Posts Tagged ‘semitism’

All European Life Died In Auschwitz

30 Jan


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…


Auschwitz sign reads “Dan­ger!”

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and sud­den­ly dis­cov­ered a ter­ri­ble truth—Europe 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

Semitic Controversies

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 Islamic—from 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.


An exam­ple of the social mess in MN, CO, NY, TN. Com­ing to an inap­pro­pri­ate time & place near you…

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 consider—and 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.

    But while we should pro­ceed, you can read more about “stab in the back” con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries here, here, and here.

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 nouns—counter-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 hatreds—the 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.


Per­ish the argu­ment (click to enlarge)…

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.


"Ignorance and virtue suck on the same straw. Souls grow on bones, but die beneath bankers' hours.""