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?
29 comments:
@ “Now you have given up your Aufheben.”
Hell no! As I told Baron Bodissey in our email exchanges when he told me he would not be publishing my book anymore because of the “lightening bolt” that struck me: “I have never, ever, and will never dissociated myself from my moral stance that Hitler and the Nazis’ ‘eliminationist [exterminationist] anti-Semitism’ was monstrous, the term I used so many times at GoV.”
You can SEE the Jewish problem without planning any genocide (as GoV-ers can see the Muslim problem without craving to implement El Inglés’ grim scenarios).
Aufheben stands. In fact, Buchanan states in his revisionist book on Hitler and Churchill (another recent post of mine that was shunned at GoV) that there would probably have been no Holocaust hadn’t Churchill committed the blunder of declaring war to Germany. Speculations. But as Hugh Trevor Ropper says, history is also what could have occurred.
Exterminationist anti-Semitism doesn’t appear in Mein Kampf or even in the Nazi documents prior to the early 1940s when Germany felt betrayed by the world. Hitler for one admired the English. Even as chancellor he loved to see, over and over, a film that portrayed the conquests of the English empire. That’s why Lindbergh’s speech, as recounted in my previous entry, is paramount to understand the current world. MacDonald is breaking a taboo that had sixty years since Lindbergh.
The humane decision to tackle the Jewish Problem is analogous to what the West has to do with the Muslims who live in Western soil. The mammoth difference is that since Muslims have lower IQs than whites, their subversion activities are cruder than the subversion activities by the Jews, whose average IQ is higher than whites. Both groups are fairly understandable under Auster’s First Law. As I have iterated elsewhere, the non-gentiles’ lobbying to open the U.S. borders to mass, non-Caucasian immigration is infinitely worse than the Muslims’ 9/11 for the stability of the native white culture.
It’s precisely the non-gentiles who use expressions like Buchanan being a neo-Nazi, a full-blown Nazi, etc. This is precisely the language of the PC, anti-white Left that is deceiving us. Buchanan is a fairly good example because he is merely a classic conservative in the old sense of the world.
As I said in GoV, but nobody was listening, what I wrote about “Himmler is my friend” should be understood also as a way to avoid El Inglés’ scenario. Holocaust II would obviously be a farce, since it wouldn’t be massive but a media trick to scare the shit out of the Muslims to induce their self-deportation. Nothing immoral since only white traitors would be brought to justice in Holocaust II, but quite effective as a media show once the “Nazis” reach power (incidentally, it’s the only scenario I can imagine where Europe would be white again without resorting to genocide of innocent civilians).
Aufheben stands. But as one of my Marxist friends told me (how awful it is to quote a Marxist): “Nobody thinks in dialectical terms.”
I don't quite understand what you think the problem is with what Chechar is saying.
Chechar,
When you still called yourself a non-antisemitic white nationalist, you wrote:
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.
Now when you have adopted MacDonald's model, and so on, the majority of these white traitors are Jews (right?). So that means that in your Holocaust II you will send mainly Jews to Auschwitz and Birkenau, right?
However, regardless of how bad this sounds, let's make it clear that this does not make you an eliminationist antisemite. Only Jewish traitors would be killed. Nevertheless, your new Aufheben is nothing like the old one. It's rather an Aufheben between "seeing the Jewish problem without planning any genocide" and eliminationist antisemitism, with the synthesis of killing only Jewish traitors.
Or is your idea that no Jewish traitors should be killed, but only less guilty gentiles (just for the show)? If that is the case, one might ask why?, given your analysis of the situation.
Regarding our previous Aufheben it was "without a shred of anti-Semitism". You climbed up to your moral high ground (or so you imagined) by stepping on the faces of the German people of the '30s (and by extension upon Germans in general), and demonizing them by saying: "most adult Germans were infected with a malicious sort of anti-Semitism that, in the hands of the Nazis, ended up as the Holocaust." (As we know, virtually all cases of taking the moral high ground consists of demonizing someone else.) From that perceived moral high ground you felt safe in constantly engaging in fantasies about reenacting Nazi-Germany scenarios (one way or the other) -- fantasies which seem to animate you so much.
I do not know if you still feel the same need to demonize the German people of the '30s. If you do, it is highly ironic, since you surely display more of (what you yourself refer to as) antisemitism, than what was seen with the average German of the '30s.
You will need to think again about what your different heated rants actually add up to. As a way to save Europe and whites, the combination of i) demonizing Germans and ii) to engage so enthusiastically in fantasies about reenacting Nazi-Germany scenarios, is not a good recipe.
Rollory,
I don't quite understand what you think the problem is with what Chechar is saying.
The problem is the way he's so animated by engaging in fantasies about reenacting Nazi-Germany scenarios (one way or the other), with his many references to "Hitlerian views", "4th Reich scenarios", "Third Reich nostalgia", "Himmler is my friend!", "Holocaust II", "Auschwitz", etc.
Are you saying you are fine with that? You are surely full of surprises.
Above I quoted the email I sent to the Baron:
“I have never, ever, and will never dissociated [sic] myself from my moral stance that Hitler and the Nazis’ ‘eliminationist anti-Semitism’ was monstrous, the term I used so many times at GoV.”
I was so anxious to respond to the Baron’s accusations that I didn’t review what I wrote (for “dissociated” replace “dissociate”).
@ “the majority of these white traitors are Jews (right?)”
Curiously, in the white nationalist movement even though Jews are phenotypically white, they say their genotype is far more Asian than European. WNs usually don’t refer to Jews as “whites”. Anyway, if you click on my Label list in my blog to show all posts with label “Send these people to Auschwitz” you will find no Jews. What particularly arises my hate is someone like Clinton—whom I saw personally in the skyscraper hotel where I worked back in 1996 when he was president—telling a Muslim audience that it’s very good that whites will be a minority in the U.S.
I know whom I hate.
@ “Or is your idea that no Jewish traitors should be killed”
Non-gentiles are not exactly “traitors.” They are just doing their thing (displacing whites thanks to their higher IQ). As Eileen stated in the blogsite AntiSemitica, Taksei behaved as he behaved in my blog out of his Jewish ethno-patriotism. Like Auster, Taksei simply feels more Semitic than white. So I would not label their anti-white rants when they discuss with anti-Semites as properly treasonous.
@ "most adult Germans were infected with a malicious sort of anti-Semitism that, in the hands of the Nazis, ended up as the Holocaust."
You know, one of the things with Aufheben is that you have to conciliate the radical thesis with its diametrically opposite: the most radical antithesis. Obviously, today very few thinkers try to think through such dialectical (Hegelian rather than Marxist) dynamics. First I read Goldhagen’s bestseller. Inspired by him (now I see that was a mistake) I wrote that phrase at GoV (BTW, in my unpublished second book of my series I expand on Goldhagen’s thesis). Then I read Goldhagen’s antipode: MacDonald. If you want a scholarly synthesis between the two, read Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (I also mentioned this work at GoV but, again, I was shunned). In The Book Review, Madhavan Palat reviewed both, Esau’s Tears and Hitler’s Willing Executioners:
“Lindemann and Goldhagen are diametrically opposed, to the advantage of the former. Lindemann is as rational as possible, Goldhagen overflowing with emotional diatribe... [Lindemann’s] conclusion is not that the Jew has only himself to blame, but it firmly repudiates Goldhagen’s type of argument.”
I still think that Goldhagen has some valid points, which I wrote down at GoV in my “Himmler” thread. But now I am in a phase of deconstructing his omissions. When I read Hitler’s Willing Executioners it bothered me that he totally omitted the Gulag victims of Stalin’s Jews in his final conclusions about the “evilness” of the Germans (Goldhagen doesn’t say “Nazis,” he always writes “Germans”). And now, once I finish reading MacDonald I will start reading MacDonald’s critics. This is my methodology, whether other people like it or not. Of course: it gets a little confusing while I am still in the process...
As to the other points, again, Pat Buchanan’s revisionism on Hitler and the Nazis comes pretty handy.
I am not fine with a lot of things in the world today. Some are less worse than others.
The Germans were their own worst enemies and Hitler was a fool. If the current course of events is to be arrested short of total disaster and a dark age that hasn't been seen since the fall of Minoan Crete, some of their methods will be useful and necessary.
Rollory,
some of their methods will be useful and necessary
I have no idea why you and Chechar are so fond of references to Nazi-German methods (I haven't seen you making these references before, but apparently you defend them and consider them completely natural and healthy). I guess it has to do with disconnection from our history, which means the lack of imagination to use any of the multitude of good references points, throughout our history, for how to act.
You infallibly end up in a lot of pretzel twisting about how evil, foolish, monstrous etc. Nazi-Germany was, but then get back to (and in the case of Chechar: persistently) how the methods and symbolism of the Third Reich should be invoked again.
Being animated by this sort of symbolism is a symptom of being stuck in the current paradigm, where: i) Nazi-Germany holds a pivotal place in the mythology, and ii) the mental mind bubble is effectively disconnected from all history before WWI.
I understand -- at least in an immature phase -- fantasies about the other side winning WWII. But it's a dead end. The end of Europe happened with WWI. Chechar should be fantasizing about Kaiser Wilhelm, not about Adolf Hitler.
OK Chechar,
So you want to enact a Holocaust II, with an explicit reference to the original one, with the re-inauguration of Auschwitz and Birkenau and so on, where traitors will be killed in a way which you imagine will be good (and educational) TV.
However, the Jews are not among your traitors. Interestingly enough, during your non-antisemitic white nationalist fad they couldn't be traitors since they were our friends, and now because they are "the other" and enemies. Fair enough. But it's hard to see this as the same "Aufheben" as before. In your previous fad you spoke about the importance of reaching out to white nationalist Jews (e.g. "Speaking with WN Jews is imperative..."). Clearly that implies that you didn't see them as non-white, and not as the other but part of us, and clearly not as enemies. All that has changed completely with you now, and you have put the Jews in an entirely different category now. However, one which technically does not make them "traitors". But to pretend that your "Aufheben stands" is nevertheless a flagrant dishonesty.
Eduard Bernstein (who delivered the best criticism of Marxism I have ever read) put the focus on the pathology of Hegelian dialectics, and how it made otherwise intelligent people become like children and end up in violent fantasies. Hegelian dialectics, such as in your Aufheben, is just a way to let blatant contradictions live side by side. You claim that your Aufheben is the same as before. And I guess in a strict sense it is, since from the point of view of logic all contradictory systems can be reduced to one and the same statement: "False is true". Only in that sense is your Aufheben is the same, and forever a constant. The problem with contradictory system is that they are devoid of content and therefore meaningless. Of course, to your advantage, this allows you to flip several variables of your system into their very opposites, while still claiming that you are saying the very same thing. And in a way you are, since what you are saying is a contradiction and devoid of meaning, and therefore in a strict logical sense forever the very same thing. Don't expect us to take it seriously though.
Chechar,
I fail to understand why you are so eager to invoke the symbolism of Nazi-Germany with your "Holocaust II", since you deny that it would be like the original Holocaust in any substantial way. Why is it then that you want to borrow the whole symbolism from it, if it's not because you find this symbolism exciting, because you find it taboo and forbidden, and because you find its brutality aesthetically appealing?
Furthermore, I'm flabbergasted at how you, as an alleged white nationalist, so proudly declare that: Only white people will be killed! We will only kill our own! And how you solemnly announce that thereby "no moral law is broken". Wow! What's moral with that? That's a PC dogma for morality: that it would be a moral crime to kill "people of colour" but how white people are morally acceptable to kill. Sheesh!
You mix PC dogmas -- such as your priestly sanctimony over how good you are in only suggesting killing your own, and such as your demonetization of the German people of the ´30s -- with a strong drive for fantasies about Nazi-Germany symbolism, and a aesthetic craze for its brutality.
How would that ever result in good educational TV, to convince the people, to save the whites? The whole thing is a mess and full of contradictions. I have no idea how Rollory cannot see a problem with it. But apart from him (if even him) I don't expect that you will get anyone else on your utterly deranged band-wagon.
@ “But to pretend that your ‘Aufheben stands’ is nevertheless a flagrant dishonesty.”
Gosh! I really know to myself that I’ve never intended to replicate the sending of entire non-Gentile families to another Holocaust. What do you mean by “dishonesty”?
@ “You claim that your Aufheben is the same as before.”
I’ve never claimed that. As soon as you reach a “synthesis” you discover it’s still full of contradictions and the whole process starts again.
What is true is that once you start listening to polar opposites (e.g., Goldhagen’s and KMD) and assimilating what they say, you end up accepting some parts of both systems and eliminating—and at the same time accepting (“Aufheben”)—other parts of the same systems of thought. That’s why after I finish reading KMD and his critics I’ll read in turn KMD’s answers to his critics. This process allows us to see flaws in our previous worldviews (e.g., taking of the malignancy of the Germans as I did at GoV).
If you don’t like the Hegelian metaphor, forget it altogether.
Let us imagine instead I’m a sequestered member of a jury in a long, OJ Simpson-like trial. We members of the juror have to pay close attention to everything the defense attorney and the prosecutor say. Yes: we make mistakes. Horrible mistakes. That’s why the method is to listen carefully not only to the two lawyers, but to the expert witness they call to testify.
@ “while still claiming that you are saying the very same thing.”
I never claimed that.
What I now believe should be done with non-gentiles (if whites are to wake up from the Matrix) is analogous to what was done in 15th century Spain: you guys either go to Israel or stay but miscegenate with us non-gentiles. From now on Judaism is prohibited here as Islam is. As you have already read just below my blog’s masthead, with regard to a minority whose IQ is higher than whites (unlike the Neanderthalesque Muslims) and therefore tend to become dominant: “The Jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals. The existence of a nation within a nation is unacceptable to our country” (Count Clermont-Tonnerre, French National Assembly in 1789).
Regarding people calling e.g. Buchanan a Nazi (with or without prefix), that's a disgrace, and a sign of the sick and twisted times we live in.
However, he never ranted about "Hitlerian views", "4th Reich scenarios", "Third Reich nostalgia", "Himmler is my friend!", "Holocaust II", "Auschwitz", etc. If I ask someone who is regularly spurting out such things: Aren't you flirting too much with Nazism?, there is a substantial ground for asking so, and it's not as slur such in the case of when people call Buchanan a Nazi.
You have made it clear that to you "Franco or Pinochet + a revival of the Germanic myths = 4th Reich". Quite as with the liberals, for you any successful European nationalism equals Nazism. You seem constitutionally unable to think outside of the frame of Nazi-Germany as the only possible model for how to save white people. And then you go through your contortions of pretzel twisting in trying to find a pedestal position somehow distancing yourself from Nazi-Germany -- by demonizing German people, by only killing white people etc.
You are obsessed with Nazism, and your message to the blogosphere is that all successful European nationalism equals Nazism.
You use the pedestal of denouncing "the Nazis’ eliminationist anti-Semitism", which you think saves your honour. But at the same time you declare how the antisemitism of the Nazis turned into eliminationist antisemitism for circumstantial reasons (how it was not in Mein Kampf, how it was triggered by Churchill declaring war, etc.). So you're on shaky ground there too.
Continue reading MacDonald, by all means. That is the least of your problems, after all. But consider going easy on your Nazi euphoria in the future (and your PC dogmas, which you couple with it, as well). You ought to look into your psychobiography in search for the answers to why are so stuck on the idea of Nazi-Germany as the only possible model for sound European nationalism.
Chechar,
I really know to myself that I’ve never intended to replicate the sending of entire non-Gentile families to another Holocaust.
Yes I know, you have already proudly and solemnly declared that you will send only your own people to your new Holocaust. And I had already taken that in account in the post that I replied to. Don't you read what I write?
Apart from that your last answer just shows what a mess your Aufheben is. Your mind is a mess and I guess that's the reason why you are so attracted to Hegelian dialectics. Regarding intellectual dishonesty, I guess the concept cannot be grasped by someone mired in Hegelian dialectics. And after all, given your Aufheben, it might not be applicable to speak of dishonesty after all. How could there be dishonesty in a system of contradictions devoid of meaning? Your Aufheben is the same and different at the same time -- even if you throw yourself between extremes -- since it's a contradiction and has no meaning.
@ “I fail to understand why you are so eager to invoke the symbolism of Nazi-Germany with your ‘Holocaust II’.”
I told you: to really scare the immigrants in order to get them out from the West. That’s the point. Everybody can understand the visual language that judaized Hollywood has been pushing us through decades. Also: because the 1930s Germans cared for the survival of their race like no other state. Furthermore, we need a new myth. As I posted for the first time in The Occidental Quarterly:
O’Meara is basically right. Myth is certainly what moves the soul. That’s why, inspired in Nordic culture, J.R.R. Tolkien strove to create a myth to the point of inventing euphonically aesthetic languages. Women like Éowyn, the blond we all saw in the film The Two Towers, with Edoras the capital of Rohan in the background, is the crown of evolution. To think that the very crown of evolution is now in danger of extinction because of self-hate among whites is too intolerable a thought to contemplate. A few months ago a former U.S. president celebrated that whites will be a minority in his nation. I was extremely dismayed when learning what he said! I can only thank the authors of this website, which I have discovered just today…
Those whites who cheerfully celebrate that whites will be a minority in their nation... yes: they’re in our black list for “The Day of the Rope.”
@ “Only white people will be killed!”
I said that because, IIRC, the Baron deleted one of my posts in that thread and he e-mailed me his blog’s rules. I gathered that no comments would be acceptable about genocidal fantasizing of other ethnic groups, or something like that. Had I been freer to speak out my mind I’d have posted something quite different.
@ “no moral law is broken.”
Of course: if countries already have had death penalty for treason, by reinstating the laws about what to do with traitors no moral law would be broken.
@ “your utterly deranged band-wagon... Your mind is a mess and I guess...”
Since you are getting insulting again, I must say good-bye, again. Every time we agree to disagree you end up insulting me. Hopefully Rollory still has a different opinion about my views.
P.S. If young people hit this thread, I would recommend pondering on these very thorny issues in Occidental Dissent by very young white nationalists. Conversely, the blogsite I referred to above, The Occidental Quarterly, is run by middle-aged administrators. Both are highly recommended in addition to Prof. MacDonald’s own blog.
I told you: to really scare the immigrants in order to get them out from the West.
Wouldn't the immigrants just be laughing at us if we started killing each other in the new "Holocaust" under the direction of Chechar?
@ “Only white people will be killed!”
I said that because, IIRC, the Baron deleted one of my posts in that thread and he e-mailed me his blog’s rules.
Another confused statement by you, loaded with the usual cognitive dissonance, since you repeated again solemnly and proudly above in this thread how only white people will be killed, if you have your way, and how thus no moral law is broken. And you can hardly blame the Baron for what you write here.
Since you are getting insulting again, I must say good-bye, again. Every time we agree to disagree you end up insulting me.
I have not insulted you. I have extensively demonstrated how your mind is a mess. You are insulting yourself by all the strange things that you are writing. No one can insult you any more than you are insulting yourself. And moreover it's a flimsy liberal idea that the truth cannot be told even if it is unflattering, and that telling the truth in such cases would be "insulting".
ConservativeSwede, I will explain why Chechar will kill traitors if they're white. Let's roleplay a bit - let's suppose that I'm your wife and I cheat on you. You will probably beat up my lover, but in doing so, you are doing a mistake - you should be beating me up since I'm the one that betrayed you and didn't respect her oath. The guy did just like what guys want to do and that is shag women. This is why he'd rather execute white traitors, but I'd execute all traitors because even Jews took some oaths to stay here or when they immigrated.
And I think the Nazi Germany symbolism comes out of the racial purity thing, which is related to his fondness of how white women look.
Chechar, if you consider the Jews just another group living inside our societies, why do you treat them differently? And I won't join the debate before this since the mythology regarding Nazi Germany bores me.
CS, I would have preferred the Nazis to win. But only because this would have been just a brief period before their hubris would have been destroyed. And communism would have been dismantled too. Besides this, both sides were stupid and I agree that the problem lies before WW2, which is just a consequence of WW1.
My take on things is that the Nazi method is not only silly, but it's ineffective. Sure, a lot of the immigrants will need to be sent home and will be sent home if we are to fix things. But unless you go into the racial purity trap, you don't need those measures. I mean, heck, since I'm about 5% Ashkenazi Jewish, by this logic I'm non-white, even if I'm 95% European? The way you handle things is more or less how Romania did when we formed as a country and got our independence. Romanians were 65% of the population of the territory and we didn't commit genocide nor went on a rampage to conquer new territory. All the measures we need to take are in our past, before Nazi Germany.
"consider them completely natural and healthy"
That's exactly the same sort of strawman bullshit Auster is always pulling, and not the first time you've done something like this. I'm not going to dignify it with an answer.
Anyway other posts here explain it well, if you can read them.
Wilhelm was a fool. He wandered around Europe screwing up and then having to try to undo his screwups for a decade before the war. He was motivated by a very similar foolishness to Hitler: an assumption that Germans had a right to conquer, and an absolute inability to seriously entertain the downside of attempting it. None of this has anything to do with what will and will not work in restoring or creating a place where Europeans can live without being drowned out.
I had nightmares for a week after reading about what the Nazis did in Ukraine. I know perfectly well what I am talking about.
There's an Isaac Asimov short story, "In A Good Cause", that is worth reading. It is relevant.
Actually, the Jews, being a different group, cannot be traitors in a white Gentile nation. When they act against the interests of the ethnic majority, they act as enemies, not as traitors. The same about Muslims or Blacks. Tariq Ramadan, Abe Foxman or Al Sharpton are not traitors to their people, they act out of enmity for the majority, because we allowed them to behave that way.
So, when the time will come, it is natural that traitors and enemies should be both held accountable, but from different perspectives. Traitors should be put on trial; potential enemies should be deprived of their legal and moral means to behave as enemies (as it happened a long period in the European history, with measures varying from non-citizenship to expulsion, if they don't obey the rules).
The difference is that traitors can be put on trial, but they still can be called citizens and legitimate members of a nation. Thus, it is a favor that we can offer to our own and refuse to the other.
Going back to the originary discussion, WWII with everything it included and everything that followed was a tragedy. The roots of this tragedy can be found, among others, in the French Revolution. Chechar quotes on his blog Count Clermont-Tonnerre who said in the French National Assembly in 1789: “The Jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals. The existence of a nation within a nation is unacceptable to our country.”
The words of the Count, in the heated debate about granting citizenship to a minority, for the first time in history, were prophetic. If the Count and his camp had won, we wouldn't have had Bolshevism, Nazism, racial laws, multiculturalism, immigration and political correctness. Common sense would have prevailed, the Gulag and Auschwitz wouldn't have existed. Like in Greek tragedies, the whole ordeal started with an error of cosmic proportions: in this case, the idea that a nation can survive with other nations (i.e. organized minorities with full rights) on its territory.
P.S.: I agree with RV's analogy about the wife and the lover, I think it's the kind of metaphor that explains it all. The wife is the traitor; her lover is the competitor/rival. You should punish the wife and tell the man to get the f#ck out of the house, otherwise you will shoot him as soon as you see him around. It's like Mona Sahlin going to the mosque, wearing a headscarf and praising the Muslim way of life: she's a despicable traitor, the host imams should be told the get the f#ck out of the country because it's not theirs.
Armance, it's so obvious that you're Romanian related to what you said about Al Sharpton. I mean, if you consider him an enemy, not a traitor, you don't consider blacks American, which made me laugh because it's similar to our country. Still, as long as the civic nationality farce exists, they're traitors, not enemies. But with civic nationality, they're traitors, not enemies since they're part of us and considering that they committed their crimes under civic nationality, they ARE traitors. I hope that we will both vote no in the upcoming referendum here if they will include minority rights in the Constitution. Sadly, I think that people hate the Parliament enough to concede that in order to cut the number of MP leeches.
And it's not just the French revolution that is the problem, but yes, I agree, minorities shouldn't have rights as nations inside our countries nor should they be considered part of our nations. I really don't get it, if I moved to Japan or China or Egypt, I'd sure as hell expect to be excluded since I'm in a foreign country.
And about the wife analogy, men have this cute way of never holding us accountable - I mean, in this case it's not the other man's fault at all and I asked a lot of men I know and they'd all want to crack the skull of that guy. Oh, and I never understood why men don't get that character assassination, which is what we do as women, is a far more effective method of getting back at someone.
To close this, I dislike liberal Europeans(especially the men) more than the Muslims for the reason I gave in my post from yesterday.
Armance, it's so obvious that you're Romanian related to what you said about Al Sharpton. I mean, if you consider him an enemy, not a traitor, you don't consider blacks American, which made me laugh because it's similar to our country.
Absolutely, RV. Actually, I'm thinking more about the similarity between Barack Obama and Madalin Voicu (don't say LOL, I'm serious). So, Obama had a white mother, Black father, and it was the mother (alas, a deluded Communist, but still...) who raised him, educated him, dedicated most of her life for him while his father left him... but still he considers himself an Afro-American and he preserves the usual Black hostility and hatred against whitey.
And now, let's take the example of Madalin Voicu: Romanian white mother, of aristocratic orgin, Gypsy father. Well, as a plus point compared to Obama, the father never left the family. But still Voicu identifies himself completely with the Gypsy part of his family and he calls us in a contemptous way "the majority people ("majoritarii"), the racists"".
I mean, if a half Romanian, "enlightened" Gypsy thinks in this way about us, can you imagine the mentality of the rest?
Well, at least we are still more mentally sane than the Westerners: this man can be an MP in Romania but not the president (at least in the next 2-3 decades).
Rollory,
You entered this thread by saying:
I don't quite understand what you think the problem is with what Chechar is saying.
This clearly implies that you found nothing wrong with Chechar's writings, that you thought I was erroneously criticizing him. The speech act of your comment was to defend Chechar's position from what you saw as my unsubstantiated criticism of it.
Your expression of perplexity over my criticism of Chechar, how you found no reason to criticism it, certainly implies that you find Chehcar's ideas "completely natural and healthy".
But this sane and logical conclusion makes you go bananas and spurt out things about "strawman bullshit" and even cursing me with the Auster specter :-)
That's not very fair, is it?
You make a 180 degree turn, while pretending not to having done a logical flip-flip. It's fine with me if you want change your position, or rephrase it, but don't take out your cognitive instability on me, since it resides with you. Or is it that you want to hold this position, but only that you get upset if someone points out that you have it? I cannot say which, but something is definitely fishy and contradictory about your whole behaviour.
You wrote:
[It's] not the first time you've done something like this.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Please give us a link.
Anyway other posts here explain it well, if you can read them.
Once again, no idea of what you are referring to. Link?
So if I marry a Chinese woman then she cannot be the "traitor"? How am I supposed to act if she would be unfaithful?
CS, it was an analogy. Basically, if your Chinese wife would cheat on you, she'd be the traitor because she broke her marriage vows. It wasn't related to ethnic origin.
Armance, you actually pay attention to what Madalin Voicu says? I mean, I don't watch our talk shows much since they reek stupidity, but when Voicu is on, the idiocy increases ten folds. The only times I pay attention to what he says is when I watch with my parents and we mock him and laugh. About our sanity, Iliescu has a Romanian father and Gypsy mother so we already had a half Gypsy as president longer than the other presidents post 1989 combined. And Ceausescu was Tatar-Gypsy. Still, neither identified themselves as such, so yes, we are saner.
Getting back to Voicu, why the heck would I listen to what he rambles? I'd rather listen to Andrei Plesu, Dan Puric and the like. I would have added Emil Hurezeanu, but he became a joke lately(I guess Vantu's money are to blame). I didn't know that Vantu has a Romanian mother though, since his person is of no interest to me. I didn't even remember he exists until you brought him up. But still, Romanians didn't vote for Voicu himself, we vote for parties, even with the nominal elections. If I would be the one running from PSD where he ran, I'd win too.
And about the attitudes of Gypsy towards us, I can describe theirs towards me - filthy Romanian $lut. I almost burst out in laughter when one called me that because it's ironic to be called filthy by a Gypsy considering I usually can't get myself to sit near one on the bus due to the smell. Still, the same attitude is from all non-white men, in general. It's a blend of infatuation and contempt - yes, I like to talk to people and analyze their psychology. I actually find it fascinating. I'd like to be invited on a talk show with Madalin Voicu though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i0d8OOX8is
This is my dedication to Madalin Voicu. :P Oh, our sanity is reflected in our commercials too - the Dacia Logan one mocks Asian people. And since you brought up the aristocracy thing, I visited the village of Calugareni recently and the way the mansion in it looks is deplorable. I was thinking of climbing inside it and take some pictures, but I decided against it. It saddened me like it saddens me when I walk through Bucharest and I feel like I look at the mutilated body of a rape victim due to the communist buildings.
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/7630/p1120198.jpg
This is the future, considering the demographics. I hate Gypsy architecture! By the way, check how they spelled inox. lmao. I didn't even realize when I took this picture.
Oh, and I forgot to explain something to Armance. Voicu's contempt is normal because when you are a biracial/biethnic/biwhatever children and you have to assume the identity of one of the parents, you basically feel that you have a worse position than people who are monoracial/monoethnic. They are entitled to their identity more than you are and this makes you dislike the half of you that isn't your identity. This is why biracial people are usually the biggest racists. lol
RV,
Yes I know an analogy when I see one, thanks. So I took it and I used it. My comment speaks in terms of this analogy. But you missed that. So that's actually my line to you: It's still the analogy.
The point is the same as the one you made about "civic nationality" above. Should Obama (or JFK for that sake) be treated as a traitor or an alien? Should "my" unfaithful Chinese wife be treated as traitor or an alien? - is the same question.
It's all up to my privilege, after all, which I choose. The idea that someone from a different ethnic group cannot possibly be a traitor is ill-thought. It ignores the existence of social contracts, which e.g. marriage is an excellent example of!
It follows logically:
If I marry a woman, she will belong to my tribe.
If I can marry a woman from another ethnic group, it means that people from another ethnic groups are able to enter our tribe.
If someone from another ethnic group has entered our tribe, i.e. become one of us, and then betray us, then surely he/she is a traitor. (But sure we can see him/her simultaneously as an alien too, if we so wish).
CS, I wrote that in my view, considering that when people immigrated here they took some oaths, they're traitors too. Still, the degree of treason isn't the same on an emotional level. For example, if I was you, Swedish leftists would bother me more than the Iraqi asylum seekers because I do see civic nationality as a farce. If you have faith in the civic nationality paradigm, then yes, all the immigrants are just as treasonous as the ethnic people.
Still, if you ignore all the artificial social contracts which are there to enforce good behaviour(are supposed to, they're doing the opposite now), it's normal to be bothered by a traitor that is closer to you on an ethnic basis. This is where Chechar is coming from.
If you have faith in the civic nationality paradigm, then yes, all the immigrants are just as treasonous as the ethnic people.
Actually I'm afraid that if we take civic nationality as a basis of discussion, nobody is a traitor, and nobody a competitor. The true nature of the farce reveals itself. You are supposed to respect the social contract with the state and that's all. According to this standard, neither Mona Sahlin nor Tariq Ramadan are traitors and they didn't do anything wrong. Besides, the conditions of the social contract can vary and can be modified in time. Plus you can collect as many citizenships as you want, and still formally pretend to respect the contract with any state whose citizen you are.
The notion of citizenship that we have since the Enlightment and the French Revolution is different from that of the Romans, Greeks, Italian city states, etc. Then, a citizen was supposed to be a member of the city by birth plus the conditions of loyalty were extremely harsh. Citizenship implied rights by birth, a common tradition and faithfulness. That's why for newcomers it was extremely difficult to become citizens, so difficult that most of them didn't even try. As for treasonous citizens, well, they were usually hanged or beheaded.
Socrates was innocent, but sentenced to death, he still drank the poison saying "I respected the laws of the city when it was good for me, and I respect them now, when it is bad". This is not civic nationality, but a loyalty of almost transcendent nature. The kind of loyalty that a foreigner is not able to possess.
Armance, I looked Voicu's ancestry up. Holy crap, the fruitcake's mother is a descendant of the Cantacuzino and Comsa families and apparently also of Mircea the Elder(I wish I had an ancestor whose mug was on our coins lol).
Post a Comment