Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Until the Curved Knives Lie Against Their Throats

There’s a new kid on the block.

Welcome a new blogger called summer patriot, winter soldier. Pamela drew my attention to him, and his top post is an outstanding piece of writing (his permalinks don’t work right, so all I’m leaving here is the main blog link).

During the last few months a bitter controversy has raged over which political groups in Europe are acceptable, and which are to be considered beyond the pale for Americans to associate with. Many people have given up hope; they say in effect, “Europe is lost.” Others object to every nationalist party or organization in Europe as “fascist” and “neo-Nazi”, without offering any ideas about who else there might be that will fight vigorously against the Islamization of Europe.

Winter soldier joins the ranks of those Americans who choose to stand with Europe now, and who see the necessity of being inclusive in our alliances. He makes his case with incisive logic and engaging wit. I’ve excerpted the most important parts of his essay below:

let us consider for a moment, just who is going to rise to europe’s defense against the demographic conquest of islam. — will the bureaucrats and advocates of universal sameness who wrote the legislative enactments opening europe up to almost unlimited muslim immigration and occupation, and who have made it illegal for europeans to even speak out against this, or to speak derogatorily about any aspects of islam, will they rise up against their legislative efforts? will they speak out against islamic immigration? will the socialist and communist politicians who find in these immigrants a ready voting block for their perpetuation in office be the first to speak to the defense of europe by islam?

well, we can engage in this series of rhetorical questions until we work our way well over to the right of the political spectrum, before we find any likely candidates to rise to the defense of europe from islam depredation. the key point to be considered in this little exercise, and it seems entirely logical to me, is that we might very well expect european nationalists to be some of the very first people to rise up and vocally demonstrate that they have no liking for the prospect of having islam overrun europe. is there something surprising about this, something so wholly sinister about this situation that i have missed?

more importantly, what is wrong with it?

…is there something inherently wrong or immoral about a frenchman or frenchwoman being proud of being french, and wanting to preserve the attributes of his or her ethnicity and heritage? is there something inherently wrong or immoral about a frenchperson being proud of being a child of the reformation and the enlightenment and a civilization stretching back to greece, something wrong with being proud of being an adherent to western values and not giving a whit about the values of islam? is there something wrong about taking pride in these things, even in a world where we are supposed to accept the worth of the other fellow? and, if we cannot admire our own heritage, then why in the hell do we have to give a fig for the other fellow’s?
- - - - - - - - -
what harm can befall us from association with european nationalists, for it might be expected that as these people gain some influence with their fellows, and most likely to their left because there are just not a whole lot of them to their right, that a more centrist flavor, a more centrist hue, might attach itself to their attitudes, and that they might become indeed more acceptable to their fellow citizens and to us.

[…]

might not a prudent appreciation of the issue associated with trying to help european nationals and nationalists suggest the establishment of criteria to determine when it might be alright to link up with them, to offer them help, to work in league to establish policies and postures by which to oppose islamic expansion. it would not be unreasonable to take a detailed look into the history and current status of party platforms and party goals be in order. it would be prudent and cautious to see if the party recognizes the right of the state of israel to exist, to call for or extend complete diplomatic recognition, to spell out its commitments for its country or the european union to come to the aid of israel if israel is attacked. to satisfy the reasonable concerns of persons worried about attitudes such parties or person have with regards to jews and judaism, it would be prudent to examine the pronouncements of parties and persons with regard to the holocaust.

we are smart people. we understand how to perform these functions, as they are part and parcel of our procedural and institutional lives. all of us know the “ins” and “outs” of advise and consent hearing, background checks and the like.

do we not have the ability to formulate a screening litmus to be applied in a logical and procedurally adept way to make these determinations, to come up with some methodology besides ad hoc panic and hysteria?

[…]

surely there must be some process that could be adopted by persons of good will that would be more orderly and procedurally gifted than a lynch mob mentality run roughshod.

if a political party is burdened by a spokesman who is a ring-tailed unrepentant lunatic, but the rest of the party seems reasonable enough, ought we not in the interests of garnering more people to our cause, allow the party some procedure whereby the offending person is excised from the midst?

surely if legitimate concerns are raised about the suitability of parties or persons, appropriate remedial measures can be crafted to address those concerns, and, if possible cure those concerns.

[…]

right now, the muslims, after 60 years of economic bonanza, provided them absolutely free by the west in terms of cash and by the oil companies in terms of infrastructure, still have no industrial or economic or inventive capacity: they are as industrially inept and incompetent as the first day they stepped from camels to cadillacs. the iranians cannot keep their aviation in the air because in sixty years they haven’t even figured out how to make spare parts. to the same obtains for all the arab militaries, as the arabs have never bothered to figure out how to make anything. have you ever seen one item of arab commerce in any store that you have ever shopped in, except something made with a rhino horn. by contrast, the israelis stole the entire plans and blueprints to a french fighter, and had the thing in the air and operational in a short number of years. by contrast, the israelis have one of the most modern and advanced computer industries in the world, and arms manufacturers, and so on.

by what virtue should the muslims succeed to the power and wealth of europe: in centuries, they have not risen above subsistence economies, and we are going to turn europe over to them without a struggle, or helping in a struggle to prevent it, because we cannot get our white patent leather gloves dirty associating with undesirables?

[…]

consider.—

france and england and germany make some of the best fighter planes in the world, and england makes one of the best fighter/attack bombers ever to take flight. france and england and germany make tanks that are state of the art, and though they might not be quite the main battle tank that the m1 abrahams is, they are not that far behind, and in head to head battle they would inflict casualties on the abrahams, and given enough of them, they could perhaps come out ahead in a war of attrition. france and england and germany and spain, given the airbus consortium, also have the capability of making airplanes with extremely heavy lift capabilities. does that mean anything to anybody in terms of the ability to manufacture strategic bombers?

france, germany, england, spain and the rest of the eu are an economic colossus; again not what they might be were they not staggering under the weight of eu social programming and taxes, but a still respectable economy. think, if you will but for a moment, at the technological riches available to islam at the conquest of europe.

and, oh yes, that other little matter.

france and england have the ability to make nukes, and they have the ability to deliver them, either by air, or by nuclear submarine.

does that give anyone pause?

if you, gentle reader, are reading this and you have not stopped to consider this, than you are probably just a bit obtuse.

france and england have about 200-300 warheads apiece, and the ability to launch them, from off of our shores, from off the shores of israel. given the distances involved in a sub-surface launch from the confines of the mediterranean, israeli citizens would not have a chance to finish their breakfast eggs before the arrival of a nuclear strike.

we cannot give this up to the muslims, not without helping those who would fight it.

[…]

we already know that a considerable segment of the social and political spectrum of those countries will not fight. the left will not, as their intellectual blinders prevent them from seeing the problem, and will do so right up until the curved knives lie against their throats. will the t.v. reporters who perpetuated the fraud of al dhura, will they fight islam? will the leftists who lionized yasser arafat, will they fight the muslims? the politicians and social elites will not, because they think they will ride the matter out: after all, they are saying to themselves in the dark corners and recesses of their minds, not all of us will be killed, some of us will survive.

[…]

what is the worst conceivable thing that could happen by consorting with european nationalists? another hitler? give me a break, the chances of another hitler rising out of all of this is so remote as to be ridiculous. it is preposterous. even so, the chances of this are exacerbated by isolating the nationalist parties, offering them no other recourse than extremism: cooperation with american conservatives who will help them fight the jihad also serves to have persons in place, the americans, who will moderate any tendency towards extremism.

[…]

what is the worst thing that could happen if islam took control over europe? then, my friends, the prospect of another holocaust looms not as an unlikely possibility, but as a scenario which takes on the magnitude of an eventuality.

what is the fate of israel if europe comes under the sway of islam?

well, in all probability, israel ceases to exist. if italy and france go islamic, then almost of a certainty turkey has become a fundamentalist islamic state well before, and israel’s fate is sealed. her strategic and tactical situation is absolutely untenable, and the only thing she can do is be destroyed where she sits.

Read the rest here.

72 comments:

KG said...

Absolutely, perfectly, undeniably right on the money!
At last, the realities of the situation spelled out clearly and the perfect answer to the nit-picking hysteria of Charles Johnson.

Jimmy the Dhimmi said...

is there something inherently wrong or immoral about a frenchperson being proud of being a child of the reformation and the enlightenment and a civilization stretching back to greece, something wrong with being proud of being an adherent to western values and not giving a whit about the values of islam?

Nothing wrong about that statement, because its about ideas and values - which have nothing to do with genetics, ethnicity, or blood. As long as an organization defends values of individual liberty and religious freedom for all, then its fine.

If a nationalist organization does not advocate multi-racialism, then there is a problem.

The Vlaams Belang should have no problem with a dark-skinned person of the name Ackmed Abdullah emmigrating to his country legally, and even joining the organization itself as long as that person reveres and upholds the values of western enlightenment, and explicitly rejects and repudiates orthodox Islam.

Sodra Djavul said...

Jimmy,
What you suggest is an impossibility: an open border policy based on the "honor system." This is precisely the system that has landed Europe and the U.S. in its current predicament.

I don't think you or anyone else coming from this position understands that what you suggest would be powerless to end the slide of Western civilization into third-world backwardness.

What would be your criteria to prove that Achmed Abdullah actually adheres to these values?

What you suggest is that people who have built the strongest nations on earth readily dilute the inheritance their forebears left them by openly allowing in peoples who have never proven themselves capable of sustaining enlightenment values.

Why?

- Sodra

PRCalDude said...

If a nationalist organization does not advocate multi-racialism, then there is a problem.

The Vlaams Belang should have no problem with a dark-skinned person of the name Ackmed Abdullah emmigrating to his country legally, and even joining the organization itself as long as that person reveres and upholds the values of western enlightenment, and explicitly rejects and repudiates orthodox Islam.


And that's all these parties have done, save the BNP. The BNP is pretty much for whites only, and they weren't invited to the party.

But how many dark skinned North Africans etc are going to be joining these European nationalists against their own kind? This is a relevant rhetorical question because the idiot American media will be portraying these European nationalist groups as the Fourth Reich, and those with the "Charles Johnson" mindset will cave into the intellectual terrorism perpetrated by the media and grieving Islamist groups here.

We got duped into supporting Muslim terrorists in Albania, what about this time around?

Ethelred said...

What is with the lack of capital letters?

I ask this after agreeing with the fellow enlightened Western human being who is not afraid to call a Muslim a barbaric zombie.

Chalons said...

'Jimmi the Dhimmi'

That's the best self-loathing moniker I've yet to come across.
I would think you'd want something less defeatist when trying to advance your ideas to people who still have an identity.
But that's just me.

Or was rhyming the ultimate goal?

Afonso Henriques said...

Excellent text, all of it. It is worth reading.

I disagree only with insignificant things, which I think it's normal giving the extent of the text.
One thing I do not agree and I think is of some importance is the Jew question:

Americans use the Israel/Jew mantra to accept/not accept eventual far right activists.

I think it is not all that linear and I think the Jewish question in Europe has not all that importance.

Actually, any one who supports Israel in Europe will loose votes so... many pro Israel will turn against it in order too win elections. The opposite may happen as well if one are desperate from foreign support/capital. (The VB do not want a Jewish Flanders, they think the Jews are a minor evil, for exemple)

Always remember that what is far right in Europe by now was common sense in XIX century Europe. Churchil today would be considered a Nazi himself.

Diamed said...

IQ is genetic, and varies widely between the races. Blacks and Arabs have much lower IQ than the native Europeans. Low IQ correlates with poverty, criminality, child abuse, divorce, illegitimacy, high school drop out, etc.

So yes there's still a problem with Mr. enlightened Akmed Abdullah, unless you also give him an IQ test before letting him enter.

Furthermore you can say it's possible to assimilate different ethnicities into one happy democracy, but the Flemish and Walloons would disagree. They are even less varied than the people you want to import into Europe, and yet still have come to civil disintegration. What gives you so much hope for yet more foreign immigrants? Look at Yugoslavia, USSR, and Czechoslovakia. Small differences between countries that shared more or less the same values still led to civil disintegration. Diversity is never useful or good, it is a poison that spoils the whole well. Mass immigration of intelligent, enlightened Akmeds would still destroy Europe. This is pusillanimous--you don't mind handing over your homeland to foreigners, they just have to pass a quiz first? Gee, thanks.

Johnny the Dhimmi proves Europe really is lost. These are the people resisting Islamization? I'd hate to think who is pro-immigrant then.

Chalons said...

Jimmy the Dhimmi,

It's not the indigenous Europeans who are establishing the 'no-go zones' in Europe.

Ypp said...

I dare suggest an explanation to this controversy about Nazis in Europe.

What do Nazis like? They like blond, blue-eyed tall and skinny boys. Their cleanness is associated with white skin and good health. Those boys are devoted. What do multi-culturalists like? They like hot black men. They like free relations with those men without limitations.

So we are observing kind of clash between two homosexual aesthetics. Especially it applies to Hollywood, where homosexualism is not rare. So my proposal is to stay away from homosexual aesthetics, and from their disputes.

Dymphna said...

Diomed said:
IQ is genetic, and varies widely between the races. Blacks and Arabs have much lower IQ than the native Europeans. Low IQ correlates with poverty, criminality, child abuse, divorce, illegitimacy, high school drop out, etc.

This is so generalized as to be useless "information" about anyone. Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Justic Clarence Thomas, etc., break your mold re race and underclass behavior. No to mention Bill Cosby.

I'll bet each of these men have a higher IQ than you do. Which proves what??

Daniel Moynihan warned that the introduction of the welfare system into America would destroy the black family. ANd so it did. But the white underclass, which feeds off the same gov't teat isn't any better.

It's not about racial IQ. It's about productive behavior.

Get a grip.

I was very tempted to delete your comment because it is simply superiority based on race, which is so wrong-headed as to defy credence.

Tell the black pediatric neurosurgeon that his race causes his IQ to be lower than yours.

What are you? A throw back to the 1930's? Good old white Margaret Sanger would have loved you.

Where are your stats for Asians? How about people who have the genetics from two or more races? How do you classify them?

Don't put up any more racist statements like the one you left here or I'll simply delete you.

Sodra Djavul said...

^___ Huh?

Sir Henry Morgan said...

I just wrote a comment for here and it disappeared to nowhere.

Testing

Jimmy the Dhimmi said...

Sodra:

What would be your criteria to prove that Achmed Abdullah actually adheres to these values?

Well, for one thing he could be a non-Muslim. Lets say Achmed was a Christian from Lebenon, or his name was Kumar, a Hindu from India, or Bampat, a Budhist from Indonesia. Is there a problem then? Because it seems these nationalist groups are not simply anti-Islam but rather anti-immigrant, racialists generally. This is the key distinction that gives anti-Islamists like Chuck Johnson and Robert Spencer much pause.

What you suggest is that people who have built the strongest nations on earth readily dilute the inheritance their forebears left them by openly allowing in peoples who have never proven themselves capable of sustaining enlightenment values.

Dilute? It sounds like you are talking blood and racial purity here.

Are you serious you have never met a non-white person who believes in enlightenment values?

Sodra Djavul said...

Jimmy,
It boils down to who owns a nation. If you believe that America, or England, or France, should belong to the entire world, I would disagree. These nations belong to their citizens, not everyone on the planet.

America was founded for the sake of the descendants of American citizens. This concept is stated quite plainly in the preamble of the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

It seems that some would like to twist this document such that posterity, as used in this context, should somehow be extended toward everyone in the third world, as appropriate prospective citizens. I think that position requires more explanation than mine.

- Sodra

Gaeidhil said...

Lgf is waste of bandwidth at this point and a distraction from the real challenges that lay ahead in the near term.

To paraphrase a quote whose origins I do not know at the moment...

"Any idiot can turn a house into a pile of stones, it far rarer to find an individual that can turn a pile of stones into a house."

Chuckie and company seem to manifest themselves in the first instance. There is no architect on staff, just monkeys with sledge hammers.

Sodra Djavul said...

Jimmy the Dhimmi wrote:
Well, for one thing he could be a non-Muslim. Lets say Achmed was a Christian from Lebenon, or his name was Kumar, a Hindu from India, or Bampat, a Budhist from Indonesia. Is there a problem then? Because it seems these nationalist groups are not simply anti-Islam but rather anti-immigrant, racialists generally.

One other point: to say that someone who is anti-immigrant is a racialist is dishonest. It seems today, with this open borders nonsense shoved down our throats from birth, that if you oppose any new immigration at all, you should be branded a racist or a racialist. I view it completely differently. This nation was left to me, it says so in the Constitution. It was left in my care by the men who founded it and spilled their blood for it. It was not left to Kumar, Bumpat, or Achmed. This nation is my inheritance. Now, why should I dilute the ownership of it? What possible reason could you give me for that?

- Sodra

PRCalDude said...

I was very tempted to delete your comment because it is simply superiority based on race, which is so wrong-headed as to defy credence.

Tell the black pediatric neurosurgeon that his race causes his IQ to be lower than yours.

What are you? A throw back to the 1930's? Good old white Margaret Sanger would have loved you.


I don't think it is just to correlate morality with genetic predisposition. The Bible doesn't support that idea, at all. Smart people are just as likely to be bad as dumb people, except that smart people can do much more harm when they're bad. Look at Mao.

That said, I think it would be untrue to say that the very same environmental factors that caused different groups of people to look differently from each other would have had identical effects on intelligence. It doesn't make sense. It appears that the mind, at the very least, is somewhat akin to the physique: some people put on muscle much more easily than others due to genetic reasons mostly due to shoulder width/hip width ratio, testosterone levels, and tendon insertion points. There are definitely racial group differences in morphometrics, as we see on television when we turn on pro sports. Steve Sailer recently did a post on his blog documenting scientific papers that discussed group physiological characteristics that make black athletes better at sports. It would be absurd to say that such group differences don't exist for intelligence as well. Granted, these differences are most important at the elite level, but they do have some bearing on work performance and income, especially without the requisite work ethic to overcome them.

Epaminondas said...

Europeans need only do 2 things, neither of them racist, ethnic or offensive in any way to preserve their innate cultures, but I predict they will do neither.

Shut off all immigration
Make love without birth control

Time will then solve the rest of the problems.

Otherwise, well you know, as Wellington said... "they came on in the same old way and ...."..Europe has always had one way it dealt with this in the END.

RISE_UP said...

very excellent post

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Dymphna,
I hope that GoV does not go down the Chuckie Johnson road of banning comments with which you may disagree. The objective scholarly studies relating to the distribution of intelligence scores as related to racial groups has been published in various academic venues and routinely attacked by the leftist politically correct crowd. A reference to individual cases such as Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Walter Williams (my favorite political philosophers) in no way refutes the objective distribution of general intelligence scores of racial categories. I had been of the opinion that GoV was above such political correctness as hurling the "racist" epithet at dissenting opinions.

Natalie said...

OK, first of all, I tried to post this earlier, but it did not show up...

Great essay... it was quite long, but I read it in its entirety and I couldn't agree more.

My favourite comment on this post so far is Gaeidhil's:
Lgf is waste of bandwidth at this point and a distraction from the real challenges that lay ahead in the near term.

For some reason, that phrase "waste of bandwidth" makes me laugh. Haha.

Jimmy the Dhimmi said...

Sodra:

So you say your not a racialist, but then you say you do not want any foreign races to migrate to your country, even if they uphold and revere your values, assimilate and pass on those values to the next generation. Whats your problem then? The only thing left is genetics.

So their ancestors may not have shared a common history in the same spacial location as yours. Why hold that against them? Every nation in Europe is comprised of a mishmash of warring ethnic blood lines that go back centuries: vikings raping slovaks, saxons raping anglos, romans raping goths ect... American citizens are also decendants of these rapings, with progeny of afircan tribes raping eachother also mixed in. What rapist are you the decendant of?

I never said anything about open borders. Immigration should be controlled so that only people who share our values are let in. And only how many our economy can sustain. There needs to be a physical barrier between U.S. and Mexico to block everyone else.

Instead of mostly European last names, it is inevitable that the number hispanic-sounding names will increase through out the next 100 years.

As long as this transition happens through legal immigration (and reproduction), and therefore everyone at that time speaks the same language I do now and believes in the same core values that I do about America, abandons their ancestors national identity, and identifies themselves as American and a benefactor of American history (see Jessica Alba). Then I'm fine with that.

Thats why Islam is a problem. Its not about "dilution" of American or European blood. Its about the dismantling of western values.

Queen said...

Europeans are not obligated to become minorities in their own countries simply to prove they are not "racist." Let's face it, it sucks to be a minority anywhere so why would a group of indigenous people deliberately choose that status, just because they are afraid of being called "racist"? I find it telling that the leftoid viewpoint on "indigenous" people is that they are all sacred beings with absolute moral authority on every continent, save one -- Europe. This proves that the left is not simply anti-Western -- they not only hate Western civilization, they hate the people who created it. Us. "White people." They invite multitudes of non-Western people to come to Western lands and then teach them that we are the cause of any and all of their problems and that they should despise us. What's going to happen when these multitudes decide to put the hatred they learn in their tax-payer financed ethnic studies departments to work in real life? Frankly, with the way things are going both in Europe and the US, I am scared for the future of my (blonde-haired, blue-eyed) children. Already my daughter is demanding to have her blonde hair dyed brown because her Hispanic and Asian friends make fun of it. (We live in California where blondes are definitely a shrinking minority.) If worse comes to worse I'd like to be able to think there was still a place in the world -- i.e. Europe -- where people with our coloring are not considered to be "freaks" like my daughter is among her friends. I don't wish ill will to any person "of color" --- but I'd be less than human if I didn't feel discomfort at the thought of all the lands in the world where people who look like me are in the majority, suddenly become lands where we are in the minority. And that is the way it is shaking out.

Jimmy the Dhimmi: Yes, some non-Westerners do adopt Western values but what assurances do you have that if they come to the West in huge numbers, they won't prefer their own values instead? When I was a girl Mexicans were eager to assimilate into American culture, but when their numbers increased to the huge amount of today, they suddenly decided that they wanted to keep their own culture and language. Multiculturalism/multiethnicity in a democracy is a recipe for a disaster. This is because each "group" votes for its own interests at the expense of the other "groups", and little attention is paid to the health or development of the nation at large. This process is well along in the US with all our racial pressure groups like La Raza, Congressional Black Caucus and the like. They don't care about the US, only about their own ethnic group,and vote for laws and policies accordingly. Why would the Europeans want a system like ours, with its racial pressure groups, ridiculous double-standards and bizare, oppressive PeeCee code of behavior that continually changes? History shows that the only way a "multicultural" society can last is under a totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorship, such as those that held together Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Yugoslavia under Josep Broz Tito, or the Soviet Union under Leonid Breshnev.

John Sobieski said...

Excellent analysis of Johnson. The small caps is a bit annoying though. ee cummings did that first didn't he? Caps improve readability but I guess there is a reason.

turn said...

summer patriot, winter warrior has published an apt, astute essay that well-articulates a comment that I recently left at GoV here. (you will need to scroll down to find my mug/avatar and you may want to hit the link to my post.)

Let me put this a little more clearly... if an avowed KKKr or a Black Panther chooses to ally with me in a firefight against 'slammis trying to take my neighborhood/city/country I will welcome his help.

Point closed.

Doesn't mean I'll be ecstatic that he marry my daughter. Doesn't mean we might not have something to settle later.

We can't afford the luxury of thinking like intellectual and moral purists. We must come to think and believe as a nation and culture at war--because we are.

Think of Saving Private Ryan. Vin Diesal's Brooklyn-raised and Catholic Capardo and the young man that acted the part of the Southern-born sniper would never have previously associated on civvy street.

Herein lies something that, on a seemingly unrelated thread, must be taken into account. Individuals of vastly different backgrounds can be made allies, made to find common cause, in a heirarchical system.

In a distributed network?

How?

turn said...

Oh.. and one more thing..

Never, ever come to believe that you have moral superiority above your enemy. That is what he believes--that his moral superiority gives him the 'right' to crouch behind a child as he snipes at you.

War is not moral--it is sometimes necessary--and has been so since we were chimpanzees

War is... war. It is sometimes what we do to insure the future of us against them; of our progeny vs theirs'. To prevent their prevalence against them against us.

Charlemagne said...

For those of you that read LGF you are aware of the routine BNP bashing that takes place there and may have read that Charles and Robert Spencer are friendly if not friends. Well, today on Jihad Watch Robert points out what we've been saying for a long time regarding fighting back against Islamization,"...only groups like the BNP are taking up the slack..."

leadpb said...

If our government had done its job in keeping out illegal immigrants and we had never adopted the wild horses view of legal immigration in 1965, no one would give the subject a second thought. Americans can tolerate a little of almost anything but sooner or later any excess will be met with political and social resistance. However, the longer the period between these stages the weaker we get and the more difficult it is for us to react as a majority group.

Sodra,

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment here. The problem is that ownership is largely by left-leaning liberals right now and even Republicans tend not to be especially conservative on important social issues. Virtually 90% of the people I know, including family, would doubtless recoil in shock and horror at the mention of anything like "Islam is a problem" or that one might reasonably hold negative views of any group based religion or ethnicity. As in Europe, many of these folks are permanently deluded and they would not soften (or rather harden) their views even if their children were being raped and murdered daily by one identifiable group. There is no worse crime than discrimination in their eyes and their numbers have been great enough to see that the laws and the courts and the schools continue to reflect this mindset.

Every citizen does indeed own his own country but this idea is such a no-brainer it seems to register consciously with only a few. After all, what would bring this to a person's attention except strife brought by competing subpopulations? The neocons have been especially destructive in their language about America as an "idea" to venerate and export, rather than a concrete reality with real people and real stuff that needs the constant care of a cohesive, if diverse, constituency in order to thrive.

As the main text of this post suggests, the ideology of liberalism only works when we have the temporary luxury of entertaining its vapid promises. That luxury is getting down to a thin veneer.

Laine said...

I second Queen's analysis. It sucks to be in the minority in most countries in the world. The exceptions are Western countries that were built by whites who are still in the majority. Their minorities are the best treated in the world. No wonder these minority groups are flooding in as fast as anyone will let them.

In fact, most immigrants obtain more rights as minorities in their Western host countries than they had in their home countries as majorities!

Judging by the poor protections that minorities receive in Arab/Muslim countries, China etc., whites will inevitably receive the same unfair treatment if and when they become minorities in what were once their lands. Only whites seem to give minorities equal rights, actually super-rights in the minorities' favor when you add up all the affirmative action programs, human rights commissions that accept no complaints from whites or Christians, more lenient sentences for natives etc.

White leftists have some bizarre fantasy where they end up ruling the world after they aid and abet barbarians to do what the lefties couldn't do even with bloody henchmen such as Stalin and Mao, topple the power structures of the democratic capitalist West. The flaw in their plan is that the barbarians will instead rule them and plunge the world into a new Dark Ages. Not much worse than the socialist/communists' planned Utopia of "Equality" where everyone gets to be an equal serf slaving for a leftist ruling class that wallows in loot, Zimbabwe writ large.

Well, unless there's another capitalist planet somewhere to send us collectivists food and medicine, that way lies mass death of starvation and disease.

Even that's OK with the lefty environuts who imagine themselves surviving the big die off, and communing with pristine nature, undisturbed by other riffraff humans.

It is not a coincidence that the most successful countries in the history of the world doing the greatest good for the greatest number have evolved under white European culture. It is also not a coincidence that races clinging to tribalism have created backward swamps in modern times, such as the entire continent of Africa, every Arab/Muslim nation, and Native N. American populations. As far as Communism's record, check out E. Germany vs West, N. Korea vs South, and a hundred million graves in the past century. Where the tribalists have chosen communism, as in Africa and S. America, the descent is twice as fast e.g. Zimbabwe went from Africa's bread basket to a basket case in twenty years.

Killing the golden goose by overwhelming the successful aid-exporting countries with immigrating failed cultures will also cut off the golden eggs for the Third World.

There is no way of solving this problem as long as even discussion of observable evidence is derailed constantly by bellowing "racist" whenever the evidence is unflattering to non-whites. Leftists have succeeded in cowing conservatives into accepting this one-sided definition of racism as well. Conservative whites are constantly on the defense against trumped up charges of racism, from cultures known for their flagrant bigotry!

The world has gone mad, and if you doubt it, observe the UN's latest organ of "human rights" - composed of the biggest human rights abusers on the planet.

KG said...

turn said:
"We can't afford the luxury of thinking like intellectual and moral purists. We must come to think and believe as a nation and culture at war--because we are."
Says it all, for me.

latte island said...

Remember how exciting it was when apartheid ended in South Africa, and the black majority came to power? I was a liberal then and had high hopes. Things have changed. South Africa is a dump, they can't even keep the electric power on. They have the highest rate of rape in the world. Mostly black on white rape. White farmers are routinely tortured and murdered. This is our future, if we allow ourselves to become a minority. If you don't think so, why? Are South African blacks somehow meaner and more unfair than other third-worlders? Will whites be discriminated against and abused only there and nowhere else?

ScottSA said...

If we lose, it will not be because of a lack of brains, or arms, or strength, but because of a lack of 'we'. Charles' actions are indicative of that lack of cohesiveness, but his ideas are only symptomatic of a much greater evil; the evil of PC.

But it's not just Charles, it's all of us. The charge of "racism" is enough in and of itself to send the most level headed among us scurrying for cover, protesting as an a priori before every slightly dicey proposition: "I'm not a racist, but..."

Witness here, in fact, in this very comment thread, where Dymphna goes after someone who said something stupid...not because they said something stupid, but because they said something "racist."

But what of it? Who cares if someone says something racist? As summer patriot asked in the endorsed article: what is morally wrong about someone wanting to preserve their culture...and their ethnicity? We can parse out what he meant and obfuscate till the cows come home, but we know what he meant, don't we? And what precisely is morally abhorrent about wanting to see blonde hair waving in the breeze throughout future centuries anyway? What indeed?

But it is not whether one objects to a desire to preserve racial homogeniety that is at issue here...it is the pervasive fear surrounding the issue...the fear I myself feel as I write this, the knowledge that this and other postings of mine will come back to haunt me in any public career I may undertake in the future. The real issue is that we can never win against an enemy when we are tiptoing through a minefield of our own making. We have to get rid of the fear of being seen as "racist."

Laine said...

This time of night, I'm talking to myself here, but could we have some kind of forum on racism, where we define it and synthesize rebuttals for common canards?
e.g. "only whites/only people in power can be racist"

rebuttal: Rwanda, Darfur, Kenya, Chinese and Japanese depredations against each other.

e.g. World map of countries by racial homogeneity (which would highlight that all the countries complaining about racism in any Western country are the most uni-racial themselves).

e.g. comparative rights of minorities in USA vs Saudi vs Cuba vs China etc.

e.g. mixed marriages allowed where?

just tossing out ideas here.

We need to start fighting back against an undeserved bad rep. Frankly, North American whites are the least bigoted people in the world bar none. I defy anyone to propose any culture more tolerant of "the other".

R. Hartman said...

@Dymphna,
While I resent Diamed's rhethoric, he does have a point from a collectivistic point of view. Your counterexample singles out individuals, and looking at persons rather than groups is always the better approach.

Having said that, differences in IQ between races in the collectivistic sense do seem to be a fact. But is that a bad thing? Currently blacks outperform whites in sports. While IQ may be genetic, it's also very much dependent on training. A bright mind will go dull if never challenged. So with proper education (and lack of indoctrination), over time these IQ differences may well level out, at the group level.

You will always see individual differences. But you hit the nail on the head: it's not about IQ; it's about individual behavior. Discrimination is fine, even a virtue, but it should be based on the other person's behavior, his/her character, whether or not you find the other sympathetic. It should never be based on race or color of skin.

We need IQ differences in society as not all jobs require the same skill. Bright minds will be wasted on being garbage collectors out on the streets. But the garbage collector may by bright in the non-intellectual sense. He may be a pleasant person, end enjoy working out in the open air. People are different, ad that's good. But race or skin color is not necessarily a factor.

Diamed's Belgian example on how it's not "possible to assimilate different ethnicities into one happy democracy" is invalid, if only because Belgium is an artificial state, where different groups were forced to live together while having no affinity to one another. Non-muslim immigrants have shown that it's perfectly possible to mix different ethnicities peacefully, but it has to be based on moral values and, thus, voluntariness. This is exactly why the EU will fail: it's an artificial political megalomaniac superstate, undemocratically formed over the head of it's peoples, that do not have emotional bonds to each other.

Biggest issue is Political Correctness, that will not allow for well-funded criticism on immoral and intolerant behavior of minorities. Plus, at least in Europe (and growing in America) the nanny state, that will take any useless analphabetic looter as a pitiful individual and start spraying it with housing and free money the moment he/she arrives in the country. And when the courts expel these people, they're being intercepted by the altruïsts of the left, sheltering them and making them totally dependent on their do-gooders.

Sodra Javul claims Jimmi is wrong, stating you cannot have an 'honor-based' open border system. yes you can, but it takes a government that's prepared to insist on the 'honor' part and is prepared to take on the looters and colonists with hard measures. And that's where it's currently lacking, not only in Eurabia, but also in the US. Since US nanny is not as bad (yet) as Eurabia nanny, the issue does not seem to be as grave yet for the States. But that's only superficial.

Diamed said...

What exactly about my comment was stupid? Just curious.

I spoke the absolute truth. This is simply what science has shown us. That isn't racism, but race realism.

Nor is it racism to defend the right of Japanese to keep Japan Japanese, Israel to keep Israel Israeli, or, gasp, Europe to keep Europe European.

Nor is it racism to point out that almost all the greatest art, music, literature, science, governing models, business models, and technology are due to whites. Open any encyclopedia and check.

Despite all that, I admit I really am a racist. I prefer my own race just like I prefer my own family, and I make no apology for it. The moment it becomes a thought crime to love your own people, your own extended family, your own ancestors, and your own descendants, is the moment I become a fugitive.

Thanks everyone for their support, there are no polite words I can respond to dymphna with so I just won't say a thing.

whiskey_199 said...

Jimmy the Dhimmi, I am quite sympathetic to Mexican policy that states that the unique cultural, racial, and ethnic heritage of Mexico will be preserved, and no great amounts of Guatemalans and other groups will be let in. Including Gringos. Mexico has it's right to define and protect it's unique cultural and ethnic composition. I am sympathetic to the Thais, Indonesians, Algerians, and Malaysians who also wish to preserve their unique cultural and ethnic heritage. Algerians did not wish to be ruled as those they regarded as "foreigners" i.e. the French, and cast them off as was their right. Algerians have strict controls on who may enter their nation, and have as official government policy strict limits on who can reside their and who can become a citizen. Again they wish to preserve their unique ethnic and cultural heritage. That is the right of every people.

So if it's good enough and the natural right of Mexicans, Thais, Indonesians, Algerians, and Malaysians, to name a few, why is not good enough for Britons or Danes? In the case of Britain, the same people have inhabited those islands continously since the last ice age (according to the latest genetic studies). The same is true of Denmark, and most European countries can trace their ethnic and cultural heritage back to at least the 900's.

ANY people have the right to say who will and who will not join them. This is not racism. Europeans have the SAME RIGHTS as say, Mexicans to decide on their own who will become members of their society and who will not. Just as Mexicans are not racist for excluding Americans from owning real estate or oil companies in Mexico, or placing limits on American residences in Mexico, neither is France or Spain or Italy racist for not wanting to take in African or North African refugees.

Yes the Nazis perverted the positive attributes of nationalism and the nation (a wider trust network than say just your kin) with the odious idea of a master race. But rejecting a master race does not mean that an ethnically and culturally distinct people (say, Israel) have no rights to refuse a mass of other people unlike them from becoming citizens or residents.

Europe's positive attributes of nationalism, i.e. historic acceptance of a small quantity of bright, talented refugees such as Hugenots, Jews, etc. is threatened by a reaction to a tidal wave of immigrants who threaten to undo social cohesion by replacing long-standing ethnic-cultural networks of nationalism with say, Pashtun tribal networks that exclude natives. This tidal wave should be rejected for the same reason Mexico refuses to become either an American Colony of Snowbirds or Guatemala North.

Acceptance of others different than the ethnic-cultural nation can only happen when such acceptance does not threaten the idea and reality of the nation itself. This is simply human nature and is not racist.

One thought: anti-Islamization parties in Europe ought to study and network with nations like Mexico who have struggled with similar issues of preserving national character and identity. They (and Thailand and yes even Indonesia and Malaysia and Algeria) might have much to teach in what works and what does not. In both policy and politics.

pasta said...

@Epaminondas

"Europeans need only do 2 things, neither of them racist, ethnic or offensive in any way to preserve their innate cultures, but I predict they will do neither.

Shut off all immigration
Make love without birth control

Time will then solve the rest of the problems."

Only if native Europeans would breed at least as much as the non-European immigrants who already live in their countries, which is extremely unlikely without any government intervention targetted at this goal.

Therefore I see only two possible ways: Either ethnic cleansing or a government policy which forbids or discourages breeding specifically for non-Europeans. Of course, both policies are deemed racist.

Devilfish said...

As others have said before me, it is not 'racist' to love your own people. When Moroccans and Turks show pride of their heritage, it's all great. When Europeans do so, you're xenophobic.

I'm not against a multi-ethnic country, as long as the people share similar values. But I do not want to become a minority in my own land...

turn said...

I resent the hell out of having to establish bona fides... but I will.

My ex, the Queen of Seoul, gave me three beautiful children, now the twin tween turnettes and the turnson. Mixed blood all.

Give me no grief on racism or legal immigrants.

Assimilated Koreans and Chinese are more likely to get the best bank loan rates than whites. How 'bout that?

Come here with your hand out--I'll spit on it and give you the boot.

Come here to be a part of the greatest nation that ever was/is, learn the language and love it--I'll grasp your hand to lift you up.

Come here to usurp--have your affairs in order.

I give less than a fig or raisin whether anyone is racist in their heart or not. Thought and speech crimes are altogether stupid. These are unfortunate distractions that keep many eyes off the ball.

History.

Not so far previous on this thread someone wrote that native Britons are the same genetically since the end of the last ice age.

Erm... Romans, Saxons, Norse and Normans would seem to disprove.
....................

The twin and conspiring evils of socialism and Islamism are the ball on which we must keep our eyes.

eatyourbeans said...

You know, if we were talking about an endangered species of, say, blue-eyed fish whose habitat was being taken over by an alien, more prolific species, nobody would think twice about taking measures to protect the native fish. That's only good ecology.

But of course it is permissible to think clearly about a fish but not about ourselves.

We're not going to win this, we're not even going to begin to fight, until we can love our people, our civilization and the color of our skin. You call it racism, I call it belonging.

So don't waste your breath yelling the r-word.
That piece of witch doctor abcadabra doesn't work anymore.

Queen said...

Pasta: Nick Griffin was willing to pay 200K (dollars) per Mohammedan family to send them home. Geert Wilders also wants to pay them to go home. France and Germany do pay, but not that much money so the program isn't successful.

What could possibly be wrong to pay a Mohammedan family $200,000 for their British or European passport, as long as the borders have been closed tightly so they can't come back for more? Why not adopt this policy? Even the Marxists will have a hard time explaining why it is "racist" to pay huge sums of money to poor brown people, where they can live like kings in homelands where it costs maybe $25,000 to buy a huge palace with servants to boot. The Marxists usually love to fork over big bucks to poor brown people -- why not call them on their bluff?

For a couple of billion dollars per year, the UK could shed 50,000 Mohammadans annually. Of course not all of them would go, you'll always be stuck with a few of them, but I bet a lot of them would -- especially if their nanny state welfare benefits were cut as well.

Jimmy the Dhimmi said...

Wow. I guess people here seem to agree that race, blood, the color of your skin ect... are intrinsically valuable to defining a nation. Well, I'm glad I'm an American, because your viewpoint is un-American. I question the patriotism of Americans posting here who have a problem with mixing blood. Cultural values must be held fast, but blond hair and blue eyes? Give me a break!

Racial segregation is racist, I had no idea blonde hair and blue eyes were so important to you. If only Muslims were blonde haired and blue eyed, maybe you guys wouldn't have such a problem with it.

Europeans seem to change the values of their nations all the time, often counter to what we would define as "enlightened" such as most recently, fascism and Communism - both shadow philosophies born out of the age of enlightenment.

I had no idea that it was still race all along that really mattered. Or do you not see a distinction between the physical substance of someone's body composition and how a person chooses to behave?

Chalons said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chalons said...

Jimmi,

You have no case. Please explain the many American organizations that are based solely on skin color:

NAACP
Congresssional Black Caucus
United Negro College Fund
Black Panthers
BET (Black television)
Ebony magazine

Lose the double standards and the hypocrisy, then you come back. You'll make a better case for yourself with an ounce of credibility.

Fenec said...

"Until the Curved Knives Lie Against Their Throats"

A well picked title!

I think that when full scale urban war explodes in european cities, most probably to start in France, and bombs start to happen at the rate of one per month or week, it will start a serious reaction to this. I just wonder how long and how far will the PC media blackout hide the truth form the main population. I mean, i see the reports in the net about disturbes in France, Holland, Germany, and wonder why in other countries no attention is paid to them on television news, it's like it never happened for most of the people who do not follow the islamization problem. I wonder, when will people wake up?

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I think there should be a difference between race as a marker and race as a definition. Personally I resent any immigrants, regardless of shade, if they come here purely to take advantage of government largesse and refuse to integrate into the prevailing culture. I'm not sure where the whole "brown people" thing came from. Immigration in general should be halted until we've settled the ones we have (or returned them whence they came in the case of certain be-hooked and blinded preachers and their compatriots), and immigration of incompatible cultures in particular should be permanently halted. Never mind the race.

Islam is most definitely an incompatible culture. Certain Muslims, fine, but Islam... no.

The point is not whether any particular race should get particular treatment, the point is that we, the natives, have no say. This is our land, these are our ways and if we don't want others coming in that should be our right. It's that simple. Race has f- all to do with it.

Sodra Djavul said...

Jimmy,
Leftists frequently point to anyone who opposes the "browning of America" as racist.

Face it: "Brown" cultures, when left to their own devices, utterly fail to implement societies worthy of what our Founding Fathers expected of us.

Now, instead of simply smearing us as backward, why don't YOU point out why wholesale replacement of native cultures with the components of failed societies is GOOD.

In other words, make an argument. Crying "racist" is not an argument.

- Sodra

Dymphna said...

I was not suggesting that racist thoughts be banned when I replied to Diomed. He can have all the racist thoughts he wants. He just can't take them out of his head and plop them down in GoV comments. This is not the appropriate place to give such thoughts the light of day -- don't know where that place would be, but I know where it won't be: here. For the moderators of this blog not to say anything in the face of such sentiments would imply -- or a reasonable person could infer -- that our silence was assent.

Diomed later said:

Nor is it racism to point out that almost all the greatest art, music, literature, science, governing models, business models, and technology are due to whites. Open any encyclopedia and check.

And while you're doing the fact-checking notice that they're almost all men. Nothing wrong with that, but from that "men-mostly" history we cannot jump to the conclusion that women somehow have a deficit that (Diomed quote) correlates with poverty, criminality, child abuse, divorce, illegitimacy, high school drop out, etc.

Nonetheless it is a fact that women do not, as a rule, excel in those areas, though individual women may and indeed sometimes are exceptions.

What research is beginning to show is that the higher reaches of knowledge/creativity, etc., are populated mostly by men. And that the lowest of the low tend to be mostly male also --e.g., serial killers, bank robbers, and the like. Women, on the other hand, tend to clump in the middle. While working with women prisoners, I found that most of them were serving time because of some criminal act they did at the behest of husband or boyfriend. Not *all,* just most.

I worry that women are now attending college in higher numbers than men. This doesn't bode well for our culture. It tends to be the case that where women begin to clump in ever larger numbers, finally becoming a majority, men leave. It's not an organized, collective decision, but it happens just the same. Just as a for instance, how many men do you think we'll find in Feminist studies? College curicula have become feminized...bye, bye men. Except for the sciences, anyway.

Diomed says:

Despite all that, I admit I really am a racist. I prefer my own race just like I prefer my own family, and I make no apology for it.

That's being disingenuous, at best. It's not racism to prefer one's own kind and you know it. Are you choosing to use *that* for your definition of racism or are you just stuck on the Hitler Heritage and want to stir things up a bit?

Every sentient being prefers its own kind. For example, we live in the country, very rural, and some people (people I'd like to hunt down and chat with) drop their no-longer-wanted cats and dogs off on some seemingly deserted road. Pretty soon the dogs form groups and run in packs. For some reason, these dogs don't run with the cats. I guess they're racist by Diomed's definition.

Diomed also says:
The moment it becomes a thought crime to love your own people, your own extended family, your own ancestors, and your own descendants, is the moment I become a fugitive.

Again, Diomed, thoughts are *not* crimes, which you already darn well know. At least they're not crimes until someone builds mind readers, anyway (and those devices will definitely be created by...men). Acting to prevent other races access to the same things that your family enjoys just because they are the wrong color or class *is* racism.
So is complaining about some portion of a group being lazy, or stupid, etc., simply because they belong to a particular race...or class, for that matter.

To prefer to congregate with one's own kind is normal. The angry reactivity of blacks who form exclusive groups for themselves is simply that: unthinking reactivity, provoked by the professional victimologists, who provide and encourage a mind-set that relishes the chance to get back at The Man for the sins of the past. A fully-developed sense of grievance that colors everything.

The affirmative action nonsense hurts those it claims to help. Clarence Thomas is still mad about Yale Law School's affirmative policies when he was admitted. His grades and performance merited his inclusion, but noooo, he had to be counted as part of Yale's contribution to the charade. I would have resented that degradation, too.

What you mean, Diomed, is that you're a culturist -- ie., you refer what you know, and you definitely prefer those you are related to (remember the very sad story of fraternal twins separted at birth who later met and married, only to find their alliance had to be annulled?).

But it's much more amusing to call yourself a racist and stir up the pot.

Feh.

Dymphna said...

BTW, one of the most painful things for me as a kid was to be invited to swim at the country club my cousins belonged to (anybody here from San Jose Country Club?) and to find that the only time I saw black people was when they were cleaning or serving.

I finally quit going with them, but I knew better than to say anything.

I wish I could say those days were over, but while my son was at the College of William and Mary the same color divide was *huge* and painfully obvious.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

queen: "The Marxists usually love to fork over big bucks to poor brown people -- why not call them on their bluff?"
The problem is that the Marxists will only fork over bucks they have stolen from the rest of us. The "Great Emancipator" (Lincoln) planned on deporting blacks in 1864 but had to give up the idea as too costly.

Pogo said...

I must confess to playing a game on this here thread. Every time I read the word "racist" I have to chug a shot of rum (hic). Excuse me while I go sleep this binge off and nurse a world class hangover.

PRCalDude said...

For the moderators of this blog not to say anything in the face of such sentiments would imply -- or a reasonable person could infer -- that our silence was assent.

That would be "guilt-by-association," and leftists use it. Why do somebody else's ideas left on your, not written by you, constitute a tacit endorsement by you? That statement, taken to it's logical conclusion, would mean that anything on this blog that you don't agree with is endorsed by you.

Acting to prevent other races access to the same things that your family enjoys just because they are the wrong color or class *is* racism.
So is complaining about some portion of a group being lazy, or stupid, etc., simply because they belong to a particular race...or class, for that matter.


It depends on how you're framing the statement. If you're using statistics descriptively about a certain race, you're simply describing the truth. Asians commit crime at about a third the rate as whites, Mexicans at 3 times the rate, and blacks at 7-9 times. Now am I being racist by pointing this out? No, I'm describing a group based on it's statistics. Daniel Moynihan, who quoted a above, made a racist statement when he said that "welfare would destroy the black family," but you didn't catch it. Why should it destroy the black family any more than the white family? If we look at the illegitimacy statistics, he was right. Some 70% of blacks are born out-of-wedlock now, as compared to 25% of whites.

Is there something genetic that makes them act this way? I would say "no." I don't believe in genetic determinism because I believe the Bible. It's a presupposition I can defend. I also believe we're all equally worthless. However, the statistics are nevertheless there.

Queen said...

Goodness, I had no idea that the phrase "blonde hair and blue eyes" were considered indescribably racist now. I am usually pretty good at keeping up with all the ins and outs of PeeCee code words, PeeCee double and triple standards, and PeeCee taboos, but this one must have slipped me by. Really, by just mentioning the dreaded "b-and-b" phrase (I hesitate to write out the full, awful and unmentionable phrase, for fear of sending "Jimmy the Dhimmi" into further paroxysms of irrational ranting,) apparently is enough to convict one of advocating a return to "whites only" toilets and banning mixed-race marriages! Really, I had no idea. Thanks so much, Jimmy the Dhimmy, for setting me straight.

Greek Word Guy:The problem is that the Marxists will only fork over bucks they have stolen from the rest of us. The "Great Emancipator" (Lincoln) planned on deporting blacks in 1864 but had to give up the idea as too costly.

Yes, we will have to pay a lot for our little misjudgement in character, so what? What is the alternative? A civil war that will destroy all our wealth anyways, as well as cause massive bloodshed and destruction? Dhimmitude forever? Slaughtering them all? What's worse, losing some of your money, or losing your whole country, language, history, and culture? I got the idea BTW, from a posting by a native Englishman who said that he would gladly give everything he owned to pay for the Mohammedans to go home, if he could just have his country back. This did not appear in a "BNP" forum but on a thread associated with an article that was published by the eminently respectable UK Daily Telegraph.

The situation with the Mohammadans in Europe and Black Americans after the Civil War is not anywhere comparable. Black Amerians were kidnapped from their homes, treated abominably, and by the time the Civil War ended, had little cultural or informational connection with the African continent. Repatriating them would have been indescribably cruel and unjust. Besides they contributed to our culture in things like inventing new music forms and new types of dancing, etc. The Mohammedans by contrast were invited into Europe as guests, and given equal rights, (often better rights than natives), welfare benefits, education etc. They have proved themselves to be very bad guests indeed, and so must be persuaded to go home as humanely as possible. It is like a very bad marriage, comparable to say, Britney hooking up with K-Fed: doomed from the start. With every divorce, the richer partner has to pay alimony. We can afford it, and then, much poorer, but infinitely better off, we can make wiser choices in the future about whom we choose to "marry" -- i.e. whom we invite into our countries.

BTW I only remarked that white Marxists like to give lots of money to poor brown people because it's true: they certainly don't seem to care much about poor white people (such as the several thousand native elderly British pensioners who freeze to death in their flats every winter). It wasn't a suggestion that England or Europe pay all "brown people" to go home. The several thousand Pakistanis who converted to Christianity in Britain, for instance, aren't really a problem, are they?

Charlemagne said...

Regarding race, culture, and tribalism I addressed the difficulties in protecting Western culture as the West "browns" last March in my post History, Multiculturalism, and the end of the West and think it is relevant to this discussion. I touch on the same theme with Post America America.

ScottSA said...

Dymph said: "I was not suggesting that racist thoughts be banned when I replied to Diomed. He can have all the racist thoughts he wants. He just can't take them out of his head and plop them down in GoV comments. This is not the appropriate place to give such thoughts the light of day -- don't know where that place would be, but I know where it won't be: here. For the moderators of this blog not to say anything in the face of such sentiments would imply -- or a reasonable person could infer -- that our silence was assent."

That's precisely my point. We're all so terrified of being labelled 'racists' that we make easy targets for everyone. All anyone has to do is holler "racist" and we trip all over ourselves trying to run away. Why? It's a trap of our own making.

Ethelred said...

PRCalDude,

Could you please explain this sentence from your last paragraph:

I also believe we're all equally worthless.

This is anathema to me. I (or you, for that matter) am as equally worthless as Muslim zombie killer?

Ed Mahmoud said...

I think it is a mistake of the European people to get hung up on blood or racial purity. But I understand where it comes from. If one is in Europe, and the only people one meets are darker skinned people from Muslim Africa and Muslim Pakistan, one might associate the fark skin as being the problem. It isn't, it is the death cult religion.


I believe Chuckles the Dancing Clown's rejection of all anti-jihad parties in Europe as racist or fascist because a few white power types associate with them is wrong.

But what Europeans think is a problem due to race or 'blood' is really about culture and ideology.


I don't know what the IQ tests really show, and whether they account for parenting skills and education, but here in the US, while many blacks are in an underclass, many more are successful and middle class. And before someone tells me that brown skin is a reflection of low intelligence, they can explain how Indians, very similar ethnic stock as the backwards Pakistanis, are so successful in science, business and medicine here in the United States.

eatyourbeans said...

I read somewhere that as part of the program to detox Germany after the war, the Americans taught all those ex-Hitler Youths to play baseball. More specifically, they taught them the concept of "Moider da umpire!", and, doubtless, the bronx cheer. A crude, loud antidote to Jawohl.

Well, we got some mental jawohls of own to get rid of, and their name is political correctness. So instead of being all hang dog when some vinegar faced busy bodies squawk, we got to (metaphorically) snicker, pick our noses and reply with the loudest, crudest, rudest Bronx Cheer that's ever been heard.

C'mon, folks. It'll be fun

PRCalDude said...

I don't know what the IQ tests really show, and whether they account for parenting skills and education, but here in the US, while many blacks are in an underclass, many more are successful and middle class. And before someone tells me that brown skin is a reflection of low intelligence, they can explain how Indians, very similar ethnic stock as the backwards Pakistanis, are so successful in science, business and medicine here in the United States.

The mean IQ in India is something like 80, which is very low. The reason we get so many intelligent ones here is because India has a large population. A large population will still produce a quite a few intelligent people despite a low mean IQ.

I recommend you start reading Gene Expression or Steve Sailer. He talks about all of the very same things.

The "black middle class" everyone keeps hoping for is not stable, meaning that those in it are much more likely than whites to have children who fall into one of the lower classes. This is called "reversion to the mean," and largely explains race/class structure found in most Latin American countries. The whites and northeast asians are found near the top, and the darker you get, the poorer you get. This is basically how things look in Mexico and Brazil, and now Los Angeles.

Ed Mahmoud said...

Even if there are minor variations in intelligence among the races (which is possible, but how does one test the IQ of a poor Indian who has never received a formal education), promoting that as a fundamental philosophy means tending to judge people as part of the group, not as an individual. In the US, the Democrats are all about assigning people into different groups and treating them as victims, while Republicans place the emphasis on individual achievement.


Again, I assert, the problem with Pakis and Turks and Muslim Africans in Europe isn't darker skin, it is a culture based on a primitive religion.

PRCalDude said...

Even if there are minor variations in intelligence among the races (which is possible, but how does one test the IQ of a poor Indian who has never received a formal education), promoting that as a fundamental philosophy means tending to judge people as part of the group, not as an individual. In the US, the Democrats are all about assigning people into different groups and treating them as victims, while Republicans place the emphasis on individual achievement.

The mean white IQ is around 100, the mean northeast Asian IQ is at least 105. The Indian IQ of 80 is more than a standard deviation below. Black americans are a standard deviation below, as are hispanics.

IQ changes little after the age of 6, before formal education begins, so while environment and nutrition certainly has an impact, so do genetics. There are nearly a billion malnourished Han Chinese growing up in poverty that are still quite a bit smarter than Africans and Indians growing up in deprived conditions, and they're rapidly catching up to first-world living standards. Like I said, you need to read up more on the subject.

I have a hard time believing that the Republicans are any better than the Democrats in their pandering. I'm all for judging the individual, but blacks and hispanics have taken collectivism upon themselves. They are the ones with the myriad racial grievance lobbies. If they want to make that bed, then they can't be surprised when they're asked to sleep in it. Moreover, most people tend to live, work, and associate with people of their own race, whether we're comfortable admitting it or not. So group discrimination does occur, no matter what.

Ed Mahmoud said...

PRCalDude


Just because Chuckles at LGF sees Nazis under every bed, doesn't mean there aren't some real Storm Front type racists who post here at Gates of Vienna, and anyone as fixated on the inferiority of the brown skinned people as you are, well, you give ammo to the hysterical nancies at LGF who'll abandon Europe to the Muslim hordes.


I don't need to read any White Supremacist books by people with pseudonyms like 'Gene Expression' either.

Ed Mahmoud said...

I'm not a hippy granola crunching PC dude either, I served in the Navy, and I got myself banned from LGF for defending Fjordman from Chuckles the Dancing Clown's hysterical assaults.


I think every nation has a right to determine its own culture and immigration policies, and the Euro-socialist states that offered full welfare benefits to all comers created their own mess. I hope the patriotic Europeans can clean it up. But constant talk of racial purity and blood purity and the inferiority of the browned skinned peoples tars the movement as a crank fringe group.

PRCalDude said...

Just because Chuckles at LGF sees Nazis under every bed, doesn't mean there aren't some real Storm Front type racists who post here at Gates of Vienna, and anyone as fixated on the inferiority of the brown skinned people as you are, well, you give ammo to the hysterical nancies at LGF who'll abandon Europe to the Muslim hordes.


I don't need to read any White Supremacist books by people with pseudonyms like 'Gene Expression' either.


Gene Expression is a blog discussion population genetics, which is a scientific field that has exploded because of the human genome project. It doesn't make any racial supremacy claims whatsoever. There are genes that influence IQ that have been uncovered in the human genome project. I was trying to get you to understand how genetics might have an effect on intelligence, not read a white supremacy blog.

PRCalDude said...

*discussing

Ethelred said...

Ed Mahmoud,

I agree completely.

Although I have said this before, it bear repeating.

Historian Will Durant has said that northern/temperate societies/civilizations will always win in any competition with southern/equatorial societies/civilizations because the yearly climate changes have embedded a deep cultural imperative towards planning (i.e. thinking about the future). This requires brain power, and a used brain is developed one.

Also, changing climates demand more thought and hence brain development in day to day living in such enterprises as the finding/storing of food or building shelter. Warmer climates which are fecund lessen the need to search for food, and shelter tends to be built for the short term, since everything rots quickly.

In sum, when the climate forces increased brain use to survive, the brain is developed and the NEED FOR IT TO BE DEVELOPED becomes part of the culture.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

The whole discussion of genetic influence on intelligence is interesting but it is, as several have tried to make clear, and no matter which side of the argument you might stand, at best incidental to the problem.

Of course one might question the intelligence of anyone who voluntarily subjugates themselves to a death cult like Islam, but something like that transcends boundaries. There are stupid people everywhere.

This war isn't about race, but race will be involved. It's not about immigrants, though immigration policy is one tool in fighting the problem. What this is ultimately about is survival, and that means we need to find our common ground and leave the arguments about all these incidental things out of it. Rather than tie ourselves up in knots about "brown people" and racism we should ignore it all and focus on the goal of pushing Islam from our borders. Let us subjugate them for a change. Let Islam submit for a change. Arguing about whether some of us are racist or weak minded for holding particular views will only distract us from this goal.

Afonso Henriques said...

Ed said,
"And before someone tells me that brown skin is a reflection of low intelligence, they can explain how Indians, very similar ethnic stock as the backwards Pakistanis, are so successful in science, business and medicine here in the United States."

Ed, I heard a theory recently that those Indians are mainly Dravidians (or purer Dravidians) from the South of India. I heard that they are descendents of Elamites and other ancient middle East peoples who built the fist great Human Civilisations. Opposing them to the Indo Aryans or mixed people from the North.

Indians regard (Indian) darker skin with intelligence and (Indian) lighter skin with religious and traditonal knowledge.

It is quiet interesting. So, ethnicity may relate with your exemple. Because Pakistanis are not Dravidians.
I do believe geneology and ethnicity (related) have a say, just like culture.

Diamed said...

If you're worried about hurting individuals who are above average, and want to treat everyone as individuals, give everyone an IQ test. Then they rise or fall on their own merit. Ignoring IQ altogether, however, is like ignoring the elephant in the room. Go to wikipedia and type in IQ Global Inequality. Compare the map of IQ across the world, and the map of quality of life across the world, then explain why they're so connected.
Let's face it muslim turkey or malaysia is a much better place to live than 78% christian Kenya. (just checked CIA world factbook). So if culture is all that matters, if ideology is all that matters, if religion is all that matters, wrap your heads around that.

nikolai said...

On the IQ thing...if it was scientificaly proven that english people had the lowest average IQ on the planet I'd still want my country back so I think it is a bit of a distraction. Plus, Indians are a natural ally in this global war so even if you're into the IQ stuff it would make sense to think more tactically imo.

Wise words from the original essayist. We don't have the first amendment or Fox News here and we have ever increasing laws preventing free speech. Help from the USA vis a vis disseminating information is likely to become increasingly neccessary.

A side effect of the way things are is that the centre-right parties are almost falling over themselves to be PC too. This doesn't leave a lot of options for people who want to live in a free country. I'm pretty much an anarchist by preference but i'll work for the BNP in the end if there's no other option.

It's not as simple as people like LGF seem to think.

Balder said...

First I'd like to say that while I do believe in the research showing differing IQ's in different populations / racial groups, I do not agree with the conclusion that lower intelligence necessarily leads do defunct societies, crime and related ills.

I have written a longer article about questions surrounding the concept of race and nation, in which I more or less defend racial considerations.

The expected condemnation and hate mail never came, even though I brought the article to the attention of a number of left wing and politically correct debaters..

Could this possibly mean that what I am saying actually is not all that objectionable, or that I may be right somewhere?

Here a little introduction

From the beginning most of the anti-immigrationalists with few exceptions have vehemently protested against being labeled with the negatively loaded word "racist", and have said again and again, that their protests definitively had nothing to do with skin color. Most of them have "sworn to their disapproval of racism", and have denied the importance of ethnic differences, and weighted cultural and religious differences as the deciding factors in their argument that mass-immigration is a threat to our societies, our culture and our way of life.

And this is readily understandable. The word "racism" roused associations to Nazism, persecution of Jews, slavery, repression of blacks, imperialism, colonialism, and a wide variety of atrocities of an almost incomprehensible magnitude.

The dogma of racism - a free gift to the pro multicult lobby?

In time this "distancing one self from racism" has become some kind of unquestionable Law of Nature, a new paradigm, now being accepted by immigration promoters as well as their adversaries, with the exclusion of some groups on the "far right", and some individuals who thought it wiser to keep their thoughts to themselves.

The question is, if we perhaps completely unnecesarily have given the multicult lobby some very important arguments, and have positioned ourselves in a corner. This almost entirely without a thorough debate about what the definition of "racism" really is, and without even taking into account if there possibly are legitimate arguments for considerations about the racial makeup of the population.

I will in what follows look a little more into the concepts of racism, race, heredity etc. and present some arguments as a starting point for a discussion about the dogma which says that matters such as race, skin color and heredity by definition are completely meaningless, reprehensible and outrageous.

Article index

1. Racism and the fight against immigration
2. The dogma of racism - a free gift to the pro multicult lobby?
3. Racial awareness - a crime or a natural phenomenon? (How do we define the word racism?)
4. Genetics or environment? - Tendencies in newer reseach
5. Racism (the word)
6. Superstitious Catholic Idiots
7. A defence for the right to hold racist convictions of superiority
8. Family and race
9. From family clan to race
10. Racial awareness or 'racialism' versus racism
11. 'Race means nothing at all' - theory or reality?
12. The Development of Races
13. Two extremely different cultures: Romans and Inuit
14. Our children should look like ourselves, not like the mail man
15. Appearance and Identity
16. Does it matter at all if our genetic heritage disappears?
17. Our own flesh and blood or purposeful breeding for 'quality'?
18. Officially sanctioned racism
19. Conclusions
20. Hypothesizes
21. Facts
22. Questions
23. The Author’s personal opinions

Read the article:

Racism and the fight against immigration (German and Danish versions available as well.)