Bicausal corollary

These days my classification of “bicausalism” has stirred a long discussion through several threads at Occidental Dissent (see, e.g., here):

1.- Monocausalists – Most of the commenters at Age of Treason, and people like Dave Duke whom I deeply respect. These people believe that there’s but one cause of our woes: the subversive Jews.

2.- Bicausalists Type A – Those who, like Greg Johnson, Alex Linder and some commenters at Linder’s VNN Forum, believe that Jews are the primary cause of our woes, though there are other important factors as well. Unlike monocausalists, these bicausalists also blame our parents’ religion.

3.- Bicausalists Type B – Those who, like Tom Sunic, Manu Rodríguez and I believe that there’s something seriously wrong with us, extremely wrong actually. Whites’ mental issues (which include a Calvinist type of Old Testament Christianity that conquered North America) are the primary infection, and the Judaization of the West, a secondary infection (like AIDS / pneumonia, etc).

This is my corollary to the above classification. Note that I have added a #4, which means an antithetical monocausal stance to the one mentioned above. (Keywords: AoT = the blog Age of Treason; GoV = the blog Gates of Vienna):

1. AoT-like monocausalism – blames Jews 100%, Whites 0%

2. Bicausalism Type-A – assigns a blame above 50% to Jews

3. Bicausalism Type-B – assigns a blame above 50% to Whites

4. GoV-like monocausalism – blames Whites 100%, Jews 0%

Of course, in bicausalism you can either blame one or the other in diverse ratios depending on the specific bicausal individual, say, 90 / 10 percent or inversely 45 / 55 percent, etc.

Oh idiot Swedes!

Silly boiled frogs…!

husbyrioter

From Gates of Vienna:

A third night of rioting has engulfed the suburbs of Stockholm, spreading from Husby to Tensta, Kista, Rinkeby, Jakobsberg, and other culturally enriched neighborhoods. The Swedish and Norwegian media are covering the events—assiduously avoiding saying anything about the ethnicity or immigrant status of the perpetrators.

Commenter said…

Elect crazy people, take away border controls, feed the population with pc kook aid and voila! We don’t seem to respond to wake up calls anymore.

Commenter said…

Let it burn. Don’t send in Fire Rescue, Police or Paramedics. Let them burn down their homes and then be smart. Tell them they have no homes to put them in. They can live on the streets in the ashes they made or go back to the Hellholes they came from.

That is what sane people do. These idiots will cave in to the Muslim demands immediately.

Commenter said…

Burn down the whole city. When a country reaches the point that fathers would rather bow to political correctness while their own daughters are being sexually taunted, abused and even raped…. Swedes don’t deserve Sweden anymore.

_______________

See also what John Martínez commented about it here at WDH.

Our crystal ball

Further to my previous post.

As der Schwerter has just translated to German an article by Edward S. May (“Baron Bodissey”) that explains beautifully why it is almost certain that economic Armageddon is around the corner.

Below “Chump Change,” the complete 2009 article by May that originally appeared at Gates of Vienna. Presently the situation in the US is far more compromised thanks to the ongoing (suicidal) efforts of chairman Ben Bernanke:




When I was seven years old I took up coin collecting as a hobby. Back in those days there were still a lot of interesting coins in circulation: the buffalo nickel, the Mercury dime, the Liberty Walking half dollar, and—if you were patient and went through enough rolls of coins—the occasional Indian head penny or “V” nickel.

The most exciting coin of all, however, was the silver dollar. The 1921 “Peace” dollar would do, but the Morgan dollar was preferable—it had a serious-looking 19th century design, and was the very same dollar that filled those heavy payroll bags heisted by stagecoach robbers in Westerns. It was a nice hefty piece of real American history, and it could fill the palm of a small boy’s hand.

Up until my tenth birthday my allowance was fifty cents a week, which I received in the form of a biweekly dollar bill. During my silver dollar craze I would take that bill down to the bank and ask for a silver dollar in exchange for it. The tellers all knew me, and would oblige me by picking through their selection of silver dollars until they found a date I didn’t have.

I was able to indulge myself in this manner because most of the dollar bills in circulation back then were still silver certificates.

The bank had no choice: under its charter, it was required by law to “pay the bearer on demand” a dollar in official United States silver coinage for every silver certificate presented to it.

No one has the same option today. Today all the paper money in circulation consists of Federal Reserve notes, which are not redeemable for anything in particular. You can go to the bank and exchange your dollar bill for four quarters, but those are no longer the shiny silver discs that rang so delightfully on the marble counter at the teller’s window. Nowadays the dimes, quarters, and half dollars are all “Johnson slugs”, the ugly nickel-copper sandwiches that were introduced in 1964 when silver coinage was abolished and the silver certificates were withdrawn from circulation. 1968 was the last year in which the law required that any paper dollar be redeemable in silver.

The abolition of silver coinage was the culmination of an extended process that took most of a century to complete: the disconnection of American paper currency from any fixed standard of value as represented by precious metals.

By the time the Johnson slugs appeared, the abolition of the silver coinage was an absolute necessity. The price of silver had been allowed to float, and because of inflation the silver in a dollar coin was worth more than $1.25. Entrepreneurs could make a tidy profit buying up silver dollars in bulk, melting them down, and selling them as bullion to silver traders. The old coins had to go, which meant that the silver certificates had to go, too.

From then on the federal government was not required to give you anything for your dollar bill. If you had one, you could go out and buy something that other people were willing to give you in exchange for your piece of paper. But the Treasury was obliged to provide nothing of value in return for that piece of paper except the “full faith and credit of the United States government”, which was worth a lot more in 1964 than it is today.

In the 19th century, the United States adhered first to a “bi-metallic” standard—both silver and gold coinage—and then the gold standard. Under the pressure of the Great Depression, FDR initiated a gradual slide away from gold and into a silver standard for the paper currency, although the Treasury and the Federal Reserve adhered to the gold standard until 1971.

Since then the official currency of the United States has been anchored by nothing more than global confidence in the soundness of the dollar. As long as everybody believed in the same fantasy, then the system could operate. The dollars were printed, credit was extended, the financial markets functioned, and business enterprises were profitable. People went to work and got paid and bought stuff.

They also borrowed money and took out mortgages, which brings us to the mess we’re in today.

Today’s system of commercial and consumer credit is made possible by the practice of fractional reserve banking. Until the late 18th or early 19th century, banks did not lend out their cash reserves of depositors’ money. The advent of fractional reserve banking made it legal for a bank to lend out a portion of its deposits, and required it to keep only a fraction of those deposits—in modern times, typically 20%—as an actual cash reserve.

This means that when Joe Consumer deposits $1000 into his bank account, the bank can lend up to $800 of it and keep $200 of the deposit as a fractional reserve, maintaining the loan on its books as an asset. At this point the initial $1000 in cash has morphed into $1800 in cash assets and credit—in effect, $800 worth of money has been created.

When the borrower deposits the $800 into another bank, that bank in turn can loan out $640. And so the process continues, forming a geometric progression of assets which cannot exceed $5000 (500% of the original deposit), $4000 of that in loans listed as assets on the books of the respective banks.

This practice seems bizarre and imprudent at first glance, but it was absolutely essential during the expansion of our industrial economies. Industrialization created wealth where none existed before, but without a way to extend the money supply to match the added wealth, the capitalization of industry would have lagged, and growth would have been much slower. Fractional reserve lending allowed credit to be extended to industrial entrepreneurs, and as long as loans were made prudently and repaid on time, and banks retained their depositors’ confidence, the system functioned well.

Maintaining a gold or silver standard imposed a natural limit on the inflation of the money supply via fractional reserve banking. As long as banks met their capitalization requirements and observed the rules for fractional reserves, the money supply could never expand past the implied mathematical limit.

During times of economic contraction the system sometimes foundered. Then there would be a run on the banks, and some banks would fail. Although the system always righted itself eventually, businesses were ruined and individuals impoverished in the process, so that the political pressure for a system of government controls was irresistible.

Right: At a distance looks like the White House but it is the “Fed” headquarters (Eccles Building)

Thus was the Federal Reserve born in 1913. The Fed is a consortium of private banks linked closely to the government, and functions more or less as a central bank would in many countries. Its job is to control the money supply by setting interest rates for government lending. By stabilizing swings in the money supply, the Fed’s mission is to prevent bank runs. It’s not always successful: witness the recent run on Washington Mutual and its subsequent collapse—the largest bank failure in history.

The current gargantuan federal government, so far beyond the size and scope of what the Founding Fathers originally envisaged, owes its origins to the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln. Using military means, Lincoln demonstrated that the government in Washington was the absolute master of the several States.

But the bloated bureaucracy didn’t really take off until Woodrow Wilson invoked his presidential authority during World War I to create federal powers and functions which had never existed before, and which just happened to fit into his Progressive framework.

Not all of these powers were scrapped after 1918, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt took everything a step further when he created the New Deal to fight the Great Depression—once again, an excuse for massive Progressive intervention—and then World War II.

By 1945 the federal government was simply “too big to fail”, and all the layers of emergency powers that had accreted over the previous thirty years became permanent bureaucratic institutions. Once initiated, a new federal program was virtually never abandoned. No cabinet office has ever been abolished—new ones can be created, but they cannot be destroyed; they may only persist and grow.

Decade after decade the government has continued to expand, adding agency upon agency and bureau upon bureau. It has sprawled out across the District of Columbia into satellite fiefdoms in Maryland and Northern Virginia and created nests of regional offices across the rest of the nation. Whenever a congressman or senator perceives an important “constituent need”, a new federal function is created and funded, and becomes a permanent fixture in the Washington ecosystem.

Needless to say, all of this is very expensive. For the first thirty years or so of the federal explosion, increased taxes were sufficient to fund the pet projects and Progressive fantasies of the federal mandarins. But then the post-war boom leveled off, even as the Great Society was mandating a thicker layer of lard on top of the government pudding.

Increased taxation was not good enough. Unfortunately for the feds, raising taxes much further had become politically impossible, yet the internal logic of government expansion required that more money be found.

That’s where the Johnson slugs came in.

The uncoupling of the money supply from any reserve of precious metals did not automatically doom the country to inflation, indebtedness, profligacy, and ruin.

If the individual functionaries within the system did their jobs properly—if they acted with probity, prudence, fiduciary integrity, honesty, and in the interests of the people they purportedly served—the fractional reserve system could have continued indefinitely.

But there are too many perverse incentives built into a banking system that is not pegged to any external reserve of actual tangible value. By adding new rules, augmenting existing procedures, and tinkering with the arcana of accounting terminology, new wealth could be created where it didn’t exist before. The Treasury could keep issuing bonds, and as long as the price of milk and shoes didn’t rise too much, why then, everything must be fine, mustn’t it?

But it wasn’t fine. Decade after decade of deficit financing created the infamous national debt, which kept growing and growing. But, once again, as long as productivity increased and the economy kept on expanding, inflation could be kept at bay. The national debt, huge as it was, might theoretically be paid off—someday.

Unfortunately, during the last two decades or so, productivity hasn’t really been as high as it seemed. Our national wealth is now denominated at least partially in assets that are over-valued, with real estate as a notable example. Those California house prices—a million dollars for a tiny bungalow on a postage-stamp lot—might have looked good on the asset side of a balance sheet, but they weren’t real money.

That value was conjured out of thin air by cynical or short-sighted people who gamed the system to their own advantage—quite legally, in most cases. But the wealth thus generated was illusory, and could disappear as easily it was created—which it is even now in the process of doing.

The final stroke which broke the banking system—and caused it to collapse years or decades earlier than it would have otherwise—was meddling by the federal government for political reasons.

Meddling was irresistible. And, without a gold standard to enforce fiscal restraint, it was inevitable. Money could always be created out of nothing, so the federal government created it and ordered its agencies to force the private sector to do certain things with it, things that might otherwise be considered foolish or imprudent.

In the case of the subprime mortgage fiasco—the most visible and notorious example—the federal government created government-protected lending institutions and through them forced banks to loan money to homebuyers who would not otherwise have qualified for the loans, and who could not reasonably be expected to pay them back.

Beginning in the 1970s, and continuing until the whole house of cards collapsed last year, the government used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—two quasi-government lending institutions which were not bound by normal market constraints—to pump untold billions of dollars into the housing market. Mortgages were issued to people who were poor, or had vaginas, or spoke English badly, or had sufficient melanin in their skin—because they deserved them. Never mind whether they could afford them: it was unfair for them not to own houses, and so the mortgages were issued, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

The rules kept being eased, the system got more corrupt, more and more money flowed through more and more hands, creating an ever-increasing supply of perverse incentives for bureaucrats and businesses to lie, to manipulate the rules, and to line their own pockets.

In the process the demand for real estate increased, driving the price of housing far beyond what it would otherwise be, thus creating the real estate “boom”—which was actually a bubble, and which has now officially popped.

During this period baroque new rules emerged to facilitate the issuing of additional debt. Exotic new financial derivatives were designed. Accounting rules for valuing assets were loosened. Bond-rating agencies were corrupted by their dependence on the institutions whose debt they rated. The securitization of debt removed the traded derivatives ever farther from anything of tangible value. Debt instruments were used as collateral on new debt, which was in turn used as collateral on yet more debt, until the money supply became so attenuated and rarefied that it had almost no connection with anything real. The entire elaborate financial structure of the country’s banking system was spun out of the purest speculative gossamer.

And at every level of the process somebody took a cut, so everyone worked very hard to increase the size of the pie.

In order to issue all those worthless mortgages, the ultimate guarantor—Uncle Sam—had to create the money by borrowing it himself. T-bills were issued, and buyers snapped them up.

Many of the customers for US Treasury paper were foreign governments, especially in Asia. The Chinese accumulated a large surplus of dollars, and recycled them by buying up more dollar-denominated debt. As long as China kept producing cheap products and exporting them to us, the process could continue. Our manufacturing capacity was diminished, and our money flowed out of the country to buy Chinese goods. But they kept loaning it back to us so that we could continue to fund the federal behemoth and its profligate habits.

The entire system depends on confidence in the dollar—as long as foreign countries continue to believe that real value lies behind the dollar, and that the American economy is strong enough to withstand this level of debt, they will continue to loan money to us, and pump liquidity into the system.

But confidence in the dollar won’t last. It can’t, because all those dollars in circulation, held in reserves in central banks all over the world, are not backed up by enough collateral. The last estimate I read—which was over a month ago, and real estate prices have presumably dropped even further since then—placed the number of dollars in circulation and held in reserves all over the world as thirteen times the amount of tangible assets in the U.S. financial institutions that back them up. That is, if all the holders of dollars across the globe decided to exchange them at the same time, the currency would have to be inflated at least 1,300% to redeem them.

With the addition of the recent stimulus package, American debt now exceeds the entire collective wealth of every man, woman, and child in the United States.

And this debt is almost entirely collateralized by confidence in the dollar. There’s nothing else backing up our currency.

The national debt is even more alarming if our unfunded liabilities are taken into consideration. One of the ways that successive presidential administrations kept deficits to a theoretically manageable level was by putting the Social Security Trust Fund “off-budget”—i.e., outside of its fiscal calculations. The “Trust Fund”, of course, is a joke—there’s nothing in it but IOUs. The FICA money that is withheld from your paycheck and contributed by your employer disappears instantly into the insatiable maw of federal spending, leaving only a promise that your retirement fund will be available for you when you are ready to collect it. Your future Social Security, like all things federal, depends solely on the “full faith and credit of the United States Government”, a commodity whose value is dropping precipitously.

One recent estimate puts the unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare—the money which the system will be statutorily required to provide for today’s citizens at some point in the future—at more than $100 trillion. And that’s just for the two biggest federal entitlements—add to them federal pensions, veterans’ benefits, and state, local, and private pensions, and the amount of unfunded liability is unimaginably huge.

All those hundreds of trillions of dollars are mandated by law and must someday be paid out. Yet the money is not there now—where will it come from?

And “someday” is drawing rapidly closer. Much of the unfunded liability will begin to come into play in the next few years as my generation, the Boomers, begins to retire and claim all its benefits. That’s why political leaders of both parties are so keen to get Pedro and Ahmed into the country—they’re looking for somebody, anybody, who will go to work and pay the FICA and income tax necessary to support the Beautiful People as they shuffle off into assisted living.

But it’s not going to work. Even if all the immigrants were skilled and ready to work, even if mass immigration were not doomed to destroy the culture and civil society that holds this entire Potemkin village together, even if the multicultural dream could be fully realized—even if everything else were ideal, the system would not be able to handle the load. The conclusion is inescapable: the persistence of our current political arrangements is fiscally and actuarially impossible.

This is the broad context in which the current financial crisis has emerged.

The system is going to fail. Failure is unavoidable. The big questions are:

1. How soon will it fail?

2. What form will that failure take?

3. How much civil unrest, violence, deprivation, and destruction will accompany the changeover to whatever new system emerges?

The broad outlines of what is to come are already visible. The banking systems of the West are heading for insolvency, and no amount of bailout money is going to save all the major banks. Bailing them out will only serve to delay the catastrophe and make it worse when it finally arrives. Real value to match the newly-created bailout money does not exist, and at some point the market will mark everything down to its true worth, destroying roughly 90% of the system’s wealth in the process.

One of the first symptoms of the collapse will be a run on the dollar. When confidence finally erodes past a certain point, speculators will start to unload their dollars en masse, and the U.S. government will have to choose between inflating the currency or defaulting on its obligations.

The United States is at the epicenter of the banking crisis, but the European currencies are feeling the pinch first. With the Austrian banks facing the default of Eastern European debt, the euro may be in trouble, and sterling is also widely rumored to be near collapse. The dollar is maintaining its value relative to these currencies (and the yen), but all of them are in the same boat. It won’t be long before investors start unloading their reserves of currency and taking refuge in gold, silver, platinum, and other non-perishable commodities whose value is expected to outlast whatever unpleasantness lies ahead.

After that the major Western nations will experience an unprecedented fiscal and monetary crisis. Mass insolvency, bank failure, an inability to meet entitlement payments, and the suspension of normal commercial activity will be the result.

The modern global economy depends on mass consumption by the wealthy Western democracies of goods produced by the Third World and purchased by savings borrowed from the Third World. This part of the system is already in retreat—consumption in the West has dropped dramatically, Chinese exports have collapsed, and the Chinese are signaling their unwillingness to loan us more money unless we can guarantee that we won’t inflate our currency to pay off our debts. What sane person would believe such a guarantee, even if the Treasury were so foolish as to offer it? The inflation is coming, and the current system will grind to a halt.

We are, in a word, screwed.

All of this will not just happen. None of the unfortunate consequences will occur in a vacuum, and there will be reactions and counter-reactions on the part of governments and the public, which will make the system chaotic and unpredictable.

Governments will continue to intervene to “fix” the market, and by doing so will generally make the problems worse. Riots, civil wars, insurrection, and revolution will be likely if the maintenance dose of government cash is withdrawn from recipients in the major welfare states. Many other negative consequences are probable, but no one knows when, where, and how much.

Even the wisest and most skilled political leadership would find it difficult to intervene in a way that would mitigate the worst effects. At some point the market will have to realistically revalue the system’s assets, and the results will be painful. The consequences can only be postponed, and thus made more severe; they cannot be avoided.

Unfortunately, wise and skilled political leadership is in short supply all across the West. Our social democracies—with their welfare systems and ideologically uniform media—do not reward risk-takers and visionaries. Cynical time-servers, technocrats, obedient functionaries, and corrupt fixers tend to rise to the top. This is the cohort who will be leading the charge with broom-handle and dustbin lid during the coming debacle.

So far Congress and the Obama administration seem determined to do the worst possible things, economically speaking. Pumping more debt into the system, bailing out inefficient and unprofitable private companies, increasing pork-barrel spending and patronage, nationalizing financial institutions, rewarding corrupt and incompetent administrators, raising taxes, increasing regulation… How much more perverse can they get?

Giving bankruptcy judges the right to “adjust” interest rates on individual mortgages will serve only to distort the credit markets further and make the crash much worse when it finally arrives. Appropriating vast quantities of public funds to force a restructuring of private mortgages is senseless when the market value of the mortgaged real estate is half the face value of those loans, and dropping fast.

Barack Obama has assumed the role of King Canute in the current farce, sitting on the foreshore with his hand raised, ordering the tide to stop. A pathetic and futile gesture, but one that he and all the other leaders must inevitably make. They have no other solutions.

“Tide, I command thee: turn back!”

There are a few possible positive aspects of the current mess. As the crisis matures, supra-national institutions will fail and become irrelevant before nation-states do. Individual nations will reclaim their authority and sovereignty in an attempt to take care of their own.

Here in the United States, in the face of new unfunded mandates, trillions of dollars of federal largesse with strings attached, and volumes of new federal regulations, the several States have suddenly recalled the Tenth Amendment and are invoking their own sovereignty. This is all to the good, because for the last sixty years or so the federal government has extended its effective reach by dangling money before the states and making them dance for it. As the money disappears, the dance will come to an end. Without a bottomless cash drawer, the federal government is a pathetic weakling, and most power will eventually devolve to the states.

Another possible spinoff of the coming financial collapse is that the problem of Islam will solve itself. One of the consequences of the depression is that the demand for oil has dropped dramatically, and the price will be low for years. Not only will the sheikhs lose much of their income, but many of them are heavily leveraged and live on the margin, with their assets tied up in the Western financial markets. Like everyone else, they will see most of their wealth disappear.

And, unlike many other countries, the oil-dependent states of the Middle East have nothing else to fall back on. When the oil money disappears, that’s it. The entire population—millions of people on the Arabian peninsula and in Iran—subsists on state oil revenues, directly or indirectly.

The effects of this are already becoming evident. Hundreds of thousands of guest-workers in Saudi Arabia and the emirates are being sent home to Malaysia, Indonesia, Nepal, Bangladesh, and the Philippines. These latter countries will thus experience the unfortunate secondary effects of the collapse of oil prices. Given that most of the rest of their economy depends on the manufacture of cheap consumer goods for the West, they will be in serious trouble.

If this process is severe and goes on long enough, rioting, civil insurrection, and revolution may well give way to epidemics and actual mass starvation all across the long crescent of Islam’s bloody borders, from Marrakech to Mindanao.

All of the above is pure speculation.

I’m a rank amateur when it comes to economics and finance. Over the past three months I have read and digested a huge volume of information in an attempt to understand the catastrophe that is unfolding in slow motion around us.

I don’t know if my prognostications are correct. Unfortunately, no one else can predict what’s going to happen, either. The current situation is unprecedented. It is inherently unstable, chaotic, and unpredictable. Don’t believe anyone who says he knows what will happen next year. No one does.

Preliminary indications are that the global economy has actually been a planet-wide Ponzi scheme since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Like any other Ponzi scheme, it depended on a constant infusion of new suckers. As long as the world’s population was expanding, and the efficiency of industrial production was increasing, the fiscal bubble could continue to inflate.

But the dream is over, and the bill is coming due. The bubble has popped. The scheme is collapsing. The entire finance system will soon become like 1997 Albania writ large.

When the fever has run its course, a new system will emerge. Eventually the market will reassert itself, and production and consumption will resume.

But how much trouble and sorrow lies ahead of us is hard to predict.

Given that the economy of the United States will take the biggest hit—and has the farthest to fall—the era of American hegemony will almost certainly come to an end within the next decade. On balance this will be a salutary thing for the rest of the world. Europe will learn to deal with Russia and Iran on its own. Third World dictatorships will have to extort protection money from a different client. The Japanese will rapidly discover the value of missile defense and a strong military. All the fires that have been prevented or contained by American military power will rage unchecked until their human fuel is fully consumed.

And America will persist in some form, perhaps in several pieces, or as a loose confederation that will warm the heart of Jefferson Davis’ ghost.

Or perhaps we will continue as a single nation, much poorer and unable to project power abroad, but ruled by a despotic central government wielding a citizens’ army of multicultural block wardens to keep the citizenry in line—a continent-wide Cuba from sea to shining sea.

Or perhaps some other currently unimaginable form of government and civil society will emerge.

The only thing that’s certain is that the system cannot continue for much longer in its present form. The laws of economics—which are nothing more than a mathematical model describing what must happen—tell us that a collapse of some sort is unavoidable.

You will know changes soon.

Either you accept a nigger Pope…

or burn in Hell eternally!

At Gates of Vienna, a fanatic commenter said:

As a Deacon, my number one duty and concern is for the human soul, to which I will post one last question to you: Cardinal Arinze (may God bless him and grant him 100 years) is from Nigeria and was very close to being Pope, were in not for the election of our blessed Pope Benedict. If he were elected would you have let him “govern” you in all spiritual matters?

If you would reject a Cardinal, Pope, Priest or ANY cleric who is orthodox in teaching and in a position of authority simply because you don’t like the color of his skin, then you are an anathema to toe One True and Holy church and may be condemning your immortal soul to the fires of hell.

Once again, I ask if this means anything to you.

Source: here

The Red Giant

In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there. —We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.

—Nietzsche



Excerpted from an entry that Conservative Swede posted in his blog a few years ago:

I’m an island. I do not belong anywhere. I’m questioning the meaning of my blogging. I’m questioning the moniker I have adapted. “Conservative” like whom? Like View from the Right? Like Paul Belien? Like Gates of Vienna? No, no, and no. And definitely not like Majority Rights or Jim Kalb. And of course not like neocons and paleocons.

We are witnessing the historical demise of Christianity. When a star dies, in its last phase it expands into a red giant, before it shrinks into a white dwarf. Liberalism is the red giant of Christianity. And just as a red giant is devoid of its core, it expands thousandfold while losing its substance and is about to die. The world I live in consists of Christians and liberals. It’s their world and I do not belong to them. I leave their limited wars, knee-jerk Islam apologism and World War II mythology to them. They are not about to change. On the contrary, they are continuously generating new problems with their way of acting.

There were certain sites, certain bloggers, even certain countries, that I had put hope in. But now it has become clear that they are all part of the same big train of lemmings. Bye bye! Denmark, nope. Brussels Journal, nope. View from the Right, nope. Gates of Vienna, nope. This is the way it goes in the world of liberals & Christians. It’s their world. I can do nothing but sit on the side and laugh at it. They are too stuck in their inner fears and hang-ups to be able to do anything useful. They will do what they are programmed to do: demise.

So what’s the future for people like me? Because even if I belong nowhere politically, I belong somewhere socially and ethnically. Well, the world is being homogenized. Tomorrow the whole world will be like the Third World. People like me, of European ethnicity, will have no home, no nation. We will live like the Jews as elites in other people’s nations (preferably a non-Muslim nation).

These people are just not prepared for a proper fight. They are too much driven by superstitious fear and emotions. And there is not exactly anyone else around.



The historical demise of Christianity

Excerpted from 2009
discussion threads
at Gates of Vienna:


I [Conservative Swede] have written: “People today live in a historyless now-bubble-world, and have forgotten about all previous such complete reversals [revaluation of meta-ethical values], many of which happened in the last century.” Therefore the widespread and deep sense of hopelessness, I forgot to add. It’s hard to conceptualize a situation outside of the bubble, or the bubble not being there, when living inside of the bubble. However, history provides us with numerous examples of such reversals, of bubbles bursting, and of course new bubbles being built (we are bubble mammals after all).

This is my happy message, my gospel. People just need to let go their precious beliefs and myths, these huggy teddy bears. When deeply invested in the core beliefs of the bubble, it becomes impossible to look outside of the bubble, to think of a world without the bubble, and everything looks utterly hopeless. Well, it’s not. On the contrary, the bubble will burst.

Commenter said:

As a student of human nature, surely you know that the only way to get someone to “let go” is to offer him a better belief system.

CS [Conservative Swede] said:

On the contrary. Study paradigm changes both in the history of science and in political history, and you’ll find that it’s not until the prevailing paradigm collapses that the reconstruction work of a new paradigm begins. It’s exactly the prevailing paradigm that stands in the way of the change! Surely intellectual work has always been done beforehand by single individuals, but it cannot reach the collective level until the prevailing paradigm has fallen and the revolution takes place.

Commenter said:

The West needs to regain its free mind and healthy skepticism.

CS said:

There are no myth-free societies. What we would see after a change won’t be a society of people with “free mind and healthy skepticism”. What we’ll see is a society where people are driven by new collective myths. The idea of a society of people with free minds is… just that: a myth.

Commenter said:

I don’t believe we will ever change, there’s no white horseman coming, no revolution, only death.

CS said:

You are illustrating here exactly what Larry Auster described: How, when looking at things from within our present belief system, a reversal looks impossible. But that’s not how things work in a human society. What will be met by death are the institutions upholding the current order and belief system: the institutions in Brussels, the United Nations, the dollar hegemony, America as the world police, NATO, etc. The mental bubble will burst, and change will happen, after quite an amount of blood, death, catastrophe and traumas, of course.

Many people, who are ideologically invested in the current paradigm instead of in their ethnic group, will see the fall of the Western Christian civilization as the end of the world; commit suicide etc. Instead, the fall of the Western Christian civilization should be celebrated. This is the paradigm that stands in the way of our saviour. This is the key knot in need to be untied. At this point no white knight is needed. But there will be a number of black and gray knights involved. But the motor behind it will be the collectively changed Zeitgeist, not any white horseman.

Commenter said:

Geert Wilders is a sort of white horseman, and if people changed over the last decades they might change again. Presently many people are reading Robert Spencer and Mark Steyn. The paradigm may shift again.

CS said:

Here I disagree. Wilders is no white horseman and paradigms just don’t change that easily. However, Wilders and Spencer are doing a great, and very important job, in greasing the machinery, to catalyze the process. Due to their honesty they are bringing up the inner contradictions of the current paradigm to the surface, helping it to gradually self-implode. In the way of their bravery they are indeed white horsemen. But they are not going to save us. Far from it. As I said: first things will have to go terribly wrong, then we can save ourselves.

People think that they can get anywhere with combining an anti-Islam position with hate, despise and fear of Germans, in accordance with the great mythological narrative since World War II that our current paradigm is built upon. They can’t. By their hate, despise and fear of Germans their feet are still firmly stuck in the mud of the current paradigm. And furthermore, hate of Germans is the blueprint for hate of white people in general in this prevailing mythology. So by continuing to hate/despise/fear Germans, the westerners continue to gravitate towards white guilt and self-hate. These myths strike people at the sub-conscious level, which makes them defenseless against this gravity. It’s not until the westerners thoroughly revise their view on World War II that a change of paradigms can take place. Another trauma is required for this to take place.

Commenter said:

But non-transferred hate toward the truly guilty is most healthful and natural.

CS said:

Indeed it is. If I’m trying to generalize I think especially people of Protestant background have a problem with this. Or rather, they cannot allow themselves to hate unless it’s approved from authorities or the collective. This means, the left hates what they are “supposed” to hate. The right however—as I pointed out already above when discussing Wilders—loathes the ways of the left and commit themselves to act morally correct, that is, in this case abstaining from hatred. As you said, hate is a most natural and useful force. As I said above, any struggle or war comes down to psychology: the will power to win is what makes the whole difference between victory and defeat. And hate makes people stay committed to their will power to win. The left uses this all the time, an also always win. So to summarize, the left uses hate, they are prepared to bend any moral rule for the “higher moral good” and descend into any low level of dirty tricks and brutality; they take over the institutions to control the course of the country even if they are not in power. The right on the other hand tries to play it fair, morally and in a non-hateful way. And therefore always loses.

Unlike how it is presented, the relation between left and right is not symmetrical. Instead the left is the norm, and the people to the left are the holy people of secular Christianity. The right is just dancing along, effectively not being much more than an alibi for the whole setup, dancing in circles around the left, who is the one setting up the direction of “progression”. Occasionally pulling the break, but never setting up a new general course. The direction of the course is built into the paradigm, and never fundamentally questioned by the right.

Another evidence for the asymmetry between left and right is how right-wingers fear and loathe to be associated with any person or organization even slightly to the right of themselves (they feel that this would totally undermine their reputation), while willing to make connections magnitudes further into the left. Such as appearing in left-wing media, which often makes these right-wingers hilarious, since they feel they have gotten a stamp of approval thereby; while they can be paralyzed by fear of the thought of being published in a right-wing magazine just slightly to the right of themselves.

Continuing on the theme of hate, America is seen as right-wing in the current political theater. However, historically America together with France has been the main force in pushing our civilization to the left.

After World War II European patriotism was seen as the root of the evil, which had to be held down. The only permitted patriotisms were American and Israeli. Britain and France got away with some, but after the Suez crisis in 1956 they were effectively out of the picture too. Now offensive military actions were only accepted from America and Israel.

In the 50s and the 60s America and Israel were celebrated as model countries of progressivism. European conservatism had been rooted out in the cultural revolution imposed by America in Western Europe. Adorno’s The F-Factor describes European conservatism as a psychological pathology related to fascism.

But the Europeans learned fast. First they learned to follow the American example and see America as the model country. The Europeans could pick this up fast since the ideas were rooted in the Christian gospels. But soon they learned that America didn’t live up to code of moral goodness that they had imposed on the Europeans. And left-wing anti-Americanism was born. And to be precise, even anti-Americanism wasn’t born in Europe but also imported from the US. The problem for America was that in their quest to end all “evil” empires, they had effectively become the big empire themselves, for example by inheriting the role of maintaining the Pax Britannica. Then they had to do all the sort of things they had taught the Europeans were wrong. The Europeans soon learned to beat the Americans in their own game, becoming the leading in progressivism and “holier than thou”. And curiously enough, thus America ended up being seen as right-wing. The original right-wing had been rooted out in a collaboration between America and the European socialists in the wake of World War II.

The turning point came by the end of the 60s—the Vietnam war and the Six-Days war. The image of America and Israel shifted, and they were no longer seen as the model countries of progressivism, but as “evil” right-wing countries.

We should remember that our progressivist paradigm (which is always going left) is based on Christian ethics. And Christian ethics means the inversion of values. So it’s the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil. In World War I and World War II America had defeated all the strong (and therefore evil) European empires. The job was completed in the Suez crisis in 1956 by turning against their former allies. But you can never win with Christian ethics, because now America became the strong one, and therefore the evil one. So now American and Israeli patriotism becomes highly questioned and opposed. But not based on restoring any other patriotism, but by going even deeper into deranged progressivism. Thus, in effect, American and Israeli patriotism are still the only permitted patriotisms. Surely now the holiest priests of our leftist paradigm condemn the actions of America and Israel. But in effect it is tolerated, while if any other (white) country acts militarily offensively it’s seen as a major global crisis (e.g. Serbia, Russia).

So this gives a background to why Wilders, Vlaams Belang, etc. have a pro-American and pro-Israeli profile, and even stress these patriotisms more than their own. So far I’m fine with that. Just because it has to be so. As I pointed out above: Wilders is exactly what he has to be (in this stage). But here comes the problem.

When the threat of Islam is added to the historical situation I gave above, there are westerners who wake up from their deranged progressivism. But they generally revert back to the 50s (myself I reverted to before World War I). In the face of the Islamic aggression their patriotism gets heightened. But this is a patriotism based on a narrative based on hate of Germany and Russia.

So when intensifying this American patriotism in order to build-up the necessary hate against Islam, the hate against Russia and Germany heightens simultaneously. There does not seem to be a way to slide this parameter up without this happening. NATO was after all built on the motto of “Keeping Russia out, Germany down, and America in.” And since this narrative in its previous step is based on de-legitimization of European patriotism in general, and how hate and demonization of Germans is the blueprint for white guilt and self-hatred, we have a more general problem here too.

Not all awakened people react like this. But even the people that don’t, they stay within the frames of the permitted patriotisms (as described for Wilders above), and therefore find no basis to effectively oppose the belligerent types, when they intensify their hate against Russia, Germans, etc. And for the reasons I described above these sort of strong voices come exclusively from America and Israel (no one else would be allowed according to the paradigm). And for the same reason, the people in the anti-Jihad network who do not descend into this sort of destructive hatred and belligerence, do not voice any strong objections against it, and mostly no objections at all. Europeans cannot speak like this, but instead we see for example Wilders aligning himself with these sort of strong American and Israeli patriotic voices.

My point is that the front line of the current stage of the anti-Jihad movement is therefore full of inner contradictions. This is why Wilders, even under the best conditions, can never be anything more than a Kerensky. A rule of Wilders or his kind will succumb from its inner contradictions. Nevertheless, I consider this a necessary step, as a way of lock-picking our current paradigm.

As I described above, France and Britain hold a slightly more privileged position in this setup, having been the allies of America in World War II—not being delegitimized until 1956. Thus under certain conditions they are allowed to operate in a very restrictive sphere of remnants of their former colonial empires. But of course only with approval from America. Falkland can be OK (if a list of requirements are fulfilled). But India would never be OK, obviously. France and Britain were once shining examples of Enlightenment progressivism. But when America emerged as the greatest power, no one could match her as the beacon of egalitarian progressivism. After all France and Britain had been colonial powers, so they just had to fade away. Consider that the superpower of the world (America) had once been a colony itself! There was no longer any legitimacy for France and Britain.

But nevertheless, due to the background described above, they are considered much more benevolent and not at all as dangerous as Russia and Germany. Thus we can find these small exceptions to the general picture, but it does not change the general picture. Britain and France started off as allies of America. They even set up NATO together. Many Brits still consider America as an ally, and NATO as something good for British interests. They are wrong of course.

Commenter said:

Russian military action is never, ever seen as acceptable. Not under any circumstances, no matter what.

CS said:

Well then imagine Germany doing that…

Baron: regarding what you wrote about hate I agree with what you say. There are two points to be made. And for the purpose of this let’s see hate as a tool:

(1) Is it sinful to use hate as a tool? No!

(2) Now to the practical side of it, which you covered. Is it always practical to use hate as a tool? No it’s not always practical. Typically it does not make sense to build up hate in a situation where you have nowhere to direct it. So in this sense the fire needs to be controlled. But on the other hand, once the conditions are right, and the matter is truly about survival, then it can be useful to use the hate full throttle. Because if your enemy is more passionate they will win. So for the purpose of that it is good to have clarified that hatred is not sinful.

This is the fundamental error by the right-wing. They truly believe that the left-wingers want to destroy our civilization, want to be dhimmified, etc. But this is not what the left-wing perceive themselves as doing. They see themselves as maximizing goodness. And we’re talking of Christian goodness here, ’cause the Left is all about Christian ethics. What the left-wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing and fulfilling it: what I call “The Finish of the West”.

Commenter said:

Many of the seemingly crazy excesses now on display are not so much a perversion of Western civilization as a fulfillment of it.

CS said:

And when I say “finish” above, there are a couple of layers to that word.

Commenter said:

So what we will have to concentrate on is the construction of a modern version of the monastery at Lindisfarne, a networked sanctuary where what is good and valuable can be stored and kept for use in a future time after the chaos is over—if indeed such an eventuality ever comes.

CS said:

This is a beautiful analogy. And precisely as I see the things. Only, of course, that I want to save the Vikings from Christianity, rather than the other way around. :-)

Commenter said:

…if indeed such an eventuality ever comes.

CS said:

Oh, about this I’m confident and positive, as I have already said. There’s surely no way to stop the chaos coming. But just as surely, from the ashes of the chaos, a fantastic renaissance will grow. We will prevail, severely hurt yes, but with an ironclad inspired spirit. I just hope the chaos will start soon enough, so that I will be able to live when the turnaround happens.

My conclusion is that we’ll have to revert far back in history in order to find something sustainable to build on, to cut off the rotten and infected areas. For some things a hundred years, for some a thousand years. It’s definitely not enough to revert the social revolution of the ’68.

Commenter said:

Part of the modern Liberal ideal is the foolish notion that we can simply abolish by fiat millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition.

CS said:

This is a very important sentence which conveys so very much, if we just examine it closely. Not only the liberals, but also most people (anti-liberals), who see and fear the fall of the liberal world order, have forgotten that these things cannot be erased.

But neither the rise nor the fall of liberalism can take away millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. This is what [my worldview] is based on, what Chechar refers to as my optimism. It’s just following the conservative principle you gave here. But unfortunately the effect of the current belief system is so strong even on anti-liberals, that they cannot see that.

So it’s the liberal layer (on top of evolution, culture, and traditions) that will get peeled off, together with those traditions that led to liberalism in the first place.

The fall of this liberal world order will hit us hard (together with the destruction that liberalism has already caused). But we won’t suddenly just disappear. And as long as we are around we have millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition on our side.

Even if there would be only 100 millions left of us, we are the best people in the history of mankind. As Huntington pointed out, we have always been superior in the ability to apply organized violence. As soon as the will power is there, we can achieve anything we please. We can rule any continent where we choose to live, as long as the liberal layer gets peeled off. And it’s bound to come off, since it’s just a cosmetic layer. The reason that it has not come off yet is that it has not yet become obvious to the collective mind that it has failed. But that is about to change.

Norse mythology is a much more useful mythological narrative than Christianity, which does not only mean adherence to universalist individualism and the importation of a foreign god (and in its final stages the importation of a lot of other immigrants), but also has a mythological narrative where the survival of our own people hold no significance whatsoever.

The only people that are guaranteed to survive until the end of days in Christianity are the Jews. Swedes, Italians etc., are of no significance whatsoever. We see all these tenets of Christianity manifested around us today: even in how the struggle for ethnic survival of the Jews is accepted within our current paradigm, while it is not accepted for the other people of our civilization. Each ethnic group needs her great mythological narrative, starting with the birth of her people and guaranteeing their existence until the end of times. Without such a narrative the dissolvement of the ethnic group eventually becomes self-fulfilling: there’s nothing holding it together.

We see this happening around us in the very now with eager work to dissolve our countries and ethnic groups. In Christianity the Germanic people cannot (as a people) have a relation with god, only the Jewish people has. Germanic (and other) people can only have a relation with god as individuals. People are directed by myths more than anything else, so with a narrative where your ethnic group is of no importance, it will eventually become self-fulfilling (i.e., the opposite effect of self-confidence as a group).

Commenter said:

In that case, I would be very interested to hear what you propose should be done to save western civilisation.

CS said:

And there is your assumption again: that the Western Christian civilization should be saved, that it can be reformed, be mended; while I’m assuming that the current order, the current belief system, will self-implode. And as the current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization, which has reached a dead end, this means the end of Western Christian civilization as such. Yes, we are seeing something like the fall of Rome before us.

I’ve been clear about this from the very beginning. For example, three days ago I wrote: “Likewise many people, who are ideologically invested in the current paradigm instead of in their ethnic group, will see the fall of the Western Christian civilization as the end of the world; commit suicide etc. But instead the fall of the Western Christian civilization should be celebrated. This is the paradigm that stands in the way of our saviour. This is the key knot in need to be untied.”

Yes: the Western Christian civilization is exactly the problem, and the problem is solved by it going away.

What we should hold on to are our ethnic groups and European civilization and culture in the deeper sense. Western Christian civilization is a novelty and now it failed. Western Christian civilization is just the tip of that iceberg. It’s just a way of politically organizing our peoples. We should not save this format, but save the matter.

The Western Christian civilization is what happened when Germanic people met Christianity. But nothing lasts forever. Quite as the Roman Empire it can be compared with a fruit, going through all the stages: bud, flower, incipient fruit, green fruit, ripe fruit, overripe fruit, rotten fruit. With this I’m saying: (i) indeed Western Christian civilization has meant many good things, and (ii) it’s all over now.

It is unsustainable for Germanic people to keep Christianity. It would indeed mean their death. And since the Western Christian civilization is all about Germanic people meeting Christianity, the necessary turnaround for Germanic people also means the definitive end of Western Christian civilization. Africans and Italians sticking to Christianity does not make a Western Christian civilization.

When I talk of Christianity I use it in the same sense as Huntington or Qutb. That is, it doesn’t matter those who claim to be atheists, they are equally much Christians in this perspective. In fact, you will find that they stick to Christian ethics even stronger than the nominal Christians: trying to be holier than thou, as if trying to get in line before the nominal Christians to the heaven they don’t believe in.

Medieval Catholicism was nicely mixed and balanced with Roman and Greek components. The explosive and revolutionary message of the gospels was kept secret from the general public. The Protestant Reformation changed that. Christianity became purified into its Hebrew component, and the explosive and revolutionary message of the gospels were set free. This purification was taken even further, and completed, by the Puritans and the Quakers that left across the Atlantic, to found America. And these are the people who rule our civilization today.

There are several reasons why Christianity leads to secularism in its latter phases. Let me get back to that if there is interest, since this is becoming very long as it is.

Secular Christianity has thrown out god and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity. (I have written much about that in my blog.) With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.

Thus the Western Christian civilization caused the population explosion in the Third World. It is entirely caused by the Western Christian civilization, since these Third World countries were completely unable to do this themselves. Christian ethics commands that every single human life should be saved if possible. Before, more than half of the children in Third World countries died. Now virtually all survive, and we have the population explosion.

What this will lead to is the following:

With the dollar collapse and the complete breakdown of our economical (and then political) world order, mass starvation will spread like a wildfire across the southern hemisphere. This since their population numbers are not supported by themselves, but entirely backed by us. It will all fall apart.

So the concrete effect of Christian ethics here is to make the number of people that will die in starvation and suffering as high as possible once it hits (we are speaking of billions thanks to Christian ethics). Only the devil himself could think out such a brutally cruel scheme, and Christian ethics of course, in which case it’s according to the idiom “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

But that’s not enough. This mass starvation, where we can expect something like 2/3 of the people dying in the Third World countries, will slash these societies into pieces, and they will meet a complete breakdown.

In the alternative scenario, where the Christian ethics would have kept its fingers away, these countries would have supported themselves: every year many children would have died at a pretty constant pace. But this is a stable phenomenon that does not at all threaten the stability of their societies. When the Western economical order falls apart, they would not be the least affected.

But Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. They cannot keep their fingers away. So they are dooming them to mass starvation in the billions and complete breakdowns of their societies. This is the concrete effect of Christian ethics.

At this point it wouldn’t help putting back god and Christ into the equation. Instead we need to leave Christian ethics.

I have already stated how Western Christian civilization = Germanic people + Christianity. I will now clarify why specifically Germanic people need to leave Christianity.

Look at the phenomenon of clan mentality around the world. In many places around the world it is strong, in Europe it is not. But even within Europe there are clear differences. Indeed we find clan mentality in Southern Europe, while there’s none of it in Northern Europe (among Germanic people).

There are historical reasons for this. In the cold north people lived far apart. Human contacts were few, and strangers were therefore treated with friendliness. This was the best survival strategy in this context. However, the Mediterranean area was crowded, and there was always competition about land and resources. The best survival strategy in such a context was to stick to your clan, in this tight competition.

The whole point of Christian ethics, when it works well, is to have a balancing effect on the morality of people. In the Mediterranean area it had a balancing effect on the natural clan mentality, leaving a good result. However, Germanic people, as described above, have a natural altruism. When combined with the unfettered Christian ethics of the latter stages of the Western Christian civilization, it creates an interference that goes completely out of bounds. The morality of Germanic people has reached a point where it has to be balanced back, or we will perish. To create this balance Germanic people have to leave Christian ethics. (Romance and Slavic people can keep Christianity. It’s not a matter of life or death for them.)

What we are witnessing in the present time is the great tragedy of Germanic people.

With the lack of clan mentality, we find that Germanic people are the ones that most faithfully turn their loyalty towards the nation. But due to the inherent universalism of Christianity, we see in the current incarnation of Western Christian civilization how nations are considered illegitimate and gradually being dissolved. The nationalist loyalty of the Germanic people becomes redirected to universalist loyalty; still lacking of clan mentality.

Germanic people do not use the power of their family to solve problems. They go to a higher level, the authorities. To use the power of your family to solve a problem is here considered a sin, we are supposed to abide to the law. In Italy or Spain people do use the power of their family to solve problems.

There is an abundance of stories in blogs from Northern Europe of kids who go through their whole school time being beaten up by Muslim on a weekly basis. The furthest the parents of these children would do is to bring up the problem with the authorities (and possibly having a “dialog” with the Muslim parents). Which of course will do nothing about it, since the belief system of the authorities doesn’t allow for it. And even so the parents never use the power of their family to deal with the problem. They are programmed to abide to the law and the order.

I cannot see this happening in Italy or Spain. There is a whole different mentality. There would be an outrage, and the whole family would be engaged in the matter. Mostly not going into mafia methods, but in some places yes.

Germanic people are simply wired the wrong way to being able to survive in a multiethnic context. Or to be exact: Germanic people adhering to Christian ethics are. We managed fine in the age of the great migrations and as Vikings.

Now we are entering a world of multiethnic societies at a planetary level. And the Germanic people adhering to Christian ethics are constitutionally unfit for this. Unless we leave Christian ethics, we will perish. Or rather, those who cling to Christian ethics will perish, according to the law of the survival of the fittest. But enough Germanic people will leave Christian ethics, for Germanics to survive as a people.

Leaving Christian ethics has nothing to do with becoming secular (as I explained above). To the contrary, it makes it worse! What is needed is to introduce another great mythological narrative into the minds of the Germanic people. This is the only way to replace the moral grammar of Christianity. Something with roots in our long history. This must be done by political means, by a regime with such a focus. But given that focus, it’s not such a big thing to achieve. There are numerous historical examples of how to do it. And it only takes a generation to make the change (even less). And in a dire situation, after a major trauma, it will be even easier.

“…to replace the moral grammar of Christianity” (cited above). And thus we are speaking of the deepest level of a paradigm change here. Our very concept of good and bad, our moral grammar, has to be transformed.

In sort of perspective, even the apparent moral tautology “We should strive for what is good, and fight against what is bad” no longer holds true.

Our very concepts of good and bad is what has to be transformed. It’s hard to think outside of this box. But that’s the whole point of the word paradigm. It’s a box that it is virtually impossible for people in general to think outside of. I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a deeper understanding of the concept paradigm. It’s truly a mental box we are trapped within. In the same way we are about to witness the transformation of our whole grammar of morality, quite as our grammar of morality was different before the Age of Christianity.

When the paradigm shifted from Newton to Einstein, it didn’t mean the end of science. I just meant the end of a scientific era, which became replaced with a new one. In the same manner the fall of the Western Christian civilization does not mean the end of European civilization in the larger sense. It just means a new era. Quite as when the Roman-Greek civilization was replaced by the Western Christian.

Watching Eagle also contributed, further above, in completing this picture for us in describing how America “was the champion of human fertility rates for nearly 250 years. The fertility rates of this nation soared like a fighter jet with full afterburners, from the Pilgrims to the Civil War.”

Commenter said:

The latter, being literalists, conceived of themselves as the direct successors to the ancient Israelites who had been given divine authority to kill the Caananites and establish Israel. The Protestants looked on themselves as the New Israelites and the Native Americans as the New Caananites to be wiped out.

CS said:

It’s sad indeed that Christians have to imagine themselves as Israelites in order to become truly good fighters, which implies effective total war, and the psychology of will power to win at any cost.

Once again it is the same pattern of Christianity that I discussed above, when discussing permitted patriotisms. Our own ethnicity is utterly insignificant in the Christian narrative, while the Jewish ethnicity holds a pivotal position. So Christians have to use this substitute ethnicity to find true confidence and strength.

Good total war has been waged by Christians when imagining themselves as Israelites aiming for building the New Jerusalem. They can also fight limited war in the name of the universal good, or for the sake of Israel (for example the crusades).

But war by Christians in the name of their own ethnicity is considered illegitimate; well, not even of importance.

In Christianity we cannot be ourselves. We have to pretend we are someone else.

I still think the Russians can use their Christianity in an efficient way, just since their Christianity hasn’t been washed through the Enlightenment, quite as the American pilgrims and the Boers, discussed above, hadn’t. Nor Spain of La Reconquista, of course. But we can stay assured that the Christians having been washed through the Enlightenment—and then the Industrial Age, liberalism and secularism—won’t be able to see themselves as Israelites. So this strength is not coming back within the context of Christianity.

Why not be ourselves instead? Replace the current mythological narrative with one where we are ourselves. After all, that is the simple truth: We are ourselves. Christianity is based on deception and distortion of reality.

Another way to go, for those unable to imagine themselves as the Israelites, is at least to make Christianity universal instead of Jewish. Such as we saw recently here at GoV in how many people in Poland for example do not see Jesus as Jewish.

There’s no way to win within the frames of Christianity…

Commenter said:

I agree that Christianity is at the end of its tether and is unable to assert itself without breaking its own value system. Probably something similar must have happened in India during Muslim invasions, where Buddhist ideas of compassion and Karma (you get what you deserve, because you produced the cause) left them completely defenseless. They indeed had no narrative that would support their collective existence.

CS said:

This is an excellent historical comparison. An universalist religion of goodness is replaced with the original national gods, when faced with a threat of existential magnitude.

Commenter said:

Altogether, CS, yours is the most complete argument for the death of Christianity I can imagine, certainly more complete than what Nietzsche has ever written.

CS said:

Thanks, that’s a very nice thing to say. Of course, I had an unfair advantage, since I could read Nietzsche, but he couldn’t read me.

Commenter said:

I am always impressed by the fact that the further North you go in Europe, where people are more Germanic, the more harmonious mastery of mind over nature you can see.

CS said:

Yes, we have focused on fighting nature instead of each other. All due to our historical situation. If we didn’t fight nature we died. If we hadn’t isolated our house and stored up well for the winter we died. Out of this a special kind of cooperation between people grew. A traditionalist form of egalitarianism, which apart from Sweden and Norway we only find in America (this is an interesting topic in itself, but no time for that now). However, if you put unfettered Christian ethics on top of that…

Commenter said:

Corruption is almost non-existent [in Scandinavia], which I think is quite a feat!

CS said:

Implied by the lack of clan mentality. But in our current habitat this mentality is exactly what is killing us.

A necessary condition for such a Germanic project—and for the renaissance of Europe altogether!—is the return of Germany. Germany today is the planetary bully victim, bound and caged in many layers of chains and bars. Not permitted to show even a single shred of national self-confidence. We won’t see that until American troops have left Germany, and the whole NATO regime has been reversed. But it will come. Rest assured.

Above is the first step, and, let’s say, how far I think we’ll come in this century.

For the beginning of the next century, we will be in a situation with China as the great power. There will also be competition with Russia. Probably China will be first in occupying the oil fields around the Persian Gulf, but we will be competing with them about it.

America together with France and Britain will be utterly discredited, seen as the guilty ones for the greatest treason in the history of mankind against their own people (as Fjordman put it); while Germany was completely innocent in this, and will hold the morally superior position.

France might no longer exist, having first been overrun by Muslims, and then reconquered by Germanic people.

The United States will no longer exist. But the Confederation of the Northern US States will be a natural ally to the Germanics.

Maybe there will be something as a Germanic empire at this point. Or maybe even two, one German speaking and one English speaking. But I’m not as sure about the English speaking one (I’m not saying people won’t speak English, only that there might not be a separate empire with English as the official language).

I’m sure we will be able to interact well with both China and Russia. Within the context of power balance, like in the good old days before Woodrow Wilson’s idiotic idea of an organized world peace.

Commenter said:

But you have to be very optimistic to believe that the current European Zeitgeist will do an 180º turn.

CS said:

In fact, 180º turns are very common. You mention the failure of Hitler’s Nazism. Well, after World War II the mythological narrative of the Western Christian civilization mandated doing everything 180º opposite to Nazism. Things that had been the most natural, such as European nationalism, was turned around 180º. And this is the derangement syndrome we now suffer severely under. Once this American/Anglo/French totalitarian horror show has crash landed, I can assure you a 180º turn away from their position. Another example is the French Revolution, which was a 180º turn—even 180 degrees away from normal sanity and common sense.

Will American troops reside in Germany forever? No. When it comes to the imminent fall of the current order, there are too many factors in motion at the same time that each alone has the potential of making it fall: dollar collapse, ethnic civil war, Iranian nukes, weak and paralyzed leadership.

Commenter said:

Larry Auster, the subject of this thread, is bolder in realizing this than those in other counter-jihad, conservative websites.

CS said:

While Auster is more insightful than the most, he’s still stuck on mending the Western Christian civilization. For him Christianity is a constant that he is unable to reflect about. His blog is good for following the complete failure of American conservatism. And also for racial issues (i.e. the failure of the American way of dealing with racial issues). The rest is not very useful, and he believes in the strangest things, for example astrology. His position on Islam is also too weak. Quite as the Catholic Church he’s caught in the Abrahamic trap. And he’s too cross-eyed about “liberalism” to see things clearly.

I find Germanic people boring and square, but sort of brilliant (history clearly shows that). After about a decade out in the cold, I have once again taken Germanic people to my heart because I can see their great tragedy. I think I can see their dilemma and how to solve it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for Poles, Spaniards and Celts to take an interest in this for the political stability it would give to all of Europe, once the current order falls. Without it there would be a huge power vacuum.

Who would expand into that? Russia, China, Islam? Or first Islam, then Russia, and finally China? That’s the good thing with the day the American troops leave Germany, because at that time the Germanic European will be forced to immediately build a strong military power. And you could imagine how many of the good things that we have discussed here would be catalyzed by that.

When I say that I want Christian ethics to go away, it’s not because I want to see a 180 degree turn away from it. Instead it is Christianity that ended up in steep imbalance. What I want to do is to balance things back. So what I have suggested is:

1) A new great mythological narrative where our own ethnic group is given the pivotal position; 2) A constitution where citizenship is reserved for people of our ethnic group. 3) Alien ethnic groups, typically from the Third World, that do not identify with our ethnic group, will have to be removed one way or the other.

Auster might sound strong at first glance, but upon closer examination he’s not. He’s still stuck in the liberal reservations stemming from Enlightenment thinking (yes, our current belief system). He wants to build his solution on America and Christianity. He’s still into saving and mending the Western Christian civilization. Accordingly, he’s still more worried about how we view ourselves according to the prevailing (and self-defeating) moral grammar, rather than dealing with real problems in a proper way. If Auster is the best America can produce, it’s definitely the end of America. It’ll be China that deals with it.

Commenter said:

Germany might be the Aragorn indeed.

CS said:

Have you been reading my blog? :-) My take on “Lord of the Rings” is there.

Commenter said:

And I am just a silly hobbit.

CS said:

I’m just a silly hobbit too. But remember how the hobbits held a pivotal position in that book.

I think it is clear that the people won’t turn away from the current belief system with less than a major catastrophe.

But this time the catastrophe is not something as benign as a “Western civil war”, but something of a higher magnitude, and of real external threats (which we are not the least prepared for). If we had only been facing something as harmless as World War I or World War II, I wouldn’t have been speaking of the end of the Western Christian civilization. If there only had been two strong sides of the West fighting each other to death, we wouldn’t have been facing this discontinuity of our civilization.

But now it is our very belief system that makes us unable to fight and defend our civilization. And the threat is external, and when we lose, it means this discontinuity. Losing here means losing our dominant position, not that everything is lost.

Our current empire will fall, that is, America, and not to another Western empire as before—since this time there is no one standing in line—but to external forces.

The reason that I welcome this is that I see it as inevitable. I cannot wait to come out on the other side and once again have a thriving culture with all the achievements that you have mentioned and also cherish: freedom, art, science, etc. Without anything to struggle for, such achievements will not be made. However, if we do not meet a major catastrophe within the next twenty years, we will be silently walking into our demographic eclipse, something that could indeed mean the end European civilization and the values that you have talked about.

The demographic forces in motion are so great, yes exponential. Not so much our declining birth rates, but the population explosion in the Third World that we are causing and the mass immigration and demographic Jihad in our own lands.

If this process continues we will end up in diaspora as the Jews. And with white people as a mere 2-3% of the world’s population and without our own homeland, that’s indeed the end of European civilization altogether, and we can say goodbye to the manifestation of all these values that you and I cherish.

It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes (population explosion etc.). So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. If it would continue a few decades more it will mean the definitive goodnight for all of us.

So to summarize: When I speak of civilization as in the Western Christian civilization, I speak of a concrete manifestation, an empire. And when I speak of civilization as in European civilization, I speak of the existence and self-government of white people, and the values and life style that is integral in our beings. But now we have come to a point where the former is the greatest threat to the latter.

In Aristotelian terms European civilization is the matter to the Western Christian civilization, which is the form. That is, white people is the matter for the current Western Christian “empire”. But now the form is suffocating the matter.

Commenter said:

“It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes.”

Why do you say this? Wasn’t everything relatively OK up to the 1950s, before the radical feminists almost took away our highest divine right from us: women? If lots of women would still be with us at home having lots of beautiful kids, as the Pope likes, the present problem wouldn’t exist, would it? Doesn’t the sexual revolution is to blame for the demographic winter? And isn’t Islamization of the West a mere by-product of our dwarfing ethnicity? If so why do you blame Western Christian civilization? Rome fell precisely because infanticide (the abortion of classical times) and contraception was practiced massively since the times of Julius Caesar. However, since Constantine and Theodosius the Church made enormous efforts to stop infanticide.

I agree that a major catastrophe is needed. That’s why, as I have iterated elsewhere, every morning I wake up with yearning dreams of mushroom clouds above Western cities to wake me up—and waking up the West. But couldn’t we reject the ’60s revolution without America necessary falling?

Yes: I know you want to delve deeper into the root cause. But I still think that solid arguments based on demographic winter show us that the West took a really wrong turn in the middle 1960s. In mean, the West was still healthy the year in which I was born! (maybe because you were born after that you haven’t seen the healthy West with your own eyes). We tried to trick the god Eros through contraception and the liberation of women. We are suffering now for having messed with the laws of Nature. Our present problems with a revived Islam are Venus’ revenge.

Curious, eh, that I am not a Christian—like Tannhäuser I look for the grotto of Venus—yet I admire conservative Protestants and Catholics on this issue?

CS said:

You need to read more carefully, because you missed my point. I repeat what I said:

The demographic forces in motion are so great, yes exponential. Not so much our declining birth rates, but the population explosion in the Third World that we are causing and the mass immigration and demographic Jihad in our own lands. It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes.

Our declining birth rates have a slow effect in comparison with the exponential growth that the population explosion and demographic Jihad means.

And it’s exactly because of Christian ethics that people, like for example you, entirely look at our own birth rates (narrowly blaming feminism etc.), instead of focusing on the much bigger and alarming problem caused by us: the population explosion in the Third World.

For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, it causes the population explosion in the world. It’s a deeply held doctrine within Christian ethics that every single human life across the planet must be saved if possible. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet. But the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only for us but also for them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.

Wasn’t everything relatively OK up to the 1950s?

Sure it was. But the better our lives got, the more we destroyed, and the faster we destroyed it. It was exactly in the ’50s that this problem started. In the ’50s people of European descent was 30% of this planet, today we are just a little more than 10%. Not by us decreasing (in fact we are more than in the ’50s) but by the rest of the planet exploding in numbers, from 3 to 7 billion people—all caused by us.

The population of Africa is four and a half times higher than in 1950. And the population in Asia almost three times higher.

As I have already explained: With a highly developed industrial society, the Western people got a huge surplus of resources, and much more time at their hands. Since Christian ethics mandates what it does, they have since went around the world to save every single little life that they could: using Western medicine, modern fertilizers, GMO crops, and all other means possible, in order to keep as many alive as possible. Thus the population explosion.

This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity.

But it took all these centuries until we had an industrialized society that made it possible to enact. And because of that Christian ethics mandated that we caused this Third World population explosion. Something that could never have achieved themselves, which makes our deed so deeply irresponsible in so many ways, just because it’s artificial. Which means (i) they are not adapting their life-style accordingly but continue and continue to explode in numbers, and (ii) they are completely depending on us, which means their societies will totally break apart once our economic world order collapses.

That means that we will have to remove the industrial society, if we want to keep Christian ethics. Think over which one you appreciate the most.

But couldn’t we reject the ’60s revolution without America necessary falling?… the West took a really wrong turn in the middle 1960s.

No, this is not a matter of reverting the ’60s revolution. It goes far deeper than that. You know, the ’60s revolution wasn’t brought to us by extraterrestrials. There is an internal logic to our civilization, and its ideals, that led to that. It wasn’t an accident. Start looking at the French Revolution.

In general your answer is about rejecting the ’60s and going back to older Christian values, rejecting for example abortion and contraception. But this is just a stronger version of the Christian dogma to save every single human life possible. If anything it would just make the Third World population explosion worse! The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form. And if you bring in more deeply Christian people, it will only make it worse.

Commenter said:

When I studied a thick biology text at college, the photo of a Western doctor in the book caught my attention. He was vaccinating dozens upon dozens of black children in Africa!

Instantly I harbored the thought to drop out. How on Earth would a sane person do that, I told myself silently? That deranged altruism was, to my heart, like an industrial factory that produced hundreds of thousands of poor people, like a clon army: future adults who’d have a miserable life anyway. “How am I studying a hard science when the values of mankind are so, er, psychotic,” continued my soliloquy.

Of course, it’s impossible that the liberal mentality understands the mind of a post-Christian individual.

CS said:

First the dollar bubble will burst, and soon after the population explosion bubble. At this point people will see that Christian ethics caused this whole thing, and it will be utterly discredited.

This narrow-minded dogma of saving every possible life, will instead have caused more death and suffering than if Christian ethics hadn’t meddled with the situation in the first place. It’s like a plan the devil had thought out. To give birth to billions of people that could then be killed in one single blow in mass starvation.

What this Christian dogma hasn’t taken in consideration is that each society needs to be self-dependent. Because sooner or later there comes hard times. And if we have made them utterly dependent of us, what they will face then is death, since they cannot support themselves.

So what this Christian dogma will have caused is the death of societies. So much simultaneous death will kill also the societies. This would never have happened if this Christian dogma hadn’t entered the picture in the first place. A constant degree of child deaths, while being self-dependent in the traditional way, would have been the best thing for these societies. And wouldn’t have hurt them; and neither have hurt us.

I think that once it has happened, people will see this point clearly, and change their ways.

“Feed the world” beats saving the resources of our planet (i.e. actually saving the planet), according to the moral grammar of our current belief system. Quite as multiculturalism and Islamophilia beats for example feminism (as they say: “Race beats gender”). Our moral grammar is full of such hierarchies, from which the priorities are derived, once the objectives end up in conflict with each other. To save every single possible human life is one of our deepest dogmas. But try to discuss overpopulation with these anti-CO2 freaks (i.e. 90% of the Westerners). Even when believing in their theory about “global warming by human CO2” it would be clear that this problem would be strongly connected to overpopulation. But to address that as a problem is an utter taboo for these people.

And just a general note: People here at Gates of Vienna focus on the immigration problem. But mass immigration is just the local projection of this much larger and more fundamental problem of which I’m talking of here, that is, the planetary population explosion and our attitudes towards it (which also caused it). It won’t help to address the immigration problem without addressing this global problem. That is, it won’t help to be a lonely, purely Polish, if surrounded by Arabs, Pakistanis and Africans all along the border.

What is happening across the world is the large scale version of what is happening within our countries. Our relative numbers are diminishing by theirs increasing exponentially, in both cases.

Things will not be able to turn around until the current belief system breaks apart, and makes a 180 degree turn. The main thing we can do today is to thoroughly prepare for that moment. These preparations also help protecting ourselves from violence and hardships in any sort of context. So no matter what future scenario one envisions, I’d say that the breakdown of the current belief system is not that far away.

I’d give it around a decade.

Fjordman, “the best of us” or a master of taqiya?




Fjordman’s dad:
the source of Fjordie’s genes
and loyalties…






I like boasting in the internet about my psychological profiles of some bloggers. But in the case of Fjordman, who has been recently outed as Peder Jensen, it seems that I failed miserably.

According to several sites that have reproduced the physiognomy of Fjordman’s father, who looks like an Ashkenazi Jew, it now seems that Fjordman deceived all of us by making us believe that he was of pure Scandinavian ancestry. If Fjordman’s Jewishness is corroborated in the future, “Hyperborean Talmudist” would have been a more appropriate penname than the one that the Norwegian Peder Jensen chose since he began his blogging career in 2005. A blogger commented:

You would expect a name like Fjordman to be used by a true Viking. I have noticed on French internet political forums that commenters who pose as Frenchmen while defending the Tel Aviv point of view usually go under historical names such as Clovis, Charlemagne, Viking, Gaulois, Vercingetorix… At least, Fjordman is a Norwegian citizen. It would have been funny to find out that he actually lived in Tel Aviv.

Jews have been the main competitors of Whites in the last couple of centuries, which explains why they have had a history of crypsis or passing as gentiles: for example, by changing their first and last names, while in fact they maintain their Jewish identity and loyalty toward their tribe, even the most secularized Jews.

What would happen if a more mainstream source confirms that Peder Jensen is indeed Jewish on his father’s side (I am not talking of being considered Jew by his local synagogue but of his ultimate loyalty)? I believe that Fjordman/Jensen would pass to history as a master of taqiya who bamboozled even his closest friends in the counter-jihad movement.

A few days ago Ned May, better known for his penname of “Baron Bodissey,” wrote a eulogy to Fjordman of which I will quote a couple of sentences:

Fjordman began posting essays at Gates of Vienna in the spring of 2006. I first met him in person about a year later during my trip to Copenhagen. We have encountered each other again over the years during some of my visits to Europe. In the process we became good friends, and remained in correspondence until he made his momentous decision the other day to visit the police…

For the record: Fjordman is the best of us [bold in the original]. He is not just a brilliant scholar and a fine writer, but also the most decent, gentle, and humane person I have ever met. He is a man of utmost integrity, and it shines through in his dealings with others as well as in the millions of words he has written.

A man of utmost integrity? Really? Fjordman announced that, because he wanted to stonewall all discussion on the Jewish Question with people like me at the Baron’s Gates of Vienna, he asked the Baron to close comments on every future essay authored by Fjordie. In the thread of that bizarre announcement the “Baron” commented:

Some of them have even floated the theory that Fjordman himself is a Jew… The Jew-obsessed White Nationalists believe Fjordman is at best a crypto-Jew… Now do you see how absurd your [Cumpa—a commenter who disliked the closing of the comments] preoccupation is, given the above circumstances?

Of course: nationalists are no more “obsessed” with Jews than counter-jihadists are “obsessed” with Muslims. The grim fact is that both, Muslims and Jews, are undermining Western civilization from within. However, the Baron’s words can only mean that, despite his close friendship with Fjordman, Fjordie concealed a vital piece of biographical info from him: his Jewishness!

Vital, because as those who have read The Culture of Critique appreciate, the Jewish intellectual movements that have hurt Western interests have had the nasty little habit of using a gentile face as the perfect PR for an unsuspecting public. Hadn’t the “Baron” Ned May or even myself been so trusting with the Jews we would have paid attention to warnings such as this one last year:

I conclude that Fjordman may not himself be a Norwegian as he claims but rather just another crypto-Jew hiding under a pseudonym that belies his true identity.

Again, we need independent confirmation besides his dad’s pic. But for the moment it is worth citing what other nationalists are starting to write after Fjordman was outed as Peder Jensen. In Raider of Arks, a recently opened blog, Svigor wrote (TBFKA = “the blogger formerly known as”):

This is why I don’t trust people like Jensen, the blogger formerly known as Fjordman… Because they turn out to be f[ucking] liars (if memory serves, TBFKA Fjordman either denied Ashkenazi ancestry, or avoided the question), or cowards, or both… I don’t usually go in for accusing guys like TBFKA Fjordman of being Ashkenazis, for various reasons, but in this case the J’Accuse folks seem to have been right. They’ll definitely be making hay out of this one for years to come.

Contrast Svigor’s J’Accuse with the Baron’s eulogy of Fjordman as “the most decent, gentle, and humane person I have ever met.” In the Raider of Arks thread I commented:

In the past I had banged my head trying to figure out why on earth wasn’t Fjordman willing to advance even a single argument defending his philo-Semitism when challenged. It made no sense!

In various blogs Fjordie never, ever entered the arena on the Jewish Question (JQ). He simply dismissed the subject. Or, like Larry Auster, he merely casted aspersions and attempted to silence those who dared to bring up any aspect of the JQ. In Raider of Arks Svigor replied:

That’s what I was getting at about how to suss them out.

Why is it so important to suss non-gentiles out? Fjordman for one has authored dozens of influential in-depth essays where he ignores the JQ en bloc—an inexplicable phenomenon when we were under the assumption that he was a true Viking. At the same time Fjordman has claimed that “the ‘Jewish threat’ in the 1930s was entirely fictional, whereas the ‘Islamic threat’ now is very real” (“Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War,” Brussels Journal, 28 March 2006, reprinted in Fjordie’s book Defeating Eurabia).

Of course, exactly the reverse is true: Jews have caused infinitely more havoc to the West than Muslims in contemporary times, as any knowledgeable person of the JQ knows (see e.g. my collection of blog entries here and here).

This can only mean that the counter-jihadists at Gates of Vienna (GoV) have distorted their minds to see the colors of life as a photographic negative. For instance, a Swedish GoVer friend of Fjordman—another half-Jew?—has labeled nationalists who, in good faith, want to discuss the JQ at GoV as “defecating dogs” (cf. here) when exactly the reverse is true. In the aftermath of the outing of Fjordman, Scott said:

Attacking multiculturalism without attacking Jewish power is like attacking shit on the floor while ignoring the incontinent dog.

Scott has thus revealed into a positive the GoVer’s photographic negative. Attacking Jewish power is necessary because we cannot ignore the role of several Jewish associations in the opening of the gates for massive, non-Aryan immigration into Western countries, especially the United States—precisely what I said at GoV that infuriated Fjordman to the point of requesting the closing of all comments in his future essays.

Half-Jew Takuan Seiyo had done exactly the same thing with his essays at the Brussels Journal: closing his threads when challanged about the JQ.

What should gentiles do with such Jewish arrogance in the counter-jihad movement? Lindsay Wheeler nailed it at Age of Treason:

Baron Bodissey with his blind obsession with things Israel is just a deceived old fool. Steve Sailor is a man without courage. Truth requires Manliness. And the Roman Catholic Church has the “Fear of the Jews.” Without the suppression of the Jews, there is going to be no redress. Jews are hopelessly and intrinsically infected with Messianism. It can’t be helped… I want all to note all these Jews, Lawrence Auster, David Horowitz, Fjordman, et al, are all fomenting “anti-Jihad,” talking about being anti-Muslim. Aren’t Muslims a Semitic people? If there is consistency, wouldn’t Europeans be against all Semites? Why allow one group to reign and run all over free and restrict another? Does that make sense? If one is to be anti-Muslim, one must also be anti-Juden.

The Jews have to be suppressed if we are going to save our culture. Being anti-Jihad (whatever that means), but defending and upholding the freedom of the Jews, is hypocritical. We are being played. We are supposed to act like attack dogs by our Jewish handlers. Fjordman has been outed as one. We have hundreds more.

But the sad truth is that gentile counter-jihadists like the “Baron” Ned May, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders will continue to adore their beloved Fjordie.

All is about valor and honesty

The article “The Jews and White Nationalism” republished on October 4, 2009 at The Occidental Quarterly Online when it was under the watch of Greg Johnson opens with the sentence:

Surfing the blogosphere, I stumbled upon The West’s Darkest Hour, a blog written by a TOQ Online reader and Lawrence Auster fan who has some concerns about the presence of anti-Semitism in the White Nationalist movement. Like Tanstaafl, it appears that Chechar learned of us through his involvement in the anti-Jihad movement. In his previous post about White Nationalism, Chechar described his odyssey from liberalism to spectator of the racialist underworld as being like awakening from “The Matrix.” Each revelation is the tip of a much larger iceberg.

The next year after the article was published I deleted the two above-linked articles because they spoke of a stage when I still held politically correct views about the Jews and Judaism. In this article I will briefly recount how after a series of revelations I finally woke up.

In an unpublished work that consumed a decade of my life, Hojas Susurrantes (Whispering Leaves), I recount how I grew up in a traditional family and how I was relatively well treated in my childhood. Alas, both of my parents started to abuse me and my sisters when we reached adolescence.

Since in those times nobody talked about child abuse or was willing to listen, my sisters and I grew up carrying over ourselves massive doses of unprocessed pain. In fact, my Hojas is a sort of mourning to deal with the pain caused by our parents’ betrayal and the society’s deafness toward the calls for help coming from the minor that I was. The mourning I endured since my late teens and throughout my twenties allowed me to see through the society’s denials. And it was precisely the long mourning and the consequent soul-building what allowed me, a year ago, to see the stark realities of the Jewish question.

Perhaps only those whose souls have been ploughed through pain could understand what do I mean. In the chapter “The Soul and the Barbed Wire” of The Gulag Archipelago Solzhenitsyn wrote insightful passages about how the human soul rotting in solitary confinement finds salvation through a metamorphosis that allowed him to turn the abyssal pain into wisdom. Like so many abused children and teenagers, the barbed wires of the Gulag islands drove many Russians mad. Solzhenitsyn managed to escape psychosis through soul-building as his defense mechanism. This is not easy. Not easy at all. But every time I read those Gulag pages I see myself through all those years in the self-imposed confinement of my study to find out how on Earth could such tragedy befell upon my beloved family. However, what Solzhenitsyn calls the ascent of the soul is such an enormous subject—wasn’t it Voltaire who said that man could know the universe but that it would need eternity to learn something about his soul?—that I will leave it like that.

* * *

Fleeing from Zapatero’s degenerate Spain, on September 11, 2009 I printed and ring-bind twenty-five articles of The Occidental Quarterly. One of the first articles that I started to read crossing over the Atlantic, “The Seven Pillars of White Nationalism,” fascinated me, especially the author’s stance about how “National Socialism might save us.” I had never read anything like that in a serious journal. The author’s views seemed extreme to me; I stopped reading the article, and tried to get some sleep in the plane.

The following days, weeks and months the whole business of White Nationalism struck me as extremely engrossing. Despite of what I then perceived as a flaw in the movement, anti-Semitism, I found myself discovering that the matrix in which I was previously sleeping was far deeper and alienating than what I previously thought. So alienated from reality I was that it may be said that in the last fifteen years I have been awakening from a series of different though inter-chained matrixes, with “each revelation as the tip of a much larger iceberg,” until reaching the real awaking point.

In 1995, after a long process of digesting the literature of the skeptics of the paranormal, I gave up my old belief in psycho-kinesis: the subject of the first entry of my blog. (Since my late teens and twenties I had gone astray in New Age magical thinking precisely because it was my flawed defense mechanism during my dark night of the soul—a night in which I quixotically strove to heal the family wounds through paranormality.) Alongside with my awakening from para-psychological beliefs, in my thirties Octavio Paz’s essays debunked in my mind much, though not all, of the ideologies of the Spanish-speaking Left. His many critiques in Vuelta represented a fresh waking up from the dogmas I had been taught in High School.

But those awakenings were transformations allowed within the matrix system in which I still mentally inhabited, as was my next awakening.

Closely related to child abuse are the mental health professions that during intergenerational conflicts always side the parents, and therefore, the perpetrators of the abuse at home. For example, on the parents’ behalf some psychiatrists prescribe psychiatric drugs to rebellious, albeit sane, children, especially males. It was not until a 1998-1999 mental health course at the Open University of Manchester that I discovered the most important books of the main critics of psychiatry and psychoanalysis. I awoke to the fact that such professions function like a political pseudoscience to enforce the will of abusive parents, which moved me to write down those findings in my native language.

What precipitated that awakening was the footnoted information that I collected still within the fringes of the university system. Then in 2002 I discovered the work of Swiss psychologist Alice Miller, who unlike the previous critics of the mental health professions is a real taboo in the academia. Only thanks to her I discovered that the psychic toll of parental abuse on children is a forbidden issue in all societies (I write about this in the third book of my Hojas).

But that was not all. In 2006 another non-academic author surprised me. Lloyd deMause answered my email questions about child abuse in the Ancient World and advised me to read a couple of chapters of one his major works.

I was impressed. The discovery of deMause’s psychohistory widened the vision I had previously learnt in Miller’s works. After assimilating psychohistory I found myself with a meta-perspective that comprised child abuse studies from early civilizations to modern man. The “unified field” provided by my inward soul-searching process thanks to Miller, and the outward historical research provided by deMause, made me feel I had an unrivalled point of view to see the tragedy of my family in particular and of Homo sapiens in general.

I was deluded, if we take into account that psychology is not unrelated to sociology and that an authentic free press only started with the advent of the Internet.

By the end of September of 2008 I discovered the blogosphere; watched some online documentaries about the Islamization of Europe, and learnt how the prolific Muslims may overrun Western civilization by the end of the century. Originally skeptical about these apparently preposterous claims, in Madrid I purchased a translated copy of Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept. By the end of 2008 I was still a liberal and could only read fairly liberal stuff. Since the family that destroyed my life are very traditional Catholics, conservatives had been anathema thoroughout my intellectual life. Only after Bawer convinced me that there was indeed a demographic problem in Europe I dared to purchase English-Spanish translated copies of both Oriana Fallaci’s trilogy on Islamization and Robert Spencer’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Spencer is only a scholar on Islam. But it took me a Sabbatical year to digest the material from the more intellectually-inclined counter-jihad blogsites in English.

The extensive reading on these broader sociopolitical issues not only shattered my former liberal worldview and turned me into, God forbid, a conservative: it convinced me that those concerned about the Islamization of the West were right, and their Lefty detractors in gross denial. Now I surely was mature psycho-historically and politically, I thought.

Nope! I was a chick still struggling to break free from his eggshell to glimpse the real world. By the time I started to read The Occidental Quarterly at the international airport I knew that there was a group of people who in the previous decade had coined a new term, White Nationalism. It is true that by the end of 2009 I still disagreed with the nationalists about the Jewish question. This difference aside, after discovering the existence of such an important group of intellectuals that the system had screened off from my vision for half a century of my life, I felt I had finally broken the last of the Russian dolls-like eggshells and that I could finally hear the voice, “Welcome to the real world!”

Alas, I was still sleeping!

But the last Morphean dream could not last long. Thanks in part to the efforts of Tanstaafl, in February of 2010 I was “struck by a lightening bolt” that cracked the last shell. I realized that I had gotten the Jewish question all wrong and that the Jewish problem was not hallucinatory as I believed. It was all too real after all!

Before that most crucial day of February 24, 2010 I used to interchange emails with two of the best Jewish minds in the blogosphere active in counter-jihad. Paradoxically, these pair helped me to wrap my head around the question of their tribe. Of course: both got mad after I flipped sides. But what convinced me of the essential truth of anti-Semitism is that neither of these two intellectuals could say anything rational about my February challenge:

If by March I don’t get a convincing rebuttal of Avery Bullard’s statement [that Jews are never overrepresented in movements that represent our interests, only in those that weaken us] from those who have advised me in e-mails to shun those who criticize the Jews, I will have no option but to remove the “non anti-Semitic” clause before “White Nationalism” in my blog’s masthead.

After this provocative challenge the pair did not engage in civil discussion. They simply ignored the new world I was starting not only to glimpse beyond the outer, now ripped membrane, but ignored too the clarity of my vision once I finally passed through the shell and stepped outside this last prison for the white mind.

One of them said in his webpage that he would never talk to me again unless I reverted my paradigm back to my previous views on the Jewish question. The other intellectual behaved even more irrationally. Infuriated, he told Tanstaafl, “I see you as my direct and mortal enemy” and threatened in my blog that he would “have nothing to do with Chechar as long as he has anything to do with you.”

The Jekyll-Hyde transformation of a famed author for the readers of The Brussels Journal took me by surprise. But the reaction of the non-Jews—the Christian, agnostic and pagan commenters at the blogsite Gates of Vienna where I had originally met them all—taught me a lesson. The GoV admin emailed me telling that he would stop publishing the rest of my psycho-historical book. Obviously, neither he nor other of these deracinated whites dared to discuss the issues. For we gentiles, criticism of Jews is considered beyond the pale. Nationalist readers will find comical that the Norwegian Fjordman, one of the most notable gentile bloggers in counter-jihad, has stated: “It appears that the only people who can denounce genuine anti-Semitism yet at the same time criticize liberal Jews are people who are part-Jewish themselves, such as Larry Auster or Takuan Seiyo.” In other words, only the Jews can criticize Jews. [Note of August 2011: It now looks that Fjordman is Jewish on his father's side]

These gentiles are beyond our reach however we approach them. The sad truth is that due to their unwillingness to see the elephant in the room these whites, who fancy themselves as defenders of the West, are, inadvertently, undermining their civilization.

Granted: like them I was a philo-Semite most of my adult life. I blame Hollywood and the general culture for this nasty and incredibly hard to crack outer shell that walled-off my mind from the real world for so long. But the main difference between me and these Jews and non-Jews who cling to neo-conservatism is honesty or the lack thereof.

* * *

If there is a moral that can be deduced from my spiritual odyssey is that the dishonesty of the family, psychology friends and counter-jihad conservatives I left behind is a byproduct of deep, ingrained cowardice.

In my teens, when I was abused at home, I believed that compassion was the main virtue of humankind. In my twenties and thirties, when I struggled with the religious demons of my parental introjects, I believed that reason in the sense of the Enlightenment philosophers was the main virtue. In my forties, when my haughty family refused to read the heartbreaking autobiography I had written, I believed that humility was the main virtue.

In my middle age I have come to realize that all is about valor and honesty.

A man scolds the feminists at Gates of Vienna

Rollory is the penname of a Franco-American man who comments in both counter-jihad and white nationalist sites.

Dymphna is the penname of one of the two administrators of the counter-jihad site Gates of Vienna (GoV).

Her husband, Baron Bodissey, is the other admin.

Like Rollory, Queen is a regular visitor.

In my last post I also stole comments from another GoV thread in order to expose Takuan Seiyo’s haughtiness when a woman confronted him with the Jewish Question (JQ). The intelligence of that woman is the exception that confirms the rule. In general, women don’t carry under their shoulders mankind’s destiny.

The counter-jihad movement not only suffers from blindness at the midst of its vision. Some of its members are almost blind on collateral subjects too.

It is true that I like both Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders, and their blindness on the JQ and other subjects do not bother me so much. But intellectuals should be different. They are supposed to delve deeper into the causes of Western malaise than the politicians and the popularizers of the dangers of Islamization. That’s why white Gentiles like Fjordman [Note of 2012: actually he's half-Jew], and also Baron Bodissey, the main administrator of Gates of Vienna, need to be exposed. (Blindness on the JQ among Jews like Takuan Seiyo and Larry Auster is just ethnocentric self-deception, not treason of one’s own ethnic group.)

Why am I criticizing the GoV-ers if we still were good friends at the beginning of the last year? Because I cannot stand dishonesty out of cowardice. If we, white nationalists, are so dead wrong about the JQ, the intellectuals of the counter-jihad sites could refute our views without much effort (cf. again my previous post on Takuan Seiyo). Instead, they conveniently avoid all substantial discussion with us out of intellectual cowardice. But why am I criticizing them if I myself wrote that we who defend the West should never attack each other? Because counter-jihadists are not defending the West as they claim they do. And the earlier those who visit their sites wake up, the better.

The following includes parts of three comments by Rollory, some sentences censored by Bodissey, in the longest thread at GoV to date, “Sex, Gender, and Civilization.” Although I don’t agree with Rollory’s sympathies for the likes of Roissy (Roissy’s “Game” debilitates the West), I believe that Rollory hit the nail about feminism and so-called “women’s rights”.

No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:


Addressing Dymphna, Rollory said…

Wow, the things you find when you stay away from a thread for a week!

“…that women have done for the cause for years before people like ‘Rollory’ even knew what Islam was all about.”

Hey you contemptible little coward: if you have something to say to me, say it to me directly. Don’t run around being catty behind people’s backs—particularly if you want to counter the disdain that young men are increasingly experiencing for your type.

“I’ll continue to fight Islam on my own, but I part company with anyone who wants to take away my right to work, vote, or be an equal citizen in my country. [Chechar’s note: Those are not “rights.” It is feminism: a weapon of mass destruction used against the West.] I’ve read this blog for many years, but if this is the way it’s going to go, I’ll continue to go my own way.

Please do not go down this route. You will only alienate intelligent women like me who have given our hearts and souls to the counterjihad for years.”

Ok. Here’s the deal. You want things to work your way, make it happen.

What you are not allowed to do is to benefit and champion feminism and then complain that men aren’t responding to the resulting incentives the way you think they should—that is, they aren’t being sufficiently slavish to you. It doesn’t matter how this makes you feel. It does not work.

My claim is that fighting Islam, just like any other great project, will depend entirely and solely on the Western/European/white men deciding to actually do it, and that they will not decide to do so as long as the current female-empowered society remains in place. You can complain about this. You can throw tantrums. You can mount whisper campaigns behind people’s backs. You can take your ball and go home. None of that makes a goddamned bit of difference. The only thing that counts is success. If you can stop Islam your way, do it. If you are sure you are correct, you should not be afraid of me.

What I am advocating is: one family, one vote, with the patriarch as the executive. This is the traditional, historically sound system. It is the system that has been overthrown over the course of the last century. It is the system that was overthrown in the fading days of the Roman Empire, and in the weak years of the Caliphate before the Mongols, and in every society that is trending toward dissolution and collapse. These things are not random coincidences, nor are they evil conspiracies. They are facts of life and human nature. That they make you feel bad does not make them go away.

[Addressing Queen]: This is perfect example of female thinking at work. It is not about taking away your specific right to vote. It is about women in general. Women, in general, cannot generalize. You just proved that. Women in general like sexy over reliable, like security over liberty, like cute over competent. Women in general also think that one counterexample disproves statistics.

There are exceptions. The problem is that they are exceptions. Your arguments—all based on “me, me, me”—[are] complete validations of Vox Day’s rule about women’s most passionate arguments always based on how it makes them feel—are perfect examples of why women should not vote.

“The age of consent in Mexico and El Salvador is 12. Any mom with a daughter that age who’s walked her child in front of a phalanx of men of that ethnic group knows the score. Ditto the mothers of the 11 and 12 year olds being targeted by Muslim rape gangs in Britain. This is a women’s rights issue like no other. There is no way the multi-culti feminists can blunt this argument.”

Don’t you get it yet? Feminism is a subset of leftism. When it comes to a conflict between feminism and Islam, feminism gives way, every time.

If you were less inclined to screaming fits at the name “Roissy” this phenomenon might actually make sense to you. In any case, this battle is a losing one, it has been lost every time it has been attempted. But hey, don’t take my word for it, go prove me wrong: turn Islamization around based on feminist arguments.

Ok, having read the rest of this [thread], I see no reason to change what I have said.

Equal rights and equal suffrage is something that got invented a hundred years ago. The corresponding trends regarding growth in government and increasing dysfunction are clear. That they are directly causally related is not proven, but it would be foolish to claim there is no connection when we have thousands of years of history of doing it the other way, without the specific societal dysfunction.

I realize how hard this is for modern women to accept. In fact I don’t expect them to. I expect that they will try to preserve the system, will fail—due to the young men being absolutely unmotivated to contribute—and that building the one I advocate will be my children’s and grandchildren’s task. They will have the benefit of seeing the utter failure of the feminist system before them.

And if I am wrong, it costs nobody anything, because the feminists will have won already and we will all be living in a shiny futuro-technomage society of peace and rainbows.

Baron Bodissey said…

Rollory,

I’ve redacted the insults and profanity in your comment. If you do something like this again, I will delete the comment outright. I don’t have time to play censor.

Rollory said…

They were not insults. They were an accurate description of her behavior. It is contemptible. It is cowardly. And that is a big part of why everything she claims to be striving for will fail.

Besides, I wasn’t the one to start with the personal insults here; your wife was the one who chose to start publishing them. Rather hypocritical of you to complain about someone responding to them.


_________________

My 2012 comment:

With rare exceptions, I don’t believe that women can help us in restoring our civilization, at least intellectually.

A German-American woman scolds Takuan Seiyo

Freyja’s cats is the penname of a German-American woman. Takuan Seiyo is the penname of a half-Jew, half-Polish man. With an American passport and married to a Japanese, half-Jew “Seiyo” now lives in Japan.

The following is a sister article to the entry “Tanstaafl et al on Takuan Seiyo”: a collection of posts that I gathered a year ago.


Jew-blind counter-jihad

The counter-jihad movement is notoriously philo-Semitic. The blogsite Gates of Vienna in general and Seiyo in particular have had the nasty little habit of shunning white nationalists when the latter confront the counter-jihadists with their dissociation about the Jewish Question. No frank discussion about the influence of Jews in our civilization is possible within the main sites that alert the western world against the concerted effort by Islamic jihadists.

If counter-jihadists fancy themselves as defenders of western civilization why do they often resort to shunning genuine nationalists? The straightforward answer is that, when the best minds in the counter-jihad movement dare to enter the arena, the nationalists thoroughly deconstruct their philo-Semitic views.

That’s what they fear.

For example, in addition to the article cited in the lead paragraph of this entry see how Takuan Seiyo has been debunked here, Fjordman here and Larry Auster here.

Seiyo’s extremely arrogant words when Freyja tried to discuss with him moved me to write this as the first article in the new incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour. Addressing other Gates of Vienna regulars, both Jews and philo-Semitic gentiles, Seiyo wrote about Freyja:

I don’t think that arguing with a “Nazi” (term of convenience here) or a Progressive is useful. It’s time to accept that either kind is from a different planet, and ought to live among and talk to its own kind only. For the rest of us, it’s time to move forward and argue over what’s arguable. Hitler is not arguable. Holocausts (including that of the Slavs) are not arguable. Jews are arguable, but again, not with a Nazi.

Seiyo thus shunned all debate with a woman who had rejected the “Nazi” label applied on her (that thread was precisely about an article by Seiyo). Freyja’s long comments were an endeavor to specifically deconstruct Seiyo’s piece and to expose the blindness in the midst of vision of the bloggers at Gates of Vienna, who have been persistently unwilling to see the elephant in their room.

The following is a well-deserved scolding that Freyja administrated to Seiyo almost two months ago in the commentariat section of Gates of Vienna. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:


Freyja’s cats said…

Takuan Seiyo cuts some insightful strokes with his calligraphy pen. However, at the same time, he cleverly uses the techniques of Sun Tzu in his essay, to bury some uncomfortable facts and truths.

The sense of fairness in me compels me to come to the defense of Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis, by allowing the ghost of Kevin MacDonald, who is Takuan Seiyo’s nemesis, the opportunity to comment up the buried material regarding the neoconservatives—which is the wolf pack to which Takuan Seiyo belongs, he being neither Chinese nor Japanese in reality.

I would point out that the “red-diaper Jewish society improvers” to which Mr. Seiyo refers are the very clan to which the neoconservatives, themselves, belonged, before they started to notice the handwriting on the Western wall relative to the threat of Islam to Israel and the Jews, and walked over to the other end of the see-saw.

Seiyo encourages Westerners desirous of survival to throw Europe’s native sons Hitler and Charles Lindbergh and the “white nationalists” over the cliff, along with that half of the Eurosphere that fought valiantly, if brutally, against the Marxist-Leninism that was poisoning all of Western civilization, and Europe and Britain, in particular.

Seiyo writes, “Without understanding that Hitler was the worst thing that ever happened to the White race.” I would contend that this distinction should instead be conferred upon Karl Marx. But, to the Jewish peanut gallery this is an uncomfortable truth.

I would point out in response that it is the Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam, which is Hebrew for “repairing the world,” that brought us the “social justice” jackhammer that turned Europe and the West into a lesson in how to commit civilizational suicide. The ancient peoples of Europe were getting along nicely in defending their territory from Asia and Africa, except for perhaps the incursions by Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. Yes, the warrior societies of Europe tended to leave the grass of Europe rather bloody from time-to-time, but, when looked at as a whole, they were fairly successful at holding down the continental fort.

In the warrior ethos of the peoples of Europe, there was no shame to be found in wiping out the odd tribe here and there, in a rather brutal fashion. That was how you survived. It was only when the Jews of Europe—who were a mercantile and money-changing people rather than an assemblage of proud, strong and physically-fit warriors of the home team—and their Anglo and American diasporas, foisted their squeamishness and guilt-trip upon the half of the West that [it] lost the war, and demanded that the losers be dragged in front of “human rights” tribunals; that the Marxist-Leninist, World Jewish Congress, ADL, SPLC and Tikkun Olam thugs were able to accelerate their race-replacement methods, the net benefit of which went to building Israel.

Seiyo states, “Western civilization can be balanced and healthy again when it has recovered all five of its cornerstones. They are the pantheist-pagan, Greek, Roman, Judaic and Christian.” To this, I would suggest that he and the reader revise this statement to read, “Greco-Roman, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic.” For this is the rootstock from which Western civilization arose.

I would also encourage Seiyo to utilize the more appropriate term “heathen,” when addressing in English the Germanic people of Western civilization. It is time for Seiyo and his neoconservative brethren to drop the axes that they repeatedly sharpen for purposes of bludgeoning the Germans and other European nationalists. Hitler was the Charles Martel against the “invading” fifth-columnist Marxists.

It would be best for Western civilization for Jews to accept that Hitler was just one in a multi-millennia long succession of lion-hearted chiefs and kings of Europe. We freedom-loving children of indigenous Europe will no longer continue to throw our own blood over the cliff, in order to bow to the PC demands of the Middle Eastern tribe of usury and Tikkun Olam.

Latté island said…

Freyja’s cats, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Takuan Seiyo said…

@ Latte island: Well said. I often refer to ardent liberals as “Body Snatchers.” It means to convey the idea that coils in their brains are arranged differently, without necessarily a pejorative connotation. A discussion with a liberal is therefore pointless; you speak Basque, he speaks Urdu. It’s the same thing with Nazis and their various crypto, neo, and nonsocialist strains (hereinafter “Nazis’). There is no point in responding or arguing. My main concern is that we deal in this forum and others, e.g. AmRen, VFR, [both philo-Semitic sites - Chechar] with issues that hardly any strain on the putative Right even mentions, let alone discusses—but the Nazis do. It’s useful therefore to develop some criteria for where the demarcation line is. By the way, if anyone considers Freyja cats’s disquisition too much, in those circles Jared Taylor of AmRen is referred to as Shmuel Jerry Taylor. There has to be a separate corner somewhere for these folks too, all-White, Judenfrei as they wish. But mixing with them, even through discourse, is a bad case of such miscommunication that it’s akin to miscegenation.

Freyja’s cats said…

Mr. Seiyo:

I am not talking about anything “Judenfrei.” I am requesting that Jews melt down their axe against Germans and Germany and their supporters, and accept the need for all “white people” who want to work for the salvation of the West and our peoples, to participate in the project. Nobody out.

For Hitler to take out a bunch of Marxist-Leninist third columnists is branded by your choir as “pure evil.” But somehow firebombing the hell out of Dresden, and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn’t?

Clearly, a review of the history of modern-day Israel shows that the Sons of Israel are not opposed to contemplating and engaging in “evil,” themselves, when that seems to be a good option for their survival, or otherwise in their national interest. Neither the Jews, collectively, nor any currently extant tribe or nation of Europe wears a halo. So give it a rest and knock off the anti-Germanism.

The reality is that there are a lot of folks across the world who are waking up to the fact that the Chosen People don’t have the halo around their heads that they once claimed they had, any more than the Germans did.

That old Communist Party-infiltrated organization known as the Federation of American Scientists has a lot of Jews on its Board of Sponsors, who used to decry the American development of strategic weapons in the 1970’s. It’s interesting, though, that after bid Laden and al-Qaeda hit New York City on 9/11, Israel and some American Jews started feeling really threatened by Islam and the surrounding Arabs, and a lot of the Jewish neoconservatives began to find it an imperative for the U.S. to attack Iraq and Iran. That seemed like a grand idea to many Christian Americans, and George Bush went along with taking out Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein, though, brutal as he was, was a secular kinda guy, and didn’t let the Islamists annihilate the Iraqi Christians, as is being done now that Hussein is gone. Today, a goodly part of the planet is pissed off at Israel, and the current Arab uprising is threatening Israel’s former southern ally, and Coptic Christians are being put to the axe. People are starting to examine what has really gone on to get us to this point.

We Germans and German-Americans and other European patriots who lost World War II—including those of us in America whose German-American family members were sent abroad to kill our own German family in order to save the Jews—are today supposed to grovel in the dirt perpetually because our German brethren tried to take down the Marxist-Leninist Fifth Column in Europe, of which a goodly proportion of Jews were a part, which was working toward enslaving all of Europe under communism, and eventually the entire West.

Friends, the West is waking up. We are not only waking up to the threat of Islam amongst us, but we are also waking up to how this Fifth Column came to be embedded among us. Now that valuable research tools are available to use from the comfort of our own homes, we in the Anglosphere are now able to look underneath the AJC and WJC and ADL and SPLC and neoconservative propaganda, and look at the great expanse of European history in a different way. One doesn’t have to be a Hitler-worshipper, or shave his head, or tattoo swastikas all over his body and wear replicas of Nazi party clothing, to start realizing that something is very, very wrong in the Western civilization created by the Eurosphere.

It’s clear that the same infection that plagued Europe after Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto didn’t die with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Marxism-Leninism has clearly infected the rest of the West, too.

With the Internet, the humble housewife can now study history, and determine the source of the infection.

I can see them, and their other aging 1960’s/70’s/80’s communist radical buddies, with my own eyes, indoctrinating the high school and college kids into Third-Worldist Marxism-Leninism, and agitating the local Muslim and Latino communities to “rise up” against the “racist white capitalists.” I’m in Chicago. And I can see the activists of Chicago’s Jewish Council on Urban Affairs standing right next to CAIR’s Ahmed Rehab, demanding approval of the construction of more mosque complexes in Illinois.

Europeans in the West who are waking up to all of this, are now asking ourselves why we should continue to blame our cousins, the Germans in Europe, for trying to eradicate the Fifth Column amongst them that was trying to enslave them under communism, when now the neoconservatives like David Horowitz, who used to be allies with the Black Panthers, are now trying to motivate the right wing of Europe and the European diaspora to eradicate the Fifth Column of Muslims that the Jews demanded that we let into our lands in the first place!

I am of ancestral Teutonic stock. I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who are Jewish. Many are good-hearted people who contribute good things to the community and don’t try to subvert the West and replace the children of Europe with Asians, Africans and Latin Americans. I harbor no desire to wipe those people off the face of the planet. But I’m wiser now than I used to be, and I have ascertained and ferreted out the history and source of political correctness and multi-culturalism/multi-racialism. I’m not going to fall for the Jewish demands that I wear a blindfold to the facts and that I succumb to their constant cries of “anti-Semitism” and “racism” and “Hitler and the Germans were evil and must perish!”

I am not going to throw my Europid cousins off the cliff, who are determined that Germans, Germany and “White people” should live and retain control over their European homelands, just because they don’t hold the “politically-correct” thoughts about World Wars I and II. I very respectfully request that Jews put down their axe against the German people, and work together with all of my Germanic and European cousins, to reverse the damage that has been caused to the West by the “political correctness” and “multi-culti” society that they have foisted upon it.

The motto for the salvation of the West must be: “All of our European brethren in; nobody out. Not even the White Nationalists.”

Mr. Takuan Seiyo relies upon Sun Tzu to develop his essay that is the subject of this thread. He leaves unmentioned in the essay any contribution that the Jewish teachings with which Jewish children are indoctrinated by the elders of their own Hebraic ethny, religion and culture.

Takuan Seiyo blames the present condition of Western civilization on an awful lot of stuff… except for teachings like the above-mentioned kol ha-olam negdeinu that could very well be motivating Jews of all stripes, including those of the deep Left, to keep engaging in behaviors to destroy European civilization and the Germanic peoples (and perhaps other nations, too); behaviors that, in cyclical fashion, tend to only cause Jews, eventually, more grief and generate more “anti-Semitism” down the line. The root problem of the West might not be indigenous Germans being indigenous Germans on German homeland soil. The root problem may include the songs and sayings that Jews in the West sing to their children when they are babies.

Seiyo wrote: “Perhaps the Dakotas too, if they come to their senses and curb that Scandinavian-Lutheran gene.” Another fine example of Jewish contempt for Germanic, European and Christian peoples. They just keep coming.

Friends, I would advise those persons with Jewish proclivities toward re-engineering European peoples, to ditch the habit.

When are you guys going to suck it up and accept the fact that it is your people’s capacity and demonstrated penchant for radicalizing your offspring, subverting your host society and enslaving and killing them off (by proxy, if strategically preferable) that, in cyclical fashion, comes back to kick you in the butt a few years down the line?

You guys have a choice:

1. You can continue to spit on the peoples of Europe. In that case, it would be wise of us of indigenous European stock to give you a one-way ticket to Israel, and slam the door behind you. You can cope with the Arab uprisings all around you on your own.

Or,

2. You can drop the club of blame and guilt that you repeatedly use to continue to pulverize Western society, and accept that it is normal for the indigenous people of Europe to have a desire to defend their homelands and protect their people against subversion, violent revolution, slavery and death.

We children of Europe are not going to pitch our own blood overboard, so that the Jews that purposely generated all of this immigration and race-replacement can take their places in the lifeboat.

[Plan A] Everybody in. Nobody out. That’s the deal.

[Plan B] Or you guys can go shack up in Israel, and fend for yourselves amidst the sea of Muslim Arabs.

____________

My comment:

Since arrogant Jews like Seiyo will never change, I’m afraid we will have to resort to Plan B…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 197 other followers