Comments on: White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad

By: nyuntermensch

nyuntermensch — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:39:47 +0000

Fjordman has written many other valuable essays (e.g., “Immigrant Rape Wave in Sweden”, “The Eurabia Code”, “Caucasophobia — the Accepted Racism”, “Does Global Warming Cause Rape Waves?”, “Expo and the Islamophobes”, “Sweden: Melting Pot or Crackpot?”, “The Cult of Reason — The Dark Side of the Enlightenment”), but he is probably at least half-Jewish (on his father’s side), and his failure to name the Jew, even in essays that deal with Jewish ideologies (e.g., “The Background of Multiculturalism”, “A Communism for the 21st Century”, “The Triumph of Cultural Marxism”), is conspicuous. Further, he is a Zionist sympathizer — and possibly a Zionist himself –, as revealed by his essay, “Why Israel’s Struggle Is Our Struggle, Too”. Even Paul Gottfried and Henry Makow, both dissenting Jews, have been far more open about the Jewish role in the destruction of the West than has the purportedly Nordic Fjordman, while the Leftist Jew, Gilad Atzmon, has had the honesty to complain about Jews’ hypocritical commitment to tribalism whilst they promote universalism for others. Atzmon, Gottfried, and Makow have all been labeled “anti-Semites”, which proves there is no immunity for Jews from charges of “anti-Semitism”. So what’s Fjordman’s excuse? Whether Fjordman is Jewish or not, his loyalty is to Jewish interests, not to White interests.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:23:22 +0000

“Salk was rewarded for his service.”

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-enders-jonas-salk-and-eradication.html

By: Chechar

Chechar — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 19:34:40 +0000

This thread has been translated to German:

http://fjordman.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/weiser-nationalismus-und-der-counterjihad/

Thanks a lot Ace of Swords!

By: Armor

Armor — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:58:35 +0000

Svigor: "In short, the misdeeds we hold Jews accountable for are quintessentially Jewish; the good deeds others attribute to them in their defense are not."

It could be added that the misdeeds Jewish activists hold the Nazis accountable for are not quintessentially Nazi. That is to say, whether 6 million or only 200.000 Jews died in WW2 (out of 60 million people who lost their lives), National Socialism and its efforts at moral and national regeneration were not about killing Jews. Even if it could be shown that gas chambers have been used, and that Jewish deaths in Auschwitz were not due to typhus, it would still be true that German popular support for National Socialism had nothing to do with killing Jews.

For example, I don't suppose that Hitler's book advocates any ill-treatment of the Jews. By contrast, it seems that the Talmud tells Jews to kill the best of the Gentiles.

Imposing the 6 million number is a way to impose the idea that Germans by and large revelled in Jew killing. For example, a Jew wrote and the media promoted a book with the title: "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust". The goal was to push the idea that ordinary Germans had happily worked together to kill 6 million Jews. This is an obvious proof of Jewish hostility to White people. The truth is probably that most German people had no opinion about Jews.

The phony lesson that we are taught by the media :

1. We must never blame "the Jews". Some Jews may have taken the lead in the genociding of a few million Ukrainians... Some other Jews may have taken the lead in the campaign to replace White people with non-whites... But it has nothing to do with Jewishness.

2. White people are collectively guilty of killing 6 million Jews. Nazism was the ideology of killing 6 million Jews. It has everything to do with being White. White people who defend themselves against that accusation are antisemites.

By: Captainchaos

Captainchaos — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 04:41:50 +0000

It is true, our race is genetically bound to seek meaning in and governance by abstract ideals. And the high priests of that pursuit are genetically bound to exult – at least unconsciously – in their own moral and intellectual superiority as they pursue their priestly duties. I won’t hold it against them nor would I be inclined to deny them that emotional incentive – not that I could deny them the latter even if I wished. What I wish is to marry this impulse to a true understanding of our moral nature as serves our ultimate interests according to Salter (our ethnic genetic interests), our genetic interests (familial), and personal interests. A true understanding, I emphasize. An understanding which most (most are constitutionally morally sound; most cannot reason on their own, yet will listen to the fruits of reason when presented correctly – of course when cloaked in authority), if not all (there are some who are not constitutionally morally sound; there are some who cannot be reasoned with), can agree exhorts what is objectively morally correct as serves the aforementioned interests. That which produces wide-spread moral deformation can be said to objectively not serve those interests.

Now that is a church, so to speak, which I could worship in, though I would not wish to be a priest in it.

Hopefully some good tobacco for the pipes of aspiring theocrats, of course assuming that they are constituionally morally good men.