Friday, July 01, 2011

The Screaming Nazi Heeber-Jeebers

Hitler in a turbanThe recent unpleasantness has reminded us all (or should have reminded us, if we were paying attention) that the propensity for flinging around the “Nazi” and “fascist” epithets hasn’t abated in the slightest. Large parts of the Counterjihad, even those portions of it that are at least nominally “conservative”, are not immune to this disease.

For it is indeed a dreadful disease. A disease of the mind, or the soul, or the psyche, or the hypothalamus, or whatever region of brain-space it is assigned to. It is an inflammation of the thought processes, and somehow disables the capacity for rationality on the part of those who suffer from it.

This affliction is commonly known as the “Screaming Nazi Heeber-Jeebers” (SNHJ). The official medical term for the condition, however, is schicklgruberitis. In recent years it has been spread widely by an unknown vector or vectors, and is now endemic in most Western countries. Politicians, academics, and journalists are particularly vulnerable to its ravages.

There are three somewhat distinct sets of symptoms of SNHJ:

1. Fleeing in terror from any person or group that has been publicly labeled as “racist”, “fascist”, or “Nazi” by a famous person or in the news media.
2. Striving mightily to prove to all and sundry that one is not a “racist”, “fascist”, or “Nazi”. This is attempted by emphatically proclaiming one’s prominent associations, actions, and stated opinions that prove otherwise.
3. Accusing other people of being “racist”, “fascist”, or “Nazi” when they venture beyond certain ill-defined bounds of discourse, or associate with any group identified as “racist”, “fascist”, or “Nazi”, or fail to observe certain rituals expressing public approval of officially designated victim groups.

Obviously there is some overlap among these groups of symptoms, and a victim of SNHJ may move through two or more manifestations of different symptoms in succession.

For example, a common sequence of symptoms begins with #1, when the patient is first infected with SNHJ. After being designated a “fascist”, he instinctively withdraws from any area where designated “fascists” are perceived to assemble. But that is not enough to effect a cure, and he then engages in #2, behaviors intended to rid himself of the “fascist” taint. This, however, is almost invariably unsuccessful, so he resorts to #3, the projective stratagem of labeling others as “fascists”. Thus he infects them with SNHJ, and so the vicious circle is repeated.

Once a sufferer has been fully infected with SNJH, achieving a complete cure is a difficult and prolonged process. Isolation, a change of environment, restricted media access, and other strategies may be employed, with varying degrees of success. Most sufferers from SNJH never completely recover. They may appear symptom-free for weeks or months, and then a minor, seemingly innocuous trigger — for example, watching a BBC documentary on the English Defence League — will cause a recurrence of the full-blown disease, with the same dispiriting symptoms.

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

The fortunate few who experience a complete recovery from the Screaming Nazi Heeber-Jeebers can expect a sudden sensation of light dawning in their minds. The moment of recovery is often confused with one or more forms of intoxication brought on by various forms of substance abuse.

Eventually, however, the patient realizes that what he is going through is the all-but-forgotten sensation of normalcy, a sense of well-being reawakened in his mind as the scourge of SNJH departs his limbic system at last.

He often experiences a moment when he says to himself, “Aha! At last I can think again! I feared those days were gone for good!”

The transition back to a normal life can be difficult for long-term sufferers of the Screaming Nazi Heeber-Jeebers. With that in mind, a global volunteer organization has been established to help people in the midst of SNHJ recovery. This group provides peer counseling and support for those most in need.

If you are recovering from SNHJ, have family members with SNHJ, or have full-blown SNHJ yourself and are wondering if recovery is even possible, you may want to pay a visit to the Gates of Vienna Foundation. All services are free of charge.

101 comments:

ib said...

Regardless of your "SNHJ" disease, I will continue to name islamists islamo-nazis because it's the term that describes them best.

cumpa_29 said...

I cannot but suspect that I am really the object of this essay. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it.

Fjordman writes that the West is in danger of being overun by intellectually inferior races from the 3rd world, I mention that his position is on weak ground and is potentially dangerous when carried in the minds of scumbag people (using Nazi Germany as an example), and BAM, I get labeled as an irrational heebee jeebee (indirectly, of course).

Frankly, I think my treatment was/is downright shameful. I had valid points to make, made apologies for any sarcastic comments which may have offended others, repeatedly expressed my appreciation towards GOV AND Fjordman himself (for his other posts), REPEATEDLY stressed that I was merely criticizing Fjordman's position and not criticizing Fjordman himself, but in the end, none of it mattered.

Fjordman haughtily dismissed any comment or criticism as intellectually unworthy of his time --SO unworthy, in fact, as to be on par with rabid jew-bashing. Other people certainly didn't see it that way. Fjordman offered NO apologies for his behavior, and GOV supported him every step of the way.

The world is on the edge of a cataclysm, where all KINDS of blood-soaked blame is about to go around. Does anyone think for a SECOND that racial murder ISN'T something that is about to be unleashed?
How can this blog honestly say that Western Civ is about to violently collapse, and THEN say that concerns over violent racism are irrational? Mentioning Nazi Germany is ENTIRELY licit, considering the fact that the Nazis came to power largely because of the Great Depression.

And I even said that racial intellectual inequality could theoretically be TRUE! My point was to offer arguments otherwise.

Christopher Hitchens debates those who say atheism is ill-founded and dangerous ALL the time, and they mention commie regimes as part of their arguments. And yet he still debates, and still remains civil. He is not so haughty as to avoid discourse, and not so touchy as to say that those who bring up murderous communist regimes suffer from some kind of mental illness.

But, lessoned learned. Some people pretend to be about something, and other people actually ARE.

Zenster said...

cumpa_29: I cannot but suspect that I am really the object of this essay. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it.

It is painfully clear that you have not been paying anything that remotely resembles close attention.

Well, at least you have provided us with some very badly needed comic relief.

Baron Bodissey said...

cumpa --

I hate to disappoint you, but this is not about you in the slightest. You never entered my head, not even for a moment, while I was writing it.

Read the linked post (near the top). That might help you get a handle on what I meant.

Zenster said...

I'm going to take a huge risk here and see if it is possible to rationally discuss how Pamela Geller's recent actions have mirrored concerns that were only lately discussed here at GoV.

One the one hand, we have the EDL (English Defense League), which has made Herculean efforts to ensure that their organization can only be construed as being in staunch support of Israel.

As I noted in the another thread, Robinson and crew were nothing but brilliant for routinely flying the Israeli flag at so many of their demonstrations. The cognitive dissonance thus required to magically associate the EDL with Nazism defies all imagination.

Yet, here we are with Pamela Geller, a Jewess no less, suddenly doing a "Chicken Little" at the Counterjihad's highest levels and, seemingly, blithely unaware of the tremendous ― if not irreparable ― harm she has caused by spewing baseless accusations and assuming facts not in evidence.

Britain stands at the sharpest end of those swords that are drawn in Europe's confrontation with predatory Islam. There is no way possible way to imagine that European, if not global, support for Israel is hanging ― if only partially ― in the balance of how Brits and others in Europe will perceive the tenor and upshot of this critical conflict.

Geller cannot possibly feign ignorance about this crucial situation. She, as a Jew, knows damn well the dramatic sea change of European support that has shifted towards advocacy for Palestinian causes.

Maiming the EDL just as it is taking its baby steps towards securing England's rescue and hopes for a better future is not just irresponsible, it is counterproductive in the extreme.

This appears to be yet one more example of Liberal Jewish interests hamstringing the very people who most vigorously support their cause.

Without wishing to rekindle the entire Jewish Question in all its gruesome detail, is there some way of placing Geller's actions within the spectrum of that larger question so as to make even a slight degree of sense out of it?

Hesperado said...

Baron,

I think you neglected to mention the extra "Spencer Twist" to this whole phenomenon: Namely, to claim to be above SNHJ, repelled by the smear tactics involved in SNHJ, valiantly full-speed-ahead unswayed by rumors of SNHJ, and committed to ignoring the ill rumor-mongering effects of SNHJ -- meanwhile succumbing like a gleeful pig in a rich pool of warm mud more than once to the very same SNHJ you have been claiming all along to eschew so nobly and irreproachably.

Baron Bodissey said...

Ah, Hesperado, I fear you have opened a can of worms!

Whole volumes of medical treatises, shelf after shelf of thick weighty tomes, have been written about SNHJ, its related diseases, its somatic effects, its secondary symptoms, and the masking strategies employed by individuals affected by it.

You could probably write some of those volumes yourself -- your knowledge on the topic is unparalleled.

cumpa_29 said...

Baron.
I realize that flinging around the term "nazi" is a rhetorical tactic used to silence enemies. People who spot the danger of uncontrolled immigration (muslim or otherwise) are often silenced with this tactic. Thats what they've always said of the EDL. Geller has now done the same. I know that.

However, in all honesty, I felt that this essay was trying to underhandedly address me while addressing an issue of importance at the same time. This does not mean that I consider myself worth the time of day. On the contrary, it means that I thought your (alleged) underhandedness to be very petty precisely because I'm NOT important.
Dymphna, if you remember, accused me of suffering from "nazi heeber jeebers" (literally her words) on that VERY god-forsaken interminable thread. Fjordman considered my comments so beneath him, as to be on par with rabid jew-bashing (other people did NOT see it that way). I took great offense to that, considering what the latter really means. I was never given an apology, and your silence was to my mind tacit approval of his position. Later on I took your silence to mean that you were merely uncomfortable with the idea of criticizing Fjordman, who you guys no doubt have great relations with. You were still tacitly endorsing his position, but I shrugged it off, believing it not the product of bad will. I was still within my rights to ask for an apology, but I said, "what the hell".

And of course when I saw this essay criticizing people with "heeber jeebers", I immediately remembered what I had been accused with --with literally those same words. And since I never really HAD gotten an apology, I figured you guys were actually NOT uncomfortable in the least with what happened, and were in fact still quite sensitive to my criticism of the IQ position (which you yourselves hold). So yea, I figured you made use of a current issue to underhandedly make a side comment at me.

cumpa_29 said...

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I have no problem with admitting it.

I just couldn't help but think it, especially when the "heeber jeeber" comment resurfaced, and the "if you happen to know someone out there who suffers from this condition" comment was added to it.

But again, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Baron Bodissey said...

cumpa, I understand what you felt. You felt that this essay was an underhanded dig at you.

Your feeling was wrong, however. I guarantee you that I did not even think about you, not for a second, while I was writing it.

Do you believe what I am saying? Can you accept that this piece had nothing whatsoever to do with you, made no references to you, was not about you, nor aimed at you in any way, nor a satire of you?

Can you accept that you have made a mistake?

This piece was, in fact, certainly uncontaminated by cumpa. And that is a fact.

If you can't accept that, then I fear we have no common ground for further discussion of the matter .

heatsketch said...

@ cumpa 29: The uncomfortable truths raised by Fjordman are in no way negated and should in no way be silenced simply because there is the possibility that stupid or bad people may use or misconstruing it for violent or supremacist ends.

cumpa_29 said...

Baron.

Yes. If I have made a mistake, then I have made a mistake. I withdraw my assertion.

cumpa_29 said...

@heatsketch.
I was never trying to silence Fjordman. It was more the other way around --not because Fjordman is a bad person, but because he is a tad arrogant. His "truths" may not be true at all, and my position stating otherwise certainly didn't rise to the level of jew-bashing.


But that is all VERY old news. No sense giving a dead horse mouth-to-mouth.

Stogie said...

I found the article quite funny and insightful at the same time. Some people are horrified to find their enemies linking them to "fascism" or "racism" and feel they must disprove the charges, by (1) denial, (2) expressing liberal sentiments in favor of multiculturalism and the wonders of diversity, and (3) finally, by throwing an ally or two under the bus, effectively sacrificing their reputation in an attempt to save their own. How can I be a "fascist" when I too label my former allies as fascist?

It is the Kapo instinct of siding with the power source against one's own kind in an effort to survive.

I kind of see this in the recent Geller-Spencer betrayal of the EDL.

And I believe that was probably in the author's mind as well.

Hesperado said...

I must repeat my citation of the "Spencer Twist" (not necessarily to Baron, who I think knows what I'm referring to) but to others.

There are two kinds of Argumentum ad Hitlerem:

1) those who try to smear others by claiming they have "Nazi" tendencies

and

2) those who solemnly claim to deplore #1 -- yet then proceed to do precisely #1 to others.

It is #2 that rather singularly applies to Spencer & Geller, and which deserves a special notice as a distinct, and important, subcategory; which I suppose could be termed "Yoga Pretzel Hypocrisy" or "Taking Brazen Chutzpah to New Heights".

Zenster said...

cumpa_29: If I have made a mistake, then I have made a mistake. I withdraw my assertion.

Congratulations and kudos, cumpa_29, you have learned the first and most vital of all lessons in, "How Not to Be Seen".

cumpa_29 said...

Does anyone REALLY know what happened?
I think the whole fiasco stemmed from comments out of sight and sound of the rest of us. Could have certain guys in the EDL said something anti-semetic? Yep. Could Geller have made a comment that betrayed a feeling that Israel was on higher ground the West? Yep. Could have it been both? Yep. Could it have just been a misunderstanding? Yep.

We just don't know.

I know the EDL has reaffirmed its commitment to the defense of Israel, but does anyone know if Geller has recanted as well?

cumpa_29 said...

@Zenster.
Saw your video.

Funny how you take an honest exchenge of civility to be an ego contest.

Zenster said...

cumpa_29: Funny how you take an honest exchenge of civility to be an ego contest.

Ego contest? Ego contest?!?

Civility is nice but I can only refer you to comment #2.

Armance said...

While it's true that in some people SNHJ manifests itself as a mental affliction, for others (the intelligent, manipulative kind) it is a conscious tactics to character assassinate the ideological enemy. I call them "mental terrorists". The strategy consists in pathologizing the thoughts and reasoning of your opponents, stating that their viewpoints are not the result of observation, logic, experience or reason, but an outcome of poor mental hygiene combined with wickedness. The tactics was used successfully by Stalin and his subordinates to instill fear in the minds of the opponents or even potential dissenters. Thus, when somebody was "exposed" as being a Fascist or having fascist tendencies, the poor accused knew that the next steps were disgrace, ostracism, prison and sometimes death.

SNHJ is the demonology of the modern world. The fascist label is so strong and has such a power over minds, that the accused might develop a form of Stockholm Syndrome and after a while he starts accusing others of the same things that brought his ostracism, while trying to gain the favors of his former tormentors. SNHJ is based on manipulation on one side - and on fear and guilt on the side of the accused. To be completely cured from the disease, it's necessary not only to free yourself from fear and guilt, but also to observe how the manipulative process works, who are the manipulators and why they use this strategy.

cumpa_29 said...

@Zenster.
I explained my reasons for feeling the way I did. Baron told me he understood, but that this essay was not aimed at me in any way. I accepted.

Pretty simple.

cumpa_29 said...

@Armance

Yea. The whole thing is Orwellian to the bone.

Fjordman said...

cumpa_29: No, you did not make valid points; you whined about “Nazis” as soon as the subject of genes was raised. Good Lord, how tired I am of hearing about Nazis and anti-Nazis. WW2 was very bad, yes. It also ended nearly 70 years ago. Our entire bloody civilization seems stuck in some mental time warp in a ditch just outside of Stalingrad. We are in serious danger of losing this world war because people are still mentally stuck in the previous one.

It is an objective fact that most of the immigrants we currently receive have lower levels of intelligence than Europeans, yes. This is going to have serious long-term consequences for us. Nevertheless, as I pointed out, IQ is a side issue. I don’t want to be replaced by the Chinese or others who do have high IQs, either. I am here to preserve my nation and my ethnic group, just like everybody else on this planet. If you say “Africa for Africans” or “Asia for Asians” you get applauded. If you say “Europe for Europeans” you get demonized and called a “Nazi.” How long are we going to put up with this double standard? I’m tired of it.

cumpa_29 said...

@Fjordman
I know that westerners, particularly northern european westerners, have been vilified for celebrating local identities as a basis for statehood. I have never been in agreement with that.

However, your view that IQ is a fundamental compenent of nationality is on shaky ground. The merciless selective pressures of the social environment never made it into your worldview, did it? You are both smart and learned, Fjordman. But you are not so smart as to not make mistakes.

Just because you don't like the idea of toiling for a chinese overlord, it does not mean that you don't abhor the thought of being overwhelmed by lower nations (and dumber people ARE "lower", whether you want to admit it or not).

And your point of view COULD be theoretically be true. I never said otherwise. My point was to show just how flimsy the evidence actually was. An IQ test unfairly thrust in the face of an ancient german tribal chieftan would have no doubt yielded a poor result. Years later, due to certain cultural developments, the results of the same people stand out. After our civilization collapses, do you REALLY think that neo-primitive northerners would shine on an IQ test which was once the brain-child of their ancestors? NO.

What you all too easily attribute to genes, is MORE than easily attributed to culture.

And my point was never to prove beyond doubt that my position was true, but rather to show that it merited at least a comment or two. It sure as heck wasn't on par with rabid jew hatred.

And NO, I do NOT consider you a Nazi.

Western nations shouldn't be compelled to open their doors. But if they did so with their BRAINS intact, it would show an openess to the rest of the human family that trancends parochial identities.

Of course if your position is true, they would be within their rights to shut their doors tightly (the bloodline being diluted with stupidity is dangerous). But if your position is NOT true, then the possibility of happier realities can be expressed politically by virtue of reasonable openness.


And I DO stress reasonable.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Fjordman has never claimed that IQ is a fundmental component of national identity, but of ethnic identity. Ethnicity and nationality are related but dissimilar concepts.

Your reaction is similar to mine in the past: the fact that IQ caries by ethnicity could be used to justify all sorts of nasty things. Could be. However, it doesn't follow that it will be.

As for your view on competition in social environments, yes, that does play a role but it's not as large a role as you seem to believe. The social environment is defined by culture and physical environment (and culture is ethnicity and physical environment, so it's all interlinked) which means that any social pressures will, by necessity, be tempered and constrained by the physical selective pressures a particular subgroup will experience.

To take an example from nature: The social environment of a pod of amazon river dolphins will be very different to those of a pod of atlantic dolphins, yet they're both dolphinidae and both display similar behaviours in most categories you might care to mention. It's just that, taken as a whole, the river dolphins are highly aggressive, violent and prone to killing each other within family groups, whilst atlantic dolphins are more peaceful. Obviously the comparison is not completely apt, as we're not talking about closely related yet separate species, but subpopulations of the same species, but as a starting point it is instructive.

Now take a generic desert nomad culture and an agrarian temperate-dwelling culture and think about the social differences those two environments would produce. The agrarian culture is settled, relatively stable, easily fed and not likely to suffer long periods of privation. The desert culture is unsettled, has unreliable or sparse food sources, has to travel long distances to find those food sources and will often undergo prolonged periods of privation. It also has an extreme scarcity of water, which is absolutely essential to life.

Social considerations must take this in to account. The agrarian society will tend to form stable hierarchies based on land ownership. The desert culture will not, as land ownership is largely irrelevant to a nomadic culture, but will instead form unstable, fleeting hierarchies based on intermittent contact between small, often hostile groups in an environment where resources are extremely scarce. Your essential survival of the fittest. Immediately you have social differences and those social differences both select for different genetic profiles, and are affected or enhanced by those different genetic profiles.

Note that survival of the fittest doesn't mean the most intelligent. It means the most adapted to a particular environment. Deserts don't select for intelligence, they select for the ability to survive water scarcity, which will tend to produce a culture highly resistant to innovation, as innovations would risk their water supplies on schemes that might not work. The very smart (prone to idling and thinking about more interesting things when they should be helping preserve the group) and the very stupid die very quickly in a desert.

(In a previous thread you mentioned Egypt and Babylon, or some other ancient civilisation: what both of these civilisations had in common, and what the arab civilisation didn't have, was easy access to water, which allowed agriculture and subsequent innovations in all sorts of areas to flourish.)

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I actually take the view that it makes little difference if our invaders are dumb as rocks or smart as a papercut, what matters is that they are not us. And yes, I realise that this makes me some sort of racist, but I don't care any more and in fact haven't cared for a long, long time.

The IQ issue comes in to play with the realisation that those with a lower than average IQ tend to be more violent. I understand this particular issue quite well; they are more violent because they are regularly frustrated by their weaker ability to grasp knowledge and understanding. I suffer a very particular version of this frustration-anger problem: when I speak, I often find it difficult to relay concepts, become frustrated at myself and resort to angry outbursts. No bombs yet. :)

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Er... who hates the jews? Are you reading some secret jew-hating version of GoV that only you can see?

Fjordman said...

Society: What constitutes an ethnic group is complex, but a simple definition is a group of genetically related people with a shared cultural heritage, mentality and usually language. No, it’s not all about race, as we can see from wars in Europe, but race matters and it’s not socially constructed. That is a lie, just like it is a lie that Islam is a religion of peace. If you had followed this blog you would know that we were attacked by a group of people, some of them sympathizing with Stormfront, basically for being Israeli agents not so many days ago. If you don’t like it here you are always welcome to leave. The Internet is a pretty big place.

Reading these comments only strengthens my conviction that closing comments on some of my future essays was the right decision to make.

Gary said...

I followed the discussion on race, ethnicity and intelligence with interest. Let me quote an interesting piece by a commentator at Jihad Watch.
"India & Pakistan
India and Pakistan-- Same people, same culture, same food, same language.... BUT DIFFERENT RELIGIONS...
Islam is the only differentiating factor between the two. This could have very well been a social experiment in which one sample (Pakistan) is "injected" with Islam and the other sample (India) is not injected with Islam is held as a control group to compare with the end result in Pakistan of the injection of Islam."
This observation that Islam dumbs a community is valid when you extend it to the Muslims in China, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia.

Hesperado said...

Fjordman noted:

"We are in serious danger of losing this world war because people are still mentally stuck in the previous one."

This reflects an interesting pattern echoing the blindness that exacerbated WW1, which then mutated into a new blindness that exacerbated WW2.

Prior to WW1, apparently, everyone thought warfare was only to be conducted in a certain style, and tacticians and strategists had not assimilated the lessons they could have, from the Civil War and the Crimean War. With regard to how wars begin and their scale once underway, they also were stuck in the previous paradigm and had ill-prepared themselves for the transformation of a classic more courtly and delimited war heretofore the norm, into a massive and monstrously mechanical devolution into generalized carnage.

The problem of WW1 wasn't so much ideological as a neglect, on a colossal scale, to take into account the new effects of bureaucracy and new technology on warfare.

The experience of WW1 set up a new Box then, which everyone wanted to avoid repeating. This Box of a Never Again Mantra with regard to WW1 encouraged most Europeans to become willfully blind to a new possibility -- an ideological conflagration rallying masses of people under the charisma of ideological demagogues. Hitler also introduced tactical innovations based upon his unethical disregard for his "corrupt" enemies, significantly including the surprise terror attacks of the Blitzkrieg (which some enterprising grad student out there could determine, by sifting through old German documents in which academics in their Western Amnesia about Islam have been irresponsibly remiss, that Hitler's new tactic of the Blitzkrieg was actually directly inspired by the old Islamic terror tactic of the razzia; for we know that Hitler was actually quite knowledgeable about Islam and keen on learning tactics from it).

So, after the horrific years of enduring the monstrously dreadful consequences of their mistake in not seeing the singular danger of Hitler, the Europeans erected a new Box of a new Never Again Mantra -- and this just as rigidly sets up an apodictic dictum:

The New Hitler which we are committed to be ever vigilant to prevent -- by among other things ferretting out any signs of symptoms of even the slightest hints of its incipient revival -- must be another White Racist Fascist and it is not only unthinkable that it could be an Ethnic Minority but even to begin to think that Unthinkable is to initiate the process leading to a New Hitler -- the very thing we are committed to prevent at all cost.

Thus, the machine is rigidly set:

1) Muslims are an Ethnic Minority (or a wonderfully diverse rainbow of Ethnic Minorities)

2) To begin to generalize pejoratively about any Ethnic Minority is to begin to revive a New Nazism

3) Any criticism of Islam and of Muslims, therefore, must be nipped in the bud in our committment to our longstanding Maginot Line of Stopping a New Hitler before it begins.

Hesperado said...

"Western nations shouldn't be compelled to open their doors. But if they did so with their BRAINS intact..."

cumpa brings up a good point. This issue has too often been framed as a black/white either/or:

Either the West admits non-Western immigrants indiscriminately to its catastrophic detriment, or it slams its doors shut to them and deports the ones already inside.

Similarly with the black problem, it is framed extremely as either we re-institute Segregation and/or Deportation ("Back to Africa") (if not worse) or we continue to devolve into a Helter-Skelterish Apocalyptic Civil Race War.

These fallacious dichotomies ignore a third, far more rational alternative: continue our progressive process of tolerance to the Other, but at the same time firmly uphold our laws and culture. Tell the non-Westerner and the Black: You are welcome to enter and participate in our society, but at any given moment you abuse it, we will punish you to the full extent of the law and not extend any irrational favoritism to you out of some irrational White Guilt. Were we to exercise this rational behavior, over time the problems of immigration and of blacks would dramatically decrease.

The problem, thus, is not immigrants per se, and blacks per se, but our PC MC culture which prevents us from applying our own existing laws and rules of equity on non-whites equally. Leftists and PC MCs aren't pursuing equality: the precise problem is that they are pursuing inequality -- favoritism for minorities against whites. Were the West to simply apply equality genuinely and fairly and rationally, the inferiority of non-whites would become plain scientific/sociological data which the West, no longer being PC MC, would not try to deny and sweep under the rug, but face rationally; and various sociopolitical policies would rationally flow from that.

But apparently, many in the AIM are so darkly pessimistic about their own West, they can't imagine it could reassert its own Reason which to its wondrous credit it uniquely developed in history; but apparently it has lost that capacity forever, and the inevitably inexorable option now is some darkly quasi-apocalyptic Time of Troubles ahead, for which the Neo-Barbarian must gird his loincloths and sharpen his Mjolnirs again.

Finally, rationality should tell us that Muslims are a unique category and do not comply with the above template: I.e., Muslims cannot be assimilated, even under the rational policy articulated above, which is predicated on the notion that non-Muslim minorities are capable of being domesticated and controlled simply through a rational application of existing laws against civil disobedience and criminality. Muslims are in a sui generis category, based on their unique script, to which they are fanatically devoted, for militant supremacist expansionism.

1389 said...

When I refer to somebody as a "Nazi" - and yes, I sometimes do - I am talking about Sieg-Heiling, goose-stepping, jack-booted, swastika-bedecked, self-proclaimed Nazis. I am talking about those who voluntarily joined the NSDAP, or the Hitler Youth, or similar organizations, or who willingly fought for, spread propaganda on behalf of, or in some other way actively supported the Third Reich.

Similarly, a "neo-Nazi" is somebody who openly professes admiration for Hitler, the Nazis, and their policies, especially the slaughter and extermination of Jews, Roma, Slavs, Orthodox Christians, and others. Yes, there are many in the Muslim world who fit that description.

Using the term "Nazi" or "neo-Nazi" as a general-purpose pejorative for anyone whom one dislikes, cheapens and vitiates the language.

EscapeVelocity said...

Just wanted to wholeheartely second Zenster's comment at 12:22 7/02.

Avery Bullard said...

Gary: India and Pakistan-- Same people, same culture, same food, same language.... BUT DIFFERENT RELIGIONS...
Islam is the only differentiating factor between the two...


This assertion, which is quite common at anti-jihad sites, is dubious at best. First of all there is considerable ethnic diversity in the subcontinent area. Pakistan and India do not have the "same language" as there are literally hundreds of languages in India alone. High caste Hindus are not the same as low cast Hindus never mind Sikhs or Pakistanis. The diversity in India and Pakistan is probably as great as it is in Europe - think Norwegians versus Greeks.

Now it is possible that Pakistan's widespread practice of consanguineous marriage, which depresses IQ levels over the generations, may have something to do with Islam. Before accepting that argument I'd need to know more about breeding in India and the relative success of each major ethnic and religious group.

Also, India is not exactly a major success story itself. What successes it has are largely due to a small minority of the population with many of its ethnic groups no more accomplished than Pakistanis.

Hesperado said...

The culture of non-Muslim Indians is inferior to the West, and has a lot of flaws typical of Third World countries (which -- for those incapable of scratching their heads while rubbing their stomachs -- does not mean there are not some good things about Indian culture).

However, the bottom line for the AIM (Anti-Islam Movement) should be, in this regard, simple:

Non-Muslim Indians are not exploding; Muslims are.

More broadly and less pithily: Non-Muslim Indians are not pullulating as a worldwide terrorist threat causing all governments of the world to spend billions on security in all manner of public and private locations; Muslims are.

That's the essential point. All else is peripheral, and distracting.

Col. B. Bunny said...

Hesperado (#31), that's an excellent comment. A classic in the examination of the "cat won't sit on a hot stove twice, or on a cold one, either" phenomenon.

The left has sold the idea that the problem with the Nazis was that they espoused and acted on exaggerated notions of (1) nationalism and (2) Germans (a subgroup of all white people in the world) having some kind of a special destiny. Ridding German of undesirable people by resorting to wholesale slaughter was also a major "policy initiative" with suspicious roots in the Christian religion.

It was then easy for the left to shut down any assertion of a healthy nationalism as everyone now knew that the Nazis had drunk way too deeply at that well. The left also does its utmost to defame Christianity and assail those who espouse it. Those morons. Those hypocrites.

The focus then became the particular policies of the Nazis not the fact that the real problem with Germany then was that it was a totalitarian state, which is to say, a radical leftist state.

According to the post-WWII leftist view, a policy of "kill the Jews" made a (radical leftist) state abhorrent. However, a state with a policy of state ownership of the means of production and "to each according to his need, etc." (or "agrarian reform") was not only not abhorrent but one to be admired and supported.

Once total state power is acceptable, then it doesn't matter what policies the state follows, the inherent and enormous danger is that any and all policies will, without fail, be implemented in an irrational manner according to bureaucratic dynamics and the whims of the organs of internal security.

Now, healthy nationalism and healthy concern for ethnic coherence are attacked as being too much like those crazy German ideas. Never mind that there was no legal or institutional impediment to any idea's being distorted beyond anyone's reasonable imaginings. Any leaf that drops into a torrent is going to be swept away. There's an unlimited number of superstitions and Keith Olbermann ravings that can be seized on and implemented without mature and democratic restraints. The real danger is the power of the rushing water.

Thus, you see today in the U.S. and Europe an obsessive focus on the "niceness" or "propriety" of speech and conduct and an indifference to our magnificent Constitution and the grossly authoritarian formation and practices of the E.U., respectively. I know of no liberal in my personal experience who has voiced any concern about the danger to liberty from statism, let alone harped on that danger. What is of never-ending worry is a lack of niceness, "concern," and rationality (as can be seen with opposition to AGW, recyling, population control). To oppose any aspect of the liberal agenda is to be not nice and conclusive proof that one is an "ice person."

It's more than this, of course. The effort to smear people on the right side of the statism-liberty spectrum as "right-wing," and hence "fascist," and to obscure the radical leftist nature of National Socialism is not a manifestation of an innocent failure to draw the correct lessons from recent history but of a desire to revive statism and abandon democratic institutions so that enlightened people with a superior knowledge of economics -- and with a laudable commitment to world -- government can correct a wayward and deluded world that clings to violence, misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc.

Zenster said...

Hesperado: These fallacious dichotomies ignore a third, far more rational alternative: continue our progressive process of tolerance to the Other, but at the same time firmly uphold our laws and culture. Tell the non-Westerner and the Black: You are welcome to enter and participate in our society, but at any given moment you abuse it, we will punish you to the full extent of the law and not extend any irrational favoritism to you out of some irrational White Guilt. Were we to exercise this rational behavior, over time the problems of immigration and of blacks would dramatically decrease.

Although I despise cynicism, it really does seem as though you are being too optimistic in this matter. Is equal application of the law important? Hell, yes.

Will equal application ward off the imminent social collapse that indiscriminate immigration policies have exacerbated almost beyond control? Quite possibly not.

I will use a compact but very vivid example. Mexican gang members have flooded into America over the past several decades. Aside from the drug dealing, prostitution and theft that accompanies so much of their presence, there is one other feature.

These Mexican gangs are very violence prone. One need only examine Mexico's own incredibly violent narco-state for confirmation of this fact.

This gang violence routinely involves frequent gun battles which frequently result in injured gangsters being hospitalized for gunshot wounds. Due to questionable citizenship status and ability to pay, just as often the cost of these expensive surgical procedures must be picked up by the local community and state. With costs for a single operation rocketing into the tens of thousands of dollars and given the frequency of gang conflicts that involve firearms, this becomes a tremendous financial drain.

Please note how the foregoing example in no way addresses the much more dire situation with Muslims and the intensely corrosive effect that they have due to their seditious ideology.

However, the Mexican gang population does share some other similar characteristics. Not only do they import a culture of corruption, violence, graft and intense racism but Mexican immigrants, like Muslims, are just as often a burden on the social services network. A shared propensity for criminal behavior also sees both groups disproportionately represented in America's prison populations. Keep in mind that prisons, too, are exceptionally cost intensive to operate.

So, here we have this compact subset of illegal immigrant Mexican gang members who ― between their combined hospital and prison stays ― are nothing short of walking financial hemorrhages for American society.

Returning to the original point, equal and consistent application of the law holds forth no particular promise whatsoever of staving off the looming social collapse that is being driven by just this one compact subset of America's immigrant population.

When taken as a whole, that same consistent and equal application of the law continues to have great difficulty in promising any substantial degree of curtailing this issue.

If anything, to be effective with respect to apprehending, prosecuting and deporting just the criminals being referred to above, entire new platoons of immigration officials, border guards, municipal police, court personnel and prison guards would have to be recruited, trained and deployed onto the streets of America. I ask, where will that money come from?

[to be continued]

Zenster said...

Hesperado: The problem, thus, is not immigrants per se, and blacks per se, but our PC MC culture which prevents us from applying our own existing laws and rules of equity on non-whites equally. Leftists and PC MCs aren't pursuing equality: the precise problem is that they are pursuing inequality -- favoritism for minorities against whites. Were the West to simply apply equality genuinely and fairly and rationally, the inferiority of non-whites would become plain scientific/sociological data which the West, no longer being PC MC, would not try to deny and sweep under the rug, but face rationally; and various sociopolitical policies would rationally flow from that.

The foregoing would be all well and fine, had such policies been implemented decades ago. This is not the case and America is confronted not just with rampaging Mexican narco-gangsters, but the Russian mafia, Vietnamese home invasion gangs, Asian triads and a host of other parasitic criminal entities which finally must also include Muslims who rival all of the above groups in terms of overall deleterious effects upon America's social fabric.

Agreed that were we to "apply equality genuinely and fairly and rationally, the inferiority of non-whites would become plain scientific/sociological data which the West, no longer being PC MC, would not try to deny and sweep under the rug, but face rationally; and various sociopolitical policies would rationally flow from that". Sadly, the horse is already out of the barn and some other more restrictive measures must be adopted.

I cannot say whether this needs to involve mass deportations. Clearly, a near total shutdown of all foreign immigration will be required. Airtight sealing of America's borders seems likely as well. Whether we have time to reestablish rational, consistent and equal application of the law before these criminal and parasitic factors overwhelm America's social structure is another matter entirely.

And so we return to the ultimate topic of this thread. The final question being; could any of this even be accomplished without everybody first going deaf from all of the Liberal screeching about Nazi this and Nazi that?

Zenster said...

EscapeVelocity: Just wanted to wholeheartely second Zenster's comment at 12:22 7/02.

Thank you very much, EscapeVelocity. From all appearances, this thread's original topic was based on Pamela Geller's behavior with respect to the EDL.

I would sincerely appreciate any input or observations about how Geller's conduct falls with in a narrower subset of the much-dreaded Jewish Question.

Rest assured, I certainly have no wish to see this thread derailed because of my inquiry. We've seen a screecher or two pop up already, much to the dismay of Fjordman and others. However, it seems that Geller has almost perfectly encapsulated a highly cogent component of that nefarious Question and it definitely deserves some scrutiny.

EscapeVelocity said...

Yes, it is both possible (and a reality) that European Christians both staunchly support Israel (and not just on theological grounds) and admire and respect Jewish culture, but still acknowledge the Anti Christendom and Anti Western Leftism that pervades the Jewish population. For the UK and most of Europe this is much less of a problem, because of the exodus of Jews from the continent...while still remaining an issue due to cultural guilt. In the US its much more of an issue, because of real political and cultural power of this minority group within the US polity.

But one should not over estimate that power, and fixate on the Jews as THE problem.

The support for Israel as a Jewish nation reveals hypocrisies within the Universalist pretentions of the Jewish Left in the US...with regards to equality before the law, the separation of religion and state, the removal of Christianity, Christian symbols, and public celebrations from the public sphere and within government institutions.

In the end this is easily explained by tribalism, merely promoting the best intersts of Jews in whatever political situation they find themselves in locally. But this tribalism is what they (and other groups and on the Left) amongst European Christians is purportedly what they are opposed to. It's hypocritical and schitzophrenic, when viewed through the universalist lens, but makes perfect sense when you look at it from tribalist interests.


An interesting symposium is to be found here among the Jewish Conservatives and Neo-Cons. Of particular enlightenment are Wolpe, Sarna, and Medveds contributions.

You New said...

Hey Zenster,

Because Jews are doing it it seems to be a Jewish question. But it's a human question, I'll show ya. In brief it's merely the phenomena of feeling the need to keep an insurance policy in case things don't work out for your current, quite tenuous situation.

It's keeping one foot out the door in the case you need to bail.

You can call it Johnson's Disease or Geller's Syndrome...I call it being practical. Let's not get mad at the Geller's, let's see that they don't have the constitution to be able to go down with the team.

The commenter "cumpa" who thinks the earth will fly off its axis if Fjordman gives his opinion: again, it's utilitarian practicality. Cumpa needs a release valve and he wants to know that the valve is installed properly and will function for his escape should he need to flee from the slightest possibility that he might be a....(get heebie jeebies here), ready to move in a practical way to the safety of the mass movement and the impracticality of fighting it.

Modernity requires insurance for all situations, ya know.

It's survival, it's hedging for when your side gets crushed. It's practical since we all know that we have a very good chance of being assimilated or eliminated.

Which puts me in the position of great respect for people of integrity, even nobility, like Baron, Fjordman, Wilders, Tommy R. who go out on a limb, bucking the trend while freedom of speech fades.

We no longer need be surprised when the new order is enforced by people we thought were our friends. It makes perfect sense for them to flake. We on the other hand are the odd men out.

Also, Stogie's points way up the thread may have been overlooked.

europyre said...

I pray for peace in the anti-jihadist community !

It is saddening to think that we might spend more time fighting each other than we do militant islam. For that reason, I hope this is just a "blip" and we return to talking about the real enemy very soon.

As a newcomer to the Anti-jihad blogosphere (my blog is not really off the ground yet) I can say that I found my way into this arena through the GoV blog. For that I thank you and I also thank you for an informative and regularly updated blog. You have opened my eyes on many issues.

I am ill-qualified to comment on the EDL but from what I increasingly read I think their leadership have "got" the concept that the AJ movement must be broad-based if it is to succeed. In the context of the UK it really does not matter if you are "Mr. Smith" a native English family man, "Mr. Patel" a British Indian family man, "Mr. Cohen", a British Jewish family man or "Mr. Jones" an English homosexual. I could go on but in short we would all be for the high jump if militant islam had its way.

For me, primarily this is all about stopping militant islam. On top of that I would add uncontrolled immigration as a concern not least as that is certain to swell the ranks of islamists as well as add pressure to already fragile government budgets.

I hope for peace between GoV and Atlas Shrugs. I respect you both and while we are all only human and subject to pride and other follies we must recognise that we are in a battle far bigger than us. We need a broad based, transatlantic, international and diverse movement that will take on militant islam as it grows in each of our nations.

cumpa_29 said...

@Zenster.
I agree that we seem to be past the point of no return, but I still side with Hesperado on what remains the best path to take: openness, but not suicidal openness. Massive efforts to assimilate foreigners under SANE paradigms should be made. If anyone doesn't like it, sayonara.

The same objections that you level at "inferior" 3rd world peoples could just as easily be applied to us. Supposing that the West itself was trying to emmigrate to greener pastures, why would anyone take us? Our willfully uneducated masses are a drug-addicted, sexually obsessed, narcissitic, superficial lot who care more about bread and circus than they do anything that truly means something. Our own "intellectual elite" think an upside-down toilet constitutes fine art. If the cultural difference between us and our would-be hosts were marked by race, it would be all too easy to dismiss us as genetically inferior, rather than culturally inferior --especially when the former notion is self-gratifying.

The same factor which led to the West's rise of unparalleled heights is the same factor which is leading us to a spectacular implosion: culture. If culture is capable of ruining the once-great West, it is certainly capable of creating and celebrating even worse pathologies among people who come from weaker backgrounds. The secular progressive liberals have done much to destroy this country, and it is difficult to speak up against it due to things like the ol' "nazi" charge. Their effects on the Black community have been even more disastrous than their effects on our own, and it should come as no shock, seeing as how they were further behind to begin with.

The SP's took old Christian notions which were transcendant and tried to polticize them. Christians believed (and still do) that the universal brotherhood of man is a mystical notion. The SP's took this idea and tried to force a square peg into a round hole, believing that bloodletting in order to try to do so can be glorious (Che Guevara, the secular jihadi). They want no borders and universal citizenry, and have been systematically destroying everything healthy that stands in the way of their utopia. If the West is to be saved at all, it needs to go back to its old values, and impliment them in the political world WITHIN REASON. The lion will never lay down with the lamb on this side of the river Styx.

cumpa_29 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Againstmohammedism said...

I usually lurk and keep my comments to myself yet I did enjoy this post. It brought to mind some thoughts and here they are...

Per Benjamin Franklin:

"The free people of the West have to hang together otherwise they will hang separately."

A mature individual whom has assumed a leadership role in any organization operating within the public domain would practice thorough due diligence before voicing slanderous accusations on a highly visible platform against another (in this case a grass roots organization). When one does not undertake such cautious (responsible) action and instead relies solely upon hearsay coupled with no solid, undeniable evidence validating their presumption—what does the purpose serve? It resembles a person who puts their ego above a movement while their emotions (and not decisive logic) appears to drive their motivations.

The action taken is akin to the feckless ones who daily disparage the Tea Party membership here in the U.S. without ever attending a Tea Party event. All it takes is one "insulting" sign randomly viewed on MSM or on youtube and the entire movement is tainted and discredited by myopic thinking people. Concentration is then diverted from pushing the Tea Party cause and must then pivot and direct (an already) finite amount of energy into correcting this very unnecessary divergence. AIM does not have the luxury for this type of public screeching.

Any person with a modicum of couth, maturity and who holds an authentic concern for the very real and extremely dangerous ideology of the Mohammedans rapidly manifesting within Europe and the U.S. would have undertaken this matter in private and only involved the initial parties who were the cause of the overall brouhaha. There is another adage: "Actions speak louder than words."

Someone who genuinely respects the agenda of raising the awareness of the West to the dangers of this brutal 7th century ideology would make that their main focus and abandon wedge issues or personal agendas and certainly not engage in petty power-playing that dissolves into puerile bickering. Due to the finite window that is offered us in the West, the only agenda is educating the West about this debased ideology and not about one person, a dozen people and how they may or may not feel. Period. Perhaps there needs to be daily viewings of women (and men) who are stoned too death or the graphic visuals of the many mutilated and maimed victims of Islam? Would this drive home and identify the true threat? It should for those who are serious about promoting a moment and not themselves.

EDL needs support not a purity test. If we were to all conform into one way of thinking then what is the purpose of discounting the Mohammedans? We would be no better than they save for the brutality (I suppose). Yes, there are going to be some bad (rotten) apples within a movement covering many regions and including different cultures. That’s called the population of the Western world. That’s also called, “a lesser evil that can be THOROUGHLY addressed AFTER putting out this very real fire building within our midst. It does not mean one has to follow another person’s personal likes or dislikes or invite them into your home.

More people need to learn (and appreciate) the difference between following a streamlined regimen enabling the ultimate achievement of an overall victory in a hideously lengthy campaign and fomenting self-destruction due to squabbling over strategies in order to win a single battle.

We need more Ben Franklins and not more Beslans. All we have right now is one another and it is up to us to lose this war against a very debased and dangerous ideology.

-Againstmohammedism

Hesperado said...

cumpa and Zenster,

I agree with cumpa on my point.

Just because we would continue to admit Mexicans doesn't mean we can't do it rationally -- exclude illegal immigrants by force; limit numbers of immigrants; call in the National Guard (and Seals and Delta Force if need be) to fight paramilitary battles wherever Mexican gangs are causing major problems. All the money we've wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan could easily pay for this -- and we'd have left over enough to send 100 rocket ships to Mars.

Againstmohammedism said...

*corrections*

[...] promoting a MOVEMENT [...]
[...] a lesser evil [...]

EscapeVelocity said...

As Barry Rubin said the other day....when something happened and was reported in the media, his mother would always first ask the question...

Is it good for the Jews?

Imagine a White European Christian's first thought being..."Is it good for the White European Christians?"

That, that mindset is perfectly acceptable in Jews, but not White European Christians is the heart of the hypocrisy. That Barry Rubin wasnt the least bit ashamed that his mother thought that way is telling.

Dymphna said...

Someone pointed out to me that a commenter on this thread referred to another as "arrogant" so I trudged over to delete it.

Before this, I'd not read anything here. In fact, this is such an old conversation with the Baron that I simply skimmed it when he posted his essay.

So I arrive and find this, near the top of the comments thread:

I cannot but suspect that I am really the object of this essay. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it.

This post isn't about you. Not even an atom of you is in that post.

The subject is an old conversation we've been having since before we started this blog. I even remember the first time we began to wonder about it: many years ago a friend from the big city showed up wearing a button proclaiming that him to be "Politically Incorrect".

It was a Eureka! moment. And I don't think you were there. But if you were, you haven't been in those countless subsequent conversations at all.
-------------------------
So I deleted that reference to another person as being arrogant. And I'll state the rule again, in more detail:

Calling names, casting aspersions, mind-reading, etc., is permitted toward Famous People. However anyone who comments or posts here is a verboten target.

Hell in a Handbasket pointed out one I'd missed the other day. It was probably directed at him? At any rate, I deleted it because he was right.

It's unfortunate there seems to be more of these infractions of late. Unfortunate for the moderators cuz we have to clean up. I don't really look for the names, just do a Cntrl F for the word...thus I seldom remember violators unless they're unusually persistent. Remember Nodrog? Like that.

Again, pls stop with the name-calling. The other rhetorical fallacies are equally to be abjured.

Thank you.

cumpa_29 said...

I think I know why my last comment got deleted. Fair enough.

@YouNew
No, I was not trying to silence Fjordman. The whole drama really revolved around Fjordman blocking posts on his essay. At first it was about blocking anti-jewish creeps, but later it became about blocking comments deemed so emotional, obtuse, and unintelligent as to be on par with jew-hatred. Apparantly, saying that the social environment is more demanding of intelligence than the physical one, is an example of just this type of comment. For the life of me I cannot imagine what would motivate someone to deem it so.

No, my criticisms do not stem from from an emotional or psychological need to avoid being called a nazi. My beliefs are honestly held.

If you thought that I was trying to avoid potential racial horrors in the future by having dialogue with one or two people, I can understand why. But no, I am well aware that this is a conversation between just a few, and represents just a drop in the ocean. However, for what this drop is worth, I added my two cents.

cumpa_29 said...

@Dymphna.
I withdraw my earlier assertion. Baron and I cleared it up.

point taken, though.

Zenster said...

cumpa_29: The same objections that you level at "inferior" 3rd world peoples could just as easily be applied to us.

Please step away from the keyboard and ask yourself just exactly who you are quoting with that word "inferior".

You make it seem as though you are quoting me verbatim.

If so, I request a cite which identifies exactly where I ever used the word "inferior" to describe "3rd world peoples".

The site will need to look like:

This.

Please provide such a link right away. If you cannot, I will ask that you submit a comment in this same thread containing a public retraction of your attempt to imply that I have ever posted any such thing here at Gates of Vienna.

Dymphna said...

@EscapeVelocity --

I get Barry Rubin's mother's fear and why he wasn't ashamed of it...

I grew up a 1st gen. American of an Irish Catholic mother. We swam in a sea of Southern Baptists. They not only thought my mother was Russian (the many ways to hear an Irish brogue I guess) but some of them threw rocks at the nuns & called them witches...

My mother could point out every Catholic home between our house and my school.

Admittedly, the Troubles in Ireland had affected her parents' world, but the ghetto mentality was definitely an American Catholic phenomenon back then, too.

Rubin's mother was simply asking of him, "are we safe?"

BTW, our state was 2% Catholic population back then, but they cheated by counting the military.

Such fear on both sides. I think it must reside in the limbic brain by the time we reach adulthood.

cumpa_29 said...

@Zenster

You are right. You never used the word "inferior". Your post wrote that were we to: "apply equality genuinely and fairly and rationally, the inferiority of non-whites would become plain scientific/sociological data which the West, no longer being PC MC, would not try to deny and sweep under the rug, but face rationally; and various sociopolitical policies would rationally flow from that."

I was merely condensing this notion to the word "inferior".

Upon closer inspection I realized that you were quoting Hesperado.

Sorry for the mistake. I should read more carefully next time.

At the risk of putting words in Hesperado's mouth, I think that what he was saying was that cultural pathologies of third world immigrants play a large role in their IQ. But once our society gets its own cultural act together, these people can be successfully assimilated into our own. Then their alleged intellectual inferiority (a hasty conclusion drawn from IQ data) would no longer be a problem.

But, again, this is a paraphrase of what I THINK Hesperado's position to be.


I'll try to read more carefully next time.

cumpa_29 said...

@Zenster.
By the way, one of the reasons I made that mistake is because you DO think that 3rd world people are intellectually inferior. You agreed with the conclusions Fjordman made from IQ data.

So, in essence, my response to you doesn't really change. Sure, you haven't expressly stated (lately) that these foreigners aren't as smart, and you haven't specifically used the word "inferior", but lesser intelligent races actually ARE inferior to more intelligent ones, based on their intellectual capacity.

I apologize for the phrasing of my rebuttal, but not its content. You actually DO believe that these people are intellectually inferior.

Zenster said...

Welcome to Gates of Vienna, Againstmohammedism. Your well-measured analysis of Geller's precipitous actions was exactly the sort of level-headed thinking that is needed throughout the Counterjihad.

I personally welcome any comments you may have in the future and look forward to seeing them.

Zenster said...

cumpa_29: You actually DO believe that these people are intellectually inferior.

I do? Where have I ever said such a thing? Or are you just engaging in a fling of verboten mind-reading?

Now it's time for you to scurry off again and find exactly where I have ever said that Third World "people are intellectually inferior".

Barring your ability to provide a link with verbatim cite, you will be obliged to retract the foregoing just as you had the minimal courtesy to retract your previous incorrect assignment of Hesperado's words to myself.

Some advice: STOP DIGGING

EscapeVelocity said...

I second Zensters recognition of Againstmohammadism. I think you should speak out more often, if not here, then elsewhere. Well informed voices of reason (like yours) are needed to educate the Western sleepwalkers.

Every voice counts.

EscapeVelocity said...

Dympha, the problem is that, that mindset is exactly what Jews (and other minorities and more broadly the Western Left) have been demonizing within the White European Christian population. It's at the heart of the culture war. Anybody who is concerned about the well being and preservation of White European Christians and their Nations and Societies are the "Nazi Heeber Jeebers." In fact much of the Left has taken to slandering the Israeli Jews in a similar fashion.

cumpa_29 said...

@Zenster

Were you not in agreement with Fjordman that the west is in danger of being swamped by lesser intelligent races?

Zenster said...

cumpa_29, you are in no position to be interrogating me. Either you openly retract your last bit of mind-reading or I will formally request that it be deleted.

If you wish to debate with me, please consider using forensically accepted methods such as introducing cited verbatim quotations and relying upon documented evidence.

If that is too much to ask, then there is no point to any further interaction with you.

cumpa_29 said...

@Zenster.
Here's what I'll do. I'll refresh your memory using your own words. How's that?

"Since you ask; at issue is a very primitive tribal mindset that, not only results in endless warfare, looting and internecine violence (not to mention genocide), but also contributes to the stalling, if not outright reduction, of IQ and its further development....
One only need look at the conduct of America's Black population (in general), to gain an understanding of why Africa is such a basket case (e.g., Mugabe & Zimbabwe)...."
7/01/2011 3:33 AM

"....please stop attempting to inadequately challenge some very well-established and equally well-proven aspects about human intelligence....
Just like Islam can be gauged by its fruit, so can Africa. Both are total basket cases and a deficit in overall intelligence certainly seems to signify in either one's utter lack of success or measurable progress....".
7/01/2011 1:21 AM

"....So would I have to guess that those who elected to migrate into colder climates zones had a predisposition towards greater intelligence, which later manifested as higher IQ in those northern climes that they migrated to....
There is some possibility that, once isolated from whatever degree of potential persecution or restraint occurring in their original location, these same migrating individuals were better able to create environmental conditions which then accelerated further growth in IQ."
7/01/2011 12:45 AM

"cumpa_29, if as you say, the social environment is such a powerful driver of intelligence, why hasn't Africa's rampant and highly resource-competitive tribal environment cause a concomitant increase in overall IQ?"
6/30/2011 4:14 PM

"Living in a cold climate clearly posed far more challenges which, in turn, demanded enhanced problem solving skills. A prime example is cheese-making.....
As a corollary to this, with a several thousand year head start, why didn't Africa become the enduring pinnacle of modern civilization? This is a nagging question and it suggests some very uncomfortable answers."
6/30/2011 3:39 PM

"In all honesty, I tend to agree with Fjordman, although I would modify such agreement with how so many Third World immigrants also tend to import their own backwards cultures with them which often include.....[long laundry list]"
6/29/2011 10:18 PM

cumpa_29 said...

@Zenster (cont'd):

"Yet, as Fjordman correctly observed, the social environment's now-pivotal formative role is a much more recent factor than the far more historical influences of natural environment.

In fact, so recent is the social environment's emergence as an influential factor that it seems to be an unlikely explanation for the far earlier divergence in IQ per geographical location.".
6/30/2011 3:46 PM

Merry Christmas, pal.

Againstmohammedism said...

Thank you Zenster and EscapeVelocity.

I'm a novice historian currently in grad. school.

Regarding AIM, what I have discerned is a more strategic approach is required if we are to achieve any ground against Mohammedism. The less emotional outbursts and more solidarity we show in public, the better our chances are garnering attention and informing the vast mass of unsuspecting people of this truly virulent and destructive ideology. We don't have time for internecine fights that will only damage our warning and message in the long run. I hope most will focus upon the one dilemma we all agree poses a serious danger to all of us (and our way of life) in the West. Sure, there are a myriad of problems within our society yet we must rationally prioritize.

Zenster said...

cumpa_29, nowhere have you managed to cite a passage where I state that "3rd world people are intellectually inferior".

I speculate on conditions whereby those who migrated to colder climes may have had "a predisposition towards greater intelligence".

I also speculate that Africa's historical inability to produce any sort of highly developed modern culture may stem from "a very primitive tribal mindset" and that such a mindset may contribute to "the stalling, if not outright reduction, of IQ and its further development".

I have also wondered why it is that Africa and Islam both exhibit similar problems and how "a deficit in overall intelligence certainly seems to signify in either one's utter lack of success".

You, and so far, you alone are the only one coming forward to say that my words are the equivalent of stating that:

"3rd world people are intellectually inferior".

I have not said any such thing. My point is that certain socio-cultural conditions in the Third World seem to deter the growth of IQ.

That is not the same as saying that "3rd world people are intellectually inferior". CAPICHE?

Now, please feel free to retract your claim as to how I have supposedly taken the position that "3rd world people are intellectually inferior".

You can do it right away or I will simply have your comment deleted as a violation of this web site's commenting policy. Just in case you were not paying close attention (something you seem to be quite fond of):

Dymphna: Calling names, casting aspersions, mind-reading, etc., is permitted toward Famous People. However anyone who comments or posts here is a verboten target. [emphasis added]

Again, CAPICHE?

PS: I'm going to give you the gift that everyone gives and nobody takes … advice.

Get that chip off of your shoulder.

cumpa_29 said...

@Zenster
We all took the data on IQ to be just that, data. Conclusions drawn from them were speculative, both the ones in favor of racial intellectual inequality, and the ones against.
Why were your "speculations" so much better grounded than my own, if they were mere "speculations"? You yourself said that you "tended to agree with Fjordman". If you tend to agree, then you clearly see your ideas as more than just speculative. You clearly saw your speculative interpretations of the data as more firmly rooted in FACT.

And since you DID see your "speculations" as more firmly rooted, then the view that 3rd world peoples are intellectually inferior is more firmly rooted as well.

So let me amend my earlier post: "The same objections that you level at [almost certainly] inferior 3rd world peoples could just as easily be applied to us.

Happy?

I am NOT about to argue the same idea over and over and over and over again. You have your view, I have mine.

cheers

Dymphna said...

@Againstmohammedism --

Sometimes dramatic public stances must be taken. Geert Wilders' provocative film was designed to be create a crisis and to put the Political Class on notice.

The EDL is not a political party; thus its focus *is* public dramatic push back because all other outlets are closed to them.

The most important "solidarity" is what takes place in networking groups. For example, the one formed in France. IIRC, they took one issue: shariah, and that's their focus. Period.

I'm surprised that you're concerned about internecine squabbling given your field. Anyone who submits to academia's rigors knows he is in for years of that. As a peon in the system, you do whatever you're told until that golden day when you get tenure. Then you get your own peons & your own fiefdom.

This mandarin system may well fold as our welfare state collapses. Robert Tracinski has a good essay in Real Clear Markets about higher education going the way of the newspaper biz. Worth looking for just to see his image on college costs. Un-freakin'-believable.

No doubt you've been privy to some vicious internecine departmental infighting, right? Then you probably know what Kissinger supposedly said, The reason academic infighting is so bitter is that the stakes are so low. When I read that, I realized the man never had to worry about tenure; he'd moved into another mandarin realm entirely.

[If you want a good historical insight into Dutch political corruption & Wilders' situation google historian Arthur Legger on Why Spinoza Wasn't Killed. Excellent info and superb stylist. I recommend him to historians regularly]

I don't know how long you've been a student of the Counterjihad groups in this country or Europe, but there is good work being done in a lot of places.

For academic work try the Center for Security Policy. They're outstanding.
Here's just one of theirs:

Intrusion of Sharia into American Law

Their website is in that linked post. Worth visiting. They have the insider connections and the money to fund these studies. They also support excellent work like the Latma series. Given their scope & that they must ey run on a shoestring, their output is worth three govt departments. And they support ground level efforts too.

As for conflict, it will always be here. It's inherent in every single human group, bar none. If you don't plan for it, you'll be blind-sided. We learned that re the blogosphere the hard way in 2007. And we continue to learn.

If you haven't the stomach for emotional outbursts...well, academia is gonna be tough, don't you think? As will politics, jornolism, grass roots activism, church congregations, etc. Hey, some of the most intense emotional factionalism & infighting takes place in...monasteries with vows of silence.

I could name many efforts being made, focused efforts. Gavin Boby in England, all by his lonesome, has volunteered to help communities push back against more mosques. That's brave and it's practical.

Anyway, you get the idea. People get together and they proceed to...argue.

Please study what's being done. Look on our sidebar for starters. Lots and lots of people and groups.

Ann Corcoran, Refugee Resettlement Watch. If you want to scare yourself about the undet-the-radar immigration being foisted off on us, all nice & legal, read her. You won't sleep well.

Zenster said...

cumpa_29: I am NOT about to argue the same idea over and over and over and over again.

Bwwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

cumpa_29 said...

@Zenster.
You agreed with Fjordman that cold weather selects for greater intelligence, and that 3rd world conditions don't. Fjordman's whole point, however, is that these conditions make intelligence INHERITED via the selective process. You do know what that means, don't you? It means that by the time many many years roll by, the later generations actually ARE more intelligent. Why go on and on about climate, if you weren't in agreement that the climate selected for smarter folk in the first place?

So, whether you know it or not, you weren't merely arguing that people from the 3rd world have dampened IQ's, or that people from the north have greater ones. You were arguing that these processes have been operating for a LONG time, and therefore selecting for dumber or brighter people.

So by the time the contemporary world rolls around, you can take a 3rd worlder out of the 3rd world, but you can't take the 3rd world out of the 3rd worlder. And you most certainly "speculatively" agreed with this position.

And do what you want. I'm not about to humor your bogus sense of indignation.

cumpa_29 said...

@Zenster.

And yea, I AM done. I can tell when I'm being challenged to change someones mind, under the guise of debate.


Adios!

Dymphna said...

Well, folks, it's been real.

I'd like to point out something for your consideration:

It would appear that those who have the fewest things to say are often the most memorable. That Stogie dude, for example. And Col Bunny. Or Archonix, who's been here since forever. You Knew is another...

A phenomenon I've noticed repeatedly over the years is that quantity tends to dilute quality. This is especially true in reading from a computer screen.

To those who have many comments here, I request that you go back and count exactly *how many* there were and to see if you observe a dropping-off of quality in your own ideas as your words increase.

The Baron went to bed quite dispirited over what is happening in these threads. We do manage to remove most of the flaming, but this is not what we'd hoped for. Starting out, we had some silly idea that it would be like The Belmont Club -- contentious sometimes, but definitely distributed intelligence over time.

That spirit soon disappeared, though. I don't know how to describe what we have now but it's not that.

So I should tell you..the Baron is thinking about suspending the comment sections on GoV for a while.

It's just an idea right now.
I'm in favor of it but this is his call since he carries the burden of the work.

You'll hear more from him tomorrow or later as he ponders this and thinks it through. He's not a reactive person so he moves slowly to decisions...

Just a heads up.

Zenster said...

cumpa_29: I can tell when I'm being challenged to change someones mind, under the guise of debate.

You really don't get it, do you?

You are being "challenged to change someones [sic] mind" and not "under the guise of debate" but through the actual process of genuine forensic exchange, otherwise known as "debate".

Sad to say, you're doing a really lousy job of it. When you get over such bad habits as citing facts not in evidence, mind-reading and some other truly dysfunctional argumentative practices, perhaps then you may be more persuasive.

Until then, you aren't.

People here change my views when they do it in a useful manner. Despite being (from what I understand), an unwelcome presence here at GoV, Rosalie managed to persuade me about the hypocrisy of American Jews supporting the Israeli ethno-state even as they agitate for unlimited immigration that will destroy whatever there was of the American ethno-state.

As I subsequently phrased it:

Ethno-state for me but not for thee.

That single issue will a permanent feature of my own approaches to "The Jewish Question" until I get some satisfactory answers.

So, there you have it. A simple well-presented argument changed my mind rather solidly.

There is a reason why your own ill-couched arguments have not changed my mind. Think about it.

Zenster said...

Dymphna: Starting out, we had some silly idea that it would be like The Belmont Club -- contentious sometimes, but definitely distributed intelligence over time.

You both deserve, and always have deserved, nothing less.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

The issue of hypocrisy does seem to be the break-point for a lot of people. We give the jewish people a protected status that we consciously deny ourselves, yet if we simply ask for equal footing and the equal recognition that we, too, must be allowed to defend our own nation from the tides of history, we are called racist, anti-semites and nazis.

Yet this isn't a universal trait of jews. There are two broad camps. The division of these camps is at 90 degrees to the zionist/non-zionist division, which creates some confusion; for I know zionists who demand only the jews get their own nation, and zionists who know that to be an untenable position and who hold the idea that any nation must be free to choose its own path. I understand they clash a lot.

The anti-nationalist zionists are more vocal and more demanding. They drown out debate by loudly proclaiming anyone who doesn't adopt their argument wholesale as a nazi - even fellow jews. It becomes impossible to rationally discuss the need for nations to preserve their integrity as long as these few fling their hypocritical arguments around.

They are turning "I support Israel" into the same class of phrase as "I'm not a racist". A meaningless boilerplate, an incantation that has to be spoken before you are allowed to make any argument. One that then can be used to accuse people of not really supporting Israel, but only saying they do to gain legitimacy.

I support every nation's right to preserve its identity, defend its borders and damn the consequences. That includes Israel, but on terms no different than Germany, or Russia, or Australia, or New Guinnea, or the Hutu people. Let them do what they will, so long as they aren't doing it against me and mine.

And that's where I and, I believe, most commenters here stand.

Sagunto said...

Archonix -

You wrote:

"And that's where I and, I believe, most commenters here stand."

Nailed it. I stand with you.

Dymphna -

Many thnx for your answer to @againstmohammedism, concerning "internecine infighting".
As for the commenting pause, and though I understand your position, I'd be very sorry to see the comments section closed on GoV, when it means having to miss out on your contributions.

All the best from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Againstmohammedism said...

Good Morning, Dymphna.

I appreciate your response. I am not a history major. It is only a "hobby." I was always interested in antiquity and became even moreso after traveling in Asia, North Africa and Europe (not to mention here in the U.S. and Mexico). I had the opportunity to live as a student in Europe in 1992 then work in Asia later. Witnessing firsthand the despondence of the human condition, in particular where women are concerned, made me wonder how life had dissolved into such a grim, hollow existence for far too many throughout the world. I've looked a lot of these people in the eyes and heard their stories so, academia is more of an improvement on skill sets I already acquired over two decades and counting.

My field of study is quite different from history. Teaching is not for me. And, I do not plan a future in academia. I believe Ann Barnhardt summed it up best: there are some personalities that are more attuned to walk a more solitary course. There are graduate programs available where genuine study is undertaken and appreciated while the superficial "norm" of praising the hierarchy of academia is left to those who are more self-centered.

I hear you, though. I totally understand what happens when people organize and form groups. It can be beautiful and it does get brutal. Sometimes there is success. Other times there is failure. I admire the EDL, though. They are at least taking the fight to where it needs to be. I've encountered some of the same misguided followers they've had to deal with (and in their own homeland) but in different circumstances and in a much different region of the world.

I lived in East Asia for a while and worked for a Japanese company. My experience with the victims of Mohammedism was quite up close and personal: Malaysians, Fillipinos and Indonesians and everywhere in between. In short, never had I encountered so many mutilated and spirit whipped souls. It was depressing. Most were women fleeing a hell I'd rather not recount. In short, we all have a place in this "fight" against this gruesome medieval ideology. The key is to at least attempt to keep a "public" image of solidarity between all groups in AIM. There are groups in Asia who are fighting this as well, not just in Europe. I have a friend who lives in Brazil and she says there are signs of creeping Mohammedism there, too. Europe does concern me the most though. From my point-of-view, they've giving so much culturally to humankind and now a small, determined group are literally self-sabatoging their way of life.

Like you, I believe quality will always trump quantity. There are times as well, that a horror is so massive and all-encompassing that to sum up one's experience with it would take more than a book or lifetime and certainly not just conveyed only in words.

I appreciate you (and the Baron) for providing this platform and for giving me the opportunity to comment. I hope all those here in the U.S. enjoy a Happy Independence Day. If I delay my response it is not intentional. Shortly, I will be in a location where I will not have regular internet access.

EscapeVelocity said...

I generally agree with you achronix, but the pie isnt quartered with regards to anti-zionist/zionism and support for or opposition to European Christian nationalism.

The anti-zionist/anti European Christian nationalists and pro zionist/pro European Christian nationalist Jews are smaller populations amongst the Jews than the pro zionist/anti European Christian nationalists...by a long shot. The anti zionists/pro European Christian nationalists are so small as to be nearly non-existant.

I dont think that this makes Jews THE problem. THE problem is with European Christian guilt and decadance combined with Anti Western Leftist politics. Many identity politics groups which are cultivated by the Western Left, as well. These minorities are a problem...but THE problem mostly lies with he Self Hating European Christian Western Left combined with the Guilt and Decadence of the European Christians.

That doesnt mean that most Jews arent hostile to European Christian interests, they are.

Interestingly enough, in the US, the conservative religious Jews vote with the Christian Social Cons and Nationalists for Republicans. In Israel, the conservative religous Jews are the most hostile to Christians and minorities.

Hesperado said...

cumpa and Zenster,

Third World peoples are inferior. Third World cultures and societies are inferior.

Their inferiority to the West may be measured in many ways -- scientific, technological, legal, political, intellectual, philosophical, educational, artistic; and on and on.

The degree of inferiority is staggering, astronomic, astounding. I'm frankly flabbergasted that supposedly un-PC MC individuals can even be entertaining questioning it (cumpa) or parsing it into palatably innocuous euphemisms (Zenster). It's the proverbial forest (or jungle) being missed for the trees.

The inferiority in question is a massive ostensible fact.

The question is not this fact, but whether it is ontological (by "nature"), or merely functional. If the latter, then the Wicked West either caused it, or can come to the rescue and bring the Third World up to our speed; or both.

I say it's functional; that it's not the West's fault (but rather spectacularly the reverse, as Western colonialism for the most part tried to help Third World societies); and that the West should not be unduly expending its time and resources on trying to help Third World peoples in some monumental long-term project of bringing them up to speed except insofar as such activity serves our interests selfishly.

Finally, oftentimes in life a functional problem is, practically speaking, no different from an ontological problem -- insofar as what we can, or should do about it, does not appreciably differ between the one and the other.

So this whole debate about IQ and cold climates and DNA while perhaps abstractly interesting to some, is as irrelevant and distracting as the Realism/Nominalism debates of the Scholastics.

EscapeVelocity said...

Conversely the Christians in Israel align with the Left opposition to the oppressor Israeli Jews.

Hesperado said...

Dymphna,

If Baron and/or you ever get close to considering a moratorium on (or elimination of) comments, I would strongly request that at least, near that time, you provide one last article specifically devoted to the issue of Whether Comments Should Be Suspended Indefinitely at GOV, let it run for days, and put no limits on numbers of comments -- if only to give one last gasp to those of us who think comments sections are good for any website devoted to the AIM; i.e., a chance for those of us to put forth defenses of comments sections.

cumpa_29 said...

@Hesperado.
I wasn't questioning whether 3rd world nations are inferior. I agree with you that they are.

My earlier point was meant to show that many of the pathologies we attribute to 3rd world peoples in our own nations (and abroad, since it is a small world, after all), can be attributed to the MC PC mindset.

The secular progressive crowd has dug its claws into the black community more than our own --with disastrous results. I thought it a tad unfair to attribute all their problems to inherited 3rd world conditions rather than to the SP ideas which have ruined the once great west. After all, if those ideas can turn Western notions of fine art into an upside down toilet, what will it do to groups starting from weaker positions? It was in the context of whether the West is capable of assimilating foreigners that made my point.

As for the whole IQ thing, I should have wisely avoided it, though it was hard to do so considering the nature of my position.

Hesperado said...

Escape Velocity,

"THE problem is with European Christian guilt and decadance combined with Anti Western Leftist politics."

That's only part of the problem. You left out the millions of nominally, quasi-, hemidemisemi-, and non-Christians (and nominally, quasi-, hemidemisemi-, and functionally non-Jews) throughout the West on both Left and Right and everywhere in between (including comfortably apolitical) who more or less share, if only at the very least through passive co-dependent enabling, in the dominant PC MC paradigm about how the West is Eternally Guilty and Obliged, and the non-West are Eternal Noble Savages Who Need Our Help (which help involves us limiting our wicked ways in various ways functionally debilitating to the wellbeing of our societies).

Were it not for this larger, broader more diverse and amorphous mass of Westerners whose hearts and minds have over time shifted with (and symbiotically caused) the new Weltanschauung, the more sharply defined (and much smaller) subcategories you adduce would not enjoy the sociopolitical traction they do in fact enjoy in order to do the damage they do.

EscapeVelocity said...

That is certainly true Hesp. But without the self hating European Christian Left....the hordes of "Other" would not be a problem.

That isnt to say that these colonists arent a problem....nor that the American Jews largely arent a problem.

Islam and its Agents however are so great a danger to our liberty and way of life, in a way that no other group is...that it is the catalyst for wider non-fringe recognition of these broader problems.

In a strange twist of fate, it might actually be Islam and Muslims that we have to thank for getting our mojo back.

Hesperado said...

cumpa,

I don't think it's a matter of PC MC informing minority pathologies, but of enabling them, already pre-existing, to flourish more by aiding and abetting them, rather than rationally expecting them to conform and forcing them to do so when they don't.

The problem over the last several decades has been that PC MC has given unfair advantages to minorities and as a crucial part of this process has willfully overlooked (or worse has redefined into virtues) their pathologies, when what they should have been doing is to issue the following proclamation to minorities (to be backed up by policy):

"You are welcome to participate in and enjoy the benefits of our societies, but you have to earn it, and when you behave in ways that show you have not earned it, we will apply our laws and rules equitably and the practical effect of this application may, or may not, be that you will seem to be disproportionately punished (in myriad ways,ranging from ostensible discrimination in education and jobs, to statistical over-representation in prisons and searches and seizures; etc.). Our position is that whether you are, or are not, disproportionately punished in the years and decades ahead is entirely your responsibility. If over time your community is able to assimilate without disproportionate pathology, then we will congratulate you and you may justifiably take pride in this accomplishment. If not, then it will be entirely your fault for the various burdens and punishments you will be suffering. Good luck!"

Hesperado said...

Escape Velocity,

"In a strange twist of fate, it might actually be Islam and Muslims that we have to thank for getting our mojo back."

Yes, that's the likeliest scenario over the decades ahead; though it will most probably be a tragic process, involving needless loss of life and suffering on a scale needlessly great -- and the fault of that will be all those millions of Westerners (Elites and Commoners alike, not to mention the thousands of sociological categories in between those two quaintly medieval-sounding extremes which most people in the AIM seem to think sum up the sociopolitical complexion of our current Western societies) who more, or less, passively enabled the appeasement and whitewashing of Muslims long past the point of rationality.

cumpa_29 said...

@Hesperado.
I agree with everything you said except for one thing. MC PC stew does in fact seed pathologies in immigrant communities. The destruction of family values, the engendering of a sense of rights that they would not have had under more conservative paradigms, the destruction of religion (which does much to hold communities together), etc etc.

If the West had its house in order, assimilating foreigners would be easier. But if some of the problems of these foreigners actually stem from the pathologies of the West, it would be even MORE easy.
But I'm with you on everything else.

Zenster said...

Hesperado: I'm frankly flabbergasted that supposedly un-PC MC individuals can even be entertaining questioning it (cumpa) or parsing it into palatably innocuous euphemisms (Zenster).

I refuse to discount all Third World people as "inferior" because that denies the fact that some individuals from those societies come to the West and become useful, contributing citizens.

Are their cultures and societies inferior? Too often, yes.

Do they lag in the areas of "scientific, technological, legal, political, intellectual, philosophical, educational, artistic" achievement? Just as often, yes.

Does hammering repeatedly on those points ― as opposed to focusing on why Europe and America have excelled where so many have not ― draw monster raving loons and borderline personalities out of the woodwork? Way too often, yes.

What you perceive as "palatably innocuous" PCMC "euphemisms" may just be another person's efforts at keeping the signal to noise ratio at an acceptable level.

Zenster said...

Thank you very much for the more extensive background information, Againstmohammedism. I'm pleased to say that it was already rather apparent in your earlier comments.

Please check in whenever you can. We'll leave a light on for you.

Hesperado said...

cumpa and Zenster,

Thanks for your clarifications, and I agree with everything your last posts said. To Zenster I would just add that I don't regard Third World people as ontologically inferior. When a people is not ontologically inferior, but functionally inferior, then there will usually be a certain percentage (however small) among them who demonstrate capacity to transcend the limitations of their culture. The relatively small percentage involved varies from culture to culture within the Third World; but for the most part does not represent enough numbers, in my estimation, to bother our expense of time and resources to help if the ultimate aim is unrealistic in terms of a Wilsonian immanentized soteriology. More realistic would be a system whereby we manage the Third World with our interests selfishly paramount, and within that overarching system we provide a leg up for the odd precocious Third Worlder to get ahead; but for the most part we proceed without rosily unrealistic expectations. In the best of times, under the most rational administrators, Western Colonialism operated that way (with the usual caveats of unavoidable imperfection aside).

EscapeVelocity said...

Thanks for the exchange of ideas banter Hesp.

Zenster said...

Hesperado: The relatively small percentage involved varies from culture to culture within the Third World; but for the most part does not represent enough numbers, in my estimation, to bother our expense of time and resources to help if the ultimate aim is unrealistic in terms of a Wilsonian immanentized soteriology.

Which is why, for many years now, I have always referred people to the article by Kenyan economist James Shikwati titled, "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!".

Foreign aid ― at least in its present form of indiscriminate largess ― infantilizes a majority of its recipients, even just those very few whom that aid often finally reaches. Worst of all ― despite the incredibly poor rate of successful distribution ― such indiscriminate aid still manages to infantilize recipient societies by perpetuating hyper-corruption while at the same time, destroying genuine market competitiveness for farmers and other producers who cannot possibly compete against free bulk deliveries of essential goods.

Hesperado said...

Zenster,

"Foreign aid ― at least in its present form of indiscriminate largess ― infantilizes a majority of its recipients, even just those very few whom that aid often finally reaches"

I agree. However, my point is that with Third World societies, there realistically is only the choice between two kinds of infantilization:

1) the kind you describe

2) the kind where Western Parents supervise and administer the aid to the Third World Adult Children (classical Colonialism), perhaps availing themselves of a very small elite of capable natives for certain functions of the process.

The third alternative, of global isolationism (i.e., "Let the Third World hellholes completely alone and devolve as they will") could be an option, were the world not inextricably and profoundly interconnected economically.

And needless to say, I don't believe in the viability of a fourth scenario, where Third World societies learn over a reasonably short amount of time to manage themselves more or less as well as the West learned to do.

Zenster said...

Hesperado: 2) the kind where Western Parents supervise and administer the aid to the Third World Adult Children (classical Colonialism), perhaps availing themselves of a very small elite of capable natives for certain functions of the process.

As a self-appointed PCMC maven, you should know better than anyone how very badly a new round of First World colonialism will stick in just about everybody's craw, sideways.

Not that the Chinese haven't managed to concoct a stealth varietal of this exact concept through a hybridization of ideo-economic infiltration, but the net result of that will only be even more human suffering than the more benign model you are suggesting. If anything, it is specifically because China is not perceived as being First World that it's colonial efforts are being given a typical pass by the PCMC superstructure.

As to "global isolationism", it may be one of the only viable alternatives in that it avoids "colonial intervention" and simultaneously seems to preserve "national integrity", features which could draw from both sides of America's political aisle.

We are already seeing a reemergence of such "isolationism" with respect to Greece and it's financial meltdown. Rumblings have already begun within the EU about having Greece return to the drachma so that it's fiscal irresponsibility is not able to drag down the Euro as a whole.

In a similar manner, Third World hellholes may well need to see their foreign aid umbilici cut and other participatory incentives held out in order to encourage good governance.

Obviously, the spoiler in all of this continues to be Islam. Like the Communism of its day, Islam so often is able to persuade illiterate and despotically ruled populations that shari'a will solve all those ailments. A socio-economic sleight-of-hand if ever there was one.

Islam, too, is the odd-man-out in our previous discussions about inferior cultures. As an irredeemable entity, it remains a consistent exception to so many arguments about backwards Third World cultures. As you yourself have noted, the violent and supremacist nature of Islam makes it wholly incompatible in a majority of situations.

Finally, I doubt that either of us could summon forth the misplaced optimism required to believe that your fourth alternative has a snowball's chance in Hell. Decades of cultural Marxism's zero sum equation, combined with an equal dose of PCMC celebration of savagery, make it unlikely in the extreme that Third World nations will economically "bootstrap" themselves anytime soon.

Hesperado said...

Zenster,

As a self-appointed PCMC maven, you should know better than anyone how very badly a new round of First World colonialism will stick in just about everybody's craw, sideways.

I'm just articulating what would be best; its present likelihood or popularity is another matter.

"As to "global isolationism", it may be one of the only viable alternatives in that it avoids "colonial intervention" and simultaneously seems to preserve "national integrity", features which could draw from both sides of America's political aisle.

We are already seeing a reemergence of such "isolationism" with respect to Greece and it's financial meltdown. Rumblings have already begun within the EU about having Greece return to the drachma so that it's fiscal irresponsibility is not able to drag down the Euro as a whole."

As I said, the world is too interconnected economically. Relative regional diversity of various forms only means that the interconnection & interdependence is not monolithic, not that it doesn't exist and impose certain limitations on economic independence. Indeed, "globalism" has been a geopolitical fact for over 2,000 years: only the spatial extent has changed, eventually logically embracing the entire globe. Western progress cannot thrive without globalism of some form: the question is not a matter of Whether, but of How.

In a similar manner, Third World hellholes may well need to see their foreign aid umbilici cut and other participatory incentives held out in order to encourage good governance.

As I said (and as you elsewhere in your post seemed to agree), Third World societies are incapable of learning good governance on a scale sufficient to be pragmatically relevant. Foreign aid should not be about trying to modernize the Third World, but simply about managing their participation and resources in the global economy for our maximum benefit. Since the modern West is not an evil dictatorship but rather the most beneficent and rational sociopolitical system in the history of the world, such rational exploitation of the Third World would probably result in the best lives they've ever had (as indeed, the Third World never had it better when Classical Colonialism was applied -- or, in a microcosmic example, many Third World peoples actually desire to be "exploited" by Nike sweatshops, because such situations are infinitely preferrable to the conditions their own corrupt systems impose upon them).

Obviously, the spoiler in all of this continues to be Islam. Like the Communism of its day, Islam so often is able to persuade illiterate and despotically ruled populations that shari'a will solve all those ailments. A socio-economic sleight-of-hand if ever there was one.

I think even with relatively illiterate and despotically ruled populations, Islam rarely gains sociopolitical dominance without considerable violence. (In this regard, I have suspicions about the Myth of Islamic Osmosis in Indonesia, and I've actually found indications that that myth was, perhaps inadvertently, propagated by none other than Snouck Hurgronje, an otherwise astute scholar of Islam of not too distant yore: namely, I found a scholarly article that tentatively (and, alas, parenthetically) broached the interesting thesis that there exists in Indonesian lore copious "fables" of the era when Muslims began arriving in Indonesia -- fables which indicate that what occurred was a protracted violent invasion by Muslims (granted, often with the collusion of certain tribal chiefs/kings who thought their personal power could be so aggrandized), not a peaceful takeover by some early form of stealth jihad. Apparently, Hurgronje axiomatically dismissed these "fables" because they seemed to be fables, and he thereby ruled out the possibility that they contained historiography in between the lines of their genre.)

You New said...

Dymphna, Baron, Commentors:

I appreciate that you have attracted so many people who show up with interesting things to say.
Most are polite and let their comment stand without repetition, needless parsing and soapboxing.

Please consider if there is a way to handle this without us having to miss interesting ideas from interesting people.

As you have chosen challenging topics to discuss we should all be sensitive to creating a harmonious environment. And most people do that very, very well, I hope you agree.

The most miserable thing about the commenting problem is the person who is trying to bend the comments to their tonality with repetition, length and will.

Repetitious commenters don't seem to notice that they are no more interesting that the other people. Usually less so.

Mr. Hesperado must think his thoughts are especially clever since he leaves comments section after section awash in them. This activity dilutes the importance of all the other comments.

My suggestion is to simply limit everyone to 2 comments per thread.
No ifs, ands or buts. Third comment, all three get deleted.

That would mean that nothing changes at all for 98 per cent of the commenters!

Zenster said...

Hesperado: In this regard, I have suspicions about the Myth of Islamic Osmosis in Indonesia…

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that any culture in all history has voluntarily adopted Islam. The Malaysian conversion was accompanied by violence, just as with any other.

My only point was that Islam remains a danger in that its seditious activities (including terrorism), can thereby "persuade" nations to adopt shari'a law as a solution to their traditional ills. I would venture that Communism gained entré in much of the same way wherever it went during the Cold War.

Talk about the cure being worse than the disease!

Zenster said...

You New: My suggestion is to simply limit everyone to 2 comments per thread.
No ifs, ands or buts. Third comment, all three get deleted.

That would mean that nothing changes at all for 98 per cent of the commenters!


It was tried and, effectively, sterilized the threads. Even on occasion for Dymphna and the Baron.

EscapeVelocity said...

And let it be said that repetition is bread and butter to teaching. And a lot of folks need teaching. Not necessarily those who post here, but generally speaking, the more repetition about the evils of Islam and the actions of its agents...the better off everyone will be.

cumpa_29 said...

@Hesperado, Zenster.

I agree that foreign aid many times does more harm than good. There are other problems as well.

One is that in this modern interconnected world, many of the best and brightest (those lucky enough to get an education), leave their host countries in what has been called "brain drain". If nations were left to their own devices, they would stay, and form the bedrock of a more hopeful future.
Something similar happens in the inner cities of our own coutry due to the automobile. Those who are psychologically better off, driven, and lucky, leave those areas for suburbs across the country. What you are left with are hell holes like Detroit.

And when you combine that with disastrous MC PC policies by local crooked mayors, enter these places at your own risk. (this is not to say that the people there don't have their share of the responsibility for their condition. they do.)

Interestingly enough, there is also a parallel with 3rd world nations. The leaders of these places end up being (willing) players in the global MC PC scheme centered at the UN. This twists and deforms the patterns of behaviors that these leaders take. It legitimizes things that in saner times wouldn't be.

Combine that with primitive cultural ideas (like voodoo in cuba/haiti), the arbitrary nature of many of these countries borders (africa), the foreign nature of modern ideas, etc., etc., and it is easy to see why these problems persist.

Getting rid of MC PC would be a good thing for all.

Zenster said...

EscapeVelocity: And let it be said that repetition is bread and butter to teaching. And a lot of folks need teaching. Not necessarily those who post here, but generally speaking, the more repetition about the evils of Islam and the actions of its agents...the better off everyone will be.

Author! Author!

Hesperado said...

At least "You New" didn't (as did Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald) accuse me of riding my supposed hobbyhorse into the ground.