Tag Archives: counter-jihad

A Tale of Two Steves: Decoding the Ongoing Bannonocaust

stephen_jewhadi_miller_steve_useful_idiot_bannon

Last summer the jewsmedia mocked Trump’s economic advisory council with a variation on the usual “Too White” screech – “All of them are white, half of them are named some version of Steve”. Trump’s list, including most of the Steves, was actually chock full of jews, which is all the more remarkable in a country where there are far fewer jews than Whites.

Such incidents are among the most blatant examples of both the how and the why of the jewsmedia’s semitical correctness. By persistently exaggerating and so explicitly condemning the White this or White that of anything relating to Trump they effectively whitewash the gaggle of jews jewing jewishly all around him. And it is precisely this type of jew-serving anti-White “political correctness” that Trump never challenges.

During the past week another rash of this meta-jewing has broken out, the jewsmedia’s anti-White screeching once again rising to crescendo over a couple of Steves.

The Steve the jewsmedia is most fixated on demonizing is Steve Bannon. We’ve already reviewed the jewy nature of the hatred directed at him. Here we’ll dig more into his thinking. You can start with this article, which elaborates on Bannon’s background as “an ex-(((Goldman Sachs))) trader dabbling in (((the movie business)))”.

The other Steve the jewsmedia is screeching about is Stephen Miller, mainly concerning his work with Bannon on Trump’s inauguration speech and the travel ban. Miller is a jew, though the jewsmedia rarely mentions it and never faults him for it. While most of the jewsmedia focuses on demonizing Bannon, Rosie Gray literally portrayed her tribemate as a “scapegoat”.

In these first few weeks of the Trump administration there have been many short articles with titles like this one from Slate: Trump Gives Steve Bannon, Champion of White Nationalism, Key National Security Seat. The articles themselves describe almost nothing about Trump or Bannon’s ideology, much less what Whites have to do with it. In such cases “White” merely serves as a shibboleth.

There have been some jewsmedia articles that actually do try to explore Bannon’s thinking. For example, Steve Bannon’s own words show sharp break on security issues, from USA Today, 31 January 2017:

In dozens of hours of audio recordings reviewed by USA TODAY of his Breitbart News Daily radio show in 2015 and 2016, Bannon told his listeners that the United States and the Western world are engaged in a “global existential war,” and he entertained claims that a “fifth column” of Islamist sympathizers had infiltrated the U.S. government and news media. Those recordings, preserved online, offer an often unfiltered window into the thinking of Trump’s interview-averse senior adviser.

In January 2016, Bannon discussed various threats facing Europe in the late 1930s and evaluated Islam alongside fascism and Nazism.

“This is when Europe’s looking down the barrel of fascism — the rise of Mussolini in Italy, Stalin and the Russians and the communist Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. And obviously Hitler and the Nazis,” he said. “I mean you’re looking at fascism, you’re looking at communism. And to say that — what so blows me away is the timing of it. You could look in 1938 and say, ‘Look, it’s pretty dark here in Europe right now, but there’s something actually much darker. And that is Islam.’ ”

Concern about brewing conflict, he said, was a fundamental concept behind Bannon’s media enterprise. “Our big belief, one of our central organizing principles at the site, is that we’re at war,” he said.

It’s war. It’s war. Every day, we put up: America’s at war, America’s at war. We’re at war,” he said in December 2015. “Note to self, beloved commander in chief: We’re at war.”

Bannon is concerned about a muslim war on a neoconservative figment called “the Judeo-Christian West”. This is the particular concern of a neoconnish fringe known as counter-jihad. And we might as well just call the true believers jewhadis. They speak of defending (((the West))), but when pressed they always put the interests of jews and the jew-state first. Many of its proponents are in fact jews, part-jews, or crypto-jews. The rest are useful idiots or outright cucks.

The typical jewhadist regards White nationalism as antithetical to their own position. As I’ve previously described it:

Counter-jihadists can be understood as quasi- or even pseudo-nationalist dissimulators. Their opposition to muslims and islamization is ultimately predicated upon support for jews and judaization. Full-throated advocacy for jewish nationalism is de rigueur. White nationalism is regarded with skepticism. White racial identity is regarded with contempt.

Counter-jihadists/jewhadis characteristically equate islamism with fascism. Despite obvious differences they regard them as in essence the same – a mortal threat to (((the West))) they love, as deracinated and degenerate and thoroughly jewed as it is.

A few jewsmedia articles go beyond Bannon’s jewhadist thinking and name some of the more prominent jewhadis he has associated with. Steve Bannon in 2010: ‘Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission’, CNN, 31 January 2017:

President Trump’s chief strategist, former Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, once dismissed the notion that Islam is a religion of peace, describing it in a 2010 radio interview as “a religion of submission.”

Bannon made the comments on “Western Word Radio with Avi Davis,” an online right-wing radio station.

In the segment, Bannon, who at the time served on the board of Breitbart, criticized former President George W. Bush for what he and fellow guest conservative columnist Diana West described as injecting political correctness into the federal government.

Avi Davis was a jewhadi jew, Diana West still is.

Here’s another article naming more names. The Dark History of the White House Aides Who Crafted Trump’s “Muslim Ban”, Mother Jones, 30 January:

The Trump administration has insisted since Sunday that the president’s executive order banning travel to the United States from seven predominately Islamic countries “is not a Muslim ban.” But as Mother Jones first reported in a series of investigations starting last summer, the two top Trump advisers who reportedly crafted the immigration crackdown—Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller—have a long history of promoting Islamophobia, courting anti-Muslim extremists, and boosting white nationalists.

Ambiguous jew Roger Stone and obnoxious jewhadi jewess Pamela Geller are specifically named. There’s also some more detail on Stephen Miller’s jewhadist views:

Miller has long been an advocate of framing the fight against terrorism in religious terms. In 2007, while an undergraduate at Duke University, he started the Terrorism Awareness Project, an effort to make “students aware of the Islamic jihad and the terrorist threat, and to mobilize support for the defense of America and the civilization of the West.” The group promoted “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” on college campuses and took out ads in college newspapers titled, “What Americans Need to Know About Jihad.”

What’s missing from this article is any evidence that Trump or Bannon are “boosting white nationalists”. By its own account Miller has done the opposite.

The most sober and informative article about of the jewhadist worldview pervading Trump’s inner circle was published by The Jew York Times. Trump Pushes Dark View of Islam to Center of U.S. Policy-Making:

Mr. Trump was echoing a strain of anti-Islamic theorizing familiar to anyone who has been immersed in security and counterterrorism debates over the last 20 years. He has embraced a deeply suspicious view of Islam that several of his aides have promoted, notably retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, now his national security adviser, and Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s top strategist.

This worldview borrows from the “clash of civilizations” thesis of the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, and combines straightforward warnings about extremist violence with broad-brush critiques of Islam. It sometimes conflates terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State with largely nonviolent groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots and, at times, with the 1.7 billion Muslims around the world. In its more extreme forms, this view promotes conspiracies about government infiltration and the danger that Shariah, the legal code of Islam, may take over in the United States.

Those espousing such views present Islam as an inherently hostile ideology whose adherents are enemies of Christianity and Judaism and seek to conquer nonbelievers either by violence or through a sort of stealthy brainwashing.

As I’ve already alluded, the “clash of civilizations” thesis is a neoconservative theme. It was promoted by the jew Bernard Lewis as well as Huntington. It is at odds with the jew golden age narrative, which jewhadis mostly ignore. It’s also difficult to square with the jew holocaust narrative, which jewhadis actually espouse (and seek to silence nonbelievers) just as fervently as the jewsmedia. These contradictions are a feature, not a bug. The general idea: clash you goyim. The common theme: jews lie, goyim die.

Among the most outspoken of those warning about Islam are Pamela Geller, of Stop Islamization of America, Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch, and Frank Gaffney Jr., of the Center for Security Policy.

In an interview, [Gaffney] explained his view of Islam, which focuses less on the violent jihad of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State than on the quieter one he sees everywhere. By his account, potential enemies are hidden in plain sight — praying in mosques, recruiting at Muslim student associations and organizing through mainstream Muslim rights groups — and are engaged in “this stealthy, subversive kind of jihad.”

“They essentially, like termites, hollow out the structure of the civil society and other institutions,” Mr. Gaffney said, “for the purpose of creating conditions under which the jihad will succeed.”

Like Geller, Spencer and Gaffney are full-time professional jewhadis, all as hostile to White nationalism as they are to islamism.

Nearly any critique aimed at muslims and jihadis can be turned into a “conspiracy theory” which fits jews and jewhadis even better. Gaffney’s termite analogy is a good example. It is for this reason so many jews regard muslims as proxies for jews. They see a defense of muslims as serving the interests of jews. Thus they try to psychopathologize and make “islamophobia” taboo in much the same way they have already done with “racism” and “anti-semitism”. Jewhadi jews differ mainly in that they reject these semitically correct taboos around criticizing islam and muslims because that’s what they think is best for (((the West))).

As the Times article hints, this entirely jewy divide on islam and muslims isn’t entirely new. It confounded generals during the Bush and Obama “war on terror”. It will only cause more confusion during Trump’s “war on radical islamic terror”. All the while jewhadis like Andrew Bostom will only complain about symptoms, never the cause.

Prior to Trump’s selection the jewsmedia was content to ignore jewhadis. Now that Trump has thrust the jewhadist worldview into the limelight, and they’re compelled to explain it, it’s no surprise they’re trying to blame it on Whites. After all, that’s what jews usually do when their jewing get exposed.

spencer_carroll_geller_robinson

Tommy Robinson and Friends Abandon English Defence League, Join Anti-English Regime

EDL leader Tommy Robinson quits group, BBC News, 8 Oct:

Mr Robinson’s co-leader, Kevin Carroll, has also opted to leave.

Their decision follows discussions with the Quilliam group, which describes itself as a “counter-extremism think tank”.

Mr Robinson said: “I have been considering this move for a long time because I recognise that, though street demonstrations have brought us to this point, they are no longer productive.

“I acknowledge the dangers of far-right extremism and the ongoing need to counter Islamist ideology not with violence but with better, democratic ideas.”

He explained his motives for leaving, telling BBC Radio 5 live’s Nicky Campbell: “When some moron lifts up his top and he’s got the picture of a mosque saying ‘boom’ and it’s all over the national newspapers, it’s me, it’s when I pick up my kids from school the parents are looking at me, judging me on that.

“And that’s not what I’ve stood for and my decision to do this is to be true to what I stand for. And whilst I want to lead the revolution against Islamist ideology, I don’t want to lead the revolution against Muslims.

“I believe that the revolution needs to come from within the Islamic community and they need to stand up. And I believe this is a step forward not a step back.”

Revolution? A politically incorrect shirt convinced Robinson that the English are not worth defending. What he’s on about now is no more revolutionary than Madonna. Indeed, it’s about spinning in circles, making a stink about “far-right extremism” while the English are steadily displaced and dispossessed by aliens under the auspices of a genocidal state-sanctioned ideology which celebrates mass immigration and compulsory integration.

Tommy Robinson Stands Down From The EDL, Yahoo News UK, 8 Oct:

“I apologise for the fact that what I’ve said has not resonated individually with Muslims,” he told journalists at a news conference.

“I don’t hate Muslims. Luton is a completely multicultural town and from day one we’ve wanted to embrace everyone; all colours and creeds.

“I have a passion to combat Islamist ideology and I want to lead a revolution against that ideology, but I don’t want to lead a revolution against Muslims.”

He added that in order to solve what he sees as the problem of Islamist extremism in Britain, he needs to work with Muslims not against them.

“We had fought for three years to keep fascists and racists out of the EDL. When I attended our demonstration in Manchester I saw White Power flags that didn’t represent me.

“Am I willing to be the public face for them? No I’m not.

“I believe that the revolution needs to come from within the Islamic community and they need to stand up. And I believe this is a step forward not a step back.”

Mr Robinson and EDL co-founder Kevin Carroll announced their departure through counter-extremism think tank Quilliam.

In contrast, Robinson doesn’t mind being photographed in front of Jew Power flags.

“Multiculturalism” is a propaganda term. It isn’t about embracing everyone. It’s about embracing the colonization of White homelands and eventual replacement of native White people by alien non-Whites. Whatever Robinson thought he wanted to defend when he first formed the EDL, what he’s making clear now is that it isn’t England or the English people.

This is no surprise. See for example EDL Exposed, a 49 minute presentation wherein British National Party chairman Nick Griffin describes Robinson’s close associates and how their neo-conservatism and counter-jihadism contrast with nationalism. What Lies Behind the English Defence League is a 46 page PDF spelling it out in more detail.

In the political discourse of the current regime the simple act of Whites organizing as Whites is regarded “racist”, “extremist”, and “far-right”. Whatever their actual beliefs, leaders like Robinson and Griffin are targeted for pathologization and demonization precisely because they try to organize and lead groups which appeal overwhelmingly to Whites. Tea Partiers get the same treatment in the US. Robinson seems to think he can end the abuse by singing the regime’s anti-”racist” tune ever louder. And whatever Griffin is on about, his careful qualifications concerning the jews won’t ever spare him from being identified as a “neo-nazi”.

Whites are confused and demoralized. What we could use is less apologetic, less compromising leadership which speaks clearly about what’s happening, about who the enemy is, and takes to heart that enemy’s guiding principle, “Never forgive, never forget”.

Robinson’s counter-jihadist comrade Baron Bodissey wrote the following at his blog, Gates of Vienna:

The Quilliam Foundation is one of those quasi-governmental entities that exists to serve the purposes of the governing elites. A coordinated strategy involving it would serve to decapitate the EDL, driving much of the membership of the regional divisions into the arms of the BNP. From the point of view of Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband, nothing could be better: the EDL’s effectiveness as street force would be reduced, a renewed BNP would mop up the “Islamophobic” opposition and marginalize them further, and support for UKIP would be weakened.

The BNP is not the real threat to the British Powers That Be — it is widely seen as being an appendage of MI5, and is kept within a cozy anti-Semitic corral like the NPD in Germany, unable to achieve any meaningful electoral success whilst drawing the support of discontented nationalists.

Bodissey and the counter-jihadists he hosts at GoV like to pretend that the Powers That Be are leftists and the biggest problem they’re responsible for is islamization. Their diagnosis is suicidal stupidity. Just so. Period. End of story.

It is no coincidence that points of view to the contrary, as with opposition to the ruling regime’s agenda, are denounced as “racist” or “nazi” and suppressed. What they don’t want to face is that this regime is thoroughly judaized – riddled with jews, part-jews and non-jews who are governed by the same pro-jew/anti-”racist” mindset they are. It isn’t possible to oppose this judaized regime in any meaningful way without being “anti-semitic”.

Professing love and respect for jews and waving Israeli flags, as the Robinson-led EDL and many counter-jihadists do, is what leftists call dog whistling. They are signalling an implicit recognition of and subordination to jewish power. In spite of this, the EDL and counter-jihadists are still marginalized and regarded as “extremists” even by mainstream conservatives.

What this demonstrates is that the counter-jihadists are more alarmed about islamist “extremism” than the judaized regime is. For the moment the regime is still more interested in solving the White problem once and for all. Counter-jihadists like to talk about Tours and Vienna. They don’t like to talk about how the jews in Spain solved their Visigoth problem. The resulting muslim caliphate is what jews to this day refer to as the jewish golden age.

As it turns out, Bodissey’s regard for jewish sensibilities hasn’t been obsequious enough to please Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer. Each posted nearly identical announcements about Robinson’s move (Geller at Atlas Shrugs and Spencer at Jihad Watch) in which their concerns about “fascism” and “anti-semitism” loom larger than anything else, bragging about their influence on Robinson and sniffing dismissively in Bodissey’s general direction. Geller writes:

This move has come after many months of deliberation and many years of constant efforts by Robinson and Carroll to prevent the EDL from being infiltrated and co-opted by racists, anti-Semites, fascists, neo-Nazis, and far-right elements. Increasingly, Robinson’s time has been taking up with patrolling and policing EDL demos to keep out these infiltrators and far-right ideologues. He has decided, and my AFDI colleague Robert Spencer and I strongly endorse his decision, that his time is better spent working for the defense of England and human rights against Sharia and Islamization in different and more effective ways.

This has been a long time coming. Back on June 30, 2011, I wrote: that because of the “neo-fascists that had infiltrated the administration of the group,” I was “withdrawing my support from the EDL.” Tommy Robinson immediately issued a a statement to SIOA, saying: “We repudiate any individual, group or writing that favors anti-Semitism, neofascism, and any race-based ideology. Any rogue elements within the EDL who go against our mission statement and our beliefs will be removed from the organization; we are determined to remain true to our mission. Anti-Semitism will not ever be tolerated within the EDL.”

These statements drew the ire of some counter-jihad bloggers who apparently didn’t mind the racists and anti-Semites within the EDL, and who addressed an Open Letter to me denouncing me for drawing back from the EDL. But a huge group of counter-jihad bloggers declared their support of our stand. When Robinson assured us that he was just as concerned about these elements as we were, and was working to root them out of the EDL, we continued to support the organization.

Like Robinson’s “English Defence League”, Geller’s “counter-jihad” has a misleading name. She could be more honest and call it “goyim-doing-only-what’s-best-for-the-jews”. But then making it that plain would defeat the whole purpose.

paul_weston

Paul Weston and Liberty GB

Speaking in London on 3 Mar 2013, Paul Weston introduces his new British nationalist party, Liberty GB, and explains why he thinks it’s necessary:

David Cameron’s Conservatives will not talk about the major issues, which to me are mass immigration – which now has got to such a point that it equates to population replacement – and they won’t talk about Islam. And of course Labour won’t, and of course the Lib Dems won’t.

The only party that will talk about it is the British National Party, but I don’t think they are going anywhere politically. They may very well be the biggest national[ist] party in the country, and there’s an awful lot, tens of thousands of people, who support the BNP but do not support a leader who is a holocaust denier and has the background that he has. So I can discount the BNP in terms of really gaining electoral success in the future, and the mainstream parties as I just said are absolutely useless when it comes to it.

So this is why we are starting this party, and we will talk about Islam, we will talk about population replacement, which as I said is literally genocidal.

Paul Weston on the Woolwich Killing, Islam and the State of Modern Britain presents his views in more detail. At 1:38 he explains why “conservatives” behave as they do:

They have to admit, that if there is a problem with Islam, they have to do something about it. And if you want to do something about it, that automatically makes you a far-right, racist, xenophobic bigot. And they don’t want to be labeled that. So they would rather betray their entire country than be labeled a racist. And this whole racism thing has got to stop. . . . And when they talk and label us as racists they’re doing this because the left-liberals have declared a racial and cultural war on the indigenous people of this country. It’s what they’re doing. Everything they’re doing right now is literally a racial and cultural war.

Genocide. Race war. Treason. Weston offers a remarkably articulate, unvarnished view of what’s happening not only in Britain but across the West. It’s quite a pleasure to see and hear someone so gifted stand up and give voice to these views, much in line with my own. Unfortunately, Weston suffers the same reticence he sees in “conservatives”. He’s afraid to associate with a “holocaust denier”, much less be labeled one. He wants the whole “racism” thing to stop, but not the “anti-semitism” thing.

This hobbles Weston’s analysis. He acknowledges the critical importance of race. He recognizes government-imposed immigration and multicultural policies as genocide. He calls it a racial war. Then, when when it comes to the who/whom and motives, he reverts to “conservative”-speak, mischaracterizing the enemy as “left-liberals”.

“Left-liberal” was a favorite of fifth-columnist jew Lawrence Auster, though Weston’s rhetoric is best understood as an outgrowth of a broader jew-first movement known as the counter-jihad. Norwegian ultra-nationalist Anders Breivik referred to this movement as “the Vienna school“, alluding to Gates of Vienna, a nexus of sorts for a loose network of websites and forums hosted by self-professed pro-Westerners. Counter-jihadists can be understood as quasi- or even pseudo-nationalist dissimulators. Their opposition to muslims and islamization is ultimately predicated upon support for jews and judaization. Full-throated advocacy for jewish nationalism is de rigueur. White nationalism is regarded with skepticism. White racial identity is regarded with contempt.

Weston’s emphasis on race, racial war and genocide pushes the counter-jihadist envelope, exposing the jew-first nature of the counter-jihadist worldview. Consider, for example, his exchange with anti-White jewess Sonia Gable, wife of anti-White jew Gerry Gable. He describes their attitude as:

Your past is evil. You deserve everything that you now get as a result of what your ancestors did a long, long time ago.

This is the jewish narrative in a nutshell. Such attitudes are so prevalent and easy to find because anti-Whiteness is at the heart of jewish identity and jews have power.

Weston understands the evil-White-oppression template but considers the holocaust version of it sacrosanct. He stares jews in the face and pretends he sees “communists”. His passionate speech about genocide concludes with him feigning ignorance about the who and why of it all.

The article Weston wrote about his exchange with Gable, The Left — Mad, Bad, or Criminally Ignorant?, was reposted and commented on at Gates of Vienna. It’s even more telling. The dissembling starts right in his introduction:

In the peculiar world view of communists, anyone who disagrees with them is a fascist

Weston engaged Gable because he understands “fascist” is code for anti-jew. He plays the same game by using “communist” instead of jew. For whatever reason, Weston will not see even the jews who attack him as enemies. He wonders if they might be mad or ignorant or even criminal, but even so he thinks they might still be convinced to join forces with him against the real enemy:

Sonia, as an organisation claiming to fight against racism and fascism, you would have my full support. I am viciously attacked by the real far-right, and they are deeply unpleasant people.

Spurned by Gable, Weston seems frustrated and confused:

I simply cannot understand what thought processes drive you to support the dilution and eventual extinction of a decent race of people and their culture, in favour of an emerging mono-cultural and supremacist majority which pays scant regard to the rights of women, Jews, and all those not of the Muslim faith. The parallels between Nazi ideology and fundamentalist Islamic ideology are pretty much identical.

And you support this, and attack people like me?

By playing the what’s-good-for-the-jews card he gives the game away. Gable attacks him because she disagrees with him on this point. Weston concludes, once again, by acting as if he cannot understand. But I think it’s clear enough.

In trying to explain “conservatives”, Weston explained himself. If he were to admit that there’s something wrong with the jews, that there’s a connection between their victimology, their rabid anti-White thought processes, and the genocidal racial war he decries, then he’d have to do something about it. It seems he doesn’t because he’s more concerned about defending jews than he is about defending White Britons.

gov_trains

The Preoccupations of Takuan Seiyo

Last week Gates of Vienna administrator Baron Bodissey introduced Here We Go Again like so:

Certain posts at Gates of Vienna, among them those by Takuan Seiyo, tend to attract the attention and comments of people who are preoccupied with the Jews. They frequently refer to “Holohoax” in World War Two, often supplementing their scornful references with obscenities or derogatory epithets.

I generally delete such comments without publishing them. One of them came in this morning, the second or third such screed submitted on Takuan Seiyo’s latest post. Before I deleted it, I sent it to Takuan, just to show him what was coming in. He suggested that I go ahead and post it, followed by his response.

Takuan Seiyo claims to be 50% Pole and behaves as if he’s 150% jew. His hostility towards Whites naturally provokes a hostile reaction from Whites. Bodissey invites this reaction. He has draped his site with European imagery and presents its mission as a defense of “Christian Europe”. Then he publishes articles, especially by Seiyo, and comments, especially from self-righteous jews, advocating in favor of jews even when their concerns conflict with the best interests of Whites.

In this particular article, Seiyo wrote:

I will deal in a later chapter with the issue of White Nats’ desperate massaging of Holocaust history as an attempt to wrest Western history from what, to them, should have been the losers, in order to place the skein of narrative back in the hands of what ought to have been the winners, that is, “white people.” They don’t quite get that WW2 is a story of the ultimate triumph of Western Civilization and of Whites, and that there is no need at all to lie or fall prey to wishful delusions. The losers who wrested the skein of history are not “the Jews” or “the coloreds” but white Marxists-Socialist professors in the 1960s.

In The Bee and the Lamb, Part 9 (Continued), posted earlier the same day, Seiyo wrote:

For over 60 years, White mea-culpists have had a firm grip in all fields of cultural mind imprinting: education high and low; paper media, then electronic, then digital media; all forms of entertainment, the plastic arts and music high and low, and religious instruction and worship too. Their main endeavor has been to enforce their compulsory (e.g. K-12) and discretionary (e.g. television) self-flaying on account of long-ago Slavery, Colonialism, Imperialism, Male Supremacism, Racism, Antisemitism, and so on.

These are perfectly typical examples of Seiyo’s preoccupation with blaming Whites while excusing jews. He has been doing it for some time. In July 2010 The Brussels Journal published From Meccania To Atlantis – Part 17: Shotgun Marriage In Europe. In it Seiyo explained how his overriding concern for jews keeps him from caring much about Whites:

It may go on for another 20, 30 , 50 years, until a magic orator appears who will galvanize a cold, reserved and quietly unhappy people the way Hitler did the Germans. After all, what Eurabia has pushed itself into is nothing if not Hitler’s revenge anyway. The whole landmass kowtows to Jew-hating Muslims because of what it once did to the Jews. It’s one of those ironies that Jews have been destined to bear since the dawn of their history (5).

Some contest the Hitler revenge theory by pointing out that Sweden — perhaps the most self-disemboweling country in Europe — had no part in the Holocaust. But they forget that Jews were not allowed to live in Sweden before 1782, their emancipation did not arrive until 1870, widespread antisemitic sentiments were common well into mid-20th century, with the remarkable actions of Wallenberg and Bernadotte acting as a counterfoil to a popular sentiment that until the end of 1942 had closed off Sweden to Jewish refugees from Nazi persecution, produced antisemitic student protests, and gave rise to the Swedish Anti-Jewish Action League (Sveriges Antijudiska Kampförbund) founded by Einar Åberg. It’s germane that the law prohibiting “incitement against an ethnic group” under which the Swedish state prosecutes its anti-Islamization dissidents was enacted due to Åberg’s widespread antisemitic activities in the late 1940s and 1950s.

Out of one side of his mouth Seiyo paints Whites as “self-flaying” and “self-disemboweling”, denying jews play any part. Out of the other side, he paints jews as blameless victims of White persecution. Either way he doesn’t sympathize with Whites, and when confronted by anyone who does he makes his contempt and distaste plain.

Similar attitudes have long prevailed at Gates of Vienna. On 12 Jan 2013, Bodissey posted Confronting the New Fascism in Sweden, which presents a Seiyo-like view of “self-flaying” Swedes being to blame for the anti-Swedish politics and media in Sweden:

Never has the power of projection been more evident than in the political culture of Sweden. From an outsider’s perspective, Sweden displays all the attributes of a fascist state: only one political point of view is considered acceptable, and any dissent against it is vigorously punished, by both official and unofficial means. Those who oppose the reigning ideology may lose their jobs or be prosecuted. They are vilified and scapegoated in the (largely state-owned) media to the point where compliant Swedish drones are made to understand that all dissidents are fair game, and deserve anything bad that happens to them.

Now, that sounds like fascism to me. But the Swedish media reserve the term for Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats, SD), the only significant political party that opposes mass immigration and challenges the reigning Multicultural ideology.

Bodissey’s “outsider’s perspective”, with “fascism” as the key, is facilitated by a Seiyo-like blindness to the jews in Swedish media and the who, how and why behind “the reigning Multicultural ideology”.

Though Bodissey averts his eyes, in this case it’s hard to ignore the jews. The article he criticizes is also Seiyo-like, in that it’s all about the threat “fascist” Whites pose to jews.

A commenter tries to square the circle, Gates of Vienna style, by unselfconsciously explaining:

The repeated invocation of Jews, Nazis and the Holocaust in his attempt to hammer home his contention that the Swedish Democrats are wicked evil people with an inhumane agenda. Time and time again the primary school teacher appropriates the tragedy of mid C20th Jewish experience for polemic gain. The disgusting reality of course is that the Swedish Left, as with the Left of the entire Western world, is the driving force of hysterical and venomous anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist and, they can deny it ’til they’re blue in the face (but no sensible adult would accept such denials), anti-Jewish rhetoric.

In other words, Whites are correct to see sob stories about the jews as anti-White. These are hysterical, venomous attempts to hammer home the contention that Whites are wicked evil people with an inhumane agenda. That’s certainly a fitting interpretation of Seiyo’s efforts. Bodissey, by giving Seiyo and like-minded commenters a platform while squelching their pro-White critics, aids and abets it.

leaving-balestrand-view-of-kviknes-hotel-from-the-fjord

Fjordman Fallout

Chechar calls my attention to Unser Abschied von Fjordman (Our Departure from Fjordman) at As der Schwerter (Ace of Swords).

Mein Deutsch ist schlecht, and the Google Translate version is not much better, but the gist I get is that the efforts Chechar and I have made to engage Fjordman, part of a more general challenge to counter-jihadists to face the facts of jewish influence, has borne fruit in Germany.

The bloggers at Ace of Swords – Deep Roots, Osimandia, and Kairos (Cairo) – recently moved their blog from fjordman.wordpress.com to schwertasblog.wordpress.com, in part because visitors were sometimes confused about whether they were Fjordman, and in part because Fjordman requested it, apparently because he didn’t like that they had indeed chosen to face the facts about the jews.

While all three of these bloggers credit Fjordman with helping to awaken them, they all specifically cite the incident discussed in White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad for causing them to reevalute their opinion of the counter-jihad. They have actually made the move I was hoping Fjordman would. They have rejected the deracinated counter-jihad and embraced ethno-racial nationalism.

Their Departure from Fjordman post concludes with an unequivocal White nationalist sentiment:

Europe belongs to Europeans. Not the Jews, not Muslims, the Europeans. (And, by the way, Germany is the Germans. Not the French, not the Americans, the Germans.)

For some reason the Google Translate version of the whole page reverts to German right at the point where the comments get interesting. Translating comments piecemeal we find signs that the AoS bloggers have come very quickly up to speed. Here are some samples.

Comment 19, by Osimandia:

It is very important to recognize that it is not “the Englishman” and “French” and “Americans” are driving the adverse developments. Instead, there are Judaised British, French and Americans. And I can not even make a whole lot Judaised German, commonly referred to as “poilitisch correct”.

Among the species of this sort of people are stubborn and deluded “serious critic of Islam,” the hufescharrend wait to finally be recognized as a subspecies accepted – which in my soon to be the case.

Comment 20, by Pit:

Yep:
politically correct = Semitic correctly.

I’ve even made it clear that “politically correct” means serving certain interests, promoting. Namely: Jewish interests.

Always in our understanding, Jews are an ethnic competitors. This competitor has defined its Jewish ethnic interests to general interests: so it is now: politically correct. Indeed, but it must read: correctly Semitic. So the whole agenda that we all have equal rights, whether orignial people relative or any intruder … all the same, no matter if the people belonging to or not, is this view of Jewish ethnicity, because they want to live in other peoples as a minority, but just how much influence and rights to their ancestral people (which is possible only if the incumbent People’s delegitimized and his identity is dissolved in).

We speak of: ETHNIC CORRECT. And since there was just one: Germanic correctly.
And we should all, the entire public life, align it, what is GERMANISCH-CORRECT! For these are OUR interests.

Comment 26, by Pit:

McDonald’s position is immediately obvious to me: Jews are a rival ethnic group. They live in our white Gesellschften, but work only for their own benefit (to § 130s: “Is it good for the Jews” is the default position). From this approach follows pretty much everything else.

Comment 58, by Deep Roots:

Judaism is indeed the main enemy in this struggle for the survival of the white peoples, and to the realize this, one need only imagine what would happen if tomorrow would start all the white peoples, the Jews from their positions of power in the West remove and expel them from their countries.

Fjordman, Baron Bodissey and other long-time semitically-correct true believers may indeed be a lost cause. But here we have a reminder that there are other people – good and honest people – who are initially attracted to the counter-jihad by natural, patriotic instincts. Many are simply lurking and listening, more or less literally misguided. With help, if necessary, some of them can and will come to see the counter-jihad for what it is – a crypto-jewish movement, concerned mainly with serving jewish interests. Seeing this frees them to take the next logical and emotional step: directing their concerns toward serving the interests of their own kind rather than others.

farhakhaled_1000

Where Jihad and Counterjihad Agree

Farha Khaled’s Caroline Glick Cited As One of Israeli American Tipsters By Gates of Vienna Where Fjordman Appears To Be Back surveys and connects a good portion of counterjihadist dots, linking names with pseudonyms, blogs and photos.

Khaled describes herself as:

Freelance writer. Columnist for the Saudi based Arab News. My op eds focus on exposing Islamophobia.

Khaled begins her article by asserting that Gates of Vienna is a “white supremacist blog which published ‘Fjordman’”, “regularly publishing essays promoting white supremacism”. The bulk of the article goes on to associate various counterjihadist ideologues with GoV.

Here is one of the more meaty, lucid portions (links preserved):

Far right Islamophobic activists have forged alliances of convenience with radical Zionists and regard Israel as an ally, not least because they see Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as a role model for how Muslims should be treated. Hard line Zionists see it as an opportunity to lessen the growing Muslim influence in the USA or Europe which they see as detrimental to a greater Israel. Stooges like Geert Wilders are funded in the hope they can halt Muslim immigration and influence. Marginalised as they are, some European nationalist groups are willing to shed their traditional Jew hatred in an attempt to find allies, but as often happens in marriages of convenience, it doesn’t take much for cracks to appear.

Pamela Geller’s association with the EDL caused waves when Roberta Moore claimed they had Jew hating members and were not sufficiently pro Israel. In Europe, German newspaper Der Spiegel probed this alliance in ‘The Likud Connection‘ showing how some marginalized right wing populists are going the Geert Wilders way. This bizarre coupling has split the far right movement in Europe which has traditionally been anti-semitic.

The counterjihadist network Khaled analyzes is a jewish movement. It is dressed up as Westerners concerned with a defense of the West, but it is in fact dominated by jews and others whose first and foremost concerns are for the best interests of Israel and jews. There are no prominent counterjihadists who defend the best interests of Whites as a people, separate and apart from jews. While they readily distinguish jews and muslims for special consideration, positive and negative, they regard other distinctions between people as wrong, especially if race or “white” is involved. They regard any distinction of Whites from jews as roughly comparable to the threat to jews they see coming from islamization – unthinkably evil.

Khaled engages in similar doublethink, but to a different end. She blithely conflates counterjihadist bigotry in favor of jews with “white supremacism”. She carries on about “islamophobia” as if fearing or resenting being colonized and ruled by aliens is a mental disorder. Khaled has adopted and adapted characteristically jewish rhetoric. She paints her muslim Us as the helpless, blameless victims of a “hate”-filled Them, ascribing bizarre, pathological motives to Them, smearing Them collectively using guilt-by-association.

This rhetoric is fundamentally dishonest as well as bigoted. Counterjihadists see Us and Them as jews and their enemies, while Khaled sees the Us/Them divide being between muslims and their enemies. Both agree that Whites are not entitled to an identity of our own, much less to decide for ourselves who our enemies are.

Just as jews living amongst Europeans have done for centuries now, muslim intellectuals today excuse and direct attention away from their own group’s transgressions by finding fault instead in someone else. As with the apologists for jews, apologists for muslims zealously defend their own group identity and interests while moralizing against “hate” and “racism”, trying to guilt-trip Whites for expressing any kind of identity that excludes them.

Khaled finds it scandalous that Anders Breivik commented at Gates of Vienna. As it happens, Breivik took issue with Diana West’s “anti-sharia” strategy and more generally with the unwillingness of counterjihadists to face the demographic threat posed by immigration:

Why havent you or any of the other current authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe (Fjordman, Spencer, Ye`or, Bostom etc.) brought up the “D” word? I assume because it is considered a fascist method in nature, which would undermine your/their work? Why would it undermine their efforts when it is the only rational conclusion, based on the above argument? As far as I know, it’s not illegal in Europe to suggest deportation as a future method when discussing future hypothetical World Orders (correct me if im wrong though, Im not 100% sure, lol)!?

The answer, as unwilling as Breivik was to face it himself, is that counterjihadism is about serving the best interests of jews. Thus the concern to not appear “fascist”, meaning “nazi”, meaning anti-jew, takes priority over the identification with or concern for the best interests of Europeans as a people. Should Europe be lost, oh well, the struggle against islamic jihad (in defense of jews) will continue elsewhere.

When Baron Bodissey republished Breivik’s comments he also linked Daniel Pipe’s apologia, Norway’s Terrorism in Context. To distinguish his position from Breivik’s Pipes quotes a similar statement from Breivik’s book:

The reason why authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe — Fjordman, Spencer, [Bat] Ye’or, Bostom etc. aren’t actively discussing deportation is because the method is considered too extreme (and thus would damage their reputational shields). . . . If these authors are to [sic] scared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.

The portion omitted by Pipes is telling:

This would un-doubtfully undermine their work and probably disallowing them to publish any future books. However, the warning about Islam has been repeated for more than two decades and it is apparent that 40 more years of dialogue, without action, would have a devastating effect on Europe.

Indeed. Like the other leading lights of counterjihadism, Pipes doesn’t care as much about the devastating effect on Europeans as he does about what’s best for jews.

(Thanks to Flanders for the link.)

Steuben_-_Bataille_de_Poitiers

White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad

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.

Let’s Blame the Jew-Haters


Let’s blame the Jews, via Pat Condell on Israel, Jew-Hatred, and Islam at Gates of Vienna.

Pat Condell is a counter-jihadist favorite. He’s a proud (if unconvincing) anti-”racist”. He mercilessly bashes muslims. He gleefully ridicules Christians. And for some strange reason he just loves “the jews”.

Condell starts off mocking the strawman that jews “control the world” because their numbers are so small. By the end he is so overcome with enthusiasm for his (adopted?) tribe that he forgets about the numbers and waxes orgasmic about what a substantial force for good they are. He wishes the world really was ruled by “the jews”. It’s the most creepy display of jew-worship I have seen since, ohhh how many days has it been since Netanyahu got all those standing ovations from Congress?

Condell makes a point about muslims being taught from childhood to hate jews. So what should we make of jews teaching their children and everyone else that their tribe’s time amongst Europeans has been one long string of anti-jew oppression and violence? According to the jewish version of history every conflict jews have ever had with Europeans is entirely to blame on evil Europeans blinded by spontaneous jew-hate. It’s fair to say that by teaching this kind of one-sided view of history jews are teaching everyone to hate Whites. Maybe Condell’s next video will be about this. It could start with a review of the flash mob of journalists, pundits and politicians who suddenly turned into jewish history experts and explained their seething hate to Sarah Palin a few months ago.

I won’t be holding my breath. From the way Condell sneers at Europeans it’s clear he’s already absorbed those lectures and thinks Whites suck. He’s concerned about Europe being overrun by muslims because it’s bad for jews. I wonder if this is the only motive behind all his anti-islam and anti-Christian tirades. I’ve never heard him speak so emotionally or favorably about Britons. Is he not capable of loving his own kind? Or is that what he’s doing when he gushes in favor of jews?

There are two final points to make about Condell’s “control the world” bluster. First, since he likes to go on and on about Islam it would be trivial to mock him in the same terms. What do earnest counter-jihadists think when somebody paints them as morons who say muslims control the world? Second, Condell titles his diatribe “Let’s blame the jews”, which he means to be taken ironically. He blames the jew-haters. What he’s saying, to use his own dishonest way of characterizing such things, is that the jew-haters control the world. What an idiot.