Monday, November 12, 2007

Who Do You Want in Your Foxhole?

Foxhole

Redneck Texan in the comments on this post had this to say:

I guess I’m late to the throw down. I wasn’t even aware this rift had occurred till the other day, via Pastorius at IBA.

And I have to admit, despite your tireless efforts here, I am way too under-educated on the European political situation to formulate a coherent opinion on the situation as it relates to Vlaams Belang.

So I figured I better start with crash course of Belgium history and the Flemish movement… today’s studies culminated with VB’s 70 step plan. ;-)

I got no problem with it… even though I can’t read it ’cause it’s in Dutch. ;-)

All I know is it’s a plan; I don’t really care how they get there, so long as it achieves the desired results… is there another European Party’s plan for the deportation of Muslim immigrants and their descendants that I can compare it to?
- - - - - - - - -
Sounds to me like some of our counter-jihad buddies don’t have the stomach for what it’s going to ultimately take to REVERSE the Islamisation of the West. They’re living in some kind of fantasy world where we’re going to be able to achieve our lofty objectives within the realm of the current political processes, and without having to endure a constant stream of racism accusations from both the left and the right.

Charles might be right that association with these groups might shine an unpleasant light on us; unfortunately these groups are the only ones, that I am aware of, that even have an effective plan.

To me it boils down to: who do you want in your foxhole? Some crazy bastard who is more afraid of dying than getting court-martialed for violating the rules of engagement, or someone who is reading the UCMJ while the bullets are flying?

Hell, let’s win first… then we’ll worry about who had the high moral ground later.

48 comments:

Simon de Montfort said...

I hope you are in for the Long Haul, D, because it's already rough and it's gonna get Much Rougher. The Cult of Johnson is only the first wave. Wait unitl some media wanker stumbles onto this story--or the Johnson Twist on it

They will find a way to make former leftie Charles look bad and you and the Baron look Considerably Worse,

Deporting alien Muslims back to the Ummah: I love the sound of that on this cold dreary morning...

Robohobo said...

I read the exchange between Redneck Texan and j. Interesting. RT is willing to make a deal with the devil to get what he thinks is right, so is j.

j - There is no difference between the neo-Nazis and the Jihadis. The neo-Nazis are National Socialism retreaded for today's world. The Islamists (Jihadists) ARE the old Nazis. Where do you think Hitler got his ideas for the yellow Stars of David for his jews and yellow crosses for his Catholics? Devine inspiration? He got them from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who the ideas from Islamic tradition. That is the traditional way to treat the zhimmi. Get educated before you come out and start playing with the big kidz.

And RT - what about your own Mexican issues? What you gonna do, hmm? I will not allow you to start shooting people just because you don't like them being in your precious Republic. You have to come to the table with ideas also.

Watching you two is like watching a fight on a playground.

Alexis said...

simon de montfort:

I like your "Clean Your Own Damn House Act".

Seriously, I think one of the main reasons why illegal immigrants take over entire professions is the fear that native-born people get once there is a critical mass of foreigners. It's not only physical fear, but the very real fear of ridicule of being reviled as "white trash" for working at the same level as the "lowest of the low". I think the principal reason why employers often prefer immigrants and especially illegal immigrants is because the employers can not only treat illegal (called "informal" in politically correct circles) employees badly, but the whole system allows employers to depress wages in general.

As for fighting the jihadists, I think we need a few ground rules on what it is we are fighting.

For example, I differ from much of GoV in that I don't see Islam as the essential enemy but rather a system of oriental despotism that uses Islam as its theological underpinning. Although I doubt that Islam will change from being an imperialistic theology of oppression, miracles can happen.

From my point of view, Islamism must be fought for the following reasons.

1. It is a racist proclamation of Arab chauvinism in religious garb.

2. It is an imperialistic force that seeks to conquer all of humanity.

3. It is run by autocrats who tell other people what to do and who they can associate with.

4. It is tyrannical against non-Muslims, non-Arab Muslims, and Arab Muslims who don't come from powerful families.

5. It is patriarchal, where men are encouraged to beat their wives.

6. Like other Asiatic religions, it promotes cousin marriage.

7. It prohibits freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom of inquiry.

8. It promotes suicide bombing.

9. It promotes laziness among Muslims by teaching them they ought to be subsidized by non-Muslims.

10. It is genocidal, seeking to annihilate any people that refuses to be humiliated at the will of any Muslim.

11. It forces non-Muslims to wear silly clothing or insignia, and prohibits non-Muslims from building any house taller than a Muslim's house.

12. It seeks to proselytize and build mosques in free countries while prohibiting or restricting worship by non-Muslims within Muslim domains.

13. It promotes torture.

14. It opposes people having control over their own lives under the pretext of imposing theocracy.


My problem with the neo-Nazis is that they are too much like Islamists. The same argument can be made about Communists and any other faction with characteristics similar to the Islamist fanaticism we face.

From my point of view, it may be permissible to make alliances with unsavory people so long as they are tactical alliances and not strategic alliances. That said, no alliance with a totalitarian partner can ever last, for the totalitarian partner will increasingly disrespect you and treat you as his servant.

Grimmy said...

Is there any real neo-nazi whatever to the organization under discussion?

Seriously. Is there?

It is all too common for anyone anywhere at anytime that tries in any way to stand up against any part of leftist crap, either soft or radical, to be immediately branded as nazi.

Today, in our current language and word usage, nazi, all too often, simply means not communist.

Heck, to many people, especially in europe, to have any patriotic love for your own country automatically brands you as nazi or fascist or fascistnazipigbastard.

Archonix said...

IMOP J and Redneck are both right on points, and wrong on others. The idea that Europe will roll over and die is inconsistent with European history and behaviour. European nations have often been presided over by cowards and traitors who were cast aside at some point as the people of those nations decided to take matters in to their own hands.

The equation of VB with the BNP is false too. This idea doesn't work even at a superficial level; the BNP is statist and leftist, calling for nationalisation of industry and a hike of both income tax and the minimum wage to go along with expelling foreigners. It's a white, nationalist, socialist party and it's authoritarian - it wants to increase government power in order to carry out its satted aims.

VB is rightist, federalist within the confines of the belgian political system and liberal in the classic definition. It's calling for lower taxes, reduced regulation and a removal of unnecessary layers of government. It's a nationalist party, yes, but it lacks the racial element that people seem willing to ascribe to it. Even if it had that racial element its own policies would largely prevent it from carrying out large-scale racial discrimination because its own policies are about reducing government power. No government that reduces its reach in such a way would be capable of racial policies of the sort imagined by the people trying to discredit this party.

And, for the record, strong borders are not a racial policy. The UK had strong borders right up to the start of 97, when we signed Maastricht. We still had immigration but it was on our terms, not the immigrant's terms.

The nazis (since they've been brought up already) had a policy of open borders. Every nation they conquered had its borders forcibly opened. Their goal was a single, united Europe under German leadership, and part of that goal included the free movement of people so that the state could quickly shuffle its peons around to keep the economy running and prevent them settling down. The Babylonians had a similar idea; they conquered territory, carted off the locals and brought in a new lot to replace them in order to create a rootless society.

Nationalism is about history and culture. It's about having roots, being connected to a place by history and family. The BNP, for all its nationalist trappings, ishas forgotten the culture and history that it was born in and trying to apply statist, socialist policies on a nation that has always been liberal-in-the-classic-sense. VB wants th protect the culture it was born in to, and part of that protection involves redressing the imbalance of the Waloon domination of Flanders and addressing the threat of islamic demographic conquest. That's the crucial difference, I think.

And no, protecting your culture is not a racial policy either.

Lex said...

Alexis, can it really be argued that Texan's ideals should be supported by (partially) the idea that "Islamism.....is genocidal" when removal of Muslims from Europe is what is being advocated in the first place here? What, every Muslim in Europe will simply receive an invitation to leave Europe and then do so? Since this is unlikely, this thing that we are told we should be able to "stomach" seems to be the advocacy of forced deportations. I think we all know from the history of such exercises what that entails.

As for neo-Nazis involved, yes they are. They certainly don't make up all of the VB, but like most parties of its type in Europe, the neo-Nazi elements cling to it, are a part of it, and do legitimately cause alarm and a legitimate use of the term (neo-, at least) Nazi. This has been written to me by every Dutch person I know save one, though they also admit that the Flemish have little other choice for a party to choose from if one is Flemish and not a leftist.

I don't think there is that much to really debate regarding ideals of the Nazis when discussing the eradication of a minority group from Europe, though it would be humorous if some of you weren't serious.

Archonix said...

lex, most of what you say makes sense - I, for example, would prefer to see any idea of deportation as an ultimate last resort, before which I'd rather see an effort to assimilate existing immigrants and instill them with a suitable appreciation of the culture they claim to be adopting. The English way has always been to give people the benefit of the doubt, but as a certain man once said, where you're faced with people that want to live their way of life here, it would be wise to encourage as many of them to return to their own lands, where they can live amongst a culture that will be compatible with their way of living.

However, this:

They certainly don't make up all of the VB, but like most parties of its type in Europe, the neo-Nazi elements cling to it, are a part of it

is silly. There's no other way to put it. I know for a certainty that every party in every country of Europe has at least some 'nazi' members, people who were associated with or belonged to racist parties in their youth. Every party has it. Not just parties on the right, every single party. It's not remotely intelligent to pick on particular parties because some of their members might have these associations and then ignore other parties despite some of their members having the exact same associations.

As has been pointed out in these pages, the openly racist parties reject Vlaams Belang for not being racist and for supporting Israel, amongst other things. The accusations of racism come from socialist parties, from the left-wing media and from the EU, all of whom will cry "racist" at the drop of a hat anyway, making their accusations not particularly reliable. Given the treatment by VB from all sides of the political spectrum one has to wonder whether they're maybe doing something right?

More to the point, go ask a neo-nazi what policies he supports and you'll invariably find that they're statist and authoritarian, and broadly left-wing to boot. VB and SD are, to a greater or lesser extent, liberal parties. They get a lot of stick from other statist nationalist and the racially-based parties and the left because of their liberal policies, because those liberal polices aren't about blood and soil nationalism and race but about preserving the rights of the individual in the face over an overbearing state and overwhelming and unwanted demographic shift.

Snouck said...

Lex: "I think we all know from the history of such exercises what that entails."

Snouck:
Maybe you would like to tell us what examples you would LIKE to draw from history's ledger, Lex.

And then you can tell us what lessons you would LIKE to draw from those examples.

And then we know hat you would LIKE to happen to the Flemish and Europeans in general.

Further I second Achonix. The "Nazis in VB" meme is guilt by association.

If ther had been just 10 just men in Jericho God would not have destroyed the city on account of the 10. How many just men does VB need in order for Lex to allow the Flemish to choose self-preservation?

Regards,

Redneck Texan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Redneck Texan said...

Well, what exactly is the ultimate goal of our counter-jihad efforts?

Do we even have one?

I think we're currently in the "raising awareness" phase....and some of us are selling more advertising space than others during this phase. ;-)

But OK, lets say that the day arrives where we have educated everyone we can to the dangers of Islam.......what then?

Whats the next step?

What good does it do to raise awareness if the society we are trying to warn refuses to act in time?

Are we doing this just so we can sit back and say "I told you so" when the Muslims finally have the necessary strength in numbers on western soil to force their values into legislation?

Personally, I am trying to incite the violent backlash its going to take to preempt their plans, and that does at times put me in an awkward position when arguing with those working under the false perception that there is a non-violent solution out there.... but they just dont know what it is.

So take this chance to think the counter-jihad all the way through to its conclusion.....how does it end?

I am not suggesting my guess is any more accurate than the next guy's, but what I see happening is that Europe will fail to stem the problem long enough for the Muslim population to reach that 15% to 30% threshold. Then they will start demanding representation that reflects their Islamic values, and when they dont get it......well you know how they operate..... they'll have armed youth gangs out enforcing Allah's will on the streets of Europe, just like they do everywhere else Islam comes into contact with an indigenous culture.

That will force the non-Muslims to reciprocate..... Then your going to have a bunch of Lebanons and Bosnias. Political parties with armed wings. Parliamentary paralysis.

Thats basically what you had in Germany between the wars, street battles between the right and left, and a public clamoring for a party that will be brutal enough to stop the fighting.

The reason I am less afraid of the far right than I am the Islamists is that history has proven that the far-right always, over time, crumbles away. Its a "political" ideology, and you can subdue a political ideology by firebombing the leadership's bunker when they get out of hand.

Islam on the other hand never gives up the fight and rarely cedes occupied territory. You can kill every single leader but the ideology remains persistently violent.

You cant defeat a violent religious ideolgy......but you can beat it back from the Gates of Vienna.....and you can deport all adherents and sympathizers. In fact they came to Europe in search of a better life, to escape the poverty and violence of their homelands.....if you can convince them that Europe is more dangerous for them than their point of origin.....many will deport themselves...... the rest can be used for backfill.

So really, all we need is a catalyst to light the fire. It could come in the form of a major economic slowdown, a major Islamist attack, or just escalate from tit-for-tat street level violence......the far-right seems better suited to start that fire than any other group in Europe.

stv said...

I really don't understand why someone who wants to live amongst his own kind in his own country is a Nazi/potential Nazi. If someone was allowed to squat in your lounge on the say-so of some government lackey, would you be a Nazi for wanting to see the back of him?

John Savage said...

Lex, you wrote:

"Since this is unlikely, this thing that we are told we should be able to "stomach" seems to be the advocacy of forced deportations. I think we all know from the history of such exercises what that entails."

I think we all agree here that the punishment should fit the crime (if there is any). In the case of preaching the takeover of a European country and essentially a revolutionary overthrow of its government. Replacing a (mostly) secular government with a sharia regime is a revolutionary act, and advocating it is treason. I would suggest that forced deportation is a reasonable punishment for treason. I would defend the deportation, for example, of German minorities following WWII from countries like Czechoslovakia, where the German minorities had shown they were loyal to a foreign state.

If you want to make the case that there's something inherently totalitarian or genocidal about mass deportation, make your case. You appear to be making a slippery-slope argument that deportation, even for just cause, leads to genocide. If I were to make a parallel argument, I could suggest that having the death penalty inevitably leads to state-sponsored mass executions, for instance.

Alexis said...

RT:

You cant defeat a violent religious ideolgy......but you can beat it back from the Gates of Vienna.....and you can deport all adherents and sympathizers.

Hmm. Are you telling me that Mara Savatrucho (MS-13) cannot be defeated?

Of course you can defeat a violent religious ideology. The Roman Empire defeated the Samnites, the Carthaginian Baal worshippers, the Druids, and the Jewish Revolt -- twice. Ever since the destruction of the Second Temple, Judaism has never been quite the same. The Byzantine Empire had a special rite to allow a Muslim to voluntarily abjure his faith. Although the Byzantine Empire was eventually defeated, not everything the Byzantines did was a bad idea. I also know as a matter of historical record about a Muslim village surrounded by Christians that had no chance of conquering its neighbors whatsoever. The local Muslims eventually assimilated and became Lutherans.

The recommendation you make has worked before. That is what the Spanish Inquisition was for. Spain's crackdown on Jews, Muslims, crypto-Jews, and crypto-Muslims was highly effective in its intended aim. Although acting just like the Spanish Inquisition goes against much of what United States Constitution stands for, it is highly effective in achieving limited aims.

I do not argue in favor of a reckless immigration policy that promotes illegality while ignoring assimilation. I also argue in favor of deporting illegal immigrants (a.k.a. foreign invaders). And let's not forget that since some of the September 11 hijackers were "visa overstayers", they were illegal immigrants! That said, I am not so pessimistic to think that a violent religious ideology cannot be defeated. Ideologies can lose their violence or violent people can change their ideologies.

Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism can be legitimately regarded as Christian heresies. (That was certainly Berdeyev's view.) And it should be no surprise that Marxist apocalypticism would have special appeal for Jews and Shi'ites. Yet Communism was eventually defeated without any mass deportation. I don't think deporting Jews would have been a good idea even though Jewish Communists were responsible for sending America's nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union and even though such deportation would have been popular in some quarters.

So, I favor intelligent domestic policies and intelligent foreign policies that both enhance both our short term survival and long term chances of defeating our enemy. As it is, I see Islam's intolerance toward non-Muslim proselytizing as a sign a weakness, a frank admission that Islam cannot compete as an idea on a level playing field.

Paul Green said...

Redneck Texan:

Let not your desire to “incite the violent backlash it’s going to take to pre-empt their plans” tempt you into jumping the gun. Recall what Timothy McVeigh accomplished with his own brand of violent backlash in 1995: the re-galvanizing and re-legitimization of the Clinton White House, which enabled it to thwart the designs of the newly-elected GOP congressional majority and win re-election in 1996.

Actually there is a “non-violent solution out there,” one long employed (though weakening now) by the Turks and still employed by the Chinese: strict governmental regulation and, where necessary, repression of Islam. This would include monitoring mosques, censoring sermons, and detaining or deporting militant clerics. If the dangers of untrammeled Muslim militance become widely appreciated, the political and Constitutional obstacles to such a regime may be surmountable – possibly with arguments such as I raise here.

But this will require a patient campaign of education and organization, not acts of cathartic adventurism that would only enable diversity ideologues to sic the "homeland security" apparat on the Counterjihad.

Epaminondas said...

An alliance with those who make ethnic nationalism, CODE WORDS if there ever were some, is NO DIFFERENT from the islamozoids from the moment of the rise of you know who in the 30's, to swallow whole cloth all the of ideas of same as a tactical alliance to further their cause against the Zionists and jews.

We are defending NO ETHNIC IDENTITY (at least I am not), NO ETHNIC MAJORITY, and NO ETHNIC NATIONALITY. We are defending the idea that the PEOPLE and nothing else are sovereign.

The arabs despoiled forever any justice in their political causes by allying with racism as a tactical idea.

There is going to be NO EXCUSE for damaging the cause of anti Khomeinist and salafi freakdom by allying it to those who make the cause of ethnic nationalism supreme as a tool to defeat jihadis.

To have read yesterday Mr Belien defending just precisely this opened my eyes, and decided this for me. Europe heritage in not america's. There is reason why we are all the children of refugees from there. We, here, are of those who could not participate in the ethnic party, one way or another.

This is not FDR making alliance with Stalin. This is to allow the salafi and Shia cretins to CORRECTLY CLAIM this entire movement is tainted (at best) by racism, or driven at worst, by it.

Ethnic nationalism is a society's ability to guarantee EIN VOLK.

Convince me otherwise.

Please

ENGLISHMAN said...

Christendom has been at war with islam for more than a thousand years,and we survived because we had the common sense to meet brutality with brutality,for a millenium our predecessors knew that no compromise with islam was possible,because they meerely bide thier time and re-group for the next onslaught,our enemy is implacable,and our danger is heightened through people dancing around the issue with big long words that signify nothing but the inability to grow a spine and rid ourselves of this scourge,the muslim has no qualms about killing ,raping and beheading thier enemies,why should our society treat them in any humane manner whatsoever,we can not defeat them by being "nice",we must present them with an ultimatum leave or your fellow muslims will be able to see the pile of your bodies from mecca .

Lex said...

As usual, Epa said it better and before I could. When I said months ago that this movement was radicalized beyond repair, I was more correct than I could know. Good heavens, there is someone here who wants to get rid of Mexicans in the U.S.?

This thread has proven my points better than I ever could. All I ask is that the link to my blog (be it mostly destroyed and dormant as it is) be removed from this site.

And if you can convince Epa, I'd like to see that effort.

Archonix said...

Epa and lex, you seem to be missing the fact that we're fighting on two fronts here. We have Islam on one, and we have supra-national socialist government from the EU on the other. They are allied with each other to such a degree that the only response is to encourage a resurgence of national loyalty, first to fight off the internationalist European Union and then to fight off the internationalist threat of Islam. Possibly both goals will be achieved at the same time.

This is nationalism in the true sense, as the preservation of the national right to govern ourselves as we see fit. It is not "ethnic" nationalism, it is not "racist", it is the preservation of our culture and our rights, and that culture and those rights can be shared by anyone, black, white, red, anyone. I know a man named Sam, pastor of a church I visit, and you can tell from his accent and his manner of dress that he was off the boat 30 years ago. He's Nigerian. Despite all that he's culturally as English as I am because he chose to make himself so. Culturally he's even a Lancs lad, he could easily have been born and bred in east manchester. At the same time I know others, who are really wonderful people, but who refuse to adopt the cultural norms of this country and refuse to adapt to the host culture. They push for more islam, more sharia without ever stopping to think that they're destroying the very things that they claim to came here for. I'd give them a choice. Adapt or leave.

By all means call this racism if you like. You're wrong to do so but, then, you have the right to be wrong.

PRCalDude said...

Good heavens, there is someone here who wants to get rid of Mexicans in the U.S.?
Given the amount of crime and ethnic nationalism they bring with them, add me to the list of people who'd like to see them all deported, and anchor babies to be declared non-citizens and deported as well.
Actually there is a “non-violent solution out there,” one long employed (though weakening now) by the Turks and still employed by the Chinese: strict governmental regulation and, where necessary, repression of Islam.
Turkish secularism is a relative and ever-diminishing flash in the pan. The Muslims have a much higher birthrates than the native population, which makes suppression of Islam at best a temporary solution. Given the demographic situation, this would have only worked in the 70s and 80s. Too late now.
We are defending NO ETHNIC IDENTITY (at least I am not), NO ETHNIC MAJORITY, and NO ETHNIC NATIONALITY. We are defending the idea that the PEOPLE and nothing else are sovereign.
What are "the people"? Who are they in this case? For that matter, what is a nation? I don't think you've worked this out well in your head.

In this case, the non-Muslims are pretty much all white Europeans. The Muslims are Turks and North Africans. There you have it: an ethnic divide that also corresponds with the religious divide, and there's no way around it.

It's certainly telling that the same people that blast the idea of ethnic Europeans defending themselves say nothing about the countless identity politic groups found in these majority European countries, especially in the United States. If you want to have a standard, apply it equally.

Do we have any examples in history of multi-ethnic nations remaining cohesive for long? China is China because it's made up mostly of Han Chinese. Same for France. Same for Italy. Same for Israel.

Epaminondas said...

Arch..if it was I that held forth the flag of 'ethnic nationalism' you'd be somewhere ..but it is Paul Belien who said..."The diminishing future of ethnic Euros everywhere is at stake".

That's not some claim by Mr. Johnson, it's Belien sounding the trumpet over the central issue (to him).

I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ETHNIC EUROS.

I care about this, posted here today: "I agree that stoning is a cruel punishment, but it doesn’t change the fact that according to Islam the practise has been ordained by our Creator. We are not in a position to change this. Things that are stated unambiguously in the Koran or by the Prophet Mohammed are not open to debate among Muslims. The moment we would accept to discuss these matters, we at the same time would have declared that we do not believe in Allah and his messenger and in doing so we would have put ourselves outside Islam.”

That is what happens when the people are not sovereign.

If a million asians and latinos a year come here, but buy into 1789, it's FINE BY ME. This nation hasn't been the same for even ONE generation.

I don't call it racism, I don't have to. Belien has. It's not about rejecting the intolerance of Islamozoids to that leadership, that is just one face of their battle

The USA is not like Europe. It has never been more obvious. And it is the USA prcaldude that is multi ethnic and worked it out, so far,,,DK GOODWIN quotes Frances Trollope on an early tour of the USA noting with horror, that 'any man's son might grow up to be the equal of any man's son'

I have that difference WELL WORKED OUT IN MY HEAD.

With every additional comment the divide on race is more and more clear. The objectives of europe more and more different from those of most americans (who are ULTIMATELY ALL CHILDREN OF REFUGEES, yes?)

And Israel is AFRICAN, ASIAN AND EUROPEAN .. the idea that Israel is homogeneous in any way is not factually correct.

Baron and Dymphna, take heed.
I worked in civil rights in the 60's ...I have heard all these mental, ethical , and moral gymnastics before. The people railing about their ability to preserves the ethnic identity of their 'group' as a right sound just like this but of course, they are really this

Archonix said...

Define ethnic.

I don't see ethnicity as about race but about culture, despite what some blowhards and race-baiters on the left might think. Now where you come from, ethnicity means race and nothing but race, but here it means culture too, and a myriad of other things that can't be boiled down to just the colour of someone's skin.

An ethnic Israeli would be someone who identifies as an Israeli, adopts the cultural norms of Israeli society and lives as an Israeli. An ethnic european doesn't strictly exist, however they could be defined as anyone - anyone - who identifies as the citizen of a European nation, who lives within the cultural norms of that country and conforms to its societal behaviour.

I am by shades ethnically British, English and Anglo-saxon. Only one of these could be construed as a race but all three are ethnicities. I am racially white, but that doesn't matter a jot.

Once again it appears the dictum of two nations divided by a common language holds true. You see racist where anyone here would see someone speaking about preserving the existing culture in the face of a threat to that existence. In my country we are speaking of a millennium, a thousand years, of culture and history that will be wiped out by these people, and you say you don't give a damn? There are replies I could give to that but I expect our hosts would not be too happy to read them.

There is an added dimension to this. If we are indeed forced by people like you to bear this cross of racism then people like you must also bear that cross. The policies of the US government immediately following world war 2 promoted and cemented the concept of racist european society far above and beyond what actually existed for reasons that I have never understood. I suspect it's opartially down to misunderstanding what makes Europeans tick and partially down to the fact that the US government of the day was actually only a few shades to the right of Lenin. That US government supported, nay, required the creation of educational policies that instilled guilt over racism in to people who deserved no such guilt. It was the multicultural movement spawned and bred in the united states, and exported here, that caused so much of the multiculti madness that is behind all of our problems today. The United States supported the creation of the european union as a bulwark against the soviets, and we all know what a mess that monstrosity is turning out. In short, if we are damned forever as a racist hellhole then by god, sir, you are damned with us for your actions in making it so.

PRCalDude said...

I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ETHNIC EUROS.

That's certainly compassionate. Will you at least allow them to care about themselves?

That is what happens when the people are not sovereign.

What do you mean by that? The Muslims have certainly chosen to follow shari'ah law.

If a million asians and latinos a year come here, but buy into 1789, it's FINE BY ME. This nation hasn't been the same for even ONE generation.

Ok, well they're not. The Founders of this country are lumped into the 'Dead White Male' category by the very same people (mostly Latinos) that you don't care enter your country. I'm sure that nothing would convince you of this, but the Latinos are not assimilating. They're balkanizing. If you doubt this, perhaps you belong in the Linda Chavez camp of conservatism.

The USA is not like Europe. It has never been more obvious. And it is the USA prcaldude that is multi ethnic and worked it out, so far,,,DK GOODWIN quotes Frances Trollope on an early tour of the USA noting with horror, that 'any man's son might grow up to be the equal of any man's son'

You've committed a category error here. Trollope was referring to social mobility and egalitarianism, not race. If you're love for the ideas that founded this country is so deep, let's see how far it goes. The first immigration law passed in this country in 1790 stated that "All free white persons" could immigrate here. So yes, America has always been multi-ethnic, but always majority European.

With every additional comment the divide on race is more and more clear. The objectives of europe more and more different from those of most americans (who are ULTIMATELY ALL CHILDREN OF REFUGEES, yes?)

You'd have us pretend it's a non-issue, and you're also trying to stifle debate by carelessly throwing around charges of racism and appealing to your absolute moral authority as a former civil rights worker in the 60s.

Not everyone who came here was a refugee, and I'm not quite sure why that's an issue, unless you're trying to suggest that we're duty bound to take in whoever claims refugee status. Ok, we're now doing that. We've got thousands of Somalis and Muslim Ethiopians coming to our country now and re-creating the conditions that caused them to leave in the first place. I'm afraid we'll need better admission standards than refugee status.

And Israel is AFRICAN, ASIAN AND EUROPEAN .. the idea that Israel is homogeneous in any way is not factually correct.

Yes, but if it is no longer majority Jewish, then it will cease to be Israel. Usually, when a foreign ethnic group moves into another country and displaces the indigenous people, we call it "ethnic cleansing" or "an invasion."

I worked in civil rights in the 60's ...I have heard all these mental, ethical , and moral gymnastics before. The people railing about their ability to preserves the ethnic identity of their 'group' as a right sound just like this but of course, they are really this

There are definitely some gymnastics going on here. Tell me, have you begun your crusade against the National Council of the Race yet?

Epaminondas said...

I haven't defined it, arch... Mr Belien did.
HIS EXACT WORDS leave little doubt, and perhaps you need to differentiate yourself from that .."ethnic Euros". Not those who have adopted liberal (classically so) western values, not those who have, like Ayann Ali the compulsory need for truth and freedom, yadda yadda. There would have been a million ways to say that. But he didn't. He said it as the Serbs meant it. As the CCC means it.

As I get what you are saying, you don't mean the same thing as Belien. Neither do I.

I have 'formally' if you will, now broken with that, and with such people. Defending the process which began with Runnymede does not mean defending white culture, and this is what you have said.

Belien means to reject Islam because it means the death of his culture of EUROPEAN origin (which is white), and thus defeating it kills the racist, imperialist, intolerance the ascendant (Qutb-esque etc) form of Islam IS. But is that a corollary or the main reason?

I reject it because it, itself is racist, intolerant, and imperialist, as for the culture, as is well known, and as an american, we have none. One year it's Aaron Copland, and the next, Snoop Dogg. And so we are saved.

How's that for being a superior A-hole?

Archonix said...

Replace "ethnic europeans" with "the jewish people".

Believe it or not we are in a fight for our survival. If the way that's express offends you then you can go f*ck yourself.

Lex said...

PRCAL--you decry the Mexicans, yet many of these are Mexican Americans with families living in Texas long before Redneck's family probably got there. I know, I know, I sound like my old crowd of friends now. But when it's the truth, it is the truth. As for the other Hispanic groups, who's next for you, the Cubans? Puerto Ricans? Will you just jump on this band-wagon of Belien & Co.'s and condemn an entire swath of people in the process of becoming Americans?

Oh, BTW, you're commenting back at an assimilated Greek/Cuban/Anglo American. And yes, people said the same thing when the Irish were coming in in droves and the Italians, so pardon me if I don't take your words very seriously regarding immigrants to the U.S. There are always those of your ilk while the process is ongoing, and who say "but it was different" when someone brings up the "Know Nothings" of yesteryear. Do you even realize how this thread looks to Americans of non-white heritage?

OK, the "Islam card" and bigotry. My Grandmother, at 87, still talks with horror about the nice folks who burned a cross in her front yard to remind her Father that "no Greek would ever be Mayor in a town in Florida". This, to a man who had barely escaped the genocides in Asia Minor and his family. Millets; dhimmi. So don't anyone pull that "we're protecting what is ours, as well as caring about the rights of Christians in Muslim countries" crap.

Masks fall, true colors shine, culture is NOT race Anachronix, I'll give you that quite readily. But for most people whose culture is rightly "white American suburban" or something similar (as is mine), creating divisions where they don't belong instead of inviting people in is simply repulsive.

Oh, and everything that Epa said, with a slightly different take on American culture's existence.

Epaminondas said...

prc...I'm not throwing ANY authority around, I am giving you my experience that I HAVE HEARD THESE WORDS BEFORE. I have head these arguments before. I see the reasoning, and the hairs on my neck stand up ..because they echo loudly. In the country clubs, around the pools I spoke with many 'reasonable' people squirting themselves with bit of lemon and oil. Nice reasonable people. They just had this thing ..they supported the constitution, they believed in the vote, they were only defending their heritage and culture, you see. Locally. It just wasn't my business, but please have another lemonade, after all you're not like most of those outside agitators, and stay a while longer.

Nice people. If you shared that heritage. And color.

You can reject that all you want. No skin off me.

As for the law of 1790, so what - a few years later Adams threw a VT congressman into jail for pissing him off. Since WE are sovereign we get to make up laws out of our own head, repeal and change them. BTW, that law you quote sounds as if was to PREVENT any more importation of slaves. I think I'll check that out.

Chavez is a jerk.

Social mobility is based on property (real and intellectual), property has no race. Slaves could own nothing, but we paid in blood for that, and equal opportunity is a constitutional right.

I am not carelessly throwing around any charges .. I QUOTE BELIEN DIRECTLY. He made it about EUROS, not me.

You however, in fact, are a prime example trying to reduce this to an argument about race. You return to this theme over and over. You promote a divide of race that cannot be bridged.

Funny but there was something about that in the that piece of lit, what was it TJ said, when they assigned him the authorship .... ALL MEN, something or other.

Obviously you don't agree. Maybe you want to but you think Roger Taney was correct.

BTW, both the somalians entering here are turning triple toe loops to assimilate, and so is every latino I know....but to be sure I live in as rural an area as you can and be in the northeast. Anecdotal.

I can't speak for the illegals, all of whom belong in jail or back in their own nations.

Ethnic Cleansing as I understand it btw, is when the indigenous, remove those who are regarded by them as interlopers. Not when immigration changes demographics.

Israel is a poor example for any comparison ..because that experience is so far unlike any other, Kurds running a very distant second.

I am not going to come back to this with you.

I am simply giving you my well considered conclusion.

Your counter arguments all come back to this, as far as I can see...

'Race is a valid argument for creating valid action in favor of local indigenous culture'

That is EXACTLY what the CCC says.
EOS

Epaminondas said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alexis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Archonix said...

My "little dance" is nothing of the sort. I am simply reacting to the fact that, once again, I am faced with an oh-so-superior trans-atlantic analysis of that which the author has no understanding.

I am not a gentle man (assuming that was a typo - and no, I'm not jewish either as if that should make any difference), nor am I particularly peaceful, but I do try to be patient and I do try to understand why people hold different opinions.

It's obvious to me that your opinion is based on race as much as you claim Belien's opinion is based on race. Like Charles, like the multicultis, you're nothing but a sanctimonious hypocrite. I would repeat my previous statement on this matter but I believe it would be trying our hosts patience to the limit.

PRCalDude said...

EOS,

You're all over the map with your thoughts. I'm not quite sure how to respond you, but I will say that I haven't made this solely about race. I have attempted to show that changing the demographics of a country will change the country, as we're seeing in the United States. I happen to believe countries are made of a people, not just an idea. It's generally the belief of the Lindsay Grahams of the world that "America is an idea." I definitely don't side with them. I will also say that culture doesn't completely fall from the sky. It comes from a geography, a set of religious presuppositions, and an ethnic cohesiveness amongst a people. This, to me, seems so obvious that I don't really see how you can argue otherwise. When you replace Europeans with Muslim immigrants, the culture is gone.

I do believe that "All men are created equal." The Muslims in Europe seem to be created more equal than others, as do the Latinos here as well as the blacks, who are able to lobby extensively in favor of their own particular ethnic group with no condemnation from people like yourself. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

Ethnic Cleansing as I understand it btw, is when the indigenous, remove those who are regarded by them as interlopers. Not when immigration changes demographics.

Right. What would you have the indigenous do at this point, allow the Muslims to become a majority in their own countries? Where will that lead? Will you just expect the Europeans to leave?

That is EXACTLY what the CCC says.

Claiming my argument is like someone else's is not a refutation. It's called "guilt by association."

BTW, both the somalians entering here are turning triple toe loops to assimilate, and so is every latino I know....but to be sure I live in as rural an area as you can and be in the northeast. Anecdotal.

Heh. What about the Somalis that drive the taxis at the St. Paul Airport who refuse to transport passengers with alcohol or seeing eye dogs? What about all of the Latinos marching on Mayday telling us to "Leave, Pilgrims?"

Alas, there's none so blind as those who won't see.

Alexis said...

lex:

The fourteen reasons I gave for fighting Islamism are also neutral criteria for whether the enemy of my enemy can possibly be my friend. Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy.

Is Vlaams Belang a racist organization seeking legitimacy for its racism? It could be. On its face, Vlaams Belang appears to be much like the Parti Quebecois, whose leader once blamed the failure of the last independence referendum on "the English and the immigrant vote". So, is Vlaams Belang unworthy of alliance? I don't really know. I do regard Charles Johnson as worse than useless as an ally, though.

Charles Johnson's criticism of Vlaams Belang seems much like Romanian nationalists criticizing Alessandra Mussolini. In the twenty-first century, there are two groups known to use the Iron Cross as part of their political insignia -- neo-Nazis and Little Green Footballs. The Anti-Defamation League makes it abundantly clear that the Iron Cross is regarded as a racist symbol.

Then, there are the pogroms. As far as I know, the Gates of Vienna blog does not ally itself with Hindu nationalists. This is not a minor question. Charles Johnson condemns Muslim terrorists who massacre Hindus, but I have yet to see him condemn Hindu terrorists who massacre Muslims.

Does it really matter to Charles Johnson that schools under Narendra Modi's administration lionized Adolf Hitler in their textbooks, or is Charles Johnson only concerned about neo-Nazi indoctrination in Muslim classrooms? Does Charles Johnson oppose Hindu pogroms against Muslims? I have yet to see any indication that he does.

Racist is as racist does. As it is, if the Republican Party doesn't want to get tarred by its association with Charles Johnson and the extremism one finds at Little Green Footballs, the Republican National Committee would do well to drop Little Green Footballs from its blogroll.

Epaminondas said...

All in one...PRC and Arch
EOS=end of story

One cannot refute an argument made on race as Belien did without the refutation being around race. That is Belien et al's choice, not mine. I have made exactly ONE blog post about this in 1600+.

I did not associate you with the CCC, simply stated your argument is theirs. You may make of that what you wish. It may be meaningless, or maybe you need to consider it. Perhaps you will conclude I am a hippie a-hole

As far as trying the hosts' patience, ask them to remove my blog from their links, then.

From my side, THIS IS argument. It is my hope that they will eventually review their thoughts based on the "ethnic euros" goals of certain groups.

I may be sanctimonious, however I think few have found me a hypocrite ...but it does roll so nicely off the tongue as a smear, no?

As far as this "no condemnation from people like yourself. Seems pretty hypocritical to me. " WTF do you know about me? Go read two + years of blog if you wish at my blog. Then talk.

And this "ethnic cohesiveness amongst a people" ..we haven't has a cohesive ethnicity since the blacks were freed. Maybe before, since the Irish arrived, or the farmers elected Jackson ruining the cohesive plans of others. Were we better?

Done in this thread. Unsub'd

John Savage said...

Lex wrote:

"You decry the Mexicans, yet many of these are Mexican Americans with families living in Texas long before Redneck's family probably got there."

Hold it. I don't think anybody proposed deporting people solely based on their ethnicity, or stripping anyone of citizenship (except maybe recent anchor babies). It might become necessary to strip Muslims of their citizenship based on support for jihad. But as far as Mexicans, the deportation would only apply to non-citizens. Once a country has granted citizenship, there's generally no going back except in cases of treason. Hitler of course made an exception to that rule, but no one here has proposed emulating him.

Texas has of course had a strong Mexican influence for its entire history. If I liked that, I could move to Texas. Since I don't, I think I have a right to help keep huge numbers of new Mexicans from streaming in and spreading their dysfunctional culture all over the country.

Archonix said...

Ep... just checked what you were talking about. The post you linked at Brussels Journal on your blog wasn't Belien talking. It was another writer.

Paul Belien did not say these things. I think you owe him an apology.

Dymphna said...

In Comment #1:

Simon de Montfort said...
I hope you are in for the Long Haul, D, because it's already rough and it's gonna get Much Rougher. The Cult of Johnson is only the first wave. Wait unitl some media wanker stumbles onto this story--or the Johnson Twist on it

They will find a way to make former leftie Charles look bad and you and the Baron look Considerably Worse,

Deporting alien Muslims back to the Ummah: I love the sound of that on this cold dreary morning...


Well, the first part of your prophecy has turned out to be spot on...let's see how the rest goes...
*********

Epaminondas said...

Done in this thread. Unsub'd

I get the first part: you're tired of arguing with people who don't agree with you and whom you are unable to convince of the rightness of your viewpoint. I agree, it does get tiresome. However, I congratulate you for your stamina...I always give up after two or three tries...

But what does "Unsub'd" mean? If it's "unsubscribed"...ummm, we don't have a subscription list and we don't moderate comments except for ad hominem attacks and rude language. Since you were obviously intensely involved, I let those slide.

But how does one unsubsribe to something without a subscription? Is that shorthand for you'll never darken our comment threads again?

Ah well...win some, lose some, E.
You're always welcome to come on slumming back should the spirit move you.

John Savage said...

Dymphna,

Actually Blogger just started a "subscription" feature with the comments a week or two ago. There's a box you can check that says "Email follow-up comments to [your email address]". Probably Epa meant he unchecked that box after having checked it before.

Baron Bodissey said...

When the F-bomb hits the thread, I delete it. Archonix at least used asterisks.

Can the name-calling and insults. It does none of us any good.

This was a really great thread for a long time.

Dymphna said...

John Savage--

Now that you mentioned it I did notice that feature.

Well, that's a relief. I was beginning to wonder if it meant "expired" or something calamitous. I mean HE SPEAKS IN SUCH APOPLEXIC SENTENCES, I was afraid a blood vessel had burst.

He used to be such a calm fellow, too...strange. Must be something in the water...

Lex said...

Sorry Dymphna, I see nothing in Snouck's response that warrants answering. He is merely engaging in yet more attempts to justify his own desires by playing relativist games. The comment he was responding to of mine rather summed it up. I'll even repeat, since the memo hadn't reached everyone that I am formerly "Pim's Ghost" and attempts to use my actual name online have been compared to deception. Well documented change, but a "sock puppet" nonetheless, allegedly (and quite humorously).

Here is what I said:

"...can it really be argued that Texan's ideals should be supported by (partially) the idea that "Islamism.....is genocidal" when removal of Muslims from Europe is what is being advocated in the first place here? What, every Muslim in Europe will simply receive an invitation to leave Europe and then do so? Since this is unlikely, this thing that we are told we should be able to "stomach" seems to be the advocacy of forced deportations. I think we all know from the history of such exercises what that entails."

Can it really be argued that you are not advocating forced deportations? Is that not tantamount to genocide, as I seriously doubt that anyone will be checking up on people's amount of true assimilation (hey, it's all just "taqiyya" anyway, right?)? Why not just come out in the flowery language used at this site and say in so many words that you would like the eradication of the Muslims of Europe, or rather Western Europe, as I doubt a siege on European Istanbul by the CVF is unlikely, though a rather amusing image.

Epa called you on the truth. A line has been crossed here. There's no talking sense to anyone here, not with the Queen trying to make "off with their heads" into a haughtily eloquent statement and the Court of Fools unaware of their role as laughing-stocks. As for links, perhaps I should drop one with the Cherokee Nation. I hear they're still rather down on the idea of forced deportations. But ahh, let the CVF enforce it to paraphrase Jackson. Have fun storming the castles and all of that....LOL.

Signed,
Lex, Pim's Ghost's Ghost

islam o' phobe said...

I may be sanctimonious, however I think few have found me a hypocrite ...but it does roll so nicely off the tongue as a smear, no?

You are a hypocrite. "Population transfers" (i.e. ethnic cleansing) are official U.S. policy in the Balkans under Clinton and then Bush II. It was all they could think of to solve the problem was separating people. So would you agree that the U.S. is an instrically racist country? I thought not.

John Savage said...

Lex,

I don’t know what comment you were referring to, but I’ll try to answer for myself.

You wrote:

"Is [forced deportation] not tantamount to genocide, as I seriously doubt that anyone will be checking up on people's amount of true assimilation (hey, it's all just "taqiyya" anyway, right?)? Why not just come out in the flowery language used at this site and say in so many words that you would like the eradication of the Muslims of Europe, or rather Western Europe."

Genocide is defined by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” (source). Thus I don’t believe that forced deportation of Muslims from Western Europe would be genocide, because moving a group is not equivalent to “destroy[ing]” that group. The intent is not to kill any Muslim, simply to remove them to Islamic countries where they do not pose any danger to Western Europe.

I suggested as a comparison the deportation of the ethnic German population of Czechoslovakia after World War II. Germans were presumed loyal to Germany over Czechoslovakia because of their German culture and ethnicity, though not all fought on the side of the Nazis. I do not consider their removal genocide. The intent was not to destroy any group, simply to remove the Germans from the possibility of them being a fifth column in a future war. We are now proposing almost the same thing with Muslims. Muslims, by virtue of their support for a religion that commands loyalty to the transnational Ummah and commands them to wage violent jihad for the sake of establishing sharia regimes in all nations, have a conflicting loyalty that makes them dangerous as long as they live in Western Europe.

You’re right that deportation need not be the first step. Europeans could begin by outlawing the practice of Islam, closing all mosques, and deporting all Islamic clergy. If most of them stayed, then I think it would be reasonable to presume that people were hiding their actual loyalty (through taqiyya, as you say) and stronger measures would have to follow. If most left, then we might be able to presume that the remainder no longer pose a significant danger, and that as long as further Muslim immigration was halted, the problem would be solved.

So my answer is that I do advocate forced deportation of Muslims from Western Europe, and I do not believe it needs to involve mass murder or genocide.

Lex said...

John--forced deportations almost always have historically involved deprivation and death of those being removed from whichever land. Muslims in Europe are already willing to fight, as they have shown. Therefore, I doubt that they will simply do as told. Above, I was repeating myself, and my remark that in this process I doubt if any ethnic Euros will be checking to differentiate between violent extremists who belong to wahhabist mosques and those just trying to keep their heads down. Given the already volatile situation, in the proposed scenario do you really find it likely that no Muslims will refuse and be resisted? Or that no thugs amongst these hypothetical Euros will not resort to killing these dehumanized people? Many forced deportation plans were supposed to go off without murder, starvation, disease, etc., but failed to do so, usually due to those who actually were given the brutish task of carrying out the orders and their view of the said minority as "subhuman". The examples are legion, and given the already existent animosity in this situation, such violence is unavoidable.

Regardless, Epa realized the absurdity of any debate with people this far over the line and I think I will follow suit.

John Savage said...

Lex, I don't doubt there would be some violence, but that doesn't make it genocide. There was mob violence involved in the deportations of Germans that I mentioned, but the majority of scholars don't consider that incident genocide.

You seem to be suggesting that if the Muslims fight back, resulting in possibly a major civil war, the responsibility lies with those who decided to deport them. Needless to say, I don't agree. The responsibility lies with those who violently defied the law and decided to fight rather than leave as the law dictated.

Baron Bodissey said...

Paul Belien asked me to post this here:

'It is not because Charles Johnson claims that I said "The diminishing future of ethnic Euros everywhere is at stake" that I have said this. Mr Johnson claims a lot, but I challenge everyone to tell me exactly where and when I have said this.'

PRCalDude said...

Regardless, Epa realized the absurdity of any debate with people this far over the line and I think I will follow suit.

This is the typical liberal response.

Your comparison between the Muslims and the Cherokee nation is laughable, as the latter was here before the United States was even founded, and had occupied their land continuously since the founding of the United States. In addition to that, the Supreme Court actually upheld the right of the Cherokee to remain on their land. Andrew Jackson was the one who violated the Supreme Court's ruling. That aside, the Cherokee didn't have the ideas of jihad, dhimmitude, and shari'ah as religious beliefs. Their goals weren't global conquest and the establishment of a caliphate under the banner of "La ilaha illallah."

Over on your sight, in addition to all of your complaints about white Evangelicals and WASPs, you've denounced us as a bunch of genocidal racists. I guess I've gotta ask, what are you still doing here? Do you think your hypocritical complaints about 'racism' are going to win anyone over here?

PRCalDude said...


Face it, the acronym WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) doesn't exist for no reason.

SamenoKami said...

This has been a very good thread. Though I came away with the feeling that most of the posts were - 'Live and let live. If we have any problems with the muslims, we'll deal with it when we have to.' What do you do with a group of people whose stated goal is world domination? Who send agents to your country to subvert it and eventually overtake it? Am I talking about Nazis in 1943 or muslims in 2007? Are we supposed to sit around and wait until creeping sharia overtakes the nation as full-blown sharia? Congressman Ellison's election being the shot across the bow. Not to cast stones at Epi's or Lex's comments but - What's your plan? Hope? Pray? Hide? Move? That is not a snotty comment on my part, I really want to hear concrete ideas about what to do. When does a nation take control and responsibility for where the nation is headed? Do we not stop the Mexican invasion and thereby let La Raza re-take the southwest US? When they succeed/secede does the US fight them as they did the South in 1861? Where and when do you/we draw the line and ask the tough and unpopular questions? When is the right time for the politians to stand up and demand a solution? If I vote to deport muslims, am I a racist? Answers?

The Thinker said...

I worked in civil rights in the 60's
____________________________

As if anybody is surprised by that. We can't seem to get away from you liberals no matter where we go, even here in this little corner of the web.

This is what libertarians like you or Charles Johnson fail to grasp. What is good about our civilization, the freedoms, the equality, the advancement, the arts, the freedoms of speech, the civil rights, etc., all of that exists BECAUSE of WHAT we are as People, as a culture, as a race. What you are fighting for, what I am fighting for, is found only in the western, white world. That is no co-incidence. If you want to stand up for all those good things you like about the West, you can not divorce that from standing up for white, western culture. You can't.

Take a globe in your hands. Look at the places on the map where human rights, animal rights, women's rights, worker's rights, health care, etc, are most abused, and then look at where those same rights are almost a fetish, and you will see the lines run according to culture and race.

Don't fool yourself that they don't.

When people like Charles Johnson and his ilk claim to fight the islamic menace on the grounds of freedom, but not on the grounds of race or culture, they are deluding themselves and others that the two are not parallel.

Go back to the '60s. That is where your thinking still resides.