Crisis du mois
I’m at a loss for words. No, not really, only as a figure of speech.
What’s this all about? It’s about:
- The emasculation of LGF:
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
From the commenting rules, retrieved on October 21, 2007.
Charles Johnson has had to contend with visits from the FBI in the past. And it does not do his reputation any good that every comment on his site is automatically ascribed to his thoughts. That said, banning all calls for violence effectively means LGF is nothing but a news aggregator and “online get-together” (oxymoron, I know…) forum.
LGF is one of the best at what it does, if not the best, and Charles deserves all praise and support for his Herculean efforts. But as there is no operative solution to this world war that does not involve some measure of violence, this means I just lost one of the major venues for my ideas and suggestions. I got a comment deleted only once. It was a comment calling for expulsion of all the Muslims, typically. I thought, “If it doesn’t call for genocide then it’s OK”. Charles thought it could damage his reputation. He did as he saw fit, and I lost all the feeling of security I’d previously had posting on LGF. And now this new rule stamps the seal on the affair. I can’t use LGF as anything more than a dump for the Leftreasonous links I find.
- The coming of the Stormfronters:
I used to loudly shush defeatists who said, “Europe is doomed”. Now I think Europe is doomed myself—not because I think the Muslim colonialist invaders can’t be repulsed (which is what the defeatists think), but because it seems clearer and clearer to me every day that the only ones with the guts to stand up to them are the racialists, people for whom the fight against Islam is only part of the general battlefield over the “racial purity” of Europe. People who get their kicks out of bringing “scientific studies” showing how “blacks have a lower average IQ than whites”, which is just an intellectual-sounding, sophisticated way of saying, “N*****s are stoopid”.
You can see all the gory details on a Gates of Vienna thread I participated in. I got called “Politically Correct” and “part of the Left” for voicing my idea that race is a chimera, a red herring, a maintained illusion, and that culture has everything to do with it.
And very much related:
- Arguing for “innateness” by Jews as well:
See comment #353 on an LGF open thread for October 21, 2007. A succinct excerpt:
[…] In next week's portion in Genesis, Abraham sends his servant Eliezer to find a wife for Isaac. The rabbis ask why he did not take a wife for his son from the surrounding Cananite tribes. After all, the Cananites were idol worshipers and Abraham's cousins back in Haran were also idol worshipers. The rabbis answer that while both were idol worshipers, Abraham's family had an innate goodness that was not present in the Cananites and could not be taught.
I expressed my disgust in a later comment (#390), and Carl replied (#396). Thanks, Carl, though I find the reply unsatisfying. It’s nothing personal against Carl, who was just quoting others. It all has to do with the same problem I have with the Stormfronters: I consider policies derived from unchangeable, inborn traits to be anathema. As I said in my comment: If you didn’t exert an effort in it, then it’s worth nothing.
Let’s take it to science fiction for a slightly more neutral ground. Star Wars: the force-sensitives are so by genetics. If you weren’t born to the right parents, all the efforts at training in the use of the Force won’t be of any good. Let me put it bluntly: I detest, despite, loathe, abhor, revile (etc.) this idea.
“Looks like there’s still some of the old 1990’s hippie you were left in you.” “God didn’t make a politically correct world. Lodge your complaints with Him if you don’t like the way things are.” Yada yada, blah blah and so on ad nauseum. My soul is not for sale, folks. If this belief of mine, that unmerited traits should be disregarded as much as possible while merited achievements should be rewarded as richly as possible, has stayed a constant after all those years, then the verdict is final: it’s an inseparable part of me. I view everything through a cultural lens as much as is feasible, and nurture as the major player in all affairs. I hate the Muslims intensely, and call for the mass expulsion of them from within and near every non-Muslim state they reside, not because I think they’re inherently, unchangeably evil, but because they are nurtured by their religion to institute their rule over the whole world, blowing stuff and people (God forbid) up in the process.
I will not cave in to either extreme of multiculturalist Political Correctness or racialist misoxeny. As for Judaism, I already wrote that, far from the misconceived image of it as being a “racist ideology” (advanced so often by the “reverse”-racist Leftscum with their Khazaria Hypothesis, no less), Judaism was the first supraracial ideology in a world that, back then, was racialist to the core. So where is the crisis here? It is in the realization that, between the rock of multiculturalism and the hard place of racialism, my niche has been narrowed. I can expect more and more accusations of heterodoxy now.
Let Europe (Western Europe, anyway) be mired in the bifurcation fallacy of anti-white, “reverse”-racist multiculturalists vs. xenophobic, “scientific-study”-quoting racialists. Let Western Europe choose which of two putrid swamps—life under Islamic fascism, or life under the sway of decisions made around genetics, bodily fluids and kindred things—it wants to drown in. Maybe that’s God’s delicious way of bringing payback for the Holocaust. I don’t want any part in this. My wish and vision is that the Jewish nation (and HaShem willing, the American as well, for they are a malchut shel chesed, a kingdom of grace) will carry the torch of the good fight, the fight for culture, for the good lifestyle, for the elevation of man above both the stunting mindset of “Nothing can be said to be better than the other, not even by merit” and the unjust one of “My father was better than your father, therefore I’m better than you, and there’s no changing that”.
Above all, I call for honesty. When you want to say, “Jews control all world affairs”, say that, don’t write an intellectually-sounding book called The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. When you want to say, “N*****s are stoopid”, say so, don’t go citing “scientific studies showing how blacks have a lower IQ on average than whites”. We are all biased, therefore state your biases. State forthrightly your position, clearly what you believe in. Life is too short to treat it all like a poem to be analyzed, with hidden meanings to be figured out.
May HaShem be with all the righteous of the world until the end of days. Amen.
Labels: alliances, culture, webloggery
posted by ziontruth @ Monday, October 22, 2007
19 Comments:
King David's grandmother Ruth was a convert. Her racial origin is just as important as her hair colour.
The Rabbis asked why we are all descended from one man, Adam. They answered that no man should boast that his ancestors are greater than another's.
Bar Kochba,
I'm very conflicted about this issue. I may be bringing thoughts from my leftist past into conflict with things our sages have sealed clear verdicts on. Though, even in my leftist days I wasn't into self-defeat (that's why I, like Ronald Reagan, quit being a Leftist when I saw the Left turn their backs on their former ideals). And the story of Ruth is definitely a corroborator.
I just hate racialist arguments. You always end up punishing people for how they were born instead of what they do. In that, the anti-white "reverse"-racist multi-cultis and the "blacks are of inferior intelligence" white nationalists are like two peas in a pod.
Not to mention that it undercuts the world war in general. The Bosnian Muslims are as white as any Stormfronter could ever ask; I doubt they'd be any better than the dark-skinned Muslims with regard to inter-religious relations. In Israel, racialism is totally inapplicable--racial profiling doesn't exist, because the number of false positives and false negatives would render it totally useless here. It's my problem with posting on Gates of Vienna in a nutshell: the European situation is very different from ours. They're unable to separate their identity from "whiteness", from the concept of race; are unable, therefore, to mount any effective defense against the Islamic invasion other than one based on racialism. Unless I'm proved wrong someday, I'm writing off Western Europe as lost.
The halachic criterion, that a Jew is one born to a Jewish mother (if not a convert), is the one thing that appears to set Judaism on a racial basis. But did anyone ever suggest "Jewishness" was passed in through the mitochondria or some other marker inherited through the female line? I don't think so. I'm inclined to think the halachic law is because the mother of the child is always known, unlike the father. The danger here is that, if it's a halachah l'Moshe mi-Sinai, then I'm turning a divine ruling into a human invention, and I don't dare do that if I'm aware of it.
As I said to Carl on one of the LGF threads (thanks again to Carl for not taking it personally): I'll have to iron this out with myself and with my rabbi. Even Jews raised Orthodox have difficult faith questions to contend with; how much more so, then, an ex-chiloni like me.
Thanks for the encouraging comment, Bar Kochba. HaShem bless you!
ZY
"In Israel, racialism is totally inapplicable--racial profiling doesn't exist, because the number of false positives and false negatives would render it totally useless here. It's my problem with posting on Gates of Vienna in a nutshell: the European situation is very different from ours. They're unable to separate their identity from "whiteness", from the concept of race; are unable, therefore, to mount any effective defense against the Islamic invasion other than one based on racialism. Unless I'm proved wrong someday, I'm writing off Western Europe as lost."
I can't see why you conclude that racial profiling is doomed to failure in Europe just because it's doomed to failure in Israel. Objectively, the fact that you can identify the potential enemy at the flick of an eye would seem to be an asset, not a liability, in the larger WoT to come.
Derailed Cluetrain,
My comment about the inapplicability of racial profiling in Israel isn't a value-judgment on it, but an explanation why I, in contrast to a lot of Europeans, view things from a culturalist rather than racialist lens.
I didn't say racial profiling was doomed to fail in Europe. By "I'm writing off Western Europe as lost", I was referring to the situation (as it appears to me) that the only ones who put up a serious resistance against the Muslims are the white-centric racialists; meaning that a Europe saved from Islamofascism (as I hope it will be) will most probably be a Europe with race-based policies (such as segregated schools) everywhere.
It's amazing how this topic has made the waves lately. Just a few days after my spat on GoV, the big row on LGF concerning Vlaams Belang and the Swedish Democrats came up. I reiterate what I said on both LGF and GoV: I have realized my insufficient knowledge regarding the situation in Europe. It looks to me as if the issue of race plays a very important part in Europe, far beyond what is known in Israel or the USA, therefore I think there is no easy way (if at all) of separating the issue of Islamization from the general one of immigration; but I may be wrong, and I hope so.
One thing about the efficacy of racial profiling for identifying Muslims: Al Qaeda already talked of recruiting "blond, blue-eyed converts to Islam" for the jihad in Europe, and the Muslims of Bosnia are white. So, while racial profiling will be effective for the near future, don't count on it in the long term. Eventually, the current Israeli method of profiling by links (checking the connections on people's files) will have to be adopted. And the only long-term permanent solution is to expel all the Muslims. For every active jihadist running lose in a European country, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of silent sympathizers, supporters and enablers.
Thanks for the comment.
I think you seriously overestimate how much "racialism" informs European policies, even of the nationalist bend. Unlike nations of immigrants - like Israel or the US - European nations were, until very recently, entirely defined by ethnicity. It gives tremendous disincentive to immigration; no matter how well adjusted, people from the third world are never regarded as "one of us", simply because they obviously _aren't_ French, or German, or Dutch or Swedish or whatever. You can dislike this, but pretending it is otherwise will not make it so. That the governing elites of Western Europe have long denied it only makes it the natural fault line in multiculturalist policies.
But this strong exclusionary mechanism works both ways. If it denies newcomers a chance at being part of society, it also makes polices that are entirely based on race viable from a practical point of view. Expelling everyone who _looks_ Arab/African from Europe will do an excellent job of expelling Moslems from Europe too - a far better, I think, than any amount of "culturalist" litmus tests you'd care to impose on people short of a downright Soviet totalitarianism in terms of state control of daily life.
And if Islamic terror and Islamic demands on society come to the point where expulsion is the only viable alternative for survival, then frankly the expulsion as such will be so much suffering and trouble that the selection criteria for inflicting it are largely academic considerations. You may think that expelling Arabs from Israel is a culturalist exercise because their exterior coloration and features are indistinguishable from Sephardi Jews, but when it comes down to it, if you truly want to reach the levels of "expelling all the Moslems" you will be looking at things like proficiency in Hebrew, the ability to relate to Jewish traditions and culture - that is to say, to ethnicity, which is near enough to race as to make no real difference.
Because ultimately, unless you are willing to accept the argument "yes, I'm a Moslem, but I'm loyal to Israel and should be allowed to stay", there is no difference at all in the exercise you propose.
Derailed Cluetrain,
Judging from the description you give in the first paragraph, it looks like you meant to say I underestimate how much racialism informs European policies.
Expulsion by racial profiling, even in Europe, is going to yield a lot of false positives (Christian immigrants, not to mention Hindus and Zoroastrians) and false negatives (white converts to Islam, and Muslims from the Balkans). It's not workable. Finding out who's a Muslim is a lot easier than you make it out to be. For one thing, they go to mosques. For another, they're so stupid in their rage that they fail to hide themselves (taqiya) for long.
You said, "You may think that expelling Arabs from Israel is a culturalist exercise [...]" (emphasis mine). A good example of how colored our views are--so much so that it seeps into every word we write. I'm not for expelling Arabs. The Druzes, for example, are Arabs, but they are loyal citizens of Israel, except for a few Leftoxicated Muslim-sympathizers. From the beginning of this blog, I've talked about Muslims, and only about Muslims, with the exception of a few forays into the Arab question because of the Arab supremacist nature of Islam (example). In my view, Arabs are not the problem, Muslims are. People indoctrinated by a religion, not born to a particular ethnicity or race.
And expelling the Muslims from Israel will be easy, much easier than in Europe. I have no doubt that the Israeli intelligence agencies have a full list of who is a Muslim in Israel.
You also say, "[...] ethnicity, which is near enough to race as to make no real difference". I disagree. In the European model, ethnicity and race may be tied, but the Jews have for over a millennium been an ethnicity that spans multiple races. The difference is real and great. The Jewish State cannot be depicted as being a racialist state except through ignorance or dishonesty (which is the domain of the Leftists in this regard).
I'm not willing to take a Muslim's word for it that he is "loyal to Israel". Even when they aren't lying, they can change. I have it from my grandparents that you can live peacefully with the Muslims for 30 years and then, all of a sudden, be stabbed in your back (God forbid). They will have to go, all of them.
As for Europe, if the only way to save it is to restore its "white purity", then there's nothing I can do about it. But, I'm not with you in that. I'm interested in fighting Islamization, preserving Western culture, defending all national sovereignty from the encroachment of superstates, and ending the "reverse", anti-white racism perpetrated by the PC establishment. I side with non-Muslim Britons, French, Italians, Germans, Spaniards and so forth; I do not side with non-Muslim "whites". Just as I do not side with "black Ethiopia" or with "yellow-skinned, almond-eyed Thailand", but with Christian Ethiopia and Buddhist Thailand.
Thanks again, you gave me the opportunity to put the thoughts darting in my mind for the past few days in clear written form.
My particular position is that it does not matter what you say or what you are, but what you do. Calling it a "cultural" bias rather than a "racial" bias is probably rephrasing the saw that 'actions speak louder than words'.
There are other axes that one can use than that of left/right. There is your racial/cultural, speech/action, global/local, shallow thinking/deep thinking, information poor/information rich. The vicious left seems to have imposed information poverty upon themselves and their followers,to aid in forgoing deep thinking.
I call for honesty. When you want to say, “Jews control all world affairs”, say that, don’t write an intellectually-sounding book called The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. When you want to say, “N*****s are stoopid”, say so, don’t go citing “scientific studies showing how blacks have a lower IQ on average than whites”. We are all biased, therefore state your biases.
ZY, even if we could live in such a utopia of clear expression, there would still be people without eyes to see or ears to hear.
Folks hear and see what they want, no matter how honest the speaker is.
ZionistYoungster,
Perhaps we are talking past each other. Racialism, to me, implies politics that specifically center on the issue of race: racism, in all it's different shapes, be it white supremacy, anti-white PC sentiment or anti-semitism. I do contend that what you see in Europe now has precious little to do with that, at least on the part of the natives, outside very insignificant and quite marginalized neo-nazi groups. Race as a determinator of worth - for whichever values of worth you choose to pursue - is no more an issue in Europe than anywhere else.
That said, it is also an undeniable fact that the European non-Moslem population is... white. It isn't perhaps so to the extent it was two decades ago, and it certainly would not be true if Europe could remain Europe with it's multiculturalist polices in place for another generation or two. But it _is_, to a first, second and third-order estimation. And Europe will either succumb to the Caliphate or else find itself faced with very drastic options of actions long before there's any chance of any non-white, not-Islamist European identity to form.
I share with you entirely the dislike of embracing any policies based on such basis as race. But if race happens to be a heavily significant correlation with the characteristic I'm looking for - namely Moslem belief - and I can cut down the problem of identification with, lets assume, between 95-99%, I'm not letting it lie idle in the tool shed either, because while I do acknowledge that there is a difference between being born into a race and belonging to a religion. In terms of ethnicity the difference simply isn't enough to be worth different treatment.
I ask you: if you were, say, Italian, and the Italian state demanded that you give up Judaism to prove your loyalty to it, would you? If not, than any distinction between this and being born with the "wrong" skin colour is largely irrelevant. (Yes, assume for the sake of this question that Italian Jews had a history of terror and violence that merited such suspicion on the part of the Italian government.)
In short, I don't think the difference is all that you make of it.
Ptah,
"What you do", "culturalism" and "being centered around nurture rather than nature" are all the same ways of expressing that basic idea.
And you're spot on about the Left imposing their categories on everyone. As I said to Fjordman on one of the LGF threads (here): it is looking increasingly clear to me that right-wing racialism is a reaction to left-wing multiculturalism, a ball in the field of the left-wing narrative rather than an authentic, independent right-wing voice.
Michael,
I know, I know... I'm thinking how frustrated the jihadists must be when, after all their shouts of "Allahu Akbar! I'm doing this for the greater glory of the Caliphate!", our dhimmi MSM still speaks of them as "acting out of desperation".
Derailed Cluetrain,
I think Europe is like Japan: the issue of race, especially the most obvious and first-seen factor of skin color, does play an important part, at the very least in the discourse. However, the Marxist anti-Western narrative makes sure Europe is held to a different standard than Japan. The Gramscians make especially good use of the Stormfronters, true racists who have piggybacked on the issue of Islamization in order to score their points. The Stormfronters are as deleterious to the Right as the A.N.S.W.E.R Stalinists are to the sane on the Left.
(I'm aware a scan of my statements, "I think Europe is...", throughout the last few days, will reveal much discrepancy. This just shows how I'm not yet settled on the whole debate.)
You talk of the possibility of Europe finding itself "faced with very drastic options of actions long before there's any chance of any non-white, not-Islamist European identity to form". So you think there is no European identity that is divorced from "whiteness"? I can't say if you're right or wrong, but if my memory from history lessons serves, France in the 19th century had a very strong nationalist-cultural identity, and strove to export it to as many non-white peoples as possible. It strikes me that the European nations of the 19th century, because they did not yet have to grapple with Political Correctness, had an identity that went beyond race. Nowadays, in reaction to the "reverse" racism of the Left, and because of the demonization of nationalism following WWII, the many nationalistic identities of Europe are lost in the pages of history. (Again, those are just my hypotheses; further research is required to substantiate them.)
Now to your hypothetical question (about Italian Jews being required to show their loyalty by leaving Judaism, and under the assumption for the sake of argument that they had a history of terrorism): I'd probably go on an information campaign arguing that the Italian Jewish history is the result of the hijacking of the original Judaism, much as a lot of Muslims do today. But that's only if I truly believed that being regarded a loyal citizen was an utmost priority. If I thought the history of Italian Jewish terrorism was justified, I'd just throw a few bones of "condemnation of terrorism" to keep the non-Jewish Italians complacent. In either case, I don't see how this can be construed as being the same as being born with the "wrong" skin color. It's nurture all the way. Like Robert Spencer, I too wish Islam could be reformed to a "live and let live" religion, and then I'd have no problem with Muslims anywhere; but I think the chances of this are slim.
This hypothetical is difficult for me to go with, so I apologize in advance if I'm again talking past you.
ZY,
I think Europe is like Japan: the issue of race, especially the most obvious and first-seen factor of skin color, does play an important part, at the very least in the discourse.
Yes and no. The question of race is essential to the issue of European identity insomuch that you are not an European unless you are white. But there is precious little discourse or discussion about it. It just _is_. Interestingly, this self-evident fact is rabidly denied by the self-styled EU elites, and I always pity the immigrants from the third world who fall for the official lines about Europe as a multiracial society. It is not. It's a white society with an ever-increasing non-white, non-included underclass, a state of affairs that our betters have managed to suppress by running our debts ever more red in fueling an unsustainable welfare state to make the underclass materially comfortable. As the non-white, predominantly Moslem population grows rapidly, these policies are ever more untenable.
So you think there is no European identity that is divorced from "whiteness"?
Indeed. I what European identity would that be? Europe, like the vast majority of the world, is based on the ethnic state. Of course, I don't mean "whitness" in the way the term applies in the USA, where it is an entire political ideology, no more than Africa can reasonably be said to have an essential identity of "blackness" simply because Sub-Saharan Africans are black. (The analogue is strained - African leaders, after all, _have_ made "blackness" a political issue.)
In either case, I don't see how this can be construed as being the same as being born with the "wrong" skin color. It's nurture all the way.
But don't you find it interesting that the nurture goes so deep that actually renouncing your religion (in, of course, this hypothetical scenario) was not one of your options? Note that under the alternatives you chose - work for reform or secretly support terror - you would be deported under the policies you propose for Moslems in Israel.
My point, such as it is, is that religious imprinting goes beyond ordinary nurture to the extent that I'm not ready to make much of a difference between that and genetic makeup. Yes, some people come to religion or leave it, while we're born to the skin we are. But enough consider their religion enough part of their identity that they could not leave it, no matter what. In which case I'm not sure there is a great moral distinction between discriminatory religious and discriminatory racial policies. The difference might in the _necessity_ to implement such policies. But that falls rather outside the moral issue.
Anyway, the commentator field of a blog is a rather poor venue for discussion, as the tools to quote and link are rather lacking. I hope that we've both managed to convey something to the readers and thank you for an interesting exchange.
Derailed Cluetrain,
Much as I am dismayed by your description (of "European" and "white" being inseparable), I'll have to accept it as being true for the present. However--and I must devote some good research to this--it seems to me that this was not so in the past. The fact that the French (if not other Europeans) expended great resources in disseminating their culture, such that the Francosphere (or French Commonwealth) included a whole host of non-white countries, means the situation may well not have been so before the banishment of nationalism following World War II. If my hypothesis is right, then post-1945 European nationalism is a captive of the Marxist narrative. The accusation of me being a Leftist because of my anti-racialist view (as made by some commenters on Gates of Vienna) would thus take an ironic turn, against those who made it.
But if there has never been a European identity that is not tied to "whiteness", so that there is no theoretical way of untying this Gordian knot now either, then I'll just have to resign myself to saying: "Europe, it was nice knowing you".
The reason I wouldn't renounce my religion is my belief that it is true. Whereas nationality is sustained by being a person's identity but not because it is true (it does not make truth-claims), religion is normally a matter of truth first and identity second. Case in point is that there are few, if any, apostates from Islam out of a desire to be right with the host non-Muslim society (the fear of being killed makes this a losing proposition on a cost-value basis); people leave Islam because they no longer believe it is the truth.
You can use links in the comments (as in <a href="[your link here]">linked text here</a>). You're right about not being able to use blockquotes, though.
Thank you.
ZY, I'm drawn back into the fray - just can't help myself:
Much as I am dismayed by your description (of "European" and "white" being inseparable), I'll have to accept it as being true for the present.
I am a bit confounded by your dismay at the normal order of things; do you feel the same sort of dismay at the thought of Nigerians as black or Chinese as Asian? Countries, states and cultures that _aren't_ built around the ethnic identity are the remarkable thing, not the other way around. At least in a non-imperialist context.
The fact that the French (if not other Europeans) expended great resources in disseminating their culture, such that the Francosphere (or French Commonwealth) included a whole host of non-white countries, means the situation may well not have been so before the banishment of nationalism following World War II.
That Brits, Frenchmen, Spaniards and Portuguese built colonial empires surely in no way, fashion or shape can be construed as an expansion of their respective national identity. 18th Century colonialism was a both racist and paternalist endeavor, primarily fueled by competition for markets and resources and secondarily be a desire to "civilize the brutes". I cannot understand how this can be taken as sign of multi-racial national identity - I'm hard pressed to come up with any policy more steeped in the notion of the "Other" than European colonialism. Well, at least from western cultures.
But if there has never been a European identity that is not tied to "whiteness", so that there is no theoretical way of untying this Gordian knot now either, then I'll just have to resign myself to saying: "Europe, it was nice knowing you".
By this metric, you're saying "World, it was nice knowing you". The exhaustive list of countries not built on an ethnic identity - and not being, at in some respect, empires or remnants of such - consists of exactly two entries: the US and Israel.
My personal belief is that this is changing, as modern communications and transportation lead to an historically unprecedented amount of peaceful migration and exposure to others. But that change will be slow, painful and full of setbacks is beyond doubt - acting and reasoning as if it had happened already and should be taken for granted lest you display lacking moral fortitude seems to me to be indicative of having bought into the world view of the same EU elites that you berate elsewhere for undermining sound nationalism in Europe.
Derailed Cluetrain,
I have reached, after reading many resources relating to Europe in general and Vlaams Belang in particular, a lot of the conclusions you state here (see thread on GoV, in the comments, for more).
What you say, that "The exhaustive list of countries not built on an ethnic identity [...] consists of exactly two entries: the US and Israel", rings very true to me now. The groundbreaking realization for me has been that my culturalist view is a direct derivative of my local situation, and that I cannot extrapolate it to outside of my country. I have come to the conclusion, that to berate the European parties in question as "white supremacists" is on par with what happened in Israel in the 1970's and 80's, when Rabbi Meir Kahane (may HaShem avenge his blood) was called "racist" and "Judeo-Nazi" for his strong insistence that a Jewish majority is necessary for the continuing existence of the Jewish State.
There are now only two things I still wish were different:
1) I wish the Europeans focused more on their individual nationalities. The only lasting antidote to superstatism is conscious and well-defined nationalisms. The way I see it, national sovereignty should be among the top priorities of every European.
2) I wish some of the European members of the anti-Islamization movement would get away from racial theorists--from those who, for example, tout "scientific studies" showing the superiority of certain races over others. I accept that European identity is inextricable from whiteness, as a reality that is not now changeable. I do not accept, however, any talk of "maintaining racial purity" and "keeping our genes clean"; I have it on the evidence of the local Arab villages, with their high percentages of people with birth defects, resultant of the social custom of cousin marriage, that genetic uniformity makes for less, not more, healthy offspring.
Through your reasoned arguments, you have been among those who contributed to my understanding and my new perspective, and I am grateful to you for that. Thank you.
God bless.
ZY
ZY,
That is a remarkable change and I am much impressed with seeing how you come to it so freely. Would that more people were willing to be swayed by reasons in that way.
I don't know much about Kahane, but he was basically painted like a mad terrorist who wanted to exterminate Palestinian children for fun and the greater glory of Judaism over here. A casual perusal of web sources, however, would indicate that we aren't talking about comparable entities - none of the parties or movements we discuss have been tied to bombings or acts of mass murder.
I agree entirely with your second enumerated point, and disagree entirely with the first. On the issue of confronting the fifth-column threat of Islamofascism, there can really be no individual national solutions - what use for Denmark to remain a free society if it finds itself surrounded by a Caliphate Sweden, Norway and Germany, after all? As Benjamin Franklin put it "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."
Derailed Cluetrain,
I hesitated long. I was constantly asking myself what are the limits beyond which I have effectively sold my soul. But Jewish nationalism, with its measures for national cohesion and sovereignty for the Jews on their land, is not a recent import from 19th-century Europe (that is the Leftists' Big anti-Zionist Lie), but ancient, going all the way back to the Torah. Commands for the Jews to cleanse the Land of Israel of all who would threaten their national sovereignty abound, the example I quote most often being Numbers 33:50-56. So it is not self-betrayal to side with those who have the same interests. And again, to counter the "Nazi" accusation, which the Leftists employ casually and which, as we can see, has now caught part of the Right in its net, the distinction between nationalism and the imperialistic ideology of the Nazis must always be pointed out.
Rabbi Kahane was a Jew who reminded other Jews of the scriptural basis of Jewish nationalism, and of the duty to maintain Jewish sovereignty on the land. He formed a party, Kach, which was active in the 1980's until it was banned (for "racism"--nothing new under the sun) in 1988, because it was getting too powerful. There is no party in Israel today that offers a platform similar (let alone identical) to that of Kach; what individuals hold in their private opinions, however, is a different matter. The idea of expelling all the Muslims, which was out of favor in the "peace is right at the corner" 1990's, has been gaining acceptance ever since the outbreak of the Second Intifada in October 2000. You can find the late Kahane's writings on his official website.
I see your point about the need for a concerted European effort. I agree. My wish for a focus on European nationalism doesn't contradict that: I say the individual European nationalisms should be emphasized because, after all, they're what the multi-culti regime has crushed and strives to keep crushed. Once again, I apologize if my local perspective has made me issue a statement inapplicable to the situation in Europe.
Thank you again, your comments have been most valuable to me.
God bless.
ZY
Zionist Youngster, I responded to your comment over at my blog, but I’d like to add a bit more here.
Do you ever read Lawrence Auster? You might enjoy this discussion, which should show where he and the other traditionalist conservatives come from on issues of race. (I should add that Auster does not speak for most of the European commenters at Gates of Vienna, many of whom have sharply disagreed with Auster’s assertion that Europe needs to abandon secularism in order to survive.)
I think you’re very much correct to distinguish between plain ethnic nationalism and an imperialist, racist nationalism. Auster and I would probably call ourselves white nationalists even though we do not believe in any kind of imperialism or supremacism. I have no desire to rule over or dominate people of a different race, and I condemn those white nationalists who do. At most I might hope for the peaceful separation of races where they do unsuccessfully coexist at the moment. (Expulsion of Muslims, of course, might not be so peaceful, but as you know, that’s not based on race.)
I should add that some of the talk in the discussion I’ve linked to at Auster’s site gives me some doubts myself. I wouldn’t dismiss as readily the possibility that assimilation of a large group could happen, but it would require a great deal of coercion. Given the unfortunate expansion of government power that accompanied past attempts to Americanize immigrants, I would rather not have to go through such a thing again, even if I were assured that it would ultimately work.
Finally, I should note that Auster has consistently condemned the reluctance of certain white nationalist leaders to condemn anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism in some of their organizations. I support his statements on this matter. While I know that some visitors to my blog have flirted with such anti-Semitic theories, I have tried to remain on good terms with them in the hope I can help them to see their error. I hope that engagement and dialogue will help to correct them better than cutting all ties.
Thank you for your interest in these discussions.
John,
Yes, I read your comment, and thank you. It's just that I can't keep track of all my comments, especially not in these hectic days of the Right-Wing Blogosphere Civil War, so it takes me time to get to them.
Your discussion link looks very promising even from the cursory glance I just gave it. It looks like covering some misunderstandings I've been grappling with in my discussion with Conservative Swede (bottom comments, as of this writing).
The Biblical model for future peace, according to the prophets (of the Hebrew Bible--Isaiah etc.), is a coexistence of nations (not nation conglomerates), each in its own well-defined border. That's the vision for the Jewish nation as well: Israel in its Biblical borders, with no threats to it either internal or external. That's what Rabbi Maimonides says the Messianic Age will be all about: freedom from "subjugation to kingdoms".
The anti-Semitism I'm concerned with most is that of the Left/Islam alliance. Not because classical anti-Semitism is no more, but because the New Anti-Semitism, i.e. Jew-hatred under the cover of anti-Zionism, is its heir as regards acceptability. It is acceptable in polite society to cloak hatred of Jews in the mantle of Israel-bashing, therefore that's where the greatest danger lies. As I said elsewhere: the Nazis of today are the Muslims, and their sympathizers and enablers are on the Left. This also ties in to the issue of Walt and Mearsheimer: whatever their intent in writing the book, the fact is that they're supplying ammunition to the anti-Zionists. All the sincerity in the world is no good if the consequences haven't been considered.
That said, I agree that the neoconservatives' pro-Israel stance isn't the most helpful to Israel. The most helpful form of aid to Israel would be to turn a blind eye toward us while we expel all the Muslims from within our land. That would be the best workable initiative for lasting peace.
Thanks for the comment.
God bless.
ZY
Flip to the opposite position, and you will shock a lot people, but many others will accept it as a sign of strength, of going where the evidence leads. Flop back to your original position, and you have a credibility problem.
Race is a red herring and pagan chimera. All the focus on race and the "scientific" studies "proving" the "basic, intractable differences between humans on account of their heredity" form a train that leads to the one and only possible destination of Auschwitz. (Islam is not exempt: its Arabocentrism and penchant for consanguine marriages makes it just another form of the same satanic stuff.) HaShem calls all humans (and not just Jews) to excel in righteousness, according to the laws prescribed in His eternal Torah. He has no regard for "race". Political correctness is one of today's banes, but the overreaction to it can only lead to the aforementioned destination.
And this blog is closed. One prayer to HaShem to send His Mashiach is worth a thousand online articles.
HaShem bless all His righteous. HaShem curse all the evildoers. HaShem give His righteous victory over evil. Amen ken y'hi ratzon.
<< Home