Thursday, March 13, 2008

Why Your Site is Less Relevant than It Should Be

This post is in two parts. Both the title and the first section are from an email written by a used-to-be frequent reader. My response to him is the second section. As always, I would like to see what comments our other readers have to make on this subject.

TH72 says:

Sorry about the subject line, but, unfortunately at this time, I have to say that to catch your attention. I know you guys have a desire to stay out of domestic politics, and I don’t blame you, but since the primary season started, I have not been reading your blog nearly as much as I used to. The reason that I have neglected you, and that is like neglecting a trusted friend, is that the USA is on the verge of becoming what we fear the most… The E.U. If this election goes the wrong way, we will be the Neville Chamberlains of the forthcoming Islamic Era.

Have you seen the antisemitic videos of Obama’s preacher? Have you heard the intentions of the Clinton’s to pursue diplomacy with Iran? Who knows what McCain will do to please the masses?

The battle lines will be redrawn if we don’t take care of what is about to happen to ourselves. It is time to think about fighting for ourselves, and let Europe defend itself, if it still can. If we fail, we won’t be there for Europe.

Thanks for all you guys do.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

And here is my reply, pretty well as I sent it to him (of course I didn’t spell check my email, though I did so before posting!)

Actually, TH, when I saw your subject line, I thought maybe it was a spam telling us how to increase traffic. But, what the heck, I opened it anyway, just in case.
- - - - - - - - -
As you can imagine, we get a number of emails about this.

We didn’t make the decision [to ignore the Presidential primaries] lightly, but I have yet to read one article, essay, post, or comment that has led me to change my mind. This is a sideshow and I simply can’t join it. The whole thing is obscene.

Yes, it does cause a loss in traffic, as your email attests. And a drop in traffic costs us money. But even that is not enough to make me swim in the sludge of the murky circus. Don’t you feel stained, or smudged, or in need of a bath when you’re done reading about those folks? How does the content of what they do differ from reading about the promiscuous personalities that are also under a 24/7 media magnifying glass?

When something is truly news in this campaign, I’ll be glad to write about it. So far, I haven’t seen anything, though.

And no matter how pedestrian the pettifogging becomes in October, I will begin to write about it then because it will be the right time to do so, even if the choices are nothing more than eenie, meenie, minie, or mo.

Thank you for writing. I mean that sincerely.

Gratias,

Dymphna

NOTE: I will add that TH’s email made me realize that everyone I do read, on the left or the right, seems to have the same apocalyptic mind-set as he. However, I think the larger issue the US faces is already a fait accompli. One can hope the devil is in the details, because that is all we can affect, i.e., the things at the margin.

What do our readers think?

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm also detached from the day to day primary coverage, because the three candidates are so completely unacceptable. However, I'd prefer not to ignore the whole election until October. It'll be too late by then. Here's my plan: unless something dramatic and unexpected happens, I plan to vote for a third party candidate. Almost anyone will do, because it's a protest vote. Tancredo or Newt Gingrich come to mind, but it doesn't matter.

The reason I'd like us all to discuss this now is, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's considering a third party. If we discuss in advance, not as late as October, wouldn't we have a chance, not to actually elect a viable third party candidate, but at least to send a strong message to both parties, that we're not going to eat their slop anymore. If we do this, we may have better choices in 2012.

Also, this third party movement wouldn't have to be restricted to people on the right. I'm sure there are lots of lefties, liberals or whatever, who also feel left out of the process. I'd favor a big tent here. Let's all, left, right or center, talk about this as neighbors. It doesn't matter what candidate any individual would prefer, the real issue is taking back our parties so everyone has a meaningful choice. I'd vote for almost any figurehead we could all agree on, to send this message to our masters.

Robohobo said...

The Constitution Party.

I do believe that is where I am going to be turning after the GoP primary is over. Maybe write in Fred!

Who Struck John said...

I've followed the campaign somewhat. I know pretty well what I'll do in the voting booth in November and don't foresee anything happening between now and then that will change my mind. I do find the identity-politics train wreck on the Left endlessly amusing.

What I've mainly been following the last nine months is how the housing/financial bubble is unwinding and how that is affecting the economy.

Mikael said...

As a European, I don't have a say in this even though your vote will affect me directly. My humble suggestion is that you hold your nose and vote McCain. His not perfect but I see him as the lesser of three evils:
He's tough on war. He have seen the US lose one war and he's not going to lose another, not on his watch. No talk of cut and run there.
He's pro free trade, something that eventually benefits everybody even if it may cost some domestic jobs here and now. It's easy, as the Dems do, to promise the blue-collar votes that they can keep their jobs, but is also a lie. You need to retrain e.g. the laid-off steel workers because steel is now being processed in China and Russia, and those jobs are not coming back.

Alas, he's bought into the Goracle's babbling about carbon emission, but perhaps he'll be wise enough to invest in research on alternative energy, thus breaking our strategic dependence of the Mid East madhouse.

All in all, McCain isn't all that bad from where I'm standing. Don't waste your vote on some third-party candidate. That will only benefit Clinton/Obama (shudder!) Use your conservative vote for Congress. That should make a much more powerful (and even efficient) protest.

Just my two (Euro)cents

Anonymous said...

Mikael, I think Europeans may as well discuss our election, as what happens here has an effect on you all. As for McCain, he's pro open borders. What good is it if he's good at war, if he's inviting the enemy to live here at the same time? As for retraining steelworkers, that's nice, but what does that mean? Retrain them for what? I've heard cynical, snotty, rich-kid free-trade types say blue-collar workers can be retrained for high tech, but in plain English, retraining means let them eat cake. A middle-aged guy with an average IQ probably won't make it as a computer programer. Not being condescending toward those folks, this is similar to my own situation. A vote for a third party isn't a wasted vote. The three main candidates are so bad, voting for any of them is wasting one's vote. The only meaningful vote we have is to vote for none of the above. This is only for president. I'll probably vote for mainstream congressional candidates, if any are acceptable.

IoshkaFutz said...

I think you should cover the USA election. Yes indeed, politics are sludge, and even at best - say in a fairly simple, honest and straightforward place like Finland, they remain sludge. IMHO it is wrong from the start to treat the realm of politics as if it all had to be like hosts and holy water. Given America's power and influence, how can one avoid the elections there? But really now - in the name of what sort of cleanliness should the issue be avoided?

Derailed Cluetrain said...

I feel I'm drowning in US election coverage already. A sea, nay, an ocean of punditry spewing forth from every source imaginable and unimaginable. A positively inane preoccupation with the most trivial of daily campaign trivia.

I don't know about everybody else, but I certainly appreciate that GoV stays on the message here. There is no lack of outfits to hit if I feel a sudden hankering for election news.

Henrik said...

As a European, I've been more detached from the campaign in the US than ever. Sure, our newspapers cover it, but it's dead boring. Only Fred Thompson, whose strong law-and-order probably was too strong medicine for most, had enough humour to raise this campaign over the bland.

The campaign even takes up such senseless issues as 'likeability'! I see Americans vote based on sex or even skin colour! Stupid beyond words, but that's not the worst.

Adding to the bore is the way Danish media covers the campaign. Everything is biased in favor of the Democrats, which is rather useless. Sure, we could get ourselves another Carter or Clinton and set the seeds for more trouble. Swell. The chance of getting another Reagan seems largely lost on the media here.

The first part of this comment (I love self-references :) points to something that's a much deeper problem, however:

The endless focus on Who, instead of What. This de-focusing from real issues of politics and the principles that would be applied to deal with them. So far, the only political difference between Obama and Clinton I've seen is something related to health system reforms - otherwise we keep hearing 'He won there' - 'She cried there' and other time-wasters.

The whole 'Who'-thing easily leads up to a "Choose your own dictator" election where whoever winds up in the White House has made so few practical commitments that he goes on to do what the h*** he wants.

Take Bush. He didn't rewarp the Balkan policies to support the Christians, even though he thinks of himself as one. Not even 9/11 and the Bosnian connections made him take that obvious step.

What I think the US political system urgently needs - and I fault the system for this being a problem - is to focus much, much more on issues, and much less about who gets to support who to be the top dog for the next four years.

Oh. I think the campaign should be shorter, too. 3-4 weeks like we are used to here in Europe. Spending 1-2 years trying to figure out 'Who' distracts us significantly to the much more urgent 'What' and 'How' of dealing with Islamic Jihad.

In my view, GoV has done the right thing in sticking to its guns, real issues, real events. People and journalists are then free to use this raw material to challenge the candidates, and hopefully get some answers that shows us clearly who's worth voting for.

IoshkaFutz said...

Ciao Henrik,

Many of your complaints about the American election play out like "what's wrong with the world."

"I see Americans vote based on sex or even skin colour! Stupid beyond words."

Tribality, racialism, racism, femminism...

"Adding to the bore is the way Danish media covers the campaign. Everything is biased in favor of the Democrats, which is rather useless."

MSM bias - (In Italy it's the same)... oddly enough it's mostly the same even in the good ole USA.

"The endless focus on Who, instead of What. This de-focusing from real issues of politics and the principles that would be applied to deal with them.

This is HUGE and nowhere more than in the USA do we see what fragile stuff democracy is based on these days.

I could go on with your post, but I have to rush off to work and I would just like to add the novelty of Obama in this election. A few days back, even the governing powers here at GOV couldn't refrain from linking to that disquieting Youtube with the passive minaret / cultush chanting. THAT'S a different America and it's definitely one worth talking about.

Salute!

Spence said...

Writing in Fred.

Chalons said...

It's fascinating to watch the inherent flaws of identity group politics come to the fore.

But will anyone on the left learn anything from the ugliness of the monster they've striven so diligently to create?

Wendy said...

Don't cover the U.S. election unless it suits your purposes. It's a relief to come here and find out what else is happening in the world.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that the very same forces (multi-national business interests and mainstream politicians) that are enabling the jihad in the west, are also responsible for the bottom of the barrel candidates we are supposed to vote for. Since both effects, jihad and awful candidates, have the same cause, why not look at what's behind it and explore alternatives? Or do we just look away and vote for one of those turkeys, never asking ourselves how this happened and how we can get better candidates next time? Yes, the election is boring because the MSM is focusing on personalities and not issues. But why are they doing this? What do our masters not want us to discuss? Should we oblige them, ignore the boring election and then quickly vote for someone, anyone, as if it were something we do in the bathroom and don't talk about? And then we can continue discussing events in Europe, because it's over there, not here. Everything's just fine here, we have the first amendment, and we can vote for either the black guy, the woman or the war hero.

NJArtist said...

The current MSN coverage of the election is pitiful: the truth cannot be spoken about O'bama (Happy St Patty's Day)without being called a racist -- see Ferraro.

Those who are so "insightfull" re Hillary or McCain pull their horns in Obama is the topic: Dick Morris and O'Reilly last night refused to state point blank that Obama must adhere to his Pator's views privately and that his public views are shams. They spoke as though his "private" views are meaningless in public office.

I may wind up voting McCain - a 1950s Democrat - just to slow the fall into the abyss by couple years. That is all a vote for McCain is going to do.

Personally, your coverage of the dhimmitude of Europe needs to be covered by the same of the U.S. We need to know its breadth and depth here as well. We are watching the so-called elites -- there has got to be better term for these creatures -- fall to Islam's jihad.

Henrik said...

"everyone I do read, on the left or the right, seems to have the same apocalyptic mind-set as he."

That's weird, and dangerous. One of the standard traits of fascism (Mandatory reference: Liberal Fascism) is that of the perpetual crisis that leads citizens to give up their powers to the dear/great/whatever leader, who then gets the priviledge of making mistakes a zillion times larger than any single citizen could do.

Bush has done little to counter this feeling and instill confidence in his ability to handle Iraq, Balkans or even his willingness to remove the 'Patriot Act' once the threat is removed.

The whole apocalyptic mindset is something I deem a disempowering mistake, as the US is full of creative, powerful and hard working individuals, who each is able to contribute immensely to society.

Like, to promote Electrostatic Fusion - write a letter, make people know what it is and how it'll get us oil independence. Or enter a blog debate about Jihad, purpose of mosques etc. One easily finds that one activity brings the next, and suddenly we're in what is really the 'civil society', the engaged group of people who knows what's going on and how to improve things.

Then we don't need no apocalyptic mindset, for we're acting in a responsible manner already.

eatyourbeans said...

Stick to your own masthead: ...a new phase of a very old war. At the same time recognize that the USA, and for that matter the Orthodox countries, are fronts too.

John Rohan said...

I support your decision to stay away from the primaries, and I have (mostly) done the same on my blog. Moreover, there are so many other websites covering it ad nauseum.

On top of all that, I need to emphasize this point - IT'S STILL ONLY THE PRIMARY SEASON! The actual presidential race hasn't even started yet! The nominees for each major party haven't even been officially selected.

Al-lat said...

"This is a sideshow and I simply can’t join it. The whole thing is obscene."

EXACTLY! EXACTLY!

There's not much to chose among the 3 clowns.THere's something wrong with all of them.

Sodra Djavul said...

I support GoV staying out of the primary coverage. No one is lacking for information regarding the candidates if they wish to seek it out.

However, I think it's alarming that people are considering not voting or that voting for McCain is "wasting" your vote.

I wanted Fred Thompson and Tom Tancredo as President and VP, personally. Then I thought it would be funny to put Ron Paul in a position where he could veto everything Congress sent him. But Hillary would destroy the medical industry, and Obama... Where to begin? He's so far left that he thinks kooky Kucinich is a conservative.

Hold your nose and vote in November. But there's no reason to keep bringing up a distasteful subject when nothing can be done about it at this point.

- Sodra

livfreerdie said...

This is the first election cycle I've really paid attention to, and the whole thing seems to have been manufactured in some smoke-filled backroom. I definitely feel that I have been manipulated. If this is the best the US has to offer we are in deep doo-doo!

Maybe you can help us search for a viable way out of this mess, otherwise I don't miss the 24/7 campaign coverage.

Never missed a presidential election. My first one was an absentee ballot from 'Nam when I was 19(in Georgia you could vote at 18).

This train wreck is going to affect everyone, irregardless of partyor social status.

Tom, the great pessimist

John Savage said...

Just wanted to second all the comments commending your decision to stay out of coverage of the election. Way too many good blogs have put aside their core concerns to give the spotlight over to election coverage. Even if they are as good at covering the election as covering their usual core concern, it doesn't take a great mind to pontificate about the election. They wind up wasting great minds doing what average minds can do.

Speaking of great minds, I'm missing Fjordman's posts. Are there any on the way?

George Bruce said...

"..... even if the choices are nothing more than eenie, meenie, minie, or mo."

Mo, huh? We might survive eenie, meenie or minie, but I definately ain't voting for mo.

mike said...

Obama was a "made-to-order-to-fail" to Hillary candidate which the "fix is in" American MSM pumped up as her anointed competition, and which will then torpedo him with the "suddenly discovered" revelation that he's a racist schmuck. (Meanwhile, the conservative blogosphere is permitted to fancy the erroneous idea that it's found something the press overlooked -- when the truth is that the Clinton campaign and the Ellsworth Tooheys in the press know every candidate's underwear size within hours of them throwing their hat in the ring).

-- They could have shot down Obama before the New Hampshire primary, but they built him up and strung him along as Hillary's designated competition, and will then sink him by bringing up the racist church on "60 Minutes" and in interviews during the upcoming Convention's prime-time viewing slots.

Thus the Clinton machine grinds forward.

xlbrl said...

Well, Dympha, it is only that your emphasis is misplaced, not that the "election" goes on and on or is upsetting.
What is truly pertinent is the stage at which our democracy has arrived. Tocqueville foresaw the despotism in advanced democracies: "...it reduces daily the value and frequency of the value of free choice, it restricts the activity of free will within a narrower range and gradually removes autonomy itself from each citizen. Equality has prepared men for all this,inclining them to tolerate all those things and often see them as a blessing.
They derive consolation from being supervised by thinking that they have choosen their supervisors."
There's a lot to talk about, only it is not about who will win, because, as Burke said, the parties are only the gamers, and the government keeps the tables. The House wins every hand now because the parties think they are the government, and they are.
There is no reason to take election year off in discussing our true predicament.

Bert said...

Latte island's comment "Everything's just fine here, we have the first amendment," reminded me of this:
Last year John Bolton (when will he ever run for President?) was talking about the influence of bureaucracy within the democracy by so called "shadow warriors."

These civil servants seem to sabotage essential policy of President Bush: "[…] they have succeeded in turning the President's policy in effect in a 180-degree U-turn in North Korea and other areas."
One such official, Vann Van Diepen, even "refused to act on direct orders to apply nonproliferation sanctions."

And that seems to me to be a disastrous form of non-cooperation. Maybe even criminal if you think of the consequences.
This worries me. The same is happening on a larger scale in Europe: huge bureaucracies filled with appeasers not even willing to think of acting neutral towards politics and just doing their job.
Is it still the people who "run" the country?

Henrik said...

These civil servants seem to sabotage essential policy ...

Wow. We have this problem in Denmark too. To reduce fake unemployment, we've made a rule that someone must have at least 300 hours of work each year to uphold welfare payments. It's a compromise, and it's pretty mild.

Yet, civil servants in the local administrations find all kinds of ways around this fairly simple measure. Lots of people are getting transferred to permanent support or provided with loopholes against this rule, which was even implemented to support the initial intent behind our welfare system.

Then, at the end of the year, the civil servants go: "Look, only 89 persons fell for that stupid rule. It has to go!"

One needs to be vary of this stuff.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

Since there's no one in the American Presidential race that's willing to advocate nuking Mecca and forcibly repatriating every single Muslim in the U.S. back to their native land (and a lot of Mexicans too, while we're at it), I'm not surprised that TH72 hasn't found the U.S. Presidential election to his liking.

On the other hand, the existence of three such excellent candidates remaining in the race gives me hope for my nation.

Sodra Djavul said...

OT

Amsterdam homeowners seen pressing their government for insurance coverage caused by catastrophic "Act of God."

Enjoy your weekend, folks!

- Sodra

Bela said...

I voted twice for Pres. Bush but now I am convinced that he single-handedly destroyed the Republican Party and the damage is irreparable.
He is not a statesman but a lobbyist for obscure business interests, presumably Saudi and Mexican and not a clever one.
"Gordon" will find absolute satisfaction with these 3rd. rate candidates who will follow.
Let me quote rev.Jeremiah Wright "gordon's" presumed Idol:
"God damn America"! (foam at the mouth.)

lumberjack said...

Ah, I think the primaries are being done to death as it is. Yes the candidates make you want to take the gas pipe, and yes, it'll come down to the lesser evil.

The primaries are just the opening act for the waterboarding in November.

Afonso Henriques said...

Well, as you may already know, I am an European and I do not know how my opinion will be recieved.
After all, I recognize that I have no right whatsoever to get involved in such an internal matter there in the United States. Though, I do have the right to own an opinion and I will say the following:

I can openley say that - and sorry Americans, I am just being sincere - I don't want a "strong America". I want a strong Europe made of strong Nations (stronger than America). But nowadays, this is luncacy, it is unreal, so all I can desire is an America (West) that is stronger than China, Islam and all the rest. Europe is to weak now, she is almost not Europe anymore. And as so, I want the U.S. to be stronger than Europe because today Europe is weaker than virtually everyone else.

What I am wanting to say is that in order to America to be strong, it has to have its strenght flowing from within the American (European) hearts and minds.

America can not police the world, neither can you help us Europeans, when you are down. So you must fight with all the strenght the internal threats, because only that way you can be strong.

Basically, I just want America to thrive and help us but... will it really happen?

"This is a sideshow and I simply can’t join it. The whole thing is obscene."

Dymphna, I can not blame you or dare you to join such an obscenity. Though, that is because I am a machist latin pig. I think that it is not because one thing is obscene that one shall turn his head away and keep going. I think it is a Man's job. So I think that the one who's in fault here is Baron, not Dymphna. He should have known that it is obscene and that we can not turn our heads away from the obscenity. It will haunt you and your daughters if you act that way.
America is in danger from within and if you want America to have a say in the world, you will have to neutralise that internal threat. You have a war to fight at home.


Now I think it will never happen. I am afraid that America is useless to Europe. I am afraid that, when Europe will need America (all the Americas where Europe still lives) the most, America will be not available, it will turn its back to Europe. America is becoming more and more non-Western as Obama and Hillary Clinton shows. So I am not trusting America to save the West. I am more and more so inclined towards Russia, in such a point that I am hoping Russia to be stronger than the United States, so that Europe (the XIX century West) will, somehow, thrive again.

What I mean is, kill all the troubles at home. If you don't, the problems will haunt you and you will not be capable of killing the (much bigger) problems on the outside.

I hope you all to think twice about my words. Think about it, and you will know that I think you have made a mistake (Baron) by not covering the American elections. It is still an excelent blog anyway, it just could be much better so easily...
The problem is that this blog is oriented not to save Europe (the West here and overseas), but to fight islam. Just one of our problems.

The simple fact that many of the readers and commenters here still call the muslims (or even only some muslims) islamofascists is revealing, especially when they do it on the base of the "fascism is bad because it is so".

Actually, will you vote for Hillary because you're a racist pig, in Obama because you're a sexist pig, or in McCain because you're son os satan and the encarnation of evil?
This is pretty much how the European press covers the American elections. Adding also that to be a racist is much worse than being a sexist, unless you're a woman.

Matt K Cassens said...

I seem to remember that you were not ignoring the primaries so much when Giuliani was in the mix. And I remember you were not so fond of my candidate, Fred Thompson.

At any rate, you are correct in that it is all very obscene. But that is how sausage is made, and come November we will all have to take a bite of said sausage. So let us pick the sausage with the most fresh meat and less amount of sweepings, droppings, and liberal blubber.

McCain was not my first choice, nor my second, third, or fourth. But he will be the best choice available in November.

Write what you feel strongly about. I will do the same.

Henrik said...

The simple fact that many of the readers and commenters here still call the muslims (or even only some muslims) islamofascists is revealing, especially when they do it on the base of the "fascism is bad because it is so".

'Islam', or 'Islamism', please.

I'm one of the persons who keep doing that, and I insist it's appropriate. The Muhammad-cult is equivalent to the personal cults of fascist leaders throughout time (Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Kim-Il-Jung etc.), and the "Rule through intimidation", the perpertual 'crisis', the concept of the Umma, the control of individual behaviour etc. are all typical fascist traits.

They're just so bleeding similar that the word 'fascism' is accurate, not derogative.

And I say this not just because "Fascism is bad", I say so because I've read up on fascism and maintain that what I've read supports this point of view, in detail. (Mandatory reference here. Next book on my desk here). Not every incarnation of fascism is the same, and it's easy to point out differences in expression and implementations, significant differences for sure. Stalin and Mussolini certainly didn't implement fascism in the same way, either.

One interpretation is that we're now facing the third wave of fascism in less than a century:

One was developed during the first decades of the 20th century and was defeated in 1945. It ursurped upon nationalism and was devilish strong. It took a river of blood to defeat it. It's worth remembering that it was a public movement in the proper sense of both words.

The second was developed in Russia and was defeated in 1989. Sortof. The ideology was discredited. Sortof. The opposite ideologi, Western freedom, was elevated. Sortof. Like Fjordman famously said: "We didn't win the Cold War nearly decisively enough." This 'Red' fascism was feeding off a socialist ideology, not nearly as strong as nationalism (Mussolini was right here), and collapsed under its own weight from inefficiency and irresponsibility.

It is worth remembering that Communism used to be a popular movement, and in the 20's closely aligned with Italian fascism, so close that the term "The Russian-Italian experiment" was used to describe this progressive (note this word!) alternative to conventional democracy.

Now, fascism seems to be donning new clothes, those of religion. While we have nationalism still breathing quite shallowly from its encounter with fascism, and socialism also not in good health, this next incarnation of fascism may give religion such a bad reputation that it dies off completely.

Wether a non-fascist Islam (peaceful, tolerant, democracy-compatible) will rise from the ashes remains to be seen. I have my doubts, for the primary attraction of Islam at the moment seems to be that it gives power over others, to dictate their ways, to feel better than others. That is not easy to change without utterly discrediting the entire religion.

Epaminondas said...

It's a huge error, Baron
Not because of traffic, but because of the electorate, their motion and it's meaning.

Regardless of those who deem McCain not pure, there is a big decision to be made. The differences are not nuances between either of the dems and McCain

How it's done, who influences it, How they do it, when and where they do it, the proportionate effects of domestic and national security/foreign concerns signify greatly for both the USA and the world, especially now.

Henrik said...

Not because of traffic, but because of the electorate, their motion and it's meaning.

?

Honestly. I don't understand this sentence.

deadbambi said...

Dymphna and Baron,

I think you should do whatever you like with your blog. It is interesting to read about what's going on in Europe. The MSM in America hasn't even touched on Geert Wilders' movie other than minor mentions on Fox News. I was glad to read about it here.

The only reason I can think of for including upcoming election and primary issues on your blog would be solely from the perspective of cultural jihad (i.e. Obama's candidacy, duplicity, the free ride he's getting from the MSM because of their fear to offend, the fact that according to Islam he's an apostate, the fear of the other two jokers have of using his middle name)

I've tried to do this on my own blog (though I have no readers and I'm not sure how to change that), but I think from that perspective, this primary season and upcoming election are incredibly important and we should do as much as we can to influence it toward the least scary outcome.

Isn't the point of these blogs to influence readers, as opposed to reveling in our superior intellect and insight?

Henrik said...

though I have no readers and I'm not sure how to change that.

Post interesting stuff.

Good luck!

IoshkaFutz said...

Ciao Henrik,

You say:

"I'm one of the persons who keep doing that, and I insist it's appropriate. The Muhammad-cult is equivalent to the personal cults of fascist leaders throughout time (Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Kim-Il-Jung etc.), and the "Rule through intimidation", the perpertual 'crisis', the concept of the Umma, the control of individual behaviour etc. are all typical fascist traits.

They're just so bleeding similar that the word 'fascism' is accurate, not derogative."

You are very wrong. Find me a Fascist suicide bomber. Find me a Fascist mother confusing her son's murderous suicide with a marriage. Find me a Fascist hiding behind a baby carriage - I mean containing his own baby. Mussolini, the inventor of Fascism, created Cinecittà, which at the time was full of sexy women. Fascism was defeated and now in the land that invented Fascism there are hardly any Fascists. The lands of Islam were defeated, colonized, overrun in the long span of 1400 years and yet Islam remains strong and vibrant. How does the aboulia / rage of Islam fit in with the "modernizing" dynamism of early Fascism in Italy? Who is the strong man of Islam, a corpse? How does the "Fascism" of Mohammad compare with that of a Franco or a Pinochet, who after saving their countries from Communism, respectively paved the way for democracy? What Ummah is there in Fascism? Are you perhaps calling Alliances of convenience Ummah (in which case then even Democracies would have an Ummah)? Undoubtedly there were many and obsessive "Saluti al Duce" in the 20 year period (20 years and not 1400 frigging years!) but was it ever so obsessive as Inscial-duce? Did one have to refrain from crapping in the direction of the Quirinale?

We WISH the Muslims were Fascists! One could fight Fascists and defeat them and de-fascistify them.

Millions of Italians emigrated to America and thousands fought in the American armed services against Fascist Italy! Where was the Ummah? Today all that remains of those Italians are a few more vowels than necessary in their last name. How does this compare with the Islamic womb bomb?

Frankly Henrik, you don't know what you're talking about. Islamo-"Fascism" is communist nonsense.

====================
As for following the American election, I insist on saying it's a good idea inasmuch as the issues and the candidates are about what's wrong with the world. Take Obama's following. The man calling for unity and promising change and offering dialogue to holocaust deniers is in spiritual cahoots with a KKK-Negro who blames AIDS and 9/11 on white America. There is talk of conspiracies (some suggest that Obama was set up to fall). There is the race / gender issue (which to my mind gives GOV's spat with LGF a funny twist: America can't deal with culture and race because she is beset by them).

Anyway... I would concentrate less on the silly Moondoggies and more on the missing sacred... our missing sacred. Blasphemy is fun and easy and sure enough the Muslims deserve it... but until we start defending OUR sacred, it's mostly useless and divisive nonsense. So much so that if you recall the original cartoon scandal, the Imams addes a few vignettes of their own.

Henrik said...

Who is the strong man of Islam, a corpse?

Most call him Muhammad. I prefer Qutham, his given name (H/T: Spencer). And yes, he's dead. Very much so. But they invoke his spirit anyway to justify some pretty icky behaviour.

What Ummah is there in Fascism?

The Volk, in all its variations.

in the land that invented Fascism there are hardly any Fascists.

Here's one. She is a MEP and has a political party.

I insist that I know what I'm talking about. Just like Nazism was worse that classical (Italian) fascism, so is Islamism. But it's still a totalitarian ideology similar in means and goals, exploiting similar human weaknesses.

What I'm saying is that the underlying dynamics are identical, they speak to similar human instincts, it pays off to identify and counter them, and identifying fascist-style mechanisms is a great tool to do so.

The fact that fascism has quite a bad name doesn't hurt, either.

Oh. Liberal Fascism hit #1 on the NYTimes non-fiction bestseller list. That's going to cause Hillary some pain...

IoshkaFutz said...

Ciao Henrik,

It's not polite to derail threads, so I'm afraid we'll have to resume the discussion some other time / place. But let me suggest that one of us is terribly mistaken... So let's use this time properly. You get me a list of Fascist suicide bombers and I'll try to find you some governmens in which absolute power was vested in a single ruler... which like Islam, pre-dated Fascism by hundreds and hundreds of years.

Henrik said...

The man calling for unity and promising change.

Incidentically, these are two fascist standard promises. Worth knowing, ain't it?

America can't deal with culture and race because she is beset by them.

My impression, too. The higher sphere of ideals and principles seems to get lost in this mess. The specter of 'race', in particular, seems to instill irrational fear any time it's brought up. Sucks.

It's not polite to derail threads.

Agreed. See you in another one.

Afonso Henriques said...

Henrik,

I usually like your posts because they are usually intelligent and interesting.
But now I disagree. You seem to know some things about fascism. I honesteley can not see much evil in fascism besides the supression of freedom of speach. Also, I don't believe it is necessary needed in a fascist regime. Another thing that I do not like in fascism is the lack of capitalism and the difficult that the lower classes have in order to socially ascend. I recently discovered Julius Évola (go google if you want it, I like it and idetify with him much) and that made me wonder if I am or not a fascsit.
I do not think that fascism is perfect but I do think that our (mine?) actual system is not perfect either. Maybe a reformulated fascism without the faults I have already mentioned would suit the most. I think that fascism is not bad per se, as comunism is.

But I get a bit lost in this, you may know better than I but in my opinion, fascism is an ideology that is right wing and similar to those in power in South Europe before the end of the second World War (Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain, and especially Mussolini in Italy).

What I know is that islam is simply a religion. A religion that happens to have its own political aims. It's not politics. It is the political subordinated to the divine. Because God is a politician to the muslims. I think that to compare fascism to islam is so wrong. It's degradating for both and does not help to understand neither of them. I think the muslims do have the right to be muslims, but in the desert. The fascists were some Nationalists during the first half of the XX century. In 2107, Islam will continue. Such a great religion/culture can not be destroyed.

Afonso Henriques said...

Thank you Ioshka Futz.

Despite I am much to your right, into a point that I almost admire fascism (or at least some traits of it), I agree with you on this.
Just curious, being you an Italian, what is your opinion on Julius Évola?

"who blames AIDS and 9/11 on white America."
White America??? Everybody knows that AIDS is the gift of God to homosexuals and 9/11? Well, I saw Giulian on the Daily Show saying that "the economy went from 9 to 11 per cent..." and Loose Change is very interesting. And I don't mean to offend no one who has lost someone in that terrorist atack.

hank_F_M said...

Dymphna

Keep up your usual coverage, if nothing else it is a good reminder why sensible people need to win in November.

Do you think there is enough time to disqualify everybody and start over?


And in the shameless self promotion department, to make keeping up easy the top post on my until the election is links to reliable polls and election news.

Henrik said...

Loose Change is very interesting

As is "What the bleep do we know?"

As psychological case studies, I should add. Anyone's free to feel offended when I say this, and some do with a vengeance. One of my friends tried to push this stuff down my throat the other night. I was real close to asking her to leave my house and go back the 1000 km she'd just come to visit me.

The reason I dislike this stuff is not so much that it's false (I mean, "Loose change" is full of stuff anyone with a sense of engineering would reject as foolish), but that it's dis-empowering. These conspiracies, along with all that 'Illuminati' stuff, sows a subtle feeling of despair and inadequacy, things that seem impossible to deal with.

We need the opposite, we need more people to engage in stuff and react to the stupidities done by our politicians. One of my next targets will be the so-called Bilderberg meetings, which documentably do take place, and where I'm suspecting that our leaders make secret agreements on how to proceed on crucial political issues - like how to make us citizens accept the Lisbon Treaty. I might be wrong about these meetings, but I think it'd be useful to press for real openness from them.

Henrik said...

I usually like your posts because they are usually intelligent and interesting.
But now I disagree.


And the contradiction being?

I meet many posts I like but disagree with - such as yours - as well as some I dislike but agree with, such as bigoted rants against Islam. We can have both.

I honestly can not see much evil in fascism.

Neither do I, but that's because I differentiate between bad and evil. I consider Nazism evil, not fascism.

I think that fascism is not bad per se, as communism is.

I do, but we're entitled to difference of opinion on this. I think fascism is bad, it's simply a bad way to organize society. An aspect I do like, however, is the joy in technology and invention. But the fascist way - totalitarian - to organize society is squarely against my love for individual freedom.

In any case, it's interesting to know that Hillary Clinton from time to time has promoted ideas that seem cut right out of a fascist programme, such as taking the children from their parents in order to have them raised by the State. It can only be ignorance about fascism that let her get away with that one...

What I know is that islam is simply a religion. [...] It is the political subordinated to the divine.

Well, it's been a while since I saw anything 'divine' about Islam. As a kid, living in Iran, I saw people whipping themselves until they were bleeding heavily, all in sorrow about some guy dead a thousand years ago. This was instructive, and I decided that religion was so foolish that I expected it to fail and wither away within a few decades, exposed to the clear light of reason.

I was wrong, it takes more effort than that...

deadbambi said...

Sorry to participate in the derailing, but I wanted to clarify certain aspects of fascism.

First, I'm not convinced that Hillary's "it takes a village" was to support removing kids from their parents and raising them separately (although a good idea in some cases). However, if it did, that wouldn't be fascism. That is pure, unadulterated socialism and was exemplified by the kibbutz movement in Israel, which was the purest form of socialism that has ever existed. They practiced this until recently.

I view the political spectrum as a sphere, not a line. Both socialism (political and economic) and fascism blur individual identity and are so far at each end of the political spectrum that they practically meet.

Unless Henrik and Alfonso are thinking beyond the scope of this definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary, I cannot see the benefits of fascism other than perhaps nationalism. But nationalism at the price of individual liberties is not "good" in my opinion.

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Henrik said...

OK, since we're so deeply derailed anyway...

On "It Takes a Village": However, if it did, that wouldn't be fascism.

I differ. It would be fascism indeed, albeit in a different form. Milder, all-encompassing, feminine. But still a form of fascism, a liberal form.

As above, I don't see fascism as a natural companion to nationalism. Take the Soviet regime, which was utterly fascist, yet not nationalist - they wanted to spread this ideology worldwide, didn't see it as particular to those nations they happened to have under their control.

Most dictionary definitions of 'fascism' would concentrate on the expression, blurring distractions such as 'racism' into it, for one. The little word 'often' reveals a telling lack of clarity to the definition.

As for nationalism, I see it more as having been exploited by fascism than being natural to it. The nation-state has, all things considered, been the most effective framework for defending our civil liberties. The partial abandonment of the nation-state that we see in the European Union also constitutes a partial abandonment of the defense of our civil liberties. It's going to get worse before it gets better, not least due to nationalism being tainted from its encounter with fascism.

That's my point of view, at least.

Afonso Henriques said...

"As is "What the bleep do we know?""

What the hell is that? I got it as an expression to conspiracy theory.
If so, I agree.

"These conspiracies, along with all that 'Illuminati' stuff, sows a subtle feeling of despair and inadequacy, things that seem impossible to deal with."

Well, where I live, in the early XX century, just two organisations like Illuminati, the
Maçonaria and the Carbonária killed the king, instaled a republic and got themselves into power. Go look for "Common Purpose" on you tube. If one thinks twice, those forms of "organisations" are the best and most secure way one has to get into power. Look at the Jewery in Europe before Hitler... The Mithraists during the Roman Empire. Societies like this exist, and are powerfull.

Concearning the meetings. Isn't the European Club of Eurocrats the biggest of all this secret societies? Who really rule the E.U.? Are we all nutts? I don't think so...

"I usually like your posts because they are usually intelligent and interesting.
But now I disagree.
And the contradiction being?"

It does not have to be a contradiction. When I said that I did disagee, I meant that I did not agree with this comment of yours, and the only contradiction is that it is rare for me to not agree with your comments.

"I meet many posts I like but disagree with - such as yours"

Thank you. See, now I agree with you 100 percent.

"Neither do I, but that's because I differentiate between bad and evil. I consider Nazism evil, not fascism."

See, the same. I don't consider Nazism evil per se. The most devilish thing about Nazism was its desire to subdue all of Europe to Germany, as Napoleon did in the XIX century.

"but we're entitled to difference of opinion on this."

On this and on everything else. That is freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is not to protest against the funeral of soldiers as somebody said here in Gates of Vienna recently. We here have a say (or so I think): "I don't agree with you, I will fight against you with all my strenghts, but I would rather die to protect your right to have a different opinion."

"the fascist way - totalitarian - to organize society is squarely against my love for individual freedom."

Yes, I agree. I am against totalitatism but we could have a stronger hand over the leftists, don't you agree? Impunity grasps troughout all of Western Europe if you are of some "protected ethnic" or if you "usually turn towards the left when you got a chance".

"ideas that seem cut right out of a fascist programme, such as taking the children from their parents in order to have them raised by the State."

Well, here I do not agree. Fascism praised the family and familiar vallues. Denmark never had real fascists, but here we had them for 40 years. Their moto, and the National moto of the time was:
God,
Nation and
Family.
The fascists do not "take children from their parents", they urge the parents to educate their children, they responsibilise the parents for the children and they praised the "honour of the family" so that the children would have to be right wing or it would disgrace the family (teorethically). The fascists also educated the children in the schools and gave them certain vallues such us National Pride, the grandiosity of the National History, every far right vallues (and no, not racism, anti-semitism and anti-capitalism, I don't think this to be right wing. But the fascists did not liked multicultural couples, minorities or people who can only see money either. And so do I) such as honour is more than money and they difficulted the social "ascendency(?)" (I hope you can understand this, it means that it was difficult for a poor guy to get rich, though it was by no means impossible as Salazar and Mussolini were very poor-borned figures. Actually, Salazar died poor.) imposing an elitist educational system.

I do agree with all this and as so, I am getting scared because it seems that I am a fascist. The ones who got children from theirs mother's arms were the communists and the Turks, not the fascists.

"As a kid, living in Iran, I saw people whipping themselves until they were bleeding heavily, all in sorrow about some guy dead a thousand years ago."

I actually admire their "stupidity". I am not able to sacrifice myself that way because of something like that. I kind of envy their "faith" and it shows how strong is the muslim "spirit". Yes, it is barbarian, but we must give them some credits for that. They have balls you know. Compare that to the annual Lisbon Gay Pride day or the Copenhagen gay pride month.
O I wish we - as a people/society - could have the balls the muslims do.

"it's been a while since I saw anything 'divine' about Islam."

Well, I don't agree. The first time I got into this blog, I made a comment about Butho that became quiet popular and that Baron did post on its own. You can google "Butho death" and the first thing that will apear is my essay but I will link you to that so that you can see the "divinity of islam".
You better start reading after the paragraph with the question "Now you find yourself asking: Why?"

"But nationalism at the price of individual liberties is not "good" in my opinion."

Yes, I stated that I am against the lack of freedom as I am against the libertinage and impunity that we have today. Before the 60s people had common sense. I believe that certain aspects of fascism are frankly positive. Some are dispizable and I do think (original research) that those aspects can easily be cutted from fascism.

"I differ. It would be fascism indeed, albeit in a different form. Milder, all-encompassing, feminine. But still a form of fascism, a liberal form."

Henrik, can't you see that here, you transmutate the meaning of fascist and aply the word to something totally different. Then, you still call it fascism despite arguing that it is a very different form. It is not. Stop relating fascism to bad and evil. It is no good. Actually, it is socialism. Please, try to understand it.

"Take the Soviet regime, which was utterly fascist, yet not nationalist"

Come on! This is nonsense! Now the commies are fascists!!?? The commies are communists, socialists whatever! I would take any fascist over a commie. The cancer is at the left, not at the right!!! I think you are confusing "fascsim" with "autoritarianism".

Henrik, I would bet that most, if not all, of your National Heros were closer to fascism than to communism/socialism/or social democracy.

Henrik said...

Afonso, thanks for the extensive comment. Comments like this is what makes GoV not only a pleasure, but an obsession. I'm in agreement with most of what you're saying, so bear with me for focusing on the points where were're not. I'll start with the greatest suprise:

Come on! This is nonsense! Now the commies are fascists!!??

Yes, indeed. Soviet communism is not only quite similar to classical (Italian) fascism, it objectively has the *same* philosophical roots. Both are based on socialist ideas from the beginning of the 20th century. The central difference was that Mussolini, after 12 years leading the socialist movement, switched his allegiance from an international perspective to a national one, based on his experiences in the WW1 trenches.

I was suprised to find this, but even classical fascism was a popular movement in the 20's, related to American Progressivism (Woodrow Wilson) and to Russian communism. Futurism was its art form, and the overthrow of conventions and traditions the collective goal.

When you quote "God, Nation and Family", this comes across as a significantly watered-down form of fascism, which originally de-emphasized God ('State' being the replacement). Fascist leaders putting themselves in the place of God are in for no end of trouble for this hybris.

"God, Nation, Family" reads more like a classical conservative attitude than a fascist one. And an attitude I can subscribe to as well - if you don't mind me plunking in Buddha for God, but that's a personal choice.

"Before the 60s people had common sense."

We shall need that again soon enough!

"I don't consider Nazism evil per se."

Well, I do. It has little to do with them wanting to dominate Europe in the military sense, much more with their hatred towards the European intellectual elite, the Jews. Stalin killed the Russian elite, Hitler much of the European. Fortunately it didn't extend to Iberia or most of Italy, but the rest of us was hit pretty hard. Denmark made it quite well, though.

"The cancer is at the left, not at the right!!!"

Indeed it is. I forgot to mention that I place classical fascism squarely on the left. As above, it truely is related to communism, and that's bad.

"I think you are confusing "fascsim" with "autoritarianism"."

No way, not at all. Autoritarianism easily derives from fascism when it turns out that people don't want to sacrifice their lives for the 'common good' all the time, when they find the perpetual state of crisis to be utterly exhausting, and when people tire from having their lives regulated in every minute detail by the totalitarian state.

In a way, I'm starting to think of fascism as being a meta-ideology, having quite a few diverse expressions over time (the clearest at the moment are probably Turkey and China), but still exploiting human weaknesses with a pattern that disempowers the individual and leave monumental decisions (and frequently failures) in the hands of the few. Spanish/Portugese fascism - and I know this is your stuff, not mine - reads more like conservatism without democracy. Not nearly as seductive and dangerous as the full-blown fascist state of Italy, just undemocratic, which is only appropriate as long as the general public is severely undereducated.

Thanks for the link concerning Pakistan. Occasionally I get the notion that we tend to have better clarity than people hired to do such analysis - precisely because we're not hired, and thus are free to form truely independent opinions. I still didn't manage to see anything 'divine' coming from Islam, though..?

Too late to keep writing any longer, at least if my writing is supposed to make sense :)

deadbambi said...

Afonso,

As one of the GoV's token Jews, I feel obligated to respond to your post.

You mentioned that Henrik should "Look at the Jewery (sic) in Europe before Hitler" as an example of an illuminati or group conspiring to overthrow something.

What do you know that the rest of us don't? There were no secret meetings amongst Jews conspiring to do anything. If you're referring to the de Rothschild family, they were conspiring amongst each other to make a ton of money, but no one was plotting to overthrow governments. It's actually a very interesting story how they amassed their wealth.

Your additional comment, "I don't consider Nazism evil per se," just shows me that you're likely uneducated on this particular topic. The Nazis plotted to exterminate every Jew in Europe, simply because they were Jews. Mind you, the Jews weren't doing anything except conducting their lives and hurting no one. No Jewish suicide bombers, no Jewish fatwas. If you don't consider the planned extermination of a non-threatening group of people an act of evil, then your fear of being a fascist is likely the least of your worries.

I would highly recommend visiting a Holocaust Museum to get a closer look at Nazism. Italy, the only European country without a Holocaust Museum, will finally have one in Milano at the Central Rail Station in 2009, but if you're ever in Washington, DC, the United States Holocaust Museum is extremely comprehensive and provides an excellent account of what the Nazis were doing to achieve their "The Final Solution" (a solution that Grand Mufti al-Husseini of Jerusalem had an active role in).

This is what freedom of expression is about - and I'm glad you freely expressed your views. I'm also hopeful that you will seek further knowledge on the subject of Nazism and hope that your views expand with the information you receive.

I think you may be romanticizing the nationalism part of Nazism. Nazism was much more sinister than a bunch of nationalists.

I do agree with you that Henrik's descriptions of fascism were more closely related to socialism. However, I will again offer the political spectrum as spherical instead of linear, and if we look at it from that perspective, we can see that they are indeed, extremely close to one another.

Henrik said...

As one of the GoV's token Jews

Since there are not so many Jews around, I've decided that, although I am neither a Jew nor a citizen of Israel, for the purpose of any acts of boycott against Jewish or Israeli interests, anyone is welcome to consider me to be target of said boycotts.

That argument frequently bewilders rabid "criticism of the state of Israel" :)

Afonso Henriques said...

First, I will adress to the Jewish guy, Dead bambi, who I may have offended.

"I'm glad you freely expressed your views. I'm also hopeful that you will seek further knowledge on the subject of Nazism and hope that your views expand with the information you receive."

"I think you may be romanticizing the nationalism part of Nazism. Nazism was much more sinister than a bunch of nationalists."

Nor was it only more sinister, it was also more profound.

I would now want you to let you know that I do "stand for Israel", that I comdemn any anti-semitism of the kind: "The Jews did it all or The Jews are the enemy". I also would like to add that I feel horible about the Holocaust and the mass murder of millions of Jews. And I feel particularly sorry for the Jews because the Jews, at least in Europe, were not like the other "ethnicities", they were indeed an elite. And Humanity has lost many great man. You can see this only by looking at the "Nobels per capita" of the Jewish ethnicity and compare it to other any "ethnicity".

But for you to understand what I want to express, I'll have to mention this particular case:

Here, the statal television emited a program named "The Greatest Portuguese Ever" in which the people would choose who are their National Hero. Of course the program could not represent the Nation but the results were, indeed, interesting.

In the first position standed Salazar, our fascist ruller for much of the XX century. In second place, came Álvaro Cunhal, the communist leader who lived his life in clandestinity to fight the Salazar's regime. He did never made it to power. In third place were Aristides de Sousa Mendes, a diplomat that during the second world war, contrariating the orders of Salazar, saved thousands of Jews from Hitler's hands, putting Portugal at risk.

Now, what did Aristides de Sousa Mendes did to Portugal? Nothing. To Humanity? Everything. So he is not a National Hero because he put Portugal in peril just to save some Jews.

Now, we are getting seroius:

" The Nazis plotted to exterminate every Jew in Europe, simply because they were Jews."

Here I do not agree. The Jews (and if you are American, I think you will have a hard time understanding what a ethnic clean Nation-State means) were not Germans. Hitler and his friends diferentiated the races: Aryans were superior and Jews were inferior. Hitler even said that the Northern German(ic)s, blond haired and blue eyed, were the "most pure of Aryans". Hitler and his friends believed that Humanity had been suffering a process of involtion (the oppsite of evolution) and that the "pure Aryan" blood was being deluted. For Hitler and his friends, the "pure Aryans" were, not only a master race, but the master race, God in flesh. They were so in this that they even had that program "Lebisborn" (or something like it) to recreate the "Pure Aryans". For Hitler and his friends, they were fighting the process of involution and were thus creating a race of Gods. As long as I am concearnd, they have all the right to think this way. I think of it as some kind of Nationalism elevated to an extreme, mesclated with the pagan Germanic traditions in which they were sons of Odin. So, as long as the not blue eyed/ blond germans are not being victims, I can not oppose them. And that kind of Germans were great entusiasts of this "doctrine".

Now the Jews were atacking German in this ways:
1)They were in a land that did not belonged to them;
2)They were "poluting" the German sense of the "pure Aryan blood";
3)They were a frankly good expiatory goath to Hitler and his friends.

But most important than all:

a) The Jews were an elite, and as so, a threat to Hitler
b) The Jews were historically both: beneficiated over the German people (and Europeans as general); and presecuted so, there was a long History of conflict and distress.

It got into a point where the majority of the population could not tolerate the Jews. And as so, the Jews should leave, and many did it. So, the Jews were not being persecuted for being Jews per se. But I agree that it does not justify manslaughter.

"The Final Solution"

Whatever it was, it was comdemnable and evil. But, it was a war. Many Germans have died too. What discusts me the most is the vitimization of the Jews. And the Germans, and the Russians? Are they less Human? Actually, if you could proove me that the "Final Solution" was to be implemented in peacfull times, I would stop believe that it was just a war crime.

" hope that your views expand with the information you receive."

You did not gave me any new information - despite the existance of the museum in Milan - and my views are the same. I feel deeply sorry for the Holocaust, it should have never happened. As the Second World War shoud have never happened.

"You mentioned that Henrik should "Look at the Jewery (sic) in Europe before Hitler" as an example of an illuminati or group conspiring to overthrow something."

If you analyse the History of the European Jewery you will note that they are a very united group that has standed for its interests, that usually is more powerfull than the average National (not to compare them to other minorities such as the gypsies), thas has had a great loby and that does not care about "the Nation", only about "the Jewery" and how to achieve power. I am not saying that the Jews are trying to "overthrow something". I am just stated that the average Jew in Europe is much more powerfull than the average European in Europe. Not recognising any superiority from the Jews over Europeans, they can only have achieved such status through a well organised "group of interest".
And I admire the Jews for that. For being the favourites of God? Is that how you always achieve power? I do not buy that.

I am sorry if I have offended you and any other Jew by saying all this.

PS- concearning about "Jews overthrowing governments", the Jews actually fought along side the muslims during the moorish invasion of the Iberian Peninsula, against its debil Visighotic kingdom. The Jews saw the muslims as "Jews with another religion" (maybe Pagan-like Jews?) and rapidly achieved more power in the Peninsula. Power that they would maintain when the moors were expelled and that they would only loose with the arrival of the Inquisition. They would soon have the power again, but they never became as numerous as they were before the inquisition.

Henrik:
Usually, those kind of boycotts are against the whole free world, and against Europe particularly. You do not have to be a Jew for being targeted. You are targeted because you are a Dane. I am with Israel too. And I will attend your post in the next hours.

deadbambi said...

Afonso,

Thank you for not meaning to offend, Afonso. I know you're not, but the problem is as illustrated below:

The major error of your thesis is that Jews are a race; we are not a race, nor are Germans. There are three races on this planet: caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid. There is an ethnicity to Jews based on culture and middle east origins as determined by B-Haplotype mitochondrial DNA studies, but the term race is inaccurate.

Second, the Jews in Germany were Germans. Most had been there for centuries. They were no more "immigrants" than the Saxons or the Normans were to Briton.

The problem that I see is that you actually use Nazi-propaganda, which is false and revisionist in nature, to support your claim.

The Jews in Germany were not a tight-knit group. They were largely secular and most identified themselves as Germans, first and foremost. They were not organized in any way, shape, or form other than perhaps attending a synagogue now and then together. Think about it - if they'd been organized, don't you think they would have been able to see the danger coming and form an organized effort to fight or at least flee Germany as a group?

People in Germany hated Jews for the same reason they continue to hate Jews in America, Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc...because Jews are an easy group to target for hate - Jews didn't fight back, they valued education, and as a result of that, many were successful. That's an ideal scapegoat for one's problems. The hate against Jews rose in Germany due to the same propaganda you're promoting in your posts. There was a thought-out campaign to create a climate of hatred and blame toward Jews. Goebbels was the propaganda minister. In fact, I'm sure there were many Jews who voted for Hitler as chancellor. He promoted unity and national pride and Jews considered themselves part of the fabric of Germany.

Even the term Aryan is propaganda. Plenty of Jews had blonde hair and blue eyes in Germany. I know quite a few German-descended Jews today who fit that description. The term Aryan isn't even German, it's Indo-Iranian and refers to the dark people of that region of the world. It was more propaganda building by the Third Reich and nothing more. Their propaganda, their criteria for being Aryan, none of this was scientific in nature nor could be backed up by any science known to man.

I'm sorry that you are using Nazi propaganda to base your ascertains on what Nazism was trying to accomplish.

As I said, please try to do some research on this topic that isn't from the Nazi handbook and you'll see how wrong you are.

I'm going to take a guess and please correct me if I'm wrong, does your support for Israel include your hope that all Jews go there to live because it's where we originated?

You seem like an intelligent guy, Afonso. I implore you to do some more research on this topic.

Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing - but when people utilize it without adequate knowledge of the subject on which they are expressing themselves, I would hope that at the very least, they would be open to learning different perspectives from people who have received extensive education on the subject.

Baron Bodissey said...

Afonso --

I have to agree with what bambi is saying.

95% of your information about European Jewry is spurious, and drawn from the same sources as Hitler's propaganda. It is not based in science, nor in anything now recognized as being anthropologically valid.

The Jews were targeted because they were wealthy. They were wealthy because throughout the Middle Ages they were denied the right to own real property. They became jewelers and eventually moneylenders and bankers because small portable goods were the only property allowed them -- they could not farm, nor own real estate.

But they were intelligent and resourceful, and they flourished. For that reason, and because they were of a different religion, they were hated.

The members of the ruling classes were particularly inclined to hate them, because kings and emperors had to borrow money to go to war, and thus often ended up in debt to Jewish creditors.

Stirring up a pogrom was frequently the easiest and most effective solution to their problems.

Read some history drawn from new sources. If I ever get time, I'll make up a list of suggested books.

Afonso Henriques said...

Where is my answer to Henrik?

Afonso Henriques said...

Yes, Jew is not a race. i utilised the term race, because it was the term that was aplyed to the Jews under National Socialism. The Jews are adherents of the Jewish faith. It is a religion. I think you may have not understood that I was not opinating, I was putting "Historical data" together. And of course I was based on the third reich propaganda, otherwise, how would I try to understand the situation?
I was not opinating. If you want me to opinate, I wonder about the ethnicity of the converts to the Jewish faith. I call them Jews but is open to a dispute.

"Second, the Jews in Germany were Germans. Most had been there for centuries. They were no more "immigrants" than the Saxons or the Normans were to Briton."

Yes, you are right, but they were not consider to be 100% percent Germans. They were German Jews. Even in such a mutiethnic country like the U.S.A., the African Americans are not really seen us "real Americans". The same happens to the Jews. It does not happen to the Polish-Americans, does it? The Jews are Jews. They are not usually deluted in their ways, vallues and traditions. That is also why I admire the Jews. After centuries spread across Europe, they had the sufficient unity to form such a successfull country such as Israel.

" you actually use Nazi-propaganda, which is false and revisionist in nature, to support your claim."

Try to understand, I am not "supporting a claim"! I am trying to get what happened and I can not ignore the nazi propaganda in order to be imparcial.

"The Jews in Germany were not a tight-knit group. They were largely secular and most identified themselves as Germans, first and foremost. They were not organized in any way, shape, or form other than perhaps attending a synagogue now and then together. Think about it - if they'd been organized, don't you think they would have been able to see the danger coming and form an organized effort to fight or at least flee Germany as a group?"

Honesteley, I have always look at the Jews (in Europe and in Israel) as an unusual united group, so you are giving me fresh news.

"The Jews in Germany were not a tight-knit group. They were largely secular and most identified themselves as Germans, first and foremost."

It doesn't matter because the Germans looked at them as Jews, as different. And actually, I think the Jews were Jews first, German second as our leaders (Europe) today are socialists/Humanists first and British or German second.

"if they'd been organized, don't you think they would have been able to see the danger coming and form an organized effort to fight or at least flee Germany as a group?"

They couldn't fight because they were a small minority and any violent action against the Jews would legitimise Hitler's views even further. I have already said: In that times, the Jews were an excelent "scape goath".

"because Jews are an easy group to target for hate - Jews didn't fight back"

Do you really believe your own words? Do you real believe that Jews were hated just because they were "weak". Well, if they were hated, it sure was because they were "too strong". Try to understand why the Jews were hated. Even today across Europe we have many anti-semitic sayings. Ex: "If you see a Jew falling from a window, go with them because there is money in the floor." or the association of the Jews with hook noses and both with the devil.
The masses never liked the Jews, when the masses had no motive to hate Jews, it turned to the classic: "They murdered Jesus Crist!"
I think we should make a Home to the Jews, a home in Israel. I am a Zionist.

"The hate against Jews rose in Germany due to the same propaganda you're promoting in your posts. There was a thought-out campaign to create a climate of hatred and blame toward Jews."

Well, I am not "promoting" hatred towards the Jews! I am trying to view the "Jewish problem" behind the nazi and German eyes! We can not adress to what happened by any other way! Please, try to understand!

"Plenty of Jews had blonde hair and blue eyes in Germany. I know quite a few German-descended Jews today who fit that description."

Yes it is true. And it was one of the reasons why Europeans did not like Jews. Because the Jews had for many time advantages in the competition for women against the poor European. It was one of the reasons to hate Jews:
The Jew came from the desert where he killed Christ (so he killed God, he is the devil), he cames here and, not only the Jew is more powerfull and rich than us, the Jew also gets our women and make them Jewish.
This is so profound that as early as the VI century, the Visigothic Kings of Spain and Portugal enslaved all the Jews claiming that it was the people's will. VI century!

"Even the term Aryan is propaganda. The term Aryan isn't even German, it's Indo-Iranian and refers to the dark people of that region of the world."

Yes, it's true, it is not German in origin. It is Indo-Iranian and I don't think it refers to the "dark peoples" of India and Iran. Well, there are lot of genetic and linguistic similarities between the Indo European peoples. It is not stupid at all. Only the nazi usage was.
Today there is even the discipline: Indo-European studies.

"It was more propaganda building by the Third Reich and nothing more. Their propaganda, their criteria for being Aryan, none of this was scientific in nature nor could be backed up by any science known to man."

Yes. We can more or less agree here.

"I'm sorry that you are using Nazi propaganda to base your ascertains on what Nazism was trying to accomplish."

I hope you to understand that I can only understand nazism trough nazism and communism trough communism. I can not talk about nazism based on socialism. I think it is not difficult to get, and even knowing that my English is far from being perfect, I think it is not that bad, is it?

"As I said, please try to do some research on this topic that isn't from the Nazi handbook and you'll see how wrong you are."

Maybe it is because I can not understand this. I think we agree pretty much in everything but in two topics:

a) I believe the European Jewry to be a powerfull loby, group of interest, secret society. You don't. You even say that the Jews in Europe were/are not a united comunity.

b) You believe that nobody has the right to expell a group from a country. I don't. I even believe that it would be better for all if the African Americans were to became Liberian citizans.

c) But I see the fathers of America to be racists weather the majority of Americans look at them as Humanists á lá Jean Paul Sartre.

"I'm going to take a guess and please correct me if I'm wrong, does your support for Israel include your hope that all Jews go there to live because it's where we originated?"

Honesteley, it is a tricky question. In one way, I think that if the Jews have a home-Nation, Israel, they should not have a say in other Nations, as I believe that the Portuguese living in Israel should not have the right to influence Israel. On the other way I live in a country that has Historical had a Jewish community. This Jewish community today is undestinguishable from the rest. Also, this community is exemplar and the Jews are not many. So, I don't think that we have a "Jewish problem" here. I can not see a reason to expell the Jews from here.
But, if the majority of the population in any given country want the Jews out of teir country, Israel has the moral right to help those Jews, giving them space to live in Israel. In this case yes, all the Jews could go to Israel so that we could avoid the worst.
I don't think that the Jews should be expelled from my country or that their Portuguese Nationality should be not valid. Well, I disagree, many Jews here are not Portuguese in the sense that they are immigrants. Those should not have their Nationality.

I don't hope all the Jews to go to Israel, but it would be a beautifull Nationalistic image. I don't care if the Jews stay in Israel, Europe or America as long as they do not form an alien elite or mine the National sense.

"You seem like an intelligent guy, Afonso. I implore you to do some more research on this topic."

Thank you, but we got too disperse. Where do we disagree? That is the thing. We disagree in two topics:
a) I believe the European Jewry to be a powerfull loby, group of interest, secret society. You don't. You even say that the Jews in Europe were/are not a united comunity.
b) You believe that nobody has the right to expell a group from a country. I don't.

"Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing - but when people utilize it without adequate knowledge of the subject on which they are expressing themselves, I would hope that at the very least, they would be open to learning different perspectives from people who have received extensive education on the subject."

I couldn't agree more.

"95% of your information about European Jewry is spurious, and drawn from the same sources as Hitler's propaganda. It is not based in science, nor in anything now recognized as being anthropologically valid."

Baron, I was analysing the situation trough the Nazi optic. Unless you have something that you particular disagree on, I would say that one has to see it under the German eyes to understand what happened.

"The members of the ruling classes were particularly inclined to hate them, because kings and emperors had to borrow money to go to war, and thus often ended up in debt to Jewish creditors."

Well, the ideia I have is that the uneducated masses were the ones who hated the jews the most. Especially because the Catholic church preached that the Jews have killed God on earth and the masses saw the Jews apropriating their own women to convert to Judaism.

Baron Bodissey said...

Afonso --

...the African Americans are not really seen us "real Americans".

Really, Afonso, you don't know what you are talking about. This is true only of those people who hate black people (and not even all of those -- some of them consider black people real Americans, just inferior ones).

The vast majority of white Americans consider black people to be "real Americans", despite what the Aryan supremacists would like you to believe.

Well, the ideia I have is that the uneducated masses were the ones who hated the jews the most.

This is most likely true, but the hatred was generated and/or encouraged (and exploited) by the members of the aristocracy. When a Jew was killed, the king's debt to him was cancelled. Very handy.

The same process was repeated a few hundred years later under the Nazis, who encouraged and exploited the hatred of Jews among the masses.

Afonso Henriques said...

This thread is getting pretty "strange and odd".

Well, all the Jew vs Nazi stuff started because I said to Henrik that the European Jewry before 1945 was one of the greates exemples of a "secret society" / loby / group of interest acting "behind the table".

I never said that the Jews were bad folks or praised Hitler over this, did I?

Well, my answer to Henrik disapeared misteriously (twice!) and now I don't feel like answer him which is pitty because we were having a nice conversation. And no, I am not blaming the Jews over that either.

Bambi couldn't demonstrate how the Jews did so well compared to other "ethnics" such as the gypsies. He even denied the existence of the "Jewish lobby" and said that the Jews are not a particular united people.

Now Baron,
you said that I "don't know what I am talking about" and that "only people who hate black people" consider the African Americans as not real Americans.
Well, I may have express myself in a wrong way but I will clarify my tought:
When I say that African Americans (A.A.) are not real Americans, I do not mean that they don't have the right to American Citizenship, that they are not part of American Culture or whatever.

I mean that they are not the "American essence", they have a distinct History and are portrayed as being the other. There is a stereotype for the American, and there is another totally different of the AAs. At least, you export culture in a way that the AA is the especial one, the different, and not the same as the Americans.

Would I be aboarded the same way if I said that white South Africans are not really South Africans?
Well, they aren't.
Would any "real" South African come to me to say: Look, the white South Africans are real South Africans too, they are as part of our society as we (blacks) are.

Well, I found you intervention here Baron, to be too much P.C.

So I am putting all in the same category:
Jews, African Americans and "European" South Africans are not seen by the people as to be of the same stock, be it ethnically, culturally or whatever. There is a distintion. The Malayans do not see the Chinese as Malayans despite many Chinese are living there for hundreds of years.

In Europe. We fought for ethnic clean Nations so that nobody would be seen as "the other". Denying that ther are a "other" in your societies is simply wrong.

"The vast majority of white Americans consider black people to be "real Americans", despite what the Aryan supremacists would like you to believe."

Well, what made me believe in that, that they are not equal, was not any Aryan supermacist. It was a very important figure in that world of ours:


Harriet Beecher Stow with "Uncle Tom's Cabin".

"When a Jew was killed, the king's debt to him was cancelled. Very handy."

Baron, try to understand that the Jews - any Jew - were not a threat to the European aristocracy. The Aristocracy had skills in combat, an army and power enough to not need to ask money from the Jews, they even got the church if they wanted! A Jew could only become a problem to the aristocracy when he was protected by some aristocrat, which untill the reformation was unlikeley to succeed.
The Aristocrats did not needed to put the people against the Jews once they could just kill the Jew as they could kill any other subject if there was a suspition. And practicing Judaism was a good motive for the Catholic Church.

"the Nazis, who encouraged and exploited the hatred of Jews among the masses."
Yes they did.

deadbambi said...

Afonso,

I did reply but my post also disappeared. In 1930's Germany, there was no organized Jewish lobby or anything. Learn some history that isn't from Goebbels.

As far as Gypsies and Jews go, there was not a Final Solution regarding gypsies. The Final Solution specifically referred to Jews and the goal was genocide. Gypsies were inconvenient dark people who were thrown into the mix. Not to diminish anyone else's suffering at Nazi hands, but the Jews are the only ethnic group included in the Final Solution.

Afonso, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your comments do support Hitler's actions.

I want to follow the rules here so I'll try to say this in the nicest way possible, please go to university and please read more books and please experience places beyond your backyard.

Finally, do you really think a guy would call himself Bambi?

Afonso Henriques said...

Well, I really noticed that but, coming from America... I really thought that Bambi had those conotaions in my language only.

Sorry for not realising you were (are!) a lady.

According to Wikipedia, those who suffered the most were:

Soviet Union: 23,1 million deaths, of which, 0.1 were Jews;

Germany: 7,3 million deaths, of which, 0,2 were Jews;

Jews: 5,7 million deaths:

Poland: 5,6 million deaths, of which, 3 million were Jews...

And I am not even talking about what happened in Japan, China or Timor.

The World War was bad for everybody, it was not just a complot to kill defensless Jews, despite the fact that the Jews were the most defensless people. Why? Because they did not have a Nation, now they have Israel. That's why I think Israel is so imoirtant, Nation States do in fact prevent Holocausts.

"but your comments do support Hitler's actions."

Yes, my comments support Nationalism and are indeed anti-left wing policies. If that's how you say that I support Hitler, then it is in fact true.
Also, my comments usually say that the Jews in Europe were no saints. If it is to support Hitler, then I support him. The first anti-Semitic text that my young cousin (15 years old) read was a text that we have to study at school at age 12 concearning the critic of a great dramaturg and writer of the XVI century about the Jewish comunity in Europe. It is a fact. The "hatred" (as many like to say, I would prefer distrust) between Jews and Europeans was not created by Hitler.

It started in Massada and continued when the Jews made it to Europe, under the Romans and the Catholic Church.

I am not going to adress to this thread any longer.

Regards. I hope us Bambi to meet again here on Gates of Vienna.