Where Jihad & Counterjihad Agree

http://age-of-treason.com/2011/11/08/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 Backsurveys 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.)

Comment:

آپ کے ہر مسئلے کا فوری اور کامیاب حل گارنٹی کے ساتھ ہمارے  خاندانی تجربات کی روشنی میں اپنے ہر مشکل سے مشکل مسائل کا حل پائیں دھوکے باز عاملین سے بچیں اور جو حقیقت میں علم کامل رکھتے ہیں صرف ان سے رابطہ فرمائیں ہمارے پاس آپ کے تمام مسائل کا حل علم و عمل کی طاقت سے موجود ہے کوئی بھی مسئلہ یا پریشانی ہوبلا ججھک و خوف ہم سے رابطہ فرمائیں اوراپنے ہر مسئلے کا فوری حل پائیں، انشآءاللہ

 

EUSSR? Moar Europe!

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/02/why-the-european-union-must-be-abolished/

jeppo on February 6, 2014 at 6:22 pm said:

This is all wrong. Fjordman should understand better than most that the EU is not the source of all our problems; he is from Norway, possibly the most feminized, homosexualized, xenophilic and politically correct nation on Earth. Norway is *not* an EU member, so the bloated bureaucracy in Brussels can’t even marginally be blamed for Norway’s present state of affairs. Norway’s elite are entirely responsible for the browning of Oslo, not the EU.

Actually the ‘bloated bureaucracy in Brussels’ is another myth. It’s positively tiny compared to the behemoth in Washington DC, and much smaller on a per capita basis than any national government in Europe. And in many ways it is also more democratic than the nation-states contained within it.

The free movement of goods and people throughout the EU has led to a general prosperity never before experienced in all of European history, providing a standard of living equal or superior to any other place in the world today. Does anyone seriously doubt this? Yes, there may be problems with gypsies and Muslims from the Balkans moving to Northwest European countries, but they are a drop in the bucket compared to the REAL problem: mass Third World immigration. Which has been facilitated 100% by the nation-states of Europe, not the EU.

France and the UK started importing hundreds of thousands of Africans and Asians from their former empires long before they joined the EU. The Germans imported their entire Turkish population without any help or even input from Brussels. It was the British Labour Party who drastically ramped up immigration in the 1997-2010 period, not the phantom bureaucrats of Brussels. And it was the chinless wonder Zapatero in Spain who invited in huge numbers of Africans, Arabs and Latin Americans. The EU had nothing to do with that outrage either.

The euro hasn’t been a ‘bad idea’, it’s facilitated trade, maintained its value, and is second only to the USD as a reserve currency. One day I believe it will surpass the USD as the world’s primary reserve currency. And while some of the spendthrift countries in Southern Europe are now suffering under Teutonic-imposed austerity, particularly Greece and Spain, most countries in Northern and Eastern Europe are doing just fine economically, thank you very much.

The elections to the EU Parliament are coming up this May. The anti-immigration and anti-Islamization parties will almost certainly win in excess of 100 seats out of 751. Hopefully far in excess. In at least 4 countries, the UK, France, Netherlands and Austria, the ‘right-wing extremist’ parties will probably come in first place. UKIP currently has no seats in the Westminster Parliament, while the Front National has only one or two in its French equivalent. Yet both of these parties will end up taking 20-25% of their respective nations’ seats in the EU elections because they are based on proportionality rather than the first-past-the-post systems that shut them out at home. Germany’s soft nationalist AfD party has no seats in the Bundestag, but because of a lower threshold in the EU elections they will probably win a bunch of seats.

With all due respect to Fjordman, his analysis has it exactly backwards. The bad guys are the nation-states like Britain, France and the rest. It is they who are entirely responsible for the Third World immigration invasion of Europe. It is they who supress the patriots who want to keep Europe white. It’s the nation-states who need to have their powers circumscribed because it is they who have proven over and over again that they have nothing but contempt for their indigenous populations.

This is not to say that the EU are necessarily the ‘good guys’. But the EU, unlike the archaic nation-states, is a relatively new and flexible institution. And when a huge phalanx of right-wing patriots take their seats in the EU Parliament (along with an even bigger bloc of conservative sympathizers) following the upcoming elections, then they can push for a more democratic EU, based on the Swiss model, and–above all–push for an end to non-European immigration.

One more thing. The EU must exist as a counterweight to the overweening power of the Anti-White Empire. You know what I’m talking about: Mexico Norte, Black Run America, Israel’s ATM, etc. The formerly great country known as the United States. The EU must eventually supplant the US as the undisputed leader of the West, because US power and influence is the biggest anti-white force in the world today. The real Soviet-style evil empire is not the EU, but the US, and the quickest way to cut it down in size is to build up a powerful, pro-white EU in opposition to it.

Conservatives and patriots need to rethink their kneejerk opposition to the EU and their delusional defense of the traitorious nation-states. This article is a good start:

http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/nation-states-european-union-occident-2-3

Reply ↓