Fjordman

Discussion of various public figures

Re: Fjordman

Postby Caleb » 04 Jan 2013, 01:53

I don't think libertarians would support the Nazis at all. Libertarians are basically left wing on social issues (e.g. non-restrictive on immigration, pro-civil liberties, etc.) and right wing on economic issues (i.e. extremely pro-free market), i.e. in favour of minimal or no government intervention. Nazism was basically right wing on social issues (self-explanatory) and left wing on economic issues (the state was heavily involved in the economy).

I know people don't think of Nazism as left wing, but remember the second part of the name (socialism). I think it's also somewhat off the mark to put them ideologically opposite to communism. There were fundamental differences, but there were also great similarities.

Overall, I find the twentieth century, especially that period, to be quite bizarre, politically. From my point of view, there weren't any good options, only less bad options (albeit some far less bad than others). It was an incredibly left wing/statist period. Remember that even the U.S. had just had the New Deal, which was incredibly left wing. That expansion of the state in America sowed the seeds for many of the nation's problems now. America was also engaging in quite an imperialist project (even if it didn't call it that), and continued to right throughout the Cold War. For instance, I'm not fan of Castro, but look at Batista. Indonesia didn't go communist like much of Southeast Asia, but look at who and what they got instead. I am even in favour of the breakup of the British Empire and can't really defend it pre-WW2. Sure, many of those countries have completely screwed things up since, but it's their right to self-determination, even if that has entailed self-destruction. The whole century was bizarre. I think the really big problem with the twentieth century was that almost everyone was engaging in the fallacy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Even the good guys ended up getting a lot of blood and dirt on their hands in the process, which has forever tainted them.

That said, I think that quote about Nazism's negative effects on Western civilisation is right on the money. De-colonisation could have been achieved much better for other European powers, but they've forever been lumped in with Germany now as European civilisation being inherently evil to non-Europeans.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: Fjordman

Postby Andreas » 04 Jan 2013, 18:50

Overall, I find the twentieth century, especially that period, to be quite bizarre, politically. From my point of view, there weren't any good options, only less bad options (albeit some far less bad than others).


Tony Judt says something like this in his last book, Thinking the Twentieth Century, and suggests that the point on which we're most mistaken in our thinking about the politics of the twentieth century is that more people than we realize sympathized with the Right, out of fear of Communism.

That said, I think that quote about Nazism's negative effects on Western civilisation is right on the money.


Of course the crimes of fascism have cast a long shadow. But as Dalrymple discusses in Spoilt Rotten, popular thinking about them is very muddled. I feel ill when I hear or read people (for example, in the French press) relativizing Soviet crimes against humanity. Hitler was of course evil, but then they somehow think that Stalin wasn't so bad. Stalin killed many millions of people, controlled a larger territory than the Nazis, and ruled for a longer period. Many people don't seem to realize this.

This history and the muddled understanding of it today create a strange environment for discussion, with double standards. It's politically correct and OK to be concerned about the survival of Buddhist Tibet, but concern about the survival of Christian Europe and its values is somehow reactionary or even sinister.
Andreas
 
Posts: 195
Joined: 04 Sep 2012, 22:31

Re: Fjordman

Postby Jonathan » 06 Jan 2013, 09:25

Paul wrote:Conversely, more and more libertarians and right-thinking people (there is now a growing counter-movement at last - you know this!) are tentatively saying that, for all the horror, there were some aspects of Nazi Germany that were proper and correct. Unfortunately (or rather not) they are probably right.


Let me ask this - if you enumerate these aspects, will you not find that they were also present in Britain in WWII? In other countries? Perhaps these aspects are just the lowest common denominator of patriotism, and were common to all nation-states before WWII?

If so, then why can you not find them in the history of your own country, and only recognize them when picking through the radioactive corpse of Nazi Germany?

I think, perhaps, that this is a symptom of the illness of the times; that public discourse no longer acknowledges a distinction between benign patriotism and Hitler's totalitarian nationalism. Since Britain is obviously not Nazi Germany, it therefore follows that no displays of patriotism are allowed; And therefore, when looking for examples of benign patriotism, we can no longer recognize them in Britain's history, but only in Germany's - after carefully scouring away all that is vile about it.

I think that this tendency ought to be avoided. Better to find good examples of British patriotism and rehabilitate them, than to try to pick out and sanitize German examples.
Jonathan
 
Posts: 407
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: Fjordman

Postby Caleb » 07 Jan 2013, 06:47

Andreas: Definitely. China is an even more bizarre example than the former Soviet Union. As you mentioned, on the one hand, people get all teary about Tibet, and yet they also whitewash Tibet's pre-PRC history. In terms of China itself, people are either ignorant of, or completely apologetic not just for Mao, but for everything since, yet will gladly harp on about British colonialism and the Opium Wars. It's weird how people are simultaneously opposed to Chinese colonisation of Tibet, yet also broadly apologetic for China, whilst not realising that Tibet does not stand as an isolated case within the broader history or politics of the country. People are so muddle-headed.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: Fjordman

Postby Gavin » 24 Apr 2013, 23:39

An excellent article by Fjordman which quotes Dalrymple among others.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Fjordman

Postby Nathan » 09 May 2013, 11:29

Considering that most of us consider Fjordman's writings to be insightful, well written and above all else painfully and piercingly right, it's worth reading his Wikipedia entry and reminding ourselves that some consider him, and those who follow his words to be "far right", "conspiracy theorists", "extremists" and that his essays fulfil all the criteria of fascism. It is sometimes hard to believe that this is the same Fjordman discussed in this thread.

It's interesting too to find out that he has a degree in Arabic and has spent time studying and working in the Middle East. Ironic too that his master's thesis discussed blogging and censorship (in Iran).
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Fjordman

Postby Gavin » 09 May 2013, 11:57

Yes, indeed Fjordman knows his subject very well.

As for the Wikipedia, on issues such as this it is really very PC and just deals in "truth by democracy" (i.e. by numbers, not by what is actually true). It almost always has a subtle Left wing slant. You might have seen this article, in which the oft-libelled Fjordman himself writes on this topic. Yet again he speaks sense:

Fjordman wrote:"I'm not suggesting that no one should ever use Wikipedia under any circumstances. With caution, I occasionally do so myself, at least as one of many sources, when searching for simple factual information about subjects that are not politically charged. However, the more politicized the subjects or individuals involved become, the less reliable Wikipedia becomes."


Always worth remembering that Fjordman is not even writing in his own language. Thus the English are humiliated again: the Norwegian's prose is surely far superior to that of the vast majority of native Britons (not to mention the quality of thought behind it).
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Fjordman

Postby Nathan » 09 May 2013, 12:14

I actually hadn't seen that article, Gavin, so thanks for posting it. I'll have a broader look at that site when I have time.

It was always a bit hopeful to expect a neutral account of Fjordman on Wikipedia, though at least the article itself admits that the neutrality is disputed.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Fjordman

Postby Elliott » 25 May 2013, 09:22

Here is an excellent essay by Fjordman, from 2007.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Fjordman

Postby Nathan » 28 May 2013, 12:07

Fjordman saying it how it is after the Lee Rigby attack.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Fjordman

Postby Nick » 28 May 2013, 13:42

A famous quotation is: "All of Europe lost the Second World War."

You remember that boys, you do well to.
Nick
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 25 May 2013, 10:58

Re: Fjordman

Postby Gavin » 05 Jun 2013, 18:54

Fjordman is apparently on Twitter. Only 1,730 followers. You don't get much depth in only 140 characters though, not like reading his essays.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Fjordman

Postby Gavin » 16 Jun 2013, 12:09

By the way, Nick, I am not sure why you think that is a line we should particularly remember, because you don't explain yourself. It's an insightful line, but so are many from Fjordman. It is not all "boys" on the forum either, though - granted - we are mostly men. You're very informal for one so new around here.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Fjordman

Postby Gavin » 20 Jun 2013, 18:56

Here's a classic yet very timely read from Fjordman...
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Fjordman

Postby Nathan » 20 Jun 2013, 20:08

Gavin wrote:Here's a classic yet very timely read from Fjordman...


Timely indeed! It shows how slow the changes have been that in these past seven years that every word of the article, plus the comments, could have been written this week and I wouldn't have considered them out of place.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

PreviousNext

Return to Public Figures

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.