A commenter at the Gates of Vienna blog wrote, concerning Breivik: “This is one reason why it can infuriate
me how there will always be this dividing line between pro-Jewish, more
multiracial, multicultural “counter-jihad” movement (EDL, GoV etc)
where—generally speaking—Islam and “leftism” or “liberals”are the
only problem; and where if it wasn’t for extremist Islam and the growth
of Islamic religion in Europe, everything else would generally be fine…” Breivik’s thesis is that there are two “wings” of the Counter-Jihad,
much as this commenter describes—“liberal” and “nordicist”—(though in the paragraph I quoted that commenter seems to have
forgotten to supply the other wing). It is ironic that the “liberal” wing does tend to rail against
“liberals” and/or “Leftists” as being part of the problem, thus ignoring
the broader problem of millions of non-Leftists out there who are also
myopic about the problem of Islam. However, it’s something of a straw man to characterize that wing as
believing that “if it wasn’t for extremist Islam and the growth of
Islamic religion in Europe, everything else would generally be fine…” The point is not that there are no racial problems outside of the
problem of Islam; the point is that the dangers they pose are not as
great. In order for the “Real Problemers” (i.e., those who believe that
the “real” problem is not Islam but something supposedly broader and
deeper and more nefarious in the West) to regain cachet for their hobbyhorse, they must assert nebulous
specters one has to infer—typical of conspiracy theory in general,
where the problem always lies hidden beneath or behind a multitude of clues which the
believer can “see” in a kind of schizophrenic Gestalt epiphany. With
the problem of Islam, on the other hand, we need no such inferences.
The mountain of data is all there, and it continues to metastasize
around the world like a volcano. Why the mainstream West refuses to
take heed of this mountain of data, of course, is one major reason why
some are driven to reach for the conspiracy theory—for such a state of
mass denial does demand a suitable explanation.
Just because
an explanation is screaming to be supplied, though, does not mean we should
reach for anything that might imaginatively work. Certain
considerations have to be respected—including a respect for Western
Civilization, without which there remains little to fight for any
longer, leaving the coherent proponent to steel himself like Mad Max (or a group of "Militia Maxes" hunkering down) for
some kind of general apocalypse.
But such a desperado option is not
necessarily obligatory; I certainly as hell ain’t going to adopt it
because some blogger tells me to and because he insists in his fevered
imagination that all the evidence is “out there” if only I would plow
through the jungle of circumstantial inferences he feels provide
apodictic proof. Particularly when “out there” lies, eventually when one connects the dots being irresponsibly promoted, a civil war predicated upon an almost cartoonish delimitation of the Problem of the Problem to a Cabal of Dastardly Leftist Elites (as though the majority of non-Leftists in the West are not regurgitating all day long, day after day, year after year, the PC MC view on Islam).
A commenter at the Gates of Vienna blog wrote, concerning Breivik:
“This is one reason why it can infuriate me how there will always be this dividing line between pro-Jewish, more multiracial, multicultural “counter-jihad” movement (EDL, GoV etc) where—generally speaking—Islam and “leftism” or “liberals”are the only problem; and where if it wasn’t for extremist Islam and the growth of Islamic religion in Europe, everything else would generally be fine…”
Breivik’s thesis is that there are two “wings” of the Counter-Jihad, much as this commenter describes—“liberal” and “nordicist”—(though in the paragraph I quoted that commenter seems to have forgotten to supply the other wing).
It is ironic that the “liberal” wing does tend to rail against “liberals” and/or “Leftists” as being part of the problem, thus ignoring the broader problem of millions of non-Leftists out there who are also myopic about the problem of Islam.
However, it’s something of a straw man to characterize that wing as believing that “if it wasn’t for extremist Islam and the growth of Islamic religion in Europe, everything else would generally be fine…”
The point is not that there are no racial problems outside of the problem of Islam; the point is that the dangers they pose are not as great. In order for the “Real Problemers” (i.e., those who believe that the “real” problem is not Islam but something supposedly broader and deeper and more nefarious in the West) to regain cachet for their hobbyhorse, they must assert nebulous specters one has to infer—typical of conspiracy theory in general, where the problem always lies hidden beneath or behind a multitude of clues which the believer can “see” in a kind of schizophrenic Gestalt epiphany. With the problem of Islam, on the other hand, we need no such inferences. The mountain of data is all there, and it continues to metastasize around the world like a volcano. Why the mainstream West refuses to take heed of this mountain of data, of course, is one major reason why some are driven to reach for the conspiracy theory—for such a state of mass denial does demand a suitable explanation.
Just because an explanation is screaming to be supplied, though, does not mean we should reach for anything that might imaginatively work. Certain considerations have to be respected—including a respect for Western Civilization, without which there remains little to fight for any longer, leaving the coherent proponent to steel himself like Mad Max (or a group of "Militia Maxes" hunkering down) for some kind of general apocalypse.
But such a desperado option is not necessarily obligatory; I certainly as hell ain’t going to adopt it because some blogger tells me to and because he insists in his fevered imagination that all the evidence is “out there” if only I would plow through the jungle of circumstantial inferences he feels provide apodictic proof. Particularly when “out there” lies, eventually when one connects the dots being irresponsibly promoted, a civil war predicated upon an almost cartoonish delimitation of the Problem of the Problem to a Cabal of Dastardly Leftist Elites (as though the majority of non-Leftists in the West are not regurgitating all day long, day after day, year after year, the PC MC view on Islam).
For more details, see The Quasi-Breivikian Problem.