Also, the explicit approach allows people to be honest. Our goal really is to protect White society from encroachment and replacement by non-Whites.

It is much harder for Jews and leftists to be honest about their goal of destroying White society. Not that it matters to them. Unlike us, they are not bothered by cognitive dissonance. What they usually say is that immigration must go on because it’s good for the economy, because we need the diversity, because non-Whites are exactly the same as White people, because third-world people need a safe place to go, because White women no longer have enough babies, because it would be cruel to prevent family reunion, and so on – whatever silly rationalization comes to their minds. But they don’t believe their own nonsense. They don’t care about immigrants and don’t want to live near them.

When in 2009 I was immersed in counter-jihadism I took notice of Robert Spencer saying that his movement should not relate to race matters in any way; and the “Baron” saying that he had a low impression of those who put race first in their agenda. IIRC the Baron once said that he has colored relatives, perhaps those who married his offspring, and that he lived in a colored neighborhood.

The most grotesque saying was Dymphna’s. She once talked in high terms of a Negro neighbor and, in one of the threads, speaking about a pure white nation she stated, “How monochromatic!” Eric (Conservative Swede), who has used the “shut up!” tactic more than once against me, said something similar: that Sweden was “too Germanic” and that he wanted to miscegenate some Nordics with Mediterraneans. As a Mediterranean myself I dare to say that this is too risky a move. Mediterraneans consist of both the coarse type, that I would call geese (many of them in Spain, Portugal and Southern Italy), and the swans (the more delicate French or some Catalonians, where my forefathers come).

Yesterday I read all Amazon reviews of Mark Steyn’s just released After America. No single mention of the JQ! And in Pat Condell’s latest video on the UK racial riots, no single mention of the blacks that attacked their own neighborhood.

With these counter-jihad friends who needs enemies?

Look at bonald here. He isn’t explicitly pro-White, but he supports a certain Christian religious order that historically is White. Like Anders Behring Breivik, he sees this order as under attack by both leftists and Islam. (Of course in many other ways he’s unlike Anders Behring Breivik: bonald is a true believer, sane, etc.. I only mean he sees the same facts and reaches the same theoretical fork in the road.) He takes the other branch from the counter-jihadists, that is he decides that conservative Christians must go into a “traditionalist” alliance with Islam, in which alliance Muslims will own the leadership role and Christians must be supportive. A little while later, bonald realizes that won’t work. In other words, he’s essentially running around in circles.

Whether you choose to bow your head to the Muslim hordes in order to be spared the corruption of the Culture of Critique or whether you bow your head to the disproportionately Jewish establishment in order to be spared the rigors or sharia you fall into incoherence because you are imagining possible “allies” that are in fact implacably hostile.

There is no “lesser” evil to choose. Dead is dead.

No matter how bad the odds may be, to be pro-White is the only rational path for Whites.

I think the most important idea he has is the simplest: in the face of a sustained attack, White interests can only be defended and must be defended by explicit White advocacy. “Implicit Whiteness” will not do.

The counter-jihadist alternative approach has crashed and burned. It started with the idea that defending a key White interest, not being colonized by Islamic hordes, could best be pursued by never defining Whites as the group to be protected. Rather than risk defending Whites and being tarred as racist, the movement would be all about culture, and it would define Islam as an aggressive and bad culture that had to be stopped, and that would be sufficient, supposedly. Counter-jihadism proceeded quickly to Jewish and quasi-Jewish colonization. It went on to the EDL flying the Star of David and defining itself in terms of the defense of Israel but not the defense of Whites. It lead to splits, as allowing some Jews to set up their own power structure within the movement lead to branch-stacking and all the familiar games, and any resistance to this was defined as anti-Semitism. It lead to laughably inadequate, incoherent intellectual positions, that could only be defended by copious use of “shut up!”

It’s not that the counter-jihadist approach wasn’t radical enough: even if you took it to the extreme, bloody radicalism of Anders Behring Breivik, it never got around to defending Whites as such. The whole thing was and is rotten at the root, and nothing good will come of it.

We’ve got to stand by each other, explicitly and firmly, as Whites, from Tasmania to Canada and all round the world. Because we are all under attack.

Anything that’s contrary to that, from Basque zealotry to Third Reich fantasies, I don’t support.

Naming the Whites, in order to do what is good for the Whites, is much more important than “naming the Jew”. (And anyway, Kevin MacDonald is on top of that too.)

And oh yeah: re: Derbyshire: what Armor said.

The question that concerns me is not anti-semitism in Norway, but the extent of Jewish influence in the country. Wikipedia says Norway has 1500 Jews. That would be 1501, if we add Fjordman. Oslo has both a Jewish museum and a “Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies”. According to Wiki, “prominent Norwegian Jews include former president of Stortinget (the parliament), Jo Benkow“, whose main interests seem to be anti-semitism, Israeli politics, the Middle East, Human Rights, international relations, modern monarchy in Norway…

A personal thought: we know there is heavy Jewish influence in Sweden through the Bonnier media group. Maybe it also has some influence in Norway if Norwegians are able to understand Swedish?

John Derbyshire, who opposes immigration but is employed by Jews, said this in a broadcast from last month (July 29) :

“(I would just note in passing here that there is a faction among American conservatives — a faction to which I have loud and often made it clear I do not belong — that blames Western white ethno-masochism on the Jews. Just for the record, there are about 1,500 Jews in Norway. That’s 0.03 percent of the population.)”

Derbyshire is a smart man, but he talks rubbish whenever the subject is Jews. He seems to be implying that the race-replacement ideology is a natural phenomenon that has appeared independently in every Western country. That’s absurd. It should be obvious that we are dealing with an international phenomenon, whether or not the Jews play a crucial role in it. If the race-replacement policy didn’t exist in the USA, it wouldn’t exist in Norway either. But still, we must expect Jews who live in Norway to help the country accept the ideology that comes from American Jews.

I like Kevin MacDonald’s point of view better because it helps make sense of what is happening. In an article published last month (July 29), he explained :

“• For example, the academic world as producer and disseminator of knowledge and culture is a critical arena for creating the elite culture of the West. Importantly, academic culture is international rather than national. That is, all of the important academic societies are international in scope, so that a dissident academic culture in, say, Norway, is unthinkable. Once the academic world had become irredeemably liberal in the major cultural centers of the West—most importantly, the U.S. since WWII, it was inevitable that it would cast a huge influence on lesser centers of academic power. Indeed, it is critical for an academic in a small country such as Norway to develop a reputation beyond national borders—or effectively have no reputation at all. Similarly, as discussed in the previous link, in the U.S., academic culture is top-down, with the highest levels rigorously policed to prevent any deviations from multicultural orthodoxy and virtue; “