Sweden joins the ranks of nations committing suicide *UPDATE*

Charles Johnson of LGF periodically gets into spats with the people at Gates of Vienna because of their (possible?) ties to organizations that have the whiff of neo-Nazism about them.  As for me, I don’t know where the truth lies in those arguments.

I do know that Europe in the 20th (and, apparently, in the 21st) century has always been distressingly binary, not around the center (as America is, or used to be), but around the poles.  For example, we now look back on the British ruling class of the 1930s with incredible disdain, because so many supported Nazism.  What we forget is that they supported it because they feared Communism more.  They didn’t see a third way out of those two -isms.  Instead, they just picked what, at the time, seemed the least horrible.

I see the same thing occurring in Europe now, where many people, across myriad European countries, are appalled by and afraid of their governments’ (1) embrace of unhindered immigration; (2) hostility to their own national cultures; (3) pan-Europeanism (which destroys the long-time bonds holding people together within a nation); and (4) obesiance before radical Islam.  Faced with this top-down destruction of their own countries and cultures, people in the various European countries are seeking an alternative around which to rally — and neo-Nazism, with its focus on white, European culture is there, ready made.

The problem with this European habit of rallying around the extreme is that it muddies the waters.  People who have an accurate understanding of the situation, and are capable of analyzing correctly what’s going on, seem to soil themselves by embracing the most extreme solution, instead of simply pushing back against their own governments’ and elites’ stupidity.  Of course, given how deeply entrenched and broad-reaching the stupidity is, maybe the only possible push-back is to head as far away from the government position as possible straight into neo-Nazi land, so as to get a running start.  This is why all the alternatives in Europe begin to seem very frightening.

This is a very long intro to an important post that Fjordman wrote at Gates of Vienna regarding the rising tide of rape in Sweden.  Fjordman is not advocating a neo-Nazi solution.  He is, however, giving a solid analysis of the perfect storm:  a government that hates itself, aided and supported by women who hate men, all of whom are steeped in Marxist ideology, and all of whom give their full support to the concept that immigrants (read:  Muslim immigrants) can do no wrong.  To me, the following paragraph just about perfectly sums up the insanity that has taken over the once rock-solid Swedes:

The effect of radical Feminism is to treat all men as criminals, except those who really are criminals, who should receive soft treatment. All men are rapists, except those who actually are. They are victims of “society.” Despite the fact that Muslim immigration has triggered an unprecedented wave of anti-female violence, women still vote disproportionately for pro-immigration parties, and yell “racism” at men who suggest it’s not a good idea.

Fjordman is the boots on the ground — he’s giving a first-hand view of the same problems that Bruce Bawer and Mark Steyn discuss to such good effect in their books about Islam in Europe.

One really cannot blame the Islamists for doing what they’re doing in Europe.  Like the redoubtable George Washington Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, they’re not really doing anything wrong.  Instead, as Plunkett always said, “I seen my opportunity and I took it.”  The Islamists are using to good effect the fact that the nations of Europe are holding a knife to their own throats.  Indeed, the Islamists would be fools not to seize such a juicy opening.

More years ago than I care to count, when I was in high school and took my Achievement exam (that was the one with the written essay, wasn’t it?), I remember distinctly being asked to comment on Walt Kelly’s famouse “We have met the enemy and He is us” phrase.  Back then, unaware of the fact that Kelly created that phrase as a slap at capitalism (because it went on an earth day poster decrying the destruction of the forests), I muddled on about how we can be our own worst enemies, etc.  I wish I could revisit that essay now.  Kelly is right in a way he never knew:  the enemy is us because we are handing to our enemy, ready-made, the instrument of our destruction.  It is we — not the nuclear, not the hijacked plane, not the IED — we who are our enemy’s secret weapon.

Hat tip:  Danny Lemieux

UPDATE:  By the way, the increasingly loathsome Patrick Buchanan is another animal altogether.  Rather than observing today’s social ills, he is embarking on a course of historical revisionism aimed at whitewashing the Nazis.  This guy is, plain and simple, a neo-Nazi trying to revitialize a dangerous, grotesque and violent political ideology because he thinks it was a good thing in the past and got a bum rap.  Tell that to the 6 million.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • suek

    Odd. I posted this link elsewhere, and he responded to it by quoting more or less the same part:

    “A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground….

    Turning Western women, especially white women, into weapons of mass destruction against their own civilization

    What we are dealing with in the Western world is demographic warfare closely aligned with psychological warfare, aimed at breaking down our self-confidence and self-awareness to the point where our technological superiority is rendered useless because we are ashamed of ourselves or incapable of articulating what we should fight for. Sun Tzu in The Art of War said that wars are won in the temples before they are fought. The mass media are the temples of our time, which means that we are currently losing badly.”

    This, on the other hand, is the part of his report that shocked me:

    “Not only does the state not protect people against this racist violence, it actively sides with the attackers. Which means that the social contract is now dead and buried in most Western countries. The state is either expensive and irrelevant or it is an outright enemy.

    Suggesting that it has something to do with mass immigration of alien cultures is quite literally banned by law. A Swedish man was arrested, brought in front of the local court and sentenced for “hate speech” for carrying a sign during a demonstration suggesting that rape was linked to immigration.

    Nobody among the Leftist media elites says it should stop, they say it should continue indefinitely, and there are more and more hysterical witch-hunts against “racism” by the white indigenous people. It’s state-sponsored ethnic cleansing of the native population, cheered by our own media and intellectuals, in short: The greatest betrayal in history.”

    Freedom of speech – it’s an absolute imperative that we fight for it – whatever it takes. If you don’t have free speech, you don’t have a free society. The Fairness Doctrine is anti-free speech (was it Rush who has discussed that nearly every Liberal law proposed is tagged with a name that is contradicted by the action of the law itself?).

  • expat

    Sigmund Carl aand Alfred had an interesting post the other day about some changes in the attitude of Germany’s left toward Israel. The author is a German journalist. Scroll down about 5 posts to find it.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Expat…do you have a link?

  • suek

    Disagree with you on your interpretation of Buchanan. Of course, I disagree with him as well, so I’m not sure where that leaves me. I disagree with you because I don’t think he’s whitewashing the Nazis, I think he’s saying that if England hadn’t declared war on the Germans, the war wouldn’t have occured and the holocaust wouldn’t have resulted. He seems to think that Hitler was a rational person, and while acknowledging his anti-semitism, assumes that somehow it was brought into full blossom by his war with the world. He may have some aspects correct – the cause of war, like fights between siblings, sometimes are dependent on things that are somewhat submerged in history. Nevertheless, there’s no question in my mind that Hitler had mental aberrations that included his anti-semitism, and that he would have enacted the holocaust unless the world somehow found out and stopped him. It’s fine to ponder other possible outcomes, but reality is what it is.
    Has anyone else every heard the theory that Hitler had syphilis??

  • Zhombre

    This comment about Buchanan is one I posted earlier on a thread @ Pajamas Media:

    One could call Pat Buchanan the court paleocon in the royal petting zoo of the media. He is trotted out, like an aging bear on a chain, on those occasions when the media requires an “authentic” conservative to disparage neoconservatives and Republicans and especially Bush & Cheney. He emits pugnacity and noxious fumes and spouts cockeyed history.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    No, suek, I have to say that I do think Buchanan is engaged in whitewashing. The fact is that Hitler started his anti-Jewish policies long before the war — from his very first days in office. The removal of civil rights, official property takings, beatings, arrests, and murders, all started right away. Heck, they already started in the 20s in Munich.

    This pattern of behavior against anyone Hitler deemed unworthy, and especially against the Jews, accelerated at an exponential rate throughout the 30s — again, before the war. Recall that one of the camps (was it Dachau) was already in use as a place of horrible imprisonment and torture long before the war began. (I had an uncle on the non-Jewish side of the family who was murdered in one of the “camps” before the war started because he was a schizophrenic.)

    Also, keep in mind that Hitler began his process of aggression before England was involved, with Austria and the Sudetenland. Had England done nothing, Hitler would still have gone forward with his megalomaniac plans, only there would not have been anything to slow him down — ever.

  • rockdalian

    Patrick J. Buchanan—Pseudo-Historian, Very Real Dissimulator
    Victor Davis Hanson
    http://tinyurl.com/67jwqz

    I believe all would be interested in this take down of Buchanan by my favorite historian.

  • suek

    I don’t know enough of the detailed history. I agree that Buchanan was wrong about Hitler’s persecution of the Jews, but from an historical standpoint, I don’t know _how_ wrong. If I’m understanding you correctly, what you’re saying is that he _does_ know the history, and therefore since his statement is false, he’s making it with full knowledge and is therefore whitewashing. Ok…
    I’ll read rockdalians link tomorrow…out of time. Maybe that will clarify.

    I suspect at least part of the problem is that we – too many of us – just simply don’t know the history. Shame on us. Me too. It seems like when we studied history, we got to the post 1900 period about the end of the year and just sort of skipped over it. I’m constantly surprised by the History(All Nazis All the Time) Channel about how much I don’t know about WWII.

  • Ymarsakar

    Pat Buchanan showed his true colors when he refused, from the start, to support OIF.

    As for capitalists, it is true that capitalists will sell you the rope that you will use to hang them with, Book.

  • Ymarsakar

    As for the Kaiser’s bellicose support for the Boers, his igniting the Agadir crisis in 1905, his building of a great fleet, his seeking of colonies in Africa, he was only aping the British, whose approbation and friendship he desperately sought all his life and was ever denied.

    While I tend to think that’s true, it’s all water under the bridge. By the time Hitler had risen to power, Germany’s entire destiny had changed course and essentially sacrificed everything that had gone on before WWI.

    It all went down the tubes, so it is not as if talking about what ifs concerning Kaiser Wilhelm’s well intentioned but non-Bismarck and disastrous policies will do anything now to change Hitler’s history.

    Before Britain declared war on him, Hitler never demanded return of any lands lost at Versailles to the West. Northern Schleswig had gone to Denmark in 1919, Eupen and Malmedy had gone to Belgium, Alsace and Lorraine to France.

    Hitler didn’t give a damn for returning Germany to their former glory. That was all just a useful device for getting useful idiots working for Nazism.

    Because he sought an alliance, or at least friendship, with Great Britain

    He already had an alliance with Stalin. There was no room for anybody else. And even if there were, he would have betrayed them sooner or later.

    If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet?

    His submarine admirals had planned on a few more years to build up the u-boat fleets, but Hitler started the ball early cause he was encouraged by Western decadent idiots.

    Why did he not demand the French fleet when France surrendered?

    Cause it was more economical to use Petain, and thus the French fleet, to fight the Americans down in Africa. Given that France was now working for Hitler, why the heck would Hitler want their fleets under his personal command or destroyed?

    Why did he build his own Maginot Line, the Western Wall, in the Rhineland, if he meant all along to invade France?

    Cause Hitler was a neurotic, unstable, idiot. He was always trying to have things one way or another. As for original history, I don’t actually have an explanation for the “Western Wall”. That never came up in my studies.

    If he wanted war with the West, why did he offer peace after Poland and offer to end the war, again, after Dunkirk?

    Why do the Palestinians keep offering cease fires after successfully killing Israelis?

  • expat

    Danny: I suggest you just go here

    http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/

    and scroll way down because there is also a wonderful post on the French and line dancing.

    Here is the full archive site

    http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/signs-and-wonders-the-emergence-of-a-pro-israel-left-in-germany/

  • expat

    Sorry , the last link doesn’t work., but the first is OK.

  • Ymarsakar

    <a href=”http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/you-just-cant-make-this-stuff-up-government-regulated-dance-in-france/Working Permalink

    Just right click on the title of blog post and it will provide you the perma link, expat.

  • Ymarsakar
  • suek

    Read Rockdalian’s link, and all the way through the comments – which are very good, by the way. Copied and pasted two pages of quotes that I thought were especially relevant and thoughtful. Trying to distill them down, these are the ones I thought most relevant:

    “…you are missing the point of Buchanan’s book, if you have even read it. The point is that Britain made the blunders which dragged the rest of the English speaking world into an Eastern European conflict between two ancient rivals. ”

    “Buchanan’s point is that the war was a bad decision for the British Empire. It led to the loss of its overseas power, bankruptcy, and relegation to the status of an American protectorate.

    America, already deeply indebted to China (just as Britain was deeply indebted to us) is making the same mistakes in fighting foreign wars. This cannot go on indefinitely”

    and

    “Pat Buchanan’s deranged thesis has nothing much to do with WWII. It has to do with appeasement, alright, but not appeasement of Nazi Germany. Instead, it has to do with Pat’s perceived need to appease one of the Nazi’s direct heirs and progeny–the Ayatollahs of Iran.”

    “This is not to play down Jewish suffering prior to the outbreak of war. The discussion is whether war made things better or worse, for the Jews and for Brittan. Buchanan makes a good case in arguing that both would have been better off – not well of – had Britain avoided the war.”

    In sum, there are three issues: Is Buchanan historically accurate when he makes his point – which is intended to question present middle east policy – are his conclusions drawn from those facts reasonable, and is he an anti-semite.

    I don’t know the answers – but there are certainly enough questions about accuracy raised by VDH to make me wonder about whether Buchanan’s issues are initiated by his anti-semitism. To be honest, I wasn’t even aware of this issue before, so now I am. I’ll definitely view him with more skepticism after this. I was surprised by the antagonism shown in the comments against VDH as well.

    I agree that “those who disdain history are doomed to repeat it” but then neither are things ever identical.
    I’m going to save the quotes I copied and pasted because I think they’re something to consider, but I recommend folks take the time to read them all if they’re interested. And if you don’t have time, I’ll email them to Book – but of course, my choices may not be those you’d choose!