Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Why Must We Mask Our True Voices?

Dymphna and I received the following email this morning from a reader in Israel:

Dear Baron Bodissey and Dymphna,

My name is [redacted], and I am a recently-discharged IDF officer. I have been reading Gates of Vienna on and off for a very long time now, and I have always felt that it presented a realistic view of the situation in Europe. Your blog has always been a breath of fresh air, especially since so much of the discussion about Islam’s war against everybody else is stifled by political correctness.

I have not taken a position on the Vlaams Belang affair — I don’t believe I have enough information to make any determinations, and in any case, the rise of the European far-right is only to be expected, considering the conditions over there. But the current squabble over GoV’s “genocide” post is an issue to which I must respond. Unless the post was significantly altered from its original version, the post which I read at GoV did not advocate genocide in any way — it simply discussed the possibility.

I may not know much about the inside workings of European society, but I know enough about the European mindset to know that Europe is able to define itself only in the presence of some kind of threat, be it real or imaginary. Fear and animosity, whether justified or not, towards “others” is a default mode in Europe — and because Europeans are so oppressed by their elites on the Muslim issue, it is only to be expected that their sentiments in this matter will erupt in unexpected ways. All this makes a European civil war and an anti-foreigners/Muslims eruption a possibility, and the discussion at GoV a necessity.

I believe the responses the post earned at LGF, Shrinkwrapped and other sites were unjustifiably hostile, and rather than addressing the subject matter, sought only to stifle the discussion. Why is it that we can’t discuss the possible futures ahead of us, as unpleasant as they may be? Why must we mask our true voices and hide under the cover of political correctness — especially on blogs, where we supposedly aspire to be free of such constraints?
- - - - - - - - -
I don’t understand, and can’t agree with, the way GoV is treated these days. It is a testimony to the weakness of your critics that they don’t address your claims, but seek to shut down any discussion on the subject matter. Unfortunately, the escalating situation in Europe will eventually force them to face and discuss the unpleasant reality,

Stay strong, keep talking, and hold your heads high — discussing possible outcomes of this crisis, as unpleasant and extreme as they may be is nothing to be ashamed of. Your blog serves an important function in this information war.

It’s inspiring to have support from such diverse sources, and a kind word from someone on the front lines in the Israeli Counterjihad is heartening indeed.

10 comments:

Findalis said...

The day you censor yourselves in what you write is the day that you will lose your Freedom of Speech.

People will not like what you write or say, but you have the right and responsibility to do it.

That was one of the most heartwarming letters I have read in a long time. Somebody understands and knows what you were trying to do. Open up a dialog, a discussion. I too didn't see any advocacy of genocide, actually quite the opposite.

Keep posting and I'll keep reading. I may not always agree with what you say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it.

Charlemagne said...

LGF posters remind me of the old MTV cartoon Bevis and Butthead, grunting and making vulgar remarks whenever CJ makes some pronouncement from on high. "heh heh heh"

About a year ago I posted over there that all the "right wing" groups they were vilifying (BNP, VB, SD, et al) on a daily basis would continue to gain members, strength, power, and influence because of the simple fact that the mainstream parties are completely ignoring the will of the people on the issue of immigration. Quite the opposite in fact, the elitists are pushing for increased immigration and thus pushing otherwise tolerant citizens into the arms of the parties CJ hates so much. I also argued that the influx of these more moderate citizens would temper the more extreme views of some of these parties and make them more palatable to even more people.

Naturally I was either ignored or dismissed as being a "sympathizer" or one sort or another.

Time has since vindicated me and the small minds at LGF continue to chatter amongst each other while advancing the cause of the counter-jihad not an inch.

christian soldier said...

All I can say is that I'm glad I started searching and reading blogs - August 2007. If I had started any later - I would never have found Gof V because the link had been removed from most of them a few months after 8-07.

I never would have started searching my Danish roots or learned about Holger Dansk!

My thanks to you for speaking the truth about the world situations.

Charlemagne said...

Here's what I said at LGF in Jan:

"Regarding the issue of preventing the Islamization of Europe, does anyone here yet have an alternative between a) the current mainstream parties that promote massive immigration, political correctness, multiculturalism, and accept creeping sharia or b) the establishment and support of nationalist parties within Europe by Europeans?

Every time a thread is posted about VB, SD, BNP, etc. the commentary is the same and, Hell, you could lift comments from a month ago and just paste them in and it would all be the same.

I'd love to see some ideas and recommendations as to what Europeans who feel increasingly under assault by forces and peoples beyond their control are supposed to do to take their countries back."

And:

"I've said numerous times that people can vilify the BNP, VB, SD, et al all they want but until Europeans have alternatives they will continue to look to these parties for support against the multi-culti parties, left and right, throughout Europe. Disparaging them here on a US blog is like whistling in the wind and does nothing to advance the cause of freedom in Europe."

And:

"Is there anyone else in Europe right now with the stones to form a group or organization willing to fight against Islamification? I don't support anyone's racist positions but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Are you waiting for some of the more moderate, mainstream parties to find the courage (chuckle) to stand up against the crushing political correctness enforced, advanced, and defended by all European mainstream political parties, MSM, and institutions?

If you are opposed to these right wing groups and the rest of the political class are cowards what then is the solution? A white knight riding in on a unicorn to save Europe from Islamic conquest? What is the alternative? You people bitch and moan about VB, BNP, Sd, et al but offer NO alternatives.

Europeans will and are moving to these parties precisely because they are the only ones who are advocating for Europe and not against it. If enough citizens join these parties do you not think their character will inevitably be changed?"


Naturally all my comments were negatively rated! Is that a plus in GoV world?

whiskey_199 said...

I would have a few disagreements with your Israeli correspondent Baron.

Europe, since it's emergence in the Dark Ages as Christian Kingdoms from disunified Pagan barbarian invaders, has always had to deal with enemies: Vikings, Muslims, other acquisitive neighbors.

The conflict with Arab and Hindu and Chinese contemporary civilizations during the period say 700-1200 is striking. So conflict is "normal" for Europe and the relative peace post 1945 an anomaly.

Otherwise, no real quibbles. Other than nationalism per se is not bad. It can be abused but also used (like anti-biotics) for very good things.

IoshkaFutz said...

There's so much delicious irony in the LGF / GOV squabble that it's fattening!

I mean, in the meantime, in Italy a coalition also containing "racist" regionalists and post-fascists comes to power to the great exultation of Israel (also because topnotch italo-israeli journalist Fiamma Nirenstein gets elected in their ranks and the Hamas-friendly commies are not only ousted but evaporated). In said election, the Mayor of Rome (a post-Fascist who wears a celtic cross around his neck) wins the vote of the Jewish neighborhoods. But okay, that's just crappy and insignificant Italy, a country that has trouble collecting its own garbage. Mussolini, the all-powerful dictator once said "Governing Italy isn't difficult, it's useless!"... (and you'd better believe it!)

But meanwhile, in mighty America who wins the Democratic nomination? A man whose mentor and spiritual guide for twenty years was far more of a racist than a Bossi or De Winter or LePen would ever dare to be - at least in public. A man who says "God Damn America!" (which means God please bring woe, i.e. death and destruction!). By the standards of Charles Johnson, no one - in addressing a major problem (like the death of queen bees or the proliferation of Islam) should sit at the same table with an American Democrat. Yes, yes, of course Obama threw the reverend under the bus (so to speak), but so did DeWinter, Bossi and those nasty Swedish nationalists chuck their past "ugly" connections.

Well, anyway, I've given the matter much thought, and I really like LGF and Charles Johnson and I've learned my lessons well from them (having been expelled twice). Starting today, I'll be damned if I sit at he same table with an American Democrat! Even if the discussion is about lessening the threat of Aztecs seeping and creeping into our societies! No way! And if Obama wins, I'll cut all my ties with America! For twenty years the president prayed for the end of the white race!

Or could the problem be with Charles Johnson's view of politics?

Sagunto said...

I agree with @whiskey_199,

When the diverse peoples of Europe emerged as supreme innovators (the monasteries) from systematic extortion under the all too ancient Roman Empire, the most important Darkening elements that seriously hampered the advent of the shining Middle Ages (birth of the University out of the cathedral) were the Islamic invaders in the south and all across the Mediterranian Sea, and Viking barbarians from the North (perhaps we should demand compensation for that from the "Iraki" and the "Danes"? ;-) just kiddin').

Now back to the mail from the Israeli correspondent, and in particular a quote that deserves further explanation from the commenter:

"..but I know enough about the European mindset to know that Europe is able to define itself only in the presence of some kind of threat, be it real or imaginary. Fear and animosity, whether justified or not, towards “others” is a default mode in Europe.."

I know it's only language at work here, but the impression might be that there really is something like a "European mindset". I know that the ruling elites in Brussels would really love such a thing, and singlemindedly seem to be working towards such a goal, no doubt. But to me the formula sounds both untruthful and eery.

Now I don't want to put off the one that sent this email, but the rest of this quote - partly about "imaginary threats and unjustified fear of others" - really could do with some clear-cut clarification, because the ambiguous language used here might be reason for some concern. So what "imaginary threats"; which "unjustified fear" and especially: what "others" are hinted at in relation to the "European Mindset"?

Kind regs. from Amsterdam,
Sag.

S M said...

We must discuss the ugly (genocidial) possibilities -
because being aware of them is the only way the sane minds might prevail and stop the Islam without extreme measures.

xlbrl said...

The surest way to blunder into disaster is to ignore the possibilities.

Bert said...

Excellent letter, thank you for posting!
I agree with the writer: "it is only to be expected that their [the Europeans] sentiments in this matter will erupt in unexpected ways". In the sixteenth century, the Dutch didn't appreciate their Spanish ruler, but the spark to make them totally outraged (and start a long war against the Spanish) was a tax-rise.

I also agree when the writer states: "I believe the responses [...] where unjustifiably hostile, and rather than addressing the subject matter, sought only to stifle the discussion"

Before 9/11, CJ was an ordinary Leftist and did not (want to) see the islamist threat, eventhough Rushdie allready received his fatwa, Americans where killed in Beirout, the Cole was bombed and Israeli's where blown up in Israël, all by muslims. So he is coming in late and leaving early. No debate, just slander (fascist!), monologues, a few oneliners and a cheering audience. The comparative ease of bloglife (dissidents are "johnsonned") does the rest.

Typical. This demonizing instead of offering counter arguments or open discussion: Socialists, other appeasers and islamists where calling for Wilders to debate about Fitna. Well now, Wilders offered to organise one (in Waddinxveen, a small town near Gouda and Rotterdam) and invited three nearby mosques to show up. But they invented a whole list of unacceptable conditions like demanding Wilders to apologise for his film first. "Wilders wants it his way, and that is not a proper attitude" (only their way is).

Wilders also invited three radical imams, but the same response: no debate. Also the muslim community and a representative from of the Socialist Workers Party (PvdA) from the city of Gouda refuse to debate: "Fitna didn't stir up the population here, if it would have we certainly would've debated, but with the local citizens. [...] We are allready working for years to bring people together and do this with dialogue. Your party showed to prefer polarisation and confrontation..."

Gouda is a city that is terrorized by Moroccan muslims and also the city that didn't want to exhibit the Gay Mohammed pictures from Sooreh Hera. Because the local PvdA politician and muslim Mohammed Mohandis started hyperventilating. So much for all those years of dialogue and "bringing together"-correctness.

Anyway, Wilders responded: "As if a debate is not a dialogue!" and is thinking to cancel the debate all together. Muslims and Leftists refuse to debate. Proof again: Leftists and Islamists only want to hear themselves ventilating their monologues and oneliners (fascist!) to cheering submissive audiences.