Perhaps those who have been following my little trilogy (here, here and here) may be interested in the intelligent comments by Daybreaker today at Age of Treason about the recent incident at the counter-jihad site Gates of Vienna.
The polite dissidents Tanstaafl and Chechar did well, and team Takuan Seiyo came off as nasty and shameless in exploiting the fact that the Gates of Vienna can’t afford to be seen countenancing anti-Jewish opinions…
I found the threads enlightening. I hadn’t realized the anti-jihadists were that weak. In the face of a few reasons why a list of six hostile groups [the six-point list appears: here] should have been a list of seven hostile groups (which is surely on-topic), they were quickly reduced to abuse, bluster and the ever-popular „shut up.“
Nobody thinks Jews are the only problem, including Kevin MacDonald, who has written eloquently on the self-destructiveness of typically White universalism and „altruistic punishment“ carried beyond reasonable bounds. Fertility is a problem for advanced societies, even the Japanese, who nobody thinks are responding to Jewish pressure not to have kids. Feminism can create severe problems independently of Judaism. Political correctness and the sort of one-sided liberal philosophy that sees autonomy as the supreme good rather than one item in a basket of goods are real menaces. „Black Run America“ may be an exaggerated label, but there are plenty of White people who are experiencing problems along those lines, in cities where the political machine has gone Black, and „Black Run Southern Africa“ is a brutal reality. Islam is still there and still a menace, and any European would be a fool to ignore it, if only because it’s the religion of Arab ethnic supremacism and thus at least dubious for White people. And so on.
So it’s not only Jews that get blamed.
Rather it’s only Jews that demand that they be above blame, and that will attack to the point of derailing threads repeatedly unless they are set above the ordinary standards of criticism that are applied to everyone else. If there’s a list of six or seven items, and all of them blame somebody, count on the ones that blame White men to go through without any objection from anyone, and most of the other items to go through with varying minor degrees of objection, but don’t be surprised when the one that mentions Jews ignites a lasting firestorm of verbal punishment. The whole thread gets derailed, over and over, so that the only way to get relief is either to establish some explicitly non-Jewish discussion space (which I guess institutions like the Catholic Church have done, historically), or else ban, demonize, marginalize and discourage whoever refuses to let Jews play by special rules that advantage them over everyone else.
And then comes the amazing claim that it’s the Judeo-skeptics who have one-track minds. [e.g., here]
Anti-jihadism, with Jews seen as an indispensable part of the coalition (that is, with the power of veto) cannot transcend this problem. At least, it obviously hasn’t. If the Jews are indispensable, and it’s unacceptable (or at least too wearing on the nerves of relatively conflict-averse Whites) to have the fights that Jews will start whenever they aren’t privileged enough, then everybody and everything displeasing to Jews has to go.
Then anti-jihadism must become in time, a Jewish front, in effect. It will take on jihadism and mass immigration only as and when that suits Jews. If Jews don’t think ending mass immigration in general should be part of the program, it won’t be, even if that would be the only principled and practicable way to keep Islamic hordes out of White countries.
In time an anti-jihadist front may even include other items that aren’t logically connected with protecting Whites from jihad at all, because Jews and crypto-Jews can’t be kicked off the team (because they’re the ones with the money and connections), and they’ll make life unbearable for everyone else until they get their way.
And in the long term it won’t defend White interests. It’s a „coalition“ that only exists while one side has the money and sets the rules and gets what it wants (or else), and the other side supplies warm bodies and labors on despite the fact that its needs are not being met, in frustration over lack of alternatives and in the vain hope that things will somehow get better.
This has been the Jewish ethno-political style for century after century, for millennium after millennium, in different states, on different continents, and in dealing with vastly dissimilar groups of Whites.
It’s not profitable for Whites, collectively and in the long run, to enter coalitions on these terms.
„The simple fact is that when it comes to giving birth to the Proposition Nation, which was the subject of my original essay, Jews were quite irrelevant.“
The simple fact is that that was not a „simple fact“ but an assumption that was bound to be controversial, given that Jews have been highly relevant to issues of immigration, „pluralism“ and so on in White countries.
Fjordman should have anticipated that inevitable controversy. He could have given reasons for his assumption. (It is entirely unsupported in his post.) Or he could have said (in the original post) that he wasn’t ready to discuss the Jewish issue and asked people to confine discussion to other aspects of his new thinking, where he was ready to respond. (I’m sure someone would have asked why he wasn’t ready to respond to such an obvious problem. But if he had stuck to saying that he needed a discussion on other aspects of the proposition nation as he had described it, I think Tanstaafl for one would have respected that.) Or he could have asked that his sixth point be taken as covering the Jewish issue for the time being, and requested that those commenting try to address all six points evenly, not just one.
What he did was pretend, with an unsupported controversial assumption, that no problem exists, and then when this odd move was questioned he supported rhetorical hostilities including exclusion for those puzzled by his assumption.
In effect, he hijacked his own thread by managing it badly. And he took no responsibility for this.
If things had gone down as Fjordman said, I would feel sorry for him. But as Mary points out, you can line up what he said Chechar confessed to with what Chechar said, and it’s obvious that Fjordman is making serious misstatements about things in our plain sight, and worse, using these invented facts to justify a lot of discourteous behavior by himself and others.
That creates a pathetic impression. When you can’t respond to reasonable requests such as those from The Sentinel with reasons, not abuse, when you can’t defend your thesis and in effect you need abusive rhetoric from yourself and others as a way to justify lowering the curtain on a discussion where you are not coming off well intellectually, and when you need to misstate the very plainly stated opinions of those who dissent in order to justify this rhetorical abuse and this silencing, then you are in sad shape.