Posted by Matra on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:14 | #

The Fjordmanists assert that if Israel loses in the Middle East, Europe will succumb to Islam next. An unsupported assertion is not proof. None of them has shown there is a necessary logical connection between the defeat of Israel and the surrender of Europe to Islamification.

I don’t know about Fjordman but many of those who make this argument at the same time express approval for Western aid, including the use of NATO, to the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo during the 90s. Nor do many of them, as Lawrence Auster has pointed out, explicitly call for immigration control, never mind repatriation. It leads one to conclude that it is Israel, not Europe, that they are primarily concerned about.

Posted by Rnl on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:10 | #

The essence of anti-Semitism is the view that Jews are hateful because of certain ineradicable biological characteristics. This was the position of Wilhelm Marr when he coined the word ‘anti-Semitism’ in 1870.

I don’t think this is right. Marr used anti-Semitism as a replacement for _Judenhass_, not (unless I’m seriously mistaken) as a synonym. They were not interchangeable terms, and Marr wasn’t teaching the virtue of Jew-hatred. He was arguing that Jews, as non-European Semites, were a dangerous and alien presence in Germany. Jewish emancipation had unleashed this alien group against Germans. His belief that Semitic Jews were alien and often hostile did not entail hatred of Jews. He had Jewish friends and at one time had a Jewish wife. He may have been partly Jewish himself.

The term anti-Semitism, which he popularized, relied on the existence of a body of scholarly literature about Semites. Scholarly books with titles like _The Religion of the Semites_ treated Jewish religious beliefs as part of the ancient Semitic world of the Near East. The Semite had become an object of scholarly scrutiny in the West, and Europeans naturally enough drew distinctions between Semites and themselves, usually to the detriment of the former.

From Marr’s perspective Jews were profoundly alien: They were non-European racially; their language was Semitic, not Indo-European; and their religious heritage lay in the Orient. Jews were Orientals, yet they were living in the Occident and playing a steadily increasing role in German economic and political life. He therefore argued for their forced eviction from the country.

I haven’t read Lindemann’s _Esau’s Tears_, which discusses this subject. There was once a good racialist review of the book online somewhere, but it seems to have disappeared. Here is MacDonald’s review, though it doesn’t discuss Marr:

A Revisionist View of Anti-Semitism
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/LindemannReview.htm

Posted by VanSpeyk on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 14:00 | #

Recently there was an uproar in the Netherlands when a minister (“minister of integration” no less) suggested that we would develop a “islamic-jewish-christian tradition”, instead of the jewish-christian we are now supposed to have. Rightwingers were angry and called her soft. Anyways, a professor was quoted in a newspaper as admitting that the term “judeo-christian” is a recent, post-war invention and came instead of the old term which was simply “Christian civilisation” . He said people began using the term “judeo-christianity” only because of “the Holocaust”.

Unfortunately, the term is now widely popular among the Right anti-Muslim forces. It irritates me for several reasons. First, it is obvious they use this term as a way of saying “look we´re no nazis, we claim Jews as our own. Second, by ditching the old term they seem to confirm that there was something wrong with it or that we should use it out of punishment for “failing” jews. Third, they also press Jews close their breast because they fear being seen as defenders of Whites only. Fighting mulitcultaralism in a multicultural way, in a way thus. Finally, this whole emphasis on religion in their dealing with foreigners, in this case muslims, irks me as a racialist. They are staring themselves blind on religion and thereby ignore the ethnic aspect of our identity.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:02 | #

“this whole emphasis on religion in their dealing with foreigners, in this case muslims, irks me as a racialist. They are staring themselves blind on religion and thereby ignore the ethnic [i.e., racial] aspect of our identity.”  (—van Speyk)

Excellent point and that’s the problem with Fjordman (and with not just him, of course, but many other immigration critics also):  to replace a population in part or in whole with one of different religion and culture is a problem, and to do it with one of different race is more of a problem.  These pundits only look at the religion/culture aspect of partial-or-total population replacement, not addressing the more serious racial aspect. 

I love the Vietnamese.  I don’t hate them.  But I don’t want my race replaced with them, in whole or in part; neither do they want theirs replaced with mine, in whole or in part.  It’s normal and right of me and of them not to want that;  it’s not “hate,” a term American Jews decided to apply to it as a calculated tactic, in order to advance the Jewish agenda, part of which is race-replacement. 

From the U.S. that tactic spread to Europe and the whole Eurosphere:  it was cooked up in America by American Jews and was exported to your country and everywhere else from America.  It’s an American export:  we don’t have to look for its origin separately in each and every country where it pops up:  it came from here. 

Calling this completely normal feeling of concern over the prospect of seeing your race gradually replaced with another “hate” is just a calculated tactic meant to disarm you in front of the broad mass of the people who want to do the right thing and not “hate,” and who are too trusting to question what they’re being told, and aren’t quite clever enough to see through what’s being done to them by the schemers. 

What needs to be understood by the broad voting public who, naturally, don’t want to vote for “haters,” is that the objection to what’s going on where race is concerned isn’t an expression of “hate,” but of legitimate alarm over the replacement of one race, in part or in whole, with another — and, especially, over the fact that it’s being imposed from the top on populations that have never explicitly consented to or been fairly consulted on race-replacement as an official government policy. 

That alarm isn’t “hate” or “race prejudice” but simply the normal, legitimate, perfectly moral, perfectly Christian rejection of the replacement of one’s race with another.  Normal, moral people who aren’t “haters” will reject that, no matter whether the race being brought in to replace theirs in whole or in part be one they like (for good or bad reasons) dislike (for good or bad reasons).  They just don’t want to get replaced by it and there’s nothing wrong with that, and it’s not “hate.”

Now, Fjordman isn’t one of the “common people” any more.  He has achieved élite status:  he’s a leader of the people now.  Furthermore, he’s anonymous, which gives him more latitude.  He certainly sees what I just discussed.  That being the case, and the more so since he’s anonymous, he is under an obligation to stop ignoring race, but to start adding it to his list of concerns in his published articles.  He’s a leader of the people now, and as such he must lead with truth, whole truth, nothing but truth, and always in the right direction only.  He cannot shirk that moral responsibility, surely not on this epochal life-or-death issue for Europeans as a people.

Posted by Rnl on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 21:14 | #

“Fjordman” asserts there is a powerful “anti-Israeli and sometimes outright anti-Semitic current that is prevalent in too much of Europe’s media”. “Fjordman” does not define what he means by “anti-Israeli” or “anti-Semitic” nor does he provide any examples of what he obviously wants his readers to believe are twinned thought-crimes.

If Fjordman were offering cynical tactical advice, we could take him more seriously as a thinker. But he seems to genuinely believe what he writes. On the other hand, what he believes is probably more marketable than what most of us here believe.

Anything that adds unnecessary complexity to a political message, especially if the message comes from outside the mainstream, is problematic. Bumper-sticker simplicity is preferable to subtle nuance or anything resembling subtle nuance. “Muslims are bad” is simple and easy to communicate. You need only accumulate facts demonstrating the thesis, which is easy. “Muslims are bad if they live in the West but good when they attack Jews in Israel” is hopeless. It would require far too much explanation. Perhaps an anti-Zionist racialist could come up with a good explanation, but by time he reached the end hardly any among his non-racialist audience would still be listening.

Indifference to Zionism might make better political sense from a racialist perspective: We don’t care much about the competing sides in the Congolese civil war; we also don’t care much about what goes on in Israel. Neither the Congo nor Israel is in the West, which is roughly Jared Taylor’s official view.

Nick Griffin’s official view is similar to Fjordman’s, though I doubt Griffin actually believes it. He wants to keep his core message simple, and he knows that contentious opinions about Israel add complexity and incur plausible charges of anti-Semitism, in addition to the unavoidable charges of Islamophobia.

***

“I spell [antisemitism] in lower case, without a hyphen (not anti-Semitism), to signal that it refers to an ideology and to imply that the phenomenon has almost nothing to do with the actions of Jews.” (Daniel Pipes)

This view, along with the spelling that embodies it, is common among Jewish writers on anti-Semitism.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:57 | #

In looking up something else just now, I happened across two old comments of mine which make a simple point I’m not so sure Fjordman understands, especially the final paragraph of the second one.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:27 | #

You have to admit, though, that among the group of those immigration critics who “refuse to see” race, it doesn’t get any better than Fjordman.

Posted by Human on Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:23 | #

MURDER!