Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Fjordman: Why I Write About History

Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at the Brussels Journal. Some excerpts are below:

I get a few comments from people who wonder why I write about subjects such as astrophysics, Indo-European languages or wine when there are so many problems in the Western world. It is a fair question. I have published perhaps a million words on the Internet, yet the only book to appear in print so far based on my material is Defeating Eurabia, part of which is available online in German. For Scandinavian readers, I have contributed a long chapter in Norwegian to the book Selvmordsparadigmet (“The Suicide Paradigm”), published in May 2010 by the writer Ole J. Anfindsen who runs the website Honest Thinking.

Anfindsen believes that the Western world is in the process of committing suicide and that the ruling ideology after the Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, has been suicidal. I agree with him. The main emphasis of his book is not on Islam, but on Politically Correct censorship and the Multiculturalism of the Western oligarchs. The same goes for my contribution to it. No, I haven’t lost my focus, but I admit that I have changed it somewhat.

I am currently working on a major book about European cultural achievements, from the Stone Age to the nuclear age and from chocolate to quantum mechanics. I believe there is a big potential market for such a title today, if done properly. When reading extensively about various historical subjects, I am struck by how little I truly know about my continent’s history, and how distorted much of my previous knowledge was. I have at least average education and intelligence. If I don’t know these things, there are probably tens of millions of other Westerners out there who don’t know them, either. A big part of the job for European traditionalists will be to re-conquer our historical heritage, which has been robbed from us in recent decades by Leftists and Multiculturalists of all stripes. History isn’t bunk.
- - - - - - - - -
You can find a few titles overlapping with this subject matter, for instance Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment, which I respect and quote extensively. However, to my knowledge no recent, updated book of precisely the kind I am thinking of is currently available on the market. Although I will cover subjects also mentioned by Murray, I will extend them both forward and backward in time and will include much material barely covered by him at all, for instance food and drink, with a special emphasis on alcoholic beverages like mead, wine and beer, the Indo-European language expansion as well as genetic history.

The upcoming book is intended to cover almost everything from interbreeding with Neanderthals and the creation of early cave art 40,000 years ago to the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in 2010. Although some of my essays may appear random, they are not; there is a plan behind them. I haven’t decided on a title yet, but I am considering calling it European Achievements — the First 40,000 Years. The full work will probably be between 700 and 1,000 pages long, depending on how much material I include and whether I can find a publisher for it. I hope to have a full manuscript for it ready later this summer. When this is completed, I intend to proceed directly to a shorter book about What Went Wrong With the West?, thereby attempting to link what we did right in the past to what we are doing wrong today.

Read the rest at the Brussels Journal.

40 comments:

Nilk said...

Anfindsen believes that the Western world is in the process of committing suicide and that the ruling ideology after the Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, has been suicidal. I agree with him.

Interestingly enough, the more I read and study, the more I agree with this.

I started with Robert Spencer's Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam and the Crusades. Reading Diana West, Lee Harris, Rodney Stark and even Theodore Dalrymple and Stephen Baskerville, you can see that islam isn't the true threat.

If we had a stronger stomach for the battle, we'd not be where we are now, now would this discussion be taking place.

A look at what happened as opposed to what the current parrots say, is vital.

Tonight's reading: St Athanasius' Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word.

Yorkshireminer said...

History is your past it is the sign post to your future if you don't know it you will not be able to read the signpost, you have no future. Revisionist history, that treacle that we are teaching our children under titles like black awareness week are attempts to make fantasy facts fit there fantasy Utopian dreams.

I sometimes just want to scream, revisionist history is always subjective not objective, take slavery for example. Slavery had been the lot of man since the beginning recorded history. Slavery ended apart from in the more backward parts of the world such as in the Islamic world, during a short period of time from the 1800s too the beginning of the 1900. If you read history you will find out that Industrialization is the real reformer and not some, biblical scholar with a conscience, and it is in the industrial countries where it disappeared so quickly and permanently.

The reason slavery disappeared was because when you use inanimate energy you leverage the productivity of the worker. Simply put a hired worker was cheaper than one you owned. Do you think that America would have fought a civil war if they had invented a steam driven cotton picker, in the 1830s, certainly not, the slave owners would have freed there slaves because it would have been cheaper too pick there cotton with steam. Unfortunately the left still see the world through rose colored class struggle glasses.

Tanstaafl said...

suicide:

the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind

I have not decided to take my own life, not voluntarily, and not intentionally. Likewise for the vast majority of Whites, most of whom are afraid to have more than the vaguest thoughts about what has gone wrong. This situation is imposed - it is not voluntary.

We are betrayed by leaders who lie to us about what is happening and why. They are in a position to know the truth, and they have a duty to tell it, but they do not. Instead they tell us nothing is wrong, or that the symptoms of our "suicide" - genocidal levels of immigration and anti-White discrimination - are "strengths" to be "celebrated"! Only irrational, psychopathic "racists" think something is wrong.

If you're going to talk about this honestly instead of denying or lying about it like they do, then call it genocide. Don't add insult to our injury by slandering us as suicidal.

rebelliousvanilla said...

I wonder when people like Tanstaafl will get over this current stage. It goes like this: denial - anger - someone's else fault - my/our fault.

Most Europeans are either in denial or anger.

Tanstaafl said...

It's my fault my country's borders are open, and that a treasonous and dishonest political class elevates non-White aliens above White citizens?

Excuse me, but you're the one in denial.

Fjordman said...

Tanstaafl: There are two opposing camps of analysts who state that the decline of the modern West is caused by: A. The decadence of the majority population. B. The evil ideas of a determined minority population. Both theories are correct and describe different aspects of the problem. I have made this quite clear a number of times.

The problem with people like you is that you assume that the minority causing trouble always consist of Jews. But the Jews didn't create Eurabia; the French did, aided by power-hungry Gentile elites in other European countries. If anything, the pro-Islamic Eurabian alliances are explicitly anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish. Jewish Leftists may contribute to Multiculturalism disproportionately to their numbers due to their elevated IQ, yes. But they still constitute just one out of twenty to thirty different problems in the modern West. To focus exclusively on one problem and ignore dozens of others will not solve anything.

Tanstaafl said...

The fault for this non-"suicide" lies with the people who perpetrate it, who aid and abet it, who profit from it. Not with those who are ignorant of it, and not those who oppose it.

fellist said...

Fjordman, power-hoarding national elites would seek to keep their powers national. The European project, and subsequent Eurabia project achieve the opposite, transferring powers abroad to other people. British politicians have never had so little power.

***

Debate about Jews vs. national elites' responsibility is in some ways a side issue. Jews have Israel, we do not. Let us have England (or Norway), and let them not.

Not to do so seems explicitly anti-English, which is just as bad as being explicitly anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish. Worse, as far as I'm concerned. Cui bono?

Fjordman said...

Fellist: I see no contradiction between supporting a homeland for Jews and one for Norwegians, or the English. As far as I'm concerned I'm being moral as well as logically consistent by doing both. And remember that those individuals who participate in the EU system have vastly increased personal power. The EU is a system where the national elites and oligarchs cooperate to circumvent the democratic system.

Tanstaafl said...

There are two opposing camps of analysts who state that the decline of the modern West is caused by: A. The decadence of the majority population. B. The evil ideas of a determined minority population. Both theories are correct and describe different aspects of the problem. I have made this quite clear a number of times.

The problem with people like you is that you assume that the minority causing trouble always consist of Jews.


The assertion that what's happening is "suicide" is more clearly A than AB. Fretting over the percentage of B that might be jewish also makes it seem you're inclined toward A.

For the sake of argument let's imagine A is 100% decadent jews and B is 100% evil Whites. Will you still call it "suicide"? Will you still be an AB man?

I think your problem is that you'd rather strawman and blame "people like me" than hold the people who are actually responsible accountable, jew or not.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Tanstaafl, so tell me, who elects these idiots? It's not your fault personally, it's white people as a whole who elected these people. I didn't see white people vote out every idiot who voted for the 1965 Immigration Act and back then white people were 90% or so of the American population so you could have voted out whoever you wanted.

And by the way, the people who have most opposition to 'racism' stuff are whites so whites perpetrate it and aid it. Sure, you can attribute the fault to whoever you want so that you can sleep well at night and think about how perfect we are and how all our mistakes is the fault of others. This doesn't mean that Jews are blameless, but nobody forced us to care about them at all or listen to them.

Tanstaafl said...

it's white people as a whole

Here's what one treasonous politician had to say about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965:

During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think ... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.) The act's supporters not only claimed the law would not change America's ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.

The politicians knew the people didn't want the ethnic makeup of the country changed. They promised it wouldn't. Only later did it become clear they were lying. And only to a few, because the media and academia haven't helped anyone remember this bit of history.

People who blame the victims, make excuses and redirect blame away from the people who are actually responsible
are part of the problem.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Ok, so white people are idiots that can't figure out these things. lol. If I'd ask a 5 years old child if allowing everyone in would change the ethnic mix, he would say that yes. And last time I checked, Ted Kennedy died in office and he didn't get voted out in his whole life, even after the results of the bill were obvious. What kept people from voting someone in who would repeal that law?

It's quite funny that you're the one making excuses and redirecting blame. But again, I suppose the Jews voted Kennedy in, right? lol. You should start treating your own as mature, adult people responsible for their decisions(including who they vote for and what they support) and not as brainless retards.

Armance said...

Actually, the discussion about who is to blame, Whites, Jews or Martians, is pointless in a democratic system. Universal suffrage is that system of voting where masses of clueless voters will permanently elect idiots or liars (sometimes they can elect a good leader, but only by accident, there's no reason or process of selection behind it. In the eyes of the masses, the genius and the retard are pretty much the same). As Churchill (otherwise a democrat, but a lucid one) once said "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minutes conversation with the usual voter".

Besides, there's nothing easier than deceiving the masses, particularly in this era of informational explosion. If you want to deceive an individual, it takes effort, a whole strategy, cunningness, sophistry. If you want to deceive a nation, all it takes is television. They will vote like sheep, honestly believing that there's no other choice than between Republican and Democrat, Labor or "Conservative" (ha!), Social-Democrats and Christian-Democrats.

Personally, I would return to the voting system where only birthright citizens, men, with property, a proffesion and a family are allowed to vote. The ones who can elect according to what they have to defend - a country, a property, a family, not according to ideological unicorns.

Sometimes I watch the most sordid shows on Romanian TV channels, our own versions of Jerry Springer and Oprah. Not out of masochism, but as a lesson. When I witness that unbelievable display of shallowness, idiocy, irrationality, bad language, I say to myself "Don't forget: these people have the right to vote.They have the right to influence your life and your future". Then I understand what's wrong with us, our civilization, our world.

Yet I value my people and my kind more than anything in the world, because loving your people is like loving your mother, something ingrained in your genes. But "democracy" as we understand it today has the negative effect to transform any people into a mere population. While I love my people, I detest the population it has become, there's no contradiction here. And in universal suffrage it's the population who vote, not the people.

Armance said...

I have to add that democracy, in the sense of universal suffrage, has the peculiar characteristic to encourage the forming of an oligarchic class more than any other governance system, perhaps with the exception of third world tyrannies. Because the oligarchic class is formed by the people who understood and had the practice of how easy it is to deceive, oppress and rule the masses. EU elites, as well as the American current administration are oligarchic structures that understood the machinations necessary to ruling the population while ignoring the will of the people. The precedent is the Bolshevik principle of vote for everybody, choice for nobody.

fellist said...

Fjordman (and Armance), arguing about how much responsibility Jews have for our situation, pro and con, is only the wearisome possibility it is because your wing of the 'pro-Western' movement won't be logically consistent and allow us to separate from Jews as they have from us. I would be happy to find that you are exceptions in the Wilders/Gates of Vienna/Auserite bloc, and now embrace an authentic ethnonationalism, is that the case?

***

those individuals who participate in the EU system have vastly increased personal power

Over where they as individuals were before taking employment and being promoted through the system ... but as British MPs, British Prime Ministers, etc, they give away powers, contrary to all norms and expectations.

You endorse Anfindsen's view that 'the Western world is in the process of committing suicide and that the ruling ideology after the Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, has been suicidal.' Yet say we're ruled by 'power-hungry Gentile elites'.

Which is it? Are Western political and cultural elites suicidal (polls show the populace isn’t), or are they commited not only to life, but also to making themselves more powerful - more vital?

Tan squares your circle: It’s genocide of European peoples by tptb. Secondly, “Power-hungry ‘Gentile’ elites”, to secure what power is available to them, must prove willing to help genocide their nations, and to continually give their own powers away.

Again, who benefits? Who, that has combined ethnic, political, cultural, and financial means and motive to impose this system on Euro-Christian (and, if your Eurabia projections are correct, Arab) nations, but to exempt our friend Israel, whose 'right to exist as a Jewish state' is non-negotiable among the same elites?

ZZMike said...

That's an ambitious project - I look forward to the result.

"... European Achievements — the First 40,000 Years. The full work will probably be between 700 and 1,000 pages."

That seems manageable: 40 years/page.

Armance: "As Churchill (otherwise a democrat, but a lucid one) once said "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minutes conversation with the usual voter".

He also said that while it was the worst form of government, it is better than all the rest.

A reasonable compromise is a republic. And entry tests for voters. If you don't know what you're voting for - and what the consequences are likely to be, you don't vote. And even stricter tests for candidates.

Some would argue for voting rights only for property owners - because they bear most of the tax burden.

Armance said...

fellist,

Uhm, no, I'm not part of Wilders/Gates of Vienna/Austerite bloc, even if I appreciate Wilders for what he is trying to do in Holland, but I think it's the best one can do considering the Dutch circumstances. I am an ethno-nationalist and I consider Jews an out-group with different interests (sometimes our interests might coincide, but only by accident, our fate and theirs have different paths).
Actually one of the cold showers I received since reading counter-jihad blogs was Wilders's condemnation by Jewish organizations, as a bigot and hate-monger. Wilders is one of the most passionate pro-Jewish supporters one can find around, and still he is an object of hatred in Jewish mainstream. The hypothesis that this is the opinion of Jewicidals deluded fools is false, IMO. Wilders is hated by Jewish mainstream organizations precisely because he's a patriotic white goym, and no matter how much he humiliates himself in front of the Jews, his "atonement" won't erase the capital sin of being a patriotic white goym in their eyes.

I think it's e big difference between Whites and Jews: while a majority of Whites are really whiticidal (if I might say so) and oblivious to racial/ethnic realities, a majority of Jews are not.

The "litmus test" to differentiate between the two communities is to find a counterpart of Wilders among the Jews. Is it possible to find a Jew as passionate as Wilders about Whites having the privileged right to exist in their countries? Is it possible to find a Jew stating, like Wilders, "support for Whites in their countries is a litmus test for me, and according to it I choose my allies"?

I think it's impossible, and that's why Jews, like Muslims (even if each group posssesses some special characteristics) are an out-group.

Tanstaafl said...

It's clear from the reaction to the Tea Parties and Arizona's new immigration law how "democracy" operates in the US. The people have expressed their desires many times, in every mature, adult, legal fashion possible. The federal government overrides those desires. Media and academia collaborate by providing a narrative whereby Whites are evil and non-Whites are noble.

It isn't suicide.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Tanstaafl, and people vote the people who don't respect their decisions back in, because? If white people wouldn't vote for someone who isn't for their interest - anti-immigration enforcement, for example, you really think that politicians could do anything? For example, now whites shouldn't vote for anybody who doesn't want Obamacare repealed. Or whatever else.

Armance, my system of voting is better than yours. :P
1)be in between 25-65 years old
2)be married and have children
3)have no criminal record
4)be net tax payers
5)be homeowners or business owners
optional)have served in national service - men only.
By the way, welcome to the group of women who are against the female vote/universal suffrage band. I suggest you do other things than watch Romanian television though. I just turned it on a couple of days ago and I saw your friend, Madalin Voicu though. lol. Lately, I traveled a lot by taxi(yes, I'm a priviledged girl who affords it :P) and I talked to a lot of cab drivers and it's funny that after our chats, a lot of them agreed with me on principle, even Vadim voters.

Tanstaafl said...

and people vote the people who don't respect their decisions back in, because?

Because the politicians lie about what they are doing. Because the media reports what is happening as positive. Because most voters vote for the name they hear most often in a positive context. Because the choices are often, especially at the highest levels, restricted to politicians who will not buck the system (anyone else is painted as a "kook", "loser", "racist", "anti-semite").

It's like the one-party rule under communism, except in our case we used to have a political, media, and academic elite that wasn't hostile to Whites and could be trusted, for the most part, to do their duty honesty, without trying to genocide us. That changed after the Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, and people are only slowly beginning to realize this. That is very much because the requisite facts and understanding are not widely reported or taught. Quite the opposite.

This is why it is ridiculous to call what's happening "suicide", and wrong to blame "Whites as a whole" for it. It is only in marginal venues such as this that this so-called "suicide" is even discussed. In the mainstream everything is just fine. The economy is having some trouble and there are some problems with "racist" Tea Partiers and Arizonans, but there are no headlines saying "SUICIDE ON TRACK" or "POLLS SAY WHITES HAPPY TO BE REPLACED, SUPPORT NON-WHITE IMMIGRATION". Indeed, when polled we say the opposite.

fellist said...

Excellent response, Armance. We now await Fjordman's confirmation that he also does not conform to the anti-European/pro-Jewish double standards of our genocidal rulers.

At Tan's blog Chechar quotes a Sun Tzu proverb. The ‘know thyself’ part of that proverb is very appropriate for Fjordman and Gates of Vienna and that whole school of anti-Jihad activists, excepting the Jews who lead it. The primary purpose of the PC agenda is to make ethnic self-identification and mobilisation among Europeans (including Americans) taboo. So, until he’s prepared to say that we have interests distinct from Jews and are entitled to our own countries separate from them, just as he allows the Jews’ Israel, Fjordman himself is a perfect example of the politically corrected European, despite claiming to oppose political correctness.

fellist said...

Indeed, when polled we say the opposite.

And that's universal. Quoting from a previous online debate, with regard to Enoch Powell and the non-suicidal British:

“Heath sacked Powell from his Shadow Cabinet the day after the (1968) speech, and he never held another senior political post. Powell received almost 120,000 (predominantly positive) letters and a Gallup poll at the end of April showed that 74% of those asked agreed with his speech … Powell’s popularity appeared to contribute to the Conservatives’ surprise victory in the 1970 General Election, which showed a late surge in Conservative support in the West Midlands, near Powell’s constituency. In ‘exhaustive research’ on the election, the American pollster Douglas Schoen and University of Oxford academic R.W. Johnson believed it ‘beyond dispute’ that Enoch Powell had attracted 2.5 million votes to the Conservatives. Johnson later wrote that ‘It became clear that Powell had won the 1970 election for the Tories… of all those who had switched their vote from one party to another in the election, 50 per cent were working class Powellites. Not only had 18 per cent of Labour Powellites switched to the Tories but so had 24 per cent of Liberal Powellites’. Johnson further believed that the votes Powell brought to the Conservatives were ‘quite possibly four or five million’. A Daily Express poll in 1972 showed Powell being the most popular politician in the country …. In August 2002 Powell appeared in the List of 100 Greatest Britons of all time (voted for by the public in a BBC nationwide poll).” [wiki]



That 2002 poll seems especially significant, I think, after 34 years of unending scorn poured upon him by the establishment parties, mainstream media, and all organs of state from schools to the police.

For your claims that Powell did not represent the majority view and that the establishment party/ies do not avoid the race and nation issues because its views are out of step with the people’s, I refer you to Powell’s obit in the Indy:

“His stand on race made him the most reviled member of the House of Commons and a hate figure on university campuses. Yet polls showed that he was one of the most popular figures in the land and for a time he was favoured to succeed Heath as Conservative leader. Within a fortnight of the 1968 speech he had received over 120,000 letters of support. He had struck a chord with the British people. He was saying the unsayable.

“Yet the speech that made him also destroyed him. Race was the only subject that brought him majority public support; but the more popular he became the more unacceptable he was to the political elite. He had gone beyond the political pale and many of his long-standing friendships were ruptured. […]

“In fact, Powell self-destructed on the British party system and political culture. The more he appealed beyond the Conservative Party to the country at large, the less acceptable he was to colleagues.”

ZZMike said...

fellist: "Yet polls showed that [Enoch Powell] was one of the most popular figures in the land and..."

That's one of the reasons a pure democracy is a dangerous thing. It worked well in Athens, where the whole population was 25,000 or so (slaves and non-citizens were of course excluded), and every one of them took an almost daily part in government.

It's one of the reasons that the American Founders set us up as a republic, not a democracy. (And it's one of the reasons the Left is trying to get rid of the Electoral College, in favor of a direct presidential election.)

Fjordman and other historians may sort out the nuances, but Hitler was elected by the public.

In this country, the "people" have given us such standouts as Huey Long in Louisiana.

Sometimes the People are just plain wrong. I'd say the reason for that is that they're easily swayed by golden-tongued charlatans and rabble-rousers.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Tanstaafl, what I hear is just a bunch of excuses and whining. What stops white people from actually being interested in things affecting their lives? I'm glad I'm not a white American because it would piss me off to be treated like an idiot by the likes of you. It's simple - white people are the majority and they can vote. Period. Whatever happens is their doing. Just like the 1960s is white Americans doing since they were 89% of the voting block. Give me a break. As long as we will point fingers and cry like little kids, which is what you're doing, we won't fix the underlying issues, which is inside of us.

fellist, what kept Britons from mobilizing themselves and getting Powell to be PM?

Tanstaafl said...

I'm glad I'm not a white American

At last, something we agree on.

Chechar said...

RV,

While there’s certainly an elephant in the room that a few months ago I couldn’t see, I don’t think anybody is saying that the Jews are responsible for a hundred percent of our problems (talking about percentages, see these Mangan’s exchanges with a regular GoV-er about the Jewish Question starting e.g., with this post by Armance). What Kevin MacDonald says is that Jews are a “necessary but not sufficient” etilogical factor for our current malaise.

Tan,

As I have stated in my blog, I don’t believe that MacDonald’s model can explain everything. Before I started blogging my chosen field of inquiry was psychological case studies (that’s why in my web page you won’t find a word about counter-jihad, the JQ, race, etc).

IMHO, many westerners are indeed committing suicide. The most extreme cases of western self-hatred among gentiles cannot be explained by saying they’re mere Body-Snatched Pods victims of Jews. I could elaborate psycho-biographies of some members of my family demonstrating that, e.g., the abuse that my father suffered as a child moved him to cling to an anti-white, pro-Indian ideology (even if, as can be attested in the family album’s photos taken in Spain, my father looks more European than the average Spaniard). My Quetzalcoatl book is in some way an attempt to refute my father.

Like my father, there are many suicidal gentiles who transfer their feelings to the downtrodden. When I started blogging I lived in a Canary island, in a flat of Teresa: a woman who harbored suicidal ideation and was committed. In a 13,000-word entry I speculate on how she transferred the unconscious hatred she felt toward her abusive parents to her parents’ culture. Her suicidal ideation was transferred to Western suicide: it’s so painful for her to talk about her childhood that all she can do is transferring her pain onto a substitutive object. If you read it in the context of psychohistory as I presented it in my 4th book, a case could probably be made that other people—other people like my father and Teresa—are transferring their hatred as well.

This does not mean that we should spend our energies in arcane and speculative subjects such as those that I indulged to before my blogging stage. Focusing on the JQ and the elephant in the room is practical and relevant, as explained in one of my latest posts at Mangan’s about why in anti-Semitic Poland so few whites have been “snatched.”

rebelliousvanilla said...

Chechar, MacDonald is wrong. The Jews aren't necessary, we being idiotic is necessary. If we wouldn't be idiotic, the Jews would be non-factors. Just like if the Jews didn't exist, another group would be in their place if we would be in the mental state we are in now. If people of European descent woke up tomorrow and stopped being fools, Jews would be irrelevant.

Chechar said...

@ “MacDonald is wrong. The Jews aren't necessary, we being idiotic is necessary... If people of European descent woke up tomorrow and stopped being fools, Jews would be irrelevant.” - RV

Sounds like common sense to me. But sometimes common sense is deceiving, like Morpheus telling Neo: “You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up...”

OK, let’s ignore MacDonald for a second. I have purchased another book.

The Jews “aren’t necessary”? In his preface to Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews Albert Lindemann writes:

“The importance of Jew-hatred in the last hundred years is undeniable, the repercussions appalling. That I have devoted many years of study to anti-Semitism underlines how important I think it has been and is... The extent to which anti-Semitism was ‘normal’ requires, in my opinion, a more serious and open-minded investigation, whether by scholars or the lay public... Some writers go so far as to condemn the distinctions as morally dubious, thus making any irritation with Jews or criticism of them ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘a little bit of anti-Semitism is as dangerous as a little bit of cancer’... I cannot accept such reasoning, which seems to me facile, especially insofar as it implies that Jews, unlike other human groups, cannot provoke irritation.”

Let’s jump to the section “The Red Terror – A Jewish Terror?” of Lindemann’s treatise (pages 440-48). He writes:

“In some areas, for example, the Ukraine, the Cheka leadership was overwhelmingly Jewish. By early 1919 Cheka organizations in Kiev were 75 percent Jewish, in a city where less than a decade earlier Jews had been officially forbidden to reside, except under special dispensation, and constituted about 1 percent of the total population... The number of Jews involved in the terror and counterterror of this period is striking.”

In The Culture of Critique KMD made a persuasive case that—how could I put it?—paraphrasing Himmelfarb we could say: “No Jews (Marx and Trotsky included), no Gulag,” which if true would certainly demonstrate that non-gentiles are a “necessary but not sufficient” etilogical factor for the crimes committed during Lenin and Stalin’s regimes.

The Culture of Critique also demonstrates that a case can be constructed about Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy, which IMO will prove to be more deleterious for the health of American culture that the Muslims’ 9/11 attack.

rebelliousvanilla said...

This topic is really boring to me, so I will stop it here. What has happened in Ukraine had the backing of guns and tanks and the rise of the Bolsheviks was the result of how WW1 ended. Not only that, but the Russian government made horrid mistakes that lead to it's overthrow. None of these happened in the West. In the West(esp America) the things that lead to this came from within and all the seeds were there from way before socialism began to grow in Europe. I won't go into detail, but common sense isn't deceiving(in this case, at least). It's just that some prefer to point fingers instead of admit mistakes and do something to change the issues that lead to this. It happened in the West, especially in America, for a reason. Just like the current system is a natural development of classic liberalism. If you want to blame the Jews, you can blame them for giving us the gun(conceptual framework) because we were suicidal for way before the 1960s.

Chechar said...

What about blaming both groups?

rebelliousvanilla said...

Chechar, I will give you an example. I used to do drugs and by this I don't mean smoke a joint once in a while. While I was enabled by people to do what I did, the responsibility was mine and it was my mistake. It wasn't the drug dealer's fault. In the same way, sure, Jews aren't innocent and I never said they are. But it's out mistake and our responsibility, in the end. By admitting this and CHANGING we can get out of this hole. If we don't, we can keep blaming the Jews until we turn green... and extinct.

Chechar said...

Good example. But then, do you agree with what Armance said in another blog?:

Quote:

The roots of this tragedy can be found, among others, in the French Revolution. Chechar quotes on his blog Count Clermont-Tonnerre who said in the French National Assembly in 1789: “The Jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals. The existence of a nation within a nation is unacceptable to our country.”

The words of the Count, in the heated debate about granting citizenship to a minority, for the first time in history, were prophetic. If the Count and his camp had won, we wouldn't have had Bolshevism, Nazism, racial laws, multiculturalism, immigration and political correctness. Common sense would have prevailed, the Gulag and Auschwitz wouldn't have existed. Like in Greek tragedies, the whole ordeal started with an error of cosmic proportions: in this case, the idea that a nation can survive with other nations (i.e. organized minorities with full rights) on its territory.

/end quote

rebelliousvanilla said...

Chechar, I agree with Armance, the French revolution was important in this process. And yes, I do agree about the Jews thing. I don't see why anybody else should have a group interest thing in my country, especially if they are to be made citizens. So the Count was right.

Painlord2k said...

What, I think, people here is unable to see, is that the first cause of this "suicide" of the west is the existance of big governments.
Big governments need elite groups to manage them, attract parasites, need statists thinkers.
This led to academics to become government funded and government praising and isolated from the common people needs and problems.
So big governments breed elites disconnected from the population governed that use the population like parasites use their hosts.
To do so, they need to fool their host immunitary system. This is what the western elite do. This is because the west appear willing to suicide itself slowly.
For the Jews part, not all Jews are a problem, only the Jews that are part of these parasitic elites. They are a little minority. The rest is fooled as the rest of the western society.

The question is if the West need a complete meltdown to fix this problem or it is able to reform itself before the meltdown happen?
Giving the current economic crisis and political turmoil, I'm convinced that something will happen. When there is enough dry hay and heat, a spark is enough to start a fire. And sparks happen.

Conservative Swede said...

Hi!

I just wrote three subsequent comments over at Mangan's, which relates to this discussion too.

rebelliousvanilla said...

CS must work in marketing, considering he advertises his comments everywhere where he has them. :P jk

fellist said...

I apologise for not staying with the debate, I know it can be frustrating to take the time and thought to write to someone and then they vanish. I’ve gone entirely screen-free at home (recommended) and log on only infrequently elsewhere, but I’m interested in what people have to say and generally I return to these things eventually.

RV, “If we wouldn’t be idiotic, the Jews would be non-factors … If people of European descent woke up tomorrow and stopped being fools, Jews would be irrelevant.”

If… Until then, the primary Jewish role and motivation in fostering our idiocy and keeping us doped is of supreme relevance. That’s precisely why discussion of it has been made taboo.

Europeans’ non-revolt is not especially in need of explanation. Futile discontent with governments and other elites and the directions they are taking society in is normal, revolutions/counter-revolutions are extraordinary.

rebelliousvanilla said...

fellist, if we would have been sane, why did we listen to an out-group about anything? The thing comes from within us. Sure, Jews have a huge fault, but the blame lies on us. I agree with you, we should do away with the control on our media, politics and academic life of other ethnic groups. Period.

fellist said...

we should do away with the control on our media, politics and academic life of other ethnic groups

If we’re ever to achieve this, and we must if we’re to survive, we need to convince our co-nationals that alien control of our media, politics, academia -- and more fundamentally, our economic system -- has harmed our interests and will continue to do so. It has to be talked about for us to change it.

It’s been pointed out already that public opinion is much less corrupted than the controlled elites’ so it’s not so much a case of the problem lying ‘within us’ as the answer lying within us, waiting, begging, to be given its day. The problem is them -- invasive outgroups and the small proportion of corrupted native elites, including controlled opposition like ‘alternative’ bloggers who will not make the only stand that that matters, defining us against the others.

Get their boots off our throats and we're looking pretty good as far as the instinct for self-preservation. The 'suicidal liberalism' meme that people like Auster peddle to gullible dupes like Fjordman just doesn't match reality, even on a cursory examination.