|
|
SwedenI was going to write an entry on the Jewish Question. But I have decided not to write one entry but a series. The question has too many facets to be covered in a single effort. But even more so, the “Question” is intertwined with so many other political issues that studying it in isolation is a mistake, I believe. It is a mistake because quite often “white nationalists” (whether self-described or otherwise) see the activism of organized Jewry as a sweeping explanation for all that has gone wrong with the West. My position on Jews is far too complicated to be explained in those simple terms. I have read Kevin MacDonald and find the arguments very persuasive. But, and here lies the key, MacDonald’s thesis leaves a great deal unexplained, such as this. I don’t often read the Weekly Standard (for obvious reasons!). But I do pass by once in a while. I believe in having the greatest possible breadth of knowledge and reading the writings of one’s harshest political opponents is as essential to an understanding of politics (if not more) as reading the writings of men one agrees with completely. This article elucidates quite beautifully what has fundamentally gone wrong with western man. The country in question is Sweden – perhaps the mother of the Nordic Race historically. Until the 1960s, Sweden was all-white, it had been spared the horrors of the Second World War, it was booming – rich, prosperous, industrious, homogenous, and brilliantly innovative for a country so small with a tiny population. Today, Sweden is in bad shape. And not just in economic terms. It is in bad shape because it has imported problems that are probably unsolvable. Nothing short of a political revolution will sort this problem out. Sweden has a tiny number of Jews. They are very few in number and their political influence is negligible. Anyone who questions this needs to look at the sheer number of UN Resolutions in which Sweden has consistently voted against Israel. But, it has the exact same problem as the United States! An immigrant population that now constitutes a higher percentage of its total than even America (the highest percentage of foreign born in the US was before the beginning of World War I). Sweden has accomplished this without any Jewish involvement, any Jewish money, Jewish academics or Jewish left-wing fanatics (who shall be dealt with appropriately in later blog entires). So how did it happen? What went wrong? Something is wrong in the soul of a Nation that lets itself be wrecked in this manner and still takes no action to preserve itself. The Danes were engaging in similar foolishness until just recently. They have now sobered up (I will deal with Denmark in a later blog entry to demonstrate that it is an example of what European politics ought to be like in the current circumstances). But back to Sweden, the Swedes now have a massive Moslem population in their midst (about 1 million out of Sweden’s 8 million people). Malmo, the third largest Swedish city, is now majority Moslem. Police do not go there any more. That Weekly Standard article brings out the elements of the Swedish character that are crucial to understanding the political nature of this disaster. I have known many Swedes personally – through student exchange programs, through friends and through professional associations. And having interacted to that degree it comes as no surprise to me that they have suffered this fate. The number of Swedes I know personally who went to do relief work in Africa is high enough for me to have lost count. Many others went to the jungles of South America. Some went to Central American banana republics where quite often people go never to be heard of again, to be killed by pestilence or the natives. The question is: why? What makes intelligent men and women commit their entire lives to the wretched for whom no man or woman could ever offer any real hope? In modern Swedish culture that isn’t just a trend or chic, it is modern Swedish culture. The altruism on display here is of an order that cannot be surpassed anywhere in the world. It is not a fanaticism for there is little thumping of the fist on the table or screaming from the rooftops. It is solemn, it is deeply felt and it has become a way of life. The consequence, aside from the fact that the lives of scores of intelligent and potentially productive men and women have been turned into dead ends, is the destruction of a homogenous happy country where not a lot ever went wrong. Sweden now sits atop a political volcano. The longer Sweden’s architects of destruction, its Social Democrat politicians, delay the corrective (which now has the support of the silent majority waiting for political expression), the greater the corrective shall be and perhaps even bloody. So what was it about western man that led him to this path? The decay of Christianity? Of the Lutheran traditions? The effects of the Liberal democratic principles on a peaceful prosperous community? A genetic predisposition to altruism? Answers to these questions must be found. I would find the last of those the least persuasive of all explanations. Swedes as a nation were not engaging in such behaviour in the 1700s (nor for that matter were any people anywhere on Earth). Understanding the condition of modern western man is crucial to the creation of a political alternative to Liberalism. Without an alternative to Liberalism, the West will be finished.
Posted by Phil Peterson on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 07:40 PM in That Question Again Comments:2
Posted by Svigor on February 23, 2005, 08:37 PM | # Remember, Sweden gave us Quisling. Sweden rolled over for the Nazis, Denmark did not. I think this is highly relevant to the discussion. On a similar vein, Europe has the spectre of Hitler, the HOLOCAUST, and a continental fratricidal war hanging over her. Nationalism lost to Socialism in a big way. Is it so surprising that she doesn’t need as much prodding? Then of course there’s the world’s greatest media machine, America, and we all know the messages pouring forth from it and the line taken by American administrations. 3
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 23, 2005, 08:39 PM | # “Let me see if I understand the implied logic here: Jewry can’t be the problem because Sweden has some of the same problems anti-Semites blame on Jews, yet she has no Jews?” No. The Logic is that there are additional problems as well. Jewry is not the sum total of our problems. MacDonald says that himself in Culture of Critique. He says that Jewry are a necessary condition but not a “sufficient condition”. “I see Jewry as the x-factor that (tellingly) no one wants to discuss.” I agree. And I will deal with that question shortly in my next few entries. “it’s still far more accurate, healthy, and safe for western civilization than the suicidal philo-Semitic blinders worn by our elites.” But that is not the sum total of all discourse. We here are not engaged in simply coming up with a slogan here or there but to try and understand a phenomenon. Someone needs to do that after all. 4
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 23, 2005, 08:42 PM | # “On a similar vein, Europe has the spectre of Hitler, the HOLOCAUST, and a continental fratricidal war hanging over her. Nationalism lost to Socialism in a big way. Is it so surprising that she doesn’t need as much prodding? Then of course there’s the world’s greatest media machine, America, and we all know the messages pouring forth from it and the line taken by American administrations.” Well, yes and no. Gunnar Myrdal wrote before even the war ended. His “American Dilemma” came before the end of WW II (1944) or the complete propogandisation of the US media. These problems have roots that go much further back in time. 5
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 23, 2005, 08:51 PM | # Let me elaborate on what I mean. My contention is that you could remove the “X” factor and you may still end up having the same problems. The problems are endemic to Liberal principles, to the humanitarian impulse that it central to the Liberal project. Jewish political activism gives expression to the corruptions associated with those principles. But, as we see from this example, the same problems often occur without the involvement of Jews. That does not by itself render any questioning of Jewish political activism meaningless but it does raise fundamental questions about the the very foundations of Liberalism. 6
Posted by Svigor on February 23, 2005, 08:52 PM | # No. The Logic is that there are additional problems as well. Jewry is not the sum total of our problems. I agree. I’m undecided as to what share of the problem is comprised by Jewry. It’s such a largely undocumented issue. I honestly believe that America could and would begin righting herself if not for Jewry. It would be a slow process, because leftism is largely self-sustaining now. I guess that’s sort of a converse of your paraphrasal of MacDonald’s “condition” statement. 7
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 23, 2005, 08:52 PM | # Phil & Svy: Let me throw something else into the mix. Something that bolster’s Phil’s position about the self-destructive impulses of the Gentile man. Simply WWI. This was the war that wrecked Western Civ. It ruined the system established by Congress of Vienna. Even among many critics of organized Jewry they acknowledge that Jewish involvment in this wars’ origins is oblique. (Yes of course there are exceptions. Which I’m sure will be noted). 8
Posted by Svigor on February 23, 2005, 09:01 PM | # The fact is that leftism conforms to elite interests. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be viable. That’s why I’m so insistent that change must be bottom-up; the elites aren’t going to eschew leftism until we force them to by making it contrary to their interests (something eminently achievable). That’s why the media question is so exasperating, it’s the ultimate trump card preventing healthy change. 9
Posted by Svigor on February 23, 2005, 09:07 PM | # Geoff: I’d be happy to hear you expound on WWI, because I’w woefully ignorant about it. Wasn’t one of the primary contributing factors in the rise of the Third Reich and German anti-Semitism the common German perception that German Jewry had sold the fatherland down the river (in return for the Balfour Declaration)? 10
Posted by john rackell on February 23, 2005, 09:12 PM | # The article highlights a phenomenon that parallels that of the Jews in the West: the highly educated Chilean emigres. People like Rojas who can easily morph into the perfect Swede at a moments notice with his command of Swedish mythology and history. But it is perfectly plain that Rojas is inimical to the Swedish tribe’s tribalism which he holds in disdain and his goal is to break down this ethnocentrism. He is the outsider who gets by on the inside, the wolf in sheeps clothing. Isn’t it MacDonald’s thesis of the power of a committed intelligent minority, the Jews, or Chileans in this case, to rend asunder a not fully aware majority? In asking this I am not in any way ascribing the whole of Sweden’s problems on this one particular group, but the parallels are there, in for instance the drive to enter the EU was given a plurality by immigrant interests. On a positive note the article does show what a minority can do for our side. It is a minority of people in a small European country Denmark who have forced Sweden to acknowledge its immigration disaster. By restricting immigration the Danes are creating restrictionist pressures in other countries (a point made by Jared Taylor). 11
Posted by Svigor on February 23, 2005, 09:12 PM | # Here’s a piece on the issue that is popular with WNs (I can’t attest to it’s authenticity, although I wish I could one way or the other): 12
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 23, 2005, 09:17 PM | # John, The Chileans arrived and achieved any political clout much later. By then Social Democrat politicians had done their work. Those men are just another example of deluded free-marketeers. Socialists see the State as a God that solves all problems, Free-marketeers see the market as a God that solves all problems. Neither understand the ORGANIC basis of society. Nations do not pop out of thin air - they are a product of Geography, accident, Race and History. The state and the market arrive later. Take the first ORGANIC bits out and then you have the AFRICA situation where nothing ever works - Free Markets, Anarchy or Socialism. 13
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 23, 2005, 09:19 PM | # Svy: Yes. The consequences of WWI to world Jewry are immense. But the causes of it are not (I am being generous to those suspicious of Jews) exclusively the work of Jews. Its interesting that KMac’s book is subtitled “An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements”. Most historians regard 1918 as the beginning - logically, not physically - of the Twentieth Century; 1918 being the year of the WWI armistice. The radical cultural and political movements described in KMac’s C of C flower after WWI. So, in some sense, we can blame ourselves for the infiltration of Freudanism, Boasian Anthropology, Frankfurt School, and all that. For after WWI we had wrecked our culture. Perhaps we can look at it this way…. we were a weakened organism and a infectious disease found home in our body. The best books on WWI I’ve read are: The First World War, by John Keegan The First World War, Hew Strachan Illusion of Victory, Thomas Fleming These books are histories of WWI, not arguments on world Jewry, though 14
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 23, 2005, 09:40 PM | # Geoff, World War I because of its ferocity sounded the death-knell for Nationalism. The final consequence of the death of Nationalism in Europe (with the end of World War II) was the birth of “Social Democracy”. Sweden had “Social Democracy” before any other country. It was the first nation in Europe to develop it. Others followed. What we are seeing now is the result of that experiment. 15
Posted by Svigor on February 23, 2005, 10:11 PM | # So, in some sense, we can blame ourselves for the infiltration of Freudanism, Boasian Anthropology, Frankfurt School, and all that. There’s no doubt about that. I hear this argument a lot from those who seem to think it’s outside my arguments, or that it somehow “absolves” Jewry. I find the latter rather odd, since blaming Jewry has never been prominent among my themes. I don’t blame people for acting in their own interests. I don’t blame vectors for spreading disease, I’m just interested in identifying and neutralizing them. 16
Posted by John S Bolton on February 23, 2005, 10:46 PM | # The current anticulture is so pathogenic that any group with a disproportionate number of scholars will look like a vector of it. Anticaucasianism would wipe out the Ashkenazi Jews along with the others, so how can it be in their ethnic interest? Should we be talking about a Scottish conspiracy? The call for mass altruism, for the altruism of nations, to be sacrificed en bloc, is the new and hideously virulent development of the government schools’ anticulture. Cambodia could recover from the mass altruism which was imposed on it by communist subhumanity. Can California recover from the historically unprecedented decline in quality of population, as shown by their public schools going from the top ten percent of states to the bottom ten percent in forty years, and in a jurisdiction of tens of millions? 17
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 23, 2005, 10:50 PM | # Phil: > WWI Yes, its good to keep the subject to Sweden. Its true Sweden escaped the horrors of WWI but the larger point of that it unleashed anti-western radical political and intellectual movements affected Sweden too. I’m not sure when Sweden fell. Frankly, I think the kind of ‘ethnic socialism’ Sweden pioneered is sustainable - IF they are kept ethnically homogeneous. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Furthermore, some states fell to anomie quicker than others. One can argue that the Anglo-Saxon countries like Britain and the U.S. remained somewhat pious and traditional until 1965. Other countries seemed to have succumbed much earlier. Even in the 1920s France was a hothouse of miscegenation, drugs, and other nasties. 18
Posted by ben tillman on February 23, 2005, 11:01 PM | # Let me see if I understand the implied logic here: Jewry can’t be the problem because Sweden has some of the same problems anti-Semites blame on Jews, yet she has no Jews? http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/sweden.htm I did take two years of Swedish in college, but I have not verified the data at the above link. Excerpts: Of the seven largest daily newspapers in Sweden, the seven with a daily circulation of over 100,000, the [Jewish] Bonnier family owns four, Dagens Nyheter (the Daily News), Expressen (the Express), Sydsvenska Dagbladet (the Southern Swedish Daily News) and Dagens Industri (the Industry of Today). The largest of the private channels in Sweden is TV4. The Bonnier family directly holds 21,6% of TV4 and through their ownership of the Finnish based Alma media company they hold an additionally 23,4%, totalling up 45% and a virtual control. Hjörne is a part of the old Jewish establishment in Gothenburg and has his way to influence the Gentiles of that city. For instance, when the Jew Steven Spielberg¹s movie Schindler¹s List reached the screens Hjörne personally paid so all senior high school students would see it. The Bonnier family owns 30% and Hjörne owns 10% of The Swedish News-agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå (the Swedish Central News Agency), the mainly news source for the none-local news stories in most minor papers in Sweden. The largest newspaper in Sweden is Aftonbladet (the Evening Post), jointly owned by the Swedish Labour Union and the Norwegian Schibstedt company. The chief editor, however, is the Jewess Helle Klein, great granddaughter of the former grand rabbi of Stockholm, Rabbi Gottlieb Klein. Her father, Ernst Klein, is influential in Swedish media as well. 1990-1999 he was the chief editor of Östgöta Correspondenten, the ninth largest newspaper in Sweden, and now he sits on its board. He furthermore is president of Svensk Presshistorisk Förening (Swedish association of press history). Beside Klein there are several Jewish staffers working at Aftonbladet. In other words, of the seven largest news papers in Sweden, six are either owned by or edited by Jews. And please note, there are fewer than 20,000 Jews in Sweden making up roughly 0.2% of the total population. Actually, I could go on and on describing the Jewish media influence in Sweden but I guess you see where I am heading. 19
Posted by Lurker on February 23, 2005, 11:31 PM | # Svigor - “Sweden gave us Quisling. Sweden rolled over for the Nazis, Denmark did not.” I’m not sure whether Quisling was originally from Sweden but he is notorious as the pro-Nazi Norwegian Prime Minister in WW2. Sweden was never invaded by Germany, Sweden was more use to them as a neutral. In that sense they may have “rolled over”. I once heard a quote along the lines of “Swedes work hard all week for the German war effort and on Sundays they pray for Allied victory.” Denmark was occupied and Danes thereafter engaged in resistance activities. So only by being occupied, “rolling over”?, did they have an opportunity to resist. Also Denmark was notr treated as a defeated country in quite the sane way as France, Belgium etc. For most of the war Danes did not feel the full force of Nazi rule like other European countries. 20
Posted by Lurker on February 23, 2005, 11:33 PM | # Sorry that last bit should read “same way as France”, not “sane way”. 21
Posted by Svigor on February 23, 2005, 11:44 PM | # I’m not sure whether Quisling was originally from Sweden but he is notorious as the pro-Nazi Norwegian Prime Minister in WW2. Sweden was never invaded by Germany, Sweden was more use to them as a neutral. In that sense they may have “rolled over”. Sorry, I was confusing Sweden with Norway. 22
Posted by Hincha on February 24, 2005, 02:37 AM | # Hello I am new here, but have read this site for some months. Unfortunately my English is quite limited, so I can not present my opinion more than in a rudiment form…Well now to the point …Phil Peterson-> “Sweden has a tiny number of Jews. They are very few in number and their political influence is negligible. Anyone who questions this needs to look at the sheer number of UN Resolutions in which Sweden has consistently voted against Israel.” No, that’s not true. The Press in Sweden are almost all owned by Jews (Bonnier – Hjörne). The Jewish lobby are almost as strong as in USA. The hate-laws more severe than in USA…and…Sweden is occupied by the “Holocaust-religion”. And there you have it. The foundation of our neo-Western societies like Sweden, rests on ‘Holocaust’…it is the pretext for introducing laws and systems for almost everything that molest people in Sweden and all over the world. It is the pretext for N.W.O… for Israel, for hate-laws, Affirmative Action, immigration policy, censur, Queer-Science ;o)…etc. etc…. It is the pretext for the deconstruction of the Western societies. Sweden is…I am sorry to say it… almost a copy of the weird side of the USA. We are hijacked by the N.W.O. The elite says that “we helped” the Germans during WW ll, therefore we can not even mention any opposite view to the immigration policy (that´s hate) Thou there is a fraction of the Social Democrat Party (from the era of Olof Palme) that is indeed against Israel…but the rest of the parties are extremely pro-Israel. Do you really think ordinary Swedish people want to change the population? …No, no, that stupid are not the Swedes. Sweden is a perfect example from MacDonald´s ‘Culture of Critique’ PS. Quisling was Norwegian. 23
Posted by Matra on February 24, 2005, 02:38 AM | # Geoff Beck - “I’m not sure when Sweden fell. Frankly, I think the kind of ‘ethnic socialism’ Sweden pioneered is sustainable - IF they are kept ethnically homogeneous. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case” But it was originally an ‘ethnic socialism’ and although egalitarianism and socialism go together few of the first socialists including Marx were what we would call racial egalitarians. I think it was only around the 1960s when Swedish socialists started to take racial egalitarian and multicultural ideas seriously. I don’t know whether this was because greater communications led to the transmission of foreign ideas, including those of leftist Jews, or if racial egalitarianism and self-hatred are just part of the natural evolution of socialism. The latter doesn’t seem to have been the case in the Eastern Bloc countries - though it could be argued that once the Eastern European elites were in control their social engineering efforts were half-hearted, no longer needing to use manipulation as they had a monopoly of armed force at their disposal. It only seems to be in semi-socialist countries that have high living standards over a couple of generations and where one’s own need to struggle is all but over that the desire to struggle for other peoples takes root with a segment of the population. But then what about Finland? Despite being an advanced rich social democratic country like Sweden it has apparently resisted most aspects of multiculturalism, including Third World immigration. 24
Posted by Matra on February 24, 2005, 03:28 AM | # Hincha - I thought Sweden and Israel had rather poor relations. As long ago as 1970 there was tension leading up to an Israel v Sweden match at the 1970 World Cup in Mexico because of Sweden’s alleged hostility to the Jewish state. At least that’s what they said on a British television documentary on World Cup history! When it comes to the US and mass immigration, without getting into the alleged Jewish role in creating the current situation, what about their role in preventing immigration control today? If Jewish “conservative” journalists at Fox, the Weekly Standard, and Commentary, not to mention liberal Jews, put a fraction of the effort they devote to foreign policy into protecting the US’s borders I think the problem would have been addressed by now, whether corporations or the Catholic Church opposed it or not. Unfortunately when they do bring up immigration they are usually on the wrong side. Recently some neocons have gingerly approached the issue of immigration control, but even with these few it is not nearly as great a priority for them as it is to traditional and grassroots conservatives. At the very least I think we can say that Jewish opposition from within both major parties, the media, and the legal community have played a disproportionate and significant role in preventing corrective action on immigration. 25
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 24, 2005, 04:18 AM | # “Hincha - I thought Sweden and Israel had rather poor relations.” Though I am not an expert in this area, this is also my impression. “Despite being an advanced rich social democratic country like Sweden it has apparently resisted most aspects of multiculturalism, including Third World immigration.” The Finns have done some stupid things like let in 25,000 Somalis in the 1990s. That they changed their minds after that is another matter. That kind of thing is insane to begin with. http://www.ihis.aau.dk/development/Somali%20papers%20pdf%20format/Hawa%20Haji%20Mohamed.pdf 26
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 24, 2005, 04:25 AM | # “When it comes to the US and mass immigration, without getting into the alleged Jewish role in creating the current situation….” Matra, I think you are being a little too generous there. The Jewish role in opening America’s borders is a well established fact. See here: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/ABERNET3.PDF
I completely agree with that. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 24, 2005, 04:31 AM | # Everyone knows Jews are disproportionately leftist, and so wherever they are concentrated bad leftist ideas get promulgated. No one disputes that, including of course honest Jews, who don’t dispute it any more than honest gentiles do. How much weight to accord that fact in regard to the deep mystery of why whole Western societies and traditional nations are aggressively, singlemindedly, joyously, rapturously committing suicide and resentfully lashing out at anyone who tries to stop them is unclear. I appreciate Hincha’s comment but can’t fathom how two tenths of one percent of a population could influence the entire rest of the population to do that to itself—to actually kill itself off as a society and as a historical European nation. We are not joking around here. The time for joking is over. This is very serious stuff we’re talking about. We’re talking about entire nations doing things like deliberately putting themselves on an irreversible path (repeat: a path from which, once gotten on, there is no going back) to changing themselves literally from majority white to majority Negro, or more or less the equivalent thereof. No, this is not an exaggeration—one wishes it were and the nightmare would end. But it’s not. That’s exactly, precisely what’s going on. Now, how can zero point two percent of a country’s population of white people convince the remaining population to do that to itself? Let’s put that in visible numbers and percent signs so it’s easier to grasp: how can 0.2% of a population of white people —again that’s zero point two, not two percent—convince the remaining 99.8% of white people to literally, no joking around, commit irreversible national suicide—permanent-and-forever, no-turning-back-once-begun, disappearance form the world stage for the rest of eternity—national death; extinction; oblivion. How do the Jews manage to pull that off? Hey I’m NOT saying left-wing Jews aren’t capable of being more irritating than hell with their wacko sh*t that they’re forever spouting—spouting, incidentally, because during their two thousand years without a country of their own, forced to live like gypsies in other people’s countries, they’ve lost certain brain circuits which circumstances have simply bred out of them (it’s not their fault, but they lack certain brain circuits which normal people, including normal non-leftist Jews, are born with). I’m not saying they aren’t god-damned irritating with their incessant leftist crap. But look at me, a person of average intelligence: I can see through their sh*t perfectly. Now, in Sweden, how many people are smarter than I am?—let’s say at least half their college graduates are. So, there’s a huge élite right there—more than half of Sweden’s college graduates—who should be able to say to this microscopic fraction consisting of Sweden’s Jews, “Guys, do you know, what you just said is a complete crock? I mean, it’s so insane I can’t BELIEVE you actually said that. I’m surprised you aren’t afraid of being carted off to the insane asylum in a strait-jacket after having actually said that. You wanted the Swedes to do WHAT??? Say that again??? I want to make sure I heard it right. You want Swedes to ... change their population from majority white-Swede to majority ... what was it again??? Majority North-African Arab, did you say??? Did you actually say that??? Why in the WORLD would any sane person want Swedes to do something like that??? You really and truly need to have you head examined, guys.” There. What’s hard about that? Answer: nothing. Nothing’s hard about it. Since there’s no lack of people in Sweden who’d see it for the insanity it was if they disagreed with it, and since there’s nothing hard about saying it’s insane, we’re led to the conclusion that nothing the Swedish Jews could do or say could make the Swedes commit national suicide as they’re doing if they didn’t want to do it themselves. There’s no lack of Jews trying to make Israel commit national suicide, as everyone knows. Are the pro-Israel Jews throwing up their hands in despair and lamenting how “the Jews” are making Israel go down the tubes? No. They’re telling the wacko Jews, the ones born without those normal brain circuits I was talking about, to go take a hike—or better yet, go take a running leap off a very tall cliff. Gentiles can’t do the same? 28
Posted by Hincha on February 24, 2005, 04:34 AM | # Matra-> “Hincha - I thought Sweden and Israel had rather poor relations.” Yes before (Olof Palme)…as I mentioned… the Social Democrat Party (now a liberal party) was anti-Israel….But our current Prime Minister, Göran Persson, the Christ Democrat Party (liberal), the Moderaterna (liberal), the Peoples Party (liberal)…are extremely pro-Israel. Our Prime Minister introduced in Sweden the first ‘International Forum on Holocaust’ 27/1 2000…in public schools there is Holocaust education etc…We don´t have a history any more… before the ‘Holocaust’. Swedish people don´t exist because… “we are all immigrants”…The Swedish television shows frequently ‘Shoa’, ‘Schindler´s List’ Hitlers Women’ ‘Hitlers here and Hitlers there…and Hitlers everywhere…we have to feel guilty (because “we helped the Germans”)…..and we get our news, “objectively” filtered thru CNN/Fox and other American objectivissimo newsmedia ;o) Today you can read that the Swedish Minister for Integration “find it good” if our police wear turbans (it´s not a joke) I am fed up! Here´s a little speach by “our” Prime Minister from the official site of the Swedish Government (there are plenty of them on the same subject) http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/1159/a/7706;jsessionid=a7pJ4ynX286d 29
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 24, 2005, 04:42 AM | # Hincha, Thanks for all this information. Its the best way to get it - from someone on the ground. Now as for being Pro-Israel, it seems to me that this is a recent development. But the opening of the borders occured before Sweden’s establishment went pro-Israel. Isn’t that correct? 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 24, 2005, 04:44 AM | # Incidentally, I wanted to throw this in though it’s off topic: there’s a very good web-site which people should be reading at least once every day: Modern Tribalist . It’s damned good. This chap Lawson defo has got his head screwed on frontwards. 31
Posted by Hincha on February 24, 2005, 05:08 AM | # Phil Peterson-> “Now as for being Pro-Israel, it seems to me that this is a recent development. But the opening of the borders occured before Sweden’s establishment went pro-Israel. Isn’t that correct?” Yes, it occurred in the beginning of the 70:s. (30.000 Chileans refugees)...before that, only working-immigrants (during the 50:s, Italian workers, Hungarian refugees/workers, Finish workers and Yugoslavian workers)… 32
Posted by Mark Richardson on February 24, 2005, 06:05 AM | # Mary Sheepshanks was a British feminist who went on a political tour of Europe in 1913. At Kiel in the north of Germany she noted that her hostess was a “very cultivated cosmopolitan Dame, very liberal views about marriage but thinks Scandinavians take it too lightly.” So already in 1913 the Scandinavians were considered too overboard in their liberalism, even by the standards of a cosmopolitan, free-thinking German. By the way, Mary Sheepshanks got a bad reception in Kiel. She wrote that, “We had a horrid meeting, very full, and 2/3 enemies, all the speakers opposed us and in a gross and offensive way - ... “Sie sind ja nicht verheiratet, lernen Sie den Weg zum Maennerherz”! (You’re not even married - learn the way to the heart of a man!)- and these were Oberlehrer (senior school teachers) and so on ... “ As for the Jewish question, it needs to be remembered that liberalism was largely a product of gentile Englishmen. At the time of Hobbes and Locke, there weren’t very many Jews in England. Liberalism is largely ours, so we are the ones who have to accept responsibility and make a difficult change. 33
Posted by jonjayray on February 24, 2005, 08:24 AM | # “Sweden rolled over for the Nazis, Denmark did not” Come again?? Denmark surrendered without a fight! History sure takes a beating here 34
Posted by Lurker on February 24, 2005, 09:50 AM | # John - I like to think I had already made a stab at that point. 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 24, 2005, 10:07 AM | # “Today you can read that the Swedish Minister for Integration ‘finds it good’ if our police wear turbans (it´s not a joke).” —Hincha Hincha, how did the Jews force this moron into adopting that opinion? Or is he himself Jewish? I mean, let’s blame the Jews for what they’re doing wrong—which, for a certain wacko segment of them, is plenty—but let’s not blame them for everything. Anyone ever talk to your typical U.S. Mainline Protestant on this question of race-replacement and national suicide, or your typical U.S. liberal Catholic? Do you think you get any different attitudes from them than you’d get from this “Minister for Integration”? 36
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 24, 2005, 10:17 AM | # Mark Richardson: I’ve read Hobbes’ Leviathan and it a treatise on the power of the state. That is individuals sacrifice their own power to unite for mutual protection. To ascribe Twentieth-Century liberalism to Hobbes is a mistake. Same for Locke. 37
Posted by Hincha on February 24, 2005, 11:25 AM | # Hello, Fred Scrooby I don´t blame the Jews for everything, but I can´t help that they are running the business. Some of our own people are the worst. No, he is not a moron…He was before a PC-journalist (television). It´s not important, I think, who was the inventor of the liberal/socialist system, perhaps it was a concept made by ourselves (for ourselves) …anyway, now- in the present- alien “conquistadores” are abusing it for to destroy us. Perhaps US-Protestants or US-Catholics are thinking like this minister, I don´t know…if so, then they are extremists, and I don´t recognize them as “my people”. Here is the Swedish link (from Expressen/Bonnier) about the issue. …and here is a link where Swedes (and “Swedes”) can “vote” if it´s OK or not: . 38
Posted by Hincha on February 24, 2005, 11:37 AM | # Sorry, 39
Posted by Hincha on February 24, 2005, 12:08 PM | # Here is an old site in English, where you can get some information about the situation in Sweden. Sweden - the extreme way 40
Posted by observer on February 24, 2005, 12:39 PM | # I don’t think most Jews find policemen wearing turbans “OK”. In fact, some of the concern recently expressed by Jews about immigration arises largely from the fact that Jews are starting to recognize that having large numbers of Moslems living along side them is not conducive to their interests. I live in a European country with a large and largely unassimilated Moslem population. I find that the country’s tiny Jewish minority is concerned about this situation, as is the non-Jewish “silent majority”, but the country’s liberal media and political elites - mostly non-Jewish - continue to blithely push the idea of “multi-culturalism”. 41
Posted by Matra on February 24, 2005, 01:45 PM | # Phil Peterson - “Matra, I think you are being a little too generous there. The Jewish role in opening America’s borders is a well established fact” My use of the “alleged Jewish role” was generous, indeed too generous. I’ve already read McDonald’s analysis and though I find it convincing I’m not as sure about the Jewish role in opening the borders as I am in their role keeping them open today. I’d like to read more about the Catholic Church’s participation in getting the borders wide open to Third World immigration. Ted and Robert Kennedy also played an important role in convincing lawmakers to approve the 1965 Immigration Reform Act and they had close ties to the Catholic Church and were influenced by the liberal Catholic views that were developing. That said, coming after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which Jews were also prominent in helping secure, it was a difficult climate in which to vote against any bill that used the rhetoric of equal rights. I know that Jews played a (the?) major part in creating that climate. McDonald doesn’t think the role of the Catholic Church was decisive, unlike that of the Jews. He’s probably right but until I’ve researched the issue more thoroughly I’m not ready to drop the “probably” part. 42
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 24, 2005, 02:27 PM | # Observer, You make an interesting point. However, I see little proof of Organized Jewry making an effort to seal the borders in Europe. And the less said about Jewish activity in Eastern Europe and Russia recently the better. 43
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 24, 2005, 02:57 PM | # “And the less said about Jewish activity in Eastern Europe and Russia recently the better.” http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/February2004/0204Trifkovic.html 44
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 24, 2005, 03:04 PM | # “McDonald doesn’t think the role of the Catholic Church was decisive, unlike that of the Jews.” Matra, I think that is not difficult to explain. Catholics are not preponderant in the US media or Academia or the think tanks. While there are 10 times as many Catholics in the US as Jewish people, the latter have a disproportionate amount of power to influence public opinion. Also, the funding of American politicians by Jewish organisations is unparalleled for sheer breadth of coverage. No other ethnic group enjoys that kind of influence in politics. (A fact that is often admitted by influential Jews themselves. Somehow this becomes Jew-hating if a Gentile points this out). Quite often when I speak this way I am accused of being a Jew-hater. But to that I say this: To wish to have all that power and also wish to have no accountability for the use of that power is nothing short of ridiculous. If you have phenomenal power at your disposal, if you are visible, you must be willing to face scrutiny. In contemporary America we have the bizzare situation where Jewish organisation have all the influence one could hope to have and yet the moment that influence is questioned, shrill cries of “Anti-semite” and “Anti-semitism” follow. That state of affairs cannot last very long. 45
Posted by ben tillman on February 24, 2005, 03:16 PM | # Ted and Robert Kennedy also played an important role in convincing lawmakers to approve the 1965 Immigration Reform Act and they had close ties to the Catholic Church and were influenced by the liberal Catholic views that were developing. 46
Posted by Svigor on February 24, 2005, 03:40 PM | # http://majorityrights.com/index.php?URL=http://www.amren.com/0312issue/0312issue.htm#cover 47
Posted by Mark Richardson on February 24, 2005, 03:42 PM | # Hincha wrote the following: “It’s not important, I think, who was the inventor of the liberal/socialist system, perhaps it was a concept made by ourselves (for ourselves) ... anyway, now in the present - alien “conquistadores” are abusing it to destroy us. Perhaps US-Protestants or US-Catholics are thinking like this minister, I don’t know ... if so, then they are extremists, and I don’t recognise them as “my people”.” This comment is admirably open-minded. However, I don’t think it quite grasps what the current situation is. It is not primarily outsiders who wish to destroy us, but our own political class. They do so not because they are extremists, nor because they are being manipulated, but from a principled idealism. They truly believe that they are doing the right thing in following political principles which have dominated Western thought for many generations. In a way the situation is more difficult than Hincha might think. If there really were a “non-extremist” section of our own political class who had allegiance to “their people” and were ready to act in the interests of “their people” - then all that would be needed would be a call to action, a kind of rallying of our own ready-made leadership. Unfortunately, this is not how things stand. There has been so little opposition to liberalism, that our entire political class professes some version of it. Liberalism has made any ethnic loyalty among the Western political class illegitimate. So we have to be the ones who finally offer some kind of principled resistance to liberalism. We have to persuade and convince a section of the political class that liberal principles are misguided and destructive. We have to be the ones to start this process. 48
Posted by Matra on February 24, 2005, 04:19 PM | # ben tillman - I’m more confident regarding the Jewish role in keeping the borders open than in opening them in the first place because I’ve followed the issue for the last 16 or 17 years through newspapers, magazines like National Review, and my daily observations of the general culture. I wasn’t around in the 1960s so it’s more difficult to get a feel for the way things were. As I said, MacDonald is probably right. But I know from previous experience not to give too strong an opinion on a complex subject until I’ve exhausted the reading material available. I’d be curious to know what the Flemish contributors here have to say about Jews and immigration in Belgium. I noticed a substantial Jewish and Arab population in Antwerp and was told by non-Jews about the problems the Arabs were causing. How do Belgian Jews feel about immigration and have they made any significant contributions to immigration restriction movements? 49
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 24, 2005, 04:38 PM | # “How do Belgian Jews feel about immigration and have they made any significant contributions to immigration restriction movements?” The best laboratory for that is probably France where Arabs now make up 10 percent of the population and are known to be hard-core anti-semites. I have yet to encounter any resistance by Organized Jewry yet (this despite the fact that many Jews have been subject to brutal assaults by Muslim youth). In Britain too, Assaults on Jews have increased in the last few years (especially after 9-11):
At least, in the US you have Steinlight who identifies the threat for Jews. In Europe where the threat is much greater, there are no Steinlights to be found. 50
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 24, 2005, 04:46 PM | # This is an excellent piece on the French situation: http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/hysteria.htm Note that Nicolas Sarkozy is likely to be the next President of France. Sarkozy is, I believe, Hungarian Jewish. And he is proposing Affirmative Action for Arab Muslims in France. He is a fool if he thinks they can be won over (to the Jewish side) by handing out jobs. UPDATE: This quote from the article is telling - “Paradoxically, French Jews contribute disproportionately to LICRA (Ligue Internationale contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme) and to other pro-immigration organizations that have done all they can to fill France with Islamicist anti-Semites.” 51
Posted by ben tillman on February 24, 2005, 05:58 PM | # It is not primarily outsiders who wish to destroy us, but our own political class. They do so not because they are extremists, nor because they are being manipulated, but from a principled idealism. But that wish to destroy us (or idealism, if you prefer) is evidence of manipulation because it is does not benefit that political class in evolutionary terms. Do you contend that the political class is increasing its inclusive fitness by facilitating race-replacement immigration and other policies that will extinguish the store of their genetic structures contained in their co-ethnics? Unless you can plausibly argue that societal suicide is adaptive for elites, you are left with a gaping theoretical hole. We will always have intragroup conflicts of interest; genetic variation within the group ensures this (which is the primary reason we should seek to maximize the genetic homogeneity of the group). This conflict can be counted on to exist even in the absence of any outside influence. Individualistic striving for group resources and status within the group will increase the individual’s inclusive fitness up to a point, but at some point harm to others who share the individual’s genetic structures will outweigh the evolutionary benefit derived from obtaining resources for the same genetic structures contained in the individual. The policy of sacrificial societal suicide would ultimately produce a result that is clearly at odds with the evolutionary interests of not only the commoners but also the elites, who would face a staggering loss of genetic interest. (See Salter’s book that Matt Nuenke has twice discussed here previously.) These policies are not adaptive for (do not increase the inclusive fitness of) European-derived peoples in general or any identifiable segment of the those peoples, under any model I can think of. The words of eminent evolutionary biologist George C. Williams cannot be repeated too often: “As a general rule, a modern biologist seeing an animal doing something to benefit another assumes either that it is being manipulated by the other individual or that it is being subtly selfish.” Can you structure an argument that the behavior of the “political class” or other self-abnegating “liberals” is directed at obtaining an evolutionary benefit for those individuals, i.e., that it is selfish in evolutionary terms? Or do the documented activities of another community in attempting to shape the thought of these self-abnegators (both through the promulgation of pathogenic ideologies and through direct and indirect control of the societal information pathways) suggest that manipulation is a more plausible explanation? 52
Posted by ben tillman on February 24, 2005, 06:00 PM | # They truly believe that they are doing the right thing in following political principles which have dominated Western thought for many generations. Undoubtedly, they are true believers, but so is every victim of fraud. And what are these principles? Do you mean the principle of sacrificial societal suicide? When did this principle enter Western thought? And why? If you refer more generally to “Enlightenment” ideals or 18th-century liberalism or some such, why were such principles never applied in such grotesquely maladaptive ways before the mid-to-late 20th century? 53
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 24, 2005, 07:19 PM | # Phil and all: What’s the story with Howard in Britain, he’s a Romanian Jew, right? How did he get to power? When did he, or his parents arrive in Britain? Do you know? Anyway, if you have a angle on this guy let us know. 54
Posted by Matra on February 24, 2005, 07:55 PM | # Geoff - Howard’s parents came to Britain from Romania before the Second World War. I recall him being a government minister back in the Thatcher days. Although he’s always been high up in the party I don’t think he was ever considered leadership material until they recently realised no one in the party is! Phil - I asked about Belgium instead of France because of the population density of the country and the greater electoral success of the former Vlaams Blok compared to most similar right wing parties in Europe. I observed the close proximity between Jewish and Muslim areas in the rather small city of Antwerp. Given how many Jews and Muslims live there I wondered how the Vlaams Blok could be the most popular party. Is it because the great majority of Flemish Catholics support them? Or do some Jews seeing the greater danger from Muslims back a real right wing patriot party for once? If the Jews in Antwerp, many of them Orthodox, don’t support immigration control then it’s hard to imagine Jews doing so anywhere else. 55
Posted by DissidentMan on February 24, 2005, 09:14 PM | # Undoubtedly, they are true believers, but so is every victim of fraud. You make it sound as though true belief was confined to gentile liberals. I’m sure it exists to various degrees within Jewish ones too, in fact to my mind I’m certain that there is a lot of self-certainty among many Jewish liberals about the inherent rightness of everything they believe. They regard things like multiculturalism as inherently right in some metaphysical sense and good for the Jews. There must be a certain amount of self-deceit going on when they believe some offensive codswallop about being “chosen” by some some farcical supreme being , or believe that they are on the side of science when they aren’t. For instance I think that S.J. Gould saw himself as defending science, even though he wasn’t. When he was challenged he normally just ignored his critics since his audience was the new york times readership. By turning a def ear he never had to seriously consider the possibility of being wrong. Therefore in his mind he was 1) right and 2) doing what was good for the Jews simultaneously. I think the “true belief” started long ago in some unrecorded chapter of history, perhaps in some Egyptian slave pit. It makes one cynical to think that believing falsehoods may effectively serve one’s interests, but its proof of the power of genes to manipulate their carriers (organisms) into serving them, and furthermore it has been said that “it is those things that are most dear to us that we lie about with the most conviction”[1], and I should add even to ourselves. Genes the are the primary fraudsters in this world since they account for our passions moreso than anything else. Anyway people (yes of all hues, sexes, etc.) do deceive themselves and others. We have to consider the prospect something somewhere is always being served, even supposing that suffering will always result. Even if you suffer, your genes might benefit from your behaviour. Think of a man who sires lots of offspring but in the process of having lots of sex, contracts a terrible STD. For his genes its a win. For him as a sentient being, its a loss. [1] Quote taken from Elric of Melnibone by Michael Morecock (I lost the book, so that’s a paraphrase). I used to read sci-fi and fantasy books, but right now I’m indifferent to the genre, possibly because I don’t fit in socially with the geek set. (I hate Star Trek.) 56
Posted by observer on February 24, 2005, 10:20 PM | # “The truth is that the more Islamic Europe becomes, the nastier it will be for Jews. But that fact appears to be irrelevant to Jewish organizations in Europe. At least, in the US you have Steinlight who identifies the threat for Jews. In Europe where the threat is much greater, there are no Steinlights to be found.” That’s because in Europe, unfortunately, Jews are largely cowed creatures - cowed by the prevailing political correctness and by the historical threat of persecution. They don’t defend themselves as Jews, as many American Jews do, but rather try to eek and squeak by unnoticed. I suppose they are also concerned about Muslim reprisals against them if they speak out about the problem directly. Another explanation is that many Jews are simply meshugge. Self-destructive without realizing it. Perhaps they naively think that by promoting tolerance towards minorites hostile to themselves, they are promoting tolerance toward themselves. 57
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 25, 2005, 04:31 AM | # “What’s the story with Howard in Britain, he’s a Romanian Jew, right? How did he get to power? When did he, or his parents arrive in Britain? Do you know?” Yeah Romanian Jewish. He was a Thatcherite which cemented his position in the Party. I think his parents arrived in the late 1930s from Romania. 58
Posted by Guessedworker on February 25, 2005, 05:36 AM | # Michael Howard was a pretty good Home Secretary operating within very difficult times. He built prisons, something few Home Secretaries have felt the need to do. But his tenure was marked by the opposition of the Judiciary to reforms they saw as contrary to Law but which, today, are mild in comparison to Blunkett’s and now Clarke’s “anti-terrorist” legislation and, of course, to the mushrooming Hate Speech industry. Had Howard proposed The Civil Contingencies Bill or attempted to abandon the trial system in favour of house arrest all hell would have broken out, and rightly so. As for the current EU proposal for a minimum two-year sentence for not being sufficiently anti-racist, in Maggie’s time that would, of course, never have survived the first low-level meeting of British officials in Brussels. The legal well has been poisoned by a progressive-minded state obsessed with anti-racism and with increasing its already frightening muscularity. Frankly, if Howard opposes these things I do not care if he is from Alpha Centauri, never mind a pawn shop in old Bucharest. He gets my vote. If he doesn’t, of course, he is no Tory and, regrettably, I have to look for some other Party that actually believes in freedom. 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 25, 2005, 06:06 AM | # “Frankly, if Howard opposes these things I do not care if he is from Alpha Centauri, never mind a pawn shop in old Bucharest. He gets my vote. If he doesn’t, of course, he is no Tory and, regrettably, I have to look for some other Party that actually believes in freedom.” —GW Well said. One-hundred percent right on the money. 60
Posted by Mark Richardson on February 25, 2005, 06:19 AM | # I hadn’t realised how strongly Ben follows a Darwinian view of things. According to Ben human action is motivated by the pursuit of genetic advantage. Therefore, the fact that Westerners are following a genetically damaging policy means that some other group must be manipulating us to their own advantage. The thing is, I think the pursuit of genetic advantage is only one aspect of what motivates human action. Humans have developed to a point where we also follow abstract ideas which explain the world and which give a larger meaning to our lives. Intellectuals, in particular, are good at disciplining themselves to follow such ideas, even when other instincts tell us that they are genetically maladaptive. Ben also questions the idea that people might accept a principle of “sacrificial societal suicide”. He asks when and why such a principle should have emerged in the West and why it was never applied so maladaptively before the mid-twentieth century. The answer to this is that the liberal principle is not, of course, understood by liberals as “sacrificial societal suicide.” As early as the Renaissance, a principle was being formulated which claimed that our very humanity was defined by our ability to create ourselves through our own will and reason. No doubt, the early promoters of this principle did not envisage that it would one day make ethnic identity politically incorrect. But that is how the principle, over time, logically unfolded. If your very humanity depends on you being self-authored, then you can’t accept as part of your self-identity things that you inherit rather than choose for yourself. Our ethnic identity is something that we can’t choose, so it becomes illegitimate. Radical liberals were already drawing this conclusion at least by the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Shelley for instance looked forward to the emergence of a “new man” who would be “Sceptreless, free, uncircumscribed, but man, / Equal, unclassed, tribeless, and nationless, / Exempt from awe, worship, degree, the king / Over himself.” Note that Shelley sees a man being tribeless and nationless as a positive principle, as a freedom of a man who is king over himself. Of course, less radical liberals were more hesitant in following through with this principle. Even so, France and America had adopted civic, rather than ethnic, forms of nationalism well before the 1950s and even Britain had very lax immigration controls well before this time. 61
Posted by ben tillman on February 25, 2005, 11:37 AM | # As early as the Renaissance, a principle was being formulated which claimed that our very humanity was defined by our ability to create ourselves through our own will and reason. Of course, if we trace our development back far enough, we reach a point at which our existence or our consciousness began. At that time, we must have had either (a) no basis for deciding what we wanted to make of ourselves, or (b) an innate set of genetically and/or environmentally determined preferences. Since our current set of preferences (which would determine what we wish to make of ourselves in the future) would ultimately trace back to those initial preferences, the notion of self-creation collapses. I can understand the appeal of such an idea (in which man fancies himself to be God), but its illogic is almost immediately obvious. No doubt, the early promoters of this principle did not envisage that it would one day make ethnic identity politically incorrect. But did the principle itself make ethnic identity politically incorrect? This reminds me of my torts class and our discussion of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. My professor was fond of saying, “Res ipsa loquitur, but what the hell is it saying?” Did the principle state its corollaries and implications, or did human minds intervene and interpret? But that is how the principle, over time, logically unfolded. If your very humanity depends on you being self-authored, then you can’t accept as part of your self-identity things that you inherit rather than choose for yourself. Do principles unfold over time? The logical implications of a principle exist contemporaneously with the principle. The unfolding you speak of is not a passive process; it is a process in which human minds examine the principle and infer corollaries. If a principle implies objectionable corollaries, that would seem to be reason to re-examine and refine or even reject the principle. Ironically, your commentary may be critiqued as consistent with the principle of self-creation to which you attribute our current societal ills: The thing is, I think the pursuit of genetic advantage is only one aspect of what motivates human action. Intellectuals, in particular, are good at disciplining themselves to follow such ideas, even when other instincts tell us that they are genetically maladaptive. Is it unfair to interpret the foregoing in that manner? 62
Posted by ben tillman on February 25, 2005, 12:17 PM | # I hadn’t realised how strongly Ben follows a Darwinian view of things. That is the natural consequence of rejecting the Enlightenment notion of self-authorship. 63
Posted by Svigor on February 25, 2005, 01:19 PM | # But that is how the principle, over time, logically unfolded. If your very humanity depends on you being self-authored, then you can’t accept as part of your self-identity things that you inherit rather than choose for yourself. Our ethnic identity is something that we can’t choose, so it becomes illegitimate. Then why are blackness, brownness, femaleness, and homosexuality legitimate banners for people to rally around? The thing is, I think the pursuit of genetic advantage is only one aspect of what motivates human action. Humans have developed to a point where we also follow abstract ideas which explain the world and which give a larger meaning to our lives. I believe that humans follow abstract ideas which ultimately serve genetic interests. I think the human condition can be explained as a Darwinian struggle. 64
Posted by Guessedworker on February 25, 2005, 02:15 PM | # Svigor, I think the human condition can be explained as a Darwinian struggle I agree with this. Mark’s thesis of the “error” of self-authorship as the final destination of the pursuit of liberty is persuasive and true. But intellect is a weak and, often, foolish device. It does not swim in the same seas as biology and certainly does not out-swim it. There is a degree of self-hypnosis in the idea that mind or will controls anything very much. The possibility exists. But it is dependent upon a qualitatively different and more reality-adaptive consciousness than the tool we use for 99.99% of our lifetime. Of the particulars of that it is best to remain silent. So one is just left with a substantially mistaken and inflated reading of human potential with which to underpin one’s political idealism. In other words, these leftist clowns propose self-authorship because they believe in the non-existent transformative powers of a non-existent will. Why do they believe in things that don’t exist? Well, I’ve just blogged on the subject in my response to Matt’s post - the left is nuts, happily. Scarcely anyone has commented on this post of mine so, evidently, scarcely anyone is interested in the fundamentals of our debate. Pity. 65
Posted by Mark Richardson on February 25, 2005, 10:39 PM | # Svigor aks the question that if it’s illegitimate to identify with unchosen things like sex and gender, “Then why are blackness, brownness, femaleness, and homosexuality legitimate banners for people to rally around?” There’s a three part answer to this. First, left-liberals see race and gender as social constructs which are created to embed a will to power of some dominant group. Therefore, they see “men” as dominant over “women” and “whites” as dominant over “blacks”. So, one aspect of liberalism is to say that to achieve equality, and therefore justice, the oppressed group should rally to challenge the dominance of the oppressor group. That’s why it’s OK for women or blacks to organise politically to overthrow “sexism” or “racism” in the liberal mindset. Svigor is right, though, that there’s a kind of contradiction in liberals encouraging women and blacks to do this, as gender and race aren’t supposed to count. Liberals realise that this contradiction exists, and it has spawned endless material for academic argument. I’ve got a 300 page book called “Conflicts in Feminism” which deals with this kind of issue. You find endlessly repeated the following kind of line, “In feminist discourse a tension keeps forming between finding a useful lever in female identity and seeing that identity as hopelessly compromised.” See - a female identity is merely acceptable as a “lever” in organising women politically to fight the patriarchy. The problem is that this lever is “hopelessly compromised” as it suggests that the term “female” has some objective meaning. Liberals have simply learnt to live with the contradiction. Finally, you have to remember also that the main concern of Western liberals is to overthrow what they see are the dominant or mainstream forms of imposed identity within their own societies. So, in Australia or Britain, the main impediment to be overcome is the existing, mainstream Anglo ethnicity. So that’s what they hit hardest. It’s less important to deconstruct, say, the ethnic identity of Aborigines which doesn’t form the mainstream national identity. (Though Germaine Greer has written stuff lately asserting that anyone can be an Aborigine, as it’s a cultural thing, rather than an ethnic one.) 66
Posted by Mark Richardson on February 25, 2005, 11:31 PM | # Ben questions the idea that a liberal principle could unfold over time. He argues that human minds must be involved in actively interpreting the principle, and that if such minds recognised the negative consequences of a principle they would logically change or reject the principle. Of course, it would have been better for all of us if Western intellectuals had acted early on to recognise the negative consequences implied by the liberal principle, and rejected it. This, though, as a matter of history did not happen. There was a kind of process by which one generation of intellectuals would campaign for some “progressive” liberal reform and win it and then be outraged when the next generation proposed taking things one step further. Why didn’t more intellectuals question the principle as a whole? In part, I think, because liberal understandings of freedom and justice became so tied up with a Western identity that it took a very independent mind to question it. Secondly, liberalism quickly became such an orthodoxy that a young intellectual would grow up on a wide variety of books and schools of thought, all of them based on underlying liberal principles. Again, it wasn’t easy for intellectuals to break through such an wide-ranging intellectual establishment. One final point. I still don’t think Ben quite realises how far intellectuals will follow through with a principle, even when the principle is opposed to good sense or self-interest. For instance, the editor of the Brisbane Courier Mail once wrote an editorial on the issue of women in combat. In this editorial he admitted that there were many practical reasons for keeping women off the front lines. He understood that placing women in combat would most likely damage the effectiveness of the army. Yet he still insisted that women be recruited for combat roles as a matter of principle. He stated that “Yes, this issue might well appear to some to be a case of social engineering gone crazily immoral” but that it was right for women to “throw off the limitations imposed on them, even limitations imposed for their own protection” because women had a right “to choose for themselves what roles they will fill in time of war.” So even when it comes to something as important as national defence, and therefore national existence, a liberal will still put his principles above all else: women are not to be restrained in their choices by their unchosen gender, even if this undermines national security. 67
Posted by Svigor on February 26, 2005, 12:34 AM | # Mark: that’s an excellent synopsis of Leftism as stated. The trouble is, it doesn’t wash. Jews are what, 40% of Harvard admissions, and 50% of American billionaires? They own Hollywood and contribute the lion’s share of the Presidential campaign funds (~30% for Republicans and ~50% for Democrats). They owned Russia until Putin came along. If Leftists actually gave a flying $%#@ about the dominant ethy, they’d crucify Jewry 24/7. Still, their sights remain fixed on the WASP bogeyman; never mind that he exited stage left long ago (excepting a few holdouts like President). I understand that you addressed Leftist self-perceptions in your post, but that’s kind of my point; Leftists are all about overthrowing the traditional power (and then presumably driving it into the ground), not about leveling the playing field. To tackle your point more honestly, let me just ask why there are no mechanisms designed to determine when blacks, browns, homosexuals, and women have “gotten there,” and why is the issue not discussed among Leftists? The answer is of course because they couldn’t give less of a shyte. I’m running in circles here. Still, I’ll change tack again and suggest that the Leftist preconceptions (egalitarianism) and ubiquitous underhanded tactics (even if they are only consciously disingenuous on the part of the elites who forge them rather than the rank-and-file who wield them) are both prima facia evidence that they don’t care a whit about justice. 68
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 26, 2005, 12:53 AM | # Mark: I can sense you’re a skeptic on the Jewish question. I suggest you read Kevin MacDonalds’ book The Culture of Critique. It has been much debated here. I was profoundly shocked after I read the book. It has been rumored Phil Peterson might write a review of the work, here on MR. 69
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 26, 2005, 12:57 AM | # Svy: Somebody wrote that WASP power in America died along with wooden tennis rackets. How true. 70
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 26, 2005, 01:30 AM | # “It has been rumored Phil Peterson might write a review of the work, here on MR.” Time and work permitting…...... 71
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 26, 2005, 01:40 AM | # “If Leftists actually gave a flying $%#@ about the dominant ethy, they’d crucify Jewry 24/7” That is exactly right. Check this out: http://www.amren.com/0103issue/0103issue.htm Look for “Roger Garaudy” on that page. 72
Posted by Guessedworker on February 26, 2005, 05:24 AM | # It occurrs to me that the dichotomy on this and many other threads between a Conservative like Mark or me and, for want of a better expression, a WN like Svi is false. Both parties err in claiming that their particular analysis is true or even paramount. It is not necessary to identify only liberal-left “Europeans” OR (organized) Jewry as the source of our troubles. Jews seek conservative ends by liberal means. Their touchstone, though, is always power. The European liberals’ engagement with politics is less specific. They seek to impart a certain character or direction to the zeitgeist. This rendering of the political landscape between issues of power and issues of principle might be a basis for agreement between us. Any thoughts on that? 73
Posted by Svigor on February 26, 2005, 03:57 PM | # That’s very interesting GW. I’ll not take issue with your dichotomy, for though it doesn’t apply to me it does apply to a great many WNs. It’s difficult to respond because disentangling the kosher Left from the non-kosher Left is so problematic. I don’t have a good answer for “how much of the Left is actually Jewry?” I can say this, I think Jewry is the heart of the Left, and it would be gutted without her. That’s an interesting read Phil. Next entry: The British Inquisition Previous entry: For Leftists, feelings trump everything |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Team TAG culver city commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/17/12, 12:11 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 08:42 PM. (go) (view) jamesUK commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 05:54 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 04:52 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 04:42 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 04:27 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 03:44 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 03:41 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 02:56 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 02:10 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 01:10 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 12:24 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 11:38 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 10:33 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 10:01 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 08:20 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 07:33 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 07:27 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 07:08 AM. (go) (view) Randy Garver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 07:08 AM. (go) (view) anti-daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 06:57 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 06:56 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 03:17 AM. (go) (view) Tom commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 12:47 AM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 11:48 PM. (go) (view) Circassian commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 08:44 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 06:27 PM. (go) (view) Robert in Arabia commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 01:45 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 01:43 PM. (go) (view) ORION commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 11:10 AM. (go) (view) Papa Luigi commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 07:54 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 05:54 AM. (go) (view) ORION commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 05:41 AM. (go) (view) Hymie in Afula commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 05:40 AM. (go) (view) Justus of Tiberias commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 05/15/12, 02:33 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Svigor on February 23, 2005, 08:32 PM | #
But, and here lies the key, MacDonald’s thesis leaves a great deal unexplained, such as this.
Let me see if I understand the implied logic here: Jewry can’t be the problem because Sweden has some of the same problems anti-Semites blame on Jews, yet she has no Jews?
I don’t think that approaches any reasonable standard of logic.
That said, let me dispense with the strawman:
It is a mistake because quite often “white nationalists” (whether self-described or otherwise) see the activism of organized Jewry as a sweeping explanation for all that has gone wrong with the West.
That’s simply a strawman. I see Jewry (disorganized Jewry supports organized Jewry - John Hartung synopsized the matter succinctly) as a major problem contributing mightily to the ills of the west, but I don’t see it as anyting like a “sweeping explanation for all that has gone wrong.” I see Jewry as the x-factor that (tellingly) no one wants to discuss.
My position on Jews is far too complicated to be explained in those simple terms.
I concur. I’ll add that as simplistic and problematic as the stereotypical WN position on Jewry is, it’s still far more accurate, healthy, and safe for western civilization than the suicidal philo-Semitic blinders worn by our elites. As KMac so elegantly put it, in terms of threats false positives are far safer and wiser than false negatives.
I’m all for a more nuanced discussion of Jewry than can typically be found among WNs.