Anti-Jihad vs. Pro-Nazi

It’s almost as if there is a fine line between (a) defending the West’s right to exist against the islamic jihad that is trying to destroy it and (b) advocating mass-murder of muslims living in the west.  I say “almost” because these are not similar things, but the more I read on the Internet the more confusion I see.

So today, a blogger called “Atlas Shrugs” wrote a long piece about the Gates of Vienna piece that I wrote about last week.  It particularly caught my eye because the very name of the blog claims to be related to the ideas of Ayn Rand.  I don’t know much about the ideas on this blog yet, but the analysis of GoV is flawed.  I am going to go through the Atlas post in some detail.

“So the blogs have their bowels in an uproar over El Ingles essay over at Gates of Vienna because he used the word genocide. He never  advocated for it,  mind you …. but  merely used the word…”

Ignore the pejorative tone, and what is Atlas saying?  The GoV piece does not “advocate” genocide, merely “uses the word.”  The GoV piece presents three (false) alternatives: “induce” muslims to leave, force them to leave, or kill them en masse.  One does not need to be a genius to see that race war and genocide is where this inevitably goes.  These are false alternatives.  I presented a different approach last week.

It is disingenuous as hell to make the distinction that Atlas is trying to make here.

Next, Atlas moves to the topic that Pajamas Media has chosen to disassociate with Gates of Vienna.

“The argument, in and of itself, is an act of submission.  Once again free speech is kicked in the teeth so as not to offend.  And each time the West cedes a freedom…”

But even worse is that I wouldn’t expect a typical “liberal” (i.e. fascist) viewpoint to come from someone calling himself “Atlas Shrugs”.  Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this (as GoV themselves acknowledge in one of their recent posts).  And, obviously, it is not “the West” that is “ceding a freedom.”  This is a private decision made by private parties.

There is a moral issue here.  Do we want to impose martial law, and bloody racial civil war?  Do we want a “cure” that is as bad (or worse) than the disease?

Then Atlas moves on to a non-sequitor:

“…genocide on the part of Europeans … is the most impossible of all unlikely outcomes …”

The issue is not whether this is likely.  The issue is whether GoV proposed this.  To reiterate, GoV said that Europe must bribe the muslims to leave, force them to leave, or kill them all.  In their own tripple-bind false-atlernative, genocide is the only possible outcome.

Next, out of left field:

“First off, the Muslims are not the Jews.

“The Jewish genocide of the second World War was possible because the Jews were (and still are)  too civilized.”

Huh?  I guess this means that the Jews didn’t deserve it, and the muslims do?  It’s hard to parse, but I can’t think of any other meaning to this bit of non-sequitor placed in this context.  Maybe it means that it was easily to murder the Jews, but it will be harder to murder the muslims??  I give up on this one.

How many non-sequitors can you count in the next bit?

“The question of Muslim genocide is an intellectually dishonest question. The Europeans have already surrendered …. under the guise of multiculturalism. But what it really is, is fear.  The Brits are giving Muslims with multiple wives, multiple benefits. Their Home Secretary proclaimed the ban of the term Islamic terror, in exchange for “anti-islamic terror“. [emphasis in original]

It starts out saying a certain question is intellectually dishonest, but doesn’t say which question.  Does Atlas mean to question if GoV is poposing genocide?  Or does he mean to propose genocide?  Or does he mean to ask if genocide is feasible (or likely)?

Normally, each sentence in a paragraph is supposed to build on the previous one to support a common theme.  But in this case, each sentence jumps off to its own new realm!  We go from:

  1. Intellectual dishonesty to ask an unspecified question
  2. Europe has surrendered, and this is what multiculturalism means
  3. It’s all about the fear
  4. The Brittish welfare state has sunk to new depths
  5. The Brits have tried to impose politically-correct language usage

The whole mess does not add up to one coherent thought–or paragraph–and it continues with more in that vein!

Next, Atlas does not “advocate” violence.  He says:

“if / when there is bloodshed…”

The article concludes with two more paragraphs that explain that islam is waging a jihad against us, and the stakes are our freedom and our lives.  No kidding, you don’t say?

But in the context of GoV’s call for mass murder, Atlas’ article looks like a defense of that thesis.

I want to make a few things perfectly clear, so you will know where I stand:

  1. muslims are waging a jihad against the West
  2. they want us dead because of who we are and what we stand for (life and happiness)
  3. the tortoise beat the hare, and islam will beat us if we don’t fight to win
  4. we need to destroy the ability of the islamic nations to wage war against us
  5. repealing welfare and enforcing laws would be a great start to cleaning up our own homelands

I did not write this essay to argue for surrender, submisson, or political correctness.  I wrote this because I think there is an anti-mind faction out there that seemingly offers an alternative to political correctness.  That faction is naziism.  White racism does not address black or muslim racism–it’s just more racism, collectivism, tribalism, altruism, and bloody civil warfare.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Anti-Jihad vs. Pro-Nazi”

  1. Atlas is a he!? You’re gonna catch Hell for that!

  2. I thought Atlas Shrugged blogger was one of the good guys… what happened?

  3. Dear Macker,
    I didn’t know Atlas was a female. Sorry Atlas!

    Dear Winston,
    I don’t know who is supposed to be good or bad, but I can say that this latest post by Atlas is really bad!

  4. As far as I can tell, Atlas Shrugs is a blog run by a Jewish lady who likes Ayn Rand but clings to her Jewish faith. She is a general “conservative” I think, not a libertarian, and definitely not an Objectivist.

  5. R.D.: You write about the Jewish genocide “Huh? I guess this means that the Jews didn’t deserve it, and the muslims do? It’s hard to parse, but I can’t think of any other meaning to this bit of non-sequitur placed in this context.”

    Ah! Then I think I see your blind spot. You’re unaware of the sheer volume of Muslim attacks on native Europeans nowadays, since they are intentionally under-reported by the European (and American) press. Only natives can read about them in their local newspapers, or hear of them through friends. You’re therefore unaware that these attacks are usually gloated over as explicitly RACIST attacks by their perpetrators, the muslim hotheads. And, yes, the Jews are getting the worst deal yet again.

    We cannot avoid at least low-level genocide in Europe, since it has already started years ago. The question is how the natives might respond when their own leaders can no longer destroy their means of self-defence.

    GoV, and Pamela at Atlas Shrugs, will be well aware of all this. PJM and LGF are unaware or in denial. I think your hopeless confusion, as in the quote above, places you firmly in the “unaware” camp.

  6. wahabicorridor Says:

    Yes, Atlas’ name is Pamela Geller. I’m not telling secrets here. She’s a very public person.

    The rift began over an anti-jihad conference in Europe last year – attended and supported by GoV and Atlas, – seemed to give credibility to the likes of Vlaams Belang and the BNP – both of which have serious problems with racist ideology, past and present, and racists holding prominent positions in the parties.

    It got ugly.

  7. Dear Alan143,

    I think I get it. All over Europe, there are robberies, rapes, and murders committed by muslims. The victims are typically indigenous Europeans and sometimes Jews.

    Please see my next post for more thoughts on this topic.

  8. […] vs. Pro-Nazi II This started as a response I was writing to a comment to my previous post by Alan143.  But as I wrote, I thought it would be better to make a separate post.  I will quote […]

  9. […] is why, for example, I said that anti-jihad activists can’t collaborate with […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: