure European and Flemish parliaments for the meetings.

Christine of CVF here gives a detailed account of what had been sent to Charles Johnson in the emails about the conference, about the "story" of the conference:

The email from July 14 stated, “Paul Belien of Brussels Journal is actively involved, and Filip Dewinter, a leader of Vlaams Belang (the Flemish separatist party) is helping us out with the venue and security. “
The email from July 30 stated, “Philip Claeys, EU Parliamentarian with Vlaams Belang, is helping with access to facilities and security.”
The email from September 9 stated “Vlaams Belang is making the arrangements for the venue and security, and I will be in touch later with recommendations for accommodation and information about meals and transport.”

So if we are going to believe Charles, we will have to disbelieve his claim that he had been "paying attention to the story". And by now it becomes rather complex even for the most benevolent believer in Charles' claims, since it becomes apparent that not everything he said in the opening of the Shire interview could be fully true. And either way you twist it, Charles turns out as looking like anything but a serious anti-Jihadist. The most benevolent way to interpret Charles is that he read virtually nothing of the emails sent by Gates of Vienna. And how serious does that look? A "leading" anti-Jihadist falling asleep at the keyboard (three times!) when he gets emails about the most important anti-Jihad conference ever. The less benevolent interpretation is that Charles read it all, which means that he's a backstabber and a liar. Which does not only cast doubts about him being serious, but about him being an anti-Jihadist at all.

Charles is an intelligent man, so he has realized this problem too. He feels how his world is shrinking. Initially he saw himself as speaking for the whole anti-Jihad movement, confident that he spoke for the majority. Then he declared that he had never been on the "anti-jihad bandwagon", at least not the majority conservative one. Now he's appealing only to "US anti-jihad bloggers". Not US anti-Jihadists in general, just the bloggers -- of whom he probably still imagines himself as being the leader.

So at least subconsciously, he's aware of how badly he has damaged his reputation. He's done his best to apply damage control to the situation, but his traitorous behaviour is too obvious. So the question is how many will believe in his spin, apart for the sycophants of his personal echo-chamber.

Update:

Christine of CVF, who's keeping track of Charles' LGF comments, just emailed me this:

He’s perhaps a little confused…because he also posted this AFTER the interview was recorded:
#817

Charles 11/12/07 3:42:48 pm reply quote report

re: #813 Meryl Yourish
Actually, what I got out of it was, "Well, we invited him to the conference, and he didn't come, and he didn't say we were bigots for three months, and now all of a sudden, he says we're bigots. That's not FAY-YER."
Indeed. For what it's worth, I don't remember receiving the invitation, and may not have read it. I get 500+ emails a day usually, and it's not unusual for me to miss something. But what does any of that matter? Again, it's an obfuscation; it's got nothing to do with the facts.

Part 7: The New Party and how it was crushed

2007-11-13T00:25:00.001Z

For Westerners living far away from Europe, it can sometimes be very hard to grasp the gravity of the political situation in particular European countries. People from Eastern Europe have in recent memory the reaction from some such Westerners, when they heard about how there was no food to buy in the food store: "So why didn't you go to another food store to buy food?" In the same manner we have recently heard across the Atlantic the (in another context perfectly sensible, but here not at all applicable) objection, that the Swedish anti-jihadists, instead of joining and co-operating with the Sweden Democrats (who everybody knows and agrees has some very problematic things in their past), should have started a fresh new party undoubtedly free from any historical baggage of real, imagined or distant neo-Nazi connections, or anything of the sort.

Of course, quite as the subject under the communist empire could get his legs moving and take a walk to another food store, a new party could have been started in Sweden. And in both cases it's not as if it hasn't been tried. But in both cases to no avail. And this for fundamental reasons built into the system. In part 4 and part 5 I have already described how power is practiced in Sweden by the hegemony, through a system designed so that the MSM entirely holds the complete power over whether a new party is able to enter the political arena, i.e. whether the existence of it will be known at all to the general electorate. Clearly a political party, which existence is virtually unknown of, is as pointless as supermarket without food.

In part 6 I told the story about The New Party and how it was crushed by the system. However, for someone not knowing Sweden from the inside, I can see how it could still be hard to fully take in the magnitude of this. Therefore I will here present a more detailed account of it, told by the founder of the party himself -- Ian Wachtmeister. I found this compilation of quotes at Jan Milld's site BGF (read it in Swedish here). My fellow countryman, LN, who often contributes to Gates of Vienna, did the bulk of the translation (thanks LN!). Then Baron B perfected the English, before I had a final go at it giving it that proper Swenglish touch.

This will provide you with all the context you need to understand the political climate of Sweden!

- - - - - - - - - -
From Ian Wachtmeister's book The Frogs (Grodorna) -- about experiences of the election campaign 1998, when The New Party tried to hold public meetings in town squares:

The Election Campaign 1998

"The Jesuits professed themselves adherent of the thesis: 'the end justifies the means'. Is the end sufficiently glorious, then all and any means can be applied."

"February 1998: Svegfors, the editor for the Swedish daily paper Svenska Dagbladet, says in front of an astonished audience at the Institute for Company Management (IFL): 'Wachtmeister does not have a chance. He will at the most reach 0.2 percent. Because we will simply not write a word about him.' On a direct question he explained that by 'we' he meant virtually all media in Sweden!"

"The election campaign of The New Party consequently started in the first days in June 1998.

Just after midsummer 1998 hooligans were crashing our meetings. Vegans, communists, antifascists and whatever they call themselves, always led by the Young Left (Swedish ex-Communist Youth League) with the SSU (Swedish Social Democratic Youth League) as a detached observer. They implemented organized riots and broke all possible laws there are to protect the freedom of speech of election meetings summoned in due order. It started in Gävle and continued in Norrtälje, Stockholm, Nynäshamn, Västervik, Kalmar, Halmstad, Falkenberg, Varberg, Umeå, Skellefteå, Luleå, Linköping, Jönköping, Lund, Malmö and once more in Stockholm. To the extent that any police at all were present at least they tried to hold the hooligans at distance, but there was a dreadful noise and uproar, that I can guarantee. However, we never broke off a meeting, instead we increased the sound level on our speakers. Pia Dahlström, who appeared together with me in the majority of riotous meetings, was tough and strong. And spoke excellently. Good work, Pia!

The organized riots were reported to the police. In no case this led to any prosecutions. The legal investigations were withdrawn - if they were even started.

Do not believe that we were attacked by 'personally involved young people' (an expression that was used in the papers in Skåne!). With ready-made printed lampoons, rattles and whistles, uniformed in black and with black and red flags and with commanders in civilian clothes, who led their forces by cell phone, they tried to take over the entire meeting. By ourselves, we had to push away the hooligans with the right hand and hold the microphone with the left. Nota bene - on the entire tour the police never captured anyone attempting sabotage of the freedom of assembly, but only for direct insults and gesticulations against the police. Those who were apprehended were immediately released.

Add to all this the murder threats via letters and e-mails and one well armed person that we observed at a meeting in Nynäshamn.

Probably the prosecutors considered it unnecessary even to take our police-reports seriously. It only concerned "outcasts" from an excommunicated party!

The risk was nil that someone in the powerful right - or left - circles should care about the nonchalance of the authorities. And of course this was entirely correct. The media remained obediently silent.

There are still more remarkable elements. In multiple places it was acknowledged that school teachers sanctioned the hooliganism and that sympathetic pupils were given free time in order to be able to contribute their share to democracy. In some places, teachers even participated as conductors of the actions!!

But now just listen! In Lund, where the unlawfulness was passively backed by police who showed a clear political sympathy for them, my wife (!) when protecting herself was reported to the police for having attacked young people. That dossier was dismissed after approximately eighteen months."

"In the locale paper Sydsvenskan Eva Persson, the leader of the hooligans, declared that she was pleased beyond expectations with how effective everything had been in Lund due to the cooperation with the police. Sure, this is exactly what she said to the newspapers.

The police in Malmö dialed me immediately after the meeting in Lund and made their apologies for the disgraceful behavior of the police in Lund. They suggested that I should report to the police the police of Lund... which I did. This internal investigation, however, was dismissed. What did you believe?

Meanwhile between the end of June and the election on September 20 the bigger newspapers wrote almost nothing about these riots and nobody, I repeat nobody, dissociated themselves from them, neither our alas! so moral editors like Svegfors and Leijonhufvud on the Svenska Dagbladet, nor those leading politicians that during orderly conditions themselves could disseminate their message around the country. My friend, pastor Alf [Svensson- party leader of the Christian Democrats 1973-2004], did not say a word. I wonder what Jesus would have said about that.

As said before, September 20 was election day. An election in Sweden is a TV play. The New Party had never been presented in TV, and precisely as the editor Svegfors promised, nor in any newspapers. That obedient wife of Pär Nuder [former socialist minister of Finance], i.e. Ingrid Carlberg, journalist at Dagens Nyheter, for security's sake wrote an article two days before the election in which you could read that I had given up. The Swedish Radio news program Dagens Eko (the Daily Echo) helpfully contributed with a similar comment during ongoing election!!

Through the outcome of the election the order was restored. No new parties would disturb those dozing, already established parties. The cooperation with the media had functioned according to plan.

I had, along with a brave gang, held meetings approximately one hundred and thirty times throughout Sweden from the north to the south, from east to west. Many had listened to our message (see the introduction to this chapter). But when in the media it looked as if the party was not participating in the election, this did not bring many votes. Twenty-five thousand for certain.

The New Party's election campaign was despite all difficulties carried out in a very good mood and I am eternally grateful to everyone who lined up. Eloquent, spirited and brave young ladies expressed their messages and were encouraged by the manifest support of the real audience. The truck, with drivers and co-workers, that patiently went on working, despite repeated sabotage, graffiti, pierced tires, smashed windshields, drove on through the country."

"But then, ladies and gentlemen, half a year after the election, the chief editor of Dagens Nyheter (DN) began to speak. On March 15, 1999 he published a signed editorial asking: 'Is a party leader allowed to speak in Sweden?'

It began like this: 'Why didn't anybody react against the systematic disturbances of Ian Wachtmeister's election meetings? Björn Elmbrandt (of Swedish Radio) asked us in the Media this conscience question in his inaugural lecture for the DN-professorship in journalism at the Stockholm University. Elmbrandt's starting point was the defense of democracy. Representatives for a political party have all rights to speak on general meetings during an election campaign.'

Hans Bergström establishes that the only true police investigation that was started, and that was linked to The New Party's election meetings, was a preliminary investigation initiated against my wife because she defended herself against those who disturbed a meeting. This despite the fact that the party had reported meeting disturbances in fifteen towns to the police.

Hans Bergström then reports with a picture of the leaflet that was disseminated by Jenny Lindahl's Young Left activists, the very worst outrage, that in Lund.

He establishes that 'no organized disturbance of a meeting can become clearer than this. Eight organizations, including the youth association of a leading parliament party, have printed posters that urge people to rally round in order to physically prevent a party leader from speaking to the voters, because his views about taxes and labor legislation (according to what is explained in a folder) are not liked. Ian Wachtmeister reported also this disturbance of a meeting to the police and the prosecutor. Since the most apparent evidence was in printed form, the prosecutor submitted the dossier to the Chancellor of Justice (JK) that has to monitor infringements of the press law. The Chancellor of Justice, Hans Regnér, quickly cancelled the dossier with a written justification so miserable that it should be reproduced as a whole.

He starts by saying that it can be difficult to get copies of the poster (despite its apparent existence) or facts concerning to what extent it had been disseminated. The Chancellor of Justice, however, admits that "probably a printed script is involved". Still, the case should not be investigated "because a continued investigation in order to clarify the questions would require significant costs". Furthermore, the sanction would probably not become more severe than fines, the Chancellor of Justice gives as an excuse. Admittedly "one must look seriously upon urgent requests to disturb freedom of assembly as guaranteed by the constitution. This applies especially when it is question about extra-parliamentary methods that aim to disturb or to prevent political parties from expressing their messages in connection with general elections", but -- the Chancellor of Justice continues his excuses -- some more systematic campaign it does not seem to have been. (How does the Chancellor of Justice know that without an investigation?) Therefore, the Chancellor of Justice decides that a preliminary investigation will not be initiated. "The dossier is hereby closed." Instead, a preliminary investigation is initiated by the prosecutor against Lena Wachtmeister half a year later!

And Hans Bergström continues: 'this is unparalleled for a democracy and a state governed by law. Fifteen coarse meeting disturbances. The worst in Lund. Broken campaign trucks and fifteen murder threats against a political party in the middle of an election campaign in Sweden did not result in one single preliminary investigation. In the majority of places the police remained entirely passive. In some cases they put up gigantic riot barriers that also hindered the holding of an ordinary political meeting. Everything in order to avoid having to intervene against political hooligans having no understanding that freedom of assembly belongs to democracy.

Had corresponding meeting-disturbances hit Olof Johansson [then leader of the Center Party], Göran Persson [then leader of the Social Democrats], Carl Bildt [then leader of the Moderates], Gudrun Schyman or Birger Schlaug [Left and Green] it is self-evident that the police would have acted in an entirely different way; probably the Chancellor of Justice had done it also. Now, it was about a small party, nevertheless with a former parliament member as party leader, one could not expect the same general understanding. At this point the state governed by law is put to the test.

Like Björn Elmbrandt I am as a publicist ashamed that we did not react more strongly already during the election campaign in 1998 against the systematic attacks on The New Party's right to speak. The party and the party leader will not line up in the election to the European Parliament now in July, to a large extent because of what happened in 1998. It might be the correct conclusion, but it is drawn off a wrong reason. We cannot have order in the Swedish democracy where police, prosecutors and the Chancellor of Justice accept that hooligans and mobsters prevent party leaders from speaking to voters-to-be in election times.

So far this very elucidating article by Hans Bergström.

On March 19 the somewhat pressed Chancellor of Justice expresses himself in the paper Dagens Nyheter. His contribution is so fatally illogical and contrary to the law that I do not want to tire you with it.

Hans Bergström patiently pointed out for the Chancellor of Justice that it is more than a matter of standard procedure when a party leader systematically is prevented from holding campaign meetings during the election process. It is about an attack against the vital nerve of democracy. Then the sum of the judicial system's responses should not look like what it now did: the Chancellor of Justice decided that no preliminary investigation should be initiated concerning the election posters requesting meeting disturbances, the police in Lund remained entirely passive face to face with the hooligans, nor was a preliminary investigation later initiated about the disturbance of the meeting and the Chief District Prosecutor in Malmö quickly discontinued the preliminary investigation concerning police malfeasance.

In summary: Not a single instance of the combined Swedish judicial system found a reason to lift a finger against the meeting disturbances or to investigate one iota of what was happening. What does this say about how the judicial system safeguards the Swedish democracy at work? What will the future outcome of it be: That political parties start to establish their own protection corps in order to be able to have election meetings?"

It was all completely effective. As I have already pointed out before, I was not even aware of the existence of this party until four years later, before the election 2002, when I started taking an interest in how things had gone very wrong in my country. It was at BGF I read about it.

Sweden is a dominant-party system, verging on a de facto single-party state, with the Social Democrats as the "State Party". We have read here about the role of the Social Democratic youth organization (SSU) in this. I will have reason to come back to where the Expo Foundation fits into this picture.

I think this final post of my series should make it all clear to my readers to what extent the PC regime in Sweden is a hermetically sealed system. And that at this point the Sweden Democrats is the only available battering ram to break through this wall. And the reason why it's a party with a checkered past (i.e. the officially appointed punching bag) is all part of the system too -- an integral part of it. As is indicated by my series: the more hermetically sealed the PC regime of a country, the murkier the past of the anti-establishment party. But that was the past, when the omnipotence of the PC regimes was staggering. This is all changing now.

More:

Part 1: Counterjihadism changing the European political map
Part 2: Sweden Democrats and Hollywood Nazis
Part 3: It's a riddle
Part 4: The effect of the constitution in Sweden
Part 5: Sweden and Denmark, closed and open systems
Part 6: Brief history of anti-establishment parties in Sweden

Part 6: Brief history of anti-establishment parties in Sweden

2007-11-07T00:18:00.000Z

I will here tell the story of three anti-establishment parties, critical of the hegemonic (and thoroughly twisted) immigration policy of Sweden:

New Democracy
The New Party
The Sweden Democrats

In part 4 and part 5 I have shown how the power, in Sweden, over whether a new party can enter the political system lies entirely with the media.
- - - - - - - - - -

New Democracy

New Democracy (Ny Demokrati), founded in 1991, became a media favorite from the very start. The party was actually created in media, in a live TV debate program (Siewert Öholm's "Svar direkt"). The party had a dual leadership: Bert Karlsson, a record company and amusement park owner, and Ian Wachtmeister, a Count and former CEO of different Swedish companies. Both already colourful medial figures, and there was simply too much good stuff to write about them for media to stay away. The profile issues of the party were restricted immigration, substantial tax-cuts and red tape reduction. Their style was populistic, intending to make politics less boring and more accessible for the common man. E.g. they demonstrated, at square meetings, how governments expenses could be cut, by stacking beer cases. And railed against "crocodile politicians" from the mainstream parties, who were said to resemble crocodiles in that they were "all mouth but no ears."

This was the first anti-establishment party in Swedish history. So it fulfilled a real need, and got 6.7% of the votes and entered the parliament (passing the 4% threshold). But they would have gotten nowhere if it hadn't been for all the the media attention they got.

With its 6.7% New Democracy held the balance of power in the parliament between the socialist and the center-right blocs. The long tradition of socialist governments got it's second break since 1934, and a center-right government was formed. It was a multi-party government of four parties, but New Democracy was not part of it. They were even shunned an excluded by the other parties, and by now also by the media (immigration politics, you know). At the election night when the victory was celebrated, the leader of the Liberal Party left the TV sofa in protest, when Ian and Bert entered the studio to sit down among the other non-socialist parties.

The Liberal Party got full power over the department of immigration in this government and launched the Swedish era of mass immigration for real. The Social Democrats had held back somewhat up until then, but the Liberal Party opened the floodgates wide open. And the third-world immigration tripled (nominally asylum seekers, but documents are not checked, and they all get permanent residency). So this was the effective result for the immigration politics of the election in 1991. Today, under the new center-right government of Reinfeldt, we are back at this extremely high rate, of close to 80,000 permanent residencies handed out per year (close to 1% of our population coming in every year), of which the vast majority are third world "refugees" (mostly Muslims). While the number of job market immigrants has been less than 7,000 for the last 20 years -- in total! This immigration is highly restricted in Sweden thanks to the immense power of the trade union, who won't let them come her and "take our jobs". In the last 20 years we have had about 800,000 third world "refugees" and their family coming here, which corresponds to 9% of our population.

By 1994 the chaos that a new party with mostly unexperienced people meant, and the effects of being isolated by the other parties, and of a dual leadership of two strong personalities became too much for New Democracy. Ian and Bert couldn't get along anymore and they parted ways, and both left the party, which almost immediately dissolved, and never again played a role in Swedish politics.

The New Party

Before the election in 1998 Ian Wachtmeister had started a new party called The New Party (Det Nya Pariet). He had learned from his previous mistakes and based the core of the party on serious academics, such as Ingrid Björkman and Jan Elfverson (both subsequently co-authors of the excellent book Exit Folkhemssverige in 2005).

But the Swedish media had also learned from past mistakes, and decided to suppress the new party completely. The news papers ignored the party's press conferences and meetings, and simply didn't write about them. This was very effective. Myself I didn't even hear about this party until a few years later. If less than a few percent of the electorate know about the existence of a party, it is of course completely impossible for that party to become part of the political system, and receive enough votes to enter the parliament.

Media silence about new parties is the main key in creating the closed system that Sweden is. Media silence completely undermines the efforts of new anti-establishment parties, that the elite does not want to exist in Sweden (a sensible anti-establishment party is the most formidable enemy to them). It renders their election campaign completely meaningless. But in order to make the PC system a real fortress, armoured in steel, some more things are needed. The idea is that they should not only fail their election campaign (as in: failing to even participating on the arena), but be fully discouraged to continue at all.

The New Party held over 100 meetings in squares and public places, all across Sweden. These meetings were routinely sabotaged by leftist "activists", organizing riots, using rattles and whistles to make it impossible for the speakers to be heard, all while the media and the legal system turn their blind eye to it. Very effective. And ordinary people passing by would think that this is probably a Nazi-like party since those "youths" are so upset about them, and nobody in the media comes to their defense.

Ian Wachtmeister's the New Party got 25,000 votes in the 1998 election. A complete failure. Ian Wachtmeister left politics, and never tried again. If all arenas of democratic debate is completely blocked to you -- the media and public meetings -- what can you do? Nothing! The Swedish system had shown its effectiveness as a PC fortress armoured in steel.

The Sweden Democrats

A power so omnipotent as the Swedish PC system, still need their punching bags to hit at, to appear as bravely standing up in a righteous fight against evil. The ideal such punching bag is an enemy that is: i) completely harmless, but ii) can be made looking completely evil through the light of the political theater. The Church, in the old days, urgently needed the heretics and the satanist, as part of their theater. The people need not only bread, but circuses. It's important that the power appears as acting bravely against evil (for the sake of the theater: pick an imagined evil, a real evil could be a real problem), so that people can be rallied and channel their attention away from real issues.

The Sweden Democrats was appointed by the PC elite to be the main such punching bag, back in the '90s. Precisely because it was not a Nazi party, it became the perfect member of the cast to make the connection between ordinary people's worries about mass immigration and Nazism. And of course, once the connection had been made, people with a negative self-image, i.e. anti-Semites, skinheads etc., seeked to become part of the punching bag. The Sweden Democrats was founded in 1988. Soon New Democracy had their success in the election of 1991 attracting all the people concerned about mass immigration. The Sweden Democrats became a haunt of outcasts, loners, and losers in the beginning of the '90s. The perfect punching bag. And the more it was punched, the more people with a negative self-image were attracted to the party. But the party was also home to the completely sensible people who had seen the problems of mass immigration much earlier than all the other, but who had therefore been viciously stigmatized as racists, and therefore had nothing more to lose by being officially stamped as racists.

This is a political theater in perfect harmony. The omnipotent power is not threatened, and everything is peaceful. Real threats, such as The New Party, are mercilessly suppressed, and the people do not even know about their existence. Still the people get their fill of circus, thanks to the presence of punching bags, such as the Sweden Democrats, mercilessly vilified by the inquisitors at Expo.

The elite controls the whole theater. The whole point of the media attention, that the Sweden Democrats gets, has been to show it up as an example of how not to do. The weak point in this setup is of course that the people must know about the existence of the punching bag. What if the people would vote for the "evil" party anyway, as a way to protest against the establishment? What if the frog jumps across the stream even if it's explicitly forbidden to do so?

After 9/11, more and more people have seen the urgency of the Islamisation of our country, and how it is connected to the regime of mass immigration that is pushed upon us by the elite. This, and also the changes that they can see happening in Denmark since 2001, made more and more people decide to do something about it. To start with they started to protest by voting for the "evil" party. But casting a protest vote every four years, is simply not enough. People have joined the party and transformed it. The transformation was completed by the election of Jimmie Åkesson as the new leader of the party in 2005. This was possible just because the people of Sweden knew this party existed. And there was no other anti-establishment party available on the arena. And as I have shown in this article, there couldn't have been.

If you are treated like Cinderella, and are only handed one piece of clothing by your haughty stepmother, you cannot afford to throw it away no matter how ugly it is. Your only option is to make the necessary alterations to it, to change it to a nice dress, worthy of a pretty girl.

Part 5: Sweden and Denmark, closed and open systems

2007-11-02T19:40:00.000Z

The constitution is one component in what constitutes an open political system of fair play, with checks and balances and real power to the people. But there are many more. As we learned from Iraq, universal suffrage itself doesn't get us far. If it's not backed up the proper political climate and traditions its merely of ceremonial value. Among the other components needed are: i) an arena of debate that is not closed for entry of new agents and ordinary people, ii) real freedom of organizing political meetings, both public as well as internal meetings.

Once again the comparison between Sweden and Denmark becomes a study in closed respectively open systems. The media all over the West is heavily tilted to the left, and more or less closed systems, but in Sweden it is almost a perfectly closed system, while in Denmark it is more open than anywhere else.
- - - - - - - - - -
Sweden has often been described as a "duck pond". The elites reside together in a small bubble in Stockholm. Politicians and journalists are friends and socialize at dinners and parties. There is a strong agreement about what to write and what not to write in the news papers. The Nazi background of Sverker Åström, diplomat and eager opinion maker for the Social Democrats, is not mentioned. Well, unless it's a column by Per Ahlmark, but Per Ahlmark also writes for Washington Times, so he's considered a far-right lunatic. The alcoholism of Gudrun Schyman, former leader of the ex-Communist party, was kept hidden for long. Well, until she was so blasted that she peed on the floor of a cinema theater at a premier. But even then she was allowed to come out about it on her own terms (the peeing was not mentioned of course). While anyone else who does not belong to the Socialist block and is not the mascot of the media, will have to run the gauntlet in media even for imagined personal problems.

There's simply no diversity in Swedish media, and they essentially all write the same things. Also the supposedly "independent Moderat" (i.e. the most right-wing you get) Svenska Dagbladet wrote in 1975, when the US withdrew, the Vietnam was liberated. When it comes to people and individuals who have concerns about the mass immigration, they are simply blocked out. The are not allowed to write columns or letters to the editor. Even advertising is refused. And if they are ever mentioned, the journalistic guild has agreed to always tag the prefix "xenophobic" before every mentioning of them. At the Swedish Television this was even written down in their guidelines, regarding the Sweden Democrats.

In Denmark the tradition is very different. Denmark is also a small country and could have suffered from the "duck pond" phenomenon. But the attitude is very different. Part of the reason I think lies in 20th century history when the Swedes acted as cowards, while the Danes were among the bravest ones, in fact the only ones that stood up as a country for the Jews. Denmark has good karma, and a good constitution. News papers in Denmark have several pages of letters to the editor. And there has always been lively and open debates. If you send in a letter critical of immigration it gets published. In Sweden the news papers have half a page (at best) of letters to the editor. And letters critical of immigration are regularly refused.

When it comes to public meetings by parties critical of immigration, they have often been sabotaged by leftist stormtroopers. This year it was for very long even impossible for the Sweden Democrats to find a location for their yearly party meeting. There are also examples of people being fired from their jobs simply for being Sweden Democrats (while it's otherwise almost impossible to be fired in Sweden). With politicians expressing their self-righteous satisfaction over it -- yes, Mona Sahlin.

So how will a closed system as Sweden affect the development of anti-establishment parties? It makes it virtually impossible, but as we have seen the frog has jumped anyway. To be continued in my next post...

Part 4: The effect of the constitution in Sweden

2007-11-02T00:52:00.000Z

Why does Denmark have the Danish People's Party (DPP), and Sweden the Sweden Democrats (SD)? Do the differences between the parties and their history reflect upon the people who gather around them and vote for them today? Or do the differences rather reflect how all-embracing the power of the PC system is in the country that they sprung from? I claim that it's the latter, and that both parties fill the same need, and people who look to the DPP or SD today do it for the same reason. The situation and the needs are the same in all Western European countries. And this need is fulfilled by nationalist/anti-establishment parties in each country. Some parties are easy to defend and carry no bad historical baggage, such as DPP, while others, such as SD, we really wish had a different history.

Why these differences? This post will take a look at one aspect of this. The difference in constitutions, here compared between Sweden and Denmark.
- - - - - - - - - -
A constitution is like a contract. When things are going fine, and everybody agree, we don't need them. But in the history of a country there will be crucial times, when it will matter a lot if its constitution is written in a robust way, or is rather just a collection of beautiful words. An interesting case study is to compare the Danish and the Swedish constitutions.

We all know that if an event hasn't been covered on TV, it's as if it didn't happen at all. An if it's neither covered by the news papers, it surely never really happened (even if it took place outside of the bubble).

In the Danish constitution, to start a new party requires 20,000 citizens signing a petition. Once that requirement is achieved the Danish constitution guarantees the following:

The party is listed on the official ballot paper
The party gets a presentation program at Danish TV
The party gets to participate in the final election debate

In Sweden there is no official ballot paper listing all the participating parties. Instead each party has their own ballot paper, and the voter votes by putting the ballot paper of the party he elects in an envelope. He may also just write the name of a party on a blank ballot paper. While in Denmark, with their system, they normally have around 10 parties participating, in the last Swedish election votes were registered for 565 different parties, most of which doesn't exist. The winner among the handwritten votes is always the Donald Duck party (Kalle Anka partiet).

But never mind the handwritten votes, there were still 41 parties participating with preprinted ballot papers, most of which received less than 1,000 votes. Who will decide in the Swedish system which of them that will get to present themselves on TV, and to participate in election debates on TV? In Denmark a party gets this guaranteed by the constitution, i.e. the decision is left to the people. 20,000 signatures means around 0.5% of the electorate. This is a very wise and well thought-through constitution, for a multi-party system, providing real political power to the people; a system with checks and balances.

So who decides in Sweden who will participate in presentations/debates on TV? Obviously all the 41 parties cannot participate. By tradition the parties that are represented in parliament participates, and nobody would accept otherwise. But among the new parties, which will participate? And who will decide?

The answer is the the whole power of this decision lies with the journalists of the Swedish Television. We know from other countries how the journalists are a guild where conformism is strong, and almost all think alike, even more so in Sweden. Furthermore, the Swedish Television is owned by a foundation where the board members are appointed by the government. No, Sweden definitely doesn't have a system of checks and balances. And for the last seven decades the Social Democrats has been in power in a total of 60 years, so the board of the Swedish Television is just one of the many long arms of Swedish state socialism.

A healthy multi-party system needs the ability for new parties to be formed, and the power of this to be in the hands of the people, such as in Denmark. Sweden is, if not a closed system, a system where the entry of new parties is controlled by the journalists and a government appointed board.

This is an vital component in how anti-establishment parties have been blocked out from the political arena in Sweden. But there are several others, such as the strong conformism, lack of diversity, and the group behaviour of the Swedish media. More about that in later posts.

I will continue my conclusion in my next post, about a short history of Swedish anti-establishment parties.

Part 3: It's a riddle

2007-11-01T21:20:00.001Z

A popular riddle when I was a kid was the one about the frog and the stream. The frog has to pass the stream, but he may not jump over the stream, and he may not swim. Furthermore, he may not build a tunnel under the stream, or get himself a frog-size helicopter to fly over it, or anything of the kind. To cut it short, he may not in any way pass under, over or through the water. Neither may he walk around the whole stream by tracing it back to its origin.

So how can he pass the stream?

- - - - - - - - - -
How do we act when all possible options are forbidden and we still have to do something? The answer to the riddle is: He jumped anyway!

Purists will object to this method and claim that all possible actions hadn't yet been exhaustively explored, and that the frog should have tried things like Star Trek teleportation or by taking a time-machine back to a time when the stream didn't exist. The frog however was a practical man, and needed to get back to the other side where he had his home, his food and his loved ones, He simply didn't have time to listen forever to the unrealistic speculations of theorists. He knew that the only way was to jump, even though he was forbidden to do so.

Sweden is an almost perfectly sealed system of PC tyranny. Quite as for the frog in the riddle, for anyone in Sweden wanting to oppose Islamization and mass immigration, all possible ways to pass the stream are blocked, by a combination of "soft" means and "hard" means. The first hurdle is how people are mentally caught in a PC maze of smoke and mirrors, in a medial theater staged by the establishment. If they find their way through the smokes and mirrors of this mental PC maze, and manage to find an exit out of it, it will be guarded by a Nazi troll: "No, we cannot say, do or think so or so, then we would be seen as racists/fascists/nazis; we would become like him -- the Nazi troll." Good and decent people will back off to avoid ostracism. Some of them take one step out through the exit, e.g. by bringing up questions about Islamization and mass immigration, and they will get "Racist!" hurled at them. If they persist and take another step, without exception they will now get "Nazi!" hurled at them. By now almost all of them will have retreated back into the PC maze.

For the few that exit the PC maze anyway -- all of whom by now already have got the Nazi-label branded at them (some of whom will actually think that they are, or have to be, Nazis therefore) -- will now face the hard means of stopping them (as if ostracism isn't hard enough). A combination of the Swedish constitution and the media situation has effectively stopped any serious dissenter to the PC hegemony, up until now. And for those that persist on opposition anyway, the ultimate unction is delivered in from of harassment and sabotage by the leftist stormtroopers (Antifa etc.), all while the media and the legal system turn their blind eye to it.

As Edmund Burke said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Good and decent people do not want to be ostracized, i.e. being socially "killed" and lose their job etc., for opposing Islamization. The do not want to have "Racist!" and "Nazi!" hurled after them. They do not want to be beaten up by leftist stormtroopers, while the establishment is looking the other way. So if we are all going to be good people, we should just do nothing, and evil will triumph, in form of Islamo-leftism.

Nevertheless, during the last two decades three frogs have tried to jump in Sweden. The first two were effectively stopped by the omnipotent power of the Swedish PC system. The third frog is the Sweden Democrats. It made a successful jump in last year's election -- after essentially having been jumping up and down for almost two decades. And next election in 2010, nothing can stop it from jumping right into the parliament.

Should we support the Sweden Democrats, or should we remain good men and let evil triumph?

It's a riddle!

In order to help you answer this riddle in an informed way, I will continue this series of posts. First I will address the Swedish constitution and how it effectively makes Swedish politics a closed system. Secondly I will write a short history of anti-establishment parties in Sweden during the last two decades (the three frogs). I will have to address the heavily distorted description of the history of the Sweden Democrats written by Truumax at LGF. And also address his main source, Expo, a state funded organization with links to the leftist stormtroopers, an integral part of the Swedish PC system. The "missing link" between the oppressive Swedish state and Antifa. Furthermore, I should also give some theoretical background to what I'm talking about. It's all well described in political science, more precisely by John Gaventa, and his three dimensions of power.

More:

Part 1: Counterjihadism changing the European political map
Part 2: Sweden Democrats and Hollywood Nazis
Part 4: The effect of the constitution in Sweden
Part 5: Sweden and Denmark, closed and open systems
Part 6: Brief history of anti-establishment parties in Sweden
Part 7: The New Party and how it was crushed

1.		Acknowledge the errors and accept responsibility for them, even though they were committed by subordinates. This was not the road taken by Mr. Rather.
2.		The infamous “fake but accurate” defense, which acknowledges that the “facts” were bogus, but asserts the underlying truth of the accusations. Dan Rather attempted this strategy, but it never gained any real traction, not even in the MSM.
3.		Stonewalling. This was the method most favored by Mr. Rather, and which he persists in to this day, as witnessed by his lawsuit against CBS.