News and Information Feed

Sunday, August 07, 2011

Intellectuals need to face facts: Certain cultures and ethno-religious-ideologies are more complimentary and compatible with the West than others

Stephen Walt on Anders Brevick, Immigration, and Western Culture

(The Occidental Observer) -- by Kevin MacDonald --
If there’s one characteristic that defines the European nationalist parties, it is that they have eschewed racialist rhetoric in favor of cultural arguments. Geert Wilders, Marine LePen, et al. have claimed that Islam is incompatible with Western culture—that Muslims refuse to assimilate and have values that are incompatible with Western modernity, particularly on women and sexuality.

Without doubt this tactic has made nationalist parties more acceptable to mainstream voters and more difficult to attack by the left. It is not possible to tar these parties with the ultimate post-WWII pejorative—”Nazi—which is sure to come up if one breathes a word about ethnic interests of Whites.

Now Stephen Walt, of Israel Lobby fame, attempts to undercut cultural conservative arguments that he associates with Breivik—“the idea that he is defending some fixed and sacred notion of the ‘Christian West,’ which is supposedly under siege by an aggressive alien culture” (“Breivik’s Warped Worldview“). (He’d doubtless disapprove even more of Breivik’s Nordicist proclivities.)

In my review of The Israel Lobby, I made the following point about Western elites:
Confronted with the moral critique of America emanating from elite universities and the media, the old Protestant intellectual establishment quickly yielded the high ground. Many of them became avid cheerleaders of the new multicultural zeitgeist that rejected the America and even the Americanism of their ancestors, to the point that the new zeitgeist has become a consensus among elites of all stripes. They accepted their own demographic decline, and they gave up their pretensions as cultural leaders and trend setters. And they implicitly paved the way for their eventual loss of political power to other groups, some of which have historically conditioned grudges against them—a dangerous situation to say the least. In doing so, they became the pallbearers for their own people.
Sadly, this applies to Stephen Walt. In the current main TOO article, Charles Dodgson does an excellent job of refuting Walt’s moral indictments of the West. Right now I am reviewing Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization—a book that I strongly recommend for intellectuals like Walt. Duchesne, a sociologist at the University of New Brunswik, is fond of showing how the critics of the West typically presuppose ideas whose origins are uniquely Western.

For example, in discussing the anti-Western attitudes of Franz Boas (one of my least favorite intellectuals), Duchesne notes,
there is … an unavoidable paradox contained in the very historical origins of cultural relativism, for its roots lie in the uniquely Western idea that there is a universal humanity. Starting with the Stoic cosmopolitan idea that each person is a member of a common cosmos, through to the Christian idea that all humans irrespective of local, ethnic or cultural origin were created by the same God, to the 16th-century idea that humans have a ‘natural’ rights-bearing disposition to life, liberty, and dignity, the West has long cultivated the notion of a universal humanity. (p. 31)
Even more pointedly, in his discussion of the fad among historians for a “blinkered, anti-Western” world history, Duchesne notes that
the trend toward a more even-handed evaluation of non-European peoples, initiated by Western scholars in the first half of the 20th century deserves to be acknowledged. It is, after all, a trend in character with the ideals of human rights and dignity advanced by European civilization. (p. 53; emphasis in text)
...just because Western culture is not fixed and is open to outside influences does not mean that factors internal to Western civilization are not critical. In searching for the dynamism of the West, ultimately a great weight must be given to internal factors. This uniqueness comes down to the Western proclivity to individualism and its correlatives: the simple household, monogamy, exogamy, relative lack of ethnocentrism, relatively high position of women, moral universalism, science, and individual rights against the state—in my view a legacy of our history as northern hunter-gatherers. But of course, any appeal to evolved ethnic tendencies is anathema to contemporary academic elites in the West—a phenomenon that is, ironically perhaps, itself the result of ethnic conflict initiated and maintained by hostile and aggrieved ethnic outsiders.

And given the ethnic origins of the West, ethnic aliens are indeed a threat. Walt writes as if Breivik has no rational reason to be worried that 4% of the people living in Norway are Muslims. But all the projections indicate Muslims will be a majority in many European countries later this century. To suppose that European civilization can survive such a transformation is folly indeed. There is no culture where Islam dominates that has any of the characteristics of Western modernism mentioned above. As I am sure Walt would acknowledge, Western nation-building in the Middle East has been an abject failure; the West has had absolutely no success in implanting liberal culture in any part of the Muslim world. The Arab Spring is rapidly devolving into an Islamic nightmare.

The same may be said for African cultures where, for example, South Africa is steadily descending into barbarism, invidious nepotism, political authoritarianism, poverty, slavery, and lawlessness that characterize the rest of sub-Saharan Africa...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

It really isn’t that difficult. Certain cultures and ethno-religious-ideologies are more complimentary and compatible with the West than others.

Simply throw out the Zionists, Islamists and any other factions that refuse to assimilate and inevitably descend into ethno-fascism.

At this point, both Zionist and Islamist hostility, subversion and anti-Western, treasonous intent has been well established and documented; there’s no reason whatsoever that Western peoples need put up with that kind of treachury, just as there’s no reason they should put up with neocon and liberal fascist treachury.

Steps have been taken to target Islamists, but where are the steps being taken to target Zionists, neocons, and liberal fascists?

I guess those who have been bought off or sold their souls to the Judeofascists simply aren’t interested in taking the steps necessary to preserve Western civilization — which makes them part of the problem.


I think Islamists who want sharia law in the West are nearly as big a threat as Zionists. I say nearly, because although they have the numbers, Muslims don’t have anywhere near the good will and trust in the West that the Jews enjoy, nor do they have Jewry’s sadistic, Machiavellian, crypto-serial killer instincts. Muslims simply want the world to submit to Allah, whereas Jewry wants to the world to submit to a totalitarian government run by it, but simultaneously desires to sadistically torture and ultimately destroy even many of those Gentiles willing to submit to totalitarianism (e.g. “secular” Bolshevik Jewry’s behavior in early Soviet Russia).

Jewish religious doctrine, it’s self-serving, apocryphal historiography, and its deliberately (internally) engineered persecution complex and resentment complex all ensure ultimately genocidal intent towards Gentiles.

When I say “both Zionist and Islamist hostility, subversion and anti-Western, treasonous intent has been well established and documented,” I mean that documentation is available to intellectuals who want to go looking for it (even if not well documented or broadcast in mainstream media) and thus true intellectuals (who are responsible for shaping future society) have no excuse not to follow the evidence trail and start drawing the necessary implications and conclusions for future policy.

I don’t think Muslims instigated 9/11; I think some Muslim participants were probably useful idiots in an inside job carried out by Zionists, but at any rate, both Zionist and Islamist malign intent was evidenced in the operation, whether the Islamist participants knew they were working for the Zionists or not.

It's comparable to the operation to lie the U.S. into the Iraq war. Did the Bushcons know they were ultimately working for the Zionists? Does it matter? In the end, what really matters is that the malign intent was present in the hearts and minds of all of the parties, which means none of them can be trusted.


Under the theory that 9/11 was an inside job with Muslim participants as useful idiots in an operation carried out by Jewish Zionists, just as under the theory that the false Iraq war intelligence was an inside job by Jewish Zionist neocons and Judeo Christian Zionist Bushcons, in both cases, their respective ideologies (Islamism on one hand and Zionism/neoconservatism on the other) both produce dangerous, deluded psychopaths and murderous fanatics fully capable of treason against their respective nations (not unlike Judeo Christian Zionist Anders Breivik).

Indeed, in both cases, an absolutist reading of their respective religions (Islamists believing Allah is supreme, Zionists believing Jews are God’s supreme “chosen”) is the underlying motive. (Another example is treasonous, U.S. government insider, anthrax terrorist Bruce “by blood and faith, Jews are God’s chosen, and have no need for ‘dialogue’ with any gentile” Ivins.)

And of course, in all cases there is an opportunistic money angle wherein encouraging or arranging these kinds of operations is financially convenient to the bigwigs pulling the strings, who themselves never seem to be the ones putting their lives on the line or pulling the trigger.

This behind-the-scenes plotting, scheming and murderous string-pulling is a very elitist Jewry characteristic. Think, for example of the Pharisees instigating the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans without wanting to dirty their own hands with the deed.

The same kind of crap has been going on by Jewish elites and their lowlife collaborators for the last 2,000+ years, and probably by opportunistic Islamists since the days of Mohammad.

"Christian" charlatans also have a long and ignoble track record. But there's no question that the Judeo Christian Zionists are further out of step and at odds with Christian doctrine than are the Jewish Zionists and Islamists with their respective religions.


Aren't Arabs and Muslims justified in their anger towards the West in general and the U.S. in particular, given, as one interlocutor put it, "Exhibits A (our complicity in the ongoing Zionist invasion of Palestine), B (our imposition of corrupt and oppressive rulers on local Arab populations), and C (our invasion of Iraq and subsequent murderous sanctions against the Iraqi people)"?

I absolutely agree that all the items on the list and many more have given Muslims justification for their anger, and it's no surprise whatsoever that they have resulted in blowback.

But all of those items, at their root, are a consequence of Zionist infiltration and co-opting of the U.S. government. Thus, the most effective means of redressing those wrongs is to systematically go about broadcasting that fact, and for Arab and Muslim elites to put some of their piles and piles of oil money behind the cause of exposing the Zionist takeover both internationally and in the United States.

Why haven’t Arab and Islamic elites done that to a greater extent? It’s because, just like the Judeo Christian Zionists and the Judeophile Marxist and multicultural left liberal elites, they’re corrupt and compromised to the core, and they don’t want to make too many waves for a status quo that maintains their wealth and rewards their corruption, even if that means slowly allowing the Arab and Islamic masses to get picked off.

As I see it, any system’s integrity can be judged by the extent to which it allows itself to be compromised by Jewry and its self-serving, totalitarian agenda, and the extent to which that system fights to preserve or regain its integrity.

Corrupt, totalitarian-minded systems that serve fewer and fewer elites deserve their torment, including Islam, because at their core, they are like-minded with Jewry and its bad will towards mankind, which eventually results in bad will even towards their own kind.

I always harken back to the Jewish Bolshevik influence (backed by Western Jewish bankers) on the early Soviet Union because it is so resonant, but it's no accident that Mubarak's Egypt, for example, strongly resembled the Soviet Union in its statist authoritarianism.

It's self-evident that Islam, like Judaism, is conducive to pseudo-religious, Godless authoritarianism.

No comments: