“…then you are in sad shape”

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.

Daybreaker wrote:



I wasn’t participating in the conversation, but I read both threads, and… the impression I got was that The Sentinel was telling the truth and he never received a satisfactory reply.

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.

Anti-jihadism as a coalition including Jews and Whites is hollow. It can’t defend itself in straight up intellectual terms, as seen in these Gates of Vienna threads.

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.

***

Fjordman [wrote]:

“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.

5 Replies on ““…then you are in sad shape”

  1. An anonymous commenter nailed it beautifully tonight at the AoT thread when responding to the below comment:

    @ “People like Fjordman… who, while afraid of or otherwise deferential toward Jewish sensibilities, are otherwise obviously more on our side than not”

    I don’t buy that. In fact I think that’s a very dangerous way of viewing the situation. People like Fjordman and his ilk are just as much our enemies as the most viscerally repulsive anti-racists. In fact, people like Fjordman are worse, because people who are not as perceptive mistake him for the real deal. He’s a decoy. His entire raison d’etre is to lead people away from us. The fact that he agrees with us on some things does not make him our friend, it merely makes him a more effective opponent.

    Alex Linder has the right idea: ATTACK CONSERVATIVES.

    I think this little incident with Gates of Vienna demonstrates the validity of that approach. Make the distinction between us and the fakers as stark and as obvious as possible and people will choose our side.

  2. This is why all paths lead to the ethnostate: We can either trust our history (and the lessons therein) or their rhetoric. That the former is being buried as fast as possible and the latter is not discourse. Any digging for the Truth will end up this way.
    I’m surprised that you’re surprised that it ended this way.

    I choose my people and Eternal Truth.

    Mike

    1. @ “I’m surprised that you’re surprised that it ended this way.”

      The GoV admins are Christians, and Conservative Swede and Fjordman claim to be pureblood Nordics (the only one with Jewish blood is Taksei). What surprised me is that, after I demonstrated the Baron that a major intellectual in counter-jihad, Serge Trifkovic, made a turn into our camp, in the next GoV entry he simply ignored the implications of this change and Swede called all of us defecating dogs.

      With these friends who needs enemies? I mean, I thought they were honest people. Clearly they’re not. Linder is right: we must attack conservatives. Just look at what Michelle Bachmann has said:

      “I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.”

  3. Chechar, your collection and editing of what I said in several comments was fair and accurate. I said what you say I said. Thank you for this.

    If I could have edited after I posted, I would have cut one paragraph, this:

    “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.”

    Nevertheless that is what I said, and I meant it. That is my (new) opinion.

    I said it, because it seemed to me that events at the Gates of Vienna were a watered down reflection of a typical pattern, which can also be seen here. Wealth is concentrated in fewer hands. (This need not be a result of Jewish financial manipulations. It happened among the Romans, and even among the Spartans after a ruinous reform. Nevertheless, this is a typical result of Jewish success as a “market dominant minority” and we can see the effects around us now.) In this harsh economic climate, Whites who would otherwise have been the citizen/soldier, owner/worker, independent backbone of the country do badly, and they are forced into dependence on Jews: Jewish employers, Jewish lenders, Jewish contracts and patrons of all kinds, and so they lose their independence and are integrated into political machines that serve Jewish interests very well and White interests not at all. There is then an un-level playing field, with a strong Jewish “home court” advantage everywhere. This is ruthlessly exploited, and there is free play for a typically Jewish kind of rhetoric.

    This story does not go well for the Whites. Not in Poland. Not in the territories of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. Not in America. Not anywhere, once the invariable tendency bears fruit, for successful and sufficiently numerous Jews to govern the peoples around them in the states where they live. Things don’t get better (as they might if Jews, when they were more satisfied became milder), they get worse, politically, legally, economically, demographically, culturally, and now with the mass immigration weapon being employed year-in year-out even racially.

    I had this in mind when I said: “It’s not profitable for Whites, collectively and in the long run, to enter coalitions on these terms.”

    FeminizedWesternMale said: “This is why all paths lead to the ethnostate: We can either trust our history (and the lessons therein) or their rhetoric.”

    I laughed out loud when I read that, because you are so right.