Below, my comments of the ten threads about Nietzsche’s
prologue to Thus Spoke Zarathustra in a single entry:


Visitors will be surprised to learn that a Spanish edition has more detailed endnotes than the academic English translation of Nietzsche’s magnum opus.

This is because Spaniards are fed up of Catholicism. North Americans have a few centuries experimenting with Christianity. Spain has more than a millennium and a half, and our parents’ religion is on its last dying breaths there.

Andrés Sánchez-Pascual’s scholarly translation of Nietzsche’s books since the early 1970s became so popular that over the decades he has received hundreds of letters from his Spanish-speaking readers. The book’s edition of Así Habló Zaratustra that I purchased this month for example (I lost the old copies that I used to read sporadically in the 1970s and 80s) is its twentieth edition.

So fed up of Catholicism are Spain’s thinking classes that, again, the copies I bought of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums which introduction appears in my compilation The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, were translated to Spanish for an audience unexpectedly avid of this sort of extraordinarily scholarly material (Deschner’s maximum opus has yet to be translated to English).

Another example. Manu Rodríguez, who has had a place of high honor in this site and in The Fair Race, is also an avid reader of Sánchez-Pascual’s translations of Nietzsche. Thanks to his revaluation of Christian values, Rodríguez overcame his original prejudice against National Socialism in his later posts of La Respuesta de Europa. With the exception of non-Christian geniuses like Revilo Oliver and William Pierce, I have not seen such a metamorphosis of the mind in most of the English-speaking racialists.


“Could it be possible! This old saint in his woods has not yet heard the news that God is dead!

This is one of the most quoted passages of Nietzsche’s literature. I abandoned theism long ago. Presently I don’t believe in the existence of a personal god, let alone in the existence of the Jewish god (which would be absolutely dead in the heart of any fanatic of the 14 words if the white nationalist “movement” was not all bluff). That doesn’t mean that I’m an atheist, as Hegel and other philosophers of Classic German Idealism developed a new understanding of God: panentheistic views that I am not prepared to dismiss.

The theological issues of Zarathustra’s encounter with the old hermit aside, I’d rather say something about the soliloquy in the previous post of this fictional character, something related to the very meaning of this blogsite.

The darkest hour is just before the dawn. In the endnotes about the opening soliloquy in Nietzsche’s book, Andrés Sánchez-Pascual interpreted the term Untergehen as follows: “By sinking into his decline, like the sun, Zarathustra moves to the other side. ‘Passing to the other side’ means surpassing oneself and becoming the Overman.”

This is what nationalists have failed to do, and was the message of the last pages of my compilation The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour: white nationalism as a stepping stone at the middle of a river, not as the promised land itself which is beyond the rapid waters.

That was my metaphor.

As to Nietzsche’s metaphor, we could say that today’s whites, including Christian and libertarian white nationalists, have yet to “sink themselves into their sunsets.” Some force may be with them but they’re not overmen yet; they have not surpassed themselves as Hitler’s SS men did (always keep in mind my “Where are the Syssitias?”).

The purpose of this blogsite is to prepare a few metamorphosing men, those in the process of “passing to the other side” (Übergang) from the soul’s darkest night into the coming dawn of the fair race.


I don’t claim to have reread the Zarathustra since my adolescent infatuation with Nietzsche. But these are surely the words that made a very powerful impression in my mind since my first reading:

“I teach you the Overman. Human being is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

What is the ape to a human? A laughing stock or a painful embarrassment. And that is precisely what the human shall be to the Overman: a laughing stock or a painful embarrassment.

You have made your way from worm to human, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now a human is still more ape than any ape.

Behold, I teach you the Overman!

The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the Overman shall be the meaning of the earth!”

The passage “…and you want to be the ebb of this great flood and would even rather go back to animals than overcome humans?” nails perfectly contemporary whites.

This is exactly what they are doing to themselves—white nationalists included, so reluctant to fight (or preparing to fight by saving precious metals before the dollar crashes). As Jack Frost has asked the clueless, feminized males of The Occidental Observer more than once, “Where’s the resistance?” to the anti-white, exterminationist System. Where are the cells for would-be soldiers that treasure William Pierce’s three books as their New Tablets?

I see none of it. And many Jew-wise nationalists are themselves etnosuicidal because they simply ignore that Christianity inverted healthy values—negative values that they themselves subscribe! Cowardice similar to this in the 19th century explains why Nietzsche’s Zarathustra gives the biblical verse an antithetical sense from the original.


Now Zarathustra looked at the people and he was amazed. Then he spoke thus: “Mankind is a rope fastened between animal and Overman – a rope over an abyss. What is great about human beings is that they are a bridge and not a purpose: what is lovable about human beings is that they are a crossing over and a going under.”

Again, this brings in mind my metaphor of the bridge. This is what I wrote in the final essay of The Fair Race: “White nationalism is only a stone at the middle of the rapid-flowing waters of a dangerous river; a stepping stone that can help us in our endeavor to jump to the other side. I myself used that stone during my crossing from Christianity and Liberalism to National Socialism. In fact, I could even write such a spiritual odyssey in a text that might be titled ‘From St Francis to Himmler’.” But no American white nationalist today is prepared to wear a T-shirt of Herr Himmler, not even in the privacy of their homes.

“I love the great despisers, because they are the great venerators and arrows of longing for the other shore. I love those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, who instead sacrifice themselves for the earth, so that the earth may one day become the Overman’s. I love the one who lives in order to know, and who wants to know so that one day the Overman may live. And so he wants his going under.” [sinking in his sunset according to Sánchez-Pascual]

This cannot contrast more with today’s white nationalists, so reluctant to sacrifice themselves as Rockwell did. They want it both ways: enjoy their homely comfort zones and try to “save” the race from the ongoing extermination.


In Ecce Homo Nietzsche wrote:

In this sense Zarathustra first calls the good “the last men”… He finds them the most harmful kind of man, because they secure their existence at the expense of truth just as they do at the expense of the future.

Do “the last men” sound like contemporary whites overwhelmed with guilt? But white nationalists are the Overman’s “last men” too. Think for example of the voices from those self-righteous, Christian and atheist nationalists who recently called a lone wolf “an evil sociopath” in Dixie, basically subscribing the meme “black lives matter.”

White- or Southern nationalism is phony, was phony and will be phony until societal collapse forces the survivors to grow a hairy pair. This is Pierce’s Diaries: “His forehead was then marked with an indelible dye, and he was turned out and could be readmitted permanently only by bringing back the head of a freshly killed Black or other non-White.”


Just for the record, about 150,000 copies of a specially durable wartime Zarathustra were distributed to the German troops during the First World War.


“A nice catch of fish Zarathustra has today! No human being did he catch, but a corpse instead!” looks like me trying to convey Nietzsche’s message to a dead race!


“I want to teach humans the meaning of their being, which is the Overman, the lightning from the dark cloud ‘human being’.”

For some unfathomable causes, this sentence from the previous section, Prologue §7, reminded me my identification with the art of the pre-Raphaelites and Maxfield Parrish. One of the inner realities that distances me from white nationalists is that they don’t seem to love this 14-words art (“That the beauty of…”) as much as I do.


“It dawned on me: I need companions, and living ones – not dead companions and corpses that I carry with me wherever I want.”

Just what happened to me during my experience in counter-jihad: after these guys didn’t want to hear about the Jewish problem it was like I had to get rid of their corpses—dead companions. But it also happened to me in white nationalism! After these guys didn’t want to hear about the Christian problem it was like I had to get rid of their corpses.

“It dawned on me: let Zarathustra speak not to the people, but instead to companions!”

Pierce did something similar after the calamity of Rockwell’s murder: instead of speaking to the masses he predicated to a smaller group of companions.

“Look at the good and the just! Whom do they hate most? The one who breaks their tablets of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker – but he is the creative one.”

Hitler was the creative one. Read his table talks.

“Companions the creative one seeks and not corpses, nor herds and believers. Fellow creators the creative one seeks, who will write new values on new tablets.”

Less than a handful visitors of this blog share the moral grammar on my New Tablets…

“Fellow creators seeks Zarathustra, fellow harvesters and fellow celebrators Zarathustra seeks: what need does he have of herds and shepherds and corpses!”

…but still no one wants to become a priest of the 14 words in a latter-day “Syssitia” (like the one Rockwell had).

“I do not want to even speak again with the people – for the last time have I spoken to a dead person.”

Occasionally I still comment at The Occidental Observer but even that has to end—the commentariat and even the authors are clueless that Christian axiology enabled the Jewish problem and the Negro problem and the Mestizo problem and even the more recent empowerment of Asia.

“I shall join the creators, the harvesters, the celebrators: I shall show them the rainbow and all the steps to the Overman.”

Hitler and Pierce showed this rainbow but who among us really follows their revaluated axiology? Most white nationalists follow the Old Tablets; atheist nationalists share also the Christian moral grammar and even the neonazis have not really broken the Tablets.

“I want to go to my goal, and I go my own way; over the hesitating and dawdling I shall leap. Thus let my going be their going under!”

This describes me…


And so Nietzsche’s lyric prologue ends. Below, some snippets from the Cambridge introduction by Robert B. Pippin:

Zarathustra leaves his cave to revisit the human world because he wants both to prophesy and help hasten the advent of something like a new “attempt” on the part of mankind, a post “beyond” or “over the human” (Übermensch) aspiration. Such a goal would be free of the psychological dimensions that have led the human type into a state of some crisis (made worse by the fact that most do not think a crisis has occurred or that any new attempt is necessary).

The problem, then, that Zarathustra must address, the problem of “nihilism,” is a kind of collective failure of desire…

Nietzsche clearly thinks we cannot understand such a possibility, much less be both shamed and inspired by it, except by a literary and so “living” treatment of such an existential possibility. And Nietzsche clearly thinks he has such a chance, in the current historical context of crisis, collapse, boredom, and confusion, a chance of shaming and cajoling us away from commitments that will condemn us to a “last man” or “pale atheist” sort of existence, and of inspiring a new desire, a new “tension” of the spirit…

As noted, the problem Zarathustra confronts seems to be a failure of desire; nobody wants what he is offering, and they seem to want very little other than a rather bovine version of happiness. It is that sort of failure that proves particularly difficult to address, and that cannot be corrected by thinking up a “better argument” against such a failure.

The events that are narrated are also clearly tied to the question of what it means for Zarathustra to have a teaching, to try to impart it to an audience suffering in this unusual way, suffering from complacency or dead desire. Only at the very beginning, in the Prologue, does he try to “lecture publicly,” one might say, and this is a pretty unambiguous failure.

The reminder here of the Prologue appears to indicate that Zarathustra himself had portrayed his own teaching in a comically inadequate way, preaching to the multitudes as if people could simply begin to overcome themselves by some revolutionary act of will…

He had shifted from market place preaching to conversations with disciples in Part I, and at the end of that Part I he decides to forgo even that and to go back to his cave alone.


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.

Protected minorities

The point I was trying to make in my previous post and in a related discussion is that during my first internet experience in 2006-2008, for the group of Alice Miller’s fans the subject of child abuse in the Muslim world was taboo. These pseudo-followers of Miller had in their minds a protected minority—Muslims—even when these Sub-Saharan Africans practice genital mutilation on pubescent girls on a massive scale.

The next internet group I became active was the counter-jihad blogsites, where I was active from the latest months of 2008 to the beginning of 2010. These people too had a protected minority in their little minds: Jews. They would not argue with me even when I typed long excerpts from an academic Jew that demonstrated that the Jewish problem was not a gentile hallucination at all.

Finally, when I arrived to white nationalism after distancing myself from Jew-blind counter-jihadists I expected that this later movement wouldn’t have protected minorities. I was wrong. Many of them still have a protected minority that, like the other minorities, is deleterious to our interests as Guillaume Faye knows: homosexuals.

homonegroThe fact that Tom Sunic and Robert Stark have interviewed Counter-Currents’ philosophical catamite James O’Meara without asking him tough questions during their respective interviews, proves that at least some of today’s nationalists don’t have the moral caliber to say what the Nazis said about faggotry, or even the first American incarnation of white nationalism one or two generations ago.

That this “new generation” is fond of what my beloved Nazis called “degenerate music” means that they have a rotten soul compared to the one which flourished not so long ago.

Are monocausalists paranoid?

At Age of Treason, last March an interesting debate ensued when the admin expelled a regular commenter (no ellipsis added between unquoted sentences):

Tanstaafl said…

Daybreaker, I get the distinct impression you are in some way jewish. Would you mind setting the record straight, one way or the other?

Daybreaker said…

I’m not Jewish.

My personal background is not your business, and I’m not going to share it on the Internet, but I’ve been looking it up and I’m definitely not Jewish.

Your “distinct impression” lacks any foundation. The quote you gave just before saying you have this “distinct impression” (“Our default setting is highly universalistic compared to Jews, and likely compared to anybody else” [–Daybreaker]) is not a rational basis for an impression that I’m Jewish in any way.

Let me be blunt. You’re being paranoid.

Pat Hannagan said…

Well, Tan’s impression is one I got Daybreaker, or at least I questioned.

Your comments in this thread were beautiful but, when I’ve read you elsewhere you seem to me to have flip slopped and taken on the opposition’s side. It’s not paranoia, just trying to work out if you’re legit or not.

Daybreaker said…

I’ve said what I am, minus what particular countries my all-White and all non-Jewish ancestors hail from. And I’ve done what I can to clear up the main points that may cause confusion.

There’s nothing else I can do. I accept that you and Tanstaafl are not being paranoid. But you’ll just have to keep wondering and working on it, because I can’t make myself any plainer than to give you a straight no, which I already have.

Tanstaafl said…

Daybreaker, let me be blunt. Your comments, here and on previous posts, are too long and too many. You seem to be trying to take charge of the discussion, to manage it. Stop it.

That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew. Calling me paranoid is another. People think you’re a jew because you act like one.

Daybreaker said…

That’s a “shut up” and I will.
But first…

“That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew. Calling me paranoid is another. People think you’re a jew because you act like one.”

Based on that additional evidence, I retract my retraction. You definitely are paranoid about Jews and imagined Jews.

Tanstaafl said…

You definitely won’t be missed.

Rollory said…

“Daybreaker, let me be blunt. Your comments, here and on previous posts, are too long and too many. You seem to be trying to take charge of the discussion, to manage it. Stop it. That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew.”

Wow, that’s all it takes to avoid the accusation?

What alarmed me was that other commenters at Age of Treason I respected continued to comment as if Daybreaker’s ethnicity had been properly demonstrated. It looked unfair to me even though I had no means to ascertain if Daybreaker was telling the truth. I felt disappointed and promised to myself, silently, not to comment at that blog again. But…

Yesterday and today I received some emails from Tanstaafl asking me if I have Jewish blood in my veins! Apparently Tanstaafl is now trying to see a Jew under the wrong stone because he’s extremely upset about my recent posts criticizing his pet theory, “monocausalism.” However upset he may be, that is no excuse for his rudeness in his recent emails. Here there are some sentences of our email exchanges. Originally, he reacted as a result of my comments at Carolyn’s blog:

Tanstaafl wrote…

Could you tell me what is going on in your mind? Do you not recognize a criticism of your position? Are you not willing or able to defend it? Did you discover some marrano roots or something?

I replied…

If you don’t mind, I will respond in my blog, but first I must know if it’s OK with you to quote your email.

Tanstaafl replied…

Haven’t you been “responding” at your blog, and elsewhere, for months already? You can’t sum up whatever you have to say to me in an email?

I replied…

I can sum up: as far as I know I have zero J ancestry (a couple of old uncles are pretty obsessed with genealogy and I trust their research). And I am astounded that you may think of me having “marrano” ancestry.

Tanstaafl replied…

Why would this be astounding anyway, then or now? Were you not aware of the marrano element sprinkled throughout latin America?

What is astounding about the question considering this position you’ve taken? Being marrano would help explain it.


Did Tanstaafl imply that I lied in my previous email when I explicitly said that I have zero Jewish blood? Since I consider his rudeness a personal insult (not only is he apparently doubting my word, marrano also means “pig” in Spanish) now I don’t feel compelled to ask permission to publish his above emails. This said, another clarification is in order. In his last email he also said:

“You seem similarly single-minded in your drive even farther back into Roman history. Naturally I’m curious why excusing the jews has become so important to you, especially when your criticisms are aimed, at least in part, at me.”

Where the hell Tanstaafl got the idea that I am “excusing the jews”? My criticism of monocausalism has nothing to do with defending Jews and everything to do with accusing Whites of weakness—as Severus Niflson explained so well last Monday in Yeager’s show, the subject of my previous entry.

It now looks to me that Tanstaafl is the symmetrical opposite of Fjordman. Just as Fjordman gets mad every time I suggest at Gates of Vienna that Jews have been involved in the West’s crisis, so Tanstaafl gets mad when I suggest at other forums that Whites are involved too in the same crisis. Although Fjordie and Tan are ideological antipodes with regard to the Jewish Question, for them the whole question is “either or”, never—God forbid!—“both.” As Niflson put it in his audio reply to Tanstaafl:

“We can’t just go out there and mention the jews the jews the jews, yeah we can mention other people, but we can’t be childish and just think that it’s all to blame on other people and by magically addressing the issue of their existence that suddenly our character will become magically well.”

Niflson is not alone speaking out about the character flaws of present-day whites. If I wrote for this blog the articles criticizing monocausalism it’s because notable people moved my train of thought toward that direction after Michael O’Meara became disenchanted with the webzine Counter-Currents:

1) Tom Sunic for one has been openly dismissive of monocausalism in his radio podcasts.

2) Michael O’Meara’s best 2011 article at Counter-Currents dismissed monocausalism as something silly and quite stupid.

3) Many of Harold Covington’s radio rants convinced me that, although the subversive Jew must be named, something horribly wrong—“yellow dogs” is one term used by Covington—is going on within the character of today’s Whites.

4) Hunter Wallace has been contradicting monocausalism for at least two years at Occidental Dissent. Although I disagree with his claim that America is run by blacks (I believe that Jews are far more influential) I have quoted some of his recent pronouncements on monocausalism, which Wallace calls “single-cause hypothesis.”

5) The harshest diatribes against these weakened whites I’ve read comes from the pen of William Pierce: one of the best minds that the movement produced in the continent.

6) Even Kevin MacDonald himself doesn’t seem to support strict monocausalism!

The heavyweights convinced me that strict monocausalism is silly, and that besides naming the Jew we must also note our flaws that empowered the tribe since the French Revolution.

Perhaps the next step in Tanstaafl’s escalating paranoia will be to ask these notable people if they too have some Jewish blood—and when receiving answers in the negative then insisting in follow-up emails that they must, notwithstanding, be Jewish?

This is the second time that this happens to me since I became involved in the white nationalist movement by the end of 2009. The first time happened when I criticized the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Monocauslaist J Richards, who even blames the American Civil War on the Jews, claimed at Majority Rights that that alone was proof that I was Jew! (see my comment about it here). Again, since the Majority Rights admin never apologized for allowing Richards’ claim within the main text of an article, I promised never to comment at that site again.

Aside of these insults directed at me by mail and in the blogosphere the real issue is, Are other monocausalists paranoid too?

I would appreciate comments on this question. It seems to me that character flaws are far more endemic in the movement than what I previously thought.


When I finished the above writing I learnt that Severus Niflson recorded a follow-up audio response to Tanstaafl even if this time Niflson didn’t name him. At Carolyn’s blog Niflson added a textual reply as well, of which I’ll quote a sentence:

Generally, my point is more on the side of practicality and honesty. The honest truth is that we have plenty of blame for our current situation, we could all make a list. This isn’t to remove blame on other people, but to be reasonable and forthright. Anybody who claims that all of our issues are to be laid on the feet of Jews is basically crossing the line into the realm of religion and faith, which in all honesty isn’t my favorite area since it crosses from rational into emotional.

Listen to Niflson here.

Greg Johnson’s second thoughts on Breivik

Originally titled:
“Breivik: A Strange New Respect”

My initial reaction to Anders Berhing Breivik’s killing spree on July 22, 2011 was largely anger, because I feared that his actions would harm not just Norwegian ethno-nationalism but white nationalism around the world.

I was relieved to learn that Breivik was a product of the Jewish-controlled Counter-Jihadist movement, which eschews racial nationalism and builds a case against the Muslim colonization of Europe on “Judeo-Christian” religious and cultural grounds. I was quite content to let them take the heat. But of course both our enemies and our chosen audience are none too concerned about such fine distinctions.

I also, frankly, took a visceral dislike to Breivik, who struck me as a creepy, narcissistic dork.

However, since Breivik went on trial last month, I have found a strange new respect for him. He has comported himself in a dignified manner and made a forceful, intelligent, well-argued case for his views and actions. His only real gaffe has been to insist on the existence of his make-believe Knights Templar organization.

By the end of the first week, the trial was being pulled from front pages around the world, for the simple reason that Breivik was making too much sense to too many people.

Breivik admits to the killings. But he demands to be acquitted on the grounds of what is essentially ethnic self-defense. Based on news coverage, machine translations of trial transcripts posted on the internet, particularly at Tanstaafl’s Age of Treason and Attack on the Labor Party, and our own Andrew Hamilton’s translation of Breivik’s Opening Statement on the second day of his trial, the rationale for Breivik’s attack and his defense is the following.

The Norwegian Labor Party and its allies in the press are primarily responsible for imposing non-white immigration on Norway and for stigmatizing and silencing Norwegian opposition. The Labor Party has imposed multiculturalism without a popular referendum. Their policies have led to the rape, murder, brutalization, and ethnic displacement of Norwegians by non-white immigrants—crimes to which the Norwegian establishment, including the media, has responded with lies, cover-ups, and psychological warfare against Norwegians, labeling them “racist” and “xenophobic” and denigrating their culture and traditions.

Since, moreover, these non-white immigrants are far more prolific than Norwegians, who are taxed to subsidize the invaders, the long term consequence of the Labor Party’s policies is the destruction of Norwegians as a distinct people.

Although Breivik does not, to my knowledge, use the term, this is actually genocide as defined by the United Nations, which holds that genocide is not merely the outright murder of a people, but the creation of conditions that make its long term survival as a people impossible.

Thus the Norwegian Labor Party and its allies have imposed a genocidal regime on Norway. And if there are any absolutes in the world today, the moral rectitude of resisting genocide is chief among them.

Under international law, the leaders of the Norwegian Labor Party, as well as their collaborators, should be removed from power and tried and punished for genocide. But dissenting voices about multiculturalism are silenced, so rational debate and peaceful political change are impossible. As Breivik says in his Opening Statement:

More and more cultural conservatives realize that the democratic struggle is pointless. It is not possible to win when no real freedom of speech exists. As more realize this in the coming decades it is a short path to the weapon. When a peaceful revolution is impossible, a violent revolution is the only possibility.

Thus, Breivik planned and executed his attacks. The purpose of the attacks appears to be fourfold.

First, Breivik wished to punish people in the Labor Party who were responsible for instituting anti-Norwegian genocide. He failed at this, because most of his victims were innocent bystanders, low-level functionaries, and youth activists.

Second, Breivik wished to publicize his 1518 page manifesto, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, a compendium of Counter-Jihadist writings. In this, he was wildly successful.

It is unfortunate, however, that his manifesto was such a vast and indigestible data-dump. If it had been a slender, concise work, like The Communist Manifesto or the Unabomber’s Industrial Society and Its Future, it would have had a far greater impact, because it would actually have been read by far more people.

Furthermore, although Breivik did not expect to survive his attack, he has used his imprisonment and trial to refine his message and garner new publicity. At this, he has been extremely successful.

Third, Breivik hoped to inspire imitators, perhaps even someone who will actually bring into existence the fictional Knights Templar order outlined in his manifesto. To my knowledge, he has not yet succeeded in this aim. But it seems inevitable, given enough time, that others will follow Breivik’s example.

Fourth, Breivik hoped to increase political tension and polarization, perhaps even provoking a crackdown on moderate nationalists, including the various democratic nationalist parties that are actually making some progress in Europe. This, of course, is what I fear the most, and I find it especially galling that Breivik intended this outcome. His rationale is that such a crackdown will radicalize nationalists to take up arms.

But if one is going to polarize the political field in order to empty the middle ground by forcing moderates to the extremes, one needs to give them somewhere else to go—somewhere real, not a fantasy order of Knights Templar elaborated with all the detail one would expect from someone who spent countless hours in online role-playing games. Otherwise, polarizing the field will only lead right-leaning moderates to give up entirely.

Furthermore, the existence of moderate shades of political opinion in nationalist circles actually provides channels of influence bridging the gap between the mainstream and the radical fringe. Radicals can actually utilize this moderate infrastructure to influence and radicalize people who might otherwise be unavailable to them.

Finally, although nationalists today labor under huge handicaps, we still enjoy some freedom of speech and association, and we benefit far more from them than we would from the possible radicalizing effects of a real crackdown.

Even though Breivik is stridently anti-Nazi and anti-Communist, his basic political model shares much with the Old Right and the Old Left. He hoped to create an armed, conspiratorial, revolutionary party (in the form of an initiatic knightly order) as a vehicle for halting and reversing the Islamic colonization of Europe.

From a New Right perspective, Breivik’s overall strategy is counter-productive. Our race will not be saved by armed struggle, but by the transformation of consciousness and culture. The Norwegian Labor Party did not come to power by force of arms, but because the New Left laid the intellectual and cultural groundwork. For the New Right to do the same, we need to maintain freedom of speech and association and learn to use the infrastructure of the political mainstream to spread our message outward and draw people and resources in a more radical direction.

It is necessary for the New Right to draw a bold, clear line between our approach and Old Right approaches like Breivik’s, because his approach does not compliment ours but fundamentally undermines it.

As for Breivik’s rationale for violence, he claims that indigenous peoples have special rights to their homelands, which entitle them to resist invaders with violence. It is a principle of ethnic self-defense. It is true that indigenous peoples have the right to ethnic self-defense. But surely that right extends to all peoples. All peoples have the right to resist genocide by all necessary means, including violence. Morally speaking, there is simply no valid argument against political violence per se, particularly in resistance to genocide. The justification of a particular act of violence depends entirely upon whether or not it actually is necessary to serve a moral end.

The weakness of Breivik’s case is not the moral premise, but the choice of his targets: If he had killed the actual leadership of Norway’s Labor Party, or the leaders of the Norwegian press—as opposed to people as young as 14—his defense might actually hold water. It is really shocking that Breivik put so much thought and planning into his acts, but didn’t think just a bit more about his targets. He chose the wrong targets, both from the point of view of their culpability and from the point of view of publicity, of propaganda of the deed.

Breivik was not indifferent to innocent life. But some “collateral damage,” i.e., killing of the innocent, is necessary and unavoidable even in just struggles. Breivik tried to minimize such deaths. His error was in ascribing culpability to young people whose only crime may have been to believe the multicultural propaganda they were steeped in from birth.

The leaders of the Norwegian Labor Party have taken one of Europe’s most homogeneous, harmonious, and happy societies and colonized it with hostile, fast-breeding aliens. Since racially, culturally, and religiously diverse peoples inevitably end up hating and killing one another when forced to coexist within the same system, the Norwegian Labor Party has responded to these tensions by hushing up both crimes and criticism. They created a boiling cauldron of social and psychological turmoil. Then they clamped a lid down on it. Then they were shocked—shocked!—that the whole thing exploded in their faces. First and foremost, Breivik needs to be seen as the inevitable consequence of the Labor Party’s policies.

The establishment obviously wished to use the Breivik trial to stigmatize ethnonationalist sentiments. But Breivik was making too much sense, so they are drawing a veil of censorship over the proceedings. In short, they are doing the very thing that made Breivik’s rampage necessary in the first place. Will they ever learn?

I grew up around a lot of Norwegian Americans in the Pacific Northwest. They are known for being taciturn and for not expressing their feelings. I still remember the only Norwegian joke I ever heard: “Did you hear the one about the Norwegian man who loved his wife so much that he almost told her?” Nordics don’t just keep back positive emotions, either. They are notorious for suffering a long time in silence, bottling up their anger, until, eventually, there is an explosion and someone goes Viking.

There will be more Breiviks. Of course the multiculturalists will merely blame Breivik for that. But the truth is that Breivik himself was merely a product of the hatred and violence that multiculturalism predictably brings. The Norwegian Labor Party is responsible for all of the violence caused by their policies, including the inevitable violence by Norwegians who get fed up and finally fight back. That includes Breivik. Primarily he needs to be seen as a victim of an evil system. (Breivik, of course, bears some responsibility for his acts. These were not crimes of passion but the products of lengthy, meticulous premeditation.)

Yet in the end, for all of his crimes and mistakes, I cannot judge Breivik too harshly. He is an awakened white man, and those are all too rare. He was a loyal Aryan, and ultimately that matters more than anything else. Yes, he committed crimes. But he committed them out of love.

Granted, when Breivik awakened he fled one form of Jewish ideology for another, namely the Counter-Jihad movement. But the whole reason that such false opposition groups exist is to deceive, deflect, and delay awakened whites. Still, many whites eventually see through them. And, as Breivik’s Opening Statement indicates, since his arrest, his thinking has evolved in the direction of explicit ethnonationalism. Given time, he might even evolve toward a consistent New Right outlook.

Breivik is going to spend many years in prison. If I could whisper to the Norns, this is the wyrd I would have them spin. I hope he continues his intellectual evolution in a New Right trajectory, renouncing violence and emphasizing intellectual and cultural strategies of change (the only strategies that will be available to him, in any case). I hope that he comments on Norwegian and international affairs and develops a following. Surely events in the coming decades will only argue in his favor. More and more Norwegians—and Europeans around the world—will come to sympathize with his outlook.

He will become a pundit, a guru, a cult figure. People will rifle through his garbage for relics. Women will want to bear his children. His face will end up on t-shirts, just like Che Guevara. And when he gets out of prison, who knows, perhaps Breivik will follow the path of rehabilitated ex-terrorists like Nelson Mandela and Menachem Begin. Perhaps he will end up a Prime Minister or a Nobel Peace Prize winner. He would not be the first to have used dynamite along the way.

Mark Steyn

Steyn at the center, wearing a Kippah with Jews at Toronto

This month at Toronto, the famed author Mark Steyn said that Western society is complicit in a resurgence of anti-Semitism that may lead to a second Holocaust, for which humankind will have no excuses. “There is something profoundly wicked in the contortions that Europeans are willing to make with respect to their own complicated history with the Jewish people,” said Steyn. “We are on the verge of the biggest, most disgusting and evil event of all, in part because of the complicity of the West” (see the Jewish Tribune article where these statement and many other similar statements by Steyn on “anti-Semitism” have been recorded).

Either Steyn is playing the fool by willfully setting aside from his consciousness the vast pool of information about the role of the Jews in the ongoing Western collapse, or he has not heard this sort of info during his long career as an intellectual who presumably defends our civilization. There’s no third possibility.

Considering that Steyn said every recorded word at Toronto assuming that any anti-Semitic sentiment must be pathological, it is impossible to discuss what he said this month without basic information about the Jewish Problem.

If the Jewish Problem (1) does indeed exist, Steyn is either playing the fool or simply someone who has not heard of the Jewish Problem throughout his life, as stated above. On the other hand, if (2) the Jewish Problem is sheer white nationalist paranoia, Steyn’s recent statements make sense from the historical and ethical viewpoint. Everything has to do with these two possibilities.

The long quotation that below comprises most of this post—9,000+ words—conveys the idea that #1 is the right approach to understand Steyn’s mind.

Rather than a quotation it’s a series of excerpts that I typed directly from an academic work by Albert Lindemann, a Jewish scholar who specializes in anti-Semitism and acknowledges the reasons why Jews have been so disliked.

No ellipsis added between unquoted excerpts:


Note of February 23, 2013. I have moved the long book quotation elsewhere.

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.

Published in: on August 9, 2011 at 1:05 am  Comments (4)  

A gentile baron

under the spell of the Jew

Just as mainstream newspapers would immediately fire anyone who dares even to hint that there’s such a thing as a Jewish Question, many bloggers, even those who vehemently “defend” the West, are clueless about the JQ.

On February 28 of the last year Baron Bodissey, the administrator of the counter-jihad blogsite Gates of Vienna, responded to an e-mail communicating me that he would not be publishing the rest of my online book The Return of Quetzalcoatl in his site. Bodissey wrote:

My problem comes from the turn your blog has taken. Not only have you yourself, with your “lightning strike” moment, decided that there is a “Jewish problem”, but you have also welcomed comments from real National Socialists—people who want to continue the work of the Third Reich, especially as regards the Jews and other “inferior” races… I can’t help but take into consideration the trouble it would cause for me to associate myself with people who openly advocate the extermination of the Jews.

I have worked hard in recent months to establish some lines of communication with people in Israel. Despite how worthwhile your chapters are, I won’t risk throwing all that away to publish them.

–Baron B.

I was flabbergasted. None of the commenters who Bodissey referred to in my “lightening strike” thread advocate exterminating the Jews, not even the one who in that thread openly identified himself with National Socialism. Nor have they said that the Jews are “an inferior race.”

Bodissey’s was the proverbial reaction we hear thousands of times from those who have been bewitched by the elites every time any of us dares to name what must never be named: the members of the ethnic group who control the media, large parts of the financial sector and are influential in the academia.

I was disappointed that the rest of The Return of Quetzalcoatl would have to be published in my own blog instead of reaching a wider audience—again, what happens in the large newspapers when one dares to name the Jew. That day after several exchanges with Bodissey I realized that, in spite of the fact that Bodissey claims to be an intellectual, he had no idea whatsoever of what we meant when we talk about the “problem.” Bodissey again:

Based on my own personal experience—personal, mind you; people I actually know—the characterization that there is a “Jewish problem” simply isn’t true. I see more of a “Swedish problem” than I do a “Jewish problem”.

Although this month I added five rather modest entries in this blog on Jew-blind counter-jihad (two of them inspired me to chose the above image), I am no expert on the question of how Jewish influence has been detrimental to Western civilization. However, the interested reader may listen Professor Kevin MacDonald’s conference at the seminar “Revolt Against Civilization” hosted by the Danish Society for Free Historical Research in Denmark last month:

Jewish Intellectual Movements
in the 20th Century:

•  Part 1/6

•  Part 2/6

•  Part 3/6

•  Part 4/6

•  Part 5/6

Part 6/6

The honest listener will see if, following Bodissey’s remarks last year, I suddenly “decided” (his word) that there’s a Jewish problem or if the problem really does exist outside my head.

Published in: on June 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm  Comments (7)  

“…then you are in sad shape”

Perhaps those who have been following my little trilogy (here, here and here) may be interested in the intelligent comments by Daybreaker today at Age of Treason about the recent incident at the counter-jihad site Gates of Vienna.

Daybreaker wrote:

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

The polite dissidents Tanstaafl and Chechar did well, and team Takuan Seiyo came off as nasty and shameless in exploiting the fact that the Gates of Vienna can’t afford to be seen countenancing anti-Jewish opinions…

I found the threads enlightening. I hadn’t realized the anti-jihadists were that weak. In the face of a few reasons why a list of six hostile groups [the six-point list appears: here] should have been a list of seven hostile groups (which is surely on-topic), they were quickly reduced to abuse, bluster and the ever-popular “shut up.”

Nobody thinks Jews are the only problem, including Kevin MacDonald, who has written eloquently on the self-destructiveness of typically White universalism and “altruistic punishment” carried beyond reasonable bounds. Fertility is a problem for advanced societies, even the Japanese, who nobody thinks are responding to Jewish pressure not to have kids. Feminism can create severe problems independently of Judaism. Political correctness and the sort of one-sided liberal philosophy that sees autonomy as the supreme good rather than one item in a basket of goods are real menaces. “Black Run America” may be an exaggerated label, but there are plenty of White people who are experiencing problems along those lines, in cities where the political machine has gone Black, and “Black Run Southern Africa” is a brutal reality. Islam is still there and still a menace, and any European would be a fool to ignore it, if only because it’s the religion of Arab ethnic supremacism and thus at least dubious for White people. And so on.

So it’s not only Jews that get blamed.

Rather it’s only Jews that demand that they be above blame, and that will attack to the point of derailing threads repeatedly unless they are set above the ordinary standards of criticism that are applied to everyone else. If there’s a list of six or seven items, and all of them blame somebody, count on the ones that blame White men to go through without any objection from anyone, and most of the other items to go through with varying minor degrees of objection, but don’t be surprised when the one that mentions Jews ignites a lasting firestorm of verbal punishment. The whole thread gets derailed, over and over, so that the only way to get relief is either to establish some explicitly non-Jewish discussion space (which I guess institutions like the Catholic Church have done, historically), or else ban, demonize, marginalize and discourage whoever refuses to let Jews play by special rules that advantage them over everyone else.

And then comes the amazing claim that it’s the Judeo-skeptics who have one-track minds. [e.g., here]


Anti-jihadism, with Jews seen as an indispensable part of the coalition (that is, with the power of veto) cannot transcend this problem. At least, it obviously hasn’t. If the Jews are indispensable, and it’s unacceptable (or at least too wearing on the nerves of relatively conflict-averse Whites) to have the fights that Jews will start whenever they aren’t privileged enough, then everybody and everything displeasing to Jews has to go.

Then anti-jihadism must become in time, a Jewish front, in effect. It will take on jihadism and mass immigration only as and when that suits Jews. If Jews don’t think ending mass immigration in general should be part of the program, it won’t be, even if that would be the only principled and practicable way to keep Islamic hordes out of White countries.

In time an anti-jihadist front may even include other items that aren’t logically connected with protecting Whites from jihad at all, because Jews and crypto-Jews can’t be kicked off the team (because they’re the ones with the money and connections), and they’ll make life unbearable for everyone else until they get their way.

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

And in the long term it won’t defend White interests. It’s a “coalition” that only exists while one side has the money and sets the rules and gets what it wants (or else), and the other side supplies warm bodies and labors on despite the fact that its needs are not being met, in frustration over lack of alternatives and in the vain hope that things will somehow get better.

This has been the Jewish ethno-political style for century after century, for millennium after millennium, in different states, on different continents, and in dealing with vastly dissimilar groups of Whites.

It’s not profitable for Whites, collectively and in the long run, to enter coalitions on these terms.


Fjordman [wrote]:

“The simple fact is that when it comes to giving birth to the Proposition Nation, which was the subject of my original essay, Jews were quite irrelevant.”

The simple fact is that that was not a “simple fact” but an assumption that was bound to be controversial, given that Jews have been highly relevant to issues of immigration, “pluralism” and so on in White countries.

Fjordman should have anticipated that inevitable controversy. He could have given reasons for his assumption. (It is entirely unsupported in his post.) Or he could have said (in the original post) that he wasn’t ready to discuss the Jewish issue and asked people to confine discussion to other aspects of his new thinking, where he was ready to respond. (I’m sure someone would have asked why he wasn’t ready to respond to such an obvious problem. But if he had stuck to saying that he needed a discussion on other aspects of the proposition nation as he had described it, I think Tanstaafl for one would have respected that.) Or he could have asked that his sixth point be taken as covering the Jewish issue for the time being, and requested that those commenting try to address all six points evenly, not just one.

What he did was pretend, with an unsupported controversial assumption, that no problem exists, and then when this odd move was questioned he supported rhetorical hostilities including exclusion for those puzzled by his assumption.

In effect, he hijacked his own thread by managing it badly. And he took no responsibility for this.

If things had gone down as Fjordman said, I would feel sorry for him. But as Mary points out, you can line up what he said Chechar confessed to with what Chechar said, and it’s obvious that Fjordman is making serious misstatements about things in our plain sight, and worse, using these invented facts to justify a lot of discourteous behavior by himself and others.

That creates a pathetic impression. When you can’t respond to reasonable requests such as those from The Sentinel with reasons, not abuse, when you can’t defend your thesis and in effect you need abusive rhetoric from yourself and others as a way to justify lowering the curtain on a discussion where you are not coming off well intellectually, and when you need to misstate the very plainly stated opinions of those who dissent in order to justify this rhetorical abuse and this silencing, then you are in sad shape.

Published in: on June 13, 2011 at 11:06 pm  Comments (5)  

Against traitorous Counter-jihad

Saruman the White

As the last entry of tonight’s trilogy, I would like to repost what another commenter said at Age of Treason:

Armor said…

Tanstaafl: “The soi-disant counter-jihad has several characteristics of a jewish movement, and can be seen as largely an outgrowth of and having much overlap with both zionism and neoconservatism.”

What is very Jewish in counter-jihad is that everything is turned upside down. It is full of accusatory inversion. The Jewish counter-jihadists blame the Muslims for misdeeds that are more characteristic of Jews than of Muslims.

❦ Counter-jihadists blame the Muslims for hating the West. In fact, Jewish activists are the ones who are busy destroying the West through mass immigration.

❦ They say that the Koran is uncivilized, but the Talmud is probably worse.

❦ They say there is no moderate islam. I wonder where are the moderate Jewish activists!

Gates of Vienna is currently advertising for a book called Allah is Dead: Why Islam is not a religion by Rebecca Bynum. In fact, Christianity has much more in common with Islam than with Judaism. If Judaism is for ethnic Jews only, is there a different God for non-Jews? Do non-Jews have souls? Is there life after death? Don’t look for the answers in Wikipedia. The entry about Judaism is full of obfuscation.

❦ They say that the Muslims are threatening free speech. The affair of the Danish cartoons is an example of that. But free speech in the West is mostly attacked by Jewish groups, not by Muslims.

❦ They say that teachers in France are afraid to teach Muslim students about “the Holocaust”. But Jews forbid Europeans to discuss the subject.

❦ They say the Muslims are obscurantists stuck in the Middle Ages. But at least, Muslims don’t have any cultural influence in White people’s lives. By contrast, Jews have subverted Western public intellectual life and largely destroyed it.

❦ They complain about taqiyya. What about kol nidre?

❦ They taunt the Europeans who are said to have become dhimmis to the Muslims. The truth is that we have become dhimmis to the Jews.

❦ They warn against weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, but Israel is the only one with a nuclear arsenal.

❦ They worry about the lack of democracy in the Arab world, but don’t care about the plight of Arabs in Israel.

And so on…

Published in: on June 12, 2011 at 11:50 pm  Comments (6)