Thursday, November 01, 2007

Little Green Footballs and Racism in the United States

The Fjordman Report

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

For the last week or so Fjordman has done heroic service in the comments at Little Green Footballs, arguing the case for Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna when almost anyone else who disagreed with LGF’s host was banned from the site.

We all owe Fjordman a debt of gratitude for his efforts on behalf of the Counterjihad.



As most readers know by now, I have been involved in what has unfortunately become a very public brawl — some would probably say witch-hunt — with Charles Johnson of major American blog Little Green Footballs about the supposed “racism” of the Sweden Democrats and the Vlaams Belang. Many of these claims have already been countered, though LGF refuses to link to this. I have announced my intention to take a break from commenting at LGF, where I have been active for several years, since it has become abundantly clear that neither Charles nor many of his readers have any interest whatsoever in having an actual debate, and certainly not about the real threats to freedom in Europe.

However, I’d like to continue the debate about “racism,” which now frequently means something along the lines of “I’m a Multiculturalist. I’ve just lost the debate because I have poor arguments in favor of my case. I want to shut you up, therefore you are a racist.”

An American friend of mine once suggested the creation of an European Indigenous People’s Party. When seeing the speed of the demographic shift that is taking place and the censorship imposed on any debate of the issue, maybe this will actually happen. There is no other continent where the indigenous peoples are being systematically stripped of their heritage, displaced in their own cities and are subject to violence and abuse with the active participation of their own authorities, yet where this is celebrated as a victory for tolerance and where the natives are banned from even verbally opposing any of this. Yes, I think this reveals an anti-European bias.

Traditional Norwegian costumeI asked Charles Johnson about this: “OK Charles, since you make this to be about racism, I’d like to hear your definition of racism. The indigenous population of all European countries is white. If European countries would like to maintain the indigenous population as the majority, this by extension means a white majority. Do you think the people in, say, Norway, have the right to desire an immigration policy which ensures a traditional demographic majority, or is this racism? If so, how come non-European countries are allowed to desire the same thing without being attacked? Since you’re so preoccupied with racism, will you also launch an equally passionate campaign against the Whiteness Studies now taught in increasing numbers of American educational institutions, sometimes with the support of public money?” He first claimed that the question was “meaningless,” but after I pushed him, he reluctantly replied that yes, Europeans have the right to resist being turned into a minority in their own countries. Good. He didn’t answer me regarding the issue of Whiteness Studies, though. I kept pushing him, and he finally replied: “Since you’ve repeated this several times, I’ll answer it. The fact that I do or do not post about one thing has absolutely nothing to do with what I post about something else. That is a complete red herring, and you know it.”

I’m not so sure it is. The blogger Vanishing American notes that some university courses now present whites as more or less genetically evil: It’s everywhere.
- - - - - - - - -
How can purges against ‘racists’ on these blogs and forums be instituted, if everybody of European descent is racist? If racism disqualifies you from the right to free speech, and if all Europeans are racists, then no European-descended person has a right to freedom of expression. Ban us all. We’d even have to ban ourselves. Just give up and turn ourselves in for re-education.

A mandatory University of Delaware program requires residence hall students to acknowledge that “all whites are racist” and offers them “treatment” for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, according to a civil rights group. The organization cited excerpts from the university’s Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement:

A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. ‘The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination�.’” The education program also notes that “reverse racism” is “a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege.” And “a non-racist” is called “a non-term,” because, the program explains, “The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called ‘blaming the victim’).

I have written about the subject of anti-white racism before:

Caucasophobia — the Accepted Racism

La Raza demonstrationBarbara Kay of Canada’s National Post writes about a new fad called Whiteness Studies: “The goal of WS is to entrench permanent race consciousness in everyone — eternal victimhood for nonwhites, eternal guilt for whites — and was most famously framed by WS chief guru, Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University, now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.”

Some of the inventors of Whiteness Studies have stated their goals quite openly: “Abolitionism is also a strategy: its aim is not racial harmony but class war. By attacking whiteness, the abolitionists seek to undermine the main pillar of capitalist rule in this country.” And: “The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white.”

Conservative social critic David Horowitz comments that: “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.” However, despite widespread criticism, at least 30 institutions — from Princeton University to the University of California at Los Angeles — teach courses in whiteness studies.

College professor Mike S. Adams writes about conspiracy theories he’s heard among students attempting to blame various social ills on white people: “The Mona Lisa was painted by an African artist and stolen from a museum in Ethiopia. Most of the great works of art are African in origin and stolen by white people. This is done to promote the myth of white cultural superiority.” Another one: “It is a proven fact that U.S. Coast Guard ships — on orders from President Bush — were seen crashing into the New Orleans levees during Hurricane Katrina. Bush did it to kill black people living in government housing projects.”

Adams presents this as funny, but I don’t think it is.

It is a disturbing testimony to the fact that hating whites, still the majority in the USA, is OK, indeed encouraged, in American colleges. In the book Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t , Robert Spencer quotes “Rachel,” a white American student, who spoke these words to American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: “Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing.... Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.”

As Yeagley observed, “The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground… When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority… Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?”

Well, my answer to that would be: Americans have been bombarded with accusations of racism, almost exclusively against the European-derived majority, for decades. If I may be so bold as to say so, that’s what I really see when I look at the hysterical overreaction on part of Little Green Footballs regarding “white racism” in Europe, despite the fact that people of European descent are probably among the least racist people on the planet right now.

LGFers base their world-view on the existence of a moderate Islam, which doesn’t exist, and on the existence of a large and rabid network of neo-Nazis in Europe, which also doesn’t exist. Neo-Nazi groups are generally quite marginal, for the very simple reason that people don’t like them. I agree that they should be watched, but they are far down the list of enemies of freedom right now, behind Muslims, Leftists and the European Union. The only theoretical reason why even a fraction of Europeans would embrace real extremist groups would be if they have their backs against the wall and everybody else has abandoned them, which is exactly what we’re trying to avoid.

We demand Raza Studies!Moreover, why do American politicians across the board, including Republicans and senior members of the Bush administration, cooperate with La Raza, meaning “the race,” a Mexican group Charles Johnson himself calls a Hispanic supremacist group? Why is this considered OK, while native Europeans who simply don’t want to become a minority in their own countries are demons? Meanwhile, Mexican and Hispanic gangs are deliberately cleansing black, white and Asian Americans from their neighborhoods in Los Angeles and elsewhere. I called this “ethnic cleansing” once at LGF and was denounced as “hysterical.” Johnson doesn’t write too much about that, but some of his readers apparently believe there is a Nazi hiding behind every stone in Europe and reveal this if there is even a hint of resistance to the ongoing Muslim colonization of the continent, aided and abetted by the European Union.

I believe this tells us more about the anti-white intellectual climate in the United States than it does about Europe. This brings us to a question I have asked before. Many Americans say they are tired and will never become involved in Europe again. Fine, I can understand why. But another question is, if native Europeans actually start fighting back against Islamization for real, whose side will Americans be on? Will they be on ours, or will they back the poor, Muslims victims of European racism and xenophobia, just like they did in Yugoslavia?

Judging from the aggressive hostility towards anything European they are indoctrinated with, I fear the latter.

90 comments:

Imperialistu' said...

Right you are, fjordman. I posted several messages on LGF as well, under the nickname Husky40. Our Americans friends simply can't understand us and I find that extremely sad. For them, wanting to defend your land and your people's identity is racism and must be dealt with.

This was my second message written on LGF in months.
"I haven't listened yet to what this guy (dewinter) has to say. What truely bothers me is this incapacity of understanding what European nations are all about. On this blog I've read time and and time again how Europe is lost to the jihad, how the euroweenies are nothing but cowards, how Europe will soon lie under the Crescent, how it's turning into Eurabia.

I keep reading accusations of nationalism, fascism and crap like that. You don't really get it, do you, folks?

What you people don't understand is that EURABIA doesn't have only a religious meaning. IT's EURABIA, for Christ's sake! Europeans don't fear only Islam, they fear that some day they will become not only religious, but also ethnic minorities. That Europe will be just another Arabia, a new land under a very Islamic sun. Is it so goddamn difficult to acknowledge that some people would like their countries to remain as they were for centuries? Racists? Well that's a cheap shot. You keep accusing Europeans of not fighting back. Well, if they would actually fight back, it's because they're all a bunch of nazi-wannabees, racist supremasists and White Power thugs, as I've read today.

It's funny how Americans accuse Europeans of nationalism when Mexifornia is right on the corner. Funny and sad, at the same time. You'll regret it some day, but it will to late, I'm afraid."

They will not let us defend ourselves, Fjordman. The PC Bible says we're guilty because we're white and that any form of nationalism (defending one's national interest and national identity) is a disease...

rohan said...

Concerning Americans criticizing Europeans, the phrase that comes to mind is: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". We, in the U.S. are in are in exactly the same mess as Western Europe, though perhaps a few years behind in developments.

Lauri Olavi said...

Muslims have the Ummah. Americans have the Free World. Both are Universalists at heart. They want to make the world their own image. But anyway, Christianity was just the same. Nationalism is pagan.

ZionistYoungster said...

Thanks for the article, Fjordman.

Anti-white "reverse" racism is an integral part of Gramsci's Trojan horse of Cultural Marxism. Its two underlying tenets are, "Strong is wrong" and "Plight makes right". For Leftists, these tenets naturally translate into support of Islam, the tenet of "Jihad is just" (cheering on 9/11 for sticking it to the "little Eichmanns"). Far be it from me to say LGF has gone the whole hog (they're still on our side... mistaken, even greatly, but on our side), but it is maddening to see how the Leftist tactic of branding all opponents as "racists" has caught them in its net. It's like Indiana Jones after drinking the blood of Kali in Temple of Doom. Only a strong burn with the torch of reality can snap someone out of it, out of the trap that the Marxists have set up for us all.

For me, it was the realization that my long-held "Kahane was right" has its equivalent in (for example in the UK) "Enoch Powell was right" (one of the rare instances where Wikipedia can be used as a reference--because it quotes a historical speech, no longer a ground of dispute and distortion; the instant I saw Charles using Wikipedia as his reference, I looked in disbelief, remembering all the times he'd slammed Wikipedia, rightly, for its ease of abuse. I was glad to see you called him on it the first thing).

I have a new piece on this long and winding subject: Racists Branded, Nazis Ignored.

Off topic: from YNET News: Poll: Israeli public has little faith in State. What I've been talking about for months is now finally on the Israeli MSM (YNET News is the online edition of Yediot Achronot, one of Israel's two major newspapers).

God bless.
ZY

Lauri Olavi,

"Nationalism is pagan" - Wrong. Judaism is both monotheistic religion and a national identity. Islam is tied to Arab nationalism (and therefore can be classed as national imperialism, similar to how Nazism was German national imperialism). And Europe doesn't have much choice other than going to Christianity for its tradition, because its pre-Christian past is nearly entirely lost (the pagans passed their religions orally rather than record them. The Druids' religion had disappeared before Christianity had any political power--the pagan Romans had taken care of that).

The Anti-Jihadist said...

This fratricidal spat between LGF's founder and other factions of the counterjihad movement must have our enemies jumping for joy.

We simply cannot afford to argue amongst ourselves. Yes, a certain amount of debate and dialogue is necessary, even healthy, but backbiting is going to lead to the devolution if not destruction of our nascent movement.

As for me, I am sure that the counterjihad folks on both sides of this spat mean well. Furthermore, I am going to make the leap of faith that with enough understanding and discussion, we can paste over our difference and get back to fighting the real enemy and stop fighting ourselves.

OK, I admit I have no idea how to make this reconciliation happen, but I know it needs to happen, and soon.

xlbrl said...

Sometimes there is unexpected and hidden truth in things we say. The opinion that caucasians are inherently evil can be best applied to those who make are making it.
Burke: He that accuses mankind of corruption is sure to convict only one.
Hitchens: Liberal thinking is spawned by a notable element of the pathological which I attribute to feelings of guilt allied to feelings of impotence. Not an attractive combination because it results in self-hatred.
Dalrymple: Overwhelming guilt not in proportion to terrible wrongdoing is but a sin of spiritual pride and self-importance.
It is obvious these are the exact type of people who would be the first to display Hostage Syndrome in a large group, and the first to sidle up to criminals to 'negotiate' and make common cause. It is an unfortunate strand of DNA we all carry and so can relate to, but most of us make an effort to keep it under control and not make of it a virtue.

VinceP1974 said...

I've been banished from LGFLand because I expressed my fatigue with having to endure daily reminders of the moral supiority being flaunted over there.

I don't know what's worse... the game of the loosest sort of guilt by tenious association , or the idiot peope writting the comments.

The mob mentality is in full display over there... I'm surprised their hands can hand from not being sore patting each other on the back on how not racist they are.


What I find funny is how all these commentators are like.. "We can't allow ourselves to be tainted by the likes of.."

Well first of all... the commentators on LGF werent the people who actually moved beyond typing on a keyboard and actually arranged an intercontinental meeting.

The people many of the commentaters are criticizing are the people who are CONCRETELY taking action and actually doing something to preserve the West.

That the LGF peanut gallery sits there and pompously act as if THEY'RE the people actually doing something and it's "the racists" who are disposable... what a fantasy they have.

The CounterJihad group will continue on with its mission.. actually doing real-world things.. meanwhile LGF'ers all can sit at their keyboards feeling quite self-satisfied that the LGRers denied "the racists" their non-existent and non-forthcoming labor.

MrSmith said...

"This brings us to a question I have asked before. Many Americans say they are tired and will never become involved in Europe again. Fine, I can understand why. But another question is, if native Europeans actually start fighting back against Islamization for real, whose side will Americans be on? Will they be on ours, or will they back the poor, Muslims victims of European racism and xenophobia, just like they did in Yugoslavia?

Judging from the aggressive hostility towards anything European they are indoctrinated with, I fear the latter."

So... Paul Weston states that civil war in Europe may well be inevitable by 2025. Then I state that civil war in Europe may be preferable since political resistance is almost certain to not happen due to fears of 'racism', and now Fjordman is stating that the US may weigh in against any such European physical resistance if it weighs in at all. None of this looks good at all.

I'm reminded of a fragment of a poem I read a while back:

"I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire.
Save that the sky grows darker yet.
And the sea rises higher."

The question becomes, are we hysterics, as has been suggested, or the few seeing things clearly?

MrSmith said...

I should clarify, I meant civil war would be preferable to the Eurabia that will result from a lack of resistance.

PRCalDude said...

Fjordman's post says many of the same things I said also.

I also added my own comments to LGF's incessant condemnation (read: CYA) of VB today.

Charlemagne said...

Interesting. Before I came over to GoV I made this post on LGF about Britain giving money to an Islamic group:

"A lack of rational debate and action now will result in violence later. As the government continues to allow Muslim immigration and the British people feel increasingly threatened both physically and culturally they will migrate toward the extremes of British politics (BNP). It's unavoidable. And the victims of the coming violence won't be limited to Muslim immigrants because by the time it erupts all non-whites will be seen as threats. Sensible immigration and integration policies if enacted now could avoid this future. But don't count on many politicians to have the courage to place cultural and national preservation above their fear of being demonized by the Leftist multi-culti smear machine."

This is just what Fjordman said, "The only theoretical reason why even a fraction of Europeans would embrace real extremist groups would be if they have their backs against the wall and everybody else has abandoned them, which is exactly what we’re trying to avoid."

Increasingly our own governments ARE putting our backs against a wall.

Thomas the Wraith said...

Thanks Fjordman. Many of us have been saying the same things. Part of this is due to the different understandings of 'race' in the American and European context. Part of this is due to the inconvienent truth that European nations have been and continue to be ethnic groups but America is multi-ethnic and always has been.

Too many American blame Europeans for being what they are, members of old and establish ethnic groups with their own traditions and customs. Anybody can move here and over time become an American. But people can't "become" a member of another ethnic group; one can't become German or Dutch or Swedish. But because many Americans confuse citizenship (which in lots of places in Europe is merely paperwork) with ethnicity, they blame Europeans for not assimilating foreigners who are citizens. Many Americans are thus embarrassed by European ethncity. (Of course one can't become Zulu or Japanese but we don't accuse these groups of racism because they are non-white.)

This whole "racism" episode was probably inevitable. Still, it's unfortunate. But very informative.

MrSmith said...

Good point, Charlemagne. It raises an interesting question, doesn't it? Are the authorities really that arrogant/stupid, or are they just setting us up to crack down on us? If the civil war does break out, is it possible that it's one that has been engineered by consistent blocking of peaceful alternatives purely for the sake of having a pretext to impose an open police state and open ethnic cleansing of Europe? If so, one can only wonder what other horrors could lie in wait.

ShawarmaMayor said...

I think you would be surprised as to how many do understand your point of view, but are rightly scared to be duped by white supremacist/Nazi-s pretending to share the same cause. It is a simple case - conservatives in the US are concerned with old Europe surrendering their homeland to Jihadis and multi-culturists. But Americans do not support race based discrimination. "White Europe" is definitely as bad as it sounds.

One can be on perfectly logic and sensible grounds when opposing immigration, specifically Muslim immigration, specifically counter culture immigration seeking to eliminate indigenous one. Once that debate has deteriorated to the color of one's skin, it is by definition racist.

America stood by the wrong side of the Yugoslavian civil wars because the presidency was at the hand of the same type of liberals that are allowing Europe to commit its multi-cultural suicide. America's soldiers were on lease to the corrupt Muslim dominated UN. I pray this era would never return.

I doubt that Americans would ever support ethnic cleansing against people of color or anyone who has immigrated to Europe. You would however hear no beep of support or lack thereof relating to halting Europe's insane immigration policies.

Charlemagne said...

As an American and a lover of all things Western I am deeply concerned about the demographic transformations of both Europe and the US. It is a bit harder to fight the transformation here b/c the Leftists throw out the semi-truthful "we're a nation of immigrants" line in an attempt to make us all feel guilty and unwelcoming. At least in Europe you CAN use the cultural/ethnic preservation angle. Meanwhile we resemble Latin America more each day.
If someone wants to label me a racist for advocating for cultural preservation in Europe AND in the US (national origin IS culture) so be it. And as Fjordman said, why is it only white Western nations that must accept immigrants or risk being called racist? Japan, a wonderful country, accepts almost zero immigrants and never will but no one calls them racist. They, and most nations, are ALLOWED to preserve themselves while we have to aid in our own destruction.

Finally, if Europe ever needed assistance in fighting for its survival you would find many many Americans willing to defend her ,almost all of them political Conservatives. We're the only ones fighting for the survival of the US against the Leftist PC onslaught.

Cincinnatus said...

Well done, Fjordman, although I did counsel you some days ago to quit. That forum is no longer worthy of you. I suspect secret agendas from some of the frequent posters there. As he "leads" those troops of his, Charles better watch his back.

David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/01/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Charlemagne said...

I forgot to respond to Fjordman's final paragraph about we Americans coming to Europe's assistance shold the need arise in the future. This is reason for Europe to take an interest in the demographic changes happening here in the US. As we become less of European origin we will inevitably become less interested in European affairs and likely less responsive to Europe's needs. A majority minority America wouldn't feel compelled to help preserve a white Europe. So your demograhic changes should worry us and ours you.

gun-totin-wacko said...

Great post, Fjordman!

Much of what I think has already been covered, and I'm certainly not qualified to speak about Europe. I would point out one little thought that crossed my mind: This debate, and others like it, have taken us into a bizarre world where the central theme is "My enemy's enemy is my enemy".

Or perhaps "My friends are my enemies, and my enemies are my friends".

Does this attitude remind anyone of a certain book?

Scary, but this is why I am what my blogger ID says I am...

Still, I am literally shocked at the idea of "whiteness studies". I'd forgotten the student that praised American Indian culture, while denying her own, but apparently she was one of the forerunners of her generation.

Once upon a time, I wanted to earn a doctorate in History, and become a professor. Didn't work out that way, and it becomes clearer every day that A) I never would have finished my studies- I probably would have been thrown out of graduate school; and B) Had I finished and gotten a job at any university in the US, I would have been fired and sued within a week.

Sad how our societies-Europe and the US- have degenerated. Much as I love children, it makes me somewhat glad that I don't have any.

druu222 said...

I just signed up for blogger as I felt I had to weigh in here.

First off, I’m a nobody sitting at a keyboard. Words cannot express the appreciation that I have for Charles Johnson and the hours he has put in creating a clearinghouse of information about the inroads Islamofascism is making in Western society, and it’s all too effective use of our own pathetic cultural weaknesses in advancing it’s totalitarian agenda. My appreciation equally extends to Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal.


I thus feel like I am not only watching the falling out of friends, but, far more important, the falling out of allies for whom the only winner is the totalitarian movement.

So, some observations that might be my tiny little contribution toward healing the rift.

1) Charles is wrong to banish these links (GoV and BJ) from his blogroll. It is his right to have whoever he wants on his blog, but he is now a “public figure” (of sorts), and others are within their rights to judge him for it. It just seems totally petty, a wrong way to treat an ally in the movement, and ill-befitting the spirit of the blogosphere.

2) His vehemence over this issue strikes me as a bit over the top, but that’s just me. Like, for example, US troubles with France or even Russia in 1944, go ahead and get on record, but belaboring the point seems like you are looking for an ill-timed fight.

druu222 said...

(cont)

Now in his defense….


3) One reaction of many is to hurl “neo-con”…. Blah blah blah. Feel free to differ with me, but I think the whole “neo-con” thing of the past decade is absolute horse-puckey. Far more people are accused of being “neo-cons” than label themselves as such, and thus the very phrase is more about those saying it than those it is said about. The fact that it, as a charge, seems to gravitate toward prominent Jewish-Americans and ardent supporters of Israel is not lost on many, nor that the-word seems to be used far more by non-Americans than Americans. Many of those so labeled are simply conservatives who are not liked by others, and are saddled with the dreaded, “ooh, scary neo-cons…” label by those who are opposed to American conservatives for all the standard reasons.

4) What Charles does show is a profound unease with the European right, and one that is not unjustified. The fact is, we all know (if I may caricature for a moment) that European starry-eyed enamorment of extremes is all too familiar by now. It has been almost exclusively of the left since WWII, but, to read many of the European rights own web pages (such as the BNP, not Europe, I know, but still…), we find that they can be just as socialist, just as hostile to “evil capitalism”, just as anti-American as their Trotskyite counterparts. We find the very weird sight of neo-nazis and the like being downright sympathetic to the same Arab terror movements (overseas at least) that will happily ensconce themselves in Europe to fight for the Eurabian agenda. The only possible explanation is that they despise the Jews, who have FAR less of a footprint in Europe today, and remain physically indistinguishable from indigenous Europeans, more than anyone or anything else, including a host of people, who, far from trying to “fit-in” as so many Jews have always done, take the exact opposite track of setting themselves up as total opponents of the very culture that they live in. In essence, one wonders if many Muslims in Europe are doing exactly what Jews have, I believe, been unfairly accused of doing in the early 20th century, i.e. trying to “take over” institutions, to their own ends, etc. That some rightist groups can look over the landscape of today and STILL see Jews as the greater threat simply boggles the mind.

5) So given the past history, I think what Charles, and I, and those dreaded “neo-cons”… would like to see, is the parties of the Euro-right say loudly and forcefully that they are NOT about skin color, they are not about “The Jews”, and that all are welcome in their movement. They ARE about culture, they ARE about tradition, they ARE about language, they ARE demanding that citizens and immigrants have obligations, and they ARE NOT about apologizing for any of the latter, even though the people who created all that are basically White Christians (horrors!). And that Muslims are welcome in such movements, but are expected to adhere to the Judeo-Christian foundations and history of the nation which they have chosen to be a part of. If that is not acceptable to them, there are plenty of airports out there. But skin-color, and heritage, meaning “race”, is off the table for discussion, exclusion, or measurement in any way. Maybe these parties are already saying this and it is not being heard (are they?), but maybe they have an obligation to their own movement to say it repeatedly and loudly.


I’m just a bloviating Yank, so what do I know, and much of what I say here can apply to the US as well, but that’s not the issue here. I guess what is is that, if these parties of the Euro-right want to fight this battle most effectively, they probably need to be REALLY REALLY forthright about some of their failings in these matters, past and present. Charles seems to be of a mind that they are not doing so. If he is wrong, let it be said loudly and clearly, and for the sake of Western Civilization, let us get back onto the same page as soon as possible.

ZionistYoungster said...

Leftist hypocrisy on this issue is making me angry... has made me so from Day One.

For whichever nation the Left grants the status of "indigenous people", they make allowances for it that would in the European and Zionist cases be vilified as "racism" and "Nazism".

Ever heard of Native American Blood Quanta? Or read an article on CounterPunch saying it would be perfectly just that all the Jews of Israel not from families already present in 1917 be expelled (God forbid), in favor of the "indigenous" Pretendestinians? I see that all the time.

In contrast, I have never, ever encountered a lefty article speaking of "the indigenous peoples of Europe". Just as non-whites can't be racists in their minds, so too Europeans are always colonizers, threatening the indigenous of the rest of the world, and never indigenous peoples themselves, threatened by colonizers from outside. The very idea of European natives and non-European colonialists is a thoughtcrime according to PC.

There will be a day of reckoning for those treasonous, Muslim-enabling Marxists, and may it come soon, amen.

VinceP1974 said...

ZionistYoungster:

Great posts today. Reminds me I have to call or email the White House and vent my contempt for the American Govt's determination to make Israel give up more of itself to Israel's enemies.

KGS said...

Fjordman is of course correct in his observations of the highly hypocritical nature of both the Left, as well as the folks at LGF.

Concerning the Left, I find it highly hypocritical that they are more than willing to believe in the Islamist supremacists like the Hamas and Hezbollah, (who are NEVER expected to back up their claims of so called "moderation") and are more than willing to do "business with them".

The Left treats the Islamist supremacists like the moderates that they are not, and never wanted to be. How many times have we seen the Left trumpet the "social welfare systems" of the Hamas and Hezbollah while turning a blind eye to their Jew hate, and their persecution of minorities?

Then our fellow anti-jihadists who are more than willing to dump on the rest of us just for trying TO DO SOMETHING. I was at the conference, and dammit, I'll say it here as well, I am more than proud of those who are willing to stick there necks out for the sake of our civilized humanity. It is these people who are the salt of the earth as well as those who support their efforts.

Whether or not we are ultimately successful in our efforts, at least we are standing up and willing to be counted, and damn the mansy pansy hand wringing that stand in our way.

Avery Bullard said...

druu222, you complain about the use of the word "neocon". I agree that the Left throw that term around recklessly. I'm on the Right. I've been observing the neocons since the 1980s. When I use the word I'm referring to a specific clique of intellectuals and commissars operating within US conservatism. Here are my problems with neocons:

Neocons support mass immigration. Since I've been observing them they have used their position within conservatism to undermine and discredit immigration restrictionism.

Neocons agree with the Left's position that race is a mere social construct. They tar and purge those who disagree thus making it difficult to address many societal problems arising from ethnic diversity.

Neocons support the right of Israel to remain a Jewish state but do not recognise the rights of Europeans to maintain the European character of our states. When this is pointed out to them they scream "anti-semitism" and dismiss such ethnic Europeans as beyond the pale fascists.

Although some neocons, to their credit, pointed out the Muslim element during the French riots, many others agreed with the Left that the real problem was the failure of the French to integrate their minorities. In other words they blamed European racism.

Neocons have been pushing for Turkish membership of the EU. Obviously they don't care about Christian Europe's demographic future.

Neocon publications and blogs regularly dismiss Europeans in general as the people responsible for Nazism. Like most Europeans all the members of my family who participated in WW2 fought against the Nazis. Constantly connecting present-day Europeans' nationalism to inherent Nazi impulses is like using the over representation of Jews in the Bolshevik revolution to belittle present-day Jews. It's a cheap shot and worse, an attempt to discard their concerns through dehumanisation.

VinceP1974 said...

I find the term neocon to be so overloaded and so elastic as to be useless as a description.

A neocon is anything you want it to be.. cast your demons onto the name "neocon"

I wish people would just stop using it and be more specific about the people being referenced.

Thomas the Wraith said...

Druu222 – On point 5 I think you’re being a bit disingenuous. To say that you and others want to see a European movement that is not about ‘race’ but is about culture, language, and tradition is well, a bit odd. Culture, language and tradition (not to mention religion and a wide variety of ethnic behaviors such as diet and dress) so closely correspond to ethnicity that it’s a distinction without a difference. For example, let’s imagine the son of Turkish immigrants living in Germany. He speaks German with a distinct accent. He doesn’t eat pork or drink beer. He doesn’t celebrate any festivals or holidays that are even remotely Christian (in fact he probably only celebrates Muslim festivals and perhaps some related to Turkish nationalism). Even if he is exposed to German high culture, is he going to appreciate or want to appreciate many of the key elements of the German artistic tradition, which is thoroughly Christian? Is he going to attend a concert of Bach’s Saint Mathew’s Passion or Wagner’s Parsifal? If he joins a German political party and they meet in a brewhaus for sausages and a few steins, he is going to join in when he, as an integral part of his Turkish/Muslim identity doesn’t drink alcohol or eat pork?

I don’t think you appreciate how deep and profound the differences are between the Europeans and their immigrants. From birth they are raised into two separate spiritual worlds. Different nursery rhymes, fairy tales, childhood rituals. Different bedtime stories and mythologies. Different values. Different aesthetics, definitions of beauty. Different understandings of history, of ethics, of right and wrong. How to square the circle between Europeans and immigrants when many of their deepest values (which are directly related to their religious identities) are directly contrasting, indeed are mutually exclusive?

To take just the last one for an example - The European artistic tradition is the richest and most profound exploration of the human form in history. From Greek statues forward the Western portrayal of humanity in art has formed how all Western people imagine humanity. Ask yourself this: can people be European when their traditional aesthetic reviles human images and forms?

If you find the work of Michelangelo beautiful, then you can’t value an aesthetic which forbids representations of humans. If you find forbidding human representations beautiful then you don’t like Michelangelo. And this isn’t just about high art. Comic books, art class, public sculpture, field trip to museums (which in Europe are filled with images of the Crucifixion and Resurrection). Do Muslims really want to pay taxes to maintain museums they find offensive, even sinful? I don’t really see a compromise on this and it’s just one small example among a virtually limitless number of conflicts between these two worldviews.

Sure, I guess in theory if our imaginary Turkish immigrant wanted to abandon his Turkish/Muslim identity, dress and speak like a German, learn to appreciate German art and music and popular culture, enjoy warm beer and hot sausages once in a while and celebrate the myriad other ways of being German, then yes, the Germans should embrace him as their own. And while this may be possible, however remotely, for any particular determined individual, it is all but impossible for large numbers of people. It seems to me that most Muslim immigrants in Europe don’t want to become Dutch or German or Danish because they understand that it means casting off their own ethnic identities. They want to be Moroccans in Holland rather than Dutch. They want to be Turks in Germany rather than German. And this is what is unacceptable to indigenous ethnic groups that were homogenous within living memory.

This is just a glimpse, the tiniest tip of the iceberg.

heroyalwhyness said...

Thank you GoV for providing the venue to continue this discussion. After several days absense, I stumbled upon a comment at LGF indicating a fallout between Atlas, GoV, Fjordman and LGF.

As if the daily dose of jihad updates weren't enough of a Twilight Zone episode, this unexpected turn of events completely threw me. Heavy sigh.

I spent more hours than I care to disclose reading and tracking each of these blogs - catching up, so to speak, and what a painful experience that was. From the outside, looking in - it couldn't possibly be nearly as painful as it was for each of you.

Fjordman, the Baron, Robert Spencer and Atlas actually attended the first effort of it's kind to address the concerns of the Islamization of Europe. Kudos. Many thanks for taking necessary risks beyond the keyboard and formally opening this much needed discussion.

The racism card being played here is badly misplaced. The above presentation provided by Fjordman clarifies it sufficiently for me.

Are we taking a risk with VB, SD &/or BNP? Surely, there are elements to be concerned about. But not to the point of giving in to the multi-culti all whites are racists nonsense.

Charles'concerns are understandable but his disavowing of Fjordman, IMHO is not.

I extend my deepest gratitude to all parties for providing the open forum for further exploration and discussion. May cooler heads prevail in the near future.

druu222 said...

ThomasW, you make some great points, and speak to why I have great sympathy to Europeans who are struggling with this. My grumpiness with Europe extends almost entirely to foriegn policy, we'll leave that alone.

I guess what I am saying is that, had Euro elites adhered to what I was said in my post, they could have allowed a lot of immigration and not been in the fix they are in, by being clear about what was expected, nay demanded, of those guests.

Allow me to post something I posted at LGF, in my feeble attempt to negotiate these waters...

(For Euro's "Durham" refers to a false charge of rape at Duke University that saw three innocent students, of pale pallor, virtually railroaded by host of the oh-so-tolerant...)

(cont.)

druu222 said...

(cont.)

This is an astonishingly passionate dispute that to me really blew up like that hurricane that went from cat 1 to 5 in 24 hours. I read your link and see your point. I guess what does not disturb me about it is that our own academic and in some sense political culture has been celebrating racial politics for decades. (I just finished reading "Until Proven Innocent", about the Durham rape case, in less than a day, so compelling it is, so that's where my head is :-)

Yes, just because "they" do it does not make it right, but one does consider that, for indigenous Europeans to ask, if "they" are doing it, but "we" are not, and are almost violently precluded from doing so in even the most humble of ways, then just who is "looking out for us", and what is to keep "us" from being utterly rolled over?

I have said for the longest time in these issues, it is not immigrants or "others" who is to blame here. It is the people in Europe, whose US counterparts are represented in the Durham book by.... the New York Times, the Duke faculty, the Nancy Grace's of CNN, who categorically choose the non-white BECAUSE they are non-white. I use the seemingly unrelated Duke case because it IS totally of a mind with the real problem here, some insufferable elites who are willing to trash hundreds of years of culture, law, and tradition... and truth itself, in this leftoid quest to "be tolerant", and who THEMSELVES place the simple question of "what race are you" first and foremost. It is genuinely infuriating and appalling, and is destined to create a backlash, and in Fjordman et al, you may be seeing a cracking of that ice.

druu222 said...

(cont.)

This is NOT a good thing. But if we turn our guns too vociferously upon the symptom, the cause continues unabated.

It is a delicate balance, but I repeat... here and in Europe, the fault is not with either the immigrant or the indigenous with a mind toward "indigenous rights" (the latter an unquestioned virtue over most of the globe). The fault is with the cultural and political elites whose misguided neo-Marxist madness has set the two sides into almost inevitable conflict.

tommy said...

I'm curious as to how many of those over at LGF who are part of the anti-"Nazi" lynch mob are supporters of the Meir Kahane and his followers.

If you don’t know who the Kahanists are, see here and here. The Kahanists applauded the actions of Baruch Goldstein.

Here is the younger Kahane explaining his views on non-Jews generally.

I don’t believe the Kahanists will ever be a major threat but I don’t see how anyone can support them and condemn VB or the Swedish Democrats either. Charles doesn’t seem to approve of Kahane but he also doesn’t seem to mind his supporters hanging out on his site.

Homophobic said...

What's Fjordman like as a person, if you've met him?

Vasarahammer said...

"We simply cannot afford to argue amongst ourselves. Yes, a certain amount of debate and dialogue is necessary, even healthy, but backbiting is going to lead to the devolution if not destruction of our nascent movement."

Well, I think this blog is all about argument and not preaching to the choir like LGF, which is rapidly becoming like that.

And I think this kind of discussion is very much necessary and the end result does not have to be a permanent rift but debate can also lead to better understanding of the problem.

"This whole "racism" episode was probably inevitable. Still, it's unfortunate. But very informative."

It was informative and I was first very angry with LGF and now I'm just disappointed.

It is not entirely right to say that all European nations are based on ethnicity. There are exceptions to the rule like Switzerland, for example. But it is fair to state that none of the European countries are based on the same political idea as the United States. Even the emerging supranational EU is very far from United States of Europe.

And the reason why the so called far right parties have sometimes socialist economic policies lies in their background. The support for these parties often originates from the working class neighborhoods that have first suffered from mass immigration. These people have in the past voted for leftist parties, who haven't been very successful in solving the problems caused by mass immigration. This is why some people have turned to far right parties that have seemed to be the only ones defending their interests.

The far right parties also attracted some unsavoury elements and were run in an amateurish way. Most of the parties have attempted to clean up their act and some have been more successful than others.

I am no expert in Belgian politics, but support for Vlaams Belang is based on artificial nature of Belgian state and the fact that economically more successful Flanders has to support Vallonia with their tax money. In addition, the socialists have also tried to maintain their power base by wooing immigrant vote and granting easy citizenship for recent immigrants. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Sweden, on the other hand, used to be ethnically very homogenous nation state, until the doors were opened for massive third world immigration some time in the 1980's. Ever since the ethnic makeup in the country has dramatically changed in a very short space of time.

At the same time, nobody was allowed to criticize any aspect related to immigration. Those who did were immediately labeled as racists or xenophobes. All powerful state and media, in which sphere of acceptable opinion was and still is very narrow, managed to create a nearly totalitarian political climate. Honest discussion about effects of immigration was not tolerated and you could only talk about immigration in terms of cultural enrichment. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Sweden Democrats have been labeled with all kinds of names and a lot of dirt has been dug up from their leaders' past. Part of this dirt is probably justified, but it is also fair to say that the party has cleaned up their act by booting out members and leaders with disreputable past.

The so called liberal and conservative parties in Sweden have not managed to make significant changes in immigration policy (or any other policy for that matter) during their short spells in government. In fact, it has seemed that they were not even trying. This is why Sweden Democrats are the only option for anyone who wishes to express his dissatisfaction with the immigration policy.

Sweden democrats have started from scratch and are mainly popular in Southern Sweden, in which the effects of mass immigration are most visible. Closeness to Denmark also has helped in establishing a support base.

In Sweden it is difficult for a new party to establish themselves, since 4 per cent of the vote nationwide is required in order to get a seat in Parliament.

In current PC dominated political climate it is inevitable that accusations are made based on guilt by association. What troubles me with LGF is that I don't think Charles is motivated by genuine desire to combat "islamofascism" but for a selfish but understandable desire to remain in the mainstream.

For Europeans counterjihad is not about white supremacy or racism, but survival and avoiding seemingly inevitable islamization of the continent. Also shooting "islamofascists" in the Iraqi desert is not necessarily the first priority, even though it would be immensely damaging for counterjihad if the US withdrawal from Iraq led to humiliation and an election of more hesitant and leftist president.

Henrik said...

Charlemagne quoted Fjordman:
"The only theoretical reason why even a fraction of Europeans would embrace real extremist groups would be if they have their backs against the wall and everybody else has abandoned them, which is exactly what we’re trying to avoid."

Very much agreed. The strong stand of the Danish government on immigration and radical Islam is probably the reason that WP and neo-Nazi groups in Denmark are so benign, bordering on non-existing. One dissolved itself quietly. The other (the real neo-Nazi group) just had its leader slammed 60 days behind bars for violence against the police :)

If we can pursuade our governments to take the responsibility they should and take the necessary action, the extreme 'Right' (whatever that means) *will* evaporate. Just watch what happened to Le Pen in France when Sarkozy entered the scene and started saying & doing the right things.

It's doable.

Homophobic said...

"The fault is with the cultural and political elites whose misguided neo-Marxist madness has set the two sides into almost inevitable conflict"

We need a full counter-revolutionary program. Perhaps we should define ourselves as Counter-Revolutionarys? It's a word that hasn't been so damaged by mis-usage.

tommy said...

For Europeans counterjihad is not about white supremacy or racism, but survival and avoiding seemingly inevitable islamization of the continent. Also shooting "islamofascists" in the Iraqi desert is not necessarily the first priority, even though it would be immensely damaging for counterjihad if the US withdrawal from Iraq led to humiliation and an election of more hesitant and leftist president.


Oh, no! The impossible goal of bringing democracy (rather than theocracy) to Iraq is still first on the American neoconservative agenda. Charles and the rest of his crew were big cheerleaders for that effort. Hey, it was a noble, idealistic goal, wasn't it? And isn't that what really matters: ideals and principles, no matter how absurd or unrealistic?

Henrik said...

MeThinks tommy's right on target here.

Exactly the Iraq issue is what makes the difference between a neocon - the activistic foreign policy - and a straight conservative (like myself) - just wanting to defend what's good and not mess excessively into affairs of others.

Imperialistu' said...

tommy > it still is noble and idealistic and if more people would support the effort, it would be a succes. Instead, the European allies had other things on their mind: ask Chirac or Schroder for further details.

The US are doing the right thing in Irak. Keep that in mind.

druu222 said...

Tommy, I would just point out that "the impossible goal of bringing democracy (rather than theocracy) to Iraq" is one helluva lot closer to realization than it was one year ago. And I cannot say how the effort is being reported to you by your media, but judging by the similarly inclined US media, I can damn sure guess.

The Iraqi govt was chosen by a first election to choose people to write a constitution, a second election to ratify that constitution, and a third to choose a government under that constitution. The UN then signed off on that government. That government still stands. It has not fallen, the country has not split apart, more of Iraq becomes secure under it's authority every day. Take a look around and see how many media, even hostile ones, are of a mind that there is currently a "civil war" in Iraq. There isn't, and it is not being reported as such today. Yet it was! A year ago.

So there was a civil war, now there isn't, the government being fought against in that war is still there.... Waddya call that?

That's called, "winning the war".

(cont.)

druu222 said...

(cont.)

Ever seen your media report it as such? Uh huh, I'll bet.

There's an old unanswered question: If a tree falls in the forest an no one hears it, does it make a sound?

We never knew the answer until now. Categorically, no it does not.

It doesn't matter one wit what happens in Iraq, it is only what certain immensely powerful parties choose to tell you what happens that matters.

There will be a second democratic election, and probably a third one... and the whole thing will be reported as a miserable failure from moment one, just as millions of immigrants sent into Europe will be a wonderful and beautiful movement toward diversity from moment one. Too many powerful people have too much invested in theat "truth" to ever say otherwise, no matter what.

How Europe deals with such people I leave to their good offices.

The Raccoon said...

I always get worried when people base their attitude towards a group on race - not culture, not tradition, but race. As an influence on demeanor, I can't see how race can have an impact - the genetic differences are insignificantly small.

Therefore, when someone bases their attitude on RACE (as in skin color, such as White Europe or Black Power or whatever), I see them as racist.

Maybe that's due to me being an Israeli Jew, and thus from an ethnicity comprised of people who come in every color (I have even met a couple of Asian-looking Jews) despite having common ancestry and genetics.

Maybe that's because my tribe has clearly defined (if seldom used) procedures through which outsiders can become a part of the tribe. For both a Jewish convert and an ethnic Jew, the Three Fathers and Four Mothers are revered ancestors.

Can a similar thing not happen in a European tribe like, say, Swedes or Germans? I can't see why not. If someone has great respect and love for, say, the Swedish culture and wishes to become a part of it, to accept it as his own... does it matter if they're black or brown or white or of any other color?

With all of the above in mind, I can only conclude that White Europe is indeed a racist concept. A European Europe... now that's something I fully support. The disintegration of a beautiful and mighty Western civilization (which I love and respect even I'm not quite fully a part of it, as an Israeli) is a horrible thing to behold.

PS

ZionistYoungster -

Kahane was right in some things and wrong in most. Indiscriminate killing is wrong. Terrorism is wrong. Racism is wrong. Baruch Goldstein was a psychotic monster; murdering random people will not bring us security or return us our ancestral lands of Yehuda and Shomron. Actions like that dishonor our culture, tradition... and, some would argue, religion (both the Commandments and Ger, Yetom ve-Almana laws).


Sorry for rambling. Hope the anti-Jihadi movement will get over this...

PRCalDude said...

Raccoon,

Please read Lawrence Auster's post on the very subject you brought up. One can't just talk about culture when the indigenous group is on the run. They have no way of asserting their culture when they're being swamped by a foreign invasion. Moreover, culture does not magically fall from the sky. It comes from a people, a geography, and religious presuppositions, which until recently, included Christianity. Gene Expression would have a hard time agreeing with your assertion that genetic differences amongst people groups are insignificant as well.

I agree culture is important, but you can't just separate culture from race.

Knucklehead said...

Not that it would mean anything to any of y'all, but I want to thank you for these interesting discussions and, especially, for keeping them civil.

If we're going to win this Long War we need to put our issues on the table and work through them. You've all been provoking thought - thanks again.

Dan Bostan said...

LGF is front group for ADL or SPLC, ie, groups working against the Christian Whities of European extraction.
No longer amongst my bookmarks....

VinceP1974 said...

Raccoon said:
>I always get worried when people base their attitude towards a group on race - not culture, not tradition, but race. As an influence on demeanor, I can't see how race can have an impact - the genetic differences are insignificantly small.

>Therefore, when someone bases their attitude on RACE (as in skin color, such as White Europe or Black Power or whatever), I see them as racist. - ENd quote -


I get UTTERLY bored when someone notices a component of race in a larger concept and then seems to want to focus on that narrow part to the exclusion of all other parts and pronounce the large thing invalid due to the taint of racism.

I mean really.. do we not have brains? It's absurd to reduce the defense of Europe to racism.

Yes, Europeans are white.. that's something they all share.. so that's something they rally around to some extent.

I have to say flat out.. to you and others... get over it. Really.

So you think some of them are racist... so what. They're racist.. now what.

I swear words like "racist" are the tool of the intellectually vapid and dishonest.

Obviously I dont know you, and I'm sure you're a fine person, but the other 58454634857 people who throw the word racist around have succedded in making me deaf to anyone who wants to unleash it as if by merely saying the word, a point has been made.

God bless Israel, God bless America
Shalom.

Conservative Swede said...

The Raccoon: "I always get worried when people base their attitude towards a group on race"

I agree and this is why the anti-white racism has to be brought up. A racism so all-encompassing that most people do not even recognize its existence, quite as the fish is unaware of the water he swims in.

Fjordman is doing a very fine job in opposing this. And as he has pointed out "white race" only exists when we are attacked (as in being "the cancer of human history"), but if we would consider defending ourselves against these vile attacks, "white race" no longer exists. It's truly Orwellian.

If I'm attacked for being a man, I have to address that as a man. If I'm attacked as a Swede, I will have to address that as a a Swede (although most of the time I would rather agree :-)

If I'm attacked as a white, I will have to counter the attack from that perspective. If I cannot say "there's a widespread consensus on attacking people of white race", without being accused of being obsessed with "white race", this is truly perverted and Orwellian.

No matter how abstract and arbitrary the attack is, the attacked one must be able to state what the attack is about. E.g. if all blue eyed people were attacked as a group, and it was said that blue eyed people was the cancer of the history of the world, this would be a truly abstract and arbitrary attack. But how could the blue eyed people defend themselves if they are not even allowed to point out that there are these widespread attacks on blue eyed people for being blue eyed, without immediately being accused of being "blue eyed" supremacists. Such comments are just part of the all-encompassing tyranny.

As Europeans we do not identify by race, we identify by ethnicity; there are many nations. We wouldn't have brought up race ourselves, it has been pushed into our faces. We just want to get rid of it. Race is far more important in America, where people do not have any ethnicity to belong to in the way we have in Europe.

Yes, and Hitler. No more representative for Europeans than Muhammad for Arabs. If Hitler had become a successful Muhammad, surely Europeans would have been obsessed by race. A single man can destroy a lot as we've seen with Muhammad. But Hitler failed, he failed in introducing Jihadism in Europe, and his way has never been our way. Just look at our history, and compare it with any other people. How long are we going to be harassed for defeating Hitler?

The Raccoon said...

Vince -

Heh. Sadly, I completely understand where you're coming from.

But I happen to love the English language which is my main literary one.

And by the spirit of Orwell, no bunch of bloody dcukspeak cretins is going to erase even one word from my English vocabulary :)

druu222 said...

Conservative Swede - You make some good points, although, as a Yank, I might take issue with "Race is far more important in America, where people do not have any ethnicity to belong to in the way we have in Europe".

We have seen in both Britain and on the Continent, (God knows here as well) the slavish worship of the Great God Diversity. This is of course, on both continents, entirely about race and virtually nothing else. (Well, maybe sexuality/gender as well.)

So this obsession with race and "differences", and it's unfair targeting on one race in particular for opprobrium, is really not about "fairness between races" at all, but entirely about politics. And at it's heart is the socialistic belief that wealth/power (basically the same concept) is forevermore a zero-sum game. So, in such a game, if I can pick one group and make them the enemy, I can take from them, and they can only give to me. Granted, the course of history is such that (ahem) a certain "race" that need not be mentioned (heavens, no!) is more wealthy and powerful than others almost entirely because of cultural decisions they made regarding education, science, religion and it's proper role, etc etc thus it is not only easy to choose that one race to be the enemy and thus the giver, but, hello.... What did John Dillinger say when asked "Why do you rob banks?" A: "Because that's where the money is."

This entire race racket is essentially a con job based on robbing Peter to pay Paul (for whom a politician proposing same can always get Paul to vote for him), and on this score, both continents are horrifically guilty.

Western Civilization depends on calling out this game for what it is, and it matters not who is what color or heritage in doing that.

Homophobic said...

"Yes, and Hitler. No more representative for Europeans than Muhammad for Arabs. "

I totally agree with this.

We shold not base ourselves on race, we base ourselves on People, as in "We the Swedish people" if you catch my drift.

Peoplehood means the true, complete, non-utilitarian, unreduceable, and phenomenological.

Nationhood means ancestors stretching far back.

tommy said...

druu222,

Tommy, I would just point out that "the impossible goal of bringing democracy (rather than theocracy) to Iraq" is one helluva lot closer to realization than it was one year ago. And I cannot say how the effort is being reported to you by your media, but judging by the similarly inclined US media, I can damn sure guess.

Violence is down. That is a good thing. Still, the fundamental problems haven't been resolved at all. For example, Sunnis still don't want to live under Shiite rule and the primacy of Sharia law is still in the Iraqi constitution. Partition the country and get out.

dan bostan,

LGF is front group for ADL or SPLC,

I wouldn't go that far. I think Charles is a bit of a philo-Semite. Nothing wrong about that but I'm just not buying this idea that VB or the Swedish Democrats or even the BNP is going to bring about the Fourth Reich in Europe. It's not gonna happen and nothing like it is going to remotely happen. I certainly have a hard time taking seriously the fears of extremism of those lizards who have had nice things to say about Meir Kahane in the past.

Raccoon,

I can't see how race can have an impact - the genetic differences are insignificantly small.

I've dealt with this one elsewhere.

The Raccoon said...

Conservative Swede -

I think that what you describe is more or less exactly what I fear might happen in Europe: that European Caucasians, attacked as Whites will in defense band together around being white.

Your race is not why you're being attacked, though. Not by Islamists, at least - the ultra-pseudo-liberals are only enemy supporters. You are attacked because of your culture, with its liberties ans freedoms and scientific thought.

As for the enemy supporters... yes, they are racist against Whites. And this must be addressed and remedied (as difficult a paradigm shift of such magnitude is). But still one worries due to the defensive huddle effect...


PRCalDude -

I agree with you that the insane immigration policies of Western countries must be stopped. There are plenty of integratable and skilled immigrants who do not want to oppress or kill anyone.

As for the IQ/Genetics issue... I am still not convinced. This could possibly have many non-genetic factors. And even if it's true, it doesn't matter - you can easily set IQ or somesuch criteria for immigrants.

As for the race/culture discussion... I have quite a lot to say about this (I found the discussion you linked to lacking in many respects). But alas, I am too intoxicated to continue.

Good night :)

tommy said...

If you want to prevent Europeans from becoming extremists and you want to halt serious bloodshed before it begins, then the best time to act is before their countries begin to take on a resemblance to Lebanon demographically.

Thomas the Wraith said...

I think it's a mistake to get hung up on the term 'race'. It's easily misunderstood and I think what we are really talking about is broader and deeper than what people mean by 'race.' I much prefer ethnicity. Donald Horowitz's classic book Ethnic Groups in Conflict provides a excellent set of ideas around ethnicity that I have found very helpful. To summarize:

Ethnicity is identified through "a continuum of cues, from the visible to the nonvisible." The visible cues can be first divided into the birth-determined and bodily, color, physiognomy, hair color, height, etc. (This is what people commonly mean by 'race'.) And second into the non-birth-determined and bodily. These are permanent bodily signs that occur after birth such as circumcision, tattooing, scarification, teeth removal, etc.

Then there are visible but behavioral cues, such as posture, dress, gestures, etc. Finally there are the nonvisible cues such as language, accent, syntax, food habits, names and religious habits.

All of these combined indicate ethnicity. I'm a WASP. Physically, purely as a matter of 'race' I'm indistinguishable from Scottish, English, Dutch, or any number of white Europeans. I could fly to Europe, dress like a European and get a local haircut. But my gestures, the way I walk, etc. would indicate I'm an American, before I even said a word. That is the mystery of ethnicity.

When I lived in Japan I hung out with Americans of Japanese decent. Racially, they were as Japanese as anyone there. But everyone could tell they were American even if they stood still and didn't speak. They were physically larger (the girl had much bigger breasts than Japanese due to the higher dairy consumption of American children.) The muscles in their faces had developed differently because of the innate differences in the English and Japanese languages. The Japanese could tell the difference. Again, the beautiful mystery of ethnicity.

druu222 said...

Tommy -

RE: "Partition the country (Iraq) and get out."

There is a fair amount of reporting and data that says that the desire for partition that is assumed by so many in the West is radically overstated. Many who acknowledge the unhappiness of the Iranian people with their mullahocracy in the same breath incorrectly think the Iraqi Shias are just itching to throw themselves under that same government. Much of the now-reduced violence came from Sunni who are aware that they will have virually nothing left of Iraq if it partitions, and that US departure would be a disaster for them. Kurds are realizing that they could lose everything to Turkey if the country partitions. And there was universal anger in Iraq to some US Senators proposing just such a partition, anger of the "Who the hell do you guys think you are partitioning OUR country?" sort.

None of it is simple nor complete, but I think there is more support for a unified Iraq by it's people than you might realize.

But we digress.....

Thomas the Wraith said...

When we talk about Swedes or Flemish or English we are talking about ethnic groups. And to be fair I don't think these groups are completely and totally closed off to the possibility of foreign people joining, at least not as individuals, in small numbers, over the long run. Certainly a determined individual foreigner could learn the language, convert to the Christianity (at least nominally), adopt the local customs, marry an indigenous girl and have children. He would never be truly considered to be a member of the group. But his son, who would grow up fluent in the language and culture, would face fewer barriers to acceptance. The son would marry another local girl and have more children. Over time the "foreigness" of the original immigrant would disappear into the ethnic group and the fact of great-granpa's foreign origins would be forgotten or rendered unimportant. This kind of assimilation has happened throughout European history, especially at the edges of Europe and with the bi-racial children of colonial officials.

But we aren't talking about individual immigrants who want to assimilate, who want to adopt the local culture, who want to marry ingenious people and raise their children in the native group. We are talking about mass immigration. We are talking about millions of people who do most insistently do not want to lose their ethnic identity. They want to speak their language, marry brides from their homeland, worship their foreign gods, etc. And they want the native people to change their own culture. As Fjordman and others have pointed out numerous times, these are not immigrants in the normal sense of the word. Europe is being colonized. And like all colonists, they want their colonial subjects to change their native culture, not the other way around. The fact that the colonists have been invited by corrupt governments doesn't make the colonization any easier to take or any less wrong.

History it seems has an ironic and rather sadistic sense of humor.

USorThem said...

The Neo-Con label helps to distinquish important differences at work in this important debate. Understanding its' usage and identifying those who are neo-cons is important, at least to me it is.

dru222's list of neo-con attributes left out the most important one of all...

Neo-cons support the Iraq mis-adventure; they were its' architects: Bush, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfield. And although he certainly does not have the same influence as the previous group, and his opinions are the same, Charles Johnson (and his loyal LGFers) is a neo-con. Every Republican candidate running for President in '08 (except Tancredo and Paul) is a neo-con.

Each one of these neo-cons have the same trait. They all refuse to properly identify the enemy.

Not one of them dare identify the enemy as Islam, or say that Islam is the problem. Just admitting to that and saying it publicly can assist in so many ways in fighting the global jihad but hey will not say it. Why? They are afraid of being called "racists" or "too far to the right".

ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM and neo-cons refuse to admit it. To them the problem is "terrorists" and "fundamentalists" and "radicals".

Neo-cons allow themselves to be led by Shoeless George Bush, who goes about talking of the great "Religion of Peace" and how we need to defeat all those "hijackers" of a great religion. They all follow his mantra about fighting them "over there so we don't have to fight them here", and we all know they are here, of course with greater numbers in Europe.

This is the Neo-con's war, not true conservatives. Look at the U.S. posters who have abandoned LGF. I am speculating but would bet that most, if not all who have left, don't support this war. Why? Because they know the problem is Islam not "terrorism" and the problem has little to do with the political baggage carried into the fight by VB and Sweden Democrats. They know Bush and his followers, including Johnson, fail to recognize the real enemy. What do you think GWB would have to say about VB, or the BNP? (not intending to equate the two).

I would also bet you that that most Neo-cons don't know the meaning and danger of of da'wa, or dhimmitude. The spread of Islam to them is all mainly about military engagement and blowing up and smart bombing as many Al Qaeada as possible.

This war prevents and distracts Americans from discussing the Islamification of Europe. It prevents the U.S. from taking concrete steps towards stopping Iran's goal of acquiring nuclear weapons and the other inroads being made by global jihad.

Neo-cons avoid discussion of what is going on is Europe. They are obsessed with "winning" this war in Iraq but fail to define what winning is supposed to look like.
They hesitate to use the the phrase "Islamification of Europe" because they have no answer to the question "So, what's wrong with that? How can they answer that when they won't identify Islam as the source of the problem, and, when their leader is telling everyone how it is, after all, a "religion of peace".

In all of the debates so far NOT a single candidiate has discussed what is going on in Europe. All the talk about is Iraq and fighting terrorism. As long as we keep hearing about an occassional killing of Al Qaeda members we must be on the road to "victory" for whatever that means.

I am in a way, glad to see this rift develop. It may force many neo-cons of the blogosphere who pay attention to this debate to ask themselves some serious questions about how conservative they really are. Fjordman is not a person they expected to see take a different side. Many don't realize there are a lot of republicans who see the folly of this war and the blindness of our current political leadership ofr not seeing the root of the problem. Those on the fence now have other places in the blogoshere to go where they can discuss a point of view they might share but never admitted. And as this war continues with little or no progress and as Nov '08 draws closer, the need for picking a side becomes more compelling.

The Average Joe said...

Charles at LGF is frequently called a racist and is perhaps overly sensitive to the charge. He is located in California and the White Power/Skinhead thugs have made themselves particularly odious on the Left Coast. Thus, for him, the charge that he in any manner, shape or form supports any group that even vaguely resembles the white supremacists in America is, understandably, anathema.

The war between Islam and the West is cultural, not racial. As an unrepentant Yank I believe in individual liberty and equal protection under the law, that law being the Constitution. If you believe in the same, I don't give a rat's rump if you're black, white, avocado, or change color three times a minute. You are my friend.

Race doesn't matter. Color doesn't matter.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton's campaign battle cry, it's the ideology, stupid.

druu222 said...

usorthem - in fairness, that list of "neocon attributes" was made by someone else, I think Avery Bullard up there.

I don't consider myself a neo-con (BOO! Just kiddin'!) but I support in general Mr. Bush.

Look, it's been said a million times that the "War on Terror" is like a "War on Blitzkreig". A war on a tactic, not an enemy.

That is nothing new. The reasons are just way obvious to all. A proclaimed "War on Islamic Fascism" would be quickly morphed into a "War on Islam" by virtually every humnan on earth who wishes us (The West) ill, and thus every single ally in the Muslim world, from Turkey to Bahrain to Indonesia, would likely be lost to us. Gee, that'd be great strategy. Forutnately, we could count on our European Allies to join in lockstep with our "War on Islam-----ism, right? Uuh huh.

A great analogy is Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. I am inclined to say the US Civil War was entirely about slavery, wouldn't have happened without it. (and that's IT, latent Confederates, I've gone around that argument quite enough, thank you ;-) But when Lincon freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation, he only did so in states "then in rebellion". Meaning Union border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland) with slaves were not affected. So Lincoln knew his armies were ending slavery, but he also knew that if he lost the border states, his armies would lose, and slavery would win. So the desconstructionists are fond of "proving" Lincoln a cynical slavemaster or whatever, but they can afford to sit in their armchairs and be moral purists. He had a war to win, they do not.

Bush is in a similar position. It is a delicate one, and many Islamic leaders are inclined to agree with him overall, but they have their own legions of "Islamic nut-boys" to deal with.

So that is what "War on Terror" is about, and everyone knows it. It is difficult and delicate, and I would love to be purist and call it as we see it, a war on Islam's radical wing overall, but I'd rather win it than be a purist about it. MAYBE Bush and I have it wrong, but I am not convinced of that by a long shot.

Conservative Swede said...

Rancoon,

Thanks for a good answer. However, the Europeans won't "band together around being white" because this is simply not how we idenitfy. This has no resonance among the people. We identify as Swedes, Danes, Italians, etc. And as for the huddle effect -- well, this simply isn't there, and has never been during history. The typical thing among Westerners/Europeans is to fight each other. The LGF think is just on out of so many such splits.

Your race is not why you're being attacked, though. Not by Islamists

No, not by Islamists, but by ourselves. We are ourselves our greatest enemy. If we just stopped our masochism and started behaving as normal healthy nations, Islam would be easy to deal with.

But as you see we are not even close to doing that, and even a minor attempt will make other people seeing it as Hitler coming back. So maybe I should just move to a Carribean island and forget about the whole thing. There doesn't seem to be a solution to it.

druu222 said...

CS -

"We are ourselves our greatest enemy. If we just stopped our masochism and started behaving as normal healthy nations, Islam would be easy to deal with.

But as you see we are not even close to doing that, and even a minor attempt will make other people seeing it as Hitler coming back."

God-awful conundrum. You all have my sympathy in the struggle for impossible answers.

I guess the only thing I can say is maybe to flat out inform "other people", including Americans and the UN among others, that you don't give two $h!ts what they think of you, your survival is at stake. I get an eye/ear-ful of "what others think of me" as an American every morning before my morning coffee. That's just the world.

But you have my sympathies in this issue truly, and have for some time. God Bless.

Conservative Swede said...

Druu222,

Maybe a Iranian nuke will come and solve this Gordian knot. And if not that, something equally bad will happen, and people will stop worrying about being decent and start worrying about surviving instead.

I just wished that it could be dealt with in a reasonable and civilized manner. But it's not unlikely that our civilization first has to go under, before we will be able to restore it again.

Thanks for your sympathy!

Charlemagne said...

I'm just getting back to this thread after a few hours away butr wanted to respond to Thomas the Wraith's comment in response to Druu222. Thomas attempted to make the point that race/ethnicity are inseparable from culture in Europe. I made a very similar point about the US several months ago: http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/2007/06/post-america-america.html
Prescient!

Hope said...

Well written, heroyalwhyness, in that what you stated echoes my thoughts. I'm a (nearly) daily reader here, and LGF. Very big sigh, indeed.

Thank you GoV, and Fjordman both for taking such an insightful, patient, and even-handed approach to the topic. And the fall-out, too.

whiskey_199 said...

Charles Johnson is doing what he is doing because he has (probably) big money at stake.

Johnson makes or hopes to make a living from LGF. Nothing wrong with that, I applaud it. He's tried to copy Daily Kos as much as possible, particularly with rating features and Ajax code and so forth.

He has not to my mind and others focused on content on the blog, but rather features. I'd rather have content, but I'm not Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson however to my way of thinking is fearful of negative press/articles/comments interfering with a media deal. His blog is widely trafficked and he gets paid for every page view (ads). I would assume he wants to sell out -- giving him incentive to be as blandly MSM left as possible, or is looking for some affiliation in conjuction with Pajamas Media.

Look no further than the money.

I've been banned for arguing that merely expressing disapproval with folks like the NPD (who are odious) is not enough, and that is important to understand why respectable middle class ballerinas who cannot be called racist join the BNP.

I understand why: Mr. Johnson wants to get paid by NBC, or News Corp, or someone else. He might have millions of bucks on the line. Hard to blame him.

Copying Daily Kos should be a clue as is the lack of content. Mr. Johnson has a deal in the works I'd wager.

IoshkaFutz said...

Yesterday I de-lizarded myself from LGF, my mind full of visions of Red China, 70 million slaughtered, the embalmed perpetrator on display in the middle of Tiananmen Square, his heirs running America's biggest trading partner. And as I de-lizarded myself I sang along with Captain Beefheart: "She's two hundred years old, so mean she can't grow no lips."

Adieu Charles! Not that I was much of a contributor at that haven of gogliardry.

It's exciting to be a Nazi... and to want the hills that have been making wine for two thousand years, (well before the rise of Nationalism and representative democracy), to still go on making wine. I'm discovering that Nazi-Fascists are sentimental. I'm so sentimental that I hope those people even hang on to their dialects - and remain "falsi e cortesi" - just the opposite of the bordering Lombards.

But maybe I am not only a Nazi, but a super-Nazi, because not only wouldn't I want those areas taken over by Gyspsies and Muslims, but not even by the lily-white Danes, Norwegians and Finns! I trust that my fellow Nazi Danes, Norwegians and Finns will not only forgive me, but even agree with me.

I wish I could offer them an efficient and democratic "we-the-people" Calabria and a "one-nation-under-God" Napoli, but sorry, those places cannot be reduced to recent social credos and the wonderful principles of a cracked liberty bell. They used to be Magna Grecia and then the Spanish and French ruled and then the Piemontese and Germans and even the Americans ruled. Even the Muslims controlled the coasts for a while. Their identity is not in a set of rules, their founding fathers wore togas.

Hardly a one knows the national anthem, but they all know "Parlami d'amore mariu" and "Marechiare"...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=a85sWyBCP5U
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_tQqXDNI2YI

It's not one nation, one system under God, but a big bordello with everyone under God personally... And for that reason heaven help you if the spaghetti aren't al dente.

What's a song,a way of speaking, a general attitude, types of wine, an ancient history and cooking time for pasta compared to the great values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness presently triumphant in a place like modern-day Philadelphia (which they tell me means Brotherly Love)?

Niente. Very true. Utopia always wins.

Philadelphia is way ahead of Venice. It's got better principles and is inhabited by a wider selection of people. Starbucks (all 20,000 of them) is also much better in every respect than my local cafe, all ONE of them... and by every parameter.

I just came back from that café and to prove how Starbucks is better, I started to sing: "Me and Mrs. Jones we have a thing going on!" I sang it loud... and no one arrested me. Those people have no principles!

The Raccoon said...

Conservative Swede -

As Europeans, you have a culture and history you can be proud of, despite the nasty bits. I find it hard to imagine that Europeans are so far gone now that self-hatred became norm.

And well... compared to the Hunn invasion, the Mongol invasion, the Black Death, the dark times of Christian oppression, the endless wars and massacres... this is nothing. Europe has got over worse.

As we Jews say:

We got over Pharaoh, we can get over this.

That way Europe got over Hitler and WW2 is proof of European resilience. Take heart :)

Morgenholz said...

UsorThem commented on the Iraq "misadventure". I must respectfully disagree, and this has real bearing on the War for Europe.

I have always believed that the purpose of the Iraq Invasion was to insert Western Armies into the heart of the islamic world. Simply, Mesopotamia is the center four squares of the chessboard. Iran is surrounded, and Syria is threatened with being pushed into the Mediterranean. For all the talk of democracy and oil and WMD and rape-rooms, this was a strategic move with an ideological afterthought as a plus.

Why is this relevant to Eurabia? Almost all of our European friends who have posted here about culture have noted that their muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate and instead are attempting to colonize. I would submit that a navy that puts out to sea, yet has no ports to which to return, will not long rule the waves.

Let us not forget that in the War for the West, there is an important and ongoing military component.

Morgenholz said...

Ioshkafutz,

And I would love to join you at your sad little cafe one day, if for nothing else than to laugh at each other for our silly, provincial differences. In that, I'm sure, we would have much in common. Beautifully put.

latte conservative said...

Fjordman, I've been a commenter on LGF since 2002 (under a different name) and have noticed it hasn't been the same for a while. I don't think the current atmosphere there is representative of American sentiment regarding immigration, race, etc. I live in the ultra-liberal San Francisco Bay Area, and whenever the local ultra-liberal newspaper, the SF Chronicle, posts an online story related to crime or immigration, the nice white liberals get real and post things that would get them banned from LGF. Real Americans are just as fed up as you are. As for what happened in Yugoslavia, lots of Americans knew we were on the wrong side. We don't have any more control over our government than you Europeans do.

ZionistYoungster said...

The Raccoon, regarding Kahane:

I'm not a full Kahanist. I agree with most of his ideas, but not all. For example, he called for expelling all the Arabs, while I say only the Muslims (non-Arab as well!) and those non-Muslim Arabs who throw their lot with them (e.g. Marxists like Azmi Bisharah) should be driven out.

As for dishonoring our culture, tradition and religion-- Judaism isn't kumbayistic, sorry. There's Numbers 33:50-56 as a good example of how the Torah commands ethnic cleansing. And there are the statements of our sages, such as the one from Tanchuma: "Have no mercy on them, for they will surely have no mercy on you". The bleeding heart of the civilized person, the heart that calls for showing mercy even when the mind knows the other side would take advantage of that in order to stab in the back, is the soft underbelly, the prime weakness, of the types of LGF. Even those of them who think deportation should be a legitimate subject are averse to supporting expulsion of all the Muslims.

But unless a workable method is found of sifting the (few) moderate Muslims from the (majority of) jihad-supporting ones, expelling them all, from within and near all non-Muslim states, is the only way to lasting peace. And in that, Kahane was right. Hundred percent right.

("Ger", by the way, is a non-Jew who lives in the Land of Israel while recognizing that it is under Jewish sovereignty. Of them, the Torah commands most emphatically that they be treated fairly. The Pretendestinians, however, do not fall under this category, for they reject the idea that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews. They are therefore not "gerim", and of them the Torah commands that they be expelled.)

God bless.
ZY

Henrik said...

"As for what happened in Yugoslavia, lots of Americans knew we were on the wrong side."

That's good. Perhaps then, you could petition your government to refrain from creating a Wahhabi-mafia controlled state in Kosovo? Please...

"We don't have any more control over our government than you Europeans do."

I have contemplated this, and believe you have significantly *less* control, in that there's no way, except the heavy process of impeachment, to get rid of a bad government before elections. In most countries in Europe, they hit no-confidence votes when they really mess up (at least in principle), and will have to resign or call fresh elections.

The US government tends, in my eye, to become much too elitist. It's a problem.

Roy said...

There are many in the US who have been rendered incapable of discussing race objectively. But one who does so quite eloquently is the black American author Shelby Steele in his book 'White Guilt'. It's a good expose of the dysfunctional and debilitating psychology that many Americans (and European multi-culti advocates) that does a disservice to all concerned and society as a whole.

White Guilt
http://www.amazon.com/White-Guilt-Together-Destroyed-Promise/dp/0060578629/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_ttl_in/103-3694423-5976644

Keep up the good work in the defense of Western Civ, Fjordman.

Morgenholz said...

I just looked over a thread at LGF from last night. (I of course can not join in, having been purged). I won't repeat what was said in the comments about some of the people here, but suffice it to say that the head lemming has taken the leap, and the crowds are edging toward the abyss behind him.

USorThem said...

Druu222

Sorry to attribute the list to you. My error.

Re: your other comments. I never said we had to declare war on Islam or war on Islamo-Fascism. I said it was important to correctly identify the enemy, which we have not. You commit the same error as Charles Johnson and Bush in your comment when you say "...I would love to be purist and call it as we see it, a war on Islam's radical wing overall,..."

The problem is not Islam's "radical wing". It is Islam itself.

According to you it seems, we should not identify the enemy as Islam because "...every single ally in the Muslim world, from Turkey to Bahrain to Indonesia, would likely be lost to us."

These countries are no allies when it comes to fighting the global jihad. They do not help us in this war.

Morganholz

I agree that Iraq has a bearing on the War for Europe. That is why I post my comment about it in this thread. It is directly related.

You use the term "War for Europe" and that is accurate. Can you name a single politician in the U.S. who has ever used that term or anything similar? Would you speculate as to the reason why it is not discussed at all? It has little to do with a supposed rise in neo-Nazism or anti-semitism of white Europeans. I believe it is because of an obsession with fighting the "war on terror" in Iraq. GWB has made Iraq the central battleground for fighting the global jihad. Our current leaders have bought into that theory when it is not correct.

Europe is more important than Iraq.

druu222 said...

usorthem - I would have to diagree that we have no allies in this war in the Islamic world. I think that is terribly simplistic. Do not ignore the fact that many, including governing powers there, and this certainly includes a great Iraqis of late, see Al Queada and their ilk the way many Christians would see David Koresh of Waco or this Fred Phelps idiot. The difference is that Phelps is picketing funerals with 'God Hates Fags' signs, and AQ is killing them and their children and their grandchildren.

I do get your point, that Islam is not just Christianity with a different face, but something wholly different, and even inherently politically driven and imperialist. Yet if I may paraphrase Mr. Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the world you've got."

There is no way in hell the West, current version, will go to war with Islam as a whole. No way, no place, no time, no how. Asking them to would force them to truly choose "them or us", and y'know what? Millions of fat, happy, and free non-Americans, and not a few Americans, would choose THEM, since "we are the problem".

And we would lose. Huge.

And the fault, Dear Brutus, is in ourselves and the appalling cultural drivel that we have been rotting away our foundations with for 40 years now. I submit that had we not been doing so, it's not that we would be better placed to fight this war, but we would not even be in this war to start with! Our enemies would have a whole different reading of us, and it wouldn't be favorable to them.

Maybe events will force a change, but right now, today, this is the reality that Mr. Bush must deal with, and must fight this war with.

ZionistYoungster said...

druu222,

You say: "I would have to diagree that we have no allies in this war in the Islamic world. I think that is terribly simplistic." I agree it's terribly simplistic. Sometimes the truth is terribly simplistic.

You say: "Do not ignore the fact that many [...] see Al Queada and their ilk the way many Christians would see David Koresh of Waco or this Fred Phelps idiot". Not according to the data at hand. And that's the most recent find; there've been a lot in that vein for years. Behind the "moderate Muslim ally" fallacy is the anachronistic fallacy, which assumes that the Islamic world has undergone the same processes as the rest of the world. The truth is that the Muslim world is about where the Christian world was in the 13th century. Read about the life and thought of the common Christian man in the Middle Ages, make the necessary adjustments from the Muslim world, and you'll get a picture pretty close to what's going on in the Muslim world today. A small case in point: Eat in front of religious Jews on Yom Kippur and you get angry stares and shooings; do the same in front of Muslims on fasting hours of Ramadan, and you'll be lucky to get out alive.

You say: "There is no way in hell the West, current version, will go to war with Islam as a whole." Then I am sorry to tell you that that's the way things already are. The fact that the West doesn't think so, and that the war doesn't manifest itself only in the violent way (the Demographic Jihad, for example, is dangerous enough), makes no difference.

This isn't a "hearts and minds" problem. What do you make of the Kosovar Muslim terrorist attempt on Fort Dix? Or of Kuwaitis on the Hajj cursing the USA? Don't you get it that every Muslim child is indoctrinated to hate the non-Muslims, no matter how great the favors they do him? It's not about what we do, it's about what we are. And since the basis of this conflict is ideological, there is no choice but to confront the ideology. And the first step, since we're really in dire straits and don't have time to wait for a reformation of Islam, is to expel them all from our, non-Muslim states. It's basic safety.

I go now to the Sabbath, won't be online for 25 hours. God bless.
ZY

Morgenholz said...

UsOrThem,

I believe we're on the same chapter, if not the same page.

In April 1775 British forces entered Concord in their pretty red uniforms and in nice, neat lines. They were appalled by the militiamen who fired from behind trees, buildings, and stone walls, sniping at them in their retreat. How cowardly! They do not fight us as men!
The militiamen fought a very different war, and won.

There are two very different styles of warfare going on now, but both have the same objectives. In Iraq, as I said, we are occupying the enemies ports, denying them their touchstone. We are altering the politics of their homeland and attempting to stamp out their murderous ideology in it crib. We use guns, tanks, and airplanes, but also money and goodwill. And we are winning there. The Iraq war is essentially over, and the political objectives are well on their way to being met. Likewise Afghanistan. The prize? Geostrategic position, as I said.

But the enemy is doing the same, but by different methods. Americans may not want to admit it, but we are, at heart, a white, Christian nation born of European ideas. We gained our creed from Edmund Burke and John Locke and the others of the Enlightenment. And for us, Europe is likewise a "port of call", a cultural bank that we can go to when needed. The enemy is invading our ports through alliance with leftists, through soft dhimmitude, and through stealth. That is the War for Europe. It remains purely political for now, but the future is unknowable.

To say that "Europe is more important than Iraq" misses the point, I think. It is one war with many battles, and while the Iraqi front goes well, the enemy is through the gates in our cultural homeland, and that is what must be dealt with now.

Morgenholz said...

Gut Shabbos, ZY

Pastorius said...

Is (the whole racism debate) the last stage before the war finally, and inevitably, breaks out?

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/11/last-stage-before-war.html

Gringo_Malo said...

Fjordman worries far too much about the reaction of America to a European fight against Islamization. America is a welfare state that imports most of its manufactured goods and most of its petroleum, and pays for it all with Monopoly money. (America has a fiat currency since 1971.) We can expect the U.S. government to continue monetizing the costs of its endless wars to impose Western-style democracy on Muslims and its outrageously expensive social programs. In the near future, the rest of the world will recognize the fundamental worthlessness of the U.S. dollar. We Americans will then find ourselves living a "Mad Max" society, and will cease to be a factor in any other nation's politics.

IoshkaFutz said...

Ioshkafutz, And I would love to join you at your sad little cafe one day, if for nothing else than to laugh at each other for our silly, provincial differences. In that, I'm sure, we would have much in common. Beautifully put.

Dear Morgenholz,

Thank you for your kind comment. And though I too would welcome you and anyone else here to join me at that café, I'm afraid I disagree with everything else you say. Underneath it all, below the surface of silliness, there are some huge questions (and my keyboard is already begging for mercy).

First of all it's not a "sad" little cafe, but one far happier and altogether grander (as opposed to just merely "big") than all 20,000 Starbucks combined... just as England when it was "Merry Olde England" was a far happier place than the more intelligent, efficient, ecological, sexually liberated, diversified nation she is now (at least judging by the present outflow of her citizens - mostly to Iberia).

What should have been three giant steps towards Shangrila, has turned out to be a nightmare (and it's not all on account of the Muslims, who in this case are only the final injury to a long onslaught of insults). The UK is falling apart. I can't for the life of you tell you what's wrong without going spiritual, because she is the product of freedom and rationality at their finest.

Dear Morgenholz, don't take it badly, but our differences might be provincial, but they're not silly. God and the devil are in the details. They are silly perhaps in times of dire need. If a giant meteor crashes to the earth, we'd do well to put our differences aside and concentrate on our collective need to survive.

Conversely, if a vast new continent needs to be turned into a nation, we'd do well to forget about where we came from, (seeing as we're such a fine mix) and hammer out a document that makes us brave, self-reliant, tolerant.

Everything-to-protect and everything-to-build are extreme situations. America was born of an extreme situation.

To this day America prefers carpenters to "egghead" philosophers and has a strange combination of "horse sense" and "matchsticks in the eyes" like no other country. She still reflects a huge land mass full of bears and savage indians, opportunity galore and with a rather mystical "Garden of Eden" somewhere at the far end.

When she demands that her fine Calvin-based credo become the credo of the world, then it's a sharia of sorts. With - I guess - the American Indians being the Dhimmies. I wonder if the Flemish presented themselves en masse as self-declared Cherokees, if Charles Magic Johnson would stick up for their rights. Would he demand that the Cherokees let them into their casino envlaves?

There was a time, when I was more American than the Americans. I said open all borders, do away with all passports and let the chips fall where they may. THAT is true freedom, THAT is true brotherly love. And it is also utter insanity.

But if race, color, creed, ethnicity, sexual preference are really such piddling things, then what's all this business with visas and green cards?

Naturally the population density of the USA would vastly increase, but I doubt it would approach that of present-day Belgium. At first it would be bad for business, but in short order I'm sure it would be EXCELLENT for business. Certainly it would guarantee all the blessings of diversity and world progress.

What's to hold America with her Calvinist-Sharia values back? Whatever the answer, whatever it is that America would wish to preserve... I guarantee you that it'd be as silly as spaghetti al dente... just some silly little difference that would never stand up to the great principles of her own cracked Liberty Bell.

Baron Bodissey said...

USorThem --

Europe is more important than Iraq.

Hear, hear! I couldn't agree more.

PRCalDude said...

Fjordman worries far too much about the reaction of America to a European fight against Islamization. America is a welfare state that imports most of its manufactured goods and most of its petroleum, and pays for it all with Monopoly money. (America has a fiat currency since 1971.) We can expect the U.S. government to continue monetizing the costs of its endless wars to impose Western-style democracy on Muslims and its outrageously expensive social programs. In the near future, the rest of the world will recognize the fundamental worthlessness of the U.S. dollar. We Americans will then find ourselves living a "Mad Max" society, and will cease to be a factor in any other nation's politics.
You sound like my old man. He attributes all of the manufacturing leaving in the 90s to deficit spending. He does know the economics behind it, so I'll have to check into it. (He also owned a small steel plant in Los Angeles in the seventies, but attributed most of the problems there to workers comp issues and employees.)

I'm cautiously optimistic about Iraq vis-a-vis the way Patreus fights it. He understands counterinsurgency. I will whole-heartedly agree that Europe is way more important than Iraq or anything else. Plus, what will our presidential candidates do if they can't go to London anymore to raise money?

druu222 said...

I'm not sure where the "Europe vs. Iraq in importance" question came from but allow me to chime in.

I was sort of in the "Screw Europe" mode in the darkest days of 2003 - 2006. I'm getting better as that situation improves, and Mr. Bush, for better or worse, approaches the final stretch.

But I stand by something I said then and now.

It does not matter how "important" to us Europe is, if Europeans are unwilling to defend their own culture, a bone-deep root of our (US-Europe) problems I believe. The US simply cannot defend a continent where millions of people not only refuse to participate in that defense, but even actively work against us in doing it.

Should that change, and in Sarkozy et al, we see movement, thank God on behalf of Western Civ, but, I cannot emphasize enough, until enough multi-culti Euro skulls start getting thumped and I mean hard, with the monstrous destructiveness of what they do, America cannot help Europe, no matter how "important" it may or may not be.

druu222 said...

Ok, I think this thread is about played.

Not my blog, so far be it for me to say, but..... THIS is worth a whole new posting.

Via Instapundit and Pajamas Media - Norway's own Ayann Hirsi Ali ---

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/meet_norways_answer_to_ayaan_h.php

That we have come to this kind of behaviour being actually real is an unmitigated disgrace.

ZionistYoungster said...

Thank you, Morgenholz. I'm now back for the week.

Just a small link commentary. Look at this, from Daily Kos, from the diary is LGF is violating copyright laws? (on my radar because it's tagged with the tag "Israel"). The diarist opens with these words:

"For years the neo-fascist and racist blog 'LGF' has been following the footsteps of right wing propaganda sites (such as MEMRI) in posting without permission images and video from middle eastern news agencies, particularly Syrian, Palestinian and Iranian." [Emphasis mine. --ZY]

Well, Charles, for all your efforts at distancing yourself from the "racists" and "Nazis" at Brussels Journal and the like, your arch-enemies at Daily Kos don't consider you to be different from them in any significant way. For there is no truth regarding these politics other than this:

A "racist" is a right-winger who bests a left-winger at a debate. A "fascist" is a right-wing candidate who bests a left-wing candidate at the ballot box.

And no amount of posturing is going to change that.

God bless.
ZY

Robohobo said...

Dan Bostan @ 11/01/2007 6:10 PM said...
"LGF is front group for ADL or SPLC, ie, groups working against the Christian Whities of European extraction."

Dan - Uh, no. SPLC lists the ADL as a hate group! The small-s socialists (SPLC) do not much like the Zionists (ADL).

Natalie said...

"LGFers base their world-view on the existence of a moderate Islam, which doesn’t exist, and on the existence of a large and rabid network of neo-Nazis in Europe, which also doesn’t exist."

Though I disagree with the first point (I don't think LGFers believe in the whole moderate Islam thing), I couldn't agree with you more on the second point. Many European political parties that are anti-Islamic are often branded "neo-Nazi," which is absolutely ridiculous and most of the time totally inaccurate.

Henrik said...

For a wonderful proof that fighting Islamofascism is equivalent to fighing Nazism, I recommend this little booklet:

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/files/NaziRoots.pdf

Charles should just read some history instead of crawling around in his warped mind :)