Nazification Spells and Philosemitic Assurance: The EDL Case and Theory

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"

Read further...

Joe Bloggs on the EDL Jewish Division affair

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.
Read further...

Some of my #1 rankings at Google

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:

1. jim kalb
2. takuan seiyo
3. traian ungureanu
4. caroline flint cleavage
5. tina hallgren bengtsson
6. 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] Read further...

I'm a vicious antisemite!

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] Read further...

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

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 is 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?
Read further...

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

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:

• Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen
• When is discussing useful anyway?
• Ferdinand Bardamu: "White people are their own worst enemy"
• Ferdinand Bardamu on the foolishness of anti-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism
• I'm a vicious antisemite!

Read further...

When is discussing useful anyway?

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.

Read further...

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen

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.)

Read further...

Open thread, March 2011

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] Read further...

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

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....

Read further...

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

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?

Read further...

Youthful injection

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] Read further...

Over at Mangan's

Well I haven't been posting much here, have I?

But since last time around I have been making some comments over at GoV and even more at Mangan's place. Today Dennis Mangan brought up one of my comments and made a blog post of it.

This month I have commented in several threads over at Mangan's: here, here, here, here and here.

I have written there about things that will interest anyone fond of following my blog.

[End of post] Read further...

On ethno-centric mythology

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

[End of post] Read further...

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

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] Read further...

My friendship with Auster

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.
Read further...

"Intellectual subtlety"

I was just told over at Gates of Vienna "But teaching some intellectual subtlety is impossible, once we get an impatient student" -- the impatient students being me and Felicie. The intellectual subtlety, which came from Czechmade, was a two-step accusation against me and Felicie: i) you are racists, and ii) therefore you are like Muslims.

Gates of Vienna is an excellent place for the most essential discussions. But nevertheless there are quite a number of hopelessly liberal people -- deeply invested in all sorts of liberal myths, while clueless about our dire situation -- commenting there. In fact, many of the most talkative and frequent commenters at GoV are.

This is not the first time Czechmade got the PC rash. In fact, he's rather easy to trigger. Felicie and I were discussing the situation in Russia, and as part of that we discussed the relation (in numbers and otherwise) between white people (with whom we identify) and other ethnic minorities. This triggered a comment by Czechmade where he said to us "Your concept appears to be rather islamic - if you read this:" referring to an article with the title Hautfarbenrassismus – ein Import aus dem Islam (Skin-colour racism – an import from Islam). I.e. "our concept" being "skin-colour racism" (that's the first accusation) according to Czechmade, and by implication (and by the power of the provided link, as imagined by Czechmade) me and Felicie are acting in an Islamic way (that's the second accusation). So much for subtlety.

Once again we see someone identifying as a right-winger -- who is only animated by fighting leftists, collectivism etc. -- not being part of the solution to the problem, not even being aware of the problem, but being exactly part of the problem. In fact, among the so-called right-wingers we find the worst cases of universalist dreaming. If Marxism had been our biggest problem, then George Soros would have been our greatest friend, having been such a staunch anti-Marxist for decades. But it isn't. Our biggest problem is this right-wing universalist dreaming (all based in French Revolution ideals), which by being more accepted than opposed by the left, therefore beomes all-encopmassing in our societity's value system.

[End of post] Read further...

America as the birthplace of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness

I have touched upon this many times. An ongoing discussion over at Gates of Vienna inspired me to make a more complete and systematic argument. The subject of that discussion is slavery. It was pointed out how in America, unlike in many other places, the slaves were not castrated. To which I answered:

As Dymphna touched upon, the slaves in America were treated very humanely in comparison. A relation of caring and respect could often develop between the black slave and the white owner. But a modern Western European cannot allow himself to know that, he must see this slavery and all of its expressions as evil evil evil. And neither an American today either, at least not under the current Presidency.

By not castrating the slaves America today has got some 40 million descendants of these slaves living among them, as a people within the people, who forever hold a grudge against their former imprisoners, no matter how well they are treated or fawned upon. There are fundamental reasons of human psychology why it is so.

In addition this made America the international scapegoat of "evil" slavery. It's very simple: people associate slavery with America, since in America you can see loads of traces of slavery, such as 40 million black people (in essence every time we meet a black American we have the issue of slavery at the back of our head). Nobody thinks much of the slavery by Britain, France, etc. Or by the Arabs. Since there's nothing there to remind us. Btw Rocha, I think the blackness found in Yemen can be because of its climate zone, quite as for black people in southern India (look at your own map).

So this has been the reward for the kindness Americans shown to their slaves.

Certain things should be done properly, or not at all. E.g. going to war. Either one abstains from it or one does it properly in the responsible way. Doing it as a half-measure is the worst thing. Same with slavery, in my view. The half-measure has the worst consequences (as seen above). Treat them kindly by all means, but make sure to castrate them. Or better, have no slaves.

I think this is one more example of how this sort of goodness leads to not only wrong but potentially devastating results.

But it doesn't stop there. After the Civil War the Americans did not only free their slaves, but actually made them citizens!! (once again the modern men do not grasp the vast significance of this second step!). And that was the embryo of the first multicultural state. Multiculturalism and race-sensitive political correctness was being born, and in place early 20th century in America. And subsequently these ideals where spread / pushed upon Europe after WWII. The American race-mixed society became the ideal, and the Western European nations followed suit. And so we are where we are today.

Here are some evidence of the prevalence of PC + MC in America before 1945, while the opposite was in place in Europe:

1. Agatha Christie publishes a book called Ten Little Niggers in 1939 in Britain. It was immediately renamed And Then There Were None when released in the US in 1940. Such a über-sensitive politically correct "translation" of the title was not adapted in Great Britain until 1967, and in Sweden only in 2007.

2. See here a collection of reviews of Louis Armstrong's visit to Sweden in 1933. In all the news papers he was described as something monkey-like let loose from the jungle. All across the line! And this in the reviews by the most serious music critics. Hardly PC, nor MC.

3. The first expression in art of multiculturalism, that I know of, is from the American movie Birth of a Race from 1918. In the scene staring at 5:30 Jesus is speaking to all the races of the whole world. Watch it here! Check out the Chinese sitting there listening to Jesus, that's hilarious! And it's hard to blame the Frankfurt School for this one :-)

- - - - - - - - -
These are clear evidence of both PC and MC in America in the interwar period, while evidence of the opposite attitude in Europe in the same period. What does that suggest about the origin of MC + PC for the impartial observer? It is important to realize this, since most right-wingers see America as the one that could save us from the horrible evils of MC + PC. Which is unfortunately an upside down view. Which more and more right-wingers have woken up to with the ascendence of Obama.

It took the post-WWII anti-Nazification campaign and Adorno's "F-Factor" to wash out traditional European attitudes and install MC + PC in their place. As I have written elsewhere:

America is seen as right-wing in the current political theater, however historically America together with France has been the main force in pushing our civilization to the left.

After WWII European patriotism was seen as the root of the evil, which had to be held down. The only permitted patriotisms where American and Israeli. Britain and France got away with some, but after the Suez crisis in 1956 they were effectively out of the picture too. Now offensive military actions were only accepted from America and Israel.

In the 50s and the 60s America and Israel were celebrated as model countries of progressivism. European conservatism had been rooted out in the cultural revolution imposed upon America in Western Europe. Adorno's The F-Factor describes European conservatism as a psychological pathology related to fascism. But the Europeans learned fast. First they learned to follow the American example and see America as the model country. The Europeans could pick this up fast since the ideas were rooted in the Christian gospels. But soon they learned that America didn't live up to code of moral goodness that they had imposed on the Europeans. And left-wing anti-Americanism was born. And to be precise, even anti-Americans wasn't born in Europe but also imported from the US.

The problem for America was that in their quest to end all "evil" empires, they had effectively become the big empire themselves. E.g. inheriting the role of maintaining the Pax Britannica. Then they had to do all the sort of things they had taught the Europeans were wrong. The Europeans soon learned to beat the Americans in their own game, becoming the leading in progressivism and "holier than thou". And curiously enough, thus America ended up being seen as right-wing. The original right-wing had been rooted out in a collaboration between America and the European socialists in the wake of WWII.

The turning point came by the end of the 60s -- the Vietnam war and the Six-Days war. The image of America and Israel shifted, and they were no longer seen as the model countries of progressivism, but as "evil" right-wing countries. We should remember that our progressivist paradigm (which is always going left) is based on Christian ethics. And Christian ethics means the inversion of values. So it's the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil. In WWI and WWII America had defeated all the strong (and therefore evil) European empires. The job was completed in the Suez crisis in 1956 by turning against their former allies. But you can never win with Christian ethics, because now America became the strong one, and therefore the evil one.

So now American and Israeli patriotism becomes highly questioned and opposed. But not based on restoring any other patriotism, but by going even deeper into deranged progessivism. Thus, in effect, American and Israeli patriotism are still the only permitted patriotisms. Surely now the holiest priests of our leftist paradigm now condemn the actions of America and Israel. But in effect it is tolerated. While if any other (white) country acts militarily offensively it's seen as a major global crisis (e.g. Serbia, Russia).

I will conclude with something I wrote last year:

1918 and 1945 have been the recent paradigm shifts at civilizational level. The civil war for America. 1989 for Eastern Europe. 1968 was a minor transformation.

1918 and 1945 are better seen as two steps of the same shift, with 1945 as the concluding step, and therefore a more decisive change. In fact, the American civil war was a pre-step to all this, its resulting "patch" was made universal across the West from 1945.

The embryo of multiculturalism was dreamed up during the enlightenment, but was first institutionalized by the result of the American civil war.

As Diamed has written:
"If we had combined freeing the slaves with deporting them, they could hardly complain since they had never been citizens in the first place. Unfortunately Lincoln was assassinated, the plan was abandoned, and the window of opportunity vanished. Now blacks are equal citizens of the USA and, so long as the USA exists, it is as much black as it is white."

And multiculturalism was born, and out of its rib bone political correctness had to be created.

Read further...

Geza: "The Austerites value Christianity over Europe"

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

Lawrence Auster has made this and this post in comment to my expositions in the famous long GoV thread. Here is Geza's reaction to those posts by Auster. My own comments follow below.

Geza:

I grow tired of the paranoia over at VFR. According to Auster you are on the path towards Nazism! Well, to be more specific, M. Mason is saying that but Auster apparently agrees with him. After reading his post and comments, I now realize that European self-hatred cannot be blamed entirely on liberalism, it has deep roots within Christianity. Pre-Christian Europe is seen as something as evil, something of little to no value with pagan Germans obviously being the worst of the bunch because they are Germans of course. This is reminiscent of jahiliya in Islam but with a Christian traditionalist twist. To Auster, the original religion of the Germanic race, that foul cult that sees a cosmic significance of the Germanic people as opposed to the multiracial paradigm of Christianity, would have been better off if it never existed because according to Auster it is Christianity that defines us, all else is bunk. Auster used to make a big deal about how liberals would bemoan America's non-liberal (in their minds) past and indict pre-60's America as evil. Well, he is doing the same thing here, he is indicting pre-Christian Europe, and by extension, Europeans as evil. Europeans in his mind need Christianity in order to be not-evil and due to his Abrahamic bias, he might even prefer a Muslim future for Europe over an organic pagan one.

Now I would like to spend some time with some of the comments Auster's peanut gallery have made concerning Germanic paganism.

"A person who truly embraces the old pagan Norse and Germanic gods and that cosmology is also going to gravitate toward some level of involvement in the pagan rites and practices associated with it, which includes occultism, spiritism and magic. Which isn't merely "weird" or "icky"--it's far worse than that. From an evangelical Christian perspective, it cannot be overly-stressed that any connection to this sort of thing is extraordinarily dangerous spiritually."

This is rich coming from a fundie. Speaking in tongues, "miracle" healings, and exorcisms are somehow not considered magic because it's Christian magic and therefore good. Meanwhile, non-Christians, specifically Nordic pagans are somehow conjuring up demons and sacrificing little animals or something. M. Mason needs to drop the whole "evil magic" pretense because it is quite obvious that he would find define any pagan practice as evil due to his bias as an evangelical Christian.

"I would argue that the telos of such a revived, volkish ideology rooted in the old paganism and incarnated on a national level will be absolutely sinister. We've already seen how this plays out. It was early Romanticist interest in the Old North that gave rise to Germanic neo-paganism, mysticism and occultism in the 19th and early 20th centuries; other sects centered around Theosophy and Ariosophy also began to proliferate and these esoteric societies had a massive influence on Hitler and the theoreticians of National Socialism."

Hitler was interested in a wide variety of non-Christian and non-Jewish traditions ranging from Hinduism to even, yes, Islam. His spiritual guru was a white woman who converted to Hinduism and saw him as the reincarnation of Vishnu. To say Germanic paganism is an important part of the "mystery" of why Germany went down the dark path of Nazism is ludicrous when its contribution to Nazi ideology was negligible at best.

"It's even more shocking when we consider that those Germans, taken as a whole, were very intelligent. Many of them were well-educated and well-versed in the arts and high culture; in fact, they seemed to typify just the sort of individuals that non-Christians could point to with pride and say: "See, we told you man was inherently good, and that, if you educated him, exposed him to the better things of life and gave him a philosophy of enlightened self-interest, he would naturally evolve and progress toward human perfection". They were very sure of themselves in that assessment. Over one hundred million casualties in two bloody world wars and the horrifying evidence of Belsen and Buchenwald proved otherwise."

I particularly like how he begins with a compliment. Germans are intelligent... intelligent monsters! It is really difficult to determine what he sees as evil here, secularism or paganism. Well, I doubt that it matters, as long as Germans fail to become evangelical Christians, M. Mason will continue to see them as a fallen race.

"Paganism (in all its various manifestations) is now the fastest-growing religion in the Western world. The widespread embrace of an occult worldview has become an acceptable social position. Sometimes in the endless discussions at VFR about the all-pervasive liberalism, menacing Islam and the fringe (but very vocal) proponents of militant atheism it's easy to overlook this"

It's easy to overlook because there is no pagan threat except in your fevered imagination and I find it particularly disgusting how you would equate Germanic paganism with the threat of Islam. One religion is foreign and will destroy Europe forever while the other will not.

James P. wrote:

"we should note that Christianity was once a central force in the defense of the West (along with the educational system and many other institutions that have been subverted) and even the "offense" of the West, i.e. spreading Western ideas throughout the world."

Yes, Christianity once was a defender of the West, but those days are gone because once it left the confines of Europe, it ceased it be a European religion any longer. Spreading the gospel to the Third World did not help Europe, it castrated it and Europe became beholden to the world. This is now irreversible because as Conservative Swede has said, your Christian ethics demand you to love the Christian Nigerian, Christian Mexican, and Christian Indian as you would love your fellow Christian Americans. Since the Austerites have made it clear that they value Christianity over Europe and since there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christianity, then their racialist complaints about Nigerians, Mexican, Indians are irrelevant and I might even say evil. Their living standards will inevitably decline but that is okay because you can comfort them by telling them they are imitating Christ in their suffering. I'm sure that will make them happy.

I agree with much of what you say here, Geza. The sad thing with the discussion over at VFR is that it is entirely based on a distorted image of what I said, given by M. Mason, by use of snippet quotes out of context, and his consistently twisted characterization of what I said. There's too much twisting and distortion to bring it up all. But I will take up a few. The best way to get a fair idea of where I stand is to read the long thread at GoV.


My supposed denigration of Christianity

In his second post, Auster characterizes what I have written, by using M. Manson's words, "Conservative Swede called Christianity a silly 'myth' along with its ethics that you must let go of in order fully to embrace ConSwede's glorious 'New Paradigm.' "

First of all I'm not describing Christianity as a "silly myth". Unlike most people I take myths, and their importance for human societies, fully seriously, in fact my whole reasoning is based on that! To miss that is to miss entirely what I'm saying. Here is an example of how I see things:

- - - - - - - - -

The Western Christian civilization is what happened when Germanic people met Christianity. But nothing lasts forever. Quite as the Roman Empire it can be compared with a fruit, going through all the stages: bud, flower, incipient fruit, green fruit, ripe fruit, overripe fruit, rotten fruit. With this I'm saying: i) indeed Western Christian civilization has meant many good things, and ii) it's all over now.
(Read this and the several following comments to see what I mean by that.)

So what I'm saying is that Christianity has blossomed in Europe, and lead to many good things. But that those days are over. But even so I'm not the one throwing away hundreds of years of tradition, since I take our historical legacy seriously. Thus I persist that our Christian legacy should be treated with respect. E.g. here when my thoughts had been compared with Nietzsche's anti-Christian attitude:

Mussolini was much wiser. He treated Christianity with respect. We cannot erase our history, we must treat our traditions with respect. In Sweden 90% of cultural history buildings are churches. Imagine a lunatic anti-Christian leader who would tear them down, what would be left of our historical memory?

I would use the churches for Pagan ceremonies. I understand that would not be considered respectful in the view of some Christians, but that problem is in their head.

In another exchange Roman from Poland says:

Anyway, it is also imaginable that some hybrid crusader Christianity version arises, something like new Reconquista spirit burning in the hearts of Northern Avengers?

My answer to this shows how I look widely for possible solutions. How I'm not against Christianity as such, it still serves the Russians well. It's the Christianity taken through the Enlightenment by the Germanics that I find problematic, which is today a rotten fruit:

Well, anything that solves the problem is fine. But after Western Christianity went through the Enlightenment etc. I cannot see this happening. Christianity cannot even affirm it's position within the Western societies, it effectively excuses for itself. How could it then be used to affirm anything externally?

However, in the case of Russia they do not have this problem. They can still use Christianity in this way.

Maybe we will all be taken over by the Russians, and remain Christians in that way? That's another thought...

And regarding my supposed "glorious 'New Paradigm'". Anyone who reads what I have actually written knows that I see this whole thing as the greatest tragedy. There's nothing glorious about it. The Western Christian civilization (which I define as "Germanics meet Christianity") has reached the end of the road. The situation is most dire for the Germanic people. The only thing we can know for sure is that there will be a major catastrophe and trauma, and from this there will necessarily come a paradigm change. I'm merely speculating about what it could be. There's nothing glorious about it. In fact, most of our advanced industrialized society will fall at the same time. No one will perceive this as glorious. What I'm speaking of is the most fundamental matter of live or death for us as a people. This will become our focus once the Western Christian civilization has fallen.

So we need a functioning great mythological narrative to make things work for us. Is it really impossible to use Christianity? No, it's not. As I have already pointed out:

First of all, White Nationalism is a stance of people who feel victimized. And it's something white people would turn to while still inside the mental box of Christian ethics, and the weakness it implies. Also White Nationalism is more typical of Americans than Europeans, but that is another discussion.

White Nationalism is a weak concept for weak and defeated people. What we need is something strong. To find what that is we should look at Russia. Russia is a multiethnic country, but still entirely Russian. This since Russian culture is dominant, normative and nobody questions it, and it does not blink. Therefore the different peoples within Russia (and the old Russian empire) do not question this, not any more than most Westerners today question their quest for "universal goodness". As described at this site by e.g. Russkiy, Khazars, Tartars, etc. obey and submit to this. Even Muslims find it natural to convert to Christianity in this context.

That's the way!

I.e. it still works for Russia. But for Germanic people it's way passed expiry time, for reasons I have expleined at lenght in the long thread. Western Christianity has turned into a rotten fruit. And there's no return after having let the genie out of the bottle.


The Nazi association

Indeed it is not only at VFR that the idea of Europeans returning to a European ethnocentric religion is associated with Nazism. This is an idea deeply rooted and animated by the post-WWII mythology, and thus ranging all the way from the left-wing and into VFR. But this view is upside down. Hitler was to Germany what Stalin was to Russia, both putting their horrific ideologies at the center, without any regard for their own people. Hitler essentially tried to conquer the whole world. He was not acting in the interest of the German people. Instead he destroyed for them at a pyramidal level. And that was not due to "bad luck". His actions were reckless by design. As I have written in the long thread:

I cannot help but thinking of Joseph Goebbels when I saw the Untergang. How he killed himself and his whole family, since without National Socialism there was no longer anything to live for. The fact that Germany and the German people (his own ethnic group!) were still around didn't mean a thing to Goebbels. In fact this was never important to the Nazis in the first place. Their adulation was for Hitler and National Socialism. Germany and the German people were just expendable tools for their ideological escapades, quite as Russia was for Stalin. There was no love or respect for their ethnic group.

Something that strikes anyone watching the Triumph of the Will from 1934, is how the whole show is an idolization of Hitler and National Socialism, but not of Germany and German people. By the end of the movie we hear Rudolph Hess saying "Hitler is the Party, Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler". It cannot be put more clearly than that.

Any responsible leader, with the slightest shred of love for his own country and his own people, would have negotiated peace with the Russians in 1943 or at least in 1944. But Hitler had no such concerns. Even in 1945 when the Soviet tanks were just outside of Berlin, he was prepared to sacrifice millions of German lives in the name of his ideological quest. He didn't care the least if the result of his war meant to utterly destroy Germany and German people. And it did. Any responsible leader, with love for his country and people, would have made sure Germany had not been overrun by Soviet tanks, and their women raped. But Hitler didn't care for his country or his people. It was all about him and his National Socialism.

Had I lived in Germany in 1934, seeing where things were going, I would have felt the same sort of despair as I feel today. Due to where things were going (which could be clearly seen from the start), and the blindness of the people (combined with how they had been scared into silence). The reaction by the true German nationalists (as in loving their country and people) was to try and assassinate Hitler. There were 17 such attempts. Very much to our regret, these failed. And in today's situation there is not even such a simple solution in reach.

With the post-WWII mythology, everything that could be associated with Nazism was considered evil. In this way of thinking, European nationalism was the root of the problem. That's why any form of European ethnocentrism is considered evil. These myths are the root and the core of PC mythology. The demonization of the Germans is the blueprint for the demonization of European and white people in general. As I have written:

Funny thing. In the liberal mindset, the Muslims are seen as the first victims of Islam (for those liberals who's woken up about Islam). But the Germans are never seen as the first victims of National Socialism, even though the situations are exactly parallel. Instead ethnic Germans get demonized (and by extension all people of European descent).

These sort of things are at the very fundament of the current paradigm. And it's not until these knots are untied that the paradigm can fall over. People think that they can get anywhere with combining an anti-Islam position with hate/despise/fear of Germans, in accordance with the great mythological narrative since WWII, that our current paradigm is built upon. They can't. By their hate/despise/fear of Germans their feet are still firmly stuck in the mud of the current paradigm. And furthermore, hate of Germans is the blueprint for hate of white people in general in this prevailing mythology. So by continuing to hate/despise/fear Germans, the Westerners continue to gravitate towards white guilt and self-hate. These myths strike people at the sub-conscious level, which makes them defenseless against this gravity. It's not until the Westerners thoroughly revise their view on WWII that a change of paradigms can take place. Another trauma is required for this to take place.

These Nazi associations are at the core of the PC mythology. All such Nazi associations has to be evaporated, like a Gordian Knot, before we can be free. This is the very hang-up that makes us all march into our living hell. Indeed there are even people who cling to neo-Nazism. They are of course the greatest losers (and not only for explicitly adhering to the big loser in WWII). However, the point is that they are animated by the very same post-WWII mythology of all the rest, i.e. that European ethnocentrism equals Nazism. It's only that they have opted for the "bad side" of the equation, which makes it even worse. This is not a matter of choosing sides, given the theater presented by the mythology. It's a matter of scattering this mythology into pieces. And as I said, this will only happen through a major trauma.


On race-based Christianity

I'm not fond of race-based identity. In fact it's a trap that could even lead us into the arms of Islam (cf. also Hitler). As I write in my exchange with Takuan Seiyo:

Some race-obsessed people (and often antisemitic) think that we should adapt a narrative about the Arabs instead of the Jews, i.e. Islam. In their view this would boost the white race, with breeding and fighting spirit. However, what would be the point of the survival of the white race if it has lost its soul? Race isolated is completely uninteresting in my view. To me it's all about ethnicity (of which race is integral, of course). Islam is a peg that would effectively erase our ethnicity, and make us into pseudo-Arabs. Compare with Christianity, which indeed makes our ethnicity unimportant, but does not erase it for us.

In the long thread, Baron Bodissey wrote one of the most important things:

Part of the modern Liberal ideal is the foolish notion that we can simply abolish by fiat millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition.

I.e. life as we know it is based on millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. But not only the liberals, but also many anti-liberals, who see the fall of the current world order, and fear that it will be the end of all, have forgotten that these things cannot be erased. Neither the rise nor the fall of liberalism can take away millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. It can only happen if we literally perish as a people (and how to avoid that is very point, the only point, that I tried to address in the long thread).

Especially in America, where the ethnic experience is weak, different sorts of ideologal positions based on white race are common as opposition to the current order (while ethnic identification is the common thing in Europe). Race takes the millions of years of evolution in account, but might miss the thousands of years of culture and centuries of tradition, so we find White Nationalists falling into neo-Nazism, and even, in some extreme cases, Islam.

VFR is promoting a race-based Christianity, and thereby takes the centuries of tradition in account. But by rejecting our traditional Pagan religion and customs, much of thousands of years of culture is also rejected. And we get a big hole in our existential pyramid, as described by Baron Bodissey. As I have already described, the Western Christian civilization has respected most of our thousands of years of culture. But a race-based Christianity, so hostile against our traditional Pagan religion and customs, is a bigger threat to these thousands of years of culture. It becomes hostile to a vital part of our identity.
Read further...