Beullogeo's

Fjordman's latest essay at Gates of Vienna, When Treason Becomes The Norm: Why The Proposition Nation, Not Islam, Is Our Primary Enemy seems to be a move in the right direction. He's talking about treason now, eviscerating the suicide meme he previously flirted with, though without directly disavowing it.

Fjordman intertwines one sour note with an otherwise sensible conclusion. The sensible portions were highlighted in a comment by Eileen O'Connor:

As Sam Francis reminded us, 'every real nation is a country of a common blood. The only nations that claim to be defined by creeds are — come to think of it — totalitarian states. The Soviet Union, a 20th century descendant of the French Revolution, really was a credal nation, and it survived only because it rested on the same Terror that reigned in France. When the common blood dries up and the civilization founded on it withers, all that’s left is the state.'

Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis. After the Second World War, any talk of genetic differences, of being related by blood or of ties to the soil you live on became associated with Nazism and therefore seen as evil. Out of the many things the Nazis destroyed, this was one of the most damaging, but perhaps least appreciated today. I would be tempted to declare the Nazis the most anti-white movement that ever existed, considering the incalculable damage they did to Europeans and people of European origins.

The main reason why we are threatened by outside forces today is because of the notion that our countries should be glorified shopping centers where anybody should be free to enter as they desire. As long as this situation continues, we will never be able to defeat our enemies.

Our primary enemy is the Proposition Nation, not Islam. The only way to restore sanity to our countries is to restore the concept that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage.

Chechar had already responded with a spot-on comment probing Fjordman's most glaring blind spot:

@ “If we make a list of groups or institutions that are promoting the dispossession and destruction of Europeans it would look something like this, starting from the top down: [six culprits]

Why did you left out an important culprit Fjordman, the Jewish involvement in shaping American immigration policy?

As to immigration in Europe, see this video where a Jewess Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement:

Quote:

“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we [the Jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.”

/end quote

I think this blind spot cannot long endure the trajectory Fjordman is on. Here, for the first time I believe, he crosses a line, stepping away from deracinated counter-jihad and toward ethno-racial nationalism. I thought I might help him, and others in a similar quandry, with the portion of his thinking he finds "unfortunate". I left the following comment:

Fjordman,

I like this essay, especially the portions Eileen O'Connor highlighted in her 6/10/2011 10:06 PM comment. Well done. I hope you continue along these lines.

"Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis."

But you do not believe this line of thinking is wrong. It is unfortunate, but unavoidable, that you're having trouble reconciling this with your belief that "the nazis" are evil. The two beliefs cannot co-exist for long.

I hope you realize sooner rather than later that whatever "the nazis" did does not negate the truth or righteousness of nationalism - including the idea "that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage". It means Germany for Germans, Norway for Norwegians, Europe for Europeans. When you can finally say this in full throat you will be denounced as a "nazi". But by then you will understand who does this and why.

This morning I returned to the thread and found the following comment from Fjordman:

Chechar and Tanstaafl are hostile, dishonest debaters. In fact, I wouldn’t call them debaters at all, but rather spammers. They essentially post the same comment over and over again, and it’s not even an interesting or intelligent comment. Tanstaafl: We have nothing in common and I will NEVER join your “team.” You should have realized that by now. You have your own blog and there are plenty of others where you can write about this as much as you want to. You have no right to hijack this website where good people invest their time with little or no pay to create important debates.

I will request that GoV deletes Tanstaafl’s latest comment about the Nazis. Some people have mental faculties that require us to protect them from themselves. Tanstaafl clearly falls under that category. Mr. T: Your presence undermines the very purpose of this website. You have no business being here. I don’t spend countless hours of my free time reading or thinking about interesting subjects to write about for you to come here and destroy everything. Take a hike. And that goes for Chechar, too.

I’m sure Chechar will whine and complain about “censorship,” and he’s free to do so….somewhere else, for instance at his own, not terribly interesting blog which he keeps hijacking our posts here by linking to. I’m also sure he will say that I have “no right” to censor him and that doing so is “cowardice.” He’s wrong on both accounts. Yes, I do. I have every right to tell him that his presence is not wanted on my posts, just like a person has the right to decide who he wants to let into his private home. If I try to keep a tidy house and unwanted people intrude and make a mess of it, I have every right to ask them to leave. It’s not “cowardice” to ask bullies to leave, and that’s what Chechar is: a bully. He’s extremely rude and intrudes where he knows perfectly well that he is not wanted, just like the low-IQ Third World thugs he himself despises.

Discrimination is proper and necessary. Our civilization needs more of it in order to survive and prosper. I choose to discriminate against Chechar based on his rudeness, his lack of logic and his general lack of manners. I also choose to discriminate against Tanstaafl based on his lack of a moral compass and above all his lack of intelligence. There should be an IQ limit to posting here, and Tanstaafl does not qualify. He barely has an IQ much higher than that of your average Muhammedan from the Yemen, and he shares much the same obsession with looking for Jews under his bed.

Bye.

My comment was gone.

As with the puffed-up opprobrium Fjordman heaps upon "the nazis" in his essay, I see in the blind bile in this comment the anger of a man terrified with the implications of his own thoughts. We do indeed have something in common. I passed through counter-jihadism on the way to where I am now. This is why I can see so clearly why his current line of thinking, in favor of nationalism, is colliding with a long-ingrained belief in the diabolical nature of "the nazis". The counter-jihad is a movement focused on what's good for "the jews". I believe Fjordman has claimed to be 100% Norwegian. Whether he considers "the jews" White or Norwegian or not, as long as he stands against the Proposition Nation, especially in preference to "a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage", he will find himself opposed and pilloried by "the jews", not "the nazis".

"The jews" are their own people with their own shared heritage. They have demonstrated time and again that they cannot abide the same in anyone else. Their ancient competitors - the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, and a gaggle of latter day caliphs, kings, queens, czars, and führers - are gone, "the jews" remain.

When Fjordman strikes out at "the nazis" he strikes at an easy target. He telegraphs that he is not an enemy of "the jews". From his previous writings, we know Fjordman thinks highly of "the jews". Whether he holds to this position, it will not fool them. If he is sincere in his move toward a more pro-White/pro-European stand he will realize this eventually. If in the meantime it makes him feel better to imagine himself as a heroic Luke Skywalker rejecting the dirty, rotten, evil, lying Darth Vader, that's fine by me.

Then again it could very well be that Fjordman is insincere - that for whatever reason he still really places the interests of "the jews" above everyone else, but because he has already been criticized for this he is trying to conceal it rather than reconsider it and reorder his priorities. I find this less likely, but time will tell.

- - -

Before I commented on Fjordman's essay, Takuan Seiyo, who I've crossed paths with before, had already made a comment condemning Chechar. Seiyo is of a different, more fundamentally jew-first counter-jihad stripe than Fjordman. He claims to be half-Slav/half-jew, though the latter half dominates both the style and substance of his arguments. As with Lawrence Auster, Seiyo makes the occasional strong statement in favor of native Europeans and critical of "the jews". Then he spends the balance of his efforts making it clear that this is only because he sympathizes with and excuses "the jews". The real problem, in his mind, comes from the evil "anti-semites", "nazis", and other people who criticize "the jews" from a point of view less sympathetic than his own.

With this understanding I made a second comment at GoV:

Takuan Seiyo writes:

"The reason people like Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna, myself and others cannot write more about the Jewish contribution to our destruction is precisely because of those who do, like the comrade above. Their lying about Hitler, Holocaust denial, hobnobbing with Ustashniks and Neo-nazis, obscurantism about the horrors of the Romanovs’ rule that engendered the Bolshevik Revolution (and Jewish participation therein), puts anyone who writes critically about their grand idee-fixe -- Der Juden – in a radioactive chamber, and anyone who cares about truth in the camp of untruth.

The antisemites sabotage the task of saving and boosting the Peoples of Europe (and her diaspora) in two more ways. First, by misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Jews’ motivation in their dysfunctional behavior, they muddle the issue and make it far more difficult to mount effective countermeasures. To be brief, the most accurate – and most bitingly damaging -- statement about the Jewish dysfunction was made not by Duke or MacDonald, but rather by a Jewish comedienne, Julia Gorin, and in direct negation of their and Hitler’s spurious theorizing."

I'll believe Seiyo speaks for Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna when they say he does.

"The antisemites" are Seiyo's grand idee-fixe, his "Der Juden". If they would just be silent, even here on the margins of the internet, then he could finally save us all.

For those who would like to hear what actual White nationalists have to say for themselves, I recommend the following podcasts:

The Nationalist Report: Interview with David Duke, Oct 2010.

Kevin MacDonald's speech at the first National Conference of the American Third Position Party, June 2010.

What these men say should appeal to any White person Fjordman's essay appeals to.

This comment has also been removed. Just below where it appeared, before the response made by Fjordman quoted above, was this comment from Seiyo:

It's either you or me. This blog will have to choose. I feel soiled by being on the same page with you. Unless you are bounced from here, I take a hike. Your response, if any, will get no response from me.

Probably without intending it, Seiyo echoes and confirms the point I was trying to get across to Fjordman. You can pick European nationalism or "the jews". Those who choose their own kind, their nation, over "the jews" will be forced to face the fact, sooner or later, that their enemies, those who demonize and attack them most vehemently, are those who put "the jews" first.

- - -

Hesperado is another commenter on the Fjordman essay that I've previously crossed paths with. The comments in that post touch on Seiyo, Fjordman, and the counter-jihad as well.

Chechar has also discussed Fjordman at his blog.

Chechar questions the non-anti-semitic limits on his White nationalism: A lightning in the middle of the night!

Lawrence "the majority should reassert itself" Auster supports the move, saying he understands Whites and jews have different, sometimes conflicting interests, and though he unequivocally favors jews he does not object to White political or cultural self-determination: An anti-anti-Semitic blogger announces that he is removing the first "anti".

Just kidding. Larry is such a serious anti-"anti-semite" he'd never say anything remotely like that.

UPDATE 26 Feb 2010: "Tanstaafl on Auster (I)"

As many regular visitors here probably know, Lawrence Auster has been writing for years about an idea he calls "The First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society". The essence of it is that "liberalism" dictates that "minorities" who behave worst must be treated best by "the majority". It's a valuable insight, but I use sneer-quotes where Auster's terminology obscures reality. The law is more precisely stated in less euphemistic terms. Neo-liberalism dictates that non-Whites or non-Christians who behave worst must be treated best by White Christians. Jews behave the worst and must be treated the best.

This explains how news and opinion are reported by the media, how subjects are taught in academia, and how policy is formed by the government. Day in and day out they tell us that Whites are monsters and jews are saints.

When I first pointed out that Auster's law applies to jews he responded first by making an attempt, lame beyond belief, to explain why it shouldn't, can't, doesn't, and musn't. Then he shifted the argument to what a bad person I was, based in part on my pseudonym. No shit. He eventually settled, and remains settled to this day, on the logically unassailable position that only a "serious anti-semite" would think negatively of jews, therefore such thoughts should be ignored.

That summarizes the exchange until now. I refer those who want more detail to Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism, which contains my initial challenge and his response. Criticizing Auster reviews the argument eight months later. Other comments regarding Auster are here.

What prompts me to write today is that a few days ago Chechar posted "Auster’s Law and Corollary". I left a comment there with the two links above and some short comments.

A few days later Auster linked Chechar in The more the Other threatens us , the more we accommodate ourselves to him, yet another pithy formulation of his law that fits jews. Auster no doubt thinks it is a safe statement to make. In his mind anyone who says they feel threatened by jews is declaring themselves a threat to jews, and this in no way represents any special accomodation whatsoever.

Don Marco Jawsario and Hesperado left comments on Chechar's post arguing against Auster's law applying to jews. It seems they are unaware of or don't care what has already been written, but I made some brief responses.

It's important to know where these commenters are coming from, as Auster is fond of saying. Don Marco Jawsario appears to be Auster's frequent correspondent Mark Jaws, AKA Marco Jawsario, who is jewish ("in the Army I was usually the only Jew in my regiment"). I have previously written about Hesperado in Hesperation. He has made it clear that he thinks "support for Judaism and the Jews is a non-negotiable virtue".

Auster obviously formulated his law with muslims and blacks in mind, not jews. He and his supporters want to exclude muslims and blacks (and "anti-semites") from "our" society, but not jews. They'd like to roust "the majority" to do the heavy lifting, and they point to just the portion of the anti-White system they want us to dismantle. It's a gambit. They know "the majority" might notice that a particular minority has long been dictating the terms for their own benefit. (After all, here I am saying it.) So for appearences they try to keep their version of the law jew-safe by adding subtle qualifications only indirectly exempting jews. "Oh, misbehavior doesn't include things like fraud, opening the borders, hate speech laws, bribery, organ trafficing - misbehavior means violence!" Of course when this doesn't fly it's right back to the same old story. Blame "anti-semitism". Jews are exempt and only jew-haters/conspiracy theorists/bad stupid evil subhumans think otherwise.

The question is, why should Whites heed this jew-serving double-talk? The law itself explains this aspect of "majority-minority relations" perfectly. In fact it fits better when they make their excuses and sling their insults than it would if they didn't. We can pretend the law doesn't apply to jews, and came from who knows where. Or we can say it does apply to jews, serves their interests, and has been promulgated by them for that very reason.

At the root of this double-talk is Auster's dissembling. "The majority" is White, and we are quickly being reduced to a minority, not by "liberalism" but by anti-White/pro-jew neo-liberalism. We can argue about whether "the majority" means White Christian, but Christian is an increasingly imperfect proxy for White. Non-White Christians don't get shit on by neo-liberalism. Non-Christian Whites do. Whites are distinct from "whites", which is Auster's term for an amalgam of Whites and jews inseparable except when jews see fit to distinguish themselves for special treatment. The regime is not anti-"white", it is anti-White. If what is being done to Whites were being done to jews, even as part of an anti-"white" regime, they would call it genocide, and people who tried to paint it as "suicide" would be accused of aiding and abetting that genocide. Auster may get warmer at times, but I don't believe he will ever come clean about these crucial distinctions. He's more concerned with the consequences for jews than anything else.

When Auster discusses Whites (euphemized as "the majority", or "white gentiles", or "white Christians") it is only to blame us. He does not blame jews. For example, in Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants, Auster writes (my emphasis):

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following: Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel OK about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals.

The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

Here Auster reveals that when he blames "liberalism" daily for the West's various ills he's really blaming White Christians. What do these Protestants feel so guilty about? Has nobody ever pointed out to them that guilt-free White-blaming jews love to conflate misguided liberal equalitarianism with consciously anti-White anti-Christian neo-liberalism?

Auster says jews know what's going on and think the white gentile majority is the problem. It certainly describes his own view. It explains his regular commands for "the majority" to "reassert itself" by throwing off just those parts of neo-liberalism he doesn't like. He regularly asserts that "we" are "suiciding" ourselves, as if jews are standing idly by in some ghetto watching instead of actively leading, funding, and participating in the destruction of White society while doing their utmost to protect jews.

The fact that some weak-minded Whites have been convinced to blame themselves and protect jews does not absolve the jews who are involved. What justifies treating jews as a group is how they leap as a group to the defense of the jews who are complicit. Auster got my attention because he's one of the handful of jews who comments on these things. Even he ultimately sides with the misbehaving jews.

C'est la guerre.