Print this post Print this post

Gretta Duisenberg, Mark Steyn, & Anti-Racism

Gretta Duisenberg

Gretta Duisenberg

2,325 words

Although a title to an article normally suggests that the author claims, reliably or not, some expertise in the subject, I know next to nothing about Gretta Duisenberg. I haven’t consulted her website, which is presumably in Dutch, and don’t know whether Gretta is smart or deranged. I first learned about her from a recent Mark Steyn column, and several minutes later acquired the bulk of my limited knowledge from her brief Wikipedia entry.

Here is the opening paragraph of the relevant Wikipedia article, which appears to have been edited by a non-English speaker:

Gretta Duisenberg (born 1942) is a Dutch political activist and strong supporter of the Palestinians. She is currently facing criminal charges associated with racist content on her pro-Palestinian website. Although branded by some as a radical with irrational anti-Israeli sympathies, some see her as the contra-voice who simply stands up for the Palestinians by explaining about the unbalances in the conflict. She is the widow of Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) politician Wim Duisenberg who was also the first president of the European Central Bank.

Here is the brief remark by Mark Steyn, a neo-conservative author and columnist, that provoked my limited interest in Duisenberg’s legal travails:

For over a decade, I have been writing about the metastasizing Jew-hate in Europe, and I have noted, aside from the physical attacks, the casual acceptance of anti-Jewish slurs at the highest levels in Continental society. But I find, say, the Holocaust gags favored by Gretta Duiseberg [sic], the wife of the then head of the European Central Bank, far less disturbing than the absurd pretzel-twist logic deployed by the Obama Administration to deny reality.

The denial of reality that Steyn has in mind concerns Amedy Coulibaly’s killing of Jews at a kosher market in Paris. Non-Muslim defenders of Islam, a category of liberal that quite possibly includes every single inhabitant of the White House, hope to remove from the crime the obvious implication that the jihadist killer may have harbored some racial or religious animus toward his victims, all of whom were Jews. Steyn finds that objectionable.

I agree with Steyn. Muslims, on the whole, do not like Jews. The Koran and the life of Mohammed both teach Muslims to dislike Jews, and Israeli mistreatment of Palestinian Arabs, a largely but not exclusively Muslim population, only confirms their religious biases. That Muslim terrorists often state their reasons for attacking Jews lends even greater clarity to what is already a remarkably uncomplicated issue. Steyn is therefore correct to complain of “the absurd pretzel-twist logic” by which the Obama administration pretends that when Muslims in France shoot Jews, they don’t intend to shoot Jews. They really mean only to kill native French, which is, according to this implausible version of jihadist motives, unfortunate but less troubling, given the differing value Western governments assign to the lives of the two groups. The motive for this pretzel-twist logic arises from the need to prevent Euro-Americans and Whites elsewhere, most of them philo-Semites, from drawing dangerous conclusions from Muslim violence and general misbehavior both in Europe and on this continent.

Anti-Semitism is a terrible plague, and Muslims are especially infected with it. Therefore Muslims, if this line of reasoning is taken to its dangerously logical conclusion, are an especially bad set of immigrants to allow into Western nations. You shouldn’t, whether you are a Jew or a philo-Semite, let them into your country if you are concerned about the growth of anti-Semitism. In addition to harming actual members of the nation, they might also harm Jews, as the recent terrorist outbreak of diversity in Copenhagen illustrates. If you favor massive non-White immigration, as the Obama administration and almost every other Western government does, Muslim anti-Semitism is a subject you would prefer to ignore and prefer that others ignore as well. Hence the need for absurd pretzel-twist logic, which is anti-racialist in its intent, though Steyn may suspect sinister anti-Jewish motives.

In the current political climate one of the best arguments you could make in public against Muslim immigration is not that it injures the nations that permit it — which could be a criminal speech offense in some jurisdictions and would be a dangerous piece of “racism” almost everywhere — but that it might disturb Jews and increase anti-Semitism. The Obama administration hopes to minimize the danger of that argument, and clearly hopes as well to discourage American Jewry, the major architects and proponents of American open-borders immigration, from noticing the threat that Muslim immigration into the United States poses to their tranquility.

It is also abundantly clear, pace Steyn, that Gretta Duisenberg, despite her late husband’s accomplishments, does not occupy the highest levels of continental society. I know that as a certain fact, although I am ignorant of the details of her life, because she is currently facing fines or perhaps time in prison for political opinions expressed on her website. Even if Gretta is a millionaire many times over and a regular dinner companion of every banker in Holland, she does not occupy the highest levels of Dutch society. The people who are able to use hate-speech laws to threaten her with punishment do, on the other hand, occupy the highest levels, because they have the power to deny a citizen of a free country her right to agitate peacefully for the cause of her choice. Duisenberg plainly does not possess such power, witness her current legal predicament.

Gretta Duisenberg’s Holocaust gag, which disturbs Mark Steyn and initially brought her to the attention of speech regulators in the Netherlands, was to defend Palestinians by invoking the Jewish Holocaust. I again quote from her Wikipedia entry:

Gretta Duisenberg came under fire when she announced [in a radio interview] her intention of collecting six million signatures as part of her campaign to draw attention to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories. She was asked how many signatures she’d been able to gather for the petition against the occupation and replied that 6,000 supporters had signed so far. And how many signatures would you like to collect, she was asked. Duisenberg hesitated for a moment and then said, ‘Six million’. Critics stated that the figure was clearly an allusion to the number of Jewish victims of World War II. Duisenberg denies any link to the Holocaust, and stated that she just mentioned a multiple of the 6,000 they had already collected.

Let’s stipulate that Gretta Duisenberg is lying, which seems likely, and that she really did mean to draw attention to the Holocaust. We have to ask why she would “[come] under fire” for referring to the modern West’s inerrant moral touchstone in order to support her pro-Palestinian case. At worst she was saying that Jews in Israel today should not commit crimes against Arabs similar in nature to the crimes that Germans committed against Jews in the 1940s. That would be the maximum in racial hatred any rational observer could possibly extract from her two-word reply to an interviewer’s question.

Gretta-Duisenberg-Arafat

Duisenberg’s motives were anti-racist, which should mean virtuous. She does not doubt that the Jewish Holocaust is indeed a massive moral monument, which is why she alluded to it. She was not trying to deny or minimize the Holocaust, which would be a serious crime throughout most of Europe. She was satisfied with the anti-racialist lessons it teaches and hoped they could be enlisted in the cause of the Palestinians, her preferred species of non-White victim. The chances that she is a secret supporter of Geert Wilders, and hence in her private life a rightist thought-criminal, are vanishingly small, especially since Wilders is a strong supporter of Israel and she is not. Almost by definition a principled anti-racist, if the term means anything, should also be an anti-Zionist. That so many anti-racists are not in fact anti-Zionist is only an indication that many anti-racists lack principles or fear Jews. But Gretta Duisenberg is principled in her anti-racism, and now she finds herself in trouble.

In her dangerous two-word answer, Duisenberg was relying, indirectly, on what I have called elsewhere the “soft lessons” of the Holocaust, the deceptively attractive lessons of human brotherhood that make the Holocaust an effective instrument for promoting multiculturalism in majority-White nations. You study the Holocaust carefully, as we are all taught to do, and you achieve thereby empathy for the plight of marginalized populations. The more you study it, the deeper that empathy becomes, and hopefully your empathy, combined with the growing empathy of others, will gradually transform the world around you. Under the educational guidance of the Holocaust it would, for example, be wrong for Americans or Greeks or Australians to prevent non-Whites from illegally entering their respective nations, because that’s the sort of bad thing Hitler would have done on behalf of the people he governed. It is true that Thomas Jefferson, if faced with a similar problem, would have done the same bad thing on behalf of the people he once governed, but that, on the best interpretation, is only because Jefferson never had the opportunity to study the Holocaust, which has enlarged our moral horizons. On the worst interpretation it would suggest that Jefferson might have been afflicted with the same mental illness (“racism”) that plagued Hitler and made Holocaust lessons so crucial in the first place.

That’s the sort of lesson you learn from studying the Holocaust and from ruminating on its real-world implications, whether those implications apply to the present or the past. From a Jewish perspective such lessons are useful for non-Jews to learn. They are not so useful if non-Jews, in the name of anti-racism, apply the same lessons to Israel while invoking the Holocaust. Expanding empathy for the Other is fine, but only if it injures majority-White nations. It is not fine, and can even be criminally “racist,” if it stigmatizes Israeli Jews, as White South Africans were once stigmatized, and if it suggests that their illegal occupation of the West Bank and their Jews-only immigration policy may just possibly be inconsistent with the Holocaust’s gentler teachings about human brotherhood. If you are a Zionist trying to defend nazi-like behavior in Israel, the Holocaust is a valuable but sometimes unreliable weapon, because it can also be deployed by your enemies. At times it almost looks as though it was assembled to benefit them. Hence the frequency with which Israeli Jews find themselves called “nazis” by Muslims and their supporters, who have nothing but admiration for the Holocaust’s broad anti-racialist teachings and see no reason why they shouldn’t assist their cause.

All cultures are controlled, in varying degrees, by a set of related ideas. In modern Western civilization the dominant set of ideas is anti-racism. Departures from anti-racism are reprehensible or even criminal, just as departures from religious doctrines are reprehensible or criminal in religiously based societies. Since the discourses of anti-racism are universalist, there should theoretically be no exceptions. Jews cannot openly claim an exemption merely because they have done such yeoman service in constructing the set of ideas that constitute anti-racism.

Tension arises inevitably within a society governed by anti-racism when two privileged minority groups come into conflict. The larger culture must then respond and choose sides, and the normal response is to align with the more powerful of the contending minorities, especially since the party with greater power is more capable of propagating its own interpretation of what anti-racism and multiculturalism prescribe. In practice that usually means that Jews win and Muslims, along with their advocates, lose. In the future, as Muslim populations grow and more Muslims master the nuances of anti-racism, that will likely change, but at the present moment Duisenberg has taken the side that, in its conflicts with Jews, loses more often than it wins.

Neither side is, needless to say, challenging the dominant discourse. This debate occurs entirely within the system, each side relying for its ammunition on the same set of ideas and on the authoritative teachings of the same moral monument. Duisenberg’s critics, those who first put her “under fire” for briefly alluding to the Jewish Holocaust in an impermissible context, are lying. They know she is not guilty of “racism” and not trying to incite pogroms. She is a devoted anti-racist who has chosen to advocate on behalf of what is for the moment the weaker side, brown-skinned Arabs in Palestine and their Muslim supporters in the Netherlands. Her type is not common, but not rare either. Rachel Corrie was another example.

To American eyes the fact that these debates can end up in court, with the loser assessed a fine or carted off to jail as though some real crime had occurred, seems strange. But under a regime of speech regulation a radio interview can in fact be a crime scene, just as the blood-stained floor of a murder investigation is a crime scene. On radio and television words come out of a speaker’s mouth, and it is words that hate-speech regulation regulates and criminalizes. Steyn himself, who has the neocon audacity to cite Duisenberg as a minor symptom of “metastasizing Jew-hate in Europe,” found himself, not long ago, in a Canadian hate-speech court where truth is explicitly no defense. His anti-Muslim articles in a popular magazine had become potential crime scenes and his words the crime’s alleged weapons, as though they were guns or knives. His words were eventually declared innocent of crime, only because in Canada Steyn’s preferred side in the debate between Jews and Muslims is at present more powerful than its adversary.

Of course people of European descent, who find ourselves disempowered by anti-racism and threatened by its penalties, should, to use Michael Polignano’s phrase, take our own side and abolish the system of ideas that currently misgoverns us. Jews and Muslims would then be free to conduct their debates elsewhere, and political disagreements would no longer be settled by determining who is wickedly “racist” and who isn’t.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

11 Comments

  1. Tucker
    Posted February 23, 2015 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    “Anti-Semitism is a terrible plague, and Muslims are especially infected with it. ”

    Any utterly ridiculous repetition of a statement like this – ought to be automatically accompanied by the observation by the now deceased Edgar J. Steele that ‘anti-Semitism is a disease, alright, and you catch it from jews’.

    Muslims have every right to be anti-Semitic, because they are probably the one group of people (with White Europeans being a close second) who have had the most direct experience with and exposure to jewish behavior for the last few thousand years.

    Whites who, like the IQ challenged author of this article, appear to be incapable of coming to grips with the reality of jewish hatred and jewish predation against the White European nations of the West, might want to revisit the arrogant boasting of one particularly diabolicaly evil member of this tribe:

    “I think there’s a resurgence of antisemitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re gonne be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center 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. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive. ”
    —Barbara Lerner Spectre, IBA-News, 2010”

    Translation for the author of this article: “We jews intend to genocide every historic White European nation on this Earth, and despite the fact that we know many of you won’t like what we are doing, we plan to continue doing this whether you like it or not.”

    To conclude, allow me to direct Irmin Vinson to two articles by the blogger who calls himself Tanstaafl and which will describe Vinson’s misguided ideology to absolute perfection:

    http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2010/05/suicide-meme.html

    http://age-of-treason.com/?s=john+derbyshire+and+suicide+thing

    • Posted February 27, 2015 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

      Tucker wrote:

      Whites who, like the IQ challenged author of this article, appear to be incapable of coming to grips with the reality of jewish hatred and jewish predation against the White European nations of the West …

      How likely is it that someone posting an essay on a White nationalist website actually believes that “anti-Semitism is a terrible plague”? The chances are pretty low, close to zero, as I’m sure you will agree. Given that Counter-Currents and adl.org are different locations on the Internet with substantially different sets of political beliefs, you should have paid some attention to what I wrote before you posted your angry rebuttal.

      I was describing the political problem multiracialism must face in light of Muslim hostility to Jews. Whether that hostility is justified or not isn’t my major concern, because I am neither Jewish nor Muslim.

      Within mainstream politics anti-Semitism is perceived as a terrible plague. That’s how it is normally described, with “virulent” as a common adjective to describe it, and that’s how it is normally perceived, even by intelligent figures on the mainstream Right. Almost everyone on Free Republic and most of the audience of Hannity’s radio program would share that view, since most of them are philo-Semites. Hostility to anti-Semitism, and fears about its possible resurgence, are the default positions of right-thinking people across the West. You exit the mainstream the moment you hint that you might hold different beliefs about Jews.

      That’s the background to the paragraph that confused you. It shouldn’t need to be explained, but I’ve explained it for your benefit.

      The major architects of Third World immigration into the United States are Jews and Jewish organizations. The support of Jews throughout the West for non-White immigration is based on their belief that it injures us and fragments our nations, making them feel safer as one minority among many and wrecking our national cultures in the process, which is an added benefit from their point of view.

      But the immigration of Muslims into the West doesn’t only injure people of European descent and fragment our various nations; it also threatens Jews, because Muslims dislike them even more than they dislike us. If a Muslim terrorist has a choice between blowing up a church or blowing up a synagogue, he would much rather blow up a synagogue, preferably a synagogue filled with religious Jews. Amedy Coulibaly picked a kosher market for his final act of terrorism because a kosher market is a really good place to find Jews. I’ve never been in one; I suspect you haven’t either. But we can all be certain that most of the customers in kosher markets are Jews.

      If you are an advocate of non-White immigration, Muslim anti-Semitism presents a serious problem. That is why, in my opinion, the Obama administration avoids mentioning the obviously Muslim character of Muslim terror attacks and avoids discussing Muslim hostility to Jews. Both challenge the multiculturalist vision of a racially diverse future with happy minorities lovingly celebrating one another’s diversity. Both suggest instead that violence and conflict escalate rather than diminish within racially and ethnically fragmented anti-nations. They also suggest, most significantly, that Jews may not benefit from the increase of Muslims among us, no matter how diverse and vibrant Muslims are.

      If you are a non-Jewish advocate of race-replacing immigration, like President Obama, you don’t want Jews and Jewish organizations on the other side of the immigration debate. The chances are good that you’ll end up losing. It is better therefore not to talk about specifically Muslim terrorism and above all not to talk about specifically anti-Jewish terror attacks.

      Steyn is hinting, disingenuously, that the liberals who inhabit the White House, along with the leaderships of the terror-impacted nations of Europe, don’t talk about Muslim terror attacks that specifically target Jews because in secret they are indifferent to Jewish lives. Only a moron would sincerely believe it, but that is Steyn’s stated opinion, which he has expressed often in the past. My explanation is much better; I think it is very close to being a fact.

      I’ll add in closing that any White nationalist who likes Muslims because Muslims dislike Jews isn’t thinking clearly.

      — Irmin

  2. Conrack
    Posted February 17, 2015 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    Your post stimulated in me the observation that multi-culturalism may no longer be beneficial to Jews. Inasmuch as Jews are not part of the power elite in western societies, they are more likely to try and preserve the existing structure. As such, it should not surprise us if Jews join Whites in trying to thwart upstart minorities. This certainly is the case in Israel and is likely to strengthen in Europe. Steyn, himself, seems to be a case in point.

    It would be consistent with MacDonald’s group evolutionary theory that one in power Jews would attempt to preserve the source of that power, rather than undermine it. Otherwise, I believe we get Jews not operating in their own self-interest and MacDonald’s theory fails.

    • Irmin
      Posted February 17, 2015 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

      Conrack wrote:

      Your post stimulated in me the observation that multi-culturalism may no longer be beneficial to Jews.

      Multiculturalism will always, in my opinion, be beneficial to Jews, because it normalizes their collective decision not to join the nation but to pursue instead self-interested strategies for their own racial/ethnic interests at our expense. A fully multicultural country becomes a geographical place, no longer a nation, where various minority groups squabble over ideas and resources, and preferred Jewish behavior is therefore not atypical. Jews, under multiculturalism, are not behaving differently from Blacks and Mexicans, only more successfully. Every group is supposed to be out for what it can get from the whole, and Jews are therefore no different from any other group.

      On the other hand, growing non-White demographics — which I suspect you meant — are likely not in Jewish interests. In fact, I think Jews are fools to pursue their objective of turning us into a minority. That’s why I think it’s best always to talk about _perceived_ Jewish self-interest.

      Jews believe they are benefiting themselves in their efforts to harm us, but if they do ultimately succeed and turn the United States into a majority-minority geographical location, I suspect that they’ll quickly find life under a Black-Mexican minority coalition much worse than any of the indignities they think we once inflicted on them. To state the most obvious problem, their wealth will be even more conspicuous in a post-American America, and their new Black and Chicano masters will have no hesitation in taking a good chunk of it away.

      I’m always struck by the fact that Jews had a golden opportunity to join the American nation back in the 1950s, after the precipitous decline of anti-Semitism, but chose racial aggression against us instead. They could have been no more different from, say, Polish-Americans — more attentive to their ethnic history than the average German-American or Anglo-Saxon, but fully identified with Euro-America as one ethnic population among many. But they didn’t want that.

      In Europe their dilemma is even starker. The more Muslim Europe becomes, the more unpleasant a place it will be for Jews. More Holocaust museums won’t protect them, though I’m not sure, even now, that they understand that.

      Steyn, himself, seems to be a case in point.

      Steyn is a curious character. I alternate between liking and loathing him. He is very entertaining and quasi-racialist when he guest hosts on Limbaugh’s radio show. I occasionally wonder whether he is pursuing the strategy Greg Johnson ascribes to Guillaume Faye, namely attempting to convince Jews that they are safer with us than with the non-White victim/aggressor class they keep setting against us and inviting into our nations. I take him at his word that he was raised a Christian and doesn’t identify as a Jew. But then he writes some outrageous nonsense about European anti-Semitism.

      Here’s his latest piece of judeocentrism:

      In Europe in the 21st century, a young girl’s Bat Mitzvah can only take place behind a security perimeter. What a sewer the EU elites have made of their Eutopia. The state church – the Church of Denmark – does not require security guards, nor elsewhere on the Continent do Catholic churches. But Jewish religious and social life in Copenhagen and across Europe is now possible only behind a barrier of security.

      It is true enough, of course, the European politicians have made a sewer of large swaths of the continent, especially those swaths in which Europeans now form minorities. But on its face Steyn is giving us encouraging news: despite Muslim crime and terrorism, across Europe Christians can still safely attend churches of their preferred denomination. Muslims have not yet attacked religious Europeans in their places of worship. They _have_ attacked Jews in their synagogues, but Jews are a small percentage of Europe’s total population. That one minority population attacks a smaller minority population in its place of worship does not, if metaphors have meanings, turn the entire European continent into sewer, unless you believe that the lives and comfort of Jews are of greater significance than the lives of Europeans. Which is, it seems, what Steyn believes. It is hard to see how he could have written the sentences above, along with many of similar character elsewhere, unless he did.

      The obvious truth — so obvious that it must take real effort on Steyn’s part to blind himself to it — is that Europeans have suffered from the Muslim invasion far more that Jews. That’s because there are far more Europeans in Europe than there are Jews. One only needs to know how to count to figure that out. We can be quite certain, for example, that far more European women have been raped by Muslims than Jewish women.

      Since I’m guessing Steyn can count, we have to conclude that he feels real resentment that Protestants and Catholics in Europe can still visit churches without fear, whereas Jews cannot visit synagogues with similar confidence. But that’s the fault of Muslims and their enablers, many of them Jews, not the fault of Europe as a whole and not even exclusively of EU elites. They don’t get as angry at Muslims killing Jews as Steyn thinks they should, but they’re not especially perturbed when a British soldier is butchered in the street either.

      — Irmin

      • James O'Meara
        Posted February 20, 2015 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

        >if they do ultimately succeed and turn the United States into a majority-minority geographical location, I suspect that they’ll quickly find life under a Black-Mexican minority coalition much worse than any of the indignities they think we once inflicted on them.

        Perhaps they are getting a taste of that now with Obama. As you say about Steyn, I go from liking to loathing him, liking when he at least hints that Israel is just another country he isn’t interested enough in to sit up and pay attention to.

        >I’m always struck by the fact that Jews had a golden opportunity to join the American nation back in the 1950s, after the precipitous decline of anti-Semitism, but chose racial aggression against us instead. They could have been no more different from, say, Polish-Americans — more attentive to their ethnic history than the average German-American or Anglo-Saxon, but fully identified with Euro-America as one ethnic population among many. But they didn’t want that.

        Interesting, that is exactly the position of homosexuals in the 1960s, as Alisdair Clarke first noted in a New Right context, and which I’ve followed up on in my Counter-Currents book The Homo and the Negro. Instead of “enjoying their new rights” (as the Senator says to Hannibal Lecter) and taking their traditional place in the forefront of Western Culture, they instead joined the New Left’s wrecking crew of permanently aggrieved “minorities.”

  3. Thijs
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Claiming that Jews show ‘nazi-like behavior’ in Israel is already a misrepresentation of history. It’s a claim we often hear amongst muslims, but again, this perpetuates the jewish version of history, the one that we all study so diligently in order to get empathy for this project of soulless immigration.
    Once again, we’re invited to believe that nazi is the most evil of evil in the world… for what? All we know is that the Jews couldn’t stand that anybody would not want to hand over everything they have to some obscure bankers.
    I agree with Peter , muslims don’t have any power in the west, it’s a group that’s large enough to be used by real powerplayers to threaten whites and make them feel uncomfortable in their own areas. Without this intricate system of financial benefits to keep muslims in Europe, the majority would go back, within a decade no more.

    • Posted February 17, 2015 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

      Thijs wrote:

      Claiming that Jews show ‘nazi-like behavior’ in Israel is already a misrepresentation of history.

      I always try to suggest that point by lowercasing “nazi.” In my usage “nazi” is always the modern propaganda view of NS Germany and its people. Since “nazi” was an anti-NS slur in the 1930s, there is no reason not preserve that meaning now, when it is even more relevant.

      Some of the elements in the propaganda image of the “nazi” are true, most of them are false. But “nazi” crimes and “nazi” behavior and “nazi” ideas form a gigantic cultural reality today, regardless of whether actual national socialists in the 1930s and 1940s lived up to the label or not.

      A “nazi” is a man that an actor in a Hollywood movie can scalp, in the expectation that modern Americans, filled with decades of persistent anti-nazi propaganda, will applaud when he does it. “Nazis” can also be a people, like the Serbs, that you can bomb with impunity after you have successfully nazified them, regardless of their actual opposition to Germany and her allies during the Second World War, regardless of the justice of their cause in the 1990s, and regardless of the many crimes committed against them.

      In other words, nazis never existed in real history, but they exist today as a propaganda construction, and you cannot really talk either about modern racial politics or modern popular culture unless you recognize their powerful fictional existence and its real social and political significance.

      The real Hitler never spoke of any extermination program and was, as we learn from David Irving, indifferent when the Russians took Auschwitz. It was for him just another landmark in their steady progress toward Germany, no different from any other location between the Red Army and the German homeland. But that real Hitler has little or nothing to do with the modern Hitler. That Hitler — the nazi Hitler — saw Auschwitz as the center of his political ambitions, the central site of the genocide he longed for and dedicated his life to achieving. The nazi Hitler is far more important today than the man who died in 1945, and the propaganda image of his savage followers (“nazis”) is far more important than any real national socialists.

      That’s why it presents a problem for Israeli Jews if, for any reason, innocuous or not, they seem to resemble “nazis.” They are, after all, defenders of their folk and its homeland, and the “nazi” label sometimes seems to fit. If you are a Palestinian or a supporter of the Palestinians, you have an obvious interest in affixing the label “nazi” to your enemy whenever the opportunity arises.

      — Irmin

      • m.
        Posted February 18, 2015 at 12:45 am | Permalink

        Great post.

      • R_Moreland
        Posted February 18, 2015 at 4:41 am | Permalink

        Be interesting to see an article on how the term “Nazi” came to be substituted for “National Socialist.” And the implications this substitution has for understanding the Third Reich.

  4. Robert Pinkerton
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    What scares me, is that “Holocaust education” conveys a blueprint, a case-study in how to do it. Never again? I seriously hope so, but I fear that hope is in vain.

  5. Peter
    Posted February 16, 2015 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    “She is a devoted anti-racist who has chosen to advocate on behalf of what is for the moment the weaker side, brown-skinned Arabs in Palestine and their Muslim supporters in the Netherlands.”

    I do not foresee a time when the Arabs will be the stronger side except if whites push Jews out of power in their countries and by virtue of this fact Arabs have more power than Jews. I view Arabs and other Muslims as powerless in the west, except for the power that Jews grant them in order to weaken whites. Surely, if Muslims in the west had any real power they would have prevented the bombardment and destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and many other middle eastern countries by the USA or Israel, or at least get the USA to take some meaningful action against Israel when it attacks a Muslim country. By meaningful I mean cut off any future economic or military aid to Israel.

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above