Monday, May 12, 2008

Maybe This is a Topic for Fjordman?

One of our readers/contributors emailed us yesterday, explaining why he reads Gates of Vienna:

from the email bagDear Baron and Dymphna,

I’ve been intending to email you ever since the flap with Pajamas Media, but events have moved more quickly than my response (I have time to read blogs only on weekends). Just wanted to let you know that I’m another one of your many dedicated readers who very much appreciate the effort you are putting into Gates of Vienna. (I did just make a contribution.)

I think it’s essential that you stick to your guns and maintain open, civil, and rational discussion. It is important to thoroughly explore and rationally discuss all possible scenarios, outcomes, and responses.

Pretending that there are not horrific possible end games will not avoid them; in fact, the best way to avoid them is to be aware that they are possible. I was going to email you about the often hysterical response to Herman Kahn when he tried to do the same thing regarding nuclear war back in the 1960s, but one of your other astute readers beat me to it.

I also appreciate that GoV is willing to explore beneath the surface of the GWOT to discover its cultural, social, and political causes. This is something other blogs (including sites like Jihad Watch) are not willing to do - they can’t get beyond fighting today’s battles to the grand strategy of winning the war. And don’t get too upset about the lightweights at LGF.

Another extraordinary aspect of your blog is that it is crystallizing an ideological response to both cultural leftism and jihadism. For lack of a better name, I call this ideology “free nationalism.”

Free nationalism defends the nation-state against both multinational empires like the EU and multicultural disintegration; it believes in democracy and freedom (not statism); its nationalism is culturally (not racially) based. The decisive argument the free nationalist can make is that freedom and democracy are only possible within the historically-evolved framework of the nation-state; the alternatives to the nation-state are bureaucratic empire or the anarchy of tribal strife. (In the ancient and medieval worlds, free and democratic government were possible only within the smaller compass of the city-state.) Free nationalism could rejuvenate or even replace a “conservatism” that has become incoherent to the point of meaninglessness. [my emphasis - D.]…
- - - - - - - - -
At any rate, keep up the good work, and I hope to post at some future point when I have more time. (I’d prefer to remain anonymous, as I live in politically-correct Dhimmisota, home of America’s first Islamic public school.)

I wrote back, asking if I could use his email as a post.

He responded tonight:

Dymphna,

By all means, feel free to use part or all of my comments as a post. You can use my state if it’s relevant.

Minnesota seems to be the most vulnerable of all states in giving its Islamic population whatever it wants, even if it violates the constitution. The Islamic charter school is the latest in a series of incidents (such as separate art classes for Muslim students, the flying Imams, suppression of the Mohammed cartoons at Century College, etc.) to happen in Minnesota. I think like so many things Minnesotan, it has to do with our large Scandinavian-descended population -- it is the persistence of certain patterns of thought from the Old Country.

Maybe this is a topic for Fjordman.

90 comments:

Stormgaard said...

I also appreciate that GoV is willing to explore beneath the surface of the GWOT to discover its cultural, social, and political causes. This is something other blogs (including sites like Jihad Watch) are not willing to do - they can’t get beyond fighting today’s battles to the grand strategy of winning the war. And don’t get too upset about the lightweights at LGF.

He just captured in a nutshell not only the difference between GoV and the "American" anti-islamist sites - but also the general difference between naive "Libertarian" Americans and pretty much anyone else who gives a crap about the future survivability of Western culture and institutions.

We've got plenty of people here in America who know full well what the Western world is up against. We've also got a lot of "New Converts" (for lack of a better word) who are only just waking up to the fact that the 60's didn't work. They call themselves "Libertarians" or "Classical Liberals" - but only because they don't want to be called "Conservative" (even though that's really what they are evolving towards).

That's what LGF is. Johnson is an ex-California-Hippie who "Woke Up" as a result of 9/11. That's exactly how he describes himself.

Conservatism IS the last bastion of everything that is right and good about the Western World. But there are some things that these new "Libertarians" and "Classical Liberals" are not ready to accept yet. The most important of these being Christianity. So much of the Western world's success has been predicated on empirical and technological progress that they're almost paralyzed in their beliefs. While they know socialism doesn't work (an empirical fact), they are still terrified to admit that there's a supernatural force at work in the world and in their lives - and that Jesus was telling the truth.

They are on their way - but it will take time. It probably won't happen until the Baby Boomer generation dies out.

But they will get there. God always wins in the end.

Dymphna said...

God does always "win" in the end, though I don't think of it in those terms-- i.e., winning and losing.

As C.S. Lewis said, "we're all innoculated with such a mild strain of Christianity that we're immune to the real thing."

That goes for other religious paths, too.

America has been founded -- often painfully growing into it -- on a basis of acceptance of her citizens' myriad religious paths. While we are mainly Christian, there are any number of other religions that are practiced in peace. We have come too far to go back down that path.

I speak as someone who was raised a Catholic in the South and watched our nuns get stoned for being "Papists."

Christianity has been de-regulated and I want it to stay that way. Discussion of it as a political tool reduces it to what I do not like about Islam and did not like about theocratic Catholic Ireland.

Most of our Founding Fathers were deists or nominal Christians at best.

Let's keep it that way.
______________

It's been my experience that wherever "two or three are gathered in His Name," at least two are vying for power.

thll said...

I agree with much of what is said in this email. But I see a serious flaw, if perhaps an understandable one. It stems from the difficulty people have with the race/culture issue.

His ideology 'free nationalism' is attractive, but if 'its nationalism is culturally (not racially) based' I can't see it working.

Isn't that what the USSR tried and failed? Nation and culture are functions of race - without the element of kin they become meaningless.

And with respect, deep down I think your emailer sort of knows. In his second email he writes, 'I think like so many things Minnesotan, it has to do with our large Scandinavian-descended population - it is the persistence of certain patterns of thought from the Old Country.'

Homophobic Horse said...

Government should be on a scale and manner comprehensible to the governed. Anybody who has read the awful EU constitution will appreciate this. Also, government should be geographically close to the governed so that if it acts traitorously the mob knows where to go.

Afonso Henriques said...

Great. I agree with almost everything.

I just, and obviously, do not agree that Nationalism can not be racial. It was racial in Africa and Asia during decolonisation. It is racial (but less) in Venezuela, Bolivia and other "New Socialist" countries in the Americas. Colombia will be next and if "the States" don't do more, Mexico may follow, as it has been doing in the American Southwest. Israel has a racial basis. Jews claim to descend from the Hebrews.

Only Europeans can not have a "racial nationalism". But the funny is that European Nationalism is more "ethnical" than "racial" as the Basque question clearly shows. The Serbs, the same. Many other examples came to my mind.

I think the "free Nationalism" is a response to the Tranzis. You better look at the link as it shows very well what Conservatism has to do and is not doing.

But, ok, as he is an American, he is forgiven. I think this American negation over the relation race/ethnicity/nation/culture comes from the past of slavery combined with a pratical non existance miscegenation. This way, "white" Americans do not want to "blend in" with "black" Americans but want them to be part of the "Nation". I see this as sick.
In Latin America, at least, the "whiter" you are more you are part of the Nation. It has a degree. It is cynical, but at least, it is Natural.

"I speak as someone who was raised a Catholic in the South and watched our nuns get stoned for being "Papists.""

I've never really understood this anti Rome feeling.

"Most of our Founding Fathers were deists or nominal Christians at best."

I think that people should consider if "religion" equals "faith". I think most important than faith is the cultural sphere in which we are involved by religion. Religion is culture. That's why we have Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and Oriental Christians. Every denomination is a cultural trait. Roman, Germanic, Greek and other, maninly Middle Eastern.
Today we see Latin Americans developing a new kind of religion in which Che Guevara almost replaces Jesus, Africans will soon find their path as well. It is nothing but normal and only shows that "religion" is more about "culture" than "faith". Brazil is a great example with all it's intrepertations of "Christianism".

Robert Marchenoir said...

"Nation and culture are functions of race - without the element of kin they become meaningless." (Thll)

This is the obvious fact, the elephant in the room, the unspeakable truth that the professionals of the anti-racist ideology refuse to acknowledge: race is but your extended family.

There is nothing wrong with defending your family and nurturing family bonds. There is nothing wrong with doing the same with your race.

French multiculturalists will use desperate rethorical tricks in order to forbid any mention of race, and that's because they have been fighting the family ever since the sixties, as a bourgeois and oppressive institution.

There is a fascinating dogma within French cultural leftists that race doesn't even exist. You'll find plenty of people flatly stating as much, and willing to offer pseudo-arguments for hours on end in order to support their ridiculous views.

Of course there is a relationship between nation and race. Of course it is perfectly natural and legitimate. Of course multiculturalists, who want to obliterate their own people by substituting it with another race, are traitors.

In fact, the only reason a nation holds together, the only reason why people -- normally -- don't go robbing and killing each other just because they might get away with it, is because they have this implicit notion that even people unknown to them are somewhat part of their family.

And the only reason why people -- again, normally -- don't go robbing and killing other individuals when in a foreign country, is that they feel that if they did so, they would incur the wrath of the whole victim's family -- their nation. And since they do not belong to it, they know they could expect no mercy.

All these social barriers ensuring peace and order collapse, of course, as soon as the leftist elites forcibly import alien races into the nation, tell the natives they should apologize to the newcomers because of alleged historical "crimes" (slavery, colonisation, etc), and shower the intruders with gifts (in the form of social allowances) as if to beg their pardon.

You bet the message is not lost to immigrants. They have been told by the authorities, in coded words, that they would be excused for commiting real crimes against the aboriginal people, in order to get even.

And guess what? That is exactly what is happening. The crimes are being committed, and they get away with it. Agression is so commonplace and so brazen that even the police is powerless, and not ashamed to say so.

And we wonder why the social restraint that once existed, the common decency that people had, regardless of poverty or wealth, has all but vanished.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

I think it’s essential that you stick to your guns and maintain open, civil, and rational discussion.
I also think it's essential, but sadly Dymphna does not. She thinks it's perfectly okay to delete comments because she disagrees with them, or because she's having one of her emotional episodes and negative comments are just ruining her otherwise perfect day of harmony and concensus. This is precisely the same thing that's happening in the Western world on a larger scale.

No rational person can continue to take GoV seriously, but I suspect that rational people are in short supply here. In fact, you people are no different from those you're fighting against. You follow different ideologies, but your methods and ways of thinking are the same.

I hope the "support free speech" banner on the sidebar is meant to be sarcastic.

I also appreciate that GoV is willing to explore beneath the surface of the GWOT to discover its cultural, social, and political causes. This is something other blogs (including sites like Jihad Watch) are not willing to do - they can’t get beyond fighting today’s battles to the grand strategy of winning the war. And don’t get too upset about the lightweights at LGF.
You obviously don't read Jihad Watch, which is by far the best counter-Jihad site there is. They have repeatedly denounced the war on terror as misguided, and they talk about the "grand strategy" all the time. As for LGF, it's no different from GoV.

mike18xx said...

Whenever I see "nationalism" (however hyphenated), I want to smash it with a nice, big maul.

-- If you Europeans can't manage to evolve beyond that after the debacles of the last two centuries, you deserve whatever Islam does to you.

Fjordman said...

The above comment is too negative regarding Jihad Watch, which is one of the best websites on the Internet for anything Jihad-related. I read it almost every day, although I do not always read every single post.

Dymphna: I have noticed that people of Scandinavian descent tend to be hardcore Multiculturalists. Don't know why.

Afonso Henriques said...

Mike 18xx,

I would really like to know why is that. What are you talking about?
It is not the last two centuries, it is the last three thousand years in my place.

What do you think was the driving force that expelled the muslims from here?
Multiculturalism?

I would wish that people commenting were in tune with the Gates of Vienna tradition (or at least this is why this is my favourite blog) of explaining things instead of leaving LGF like comments.

Please Mike18xx, I would like to understand what is your "logic".

---------------------------------

Jesus Christ Super Cop,

Dymhna recently erased one comment of mine and though I would like it to stay posted, in order to "clean my image" it was deleted under the pretext of being "too long".

I can understand that and I can not forget that this is Dymphna's blog. Despite me being such a big Commie, I have to stand for the right to have private propriety and as so, Dymphna can do whatever she wants to.

Not that I think it is right or it is a good thing to this blog.

I don't know what are you refering to but I would like you to know that your attitude is not too gratifying for you.
Let it go...

Despite everything, this blog continues to be one of the best in town!

Dypmhna, nonetheless, you had no pretext to erase the other comment of Jesus complaining about you erasing comments.
It is sad and not gratifying to this blog. Jesus he's right. Or so it seems...

Dymphna said...

thll said --

Nation and culture are functions of race - without the element of kin they become meaningless.

There are lots of examples of "kin" who are mixed races and it works fine. In our family we have various mixtures of white Europeans, Vietnamese, African American, and Korean.

I don't see any lack of meaning in those relationships and neither do they.

Dymphna said...

Homophobic Horse:

Government should be on a scale and manner comprehensible to the governed.

Perfect! That is exactly right. The larger the governing body and the longer it sits in session, the less effective it is as an instrument OF the governed.

Economies of scale --e.g., in this country, large centralized high schools -- are for the most part dysphoric places for many children.

But that is just one simple example.

Dymphna said...

Afonso --

I agree with almost nothing you say, but since you don't call names and you stay within the bounds of civil discourse, your posts stay up....

but I will continue to delete huge long things that run down the page for 3,000 words. That length is beyond the bounds of courtesy to other commenters. When you write something that long you're asking for a committment of time and I get complaining emails about it.

I don't care if you're a Communist or a member of a Cargo Cult. As long as you don't demean the words or intentions of others, you are free to leave SHORT comments here.

Dymphna said...

Fjordman said...

The above comment is too negative regarding Jihad Watch, which is one of the best websites on the Internet for anything Jihad-related.

Obviously we have a history of putting up guest posts which contain sentiments we are not always in agreement with or that we know may cause contention.

His observation/complaint was within the bounds of civility and while those who read Jihad Watch every day (I do) might not agree with his argument, he is correct in pointing out that GOV has a different emphasis, and will continue to do so.

We take greater risks than most American blogs, and we actively attempt to encourage other countries to blog here.

In this case, our poster is right: Minnesota is almost a different country.

At any rate, you and the poster disagree, as I'm sure do many others. Thus, I don't think he's "too negative", he simply has an opinion. As someone who has been reviled for your various supposed sins of opinion I'm sure you can grant him the space to have an opposing opinion.

From what I can gather, I think he was hoping you would comment on the content of the bulk of his remarks, since he calls his state "Dhimmisota." As do the three or four other dissenting citizens of that place.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

Afonso Henriques:
I can understand that and I can not forget that this is Dymphna's blog. Despite me being such a big Commie, I have to stand for the right to have private propriety and as so, Dymphna can do whatever she wants to.

Sure thing. This is a blog, and not covered by any freedom of speech laws. But this is also a blog that proudly claims to defend freedom of speech and open discourse, and a blog that has criticized another site for not doing the same. The hypocrisy is inexcusable.

Despite everything, this blog continues to be one of the best in town!
No, it doesn't. That's the whole point.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

The decisive argument the free nationalist can make is that freedom and democracy are only possible within the historically-evolved framework of the nation-state; the alternatives to the nation-state are bureaucratic empire or the anarchy of tribal strife.

Wrong. The United States and Canada are not "nation-states," with a specific ethnic, racial, or religious identity, yet they are arguably the most historically and currently free nations on Earth.

Meanwhile, until the post World War II era, nationalist European nations were chronically ruled by kings, dictators, and other despots.

Currently, the following major world "nation-states" are not democracies: China and Russia. Meanwhile, other tinpot dictators, such as those in North Korea and Burma, resort to nationalism to hide their despotism.

And then we have India, a nation that is not ethnically or even culturally homogenous, yet has a functioning democracy. Those who are trying to end it are doing so in the name of Hindu nationalism.

The nation-state is a form of government chronically used throughout its history to not only oppress other nations and cultures, but also deny its own people the rule of law and the right to control their own governance.

Dymphna said...

JcSC

I also think it's essential, but sadly Dymphna does not. She thinks it's perfectly okay to delete comments because she disagrees with them, or because she's having one of her emotional episodes and negative comments are just ruining her otherwise perfect day of harmony and concensus.

You wrecked one thread already with your uncivil ad hominem attacks. Go back to the thread and look at the remains. People were actually yelling at you to shut up. I've never seen that before in our comment thread.

And if you can find one person who agreed with your bahavior on that thread, do let me know.

Here's what I found:

Holy smokes man. Take a chill pill and relax! All I did was write a lighthearted complimentary comment. You make it seem like there is something perverse going on here...
_______________

Is there anyone here who hasn't disagreed with dymphna or the baron (or both) at some point? I'd go as far as to say I'm pretty sure they want people to disagree with them, intelligently and with well-thought-out arguments when necessary.

There's crit, and then there's being cranky.
____________

Wow, Jesus Christ SuperCop's dander was raised SO far up by this item it crowds everything else out of his mind.
______________

There are now two camps: those who take Gates of Vienna seriously and those who take Jesus Christ Supercop seriously.

Also there's a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of chat/graffiti.
________________

Actually, JCSC, it is your radical, uh, distaste and anger, at images so truly innocent that was the non-sequitor.
______________

Jesus Christ Super... JUST SHUT UP! Is there any point to all this?

wasn't this post supposed to be more about beautiful women and art than JCS?

-----------
Not one commenter found you reasonable and some of them suggested you calm down.

I deleted your comments because it became clear that your presence on the thread was not derailing it. Each commenter felt it necessary to address your obvious animus before making his or her own point.

This is a moderated thread and there are rules. You broke nearly all of them.

NB: This is your first and last uncivil comment on this thread or any other. I will delete future attacks on me or anyone else.

boxermk said...

I don't see how anyones race has to do with how you treat them. In some cultures that is certainly true, but anyone raised with Christian or Jewish ethics does not refrain from stealing because they share the same race, but because it is wrong, regardless of the other person's race. I find the idea that you treat someone in a particular way according to their ethnicity disgusting. I'm aware this is historically the case, but I think this idea is inherently evil and goes against my values.

Being "American" has nothing to do with race, it has to do with an idea. If you accept American values, assimilate into the majority American culture, then you are American.

If you are a genocidal, murdering Jihadist, determined to overthrowing western values, then you should be destroyed. That is also in keeping with the Judeo-Christian ethic.

I enjoy this blog, but so many of the posters seem obsessed with race. So what do you say to a Slavic Muslim brainwashed into Jihadist Ideology? Or an American from California who joins Al-Qaeda? These aren't hypothetical questions. It is reality. What does race have to do with anything? Isn't this blog about the Jihad?

It's about Ideology. Race is NOT intrinsic to Nationalism, although it often is. I agree with the emailer from Minnesota. And for the posters who are obsessed with race on this blog, you make the discussion very boring for those of us who see through your obsession. The least you can do is treat the owners of this blog with some sort of respect, it seems to me that you receive a very generous and open opportunity to air your thoughts on this blog like almost nowhere else.

Dymphna said...

formerly Gordon --

The United States and Canada are not "nation-states," with a specific ethnic, racial, or religious identity, yet they are arguably the most historically and currently free nations on Earth.

Yes, that is the point. Sometimes I think the gap between the North American and the European understanding of "nation" or "state" is so wide that we can't really communicate across it.

In our small area, very rural and far from a town of any size, there are a large variety of ethnicities.

Many black people here are the decendents of slaves. Many are also prosperous and middle class.

We have Koreans, Pakistanis, Italians (born in Italy), Iranians, Hindus (there is an ashram here), people from the Netherlands, and even a few Californians.

Like most other places now, we have a number of Mexicans and others from south of the border. They are law-abiding and work hard to send their remittances home. I don't know them but I see the Western Union signs in stores, written in Spanish. Now that I think of it, that's about the only Spanish I see here. That's because our economy is not dependent on Mexicans.

About 15 miles from here is a Welsh cemetery. All the gravestones are in Welsh, but their descendants here have all blended into the community. They came to mine the slate quarries; only their names remain -- the local judge, for example.

There is tension between some members of the black and white communities. This place has its history. However, there is also a great deal of pleasant interaction.

The comparison between us is much like that of the French and English in Canada. That tension remains.

Dymphna said...

boxermk --

An obscure footnote to our early history is that in the push to the West, Indians were offered the same homesteading deal that the new immigrants got: if they would homestead individual tracts of land, farm and/or develop it, they could own the land like everyone else. Some Indians were able to make the break from tribal life and set up on their own. Most weren't, and ended up on isolated reservations.

Those who could not change with the arrival of new ways were caught in a cultural cul de sac. The ones who were flexible and resilient enough to grab the main chance eventually blended into the mainstream. A lot of Americans are proud of their particular "strain" of Indian ancestry.

Here in Virginia there are remnants of two tribes. They don't live tribally, but they do distinguish themselves as "Native Americans." When you talk to them, you find they are impatient with the p.c. rules that are determined to wipe out "disrespectful" labels. For example, calling a school team "The Tribe." To them it's an honorary remnant of history and they resent the obliteration. But you can't tell the Multi-Cultis anything. They always know best.

Multi-cult is very condescending and in appropriately parental.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

dymphna:
You wrecked one thread already with your uncivil ad hominem attacks.

What uncivil ad hominem attacks? Oh, wait: we'll never know since the messages disappeared. How... convinient.

Go back to the thread and look at the remains. People were actually yelling at you to shut up. I've never seen that before in our comment thread.
What does that prove? If you go to a random forum and, say, claim that Islam is not a religion of peace, people will yell at you to shut up, and they'll call you a Nazi and then ban you. Does this mean it's stupid to say that Islam is not a religion of peace? I guess it does.

And if you can find one person who agreed with your bahavior on that thread, do let me know.
So now we're judging the validity of someone's position based on how many people agree with it? Doesn't that mean that GoV should stop supporting unpopular opinions, like those of, say, Fjordman's? All I'm expecting is consistency.

Not one commenter found you reasonable and some of them suggested you calm down.
You're quoting one half of the discussion because the other half is gone. Again, how convinient.

Do you really not understand the importance of context, or do you just assume that nobody else does? Or maybe you feel that it isn't important as long as you're the one taking things out of context. I'd love to see your reaction if someone cherry picked sentences and paragraphs out of context from this blog and then used them to argue something completely untrue.

Some of the replies you quoted really don't help your case at all. In the third comment, Westward Ho believes that the subject has crowded everything else out of mind, but does not explain how he reached this conclusion. As I said in the thread, it's a profoundly stupid argument because there is clearly no way he can know what's occupying and not occupying my mind. It's also an ad-hominem attack, at least by this blog's standards.

The second last comment you quoted, also by Westward Ho, simply asserts that I was being angry (radically so!), without any evidence or context to back it up. Westward Ho also repeatedly accused me of being anti-semite who hates Israel just because I didn't like the way female IDF soldiers were being constantly fetishized, so I don't think you want to quote him as your expert witness.

The "JUST SHUT UP" comment also does not help you very much. Unnecessary? Check. Lacking in content? Check. Aggressive? Check. Ad-hominem? Check. But I agree with the commenter on one thing: it was not supposed to be about me. So why did people, including you, turn it into a discussion about me? I never asked for it.

I deleted your comments because it became clear that your presence on the thread was not derailing it. Each commenter felt it necessary to address your obvious animus before making his or her own point.
How is that my fault, and why did you not delete the responses as well? Because you're making excuses. Deleting my comments had nothing whatsoever to do with keeping the thread on track, especially when I was being completely on-topic.

Your own comment in the thread, which has since vanished in a very convinient fashion, was also quite pointless. It was really nothing more than an emotional attack on my person and had nothing to do with the subject.

This is a moderated thread and there are rules. You broke nearly all of them.
If I supposedly broke the rules, then so did a lot of other people. But I didn't see their comments get deleted or edited. In fact, you approve of their comments by quoting them here in your defense.

NB: This is your first and last uncivil comment on this thread or any other. I will delete future attacks on me or anyone else.
Could you define what "uncivil" and "attack" mean in this case?

cjk said...

The war against terror will be lost because The West has no foundation to stand on. Islam has islam, and no matter how demonic it is, 'it is'! They have a belief in their divine support. In the west however, the only area in which we find any widespread belief in the Almighty's favor is in a minority of the population of The USA. Even this minority is denigrated, and relegated to the fringe by the majority that exists without a common foundation. Never the less, this minority manifests the strength of faith in it's influence upon The USA. It's the reason that The USA is the only western nation with at least some fight left in it. My words will be shrugged off by the 'enlightened people' but they remain true anyway.

Conservative Swede said...

JCS,

Just give it up. In can understand the perspective from which you consider yourself treated unfairly, but you have lost this. Give it up! And to the degree that you were annoying before, you are even more annoying now. Take a break and enjoy the beautiful weather for a while. And when I say that, I say it as the best friend of your reputation. You are keeping yourself in a hopeless situation.

Natalie said...

Jesus Christ Supercop, if you hate Gates of Vienna so much, then why do you read/comment here? I don't like LGF, therefore I don't read it or comment over there.

And notice how Dymphna says here that even though she disagrees with pretty much everything this one commenter says, she leaves it up because he is CIVIL. Maybe if you disagreed politely and actually backed up your assertions, your comments would stay up.... just a thought.

José, The Fenec. said...

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon Wrote:
"The nation-state is a form of government chronically used throughout its history to not only oppress other nations and cultures, but also deny its own people the rule of law and the right to control their own governance."

What you're talking about is the individual versus the colective equilibrium that is going on for millenia. The converging characteristics of people Vs diverging particularities of the individuals. Things can go extreme in any case for that matter. A kin feeling is essential for nation survival, nations have survived trough that realization and not by political correct assumptions. That's why present day Canada and especially USA have their days numbered, they'll get dismembered as they take huge numbers of imigrants, who they think, will buy into that
tolerance and rule of law above ethnics, but that as ugly evidence shows, are taking your countries from you and imposing a very clear racial and ethnic criteria about who they call "their people".
Some European nations (from wich North America descends), due to particularities associated with ethnics and race, developed or/and assimilated democracy, the rule of reason and law. Others might take a momentary ride, especially in mixed families like Dhympha's that might give an illusion that overall, coexistence is possible...

Hey AFONSO HENRIQUES, contact me on my email!

Dymphna said...

@Jose--

A kin feeling is essential for nation survival, nations have survived trough that realization and not by political correct assumptions. That's why present day Canada and especially USA have their days numbered, they'll get dismembered as they take huge numbers of imigrants, who they think, will buy into that
tolerance and rule of law above ethnics, but that as ugly evidence shows, are taking your countries from you and imposing a very clear racial and ethnic criteria about who they call "their people".


This is a description of the state of affairs throughout the Western world. Our problem is illegal immigration of Mexicans and Central Americans.

Europe is plagued by the same problem dressed up in Muslim garb and drawing state benefits that are impoverishing the average citizen.

They don't get benefits here, but they do destroy the medical services, etc.

The slide down to the sink hole is slower here, but that's about the only difference. Unfortunately, the socialist/progressive element in this country is helping it along. They think they're immune.

And in all cases, this is elite-driven, not a populist cause. That's why people wonder when the actual rebellion will come and what form it will take.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

Conservative Swede:
Just give it up. In can understand the perspective from which you consider yourself treated unfairly, but you have lost this. Give it up! And to the degree that you were annoying before, you are even more annoying now.

Going by that logic, shouldn't this annoying blog give up as well, and close down? I am, after all, opposing the same things that GoV claims to oppose. Why do you not have a problem with this blog's blatant two-faced hypocrisy?


Natalie:
And notice how Dymphna says here that even though she disagrees with pretty much everything this one commenter says, she leaves it up because he is CIVIL.

A counter-Jihadist, of all people, should know that just because someone says something doesn't mean they're telling the truth. I've already demonstrated that Dymphna is willing to preserve and even support comments that are "uncivil."

Maybe if you disagreed politely and actually backed up your assertions, your comments would stay up.... just a thought.
I have disagreed politely (not that it has anything to do with whether or not a comment stays up) and I have backed up my assertions. If you read my previous comment, how can you seriously claim that I did not back up my assertions in it?

Afonso Henriques said...

Dymphna,

"I agree with almost nothing you say, but since you don't call names and you stay within the bounds of civil discourse, your posts stay up...."

Perfect. I prefer people who agree with me but I have nothing against those who does not.

"but I will continue to delete huge long things that run down the page for 3,000 words. That length is beyond the bounds of courtesy to other commenters."

As I said, I understand that.

"When you write something that long you're asking for a committment of time and I get complaining emails about it."

This I don't get it but ok. I will try not to "abuse".

-------------------------
Jesus,

" a blog that has criticized another site for not doing the same. The hypocrisy is inexcusable."

I understand you and I got your point. But I think this blog's still pretty free. And if you know blogs better than this, I would like you to recommend those blogs. Seriously, this blog is not perfect, but I will not be like Charles Johnson and hang out only in perfect blogs and with perfect persons.
This blog is not perfect. Far from it. We'll have to live with it. You've expoused the flaws of this blog, now let Dymhpna decide what the hell she wants to.
I am talking friendly man, don't get this personal.

Conservative Swede said...

JCS,

Going by that logic, shouldn't this annoying blog give up as well, and close down?

This blog has got a message. You don't.

And no, the message isn't free speech just for the sake of it.

Homophobic Horse said...

Ignore Gordon, his comments regarding the 'use' of the 'nation state' require an almost total ignorance of history to seem plausible.

Government should be on a scale and manner comprehensible to the governed. It should share the language of the governed. It should be geographically close to the governed. Hence, nationality. Anybody who has read the awful EU constitution will appreciate this.

Afonso Henriques said...

"I enjoy this blog, but so many of the posters seem obsessed with race. So what do you say to a Slavic Muslim brainwashed into Jihadist Ideology? Or an American from California who joins Al-Qaeda? These aren't hypothetical questions. It is reality. What does race have to do with anything? Isn't this blog about the Jihad?"

I think that there is an answer to those kind of people:
They are not white!

White is used as a synonim to European. It has little to do with race and everything to due with culture. Go google for "Caucasian Race".

Also, I think most Europeans here are trying to make Americans understand that culture is the expression of a given people and that, by blending this people with another, we will get an hybrid that is different from the original self. We are attached to the original: To Portugal, France, England, Denmark, whatever.

One more thing, to create an hybrid is a painfull process that takes centuries and, when we look to the discrimination that takes place all over the New World, we feel pleased that nobody in Europe is treated different because is lighter or darker, blonde or burnette, etc.
Of course, people are still judged by which home they are born into but it will always happen.

Just a question, you for sure feel sorry for the extermination of that especifical ethnic group of Africans that are being extreminated in Darfur, don't you? You also feel that Humanity can only lose if Tibetans are to mix with Han Chinese, both physically and culturally, right?

So, why do you think that the world would be a better place if there were not European peoples at all?

Well, I may be ugly, but I think Europe has an incredibly rate of beauties when compaired to any other parts of the world.
And I will not even mention culture...

If you really think that European and white are so purely biological, please tell me, what is a typical Afghan? You see. Race is a non issue here...

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

afonso henriques:
But I think this blog's still pretty free.

Finland and Sweden are pretty free too. You can say almost anything you want to. Almost. GoV has condemned these restrictions on numerous occasions.

And if you know blogs better than this, I would like you to recommend those blogs.
Jihad Watch is still the best.


conservative swede:
This blog has got a message. You don't.

What is the difference between GoV campaigning for freedom of speech and open debate, and me campaigning for freedom of speech and open debate? Well, I can think of one difference: I'm actually in favor of freedom of speech and open debate, whereas GoV just pretends to be.

And no, the message isn't free speech just for the sake of it.
What is the message, then? Is it "free speech, but only when it's convinient for us"?

Afonso Henriques said...

Ok Jesus.
Also, I only wanted to say that we have different tastes then.

spackle said...

JCS -

This has now moved beyond mere anger from a feeling of mistreatment to an obsession. Everyone here understands by now why you feel slighted. Unless you are trying to bait the owners of this blog into banning you I cant see what you hope to accomplish? This is my final word on this topic.

Conservative Swede said...

JCS,

What is the difference between GoV campaigning for freedom of speech and open debate, and me campaigning for freedom of speech and open debate?

Campaigning for free speech in a forum where your messages keep getting deleted doesn't seem to be an effective approach. In what other places are you campaigning?

Just a thought...

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

spackle:
Everyone here understands by now why you feel slighted.

If they did, they would agree with me.

conservative swede:
Campaigning for free speech in a forum where your messages keep getting deleted doesn't seem to be an effective approach. In what other places are you campaigning?

You keep skirting around the uncomfortable fact that GoV is doing exactly what it doesn't want others to do.

Inalienable Rights said...

jcSC - free speech or not, your comments are about as welcome as a turd in a punch bowl. Go away. Please.

Seriously, you almost make Islamization seem the better alternative.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

inalienable rights:
jcSC - free speech or not, your comments are about as welcome as a turd in a punch bowl. Go away. Please.

Why?

Natalie said...

Jesus, I know people often say things they don't mean, but Dymphna's words back up her actions.

I have found the Baron and Dymphna very accommodating to disagreement. I have personally observed people disagree with them many times and sometimes I have, too. Yet these people aren't getting their comments deleted now, are they? It seems to me that you argue solely for the sake of arguing, just so you can disagree. That's not just counterproductive, it's stupid.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

natalie:
I have found the Baron and Dymphna very accommodating to disagreement. I have personally observed people disagree with them many times and sometimes I have, too. Yet these people aren't getting their comments deleted now, are they?

So? The fact still remains that my comments were deleted because Dymphna disagreed with them. As if that wasn't enough, she proceeded to mispresent the case in an absurdly disingenious and biased fashion.

It seems to me that you argue solely for the sake of arguing, just so you can disagree. That's not just counterproductive, it's stupid.
I'm not arguing for argumen't sake, I'm arguing for very specific reasons that I have explained many times now. What are you arguing about?

Afonso Henriques said...

Jesus, here we have a song from the nineties. The lyrics are like this:

...
It is easy, it is just counting to three.
1,2,3, I am going to born again,
Have a deep breath:
1,2,3, I am going to born again,
START AGAIN:
1,
2,
3,
I am going to born again...

I never liked this music but it applies now.

And I mean, I am being friendly, I understand you. Here we have a say:

It is not efective to punch the end of a knife.

Think about it... it's useless now!

mike18xx said...

Alfonso> Mike 18xx, I would really like to know why is that. What are you talking about? It is not the last two centuries, it is the last three thousand years in my place.

Clue: "free nationalism" is an oxymoron.

Get it?

Show me "nationalism", and I'll show you smuggled-in socialism of some flavor every time.

JCS> "I'm actually in favor of freedom of speech and open debate, whereas GoV just pretends to be."

Excuse me, but is this place someone ELSE'S private property?

Afonso Henriques said...

Ok, Mike, so you are against Nationalism because of Socialism. I get it.

But we have socialism in Europe to, the only problem is that it does not benefit "the most needed of the Nation (People, demos)" or "the best of the Nation (People, demos)".

Also, without taking the cominity as something of vallue per se, our politics do not care about our countries and as such we are pretty bad.

mike18xx said...

stormgaard> "Libertarians" and "Classical Liberals"....are terrified to admit that there's a supernatural force at work in the world and in their lives - and that Jesus was telling the truth.

You're terrified of the possibility that there is no heaven or hell, or a final judgment of the wicked getting their just reward, and that when you die, you just go in a hole in the ground and the worms eat your corpse.

-- It essentially means that there is no "salvation" in the afterlife, no milk & honey, no 47 virgins or any of that other nonsense; and that the only good things you're ever going to accomplish will be the result of hard work in the here and now.

==//==

Rambo: "Did you bring any weapons?"

Christian tour leader: "Of course not!"

Rambo: "You won't change anything!"

Afonso Henriques said...

Without taking the comunity as something valuable per se, with a high vallue, our politics do not care about our countries at all.

And as such, we are pretty bad.

We have a group and a people here. It should be valorized.

Way too much blood was shed for the Nations of Europe. I would like to think it was not in vein.

mike18xx said...

Alfonso: Ok, Mike, so you are against Nationalism because of Socialism. I get it.

I recognize that "nationalism" IS socialism.

But we have socialism in Europe too, the only problem is that it does not benefit "the most needed of the Nation (People, demos)" or "the best of the Nation (People, demos)".

Of course it doesn't No tyranny ever does.

Also, without taking the cominity as something of vallue per se, our politics do not care about our countries and as such we are pretty bad.

A tyranny's promises failing to live up to expectations? Who'd a thunk?

=-=-=-=

My word-verification was "ditnugs"!

José, The Fenec. said...

Dymphna wrote:
"This is a description of the state of affairs throughout the Western world. Our problem is illegal immigration of Mexicans and Central Americans."

But, Dymphna, to actually take measures to ensure "zero porosity" at the borders and stop illegal imigration would require a level of awareness about nationhood that is quickly dying! And you saying the problem is illegal imigration is just ignoring the fact that second generation mexicans are allienating themselves from North America, and joyning those separatist movements of "Aztlan" and whatever! I know it's ugly, but race will be used as a ideological weapon. Just like classical marxism used the lower classes struggle to ramm the established social order, present day cultural marxists will use the imigrants as "victims" of a still pretty white America/Europe. They are made the lower victimized class and used to ramm the established ethnic natives. The use of guilt is still the catalist, and you are right, it is primarly elite movement, but as long as the MSM hides the truth about those reality zones of multiculturalism, the masses will buy and ostracize anyone who wakes up.

Jesus Supercop: elaborate and send me and anyone who requests it, a repetion of the post you got deleted, if you still go for the trouble of having a discussion here, THAT is the logical step to take. Any other action is just an admition you are doing nothing more but baiting for a ban so you can go to LGF or JihadWatch vanglorizing yourself to your friends.

AFONSO HENRIQUES:
Click on my avatar and contact my email!
Clica o meu avatar e contacta o meu email, pá!

Conservative Swede said...

I recognize that "nationalism" IS socialism.

Wow, we have an Orwellian surrealist among us.

The cognitive and historic disconnect is complete.

Afonso Henriques said...

José the Fnec,

I was looking for your other comment for a while.

When I am here at Gates of Vienna, usually I am doing other things in the PC as well.

If you are in Portugal, I am hoping to contact you right now, even before midnight. Just wait a bit longer and check your email.

Desculpa lá, mas estou com os pequenos problemas técnicos. Nada porreiro pá!

Afonso Henriques said...

If you can not contact me, please, tell me something about it. Leave a note on this thread. Thank you.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

mike18xx:
Excuse me, but is this place someone ELSE'S private property?

Are you serious? Do you really think I'm talking about freedom of speech in the legal sense? Or are you just desperate enough to use that argument because you have no real way of defending GoV's hypocrisy?

Sagunto said...

let's repeat some very sensible words here, by @boxermk:

"..I enjoy this blog, but so many of the posters seem obsessed with race. [...] What does race have to do with anything? Isn't this blog about the Jihad?
It's about Ideology. Race is NOT intrinsic to Nationalism, although it often is. I agree with the emailer from Minnesota. And for the posters who are obsessed with race on this blog, you make the discussion very boring for those of us who see through your obsession.."


Wish I had written those words myself, thnx a lot.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

***************

@Fjordman,

"..people of Scandinavian descent tend to be hardcore Multiculturalists. Don't know why.."

Perhaps two factors that combined contribute substantially to an elevated risk for Multiculti infection are relatively more characteristic of the Scandinavians commenting on counterjihad blogs, the factors being a "higher education" and membership of a certain generation, sometimes described as the baby-boomers?
Perhaps some other characteristics that in fact have very little to do with being of Scandinavian descent account for the supposed correlation.

Sag.

Diamed said...

A small number of minorities can assimilate into the larger society. A small number of people can cross racial lines and intermarry (3%? 5%?) This does not invalidate how important race is, it's the exception that proves the rule. Even while these few people are doing the rare thing that makes no impact on the larger problem, the great majority are doing the normal thing that is creating a huge problem. Even though America and Canada have hobbled along with multiple races, they have never been better off because of it.

Can anyone seriously claim America has been enriched by slavery, segregation, and now affirmative action and rampant welfare/crime? And yet that's basically all multi-racialism has gotten us. To point to this as a successful model Europe should emulate is laughable.

The ethnicity is the natural furthest limit of a nation, where people still belong to the same family and are therefore more willing to cooperate rather than predate upon each other. This is clearly shown by the racial spoils system in America today. Who can claim the four different races are actually cooperating for the good of America as a whole? And yet it's obvious that countries like Japan are all working together without a problem. It's not a mystery.

America is no example to emulate, America, and Canada, will soon fall apart under the weight of its self-inflicted diversity. The USSR already tried the raceless, classless society. 17 countries later, they learned their lesson. The US is not magically immune from the same lesson.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I recognize that "nationalism" IS socialism.

So 1820s England was socialist was it? That being one of Great Britain's more nationalist periods, and also the height of the industrial revolution. Funny that. And lets not forget it was at this height of nationalism that England defeated Napoleon, because the defence of the nation, and pride in that nation, allowed us to unite against the threat. In fact I think the most nationalist periods of Great Britain's history are also those periods when it was internally the freest and most able to deal with external threats.

I suspect your thesis is a little simplistic. Nationalism is not socialism; Socialism can use nationalism to achieve goals but socialism is, ultimately, internationalist, concerned with destroying the nation state, the nationalist ideal, the uniting bond of a nation. Nationalism is merely the appreciation of the nation state as a superior means to protect a way of life. It's not an ideology, it's a container, rather like the borders of a nation contain everything within it, nationalism contains everything within that nations culture. French nationalism would be remarkably different to English or Scottish nationalism.

Now what's a nationalist? As I implied this varies from place to place. An English nationalist would be someone concerned with preserving the unique properties of the English nation, and possibly with preserving the Union of Great Britain with it, and perhaps a few other things along the lines of good trade, reducing immigration from outside the commonwealth and possibly stuffing the French. An American nationalist? Well you'd probably call them a patriot, concerned with strong borders, sensible immigration and the defence and promotion of the constitutional freedoms an american enjoys.

Not a nationalist? America is a nation-state forged on those ideals. Supporting the nation-state is nationalism. If you support the national ideals and aims of the United States of America as laid out in the constitution and the writings of the founding fathers you are a nationalist.

There's no way around that matey.

Consequently I find myself being an English and British nationalist. I do not support the BNP; they are socialists. Irony? Possibly, but the fact that there can be a distinction between nationalism per se, and nationalism that embodies a socialist ideal, disproves your argument that all nationalism is socialism, simply because all nationalism is not socialism, nor is socialism a form of nationalism. One can embrace the other, but this is like saying that shrink-wrap can embrace a sandwich; the shrink-wrap no more becomes the sandwich than nationalism becomes socialism by embracing it, and teh mere fact that it is possible for shrink-wrap to be wrapped around the sandwich does not mean that it can only be used for that single purpose; as with nationalism, which can be (and has been) exploited by socialists for their own ends, but which is not exclusively a tool of socialists.

Go away and think about it again, rather than simply repudiating and dismissing the most likely means of uniting people in the face of an existential threat.

Natalie said...

Jesus Christ Supercop, the question still remains: if you don't like this blog, why do you keep commenting here? I asked that earlier, and I don't believe you answered.

You seem so offended that Dymphna deleted your comment. I disagree with you, but you are entitled to your own opinion, as I am.

You just seem to have such problems with this blog. Why read and comment here if you don't like it? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

And here's another person who just can't bring herself to face the fact that GoV has completely sold out. The reason why people are so badly in denial is probably because they're fanatics who are so feverishly devoted to the site that they're unable to accept uncomfortable facts, no matter how obvious and simple they are. Much like... multiculturalists.

Sagunto said...

@archonix,

"..So 1820s England was socialist was it? [...] Funny that. And lets not forget it was at this height of nationalism that England defeated Napoleon, because the defence of the nation, and pride in that nation, allowed us to unite against the threat.."

I would call that defence of England patriotism, and the agressive expansion of the centralist French nation under Napoleontic dictatorship, nationalism.

Socialism isn't internationalist by default, that's just one of the many branches on the old Socialist Tree, which like any political religion of course also sprouted a large number of slightly different and often fiercely competing sects: a huge number of national socialist movements (like that of Stalin, Hitler and Nasser), and fascist socialisms (without the race-laws). Socialism with and without class differences. Socialism of the syndicalists, the anarchists, the futurists and so on. There even have been socialist monarchs, like Napoleon III.

But you probably already knew that ;-)

Sag.

Natalie said...

You still haven't answered my question, Jesus Christ Supercop. I have asked twice, and you have refused to answer, either by ignoring me or accusing me of being "in denial."

livfreerdie said...

Natalie, some folks think that if you invite them into your home it is their right of freedom of expression to relieve themselves on your carpet. They are the only ones who need to be heard and the first to whine when they don't get their way. They are so full of themselves that they think it is not them that must sacrifice for anything yet expect everyone else to follow their superior thinking. If you put their collective brains in a matchbox it would be like BBs in a boxcar.

Tom

PS. Dymphna, if I'm over the line I apologize but sometimes.......

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

natalie:
You still haven't answered my question, Jesus Christ Supercop. I have asked twice, and you have refused to answer, either by ignoring me or accusing me of being "in denial."

Why should I answer? You're obviously just trying to redirect attention away from what really matters.

livfreerdie, thanks for that super intelligent argument that completely misses the point.

Fjordman said...

JCS: Since it's so bad here, I suggest you post your comments at another blog.

Dymphna said...

@José, The Fenec --

But, Dymphna, to actually take measures to ensure "zero porosity" at the borders and stop illegal imigration would require a level of awareness about nationhood that is quickly dying! And you saying the problem is illegal imigration is just ignoring the fact that second generation mexicans are allienating themselves from North America, and joyning those separatist movements of "Aztlan" and whatever!

I was using our immigration problems to compare them to those of Europe. The mass movement of populations across the globe is fracturing the commonweal of many countries. EU believers think they have solved the problem by making one great big federation.

Here in the US, the progressives have voted into law a complicated, unreadable, and destructive immigration program that is bound to worse conditions instead of making them better.

2nd generation immigrants are not assimilating because of several reasons. One of them is the multi-cultural fundamentalists who run the powerful teachers' unions and don't set up ESL (English as a Second Language) classes for students or their parents. The parochial schools that do this are seeing success.

And besides the progressive, socialist ideology, riven as it is with relativism and ironic detachment, there are the lobbies of big business who want this slave labor here.

In states like New Mexico and Arizona, where they've toughened up the rules in order to survive, Mexicans are returning to Mexico and the Mexican government is complaining.

My solution? Take the billions we are spending uselessly and dole them out in pesos to those who are willing to return to their homeland and stay there. Most of them would prefer that anyway.

They could spend their money in Mexico, liven up the economy, and have more leverage in their own territory.

We would have to fool-proof it against the corrupt Mexican govt so that workers could retain their own money, but it could be done.

The UK does this already with some Central Europeans who have returned home. It could work on a larger scale.

mike18xx said...

graham; I won't get in a definition-battle with you. (One thing socialists are quite good at, especially when they get to write dictionaries, is change the definition when an "old" has too much negative historical baggage.)

Suffice to say that I do not subscribe to the "ambiguous collective logical fallacy" (Google) in any form.

-- I am an individualist. NOBODY has any right to rule me.

==//==

> Jesus Christ Supercop:
> > mike18xx: Excuse me, but is this place someone ELSE'S private property?
> Are you serious? ...are you just desperate enough to use that argument because you have no real way of defending GoV's hypocrisy?


There's no hypocrisy involved because the analogy is FALSE. What you are attempting to do is falsely equate "free speech" with your assumed (but actually non-existent) right to say whatever you want on somebody else's property.

Now if you were to set up your own blog to blither as you pleased, and GoV called government regulation down on your head -- then you'd have a case.

Dymphna said...

@José

By the way, I don't think I used the term "zero porosity" anywhere, but certainly not pertaining to our borders.

Such an idea is not within the realm of reality for any country.

Every country in the West is confronted with this problem of mass movement of populations. It remains to be seen how well any place will deal with it. This is an unprecedented situation because it the numbers are so massive and people are so desperate.

BTW, Mexcio has a very draconian approach to illegals in its country. Quite successful because it's a top-down decision, not a public discussion.

mike18xx said...

Sagunto said... Socialism isn't internationalist by default, that's just one of the many branches on the old Socialist Tree, which like any political religion of course also sprouted a large number of slightly different and often fiercely competing sects: a huge number of national socialist movements (like that of Stalin, Hitler and Nasser), and fascist socialisms (without the race-laws). Socialism with and without class differences. Socialism of the syndicalists, the anarchists, the futurists and so on. There even have been socialist monarchs, like Napoleon III.

Wherever there is a government ramrodding an edict regards property down a people's throats in "the name of the people" themselves, there's socialism.

- Stalin was a socialist.
- Hitler was a socialist.
- Hillary is a socialist.
- GW Bush is a socialist.

They all differ only in the details of how far they'll go to secure their ambitions (and how ambitious those ambitions are); the underlying principle, however, of collectivism trumping individual rights -- is the same in all of them: They view you a peon to be bossed around and robbed to pay for "for the good of the people".

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

Fjordman:
JCS: Since it's so bad here, I suggest you post your comments at another blog.

You're either missing the point or deliberately avoiding it. Just like everyone else here.

mike18xx:
There's no hypocrisy involved because the analogy is FALSE.

GoV has critized LGF for deleting comments and stiffling open debate. GoV has also criticized the Western world at large for the same thing. Now GoV is censoring opinions and stiffling open debate.

No hypocrisy going on here, move along.

What you are attempting to do is falsely equate "free speech" with your assumed (but actually non-existent) right to say whatever you want on somebody else's property.
No, that's just your strawman, and as I've already said a billion times GoV is guilty of hypocrisy because it's doing what it doesn't want others to do. It does not matter one bit that this is a private site.

mike18xx said...

dymphna: "Every country in the West is confronted with this problem of mass movement of populations."

Is that really a problem?

If I invite you over to my house, does anyone have a moral right to impede your travel?

Travel by itself is innocuous.

It's what you *do* that is important. I.e., the "problem" of France isn't that it has too many Muslims; France's problem is that it lacks the balls to hang every car-burner from a lamppost as an example to the rest.

Every country in the West is like France to an extent. They're sheep, and Islam is a wolf loping in to cull the herd.

mike18xx said...

JCS: Now GoV is censoring opinions and stiffling open debate.

You're still here.

Dymphna said...

mike18xx said...

You're terrified of the possibility that there is no heaven or hell, or a final judgment of the wicked getting their just reward, and that when you die, you just go in a hole in the ground and the worms eat your corpse.

Do you think this is the case for faith that every believer makes? In a desperate search for security, they have to believe in some comforting afterlife?

That's an awful big jump to make about the subject of another's motivation. In fact, it's as flatly fundamental and dogmatic in its approach as any revival preacher's hellfire theology.

Faith is not about "knowing" one way or the other. Atheists don't "choose" any more than believers do. People simply come to the conclusions they do led by their own intellect, free will, sensibility, and experience.

I honestly don't know what, if anything, lies beyond death. But since the truth is ultimately uknowable, I choose the path that appears to me to be the most robust...and the most entertaining.

However, I don't insist that what others believe or don't believe has any bearing on the matter, except that those of similar beliefs tend to hang out with one another because it's more congenial that way -- birds of a feather and all that.

But maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say there...

mike18xx said...

Do you think this is the case for faith that every believer makes?

"Makes"? No. Harbors? Almost certainly.

But since the truth is ultimately uknowable,

-- How do you know that?

(You just painted yourself into a corner.)

Dymphna said...

@mike18xx--

But since the truth is ultimately uknowable

-- How do you know that?

(You just painted yourself into a corner.)
______________

I disagree. No one has any way of proving or disproving contentions about the existence of an afterlife or the lack of one.

These are a priori assumptions -- the scaffolding -- on which belief or skepticism are built.

People with similar basic assumptions tend to clump together.

I'm not sure I understand your use of the word "harboring" unless you are referring to these a priori "givens."

Felicie said...

Sagunto: "Socialism isn't internationalist by default, that's just one of the many branches on the old Socialist Tree, which like any political religion of course also sprouted a large number of slightly different and often fiercely competing sects: a huge number of national socialist movements (like that of Stalin, Hitler and Nasser)..."

It doesn't make sense to me to call Stalin a nationalist. The old USSR had a state ideology that promoted multiculturalism and "friendship of the peoples." The idea of the international solidarity of the working class was strongly emphasized. In the republics, people learned their native languages at school, and there was even a team of so called "translators," who translated national literatures into other languages just to make a point about the richness of different cultural heritages that made up the country. Oftentimes, these literary works were completely invented, not translated. Some of the cultures whose literatures were created from scratch were nomadic, having only recently acquired literacy. They were not at the point where they had native writers, but it was important to show that they did.

Sagunto said...

@felicie,

"..It doesn't make sense to me to call Stalin a nationalist.."

You're right it doesn't, so I didn't. I mentioned the regime of Stalin as another example of national socialism. One can still call it communism, but especially after the break with Hitler, the distinction between the two rival sects of socialism becomes academic.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

(One thing socialists are quite good at, especially when they get to write dictionaries, is change the definition when an "old" has too much negative historical baggage.)

I suppose that's rather the irony. Prior to the 1940s, nationalism and patriotism were virtually synonyms.

Well lets use the Napoleon example. Napoleon used French patriotism, the belief in the superiority of the French way of life, to rouse up his army to fight. They would literally shout "Vive la France!" as they advanced. Everything they did was for France, for the nation and the patriotic ideal.

But.

The British, German and Spanish armies that defeated him were also roused by patriotism. They believed in the sanctity of their nations.

Nationalism and patriotism are almost completely interchangeable in that context, given the following understanding of the words: Nationalism doesn't involve the imposition of anything, it's the expression of a common will, a common border chosen by the people within it, in most cases. The choice to unite. Nationalism is the fervent belief that the nation is, that it exists, and Patriotism is the fervent belief that the nation and its existence is right, that its actions while it exists are right, and a defence of the existence of that nation beleiving that nation is right to exist. You can't generally have one without the other, even if you never actually define them. It's not possible to be a nationalist without believing that the nation has a right to exist. It's neither possible to be a patriot without believing in the existence if nation you're patriotic about, however you define that nation.

The modern leftist redefinition of nationalism is "racism", which means we have to use patriotism as a replacement for nationalism rather than a relative synonym... but, I'm sure you can already see patriotism becoming a dirty word for certain people. I've seen it. Patriotism is racism as well, now.

I can understand why people wouldn't want to be called nationalist given the current definition of the word, and in a lot of ways I agree, since it's taken on so many negative connotations. Unfortunately for the arguments above, ironically too, perhaps, socialism isn't one of them.

Stalin and Churchill both found that a good dose of national fervour will do wonders for raising morale. They were about as opposite as you can get.

Nationalism and patriotism, in that case, are guns. A gun isn't evil. Nationalism isn't evil. Both are tools to be used by whomever has them and knows how. Or would you ban all guns because Napoleon used them?

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Addressing this separately, because it's a separate point. Tjhe faith argument.

Do people of faith harbour fears about death? I can't speak for them, but I know I do. I'm mortified by the thought of death. It's difficult for me to talk about it, because I've had a couple of close calls... however the fear of death isn't a driver for my faith. If anything it's destroying it. A few years ago I had a pretty horrific car crash that could have potentially killed me and my wife. In the initial impact I was knocked unconscious for a fraction of a second, just long enough to register the disconnect, the momentary cessation of all thought and feeling. The thought that this is what death would be hasn't made me cling to my faith or become more fervent in my belief in an afterlife but more the opposite. It becomes very hard to believe in life after death when you've experienced something akin to the popular scientific description of what death will be.

And before you ask, no, I'm not stronger for this. My faith gave me strength in ways you probably can't understand. The belief in something greater and the unity I felt with fellow christians gave me a foundation that I've almost lost, now. That is what faith does. It's not a crutch against the fear of death, or against the nasty outside world, it's a thing that unites people with a common bond. As the good book said, a tie that binds.

Felicie said...

Sagunto: "I mentioned the regime of Stalin as another example of national socialism. One can still call it communism, but especially after the break with Hitler, the distinction between the two rival sects of socialism becomes academic."

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by "national socialism." I thought it implies promoting a specific ethnicity to the exclusion of others. It's not clear to me how the USSR socialism was particularly "national." For example, if Hitler's Germany gave a status of autonomy to Sorbian people and promoted the Sorbian language, it would be more like the Soviet Union. Also, all industry in USSR was nationalized, but it was not so in Germany. So the latter was not as socialist as the former.

But, anyway, I do agree with whoever said earlier that nationalism and socialism may or may act together. Although hard-core socialists/communists are strongly committed to the idea of class solidarity across national lines, so to these folks, the marriage of socialism and communism is not a natural state of affairs.

Conservative Swede said...

mike18xx,

- GW Bush is a socialist.

Who isn't a socialist to you?

Charles Martel and Charlemagne - socialists!
Julius Caesar and Agustus - socialists!
Winston Churchill - socialist!
Moses - socialist!

Sagunto said...

@archonix,

"..One thing socialists are quite good at, especially when they get to write dictionaries, is change the definition when an "old" has too much negative historical baggage.."

Yep, sure agree with that one. All commmies that defected from the party line were called fascists, this lies at the base of the myth that fascism is somehow a right-wing movement which is of course absurd, because the more you move to the right (classical liberalism, traditional conservatism), i.e. support for the free market, individualism and the rule of law, the further away you move from all kinds of socialism: marxism/leninism/stalinism/nazism/fascism/nasserism et cetera.

Now about the nationalism/patriotism thing. The way you describe it, the labels seem interchangeable and I agree. The difficulty however is, that - as with the definition of "liberal" - I must respect the linguistic fact that sometimes sematic differences exist across the Atlantic, largely due to the reason you gave: progressive/socialist relabeling.

But the negative connotation attributed to "nationalism" isn't the sole invention of socialists. When Nigel Farrage argues vehemently against the EU bureaucrats who want to impose the EU superstate upon the peoples of Europe, he speaks of "totalitarianism" and "EURO-nationalism". And you can rest assured that Mr. Farrage of the UKIP by no means would represent anything that would resemble socialism whatsoever. So that's what might cause some confusion over here, the fact that conservatives in Europe consider nationalism to be a concept that is somewhat artificial when compared with patriotism and furthermore, that "nationalism" to them represents a unifying collectivist principle, historically largely used by revolutionary leftists to exploit benign patriotic loyalties.
I support this view, yet I recognize that others tend to ascribe to nationalism the positive values people here in Holland for instance would normally associate with patriotism.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Afonso Henriques said...

"I would call that defence of England patriotism, and the agressive expansion of the centralist French nation under Napoleontic dictatorship, nationalism."


No Sagunto, the Napoleonic episode was an episode of Imperialism, as Hitler's episode in Germany. As Cecil Rhodes in England was, first of all, a Imperialist and D. Henrique, the man who started the colonisation of the World by Europeans was a Impeliast, though this is a especial case in which we can consider him a Nationalist as well.

You get the Iberian Peninsula through the middle ages.
The muslims were Imperialistic and not Nationalists despite the fact that Islam can (and should) be seen as Arab Nationalism. The Portuguese state and the proto-State of the Nothwestern Iberia, were Nationalists, they wanted to preserve a given Nation, a culture, a way of life.

The Spanish state has since the beggining been Imperialistic. It's aim was (is) to recreat Hispania, a all united Iberian Peninsula without concern to the individual Nations there.

You said that in the Netherlands regions are more important than the Nation. If a guy from Zeeland goes to Amsterdam, will he be regarded as a foreign?
And if a Morocco is in Amsterdam for more than one generation, is he considered a Dutch?

Do not be hypocrite...

Patriotism is just a small part of Nationalsm.

"and fascist socialisms (without the race-laws)."

I wouldn't consider Salazar or Franco as Socialists. Though Salazar was a Nationalist and Franco was a "Iberist". A man who is a Nationalist but who sees all the Iberia Peninsula as a Nation, differing from the rest of Europe but only with minor differences in all the Peninsula.
(Franco was made General after his thesis: "How to invade and controle Portugal in two weeks")

Sagunto said...

"..You said that in the Netherlands regions are more important than the Nation. If a guy from Zeeland goes to Amsterdam, will he be regarded as a foreign?
And if a Morocco is in Amsterdam for more than one generation, is he considered a Dutch?

Do not be hypocrite..."


What is this afonso? Your polite way of soliciting a response? You might consider to tone down your "enthusiasm" a bit when exchanging viewpoints, ok?

Now about the local/regional matter. My point would be, as I said before, that when it comes to actually defend your ethnic identity, local customs and so on against Islamization, the guy in Zeeland will fight for the customs and tradions of that region and the guy in Amsterdam fights for his city. When the going gets tough they will of course fight together on a different level, but that is not the level at which the counterjihad will take place. And this site is about the counterjihad, so the local level remains the focus of my attention.
When a guy from Friesland comes to Amsterdam and speaks his own language and doesn't act like Amsterdammers should, then he will be regarded as someone foreign to our customs. The problem with Moroccans in Amsterdam is, that even third generation berbers don't consider themselves to be Dutch. So obviously most of them are not considered to be Dutch and certainly no real Amsterdammers.

I hope this was not too "hypocritical" for your taste.

I must apologize for not thinking about Salazar or Franco, but obviously about Mussolini, when I spoke about fascist socialisms. I don't consider Salazar or Franco to be socialists, so to be fair, it's only logical I didn't mention them ;-)
Why you'd imply that I suggested F&R actually were socialists, when I don't even mention these gentlemen, is beyond me to be honest. Small potatoes though, so never mind.

Sag.

Afonso Henriques said...

"The UK does this already with some Central Europeans who have returned home."

This are the ones who really need to be expelled, aren't they? They are criminals!
We better prevent them to blend in and become "English" in two or three generation times... that would destroy the great and happy multicultural United Kingdom!

"I am an individualist. NOBODY has any right to rule me."
And as so you are not willing to sacrice yourself for nothing. You are a nihilist and it disgusts me.
Nobody is THAT individualist, man!

Now seriously,

Nationalism has five main "driving forces".
Like Chatolicism has the Father, the Son and the Holly Spirit, Nationalism has:

1)The People
2)The History
3)The Fatherland
4)The Tradition and Culture
5)The Metaphysical spirit inherent to all this. All legends, fantastic Histories, divine intreventions, religion and all. You may call it "Mythology" or "Metaphisical Mythology".

I tried to order this concepts, because without the first you do not have the second and so forth.

1) The people. This is not Racial because rareley a Nation is faced with Racial clines. Most European Nations border only white Nation and many African tribes border only black tribes. But the people is a genetic continum. It is an extending family that has diferentiated from the other Humans as a single ethnic group. Is the unity between this group that will originate all the rest. The base of Nationalism is an ethnic group.

2) The History. Nationalism focus on the History of the people, in what the people have done in the past, what the "fathers" literally, have done together for benefit (or not) of the group as a whole. History does not end, it reflects itself on the present and projects itself towards the future.

3) The Fatherland. From the latim "Patria", Patriotism is only the defense of the land. But, why should I be a patriot? Is "my land" not as valuable as "my people"? The Fatherland is the land in which the people has lived and that has been the place where History happens. As so, the people get attached to it.

4) The culture. Culture is a combination of this three earlier factors. The people creats culture limitated by Historical events and dpending on the specifications of the Fatherland. The culture is the maximum expression of the People, it is everything the people has built. The culture is material, the History imaterial. They are two sides of the same coin.

5) Metaphysical Mythology. It is the way the people comunicates with the divine and the transcendent. Every people has its own particular attachmants and paranatural "stories". It is maybe, the highest form of culture, or according to some, the dumbest. It is the almot literally the spirit of the people and will be reflected in all the four former topics.

Also, a good Nationalist wants the best of the Nations to rule them, he wants to attend perfection knowingly all to perfectly that it is impossible. Nationalism has its base in the believe that those particular five topics shall be preserved and that they all have an intrinsic vallue.

A good Nationalist can have friends of many races and ethnicities but those same friends are never seen as part of the Nation.
Ex. I may be Dymphna's best friend but she will never see me as an American, simply because, I am no American. Racists are the ones who believe that they can only have friends among their own Nation.

All this topics can be "improoved" as many people have tried to:

1)Eugenics in the U.S.A.
2)Mythologization of American History (The fouder fathers were not racists).
3)The conquest of the American West.
4)Culture is always being enriched. Every generation gives its cultural contribution. Or so it should.
5)The creation of new legends, religious sects, etc. Ex: Rooswelt (UFO's and that)

And America is not really a Nation!
It is more a state-Nation where the Nation is dictated by the state. In Europe, it is the other way around. America is pretty much an empire. In Europe we can smell this 5 beauties in the air...

Afonso Henriques said...

"Prior to the 1940s, nationalism and patriotism were virtually synonyms."

Please Archonix, read my previous post.

Patriotism in nothing but a component of Nationalism. Patriot, in English derivates from the Latin "Patria".

Patria in Latin is something like Pater+ia,
meaning father+land, literally.

Patriotism is the defense of the land. Nationalism is much more than that. And, if Patriotism was a synonim of Nacionalism it was because in those times, all we had to do was to save our Land from foreign armies and all the rest would be preserved. It is simple and logic. You can understand this, can you not?

"Napoleon used French patriotism, the belief in the superiority of the French way of life, to rouse up his army to fight. They would literally shout "Vive la France!" as they advanced. Everything they did was for France, for the nation and the patriotic ideal."

Yes, just like Hitler...
THEY WERE, above all else, IMPERIALISTS. But, whereas Hitler had some right to reivindicate some lands to form the Reich, Napoleon had no right whatsoever to invade all Europe. And that, makes Napoleon even worst than Hitler in what Imperialism is concerned.

"The British, German and Spanish armies that defeated him were also roused by patriotism."

You better say the "European armies" because Spaniards did help Napoleon as well as half of Germany.
I think that the ones who really stand strong to Napoleon were:
England, of course; Russia; Sweden; Austria; and maybe Portugal and Prussia.

Archonix, I strongly disagree with your views in Patriotism and Nationalism. I would like you to read my comment. However, I agree that "The modern leftist redefinition of nationalism is "racism"".

I want to stress one thing:
Stalin did nothing for the Nation. It was the Russian people.
Try to kill some 20 millions of any ethnic group, invade their territory and you will see them becoming ferverant Nationalists from day to night.
Put two diferent ethnicities fighting the same war and all you'll get is the strenghting of the Nation (Turks+Arabs vs Persians in the Iran/Iraq war) or the extintion of one ethnic group (blacks in Argentina).

Afonso Henriques said...

"What is this afonso? Your polite way of soliciting a response?"

Sorry for that Sagunto. It was not intentional. The fact is that here, we use the term "hipócrita" with the same frequency as we use the term please. It is only (very) lightly offensive and more provocative than offensive. Sorry for being so rude, maybe the hypocrital thing was "too strong".
It was really not intentional. I think the rest of the question is polite, though.

"when it comes to actually defend your ethnic identity, local customs and so on against Islamization, the guy in Zeeland will fight for the customs and tradions of that region and the guy in Amsterdam fights for his city. When the going gets tough they will of course fight together on a different level, but that is not the level"

Ok. But, being Holland such a tiny country, I never imagine there was such espace to great regional differences. Now I understand that you did not meant necessarily abysmal regional differences. I think you are correct.

"about the counterjihad, so the local level remains the focus of my attention."

My own view is that while we Westerners are asleep, the Ortodhox in South East Europe are the ones who are really fighting and are losing. So, I think that we in the West will only wake up when "a catastrofic event" is to happen. And I do not mean "little" bombings in Madrid and London, or "mini-guerillas" traveling around Paris or Amsterdam.

"third generation berbers don't consider themselves to be Dutch. So obviously most of them are not considered to be Dutch and certainly no real Amsterdammers."

Well, I think that the first ones to discriminate are the Dutch. In the same way that, if a Dutch is to go to Morocco, the first people to notice the Dutch are a foreigner, are the Morrocans.

"I hope this was not too "hypocritical" for your taste."
I think that I don't have to apologise twice, but if you are to be happy, it does not cost, does it: I've said I'm sorry.

Concerning Franco and Salazar, you talked about "fascism without race laws".
Whereas Franco had a strong sense of a "Spanish race" (that frighteningly included the Portuguese) and Salazar claimed that Portugal was a multicultural country in order to maintain the colonies. There were no especific race laws. At least, in Europe.

thll said...

I argued, 'Nation and culture are functions of race - without the element of kin they become meaningless.'

Dymphna replied, 'There are lots of examples of 'kin' who are mixed races and it works fine. In our family we have various mixtures of white europeans (me: what other kind of europeans are there?), Vietnamese, African American, and Korean. I don't see any lack of meaning in those relationships and neither do they.'

Aren't you talking about kin in the micro sense? I was talking about it talking about it in the macro.

I don't know you or what you look like but as you are a Western European were we to meet I would recognise you as kin because you are 'like me' in physical appearance. Whereas were I to meet your mixed race relatives I wouldn't see them in those terms. This is not to say I wouldn't like them as people, in fact I am sure they are much nicer than certain members of my family. The people you refer to are kin by virtue of your familial relationship, but they are not kin to me.

I've said this here before but it seems appropriate to say it again; a culture is a function of a people's interaction with nature. The law, economics, politics, art, science, music, mathematics, architecture, modes of dress and interpersonal relationships - all are answers to questions posed by life. Cultures differ because peoples perceive life according to their own *peculiar* ways; hence the difference in their solutions to the problems posed by life.

Peoples aren't the same. Fact. But the West has got itself into a position where the obvious can no longer be stated. That's the reason for its confusion in tackling Islam.

The idea of the universal equality of individuals has morphed into the idea of the universal equality of cultures and world views.

Islam isn't the problem. Paradoxically it is the solution - because we'll only be able to deal with it by rejecting the idealistic notion of equality which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Conservative Swede said...

The illusionary distinction between (aggressive) nationalism and (righteous) patriotism is such a propagandistic bromide.

It seems to have originated in America. Americans have a long history of seeing European national identity and self-affirmation with suspicion and the source of the main evils on this planet; something that needs to be pushed down. So the word 'nationalism' is reserved for that. But in this newspeak context a word is still needed for American national identity and self-affirmation: 'patriotism'.

Many Americans (quite as many Europeans) are now waking up to how fallacious and destructive this myth is (in the face of the aggressive threats of the declining West). But the language of the old paradigm is still intact. And to the degree that propagandistic language is internalized, people will be blinded, and hampered in their thinking, in their ability to draw correct conclusions.

José, The Fenec. said...

Dymphna wrote:
"2nd generation immigrants are not assimilating because of several reasons. One of them is the multi-cultural fundamentalists who run the powerful teachers' unions and don't set up ESL (English as a Second Language) classes for students or their parents. The parochial schools that do this are seeing success."

I understand the mention of the elites responsbility in the analysis of the North America situation, but their actions only thrive due to the receptivity of the groups they appeal. If we look at the worldwide scale, you'll see that without strong nation-state action, to ensure cohesion and convergence of people's values, different ethnics will start going after each other. See the example of Canada you mentioned as having given a chance to Indians to assimilate. Do you think that the Canada of before would have tolerated separatist movements of Indians as the USA Hispanics support today? I don't think so, and that non-tolerance policy would be supported by the nation that was, not this nations that are weakened by appeasement ideologies... That's the reason you can today present the example of canadians with indian ancestry that are fully integrated, because there was a nation state who altough tolerated the ethnically different Indians, did not allow them to make it "political". Wahetever Indians wanted to do to ensure Indian culture, could not go against the main dominant culture, sported by the other ethnic group.
Pragmatism should be to recognize that different ethnics will allways face each other for dominance of the cultures associated with the ethnics, so in practice it's like we need to really say "race matters" because it will allways be used by instrumentalized politically by someone, therefore, any person or government aware of that should not allow imigration to take place, especially in a country with multicultural demeanor who does not requiers from its newcomers to assimilate.
I think american/canadian white liberals are so receptive to imigration and say "hey, come on all in!Let's all be a big happy family!" Because they are really naive and immature, they speak from a point where demographics still allow them the luxury to be condescendent to the reality of human behaviour.
Reality-> Race will allways be used as political weapon, therefore anyone trying to prevent this will not support ethnical different imigration and to that happen that someone will have to be aware of what ethnics its nation is mainly made of, and that
group will hold power to mantain the culture associated to it.

Sagunto said...

@afonso,

No need to apologize for your provocative language. Certainly not when it was not your intention to offend. I just want to remind you, to relax now and then, and tone down your enthusiasm just a bit; don't apologize, just count to 10 before you decide to provoke someone into an answer. Just the usual way of discussing different viewpoints will do nicely. Fair enough?

Now, as for the other small potatoes, check my comment 5/13/2008 9:12 PM, read it again if you like (it's not that long) and see for yourself that nowhere do I mention or even hint at Franco and Salazar. I simply didn't think of those guys, you have to trust me on that one.

Then a concluding remark about the size of the Dutch territory and the difficulty foreigners have to imagine sharp divisions within that already über-tiny unit. I can only say, that's but one of the many things outsiders find hard to understand about the Netherlands. I believe however that it was a foreigner, I think it was Disraeli, who aptly described it when he said: "Holland is not a country, it's a shop".

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Afonso Henriques said...

Sagunto, if I was rude, the least I can do is apologise. Pleased we got over it niceley. I'll follow your advise.

""Holland is not a country, it's a shop"."

Strange country. I hope to go there somewhere in the future, so I hope it can stand firm.

"I simply didn't think of those guys, you have to trust me on that one."

I believe you. The question was really what is Socialism?

That was the discussion. I am also not a fan of those new criteria in which fascism and nacional socialism are considered left wing. That was my line of thinking. It will be disscussed in another thread because I am stopping coming to this particular one.

Dymphna said...

@josé the fenc

See the example of Canada you mentioned as having given a chance to Indians to assimilate. Do you think that the Canada of before would have tolerated separatist movements of Indians as the USA Hispanics support today?

A small point of nationalistic, patriotic pride: it was the American government which gave the Indians an opportunity to become homesteaders on an equal basis with everyone else. But my real point was that some could make the transition out of tribalism and some could not.

When you think of it, tribalism is nationalism writ small. Smaller and more cramped.

It is the national govt and teachers' unions leaders which support separatist movements. States don't, and certainly local municipalities will actively fight it.

Inerestingly, it is only the left wing of the Democrat party that is enthusiastic about this. So we actually have "sanctuary cities" like NY and Chicago because they are overwhelmingly Democrat and they want the Mexican vote.In Chicago they also want the dead vote, the duplicate vote, and the imaginary, made-up vote. They are definitely all-inclusive.

My Congressional representative sponsored legislation a few years ago when the Republicans were aggressively trying to deal with the flood of hostile aliens. It was voted in and signed off on by Bush, but not really implemented in any meaningful way.

Once the Dems were in control of the Senate, the blue-light specials for illegals began to be put forth as Senate bills. The disgusting, debauched Teddy Kennedy was one of the main sponsors. Things have been going downhill ever since.

Municipalities have their fingers in the dyke trying to hold off the flood of people which is bankrupting them. Unfortunately, the ACLU, an extreme left group of lawyers, brings civil suits against them. Few towns have the financial means to go up against them in long, drawn-out court battles that wend their way up the judicial system. One or two, however, have done so and I believe one case is now in some pending process before the Supremes.

Despite the many disappointments of Bush's tenure, he did install two conservative Supremes. For that our nation is fortunate.

mike18xx said...

Alfonso wrote:
> Mike18xx wrote:
> > "I am an individualist. NOBODY has any right to rule me."
>
> And as so you are not willing to sacrice yourself for nothing.

-- Eh, what's that got to do with the price of cheese in Wisconsin, or anything I wrote?

> You are a nihilist and it disgusts me.

The fact that you don't know the difference between nihilism and individualism is disgusting.

==//==

thll wrote:
> Islam isn't the problem. Paradoxically it is the solution
> - because we'll only be able to deal with it by rejecting the
> idealistic notion of equality which is what got us into this
> mess in the first place.

Correct: Western socialism is a gangrenous rot, and Islam is a big, fat maggot eating away the dead tissue.

Islam will not, and cannot, be dealt with before socialism has bankrupted itself and been thrown out or otherwise destroyed.