Atlas and Gates are fighting for the right of European Nationalism. Little Green Footbals (and us, to a lesser extent) believes that when you scratch the surface of almost any Euopean Nationalist party, you will find an Ethnic Nationalism crawling out from underneath the shiny, modern facade.
From Vanishing America (with thanks to Always on Watch):
I suspect rather too much attention and bandwidth has been devoted to the
individual who instigated the 'blog wars' and this ongoing vendetta against
'fascists' among the Western right. But there are still some valid issues to be
considered, which go beyond personalities. So, here are two more good responses.
First, James Fulford's piece at VDare, in which he makes several good
points.Fulford mentions the fact that Bruce Bawer, the writer who exiled himself
to Europe for fear of the Christian right in this country, also denounced the
Brussels Journal and Vlaams Belang:
Another critic of the Vlaams Belang and Brussels Journal is Bruce
Bawer. Bruce Bawer left the US in 1998, apparently out of fear of Christian
homophobia. He's now noticed that that Muslims, who are taking over Europe, are
much more homophobic than Christians, and has written a book called While Europe
Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within.
But he's still afraid of the Christian Right. He has condemned Belien
and the Brussels Journal as a "bunch of little Euro-fascists" because Belien
came out in favor of "traditional Judeo-Christian morality"—which is, of course,
anathema to Bawer, as it is to professional gay publicist Andrew
Sullivan.''
Exactly; when many conservatives hailed Bawer's book as a brave expose of
Islamo'fascism' and the conquest of Europe by Islam, my feeling was that he was
at best only a partial ally. True to form, it seems he views conservatives in
our country and the West as just as bad as Islam.Many of these sometime allies who oppose Islam for their own personal reasons (such as their 'lifestyle') are really not friends to conservatives, but merely the enemy of our enemy -- up to a point. When forced to choose, can we be sure that they will prefer our side over the Moslems? Or do they view us as morally equivalent to, or worse than, the Moslems?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is another such individual, who is the object of adulation by many liberals (right and left) in the counterjihad camp. But it should be remembered that Hirsi Ali is not a conservative, not a Westerner (except in that she prefers the social libertinism the West offers) and opposes Islam for reasons of her own, not because she cares about the West per se. We might remember that she opposed a Christian political party in the Netherlands, and wanted to ban all religious schools there.
So at best she is an uneasy ally, merely being the enemy of our enemy.
That's a very good point.
Go read the whole thing.
82 comments:
I dont regularly read LGF or Atlas Shrugs. I wasn't even aware of this "split" until your post the other day, and I'm pretty much too under-educated on the European players involved to formulate an opinion on them.
But help me out here Pastorius, can you imagine any plausible scenario where the Islamisation of Europe is reversed without the ethnic far-right coming to power?
If I had to bet money, I would say that Europe will not reverse the Islamisation, and that by this time next century Europe will be an Islamic majority bloc of nations.
The only way I see the trend being reversed is if someone willing to set aside Constitutions, silence the left by force, and commit either mass deportations of both Muslim immigrants and Muslim citizens, or commit house to house ethnic cleanings comes to power.
Perhaps those on LGF's side of the argument believe there is a third option..... some way to reverse the trends without resorting to ethnic nationalism, I am curious to hear that plan.
Dont get me, I harbor no sympathies for the Neo-Nazi white supremacist bastards, I know their enemy list will expand to include my kind as well ....... I just think they're the only ones willing to fight fire with fire. They are Europe's only viable hope.
I would rather see them come to power long enough to purge the continent of Islam.....then take my chances that they will implode afterwards, and moderation can return.
Well, being that you are a Texan, you might not want to hear this, but the Republican party was founded in 1854, had the Presidency by 1860, and had eliminated slavery and won the Civil War by 1865.
Eleven years.
There is no reason we can not expect that Europe can not do the same.
Certainly, if people are joining the BNP and then claiming that it is not a racist party because THEY are not racists themselves, and the BNP is filled with people just like them who only want to preserve Europe,
well then,
we know that there is a demand for an anti-racist counter-Jihad party,
right?
Who are you going to believe? Them, or their lying eyes?
Point is, there are certainly enough people in Europe who are opposed to Islamification. They claim to be anti-racist, so let's take them at their word. Let's challenge them to come up with a real party which stands for an ideological free Democratic Republic with a Constitution that upholds freedom for all.
They can do it. I know they can. After all, they are not racists.
By the way, I will soon be interviewing some people from Europe who have new ideas about the political direction which Europe must take.
Good article. We would like to feature your article. Consider joining the Christians Against Leftist Heresy Blogroll at http://christiansagainstleftistheresy.blogspot.com/
So, do you think there is a way within the constraints of their current political processes, that will allow for the deportation of both Muslim immigrants and legalized Muslim citizens?
I dont think your ever going to get an legitmate mandate for that through the current electoral process.
Pastorius,
there are certainly enough people in Europe who are opposed to Islamification. They claim to be anti-racist, so let's take them at their word. Let's challenge them to come up with a real party which stands for an ideological free Democratic Republic with a Constitution that upholds freedom for all.
They can do it. I know they can. After all, they are not racists.
But are they really?
Europe places a lot more emphasis on blueblood lines that America does. Aristocracy and class lines which are nearly insurmountable. What are the historical and ideological roots of those two obstacles (as I see them)?
Damn, I hate to be such a naysayer.
But as I mentioned in a comment to another post here at IBA, I've been doing a lot of thinking.
'I would rather see them come to power long enough to purge the continent of Islam.....'
and send me and my entire family to the ovens whilst their at it...
'then take my chances that they will implode afterwards, and moderation can return.'
thanks for making that decision for me. Thanks for sentencing my children to death. I guess it's lucky that you don't have to live with the consequences of them coming to power.
By even considering supporting these Nazi's, because they are racist Neo Nazi's no matter what syrupy BS they tell you, you continue to parylize us. the only reason we cannot act is because of these far right groups. They make real the accusations of the Jihadists of racism. Result, we can't act. We don't have the right to bear arms, the law of the land in effect does not even allow us to defend ourselves from a burglar or a mugger without serious risk of prosecution, so armed revolution is not a realistic course of action for us. The state would mow is down in the street. Yes that is an appalling state of affairs, but defining the entire left or centre left of the European political spectrum as the enemy is narrow minded and short sighted. In fact I still can't believe that in the 21st century we are still having the debate on race....when we ALL face an enemy who for all their evil really only gives a shit whether you are a Muslim or not. have you never heard of divide and conquer? It's Islamic Psyops! Antagonise the nativists, by rejecting overtures of integration, behave in an offensive way and if that doesn't work attack the symbols of that nation (Church, Flag etc) so they retreat into a racial comfort zone....and then whilst we Infidels fight amongst ourselves it's business as usual for the Islamisation project. Whilst this Blog war wages on using up energy and creating division how many Domestic jihadists have been recruited. I tell you this I trust the European left a whole lot more than the right...Why? Because NONE OF THEM HAVE EVEN HINTED OR DEBATED THE POSSIBILITY OF SUPPORTING OR TOLERATING WHITE SUPREMACISTS. As far as I'm concerned it is the lack of a recognition of what the overall threat from Islam is that is the real enemy and what devalues the contribution of the left in Europe. Was it the right kicking Nazi ass in Prague this weekend? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7089031.stm.
No it was the left, strange how the 'NON RACIST FAR RIGHT NATIONALISTS' weren't in there stopping the march through the Jewish quarter on the anniversary of Kristallnacht. For all it's dhimmitude and bad economic policies the left will not consider tolerating Nazi's. I garuntee that if you were to sit a far lefty down and say for example, 'do you think it is acceptable for women to be forced to wear the Burqa on pain of death?'
Or
'Should a starving man who steals a loaf of bread have his hands chopped off?'
The overwhelming answer would be an angry 'NO WAY!'
I favour and support a global American revolution of equality between friendly nations and values, but don't play politics with my life!
You want to stop Islam dead in it's tracks? STOP USING OIL, or just invade the Islamic lands who have the oil. Would you tolerate Islamic nations selling Uranium on the free market? The oil may aswell be Uranium for the explosive power it creates. Eliminate any racist idealogies re the counter Jihad movement, without question. Why try to tackle an idealogical enemy with racism? That is a weak Policy !We don't need Nationalism....why should we devolve to defeat these cavemen???
Things are happening behind the scenes which won't be discussed here, but you make our task IMPOSSIBLE by even considering supporting these Nazi's. The Jews helped my people in the 60's (like Epa) and I sure as hell am not going to sell them out in order to attack Islam.
Eliminate the racist voice, enable the democratic voice and things may start to happen, REMEMBER AMERICA IS SUPPOSED TO STAND IDEALOGICALY FOR FREEDOM, and is the beacon for the world to follow.
AOW is absolutely right about the class structure in Europe, particularly the UK...
and finally the counter Jihad is a LONG term movement......that is better faught from within the system than from out side.....
RT,
I think there is a growing political will to expel the Moors. I think Europe has done it before, and they will do it again.
The one thing that has to happen, though, is we have to put a stop to Europe's weird racial identities. Their wars boil down to micro-raical hatreds which are fucking silly. And, considering the fact that we always end up in the middle of their shit, yes, I think we have the right and even the duty to say enough is enough.
This whole episode leads credence to the problem that Europe, unless it gets it's head on straight, may have to choose between two fascisms.
Islamic-fascism or neo-fascism with traditional socialism bordering on neo-communism in between.
What a cluster f**k!
Watcher 71,
I think you're right that if neo-Nazis were on the rise, they would be a real problem. But are they? Where's the evidence that they are more than a fringe. I'm not in Europe. I take it you are. Can you fill me in?
I can't buy your argument that the only thing holding Europe back from doing something is the far right. That's just the excuse of the people who are too cowardly or anti-freedom to do anything but look to the state to shut people up. It looks to me like it is the post-national left that is destroying "Europe", and you really need to start distinguishing between people who have a proper respect for the kind of nationhood that is required for a people to be self-ruling, decentralized, democratic - and thus politically transparent and less threatening to their neighbors - and the kind of nationalism that becomes totalitarian. Because the realistic (non-Utopian) alternative to all forms of national self-consciousness is totalitarian too.
The idea that there is something to choose between the neo-Nazis and anarchists in Prague is something I can't appreciate. There really is no major difference between those two groups, which is really the reason they need to fight each other, just like in the 30s. Anyone who thinks that the left is not racist may not appreciate this point. But just because you formally profess anti-racism doesn't mean you are. I mean, what is required for ruling the kind of "multicultural" Europe the left is now promoting? - a kind of post-national bureaucratic elite who tell everyone what they should or should not be doing. It is just a postmodern form of the old imperialism, the white man's burden. Multiculturalism means everyone gets some formal equality of status, but everyone must follow the same party line to get it. It's totalitarian and in this sense opposed to all "races" or nations which could be the basis for forms of decentralized self-rule.
The left is clearly the dominant power in Europe. It must take the blame for most of the mess you are in. Of course it's easy to scapegoat the neo-Nazis, for they are truly a potential evil. But until I see clear evidence of their numbers balooning, that they are more than an increasingly suppressed minority in traditionally pro-fascist parties like the Flemish nationalists, I can't sign on to your passion. Pure anti-racism is just as evil as racist totalitarianism. If you lose your freedom or life because you're a Jew or a kulak, or a Flemish nationalist, the official ideology of your oppressor doesn't impress, nor should it.
The basic question is this: is anti-immigration a legitimate political position? In any kind of self-ruling democracy, especially one with a welfare state, it must be a legitimate choice, which is not to say it is the position I would necessarily favor. Anti-immigration is only an illegitimate position in a totalitarian state. The German racism turned totalitarian historically because Germans had become a powerful state(s) and economy, but without learning the arts of democratic self-rule. Europe is still desperately in need of learning these arts, just as we are forgetting them in North America. I agree with you there. But the left is not the answer. One should become a decentralizing centrist, the real conservative and freedom-loving position. That means tolerating some level of racial self-consciousness - hopefully one not scared of letting new blood into the nation - but not letting it dominate anything. Defending freedom means allowing that consciousness of a shared past, but not letting it dictate the future. Immigration must be debated, but without it becoming a source of dividing those already in your country and sincerely devoted to its democratic freedoms.
I should add that I think the left is inherently, structurally antisemitic. Many on the left are not aware of this. They sincerely belive in their anti-racism. But just because you make a show of beating up neo-Nazis in Prague doesn't make you a friend of the kind of national and market freedom (with a racial touch)that Judaism has come to represent. When someone truly respects Jews and Americans, in general, he has a hard time being anything further left that a slightly left of center person who respects freedom.
Truepeers,
fair and thoughtful comments....Location wise, yes I am in the UK. Firstly understand that I am from the variable freedom loving English centre left,so no hankering from the bad old days of Joe Stalin (they can pluck my vote and freedom of speech out of my cold dead fingers!) Insofar as a single incident that would point to the rise of the far right in Europe... Well there isn't one single event, more a culmination of events. My greatest fear is the sanitising/deception that is under way with the far right particularly in the trans Atlantic debate and for us here it is a very immediate and real threat at a time when we need to be 100% focused on the Islamic threat. My point is that I don't see right wing groups having for example counter protests against Neo Nazi/WP groups, they are strangely silent when Nazi's vandalise and desecrate Jewish cemeteries. Certainly I'm no Anarchist. Insofar as the left being potentially anti-semetic? Yes , History has shown that the left is more than capable of this, again as Stalin showed. Understand I'm not THAT far to the left! I disagree that the left is the dominant power in Europe, even allowing for trans Atlantic political translation. However a failure to honestly begin to recognise and thus address the Islamic question across Europe has left the population scurrying towards the fringes of politics, often voting for racist parties because they are the only ones that appear to be reflecting peoples day to day experiences of Islam. Again it is clear that Multiculturalism without integration and assimilation is the disaster that is unfolding before us! As has been identified by many bloggers and commenter's here at IBA ,unfortunately here in Europe we tend to only do Ethno Nationalism, which is why I reject Nationalism, so the idea of one of these far right groups coming to power and 'letting new blood in' would just never happen. As the son of a migrant I think Europe has to close the doors, definatley towards Islamic immigration, as it is clear that Muslim immigrants have no desire to assimilate or integrate (the problems at that Canadian University are a prime case in point). Either way Europe needs to discover a unifieing cohesive idealogical rallying call that has it's eyes wide open to Islam and is capable of dealing with Islam without cries of racism from the Muslim groups being somewhat legitimised by the racist tirades of the far right. I want to see the centre left saying ' on the basis of secular Liberal social democracy, I reject and will not tolerate sharia law being practised here in Europe!' It's just ironic that the actions of the far right make it very hard to do this in Europe without being called a racist. Very very frustrating, hence the reason a lot of the population are starting to vote for the far right. You see?
I fail to see the connection between V.B and Nazis of any kind, neo or proto or classical or even imaginary. In fact, I don't see in V.B. the elements of classical fascism, of which Nazi-ism is one branch.
Neo-Nazi? I don't even begin to understand what that means. I suspect that with some rigorous questioning we'll find that no one knows what neo-Nazi-ism means-- because there is really no such thing at all. To refer to a political party as neo-Nazi seems to me to do nothing more than refer to it as hyper-fascist, meaning no more than really Really bad people. That's not interesting critique. It's not worth bothering with, and it discredits those who bandy it about. I'm particularly sensitive to this issue because I am challenged often in my use of the word fascism, which has very clear limits to the meaning of the word and the movements so-called. Spurious and vacuous Nazi-calling is insulting to those of us who know what that truly is.
Having made that point, let's turn to the real problem of fascism Europe faces, rather than the imaginary nonsense of people who don't look into the details of their opinions.
It's not European "racism" anyone must fear, not the likelihood of Jugoslavian-style ethnic cleansing, it's not "Christian fundamentalists" we must fear; those fears only exist in the minds of the mentally unemployed, those whose emotional life is on the dole. What we must truly and rightly fear is that we will do nothing positive to halt and rescind the evils of the fascist Left until things are so desperately out of control that racism and religious bigotry does arise out of frustrated hatreds.
Anyone who thinks European parties today are neo-Nazi is going to be very unpleasantly surprised when they actually experience the real thing. Thinking neo-Nazis? Try thinking Liberia of only a few years ago. And that is what we'll get if things don't change soon. We have to be the release valve before this all goes bad and can't be saved from the real bad guys who always wait for such times. Those seeds are always there, always waiting for the right time to sprout. You'll see real Nazis in time if we don't organize now. If you see real Nazis you won't like it. Enough of the name-calling. Organize.
The left in Europe regard anyone who is a "nationalist" as a potential fascist. This has a lot to do with their fascination with the EU over nation states.
Are you a nationalist Pastorius? Are you an American nationalist?
I am, Not enough of that I'd say.
This whole thread is ridiculous. The leftists in Europe have planted so much against these PRO ISRAEL parties are in fact rubbing their dirty hands in glee.
We chose to participate in a very worthy and substantive conference held in part by European political parties being wrongly demonized.
I find it difficult to believe, even for a moment, that Vlaams Belang and the Swedish Democrats chose to support the Brussels Counter Jihad summit and host Jews like me and Andrew Bostom (to specifically speak on the legacy of Islamic anti-semitism, no less) while really, secretly being neo Nazis. To what end? What Nazi does that? They invited Dr. Aryeh Eldad - is there a more vocal, uncompromising Zionist? And Robert Spencer (his take here)? Vlaams Belang and the Swedish Democrats take the hugely difficult position of staunchly supporting Israel.
What Nazi gives interviews such as the one Dewinter gave to the Jewish Week? What Nazi does that? Why would they go to all this trouble? For what? So that they can start roasting Jews after they seize power? I don't buy that. Nazis are quite vocal in their hatred. They don't hide and if you're a real Nazi - I would think Islam would be more your cuppa tea. Jew hatred is celebrated in Islam - there is no need to hide. Read The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism by Andrew Bostom.
Nazis consider Jews vermin. They could never hang out let alone support Jews and Jewish causes.
Yes, being staunchly PRO ISRAEL is indeed the litmus test becuase it is so wildy unpopular in Europe to taker such a position and you can garner far more support opposing Israel.
Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad are quite clear in their Jew hatred as are all Nazis. No ruse is necessary - just join the leftist Islamic alliance.
Lots of brains have gone all soft and mushy on me.
Europe needs to discover a unifieing cohesive idealogical rallying call that has it's eyes wide open to Islam and is capable of dealing with Islam without cries of racism from the Muslim groups being somewhat legitimised by the racist tirades of the far right. I want to see the centre left saying ' on the basis of secular Liberal social democracy, I reject and will not tolerate sharia law being practised here in Europe!' It's just ironic that the actions of the far right make it very hard to do this in Europe without being called a racist. Very very frustrating, hence the reason a lot of the population are starting to vote for the far right. You see?
Watcher, we're not that far apart, but for the sake of intellectual clarity, I'll bicker a little with you. I don't like the idea of a cohesive ideology as much as I like the idea of people being united by a common respect for each other's freedom (within limits that respect the need of freedom to mediate the resentments that freedom, with its creation of inequalities and differences, creates).
I don't think it's so much the actions of the far right today that make it very difficult to do what you want in Europe. I think it's the memory of the Nazis that makes it difficult, a memory you would all be quick to have even if there were *no* "far-right" groups in Europe today. That's a hypothetical. But I believe it correct because it's clear to me that the Holocaust has had a profound impact on political consciousness almost everywhere in the world. It's the religion that some of us call White Guilt (rooted in the reaction to the Holocaust and the following era of de-colonization, civil rights, anti-apartheid, etc.) that I think makes it impossible for people in Europe, or America, to seriously criticize a politics/religion, Islam, without being called, non-sensically, racists, as if Muslims weren't found among all races. Why the canard of "racism" when discussing a "religion" - precisely because the central event which is shaping political consciousness today is the Holocaust.
Without denying the lessons of the Holocaust, our intellectual task today is to criticize White Guilt for the real damage it does to freedom, security, etc (the freedom and security of everyone, not just whites). Among other things, that means even denying the legitimacy of attacks on "neo-Nazis" when it seems there is little evidence to fear Nazis (relative to other more powerful forces) today. Combatting our intellectual need for scapegoats and victims is what the forces of freedom should be doing. Or else, as Dag suggests, one day we will find ourselves with real scapegoats and victims again.
Now I can see your reason to think that a lot of the population is thinking of voting for the "far right" because no one else is criticizing orthodox (Sharia and Jihad) Islam. I can see that being a real problem, though we can't really know what the "far right" is going to be in this day and age until they start getting the kind of support and attention that will force them to put their cards on the table and start to clarify positions. What Europeans desperately need are responsible, conservative, democratic nationalist parties. If we agree that these are presently lacking, we should be open to all contenders moving in that direction. THis makes it an open quesiton whether we should criticize groups like VB who, it seems to me, do have a questionable past but are, at least in some quarters, professing a desire to move beyond that to a kind of responsible conservatism. I'd say we should criticize such groups with an eye to making them responsible. Otherwise, as Dag says, the onus is on people like you to organize a responsible alternative. It's not good enough to say you can't do this because of the "far right". That's just sharing the mainstream's belief in a bogeyman and showing your fear of being scapegoated - the fear is rational but not the giving in to it. And the only way you can defeat belief in a bogeyman is to become the man and to show people you are not what they fear.
I think you're right to call for a secular Liberal party, but keep in mind that the secular is really just another form of the sacred - in other words, the secular is not something generic, universally same, but emerges from a process of de-ritualizing a particular religious or cultural tradition. There is no escaping the fact that you still have to be something particular, part of a specific cultural tradition.
But any tradition can only expand by becoming more decentralized. Real freedom is generated when people discover new forms of the sacred that allow society to become less centralized and still hold together. They hold because these new forms of the sacred, reworking the terms of responsibility and freedom, have a bonding quality even as the bond is a kind of guarantee for respecting a greater degree of freedom. I think that if you pursue this question honestly, you will find that the greatest historical guide to what a secularizing and freedom-expanding religion looks like is Christianity. I wonder if what you write implies anti-Christian sentiment. If so, I think you should not be so quick to deny this key aspect of European heritage. I believe pretty much everything orthodox Christians believe can be justified, in secular, anthropological language, as having significant truth value. THere is in fact far more anthropological wisdom on the religious "right" than on the left which tends to make the fundamental error of assimilating our specifically *human* nature with biological nature as a whole.
As for "social democracy", that sounds like the 1970s redux. Large welfare states are a tax on freedom. I agree freedom has to be taxed. But you have to be careful about how far you take this principle. If you believe in freedom, you can't keep qualifying it, or you lose it and create a culture of welfare dependency. And it seems to me that this is today where the BNP is finding its votes. Why call those guys far-right? They seem rather far left to me: give us more welfare is one of their key lines. Of course the "us" is defined racially. But national socialism is still socialism. Keep in mind that the "left-right" distinction is, historically, a creation of the left. It is how the "left" that came out of the French Revolution divided the world in order to define itself. This can be unfair to conservatives who get labelled "right" for no apparent reason. The best conservatism is the defense of the sacred centers that are the source of our freedom. We have in Canada the concept of a "Red Tory" which is useful because it points to a truth that the left-right distinction ignores.
This entire thread is clear evidence of why George W said what he did as he retired, and why until 1939, and FDR we were very determined to be an isolationist nation.
WE CANNOT FIX EVERYTHING.
We are HERE.
COME HERE.
Be US.
FUCK THEM.
America has always been the place where people who are the VICTIMS of europe (and other places, these days)ran to.
There is a reason why we are NOT THE SAME AS THEM.
We are not going to be able to make sure Jefferson reigns in Europe instead of Mohammad or someone who will ensure the trains are on time. Such is beyond our capability.
America is not the CREATION of Europe, it is the RESULT of europe.
Pamela,
Lots of brains have gone soft and mushy on you? I wouldn't be so quick to make that decision.
Three things'
1) Yes, Jew-hatred is central to the Nazi ideology, and yes it is easier to build political coalitions in Europe if one is anti-Israel, but is not white supremacism also central to Nazi ideology? Is it not possible for Nazi types to decide to sublimate their anti-Semitism because Jews are at the forefront of an anti-Islam movement which meshes well with the political will (already well-established) which the existing Nazis have worked so hard to build against IMMIGRATION?
Why is it that whenever I post a thread against the BNP, I get people coming here to tell me they are not racists, and then they turn around and use the word, "nigger"?
2) Am I not a Nationalist? Yes, I sure as hell am. But, I am not an Ethnic Nationalist, and I don't think I ever will be.
Are you?
The dividing line here, for me, is Ethnic Nationalism. Think about what you know of me. Is there any reason for you to suspect that I would EVER have supported Ethnic Nationalism?
???
Let us be clear, in Europe Ethnic Nationalism means Whites will make up the majority of the country. In Japan, Ethnic Nationalism means that Japanese people will make the majority of the country.
Once a country allows immigration, then they have opened the door to the idea that their country will not always be peopled by a majority of their traditional ethnicity. If the Japanese, for instance, were to be outbred by white people, and they decided they wanted to uphold Japanese Ethnic Nationalism, WHAT WOULD THEIR SOLUTION LOOK LIKE?
I dislike white supremacism (as evidenced in Ethnic Nationalism) as much as I dislike Jew-hatred. This is a matter of morality to me. I am not, as I have made clear multiple times over the years, your typical pro-Zionist Christian. I am not doing this because I want the end of the world to come around, so that Jesus will return quicker. I do this because of a sense of morality which tells me that it is wrong for anyone to hate another group of people based upon race.
Hitler did not kill only confessing Jews. He killed anyone who was BORN a Jew. And, his definition of Jew included those whose Grandmothers were ethnically Jewish (whether it was on the mother or fathers side). Hitler believed that Judaism is a race. He hated Jews as a race. And, he hated other mongrels as well.
Sure, he was willing to use the Arabs (the Mufti al-Husseini) etc. But, he would have turned on them after the war against the Jews.
3) Jean-Marie LePen is, or was, a good friend of Filip DeWinter; someone he was so proud to know that he put a portrait of himself with LePen on his bookshelf in his living room.
At what point did DeWinter decide that LePen was unacceptable?
It is one thing to be kind of a softcore supporter of abortion, and then to become a seeming anti-abortionist as Rudy Giuliani has done. One assumes that Giuliani never had extremely strong convictions either way.
But, what does it look like for a person to not have extremely strong convictions that there is something wrong with Jean-Marie LePen?
How is it that at some point, during DeWinter's career, he thought LePen was a guy to rally behind?
Mushy brains? I don't see my own conflicted state as that.
But something that's worrying me....Back in the 1920s and 1930s, the people of Germany were desperate for a party to address the economic and political problems there. Politically, they were desperate to repel Communism. In that desperation (not hysteria), they glommed onto Hitler. We all know the outcome.
I don't want something similar to happen to the counter-jihad movement.
I'm getting the sinking feeling that something similar might happen to us. For one thing, the counter-jihad movement could lose credibility with indirectly0involved others who hold to Western values and to the Western ideals of freedom, thus giving another advantage to those who desire to destroy Western civilization.
As WC so eloquently and succinctly put it, What a cluster f**k!
I assume this is relevent..
Hi RT,
It is relevant. However, the article contains a slight of hand. The writer says,
" don't need an American neocon rushing, panting with the horrific discovery that there were Nazi-sympathizers among VB's founders, or that skinheads and racists vote VB or attend VB rallies. It figures, just as it figures that among Nazi sympathizers were Finnish, Estonian and Irish patriots – the latter including the father of one of the chief fomenters of left-liberal dystopia in the Western world, US Senator Edward Kennedy."
But, the thing we are objecting to is not that there were Nazi-sympathizers among the parties founders, but that its current leadership are Nazi-sympathizers.
Watch this video:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/11/this-nationalism-is-based-on-idea-of.html
Sorry Pam, I respect your opinion, but I think you are wrong.
I can find only degrees of difference between David Duke cozying up to the 'mud people' in order to finish off the jews and the other side cozying up to the jews (in this particular case) in order to avoid being swallowed by the islamic repro bomb.
At the end of the day, the deal is off.
They need YOU and the credibility you have as a jew-ess, goddess of impeccable neo-condom, zionist, and unyielding fighter. It's NOT the other way around. They will herald YOU, and Andrew as evidence of their non fascism.
In the end, based on what I see read and hear, you're out of the club. And you know why. So is Dr. Bostom. THAT is europe, and why you and I are here, and not there (via our parents, parents, parents, yadda)
Now it might be that I've had too much contact with the KKK and their lovers in the country clubs in the mid-late 60's where I went to school. Maybe that sensitized me, but no more that my arab pals in the gulf did.
I just think you're wrong (that's not the end of the world, after all Mrs Epa is almost always wrong and we're still very happily married after 32 years). And I think at the end of the day it will damage the cause you are giving your life to right now - they will be properly claimed to be racists, AND against Islam (we've seen them RIGHT HERE namely BFB for just one). These guys, if they are sincere would, in order to achieve what they say they want, shut the hell up, change their organizations and slink into the back ground. They must know that in the best case, all they bring to the cause is contaminated with older baggage, and that objectively their own undeniable words, video, and pix of them reflect that far more than any euro-left baloney.
At best the questions they MUST cause, are not the same as defending John Bolton to Bdien or Durbin. This is something else, and there's nothing mushy about it.
There nothing to 'argue' about. I've tried to avoid making up my mind ..but I cannot. IF you are right time will tell, and you will have my admiration, and if you are not, then we'll see, because one thing is for certain, I've never met a racist yet who sooner or later can't wait to tell you, one way or the other.
WE CANNOT FIX EVERYTHING.
We are HERE.
COME HERE.
Be US.
......if only we could.....
Well, from what I am seeing, Watcher71, it might not help much to have us Americans over there helping you out. We wouldn't know which side to fight against.
You're giving us too many choices.
Oh so now I'm the enemy..?
No, I didn't say anything like that. You're taking me wrong.
I understood your comment to mean that we ought to come over there and live in your mocassins and help out if we possibly can.
My response was meant to say that Americans don't seem to know how to choose the right side. Look at this rift in the blogosphere. It would seem that most people who truly care about this issue would support Ethnic Nationalists. That doesn't bode well.
Well, speaking for myself, I don't think we necessarily have to support "ethnic nationalists", nor must we necessarily come out against them. If it is an ethnicity that never permits intermarriage and other forms of exchange with outsiders, then it's probably a problem. But the idea that a society should be founded on a particular culture is not necessarily a problem if it is a culture that can remain free and open. But this is to say that no European nation is strictly speaking a purely "ethnic" nation, whatever the pretensions of tribal street thugs. As nations, they rely on a high culture which has emerged from Christianity, modern national languages, and secular esthetic traditions; and these things are, in principle, something anyone can learn and assimilate themselves to. The apparent idea, here, that someone like Watcher might have qualms about expecting immigrants to learn about British history, literature, and religion is striking. Such expectations have nothing to do with racism of the Hitler variety, and they would in fact be liberating for most immigrants. Only our era of white guilt is sufficiently confused to see this as a problem.
What I see missing in this debate so far is any sense that maybe we shouldn't be picking sides, one way or the other. Maybe our best choice is to defer any irreversible choice, to always be open to learning from new events, new positions and calls for alliances, new possibilities that expand the freedom of Europeans and those with whom they interact internationally. In short, we only have to be opposed to all forms of obvious totalitarianism. If you are against totalitarianism, you can't begin with a totally "anti-racist" mindset, because that mindset, despite what it pretends, is in fact racist and totalitarian. If you are against totalitarianism, you can't be for "ethnic" nationalism that trends in a totalitarian direction, instead of being a basis for democratic rule open to all citizens. But "ethnic" nationalism need not go in that direction - "ethnic nationalism" is a contradiction in terms, since a nation is something more than an ethnicity - and we owe it to people like the Flemish to either defer judgment until a totalitarian direction is made clear by their leadership, or to engage them with sufficient care and interest to have a good idea what, today, they are all about.
ANd besides, isolationism surely is no longer a possibility in a world of ICBMs and frequent global travel. WHoever the Europeans are, we have to deal with them and so it must always be a question of how to open doors presently closed, the true doors of grreater freedom
Hi Truepeers,
I was looking for a quote from Hitler that had to do with a post I am writing, and I came across this from the writer of a book called, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942. I believe this quote addresses what you had to say in your last two comments:
"'One lesson for the future is that the best line of defense against this kind of thing Is to prevent dictatorial regimes from coming to power in the first place. Once a regime like the Nazis gets in, they mobilize and harness most people to do what they want them to do. Once they've destroyed alternative political movements, then resistance in the modern era is very difficult."
Could we be getting ourselves into trouble by allying with the BNP, Vlaams Belang, etc.?
'The apparent idea, here, that someone like Watcher might have qualms about expecting immigrants to learn about British history, literature, and religion is striking. Such expectations have nothing to do with racism of the Hitler variety, and they would in fact be liberating for most immigrants.'
And just how are you getting this interpretation from my position!???
Pastorius,
Not doing anything with someone because you fear getting into trouble can also get you into trouble. My point is that you get more of a say over the future by engaging, when you can, than when you refuse on principle. So you should refuse only when you know the other side is hopeless, committed to a violent path. Are we sure the VB, the largest part in Belgium, is hopeless simply because some of its people have been pro-Nazi in the past? Obviously we have to have a lot of suspicion, but what they're saying today seems to be going in a new direction. To engage with that is not to make some kind of irreperable alliance, especially if you engage by saying look we have no tolerance for fascism, show us how we can go forward in the cause of freedom. Then, you make them show you what they are, what they can think and say and do publiclyy and still hold together as a political unit.
You know, the thing about Hitler is that he was evil because he had insane racial theories and because he was full of murderous resentment. But, his frequent calls for love of fatherland need not have been attached to that. And many people were attracted to the idea of love of fatherland because love of anything is a good sign. In politics, often we have to rely on our intuition of someone, before we really know how they are going to pan out, simply on the basis of how resentful or how loving they seem. On this score, the VB have to do something to live down that video where the Vlaams Blok marchers are carrying rats and calling Nazi-like to remove the French vermin from Flanders. The immediate and pressing need for moving beyond that kind of thing would be the message I would be sending them: show me what you love, show me how you love your people and your fatherland/language enough that you want them to be free. Show me how you will treat your fellow citizens who are not of old Vlaams stock. I would engage them on those terms, with any "alliance" always focussed on such pragmatic turns.
Watcher,
I'm sorry if that rubbed you the wrong way. I see how my wording was unclear as to the source of the idea. My sense is that you are saying that anyone who gets up and stands for British or English values today gets called a racist, thanks to the legacy of the (neo) fascists. Hence, whether you think you should, or not, people like you have qualms about standing up for traditional English-British forms of nationhood. That's not to say you yourself have qualms in principle about immigrants learning Britishness, only that there is a limit how much you think it's safe to say publicly on the matter, i.e. qualms in practice.
I love English nationhood because I feel it is founded in the language and Bible, not in blood (howevermuch the English show a tribal touch from time to time). It gives us so much freedom, to play with so many words...
What you say makes sense.
Now, I know you are very good at abstract thinking so please do me a favor. Imagine that you were not a white man. How would you feel, as a non-white person if someone said what you just said to me?
I'm asking because I trust you to give me an honest answer, and I trust you because I don't think you are a racist.
In so far as having qualms about immigrants having a sense of there own Britishness...Well I have no qualms. I favour strongly a more American ideology of unity through identity. In the UK identity has by and large been informed by Ethnicity. In my life time I have seen this change in London. Second generation black Britain's in London have no hesitation in identifieing themselves as British, when I was a child they would have identified more with the birth nationality of their immigrant parents. Migrants to this country do not go through any form of official naturalisation (until very recently...a very moderate form has been introduced, nothing like in the US) hence assimilation is left to chance. If (as is/was the case) racist thugs attack those of a different complexion and constantly inform them that the country of their birth (England) is not their country and that they should leave, are they going to feel any loyalty to that country? In London there has over the last few generations been a concerted effort on this matter and, coming from the West Indian community, London carib Brits today have very little question in their minds as to their sense of belonging, we know British History and exactly where we fit in and what our contribution has been going back hundreds even thousands of years. As I stated before Muslims, being third or fourth generation in, do not consider themselves British (by and large, say 99%) and the causation of this sense of Alienation is exacerbated by racially motivated attacks, then add the brainwashing that Islam teaches and the result is a seething hatred of Britain and of non Muslims. When I talk to Muslim Asians they constantly refer to the English, meaning White people. I always, always correct them on this by saying 'The English? What you mean you? I mean your parents were born here as were you so your English...' To looks of complete bemusement. I was fortunate to spend some of my childhood in New York and was amazed to see my Jamaican born Grandmother and surrounding Carib community more assimilated as Americans in the space of 3-5 years than she ever was in England in 30 odd years. My grandmother and other family are American. I as a black Britain born here am considered by many to be a ultimately a foreigner. Do I have qualms about calling for migrants to be forcibly educated as to the meaning of being British? Absolutely NONE! Migration previously was from Empire so a mild level of Naturalisation had all ready taken place. Most migration today is from the non Anglophone world. Naturalisation is a top priority. My Polish neighbour has yet to reply to me when I say good morning....I state again...British identity needs to become idealogical and non ethnic as it is currently through out Britain, although to a far lesser extent in the South East and London. The BNP do not represent British values, period....standing up and speaking for Britain? they need to read more history. To quote my finance's mother...'We the British are at the end of the line. We are and always have been a mongrel race and proud of it to.'
Her Grandfather faught the Fascists in the East end, her father fought the fascist, along with a multitude of different colour imperial troops, in Europe. I am currently spreading the word amongst British jews that North Americans are considering allieing with those WE Europeans Know to be anti semites and racists in order to attack Islam...leaving us to deal with the result. I do hope they chip in on this debate.....because I tell you this we know how to handle this.....many many staunch Jews have defended themselves in London and I will continue to fight along side them till the day I die.
You assume to much, because I identify with the centre left, primarily because I believe in the NHS...you pigeon hole me as a follower of Trotsky. I am very creative and pragmatic in my approach politicly, swinging both left and right. Dogmatic politics has stifled this country for to long. I believe in the free market...although not an uncontrolled free market. Ask don't assume.....because you will find none more hawkish than me on the Islamic question ...Globally. Insofar as no evidence of the rise of the far right Europe wide????? I won't even attempt to convince you otherwise...do your own research....and then if you still feel that way....well that's your right. Those of us who live with them know otherwise.
Pastorius,
Well I don't think skin colour need or should determine how we think. The idea that it should is what I am against. On the other side, many people would say your question makes no sense, because I am not black, or whatever, and therefore I can't pretend to know. Well, on a pragmatic level, that may be somehow true. But I think no way of thinking inheres inevitably in any mind or any particular experiece: all language and all thought only exists *among* people. It is is quite literally transcendent and anyone can believe in what they want, once they are educated to know about it, and if they put in the often heavy effort required to change their characteristic ways of associating ideas.
There are non-white people who think like me. In the American context, I read people like Thomas Sowell, or Clarence Thomas, and I know they have a similar orientation to transcendent truth as I have. If I were one of them, then I might respond to what I had just said above along the lines: well there's a white guy trying to figure his way out of left-liberal white guilt...
Of course, I know there are many other people out there who would not read me charitably, though I believe what I believe because I have tried to think honestly about reality about it and do search for good reasons that transcend little me. If I was in it for personal interest, I would be condemning racism and whites , especially males, all over the place. Odds are , that would be my best strategy for getting along in today's intellectual worlds.
But I don't think either of these guys, Sowell, Thomas, would say that race is some total fabrication of ideology, that it need not matter. It is a part of human reality that we can't just wish away. The problem is how to grapple with this reality in a way that doesn't make too much of it and that maximizes freedom for individuals, keeping in mind that we don't enjoy freedom *from* society, but only *within* it - in other words, we have to always ask ourselves what makes a society work, presently, and what can make it work better. If we hate a society so much for what it is, it is unlikely that we are going to get the second half of that question right. There is a kind of conservatism that is necessary to opening the doors of freedom. Truth is really centrist and requires a mix of conservative and liberal ways of seeing.
I don't believe Europe can radically transform itself for the better in some project of social engineering. It is what it is and we have to start with that and truly take a stake in owning that reality, if we want to help them open up. I do believe immigrants should expect to assimilate in certain respects into their new countries, if they believe in democracy and freedom. Because to share in a democratic form of national self-rule, if the people are to rule themselves and not be ruled by elites who tell them what "multiculturalism" demands, you have to have a shared sense of nationhood. Of course you want that sense not to be narrow-minded, but one open to a spirit in which one kind of individual sets himself up as a guarantor for another kind of individual. But for that to happen they have to have some bond, some shared trust, some shared understanding of what is sacred. And the onus is on the newcomer to come respectfully to terms with existing understandings before he can take the lead in forging future shared understandings.
But this is true only if the native population is open to the newcomer's assimilation. If you have a country using immigrants for cheap labour, or whatever, and telling them that they are real immigrants, not temporary guest workers, but at the same time not believing in their ability to assimilate, you have a real problem. Europe has this problem because their government is not a form of responible self-rule. THe elite and the people are not on the same wave length often enough. This situation can only be rectified by putting the cause of democracy first. We have to begin imagining a political compromise where we say, ok VB (or some better but not totally different party), we will help you be a free nation, we will fight against the EU dictatorship but on condition you behave decently towards those immigrants who came here under a confused regime where one side said you can belong here and another said you cannot. Now that you are here, all who want to live according to democratic freedoms, and its requirement to respect the reality of the country and culture for what it is and has been, can stay. But this is to say, respect the nation first, then find out how you can take the lead in making it better.
So I haven't directly answered your qustion because I don't see how I can. I will tell you that my mother's family, and my own place in Europe, was destroyed by the Holocaust. ONe of my few relatives, a cousin, lives in Brussels. What happens to Jews and other minorities there has a family connection for me. It is not a purely abstract question.
If there is one thing I learned from my grandfather who took refuge among the English, it's that you can't expect these people to be perfect but you still have to try and get along with them, and anyway they have good in them. You have to be charitable towards their own national aspirations, or leave and go to Israel or somewhere. People do have a right to nationhood because this is a necessary part of democratic self-rule. And nations cannot be founded simply on abstract ideas. They are founded in history, in real events, with concrete lines of inclusion and exclusion. Freedom calls on us to rework those lines but not to pretend we can do without any. We only can rework them successfully in the cause of freedom when we respect them, conserve what is good, not when we try imposing radical new ideas in the name of some updated leftist revolution. That never works.
This whole debate is not a question we will ever rest easy with, thinking we have a grip on the bottom line. I don't see how anyone can have that. If your cause is freedom, you look for the least bad political system, you don't spend time thinking of Utopia. You know evil is always out there. If I put myself in my cousin's shoes, which side should she support (even as her horizon takes her beyond hte present choices): the Eurabian left Utopians, or the local nationalists? There's plenty of evil to go around. Well, she should make no definite comittment to anyone but rather be willing to move towards those who move towards the freedom she and others need to live. If freedom and democracy, at this point in time, require some respect for Flemish nationalism, then give it but never let your guard down because they could become totalitarian. They have a Nazi past, but so does the EU, so do the Walloons. So does Canada, for that matter.
[And our leading party, the Liberals, have made room for Jew-hating Muslims (not to forget the more traditional forms of antisemitism in Canda), as was made clear at their last leadership convention. I hate them for that but I realize it's still my responsibility to engage them if and when they take a stand towards positive goods.]
My grandfather used to say the English had trouble with his German name (whether because of pronounciation or dislike of Germans, or because it might be a clue to his Jewishness, I'm not sure). So he had a habit of making restaurant reservations in the name of "King". Thing was, he developed a liking for a Chinese restaurant. When I went with him, it seemed to me like the Chinese head waiter got a little humourous pleasure out of welcoming "Mr. King!" with a knowing smile. They both played a part in little fiction and both respected that that was a kind of concession you should make to the natives. I'm willing to argue that London, twenty years ago, was a much better place for Jews and Chinese to live than today when official multiculturalism would look down on a guy for not using his real name and would pretend to be his great protector. But my grandfather didn't want some political fantasy "protection" from the English, he wanted to get along with them, and he did mostly. He prospered and I found it odd that when he died, my mother had to go to a few banks around London and pick up precious coins he had stashed in safety deposit boxes in case he had to make a quick escape. That's Europe. We can certainly imagine it being a better place, but we have to be aware that there is a kind of Utopian imagination that can easily make it worse. To make it better we have to be pragmatic about what it is and engage it for what it is, without fear, unless and until they clearly give in to the violent potential that is in all of us. Perfection and pure minds are the enemy of the good enough and of political freedom.
Watcher,
I see your post after writing my reply to Pastorius. SO a few more thoughts.
You write:
I favour strongly a more American ideology of unity through identity. In the UK identity has by and large been informed by Ethnicity
-I guess I can't see this as a clear-cut distinction. America, however some people formulate it, is a racially conscious society and this has something to do with their unifying identity which only tries to transcend racial realities, not deny them. And, as for ethnicity, it it not merely something racial, genetic, but a form of culture. Strictly speaking, as I understand it, Englishness, as opposed to say Cornish culture, is not ethnic, but a national identity. Whiteness is something else again, and I'm not going to pretend I know exactly what the genetic differences among men can or should mean. It may be purely an esthetic consideration, but that's to say something beyond reason. There's no accounting for taste. There may be something more to it. I just know that racial consciousness is a reality for people and dealing with it with an open and decent mind cannot simply mean denying its significance. That's not to say we shouldn't put what makes us all human first, making race irrelevant to certain political questions. But if we have to remind ourselves to put this first, it's because there are differences that have some significance that need, on some level, to be respected and not denied. In other words, if you believe in freedom, politically, have to be willing, on some level, to talk about all realities, not just htose you prefer.
Do I have qualms about calling for migrants to be forcibly educated as to the meaning of being British? Absolutely NONE!
-I'll admit that I was writing under the assumptin that you were probably white. And this is one area where it does matter. It's harder for white people today to speak forcefully in public about asking immigrants to "assimilate". Hence they need to be challenged to do what they think is right.
The BNP do not represent British values, period....standing up and speaking for Britain? they need to read more history. To quote my finance's mother...'We the British are at the end of the line. We are and always have been a mongrel race and proud of it to.'
-Well, I certainly understand why you don't like the BNP but what's the point of denying they don't represent British values? Obviously they have some constituency. There is more than one kind of reality and sometimes we have ro recognize truths that we personally find revolting. Politics is only ever about compromises and the choice of the lesser evil. Just as the BNP cannot hope to make a pure Britain according to their fantasy, can those who say Britain has always been a mongrel race achieve the reverse? I mean, all peoples are mongrels to some extent, as no one can survive forever without some intermarriage and genetic diversity. But on the European scale, Britain, pre-WWII, was not very mongrel, being an island. The Norse and French invasions added something but not very much, especially the latter. The genetic studies make that clear enough. To say Britain has always been mongrel is to promote an ideal that some will equate with a blanket defense of immigration. And I return to the question of whether this is or is not a legitimate point of debate. In a free society it has to be, even if I personally choose to live in one of the most immigrant-transformed places in the world, the city that seems to have more inter-racial couples than any other in Canada, and I suspect the world. Compared to here, Britain doesn't look very mongrel to me. But go for it, I say, as long as you respect the need to put your shared political freedom before any idealized end that freedom might be supposed (wrongly) to be for.
I am currently spreading the word amongst British jews that North Americans are considering allieing with those WE Europeans Know to be anti semites and racists in order to attack Islam...leaving us to deal with the result. I do hope they chip in on this debate.....because I tell you this we know how to handle this.....many many staunch Jews have defended themselves in London and I will continue to fight along side them till the day I die.
-I'm glad to hear it. But remember, I am raising the question of what does it mean to "ally" with xyz. In politics, an alliance is not an act of loyalty, but, at best, a pragmatic choice between lesser evils. My other point, is that we need this kind of feedback and we can't get it unless and until we start engaging with people and seeing the results. It is by engaging that we will help shape events that will bring new realities into existence. Even engaging with evil (while often not useful) can have positive results if you have faith in the open-endedness of all things cultural. On the other hand, pure-minded disengagement can be a quicker path to violent standoffs. This is in no respects a defense of appeasement, but for its true opposite: aggressive engagement in the name of freedom.
You assume to much
-not really; I am often quite conscious of making assumptions; I believe that baiting is a good and fair part of fostering honest and open debate.
because I believe in the NHS...you pigeon hole me as a follower of Trotsky
-no i don't. I question many aspects of the welfare state, but I think nationalized health insurance is probably, on balance, a good thing; nationalized administration of healthcare not always so good...
I don't believe in an uncrontrolled free market either, as I said above. My point, though, is that to the extent that the left is that politics which is founded on a resentment of the free market, it inevitably become antagonistic towards those - jews - who have become emblematic as the "invisible hand" of the marketplace, and towards those who take a lead and succeed in it (Americans and, often, Jews whose religion did not create the free market - Christianity did - but which makes them well able to adapt to it and succeed therein. That's a cultural reality that the left are structurally inclined to resent, in my understanding.)
Ask don't assume.....because you will find none more hawkish than me on the Islamic question
-As I say, baiting, a tempting invitation to exercise your freedom, has a legitimate role in debate. ANyway, here the tables turn, I think (if we believe in conventional left-right disctinctions), I may be less hawkish on the Islam question than you. See, for example.
I will do more research on the "far right" in Europe (though I will probably continue to think of them as cut from the same cloth as the left). I am now more curious than ever to see how the nationalists respond to the kind of debate we are having, and that response may well shift my opinion of them. We only learn through engagement, which is why we should restrict it only when we're certain of the violent direction of the other side. SO don't feel you have to hold back. When you see me on the internet, fill me in with whatever is on your mind about the "far right".
So many words, so little being said.
'Birds of a feather flock together', someone prove me wrong!
Pastorius,
Would you date a Muslim?
Saints preserve us! This is not about Muslims. It's about Islam.
At worst, Muslims are a police matter. Our position must always be one of ideological battle, not one of smashing heads in street fights.
Having written that, I'll seem to contradict myself by writing that a "Politics of Confrontation" is essential. Yes, street fighting might be about Islam and our reaction to it, but it isn't personal. It's nothing to do with those we might confront as individuals. They, like any enemy anywhere, are just folk, some of whom happen to be decidedly our enemies. And it still ain't personal.
There is no Islam without people being Muslims. But this isn't aobut the people, it's about the attitude driven into those who live in the culture without thinking it through, and those who think it through and like it or those who simply remain loyal to their own, as we must do. Our enemies are enemies as a formality, personality coming into it only in direct response to individuals. Whether people are Muslim or not isn't any business of ours. Our concern should be and remain that of enemies against us. It ain't personal.
Hi BFB,
I agree with Dag's response to your question of whether I would date a Muslim.
However, I will answer your question more specifically just for you to get a sense of my personal opinions.
I would, more than likely, never date a Muslim.
Before I married my wife, I came to the conclusion that I ought never date a woman outside of my religion (which is Protestant Christianity). I made that decision because I came to realize that as a Protestant Christian, I have a certain world view. I came to understand that the Jewish girls I dated previously (cuz, for whatever reason, I have always been particularly fond of Jews) held a totally different world view.
Now, Judaism and Christianity are not that far apart. Christianity was born out of Judaism, and in my opinion, the more true Christianity is to its Hebrew roots, the more truth there is to the Christianity.
Islam, on the other hand, is in my opinion, the opposite of Christianity. It is a religion which is spread by the sword. It is about power, and beating the weak into submission. It is about taking advangtage of those who are weak, and stealing from them. Islam allows for the stealing of booty in time of war. It allows for the enslavement of human beings as part of the spoils for war. It calls for death to those who would make free choices about what to do with their lives.
It tells us that no man is a neighbor if he is not a fellow Muslim.
And, it subjugates and degrades women.
Islam is the opposite of Christianity, and, as such, it is almost exactly the opposite of Western Civilization.
Another from Vanishing American, copied and pasted here for possible discussion (emphases mine):
The discussion sparked by the 'blog wars' continues, at The Brussels Journal, with this very good piece Of Racists, 'Racists', and Harakirists
by 'Takuan Seiyo', who makes a lot of sense to me. Some excerpts:
..Simply put, the few political parties like the AFP (FPÖ, Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, Austrian Freedom Party) in Austria, the Vlaams Belang in Belgium, the respective People's Parties in Denmark and Switzerland, the SD (Sverigedemokraterna, Swedish Democrats) in Sweden, and the unincorporated paleocons in the US are the only alternative to an across-the-board dominance of the Western world by the Western-world-hating left. So all who wish to resist the harakiri of their society and their civilization through leftist chimeras like unlimited Third World immigration, Islamization, and socialist equalization support the few parties that stand athwart the road to civilizational perdition.
[...]
To such as recoil at the ripe odor that sometimes emanates from a congregation of the proletarian "unwashed," one may point out that those doing the destruction, ultimately slitting their own belly in the demented belief that they are improving man and reality, include a disproportionate number of the highly educated, affluent and overwashed. It was their kind too that led the penetration of the West by Communism and Bolshevik savagery.''
The writer is saying what I have expressed elsewhere; this tendency among the 'respectable right' to shun the company of those who are on their side, simply because they adjudge them to be morally inferior, is a self-destructive tendency. When our civilization is under siege, and when our survival or the survival of our posterity and our people are at stake, we are not in a position to look down our noses at those whom some consider to be bad company.
Doing so only indicates a lack of seriousness, or a refusal to understand the urgency of the situation.
Another way of putting it is: beggars can't be choosers. There is seemingly nobody else except the nationalists who are willing to stand in the gap. They, at least, recognize the lateness of the hour and the urgency of the need. Who else does? The genteel 'conservatives' who are profiting by the invasion of western countries? The mainstream political establishment conservatives who believe in reaching out and being ''inclusive'' of the invaders? Who then? It looks to me as if those who are willing to stand up are few and far between.
Takuan Seiyo says here that it is only the right-wing parties in Europe who stand in the way of the domination of the left and Islam in Europe:
The more important issue lies elsewhere. In Europe, it lies in the conservative and anti-Eurabian position of the few right-wing parties that thwart the left's full domination of the continent. To divert attention from the magnitude and perils of this domination by hurling "Racist" and "neo-Nazi" stink bombs at the few obstacles to it is a brilliant tactic straight from Sun Tzu's The Art of War.''
So to reject these right-wing parties who are the only real allies available is to shoot oneself in the foot -- for what? For the smug self-satisfaction of being respectable or ideologically pure?
Contrary to the crowing of neocons, the left has won its war with the right. Forever adaptable, probing for weak spots, switching tactics, it has transmuted from economic leftism to cultural leftism, from anti-capitalism to anti-whitism. It has taken over the TV and film studios, the book and music publishers, the news, the schools, the universities, and the institutions of law, to ensure control over the brain content of future generations. It has made allies with feminists, homosexuals and "anti-racists" to further its corrosive mission, and then, to deepen the fissures, it has allied with women-gay-and Jew-hating Islam. It has infiltrated the center-right political parties, and then the conservative movement, to the extent that see-no-evil "tolerance" has become the supreme creed of most "conservatives" rather than see-everything discriminating skepticism.
Triumphant, clever, hurling thunders of "racism" this way and bolts of "homophobia" that way; subverting and erasing the true meaning of important words and concepts such as 'liberal,' 'progress,', 'racist,' 'fascist'; forever haunting with the specters of Hitler and Pinochet, but never those of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, Idi Amin or, for that matter, Muhammad, leftism has achieved the ultimate victory: almost-universal brain control''
The fact is, as the writer says, the left has been more successful than the respectable right is willing to recognize; just because the Berlin Wall fell and the old Soviet Union broke up, that does not mean that we 'defeated the left' as too many neocons still assert. The left has just mutated and changed it approach, even to spreading its ideology into the 'conservative' establishment parties in all the Western countries. And now they are infected with the Political Correctness virus.
In a political sense, this process is almost like an auto-immune disease in the physical body, in which the body attacks its own cells, and is so busy doing so that it cannot effectively repel pathogens. The left, and now, following their footsteps, the mainstream 'right' is disabling their own defenders. In that sense, the writer is correct; the left has succeeded in injecting their poisons into all areas of the political world, left and 'right'.
The comments following the piece at Brussels Journal are the usual mixed bag, with some people repeating the same old canards.
And then there is this entry at GoV, asking 'Who do you want in your foxhole?' Comments by Redneck Texan are quoted:
...Sounds to me like some of our counter-jihad buddies don’t have the stomach for what it’s going to ultimately take to REVERSE the Islamisation of the West. They’re living in some kind of fantasy world where we’re going to be able to achieve our lofty objectives within the realm of the current political processes, and without having to endure a constant stream of racism accusations from both the left and the right.
Charles might be right that association with these groups might shine an unpleasant light on us; unfortunately these groups are the only ones, that I am aware of, that even have an effective plan.
To me it boils down to: who do you want in your foxhole? Some crazy bastard who is more afraid of dying than getting court-martialed for violating the rules of engagement, or someone who is reading the UCMJ while the bullets are flying?
Hell, let’s win first… then we’ll worry about who had the high moral ground later.''
I agree with RT's pragmatic approach not only because it is pragmatic but because the alternative, which is to continue the holier-than-thou witch hunts, purges, and denunciations, is just wrong. The ideological beauty contest is simply an instance of accepting the left's dictates of what and who is acceptable or respectable; those on whom anathema is pronounced are the very same villains the left designates. What's wrong with this picture?
A couple of commenters add their take, saying that 'neo-Nazis are just like the jihadis'. Is that true? Presuming, of course, that there are more than a handful of 'neo-Nazis' anywhere, outside Morris Dees' imagination, are they the exact moral equivalent of the jihadis? Let's say that there are some kind of nationalists, not necessarily Nazis; are they morally analogous to the jihadis, and do they present the same danger to us and our civilization as the jihadis?
Do I agree with the above? Well, not entirely. But I believe that the author(s) may have some valid points.
We here in America cannot control the politics of Europe. At least, I believe that we shouldn't, any more than Europe should control America's politics.
This whole "blog wars" thing is like a Gordian knot for me. The prize for us is defeating Islamism in all its political and cultural aspects.
As far as I'm concerned, the defeat and subjugation of Western civilization is unacceptable. I think that all of us here at IBA can agree on that one. But, strategically speaking, what is the best way to proceed? How can we know, at this point in time?
So many times, the West has been outsmarted by the Islamists. That's got to stop! Somehow.
Um. Clarification. I am not in any way implying that the discussion needs to stop.
Najistani ...
Livingstone is a prime example of everything WRONG with the left. What is the MSM supposed to do, find islamic cat in a tree stories to ensure equal outcome of stories? Can you imagine him applying that rule tio the Guardian and Israel? Don't make me laugh.
He's a moron, AND FREELY ELECTED. Think about that
BFB, I'd date a muslima in a second, if I were single
AOW, I hope I just didn't read that swallowing racist ideology is the only medicine available to counter the racism of the quran.
If so, see you on the mountaintop. I'll be the one shooting everyone.
If there is a god, I assure you he will not be pleased by accepting racism as the only alternative.
When Dewinter artfully avoids answering certain questions, and Nick Griffin shows up at the CCC it says something.
It says that such people, movements and parties cannot defeat the ascendant forms of Islam today because people like ME would rather DIE, or force the issue alone, and fight against this pernicious, malignant HATE, just as bad as the salafi and khomeinist ginstu wielding freaks than make the same error that the Mufti made in the 30's. I will not swallow racism to cure jihadism. The jews, tutsis, armenians, and euro muslims of srebenica are shrieking this from the graves of european and other ethnic 'defenses'
NEVER
AGAIN
All the effort and emotion these people place in defending the threatened 'european ethnic identity' as Mr. Belien put it, and fantasizing about deportations and civil war would be far better spent in separating these imam FREAKAZOIDS from their people, and making those muslims upwardly mobile and WESTERN, while destroying the racist tendencies so evident across THOUSANDS of years of european history.
This nation paid in MORE BLOOD than all the rest of our wars put together for slavery here, and it was ONLY a start.
Epa,
AOW, I hope I just didn't read that swallowing racist ideology is the only medicine available to counter the racism of the quran.
If so, see you on the mountaintop. I'll be the one shooting everyone.
If there is a god, I assure you he will not be pleased by accepting racism as the only alternative.
I'm not saying any such thing. Not at all. I want to know the WORKABLE alternatives. Are they in place? Some of my UK friends (not BNP!) have mentioned that problem to me.
Just because time is of the essence does not mean that I'm willing to embrace racists, white supremacists, etc. Let's get that straight right now. I've already expressed my concerns as to that--on another thread here at IBA.
I didn't bold what I agreed with. Instead, I bolded the questions which I consider part of the Gordian knot.
Islamism is winning at the moment because the Islamists have translated their ideals (I hate to use that word for such anti-civilizationists) into realism and a workable plan--culturally, politically, et al.
Have you read Diana West's recent article on that subject? I found excerpts HERE when I was making blog rounds this morning. Yes, yes, I know, from the Brussels Journal. I don't know exactly how I found that article; I don't regularly read the Brussels Journal.
The Gordian knot keeps showing up!
Off to work now. I'm already late.
Birds of a feather flock together...ie, 'racism' is perfectly natural and is not automatically the product of hatred, as some here seem to be implying. The human race is tribal by nature, that is a simple fact of life...live with it!
If I put my family before my neighbour does that mean I must hate my neighbour? Of course not, only a self-righteous imbicile (Watcher, Pastorius)would think that way.
I don't hate black people, I just have a much closer affinity with white people, as nature (God) intended.
Geddit?
And then BFB sublimely mkes the key point...
"I don't hate black people, I just have a much closer affinity with white people, as nature (God) intended."
This is EXACTLY AND PRECISELY WHAT THE KKK SAYS.
Every justification and attempt to sound 'reasonable' and 'rational' is ultimately reductio ad absurdum
European ethnic nationalism can only end in failure. Fighting jihadism is not it's cause. It is a corollary effect of its racial needs. Needs which are a mutation of liberal democracy, and a vestigial appendage of tribal, crude ignorant justice.
BFB,
I understand what you're saying. I don't necessarily agree.
Back to my point, I believe we ought to live by ideas, and principles, not by instinct.
I believe the distinction that matters the most between people is whether they are decent or indecent people. That is more important than race.
I tend to agree with those who say we need to transcend racial politics (that's not the issue with Islam, though it may be with some of the nationalist parties). But how do you transcend something? By denying its existence or relevance, or by allowing it some freedom of movement (equally granted to everyone) in the compromise that transcends the present terms of (racial) conflict? If you want to build a political order that is truly race neutral, you don't allow race into the constitution, but on the pragmatic day to day level of politics you realize you can't avoid dealing with the reality of race, as it exists in a given place. Americans are very race conscious people; they just have a way of transcending that when it comes to national identity (to a degree).
Those who want to be pure anti-racists should consider that maybe they are the ones who are not that different from the Nazis. After all, the whole point of the Holocaust was to create a world in which there would not be racial tensions. Naziism is the Utopian belief in building a future where the Other/other doesn't exist and doesn't have to be dealt with, the fantasy that modern man can live without resentment towards some local other. And have you noticed how the pc left can today be shockingly totalitarian in its approach to thought and speech crimes? They clearly live a fantasy that they can banish resentment from the world, only becoming all the more resentful in the process. That's what comes from refusing to deal with an inherited reality you don't like.
Having said that, I could never actively support scientific "racist" nationalism in Europe. But to the extent that a party like the VB is the largest party in its country, I realize that the pragmatic question is whether this party can play by the rules of democratic freedom - respecting a constitution in which it can be replaced by better parties when the free play of ideas is allowed to revel the VB for its limits - or whether it is truly opposed to democratic freedom (if elected they would destroy the constitution, just as a Sharia supporting party would) in which case being the largest party doesn't matter, it should be opposed, with violence if necessary
My point being, just because I listen to and engage someone in political negotiations towards some pragmatic medium-term end, does not mean that I am showing support for the general existence or policies of that party. I am only showing faith that their existence and policies need not be violent. I am showing support for a process of democratic interaction, the only kind of process by which we can learn a little more of the truth, and unfold the puzzles of reality.
What is racial reality? Are all those opposed to the "racist" parties in Europe equally opposed to the existence of Israel? Because any way you slice it, Israel ultimately has to be justified, not simply in religious but also "racial" theological terms, since the idea of Judaism is that Jews are a particular people. All the nationalists of Europe owe a lot more to the Biblical model of nationhood than a lot of them would like to admit. They are antisemitic, when they are, because they are in conflict with the Jewish model of nationhood, a model which Christian nations can only emulate with a bad conscience since the Church has no evident justification in Christianity to be a national church, teaching and educating in the national language, literature, history, etc. But any nation that wants to have a Judeo-Christian culture has to work through this issue, one that is not readily resolved. I’m not excusing anti-Semitism, scientific racism, etc. A European nationalist cannot be fully human and free until he overcomes such things. But how is he going to become free if he doesn’t have any space to work through and have revealed the limits of his political ideas? How can we influence him for the better if we don’t engage him? We have to grant him that freedom unless and until it turns violent, since violence and freedom are antithetical. That’s the line we have to draw, when we are considering any pragmatic partnerships over medium-term objectives; let’s not even talk about “alliances” until and unless we find ourselves in a shooting war.
Watcher71,
In the long run, freedom of speech is a good thing, isn't it?
Thanks for putting all of that together.
truepeers, please believe I mean this in the kindest possible way, for I believe your approach has good intentions...your path is the express elevator to hell.
In the US, the abolitionists were reviled from colonial times onwards until 1863, and past that. Just one thing.
They were right.
Accommodations occurred politically beacuse they would not relent.
Humanity's existance is such that we will NEVER transcend race because we will never transcend ignorance.
"Those who want to be pure anti-racists should consider that maybe they are the ones who are not that different from the Nazis."
You have to be kidding.
The point of the Holocaust I ASSURE YOU was to KILL ALL THE JEWS, not to reduce racial tensions. And I have a flash for you, then the gypsies, 'homos', 'retards' ..and other untermenschen, and then those who were not uniform in their outlook.
Can the left appear totalitarian? Sure, but you want to be free to be racist? Fine as long as you're in another nation, but don't expect me to sit still if you want to be an ally.
Try Daniel Goldhagen's book. When you're done try Sir Martin Gilbert - The Righteous
This issue is clouded due to a lack of understanding of the sense of "racism." It likely isn't what most take it to be. It isn't a generic discrimination based on the color of people's skin. It isn't historic anti-Semitism. And only to a limited degree it is from Naziism. "Racism" is a specific pseudo-science from the late 19th century, a very specific theme that is today conflated with any number of other, seemingly similar trends in Human behavior.
If we don't understand fully the definition and history of "racism" we'll be fooled and distracted by chimeras. "Racism" is not likely what you think it is.
I'll come back to this as soon as I'm able. Please consider looking into the history of the ideological ground of "racism." It's not simply discrimination based on ethnicity. It's a pseudo-science from the 19th century, and those who misuse it as a pejorative today misuse it for devious ends. Unawareness does us no favors here.
Who's jumping on the bandwagon? http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/11/jumping-on-bandwagon.html
Truepeers....
FIRST
You need to do a LOT of reading...
ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
The Holocaust was significant in ONLY one way...it married the power of an industrial state to 2000 years of tribal ignorance and bigotry. It was an opportunity to KILL THE JEWS. An object shared by a lot of europe.
The Nazis are not to be reduced to some abstract UTOPIANS. They are not Thomas More on crack. Utopians do not tie the legs of women in labor together. Or pull the gold teeth from from the bodies of its victims. Utopians do not make their opponents into the incarnation of evil. Utopians do not dip their prisoners in freezing water to determine scientifically how long THEIR pilots will last in the water, nor extract organs from prisoners sans anesthesia...no doubt you will come back with some other theoretical wang yank, but I'm telling you.. that kind of bullshit is JUST how crap gets theoretically excused until real people get really hurt.
END FOR ME ON THIS HARAM BALONEY
Najistani, nothing changes the fact that NICK GRIFFIN IS A FUCKING DENIER AND A PIG, and those who support him and his CCC visiting prick organization, NEED HELP, or they have swallowed one evil to kill another.
There is no excuse.
This knowledge is PUBLIC, najistani
Get out of it, or be it.
David Duke
KKK
Nick Griffin
ALL ONE..how about YOU?
I am sick of this shit
Epaminondas,
You are a complete, unreasonable TWAT, and I would never dignify you with my time.
Watcher,
Are you suggesting that racism only works one way?
Everyone else....Birds of a feather flock together....was GOD wrong when he/she made birds?
C'mon guys, leaving 'epidermic' aside, was god wrong to include nature in his work?
Pasty, you should know....considering that you are so close to God!
Arguing with you guys is like telling a dog that it's wrong to chase cats...totally pointless!
And yet you continue to try.
Would Jesus be offended?
Pasty, you opitimize everything that is wrong with the world, and you do it in Jesus' name.
How do you square that circle?
And still, you keep trying.
Are you a parody?
Were you born a wanker, or is a recent development? (How's the little black blow-job going?)
Repeat (not for the first time:)
Was God wrong when he/she invented tribalism?
Can't wait to be ignored!
I think a bit of selective editing of the comments here is in line, given that some aren't contributing much new and are pissing me off. One man's opinion.
This issue is definitive for us, and i hope we can keep chipping away at it till we come to some ind of resolution, if only that we keep thinking it over and keep discussing it rationally and sanely.
I'll repeat again, racism is not what people think it is. It is mostly a made up nonsense pejorative used by the Left today to silence criticism of anyone they dislike, used by them to promote and anti-Modernist fascism, a reactionary philobarbarism, a counter-Enlightenment attack on civility and the triune revolutions of our time in the hope of reinstating feudalism, i.e. of promoting neo-feudalism and povertarianism. "Racism" is not what it seems to be.
Nazis are racists, but racists aren't necessarily Nazis. Anti-Semites aren't necessarily racists. We have to look at what the terms mean so we don't fight with our allies over things we don't understand. "Racism" is a specific thing and we have to come to some clear understanding of what it is so we don't accuse each other of something we are not. Let's figure it out before we go stupid and quit speaking to each other.
Dag,
I think BFB's contributions are just fine. I see them as a kind of meta-commentary, and at the same time they create a gyre outside of which we can not roam, no matter hard we may try. In that way, BFB is actually setting the parameters of the conversation, and guiding it without even knowing he is doing so, or the technique by which he accomplishes this coordinating effect.
You must admit there is a certain brilliance to his recondite tactics.
Anyway, Dag, I don't think it is that difficult to make the distinctions necessary to form definitions of racism, Nazism, and anti-Semitism.
An anti-Semite is a person who dislikes Jews as a group no matter their personality or personal contributions to society.
A Nazi is a person who ascribes to the platform and policies of the Nazi party. This includes white supremacism and anti-Semitism. It also includes an inordinate desire for power, and a desire to see the strong beat down the weak. It also includes an intense desire for racial purity which will inevitably end in war and genocide.
A racist is a person who makes distinctions between different groups of people based upon attributes such as skin color and the type of hair, and shape of the nose, etc. A racist takes these distinctions and uses them to generalize about the personality of individuals because they are a member of said perceived racial group.
Are you working with different definitions?
And the Communists who killed more than the Nazis were not Utopians?
Was Pol Pot not a Utopian? Was Karl Marx - have you read his essay on the Jewish question? There was a Utopian who hated Jews.
I realize that I didn't give a very satisfactory account earlier because I didn't distinguish antisemitism from other forms of "racism". Of course I don't mean to suggest that the Nazis wanted to live in peace and harmony with everyone save the Jews. They wanted to rule the world. But why were the Jews singled out? In part because of the age-old reasons for antisemitism but also because the Jews had come to be seen as the "invisible hand" manipulating the modern marketplace. The Jews, as other, had to be eliminated becase of their alleged *superiority* within a certain kind of economic system that the Nazis wanted to transcend.
Epa, I know full well everything you say about the Nazis. I am not naive on the subject. It is my murdered family history; I've known people who went through Auschwitz. ANd I've long wanted to understand it.
Think about your caricature of the Nazis. Does it really make sense? Do you really believe that men can be simply evil, through and through? Don't you realize that evil is always a corruption of the good - indeed this is what you accuse me of - that what is always primary in human consciousness is the good, and that evil is done by men looking for a short and easy way to things that are good? Do you really believe in a cosmic dualism, where a Satanic God and the Holy God are equal forces at odds with each other? Or does humanity, all humanity, begin with the Good?
Now, as to the point that seems to worry you most:
that kind of bullshit is JUST how crap gets theoretically excused until real people get really hurt.
-Consider the BNP hate monger on this site. Is he empowered by my "theorizing"? (It's not really my theorizing, by the way, so I can point you to a reading list too, if you have the mind for it.) One cannot know for sure, but it seems unlikely to me. What empowers him is being able to say something that no one mainstream wants to say: "birds of a feather flock together". But as soon as the mainstream can recognize basic human realities for what they are, without making them into something sacred, as they are for the BNP, without making them into an excuse for violence, such a man has his one little claim to truth discounted in the marketplace. At that point, he is either left with his plan and unattractive hate, or he has to get over it now that the marketplace recognizes his little truth and looks for the man who can represent Englishness in a responsible manner that can accomodate the reality of what England now is, in a way that increases the freedom of all involved. The bottom line is that truth is always liberating, if not always in the short run. Either explain why I am wrong or please stop the fear mongering. Or declare me Haram and beyond debate. THat's impressive.
Epa writes at his first link in comment above:
"Read this, and try to disagree with me that what the Holocaust represents is simply nothing remarkable. It is notable ONLY in that it married ALL THAT FOLLOWS to the might of an industrial power."
-I disagree strongly. The Holocaust is so remarkable that it is THE central event informing postmodern consciousness and influencing almost every political scene today in a way that, say, the Armenian Genocide, or the horrors of Stalin, does not. For example, the phenomenon of White Guilt cannot be well understood other than by reference to Auschwitz (but also to Hiroshima, another of the few central events of postmodernity). Bushitler, bushitler, bushitler....
I won't get into trying to explain how the Holocaust leaves an imprint on our scenic consciousness that other horrible events have not done. I'll just suggest that it reveals what resentment is in all kinds of new ways. You can say, as a first approximation, that the Holocuast was the age old hatred married to the maximum killing power of the industrial age. But for just that reason, the event is revelatory in all kinds of unique ways. We learn to see that resentment is not diminished but only increased by modern conditions, that Jew hatred is not just a phenomenon of the agrarian age. And in that we learn new things about modernity and modern modes of thought. We learn, if we hadn't already, that the modernist esthetic, everywhere, is both violent and Utopian (in its anti-market snobbery, championing the artist-leader as the great renderer of the ever new, his esthetic trials toughening us up to prepare ourselves for the sacrifices that will allow us to transcend the horrible banality and corruption of the marketplace - this is not just a Nazi theme, it is pervasive in Western culture: Auschwitz is the realization in politics of the extreme visions of any modernist art form, e.g. the idea that a New Man will arise from living in radically new, and challenging, modernist architecture, or by reading Nietzsche or Hemingway).
We see, through the Holocaust, new possibilities inherent in the origin of antisemitism and thus come to a new and deeper understanding of antisemitism, resentment, and modernity. We learn that antisemitism takes many forms historically, and this multiplicity cannot logically be reduced to a single, original cause, even though it does all stem, genetically, from a single origin. The Holocaust was not an inevitable outcome of the Mosaic revelation and the early reaction to those who followed Moses. History is not some pre-determined story. Each new event of significance is revelatory of all kinds of new things, as these events are the product of human freedom to do good and evil in ways that are not determined at the start of humanity but are discovered and represented for the first time in ways that are always something of an irreducible, if revealing, mystery.
Pastorius. I admit I cannot compare my own humble if longish efforts to his.
I will add that my efforts are, in part, now posted at my favorite blog, No Dhimmitude for those with great reserves of stamina.
This is an important issue, I say again, and one that will define our struggle for years to come, so we mus t get it right,doing so by dialectic and elenchus.
My piece, were the reader to follow the links supporting my beginnings, will take some time to go through. It hurts my eyes just reviewing it. However, fo rthose who care, i would appreciate some input and correction if necessary, though I'd much prefer one hit on one of my fabulous ads at the top of the page so I can finally move from the one dollar I have so far after all this time.
Whoops! I'm a serious guy. How id that get up there without me taking it right back down again? Shame on me.
I have NO GUILT, and NO PROBLEM supporting in theory, fact and history Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Your theories just don't cut it.
If the Holocaust was so 'different' why is nothing different? Every technique, and nonfactual ignorance outlined in those refs I gave you, continues unabated, unaffected, undeterred. In fact they are on TV..all the time.
WORLDWIDE.
If the holocaust as fact proves inconvenient to this, it is minimized, denied or denigrated via pseudo-reality, and like Chomsky via references to free speech.
Last post with you on this. You're trying to theorize how we can see the sky as green.
HELLO....
Birds of a feather...any intelligent Americans out there?
Or were you all born ignorant?
'Birds of'...it's a perfectly valid question, and one I have asked three times without receiving a single response...instead we end up with numerous comments about the Holocaust as if only Jews are persecuted in wartime.
WAS GOD WRONG TO MAKE BIRDS??????????????
Someone engage me in this debate...preferably without evading the issue by bringing up the fucking HOLOCAUST (Ken Livingstone's favourite trick).
Robert Spencer's essay today on this topic
I just found it and haven't had time to read it thoroughly.
Make of it what you will.
Off to work!
AOW,
I never give much credence to a blog/site that deletes comments that the moderator doesn't approve of...they're fascists in my book. I gave up after "So they're gone."
Back to the subject of birds....
OK, my last word via Shelby Steele:
"We may think of "liberal" and "conservative" as ideological designations that refer, ultimately , to a classic battle of ideas - social engineering versus free markets; group entitlements versus individual freedom, and so on. But in the United States today, political ideas like these, and the political identities of liberalism and conservatism, have moral reputations that are often more important than the ideas themselves. And these reputations come almost entirely from the idea's association with, or disassociation from, America's long practice of white supremacy.
"Diversity," for example, is a golden word today because it disassociates those who embrace it from white supremacy. "Meritocracy," on the other hand, is verboten because it associates its advocates with racial inequality. It is an idea with a bad moral reputation. Political correctness is simply a language of dissociation, a manner of speaking that helps whites (and institutions) distance themselves from their reputation for racism. This is because we live today in an age of white guilt.
[...]
White guilt is a profound tension and force in American life that affects everything our society now does, from admitting young people to college to fighting wars. In whatever we do, we must first show ourselves redeemed of our bigoted past. So, in the first years of the Iraq war, we were more preoccupied with building roads and schools than with winning the war. We admonished our soldiers not to shoot rioters, not to torture, not to allow collateral damage - not to do any of the things that white Western societies used to do with impunity. Whatever one may think of this, it only makes the point that even war is now contained by white guilt. Moral legitimacy now rivals military victory, and may even supersede it, as the first goal of war.
-Is it really true that the Holocaust has changed nothing? How else to explain the timing of the civil rights movement in the US (a real achievement of your generation, Epa, in response to the Holocaust), or the hamstringing of the US response to Islamoterrorism? A profound revelation takes time to unfold: Chomsky may be step 1, we are only starting to see step 2. But wherever we go, for better or worse, it will not be to a place where we can ever do away with human conflict, evil, and resentment. We may, however, find ways to mediate these things that allow us truly, humbly, to say, Never again.
Okay, allow me to reduce this thread to your level!
Who would win in a fight...Godzilla or King Kong?
Personally I favour the monkey, because he could climb tall buildings and snatch planes from the sky. I've never seen a dinosaur do that!
(Oh, and he had a little white bitch who miraculously survived the fall....now that's what I call IMPRESSIVE!)
Did someone mention 'birds' and 'feathers?'
I think it was Bob Dylan who said: "Oh my god, am I here all alone?"
Yes, it was Dylan.
Interesting and brave post, Pastorius. Glad you have kept up with it, as well, in the comments.
Pamela, someone else summed it up. You aren't getting it. Being pro-Israel/pro-Jewish is USEFUL right now to parties on the right in Europe. It doesn't mean that they do not look down on Jews or would never accept them in other times. Also, just because the Nazi's target racially was the Jewish people (among others, non-Euro or homosexual), this doesn't mean that the tactics are not exactly the same.
Epa probably said it, he's been the only consistently sane voice in all of this (no offense to anyone else, but he is the only one who has not waffled, at least to me.)
On Bawer: note that in reading "While Europe Slept" (I'm currently reading his "Stealing Jesus", actually) Bawer repeatedly drives home the point that many in Europe simply do not culturally accept those from the outside into their societies. He goes over this repeatedly regarding the Dutch, for instance. And we all know that I love the Dutch. I do know that I'd never fit in if I tried to become Dutch (like Bawer), and that if these more racially minded folks came to power that I'd be thrown in with the Muslims on various racial counts soon afterwards.
Like Pastorius said, the Muslims were useful to Hitler, but how long before he would've turned on them as well? Most "racial purists" do have a nasty habit of doing so. Don't confuse being USEFUL and NEEDED to these people as being ACCEPTABLE.
OK, off to try and convince Bawer to run in 08. Or Epa....
--Pim's Ghost's Ghost
Lex,
Any views on birds and feathers?
Nah, didn't think so.
Whilst we're at it, what are your views on humans being naturally tribalist (as in birds and feathers).
Is 'ignorant' your middle name by any chance?
(Quiet tonight)
If I suggested that 'spiders spin webs' I would expect to be drowned out by comments like "Yeah, obviously,little twat"...however, no-one has commented (rationally or otherwise) to my suggestion that humans are naturally racist ( a teensy-weensy bit like birds)....did I touch a raw nerve?
Is it something I said?
Is it coz I is black??
Or is it coz I is white?
Or is it coz you are a paki?
BFB--pardon me for having a life that doesn't revolve around your obsession with the least scientific and most likely to be proven wrong theory in this entire thread.
My middle name is a Spanish patronymic, actually, but I'm sure that "ignorant" fits in somewhere with yours. OK, your fucking birds and feathers. I won't bother to get down one of about 50 anthropology books here in house to cite, as this is far too basic.
Birds of one species flock together, as they are of one species. Humans, we're the same species. Black, White, Asian, whichever. We flock with who we are raised with, who we fit in with CULTURALLY. Whites raised around black Americans frequently keep that cultural tendency to stick with those they feel comfortable with. Yes, humans are culturally inclined to separate along certain lines. These are HUMAN made, not made by G-d, and any such suggestion that G-D created us to be separated along racial lines only touches a nerve in the sense that the idea is too idiotic to even be debated.
Since you wouldn't shut up about it, I figured I'd finish you off, as your political ideas as applied to science make Coulter's attempts to skewer (for 4 bleeding painful fucking chapters) evolutionary scientists. Now shoo BFB, and go write us a tome on physics, and don't speak to me in that manner again online.
From logos to lex? This is the way the world ends.
I looked at your updated statement of principles and the firest thing that came to mind was the short story by Sartre, "The Wall."
Lots of good and important lessons for those who care to consider the nature of our struggle. I hate to think I've wasted my time exhorting people to take the lead in our effort before the demagogues come and fill the vacuum we might otherwise leave. You know what? I think you leave things to those like me. Now you can live with that too. I knew you would, but it as only fair of me to give you all a chance to do the right thing.
Dag,
What are you talking about?
I responded to your comments. I gave you my definitions of racism, anti-Semitism, and Nazism.
You didn't respond to mine that I can see.
with FINE LEGS
and now kameraden, vorvarts !
Pastorious, I am as confused by your response as you are by my lack of one.
This particular debate is too cluttered at this time to address anything further, so let's move on and do more elsewhere.
Lex,
I'd leave the Vodka alone if I were you, you must be the only loner on planet Earth who doesn't acknowledge the 'tribalism' of the species that is so prevalent (and obvious) in the real world.
When was the last time you saw a spider shagging a fly, Lex?
I really don't mind an intelligent debate with a grown-up, but anyone who suggests that 'no SPECIES stick together' should go to school more often.
Lex, Paki or not, you are an ignorant fuck-brain, and if I were a Paki I would be ashamed of you.
Pasty, Yes or No?
Should I remind you of the question?
I'm with Dag. The only one left is BFB and his attempts at science. He keeps getting my insults wrong, too. BTW, will someone else tell this idiot that race doesn't equal species? I mean, people insult the sciences every day, but please, this is too much.
P.S. BFB, both Dag and I know more about the language and history of your people than you do, for all of your flag waving at your site, so as I said, bugger off. Either way, I won't respond again as you are an ignorant shit dick.
Ok, Lex, let me simplify matters.
Ask me if Human tribalism is perfectly natural, and I'll demonstrate just how easy it is to answer "Yes" or "No".
Over to you, Lex!
(And who made you an expert on 'species'?)
BTW, the answer is YES !
Post a Comment