Saturday, August 23, 2008

On Germany and Muslims

The Fjordman Report

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.



Recep Tayyip ErdoganIn December 2004, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned European Union leaders that they would pay a heavy price in escalating violence from Islamic extremists if the EU rejected Turkey as a member and confirmed itself as a Christian club. Turkey is a member of a Muslim club, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), yet doesn’t face escalating violence from Christian extremists because of this. Mr. Erdogan failed to mention that, yet his thinly veiled threat was well understood by European leaders. In September 2005 Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary of Tony Blair’s Labour government in Britain, stated that snubbing Ankara’s EU membership hopes would give ammunition to Islamic extremists, while welcoming it into the EU would help avert a “clash of civilizations.”

Obviously pleased with this progress towards European submission to Muslim demands, PM Erdogan in February 2008 suggested that Germany should found Turkish-medium high schools and universities and pleaded for existing German high schools to hire teachers from Turkey. The suggestion took German Chancellor Angela Merkel by surprise.

Milan football shirtIn December 2007, a Turkish lawyer filed a complaint after the Italian football club Inter wore a shirt with an “offensive symbol.” The shirt’s scheme saw a big red Christian cross on a white background, a symbol of the city of Milan. Swiss football referee Massimo Busacca vowed that he would wear a whistle with the Swiss Cross symbol on it during of the Saudi championship, despite the fact that many in Saudi Arabia had called for Busacca to sport a different whistle to avoid offending Muslims. The Swiss Cross is Switzerland’s national flag.

Muslims in European countries are busy building parallel societies, and there are now rapidly expanding no-go zones in various German cities where the natives, even the police, risk being physically attacked by Muslim gangs. A gym in the city of Cologne has been specially designed for Muslim women. In the Ehrenfeld city district, Muslim women who want to be physically fit can follow the lead of female personal trainers at the “Hayat” (which means “life” in Turkish) gym and still keep their clothes on. Others want to open up more fitness centers where Muslim women can get a great work-out while remaining “modest.”

In late August 2008 an elderly Cologne Council member, Hans-Martin Breninek, was beaten unconscious and sent to hospital by young Turks. The group of Turks, who had a “fighting dog,” managed to flee before the police arrived. Thanks to people passing by, Breninek was not more severely wounded as he lay on the ground. This happened in the heart of Cologne, yet this did not deter the “youths” from attacking the 67-year-old man. He was handing out information warning against the Islamization of his country and his continent.

Meanwhile, Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, considered the plans to hold an anti-Islamization congress in Cologne on Sept 19-20 2008 to be counterproductive to interfaith dialogues. “Any plan to organize an anti-Islam congress would be counter-productive to interfaith dialogs which also involve European nations,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), of which Indonesia is a prominent member, expressed deep concern regarding the planned congress and expressed hope that all elements of the community in Germany and the rest of Europe would be strongly opposed to the planned congress and “reject hatred and racism.”
- - - - - - - - -
OIC flagThe OIC has a newly established Islamophobia Observatory based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. At the same time, thousands of Christian churches have been destroyed by Muslim mobs in Indonesia in recent years, and practicing any other religion than Islam is banned by law in Saudi Arabia. Those violating this, even in their private homes, risk being deported or worse.

Groups in Switzerland, among them the Swiss People’s Party, managed to collect enough signatures to force a nationwide referendum on banning minarets, the distinctive towers of Islamic architecture. The president of Switzerland, Pascal Couchepin, said the government would recommend that voters reject the proposed minaret ban.

Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey warned that the anti-minaret campaign would provoke Muslim anger and cause security problems. (Swiss conservatives earlier criticized Calmy-Rey for wearing a headscarf during a visit to Iran, saying it was a sign of submission.) World Radio Switzerland said it was unusual for the government to take a position against a referendum initiative so quickly. It said “Swiss diplomacy and economic sectors are worried that this kind of initiative could unleash the same kind of anger [and] calls for a boycott” as those that met the publication of the Danish cartoons satirizing Muhammad, Islam’s founder.

Sticking to their usual pro-Islamic, Multicultural agenda, the headline in British newspaper The Guardian was: “Islamophobia: Swiss far right seeks vote on minarets ban.” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ex-mayor of Istanbul, now Turkey’s Prime Minister and a “reformed, moderate Muslim,” has earlier stated that “the mosques are our barracks, the minarets our bayonets, the domes our helmets, and the believers our soldiers.” As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch says:

The minaret is merely a sign of power. It is a sign of dominion over the nearby churches and synagogues. Why do you think that, according to the Shari’a, no church or synagogue can be built higher than a nearby mosque? Why do you think that mosques were always built on the highest ground? For a nice example, see the mosque in Grenada that was opened a few years ago. The Spanish government thought it would be a great idea. They thought it would be a demonstration of real ‘tolerance’ for Muslims that would somehow be reciprocated. Of course it wasn’t. That mosque looms over a convent and a church, and with its Call to Prayer has disrupted the quiet lives of the nuns, who actually dared to protest. To no avail. Of course. Minarets are claims of power. They are claims to dominance. That is what they are. And that is what these Swiss, who were called — you know what they were called — ‘far right-wing’ Swiss, have properly identified.

Doudou DièneThe United Nation’s “expert on racism,” Doudou Diène, stated that the Swiss campaign is evidence of an “ever-increasing trend” toward anti-Islamic actions in Europe. In August 2008, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said there was room for improvement but that the Swiss authorities were motivated and taking the issue seriously. During the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review the Swiss had to answer numerous questions about the “xenophobic climate” in Switzerland and the “incitements to racial hatred by certain political parties.”

The UN committee was looking for “top-down” leadership from the Swiss government to help change the mindset of the general public and for it to be a “champion for this cause,” clearly a call for more Multicultural propaganda and public indoctrination through the media and the education system. The committee also addressed the absence of an anti-discrimination law in Switzerland. Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but the EU has in recent years, in close cooperation with pan-European organizations such as the Council of Europe and international Islamic organizations, passed a number of draconian anti-discrimination laws more or less ordering native Europeans to submit to continued colonization through mass immigration.

Norway, which is not a full member of the EU but an associated member and subject to most EU legislation, passed a radical Discrimination Act in 2005, covering all sectors of society. The Act says more or less explicitly that in cases of suspected discrimination, the natives are guilty of “discriminating” against immigrants until proven otherwise. It was passed by national authorities following transnational initiatives and recommendations by the Council of Europe, with virtually no public debate. Similar laws have been passed by the EU, in close cooperation with the CoE, the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and others, in Sweden, Germany, Belgium and a number of other countries I am aware of.

The United Nation’s racism watchdog called on Germany and Switzerland to combat rising racial discrimination against ethnic minorities, specifically mentioning Muslims. Doudou Diène also levelled tough criticism at Switzerland in a 2007 report for what he said were “discriminatory tendencies.” During an international media conference in Oslo in June 2007, Mr. Doudou Diène, the United Nations Special Envoy for racism, xenophobia and intolerance, urged the media to actively participate in the creation of a Multicultural society, and expressed concerns that the democratic process could lead to immigration-restrictive parties gaining influence in Western nations, for instance in Denmark and Switzerland.

Diène said that it is a dangerous development when increasing numbers of intellectuals in the West believe that some cultures are better than others, and stated that “The media must transform diversity, which is a fact of life, into pluralism, which is a set of values.” Getting diversity accepted is the role of the education system, and acceptance is the role of the law. “Promoting and defending diversity is the task of the media.” Societies must recognize, accept and promote diversity, which for some curious reason always seems to imply Islamic sharia.

OIC logoMr. Diène represents Senegal, an African Muslim country which is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations, sponsored by Arab oil money. The OIC has become increasingly aggressive in recent years in infiltrating UN organs and promoting concepts such as “Islamophobia” as dangerous trends which should be banned by international law. Western countries are still the greatest financial contributors to the UN, which means that we are supposed to finance a deeply corrupt organization increasingly dedicated to destroying our countries and turning them into obedient dumping grounds for the excess population growth in Islamic countries.

In Austria, the authorities have indicted politician Susanne Winter on charges of incitement and degradation of religious symbols and agitation after Ms Winter said that Muhammad was “a child molester” because he had married a six-year-old girl. She also said he was “a warlord.” The politician, a member of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ, added that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean.” She warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” saying that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue. Following her remarks, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Winter and she was placed under police protection. Later, the Justice Department in Vienna announced that Ms Winter would be charged with “incitement and degradation of religious symbols.”

It says quite specifically and repeatedly in Islamic religious texts that Muhammad married one of his wives, Aisha, when she was six years old, and had sex with her when she was nine and he was in his fifties. Since Muhammad is the “living Koran” and his personal example, his Sunna, is valid for time eternity, this is still allowed today according to sharia law. As Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu’bi, a Saudi Arabian marriage officiant, said on TV June 19, 2008: “The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took ‘Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine.” In August 2008, the Saudi mother of an eight-year-old girl was trying to stop her daughter marrying a much older man, one of many similar marriages in the country. The father’s consent is needed to validate the marriage contract between the girl and the man, who is in his fifties. When Susanne Winter suggested that Muhammad had sex with a child, she was stating a fact which is recognized in Islamic sources, and for this she gets legally prosecuted. Muslims have been at the gates of Vienna several times. This time, they are already on the inside and increasingly dictating the terms, turning the local authorities into enforcers of sharia rather than protectors and servants of their people. Sadly, Austria is far from unique in this regard.

The conquest of HungaryWhen reading about a topic seemingly unrelated to Islam, about the creation of the first mechanical clocks (this innovation took place only in Europe), I found out that the Germans paid “Turk money” in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries until they became strong enough to refuse. [Correction from a reader: “You misunderstood the meaning of Türkensteuer or Türkenpfennig. It was not a tribute for the Turks, but in contrary money for financing the wars of the German Empire against the Turks!”] It is almost impossible to overestimate the prolonged impact Jihad has had on European history since the seventh century AD. The southern half of Europe obviously suffered the most, but almost no region of the continent totally escaped the Islamic threat. The Germans were never under Islamic rule, but even they had to pay tribute, or jizya, for a while.

I am increasingly becoming aware of how much Islam isolated Europe from the rest of the world. Even in Greco-Roman times, especially during the principate, the mature period of the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries AD, there were regular contacts between Mediterranean Europe and India via Egypt and the Red Sea. After the seventh century, this region was controlled by largely hostile Muslims, which made regular trade with the major Asian civilizations beyond the Middle East very difficult.

There were few Europeans travelling to the Far East before Marco Polo and others following the Mongol conquests. Not zero, but few. Europe was during this time surrounded to the south and east by largely hostile Muslims, and to the north there was ice and more ice. The only possibility Europeans had to escape the clutches of Islam was to go west or southwest, which is what they eventually did. Contact with the Americas was to a large extent triggered by a desire to get away from the Muslim stranglehold on the continent. Muslims kept Europeans in a state of artificial geographical isolation for the better part of a thousand years.

I know many Austrians and Germans still suffer from a guilt complex from WW2, but this is deeply misplaced with regards to Muslims, and Turks in particular. Turks are guilty of more than one thousand years of persecution and genocide against various European peoples and are in no position to complain, with their main victims in the Balkans. They threatened European freedom for centuries, and many Muslims both within and outside of Turkey now apparently want to resurrect the Ottoman Empire and use the Balkans as a launching pad for Jihad against Europe. They get help in this undertaking from the European Union.

The EUSSRThe EU is, among other things, a continuation of the propaganda methods of Nazi Germany and the unaccountable bureaucracy of the Soviet Union, two entities that put together killed more than one hundred million people. This makes it all the more insane that the Eurocrats and their Multiculturalist cheerleaders get away with labelling their critics “extremists.” EU Commissioner Margot Wallstrom said in 2005 that Europeans had to vote “yes” to the proposed EU Constitution or risk a new Holocaust. Forget the part that the EU is in the process of turning itself into a pan-European totalitarian state, a process that would be more or less completed with the proposed Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. The EU is thus using the memory of a previous totalitarian state in order to create a new totalitarian state. The organization is directly responsible for triggering a massive wave of street violence and political violence across the European continent, at least the Western half of it.

German MuslimasThe Germans have been — and still are — among the most dynamic of all European peoples. They are under no obligation to surrender they country and their dignity to barbarian and inferior cultures, and have every right to expel intruders from their lands and refuse to accept unlimited mass immigration. Original sin is a Christian concept, and in Christianity, it applies equally to all peoples, not to any particular nation. Young Germans should know their history, but they bear no guilt for what happened generations before they were born. I cannot see any particular reason why the Germans should be seen as the bad guys this time around. They are perhaps guilty of being too supportive of the EU, but I would still consider the EU to be primarily a French idea. As for Political Correctness, it has mainly been developed and spread from the English-speaking world, although it does contain seeds of earlier European ideas.

The entire Western world has been infected by the mental virus of Political Correctness. We are all sick, but some countries still have stronger immune systems than others. I don’t think Germany is any sicker than France, Britain or Spain. Germany will be weighed down by its history and thus prevented from taking an early leading role in Europe’s struggle for survival, yes. The early phases will likely be led by the Italians and smaller countries such as Denmark and Switzerland. But I wouldn’t count the Germans out in the longer term. They have a golden opportunity to redeem themselves and play a role as defenders of European civilization.

When Gandhi asked the British to leave India he said, “You must understand that India is for Indians the way that England is for the English.” As one American blog reader commented, Gandhi is considered a good guy and a hero while any German, Swiss, Austrian, Italian, Serb or Greek who says that his country belongs to his people is vilified. It’s time we stop accepting this. Europeans have every bit as much right to fight for our existence as everybody else does.

96 comments:

Joanne said...

Well would someone start the ball rolling - Germans, British, French,....someone.....please.

Robin Shadowes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Charlemagne said...

When I read the many books in my personal library I am stunned when I reflect on the contrast between Europe as recently as WWII and the total emasculation that has taken place since. Do any have the courage to execute a plan similar to this one?

Baron Bodissey said...

Robin --

I've asked you before, and I'll ask you again: please desist with the obscene language.

laine said...

For some reason, seeing a cross has gone from something I barely noticed to a reassuring sight.

It has beaten the Muslim hordes back before...perhaps it can do so again, even in its weakened state.

Or perhaps it's like the sight of land to a drowning man...likely beyond reach but a source of hope and beauty nevertheless as one's last vision.

Diamed said...

As usual an exhaustively detailed and researched work by fjordman about the steady death of a thousand cuts of political correctness with an equally just appeal to the right to hold your own territory for your own people in perpetuum, just like every other country on earth has.

@ Charlemagne: I suspect aside from a cultural revolt against anything that smacks of pre-WWII thinking, there was also a large genetic fallout to the death of that many brave patriotic warriors in Europe. The survivors are simply not of the same stamp as the Europe that went into the two World Wars.

Steve said...

When this is becoming commonplace: "The Act says more or less explicitly that in cases of suspected discrimination, the natives are guilty of 'discriminating' against immigrants until proven otherwise",

you know beyond all reasonable doubt that you live in a totalitarian country. But then again, it is already a hallmark in the French Napoleonic Code, is it not?

And this Doudou character is the real racist. Going after predominantly White countries (being flooded with third-world trash) and accusing them of racism, all the while ignoring the entire continent of Africa (Zimbabwe for example) is unbelievable. I find it VERY unnerving that someone like him has the power to influence my nation's "leaders".

I have also noticed that this multicult fanaticism is moving eastward. How far east is it going to go? Will Hungary and Poland be the saviors of Central/Eastern Europe once again? They are getting squeezed from both sides; the Western Europeans guilt trip, the Muslims in the Balkans, the suicidal Scandinavians to the north and the Russians/reborn Soviets who collude with Islamic governments.

Whiskey said...

Brussels Journal has a great post by Takuan Seiyo, on Europe's first suicide, that touches on what Fjordman sort of alludes to, which is loss of civilizational confidence, which leads to PC, Multiculturalism, the Islamist movements, and much else.

Seiyo's argument is that Europe lost all confidence in itself when it committed suicide in horrific slaughter in the trenches 1914-1918. That WWII simply finished that.

To make his point he discusses Japanese General Maruseki Nogi, and his rather suicidal frontal assault on the Russian trenches in Port Arther Manchuria in 1905 during the Russian-Japanese War. Which resulted in the same type of slaughter, and Nogi's own sons being mowed down.

Before WWI -- Europe had confidence in it's civilization and values, afterwards, almost none.

That's why you have Dieudone etc. from Senegal lecturing Europeans on human rights. Ironically, the Chinese who suffered far worse (as did the Japanese) in WWII [And the Chinese who lost 20 million in the Taipeng Rebellion] have not lost their civilizational confidence.

Perhaps two things were at work: the Western world being wealthier spread more images around of the total horror of the Trenches (and later WWII). And the Western World had much safer, cleaner, brighter lives, thus the contrast between the sedate rhythms of say, pre-War Paris and the Trenches brought into question the entire leadership and civilization of those who destroyed that in the trenches.

The muck and squalor of the Chinese peasant, and perhaps even the Japanese one, made the War bad, but not something unexpected. If your life is already hard, you're not shocked when it gets even worse.

I personally am not convinced much can be done in Europe at this point without the sort of turnover you saw in Europe following 1918, or 1945 for that matter. [Churchill being replaced by Labor in other words, or Labor taking office for the first time under Stanley Baldwin.]

The elites and their suicidal charges into PC/Multiculturalism and accepting humans rights lectures from Senegal must be as discredited as the generals like Haig and so forth after WWI.

And for that to happen, I think a country will have to fall to Muslim rule, or a good portion of it, backed up by Iranian nuclear missiles.

For now, the elites are too strong, like Haig in 1915. Though perhaps some signs like the French mutiny of 1917 peek through now and then.

Fjordman said...

Whiskey: Perhaps we should have a series of posts about this topic this fall, under the general heading "What went wrong with the West?" How did we go from being the planet's most rational and dynamic civilization into being the sick man of the world and the dancing intellectual clowns we are today?

You are right, the destruction brought by WW1 (and WW2) finished off much of Europe's self-confidence. I still think it is a little more complicated than that, though. If you look at which countries suffered the most during these two wars, there is no automatic correlation between that and which countries are most culturally suicidal today. Poland, for instance, is less culturally suicidal than my country, which didn't take part in WW1 and suffered less than most other nations during WW2. Sweden didn't (formally) participate in either wars, neither did Switzerland. Both of these countries lack a colonial history (for those who believe this is about "post-colonial guilt"), yet Sweden is crazy, as we all know.

In order to explain the latter example, you need to consider the prolonged and extremely destructive impact of Marxism in its various forms. It is supremely ironic that the countries in the western half of Europe, which during the Cold War were a part of the "free world," are in some ways more damaged by Marxist indoctrination than the countries in the eastern half of Europe, who lived under Communism for generations. We have been undermined by a different strand of Marxism, one seemingly less serious since we have no Gulag here (yet), but one which slowly erodes your very will to live and removes your identity as a people.

Right now, some countries in Eastern Europe are healthier than most countries in Western Europe. But it won't last. As long as they are members of the European Union, the official Multiculturalism of the EUSSR will slowly but surely destroy them, too. It's only a matter of time. This is why it is of such great importance to destroy the EU, so at least some regions of Europe can survive this and hopefully regenerate. The problems of Multiculturalism have infected the entire Western world, not just Western Europe, but they have become institutionalized to an alarming degree in the EU. Maybe the countries of east-central Europe will be the cultural and demographic stronghold of European civilization in this century. It is conceivable.

Fjordman said...

Steve: Doudou Diène is the ultimate symbol of the loss of Western identity and willpower. He comes from Africa, where the few remaining whites suffer from brutal racist persecution at the same time as millions of Africans take it for granted that they can colonize European cities and get paid for this. So the motto is "Europeans in Africa bad, Africans in Europe good." Mr. Diène represents the Islamic world, which persecutes and massacres non-Muslims regardless of skin color, yet wants Muslims to do whatever they want to in our countries.

The UN was once created by the West to promote "world peace," but now it's simply a notoriously corrupt organization dedicated to destroying white majority countries at the same time as it is being funded by us. To hell with the UN.

The "anti-discrimination laws" we now see in Europe are the ultimate symbol that the democratic system is no longer working as intended. These laws come from a small group of self-appointed leaders and bureaucrats who respond to pressure from the Islamic world, not from their own people. If native Europeans vote "no" to the proposed EU Constitution which will dismantle our countries, we get ignored and insulted. If Muslims say they want a total ban on "discrimination and Islamophobia" in Europe, they get it immediately.

The European political elites will increasingly be seen as collaborators and puppets for our Muslim enemies because that's how they act. They should be faced with the very real prospect of standing trial for treason some day for what they have done. Few people will have deserved it more.

This is one of the many reasons why mass immigration must stop. We are always told that this is "good for the economy." This is demonstrably false and resembles the "Big Lie" technique employed by Goebbels and the Nazis. Even if it were true, I would still reject this argument. I am not willing to give up our existence as a distinct people and the heritage entrusted upon me by my ancestors in the hypothetical hope that doing so will earn me a few more chocolate bars or electronic toys, of which we already have plenty. The notion that man is homo economicus, the economic man, nothing more than the sum of his functions as a worker and consumer, is widely shared by both left-wingers and Marxists and by right-wingers and economic liberalists. It is one of the most destructive ideologies of our time and it needs to be defeated while there is still something left of European civilization to preserve.

Even one of the "anti-Jihadists" in Scandinavia once indicated that it was OK with a Muslim majority in Europe as long as these Muslims respect "human rights." They won't, of course, but that's not the point. The "debate" we have is thus between those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration and those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration as long as those who replace us believe in "human rights."

At no point is there any debate of whether native Europeans have a right to preserve our cultures. We have already been linguistically abolished and erased from history. What remains is only the technical act of erasing us from history physically as well. Our countries no longer exist as distinct entities, they only exist as empty vessels to be filled with "human rights."

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

whisky, fjordman; I think part of the problem is that we in the west have not generally learned about other people's wars from that same period. I never even knew about the Russian-Japanese war until well after I left school. I suspect history teaching is the same in most places to some greater or lesser degree - more focussed on Europe and European wars than anywhere else. It creates the impression that we were having these ultraviolent, pointless slaughter wars when everywhere else was sweetness and harmony, without war. It dovetails rather nicely with the narrative that white westerners created all the conflict in the world. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a correlation between the strength of this parochialism and the strength of the malaise affecting us, i.e. the less people know about other wars contemporary to World War 1, the more likely they are to absorb the nihilism of modern western cultures.

Diamed said...

"At no point is there any debate of whether native Europeans have a right to preserve our cultures. We have already been linguistically abolished and erased from history. What remains is only the technical act of erasing us from history physically as well. Our countries no longer exist as distinct entities, they only exist as empty vessels to be filled with "human rights."

Bravo! Such a stance is genocide, whether the follower believes it or not. Mass immigration is genocide, whether human rights follow afterwards or not. Mass immigration is genocide, whether the economy goes up or down. From this one point all else flows.

Conservative Swede said...

Yes Diamed,

We all appreciate a sound mind, such as yours when you describe your ideal society, What Must Be Done: Part II:

"All women must be virgins on their wedding day. If they are not, they will be stripped and flogged."

randian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fjordman said...

Diamed: Your "program" for mass murder is virtually indistinguishable from Nazism. Didn't like them last time, see no reason to bring them back. There is a difference between being politically incorrect and being just plain evil. What you described there was evil, there is just no other word for it. You are on the wrong website and should go somewhere else, I've told you so before.

Zenster said...

Fjordman: The European political elites will increasingly be seen as collaborators and puppets for our Muslim enemies because that's how they act. They should be faced with the very real prospect of standing trial for treason some day for what they have done. Few people will have deserved it more.

Europe's traitor elite will have to consider themselves fortunate should they ever be brought up on charges of treason. The catastrophe they have knowingly precipitated will more likely find them dangling from lamp posts than squirming in a courtroom's prisoner box.

The looming "discontinuity" that El Inglés so accurately predicts grows in dimension with each passing day. Another year or two will see it become of such massive proportions that the only possible result will be a violent upheaval unlike few others in European history.

The Charnel House once again looms large on Europe's horizon. The EU's traitor elite have so empowered jihadist Muslims that their constant aggression has become nothing more than an invitation to board the cattle cars. One way or the other, genocide is coming to Europe. Of that I have little doubt.

Much as the USA is being painted into an atomic coffin corner by Islam's assymetrical—and soon to be terrorist nuclear—warfare, so are Europe's common people being left with only one option: Slaughter or be slaughtered.

Rapidly, the door is closing on any opportunity to enact more benevolent measures like deportation and reverse immigration. As these precursors of Containment fall by the wayside, only the most brutal outcomes will remain. Islam's clear preference for such horrific end-results will see it triumphant or destroyed utterly.

Thus is Western civilization given the exact same choice: Victory or total obliteration.

Diamed said...

I told you my blog was going to handle extreme topics and not play nice like we do here. It is off topic and dumb to bring threads specifically deemed too radical for gates of vienna, into gates of vienna. Nor is anything I say here discredited by what I say elsewhere. Each stands for themselves under the clear light of reason, as either demonstrably true or false on their own merit.

I happen to not like premarital sex and adultery, drinking and drugs, sodomy and STD's, illegitimate children and divorce, maybe you guys do, who knows. But I think immorality should be illegal, and moral permissiveness has poisoned the West to its now endangered state. Read some Theodore Dalrymple about how even whites are behaving in this brave new world, and you will see why laws against immorality are so sorely needed. In any event, this should not have even been brought up here and is pointless to argue here.

Conservative Swede said...

The moment Diamed started defending David Duke I knew that he was seriously mad, way beyond the point where dialog is possible. I smelled it already at that point that my previous attempts at dialog with him had been utterly wasted. And now since he has written his heart's content at length, and not only the snippets we've seen here at GoV, we can truly see what sort of person he is.

This is a theorem that never proves wrong: any supporter or apologist of David Duke always turns out to be mad. To have David Dukists among our ranks is pure poison. Unfortunately a large minority of the Swedish anti-Jihadists are supporters or apologists for David Duke. But for example Aloysius and Florestan is all fine with this, and stay close to them. Also Reinhard at FOMI seems to be fine with this. (link).

That might be a case of Swedish naivety. But we also have them here at GoV. Diamed of course. But then also Pasta and Latte Island make positive comments to a Diamed blog post (link). In spite of how Diamed had already declared his position of David Duke, and in spite of the obvious insanity between the lines of this blog post this German fellow and this New York Jew fell for it. (I wonder if the have since read Diamed's two post on "What Must Be Done" and if they have re-evaluated there views since then, Pasta e.g. thought that Diamed's post about the Jews was great.)

For perspective, some money quotes from Diamed's What Must Be Done:
"Criminals will be summarily executed. The retarded and insane will be executed."
"Any adultery will result in a public stripping, flogging, and humiliation on the first offense. On the second they will be exiled or executed."
"Gays will be exiled or executed."

The step to Islam is very small. In fact White Nationalists/Racists/Supremacists often end up in the lap of the Muslims. David Duke most certainly does (as the MEMRI clips I showed here displays) as well as in the lap of Ken Livingstone and Cindy Sheehan. And then we have the ones that take the full step and say that Islam is the best way for the white race to breed and survive and rule the world (link). The Nazis actually had stronger inclinations in this directions.

David Duke and his supporters DEMONIZE the Jews. Describe them as evil supremacists and racists as in "Jewish supremacists who believe in the genetic superiority of the Jewish people". Huh? Watch this where Brigitte Gabriel describes her first encounter with Israel. This is the true picture.

However, in spite of the many qualities of the Jews I have decided that there is reason, as for any other ethnic group, to CRITICIZE them when criticism is due. For this I get anti-Semite card pulled against me. So I get this in one ear, while I get to hear from Diamed and Aloysius in the other ear what a stone deaf and inquisitional sort of anti-anti-Semite that I am. All in all this proves to me how utterly stupid 99.9999% of the people truly are, and makes me be fed up with this whole sh*t.

I have realized that we have come to a point in our movement where we would have to explain in a very slow and pedagogical way why David Duke is pure poison. This is not general knowledge among our ranks today! Having to explain that is utterly degrading and embarrassing. It's like having to explain to grown-up people why they need to wipe their a**es. Having to explain over and over why excrements are dirty and harm us. It's truly embarrassing and degrading to have to do this, and our adversaries will be having a field day, but the job has to be done!

The difference between demonizing a group and to criticize them, is like day and night. But 99.9999% of the people cannot at all see this difference when it comes to the Jews (humans are extremely stupid). I would refer to myself as a "Jew realist", paraphrasing the concept "race realist". But there is no place for us in this society, so I withdraw. Dialog is not possible with humans, or it's so utterly slow that they will already be engaged in a war before you'd get to the point. I'm wasting my time.

Zenster said...

Diamed: I think immorality should be illegal ...

In a nutshell (so to speak) lies the essence of why your reasoning is so irrational. Aside from the Social Contract's most basic tenets, by and large morality cannot be legislated.

Centuries of Blue Laws stand as proof of this. Even dismissing those social constraints as outmoded Christian fundamentalism, an even more maleficent and obvious example stands before us:

SHARI'A LAW

If ever there has been a comprehensive attempt to legislate morality, shari'a is it.

"All women must be virgins on their wedding day. If they are not, they will be stripped and flogged."

Diamed: I happen to not like premarital sex and adultery, drinking and drugs, sodomy and STD's, illegitimate children and divorce ...

Without a trace of irony, I'll ask that readers please note the glaring similarities between Diamed's own edicts and those of shari'a.

Certain stripes of intolerance seem to share branch and root. I'll leave it at that.

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede: The step to Islam is very small.

Credit given where credit is due, Con Swede. You nailed Diamed on this before I did.

KGS said...

Conservative Swede does us all a favor by listing the odious statements by Diamed.

I have locked horns with him on a few occasions, and came away with the opinion that the man was beyond all hope and reach.

Now I find out (thanks to CS) that he is into the final solution for everyone not like himself. People like Diamed are the mirror image of the very people we are up against.

The counter jihad is fighting on two different fronts against two enemies who are not alligned but surely resemble the each other. Diamed is proof of that.

Joanne said...

"But I think immorality should be illegal, and moral permissiveness has poisoned the West to its now endangered state." by diamed

There was a time when immorality was illegal, and some of the laws are most likely still on the books, but are not enforced. There was a time when Christian countries did follow the laws of God and people were punished to some degree. Let's remember abortion came about on the premise that unmarried women who found themselves to be pregnant were so distraught that they were unmarrried and pregnant and would be bringing forth an illegitimate child that abortion became an option for these women who would have rather chosen to use a coat hanger than face the societal ramifications of the times. Societal norms usually are a good tool of governing immortality, but when societal norms no longer live up to Christian standards, society takes a moral nose dive and immorality prevails. When morality is legislated through laws, there may be little mercy, compassion, and forgiveness to those who are found guilty; therefore; a moral society that places pressures on individuals to behave morally usually is a kinder alternative, but as we can see today, going soft has its ramifications.

I do not know much about diamed and exactly where he/she stands but one thing is for sure, there will be no immorality in the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

Fjordman said...

Conservative Swede is right on this, as he often is. One should be allowed to criticize clueless liberal Jews - and there are quite a few ultra-liberal Jews - just as one should be allowed to criticize clueless, suicidal Christians. This is not anti-Semitism. But anti-Semitism does exist. Hardcore anti-Semitism should disqualify people not only because it is morally repugnant, which it is, but because hardcore anti-Semites almost always display very poor judgment on other issues as well. Diamed is a textbook case of this.

The irony is that, unlike what the LGF idiots seem to believe, real Fascists and crypto-Nazis are often quite upfront about their intentions and ideas. I will give Diamed credit for honesty, if nothing else.

Conservative Swede said...

KGS,

Now I find out (thanks to CS) that he is into the final solution for everyone not like himself.

Well, not exactly. He clearly states that insane people will be executed. Too bad for him.

pasta said...

As this seems to turn into a tribunal about Diamed, I feel obliged to weigh in: I have read a large number of very good, at times excellent, comments from Diamed on this blog. I want to read more of them and would regret if the thought police had its way and froze him out. And his controversial post should be discussed where it was published: on Diamed's blog.

The thought police will now prey on me, but their opinion means nothing to me.

Limpet said...

Fjordman: One should be allowed to criticize clueless liberal Jews - and there are quite a few ultra-liberal Jews - just as one should be allowed to criticize clueless, suicidal Christians.

That is not an honest statement. It ignores the fact that Jews are largely responsible for the mass immigration policy in several European countries, in the same way that Blacks are largely responsible for the high murder rate in many cities. Is it anti-blackism to say so? Is it all right to be anti-blackist?

Hardcore anti-Semitism should disqualify people not only because it is morally repugnant

Basically, what Diamed says in his blog is that Jews have always created problems in European societies. This is true. Why is it unacceptable to say so, and why is it all right to complain endlessly about crime committed by muslim and African immigrants? Why the hypocritical double standards?

Conservative Swede said...

Pasta,

What I have written is not a tribunal about Diamed. The point is in describing a situation our movement happen to currently be in. We truly have a problem with a substantial minority who are absolutely devoid of the ability to see the problem with David Duke (and you are part of that problem).

Am I a thought police if I say that 1+1 isn't 3? Am I a thought police if I denounce cannibalism? There's always someone who will call it being a thought police. Morality simply isn't possible without someone crying "thought police" (possibly from someone who, ironically enough, calls for executing inferior people...)

1+1 isn't 3. Being so bent out of shape in demonization of the Jews that you side with the Muslims and leftists against Israel, simply does not add up to participation in this movement.

Fjordman said...

Limpet: Wow, another one. Do you guys come off an assembly line or something? You sound like clones. Jews are responsible for the mass immigration of Muslims to Europe. Who could have guessed? It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the EU has aligned itself with the Arab world, in part to discredit the Jewish state of Israel.

Bloody morons.

pasta said...

@ConservativeSwede:

I don't see a movement, I see only individuals stating their opinions on various blogs. While Diamed is considerate to take everything that might compromise this blog to his own blog instead, you are dragging it into this blog for the sole purpose of discrediting him and Fjordman wants to freeze him out. We don't need a thought police, we get by very well without one.

If this was a political party and Diamed were a candidate for an important position, this would be another matter. However, this is not the case. And what I find interesting, is that in my country, the ones out of the anti-immigration movement who managed to get a party organized and make it on almost every ballot, are the anti-semites. The anti-anti-semites are talking a lot, but at the end of the day their obsession about distancing themselves from everyone and everything is so destructive that they haven't achieve anything whatsoever yet.

Conservative Swede said...

Fjordman,

One should be allowed to criticize clueless liberal Jews - and there are quite a few ultra-liberal Jews - just as one should be allowed to criticize clueless, suicidal Christians. This is not anti-Semitism.

Well, I actually go further than that. I'm forward enough to criticize Jews as a group, as an ethnic group. I claim that like all other ethnic groups they have a nature, and that each individual tends to act according to that, which makes the group as a a whole go in a certain direction, sure as clockwork.

I do criticize the large influx of Mexicans into America. Part of the description of the problem of that situation is in the nature of the Mexicans, and how it turns out in the context of the United States, together with specifics of the situation.

This doesn't make me anti-Mexican. I'm not at all anti-Mexican! It's all about seeing things as they really are. And to be able to keep two thoughts in your mind at the same time.

We speak on a daily basis of different ethnic groups and criticize them as groups here in this forum. About Russians, Gypsies, Swedes, Blacks, Americans, Chinese, etc., etc. But this much I'll give Limpet (in spite of totally disagreeing with his characterization of Diamed's writing): there is a double standard regarding the Jews. It is utterly impossible in our society to criticize Jews as a group.

There are two sorts of black whole into which this issue will drown. Either into the black hole of Jew demonization. Or into the black hole of fear of Jew demonization, which considers any criticism of Jews as a group as illegitimate a priori. Both of these black holes have such enormous gravity that any attempt to shed light upon the issue always gets sucked up in these two black holes, continuing to leave the issue in darkness. But these black holes are also notable for how they both treat Jews as a special group which needs a special treatment. My position of how Jews are nothing but another ethnic group, and nothing special about them, becomes impossible in this society,and becomes sucked up into the darkness created by this pair of black holes.

Something about the nature of Jews. Internationalism is at the core of that nature, and becomes re-generated in many different forms. Two sources for this internationalism, which goes deep into their identity in spite of other affiliations: i) how their cultural identity has been formatted during two millenia without a homeland, ii) how they are culturally trained towards transcendent loyalty.

I also have the impression that Jews have less of self-critical distance than other ethnic groups in general. We never see Jew criticize the impact of their own group in another country, like we e.g. have seen Romanians criticize the impact of Romanians upon Italy. Or how we see Swedes and others being strongly self-critical of their group.We have of course the cases of Jews who flip completely to the other side and go and shake hands with Ahmadinejad. But balanced self-criticism? There is only Lawrence Auster. One guy. And he's pretty unique in all sorts of ways.

Conservative Swede said...

Pasta,

And what I find interesting, is that in my country, the ones out of the anti-immigration movement who managed to get a party organized and make it on almost every ballot, are the anti-semites. The anti-anti-semites are talking a lot...

Well, that's true for Germany. But your country is in a particularly sorry state (I'll get back to that). In the rest of Europe it's the pro-Sionists that have gotten their act together: the Danish People's Party, Berlusconi, Vlaams Belang, etc., etc.

The three most hated groups in Europe are Russians, Jews and Germans. But while the Russians and the Jews have no problem in acting with self-confidence and arrogance, the Germans are so completely pushed down that we do not even hear a squeak of self-confidence from them. We have recently seen a lot of intense and deranged hatred directed at Russians. We do not see that much of anti-German expressions. The reason is that it is so absolutely institutionalized that it needn't be invoked. Jews are not the group met with the most maddened hatred. The Germans are,

And this is the background for the sorry state that your country is in. Not at all your fault. But then again, don't make your country, at this point, the model for what works in European countries. Of course the goal of this movement (or network or whatever term you prefer) is to change this!

Conservative Swede said...

The three most hated groups in Europe are Russians, Jews and Germans.

I forgot the mention the Serbs here. A very ugly example of bullying against a small defenseless people. They are prefect victims since they are: i) white, while ii) still being so culturally different from us as possible. We always like to hate what is different, but we are not allowed to hate anything non-white. By simple deduction from this, the perfect match are the Serbs. Also, as any schoolyard bully knows intuitively, you find someone weak enough to bully around. Russia is too big and powerful, Serbia is perfect.

The Serbs do not deserve any of this. They fought the Nazis spontaneously in WWII. Half a million of them were killed in concentration camps in WWII (But what does a little holocaust matter, we hate the Serbs! Don't confuse us with facts, hate hate hate!). And during the era of Communism they had the most benevolent form of Communism (as far as it was practically possible).

But the ruling elites of our time have no scruples in sacrificing a small innocent people at their ideological altar, and crush them as an insect.

Armance said...

I used to think that David Duke was a real American patriot, until I saw images from his visit in Syria. I saw him in front of crowds of enraged Muslims - they were shouting together slogans against the state of Israel. He was interviewed by the Syrian television and he was sucking up to the Muslims in an embarassing way. to the point that he said how much he admired Ken Livingstone.

David Duke ends up in the same way as many liberal Jews, especially from the media and the academic field: bootlicking the Muslims. This is a clear symptom of an ideological enemy. Because no matter how much one is ostracized for his opinions in his own country, if he decides to side with the people who shout every day "Death to America!" it's a proof that he is a traitor at his heart. (The same about the liberal Jews, of course.)

Limpet said...

Armance: "to the point that he said how much he admired Ken Livingstone"

So, tell us who is worse -- David Duke or Ken Livingstone?

Conservative Swede said...

I wrote earlier today:
In fact White Nationalists/Racists/Supremacists often end up in the lap of the Muslims.

While I'm at it, let me clarify my position about this thing too. We had a guy commenting in this forum who said that speaking of European culture or of White Race is not so different, since it very much denotes the same group of people. And while this is true, something happens to our minds the moment we identify as White Race rather than for our culture/ethnicity. E.g. as mentioned before, it becomes thinkable to adapt Islam as a way of promoting our genes. Something that is utterly unthinkable and opposed to the identity of European culture/ethnicity. White Nationalism is a post-modern concept, coined in the cultural/ethical confusion of the United States. Nothing like White Nationalism ever existed traditionally, it's just another ideologized concept.

On the other hand I have had many "brawls" with people in this forum, who jumped into the other extreme position: culturalism. E.g. with ZionistYoungster and that guy who wrote a book called "Culturalism". Ripping out race/genes totally from our identity is equally wrong (and equally vulnerable to make us end up under Sharia).

This is why I always speak of ethnicity. This nice hodgepodge concept which includes culture and race/genes as well as a common history which is intertwined into a common identity. A higher order family. And the frontiers of a family is never water-tight, but strong enough to keep it together. Being European is a higher order ethnicity, and our most important common denominator there is our Roman heritage.

So yes, speaking of us as people of white race or people of European culture pretty much denotes the same group of people. This is why I find reason to keep a dialog with white nationalists. Many of them are in that camp simply because they haven't been presented with another alternative. Some of them (maybe even the majority) are beyond reach, but enough of them can be reached to make a dialog worthwhile.

But we should pay attention to how different it is how we describe ourselves even if the descriptions denote the same extension. Women can be referred to as "ladies" or "boytoys". Both refers to the same extension, but there is still a world between the two.

Conservative Swede said...

Limpet,

So, tell us who is worse -- David Duke or Ken Livingstone?

David Duke. What's your take?

Conservative Swede said...

Armance,

I used to think that David Duke was a real American patriot, until I saw images from his visit in Syria.

For me it was enough to read him for ten minutes to conclude that. I'm still baffled, and utterly demoralized, by how most people don't see that by just reading him for ten minutes.

I saw him in front of crowds of enraged Muslims - they were shouting together slogans against the state of Israel. He was interviewed by the Syrian television and he was sucking up to the Muslims in an embarassing way. to the point that he said how much he admired Ken Livingstone.

Here are the two clips showing that.

if he decides to side with the people who shout every day "Death to America!" it's a proof that he is a traitor at his heart. (The same about the liberal Jews, of course.)

David Duke is the simplistic mirror image, the primitive reverse of the position of the liberal Jews. They are anti-white, so he is anti-Jewish, and they both ally with the Muslims to fight each other. Pathetic.

The primitive reverse is never a wise way to react. The society we live in today is the primitive reverse of Nazism. And look where it has taken us. It's an utterly adolescent sort of reaction, and a recipe for doom.

Limpet said...

What's your take?

In the past few months, I have been listening to MP3 files of David Duke, and I have learned a few things. But I don't know much about Ken, except that he is supposed to be over the top. Does he record speeches in MP3 format?

Conservative Swede said...

Limpet,

In the past few months, I have been listening to MP3 files of David Duke, and I have learned a few things.

Read an MSM newspaper and you learn things. But the point is in how the fact tidbits are chained together, in order to paint a propagandistic image. And whether that one is dishonest or worse.

Conservative Swede said...

Btw, I still don't get what is wrong with bringing up what Diamed writes at his blog.

If Noam Chomsky would turn up at this blog, would it be off limits to mention his other writings in a discussion here?

Strange...

El said...

i always wondered about diamed. couldn't quite figure out where he was coming from. now i know. conswede, your comment on his blog was hilarious.

i'd rather live in pakistan than in his ideal country. as an atheist.

el ingles

Conservative Swede said...

El Ingles,

i'd rather live in pakistan than in his ideal country.

What makes you sure that you would live? Have you never deflowered a virgin?

By the way, there is something intriguingly campish with this sort of iron maidenish strict morality regimes. How the young girls, not virgins at marriage, must be stripped before the flogging, Rather kinky. Reminds me of Islam.

Still, unlike you I'd rather take Diamed's bad Islam clone than Islam itself. I put some hope in how insane people will be executed, so he might not find the time to enact all of his ideas.

El said...

yes, you're right. i'm surprised he doesn't recommend they be stripped, covered in custard and THEN flogged. that might get even me on board.

Conservative Swede said...

El Ingles,

yes, you're right. i'm surprised he doesn't recommend they be stripped, covered in custard and THEN flogged. that might get even me on board.

:-)

I fear that by this you just passed that fine line in Diamedland, and that you are now enlisted for execution.

laine said...

What a minefield this is. And anyone who ventures into it is bound to lose an arm or a leg, including me.

A society that takes the measures quoted here as Diamed's recommendations is indistinguishable from the ones we have gathered here to oppose so we would be no further ahead, like one of those horror movies where in a twist ending, the enemy turns out to be ourselves.

The Jewish question is a troublesome one. Within living memory they had a terrible thing happen to them, so they have been given a by for some decades for their actions both before and after the Holocaust. They are no more selfless or demonic than any other identifiable culture. People err in both directions, refusing to believe anything negative about their behavior or in other cases anything positive.

In polite western circles, at least until recently, no observation has been allowed that the interests of Jews and non-Jewish European peoples do not always coincide.

Over the centuries Jews have sought ways to preserve themselves and their culture and they have been very successful considering that much of that time they did not have the advantage of a geographic "hang-out". Their success has sometimes been costly for non-Jews.

For example, Jews both invented communism and were prominent in its spread in the Soviet Union. It was a system they thought for some time would be advantageous to them until they fell out of favor with their replacements in the Kremlin. Even so, out of all the captive peoples, they alone were allowed to emigrate to Israel in large numbers. Were they more deserving than anyone else, who proportionally had also suffered national holocausts at the hands of the communists? Jews have never been criticized for their role in communism in the same way as the the perpetrators of Nazism. Lazar Kaganovich was Stalin's henchman and as such oversaw the genocide of millions and imprisonment of tens of millions. Rather than being hounded for his crimes, he died peacefully of old age in Moscow on a generous state pension. This one way condemnation for crimes against humanity is what gets some people's goat who are not antisemitic, but who believe Jews are not above judgment or reproach.

As for immigration, I'm more familiar with the North American situation but perhaps the same processes went on in Europe. A case can be made that Jews were influential in opening up what up to then had been the predominantly white and Christian United States to third world immigration in the 60's and promoting multiculturalism. Americans never got to vote on this radical idea that came out of left field so to speak. Study the documents of the day, the movers and shakers in and behind the Democrats.

Not all, but some Jews reasoned that they would be safer as a group if no one group, especially a white Christian group as in Germany was ever in a position of dominance over them again. Balkanizing countries with European culture was a pre-emptive defensive strategy. Jews were confident that among competing groups, they were capable of rising to the top, as historic experience had proven time and time again. If white Christians were harmed in this experiment, well, they were not the Jews' responsibility, and among some Jews there was possibly lingering bitterness over the fact that the United States did not open her gates to their families fleeing Europe during WWII.

In Canada, Pierre Trudeau is popularly "credited" with the sudden flood of third world immigration there. He was certainly marxist in his youth and an open admirer of Castro to his death. It is safe to say that his influencers would have come from the left where the majority of Canadian Jews like the American are still found. On the other hand, there's the theory that Trudeau sought to preserve the French fact in Canada by inundating English Canada with immigration and multicult (Quebec alone has the right to refuse immigrants).

One does not have to be crazy or hate filled toward Jews to believe that they set some things in motion which are now biting us all in the ass including themselves.

There has been some mention here of the misleadingly named Canadian Human Rights Commissions that trample free speech rights. They were promoted every step of the way by Jews who saw them as a way to stamp out every last vestige of nazism in Canada (a country that like the United States lost millions of their finest fighting the Nazis so not exactly a hotbed for recruitment).

Interestingly, the leader of the opposition to these kangaroo courts is a Jewish conservative named Ezra Levant. (As I cautioned above by using the word "some", Jews are not monolithic in their views, never so apparent as in Israel itself).

Mark Steyn has pointed out that Canadian Jewish organizations have recreated the Weimar Germany situation where laws against free speech that were made to protect them were eventually used by their enemies against them. Now in Canada for the first time censorship machinery still defended by what Mr. Levant calls the "official Jews" is being used by Muslims to suppress any criticism of Islam. They have instituted multiple complaints against both the news magazine that published an excerpt from Mr. Steyn's book "America Alone" and Mr. Levant for publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons. He is exasperated that the "official Jews" do not recognize the new danger and the weapon they have given it.

As the Nobel Prize list and many other indicators show, Jews are among the most intelligent and educated cultures on the planet, but they are not infallible. Their interests and those of white European stock are not identical. Hopefully our society has developed and matured to the point where we can discuss these matters reasonably.

Like most cultures, (suicidal contemporary white culture excepted), Jews seek their own advantage. This is healthy and normal. What is not healthy and normal is blaming them for all the world's ills or conversely absolving them of all responsibility for the actions they take as a group. Many if not most peoples have suffered their own national holocausts and/or oppression, and no one deserves eternal immunity from analysis and considered judgment. This applies to blacks, natives, feminists and other groups who hang on to their victim designation long past its expiry date.

Everyone and every group is free to pursue their own interests but we should be free to comment on it as well.

P.C. was expressly designed to elevate everyone else at the expense of European Christian white culture and in the long run, P.C. damages even the victim groups it supposedly benefits, so it's just another all round bad idea hatched by the Left. Let's discard it and talk freely while retaining our humanity for without that, we have no culture worth preserving.

(I've taken so long to write this that there are over twenty new comments meanwhile so I apologize if I'm duplicating or not relevant to the immediate discussion)

Conservative Swede said...

Thanks Laine!

I feel like Robinson Crusoe who's just met Friday. Welcome to my dimension!

There's nothing demonizing about Jews in what you wrote. Only a person driven by hate would claim so.

Then we might agree to disagree about some things. And some things I simply do not know enough about.

E.g. I would put a lot of more stress on how the American whites did all the groundwork for the multicultural nightmare of their own making (starting with the civil war). The Jews were late comers in this (but of course the '60s was also the very worst period in terms of destruction.)

The were early however in Communism. It can be argued whether they "invented" Communism however. They didn't invent Socialism, but possibly the invention of Communism should be attributed to them.

PS. Are you Canadian?

laine said...

Born in Europe, grew up in Canada, very familiar with USA and think it's the best of a bad lot.

Too independent to be Friday but I know what you mean.

The thought occurred to me that those who reason "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" will all end up in the Islamists' lap who hate everybody and are half of every significant conflict in the world except the Russia-Georgia match.

Is it too much to ask for the realism of "the enemy of my enemy may well turn on me when he's dealt with our mutual foe?"

Those who think they can use Islamists as a battering ram to break down their opposition and then just retire them to the closet are sadly mistaken.

Can anyone explain to me why Putin is not totally reviled by the Muslim world for ordering Chechnya's destruction merely as a springboard to votes and power by appealing to Russian racism? Why would there be any Chechens as reported among the Russian troops that occupied Georgia doing any dirty work for the little KGB czar who reduced their homeland to rubble?

latté island said...

Conservative Swede wrote: But then also Pasta and Latte Island make positive comments to a Diamed blog post (link). In spite of how Diamed had already declared his position of David Duke, and in spite of the obvious insanity between the lines of this blog post this German fellow and this New York Jew fell for it.

CS, I want to put my comment at Diamed's blog in context. His post on Jews, etc., was partly in response to my request here that he clarify his position. When I read the post, I was somewhat put off at the seriousness of his anti-semitism, as I enjoy and agree with many of his comments at GoV.

But, since I'm the one who asked him to go into more detail about the Jewish question, I didn't feel it was completely okay to either ignore his essay or make him wrong for writing it. My comment was not praise for the content of the essay, but only praise for his courage in stating his opinions honestly when asked.

Also, it's a small victory when people as different as Diamed and me can have a civilised exchange. Like you, I don't want a society based on executions of practically everyone I know, and I didn't comment on that post, and I thought your comment was all that needed to be said.

However, I want to publicly thank Diamed for his good manners in answering my question honestly without getting nasty and personal, like Tanstaafl, for instance. To me, a polite, classy anti-semite like Diamed is different from a creep like Tanstaafl.

Now, on the question of David Duke, yeah, he's awful and crazy, but unfortunately, some people I respect, including the Uhuru Guru of South Africa S***s, like David Duke. Am I to write off everyone who likes David Duke, even if some of those people are brave and honest about some other important issues?

My policy is to note my reservations but keep the lines of communication open, as long as the other person is polite and has something of value to say on other subjects.

Also, as the Jewish race realist Nicholas Stix mentioned at the end of his cordial interview with an American Nazi, we have guns now. So why not talk to anyone we find interesting.

Conservative Swede said...

Latte,

However, I want to publicly thank Diamed for his good manners in answering my question honestly without getting nasty and personal, like Tanstaafl, for instance. To me, a polite, classy anti-semite like Diamed is different from a creep like Tanstaafl.

OK, good point. We should give credit where credit is due. You should have credit too. I think you are pretty unique.

Am I to write off everyone who likes David Duke, even if some of those people are brave and honest about some other important issues?

David Duke followers are useless at best, and poisonous at worst. Do whatever you want about it, but do not ignore these facts.

So why not talk to anyone we find interesting.

OK, so if you find David Dukism interesting... what can I say? The sheer stupidity of it makes me freak out. I find all stupidity annoying, but when it reaches this sort of level I feel it as an insult against the whole human race.

latté island said...

OK, so if you find David Dukism interesting... what can I say?

No, I don't find David Dukism interesting. But some people I've learned a lot from take Duke seriously, so I just tolerate it as the price of what I do find interesting.

Felicie said...

Conservative Swede: "Something about the nature of Jews. Internationalism is at the core of that nature, and becomes re-generated in many different forms. Two sources for this internationalism, which goes deep into their identity in spite of other affiliations: i) how their cultural identity has been formatted during two millenia without a homeland, ii) how they are culturally trained towards transcendent loyalty."

You might find it interesting to read some older books on Zionism, where this question is raised. I can't give any specific recommendations, since the ones I read were from the library, being out of print. But before the PC era, the question of "what's wrong with the Jews" was discussed widely and honestly by Jewish writers. One point that was driven home was that for 2000 years Jews did not, on the whole, cultivate land. They were engaged in a very specific subset of professions that, in Marxist terms, had to do with the superstructure rather than the basis. This was not normal, and it was not a healthy thing for a nation's psyche. Zionists considered the Jews a sick people that could only be "cured" if they take possession of their own land and create a harmonious, professionally diversified and self-sufficient society. I think that there is a lot of truth to this assessment.

"I also have the impression that Jews have less of self-critical distance than other ethnic groups in general. We never see Jew criticize the impact of their own group in another country, like we e.g. have seen Romanians criticize the impact of Romanians upon Italy. Or how we see Swedes and others being strongly self-critical of their group."

Your point is well taken. However, I just want to point out that it is easier and more natural to be self-critical from the security of one's position as the ethnic "owner" of one's nation state than that a perpetual unwelcome guest in a host country, always put on the defensive. These are two very different points of view. From what I know about Israel, they, as a society, have a healthy dose of self-criticism. They are not as sensitive as the diaspora Jews, who should relax a bit. At the same time, if Swedes ever become a minority in their own country (God forbid!), they too will become more sensitive and less capable of self-criticism.

Felicie said...

laine: "Even so, out of all the captive peoples, they alone were allowed to emigrate to Israel in large numbers."

I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that other people should have been allowed to emigrate to Israel? Who? Russians? Latvians? Or are you saying that only Jews were allowed to go back to their country? It's not true. Crimean Tartars were allowed to re-patriate to Crimea. Ethnic Germans have re-patriated to Germany. Ethnic Greeks - to Greece. I know an ethnic Swede from Russia who was allowed to re-patriate to Sweden on the basis of her ethnicity. Were there any other captive people that were not allowed to immigrate to their native lands?

Fjordman said...

LI: People who take Duke seriously suffer from such a poor lack of judgment that they need to be kept far away from any position of influence.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

The primitive reverse is never a wise way to react. The society we live in today is the primitive reverse of Nazism. And look where it has taken us. It's an utterly adolescent sort of reaction, and a recipe for doom.

You get that a lot in South America when they compare themselves to the North. It's fascinating, especially Argentina - which felt "American" hen I was there. Both are colonial countries, both have a large space, a certain amount of ethnic and cultural diversity and a unifying thing, for want of a better word, but one is a basket case and the other is the United States. The anti-americanism I experienced in south america was fascinating in its way, and often completely irrational, and I suspect it might be partly due to to this primitive reverse idea. "They're like that so we'll be the exact opposite and nyuuh!".

Ok so the Monroe doctrine might have played a part, but the sheer hate that drives people to deliberately choose whatever is the opposite of the US... hmm, actually I'm not sure this has much to do with the topic now.

Conservative Swede said...

Thanks Felicie. Great comment! (I'll comment more this evening.)

Conservative Swede said...

Well, I should thank several commenters here. As you saw in my first longer comment here, I was seriously fed up with it all. After enough of having anti-Semite shouted into one ear, and whatever its primitive reverse is, shouted into the other, from each of the black hole camps, it made me go mad over the whole situation. And at least verbally I even denounced all of humanity.

But what better place is there to regain confidence in humanity than here at Gates of Vienna. After having been alienated by too much crazy Russia hatred and Jew hatred, Laine and Felicie and others now made me recognize good old Gates of Vienna again. Such warmth. Like a home.

Top quality!

And Felicie. I must say that it makes me a bit proud that I made the same point about Jews as these prominent Zionists, but wholly independent of them. People who discuss with me IRL say that I'm the strongest Zionist they ever met. This always left me a bit confused since I never seen myself as coming from Zionism, but from common sense. But I realize after this comment of your that I might actuallty be a deeper Zionist than most people who are around today.

Independent thinking takes you to interesting places. And I must read some of the books you mention. Give me a name or two, even if the books are not sold any more.

PS. Your comment, Felicie, also makes me having to revise my impression of the degree to which Jews have a self-critical distance (for several reasons).

Conservative Swede said...

Latte Island,

But some people I've learned a lot from take Duke seriously, so I just tolerate it as the price of what I do find interesting.

I'm with Fjordman on this. The sheer lack of judgment... I'm prepared to go longer with people who are followers of Adolf Hitlerism. Hitler is a ray of enlightenment and balanced sanity compared to Duke. But then again, my life is too short to spend time in taking them seriously. While I do consider it essential to keep open lines in all directions, there are surely limits.

pasta said...

@Conservative Swede

"Btw, I still don't get what is wrong with bringing up what Diamed writes at his blog."

Criticizing people is fine. Using one disagreeable opinion of them for discrediting everything else they ever said, is the same as "argumentum ad hitlerum" and wanting to freeze them out for it from the comment section of a blog, as Fjordman does, is thought policing, and wrong. It's the very thing that brought about the disaster we have now.

I stand by my statement that Diamed wrote many very good, at times excellent, comments on GoV which I do not want to do without.

Also, once thought policing becomes acceptable, you are on a slippery slope to become like LGF. Have you checked everything that every commenter on GoV ever wrote on his own blog? Should everybody who ever praised any of Diamed's comments, be frozen out, too? Where do you set the limit?

"In the rest of Europe it's the pro-Sionists that have gotten their act together: the Danish People's Party, Berlusconi, Vlaams Belang, etc., etc."

In France and until not so long ago in the UK, too, it's the anti-semites who got their acts together.

"Of course the goal of this movement (or network or whatever term you prefer)..."

To me a movement is constituted by several people acting together and presenting themselves to the public as one common force. I don't see that just commenting on a blog makes one part of a movement. Instead, the comment section of a sane blog (unlike LGF) is more like "public space" where, as far as this is practically feasible (excl. insults, threats etc.), any opinion can be aired. We already had commenters here who defended Islam, does that make GoV endorse Islam? Everybody knows that only the actual blog posts represent GoV's stance and only its blog roll represents the network GoV is part of.

latté island said...

I don't want to excommunicate anyone, as long as they're civil here, not necessarily elsewhere. I owe some of my own personal growth to internet anti-semites, including followers of David Duke. I had to notice that their anger toward Jews was similar to my anger at blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, even though they deliberately overstated their case and got their facts wrong. Many of them know this but don't care, because they're hypocrites. But in other ways they were like me, so I listened. This is how I learned to detach myself from seeing Jews as right all the time. Reading Auster also helped. Now I have a more realistic view of Jews, and am more self-confident about my right to freedom of association. Without intelligent anti-semites, I'd still be stuck in LGF land.

Felicie said...

Conservative Swede, thank you for your kind comment. I am also very glad that we, the commenters on Gates of Vienna, are, for the most part, a collection of sane and reasonable individuals who are genuinly interested in having a dialogue and are capable of keeping the lines of communication open and having productive discussions.

One book that discusses the issue of what it means to be a nation and what distorts the Jewish psyche is, if I am not mistaken, Joseph Heller's "The Zionist Idea." If I am not confusing this book with something else, this is the one that I recommend as an introduction. It's short and succinct - an overview both of the Zionist ideas and history of the movement. It was published in 1949 but written before Israel was created, I think. One could also go back to the early zionist writers for a less sugar-coated view of the Jews and the Jewish predicament, such as Moses Hess, Leon Pinsker, Theodore Hertzl. There are some histories of Zionism, written by Arthur Hertzberg, David Vital, and Walter Laqueur between the 50-ies and the 70-ies, i.e. before the era of the liberal historical revisionism of the "new historians." They are good histories, in terms of giving a full account of people and events, of what took place before what, but I don't remember whether they go so deeply into the philosophical questions of what constitutes a nationality and how the Jews themselves perceive "the Jewish problem."

Felicie said...

latte island, I know what you mean.

Conservative Swede said...

Well gee, kumba-YA fellows...

I just cannot stand having any sort of black holes around in a discussion. It messes things up and spreads darkness, gives me a very annoying headache and is an utter waste of time. What constitutes a good discussion cannot be defined in terms of formalities, it's all about its essence! And my life is too short to spend any time with people who suck the energy out of a discussion instead of contributing to it.

And there much more to it than that. It's about being able to identify a traitor when you see one. Hitler was not a traitor, but David Duke is definitely one, with a deeply traitorous nature. And I consider already Hitler as off limits. Why the heck should I pay any attention at all to David Duke lunatics?

PS. Felicie, thanks a lot for the book tips!

PPS. Latte, Consider the problematic syndrome of being so open-minded that your brain falls out.

Joanne said...

The Jews of today are not a race; they are a religion. Some people of Jewish racial descent can be referred to as Jews because they are of the Tribe of Judah. Many Christians can be called Jews because they are from the racial Tribe of Judah. Semites is a word used for those who are descended from Shem - all twelve tribes of Israel descended from Shem, but only those from the Tribe of Judah are referred to as Jews and those of the Kingdom of Judah - Judah and Benjamin.

It is unfortunate, people do not know of who they speak. Where do people think all those of the 12 tribes of Israel, including Judah, are today? ....only in the country named Israel today? The Bible, old and new Testaments, is a book filled with history and genealogical information of the 12 Tribes of Israel.

Conservative Swede said...

The edge seems to have left this thread and all the focus is on the El Ingles thread.

I went back to read Laine's and Felicie's comments again. Truly lovely. I think I will print them and put on the wall. In my view you passed the true test of humanity. Maybe one day we will all be alive again.

Limpet said...

I'd like to correct something. ConSwede wrote that "David Duke and his supporters DEMONIZE the Jews. Describe them as evil supremacists and racists (...) who believe in the genetic superiority of the Jewish people".

1 - ConSwede and Jewish clubs like MEMRI demonize David Duke. They describe him and other anti-immigration activists as evil "white supremacists" because they want the white race to survive.

2 - Jewish supremacism does exist and David Duke's indignation is justified. His work is very useful to help brainwashed people understand the problem. I've heard him on his internet radio and what I noticed was his common sense.

3 - Conswede's description is an inversion of the facts.

Conswede also wrote that "David Duke is the simplistic mirror image, the primitive reverse of the position of the liberal Jews. They are anti-white, so he is anti-Jewish, and they both ally with the Muslims to fight each other."

In fact, David Duke does everything he can to stop immigration, including muslim immigration, while Jewish organizations support mass immigration, including muslim immigration. So, if there is an alliance, it is between Jews and Muslims against the whites.

Laine wrote: "Not all, but some Jews reasoned that they would be safer as a group if no one group, especially a white Christian group as in Germany was ever in a position of dominance over them again."

What motivates them is hate of Europeans, not the need to defend their interests, and their fanaticism is destroying the future of their own children as well as ours's. We get the same kind of behavior from black American organizations. They will support mass immigration from Mexico as a way to hurt white society. They don't care that black Americans are among the first victims of this crazy policy.

--
On a lighter note: Like the muslims, Diamed believes in preserving the virginity of women until they marry. In my ideal world, I would not pay too much attention to that. But what I would really like to borrow from muslim civilization is the harem. I'd love to have one, just for myself, like an Arab oligarch. (It must be the muslim in me.)

Conservative Swede said...

Limpet,

I guess you could say too that the MSM demonizes the Muslims... or has it something to do with how the Muslims actually act themselves?

If you fail to see how David Duke completely discredits himself by his own way of acting, then there's nothing I could do to help you. You are bent out of shape by your hatred for Jews (wherever you got that from), and beyond reach.

Obviously there are people in this thread that it's extremely important to have a dialog with people like you. I fail to see why, or how dialog is even possible. These people are left being mysteries to me, quite like yourself.

But what I would really like to borrow from muslim civilization is the harem. I'd love to have one, just for myself, like an Arab oligarch.

When I read these kind of things from people like you and Diamed, I sometimes wonder whether it's a joke or a sick fantasy in all seriousness. But given your personality there's no way to tell.

Limpet said...

"I guess you could say too that the MSM demonizes the Muslims..."

No, you could not.

"If you fail to see how David Duke completely discredits himself by his own way of acting, then there's nothing I could do to help you."

Actually, there is something you can do. You could try to say briefly, in one or two brief sentences, what is your problem with him. You talk too much and don't give any argument or explanation.

Conservative Swede said...

Demonizing Jews (maddened hatred of them). Siding with Muslims. Praising Ken Livingstone. Siding with Cindy Sheehan. Just to mention a few things.

PS. Were you serious about the harem?

IndianTiger said...

In India, we have more than a thousand year's experience with Islamic barbarism. Europeans, please trust me: you don't want this Islamic cancer in your midst. It will destroy whatever you have built. The sooner we infidels destroy Islam, the better off we will be.

Christian said...

To Fjordman,

When our politicians surrender to Islam, it's not by accident, it's nothing to do with disorganization or decay in the west. It's just that they are pure and simple traitors. We have traitors in charge of our countries, full stop.

Limpet said...

To Conservative Swede,

"Demonizing Jews (maddened hatred of them)."

D.Duke does not demonize anyone, and I don't think it matters whether he likes or dislikes the Jews. He doesn't advocate any kind of violence and he duly intersperses his speeches with the required "obviously, I am not saying that all Jews ...". He does useful work as he defends the interests of the whites. He gives persuasive information and arguments that are suppressed by the MSM. There is nothing maddened in what he says. He carefully avoids to say the kind of outrageous nonsense that you regularly write here when you are tired (or maybe drunk).

"Siding with Muslims."

Unlike Ken Livingstone, D.Duke wants muslims to stay out of the western world.

"Praising Ken Livingstone. Siding with Cindy Sheehan. Just to mention a few things."

It is strange to mention praise of Ken Livingstone as one of Duke's crimes, after you said that Duke is worse than Livingstone anyway.
Who cares what Duke said about Livingstone and Cindy Sheehan? It has nothing to do with his official crime which is "racism". If you want to be politically correct about him, please vilify him for the correct reasons, not for phony reasons that you make up.

Conservative Swede said...

Limpet,

For you it's a axiom and a core belief that David Duke describes Jews in a fair and balanced way. There's nothing I could do about it. I hand you over to Latte Island, who think it is of essential value to have a dialog with people like you.

Limpet said...

David Duke's work is useful even if it is biased.

"I hand you over to Latte Island, who think it is of essential value to have a dialog with people like you."

What does Latte Island think of pursuing the discussion with someone like you who wrote yesterday on another thread:

(- We don’t have to nuke Mecca to make use of the nuclear option in the Counterjihad. (that is to say: we should use nuclear plants) )

"Oh, but the one thing does not exclude the other :-)"

I also think your idea of seizing the Arab oil fields by force is peculiar. People like you write a lot of crazy stuff !

Conservative Swede said...

Limpet,

I think Latte Island take the threat of Islam seriously enough (unlike you apparently) to pursue the discussion with me, about appropriate ways to deal with it.

That's the problem I have with the David Dukers. You are all stuck in a leftist mindsest. National leftism, but nevertheless. It's the usual leftist arguments that are regurgitated. Not for tactical reasons, but wholeheartedly: Israel is racist. America and Israel are bad because they are strong. The "Palestinians" (Syrians etc.) are good because they are weak, etc., etc.

Conservative Swede said...

And yes, Limpet. I really dislike racists. Myself I'm a race realist. Realism is good, but racism is immature and inferior in my view (sort of like the caricature depiction of a woman reacting to a mouse).

But yet again, there's still a whole world between being a racist and a David Duker. The main issue with David Duke is not that he's a racist (I can accept racists), it's his traitorous nature, his leftist mindset, and his deranged stupidity. There's nothing I detest more than stupidity.

hollysdad said...

As an American I find this site strange to say the least. I linked on it through TROP thinking I would get some insight on the problem of the Muslim invastion of Europe and instead I read blog after blog of racial rhetoric, much of it racist. First of all Jews are not an ethnicity, Christianity is not an ethnicity, Islam is not an ethnicity, etc. there are Ethopian Jews, Russian Jews, Semitic Jews and others. I can't believe that David Duke is held in such high regard by so many of you. David Duke is like Hitler, an intelligent whack job. Most of the American racists are what we call white trash. He's an exception so I consider him dangerous. And yes he's a major racist. I've seen video of him in his Klan robes screaming "White Power!!!" Diamed is completely out there and some of you others are only slightly better. For the record I'm a Reagan Republican and an evangelical. I think withing 30 years France, Norway, and possibly Denmark will be under sharia law if steps aren't taken to slow the tide of Islamic immigration. They are going to invade and conquer from within if you guys don't stop. Isn't that what his site is supposed to be about?

latté island said...

Hi Hollysdad, don't worry too much about that thread, most people here agree with you, and the David Duke material was just a few people exploring the possibilities of free speech. Since I'm one of the miscreants you're referring to, please know I'm Jewish/Zionist and appreciate your support. David Duke is scum, but I have my reasons for being tolerant. You obviously belong on this blog, pull up a chair.

latté island said...

I'd better clarify my position on why I don't automatically write off everyone who finds value in David Duke's ideas. My main interest is the survival of Western civilization, which mostly means the survival of white people in their own lands. Most Jews are white, so this is our fight. This position means opposing Islam and mass third world immigration.

To the extent that some David Duke supporters agree with this position, they are allies. The others, who are so crazy with hating Jews, that they prefer Islam to Western civ., can go .... themselves, I don't talk to them.

If some white power folks are fighting Islam, then I'm in that foxhole with them. After we win the war, we'll go our separate ways. They're not friends, they're allies.

If we don't talk to everyone who can help, because they're not our kind of people, white trash, or whatever, we won't win.

hollysdad said...

The problem is they're not just fighting Islam, they're fighting Jews, Catholics, gays, etc. I know the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" but I'm not sure if I can take it that far. The one prejudice I've never really understood is anti-semitism. In America most of the time the only way to find out someone is Jewish is if they tell you as they've assimilated so much into American culture. In fact Jews helped make American culture what it is. The movie studio Dreamworks SKG, the S the K and the G are all Jewish (Spielberg, Katzenberg, Geffen).
What annoys me so much about Islamic immigration is that instead of them adapting to us they insist we adapt to them. In Minneapolis (where I used to live) they allowed Muslim cab drivers to not pick up a fare at the airport if there was alcohol in their baggage. Tyson chicken dropped Labor Day as a holiday and instituted some Muslim holiday in October instead because their workforce was majority Muslim. They backed down only after the uproar. My attitude is if you come here you adapt to us or you go home. Interesting site to say the least. Stuff said here would get you in trouble if you said it out loud.

latté island said...

Reasonable people can agree about making alliances with extremists. I'm in the minority here. I just wanted to assure you that most people at GoV share your values, even if I myself am somewhat edgy. Last year this part of the blogosphere had a civil war over this very issue, and it didn't help anyone but our enemies...another reason not to be so fussy.

latté island said...

Oops, reasonable people can disagree...or agree to disagree...whatever, I'm tired.

Limpet said...

Hollysdad wrote: "(...) thinking I would get some insight on the problem of the Muslim invastion of Europe and instead I read blog after blog of racial rhetoric, much of it racist. First of all Jews are not an ethnicity (...)"

There is something phony in your message. If you were really a naive "antiracist", you would praise this website for being anti-antisemitic, and you would blame it for being obsessed with islam, mass immigration and immigrant crime, especially if you think that racism is typically a sin of white people. Most of all, you would abstain from reciting the usual nonsense about how muslims will impose sharia law in Europe.

The main difference between David Duke and Gates of Vienna is that he is anti-Jewish, while GoV is pro-Jewish. By the way, the theme of counterjihad is typical of pro-Jewish websites. Apart from that, you find the same anti-immigration racism on both websites.

No one said anything positive about Duke in this thread, except me. Crazy Swede and Latte Island both say that he is scum. They only disagree whether ALL people who find David Duke interesting are necessarily scum too.

"Most of the American racists are what we call white trash."

White people are obviously the least racist people on the earth, by any definition of the word. For example, most interracial violence in the USA comes from the blacks, not from white trash. You can find the statistics on the internet.

The way you use the words "white trash" sounds to me like provocation. Is it something common and natural for American anti-antisemites to express their contempt of "white-trash" ?

Conservative Swede said...

Limpet,

White people are obviously the least racist people on the earth, by any definition of the word.

At least we agree about this.

Conservative Swede said...

Hey Limpet, I just treated you as an accepted, chummy member of GoV! At least if we paraphrase that Larry guy who runs a blog somewhere in New York (when commenting on Tanstaafl participation here). And this Larry guy is treated by several people here as the closest thing one gets to pure and reasonable thinking, so that must make him right.

This Larry guy spews truths ex cathedra all day long. E.g he wrote how Tanstaafl is now a regular commenter at GoV. Of course in reality, Tanstaafl just showed up for one thread and we never saw a trace of him since the, But if Larry guy says that he's a regular, so he is, in a higher sense only understood by Larry and his chromosome brains at VFR.

Another truth spewed ex cathedra by Larry guy is how an anti-Semite like Tanstaafl must be treated like pariah. One must never utter a single kind word to such a pariah, or one is utterly morally corrupted oneself, according to Larry guy. I never said a kind word to Tanstaafl, but I happened to withdraw an unkind word I had said to him. And from this, Larry guy, this epitome of sober intellect, infers how the whole site of GoV is a place of whacked-out liberal cranks who embrace anti-Semites, etc.

So now that I said that I agreed with Limpet about something, that must make me into the worst sort of moral monster in the eyes of Larry guy.

Conservative Swede said...

Hollysdad,

This is a firmly pro-Zionist site and community. But it's also a place of diversity. You happened to hit the thread where I decided to drag out some of the shady dirt into the open. Do not let that scare you away. As Latte said, you surely belong here.

Conservative Swede said...

The worst thing with the David Dukers, and something it takes just a minute to see for anyone with a good heart and a clear mind, is how they do not think that Jews have the right to exist in any place on this planet. It's one thing to criticize actions of the Jews in the West. But if this is driven up into demonization which only conclusion is that the Jews must be driven out of our countries, and at the same time it's considered that Israel must be removed from the map, well then it's truly genocidal. And at least a notch more genocidal than anti-white racism is genocidal.

David Dukism is truly ugly. And it's only a person who is very ugly on the inside that would hold on to it.

hollysdad said...

"Most of the American racists are what we call white trash"
I should have said most of the white racist americans are white trash. I agree that all in all whites are the least racist of all races. The reason is minorities are not held to the same standard as whites are. I've heard blacks and browns spew racist venom that would destroy the career of any white person. The white, anti jew anti black racists are white trash. They are basically stupid (David Duke being a notable exception)and not much of a threat except most of them are armed to the teeth and have hair trigger tempers. The problem with Germany in WWII is that the intelligentsia believed all the crap. I am firmly pro-Israel myself. I am also suspicious of muslims. They are weak, and ignorant, limited by their religion. This is why they use things such as suicide bombers because they can't fight a real war as they'd be beat in no time flat. They use our goodness against us as if we wanted to we could destroy the Middle East and all they could do is watch it happen. But they know we won't because of our Christian roots. A clash of civilizations is coming in the next 20-30 years. I just hope we have the intestinal fortitude to see it through.

BTW how do people do that where they copy and paste quotes? Is there a short and fast way to do it?

latté island said...

BTW how do people do that where they copy and paste quotes? Is there a short and fast way to do it?

highlight text. right click. you'll get a menu, click on copy. position cursor where you want text. click on paste.

you can also click on "edit" on toolbar, do the same thing.

Chalcedon said...

We should expel all Muslims from Europe and never allow Turkey to join the EU. We have a fifth column in our midst, a Muslim army millions strong, allowed in by successive governments addicted to this madness of multiculturalism. All cultures are not equalk. Ours in Europe is the best. The rest are inferior. Europe should be for the Europeans, not trash and riff raff from third world cess pits.

hollysdad said...

"We should expel all Muslims from Europe". It's a little late to put that genie back in the bottle. It ain't 1492. I agree that European culture is superior though. American culture is basically European culture. All of the major cities in Saharan Africa were built by the Europeans and if the Europeans hadn't arrived they would still be hunter gatherers. Now that they are in charge of their own lives it seems like there's a genocide every other year somewhere there. It's disheartening to see a country like Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) go from a thriving export economy to a beggar nation in half a generation. I believe the same fate ultimately awaits South Africa once the more pragmatic black leaders die. Native American and Islamic civilizations are only slightly more advanced.

Kavalec said...

It was contact with Muslim science and medicine that launched Europe's Renaissance, and when the "tolerant" Christians of Europe launched their (many) pogroms against Jews... it was in Muslim lands those Jews found asylum. Truth may be suppressed, for a time, but it ALWAYS wins.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Ok, so lets assume for the sake of argument that it was "muslim science" that kick-started the European renaissance. This begs teh question... you had that stuff in your hands for several centuries. You had access to the primary texts, the greek, roman, chinese and hindu texts that the men of the Renaissance went to, for several centuries prior to the Renaissance occurring... and you did virtually nothing with them. If your "muslim science" is what we used, why didn't muslims make use of it when they had it? You had all the knowledge necessary to produce all the advances made in Europe, you had all the materials, but you didn't do a damn thing with it.

Tell me why. No excuses, no blaming other cultures. You tell me why you didn't invent the mechanical clock and the cotton gin, the internal combustion engine, steam power, rebarred concrete and carbon steel, as just a few examples.

randian said...

It was contact with Muslim science and medicine that launched Europe's Renaissance

Only if you think of recycled Greek texts as Muslim. Then again, Muslims have always had a habit of taking credit for the works of others.

hollysdad said...

Kavalec's comment is just so bursting with ignorance it's hard to know where to begin.
"It was contact with Muslim science and medicine that launched Europe's Renaissance." What Muslim science exactly? What has Islam given the world except pain and suffering? Islam explicitly anti-science. Any discovories made in Islamic societies were made by Christians and Jews. Muslims are lazy because they have "the perfect religion" so any real work is beneath them. If anyone wanted to know what a worldwide Sharia system would look like need look no further than Afghanistan under the Taliban. it was in Muslim lands those Jews found asylum. Jews in Muslims lands were dhimmis and were treated despicably. They could only ride donkeys not horses, could only ride side saddle, could not wear shoes, must dismount and walk their donkey when a Muslim came by and it goes downhill from there. There were many many pogroms against Jews in Muslim lands. I recommend a bood by Bat Yeor called The Dhimm, Jews and Christians under Islam. It's a real eye opener.

hollysdad said...

Sorry, the "it was in Muslim lands those Jews found asylum" should have appeared in quotes. Sorry for any confusion.

Sn said...

Horrible thing happened across Europe http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=sglovelife

You definitely wont let it happen