Islamic Fundamentalism

[albion]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...INGOT7CJF11.DTL

One of the leading theoreticians of Islamic fundamentalism was the Egyptian thinker, Sayyid Qutb, who has been called "the brains behind bin Laden." Like the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center, Qutb was a man who lived in the West and knew its ways. After studying in America, he wrote a book called "The America That I Saw" in which he argued that his familiarity with the United States was his basis for rejecting it.

Qutb, who died in 1966, wrote that he was shocked by the rampant prejud
ce of Americans, especially toward Arabs and Muslims. He professed outrage at the materialism and sexual promiscuity of American culture.

In his later writings, Qutb alleged that America used to be
Christian; now, it is pagan. The Muslim believer, he wrote, has no reason to envy
or emulate the ways of America; rather, true Muslims should feel contempt for those ways.

How in Qutb's view did America reach its sorry state? One problem, Qutb said, is that American and indeed Western institutions are fundamentally atheist, based on a clear rejection of divine authority.

Democracy and capitalism are in Qutb's view atheistic ideas. When democrats say that sovereignty flows from the people, this means that the people, not God, are the rulers. So democracy is a form of idol worship. So, too, Qutb insisted that capitalism, which is based on the notion that the market and not God is the best arbitrator of value, is a form of idolatry.

A second problem, Qutb wrote, is that the core
principle of America is liberty -- the right to determine one's own destiny. This, he argued, is a highly defective principle because liberty can be used well or liberty can be used badly.


Given what Immanuel Kant called "the warped timber of humanity," given the human propensity for selfis
hness and vice, Qutb argued that freedom will often be used badly.

For evidence of this, he said, just look at what goes on in America. Qutb pointed to divorce, family breakdown, homosexuality, promiscuity and the triviality and vulgarity of American popular culture as proof that human beings cannot be expected to use freedom except to gratify their basest impulses. Indeed, Qutb sternly charged that America is materially prosperous but morally rotten.

Qutb's alternative to America and the West is Islam, which in his book "Social Justice in Islam" he terms "an unparalleled revolution in human thinking" that provides the only solution to "this unhappy, perple
xed and weary world."

Islam, Qutb emphasized, is not merely a moral code or set of beliefs. It is a way of life based upon the divine government of the universe. The very term "Isl
am" means "submission" to the authority of Allah. This worldview requires that religious, economic, political and civil society be based on the Koran, the tea
chings of the Prophet Muhammad and the Shariah or Islamic law.

Qutb admits that notions of submission and obedience may sound alien to Western ears. In his view, this is because Western society is based on freedom, whereas Islamic society is based on virtue.

How should we in America evaluate and answer Qutb's critique? We need to take his views seriously, partly because they are taken seriously in the Islamic world and partly because for all his vehemence, Qutb is raising deep and fundamental questions.

Let us concede at the outset that freedom will often be used badly in a free society. Freedom by definition includes
freedom to do good or evil, to act nobly or basely. Given the warped timber of humanity, freedom becomes the forum for the expression of human flaws and weaknesses. On this point, Qutb and his
fundamentalist followers are quite correct.

But if freedom brings out the worst in people, it also brings out the best. The millions of Americans who live decent, praiseworthy lives
deserve our highest admiration because they have opted for the good when the good is not the only available option. Even amid the temptations that a rich and free society offers, they have remained on the straight path. Their virtue has special luster because it is freely chosen.

By contrast, the theocratic and authoritarian society that Islamic fundamentalists advocate undermines the possibility of virtue. If the supply of virtue is insufficient in free societies, it is almost nonexistent in Islamic societies because coerced virtues are not virtues at all.

Consider the woman in Afghanistan or Iran who is required to
wear the veil. There is no real modesty in this because the woman is being compelled. Compulsion cannot produce virtue. It can only produce the outward semblance of virtue.

Once the
reins of coercion are released, as they were for the Sept. 11 terrorists, the worst impulses of human nature break loose. Sure enough, the deeply religious terrorists spent their last days in gamb
ling dens, bars and strip clubs, sampling the licentious lifestyle they were about to strike out against. In theocratic societies such as Afghanistan under the Taliban or Iran today, the absence of freedom signals the absence of virtue.

This is the argument that Americans should make to people in the Islamic world. It is a mistake to presume that Muslims would be totally unreceptive to it. Islam, which has common roots with Judaism and Christianity, respects the autonomy of the individual soul. Salvation for Muslims, no less than for J*ws and Christians, is based on the soul choosing freely to follow God.

We can m
ake the case to Muslims that freedom is not a secular invention. Rather, freedom is a gift from God.

Moreover, it is not the case that Islamic fundamentalists care about virtue w
hile we in the West care only about freedom. We, too, care about virtue. Like them, we seek the good society; but we disagree with the Islamic fundamentalists about the best means to achieve this goal.

nIn the Western view, freedom is the necessary precondition for virtue. Without freedom, there is no virtue.

I

 

[Rasp]

THE NAZI CONNECTION TO MODERN ISLAMIC JIHAD

A Short History of Islamic Radicalism

By Gary Aminoff

Many people buy into the premise that the World Trade Center attack on September 11 was a result of some misguided foreign policy of the United States. Others believe that Islamist terror attacks began in the 1970's, 1980's or 1990's as a result of something that we, as a country, have done to provoke such an attack.

When confronting an enemy it is helpful to know what it is that drives him. The U.S. and the West need to realistically look at the true motives of Islamic terrorists in order to properly confront them. In this talk I will present the facts that support the notion that Islamic Jihad is not motivated by any specific policies of the US or the West, but instead is principally motivated by a fanatic, obsessive hatred of Jews, and that Islamic Jihad was, and continues to be, strongly influenced by the Nazis.

The idea of using suicide pilots to fly airplanes into high-rise office buildings in Manhattan did not originate with Osama bin Laden in the 1990's - it originated with Adolf Hitler in the 1940's.

Albert Speer, Hitler's famous architect and chronicler, wrote in his diary, "In the latter stages of the war, I never saw Hitler so beside himself as when, as if in a delirium, he was picturing to himself and to us the downfall of the skyscrapers of New York in towers of flame. He described the skyscrapers turning into huge burning torches and falling hither and thither, and the reflection of the disintegrating city in the dark sky."

Hitler's fantasy, and his plan of action foreshadowed September 11: He envisioned having suicide pilots fly light aircraft packed with explosives into Manhattan skyscrapers.

The drawings for the Daimler-Benz Amerikabomber from the spring of 1944 show giant four-engine planes with raised under-carriages for transporting small bombers. The bombers would be released shortly before the planes reached the East Coast, after which the mother plane would return to Europe.

Hitler's rapture at the thought of Manhattan in flames reflects his underlying motive: not merely to fight a military adversary - the United States - but to kill Jews everywhere. Hitler thought of the US as a Jewish state, and New York as the center of world Jewry. From 1941 on, Hitler pushed to get the bombers into production, wrote Speer, "in order to be able to teach the Jews a lesson in the form of terror attacks on American metropolises."

It was no coincidence that sixty years later the assault on the World Trade Center by suicide pilots was coordinated from Germany.

Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian who piloted the plane that struck the North Tower, Marwan Al-Shehhi, from the United Arab Emirates, who steered the plane into the South Tower, Ziad Jarrah, from Lebanon, who crashed United 93 in Shanksville, PA, Ramzi Benalshibh, a Yemini, and the Moroccan student Mounir al-Motassedeq were all members of an Al Queda cell in Hamburg, Germany where they held regular "Quran Circle" meetings with sympathizers.

Where did Mohammed Atta get the ideas that caused him to decide to fly airplanes into New York high-rises?

Witnesses provided part of the answer at the worlds first 9/11-related trial, the prosecution of al-Motassedeq, which took place in Hamburg between October 2002 and February 2003.

One participant in the "Quran Circle" meetings that the cell regularly held, testified that Atta was a diligent student of the National Socialist way of thinking and was a strong admirer of Nazi philosophy and of Adolf Hitler. Atta also was convinced that the Jews were striving for world domination, and he considered New York City the center of World Jewry, just as Hitler did some sixty years earlier.

Amazingly, neither the American media, nor the international press took notice of this astounding testimony - refusing to report anything about Atta's and Motassedeq's explicit Jew-hatred.

The trial information was available and much of it reported in Der Spiegel, and there were ample notes of the testimony taken by journalist Michael Eggers who attended every session of the trial and covered it for Reuters. No mention of the Jew-hatred or interest in Hitler on the part of Atta and Motassedeq.

If it had been someone from the political right, and they had expressed Nazi-like views of exterminating Jews, that surely would have received world-wide headlines. But in this case, since the attackers were of Arab background, journalists amazingly found this information irrelevant.

It is highly relevant, as you will see.

Even the 9/11 Commission Report falls short.

Osama Bin Laden has publicly declared that, "The enmity between us and the Jews goes back far in time and is deep rooted. The hour of resurrection shall not come before Muslims kill the Jews."

Even though there are many such examples of Bin Laden's declaring his hatred of Jews, the 9/11 Commission, in its chapter on Bin Laden's world view, makes no mention of his hatred for Jews or how this might possibly have been the motivation for an attack on New York.

The 9/11 Commission Report also falls short when it discusses the history of Islamic Jihad. It accords the entire pre-1945 period just five lines. Yet...it is precisely this period of time that fostered the personal contacts and ideological affinities between early Islamic radicals and late Naziism - the direct linkage between Jew hatred and Islamic Jihad.

Despite common misconceptions, modern Islamic Fascism was not born during the 1960's, but during the 1930's. Its rise was not inspired by the failure of Nasserism in Egypt, but by the rise of Naziism in Germany, and prior to 1951 all of its campaigns were directed, not against Western colonialism, but against the Jews.

It was the Organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Cairo in 1928, that established Islamic Jihad as a mass movement. The significance of the Muslim Brotherhood to Islamic Fascism is comparable to the significance of the Bolshevik Party to Communism: It was, and it remains to this day, the ideological reference point and the organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including Al Queda and Hamas.

While British colonial policy contributed to the rise of Islamic radicalism, the Brotherhood's jihad was not directed toward the British, but focused almost exclusively on Zionism and the Jews.

Membership in the Brotherhood rose from 800 members in 1936 to 200,000 in 1938. In those two years the Brotherhood conducted a major campaign in Egypt, and it was against the Jews, not against the British occupiers. This campaign against the Jews, in the late 1930's, which established the Brotherhood as a mass movement of Islamic Jihadists, was set off by a rebellion in Palestine directed against Jewish immigration from Europe and Russia. That campaign was initiated by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini.

Let me tell you a little bit about the Grand Mufti. Grand Mufti is a term not much used anymore, but it meant the senior Muslim cleric in an area. The Gran Mufti of Jerusalem, Al-Husseini, was very impressed with Adolf Hitler and his anti-Jewish rhetoric. In 1941 he visited Hitler in Berlin. He was so impressed with Hitler and the Nazis, and their plans to exterminate the Jews, that he decided to stay in Berlin. He lived there from 1941 to 1945 and recruited Muslims in Europe for the Waffen-SS. He was very close to Hitler. His best friends were Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann.

He convinced Hitler that he would be able to have his Muslim brothers in the Arab world carry out extermination of the Jews in the Middle-East, just as the Nazis were doing in Europe.

In November, 1943, In appreciation of the work that al-Husseini was doing in exterminating Jews, Himmler wrote the following telegram to him:

"To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory. Signed: Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler"

In his memoirs after the war, Al-Husseini noted that "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews." The answer I got from the Fuehrer was: 'The Jews are yours.'"

The Muslim Brotherhood organized mass demonstrations in Egyptian cities during the late 1930's under the slogans, "Down with the Jews", "Jews get out of Egypt and Palestine", and the like. Leaflets called for a boycott of Jewish goods and Jewish shops, and the Brotherhood's newspaper, Al-Nadhir, carried a regular column on "The Danger of the Jews of Egypt."

The Brotherhood's campaign against the Jews in the 1936-1938 period used not only Nazi tactics, but also Nazi funding. As the respected Norwegian historian Brynjar Lia recounted in his monograph on the Muslim Brotherhood, "Documents siezed in the flat of Willhelm Stellbogen, the Director of the German News Agency in Cairo show that prior to 1939 the Muslim Brotherhood received financial subsidies from the German Legation in Cairo. Stellbogen was instrumental in transferring these funds from the Nazi regime to the Muslim Brotherhood."

From August 1938 through the end of the Second World War, Amin al-Husseini received financial and military assistance and supplies from Nazi Germany and fascist Italy which he sent to Egypt and Palestine. From Berlin, al-Husseini would play a significant role in inter-Arab politics.

At the same time as the Brotherhood was receiving funding from the Nazis, it became the first organization to propagate, in modern times, the archaic idea of a belligerent and violent jihad and the culture of longing for death. In 1938, Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood's charismatic founder, published his concept of Jihad in an article entitled "The Industry of Death." He wrote: "To a nation that perfects the industry of death and which knows how to die nobly, Allah gives proud life in this world, and eternal grace in the world to come."

This slogan was enthusiastically taken up by the "Troops of God", as the Brothers had begun to call themselves.

As they held demonstrations in the late 1930's in Cairo, marching in fascistic formation they would sing: "We are not afraid of death, we desire it. Let us die to redeem Islam"

The death cult that became a hallmark of modern Islamic Fascism was laced with Jew-hatred from the very beginning. This attitude sprung not only from Nazi influences but it also drew directly on Islamic sources.

First, Islamic Jihadists considered, and still to this day consider, Palestine (that includes present-day Israel) an Islamic territory (Dar al-Islam), where, according to the Quran, Jews must not run a single village, let alone a state. At best, in their view, this land should be Jew-free (Judenrein); at the very least Jews there should be relegated to subservient status and should live under Sharia law. The existence of a Jewish State in Dar al-Islam contradicts the word of the Quran, which is why they are so intent on destroying Israel. There are a lot of passages in the Quran and in the history of Muhammed and his conquests that justify to Muslims the killing of Jews.

In 1946, the Brotherhood made sure that The Grand Mufti, Amin Al-Husseini, who was then being sought as a war criminal by both Britain and the U.S. was granted asylum, and a new lease on his political life, in Egypt.

Al-Husseini had been a close ally of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nazis. In addition to directing the Muslim SS divisions in the Balkans during the Second World War he had been personally responsible for blocking negotiations late in the war that might have saved thousands of Jewish children from being exterminated in the gas chambers.

All of this was known in 1946 by both Britain and the U.S. Nonetheless both Britain and the US chose to forego criminal prosecution of al-Husseini in order to avoid hurting their relations with the Arab world after WWII. France, which was holding Al-Husseini, deliberately let him go at the request of the Arab League.

For many in the Arab world, what amounted to amnesty for this prominent Islamist who had spent years broadcasting Nazi propaganda to the Arabs in the Middle East from Berlin was seen as a vindication of his actions.

The Arabs started to view Al-Husseini's past with pride rather than with shame. Escaped and wanted Nazi criminals now flooded into the Arab world where they knew they would have sanctuary.

Both the Muslim Brotherhood's unconditional solidarity with Al-Husseini and with his Nazi compatriots now in the Middle East led to anti-Jewish riots throughout Egypt and the Middle East just months after the the liberation of Auschwitz.

In 1946,Yugoslavia requested extradition from Egypt of Amin Al-Husseini for War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity. The Egyptian government refused to release him.

Al-Husseini used recently acquired Nazi methodology to implement his vision of an Arab World free of Jews.

The attitude of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy had migrated from Nazi Germany to the Middle East after the Second World War where it survived and flourished. In particular, Nazi-like Jewish conspiracy thinking persisted and grew in Egypt and Palestine.

An especially striking example of its continuing influence is the charter adopted in 1988 by the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, which is now known as Hamas. In this Charter, the following language appears: Hamas defines itself as the "spearhead and the avant-garde of the struggle against World Zionism." "The Jews," the charter explains, "were behind the French Revolution, and the Communist Revolution. They were behind World War I and World War II. There is no war anywhere without the Jews having their hand in it."

That is the language of the charter establishing Hamas.

In 1930's and 1940's Europe, the sheer absurdity of the claims made against the Jews by the Nazis made it difficult for educated Europeans to take them seriously. In the Arab world, when the Islamists make the same absurd claims, they are taken seriously.

The 9/11 Commission fails when, instead of discussing the fact that Jew-hatred in the Middle East had reached epidemic proportions well before September 11, and that New York was considered the center of World Jewry by Islamic Jihadists, its report gives the impression that Islamism originally arose in response to recent American and Western policies.

When the 9/11 Commission report states that Bin Laden's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific US policies, the report also gets history wrong.

Understanding the real motive for Islamic Jihad, and the 9/11 attack on New York, is important if we are going to confront Islamic Fascism.

Bin Laden was first politicized, not by specific US policies, but by the writings of Sayyid Qutb and the Jihadist lectures of Abdullah Azzam of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Let me tell you a little bit about Qutb and Azzam.

Qutb was the son of a highly-educated Egyptian nationalist. He traveled to the United States and lived for two years in Colorado while attending University. Qutb was a devout Muslim and wrote of the United States: "No one is more distant than the Americans from spirituality and piety." American sexual permissiveness and promiscuity particularly appalled Qutb. He was incredulous at the liberties permitted American teenagers. He feared the same influences would invade Egypt.

Qutb concluded that major aspects of American life were "primitive" and "shocking." His experiences in the U.S. partly formed the impetus for his total rejection of Western values and his move towards pure Islamic traditionalism upon returning to Egypt. Resigning from the civil service, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1950s and became editor-in-chief of the Brothers' weekly newspaper, and later became head of the Muslim Brotherhood propaganda section, as well as an appointed member of the the Guidance Council, the highest branch in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Qutb believed that the timeless message of the Koran included the sacred duty of faithful Muslims to wage jihad "against the corrupt new "Kingdom of Israel, its imperial American sponsor, any other Western influences, and corrupt Muslim rulers." According to Qutb, a Muslim must wage war against any influences in opposition to traditional Islam, and especially against a "Zionist Entity" in Dar al-Islam.

For some reason, the writings of Qutb resonated with many Muslims, who were radicalized by them. He developed a huge following in Egypt and eventually throughout the Arab World. His writings contributed greatly to recruiting Egyptians and other Arabs to the cause of Islamic Jihad. Most of today's Islamist leaders are followers of the writings of Qutb.

Abdullah Azzam was a Palestinian who went to Egypt to continue his Islamic studies at Cairo's Al-Azhar University. During his studies he met Sheik Omar Abdel-Rachman, the man behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, now serving a life sentence in the U.S., Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and now Al-Queda's number 2 man, and other followers of Sayyid Qutb. Azzam was a visionary. He was heavily influenced by the writings of Qutb. He envisioned a pan-Islamic trans-national movement that would transcend the political map of the Middle East. He also envisioned the restoration of the Caliphate and the removal of the "Zionist Entity" from Dar al-Islam. Azzam was one of the founders of Hamas.

In 1976 Azzam moved to Saudi Arabia and became a lecturer at the King AbdulAziz University in Jeddah where he became a mentor to a young student by the name of Osama Bin Laden. Both Azzam and Qutb planted the seeds that drove Bin Laden to his destiny.

Communists also used the Muslim world to further their own aims during the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Their contributions to Islamic Jihad are well noted, but that will be the subject of another discussion.

Keep in mind that Islamofascism is not an ideology that ignites protest in its followers as they rub up against social injustice. On the contrary, what provokes Islamic violence is any sign of modern development in the Muslim world, such as scientific inquiry, political or personal self-determination, women's equality, the existence of religions other than Islam, especially the existence of the State of Israel, and freedom of expression. The radicalization of Islam is not the consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity. It is the result of their cause to destroy the Jews and establish Islamic rule of the world.

The failure to see this, and the failure to recognize the substance of Islamist ideology - the Death Cult, the Hatred of Jews, and their profound dislike of freedom, leads back again and again to the mistaken belief that the root cause of terrorism is U.S. policies.

This approach is appealing to the West because of the specious hope it holds out: If Islamic terrorism has its roots in American policy, then a change in that policy can lessen terrorism. These views are strongly held by the American Left.

Ultimately, the refusal on the part of the West to recognize the Islamists true motives results in a reverse of responsibility: The more deadly the terrorism the greater is American guilt - believing that it is our policies that cause it.

The Jihadists benefit from this approach since the greater and bloodier its attacks the greater anger Americans have against their own government.

A struggle against Islamism waged in ignorance of their history and ideology weakens the West. Not to confront the real ideological roots of Islamic Jihad, especially its well-documented connection to Nazi Jew-hatred, stymies any Western push for political, economic or cultural modernization of the Muslim world.

Without challenging the ideological roots of Islamic Jihad, it is impossible to confront the Muslim world with the real choices before it.

The greatest threat to our freedom and to the future of America as we know it is the Islamist threat. It is the overriding issue of our day.

 

[vorlos]

The greatest threat to our freedom and to the future of America as we know (knew) it is us, the original founders/pioneers of America who have quit the job and are in full retreat.

v

 

[Smedley Butler]

Vorlos, perhaps many have been distracted by so much up heavel like WW2 Korea, Viet Nam up to today, and I do feel their is perhaps a great pondering of at least half of our men.

Our bretheren may not all be throughly well read on the hows, why and when, but they feel in their core something is very wrong, IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAgTFWglHrc


The title used back then on the YouTube was IMO, because you still could not use the right descriptions of the enemy alien.

 

[vorlos]

The observation is that when faced with the upheavals, misinformation, disinformation, media delusions, traitors within, and obvious stupids wars, surely what is left of us would have seen fit to do more than duck and hide, turn into wimps, take cover behind our women (when we're not busy selling them to foreigners for profit), take drugs, turn to drink, watch sports, and revert into very frightened small boys.

v

 

[Smedley Butler]

The regime IMO is pro active against any White State Representative U.S. Senator etc. if they can be shut up by having some dirt on them there may be an air crash, auto crash, lightening etc.

Or they are flat out Huey P. Long-ed

 

[Smedley Butler]

Quote from another web sites blog below

Adam Says:

4 December, 2009 at 2:22 am

Socrates Says:

Granted, nobody forced Whites to do those things. But White people have an automatic disadvantage: they don’t “think tribally, 24/7? like the Jews do. In other words, Whites are easy prey for the Jews. If you haven’t read Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s work, I suggest that you do.

If nobody forced whites to do those things, then they did them voluntarily; and if they did them voluntarily, then it would seem clear that they considered their actions, at least at the time they did them, to be of benefit to themselves. It was regarded as necessary for “progress”��, and therefore inevitable. This is a characteristic of technological developments generally. They are initially implemented out of a sense of necessity and often heralded as a great advance, but then they later turn out to have extremely toxic side effects. It is certainly the case that every technical solution to a problem creates additional problems. Every technique has bad side effects, only some of which can be foreseen. To use technique at all is to accept that there will be bad effects, and thus, the bad effects are, in this sense, inseparable from the good effects. Unfortunately, this means that the popular wisdom — that technology is just a tool, neutral in effect — is wrong. Close analysis will show that most of the problems that beset the white race are a result not of Jewish conspiracy, but of the unintended effects of the expansion of the use of technique. They are inevitable consequences of the expansion of the global technological system.

As for the genetic difference between whites and Jews, I addressed exactly that in the Jewish genetics thread. For ease of reference, I’ll reproduce part of what I said again here:

t’s not the genetic distance between whites and Jews that is important, but the fact that the Jew has, as a matter of genetics, a superior ethnic cohesion. Also, the evidence of history would seem to indicate that these Jewish modifications to the white genome are dominant when they occur, such that even 1/2 and 1/4 Jews are more loyal to the Jewish race than they are their home countries, or to the white race in general. It could even be that these modifications are confined to only a few genes, leading to a very small separation between whites and Jews in terms of genetic distance. But the effect of the genetic difference, however small, is far more important than the amount of genetic distance. In theory, a large number of modifications could probably be made to the white genome that would have little practical effect, but which, if applied systematically, would result in separating out a subset of the white race in terms of genetic distance. The Finns are a good example of this: quite distinct from the European mean, but not sharing the Jew’s hostile, aggressive, and highly ethnocentric nature. Genes are essentially a set of blueprints, hard-coded techniques that the organism uses in its interaction with the environment, but all techniques aren’t equally powerful. The technique of ethnic cohesion, evolved among the segmentary societies of the Middle East, is a very powerful technique, particularly in our modern environment of the global technological system, and especially so when coupled with the high Jewish IQ. In this environment, using these techniques, the Jew prospers and thrives like a lethal bacillus in a nourishing agar.

And as for reading MacDonald, yes I have. MacDonald himself grants that “modernity”�� (his word for the technological system, apparently) has also had an effect in creating the problems that the white race now faces. In The Culture of Critique he never engages the question of the relative proportion of the effect, but one gets the definite impression that he thinks it is small compared to the influence of the Jews. But in that he is quite mistaken. The problem of race-mixing, the existence of the Jew in American society and in the West generally (without which he would be unable to affect us, obviously), and the declining white birth rate and breakup of the nuclear family, can all be laid principally at the doorstep of the expansion of the global technological system, without which none of those things would have happened. They are all either completely or partially unforeseen side effects of actions that were taken that were considered to be necessary at the time. At best, they were thought to be a great boon, at worst to represent “progress”�� and to be inevitable.

 

[vorlos]

With our eyes open, we made the choices. We don't think "tribally," but the basic instinct for survival should have kicked in somewhere.

Or is it that we truly are so arrogant as to believe that nothing "bad" can really happen to us?

Or, are we so frightened that we want to believe (badly need to believe) that even if the color of all our countries change, it "won't matter" because our systems will continue even if we don't? Therefore, even if we technically "disappear" all will be the same albeit without us.

Do we really believe this and are willing to test this hypothesis on our posterity (if we get around to having any significant numbers of them)?

v