THE FOLLOWING TEXTS WERE OF SOME INTEREST, and thus, importance to me. I have taken the liberty to post one with just as I found it for reasons you should soon understand, and the second which can be traced to a single web site called Semitic Controversies will be annotated by me. This second piece is much longer, and claims to refute the first, although I have read and approve of the title piece as written. That said, I have not read the second piece beyond the first few lines of the opening paragraph, so this is somewhat an experiment in expectations. I anticipate my need to comment as I continue to read the text presented here (intact from Semitic Controversies). Since the author's SC text will be expressed in regular text, my comments will follow in italics, just as this opening statement is rendered in italics bulleted by a yellow notepad icon. Please read on...
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truthEurope died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned. And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts. And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.
Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez
Debunking Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez's 'All European Life Died in Auschwitz'
In my previous article on the subject of Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez's article-cum-chain letter 'All European Life Died in Auschwitz' I simply re-wrote the text of the article to make it fit the actual situation more appropriately than Rodriguez's original. (1) Now more than that I think it is necessary to actually analyze what Rodriguez has to say or rather; perhaps more appositely, what he claims.
The reason for this is simple: in that this article has been widely disseminated and includes basic assumptions that underlie a large amount of counter-Jihadi material that need to be challenged: as they are more fundamentally erroneous as well as; ironically, hypocritical. Indeed I would go so far as to argue that Rodriguez's article is actually representative of an intellectual disease that has afflicted some well-meaning people today.
That disease is very simply: the irrational love of the jews. Otherwise known as: Judeophilia. What do I mean by that? Well if we understand that the sine qua non of most right-wing and patriotic ideas today is the supposition that the downfall of European civilization was ultimately caused by the advent of the Third Reich and the destruction that was World War Two; which Germany supposedly started out of ambitions for world conquest, caused the expansion of Communist rule. As well as greatly enhanced the attractiveness of Marxist ideas to Westerners and non-Westerners alike while simultaneously tainting right-wing and patriotic ideas; as well as racialism and hereditarianism in science, with the reflected tint of the supposed evils; inspired by so-called 'crank science', that were visited on the world by National Socialism.
- Well, this second piece already sports the familiar taint of rotten meat about it. But I will hold my nose until I get a more clarifying whiff.
This then informs us that World War Two and National Socialism have become the twin evils about which right-wing and patriotic ideas today seek to explain and answer, because they believe them to be a good part of the reason why their ideas and visions of society have failed.
However this is simply an excuse for their failure to; as Sun Tzu aptly put it, 'shape to fit the times': the right-wing and patriotic groups failed to learn from their experiences, they failed to recognize that the political battlefield had changed and perhaps more fundamentally they failed to evolve to meet that changing situation.
Right-wing and patriotic ideas have so long been on the back foot not because the ideas were lacking in appeal or because there weren't people willing to listen to them, but rather because the people who styled themselves right-wingers and/or patriots failed to understand the evolution of technology, failed to adapt their message to fit the changing society which encompassed new generations and even more fundamentally did not have the courage of their convictions.
- The next three paragraphs serve up something altogether different. These thoughts and ideas are precisely what we are hearing from the American right as to why it is having such a hard time grabbing a more fruitful share in the traditional demographics long held by Democrats, even though right wing policies might better suit these voters as individuals and families, small business owners, and others who may be more concerned about moral contingencies that face them. The European right may very well be less inclined to openly admit or debate these stresses on their party ediface, but for now, I will move on to the next paragraph.
How can a right-winger complain about the corruption of society or the influence of the jews: when they are not prepared to become; as Christians would describe it, 'living stones' of their political faith. Beacons of light in the growing darkness if you will, because only such beacons of light can inspire others to both make their way to that light and also try to reproduce that light in themselves.
Anarchists in the nineteenth century frequently talked of the difference between the 'propaganda of the word' and the 'propaganda of the deed' often arguing that a deed was worth thousands of words. I would naturally agree with that but with the qualification that individuals carrying out bombings don't cause intellectual and political revolutions, but rather those living their lives in agreement with their ideas and showing others what it means to be a right-winger and/or a patriot do make such revolutions.
- The once fuzzy picture has now become focused. The writer of this article is definitely writing from a European perspective. Anti-Jewish notions in the US during the past few years as Islam makes further inroads into American culture while maintaing their own as a primary source of contention is coming primarily from the left. True, there are the far-right crazies, the mountain goat survivalists and their ilk, but for the most part anti-Jewish rhetoric is pouring the mainstream media and from US universities and colleges where Islamic Student Unions are quite active players, that is to say, apparently they are persuasive units in appealing to its apologists for all things Islamicfrom private prayer rooms, footbaths, zero tolerance for anti-sharia speakers on campus, skewed textbooks in our primary, secondary and university level schools, halal demands from the food industry, special breaks for prayer, and more, all in the name of diversity when we can easily observe that diversity is just the first step because supremacy follows quickly where fungible.
The point is simple enough in that people, as exemplified by Rodriguez, believe their own excuses about why they have failed without understanding what businessmen call the 'root cause' of their problem. Instead they seek to blame their failure on some group and/or event that they feel aggrieved at in the belief that it 'queered their pitch' to their target audience.
Now the interesting thing about that is that it is precisely what orthodox history tells counter-Jihadis like Rodriguez the Nazis claimed about the jews and the leftists in relation to Germany's loss of World War One. This is otherwise known to anyone who went through secondary or high school as the 'Stab-in-the-back' myth (i.e. the Dolchstoßlegende) and while this characterisation has some truth to it: the 'myth' is not without some evidential foundation in the first instance and in the second it was not an unreasonable belief for the soldiers on the ground or the German civilian population.
Now if; as the counter-Jihadis like Rodriguez believe, we wish to suppose that the advent of the Third Reich and World War Two has caused them and their predecessors to fail to successfully propagate right-wing and/or patriotic ideas: then surely are they not creating their own version of 'Stab-in-the-back' myth in order to explain why they have; and keep, failing?
Instead of locating the 'root cause' of the problem: they have instead created legend to explain why a particular group and historical event have 'queered their pitch' to their would-be audience. However unlike the German nationalists; and then later the NSDAP, after World War One: the counter-Jihadis unjustly (and bizarrely) blame those they believe unjustly blamed the jews for their own failings.
- Okay, we are finally getting down to the broken wheels on this Semitic Controversies wagon. The SC wagon rolls into dry dock a major conspiracy theory, or legend, for us to considerand actually admits that the legend has a grain or two of truth to it in stating "while this characterisation has some truth to it: the 'myth' is not without some evidential foundation in the first instance and in the second it was not an unreasonable belief for the soldiers on the ground or the German civilian population." Unfortunately the author does not elaborate. In failing to gut the beast of this legend, and pour out both the diseased and healthy entrails we are left to our own devices in presuming, yes, see, that's what we are talking about. Hardly a scholar of World War I, I must then move along to the next set of propositions, SC, in all seriousness begins to offer. But before I go, we must make note of the "queering the pitch" statement. The author seems to suggest that this phenomenon as a mathematical expense of doing business does not exist, or does not ever effect the game enough to merit consideration. This is patently false, given what we have understood as the butterfly effect" in chaos theory. Surely, a mounting percentage of non-traditionalists operating within a political population (a perfect calculus of functioning chaos) exert as much influence as a mere butterfly flapping its wings. Weather patterns and political inertia may be considered by some as apples and oranges, but I would suggest that since both are fruits, they have more in common than one might at first glance, imagine. More on this point, later in this debate.
It is certainly ironic that counter-Jihadis, right-wingers and patriots so frequently try to blame their erstwhile confrères for their own failures, but the belief that the advent of the Third Reich and that the necessary consequence of that was World War Two has also spawned an almost Hegelian anti-thesis to traditional right-wing and/or patriotic views on the subject of the jews. These, as I am sure the reader well knows, have historically hovered between passive dislike and outright hatred with every hue in-between represented.
However the centrality of the 'Holocaust' of six million jews; allegedly committed by the Third Reich between 1941 and 1945, to post-war interpretations of World War Two; as well as acting as a significant dose of rhetorical ex post facto justification, has meant that even passive dislike of the jews has come to be associated with adhere to the principles of National Socialism with one thus being an apologist for the Third Reich and accordingly trying to justify the 'Holocaust' in short rhetorical order.
This leaves counter-Jihadis; like Rodriguez, in something of a conundrum in so far as they cannot, or rather do not wish to seem to, support National Socialism, because they believe that it was National Socialism rather than their own poorly-chosen actions (and in many cases simple inaction) that caused their failure to propagate their beliefs. However traditional right-wing and patriotic beliefs are derogatory towards the jews in differing degrees, which means that they risk alienating their natural allies.
- Let's see, the writer boldly suggests that the indigenous peoples in Europe have historically considered the Jew (I shall not follow the writer's penchant for using the lower case for an entire people while using upper case for a host of other collective nouns such as National Socialism, Third Reich, and counter-Jihadis) with suspicion, fear, and disgust. It is the third of these capitalized collective nounscounter-Jihadis which most clearly reveals the SC writer's bias. This was not a random choice. With these few but flagrant citations, we can see that he insists on making it known that the Jihadi is worthy of uppercase, while the Jew is not. That being the case, I will add my own hypothesis into this discussion. It is plainly shown in study after study that smaller, homogenous nations appear to rate as the happiest of cultures (common sense confirms this), and therefore while I am in no sense a xenophobe, neither do I rush to support the agenda of the so-called politically correct multi-culturalists, as if simply throwing socially discordant people together on a sinking ship will bring out the best in them as individuals, or competitors "acting in crisis" as a collective whole, such as we see frequently in America after heavy flooding, a devastating tornado, or a school massacre. But we know this "instant commitment" is short-lived. Hurricane Katrina, and even Sandy, is a good example of this. Until the cameras leave...
Instead, I am quite certain that natural cross-pollination between cultures is desirable, can be achieved and celebrated as long as we allow those competing or correlating cultures to proceed according to their own natural paces, while working hard to understand that multiculturalism is not an exercise in instant gratification, and the rights of both the majority and the minority should be allowed to comfortably evolve over time. Is this not what happened in Europe with concern to the Jews? Did not the Jews integrate at every level of European life, maintaining their Jewishness but taking on the new robe of Germany, Austria, Denmark, France, and even exalting in their own European contributions?
But Semitic Controversies wishes to wedge Nazi behavior and its ideology into the gap between the average European and the average Jew like a crowbar by which the average European is conflicted and squeezed forcefully by the public relations campaigns of what SC submits must of necessity be the post-war European's own two personal hatredsthe Third Reich and the Jew.
To solve it they needed to introduce a new understanding of right-wing beliefs into the equation and the jewish right (i.e. the Zionists) provided the perfect answer to the conundrum. That answer was simple: you could style the jews as being a 'super-people' who invented everything from the wheel to the computer and who Europe had blamed for their own failures as opposed to looking for the 'root cause' of the failure in themselves.
This meant in practice that the counter-Jihadis could emphasize their distance from National Socialism on the basis of the latter's vehement dislike for the jews and also gain a ready-made number of allies among the jews: who; as Israeli society is rather more right-wing as a rule than European or American society, could provide a steady stream of educated material to back up their other arguments.
However in forming this alliance the counter-Jihadis; like Rodriguez, ended up going a lot further than they originally intended. They ended up not just viewing the jews as a 'super-people', but rather ended up belittling their own people for not being like the jews and failing to even consider that the jews could have provoked a reprisal or performed a negative act.
In essence; to follow the expression of the common logical fallacy, the counter-Jihadis not only slipped down the slope, but they veritably tumbled down it. The end position that they have come to is what I have above termed: Judeophilia. In other words the irrational love of the jews.
The reason that is apt is simple: counter-Jihadis; like Rodriguez, see criticism of the jews as ipso facto irrational and a sign of a diseased and/or jealous mind. They do not consider for a moment that anti-jewish opinions and theses are as potentially justifiable as any other, but rather they simply believe they cannot be so because they are anti-jewish.
Instead they believe that the jews have been disproportionately responsible for arbitrarily assigned positives with which the world has been gifted. They believe that the jews are the best of Europe and that accordingly any criticism of them has to be irrational and based on jealousy. In other words: Judeophobia.
Judeophobia; or the irrational hatred of jews, (which is incidentally a real term increasingly used by scholars and writers on anti-Semitism) is believed by the counter-Jihadis to be one of the touchstones of a backward mind, but yet they do not consider that in considering the jews as above other peoples they in the first instance uncritically accept as gospel what the jews say about themselves and in the second they engage in an essentially reactionary behaviour.
What do I mean by this second point? Well, very simply the counter-Jihadis; like Rodriguez, are simply reacting to the traditional right-wing many-shaded dislike and suspicion of jews by simply rejecting that and taking the polar opposite viewpoint. They haven't considered the merits of the Judeophilic argument; let alone those of the Judeophobic one, and have decided to take a position in an emotive reaction to the normalisation of the latter.
Hence they have reacted without thought as opposed to having made a critical and informed decision ergo they can be aptly described as 'reactionary'. This is clearly evidenced by Rodriguez's claim that the jews are a 'chosen people'; which is the jewish description of themselves and should not as well as cannot be applied to the jews by non-jews unless said non-jews have either converted to Judaism or have become Noahides, and that they produced a 'great and wonderful people who changed the world'.
Now I obviously disagree with Rodriguez's characterisation of the jews as a 'great and wonderful people'; and I have probably read and researched a great deal more into jews and their culture than Rodriguez has, but I cannot disagree with his assertion that the jews 'changed the world'. Indeed I know of few people on either the pro-jewish or anti-jewish sides of the debate who would disagree with it.
However our differences come when we assign a valuation to that change: Rodriguez would argue it was wholly positive. Where-as I would take a far more nuanced view that while the jews have naturally contributed things of positive value to mankind: they have also contributed disproportionately far more things of negative value to mankind compared to any other group. I would also argue that the jewish 'contribution to civilization'; as Cecil Roth styled it, has on been balance rather negative as opposed to overwhelming positive.
That Rodriguez's view is quite irrational is easily shown by pointing to his use of a Nobel Prize winners comparison between jews and Muslims as the centre-piece of his argument; and indeed the only thing remotely factual in it, however his list is not only ludicrously wrong (as it leaves out some jews and Muslims, leaves out the Chemistry Nobel and includes others who were not jews or Muslims as if they), but it is an apples versus oranges comparison.
What do I mean by that? Very simply the list isn't even comparing the same thing as it defines jewishness biologically (hence the numerous jewish atheists, second/third generation converts to Christianity with a jew mother/grandmother or father/grandfather included in it) while it defines Muslims as someone who born into or is an active adherent of Islam.
Clearly then you can't compare a biological group to a religious group now can you? This is especially awful given that Rodriguez is essentially using the opinion of a committee to be his barometer of contribution, which is clearly erroneous as he is arguing for the total contribution of the jews as opposed to the contribution of the jews over the last few decades. Indeed; as Jan Biro has noted, most of the jewish Nobel Prize winners have had their prizes awarded since 1945: when according to Rodriguez (and those like him) European culture and civilization has been in a headlong rout under the avalanche of leftist and 'Islamofascist' attacks on it.
Rather incompatible, isn't it? To explain briefly: if European civilization has been in a headlong rout since 1945 under the assault of leftists and 'Islamofascists', but it is during this time that the jews have been winning large numbers of Nobel Prizes which obviously have a political element and rely on the socio-cultural compatibility of their ideas with the culture concerned (after all a chemistry paper that threw doubt on the 'Holocaust' story could never win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry: could it?).
Then does this not suggest that the jews are likely winning Nobels at an increased rate, because their arguments and theses are highly compatible with the political ideas of said headlong rout of European culture and civilization? Why yes it does. So does that not suggest to Rodriguez: who might be playing a disproportionately significant role in the headlong rout of European culture and civilization?
After all the Third Reich fell in 1945: who does Rodriguez think might have benefited most from that in terms of their short and medium term prospects given the amount of empathy that was showered on them for 'surviving' the 'Holocaust'? That's right: the jews.
In essence from this we can quickly see that Rodriguez's logic actually bounces back against him as he is forced into a position where the jews are linked to the headlong rout of European culture and civilization as being disproportionately responsible for it, because it is in said period of headlong rout that they have been at their most dominant as opposed to being passively and/or actively suppressed by the state and society in general (when European culture and civilization was in the ascendant).
I also note with not a little humour that in seeking to push jews to the fore Rodriguez is actively downplaying European achievement. By suggesting that the jews have disproportionately contributed to the advancement of humanity: Rodriguez forgets that the European people; who are not jewish, have contributed a vast amount more and significantly more disproportionately than the jews.What about them then?
Europe has been the birthplace of most technology (past and present), most political ideas (past and present), the only civilization to create and us the empirical method, produced the greatest warriors and the greatest art that humanity has ever known.
Yet Rodriguez fails to mention that: he only signs the hymns of jewish not European achievement.
The jews are not part of that great history and indeed many of Europe's greatest minds have turned their attention to the jews in the spirit of empirical investigation only to be disgusted, appalled and repelled at what they saw starring back at them. They saw only fanatical hatred, jealously and greed starring back at them: not the peace-loving super-people that Rodriguez believes the jews to be.
Were these men and women irrational haters of the jews as Rodriguez would likely suppose? Could Goebbels have found a spiritual ancestor in Cicero? Could Himmler have found a spiritual ancestor in Voltaire? Could Hitler have found a spiritual ancestor in Luther? No: I don't think so.
Indeed the simplest possible solution that all these men undertook to study the jews and found them not only wanting, but a clear and present danger to all that they held dear. There is no conspiracy, no jealously and no psychological abnormality here: only empirical investigation leading to one disturbing conclusion about the jews, which required action sooner rather than later on the part of the investigators.
In seeking to paint the jews as being a 'super-people' Rodriguez essentially blackens the name of his own people and in doing so his writing become less a counter-Jihadi call-to-arms to a sleeping Europe, but rather a counter-Jihadi attempt to emasculate a sleeping Europe by demanding they fight on the side of the school bully so that they can feel less guilty about punching him in the face once.
From this then we can see that Rodriguez is not only not a European nationalist or a European patriot, but rather one of those guilt-induced European liberals who has decided that has to sleep with the enemy in order to pay of the debt of his ancestors.
The only difference is: he is in bed with the jews as opposed to the Muslims.