Saturday, October 04, 2008

Guilt by Association

I knew my Thursday night post would get me in trouble — when I post about race, it always gets me in trouble — but I didn’t expect that the mud would splatter as far as Jihad Watch. A commenter there has accused Robert Spencer of harboring the same vile racist thoughts that I do. Since Robert can occasionally be found in the same room as me, it must be true, right?

Here’s what the commenter said:

So Mr spencer, is this what all this mess is about? White Nationalism?

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/10/were-all-racists-now.html#readfurther

You have no escape now Mr.Spencer. this is coming from your friend, Baron Bodissey, the one you’ve just met and drank champagne [NB: it was wine and beer, no champagne — BB] with last month in Washington DC.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/09/mr-bodissey-goes-to-washington.html#readfurther

So what is your excuse now? Ooooh, it’s his own opinion and I have nothing to do with that and bla bla bla.

Well as we say, birds of the same feather flock together.

drop the mask and stop fooling your readers.

PS: by the way, are you even considered white by those folks to hang out with them and work for their cause?

Maybe you’ll be considered an honorary white when the fourth reich regime is restored?

I don’t think that anything I say can possibly help, but even so I felt compelled to post a response:

Well, I certainly managed to get Robert in trouble. Sorry about that, Mr. Spencer!

The Ranting ManIt just goes to show that some people cannot detect bitter irony when they read it. I should have used the irony mark (؟) so that even the slow-witted might catch my drift.

It also shows that I’m right in what I said: one cannot discuss the matter of race without having the dogs of the racism-mongers loosed upon oneself. The subject is simply too red-hot to be touched.

But I have made my decision: I refuse to precede my remarks with the mandatory disclaimer “I’m not a racist, but…” or “I deplore white nationalism, but…”

Saying things like that cedes territory to the race-baiters, and I won’t do it.

It gets me in trouble and has turned an honest Counterjihad blog into a pariah site, but that’s the way it goes. That’s what happens under the laws of PC if you veer from accepted formulations.
- - - - - - - - -
My body of work speaks for itself. Visit http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com, browse the archives, look at the “important posts”, read Fjordman’s work, and decide for yourselves. Since you’re Jihad Watch readers, I assume you’re reasonably intelligent. I don’t have to tell you whether or not I’m a racist. I’m sure you can figure it out.

You’ll also notice that our commenters range from Muslim and liberal trolls through reasonable people on both the right and the left to the “race nationalists” and the hard-core Nazis. I let them be, provided that they abide by our four easy-to-understand rules for commenters.

I do that because I sincerely believe in the value of free speech, and I thrive on being disagreed with. Come on over and disagree — I won’t delete you as long as you are civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum in what you post.

There was a time when I would knuckle under to the PC Thought Police, but that time is long past.

Regular readers should consider themselves warned: this blog is poison. If you hang out here, you are announcing yourself to be an eager advocate of the Fourth Reich.

You’re guilty until proven…

Well, actually, you’re just guilty. Period.

78 comments:

Natalie said...

Guilty as charged, Baron. By the definitions of the left, I too am a racist. Of course, we all are now.

Lee S. said...

Baron, I admire your courage in dealing with these issues - it must be like walking through a minefield at times.

Darrin Hodges said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrin Hodges said...

And if you're considered to be a racist, then you're automatically a fascist that wants to kill everybody, so the whole debate gets reduced to one word arguements - "Nazi!".

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

If you hang out here, you are announcing yourself to be an eager advocate of the Fourth Reich.

Maybe consider adding a irony mark to that snetance :D otherwise the site will receive a rash of new readers from the KKK and DOS attacks by ANTIFA

Zonka said...

The Fourth Reich... hrmmm... isn't that the empire that the EUrocrats and the OIC are modelling for us?

Fjordman said...

Zonka: Quite right, the real Fascists are the EU and their supporters. My position, which I believe the Baron and Dymphna share, is that we have two goals, listed here according to their relative importance:

1. Defend Western and European civilization.

2. Fight against Islam on a global basis.

For my part, I have always, and will always, support priority number two, as long as it doesn't conflict with priority number one. I will be happy to help Hindus in India or Christians in Nigeria in the fight against Jihad, but that doesn't mean that I will allow unlimited numbers of Asians or Africans settle in my country, because this would mean the end of my nation, and that would obviously conflict with goal number one.

That's all the agenda I've ever had. Don't see what's so bad about it.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

The estimated, Swedish, humorous, author and also lawyer 'Fritjof Nilsson-the Pirate' (1895-1972) observed early in his carrer that "if you write about a darning-needle always some goddamned one-eyed bugger take offence".

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I notice they're having their usual hatefest over at little green snotballs... apparently they need the bitter irony mark around it all, too. Tiny, out-of-context soundbites chosen to portray things in the worst possible light? Gee... I thought only the MSM did that.

What pisses me off is that Churchill, Tolkien, CS Lewis and indeed just about every great figure of 19th and 20th century Britain would be denounced as nazi hate-mongers by these people if they were alive today. Hell they'd probably even call Disraeli a "self-hating jew" for what he did and said...

Defiant Lion said...

I posted my views about this "waycist" label yesterday and this pathetic act of cowardice is a case in point.

It is solely used as a debate dodger. These cowards are the new pious inquisitors who force their ideology on people and should anyone dare oppose them, they become apoplectic with rage, screaming "WAYCIST WAYCIST WAYCISTS!" because their ideology is so hypocritical and bankrupt, it cannot stand up to intelligent scrutiny.

They want every racial group to stand up for their interests except one. The white race and anytime people from white nations fight for their rights they are met with intellectual dwarves screaming and yelling "waycist" in a bid to shut them up.

Well we're onto them big time and we are waking up more and more people to the reality of their destructive but increasingly bankrupt ideology and this fact is making them as worried as a crocodile in a wallet factory.

As regards the imbecile who ran off playing an infantile attempt at gotcha with Spencer, a who on earth would want a little maggot like that as a comrade in arms? I prefer people who are made of stronger and sterner stuff.

NJArtist said...

I propose a Fifth Reich. And, if we lose, just as the Nazis found safe haven and a place to plot their return among the left wing, we will find safe haven and a place to plan our devious return within Alcoholics Anonymous.

Afonso Henriques said...

Nice post Baron. And an even nicier answer to that individual.

However I must tell that I would think this "rant" to be legitimate if it was made by some non-white member of the anti-jihad concerned about how it might be going in a way to exclude potential good allies due to race. Which is not the case by any means.

But, if this guy is of European descent, then it is just sick. It is just a proof of our genetical/cultural (precieved) inferiority in these current days.

"You have no escape now Mr.Spencer. this is coming from your friend (...) So what is your excuse now? Ooooh, it’s his own opinion and I have nothing to do with that and bla bla bla."

Sickening. When I was at school many of my great friends were supporters of Sporting (a football club) and many Sportinguistas continue to be my friends. However, I remember that about the age from ten to twelve we usually played the game of "football hooligans" in which all the boys attacked other boys according to their clubistic tensions. It usually only stopped when one was hurt bad enough for the rest to realise that it was a dangerous game. I do not support Sporting, I support the glorious Sport Lisboa e BENFICA!!!

All this just to wonder: How could we be great friends when we were always fighting each other over our clubistic differences?
You see, some people think they can only get friends inside "the group". That all friends must be the same standardisation of ourselves. This is nonesense.
I vallue greatly the people who befriend man and woman very different from their own so, to my eyes, to claim that a person can be accused of what their friends have done just because they befriend that person, is particularly disgusting.
It can only come from people who do not vallue "people" or "vallues" but only what is fashionable.

However Baron, this is highly ironic giving the fact that under a "III Reich" in which what is fashionable is to pray on the Jews, this is the same type of people, who lack the carachter to befriend a Jew because of their Jewishness. People like you Baron, in that situation, will more likely want to know the Jew to know the other side of the story, which is not fashionable...

And this attacks on Robert Spencer as a white Nationalist are in my view laughable. Laughable because here - and I guess all Europe - while the gross majority of non Christian Nationalistic sites praise greately Robert Spencer, whenever they disagree with him, whenever Robert Spencer advances with an all-American version of "soft multiculturalism" for Europe, those same Nationalists do not hesitate to highlight Spencer's Middle Eastern origins...

"You’ll also notice that our commenters range from Muslim and liberal trolls through reasonable people on both the right and the left to the “race nationalists” and the hard-core Nazis. I let them be, provided that they abide by our four easy-to-understand rules for commenters."

It's incrdible Baron, how the lovers and defenders of diversity do not tolerate diversity of opinion. Nor do they try to erase "wrong" opinions and try to advance with "right" opinions. In a word: Nihilism.
But this is not just nihilism, nor is this only totalitarian.

This is frankly anti-European and has as its goal the destruction of European Civilisation. And now, paraphrasing Bob from New York (I guess):

Are you fricking kidding me?
When will you people WAKE UP?
WAKE UP PEOPLE! WAKE UP!!
pfooooooooooo...

The goal of this individual is to destroy European Civilisation. He's much worse than the Nazis.

Sigh said...

I really hope this isn't all due to me bringing up "White Nationalism" in that other Fjordman article.

Once again, sorry.

awake said...

I have a suspicion that the troll that appeared at JW came from someplace known by all, but of course, I cannot prove that.

Have no fear Baron. No sentient rational mind believes that you are a "white nationalist", but we all know that the mere charging of racism in this multicultural pc-addled world is an effective tool, with the ultimate goal of silencing free speech by rendering it as hate speech.

Stay strong.

Afonso Henriques said...

"vallue greatly the people who befriend man and woman very different from their own so, to my eyes, to claim that a person can be accused of what their friends have done just because they befriend that person, is particularly disgusting."

Of course one must not totally forget the old saying: "Diz me com quem andas e dir-te-ei quem és (Tell me with whom you hang out and I will tell you who you are)" but quiet frankly, we don't have to like the totality of a person to befried her. Paraphrasing Rui Veloso "toda a alma tem a sua parte negra, nem eu, nem tu fugimos à regra... (all the soul has it's own dark part, neither me nor you escape the rule...)" but as long as this moon face of the soul is not totally incomaptible with "us"... why not?

Afonso Henriques said...

Archonix,

"What pisses me off is that Churchill, Tolkien, CS Lewis and indeed just about every great figure of 19th and 20th century Britain would be denounced as nazi hate-mongers by these people if they were alive today. Hell they'd probably even call Disraeli a "self-hating jew" for what he did and said..."

Quiet true. What was normal across virtually all eras of the European Civilisation, has become, after the WWII but especially after the 60s, labelled as "far right".

Why did Churchill attacked Hitler?
Nationalism and, perhaps, even Imperialism. What happened to Enoch Powel would never happened to the Duke of Wellington, Cromwell, Cecil Rhodes or the King Arthur, Beweoulf or Brittania.

Bela said...

This thread is strongly connected on intellectual level to the acrimonious dispute that reign between GoV and LGF.
I attempted to draw your attention several times to the ever growing rift and differences between the American multi-ethnicity and the European (traditional)cultural concept.
We are - most likely - about to witness the first black presidency in the US, a well thought out, intentional affirmation of the END of the European umbilical cultural and ethnic cord which set a new path for America.

Do not expect understanding from the American side, much less sympathy for our attempt to preserve our cultural heritage; by pushing too much we will provoke only hostile reaction from the majority American opinion.

The wise Romans said:
"Tempora mutantur at nos mutamur in illis." - The times change and we change with them. ...

We'd better adjust our mentality to the new realities: the Islamisation is unstoppable in Europe, the anti-movement isn't catching on, the US multiculturalism on the march: there is no way to foresee which way events will turn in Europe.

The US will be a mixed society like Brazil but even less connected to the Anglo word than the former to Portugal: at least Portuguese is the official language of Brazil, while the US has none.
"For English, press #1"
For GoV a difficult task to tackle.

Sigh said...

European (traditional)cultural concept.

The same concept that tore itself apart, almost allowing for the Soviets to waltz in?

What concept? North America and Europe have to share the same future; if not it'll be Europe as the one left behind - huddled in what's left of their 'magnificent' culture.

Bela said...

sigh:

Well, well ... I agree that in the light of the recent European history, the invention of Fascism and Communism and the recent takeover by the militant Marxism we can no longer talk of "Cultural Concept" in Europe for there is none.
Let's be honest and brutal what we are hankering for is an embellished History of Europe, encompassing Plato and Voltaire, (Torquemada excluded) what the French aptly described as "La Belle Epoque"...

Following this logic we are now deeply into Nihilism par excellence, that is, drop Europe and give her to the wolfs.

However, America and Europe will not share the same future: the separating differences are unbridgeable unless the next French president will be of Senegalese or Togolese descent.

Habla Senor Espanol?

Gregory said...

So, how do you make the bitter irony mark on a computer?

no2liberals said...

Excellent response to the comment made, Baron, but completely unnecessary.
They invoked Godwin's Law.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

There is not, and never was, a "traditional european concept" except at the most broad and unattached level, of "we live next to each other" so I don't know why people persist on talking about it.

This isn't the United States. It's not a colonial product like South America or Australia or the fringes of Africa. There's no single unifying ethos and goal driving people like there were in colonial lands. Trying to construct a single european consciousness is denying the essential nature of european peoples. Given every creed since the end of the 19th century has been pushing "universalist" principles, like a united european conscious, or a transnational stateless existence, it's no surprise there's a certain amount of nihilism going around. People have had the traditional connections severed with nothing to replace it. Patriotism is verboten, the unity of national identity was destroyed long before world war 2 and that destruction probably helped to cause it...

My point is, until we remember who we are we're not going to be able to properly defend ourselves. Any internationalist, universalist ideal of "europe" that doesn't account for the necessity of national unity, that is the unity of the genuine nation and not some arching construct like, to take an example, "germanness" - which is overly broad - or "whiteness" or what have you, is not who we are and is not going to work.

Until we accept that Europe is not, and has never been a united, inviolable entity we will fail. And that's that.

Bela said...

I can see there is a general inability to define Europe as a cultural entity which is now threatened by Islamisation.

What is the essence of being European then?
Is it an abstract, immaterial idea or it is tangible thing that manifests itself in some physical ways?
If yes then how?
What are the European characteristics that cannot be found in any other people and pertaining only to the Europeans?


Anyone there with cogent answers?

Imperialistu' said...

Don't worry, Baron. it doesn't matter. Keep up the good work and never cease to make your voice heard.

Morgan said...

Baron, you can consider me "poisoned" and thankfully so. Keep fighting the good fight, or rather, keep spreading the poison around.

Afonso Henriques said...

"What concept? North America and Europe have to share the same future; if not it'll be Europe as the one left behind - huddled in what's left of their 'magnificent' culture."

Yes Sigh, yes, please, left us behinde. You can start now. You know what, I am seeing TV right now and people were talking about a new book which praises the revolution of 25th April 1974. The presenter of the show proudly said: "There was very interesting stuff going on here, the anti Americanism was such that even the American Ambassador was arrested during a manifestation (by the socialist/communist elite was rulling then, now it's only socialists)"

The man versed in politics there responded: "And the Americanism also, I remember seeing grafitis in the walls saying: Plese, send us the Marines!"

"Please, send us the Marines!"

After what you've done to Serbia, let us be behinde... I don't want your future.

Joanne said...

Muslims are not of a race - I've seen white, brown, and black Muslims.

I do not know what is suppose to be so wrong with being white, except the fact that we tend to burn in the sun. I'm sick of racists who hate white people; white haters can suck rocks.....we whites are people too. sniff, sniff

Afonso Henriques said...

Why are you people so pessimist?

Europe has never putted so much at risk but She has been in worst situations.

And Archonix, take that, new (Western) European Nationalism do not equates with Imperialism.

"“To create any kind of Iberian Union, be it of whatever kind, three things are essential, and without those things nothing can never be done, and before those thigs became reality its useless to think of any kind of aproximation. Those three things are: first, the abolition of the Spanish monarchy. Second, the final seperation of the Peninsula in its three essential Nationalities – Catalonia, Castilla and the provinces it has succeeded to submerge under its personality, and (third) the creation of the Galician-Portuguese State.”"
Fernando Pessoa, beggining of the XX century.

You see, take the Peninsula as a microcosmos for Europe. It can only be strong as a whole if the Nations are strong. And that is what Nationalists all across Europe want. We don't want to be "Europeans". We are already Europeans and we recognise that as our Civilisation. And we want it to succeed and be great.

And Europe is really recognisable.
You see, to the South it is the Mediterranean Sea, to the East, where the Russians stop being Russians... and to the West and the North... It's really simple.

I don't know is why the fatalism. If you say, wow, there will be war, poverty and life will suck for 200 years I may agree and understand but to say: Europe is doomed. It will perish. This and that. I fail to see the reasons... Switzerland is governed by the SVP, in Austria, the Nationalists got 30%... Look at Italy! Proud little Serbia...

And of course, the hated great hope for the future: Pyccna

Afonso Henriques said...

"However, America and Europe will not share the same future: the separating differences are unbridgeable unless the next French president will be of Senegalese or Togolese descent."

Oh Bela, it has already happened.

Nicolas Sarkozy. He is considered to be right wing. But, he's not even French.

I just read an old article of the local Marxist crying that the "cleaness of blood" were back because Le Pen said that two of the grandparents of Sarkozy were Hungarians and another one was a Jew.

France 1 vs 3 Multicultural World.
Le Pen is right. How can Sarkozy be a right winger?

Robin Shadowes said...

Funny this happens to come up at this moment. I just deleted JW and it's sister site from my bookmarks a couple of days ago. The reason for doing so is that I had noticed of lately, that they increasingly deleted my comments from the various articles. Deleting comments from blogs, posts and threads from forums is, have I noticed of the last year or so, a typical sign of Political Correctness! I didn't even bother to message them, it's a waste of time. I simply just chose to bail out. I'm well aware that my ironic/sarcastic remarks didn't have the quality of those of Groucho Marx, Monty Python, Edmund BlackAdder and many others, but still I'm kind of disappointed that my ironies was obviously lost on these people. But then again, even if sharp and witty people like Groucho, Oscar Wilde, Mae West and others had still been alive and posting on JW, they would probably also be branded as nazis and their comments had been removed.

Sigh said...

What "we did to Serbia"?

Alfonso you really make no sense. Everything that has happened in and to Europe has been their own fault, it's always North America making sure the continent doesn't collapse, so it's people are not reduced to eating household pets or each other.

Ohhh the sweet sounds of an indignant Europe.

Henrik R Clausen said...

What "we did to Serbia"?

Yes. Even Bill Clinton, before elected president, desired strongly - and publicly - to bomb the Serbs.

Why?

"Well, they gotta be the evil ones, right? I mean, the Croats, with their reestablished fascist Ustasha-regime (we're talking early 90's now) can't be evil. The fact that the original Ustasha regime worked with the Nazis can't be true, or at least can't be evil."

Gotta be the Serbs who are evil.

"Just listen to the Bosnian press releases blaming the Serbs for every kind of evil, extermination camps and all. Noone in their right minds would demonize anyone, so what the Bosnians say must be true."

"Oh. They _are_ lying like crazy? Oops..."

Completely botched news reporting lured the US government into supporting the wrong side in the war.

That was bad, and deserves an apology.

Defiant Lion said...

@Sigh

" it's always North America making sure the continent doesn't collapse"

What, a country that has existed for just 250 years? I doubt it.

You speak like a typical poorly educated North American who allows patriotism to obscure the reality of just how poor the United States has been as the world's "policeman" since it took over the role from the British after WWII. But let's keep it brief, and restrict it to Europe and indeed the US.

What the US and NATO did to the Serbs is dispicable. All to create an Islamic state ruled by terrorists right in the heart of Europe. Watch this and see for yourself:

Yugoslavia War 1

Yugoslavia War 2

Secondly, the US has pushed global capitalism with the import of cheap foreign goods into the west under-pinned by cheap, finite energy (oil and gas) with the result that global corporations have corrupted our democracies. Thanks to this we now have a situation in both the UK and the US whereby the financial system - the global market - has collapsed. It can only continue with the abhorrent practice of tax-payers paying greedy and irresponsible banks to keep them afloat. Were this not so serious it would be farcical. All courtesy of USA Inc.

All this happening when the US is waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remind me: How many billions of dollars of tax-payers money has been thrown at these energy wars?

Wars that have been justified with lies. That is, a president and his government outright lying to those who elected them.

And then you have the rise of "La Raza". How is California these days? Maybe the US has been too busy stopping Europe from collapsing by building an Islamic terrorist state there for you to notice what's been happening on your own doorstep?

But this really does invite mockery:

"..so it's people are not reduced to eating household pets or each other."

Maybe English is difficult for you but you have used an apostrophe incorrectly with the possessive. Perhaps you'll find Spanish, your soon-to-be first language, a tad easier. I speak it very well and I'm sure you'll love the sound of it as much as I do.

Great Britain, just one nation in Europe, has more culture and history than the entire US. GB spawned you, the US was a British colony. And over the years, the US was built by people of predominantly European ancestry.

GB and the other nations of Europe have contributed more to the world and advanced humanity far far more than some one time colony that's been around for just 250 years and whose culture is recognised by a grey-haired, goaty-bearded, be-spectacled old man who could fry chicken and an orange-haired clown with a passion for fried beef patties - or is it hot dogs? These symbolise what the US culture truly is all around the world.

Mind you, when you loook at such garbage maybe eating household pets is a more nutritious, healthy choice.

As you can see, I'm very proud to come from a nation that's contributed a little bit more to the world than a big mac. My nation didn't need you for thousands of years, we didn't need you when Uncle Adolf came knocking at our door and we don't need you now.

I'm sure the Latinos of South and Central America - a people with a rich culture and magnificent history - will improve the cultural poverty of the US when they take it over.

Seriously - I believe that what the US is now is not the country that it once was, one of the greatest nations that promised so much for the whole world. What it now is betrays all it once stood for, something that I fnd very sad.

Toodle pip. Or should that be "Nos vemos"?

Henrik R Clausen said...

I think it's good here to distinguish between the American (federal) government, which has been engaging in quite a few expensive, ehm, mistakes around the world, and the average American where my experience is that they're really nice and sensible people (at least the ones I usually meet). Confidence in president Bush may be low (like below 30 %), but confidence in Congress is radically lower. I saw quoted 9 % or 13 % who thought Congress was doing a good job. The Russians may love their government, the Americans sure do not.

The US government has, in my view, become a self-serving elite which does not adhere to higher principles (but pretends to as needed), and is unwilling to admit mistake and change course.

I expect more crises. But am personally quite careful to protect our trans-Atlantic bonds. They are precious.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Someone obviously hasn't seen America outside the blue crust...

Bela said...

I as a person who spent half of his life as European (both on the East and the Westside,) other half as American I believe I am technically and mentally well qualified to express my view on a personal, non governmental level.
Forget the Gov.

America still offering to an individual the freedom of self governance and the freedom of actions without the interferences of a state apparatus which controls the life of an EU citizen. There is no escape from the State's long arms in the EU, whereas there is way to escape the Mexican-California by moving to other States with less regulations.
Moreover the freedom of speech as civil right still in full force whereas in the EU this is no longer the case as we all know too well.

The cultural achievements are proportionate with the 250 years of existence: unless you deny the IT (info.tech.) role in the cultural realm and in the spawning of knowledge worldwide.
Yes, there are good movies and literatures too, so are great painters.

Some posters remind me to those Europeans who are taking shots of themselves in front of the Colosseum as proof of European cultural superiority.
Wake up guys, Marcus Aurelius and Shakespeare are long dead, instead compare your present day achievements to present day America and stay clear from the apple and orange stuff.

In America you wont suffocate under the ubiquitous control of a State bureaucracy which shackles you every which way, washes your brain with state run media and forces you to pay for the BBC even if you hate it.

Defiant Lion said...

@Bela

First you state:

"..I believe I am technically and mentally well qualified to express my view..."

Then you show your total ignorance of how important culture is to European people - and myself as a very proud British nationalist, with this tosh:

"Wake up guys, Marcus Aurelius and Shakespeare are long dead, instead compare your present day achievements to present day America and stay clear from the apple and orange stuff."

Let me make something clear: Culture isn't some childish game comparing "achievemnts" to see who comes out on top. Nor is it just about people such as the two highly esteemed onese you quote.

It is about the birth and growth of a nation. It is about the struggle of one's ancestors to survive and develop working systems of governance, law, education and of course, defence against attack. It is about expression of the spirit, the conquering of chllenges such as agriculture and transportation. It is about great leaders, great scientists, physcians, great scholars and philosophers and the values, morals and traditions they created to help their societies grow and function. It is about the great works of art, literature, music, architecture and language. It's about towns, villages and cities, COMMUNITIES built over 1000 years ago that still carry on traditions and ceremonies and celebrations performed for centuries. Witness the British monarchy as an example of what I'm saying here and how it fascinates the rest of the world.

All of this helped to create the greatest civilisations in human history and indeed, were the very foundations that built the US.

I could go on but all of these things, so difficult for Americans to fully understand, are what gives Europeans - and for me as a Brit - IDENTITY.

And we think it is VERY VERY important to pass this on to future generations as their inalienable birthright.

So telling me to "wake up" and compare modern day achievements is such a misguided remark it only demonstrates how little you understand European culture and how important it is to people's sense of identity.

This is why people like Spencer and Johnson don't get nationalism. There is no such thing as an "American Identity" because the new world was built by a variety of people from around the world. But there is a French, a German, an Italian, a Spanish and of course, a British identity (and other euro nations) that pre-dates the US and that is the crucial difference.

Human history did not begin in 1776 and as much as this grates you, I will not erase over 1000 years of British history to play comparisons even though I reckon my nation would more than the equal the US in the same period.

Oh, and people like Shakespeare never die, they live forever. They're part of our cultural heritage you see although maybe you don't...

Bela said...

defiant lion:

Several decade ago as an off the boat immigrant to the US I was full of ethnocentric pride like you: I could cite Cicero "Quo usque tandem Catilina...." also in Greek the Aeneas: Andramo ennepe, Musa politropon ....(Αἰνείας)in pure hexameter.

While in Paris I surprised my co-workers about my info on Vercingetorix and the Logo of Paris (Fluctuat nec mergitur). In the US I displayed my superior European cultural sophistication to the simple Americans around me and one of them cut me short:
"But we did not have Hitler nor Stalin and we did not implement institutional mass genocide either."

Ever since I have a more balanced view on Euro-American cultural matters.
To accuse America of not having 1000 years of History and inferring at it as a sort of fault or defect....have you ever asked a Chinese about their 5000 years of WRITTEN history? Got it? - Written.
Were was Britain 5000 years ago?

And let me punch a hole to your British Cultural balloon:

The ONLY notable English composer was Georg Friedrich Händel (with umlaut!)- a German.
Even the insignificant Hungary produced more musicians than the Lion.

Western Initiatives said...

Who's talking about a Fourth Reich??!

I just want my country back!

Defiant Lion said...

Bela:

Your view is neither balanced nor intelligent. Childish is more apt.

I have not accused the US as having a defect or a fault I am stating, quite clearly, that Euro nationalism is not well understood in the states. You are proving this rather well with your somewhat incoherent comments - what has China got to do with European nationalism? In fact what has China got to do with this debate - I'd say nothing but Icould say that given the way the Chinese are playing catch up somewhat makes your point moot.

But this is ridiculous:

"And let me punch a hole to your British Cultural balloon:

The ONLY notable English composer was Georg Friedrich Händel (with umlaut!)- a German.
Even the insignificant Hungary produced more musicians than the Lion."

Seriously Bela, grow up. I am actually cringing with embarrassment for you at this last post and I won't dignify it with a response.

Instead, I'll take a ticket to ride to my land of hope and glory bypassing Jerusalem as I go, I'll show you a whole lotta love and imagine all you need is love and hang out with my generation and let it be. I'd have to be on the dark side of the moon or even pretty vacant to hit you with my ryhtyhm stick.

That's entertainment, it's rock n roll and God save the Queen :-)

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Well I was going to mention Elgar, but...

Look, can you two stop waving your cultural willies at each other? It's getting old.

EnglishBlondie said...

waythists

Conservative Swede said...

Defiant Lion makes and excellent point in his first answer to Bela:

Culture isn't some childish game comparing "achievements" to see who comes out on top.

Bela misses this point completely; loudly demonstrated by replying with an answer where he pitched up this childish game a few extra notches (the missing of the point could hardly have been expressed more spectacularly).

For Europeans the point with our culture is not that it's best, but that it's ours. It's just the same thing with my house, my clothes, etc. I do not love them because they are "best", but because they are mine. They smell like me, feel like me, etc.

Americans, such as Bela, are so indoctrinated with the importance of always being number one(*), so that they even fail to absorb this idea altogether (Baron B and several other good Americans in this forum, being exceptions to this general rule). It's sad, though, to see Graham failing to grasp Defiant Lion's point as well.

Even if Bela tries to tune in on Defiant Lion's perspective -- about our culture being what is important to us, not about any childish competition -- to Americans the important thing is to be number one, which in turn triggers the childish competition...

It is interesting how Bela reveals how, as part of his Americanization, in his mind he reduced Europe to be the continent of Hitler and Stalin. And by that everything about European culture lost its importance to him.

I can see where he is coming from now and why he express such hatred of Europeans, and express such joy over how millions of innocent Europeans will suffer. How he will enjoy it and eat popcorn while, among other things, innocent European girls get brutally gang raped by third-world colonists.

How can he express so much pleasure in it, when it's the innocent and poor that will suffer the most -- most notably the poorest working-class who cannot afford to move away from the multicultural ghettos -- while the cultural elites who caused the whole thing have the money and the means not to be hit by it. Nevertheless, Bela has announced that he's gonna watch this eating popcorn. He has, in his mind, not only reduced Europe to the continent of Hitler and Stalin, he has reduced Europeans to a dehumanized status.

(*) I'm here referring to the "number one" phenomenon which goes very deep in many expressions of American culture. A sister of it being "big" and "biggest", e.g in marketing of food.

PS. And yes, Bela is 100% American, nothing else. Remember that the very definition of 'American' is to be a mentally and geographically dislocated European.

Conservative Swede said...

Btw,

The events described in this blog article, the lizard (surely) over at JW, and the LGF thread as well about Wilders (thanks for the tip Graham), are absolutely marvellous (including a comment from the superbrain Pastorius).

I will have reason to blog about it. So many juicy bits.

Defiant Lion said...

@Graham

WHOOOOOOOOSH!

Defiant Lion said...

Conservative Swede:

One word: Bingo!

If Bela really did say that, he has now become that what he despises.

Look forward to reading your blog about this article btw.

Conservative Swede said...

Defiant Lion,

We have had our differences. I'm glad to be completely and unreservedly in agreement with you this time.

I just made two comments over at JW btw.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

WHOOOOOOOOSH!

Must be why I'm bald...

remingtonquail said...

America came into existence not as a nation of immigrants, but as a nation of settlers. These settlers were primarily from Britain so a huge part of our identity comes from there and is still a part of who we are today, although a distinctly American culture did develop. Later waves of immigrants assimilated into this culture and became just as American as the descendants of the original settlers. Many of today's immigrants come to the American melting pot and refuse to melt.

American citizenship does not depend on race. Our foundational existence is: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the consent of the governed and equality under the law. But no matter how good and noble that creed is, it's still just a political idealogy. And I wonder if a politcal creed alone is enough to sustain an American identity. The creeping success of politically correct multi-culturalism would seem to suggest that it is not enough. Am I being racist?

Sigh said...

Heh, seems like I touched a nerve. So much so that you felt it necessary to insult me. I thought "You're stupid!" type arguments were best left in primary school.


What, a country that has existed for just 250 years? I doubt it.


This is quite a stupid argument. "We're better than you because we're older!" it's not an argument.

It's just an excuse to live in the past. Which is working so well you allow prehistoric Mohammedans to flock in.

Now I can understand why many Europeans dislike America, I really can. We took what you taught us and improved on it to such an extent that we made it our own.

Don't worry when your continent is swamped by caravan raiders we'll still let you in. :)

North America is Europe's cultural ally, together they make up the West - now why you want to alienate and exclude us is beyond me. Or are you representing another side here altogether? Divide and conquer, eh old bean?

Defiant Lion said...

@Sigh

"Heh, seems like I touched a nerve. So much so that you felt it necessary to insult me. I thought "You're stupid!" type arguments were best left in primary school."

Who called you "stupid"? Do quote if you can.

"This is quite a stupid argument."

There's that word again.

No it was in response to your "always North America" statement which is demonstrably untrue. Context old boy.

"It's just an excuse to live in the past. Which is working so well you allow prehistoric Mohammedans to flock in."

Do we? When were we asked? Maybe that's why some of us are nationalists and erm, keen readers of this blog. You do know what this blog is about don't you? Context again old fruit. Try to keep up.

"Don't worry when your continent is swamped by caravan raiders we'll still let you in. :)"

Well even though I'd easily get in because of the fluency of my Spanish I'll just give you a polite but firm "no, not for me thanks."

"North America is Europe's cultural ally"

No thanks. Try reading the above posts about the importance of OUR culture to US. Interesting how you now come along and resort to the same childish "we're #1" rhetoric that both myself and Conservative Swede have dealt with quite succinctly if I may be so, ahem, modest :-)

Do try and keep up with the debate old man it's a bit of a drag having to repeat and clarify more than twice.

Bela said...

Those who emigrated to America from Europe trough the centuries were not tourists: most of them were victims of the European social order of that times. Some were persecuted on religious, racial or political ground or forced to flee the economical hardship that befell on them.

Americans rejected the feudal, class based society of Europe and went on their own way.
For some reason this simple fact pissed up the Europeans who are vomiting their Anti-American hatred incessantly: BBC, Guardian, Independent are worst than Khrushchev with his shoes off...
I cannot read Swedish but I bet it must be the same there too.
On the other side, Americans can't care less what is going on in Europe: lion, swede, afonso how many times have you expressed on this forum in various threads your utmost disgust towards America?

Whole Europe is preoccupied with consummate US bashing which is the only subject permitted by the EU Potentates...please go back worshiping Putin, the new Messiah.

SIR lion, "The 7 pillar of wisdom" can be found on Muslim land, why don't you follow E. Lawrence teachings?
Did you see prince Charles in his Muslim outfit, surrounded by imams?

CS:
"express such joy over how millions of innocent Europeans will suffer"

Come on, 500 million Europeans equipped with Leopard 2 tanks, Grippens etc...and you are trembling in fear from Ali Baba?
I am sobbing in sorrow for the innocent millions...
Got Kleenex for my tears?

Henrik R Clausen said...

Easy now, Bela. Know your real friends, and don't blame them for the ignorance of others, please.

When the crisis really escalates, we will need each other, for sure. For now, it's a good time to discuss the ties that bind us together and ignore the neo-Marxists who, stuffed with pride, believe that we don't need any friends on the planet.

Yeah. BBC sucks. It's good we have GoV and all the other blogs where the elite can go and get real information, not just biased opinion.

Conservative Swede said...

Regarding Bela: Even when spelling out explicitly what it actually is that he intends to enjoy while eating popcorn, as I did here:

How he will enjoy it and eat popcorn while, among other things, innocent European girls get brutally gang raped by third-world colonists.

This surely didn't break Bela heart, and he just meet it with ice-cold sarcasm "Got Kleenex for my tears?"

Bela is surely a person with a utterly blackened mind and completely heartless. All by ideological design. It's sad to see so many Eastern Europeans escaping a ideology of death, just to hastily jump into another.

Since the ideology that Bela is a junkie of has hatred of Europeans as one of its fundamental pillars, he is unable to back off. Not even the image of innocent underage girls being brutally gang-raped my Muslim thugs would make him put away the popcorn. Once upon a time Bela was a man. Today he's merely an ideological junkie, and with no heart.

Conservative Swede said...

I feel sorry for the many good Americans in this forum. We are discussing your country, and not in a favourable way. However, quite as for Europeans there are many historical layers of American culture. So under the surface of "number one" obsession, and what I refer to as the "ideology of death" etc., there are many good and healthy layers, many of which were pointed out by Remingtonquail ("a nation of settlers" etc.)

But it's also these good Americans that are the first ones to see that the "top layers" have gone berserk, in a galopping frenzy, crowned by the upcoming election where the only choice is O'Cain McBama.

I understand that it hurts, but nevertheless it has to be discussed among us Europeans. The reason being that it is a knife at our throats. And also you should do more yourselves in putting these "progressives" in place and reclaim your country and culture from the McCains, the Obamas, the Belas, the Sighs.

Sigh answered Defiant Lion:
DL:What, a country that has existed for just 250 years? I doubt it.

Sigh:This is quite a stupid argument. "We're better than you because we're older!" it's not an argument.


Sigh had come up with the obnoxious and patently false perception of "it's always North America making sure [Europe] doesn't collapse". A proposition that is wrong in at least a hundred ways, so it could also be answered in a hundred ways. Defiant Lion here opted for the temporal aspect: it defies logic to claim that America had any major historical influence, since America simply didn't exist except for during a fraction of Europe's history.

What does Sigh make of that? Well, as if he wanted to help me and Defiant Lion to make our point, he completely misses what Defiant Lion said, and exactly like Bela descends into the usual childish game of who's "number one". For people such as Bela and Sigh there is no other way of having a comparative discussion about culture -- well actually no discussion about culture at all -- without decending into "who's best?", "who's number one?", "we're best!", "we're number one!". They actually do not understand any other sort of cultural discussion, and that's why they will always interpret every cultural discussion as being the childish game of who's number one, and act accordingly.

Bela said...

henrik r clausen:

The situation is getting dire in the US too; there is real likelihood that the unthinkable will take place here as well.

As you know I am voted a CERTIFIED RACIST -on this forum and this means that I am free to say what others are afraid to do: that is, tell the truth:

It's quite possible than a 2nd. Bolshevik takeover will happen after Russia of 1919 but this time in the US with Obama.
The ideological leaders and financiers are members of the Bolshevik tribe "that must not be named": Soros and many lesser known persons unknown to Europeans.

The foot soldiers and goons are the blacks, Commie whites, "Muslims for Obama", homosexuals, - ANTIFA type hooded radicals, Mexicans ...
Based on my experiences, once these scumbags grab power you can never get rid of them: Never Ever!

Now please all eye on the US.

CS;
Why are you obsessed with me? Is this a political forum or a sentimental love thread for orphaned girls?

"innocent European girls get brutally gang raped by third-world colonists."

Your enemy is Mrs. Margot Wallström who made it possible what you've just written not the Eastern Europeans.
How about house cleaning at your doorstep:

"As the Swedish Minister of Migraton Jens Orback lately said in an interview: - We must be nice to the Muslims now - hopefully they will remember it when ..."

Did you express your outrage to him or just bashing the US (Eastern E.) is your favorite pass time?

Conservative Swede said...

Bela,

On the other side, Americans can't care less what is going on in Europe:

Oh, but you care a lot. You are very eager to come into every discussion to tell how Europe is doomed and lost, and how you are going to enjoy it and eat popcorn while watching it.

lion, swede, afonso how many times have you expressed on this forum in various threads your utmost disgust towards America?

I have expressed (and motivated profoundly) utmost disgust towards you. Don't mix up the two.

Whole Europe is preoccupied with consummate US bashing...

Pointing out that you are a moral monster is "US bashing"? Oh, give me a break!

Conservative Swede said...

Bela makes sure to hammer his point all the way down.

When pointed out what a heartless monster he is for intending to enjoying, while eating popcorn, when innocent European girls are brutally gang raped by Muslim thugs, he simply ridicules it with a reference to "a sentimental love thread for orphaned girls".

Admitting that his popcorn statement was overwrought is impossible for Bela to do. Instead he decides to hammer the point of his being completely heartless, and an ideological junkie bereft of human empathy, all the way down.

Regarding Margot Wallström and Jens Orback. First of all, your suggestion that anyone that disagrees with your popcorn attitude is on the side of the Guardian and a sucker for the EU etc., is truly grasping at straws.

However, regarding Margot and Jens. In spite of their colossal faults:

1. They do not expressively wish for Europe to go under.

2. They do not declare who they are going to enjoy the fall of Europe (including the brutal gang rapes of innocent girls) while eating popcorn.

3. They do not come to this forum pretending to be my ally.

And once again Bela tries to paint criticism of his "popcorn attitude" as "US bashing". Let me ask the other Americans in this forum: do you truly think that Bela represents you?

Bela said...

CS
"Margot and Jens:
1. They do not expressively wish for Europe to go under."
Did they tell you their thoughts on this subject? Why are you protecting your grave diggers?

I never pretended to be an ally of anybody: this is a blog not a war game. If nobody else, I represent a great many Americans like Ralph Peters who is also on your hit list. With due respect to your Kingdom but we are not your lowly subject obliged to agree with you.
Rest assured I am not angry at you; you are a typical Swede, Anti-American, ...hating the Jews too?

"Swedish anti-Semitism revealed

Published: 14 Mar 06 09:15 CET
The Local, Swedish news in English
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=3266&date=20060314

Henrik R Clausen said...

CS:
Bela is surely a person with a utterly blackened mind and completely heartless.

This is a comment of a type I would never make.

Why?

First, I can't see the colour of Bela's mind. It could be purple, for all I care. Pink, red or blue.

Also, 'heartless' is something I can't quite believe. I think we all have a heart.

Behind the sophistery of above is a principle: Please abstain from 'ad hominem' attacks. They bring no benefit but only hurt.

Usually, going more into detail of what is so reprehensible is more constructive.

Defiant Lion said...

Conservative Swede:

Is it me or are certain people reacting to what is perfectly reasoned criticism of the way the US is conducting its foreign and economic policies in the same way the left and indeed, muslims react?

I think we have tried to present our argument in a way that really should've provided some food for thought regarding the way Europeans feel - and feel strongly - about our culture and heritage and about European nationalist movements who are now fighting to defend their cultures.

Instead it has been met with a childish "we're better than you, we're #1, you're living in the past and you just hate America" which is disingenuous to say the least and it certainly isn't true.

What next - we're yankeephobes?

Enough for me, I've stated what I hoped would provide an insight into European nationalism and I'll now let my posts stand for themselves and a nod of acknowledgement to CS for elaborating eloquently on my arguments.

As far as I'm concerned Bela can eat his popcorn and laugh heartily while we fight for our lands but I for one won't be debating with such a nasty piece of work in the future.

Sagunto said...

Some cultural ballast shed by Bela, right before his basket ballooned straight for the sun:

- The wise Romans said:
"Tempora mutantur at nos mutamur in illis."


Eh.. "wise Romans"?
The proverb you cite [Anglo-Saxon contamination "at" included] dates from the (very) Late Medieval period, long after those witty Romans left the European stage. It is found in Andreas Gartner's "proverbialia dicteria" from 1566. Perhaps you should leave those snobbish Latin proverbs wisely to them Europeans ;-)

- "Well, well ... I agree that in the light of the recent European history, the invention of Fascism and Communism and the recent takeover by the militant Marxism we can no longer talk of "Cultural Concept" in Europe"

The "ever growing cultural rift" that you envision between the United States and some European countries, could very well be the consequence of so-called "Commenterial Drift" in your replies over here.
Ever since you considered yourself to be American, you have witnessed the two continents drifting apart. But were you see division, history teaches about common ground. Fascism/Communism invented in Europe, yes sure, but perhaps you should delve a little deeper into American history for the link between Benzino Gassolini et al. and "modern" American politics of the day.

When il Duce came up with Fascism, many American intellectuals recognized it and welcomed it as something equally "modern" as their own progressive policies of a New State for the New Man. America had "Progressivism" to reorganize society (and tear up the original Constitution in the process). But don't take my word for it. Let's borrow a description of the Wilson Administration by Goldberg:

"Under Woodrow Wilson, the first American president to embrace the new cult of pragmatism and power that had overtaken "enlightened" thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic (and the first American president to openly disdain the U.S. Constitution), the progressives unleashed a crackdown on freedom that makes the supposed fascism of the McCarthy era and the Bush years seem like a teach-in at Smith College. Wilson established the American Protective League, a group of domestic fascisti charged with crushing dissent, beating "slackers," and intimidating average Americans. Wilson's Committee for Public Information was the first modern propaganda ministry. Indeed, according to the late sociologist and intellectual historian Robert Nisbet, the "West's first real experience with totalitarianism - political absolutism extended into every possible area of culture and society, education, religion, industry, the arts, local community and family included, with a kind of terror always waiting in the wings - came with the American war state under Wilson."

And do you know that "Military Socialism" was the political creed of the fellow that invented the original US Pledge of Allegiance in 1892? This Francis Bellamy even predated the military socialists from Europe when he constructed the POA stiff-arm salute for the indoctrination of children at socialist State schools. Oh, and these leftist schools were racially segregated by the way. Sort of multi-cultural without the repressed racism of today's Left.
Check this out: Wilson Jugend?

You [Bela] write about the fact that you were.. well, a bit of a Euro-snob when you came to America. But you changed continents - as well as your viewpoint. And now it seems you behave like an American snob. Plus ça change, plus ça reste la même chose? ;-)

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Great comment, Sagunto. Knowing what fascism is actually about - as opposed to using it as an arbitrary smear - is more useful than I like in these times of inept politicians and arbitrary power-grabs.

remingtonquail said...

I don't know to what extent Bela's views represent Americans but I take his comments with a grain of salt. I think his comments are colored by the experience of his former life in Eastern Europe, so naturally there's going to be a lot of pessimism there. I don't for one minute believe that he would nonchalantly munch popcorn while actually viewing some atrocity. It's just his drastic way of expressing himself and the doubt that Europe will succeed in saving its own culture, based on being an eyewitness to the same type of forces that ruined his life in his former homeland. (Well, maybe his life wasn't ruined - he seems to be doing okay now - but he probably saw plenty of lives ruined, if not his own.) But nobody likes to be told, "There's no hope for you." I think he would love for Europeans to prove him wrong, he's just betting they won't - again, basing that judgment on his own experience. Or maybe he just likes getting a rise out of CS, Defiant Lion, et al, with his provoking statements.

As for any animosity between Americans and Europeans, this just should not be. While we are different, we have a shared history that makes our cultures far more alike than dissimilar. We are natural allies. It's more than sentimental feelings for the past. Unfortunately, politics obscures that natural alliance. Throughout this decade, Americans have gotten the anti-American message emanating from Europe loud and clear, believe me. On the other hand, it's true many Americans don't care that much about the world's opinion of them, so they shrug it off. It's probably also true that most Americans do think of themselves as Number One; however, many are also acutely aware that status may soon end, and real soon if Obama is elected and his kind controls the presidency and both houses of Congress; and Obama will also surely have the opportunity to appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice, leaving all 3 branches of government in the hands of the looters. Another thing: most Americans have no idea what Europe is going through.

Profitsbeard said...

Has Europe, by failing to preserve its world-historically ascendant culture, thus proved itself to be the inferior "race"?

Bela said...

Most of the hostile reaction I received here represent the prevailing tendency according which "we are only poor victims" "please, Mr. Putin help us!"-"ah! yes, the ruling elite!" "this is the fault of the liberals - but, CS said: "They do not expressively wish for Europe to go under."

This is the complete and repulsive self-exoneration of any guilt for VOTING and ELECTING freely your tormentors, only courage you have is to whine and release long essays on the dubious origins of Latin proverbs on these sympathetic forums.

Have you ever tried to resist like we did in the East? We fought with firearms your "Messiah, Putin" instead of sucking up to a*h*les.
We struggled for our beliefs, so did the Poles, the Czech the Baltics....and many paid with their life...

Have you ever tried to emulate the courage of the ANTIFA goons who kicked your ***: they have a party, organization, money and the WILL to show off their creed.

You sit, incubate meaningless essays, dream up fantastic scenarios which will unfold in the distant future, bash the US and anybody who disagree ... and a meaningful day is over for you.

Have you ever assumed any responsibility for the course of your life and your country's turn?

How?

You are all running off at the mouth, complains, theories, relentless criticism of others, and the high spirited pontification on the ills of the USA, my black soul...and no action to stop you decay.

Sagunto said...

@Henrik,

The quote from Goldberg contains another quote by Robert Nisbet. Highly recommended for the SBC (subversive book club): "The Twilight of Authority" (1975).

@Bela,

Yes, it must be annoying after you've first set out to boast your aptness at citing ancient proverbs, that you make such an obvious mistake when you speak about "wise Romans". I admit it was a bit of a cheap shot on my part, but I just couldn't resist the temptation. In Holland we have a saying: "Wie de bal kaatst kan hem terug verwachten", meaning "Those who play at bowls, must look out for rubs". Just don't get too worked-up over small potatoes (did I spell that right?), it looks a bit silly.

Secondly, you seem to advocate emulating the "courage" of AFA fascists. Where's the courage in hiding your face? When I confronted these upstanding citizens at a pro-Denmark demonstration in Amsterdam (2006), they showed no courage at all, hiding behind a police force, covering themselves up in black and throwing rocks at people who stood up for free speech.

Besides all that, I don't think Westerners are in need of a speech about "Eastern Resistence". For examples of bravery on behalf of one's country, I can stay close at home. My grandfather resisted the Nazis, hid Jews and weapons from the Germans. He was betrayed, captured and tortured but didn't break. My father was the youngest in a family of 7, but that's only because his parents were unable to produce more offspring. Courtesy of the Nazi torture-machine.

And finally, resistence also means to keep y'r composure under pressure. And when I see you loosing it online that easy, I doubt if you wouldn't be considered a liability in any resistance movement that aims but a little above mere sound and fury.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Bela said...

Sag:

I hate to dwell on inconsequential details but since you brought it up this Latin stuff for the second time:
"This is a reference to Metamorphoses (Ovidius), Liber XV, line 165:

omnia mutantur, nihil interit

A longer variant, in which form it gained popularity, is:

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis;
Quo modo? fit semper tempore pejor homo

So cool off.....

Since I am an ex-European I am well acquitted with the Euro newspeak and other spin that never stops.

If you stood up to the thugs then you are a honorable man but your deeds shall not absolve the pusillanimous majority who run the show.
Your father's action is called Righteous Gentiles of the Holocaust" and revered by the humanity.
However Holland was the country which sent the most Jews to their death considering the population of Holland.

Other facts:
"Some 75% of the Dutch-Jewish population perished, one of the highest percentages of all Nazi-occupied countries - despite the fact that Dutch Jews seemed to be more tolerated by and more integrated in the Dutch population than for example the Jews in Poland in the Polish population."

Are you hiding behind the memories of your father; - why are you implicating him in our discussion?- what does he prove or disprove? - what is the relevance?

Please off the high horse.

Composure:
I am not bound by PC rules, I am protected by the American 1st. Amendment, I call a spade a spade, I never offended anybody, instead I was the subject of name calling.

What is your point? What sins did I commit?

Sagunto said...

:D You're some character @Bela.

[quote: Bela]
"I hate to dwell on inconsequential details.."

Now is that really true?
Look at "the facts" you present with so much gusto. What you write about Ovid flatly contradicts the original point you were trying to make, i.e. adapt to changin' times. Ovid doesn't agree with you. Contrary to that, Ovid - put back in context - speaks about the soul that is stable in spite of changing appearances. It's actually a bit silly to invoke Ovid when you fail to get his message.

Hurling facts without proper understanding. Considering the other "facts" you provide out of context, you seem to have turned it into quite a hobby. But you are absolutely right in one regard: time to get off high horses. But isn't it equally wise to descend from that towering skyscraper, before you might hurt yourself? ;-)

Kind regs from Amsterdam
Sag.

Conservative Swede said...

Henrik,

The concept of 'ad hominem' is indeed very popular to invoke, but very few people understand its significance. There is something called the ad hominem fallacy. E.g. when saying "Mr. Jones scientific theories are wrong -- don't believe them! -- since Mr. Jones is a criminal / not a good Christian / a Muslim / a Jew". A factual issue is mixed up with an unrealted personal feature, which is used for a cheap shot.

Since there is something called the ad hominem fallacy, tons of people (with unreflective minds) think that 'ad hominem' as such is a problem. But sometimes the topic is about the person, and then 'ad hominem' is completely relevant and on topic. In a civilized discussion about theories and objective facts, however, the person who speaks is simply a vessel of the ideas, and any ad hominem is a breech of the discourse. We remember the expression of being such a "vessel" from Muhammad's claim of how the Koran was sent from Allah through him. But in reality he was not such a vessel. And as we all know, any substantive criticism of Islam, has criticism of the character of Muhammad at its core. The person becomes the topic. Are you seriously suggesting, Henrik, that a large degree of the criticism of Islam at Jihadwatch, Faithfreedom, etc., is nothing but inappropriate "ad hominem attacks"?

Let's take another example: Western Initiatives (WI). Both you and I agreed that Fjordman was unecessarily rude to him. However, even after conceeding that to WI he continued with rudeness towards Fjordman, over and over, and seemed to have no other mode than rudeness. Here the person is the very issue. The matter takes place outside of the (non-personal) discourse. This dimension of the discussion was introduced already by Fjordman's initial comment and your reaction to it. My point here was very simple: it's grosely unfair and unreasonable to hold on to a reprimand towards Fjordman (who stays well within civilized discourse) for a single minor thing, when the object of this showed no wish for civilized discourse at all and only exposed rudeness repeatedly. By the behaviour of WI he invalidated the point of invoking such a rule, and, as it were, his protection from rude comments. Since he put himself completely outside of civilized discourse himself, the rules of such a discourse no longer applied to him.

Anyway, according to the automated mechanical mind this is an "ad hominem attack". I think there is probably no concept that is so misunderstood and misused on the Internet as "ad hominem". How could the failure of WI be addressed without mentioning it? Impossible of course. The person was the issue, and WI made himself the issue. He himself as a person had put himself outside of civilized discourse. Pointing that out is indeed "ad hominem", but certainly not a fallacy.

Conservative Swede said...

Henrik,

In a strange twist to this story, you mysteriously came to believe that I had said about you that you have "no other mode than rudeness", and insisted on an apology. If I had ever said such a thing, I would of course have apologized. Nothing could be more wrong. Few people are as seldom rude as you are, Henrik. Which leaves me wondering were you left your reality check. People in this forum know me better than spurting out outrageously false statements. On the contrary, I stick to the truth even to the point that it hurts. And maybe that's actually how I hurt you, because you leave me with the impression of being somewhat jumpy in my presence, prepared to jump on anything. Your interpretation here was so outrageously absurd. I clearly didn't write what you claim. I mentioned WI with name and everything, and the context is very clear.

Very disappointing...

Conservative Swede said...

Back to Bela,

When Bela says that he intends to enjoy the cruel suffering of hordes of innocent people while "eating popcorn". When I take issue with that, it's not a matter of whether such a statement is true or false, but whether it's immoral or not. And such statement is outrageously immoral and viciously cruel and hostile. We can detach the matter from the person if we want: that statement as such is deeply immoral and cruel, and any person holding to such an attitude is likewise by extension.

A popular spin here seems to be that Bela does not mean what he says (this is the most popular spin elsewhere regarding what Jihadists say too, btw). If it was indeed so, it would have been easy for Bela to back off from it. Instead he sticks to this very attitude all the way. It baffles me how some people cling to the belief that he doesn't mean it. (Also such disbelief directly makes the character of Bela the issue, as the way to demonstrate that he truly means what he says).

We live of course in a deranged culture where people believe they are "better people" and more "objective" if they close their ears and eyes to any giant elephant in the room. People listened to Hitler, but didn't believe he meant what he said. People listen to the Jihadists, but do not believe they mean exactly what they say. The special kind of aggressive U.S. hate against all sorts of European peoples, that is the issue here, has already struck in Bosnia and in Serbia. It has struck in the Georgian war. And we can expect it to strike again under McCain. And we can expect the implied and explicit threats towards any European people that show signs of life lust (this task is generally left to the Euro-haters in the EUrocracy, but to the degree that they fail their task as the primary front, be prepared to hear quite a lot more of it directly from America.)

There are many versions of this Euro-hate, e.g. Charles Johnson, Ralph Peters, and of course Bela. And they are not completely overlapping, but the intensity is the same. It's rooted in an hyper-ideological imperialism and an extremely black and white outlook. Quite as there are many rivaling interpretations of the meaning of egalitarianism, there are rivaling interpretations of this U.S. based internationalist imperialism. This accounts for the differences. But it doesn't differ much more than Sunni and Shia Islam for the one that is hit by it. And they are all prepared to destroy, or enjoy the destruction of, a given set (with some variation) of European peoples.

Quite as most Muslims are not aggressive Jihadists, most Americans are not aggressive in this sort of way. But the thing in both cases is that the aggressive ones are disproportionally powerful and manages to dominate the policy (if McCain ascends to power we will see it in full throttle).

This becomes especially easy since the non-aggressive ones are in denial about the aggressiveness of these. And by that I'm back to where I started this comment, how other Americans/Westerners are in denial about what Bela has really said.

People here used to be in denial about Charles Johnson too. It was not until he attacked them personally and intensively that they finally noticed the giant elephant in the room. And even then it was hard for them to believe -- so deep was their denial.

But people here learned about the character of Charles Johnson, and they will learn about Bela too. And in both cases, more interesting than the person as such, is what they represent, what the are the tip of the iceberg of.

This thing does not necessarily go deep in American culture. As I have always said, there are many historical layers. But it's animated by America in its current incarnation, based on the current geopolitical power-configuration. And the hostile arrogance comes from the feeling of being backed by invincible military might.

Conservative Swede said...

Just for the record:

If someone tells me (insistently and aggressively) that me and my people deserve to die, I take it fully seriously (and literally at least to the degree of making a note about the merciless hate against me and my people coming from that direction).

We ignore such threats at our own peril. (I thought this was one of the major points of this site.)

Is it an "ad hominem attack" to recognize this? Are Western people so over-civilized that they insist on being in denial about declarations about how they deserve to die? Well, then they will cease to exist. Possibly ascending to heaven sanctimoniously content over sticking to a principle they never understood (ad hominem).

Most people are so over-civilized and polite that the would never dream of seeing Islam for what it is, even less criticize it. By simple Darwinism, people holding on to such nonsense will become extinct (either they actual people will die, or their deranged principles - the point is: it cannot survive).

Now I will go to my chamber and self-flagellate for all my "ad hominem attacks" on Muhammad, several Jihadists and other Muslims. I'm a very bad boy for having recognized, and spoken about, their lethal hostility against me and my people.

I guess also that if a burglar enters my house, making hostile threats about how me and my family deserve to die, it would be an "ad hominem attack" to even mention the fact that he did it. Disproportionate response, you know. I would probably be fined in court for having done so (any day soon). No we must all be timid Elois, and see no evil and hear no evil. Maybe some of my family members get mysteriously killed in the process (and then we can discuss forever in media how such a "accident" could have happened, the burglar probably needs help by the dialog police etc.). The only important thing, however, is that I do not make any "ad hominem attacks" on the burglar, or any other disproportionate responses.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Thanks, CS.

What I referred to was your quoting yourself here (two levels):

"No, I agree with Henrik. We shouldn't be rude to Western Initiatives."

OK, I think I need to take that back, considering that he seems to have no other mode than rudeness himself (...)

This is where the misunderstanding comes from, and it's question of semantics. It is a question of parsing exactly who 'he' refers to in that sentence. Since I was mentioned first, I took it that the reference was to me, not to WI. Which I found quite unresonable.

Experts on language syntax will be able to determine who of us was right in the first place. In any case, it is now clear that this wasn't directed at me, and thus no apology is needed.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

For the record, I still think being rude to WI - or largely anyone else - is wrong. When people have silly views, it's better to ridicule their views than to attack their personalities. 'Better', because it's more effective.

Conservative Swede said...

Henrik,

For the record, I still think being rude to WI - or largely anyone else - is wrong.

No, Fjordman turned out to be right and prophetic. And I was shown to be wrong.

People who do not accept the rules of civilized discourse, should not be treated as if they did. The same with people who are constitutionally unable to comply with the rules of civilized society (as is often discussed in this forum).

Then regarding politeness and rudeness. Rudeness is in the eyes of the beholder. We live in a society where the people generally see the behaviour of the police as "rude" or worse. Is the school teacher rude when reprimanding the pupil?

Regarding these things, your stated preference is "formal politeness", while my preference is in being "direct". Formal politeness is too often ineffective and too roundabout and at worst dishonest and disingenuous. As we know, formal politeness does not exclude rudeness. It can be a very elaborate way of being rude.

Respect to people is shown by honesty, first and foremost. And the most honest approach is to always be direct and open to people. That's my philosophy. Most people find this to be a breath of fresh air, but then again others don't.

When people have silly views, it's better to ridicule their views than to attack their personalities.

I'm always searching for the essence of things. To me this is not just some game.

And btw "silly views"? Someone declares that you and your people deserve to die, and you call that a "silly view"? Maud Olofsson, party leader of one of the coalition parties, last year made an utterance about Hitler's "silly views" (tokerier), and was rightfully ridiculed for it.

And back to the beginning of your comment:
It is a question of parsing exactly who 'he' refers to in that sentence.

The "it" in a text is a matter of semantics, such as e.g. corresponding to "the issue". The issue here was whether to reprimand Fjordman for being "rude" to WI. Something which I could agree with you about or not. But the "he" of the "it" here is most definitely WI. Putting you as the "he" would be strange in all sorts of ways: 1) it does not fit the context, 2) it does not fit the semantics, 3) it does not fit who you are, 4) it would make up for the strangest reason to disagree with someone (Even if you were the rudest person on this planet you could still be right, claiming otherwise would be exactly an ad hominem fallacy).

Also, with a syntactical interpretation, a "he" would refer to the last sentence of a previous paragraph, not the first one.

A pronoun is well covered for if it semantically, syntactically and contextually points the same way, and which was the case here.

Conservative Swede said...

Ah well, and thanks back, Henrik. I'm glad we got that cleared out.

Henrik R Clausen said...

And btw "silly views"? Someone declares that you and your people deserve to die, and you call that a "silly view"?

Stupid, false, foolish, ridiculous, insane, dangerous - use whatever adjective fits the situation.

Yes. Ridiculing Hitler for his stupid ideology and insane Jew-hatred would have been very useful during the 30's. But governments were timid, and asked artists not to do things that might 'offend Hr. Hitler'. Chaplin, of course, disregarded the requests from the British government and forged ahead anyway :)

Sagunto said...

@Henrik,

Sorry for barging in like this, but since you mentioned Chaplin, I thought this info might shed some light on the appeasement of Hitler (on both sides of the Atlantic, @Bela) by the powers that were.
I got it from an article that may be somewhere online in full, but I couldn't find it, so here's a trimmed down - but still lengthy enough - version of the original documents.

Source: Short, K. R. M. (1985) Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator' and British censorship, 1939, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 5:1, 85 - 108

By the opening of 1939 a script was taking shape and newspapers were reporting on the forthcoming 'Dictator' film. In his Autobiography (Penguin edition, 1976, pp. 386-401), Chaplin described the making of the film and its reception by both audiences and critics, mentioning that during production he had had 'worrying letters' from the "New York office [of United Artists] ... imploring me not to make the film, declaring it would never be shown in England or America".

One prominent strand of the controversy which has recently emerged came into being when a constituent of E. H. Keeling, MP, wrote complaining about the projected film suggesting that if it were shown in Britain it would harm Chamberlain's successful appeasement policy. Keeling, a Conservative MP, sympathetically wrote to R. A. Butler, Undersecretary at the Foreign Office on 22 February 1939 conveying the message (Document 1).

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

Document 1
22nd February, 1939.
Dear Rab,
A constituent writes:--
"I feel that I must write to you about a film now in course of preparation in Hollywood which is to be called 'The Dictator' and in which Charles Chaplin is to portray Herr Hitler satirically. It is obviously most undesirable that such a film should be exhibited in this country and I venture to think that the Government should make it known immediately to the persons financially interested in its production and distribution that its exhibition in Great Britain will be forbidden, the necessary instructions being issued at the same time to Lord Tyrrell's Board [The British Board of Film Censors, ed.]".
If any action is taken, I should be glad to hear from you.
Yours ever,
E. H. Keeling
The Rt. Hon. R. A. Butler, M.P.,
Foreign Office,
S.W.1.

Document 2
File 34.
FEE: DP
Dear News Department,
With reference to your letter
BRITISH CONSULATE,
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA,
17th May, 1939.
(P 691/691/150) of the 28th April, we are afraid that we have no very satisfactory information to convey regarding Charles Chaplin's film, upon which we reported to the Embassy,..//.. We gather that the rivalry of the two Dictators will be treated with hilarious satire; such tricks will be used as their insistence that each shall be able to look down a little physically upon the other..//.. "Mr. Hinkel's" director of propaganda is to be known as "Mr. Garbage"; he will be (to quote Mr. Chaplin's own words), the first "yes-man" and "shusher" of the country, being at once the principal sycophant and sinister influence in the Dictator's entourage. The countries involved are to be called "Ptomania" and "Bacteria".
The foregoing are but minor indications of the bitter and ridiculous quality of the satire which Mr. Chaplin proposes to apply to his production. We have had some personal conversation with him on the subject, and find that he is
entering into the production of "The Dictator" with fanatical enthusiasm. ..//.. the directness of his attack would seem to be, to him, the picture's only motive and reason. ..//.. Mr. Chaplin recognizes quite frankly that possibly only in the United States will he be able to show his film, and that even here representations will probably be made which will limit the field of distribution to him. ..//..
Yours ever,
Consulate.
The News Department,
Foreign Office,
London, S.W.1.


Document 3
OUT FILE
(P 2136/691/150)
CONFIDENTIAL.
FOREIGN OFFICE, S.W.1.
16th June, 1939.

My dear Brooke-Wilkinson,
You will no doubt have heard of the film which Mr. Charles Chaplin is preparing, to be called "The Dictator". ..//.. Mr. Chaplin has entered into the production of "The Dictator" in a spirit of fanatical enthusiasm. His racial and social sympathies are with those groups and classes which have suffered most in Germany and Italy, and he is apparently making a strong attack upon the Dictators in those two countries. It is said that the film will treat of one Dictator, "Mr. Hinkel", who is in competition with another, "Signor Gasolini", and the identity of the prototypes of these two characters will leave nothing to the imagination. We understand that Mr. Chaplin recognises that the Hays Office may refuse to pass the film for exhibition in the United States of America, and that it may be banned almost everywhere else, but he is prepared to spend a considerable amount of his private fortune to ensure American exhibition of the film, if necessary without recourse to the distributing organisation with which he is associated, or indeed with any other.
We thought it as well to draw your attention to these reports in order that you may be prepared--if you have not already heard of them---to give the film the most careful scrutiny should it be presented to you for a licence for exhibition in this country.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
(Sd.) ROWLAND KENNY
J. Brooke-Wilkinson Esq.
British Board of Film Censors.

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

Remember the comments that abounded among the political elites when Geert Wilders was still only in the preparing stages of "Fitna"?
Could have been a blue-print:

[pseudo-quote: PoliCor]
"..Fitna will probably display a bitter and ridiculous quality ..//.. We have had some personal conversation with Mr. Wilders on the subject, and find that he is entering into the production of "Fitna" with fanatical enthusiasm.."

The more things change..

Sag.