- I’m starting to think that David and Reggie are right: the Leftist establishment will be smart enough to know that the real extreme Right is less of a threat than the mainstream, anti-Islam Right. The latter is more likely to attract terrorists than the former. Also, the Left will know better than to waste the political capital they’ve just been handed attacking marginal figures like me.
- Larry Auster has announced that he doesn’t fear an investigation of the Right-blogosphere by the authorities. He thinks it will quickly remove any suspicion that we’re promoting violence. I suppose it is unlikely that the police will be coming around to take us to jail. (I’m still a bit worried about rkirk, though. He’s in the center of the storm.) However, there are other and better ways to retaliate against us, should the establishment wanted to do so. One possibility is that the press could take a more direct responsibility for punishing ideological nonconformists, just by picking several of us individually and whipping up lots of bad publicity, say by doing a hit piece on a different blogger each day. For example, it wouldn’t be too hard for the press to discover my identity, tar me as a “homophobe”, and get me fired from my job, and indeed make me unemployable. I guarantee that my university would not endure protests and bad publicity for my sake. Of course, you may say that untenured faculty are in a peculiarly vulnerable position, but that’s not true. If you work for any medium to large-sized corporation, they no doubt have an extensive diversity bureaucracy that will spring into action once the media targets you. While they claim not to police the beliefs of their employees, they can always say your non-PC beliefs were creating a “hostile atmosphere” in which gays and Muslims can’t flourish. But you never mentioned these beliefs at work, you say? Doesn’t matter: the media has made sure that all your coworkers know what you think. Now your very presence creates a hostile atmosphere. And losing your job is only the beginning! Media finger pointing can be a trigger for ACT UP, Antifa, the Black Panthers, or other militant groups to vandalize your property and physically intimidate you and your family. Freedom of speech is still on the books, but your life has been made a living hell. Actually, I think this is basically how things work in Europe already.
- Again, I don’t think the American far-Right is in danger. The Left has bigger fish to fry.
- I’m more convinced than ever that a traditionalist movement in Europe will have to be Muslim-led. We, the remnant of Christendom, would still have much to contribute to and much to gain from such a movement. Imagine a movement promoting local self-government for religious communities, which would, yet, mean Sharia in Muslim parts, but also no sodomy indoctrination in Christian parts. We can lament the fact that Muslims would be more palatable leaders and spokesmen for such a movement for the general public, but we must acknowledge it.
Filed under: Down with journalism, Europe, Islam |
Throne and Altar 
Interesting point 4 there. Breivik’s entire program involves NOT consenting to any Islamic presence. By 2083, his goal is the deportation of all Muslims from European soil.
One thing to note: he explicitly draws a distinction between the European and American situations, which he says are just too different to have much common ground. Mainly because there are so many more Muslims in Europe than in America. I hadn’t read much if any Euro-nationalism before, so it was eye opening for me.
His program includes alliances with any and all races who convert to Christianity, along with Buddhist and Hindu countries in Asia, but an absolute zero-tolerance for any Muslim presence at all. His program even includes a modern Crusade to free the Christians in the Mideastern countries. And by free them, I mean remove the Muslims from those countries so they become Christian territories again…
Hello again Mr. Bonald,
Similarly to the quote (wrongly) attributed to Samuel Johnson, what I have to say about the Breivik case is good and original, being the good part not original and original part not good : -). Anyway here comes the (always unsolicited) perspective from a non-Western, non-European and non-White (ok, ok, 50% of White European descent) traditionalist.
#1 – I really believe that the bizarre Mencius Moldbug is on to something on his analysis of the case. Breivik is “conservative” that used “revolutionary” methods – political assassination of innocents, in the case the sons and daughters of the leftist elite – to bring about political change (please note that both the left-revolutionaries and right-revolutionaries employ this technique with great murderous enthusiasm). To borrow from an illustration proposed by you, he was a “Girondin” who thought of himself as a “Bourbon restorationist”. Therefore in addition to being completely and utterly evil (I believe justice would be properly served by hanging him, on a public execution), he was also quite pathetic in this particular question. We (yes, I am pretty much an actual “Bourbon restorationist” myself, although probably seem as an alien by all other three or four of them 🙂 cannot “conquer power” or “recover power” because our whole philosophy is based on the legitimate exercise of the authority by the state, the church, the community and the family. Since we lost all these in a revolution 200 years ago, we really cannot, due to our commitment to the Bible and the Natural Law, engage in the same kind of actions that our revolutionary enemies (Jacobins and Girondins) practice with great success (from a power conquering and holding perspective).
#2 – You are right. Having lived most of my life in a state (Brazil) that is the quintessence of the “Anarcho-Tyranny” (I am currently living in the US) I can testify that the “technique” employed is exactly the one that you described. The selection of a few “whipping boys” (it has to be someone from upper middle class and white) to made an example of, assures fully compliance from the rest (I see today that using my real name while posting on your “evil” blog was not a particularly wise idea :-). Just to give you an example, you can be arrested by the “crime” of “racism” (!?) in Brazil (I must add that bail is automatically denied in this case, by law). I am sure that the “Euro-elites” can do better and faster.
#3 – You are right again. The real clamp down will be directed against the European “far-right”. After all, every White European is a Nazi, unless “tamed” by Eurocrat leftists, right? I am really fearful for rkirk too. He does not have to be even bothered by the authorities. A simple, weeklong press campaign could certainly make any European ”far-rightist” like him an unemployable pariah.
Regarding the US, the coming debt-ceiling induced economic apocalypse and Amy Winehouse’s death also contributed to shift attention from the Breivik case (the latter more than the former).
#4 – This is a point where we disagree, by a large margin. I would like to, respectfully, address two aspects of your proposal. The first, is the question on exactly how is your proposal of joining the false (in this case, Islam) with what is true (in this case, Christianity) differs from Frank Meier’s fusionism or Tu Weiming’s “modern confucionism”? Will Muslims “tolerate” what they think to be false on Christianity and will Christian “tolerate” what they think to be false on Islam? A “Muslim-led traditionalist movement in Europe” if successful, would turn Europe in a Muslim-led society would it not? If so, I think it is fair to examine how well are the “Christian parts” of other Muslim-led societies going. How are Christians in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran? How well are Christians doing even in Kosovo? You say the Christians have “much to contribute” to this Muslim-led movement. Historically, apart from being a source for slaves, janissaries and, “raw material” to “organic fertilizer”, how exactly Christians “contribute” to Islam and “gain” from it?
The second aspect that I would like to address is the Muslim behavior in Europe. How exactly this crime-prone, violence-prone, gang-rape prone minority (the data on Muslim crime on Kafirs is abundant, as any reader of VFR, GoV or JihadWatch knows), today on a non-leadership position will, once turned in the majority or achieving leadership, behave in a proper and civilized manner? By the way, would you describe Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Pakistan as “conservative” place where you – as a Catholic – would like to live in? Allowing a troublesome ethnic-religious group to take the leadership of a country never ends well. Ask the whites in post-apartheid South Africa.
[…] Breivik. You can find some “insights” from the Throne & Altar blog here and here. My favorite sedevacantist, Joe Hargrave, has his thoughts here. Seriously, this is what it […]
I have to agree with Marcio Silva, that Bonald is wrong in his fourth point. The word tradition denotes a form of knowledge, but without a qualifier indicates no particular content. Traditional knowledge is knowledge received on authority from the past, usually on the assumption that the people or person who originated the tradition enjoyed some sort of epistemic advantage. This is why modernity opposes all tradition. It stipulates that the present always has epistemic advantage over the past. Because modernity opposes tradition as a form of knowledge, it lumps all traditions together, regardless of content. We traditionalists are not, however, committed to tradition as a form of knowledge, but rather to the received content of our own particular tradition. So, coming to the point, European Muslims will not create a Traditional society, they will produce an Islamic society. If I had to choose between Islam and Hedonistic Nihilism, I think I’d choose Hedonistic Nihilism.
Bonald: The threat to your academic career does not come from university administrators or the media. It comes from your colleagues, who can destroy you by ostracism and negative evaluation of normal work. I believe you are a physicist, and so suppose you are engaged in team research, and that you publish co-authored papers. Unless you are truly irreplaceable, which is unlikely, you must continue to be viewed favorably by your research team. Probably they don’t give a damn about your politics, but it only takes a couple to start a whispering campaign. Also, if you are like most of us you hover somewhere near the middle of the bell curve of ability, and this means evaluation of your work is somewhat arbitrary. Some academic work can’t be talked down, or up, but most of it can. I think the best course of action is to make your political views clear but talk about them as little as possible. Try to avoid giving the impression that you are a Manchurian Candidate or a fanatical crank, and you should be all right.
Bonald, to my mind, your point #4 brings again to the fore the question whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God. I hope that discussion will continue.
I’m really not sure which is worse, Islam or Liberalism. From the Christian perspective, they are both antichrist.
Liberalism rejects the presence of the supernatural, to make the world safe for humanity. If a liberal affirms some kind of Christian faith, it is faith in a docetic Christ, not the Christ we confess who entered history and who ascended to receive all rule and authority.
Not to say the obvious for its own sake, but Islam affirms the humanity of Jesus while denying his divinity. The raison d’etre of Islam is a rejection of the Christian gospel and the Church’s lived experience.
Thankfully, no mortal is in the position to decide which will prevail in our time. I choose, and will support, neither.
Though, I will work within the confines of the present world order to uncover the foundation that the builders of modernity rejected.