The mission of the Counterjihad is to organize action to resist sharia and roll back Islamization in the nations of the West.This purpose will be accomplished via a number of strategies that can operate together or separately, consecutively or concurrently. They may include some or all of the following:
- Legislative initiatives, mounted locally or nationally
- Constitutional challenges to sharia law, or to the mandates of the EU and the UN
- Legal defense funds for people sued or criminally charged for speaking out.
- The formation of political parties
- Putting pressure on existing political parties to induce them to include anti-sharia planks in their platforms
- Public demonstrations
- “Street theater” events, such as the veiling of statues
- Media outreach
How can these actions be accomplished in the most effective way?
Small demonstrations or other actions may have a widespread effect if they gain media coverage, or if they go “viral” on the internet. The SIOE demonstration in Brussels last September 11th was an example of a small occasion with a disproportionately large effect.
My goal is to help leverage such small efforts into much larger occasions through the technique of effective organizing.
What is the nature of an anti-jihad network?
The most important characteristic of an effective anti-Islamization network is that it be international. The enemy’s networks are very international, and radical Islam coordinates effortlessly across national boundaries. We must do the same thing.
Fortunately, the advent of the internet makes this relatively easy to do. When the “Veil the Statues” movement in Germany prepares a new initiative, people all over the world can become aware of it as soon as it occurs.
Or even beforehand — and this is where the real power of transnational counterjihad organizing can have the greatest effect.
Imagine that your local anti-sharia group is mounting a street theater event in Oslo, and will be posting thousands of copies of a Mohammed cartoon on lampposts all over the city.
Now imagine how much more effective your operation would become if the same thing happens simultaneously in Copenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki, Warsaw, Prague, Vienna, Belgrade, Rome, Zurich, Paris, Brussels, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Madrid, and London. Each “Mo” cartoon would bear the same caption — say, “Don’t like the pic? Go home!” — but in the local language.
And can you imagine the effect this would have? A very low-budget operation, requiring only the paper and printing costs, and relying on email and instant messaging to spread the word across the continent. There would likely be media coverage, and even in its absence, the word would spread, and the significance of the event would become known all across Europe.
People who had hitherto been isolated and atomized by the suffocating PC culture of the EU would realize that they are not alone.
But it takes a cross-border network of trusted contacts to generate such efforts. That’s where effective organization is required.
A distributed network
The most effective network for this kind of action is a decentralized, non-hierarchical one.
- - - - - - - - -
A hierarchical network can be an important and effective operational structure, but its top-down organizational chart will not produce results as quickly and efficiently as a distributed network.
There’s no boss in a distributed network. I can’t pick up the phone and order simultaneous demonstrations in Lisbon, Bratislava, Ljubljana, and Dublin.
I can, however, make sure that my contacts in those places are immediately informed of important upcoming events as soon as I learn of them.
I spend several hours every morning reading my email and performing “network acceleration” based on it. My contacts and tipsters send me news and information from all over the world, especially Europe. I parcel the important pieces out to those I think need them, and try to spread the news as widely and effectively as I can.
There’s no immediate payoff for such activity. I don’t get my name in the paper. No one will ever get rich or famous doing this kind of thing. But in the aggregate, if thousands of people do the same kind of deliberate network acceleration, the information-spreading function of the mainstream media is replicated, and the newspapers and television become irrelevant.
Distributed networks are not glamorous. There are no stars, no big glitzy events, and no real payoffs except being effective.
Networking existing organizations together
An effective distributed network does not initiate action itself.
There’s no point in my re-inventing the wheel, since a fully-balanced wheel with titanium bearings and laser stabilizers is already out there, waiting to be utilized. My job is to help people find the wheel.
If I try to organize a demonstration in Århus, it’s not an efficient use of my time. Anything that I might want to do is already being done somewhere by an existing organization.
The function of a distributed network is to connect these groups together, to make them aware of one another, to act as a nervous system relaying signals back and forth. When I find out that something important is happening in Sweden today, I try to get the word out. Blogging is only one part of the operation; the medium of communication could be anything — phone, instant messenger, email, skype, passenger pigeon — as long as the word gets out through the network as quickly as possible.
So when someone wants a text translated from the Danish, I don’t do the job myself — what a foolish activity that would be! — but I pass it on to the distributed network. If the network is functioning properly, a translation will make its way back to me with astonishing speed.
Another advantage of a distributed operation is that our networks, once they are well-established as a web of trusted contacts, can help coordinate events in advance. For example, if Sverigedemokraterna are about to present a complaint to the police accusing the Swedish prime minister of treason, the same kind of initiative can be mounted simultaneously in Denmark, Britain, Spain, France, Austria, Germany, and any other countries whose constitutions or statutes forbid the surrender of sovereignty to the EU.
The efforts mounted in a single country could thus be magnified by reduplication across the rest of the EU. All it takes is coordination through efficient communication.
Sub-networks
A distributed network is non-hierarchical, but that doesn’t mean that it has no organizational complexity. To function most effectively, it is divided into nodes with sub-networks. Networking everybody with everybody else is obviously not the best way to accomplish a task.
Sub-nets don’t have to be mutually exclusive; in fact, a degree of overlap is desirable. I may be the primary node in a network that organizes translations of European languages, and at the same time a secondary or tertiary node in a network that lobbies for legislative initiatives. The most efficient organizational structure will emerge over time to perform the specific group of functions in the network.
But more than three levels of complexity will tend to make the network slow down and become less responsive. It will be more prone to top-down dysfunctional behavior, and it will be more vulnerable to being disabled through decapitation, i.e. the removal of a primary node.
In other words, the deeper the hierarchy, the more the network behaves like a government.
Building a trusted network
Any network is vulnerable to infiltration and sabotage. A resilient structure is needed to repair disruption, counteract disinformation, and compartmentalize functions so that infiltration is less damaging.
Building an initial contact base that you can trust is the first step, but it still takes only one misjudgment or hacked password to put a sub-network at risk.
That’s why a traditional cell structure — the distributed aspect of the network — can be important to keep damage from spreading too far. This will become more important as various Western governments crack down harder on “racists” and suppress dissent.
What I say here is already illegal in several European countries. Maintaining security in a network is important now, but it will become even more important in the future.
Steam Engine Time
Charles Fort was an eccentric — some would say “crank” — American writer and journalist in the early 20th century. In his book Lo! he coined the phrase “Steam Engine Time”, a concept that captures the essence of distributed emergence:
If human thought is a growth, like all other growths, its logic is without foundation of its own, and is only the adjusting constructiveness of all other growing things. A tree can not find out, as it were, how to blossom, until comes blossom-time. A social growth cannot find out the use of steam engines, until comes steam-engine-time. For whatever is supposed to be meant by progress, there is no need in human minds for standards of their own: this is in the sense that no part of a growing plant needs guidance of its own devising, nor special knowledge of its own as to how to become a leaf or a root. It needs no base of its own, because the relative wholeness of the plant is relative baseness to its parts. At the same time, in the midst of this theory of submergence, I do not accept that human minds are absolute nonentities, just as I do not accept that a leaf, or a root, of a plant, though so dependent upon a main body, and so clearly only a part, is absolutely without something of an individualizing touch of its own.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s steam engine time.
28 comments:
wow, all this time of reading about things going nuts, about restriction of free speech, about creeping sharia and dhimmi governments that made me asking if there is any point in even bothering with this issues that seem to take over at a level at which individual action seems irelevant and useless, all this things seem to converge now in something that takes the shape of a solid corpus. the feeling of hopelesnes seems and all the energies that are speening without clear direction seem to converge when i read this post :)
It's so wonderful to see someone actually starting to create the basis for this kind of cooperation to take place in the future.
What especially intrigues me is the idea of starting a legal fund to counter the ever growing number of legal attacks by european governments like in the cases of Lionheart or Mikko Ellilä. When people chip in, the fund could also possibly also pay the illegal fines that the corrupted juries may order these people, only guilty for using their right to free speech, to pay. Atleast in Finland these fines have been quite modest, ranging from couple of hundred euros to a thousand - a big sum for one person, but nothing for an organized network.
One thing is for sure though; all the finances, registers and possible data this movement may generate, must be kept always on the US side of the ocean, since anywhere in Europe it is too easy for the governments to seize them if they see fit.
And for this then, we need persons who are ready to step up with their real names with all the possible risks involved. Where can we find trustworthy individuals like these is the big question.
One thing is for sure though, that it is our side of the combatants that actually possesses the monetary and other resources, because we are drawn from pretty much from the 'normal people'. When you think about ANTIFA and other such organizations, can you seriously believe any one of them has ever done actual paying work in their lives.
No, for them it is about bashing heads and getting wasted while looking good in their new punk hairstyles the social welfare office paid for.
Baron;
"Steam Engine Time"...and here am I, holding a Fireman/Watertender rating, and having hand-fired a pair of boilers originally intended for WWII aircraft carriers that were never built.
One of the features of modern telecommunications, and I think this would especially apply in Europe, is that opinions respect no borders.
I've more than once told off Canadians who were weighing in on domestic US policies. And it's a royal PITA.
We can use this to our advantage, though. I am aware of no law that would prohibit Germans, for example, protesting the French government's dhimmi immigration policies.
Consider the Mo-toons tiff recently. Muslim feets beat the Arab streets across the Middle East protesting the toons' publication in Denmark.
And this had government repercussions in Denmark, did it not?
Fun thing about steam plants, you open the right valves, and 400 feet away in a completely separate compartment, you prepare a lobster dinner. You just have to learn the piping...
Baron;
Oh, and here's where a very big pipe leads:
A great deal of American marketing is aimed at the whims of middle class pre-pubescent and pubescent girls.
(Lindsey Lohan? Britney Spears? New Kids on The Block, anyone? Who are they selling this dreck to? Sure ain't me...)
I reckon this is because that cohort represents the soon-to-be-breeding age females.
I've been over reading Shrinkwrapped's analysis of the Arab Mind, part XII, "Arab Adult Sexuality", and one of the salient features that leapt out at me is that them boys are waaaaaay repressed.
So, if we can get the teeny-boppers over HERE to react with:
"Islam? Eeeeeeeeewwwww!"
...that opinion will filter back to those little horn-dogs over THERE.
The thrust is to plant the idea in their fuzzy little nuggets that they can either drop the "SO 12th century!" stuff and have some fun, or they can spend their salad days in the madrassah listening to some bearded old geezer who holds that the telephone is the instrument of the devil...and pay for the privilege by masturbating...a lot...until they straps on their suicide-belt at the ripe old age of 22.
Your choice, boy-o.
Showing my age here, but:
"Girls say 'YES!' to boys who say 'NO!' to jihad."
Bilgeman: I am aware of no law that would prohibit Germans, for example, protesting the French government's dhimmi immigration policies.
Like the Hitchcock movie Strangers on a Train. Two guys meet on a train and each agrees to kill the other's annoying person.
After this tactic is used a few times, governments will pass emergency laws to prevent citizens of any country criticizing any other country. But people should try it before that happens.
Latté island --
I respectfully disagree. If the French criticize the Germans or vice versa, it will tend to encourage the customary nationalistic bristling at one another, which is counterproductive to the cause.
No, criticism needs to be aimed at one's own country, or at the EU, or the UN. As a result, it may have to be a clandestine action, and not out in the open.
5/08/2008 7:53 AM
Baron, let me disagree, too. Criticism needs to be aimed at bad ideas or actions, much more than the nations, organisations or individuals that habor these ideas or execute said actions.
That, of course, will still discredit those who do stupid things, but that's secondary. Discriminating between useful and harmful actions is an important skill.
Ah, now that is the unfortunate downside of nationalism. Reasoned debate between individuals can work but when you get large protests about your country, you get defensive. Which is why we have diplomats and armies.
Interesting mildly off-topic thought: When the armies of India first faced up against the private armies of the East India company they were more often than not sent running for their lives, because the English-trained regiments didn't fight in the way the Indians were used to. They didn't follow the rules. The rulers of the Punjab learned from this and spent decades training an army along European lines, which got nicknamed the Khalsa, and which very nearly overran the English in the battle of Ferozapore - in fact would have done, had they not been betrayed by their own commanders at the last moment. The disarray caused by the transfer from Company rule to the colonial rule meant our army at the border was below strength. They could have had the whole of India within a year.
The west generally has specific ways of doing things. We have rules for war, for peace, for interactions and all of that. We live within our society and don't really notice the highly elaborate social rules that govern everything we do. Right now we're facing an enemy who has entered the field and proceeded to completely ignore the elaborate rules on which our society functions and that's why they're winning. That means we need to change the rules in some way.
The rule has always been "hierarchy". Kings and presidents and prime-ministers and popes, they're all central governments and all formed around ranked hierarchies. That doesn't work in the face of a distributed system, which is what Islam is. Fighting back with a distributed system is learning to change the rules just enough. You don't have to become the enemy to fight him but you can use some of his tactics. :)
Also there was something about a river on the flank and keeping the high ground...
Interesting point, this about having rules. Christianity used to provide a lot of them, and when that fell into the background, the ethical basis for common rules in society has become uncertain - a stark contrast to a certain strongly rule-based religion I keep hearing about.
Reading Timur Kuran, I came across a reference to an unknown book by Adam Smith (yes, Wealth of Nations) named The Theory of Moral Sentiments, where Adam Smith argues that common rules are good for society, as such. And by implication that the Islamic insistence on having rules for just about everything isn't pure sillyness or irresponsibility, it makes sense somehow.
Like, interestingly, my own boy simply likes having rules set out for him. Absolute freedom from common rules doesn't make sense, in spite of what some people seem to believe.
One more for the "Good to read" list...
Baron;
"If the French criticize the Germans or vice versa, it will tend to encourage the customary nationalistic bristling at one another, which is counterproductive to the cause."
Would it? I see where it would do two very advantageous things.
Fomenting a reactionary nationalism would tend to pour sugar into the EU's "gas tank", would it not?
Secondly, the pro-Counter Jihad partisans inside the borders of the protest target nation would draw intellectual and moral support from their allies across the border.
Argue with a pack of moonbats who have a "pet Canadian liberal" sometime.
Or consider the role Mexico is playing in the US Border Security and Immigration debate.
I hope as part of this struggle, people in Europe try to have the Koran suppressed as hate speech. I know this would fail, but it would help raise awareness of its hateful nature.
Bilgeman --
Fomenting a reactionary nationalism would tend to pour sugar into the EU's "gas tank", would it not?
Yes, it would. I'll grant you that. Patriotic reawakenings across Europe could put a stiletto into the heart of the EU.
But what you describe would be at the expense of a cooperative alliance against the common foe. The EU promotes a "unity" among the countries of Europe that requires them to self-destruct.
I'm looking at the other kind of unity, real unity, the organically-based kind that arises among peoples who share a kinship and voluntarily band together to confront a danger to them all.
Europe habitually failed to do this. This endemic fractiousness helped the Vikings, the Arabs, and the Ottomans make their conquests.
But there is a precedent for such unity: the alliance led by the Savior of Vienna, King Jan III Sobieski of Poland, in 1683.
Even this unity was less than complete, since the French under Louis XIV not only failed to participate, they actively attempted to undermine Austria and aid the Ottoman conquest (which they saw as being in their own interest).
The Pope played a major part in encouraging and bankrolling the alliance against the Turks, as did the fervent Christianity of Sobieski and other leaders.
History can be very instructive.
About steam engines and human thought:
"If human thought is a growth, like all other growths [...] I do not accept that human minds are absolute nonentities, just as I do not accept that a leaf, or a root.." et cetera.
Of course human thought - I assume the reference is to accumulated knowledge - is a growth distinctly unlike all other growths.
Why not - if it must - compare human thought to a blossom that through cross-pollination can become fruit, seed, and perhaps a new tree in the end? I know it's just "figure of speech" from a journalist, but I figure he could have used more suitable speech. Perhaps he was just filling an empty leaflet.
You can make this into some sort of a game:
"If human thought is a beehive, like all other beehives, then where is the honey?"
"If human thought is a ship, like all other ships, then what keeps it afloat.."
ad infinitum..
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/08/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
There's an old Science Fiction novel by Robert Heinlein, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", that goes into informational insurgency. I highly recommend it.
A distributed informational insurgency is hard for a government to fight, as long as its members are hard to find.
Thus, the value of having sites in the US, or some other data haven that would not be subject to EU court orders to take down the site, or to hand over identifying information about its members
"the alliance led by the Savior of Vienna, King Jan III Sobieski of Poland, in 1683... — the French under Louis XIV not only failed to participate, they actively attempted to undermine Austria and aid the Ottoman conquest (which they saw as being in their own interest)."
The French have a history of allying with the Turks.
From wikipedia:
In 1543, Nice was attacked by the united forces of Francis I and Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha; and, though the inhabitants repulsed the assault which succeeded the terrible bombardment, they were ultimately compelled to surrender, and Barbarossa was allowed to pillage the city and to carry off 2,500 captives. Pestilence appeared again in 1550 and 1580.
Dixu said:
One thing is for sure though, that it is our side of the combatants that actually possesses the monetary and other resources, because we are drawn from pretty much from the 'normal people'.
ANTIFA and a thousand other organizations are being funded. The question, of course, is by whom? George Soros has funded MoveOn which has been immensely powerful in affecting political direction in America. I don't doubt that the money used to influence elections and judgments is also funding socialist groups in Europe.
Maybe Arab money?
*****************
The Baron has been leading us to this particular post for quite some time. He's written about the power of the D.N. but this is the first actual proposal, tentative as it is.
Next steps:
1. Recognize that we are not facing a confluence of factors that threaten our freedom--we may not yet have a name for it--but it's real.
And isn't that what we're here about? The fact that we recognize our freedom is threatened?
2. Develop the cells. We need to be able to distribute money, intel and other things.
3. Run a trial. A harmless trial that garners public attention. A hoax that has nothing to do with our real intent other than determining how effective we are.
Well building an *effective* network is easier said than done.
The first thing that people have to accept is that when a group has the intitiative to do something then it must be allowed to do things its own way.
We had problems with Vlaams Belang and for months this blog and others seemed more keen to publish Vlaams Belang than anti-Islamist activities.
There was a "blog war" which split opinion.
However, I hear that VB is doing anti-Islamist stuff in Flanders, but I see nothing about it on blogs. So what was all the chuntering about?
Cities Against Islamisation was supposed to be a network of political parties, but I see little about it on the net.
Where is your proposed network going to be centred? The USA? Or is it going to be a network with no central control?
I support networking and Anders and I have tried it. The big problem is people infiltrating and then trying to screw things up.
This isn't paranoia, Anders was nearly murdered with the connivance of one of his most trusted "colleagues".
What do you want from a network, action or conferences? Or anything possible?
How about organising something in the USA? Not just a conference, we saw that with Anti-Islamofascist week last year, which received just about zero msm coverage.
We even did a demo in London to support anti-Islamofascist week and the organisers in the USA wouldn't even put it on their website.
Good luck Baron and I support your efforts. However, what are the efforts going to be?
Fitna was just a 15 minute movie and not a single msm outlet had the guts to broadcast it.
Suzanne Winter is likely to be tried in a "court of law" for "degradation of religion" and she is an elected politician.
With all due respect the USA, the land of the free, is doing nothing. Robert Spencer writes books and was instrumental in making "Islam what the West needs to know", and like Atlas Shrugs and Michelle Malkin he runs a good blog, as does your good self.
Where are America's Geert Wilders and Suzanne Winters?
Where is America's Kurt "it's my copyright" Westergaard?
What Obama says is "the prettiest sound" will be wailing across America within a year when he gets to the Whitehouse.
And with all due respect, a network of backslapping bloggers ain't going to stop it.
But as I say, I support your efforts and wish it all the success.
Steve --
I support your efforts and wish it all the success.
Well, you’ve got a funny way of showing it. I prefer antipathy, thank you, if this is called “support”.
Let’s cover some specific line-items:
Where is your proposed network going to be centred? The USA? Or is it going to be a network with no central control?
Steve, read the post: “There’s no boss in a distributed network”. Nobody controls it. That’s why it’s called “distributed”, and that’s why it functions so efficiently. It’s like the “invisible hand of the marketplace”. The river simply flows home to the sea; there’s no CEO or president directing where each molecule of water should go.
What do you want from a network, action or conferences? Or anything possible?
Do you think I’m going to discuss here the actual actions that a clandestine network might hypothetically perform? How stupid would that be?
It would be a pretty crappy network that announced its intentions in a public forum that is widely read by people who are, ahem, less than entirely friendly to the cause.
We even did a demo in London to support anti-Islamofascist week and the organisers in the USA wouldn't even put it on their website.
Everything that SIOE sent me I posted, with the exception of the Marseille demo, because the news story was about 30 words, and the photos were inferior. I asked an SIOE person to send better photos, but they never arrived.
Networks need people to perform all the necessary functions, which include taking excellent photos, making sure they reach people who can help, and specialists to conduct friendly liaison with blogs and the media.
Constant bristling antagonism and complaints do not serve your best interests.
Good luck Baron and I support your efforts. However, what are the efforts going to be?
Read my response above one more time. Or, to put it another way, why should I tell you? Make your case.
With all due respect the USA, the land of the free, is doing nothing.
You are making blanket assertions about the USA that are as bad as the ones that Yanks make about Europe. It’s plain that you have no idea what goes on here. There are regular readers of this blog who know that what you say is utter rot; perhaps they will comment here and apprise you of your error.
Do you really think that because it doesn’t get reported in the Daily Telegraph that the USA is doing nothing? Do you really think that someone is going to call you on the phone to brief you? Get real.
I personally know people who put themselves in physical danger here in America on behalf of our common cause, but I’m not such a fool as to tell you who they are, or what they are doing.
And with all due respect, a network of backslapping bloggers ain't going to stop it.
Go slap your own back. I don’t need it.
Dear Baron,
I think you were the least little bit hard on Steve. It is, at times, hard to remember just how public the blogosphere is and just how watchful our enemies are. As an example I was going to suggest reading (or re-reading) the Heinlein book mentioned by Papa Bear, then thought better of it and considered an email. This was before reading PB's comment.
I do not disagree with any of your points. I merely feel it wise to remember how new many of us are to this sort of business. We are going to have to "suffer fools" early on if not gladly at least with some patience.
I have a question for everyone - in your countries - have you ever seen those stickers of Andre the Giant - they say things like Obey Giant or Andre has a Posse? People put them on buildings, signs, cars, then they started being painted on the sides of buildings, then billboards. That was all started by one guy from Charleston, South Carolina. They were in Charleston in the 1980's and now they're worldwide and the artist, Shepherd Fairey, is a pretty famous and rich guy - he's even one of the igoogle artists for their themes.
Baron, I don't know if it was your idea, but I think guerilla marketing of the counterjihad movement is genius - and if it was considered artistic - then you have the "cool factor" someone spoke about earlier. The Mo cartoons are good - but to have something a little less overt might be another strategy to examine.
Also, because my time is seriously limited lately, I need to reference another thread regarding the Lisbon Treaty and thank all those who posted explanations so I could understand what's going on. I'm glad my confusion was legitimate!
Baron. You misunderstand my post. I'm not bristling antagonism I'm merely being realistic and asking for clarification.
My comment about the lack of reporting on the London demo was not aimed at you but at the organisers of Islamo-fascism awareness week organisers, who were sent the press release (at least three times) with the explanation that it was to coincide with, and in support of their efforts.
The response was zilch on their website.
I then had a lot of flack for holding the demo when we did.
I wasn't asking for specifics on the kind of activity just a bit of clarification of the depth of it.
There is a mood change and people are willing to become more active (in many ways).
Regarding media coverage, you confirmed what I said. We expect the Telegraph and msm to either misreport or to not report anti-Islamism activity. My point was that after all the acrimony surrounding VB and the split in opinion, I see nothing on blogs about what they are doing now.
Last year we wished them well and said we would publish their actions if they sent us details. We have received nothing. True we pointed out our side of the Brussels story, but we still hoped they would continue the struggle and said so.
I'm not pouring cold water on what you are trying to do, but expressing the difficulties so that readers know the score.
And asking questions.
I'm not convinced the USA is doing much, and that is my honest opinion.
Anders was the first person to be sued by Kurt Westergaard for using the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon - in a demo in support of Kurt westergaard and free speech.
SIAD had a demo in Denmark yesterday against sharia banking. He was told by the police that he had three minutes. However a counter demo was allowed to remonstrate for 25 minutes by so-called anti-fascists who had their faces covered, totally illegally.
Any network has to know and learn from actions taking place, in order to develop strategies and tactics to counter the actions of - everybody else. Because that is what anti-Islamism is up against, everybody else.
Anyway, I actually do wish you well as I wish all anti-Islamists well. Just be aware of those false friends who will stab you in the back, literally. I for one am not one of those, whether you choose to believe it or not.
It has to be a decentralized, non-hierarchical organization. Otherwise, the legions of Jewish lawyers selling their Sonderkommando souls to the Muslims would a have ripe targets to attack. This is why they are trying make website owners and ISP's responsible for posts. If they have no structure to sue, then they have to use lawsuits to cause folks to self censor.
Stephen,
Your overall point is well taken, and I agree that it looks very hard indeed to get things done, You and Anders have more experience than anyone else in organization concrete action and manifestations. Anyone who wants to do things must learn from your example and the lesson is indeed disheartening.
Anyway, I actually do wish you well as I wish all anti-Islamists well. Just be aware of those false friends who will stab you in the back, literally. I for one am not one of those, whether you choose to believe it or not.
In spite of our differences, Stephen, I have never seen it differently. I have always admired the efforts of you and Anders. And I welcome the dialog you have initiated here.
Any network has to know and learn from actions taking place, in order to develop strategies and tactics to counter the actions of - everybody else. Because that is what anti-Islamism is up against, everybody else.
This is very true, unfortunately. There is also far too much infighting and division among those who we consider "us". No, I'm not referring to Charles Johnson here. He's clearly on the side of "everybody else". But among the tiny group that remains, infighting and division has been more common than unity as soon as it has come to concrete action, taking clear stands, etc. The weirdness of how Kurt Westergaard is going after anti-Jihadists about a copyright issue is just one out of a flood of examples, and a rather peripheral one. I'm not going to go into specifics about other examples here. But an overall phenomenon that I see in the tiny group that is "us", is how the spell of political correctness is holding a strong grip upon us too, which makes counter-Jihadists shun each other left and right, up and down, east and west, in all directions. It's not easy to make a coherent group out of radioactive material.
Therefore my conclusion is that political correctness has to be completely eradicated from our minds, before we'll be able to unite strongly around a effective counter-effort. This is the reason why I put my main focus on exorcising political correctness from the minds of fellow counter-Jihadists. This effort of mine has made me used to being called an a**hole. People tend to react aggressively when you deprive them of their pet beliefs. The problem is that the average counter-Jihadist is just too fond of his politically correct beliefs to let go of them. People of European decent will need to suffer much more before they are willing to take this step.
I agree about the PC, CS. There is an article on the SIOE site called the Fourth Empire which suggests that this is the new totalitarianism.
I actually beieve it is a tactic to implement the Fourth Empire, which is Nazislam. This is an amalgam of Nazism, communism, fascism and socialism with sharia law as the controling fear-influence.
However, striking a balance is the tough path to follow. I'm not prepared to see somebody hounded because his grandfather was black, for example, but I oppose mass migration.
The accusation of "racist" is always levelled at anti-Islamists (an accusation which is worse than being called an a**hole doncha know LOL!)
There are alot of Copts and Iranian EX-muslims in Europe who vehemently oppose Islam. The PC brigade would have us believe that these ex-Muslims suddenly become racist.
It's hard to say how long Europeans will have to suffer, but I don't think we have much time anyway.
This is why I was interested in this post about a network because an increasing number of people are willing to take more direct action.
Stephen,
No we do not have much time, and it's quite possible that it's already too late. Isn't life as we once knew it already irreversibly gone? No matter what the outcome of all this. The innocent, peaceful, open and liberal West is over and done with, no matter what. It's far to late to save that, if it even could have been saved. What can be saved however is the raw material, with which we can build a new incarnation of our civilization, once the institutions of the old order has been torn down: all the way up from the UN, NATO and the EU, down to your local sensitivity trainer and stone-throwing anarchist. Yes, the top layer will have to go, since the first European country that turns around 180 degrees, by reversing Muslim immigration, will have to count on having the US and the "world community" set up against them.
This is a truly revolutionary situation, and I believe that only truly revolutionary actions can change the course. I don't believe that this situation can be mended by working "within the system". The current system has to be overthrown. It's a truly Hobbsean situation, where the sovereign--represented by the perpetual oligarchy of politicians--has completely failed its contract with its people. We have never seen a Hobbsean situation of this giant magnitude before in history. It can only end in violence, in one way or the other. A revolution is the best way out.
But the revolutionary consciousness is low, even though a lot is stirring at the subconscious level. So what can be done at this point? I do not have much better suggestions that what has been done so far by SIOE/SIAD and CVF/GoV. These actions are important even if they fail, since it brings the confrontational nature of the situation to the surface, and helps waking up people's revolutionary consciousness. From this perspective the Brussels 9/11 demo last year was an important success, in spite of being a disappointment compared to the plan.
But the average counter-Jihadist is just too worried about keeping a gloria on top of his head. He wants to preserve the current order, by working within the current order, and in the name of the symbols of the current order. He shuns the idea of a revolution. This exposes a lack of self-confidence. While the political left has never lacked self-confidence, and always spoken freely about revolution. They have always been totally convinced that they are the best, standing for the best, no matter what; so that the means can also justify the end. It's not until the people on our side have this sort of unshaken belief in that we are the best, representing the best, and embrace the idea of a revolution, that real change will take place.
Stephen: However, striking a balance is the tough path to follow. I'm not prepared to see somebody hounded because his grandfather was black, for example, but I oppose mass migration.
Surely someone will hound someone else because his father was black.
One thesis of mine I have been stressing much recently is that all ethnic groups are ethnic groups, and will act as ethnic groups, and we should not be surprised by that, or expect anything differently. There will always be expressions of quarrel and resentment between different ethnic groups.
It's not until the day that we stop worrying about whether we are sophisticated enough, and whether we represent cosmological perfection well enough, that we will be able to turn the situation around. Not until identity trumps perfection.
To me it's all about trusting people of European descent, and trusting us no matter what. Otherwise we might as well continue our civilizational suicide. People of European descent have always been the less xenophobic and more cosmopolitan than any other civilization. It's in our nature. No anti-racism/anti-discrimination dogma needed. It's not coming from any ideological superstructure, it's in our raw material.
Surely in the revolutionary process there will be expressions of what we are trained to be seeing as "racism", "anti-semitism", etc. But most of this is just people having been "overtrained". Remember that "all ethnic groups are ethnic groups, and will act as ethnic groups"--and so are we. The only we to rid ourselves of such problems would be to dissolve ourselves as an ethnic group--and now we are back where we started, at the civilizational suicide.
There are, however, real racism and anti-semitism--of the obsessive, pathological conspiracy theory kind--that if they would become influential, would be a serious problem. But this is not where the European counter-movement is heading. This sort of racism and anti-semitism are being thrown out in all the anti-establishment parties across Europe. I think the BNP is a good measure point of the deepest undercurrents in Europe, and the same process is going on there. I described this process in an article of mine: Part 1: Counterjihadism changing the European political map. Where I wrote: [S]ince 9/11, counterjihadism is creating a magnetic field over the whole political map of European counter-establishment, is going towards a molecular alignment as in a magnetic metal. But we cannot wait for this process to converge into perfection, before starting to act.
In the Darwinian situation of the struggle of ideas, obsessive conspiracy theories on race and/or anti-semitism, simply do not stand a chance to survive. We have more important things to do. There are two sorts of obsessive fears that can kill us, and our efforts to save our civilization and defeat Islam:
1. obsessive, pathological conspiracy theories on race and/or anti-semitism
2. obsessive fear of racism and/or anti-semitism.
And the second one is much more prevalent, and the fear is so strong that it gets translated into dissolving ourselves as an ethnic group, i.e. civilizational suicide.
An advice to everyone in the GoV community is to use the words 'racism' and 'anti-semitism' with restraint. If there is something seriously wrong with someone else's argument, then you should be able to describe it without using these words. Words that immediately imply that your opponent is an heretic. As soon as these words are brought up, rational discourse is overrun, and it turns into a sort of inquisition.
If anyone is just too fond of using these words, then you should ask yourself whether you are not still too much afflicted by political correctness. Surely there will be expressions by people in our ethnic group, that we will have been trained to see as wrong, because we have been trained to think that it's wrong for our ethnic group to be an ethnic group. But if you cannot let go of this training, then at least remain silent, and trust the people of European descent. If we cannot do that. If we do not put identity before perfection, then we are not going to make it.
For me its all pretty simple to defend. People of European background is the soil from which the plants of liberty, openness, freedom for women, cosmopolitanism, etc. grows. Take away this soil and the plants will disappear too. Now we have had overzealous gardeners that tried to transform these plants into Utopian perfection. And as a result they are in the process of killing the whole garden. All non-Westerners know that universal liberalism--and all its offspring, such as e.g. multiculturalism--are expressions of the "white man's rule" of the world. And when "white man's rule" of the world crumbles, so will universal liberalism and its offspring. And this is what is about to happen, and I welcome it. We will be much better off as number two in the world. Then we will be able to put our suicidal fantasies aside, and focusing on saving ourselves instead of our Quixotic struggle to "save the world" (the very actions that led to the destruction we are now facing).
Stephen,
This is why I was interested in this post about a network because an increasing number of people are willing to take more direct action.
Yes, that's the million dollar question.
Let me first say that my previous disagreements with SIOE/SIAD about strategy has become inoperative. The whole body of your work is a very good and solid one, and presents the best available test of our limits of possibility.
The most discouraging aspect of your efforts are the many difficulties you have had in Denmark. Denmark is being held as the beacon, the good example for all other Western countries to follow. When we look for positive signs, it's about other countries turning "Danish". Like Italy recently. Or how Switzerland, Austria and maybe Norway seem to be turning into new Denmarks.
But if SIOE/SIAD are having such difficulties in Denmark... well, that's so very disheartening. And Anders Fogh turning against Geert Wilders... Etc., etc.
Indeed we have a long way to go...
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.