Monday, September 29, 2008

Suggestions for the Future

The Fjordman Report

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



This essay overlaps to some extent with the essay Recommendations for the West from 2006. How should we respond to the threats our civilization is facing? First of all, ordinary citizens should arm themselves immediately since crime and violence is spreading fast throughout the Western world. Second, we need to reclaim pride in our heritage, which has been systematically taken away from us in recent generations, and restore a proper teaching of this in our education system. We should assume that the mass media and our leaders are not telling us the full truth about the scale and consequences of Muslim immigration.

We are told that the ongoing mass immigration from alien cultures is “good for the economy.” This is demonstrably false and resembles the “Big Lie” technique employed by the Nazis. Even if it were true, I would still reject this argument. I am not willing to give up our existence as a people and the heritage entrusted upon me by my ancestors in the hypothetical hope that doing so will earn me a few chocolate bars or electronic toys, of which we already have plenty. The notion that man is homo economicus, the economic man, nothing more than the sum of his functions as a worker and consumer, is widely shared by both left-wingers and many right-wingers. It is one of the most destructive ideologies of our time and needs to be defeated while there is still something left of European civilization to preserve.

One “anti-Jihadist” in Scandinavia once indicated that it was OK with a Muslim majority in Europe as long as these Muslims respect “human rights.” They won’t, of course, but that’s not the point. The “debate” we have is thus between those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration and those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration as long as those who replace us believe in “human rights,” where the former groups views the latter as “racists.” At no point is there any debate of whether native Europeans have the right to preserve our cultures and historical identities.

Globalism is the enemy within which needs to be defeated. Globalism does not refer to the impersonal forces of technological globalization (although committed Globalists like to pretend that it does, because this makes their ideological program seem “inevitable”), but to a Utopian ideology stating that erasing all national cultures and states (especially Western ones) is a positive good which should be promoted and forced down people’s throats. Opposition to this undertaking should be banned as “discrimination,” “racism,” “extremism” and “nationalism” (the terms are used as synonyms).

I’ve engaged in long discussions as to whether or not our current weakness is caused by deeper-lying, structural flaws in our civilization or whether it is promoted by certain powerful groups with a dangerous agenda. My answer is that it is both. The ideology of Globalism is indeed promoted by certain elite groups much more than by the average citizen, and these ideas are enforced from above. This is happening all over the Western world, but it is particularly dangerous in Western Europe because of the legislative powers of the European Union and its non-elected oligarchy.

Although Leftists tend to be more aggressive, perhaps the dividing line in the internal struggle in the West is less between Left and Right and more between those who value national sovereignty and European culture and those who do not. Upholding national borders has become more important in the age of globalization, not less. We need to reclaim control over our borders and reject any organization, either the EU, the UN, various human rights groups or others who prevent us from doing this. We must remind our political leaders that we pay national taxes because they are supposed to uphold our national borders. If they can’t do so, the social contract is breached, and we should no longer be required to pay our taxes. National taxes, national borders could become a new rallying cry.

There are both left-wing and right-wing Globalists. They have different agendas, for instance with left-wing Globalists putting emphasis on silencing free speech and promoting “international law” through the United Nations and similar organizations, while right-wing Globalists concentrate more on the free flow of people across borders, just as they want free flow of goods and capital across borders. The Presidential election campaign in the USA in 2008 between Obama and McCain is a race between a left-wing and a right-wing Globalist. Both want open borders, if only for slightly different reasons, and tend to think of countries as ideas, not as entities populated by distinct peoples with shared values and a common history.

An ideological “war within the West” has paved the way for a physical “war against the West” waged by Islamic Jihadists, who correctly view our acceptance of Muslim immigration as a sign of weakness. Perhaps we will need to resolve the war within the West before we can win the war against the West. When Europeans such as Polish king Jan III Sobieski led their troops to victory over the Turks in the 1683 Battle of Vienna, they fought for a number of things: Their country, their culture and their religion. People don’t just need to live; they need something to live for, and fight for.

We are against Islam. What are we for? I would suggest that one thing we should fight for is national sovereignty and the right to preserve our culture and pass it on to future generations. We are fighting for the right to define our own laws and national policies, not to be held hostage by the United Nations, unaccountable NGOs, transnational progressives or self-appointed guardians of the truth.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the West is the sick man of the world. We provide our sworn enemies with the technology and medicine to multiply, give them the transportation and legal rights to move to our countries (after showing them through TV and movies how much better life is in our part of the world). On top of this, we pay them to colonize our countries and harass our children, while our leaders ban opposition to this as intolerance, discrimination and racism. When did the West stop thinking? Where did we go wrong? Here is the answer an American friend of mine gave:
- - - - - - - - -
“Well, there’s Marxism of course, which was extremely damaging in all its forms. There were the two world wars which killed so many of our people and caused a lack of cultural confidence. Then there was the Pax Americana and the unprecedented safety and affluence it brought to the Western World. We have now had two generations of Westerners, almost three, who have never known real poverty, hunger, war, or ‘the knock on the door in the middle of the night.’ Without a need for survival skills, we had the time and the money to focus on ever-more insane political and cultural ideologies…I think I remember reading something about how the Indian Hindu empires became ripe for conquest by Islam — ‘They focused on becoming good, instead of remaining powerful.’ I can’t remember the source on that though. But that’s what we are now — obsessing about how to be good, not on being powerful. And our ‘goodness’ isn’t worth much if the rest of the world is focused on becoming powerful. Also, you have to remember, a lot of people are making money out of these insane ideologies. The ‘diversity’ industry in the U.S. is worth billions — people with little skills or ability are being given comfy well-paid jobs because of it.. And because of anti-discrimination laws, every organization, whether for profit or not, must have a ‘diversity’ plan to point to if they ever get sued for ‘discrimination.’ It’s literally a recession-proof captive industry. Anyways we’re sick and the whole world knows it. They are coming here to feed off our sickness.”

The West is rapidly declining as a percentage of world population and in danger of being overwhelmed by immigration from poorer countries with booming populations. People of European origins need to adjust our self-image correspondingly and ditch the current ideology of deranged altruism. We are not all-powerful and are not in a position to help everybody in developing countries out of poverty, certainly not by allowing them to move here. We need to develop a new mental paradigm dedicated to our own survival.

We should take a break from mass immigration in general. Any future immigration needs to be strictly controlled and exclusively non-Muslim. This break should be used to demonstrate clearly that the West will no longer serve as the dumping ground for excess population growth in other countries. We have cultures that we’d like to preserve, too, and cannot and should not be expected to accept unlimited number of migrants from other countries.

In my view, the best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should completely stop and if necessary ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West and change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.

We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Much of this can be done in non-discriminatory ways, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths. Boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities.

American columnist Diana West wants us to shift from a pro-democracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive. Calling this a “War on Terror” as President George W. Bush did in 2001 was a mistake. Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog has suggested the slogan “Take Back the Culture,” thus focusing on our internal struggle for traditional European culture.

People should be educated about the realities of Jihad and sharia. Educating non-Muslims about Islam is more important than educating Muslims, but we should do both. Groups of dedicated individuals should engage in efforts to explain the real nature of Islam, emphasizing the division that Islam teaches between Believer and Infidel, the permanent state of war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb and the use of taqiyya and kitman, religious deception.

As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch says, we should explain why Islam encourages despotism (because allegiance is owed the ruler as long as he is a Muslim), economic paralysis, intellectual failure (the cult of authority, the hostility to free and skeptical inquiry) in Islamic countries. Let Muslims themselves begin slowly to understand that all of their political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures are a result of Islamic teachings.

Fitzgerald also suggests exploiting the many fissures within the Islamic world: Divide and conquer. Divide and demoralize. Islam has universalist claims but it talks about Arabs as the “best of peoples,” and has been a vehicle for Arab supremacy, to promote Arab conquest of wealthier non-Arab populations. In addition to divisions between Arabs and non-Arab Muslims, we have the sectarian divide between Shias and Sunnis, and the economic division between the fabulously rich oil-and-natural-gas Arab states and the poor Muslim countries.

Both the sectarian and economic divisions within Islam are best exploited by infidels doing nothing. If the Western world stops giving Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Palestinians “aid,” which has in reality become a disguised form of jizya, this will clear the psychological air. And it will force the poorer Arabs and other Muslims to go to the rich Arabs for support.

Right now, Muslims can enjoy the best of both worlds, and follow primitive religious laws while enjoying the fruits of 21st century civilization. We need to drive home the utter failure of the Islamic model by making sure that Muslims should no longer able to count on permanent Western or infidel aid in their overpopulated, self-primitivized states, whose very unviability they are prevented from recognizing by this constant infusion of aid.

We need to deprive Muslims as much as possible of Western jizya in other forms, which means ending foreign aid, but also institute a Manhattan Project for alternative sources of energy, in order to become independent of Arab oil.

As Mr. Fitzgerald asks : “What would the rich Arabs do if the Western world decided to seize their property in the West as the assets of enemy aliens, just as was done to the property owned not only by the German government, but by individual Germans, during World War II? And what would they do if they were to be permanently deprived of easy access to Western medical care?”

We must reject the “You turn into what you fight” argument. Those who fought the Nazis didn’t become Nazis during the Second World War. The truth is, we will become like Muslims if we don’t stand up to them and keep them out of our countries, otherwise they will subdue us and Islamize us by force. The West isn’t feared because we are “oppressors,” we are despised because we are perceived as weak and decadent. Jihadist websites have said that China is not the enemy at the moment. China, too, is an infidel enemy, but Muslims respect the Chinese more than Western nations. We can live with having enemies. The important thing is making sure that our enemies respect us, as Machiavelli indicated in The Prince.

We should implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world, but for this to work we will sometimes have to take military action to crush Muslim pretensions to grandeur. The Buddhists of Central Asia undoubtedly held the “moral high ground” in relations to Muslims. They are all dead now. At the very least, we must be prepared to back up our ideological defenses with force on certain occasions.

Several objections could be raised against the containment option. Some claim that it is too harsh and thus won’t be implemented; others say that it is insufficient and won’t work in the long run. It’s true that in the current political climate, expulsion of sharia-sponsoring Muslims isn’t going to happen, but the current ruling paradigm won’t last. It is likely that we will get civil wars in several Western countries because of the ongoing mass immigration. This will finally demonstrate how serious the situation is and force other Western nations to act.

I have heard comments that it isn’t practically doable to contain the Islamic world behind some artificial Maginot Line. When the Mongols could simply go around the Great Wall of China in the thirteenth century, it will be impossible to contain anybody in an age of modern communication technology. No, it won’t be easy, but we should at least try. Containment isn’t necessarily the only thing we need to do, just the very minimum that is acceptable. Perhaps the spread of nuclear technology will indeed trigger a large-scale war with the Islamic world at some point. The only way to prevent this is to take steps, including military ones, to deprive Muslims of dangerous technology. Jihad is waged by military, political, financial, demographic and diplomatic means. The defense against Jihad has to be equally diverse.

In the post What Can We Do?, Gates of Vienna republished an essay by reader Westerner which was originally posted at American writer Lawrence Auster’s website. Westerner argues that the separationist policy proposed by Auster and others of rolling back, containing, and using military force to quarantine Muslims would not be sufficient to make the non-Islamic world safe, because Islamic regimes would still exist and continue to seek ways to harm us. He therefore proposes a policy aimed at crushing Islam. Nevertheless, my general policy recommendation is to advocate separation and containment. The crucial point is to stress that Islam cannot be reformed and cannot be reconciled with our way of life.

According to blogger Conservative Swede, “In fact it is easier to argue for a stop of ALL immigration, to the general public, than a specific stop of Muslim immigration (maybe not in America, but surely in Sweden and the rest of Europe). People simply know very little about Islam. They need to be educated first, and already that is a big effort. So this is the first step. Before this has been achieved, before the awareness about the true face of Islam is firmly represented among the general public, it becomes pointless to push for deportation of all Muslims at the arenas directed at the general public. The first and current step is about educating people about Islam.” He puts emphasis on the need for breaking the spirit of our Jihadist enemies and finding ways of symbolically defeat them.

I have been criticized because my talk about containment and the need to limit even non-Muslim immigration smacks of the siege mentality of a friendless West. Advocating a policy of much stricter immigration control in general isn’t based on isolationism, it’s based on realism. We’re in the middle of the largest migration waves in human history. The simple fact is that far more people want to live in the West than we can possibly let in. Technology has made it easier for people to settle in other countries, and easier for them to stay in touch with their original homeland as if they never left. We have to deal with this fact by slowing the immigration rates to assimilation levels; otherwise our societies will eventually break down.

I’m advocating isolation of the Islamic world, not of the West. Even if we cannot allow all non-Muslims to freely settle in our lands, this does not mean that they have to be our enemies. Jihad is being waged against the entire non-Muslim world, not just the West. We should stop trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims instead cooperate with other non-Muslims.

The United Nations is heavily infiltrated by Islamic groups. We should starve it for funds and ridicule it at any given opportunity. As an alternative to the UN, we could create an organization where only democratic states could become members. The most important principle at this point is to contain the Islamic world. We simply cannot allow our enemies to have influence over our policies, which they do through the UN.

Europeans need to totally dismantle the European Union and regain national control over our borders and legislation. The EU is so deeply flawed and infiltrated by pro-Islamic thinking that it simply cannot be reformed. No, the EU isn’t the only problem we have, but it is the worst, and we can’t fix our other problems as long as the EU is in charge. And let’s end the stupid support for the Palestinians that the Eurabians have encouraged and start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel. Europe’s first line of defense starts in Jerusalem.

Europeans should adopt legislation similar to the First and Second Amendments in the American Bill of Rights, securing the right to free speech and gun ownership. The reason why European authorities are becoming increasingly totalitarian in their censorship efforts is to conceal the fact that they are no longer willing or able to uphold even the most basic security of their citizenry, far less our national borders.

We need to ditch the welfare state, which is probably doomed anyway. The welfare state wasn’t all bad, but it cannot compete in a world of billions of capitalists in low-cost countries. It creates a false sense of security in a dog-eat-dog world and breeds a passivity that is very dangerous in our struggle for survival. We should use the money to strengthen our border controls and rebuild credible militaries.. Western Europeans have lived under Pax Americana for so long that we have forgotten how to defend ourselves. This needs to change, and soon.

I recently read the book The Shock Doctrine by the prominent left-wing intellectual Naomi Klein. That is, I made an attempt to read it. I gave up after a few chapters. Klein talks about how clean slate ideologies are dangerous, and mentions in passing some crimes committed by the Soviet regime and the criticism which followed its collapse. Then she says:

The process has sparked heated debate around the world about how many of these atrocities stemmed from the ideology invoked, as opposed to its distortion by adherents like Stalin, Ceausescu, Mao and Pol Pot. ‘It was flesh-and-blood Communism that imposed wholesale repression, culminating in a state-sponsored reign of terror,’ writes Stéphane Courtois, co-author of the contentious Black Book of Communism. ‘Is the ideology itself blameless?’ Of course it is not. It doesn’t follow that all forms of Communism are inherently genocidal, as some have gleefully claimed, but it was certainly an interpretation of Communist theory that was doctrinaire, authoritarian, and contemptuous of pluralism that led to Stalin’s purges and to Mao’s re-education camps. Authoritarian Communism is, and should be, forever tainted by those real-world laboratories. But what of the contemporary crusade to liberate world markets?

Klein claims that not all forms of market systems have to be inherently violent. They can leave room for free health care, too. She condemns “authoritarian interpretations” of Communism, but not necessarily Communism as such. Exactly where we can find examples of non-authoritarian Communism she doesn’t say. That’s as far as self-criticism has progressed in the political Left a generation after we “defeated” Socialism.

The economist Milton Friedman, along with F. Hayek, is one of the villains of Naomi Klein’s book. According to her, Friedman has stated that “only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” Friedman believes that during a crisis, we only have a brief window of opportunity before society slips back into the “tyranny of the status quo,” and that we need to use this opportunity or lose it.

This is actually sound advice and in my view the strategy Western survivalists should follow. When I first started writing as Fjordman I focused on how to “fix the system.” I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed. Not only does it have too many enemies; it also contains too many internal contradictions. If we define the “system” as mass immigration from alien cultures, Globalism, Multiculturalism and suppression of free speech in the name of “tolerance,” then this is going to collapse. It’s inevitable.

The goal of European and Western survivalists — and that’s what we are, it is our very survival that is at stake — should not be to “fix the system,” but to be mentally and physically prepared for its collapse, and to develop coherent answers to what went wrong and prepare to implement the necessary remedies when the time comes. We need to seize the window of opportunity, and in order to do so, we need to define clearly what we want to achieve. What went wrong with our civilization, and how can we survive and hopefully regenerate, despite being an increasingly vulnerable minority in an often hostile world?

I have suggested that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have done. The enemy has been regrouping and now largely controls our media and educational institutions less than a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We did not have public trials against the supporters of Marxism just as we did against Nazism. This was a serious mistake which we should not repeat again. If or when the European Union collapses and Multiculturalism is defeated, we need to stage public trials against the creators of Eurabia and denounce the lies continuously told by our media and academia. Their ideology needs to be exposed as evil.

The political elites implement the agendas of our enemies and ignore the interests of their own people. They are collaborators and should be treated accordingly. The problem is that they currently feel quite comfortable and secure. They fear the reactions of Muslims, but despise their own people. They view us as sheep, existing only to provide them with champagne and nice cars and to be guinea pigs in their grandiose social experiments. Change will only come when they fear us, and the consequences of their own betrayal, more than they fear Muslims.

People of European origins can gain a future by reclaiming our past, and end the hostility to our civilization and heritage which is too often taught in our education system today. We need to reject those who demonize us simply because we desire self-determination. In order to achieve this, we need to regain control over our national borders and legislation, and we need to reclaim control over the media. Those who control the media, control society.

It is easy to blame others, but we have to accept responsibility for our situation. Yes, we have indeed been betrayed by our leaders, but that’s still only part of the problem. People tend to get the governments they deserve. Maybe we get weak leaders because we are weak, or because they can exploit weaknesses in our mentality to get us where they want to; above all anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, our excessive desire for consensus and suppression of dissent, the anti-individualistic legacy from Socialism and the passivity bred by welfare state bureaucracy. Muslims are stuck with their problems and corrupt leaders and blame everybody else for their own failures because they can never admit they are caused by deep flaws in their culture.. We shouldn’t make the same mistake. Europeans export wine; Arabs export whine. That’s the way it should be.

In his book The River War published in 1899, Winston Churchill wrote about the cursed effects of Mohammedanism (which is what Islam really is):

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

This description remains right today. Nevertheless, bad as it is, Islam isn’t the cause of our current weakness; it is a secondary infection. In addition to plain decadence, there is a widespread feeling in much of Europe that nothing is worth fighting for, certainly not through armed struggle. There are no Great Truths, everything is equal. Maybe Europe’s faith in itself died in Auschwitz, but it was severely wounded in the trenches of the First World War. It was WW1 that radicalized Europe, triggered the Russian Revolution and the rise of Soviet Communism, and filled Germany, including a young corporal named Adolf Hitler, with a desire for vengeance and much of the ammunition they needed for their rise to power in the 1930s.

I have heard claims that European civilization will not survive the twenty-first century. A century is a very long time, we should remember that. Would anybody (except a Churchill) in the early twentieth century, when Europe was strong and powerful, have predicted that Europe would now be in the process of being overpowered by Algerians and Pakistanis? Things change. They can change for the worse, but they can also change for the better. Our ancestors, better men and women than we are, held the line against Islam for more than one thousand years, sacrificing their blood for the continent. By doing so, they not only preserved the European heartland and thus Western civilization itself, but quite possibly the world in general from unchallenged Islamic dominance. The stakes involved now are no less than they were then, possibly even greater.

Some people claim that Europe isn’t worth fighting for, and that many people here deserve what’s coming. Some of them probably do, yes. The problem is that the people who deserve most to be punished for the current mess are the ones who are least likely to pay the price. The creators of Eurabia will be the first to flee the continent when the going gets tough, leaving those who have hardly heard of Eurabia and never approved of its creation to fight.

Edmund Burke believed that if a society can be seen as a contract, we must recognize that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. I like that idea, which means that when you fight for a country, you don’t just fight for the ones that are there now, but for those who lived there before and for those who will live there in the future. If we don’t want to fight for what Europe is today then let us fight for what it once was, and maybe, just maybe, for what it may become once more. There was real greatness in this continent once. It seems a long time ago now, but we can get there again. Meanwhile, let us work to ensure the survival of European civilization, which is now very much in question.

79 comments:

Ypp said...

We all know what must be done. The problem is that nobody is going to do that. The question is why?

Instead of securing borders, Westerners prefer to build colliders and shuttles. Because they BELIEVE in science. People never behave rationally, they do what they believe. We are all adepts of scientific cult.

People must somehow start to believe in their culture to be able to protect it. Reunification of religion and culture (and maybe state) - that's what is necessary.

Natalie said...

Fjordman, you have really outdone yourself. This is an excellent essay.

Ypp, I have a distinct problem with something you said. You advocate the "reunification of religion and culture (and maybe state)." Do you not think that goes against the principle of separation of church and state? Religion in the hands of government is never good, and we Americans have our constitution to protect us from it.

awake said...

Fjordman,

Im an American and I am all in! Embellishing, race-baiters be damned. The stakes are far too high in my estimation.

Regards.

Ypp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sigh said...

Very good essay, it's made me rethink some of my previous held opinions.

Before I believed the West had a mission to improve the rest of the world and well... the species as a whole (idealistic, I know). I still believe this, to an extent. But now I realize that we should first and foremost secure our own backyard - that idealistic future I would like requires getting our hands dirty.

The dirtier they get the prouder we should be.

Ernest said...

The notion that man is homo economicus, the economic man, nothing more than the sum of his functions as a worker and consumer, is widely shared by both left-wingers and many right-wingers. It is one of the most destructive ideologies of our time and needs to be defeated while there is still something left of European civilization to preserve.

Absolutely! This can not be stressed enough. I am constantly dismayed and can not believe how many people buy into the argument that we MUST have immigration for our financial security and prosperity. With nary a thought to exactly what are the long term implications of this arrangement. It truly is a sign of a sick and perverse society. For it is not the people themselves that are important but rather the labor pool. We are just replaceable widgets with no concerns for us as a peoples, nation or culture. We are not flesh and blood with children and posterity but resources to be managed. We might as well be Borg. The ultimate would be to completely remove all borders, nations and barriers. Breed us just like cattle to provide for the cheapest, most "cost effective" & abundant "labor pool". The day that the dollar becomes paramount to all else is the day we cease to be unique peoples and in fact people at all. I will never willing submit myself or family to this idea.

Keep up the great work Fjordman!

senatortombstone said...

I do my little bit to contribute to our survival by informing as many people as will listen to the dangers that islamization and mass immigration pose to the US and Europe - friends, family co-workers. I don't know how many people actually listen or care, but it is all I know what to do. I think that most people are simply apathetic to the disinttergration of our civilization. People are too busy focusing on their own lives and rather than becoming acquainted with reality in their spare time, they prefer to read tabloid rags and watch reality TV. It is sad...

latté island said...

Great essay. I'd second Natalie's objection to Ypp's comment about reunifying religion and culture. One of my favorite things about current Western culture is freedom of religion. It would be pretty awful and regressive if there were an official religion, in the hope that it would strengthen us. If we need a religious ideology to strengthen us, I suggest the big tent ideology of freedom of religion. I've experienced firsthand that that can unite a lot of diverse people. Imposing religious uniformity would divide people who don't agree with the majority.

Also, I think in an ideal world, where distinct peoples had secure borders, socialism light might work, as long as it was voluntary. I'm not advocating that at all, but as long as people voluntarily decide to share material prosperity with their own people, that's quite different from being forced to share with people outside the group. Before mass immigration, some of the European social welfare programs seemed successful to me, although I have no personal experience of this. But I read about how everyone in Finland gets a free education. Well, as long as the benefits only go to Finns, not outsiders, and everyone agrees, that seems okay to me. Just a minor point, that we shouldn't assume strict capitalism and low taxes are required for a healthy society. Again, I'm not advocating anything here but choice.

Dymphna said...

Reunification of religion and culture (and maybe state) - that's what is necessary...

Joining the Chorus of the Appalled, I'll have to agree that your recipe for what is to be done is toxic for all concerned.

Just to quote one guy, Jesus said to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. He never suggested joining the two at the hip.

Ypp, read some history. When religion and state are intertwined, the resulting theocracy serves no one well. Our modern day version, Israel, seems to drive more and more of its citizens to secularism and suicidal ideas about politics.

Our time seems to be one of crumbling identities. In the US at least, our icons and representations of American belonging are under assault. There is no consensus on whether to let them go gracefully into the mists of time and wait for new ones or to hang on for dear life.

It is this uncertainty which fuels our cultural divide.

Group identity is crucial for human survival; our search for belonging begins in the cradle. To the extent we are provided with experiences that fill this hard-wired need -- to that extent we live and move and have our being in a stable, secure community.

The iconoclasts are busy destroying all that, however. And they have definite ideas about the images they plan to use to replace the old ones. But as the recent controversy in the Netherlands about Black Peter demonstrated, the p.c. deck chair arrangers don't always get their way when it comes to dictating what will be celebrated or memorialized and what will be thrown overboard.

Despite the concerted efforts of the intelligentsia, culture is a bottom-up process. But don't let them know that.

Nope, ypp, we're not going back to the state religion arrangement. It didn't work then and it has been totally discredited by experience.

I would work real hard to prevent my particular religious affiliation from gaining enough ascendance to become civil law.

Wait a minute...are you considering sharia, ypp? That sure does fit your requirements...I suggest you reconsider.

Fjordman said...

Thank you for posting. This will make up the final chapter of Defeating Eurabia. If somebody wants to add something, now is the time to do so.

In general, I believe we need to think of two distinct fights: The fight for the West and for European civilization, which is what "Western" civilization actually is, and the fight against Islam. They overlap, but they are by no means identical. Just because Muslim immigration is uniquely bad doesn't mean that all other forms of mass immigration from alien cultures are good or unproblematic.

We should support others who fight against Islam, but only to the extent that it doesn't conflict with priority number one, which is preserving ourselves, our nations and our cultures.

CzC said...

Maybe it's because i grew up in South Africa that I have a different view from other Europeans.

Defiant Lion said...

Superb essay Fjordman.

There are one or two things I would like to raise mainly from a UK perspective but much applies to Europe too.

1. Whilst Islam exists we are at war with it. The situation we in the west are in is that we gave oxygen to a dying Islam because of our insatiable addiction to oil. We built the modern society upon a finite resource and we became dependant to feed our addiction on the very nations who are sworn to destroy us. Weaning the west off the Islamic oil tit and therefore, severely weakening dar al islam simply has to be a priority. But it is going to be a nightmare. But we cannot consider an effective strategy against the Islamic world whilst we continue to so dependant upon oil.Perhaps we are at this moment totally dependant. Energy and possibly an energy war could well be the defining issue here.

2. Marxism as you state is toxic. It is the "enemy within" the self-haters hell bent on destroying the history, traditions and values of their own societies. I believe that certainly, the entire UK political system, judiciary, education and military have been infiltrated and are being systematically destroyed by marxists. Tory leader Cameron is a supporter of UAF and has stated that "Britain needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life not the other way around." I have stated that I believe we are in a civil war against our own government, they are the people who are trying to destroy us. But they have been brainwashing people with the multicult ideology for years. We don't just need to educate people about Islam, we need to educate them about the evil of Marxism. Problem: The media - now heavily politicised along with the Police - are controlled by these people.

3. Global capitialism is evil. The curious allianace between GC's and Marxists is the driving force behind mass immigration. There are no economic benefits from mass immigration, it is all about cheap labour and colonisation. One of marx's realisations was that race and not class would be the war that destroys the west. But we may have something in our favour here: The credit crunch and the absolutely abhorrent use of public taxes to rescue banks from the consequences of their greed and incomptence. As the credit crunch hits families harder and harder, and as they find out that there are people - e.g. "the tories leader's group" - who have made millions by speculating on this collapse, the more people will turn to nationalist parties.

Fjordman these links are UK centric but I include them here as grist for your mill:

Tories Make Money From Bank Crisis

Taxpayer Liability For Banks

Do Migrants Bring Economic Benefit?

Migration Watch does have reports on migration throughout the EU which may be of further use.

Thanks for your essays and I hope you find the above useful.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Marxism as you state is toxic.

I think I have finally come to a point where I do not only agree, but also understand. That took some reading. I had considered leftover Marxism benign and silly, but it isn't. 'Toxic' is an appropriate term.

To understand what it has done to British society (and the West in general), I highly recommend the writings of Theodore Dalrymple. He has tons of on-the-ground experience. Reading and absorbing his experiences connects many dots regarding materialism and the nihilistic worldview of the intellectual 'elite'. It also led me to this conclusion:

Marxism is an ideology invented and used by the elite for the purpose of exploiting the working class. It works, it has been working for a century, and the results are at least as evil as they were in the Soviet Union.

Global capitialism is evil.

This, however, I disagree with. Capitalism is fundamentally a healthy system that combines useful work with an appropriate reward, which in turn can be used to reward others for their useful work.

Now, some say that the current financial crisis is a crisis of Capitalism. It isn't. The institutions that failed first (Freddy Mac & Fanny May) were state-established, partly state-owned, and distinctly state-controlled:

The state (US Government) forced them to abolish healthy capitalist principles ("Can you repay that loan?") with unhealthy racist ones ("What is your skin colour?"), and the result is a disaster, also for those lured into the unsupportable loans.

The cure for the current crisis, as was the cure for the Great Depression, is a return from Socialism to Capitalism. A system where honest, working people get to keep the fruits of their labour, rather than be forced to hand it over to an elite whose greatest credential is a proven ability to squander money.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I think the general thrust of all the arguments presented is that global cultural homogenisation is the evil - that is, the destruction of native cultures and replacement with a single "unified" culture more conducive to control by a powerful clique - whom I would refuse to call "elite" because they usually aren't.

Marxism is one example. The pseudo-capitalists - that is, the ones who buy favourable regulations from government - are another. Global capitalism is just trade. Pseudo-capitalism buys power to prevent competition and is actually very similar to socialism, which is why many of the ultra-rich tend to be socialists without seeing the contradiction. And then there's Islam.

We coud probably add other things to the pile but the point is, globalist control and the destruction of nations, ethnicities, the destruction of diversity is the danger of the present age. And it's done in the name of "creating diversity"... cultural diversity works great when you have borders in between the cultures. Not so great when you mix them.

Defiant Lion said...

@Henrik:

Woah there tiger!

"This, however, I disagree with. Capitalism is fundamentally a healthy system that combines useful work with an appropriate reward, which in turn can be used to reward others for their useful work."

Capitalism I am all for. Global capitialism is as toxic as marxism and I'm not just on about this credit crunch but other issues such as energy, labour, multinationals and especially government influence GLOBALLY. That is evil,indeed some refer to the current situation in the west as a "corporatocracy".

Such a systenm is equally as toxic to the west as marxism. Combine them along with Islam and we have a lethal cocktail.

Henrik R Clausen said...

As Graham said:
The pseudo-capitalists - that is, the ones who buy favourable regulations from government.

This is where things turn rotten. The current crisis is based exactly on this unhealthy mix of economical and political power, as exemplified by the state-created and state-controlled institutions Freddie Mac and Fannie May, whose collapse started the current crisis.

I merrily repeat:
"Capitalism is fundamentally a healthy system."

It is the encroachment of government power on Capitalism that causes the natural 'checks and balances' of the market to become suspended, and politically dictated loaning practices permitted to destabilize the system.

Interestingly, fascism employs a similar 'coordination' of state and business power. It isn't good, and the cure is going to be painful. But better a large crisis now than a huge one in a few years' time.

I hope the 'Rescue plan' ('Extortion scheme' might be more honest) will fail completely. House of Representatives, actually listening to their voters (!!), shut it down at the first vote.

senatortombstone said...

Fjordman wrote: "This will make up the final chapter of Defeating Eurabia."

Fjordman, when do you expect Defeating Eurabia to be available for reading?

Afonso Henriques said...

Fjordman,
thank you for your "thank you for posting" comment. It finally erased the doubts I had regarding this essay.

I only failed to understand one thing:

"I believe we need to think of two distinct fights: The fight for the West and for European civilization, which is what "Western" civilization actually is, and the fight against Islam. They overlap, but they are by no means identical."

The first part, I agree but, why in the hell should we fight islam? Why not let them live in piece in the desert, according to the culture tey love and have created.

"We should support others who fight against Islam, but only to the extent that it doesn't conflict with priority number one"

I also agree but, why do we have to fight islam? Let them in their lands... If muslims do not hit us, we have no right to hit them first.

heroyalwhyness said...

As a parent it's a rare opportunity to complete a thought no less a complete theory as often produced by Fjordman. His insights and GoV's web platform are deeply appreciated and valued. I shudder to think the dire straights we'd all be in without such an open and accessable venue.

*****THANK YOU *****

Fjordman writes: The United Nations is heavily infiltrated by Islamic groups. We should starve it for funds and ridicule it at any given opportunity. As an alternative to the UN, we could create an organization where only democratic states could become members.

Certainly I'm not one to stump for McCain, yet, here is one brief glimmer of light from his campaign site which ironically bears the header "Country First":

The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom.


***

Fjordman writes: The economist Milton Friedman, along with F. Hayek, is one of the villains of Naomi Klein’s book. According to her, Friedman has stated that “only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change.

Imagine that. . .
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis


***
Fjordman writes: "If the Western world stops giving Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Palestinians “aid,” which has in reality become a disguised form of jizya, this will clear the psychological air."


YES! ABSOLUTELY CEASE ALL FOREIGN AID TO MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES IMMEDIATELY! Imagine the overnight tilt of global economics should sanity prevail with a permanent halt of all jizya. Now this is a manufactured crisis that is long overdue.

***

In addition, I would reiterate Hugh Fitzgeralds frequent reference to writings of J. B. Kelly, of particular interest, Kelly's essay Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies.
It's a long read, so I will take the liberty to post a brief segment which highlights the historic context of the point to be made:

"In May 1972 President Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, stopped in Tehran on their way back from disarmament talks in Moscow. They gave the Shah assurances of virtually unhampered access to America's arsenal, without having to run the gauntlet of the normal scrutiny accorded arms requests by the Departments of State and Defence. It was an unprecedented act of policy by a US administration towards a non-Western power, for it allowed the Shah to purchase advanced weapons of a kind whose export had hitherto been restricted to NATO countries. What Nixon and Kissinger did not foresee was the huge increase in Iran's oil revenues following the quadrupling of oil prices by OPEC late in 1973, an increase which enabled the Shah to indulge to the point of satiety his passion for the deadly trinkets of war.

Much the same kind of carte-blanche was subsequently given to Saudi Arabia, and for the same inadequately considered strategic reasons. The policy was given an added impetus, as well as a meretricious economic justification, by the oil-price rises of 1973-74, the accepted wisdom of the day being that the money paid out for oil could be “recouped” by selling the Arabs and Iranians vast quantities of arms and other expensive gewgaws. Much rubbing of hands and greasing of palms ensued on both sides of the Atlantic as Britain, France, and the United States set out to array the Saudi and Iranian armies like Caesar's legions."

snip
"To sell the “twin-pillar” policy to the Congress, some members of which in both the House and the Senate were inclined to question its practicability, the State Department conducted a tireless campaign to depict Saudi Arabia and Iran as dependable allies of the United States: dynamic, stable, forward-looking, economically progressive, and militarily strong, or at least potentially so. It was an undertaking which called for a fair degree of ingenuity and considerable powers of imagination; but the State Department, with some assistance from the Pentagon, was equal to the task."

As Hugh stated: "Western powers that be, have believed now (for generations) that to secure
favorable oil contracts in the ME, the West would sell themselves out.. . .in the guise of recycling , a magical process by which the vast sums paid out for oil would be recovered both by the sale of equally vast quantities of
industrial goods and arms and by luring the Arabs into investing their financial surpluses in the West.


Every effort must be made to break this suicidal policy of economic recycling and finally end it.

Defiant Lion said...

@Afonso:

"The first part, I agree but, why in the hell should we fight islam? Why not let them live in piece in the desert, according to the culture tey love and have created."

We have no choice. The goal of Islam is to turn dar al harb into dar al Islam - "until the world belongs solely to Allah."

Islam is not just based in the desert. The Balkans and Turkey, the far east and of course, Europe all have huge muslim presence. Islam never has confined itself to the desert and it never will.

They are fighting us right now. Not just with terror but with the gradual imposition of sharia across Europe. JIhad by litigation,intimidation and of course jihad by the womb. Islam will - IS - devouring the west NOW.

We have to fight it. We have to eradictae every mosque and every muslim out of our lands.

I remember debating with Zenster and being firmly against going over to the ME and smashing them there and grabbing the oil. I was against it then but the more I learn and experience about this vile death cult, the more I think it is a moral obligation on the civilised world to totally destroy Islam.

But we have to fight it, the muslims give us no other choice. Other than to convert, which is a far worse option than all out war against dar al Islam.

xlbrl said...

Let us not be misinformed about the Nazi 'Big Lie'. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was after all hangeg by Adolf, wishes to weigh in on this: 'It is the failure of people to speak small truths that leads to the ascendancy of the big lie.'
That is why the Left works so hard to keep people from speaking their minds. Our silence is taken for assent. Ultimately, it is.

Bela said...

I am following your intelligent debate from the side and I noticed the omission of the corrosive effect of Time on all things that exist in the universe.

All argument on this thread can be summed up as "them" vs. "us" that is, the Islamist versus native Europeans as if there were two competing groups.

When you enter a heated argument with LGF Charles you are attempting at debating the effect of the TIME:
over centuries the once pure white European-Americans intermarried with other immigrant groups (see Latin America) and this trend accelerates the pace of demographic changes that forming the American societal majority's opinion.
— The browning of America.

In the light of the facts referenced at above, Americans cannot comprehend nor support a pure, race based national culture because what is natural for us Europeans, is despicable and RACIST for a multi-ethnic intermixed society.
This is the gist or the rub in your acrimonious argument with Charles.

But the TIME is unstoppable in Europe too: over time, there will be a new European population, a blend of races who will not support
the classic Greco-Roman or Judeo-Christian tradition we intend to preserve.
As the alien-race based immigration to Europe will increase exponentially along with the rate of intermarriage, our voices will be silenced as it has happened in Cologne. Our discussion would be more credible if we included some thoughts on the effect of the changing European demographics which comes along with the passage of TIME.

Ypp said...

The social contract is another idea so dear to Fjordman's heart. It is broken, because it never existed. Nobody ever signed it. It is another false materialistic attempt to justify society without common beliefs, a fantastic notion, which does not pass the test of reality. Any society is cemented by common beliefs, not some non-existing contracts.

Dymphna,
The potential problem of anti-jihad movement is that it is fueled by primitive atheism and hatred to any religion. That will not work.

Fjordman said...

Bela: I consider it quite possible that the USA will die due to excessive "diversity" and will be split into several countries. And no, just because Islamic immigration is uniquely bad doesn't mean that all other forms of mass immigration are unproblematic. I don't hate Nigerian Christians or Indian Hindus, but I don't want to be displaced by them, either...

xlbrl said...

Religion and Government

Madison
Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten commandments of God.
Tocqueville
As long as religion relies upon feelings which are the consolation of every suffering, it may attract the human heart...but by uniting with different political powers, can...form only burdensome alliances.
In Europe, Christianity has allowed itself to be closely linked with the powers of this world. Today these powers are collapsing and it is virtually buried beneath their ruins. Unbelvers in Europe attack Christians more as political enemies than as religious opponents.
America is still the country in the world where the Christian religion has retained the greatest real power over the people's souls and nothing shows better how useful and natural religion is to man, since the country where it exerts the greatest sway is also the most enlightened and free. In America religion is possibly less powerful than it has been at certain times and among certain nations, but its influence is more lasting.
Washington
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Capitalism

Montesquieu
Countries are well cultivated, not as they are fertile, but as they are free.
Milton Friedman
History suggests that capitalism is a necessary conduit for political freedom.
Fisher Ames
By securing property, life and liberty can scarcely fail of being secured; where property is safe by by rules and principles, there is liberty, for the object and motive of tyranny are removed.
Hayek
To be controlled in our economic puruits is to be controlled in everything.
Milton Friedman
What people really object to when they object to the free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will.
Krushchev
Economics is a subject that does not greatly respect one's wishes.

Bela said...

fjordman

I would be (most likely others too) interested in reading your thoughts on the effect of slow but unstoppable intermarriage in Europe which is the corollary of the current immigration.
Let see Brazil as an example.
In France and other European countries there will be pure white French with mostly leftist (Socialist) leanings, mixed blood French with split loyalty, and un-assimilated radical Muslims of pure Afro-Asian blood.

The same formula is applicable to almost all Western European countries.

Nothing illustrates more this paradigm than the ascent of Obama, a matured fruit of the multi-ethnicity: a white Marxist mother, a Muslim Afro-Arabic father and the end-result is a Anti-(White)American political outlook supported by leftist Whites...

The same configuration is about to take place in Europe:
What is your take concerning this eventuality?

Fjordman said...

The Unites States will either be gradually assimilated into Latin America (and by that I mean Brazil more than Chile or Argentina) or be split into several countries. That's my take. In Europe, I suspect civil wars. Maybe some regions will survive and some won't. But it's extremely hard to predict these things, so I spend less time trying to so so.

NJArtist said...

Ypp, read some history. When religion and state are intertwined, the resulting theocracy serves no one well. Our modern day version, Israel, seems to drive more and more of its citizens to secularism and suicidal ideas about politics.

This provoked a thought: There are only two models for the joining of Church and State. The first is the tyranny of the god-king: Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Caesar; the cult of personality as shown by Stalin, Mao, and the North Korean dictators is the modern incarnation of the god-king. That this was a strong undercurrent with the Clintons should have given us warnings. That it is a prominent feature of the Obama campaign should wake us up to what is going on and what will, not may, happen if he gains the presidency.

The second model for the joining of Religion to the state is the coming Millennial Kingdom wherein Christ is the true God-King.

Failing the latter, the only way for men to be free is a constitutional limitation on the state as expressed in our constitution.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

Fjordman said...
If somebody wants to add something, now is the time to do so.
- - - - -
Yes,thank you, I want to ad the following article; it is long and it is a 'must read'; it is the only PRACTICAL instruction possible to follow(! ?) I have found - all those who already know it well just scip it - it is a plan devised by Bill Warner, one of the best thinkers on the subject of Islam and its threats to non-Muslims.
BW is affiliated with the Center for the Study of Political Islam:
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/category/an-ethical-basis-for-war/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam

Strategy--A Way to Defeat Political Islam

Moral Purpose
Before we discuss strategy, we must declare our moral purpose. Our moral purpose is to defend the very existence of the culture of the Golden Rule, an ethical civilization, from the 1400-year assault by the dualistic ethics of political Islam. We must stop the continued killing of kafirs, the enslavement of humanity and the spread of terror by Islam.

The Situation
Islam represents 20% of the world's population and is growing. Islam is united, has a vision, a strategy and successful tactics.
Political correctness and multi-culturalism rule our world. Our government will not help in this war and instead gives aid and comfort to the "minority" Muslims. Our government is staffed by multiculturalists who will give every edge to Muslims. Our schools have been occupied by the Muslim Brotherhood and the dhimmi leftist professors.
Kafirs are divided into Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, conservative and liberal. Each of the divisions has further divisions. The relations between the groups is marked by historical rivalries and hatreds. No group comprehends the suffering of others at the hands of Islam.So not only do none of the victims know their own story, they do not know the story of the others.
The Muslims have a great momentum. They are taking over by birth and immigration. We have fewer children while Muslims have huge families. Osama bin Laden has 53 children. Demographic statistics show that France will become Islamic in the year 2020. Run the population numbers.
Islam knows us well. Islam knows our history, secret shame, rivalries and hatreds, weaknesses and divisions. Kafirs don't know anything about Islam. We may fear and dislike it but that is just "feelings", not knowledge. Our so-called experts (none of whom know the actual doctrine of political Islam) make apologies and tell us that all of Islam's problems are caused by our poor governmental policies.
We are filled with cultural self-loathing, demoralized, fatalistic, nihilistic, too fat and too rich. (Wealthy people are weak at war, they have too much to protect.) We have lost the mind of war and feel that "peace" is the moral high ground. We are pacifists in the face of jihad. Our artists extol the virtues of peace with no knowledge about what happens when peaceful people are vanquished.

A Strategy for the Weak
At this stage of our intellectual and emotional development, our strategies are limited. We are too weak to attack Islam and need an opening strategy for now.
First, we must learn the doctrine of political Islam. We must know the enemy. We must also know who our allies are and who are the allies of Islam. We have two sets of enemies-the far enemy, Islam, and the near enemy-those who apologize for Islam, the dhimmis.
The thought of actually attacking Islam is too frightening at this stage of the game. However, we can make flanking attacks on our enemy's allies, the apologists. Even dhimmis can think about attacking or pressuring the near enemy.
We can make a flanking attack on our enemy by attacking his strategies. We must expose Islam through its doctrine from the Koran, the Sunna (the Hadith and the Sira). According to Sun Tsu in The Art of War, attacking your enemy's strategy is the highest level strategy. And Islam's strategy is laid out in the Trilogy. We now have the weapons, the books exposing their strategy.
Another principle of Sun Tsu is to shape the enemy. Islam always poses as a religion to cloak their politics . It is useless to attack a religion, so Islamic politics are under the radar. We must shape Islam as a political doctrine. We must attack the far enemy-political Islam. This means that we attack Mohammed, not Allah.

So we have a slogan for our opening strategy:
Build community
Expose the far enemy
Attack the near enemy

Community
We must form ourselves into a community. The term kafir civilization has been used in this work, but this is not an historic fact, it is just a concept. However, we must make ourselves conscious of who we are or we will lose.
When the Orthodox church in Bethlehem was destroyed by the Palestinian jihadists in 2002, no one protested. The American Christians did not protest, the Hindus did not protest, nor did the Jews protest, the TV/print media did not protest. But when a mosque in Iraq got hit by American fire, everyone knew it. All of Islam protested, along with their apologist allies. Moral: the Muslims are organized. Kafirs do not even know that they are kafirs, much less be organized.
This must change. There are many ways for this to change, but one that we need is a Web network community-call it kafir Web community.

The kafir Web community must carry out the functions:
Web site community
We have hundreds of Web sites that speak out against Islam. Each stands alone. There is an informal group of people who may visit different sites and carry information from one site to the other, but each site is an island unto itself.
Imagine that all of the anti-Islamic sites were members of a community site list-serve. In this way, Web site owners could communicate among themselves. This could serve two functions. One, we could mobilize, focus and coordinate tactics during special times such as the Mohammed cartoon attacks. Two, there are materials that it would be good for many to publish at the same time. For instance, if this pamphlet were to be spread by the site network to all the sites, then it could be read simultaneously across the globe. You get a much better strategic impact from speed and a broad front.
And who knows what else can happen as site owners communicate with each other?

Personal Community
At this time most people personally know only a few people from church or another social group who are working in some way against Islam. Even if you wanted to meet someone else from your town how would you do it? This is a geographic grouping. Another grouping could be writers, scholars, translators or jihad history buffs. We need a way to form special communities (actually the Web site community is a special case). We need to use the Web to form local communities.

The Swarm Community
We Kafirs usually act as individuals, but we must have ways to unite and attack as a pack or swarm. Islam does this with great effect. When they need e-mails or phone calls, they use the Islamic community, not individuals.
Swarm software would link a community of intellectual warriors with projects. As an example, a project could be to protest the way an event was portrayed in a newspaper. Let's further assume that the event came from a news-wire and so is in many papers. We need a way for one writer to send a letter to all of those who need it.

Local Politics
You live in a small town and wake up one day to find that Muslims, who moved here a few years ago, are pressuring and making demands to use the school for prayer during Ramadan. The ACLU howls if the Bible is taught in schools, but makes no protest about the Islamic school usage during Ramadan
Or: you live in a city and when reading the paper, watching TV or talking to a friend find out that Muslims are making demands that we change to accommodate Islam. You feel helpless and afraid. Everything about these events seem wrong, but no one in the media or government will even give guidance on how to protect our very civilization.
Multi-culturalism says that even wanting to preserve your culture is biased thinking. Political correctness says that any talk about Islam that is negative or judgemental is hate speech or racist.We really don't even know exactly what it is we are losing, but we are losing. We are losing a war that is not allowed to be spoken of.
We must form a political community. We must have organizations that works at the pure grass-roots.First and foremost, we need ways to teach people what is going on. Islam will make demands on every area of our lives. Education, politics, customs, medicine, art, law, funding will all have demands and pressure to change to be more Islamic.

National Politics
Saudia Arabia and other Islamic nations spend billions of dollars each year to spread Islam in the US. And what do we have to oppose this multi-billion dollar political organization with a 40-year head start? A few volunteers with no budget and no support. Who is going to win?
We must have national organizations that can support local politics. We must lobby about national issues such as immigration and the massive Federal welfare programs for Muslims.This means money. We must move from amateur status to professional status. We must also have state and local organizations that can deal with lobbying at the state and local level.

Friends and Allies
We are divided with many historical rivalries. Hindus dislike Christians who try to convert them. The rift between Jews and Christians is an old one. The Left is plagued by cultural self-loathing and disdain of Christians. Such is the nature of humanity. This is no problem, except for one thing, these rivalries prevent us from working together against our enemy, political Islam.
We must see the difference between a friend and an ally. We don't have to be friends. We don't even have to like each other. America and Russia were allies during World War II, but were never friends. We worked together for a common cause.
Let's take a real life example from the viewpoint of a Hindu. The Dalai Lama went to see the Pope at the Vatican in 2006 to talk about Islam. This was after the Pope had quoted a Byzantine priest who criticized Islam as being violent. Islam responded by rioting and killing.
.
Now the Dalai Lama is viewed as a friend by Hindus and the Pope is one of the hated Christians. But the Dalai Lama told the Pope that he should not stir up the Muslims and those "mischievous" jihadists. Mischievous? That is what you call a child who deliberately does something wrong. But for the Dalai Lama, killing and raping a nun is called mischievous.
The Dalai Lama is a dhimmi and the near enemy. So, in actual fact, the Dalai Lama is a friend to the Hindus and an ally of Islam. The Pope is not a friend of the Hindus, but he is an ally against Islam.
We need to stop acting like hurt children and realize that Islam will destroy the Dalai Lama, the Pope, and the rest of us. We must start being allies or the kafir civilization will be annihilated like the Hindu civilization in Pakistan or the Christian civilization in Turkey.

The Ambassadors
To the end of healing our rivalries, we need to develop ambassadors. There are already people who attend multicultural events, but an Ambassador is very different.
Those multicultural events, frequently religious dialogs, are about making and being friends. (A dialog is a politically correct term that means no issues which actually divide people will be freely discussed.) An Ambassador is armed with the truth about the doctrine of political Islam and its history of annihilation. They also know every groups' secret shame. An Ambassador represents one group to another for the purpose of making alliances between rival groups of Kafirs.
Ambassadors set up frank discussions, not dialogs, between groups to strengthen alliances. If friendships are established, fine, but making allies is the point.

The Doctrine Project--Knowing the Far Enemy
The doctrine of political Islam is not common knowledge. How can we come to common solutions if we don't have common knowledge? There are only two sources of knowledge about Islam-history and doctrine. The history is complicated in two ways. There are the separate histories of each religious and cultural group and most of the history has been deliberately forgotten-cultural amnesia.
The problem with the Islamic doctrine is that until the 21st century, it has been far too complicated for anyone except an imam, an Islamic religious and political leader, to understand. We are fortunate that the complete doctrine of political Islam is now available and can be easily understood.
The doctrine is the key to understanding Islam. And unlike the history, it is pure and uncorrupted as Islam has proudly kept every single word preserved for us to use for our own aims.Every action and thought of Islam is based upon the Islamic Trilogy, Koran, Sira and Hadith. To know the Trilogy is to know the heart and mind of Islam.
One of the best ways of knowing the far enemy is to know the political doctrine and educate others about the essence of Islam. The doctrine has one overwhelming characteristic-it is intellectually, emotionally, and ethically repulsive. We must master the doctrine ourselves. It gives great power in thinking strategically and tactically. In debates you can easily prevail over any apologist for Islam.
We need to sponsor training sessions for ourselves. Some people can learn from reading alone, but others need a group to assist them. The trainings must also include how to use argument and persuasion to defend our civilization.

Spreading the Doctrine
We must do is to put the Islamic political doctrine in service to our own strategy: attack the near enemy and expose the far enemy. We must put the doctrine in front of:

Political leaders
Opinion makers in the media and universities
Military, law enforcement and intelligence officers
Bloggers and others active on the Web
Other opinion makers
This list divides itself into those we need to see in person and those we can reach by e-mail or phone. Political leaders fall into the category of personal visitation. Committees must contact and educate officials about the doctrine of political Islam. We should set a goal of a meeting with every Congressman, Senator, and every governor. At the meeting we should express our fear of political Islam and our fear of officials ignorance of Islam. The ignorance can be eliminated by reading the books detailing the doctrine.Others should be contacted by e-mail or letter and given a chance to receive the gift of books detailing the doctrine of political Islam and its history.
We must let Mohammed speak for himself to the leaders, officials and others.

The Curriculum Project--Knowing the Far Enemy
Our public officials, diplomats, military and the media are all advised and trained by the Middle East experts that are in our universities. The ideology of the universities is totally driven by explaining everything about Islam by its reaction to us. The political doctrine of Islam is never used to explain what is happening or predict what will happen.
A computer search of a dozen universities that have Middle East degree programs showed that not one degree program teaches the political doctrine of Islam. Their graduates study Arabic language, Arabic literature, architecture, and history. This is bigoted and illogical. Every act and word by Islam starts with the Koran and the Sunna. It is impossible to even understand Islam without knowing its view and motivation. So it follows that the doctrine of political Islam must be added to the knowledge base that every graduate has to learn.
A graduate of these programs can advise officials and never have the slightest clue as to what actually motivates Islam.
But one of the things that motivates our university elites is race and money. It goes like this: about 30 years ago Saudi Arabia started pouring money into our top universities. They funded chairs, gave donations to the departments, built buildings. But then came demands. Islamic departments must not be headed by white, kafir scholars. So Muslim scholars became the ideological drivers in the university system. And the white-boy professors deferred in all ideological demands. They serve Islam as self-loathing dhimmis.
So whatever, Islam wants, Islam gets at Harvard and other universities. We are betrayed. Many of the universities are the near enemy.
We must create and implement curriculums at courageous schools that will teach a program based upon the actual doctrine of Islam. We must turn out students who can debate and write based upon the Islamic Trilogy. We must dominate the market place of ideas and produce young minds that are not dhimmi-zed.
This would be a rigorous academic curriculum. Graduates could read Arabic, know the Koran, Sira and Hadith. The history of the Islamic conquest of the universal ethical civilization would be studied. They would know the suffering of the dhimmi. Since they must be warriors, they must also study writing, speaking, logic and persuasion.

Curriculum at Public Schools
Every public school textbook that mentions Islamic history has been vetted by CAIR (a Hamas "civil rights" organization). To counter this we must lobby to have the history of the victims of jihad and dhimmitude be added to textbooks. We must let the pain of our ancestors be known.

Slavery and Curriculum
Every slave sold in America was wholesaled out of a Islamic slave system that had been in existence a thousand years before they started selling Africans to the Europeans. And Islam enslaved a million Europeans. All of this history must be added to the public curriculum. Islam must bear the historical burden that it deserves.

Women's Studies
Islam has a large body of doctrine about how to subjugate women. However, feminist studies never give a critical look at the doctrine. We must find ways to see Islam's doctrine about women is taught.

Bill Warner

Bela said...

Interesting.
Not a single poster came up with a sound answer to the question which eventually will affect all of us:
What will be our response when we are facing an intermarried, mixed blood new European population; just like the American counterpart the "New Europeans" won't be white and they will not belong to the Greco-Roman culture, a large segment will be Muslim...following one parent's religion...

Civil war? - Who against whom?
Immigrants, Muslims, radical Marxist, dwindling number of traditionalist, mixed blood Europeans will populate the Old Continent.

So what is your say?

Afonso Henriques said...

"We have to fight it. We have to eradictae every mosque and every muslim out of our lands."

Of course, I agree.

"the more I learn and experience about this vile death cult, the more I think it is a moral obligation on the civilised world to totally destroy Islam."

Let me say the following:

For instance, imagine Britain and France had never atacked Germany. Do you think Hitler and the Reich would behave like they did in relation to the "Jewish Question"?

I don't know if you know but Hitler has tryed since the beggining to erradicate, not the "Jews" as persons, but the "Jewish" / "Semitic" spirit and influences in Europe, and then maybe the world.

We have to think if we're not treating the muslims / Islam like Hitler would have treated the Jews / "Semitism" had France and Britain not atacked Germany.

P.S. - That should give an idea of what the Serbs have gone trough. Because in ex-Yugoslavia, "France" and "Britain" atacked again. So as to put Karadzic to say that "the Jews" may suffer extintion.

Defiant Lyon, I hope you don't get offended with this but, think about it.

It is not my intention to offend people (not even the damned muslims!) but to make people think...

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

Bela, are you trying to turn this into a racial discussion? Is culture something that's racially inherent? If so, you sound an awful lot like a Saudi Arab.

If in reality supporting the West is a vehicle for white nationalism, I don't want anything to do with it.

Linking "Westernism" with White Nationalism is an excellent way to derail whatever progress we have made (or will make).

Afonso Henriques said...

Wow Bela... just, wow!

I have already thought about it but the problem is not the "browning" of America. It is that America is built over an idea. That's stupid for us.
And, worse than that, America is built in a core-ethnic group that has always being expanding... that's what we called a... empire.

I thing those are the two main problems. That and the fact that since the 60s the (European) world has gone crazy.
Americans think that, to opose the expansion, to opose the growing of the empire, is... racist. Pride in the ethnic group/Nation is for Americans white supermacism. Even if it is Italians denying Swedes the right to be Italians, it must be some kind of evil KKK white supermacism.

----------------------------------
Now the "less-inteligent" remarks:

"Our discussion would be more credible if we included some thoughts on the effect of the changing European demographics which comes along with the passage of TIME."

But we do! TIME = CIVIL WAR
Concerning the "mixed ones"... look to Yugoslavia, they will have to chose a side. And if they chose the European side, they will have to watch their backs from the "purists". And, if everything has ended well, they will be second rate citizens... and proud of it.

So, unless you thinK the "browning of Europe" will do anything other than a Civil War... I am all hears...
Also, in Europe, men will not opt for non-European women unless they are already at the bottom. Women... they will buy whatever Oprah tells them to do so. But the friends, family and power/money will do just as good as Oprah.

"As the alien-race based immigration to Europe will increase exponentially along with the rate of intermarriage, our voices will be silenced as it has happened in Cologne."

It will take THOUSANDS OF YEARS to eliminate all Europeans due to normal rates of intermarriege. And people do tend to marriage in their communities.
Not only that. Only "liberals" (let call them that) will engage in those kind of relations and as such, the "gene" for "liberalism" and the education towards "liberalism" will slowly be eliminated from the European gene pool. So there is a no returning point that, when achieved, "statistically" (or virtually, is the same) ends that kind of relations.
As I heard recently, one-third of Western Europeans are told to "hold racial supermacist" views, I believe from my expirience that for Eastern Europeans it would be much more (50? 75%?) you can tell me that better.
I remember when at school to answer anonymous questionaries (I remember it was soon after 9/11) with questions such as "would you marry a blind person?", "would you marry a deficient", "would you marry people of other Nationalities" or "would you marry someone culturally different?" so I know the E.U. may be colecting the results of it.
Unfortunately I was very innocent and picked "maybe" to all of them, now I have different views.

"over time, there will be a new European population"

No, there will be a new population living in Europe. The European population will continue to be European. That's the kind of Nationalism Americans do not understand.

"over centuries the once pure white European-Americans intermarried with other immigrant groups (see Latin America) and this trend accelerates the pace of demographic changes that forming the American societal majority's opinion.
— The browning of America."

Yes, it does accelerates the demographic changes, all the rest is bullshit.
First of all, what happened was a whitening of America. You are talking of whitening.
And no Latin America is not the product of simple "intermarriage". That never happened before the 60s.

Latin America is in fact what you get when you send thirty white men with five white women to a new continent. Latin America was conquered by males: Conquistadores, Navigators, Priests, Workers, Nobels... there was not white women enough. The white women would only marry the "best" white men. All the others had to find an indian or black women. That is problem number one.

That and the fact that only Southern South America was really colonised. America was not to be colonised, America was just to be a piece of land to make money, exploit and rest the ships. So if you want I can give you a link of the desperate Portuguese men who were sent to Northern Brazil begging the King to aloud marrieges with Indian women, and the King letter to the Pope asking if it was possible... and then Las Casas discover that after all the Indians do have a soul and as so the Pope tells the King and the King tells the people to marry Indians and "multiply as much as possible to secure new subjects of the Empire". This in the XVI century.

So the reason why there is still white people in Latin America is because of white women, who would be "protected" and would not engage on "multicultural" relations.

That's why in the +35% non white Brazil of the 50s there was a great scandal when the beloved (really beloved) Pele opts to marry a white girl over the mantra:

"Eu também prefiro o chamapagne ao café"
"Me too prefers champagne over cofee" (Pele's words).

There was a scandal.

And about "whitening/browning", in the late XIX century Brazil the main current was of "embranquecimento" (literally, whitening). The goal was to take the maximum of white people to Brazil, not only people but, especially men and then to make the men marry indians, blacks, and mixed peoples. But also, not any type of white but "to get an influx of the maximum of Portuguese, Spanish and Italian blood to overwhelm the inferior races and to create in Brazil the greatest Civilisation in the world, the unity of the Mediterranean Civilisation, which has gave the most of the great civilisations of the world, Civilised Europe and served as the inspiration and base of the Civilised World. Only in this way can Brazil became the great power it is destined to be".

Of course the result? Not great. What do they do, they start recruting Germans. Still not great, what happens is exaclt a browning and not a whitening of Brazil.

If only Brazil had tryed to control the numbers of the poorer and not proclaim race mixing as the National Sport...

-----------------------------------
And Sigh reaction is an all American one! He did not understood a thing of what you said. Maybe he understands my words better?

Afonso Henriques said...

Ypp, I was planing to defend you from Natalie and Dymphna - both AMERICANS - and especially Laté Island which is JEWISH and probabily American.

But then you said "The potential problem of anti-jihad movement is that it is fueled by primitive atheism and hatred to any religion. That will not work."

One of the great things of the anti-Jihad movement is that it will not exclude you due to your religion, it does not matter if you are Protestant, Atheistic, Catholic, Orthodox or Jewish, much Religious or not so much. I think that is wonderfull because there is simply no room for the smaller religious derived discrimination.

But fortunately, NJ Artist spoke much better than I would have ever done.

P.S.- I highlighted Dymphna and Natalie's "Americanity" because America is the country where the state and religion handle hands.
And Laté Island... Jewish! Her Nation is her God! You should come to Europe to see what (radical) secularism has done... NJ Artist said it all, he said it all...

vince said...

Sigh,

Race and culture are the same. Western civilization cannot survive without the white race. Let´s not fool ourselves.
Maybe fjordman in the bottom agrees with what i am going to say, but since he has a reputation to preserve, he prefers to use a more diplomatic terminology.

If we want to survive as a distintct and unique people with its own culture and civilization, we should fight against the browning of europe.
Non-white immigrants and their offspring should be deported. those who can´t be expelled such as gypsies and mongrels should be segregated but treated in a humane manner.
Further immigration from non-white countries should be stopped.
Immigration of white south africans and north and americans should be encouraged.

I am not being radical here i am just being more honest than most of you.
Do not fool yourselves, race and culture cannot be seperated.

Sigh said...

I understood what bela meant quite well. Racial fear mongering is idiotic, whites will continue to breed with whites like they have since time immemorial - if they die out it's [i]their[/i] own choice.

We can fix the problem by fixing immigration laws, without resorting to the same race-baiting I hear from drunks on their porches.

"I highlighted Dymphna and Natalie's "Americanity" because America is the country where the state and religion handle hands."

What exactly does this even mean?

Ypp said...

You guys are fixed on separation. It is essentially a feminist idea. Since men are not without faults (and nobody is without a fault) lets separate from them, divorce them, prohibit them from coming in. Same with church. Surely, they had some problems. But who didn't?

I only recently started to understand how secularism and liberalism are based on pure hatred. This permanent talk about being free always tacitly assumes that there must be someone very bad from whom you liberate yourself. All emotion of liberalism comes from that hatred. Church is already turned into ruins, but they still continue to hate those ruins.

You guys always talk about how westerners despise their civilization. But that's exactly you. Because faith is Western civilization, and you hate it.

Bela said...

sigh

I did not suggest anything, I did not advance any ideas, I asked questions pertaining the future of Europe which will come with changes in demographic make ups.
I suggested a subject to be discussed, that's all there is to it.
I did not disparage nor supported any racial group either, I simply stated the obvious: you intend to be a Word Warden, nagging at every word and trying to attribute nefarious intent to every noun and verb like the PC Police. Your attempt is not relevant to the subject matter.
This is a closed forum on which any opinion can be argued in accordance with the rules without constant disciplinary action and name calling on the part of other posters.

As for the US...I brought up only to support my thesis or "visually" illustrate the transformation of Nations by the immigration process...however the USA has no bearing on the European development and not connected to it any way.

Bela said...

afonso h:

You said:
"Pride in the ethnic group/Nation is for Americans white supermacism. Even if it is Italians denying Swedes the right to be Italians, it must be some kind of evil KKK white supermacism."

Yes, you are right this is the PC America...to be white is automatically racist.

But the Mexican nationalist movement "La Raza" which slogan is:
"For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing." is supported socially and financially the anti-racist Americans....Ha ha ha!

Also the Black Liberation Movement, the Kwanzaa, a week-long holiday honoring African-American heritage, Louis Farrakhan Black Muslim movement is welcomed in the US but Whites are EVIL! they should kill themselves.

latté island said...

Afonso: for the record, I have no god, as I was raised as an agnostic and remain one. This is very typical of American Jews. I only harp on the Jewish stuff here, because it's so necessary to provide that perspective. In real life, I'm quite alienated from the Jewish community, and sometimes I'm tempted to throw them under the bus, but I don't, because people like me can help wake them up. Also, I disagree that white Americans don't identify as white. Yes we do, but Americans are very, very polite. The only reason many people will consider voting for McCain is that he's white. They just won't say it in public.

latté island said...

As for America's future...does anyone really think mestizos, blacks, muslims and mixed race dhimmis will be able to run this hemisphere? Our future masters, the Chinese and some Indians, are preparing to take over. They're here in great numbers, and government and big business are facilitating the transfer of power. When the Olympic Torch passed through San Francisco, the Chinese goons who suddenly flooded the SFGate comments section gave the plot away. They openly said, in atrocious English slogans they'd memorized in Chinese goon school, that Americans don't own this country because we stole it. Now, why do you think they said that? Maybe they think they will own it like they own Tibet? Young people, if you want a future, study Chinese and get over your bourgeois obsession with human rights and product safety.

latté island said...

ypp wrote: I only recently started to understand how secularism and liberalism are based on pure hatred. This permanent talk about being free always tacitly assumes that there must be someone very bad from whom you liberate yourself

That's true of many radicals, they are intolerant of religion and other tradition institutions. Maybe they're angry about their religious upbringing or something. However, as a secular person and part-time liberal myself, I assure you that my preference for the non-traditional, secular, California type culture is not at all based on hatred. I (and probably the majority of secular people) appreciate religious people and values. In fact, my values are so Judeo-Christian, that aside from the issue of the existence of God, I'm very similar to my churchgoing friends. This is not at all rare.

Please don't set up this imaginary conflict. Only some obnoxious kids in Berkeley and places like it, and militant atheists who imagine they're smarter than religious people, fit your description. The only reason I don't want a state religion is that I think it would be destructive to force people to pretend to believe things they don't believe. Most agnostics and atheists are mellow and wouldn't dream of dissing anyone's religion. (Islam excepted, of course.)

Natalie said...

Thank you, latte island.

I am an atheist, but I'm not militant about it. Most atheists I've met are like I am, I would say. Sure, there are those who base everything they do on the hatred and destruction of religion, but ypp is wrong to think that those are the majority.

I would also like to point out that there are Christians who try to shove their religion down our throats. But that does not mean that the majority of Christian people are like this--in fact, quite the contrary. A lot of Christians are tolerant of others' views.

ypp almost seems to act like atheists are evil or something, which definitely isn't true. And to equate us to liberals is just plain wrong.

remingtonquail said...

Anti-Islamist's copy of Bill Warner's "Way to Defeat Political Islam" is new to me and the best plan I've seen detailing specific, concrete steps to take. Come to think of it, it's the only one I've seen. Considering Anti-Islamist's warning that all those who already know it well just skip it, must mean I'm way behind the curve. Is it well known? I hope so. I'd like to think Warner's plan is in the process of being implemented in every particular right now. I think it really could turn the tide if in fact the problem is that most people, including political leaders, just don't know what is the real nature of Islam. If our people are perishing for lack of knowledge, well, here's a very good plan-of-action for removing the blinders.

If, on the other hand, we face this problem, as Ypp seems to think, because we no longer have faith in the Judeo-Christian traditions that built our civilization, then I guess nothing can help us.

While I would be absolutely against any state-sponsored religion, even the one I myself profess (which anyway, kindly stands at the door and knocks, awaiting an invitation, in contrast to Islam's convert or die barbarity), I can't help but have a sneaky feeling that we wouldn't be facing this extinction in the first place if the majority of us, on an individual level, still held in our individual hearts a conviction of faith - namely, that faith being the particular one of our ancestors. Were that the case, the general populace would be far better equipped to face and fight the Islamic threat than would a largely secular humanist or atheist population dispirited by a belief that can be summed up as J.F. Stephen put it in the 19th century: The human race is an enormous agglomeration of bubbles which are continually bursting and ceasing to be. No one made it or knows anything worth knowing about it. Love it dearly, oh ye bubbles. Why should anyone love anything in that? Not very compelling, to say the least.

Sigh said...

I am not being radical here i am just being more honest than most of you.
Do not fool yourselves, race and culture cannot be seperated.


Do you have any evidence of this? Is someone like Condaleeza Rice less culturally Western than some poor destitute white inhabiting a trailer park?

I did not suggest anything, I did not advance any ideas, I asked questions pertaining the future of Europe which will come with changes in demographic make ups.

I am quite sure everyone that reads this board knows about the demographic crisis and everyone knows what it entails if not corrected.

You lack tact in the way you're "bringing" it up.
Many anti-Islam supporters are already either too afraid or too guilty to come to rallies or speak up. Do you really think we'll bring out scores of supporters - many of whom have grown up indoctrinated into multiculturalism - with such hot and heavy rhetoric? No, it will just isolate us and could involve some of us getting charged under some dumb European law.

I sure everyone here supports the curtailing of immigration from non-Western countries the elimination of foreign aid. These two points would more than likely fix the demographic crisis in less than a generation.

Also ypp's attempts to group atheists and other freethinkers as enemies is pretty startling.

latté island said...

Sigh wrote: If in reality supporting the West is a vehicle for white nationalism, I don't want anything to do with it.

Linking "Westernism" with White Nationalism is an excellent way to derail whatever progress we have made (or will make).


What do you mean by White Nationalism? It would be helpful, when discussing culture/race/politics, to be precise about definitions. Because, after reading a bit here and there on this subject, I see that White Nationalism is specific, and not all ethnonationalists are White Nationalists. I'm an ethnonationalist, in that what I want for myself as a white person or a white Jewish person, and I'm still working on that definition, is not necessarily incompatible with other ethnic groups having the same rights I have, to freedom of association and a nation state based on kinship and culture.

As long as you can consider that not all ethnonationalists are so called White Nationalists, which we haven't defined yet... The problem with people being turned off by talk of race as a part of culture, and wanting to avoid making common cause with people who do, is not that they are necessarily turned off by ethnonationalism itself, but by the dishonest way it's characterized by some in the proposition nation camp.

Defiant Lion said...

Afonso:

Your comparison is deeply flawed.

Does the jewish religion make it mandatory to wage war on unbelievers? Did Moses state that he fough for yahweh to fight the unbeliever until the world belonged solely to yaweh? How many people have the jews killed in pursuit of this?

Islamofascists have killed over 100 million people and they are continuing to kill people. Were the jews killing and beating non-believers in 1930's Germany and did they threaten to turn Germany into a Jewish state?

Get this straight: Islam is waging war upon non-believers around the world. It is Islam and not us that has declared war. We do not have a choice, we have to fight it or it will devour us. I don't recall the jews declaring war on nazi germany?

Another flaw: The nazis wanted racial purity.

Another flaw: Sharia law allows little girls to marry grown men, stones adulterers, hangs homosexuals, amputates the limbs of thieves, and holds the life of a woman to be worth half a man.

Sharia is now operating in Britain and probably other EU countries too right now. What shall we do - tolerate it?

And FYI the nazis didn't just kill jews they also killed gypsies, christians and the mentally and physically disabled and comparing the situation we are in now to nazis germany and the jews is nonsense. In fact, I would say that war has been declared upon us by muslims who hold similar views to nazis, especially when it comes to jews.

Have you thought about what will happen to non-believers - especially jews - if Islam triumphs?

If you comment regularly on here you will know exactly how I feel about what the serbs have been through and I for one don't want to see my country suffer the same fate - i.e. losing part of - maybe even all of - my country to Islamofascists.

You certainly haven't offended me but maybe you need to think a little bit more before you invite others to think? Not comparing our situation with that of Nazi germany would be a good start.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Definitions, then:

White Nationalist of the "classic" type: Hates anyone who isn't white and wants to see them reduced to their "deserved" position.

Ethno-nationalist: Would prefer to be with their own kind and wants a space for that nation to exist as a homogeneous entity.

If you can understand the difference, congratulations, you have just achieved enlightenment.

A "white nationalist" of the kind Sigh is presumably thinking would be unable to tell the difference between English nationalism and French nationalism (just as an example), but this is akin to the nationalism of, to pull a couple of examples from the hat, the aboriginal Australians or the "First Nation" in Canada. In each case the primary motivation is freedom of association, not "racism". It's a movement for unity rahter than a movement against outsiders.

And if you can see the difference there, congratulations, you have achieved the second level of enlightenment.

Culture defines a great deal of what an ethnicity is. Culture, religion, place and people are linked in ways that we are unwilling to consider because of the negative associations generated by the association of "nationalism" with the racial purity ideologues of the early 20th century, many of whom were in fact socialists. Eugenics was very popular in socialist circles.

The unique character of the English would not have been generated anywhere apart from the British Isles, and not without the particular influx of previous cultural factors from the danes, angles and jutes to name a few. The particular culture of Scotland would not have appeared were it not for the presence of the Scots and their conquering war on the Picts. Blood'n'soil nationalism has a bad press but it's true. We are the dirt of our lands. We walk on the bones of our ancestors. To point this out means nothing more than an acknowledgement of the truth. The problem isn't in acknowledging that truth but using it as a justification for the sort of activities that started world war 2. Hitler's Germany didn't really need breathing room, it was actually under-populated relative to its neighbours. A real german nationalist would have concentrated on generating a stable society content to remain within its borders.

Now people keep talking about America, and the "browning" of it, or what have you. I think you're making a mistake in assuming that immigration to the United States would by definition cause a problem. I don't think it would. You see, until recently the United States was attempting to forge a new ethnicity, the American, using the dominant anglo-saxon culture and applying it to new blood. It could have worked. It would have worked, except the race baiters arrived and started talking about "diversity" and "minority rights" and before you could say "e pluribus unum", America was fractured.

I don't know if it's recoverable or not but, the mere fact of American immigration is not in itself a problem. It's the kind of immigration. Rather than people who want to forge a common destiny, a new ethnicity, America is now getting the kind of people who want to set up their old country in another place.

Afonso Henriques said...

Sigh,

""I highlighted Dymphna and Natalie's "Americanity" because America is the country where the state and religion handle hands."
What exactly does this even mean?"


It means that the socialist/communists and the like will only be capable of getting too much ground if - and only if - religion has no power to influence the people as that: a people.

Look at Europe and look to America.
Israel, for instance, is a Nation where that would never happen and if it does, it is because they got too multiculturalist. One educated gypsie once said:

"It is nonesense to create a gypsie state because a gypsie from Portugal or Spain would have great cutural differences from a gypsie from the Balkans..."

The same to the Jews. And no, I am not saying that the Jews do not have the right to own Israel, they do.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

'remingtonquail' has left a new comment:

[...]
"Bill Warner's "Way to Defeat Political Islam" - Is it well known? I hope so. I'd like to think Warner's plan is in the process of being implemented in every particular right now.
[...]


Hurray! Finally an adequate reaktion!
- - - - -

Honourable Baron Bodissey and Fjordman,

"Is it in the process of being inplemented"?
Is it being considered?
Are you brainy fellows discussing the matter?
Can the plan be improved?
Perhaps you can deliver a better plan?


Quoting Bill Warner:

"A principle of Sun Tsu is to shape the enemy. Islam always poses as a religion to cloak their politics . It is useless to attack a religion, so Islamic politics are under the radar. We must shape Islam as a political doctrine. We must attack the far enemy-political Islam. This means that we attack Mohammed, not Allah."

"We must form ourselves into a community. The term kafir civilization has been used in this work. Kafirs do not even know that they are kafirs, much less be organized. This must change."

"There are many ways for this to change, but one that we need is a Web network community - call it kafir Web community.The kafir Web community must carry out the functions:

Web site community
We have hundreds of Web sites that speak out against Islam. Each stands alone. There is an informal group of people who may visit different sites and carry information from one site to the other, but each site is an island unto itself."

"Imagine that all of the anti-Islamic sites were members of a community site list-serve. In this way, Web site owners could communicate among themselves. This could serve two functions."

One, we could mobilize, focus and coordinate tactics during special times such as the Mohammed cartoon attacks."

"Two, there are materials that it would be good for many to publish at the same time. For instance, if this pamphlet were to be spread by the site network to all the sites, then it could be read simultaneously across the globe. You get a much better strategic impact from speed and a broad front."

"And who knows what else can happen as site owners communicate with each other?"

"Personal Community
At this time most people personally know only a few [or none at all] people from church or another social group who are working in some way against Islam. Even if you wanted to meet someone else from your town [geographical region] how would you do it? This is a geographic grouping."

"Another grouping could be writers, scholars, translators or jihad history buffs. We need a way to form special communities (actually the Web site community is a special case). We need to use the Web to form local communities"

"Local Politics
You live in a small town [or in a "small country"] and wake up one day to find that Muslims, who moved here a few years ago, are pressuring and making demands to use the school[s] for prayer during Ramadan. The ACLU howls if the Bible is taught in schools, but makes no protest about the Islamic school usage during Ramadan."

"Or: you live in a city and when reading the paper, watching TV or talking to a friend find out that Muslims are making demands that we change to accommodate Islam. You feel helpless and afraid. Everything about these events seem wrong, but no one in the media or government will even give guidance on how to protect our very civilization."

"Multi-culturalism says that even wanting to preserve your culture is biased thinking ! Political correctness says that any talk about Islam that is negative or judgemental is hate speech or racist ! We really don't even know exactly what it is we are losing, but we are losing. We are losing a war that is not allowed to be spoken of."

"We must form a political community. We must have organizations that works at the pure grass-roots.First and foremost, we need ways to teach people what is going on. Islam will make demands on every area of our lives. Education, politics, customs, medicine, art, law, funding will all have demands and pressure to change to be more Islamic. "

and so on.............

vince said...

graham,

Your definition of white nationalism actually applies to only, white supremacy.

White nationalists only want to preserve their own people.
They are not interested in dominating other races or something of the sort.
Ethno-nationalists would define people who reject both people of other races, and people of their own race who do not belong to their ethnicity. ex: The Japanese who reject the chinese and koreans even if there is absolutly no racial difference between them.

Most of us can be described as white nationalistic, because I am sure no one would mind Boers or Poles immigrating to their countries.

vince said...

Sigh,

How many condolezza rices you have in the US?
Do you have any evidence she has more loyalty to western cheritage than to her own race?
Even the honourable and Republican Colin Powell expressed his preference to Obama because he´s black.
When it comes to race, black show more common sense than whities.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Yes, you are right this is the PC America...to be white is automatically racist."

Not only in America...

As Fjordman and CS discussed a while ago:

Jews and Europeans have no right to live out of their lands.

However, in Israel and Europe they still have no right to opose mass immigration and support their Historial Nations.

Bela, maybe your future is the Mexican one: A state sponsored ideology of: We are all Mestizos... Natives are Mestizo and Europeans are also Mestizo, even if you are born to Spaniard parents in Madrid but go to school in Mexico, you are also Mestizo...
and by the factors to qualify Mestizos, any Native American can do... that and a half of the people living in Portugal/Spain...
In Chile, the state ideology is: we are all white...

I doubt you will go that far but maybe the ideology in America will be: we are all non whites, I've seen some white Americans claiming to have Indian or black blood but who do not look mix and do not have a clue of "black/indian culture". However, they praise a lot that residual non-white blood... as if that made them more Americans than the white majority...

vince said...

Sorry for the miswritten words and missing letters, i have a problem with my keyboard.

Afonso Henriques said...

Latté Island,

You know I like your comments...
I am not against you religious practices nor am I for them.

But you see, I don't know if you are a "religious Jew" but I think you are a "Cultural Jew".

I also only go to curch for marriages and baptisms... or funerals. However, I have a great respect for it. And I am a "Cultural Catholic".

But a cultural Catholic can seperate better the church from the state than a cultural Jew. Because all aspects of Jewish life:
Culture, descent, everything, is conected to the Jewish faith. Therefore your Nation, your culture can not be seperated from the Jewish religion. (Yeah, and if America is a "multi-ethnic Nation State" you can replace Nation by ethnicity) I am not doubting your "Americanity" I hope you take that.

"I only harp on the Jewish stuff here, because it's so necessary to provide that perspective."

Keep doing so, I apreciate your comments.

"I disagree that white Americans don't identify as white. Yes we do"

This is a bit off-topic, is it not?
I think that's part of the problem, you should identify as Europeans and America as European.
We here identify as Russians, English, German, Italian, etc...
white is not such a empty term after all...

"if you want a future, study Chinese and get over your bourgeois obsession with human rights and product safety."

I will not give power to the Asians so easily. I may learn Chinese but first I'll learn English better and Russian, and German, and French, and Italian, and Spanish, and Latin, and Dutch, and Greek...

Afonso Henriques said...

Sigh,

"I sure everyone here supports the curtailing of immigration from non-Western countries the elimination of foreign aid. These two points would more than likely fix the demographic crisis in less than a generation."

Yeah, yeah, look at America, when the trafic of slaves ended!

America ended up to be 10% non white in the sixties!
The same as most Western European Nations (if not all Europeans with the exception of some North-Eastern States) who are 5 to 15 percent non white.

But the problem is that those 10% non-whites in America did not blended in, they sudently grew to 25%... or 33% if you really do not like Hispanics...

The inquisition ended the moors efectively. Not obstanding some moors and Jews lived and "integrated".
There is a difference between some individuals and a huge part of the population (10%).

latté island said...

Vince, that's a really precise definition of ethno-nationalism, but I wouldn't say "reject" other ethnicities, so much as see a reason to specialize. I've come to this point because of being Jewish and realizing that I can't be a White Nationalist because most of those people don't want me in their club, and I respect that, even if I would have welcomed them into my club. So, for historical reasons, it's best, I think, for Jews to have their own little club, and that will be true for many other groups that have strange histories. Maybe the Japanese want to be Japanese because there are so few of them, and if they were just Asian they wouldn't exist.

I don't want to change the subject too much, but since so many people misunderstand these things, I'd better finish my thought about the Jews. I've realized that, although it can be said that there is one Jewish people, in modern times, and especially now, there seem to be many Jewish peoples. Frankly, I want a divorce from some of them, especially the self-destructive progressive types who interfere with other peoples' right to freedom of association. I'll share my little fantasy...even though this won't happen in my lifetime, it's worth discussing, to illustrate a principle. Although I support Israel, I don't have much in common with that project. It means nothing to me to live under constant attack in a bad neighborhood, because the Bible says it's mine. I'd like a homeland for secular, race-conscious Jews that's away from all that. Maybe an artificial island in the Pacific, if that were technically possible, or buying land from a primitive tribe in a safe, non-controversial area.

Afonso's comment from earlier in the thread made me realize I'd better go into more detail about who I am, as opposed to the generic Jewish spokesperson. If I object to certain things people say about Jews and Israel, that doesn't mean I'm a good example of that type, because I'm obviously not. I just step up to the plate because of the shortage of manpower here.

Afonso Henriques said...

Defiant Lion,

"Does the jewish religion make it mandatory to wage war on unbelievers? Did Moses state that he fough for yahweh to fight the unbeliever until the world belonged solely to yaweh? How many people have the jews killed in pursuit of this?"

Well, my anwer would be you're right.
But, let's imanige I am a Pagan. For instance, Pagans see Christianity as a sect of Judaism. And yes, they kind of controled Pagan Europe.
And there was a Roman Emperor (the last Pagan one) who was killed in battle against the Persians by "Judeo-Christian" Roman soldiers.

So, we can transmutate it all. I think it is relative, but you have made a good point.

Why can't we let them live but for instance, crush North African air forces and navies...

"Islamofascists have killed over 100 million people and they are continuing to kill people."

Yeah, that's very beautifull but honestly, I don't care that much. Are you going to Darfur? Well, I am not that inclined to go there and fight *theyr* war. However, I'll support the Africans. (It's like America in relation to Georgia...)

"Were the jews killing and beating non-believers in 1930's Germany and did they threaten to turn Germany into a Jewish state?"

Again, this is highly debatable.
However I can categorically say that the average Jew was not. And I can also say that you made another good point but, that's the muslims I am willing to fight, those who already are in Europe. Here we do not have a disagreement.

"Islam is waging war upon non-believers around the world."

I know. They came here in 711 and only left in 1492. And after that, they continued to attack our costs untill the American/French had conquerted Algeria. But, I do not want to end up like King D. Sebstião!

"Another flaw: The nazis wanted racial purity."
Sure but, you also want "religious purity" at least in relation to islam. (and I know it has little to do with religion. But so did the Cruzades)

"Sharia is now operating in Britain and probably other EU countries too right now. What shall we do - tolerate it?"

As long as it only affects muslims, I do not care at all. They'd do it anyway.

"I would say that war has been declared upon us by muslims who hold similar views to nazis, especially when it comes to jews."

I think you are correct. But I don't want to bomb Meca. At least... :) Not now... XD

"Have you thought about what will happen to non-believers - especially jews - if Islam triumphs?"

What has always happened in the course of Histort whenever the muslims have power...

Lyon, I only think that, let's fight them untill the Gates of Meca is still a little bit too radical. Let's fight them out of Europe, shall we? And then, maybe, out of Israel and Lebanon (but nor really).

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Latté, Vince, this is what I'm trying to say: race is a fairly crude measure. "white" covers everything from the Bosporus and the urals to the tippy-toe of Italy, the pillars of Hercules, scandanavia, iceland, Australia and the Americas but I wouldn't call those peoples the same thing.

I keep coming back to the French vs the English. We aren't the same. Superficially we're white but that doesn't mean we're the same. They're ethnically French, we're ethnically english. The scots are ethnically scottish even though they're genetically almost identical to the Irish and the breton. The Danes and the Swedes are essentially identical but you wouldn't say they're the same nation. There is no "white nation".

See, ethnicity is down to culture, genes and location. Why is this so hard to understand? Yes, it's "white people" in a particular spot that became English but that's just a very crude way of putting it. It's a confluence of particular genes and cultures and language that were forged together to produce the English ethnicity. It was the English nation that produces magna carta.

White nationalism is based entirely on skin colour and doesn't take into account anything of culture or heritage. I can't fight for white nationalism because the scope is far, far too broad and too easily subverted, but I can fight for English nationalism, because then I know what I'm defending and what I want to preserve. Talking purely in terms of the white race robs me of my heritage just as surely as the multicultis or the european union will. Examine it this way. Where is Whiteland? Where is "the white homeland"? Blanctopia? There is no white home, unless you want all white people to move back to the Caucasus, but there is an English home, an Italian home. Would you call Paraguayans white? Copts? Persians? They're all "white". Arabs are mostly "white". As a convenient label for a large group the idea of "white nationalism" has some merit, but I don't it's best to drop the term, as it's just a smidgen universalist for my tastes. Localism is the key. People can be given pride in their own ethnicity that simply can't be inculcated in the generic term of "white". They can be given pride in their culture and their heritage, their ancestry. And then we can have our nations back.

And, whilst I don't obsessively object to polish immigration I still feel as strongly about that as I do about any other form of immigration. The Poles simply aren't English.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Hm, ignore the magna carta bit, I was going to make a point there but I decided to leave it out and then forgot to remove that line.

Defiant Lion said...

Afonso:

"Sure but, you also want "religious purity" at least in relation to islam. (and I know it has little to do with religion. But so did the Cruzades)"

Not quite correct. It is Islam that wants religious purity. It is the muslims who see non-believers as "filth" (najis). It is time this vile ideology is smashed to pieces. They want to wage war on dar al harb then let's give it them - in spades.

"Lyon, I only think that, let's fight them untill the Gates of Meca is still a little bit too radical. Let's fight them out of Europe, shall we?"

I used to think this but not anymore. Islam is a retarded, violent, intolerant totalitarian ideology that is now threatening to dominate the world. It's us or them and I believe we have a duty to fight it and eradicate it.

Getting the muslims out of Europe is priority uno. Then we continue until they have been annihilated. Then we re-build a better future from there. A future free of the Islamic cancer. If we fail to do this, Islam will rise up again and threaten future generations and maybe they will succeed.

It's time to call "lights out" on the death cult of the paedophile "prophet".

latté island said...

Graham, you're right about all that, in principle, but since all white ethnic groups are under attack by the same people (non-whites and their white enablers), it's convenient for people to fight back as whites, even if they're also English, etc.

Countries like America and Australia may be closer to being potentially WN because so many white Americans, Australians, etc. are mixed. Everyone I know really well goes on about their ancestry, and the majority have ancestors from several European countries.

Take South Africa. There are Boers and English, some European groups, and Lithuanian Jews. They are now making common cause as persecuted whites, but they retain their specific ethnicities, too. If S. Africans had their way, there would be a Boer homeland, an English homeland, etc. Well, they won't get anything if they don't also identify as Whites. I don't think they'll get a white homeland, because the Boers and everyone else are so bitter about their history, they insult each other instead of making a plan. But current events show that there is such a thing as a white nation, because all white people are being attacked as white people.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

We may be attacked as whites but that doesn't mean responding on their terms. The very fact of our diversity mitigates against a single white national identity. It doesn't matter. We're allies. We become an alliance with common cause, not a single "nation" because we are culturally different. An alliance based on the preservation of our diverse ethnic identities as we see fit. How can the left argue with that?

Afonso Henriques said...

Lyon,

"If we fail to do this, Islam will rise up again and threaten future generations and maybe they will succeed."

OK then, it's your opinion and what you say is real. However I'll keep on considering only stage number one.

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

Considering the White Nationalism debate.

I do not want a white Nation! But there is something similar, there is European Civilisation. We could make a European Union like system (much lighter of course, actually more like the Congress of Vienna) with only the European States of the world, in America, Europe, wherever.

This organisation would have few powers but would be united in consensus and similarity, instead of the current European Union slogan "united in diversity".

You Americans can identify as "white", we Europeans do not. In fact, the majority of our Historical enemies have been white... We are Europeans, and English... French, etc.

So, the normal is to have European individual Nations and then to have a Civilisation wide organisation to assure that Europe can act against their enemies. An organisation whose power will only be granted by all the European Nations.

Like, our very private ONU... that could have worked.

Baron Bodissey said...

Anti-Islamist --

With all due respect to both you and Mr. Warner, it is a false assertion that all the anti-jihad sites are connected together only informally.

It is the nature of this work that not everything can (nor should) be made public. This is a concept that a number of people seem to find difficult to grasp.

As I have said before, this and other blogs are the area under the lamp post, and people are looking here because the light is good. But out there is the scary darkness other more important things are happening. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they're not there.

Or, to quote Lao Tze once again (Tao Te Ching, Chapter 36:

Fish cannot leave deep waters,
And a country's weapons should not be displayed.

Baron Bodissey said...

Archonix, latté island, and others —

Both (all) of you are right. As Archonix says, the English, the Swedes and the Italians and the Czechs are all “white”, but very different, and lumping together as one group is senseless.

But…

When the Swedes, the Italians, and the Czechs emigrated to America (and presumably also Australia), they assimilated to Anglo-Saxon culture, while at the same time retaining varying degrees of attachment to their ancestral homes.

The same is not true of all other cultures. Muslims may be the most extreme example, but other groups — such as the Chinese — assimilate more slowly and less completely than the Dutch or the Poles. In fact, Southern Europeans are just slightly less assimilable than Northern Europeans. The cultural compatibility index seems to be highest among nations ranging from Ireland to Finland and south to Central Europe, Germany, and the Pyrenees.

(Interestingly enough, in this the French are an exception as they are in so many things. Some French immigrants assimilated fully in the United States, while other pockets of them, particularly in the Northeast [this group often lumped together with the ethnic French “Canucks” from Canada], stubbornly refused to integrate, and were almost monolingual in French well into the 20th century.)

Everything I’m saying here is clearly racist, but it also happens to be true, which is one of the basic problems that we encounter when discussing this topic. What we say here and what the White Supremacists and Nazis say actually overlap.

If neo-Nazis believe that Multiculturalism is a bad thing (and they do), does that mean we should stop opposing Multiculturalism? Obviously not. One has to accept that people whose other opinions we don’t like agree with us on this particular issue.

So this discussion will always be fraught with difficulties, and we are all racists simply for joining in it. To prove you are not racist you would have to shun all conversation on the topic.

The best course, in my opinion, is to take a deep breath and say, “I’m a racist. The reason that I’m a racist is that I cherish my own people and prefer the company of my own kind over that of foreigners. I accept my basic racism, and I’m OK with it.”

There. That wasn’t so bad, was it? Now that we’ve got that out of the way and established that we’re all racists, let’s see if we can find our way through the cultural minefield that this issue has become.

Ypp said...

latté island

You have a Judeo-Christian San-Francisco life stile. Got it!

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

Baron --

Fish cannot leave deep waters

Cellula antijihadia: Gegeji or Secoji?

Have great fun!
Hope you have armed yourselves.
Forget not to tell all of us when MO is decapitated.
- - - - -
geheimegegenjihad
secretcounterjihad

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

When the Swedes, the Italians, and the Czechs emigrated to America (and presumably also Australia), they assimilated to Anglo-Saxon culture, while at the same time retaining varying degrees of attachment to their ancestral homes.

That's the point I was trying to make when I said they were trying to create a new ethnicity. I mean, it's pretty obvious that Americans are American, whether they're from california or new york or the flyover states, whether they're a country rube or a supposedly slick'n'cultured urbanite - they're American. That American ethnicity is there, though it seems it's being squashed by multiculturalism just as surely as ours our.

Oh well. Back to reading about CS Lewis. :)

Ernest said...

The best course, in my opinion, is to take a deep breath and say, “I’m a racist. The reason that I’m a racist is that I cherish my own people and prefer the company of my own kind over that of foreigners. I accept my basic racism, and I’m OK with it.”

There. That wasn’t so bad, was it? Now that we’ve got that out of the way and established that we’re all racists, let’s see if we can find our way through the cultural minefield that this issue has become.



Hear hear! Otherwise we are throwing punches blindly with our hands tied behind our backs against opponents and most times enemies who very much work, align and relate by race or the group. While insisting with the help of Marxist whites, of course, that only "people of color" are allowed this leeway i.e. Islam, LaRaza, Black Liberation Theology and so on. In addition this wayward notion of throwing out deviations from the norm or exceptions as being the rule while ignoring the majority is not only disingenuous but extremely dangerous. i.e. that Condi Rice is somehow representative of the majority of blacks when it is not even close. Not to mention that even Ms Rice is not above throwing out the race card from time to time. Or 90%+ blacks voting for Obama yet the MSM and most leftest willingly ignore that fact while insisting that whites are evil if they come even half as close to approaching the same group pattern. It is as if most Westerners(whites) have a true death wish and insist on committing suicide to prove something. That Western culture is not really unique or it is so pedestrian that it was only pure luck and happenstance and not Europeans that have/had anything to do with it.

Also what is it with labeling whites who want to preserve their culure, race and identiy as "supremest" but the same people who would throw those lables around towards whites would never ever consider saying the same about blacks, asians, Hispanics et al who do the very same thing and in fact most times insist that "people of color" have a "right" to do so. Would also never insist we must make them eradicate themselves to prove how non-"racist" they are? I mean what is the real goal here anyway? To all be one? Is that true nirvania to become some sort of borg?

Fjordman said...

Graham: The "white nationalist" label is totally meaningless in a European context. First of all, nobody calls Asians, Africans or others who fight for their dignity and right to exist black, brown or yellow nationalists, so why should we be called white nationalists if we do the same?

Moreover, it's just plain, factually wrong. Europeans have been waging wars against each other for thousands of years. There is hardly a spot on European soil where a person can stand and not say "You did this bad thing to us X number of centuries ago, and we still hate you for it." We view ourselves as Italians, Norwegians, Poles, Irishmen etc., not as "whites." The differences between northern and southern Europe, as well as between eastern and western Europe, are profound. Let us not kid ourselves about that.

The irony is that precisely the kind of verbal and physical attacks we are being subjected to now could potentially change that. Maybe, if this is supposed to be a "post-national" age and we are attacked by transnational ideologies of different kinds, native Europeans will create a "transnational" ideology of their own to defend themselves. This will be an ideology dedicated to the defense of a shared European civilization and to the peoples who have historically created it. I don't foresee that preexisting national identities can or should disappear, but there will perhaps be another layer of "Europeanism" added on top of this. Europe as a cultural alliance, rather than Europe as a single nation.

Sigh said...

(mind the structure, did it on my cell)
I will admit, I should not have thrown the term "White Nationalism" out. It was a mistake has really derailed the topic at hand.

My personel opinion is that we should just call it "The demographic cris" and leave it at that, as all of us know the end results.

I've been a bit worried by talk of splitting the West culturally apart. Splitting it between the Old and New worlds will only weaken it. Which is why I believe a spirit of "Pan-Westernism" is required.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

The western alliance?

Afonso Henriques said...

"The differences between northern and southern Europe, as well as between eastern and western Europe, are profound. Let us not kid ourselves about that."

So true Fjordman, so true...

If I am to travel 2000kms to Scandinavia, Finland or Russia, I'd feel so away, away from home in a oh so strange land...


But if I just go 200 Kms South to Morocco, then, suddently, Norway, Finland or Russia will strangely feel Home.

dhimmi1 said...

First of all, excellent work, Fjordman! You’re a rare source of inspiration to all Europeans! Every minute you invest in this important struggle will benefit Europeans for generations to come, I’m sure. Salute! I really can’t stress how important the "anti-Eurabian intellectual establishment” is (for lack of a better word;p). It will prove to be the beginning of something great.


Anyway, just to comment on this essay and the majority of anti-Eurabian articles and essays which have been written; I’ve never seen any reference to feminism as one of the important reasons in regards to European multiculturalism.

Post-1950`s feminism is perhaps the most important factor to how the Western European establishment managed to successfully introduce the Eurabia project/European multiculturalism.

Statistics show that an overwhelming majority of women in the EU vote socialistic. As and Illustration; approximately 70% of the voters of the Norwegian Socialistic Left Party (SV/SLP) are women. All statistics I’ve seen show that women have a tendency to vote socialistic.

At the same time we see that approximately 70%+ of the voters on Norway’s anti-immigration party (The Progress Party) are men. I haven’t seen statistics of similar parties in the rest of Europe but its obvious that approximately 60-80% of all voters to similar parties in other countries are men, while women generally vote for pro-Eurabia parties.

If the Norwegian statistics is an accurate indicator for the rest of Europe, this proves that the development of feminism from 1950-2008 has played a major role in the implementation of the Eurabia project. It would be interesting to research more closely how many of the EU parliamentarians are women…

Furthermore, if you add all immigrant votes (85% of all non-Western immigrants in Norway vote socialistic, 99% vote on pro-Eurabian parties) on top of the female votes, you will see the current situation we are in. It would seem like a democratic solution in regards to reversing the Eurabia project is futile as the female voting pattern will most likely not change. We are therefore capped at 30-35% when it comes to potential votes on anti immigrant parties…

The development of 1950-2008 feminism has also contributed to pacify men. The factor of using females “front figures” as an indirect factor which contributes to pacify the opposition is not at all new in politics. Even anti immigration parties are trying to ditch the “angry, poor, white man” image by tactically using female leaders. The US have done this also quite elegantly with Madeleine Albright, followed by Condi.

The presence of women in politics contributes to pacifying old patriarchy’s. I remember the former Baathist Iraqi foreign minister told the Kuwaiti foreign minister; “I condemn your moustache to hell”. If Kuwait had a female foreign minister, what would he then say,; I condemn your Hijab?? Don’t think so.

Women have the power to pacify, and women’s role in Western Europe (From 1950-2008) has contributed to pacify European men. The Eurabia project/European multiculturalism would NEVER be implemented if the feminist revolution hadn’t occurred!

Of course, feminism in Europe is very different. Norway is the most feministic country in the World today (not far from Sweden and Denmark). This is one of the reasons why Scandinavia has traditionally been at the forefront of applying the Eurabia project, allowing mass Muslim immigration. The only reason why Denmark changed opinion recently was because they had one of the most liberal immigration policies since 1970.

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find any articles which link the rise of European feminism to the implementation of the Eurabia project.

Fjordman, have you (and others) chosen to ignore this important factor out of political correctness, or perhaps to avoid stigmatizing more groups than necessary?

Best regards,

dhimmi1 said...

Edit:

Thanks to Baron Bodissey for the essay:) But question is for both Baron and Fjordman:)

Cheers,

Henrik R Clausen said...

Dhimmi1, I think you must have missed this one:

Failure of Western Feminism

And others by you-guessed-who :)

Enjoy!

Year2183 said...

To Fjordman or others who are competent on this area.

Ive noticed from earlier essays that your solution (and most people in this particular blog community regarding how to stop the Islamisation of Europe) is to attempt to democratically halt immigration completely and perhaps launch an anti sharia campaign, or just wait until the system implodes (in a civil war), and THEN halt immigration, launch anti Sharia campaign etc.:

From http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/04/is-islam-compatible-with-democracy.html

Fjordman: ”Writer Diana West has called for an anti-sharia defensive instead of a pro-democracy offensive as the preferred strategy in dealing with Muslims, which makes a lot of sense”.

I disagree. Remember Turkey which went secular for 80 years since Ataturk tok control, then after 80 years, Sharia is now slowly being implemented. The army is resisting it but will eventually have to back down as their influence is anti-democratic (and Turkey want to join the EU). Al-Tachyya - deceit can be ongoing for long periods until they have a demographic advantage, THEN when they are 60-70-80% start implementing Sharia democratically.

So how exactly would a anti-sharia defensive save us in the long term?


Furthermore;


Fjordman: “I have called for a global infidel strategy of containment of the Islamic world as far as possible, which includes banning Muslim immigration.”

What about the 5-10-15-20% of Muslims that are already inside the country? Although delayed, they will eventually reach 50%+ even in hostile climates (Closed borders/anti-immigration laws/anti Sharia laws) due to a combination of high birthrates and a progressive emigration of natives (see Kosovo/Lebanon demographic development). In other words, anti-immigration laws/closed borders will only delay a Muslim takeover at best. Even in areas with a poor living standards/weak economies (like Kosovo was) they will outbreed non-muslims. It will only take them a few more decades.

So again, how exactly would banning Muslim immigration + containing the Muslim world save us in the long term?





Lebanon – Demographic development

1911 79% Christian
1921 55%
1932 51%
1943 52%
1970 42%
1990 35%
2008 25%
-2040 (Lebanon lost!?)



Kosovo – Demographic development

1900 50-60% Christian
1925 40%
1948 28%
1971 21%
1981 15%
2008 5-10% (Kosovo lost)


The above is an illustration from my upcoming book (it will be free to distribute btw:)


Why havent you or any of the other current authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe (Fjordman, Spencer, Ye`or, Bostom etc.) brought up the “D” word? I assume because it is considered a fascist method in nature, which would undermine your/their work? Why would it undermine their efforts when it is the only rational conclusion, based on the above argument? As far as I know, it’s not illegal in Europe to suggest deportation as a future method when discussing future hypothetical World Orders (correct me if im wrong though, Im not 100% sure, lol)!?

We shouldn’t forget that it has in fact happened before…

After the end of WW2, Russia successfully deported all the Muslims from Southern Ukraine and sent them to Uzbekistan. The Muslims in that area were remnants of the Islamic Western Mongol Horde, later called the Islamic Crimean Khanate, province of the Ottoman Empire).

Ive also heard that (don’t have any references on this) that after the Russo-Turkish War, Russia wanted to deport the Albanians and take back Constantinople. During the Congress of Berlin - Russia presented 61 articles. At this time though, Russia was weak after the long war with the Ottoman Empire. Britain secretly agreed with the Ottoman Empire that it would militarily protect it from Russia and receives Cyprus in exchange. Disraeli therefore reversed article 16 to 61.

Just imagine, hadnt it been for British treachery, Constantiniople could have been appart of Greece and there wouldn’t be any Muslims in the Balcans…. :(

Hoping for a reply,