What Is Missing in Those Pictures?

Is there a polite way to point out another’s blind spots, especially when they erect the foundations of their beliefs on a pile of sand and then expect them to stand up to scrutiny?

I’ve been pondering how that might be done in this case, but there’s no way to get around the fact that Gates of Vienna is viewed by some blogs as having an inability to see that its allies are racist neo-Nazis while these critics cannot see their own fundamental preferences.

It does no good to point out that those we support — Sweden Democrats and Vlaams Belang — are doing a good job at attracting regular citizens to their cause…that “cause” in part being a coordinated effort to stop the dhimmification of their countries. This is a cause that no one on the left in either case will ever support. In fact, they have repeatedly demonized and attempted to marginalize anyone who takes off their rose-colored glasses and refuses to see the official EU diversity rainbow — which doesn’t exist in reality. For too many Europeans, this phantom rainbow is merely a pointer to the road to Hell.

James Lewis’ essay on the disinformation being spread by Belgium psyops, which I reprinted here seemed to me to be an accurate scenario about what was happening after the very successful CVF Conference in Brussels. The anti-Vlaams Belang Walloons’ security folks couldn’t let that success stand, so they began working to discredit it. They’re still tunneling.

They’ve labored hard and their labors have borne fruit. Any number of normally reasonable people have vilified us or argued with us regarding what we did in Brussels. Sometimes these arguments have led to estrangement from people we formerly considered allies.

Take our decision to leave The Infidel Bloggers Alliance. This choice evolved slowly, finally coming to fruition yesterday. It was with great regret that I decided it was time to go, and I gave the truth about our decision, but only part of the truth, since my concern was to avoid an argument on grounds that cannot really be argued.

The reason they can’t be stated is that our interlocutors cannot stand outside their own prejudices to see the point of all this. In fact, they’re not even aware of their propensity to choose those like themselves.

I have two responses to their accusations, one on process, one on procedure.

I’ll deal with the procedure first.

In “Time to Go” I made the point that the rules about posting had been changed without notice. We didn’t find out about them ahead of time. The issue only came up when we tried to post and found our efforts waaay down the page as soon as we put them up — without being notified that this was being done until we looked on the page:

When someone changes the rules in the game without prior notice, it means it’s time to go, because the meta-rule of courtesy — i.e., no changes without notice — has been violated.

It’s understandable that the blog administrators wanted to guarantee prominence for certain posts. However, since we were not allowed to post-date our own essays, this meant that our freshly-posted material sometimes appeared far down the page. So what would be the point of anyone else posting at all?

[…]

You know how it is: them what has the marbles calls the game, and if you don’t like it, go home. Amen, brother. That’s exactly what we’re doing. I just hope the door doesn’t hit us in the gluteus maximus on the way out.

Now, that last sentence could have been left out. But I felt tricked by a hidden double standard and wanted to express how that felt.

Pastorius left a polite comment of regret on my post, but Epaminondas’ comment was way off the mark. Besides not noticing that I wrote this post (is that a presumption of male authority? hmmm) Epaminondas said:

Baron, what you are objecting to is losing what other posters there never did.

Arrogate to themselves the top slot by post dating the post.

That is left to the admin, and as Connor McCloud knows, there can really be only one.

Just my $.02

If there are objectively, temporally later posts, they go the top.

But never the less, sorry to see you go.

Obviously, Epaminondas wasn’t in the loop regarding Pastorius’ administrative decision, so the Baron corrected his explanation with this comment:

Baron, what you are objecting to is losing what other posters there never did.

Arrogate to themselves the top slot by post dating the post.

Evidently Pastorius neglected to cc you on our email exchange.

The first time I that I put up an essay at IBA and found that it came up below the top post, I thought it was some Blogger malfunction, due to IBA being set to zulu time. So I changed the time on my post to correct what I thought was the problem.

Pastorius then informed me that only administrators were allowed to post-date.

OK, that’s cool. Then the next post I put up a couple of days later came fourth in the list, with the top post (yours, actually) being dated a full 24 hours ahead.

I noticed that the three post-dated articles were all critical of Vlaams Belang, “neo-Nazis”, etc.

Is that a coincidence? Hard to tell.

But it very conveniently highlights the opinions of the blog administrator and buries any dissenting viewpoints.

I consider that tactic to be inhibiting of any useful discussion, and — since my input was being effectively consigned to the memory hole by being pushed way down the page — there was no option but to withdraw.

You can put all the lipstick and rouge that you want on this particular infidel pig, but it won’t disguise an obvious illiberal ploy to keep alternative viewpoints from being seen at the Infidel Bloggers Alliance.

It’s very sad, because it used to be a great place.

Okay, that takes care of the procedural housekeeping. Change the rules without notice and you create a different environment.

That out of the way, I must now deal with process, because that is where the fundamental differences reside: in a house built by the blind on a foundation of sand.
- - - - - - - - -
Pastorius has stated that he cannot support Vlaams Belang because they are racist. I won’t argue that point — his mind is made up. But I will quote his words and his actions in order to examine the gap between his rhetoric and reality. Here, he says:

By the way, I have had people arguing with me on this subject at IBA. One of the points that was made against my argument is that I am being purely selfish; as in, I have a multiracial family, therefore, I believe my point (against the BNP) of view is valid.

Just to be clear, no that is not the order in which things take place.

I have always believed that all people are children of God, and that, as such, we have the same rights, and ought to be accorded the same dignity. Additionally, it is clear to me that there are people of all races who are intelligent, and who are capable of, and willing to live in Western society.

I would ally myself with anyone who is intelligent, good, and capable of, and willing to live in Western society.

And, that is why my family is multiracial.

In other words, I married a dark-skinned woman because I believe in the values of Western civilization, not the other way around.

And on his blog he says:

Those who support Ethnic Nationalism are, at this point, in the minority in Europe as far as I can tell.

Well, given that point of view, one would think he would find women of other ethnicities and races attractive. But look at the evidence for his contention, which is contradicted by the reality in his blog.

There are many sociologists who would argue that choosing one’s own kind is a built-in part of any animal’s hard-wiring. Sometimes you can build a work-around and get your cat and dog to make nice, but generally they don’t get along. It is only with the ubiquitous Marxist programming of the Left foisted off on all of us that we have been made to parrot this specious thinking regarding “diversity”.

In fact, in “Time to Go” two commenters have a dialogue that lays open the internal contradiction between Pastorius’ words and what he chooses to pay attention to. And in doing so, they prove my point.

Ypp, one of our commenters on the “Time to Go” post, says:

At the Infidel blogger alliance they made a decent attempt to fight Islam with pornography. But I am afraid that won’t work. Since 1001 Nights and god knows how many virgins expecting them in the Heaven, muslims are not afraid of pornography. They seem to go with it pretty well.

But Conservative Swede notices something else, something vital about this feature on The Infidel Bloggers Alliance:

…Have you noticed? Only white women….

[…]

2 years and 12 photos of “infidel babes”, and only white women, all the way.. I know some people that would say that this looks kind of racist. Isn’t it said that the most widespread and effective racial discrimination is the deep structural one? [my emphasis -D] How their preferences always make these people choose people like themselves when they employ someone, choose a friend or a date, etc. This makes IBA look like an echo chamber of white people, the kind who live in bubbles of all-white communities. Of course I’m not saying that it is so, but it surely gives that impression.

I’m sure the people at IBA will innocently say: “But we prefer white women”. But you see, that’s a racist argument.

A Freudian would surely say that the way the people at IBA are so quick at accusing other people of racism is a projection of their own guilt feelings. Now I do not care much for Freudians, but surely IBA would want to do something about this, to appear more serious and less hypocritical in the future. Let’s say a black “babe” next time, and thereafter an Asian “babe”. And from there on staying within reasonable quotas.

I think the problem for IBA is that if they do not repudiate this their obvious preference for whites, they will look just like Dewinter. He expressed a preference for whites back in 1991, and it’s still haunting him. And unless IBA does something decisive about this, I think it will haunt them forever too. Actions speak louder than words. IBA will need to show actively in their “babe” page that they celebrate diversity.

So at the moment, due to his choices to post only pictures of white women only for the last two years, Pastorius’ behavior looks no different than what he accuses the Great White Racist, Filip Dewinter, of doing.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like duck… is it really a rose?