Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Experimenting With the Children of Amsterdam

Netherlands: white girl in a 'black school'

Our Dutch correspondent Sagunto sends this follow-up on the situation in Amsterdam-West. First, a note from the translator:

Just a few days ago, a local school from the inner city district of Amsterdam-West made the news because of a Moroccan girl who was beaten into hospital over a Twitter photo. Now Amsterdam-West strikes back, with policies aimed at encouraging “social cohesion”. With their firm measures, the local mandarins have decided to bypass and actually violate Dutch law. Parents are forced to accept a veritable redistribution of educational possibilities for their offspring, in a bureaucratic attempt at whitewashing [no pun intended] the negative effects of Multiculturalism. The news was featured in several newspapers, including this Monday’s Telegraaf.

Normally when a news item is considered important and is being hotly debated online, there are about 200 to 300 reactions. When people are really motivated to donate their 2 cents’ worth, comments rise to a level of, say, 500 during the whole day. This article is accompanied by 659 comments and the number of 500 was reached around noon. This usually indicates that the general public is really p***ed off about the news concerned.

And his translated article from De Telegraaf:

7 February, 2011, 05:30

Doomed to “black school”

by Richard van de Crommert

Amsterdam — Parents in Amsterdam-West are going to be put under the obligation to send their children to a local school, even if they’d rather put their child at another school. That is the result of new policies that have been put into effect in this part of the city at the start of this year. With these steps, the district council goes against the parents’ right to freely choose a school, a right that is supposed to apply everywhere in the Netherlands.

As a result of these measures, a lot of children end up unwillingly in so-called “black schools” [PC lingo for: Muslim majority schools]. Since January 1st of this year, people living in this city district are expected to send their children to a local school in their own neighbourhood. Selection goes by postal code. This means that in a local area like the Kolenkitbuurt, where immigrants [mostly Muslims] make up 80 percent of the population, a child can only be sent to a black school.

A great number of parents are furious about the plans. ‘This is an outrage,’ says a local resident, living in the Bos en Lommer area. ‘When you move here and buy a house, you have to walk a “reverse path” of integration [meaning: adapt to Muslims]. And now we don’t even have the choice about what school we send our kids to. I have signed up my children for a mixed school, not far from here. But I’ve received notice that I can’t take my kids over there because it is not in my neighbourhood. This is state control with a capital C. We have freedom of education in this country, but not in Amsterdam. It is a crying shame that I am forced to participate in an experiment with my children.’

The VVD party [right-wing, “liberal” party] tried to stop the new plans in December last year, but the leftist administrators of this city district’s council were impervious to the arguments presented. ‘This is very far removed from the freedom of education,’ says Joris Blaauw of the VVD. ‘Freedom of choice is of essential importance. Moreover, bad schools are being rewarded by these policies.’

At the start of this year the local district council has erected a centre for effectuating the state distribution of education, the bureau called: “Schoolwijzer-West”. Registering for primary education is no longer possible with the schools themselves; it has to be done at the centre. Parents in disagreement with a decision for placement can appeal at the bureau, but such complaints are judged by a commission designated for that task.

Spokesmen for the Amsterdam-West district, however, think it is a great policy. ‘Kids going to school in their own neighbourhoods will help the schools become a true reflection of the community. This will enhance the connection the school has with that neighbourhood,’ the city council asserts in an official statement. ‘Going to school in your own neighbourhood has advantages. Less fuss with getting the kids to and from school, no more of biking around the city. It is now easier for the kids to play with classmates, at home and on the streets.’

The chairman of the city council, Martien Kuitenbrouwer, claims to have spoken with concerned parents. ‘This is not meant to limit the freedom of choice, but to redress the balance between popular and unpopular schools. Parents can submit a preference for three schools. If that fails, the bureau intervenes. In that way we indicate at an early stage at which school the child will be placed.’

A local resident from the Mercatorplein area, a socially somewhat weaker neighbourhood in the capital, has already given up hope. He will be moving soon, partly because of the interventions by the district council. ‘Living in Amsterdam while raising children is a tough task anyway. At least I want to be able to find a good school for my children. But if I seek to enlist my child at a Montessori-school [few Muslims, “white school”] I can’t make it happen. This line of policy is keeping people from living in “black” neighbourhoods and it is far removed from the freedom of education. That is insane beyond belief, isn’t it?’

114 comments:

EscapeVelocity said...

Looks like the PVV just gained a boatload of new supporters and voters.

As if sitting next to a white Dutch Christian is going to help the "Moroccon Muslim" problem. Putting indigenous Dutch citizens children directly in harms way. We can see what happends to indigenous German children in Muslim Immigrant majority schools, from that doco from last year.

Zenster said...

Two words: White. Flight.

EscapeVelocity said...

Indeed.

White Flight is also akin to Jewish Flight. Though White Flight is connoted by a negative view of Whites, where as Jews get a sympathetic nod.

goethechosemercy said...

Quote:
A great number of parents are furious about the plans. ‘This is an outrage,’ says a local resident, living in the Bos en Lommer area. ‘When you move here and buy a house, you have to walk a “reverse path” of integration [meaning: adapt to Muslims].
end quote.

Excellent point.
Europeans are being dictated to thus: to assimilate Muslim culture, Muslim perspective on the West, themselves, Christianity and their history.
It is indeed reverse integration.
A FORM OF CONQUEST, OF COURSE.

Ex-Dissident said...

Lets say that this new policy is meant to benefit someone. Whom?
1. Not the upset parents living in poorer sections of Amsterdam.
2. Not the Muslim immigrants; despite various politicians' claims, they couldn't care less about the Muslims.
3. How about the some (wealthy?)Amsterdam folks who live in nice neighborhoods?
-BINGO!!!

You see this policy will prevent all the rif-raf from sending their kids to the nice schools in better neighborhoods. I bet the folks in these neighborhoods don't want to have Muslim kids attending their schools. These are probably the neighborhoods where the politicians reside. They promote integration for others while keeping themselves safe. I just wish they could speak more honestly about what they do.

In sum, the native folks who don't want to send their kids to majority Muslim schools will have to either move or send kids to a private school. Do such things exist there?

boru said...

Is rock throwing at ambulances and firetrucks and police an extra-curricular activity?
If it isn't now don't worry..Won't be long..

Hesperado said...

...so-called “black schools” [PC lingo for: Muslim majority schools].

This is amusing: such lingo would be the height of PI (politically INcorrect) in America.

Kevin Stroup said...

The scary part is: They may be upset at having to send their children to Muslim schools, but they are still going to comply. Willing to sacrifice their children so they do not get into trouble with the law. How gutless. These people need to go militant and say HELL NO.

joe six-pack said...

This is the stuff that wars are fought over. Violence levels can be expected to go up. I guess the politically correct want to change human nature. Good luck!

Anonymous said...

Sometimes as a White South-African I don’t know how to respond to such an article. Perhaps a song by Leonard Cohen: “I have seen the future, brother and it’s murder”. When in a foul mood I want to go with “Full Metal Jacket” and scream: “Get some, Get some”. But in a melancholic mood like now, I want to sing to the Nederlande some Bachmann Turner Overdrive: “You ain’t seen nothing yet! B.b.b.b...Baby, Baby you ain’t seen nothing yet”.

Anonymous said...

And you can bet that soon the indigenous population will be paying for ALL of the kids to take Arabic language lessons - all the better for the indigenous children to read the Koran and either "know their place" in the greater ummah or convert to Islam - either willingly - or after being gang raped or kidnapped as child brides and forced to convert. Remember, the Muslims LOVE LOVE LOVE to forcibly "marry" six year old brides in imitation of their final prophet Mohammed....

Diversity means...never having to admit that you are a polygamous pedophile rapist.

h.damborg said...

Can anyone guess where the politicians and the officials send their own prize children to school? :-)

We see the same pattern here in Copenhagen and the number of private schools are on a constant rise - we have that right (for now ;-) ) - , since - when push comes to shove - very few parents here really want to use their children as cannon fodder for the insane full scale social multiculti experiments of the naive, irresponsible and ignorant leftist "elite", which no-one ever gave them any democratic mandate what so ever for in the first place - only parents who are either poor, incapable of protest and actio or simply indifferent about their childrens'education.

Same frightening pattern all over Europe now!

Anonymous said...

Egghead, there's no difference in between schools not being allowed to discriminate in the US and this, actually. The effect is the same. Actually, considering the differences in criminality, I'd rather go to a school full of Muslims rather than blacks. And I'm not sure what Americans did about it considering that this is going on in the US since the 1950s.

Yet another swell idea we imported from America - school integration. lol

Anonymous said...

RV says: "I'm nor sure what Americans did about [integration]...since the 1950s."

White flight was and is the solution. There are few middle-class white families in major American cities precisely for this reason. Wealthy whites can afford private schools, and young adults without children are unconcerned about who might be living in their school district. Integrated schools are more frequent (and more safe, for a number of reasons) in rural areas, but urban public schools are populated overwhelmingly by blacks and hispanics.

Anonymous said...

nonsubhomine, that article I linked to shows that having a black kid in a 30 students class doesn't affect much, but having 10 out of 30 students does.

And I don't know about you, but I'd prefer being considered morally inferior and pay less for schooling. :) Not to mention that I enjoy not moving to a different area once other people storm the one I live in.

Anonymous said...

RV, there is certainly a threshold below which classroom integration is generally benign. Regarding moral inferiority, in my experience white flight does not, pace EscapeVelocity, at least today, carry a particularly negative connotation regarding those fleeing. Nobody wants to send their children to urban public schools; just be sure to mention that the flight is due to "crime", "poverty", etc., and not from any particular demographics!

MORFINY BOOKS WORLD REVIEW said...

Central Java Top Cop – “Burning Christian Churches No Proof of Religious Hostility!”
Ross's Right Angle http://rossrightangle.info/

Anonymous said...

rebelliousvanilla: For a number of years, when white people fled "bad" neighborhoods, American courts ordered public school districts to bus white students for long rides out of their nice neighborhoods into "bad" neighborhoods in order to create racial "diversity" where none existed.

Also, it is my opinion that the results indicated by the study that you cited will be the same - or worse - once Muslims gain a significant proportion of the population in Western countries. One difference is that European countries are farther down the Muslim road - but European countries have much stricter gun prohibitions. Just wait until the American Muslim population catches up....

Zenster said...

joe six-pack: This is the stuff that wars are fought over. Violence levels can be expected to go up.

Please pardon the gruesome phrasing of this equation:

Each dead Dutch school child = +1,000 votes for Wilders & PPV

Islam has never blinked at devouring its children. Such rapacity is one of the most damning things about it.

Western culture has deeply ingrained protective feelings about children that no amount of abortion will ever erase.

Once Muslims start killing Western children in any significant numbers, expect the gloves to come off.

Anonymous said...

nonsubhomine, I was being facetious related to being morally inferior. I don't consider having your child's best interest at heart as making you morally inferior. Since I reject the liberal ethics, I actually find it immoral if you do sent your child to one of those schools if you have other options and if you don't lobby to abolish this school integration idiocy. These are the morally defective people.

Egghead, according to stats from several European countries, Muslims commit about 5.5 times more crime than Europeans, while Africans commit about 11 times more. So I will prefer having my kids go to a school with Muslim students than blacks. Most European countries don't have a 13% Muslim population, while America has a 13% black population. If you remove the spectacular way in which Muslims kill people(see 9/11), having them around is better than blacks. For instance, Muslims are about 3% of the US population, while blacks are about 13%. 52% of the murders are committed by blacks. I doubt that around 15% of the rest of the murders are committed by Muslims.

And I don't know, but last time I checked, it is not legal to carry a gun to school.

Anonymous said...

Note that it is a leftist administration taking away freedom, doubtless aided and abetted by that most totalitarian of parties : the Greens.

Anonymous said...

rebelliousvanilla:

A few points to consider:

How can you be sure about true European Muslim crime statistics since European governments seem to do their level best to bury the information?

Some American blacks are also Muslims - although, until very recently, American blacks seem to have practiced what I like to call Islam-lite.

The legality of guns being allowed at school is highly irrelevant to mass murderers - be they students of adults. A thinking American can predict that the continued immigration of devout Muslim adults and students from Muslim lands combined with the easy availability of guns ought to make for some terrible crimes being committed against non-Muslim students in the coming years....

When indigenous children attend school with devout Muslims, Muslims inflict a lot of uncounted "quiet" violence in the form of forced veiling, introduction of halal food, teaching of falsified historical facts, after-school harassment and sexual grooming of young girls by older Muslim community members who prey on children outside school yards, etc.

Anonymous said...

Iftikhar Ahmad, a true teaching of Islam will probably make them terrorists. And no, when someone moves to a different country, they lose their right to be taught their former culture and should either move back to their country or try the most to fully assimilate, which includes complete intermarriage with the people already there.

Egghead, governments do supply data about the crimes committed by people based on their country of origin if they are immigrants. It is harder to get data for people born here.

This is why I used the data from the US. Considering that there Muslims(Arabs, Pakistanis etc) are counted as white you can see that blacks kill more people than Muslims, but it is less likely to make the news because they don't hijack planes to do it and they don't have weird clothing that they put on before doing it. I think that even Mexicans have a higher crime rate. I'd be more worried about them, than Muslims, who are more of a problem for Europe.

And I'd like to point out that sending my kid to school with a veil is easier to paint my child's face to look Mexican or black. You can read nice stories about how this pans out in California.

EscapeVelocity said...

I think a very good point can be made here...

RebelliousVanilla said:

So I will prefer having my kids go to a school with Muslim students than blacks. Most European countries don't have a 13% Muslim population, while America has a 13% black population. If you remove the spectacular way in which Muslims kill people(see 9/11), having them around is better than blacks. For instance, Muslims are about 3% of the US population, while blacks are about 13%. 52% of the murders are committed by blacks. I doubt that around 15% of the rest of the murders are committed by Muslims.

End Quote

EV says...

I think we have the opportunity to make a distinction here. While the statistics are true. African Americans are not the threat to European Civilizaiton that Muslims with their Islam is. Perhaps the greatest reason is that the vast majority of them are Christians. Islam is a political ideology, with vast numbers and resources, one that is agressively imperialist colonialist, with its own supremacist Shariah Legal System...and 1.5 billion people (1/5th of the worlds population on 1/5th of the worlds land with important reasources contained there in ).

Subsaharan Africans are mostly Christian, and are not Hell Bent on World Dominion....in solidarity with their African American Brothers.

Now while their are certainly problems with American Blacks, they dont pose the threat that Muslims do, not even close. They arent an existential threat.

Just as the Jamacians and Carribean Islanders are no threat to the UK existentially, while being involved in high rates of crime.

Hope that makes sense.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: And I'd like to point out that sending my kid to school with a veil is easier [than it is] to paint my child's face to look Mexican or black.

And I'd like to point out that by the time your daughter is wearing a veil, you have irretrievably lost the war.

Anonymous said...

EV, yes, European civilization is blossoming in Sub Saharan Africa where blacks are Christian, isn't it? South Africa is especially a brilliant example. Or Zimbabwe. European civilization doesn't exist independent of European people. Heck, you can even pick a civilized people like the Japanese or Chinese.

And if I'm to be a minority, I will probably prefer living in Morocco over Zimbabwe. I have a better odd of not being raped or killed in the former. The reason for which that would happen, me being baptized as a Christian or me being white is pretty much inconsequential.

To put it this way, if I am to convert 1000 Swedes to Islam, I will pick them to be my neighbors over 1000 Christian Nigerians. And this article is about schools - schools with Muslims > schools with blacks.

Anonymous said...

Zenster, I'd see it as an admission of defeat to send my child into one of those war zones that black schools are too. Or at least a failure to be a good parent.

And it's not like California will stay American for much longer, for example. Press #2 to speak English. ;) Also, I'd like to point out that in Christianity, at least in Orthodox Christianity, female modesty matters too. This is why most of old people from Eastern Europe wear that headscarf.

EscapeVelocity said...

You really dont get it.

Ill take the Christian Nigerians. You can have the Muslim Nigerians.

Enjoy!

Anonymous said...

rebelliousvanilla: If you think that Muslim veiling is about modesty than you are on the wrong track....

Anonymous said...

rebelliousvanilla: If you think that Muslim veiling is about modesty than you are on the wrong track....

1389 said...

@rebelliousvanilla:

What more and more parents in the US do to escape this evil government-mandated social engineering is homeschooling.

I know that in Germany, homeschooling is illegal, due to a Nazi-era law still (shamefully) on the books. I don't know what the laws are in the rest of Europe.

Anonymous said...

1389, I plan to homeschool if I am to have children because the West is pressuring my government into changing the classical educational model. And I presume that by the time my kids will be in school, they probably will study stupid things like Westerners do. So, I can tell you about the laws. In Romania, we have compulsory education until 10th grade since the communist times, but the laws aren't really enforced. So you can homeschool provided that you get a high-school from another country to test your kid and give them a degree. Otherwise, they're in the same position as someone who was raised by wolves in the forest.

EV, I obviously prefer Christian Nigerians over Muslim Nigerians, but I prefer Moroccans over Christian Nigerians. This was my whole point. So you're the one not really getting it.

Egghead, it is partially because of modesty. Their problem is that they have a binary way of thinking - chaste or woman of ill repute. Their gender relations are far saner, if you ask me, than the West'. I think that even as a child, I'd prefer being the daughter of an average Muslim family in the UK than the average British family. I'd at least have two parents and someone who'd take care of things around the house. This doesn't mean that I somehow think that we should adopt Islam or that Muslims aren't a problem. But you people view Islam in the same way in which some Muslims view non-virgin women. Just because Nigerians are Christian, it doesn't mean they make good immigrants - more often then not, they make worse immigrants than Middle Eastern people. Just to give you an example.

Anonymous said...

EV, Africans are most definitely an existential threat to the West, because of their unlimited breeding, low average IQ, high testosterone and propensity to violence, and their tendency to immigrate to the West. Over time, any area that has a lot of black people is lost to civilisation.

All things being equal, black Christians>black Muslims, but that's not saying a whole lot. If you don't know what having a lot of black people around does to a community, start reading an online newspaper like the SF Chronicle or Oakland Tribune. Watch some of the youtube vids of mobs of blacks stalking and beating up whites, just for sport and because Whitey has it coming.

Yes, there are exceptions, and I don't hate them, but I need to avoid them for my own safety, and you should think about what this really means, instead of being complacent.

Hesperado said...

1389 wrote:

"homeschooling is illegal, due to a Nazi-era law still (shamefully) on the books."

Yet another Leftish thing the supposedly "right-wing" Hitler regime did.

EscapeVelocity said...

You are right, RV, I didnt understand what point you were trying to get across.

You would prefer the Taliban to Mugabe.

Mkay.


Black Christians are not an existential threat to the West. Neither those in America, or those in Africa.

That is just the plain fact of the matter. Im sorry you cant understand that.

You dont have to like Black Christian people, or you may think that they are a threat to White people, but they are not an existential threat to Western Civilization.

Anonymous said...

EV, I don't even see the point in comparing blacks and Muslims. It's like saying, how do you want to be shot in the head: with a shotgun or a hunting rifle. We should be concerned about both.

I'm not happy about knowing more about these matters than some people here. I speak from sad experience. My town, where I've lived for 25 years, and never wanted to leave, nicknames include Mayberry by the Bay, Stepford, the Island City, etc. is a shadow of its former self. Why? Because it's next door to Oakland. And over time, the liberals have convinced my neighbors to stop resisting Oakland.

Oakland's black people are Christians, for the most part. They have destroyed my town. No, the liberals destroyed it, using black people as a weapon.

So many people don't get this. The local churches in my town can't get enough of black people. The ones in Oakland aren't enough. They have to import them direct from Africa. Each church has a relationship with some village in Africa, building wells, financing schools, and importing people.

My comments are ugly but true. Do you think I want everyone to think I'm some deluded bigot? No, I say these things, which don't represent my personality at all, because they're true, and everyone needs to get this and protect their community, if they still have one.

Hesperado said...

"No, the liberals destroyed it, using black people as a weapon."

If blacks do something, they are primarily responsible for it -- good or bad. latte island's statement sounds like the Colonialist regard for blacks as animals beyond ethical responsibility -- an attitude, by the way, that post-colonialist liberals have adopted, only as a means to deflect responsibility from ethnic minorities.

That's another area where I would distinguish blacks from Muslims: the former should be held accountable for their actions, and should be urged and persuaded to clean up their act -- because there is evidence they are capable of it (whether on a sufficiently large demographic scale, it is still not known). But Muslims should not be held accountable in the sense that we should ever expect them to change. They are utterly outside the pale of our universe of moral values. They live on their own planet of values, which are forever inimical to ours. Some few of them have, and may yet, jump ship; but we should not alter our policy of self-defense to make the Salvation of Muslims a project. We have to worry about our own safety first.

EscapeVelocity said...

latte, Im sorry you cant understand that Black Christian Americans and Latino Catholics are not an existential threat to Western Civilization.

Even in South Africa, the black supremacist ANC regime is largely a mimic of British systems, culture, tradition, and education. It's just that now the Blacks are running the show instead of the Whites.

No, the liberals destroyed it -- latte

You havent quite thought deeply enough, however you seem to be getting hot, where the blame lies.

But not the liberals, the Leftwingers. You are at ground zero Oakland/San Fran/Berkeley.

Hesperado said...

On the broader issue of Blacks vs. Muslims as a societal problem, it should be a simple matter of prioritizing. The former is a problem, but on a scale less than the latter. Is that elementary distinction so hard for people to grasp? I don't understand this need some people have to mush together two distinct problems. Lawrence Auster sometimes tends to do this, with his rather irresponsibly glib use of the term "Black Intifada" -- which properly speaking is an oxymoron, since an intifada, by definition, possesses more of a concerted blueprint which Muslims have in their ideology, but which blacks precisely lack. There was a brief window of time when blacks in the USA tried to develop such an ideology of unified "resistance" -- with the Black Power movement; but that more or less fizzled out. Similarly, the Nation of Islam has tried to galvanize American blacks, but most blacks have not been buying. Indeed, we have seen more signs of blacks simply taking their Islam straight no chaser and becoming Sunnis (quite a few of the terrorists we have seen in the UK and America -- as well as many more in and out of the prison system bristling with jihadist belligerence -- have been of this variety).

I suspect Auster's motive in coining that term the "Black Intifada" (or at least using it at the drop of a skullcap) is rhetorically to use a term that draws attention to the prevalence of black-on-white crime which is occurring with alarming frequency and dispersion; but the point of the term intifada is that it properly denotes a certain degree of systemic activity and cooperation based upon an ideological blueprint which blacks are simply too disorganized and too bereft of any tradition of it to have; and Auster is sort of cheating by exploiting the implications of that term and letting them rub off on the problem of black violence, thereby endowing that problem with more systemic activity and cooperation based upon an ideological blueprint than it in fact has, and thereby blurring the proper distinction between the two problems -- of black violence, and Muslim violence. Almost as though he's trying to piggyback the black problem onto the Muslim problem.

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -

So this topic has partly turned into kind of a contest which apple or what orange is most poisonous? Though I understand some of what you say, I also agree with @latté in that I don't see the use for whatever comparisons along these lines.

all -

Fact of the matter is: in Amsterdam-West, the results of progressivist social engineering are so demonstrably disastrous, that even hard-line multiculti apparatchiks can't deny this fruit of their labours with any credibility any longer. So some have started to blame Moroccans in order to restyle the whole thing into somewhat of an ethnic issue, adopting some of the anti-immigration narrative, though not the practise [anything better than saying something offensive about Islam]. But the community administrators mentioned in the article I translated, have demonstrated no such cunning flexibility and pushed ahead. Their plans are an obvious attempt at window dressing and covering up the local effects of national immigration policy failure, especially where Muslim immigration is concerned, a failure they themselves support as fervent admirers of "diversity" and what have you.. (can't get all these slogans out of my keyboard, sorry ;-)
They would never criticize Moroccans, let alone Muslims, for their local careers as leftist politicians depend on the Muslim vote, and Moroccans vote as Muslims and these are Muslim majority neighbourhoods. So they blame white flight and try to force the native Dutch families still inside their enclaves into submission, like East-Germany's administrators tried to blame the ones fleeing their little socialist utopia.

[to be continued]

Sagunto said...

[continued]

And what's all this about blacks then? @Hesperado already mentioned the irony of the whole Dutch PC MC misnomer of "black schools" in the Netherlands. It would be anathema in the US, so I provided a little explanatory disclaimer. Everybody in Holland knows that this verbiage, meant to euphemise (is that proper English?) the changing ethnic outlook of many major city's schools, has become "newspeak" for Muslim majority schools. In the same vein, everybody over here knows by now that "multiculturalism" predominantly means islamization. As in any dictatorship, people learn to play multi-layered language games. At least there's the game of the PC MC lingo versus the actual meaning of it in real life, a simple conversion, done by simply turning the meaning of words on their heads (same procedure applies to "moderate" Muslim spokesmen from pressure groups).

The comparison between blacks and Muslims is i.m.o. completely flawed. Ethnicity versus Religion (not "religion" as we'd know it, but nevertheless), anyone? Furthermore, the point made by @EscapeV hits the nail on the head, noting to add to that. But I have great trouble relating @latté's partly justified point about blacks (and whatever "minority" at hand) being used by progressivist administrators in their war on Western culture, with his other assertion that blacks, or black Christians are an "existential threat" to our societies. They are a huge threat, yes, especially in major cities, and people from whatever background are responsible for their own deeds, but in my book an existential threat must be supported by some firmly rooted ideology of world domination.

So I submit once again that we've got a twin battle on our hands and that in this ideological battle "minorities" predominantly play a part insofar as they are used by one of our FOE (Forces Of Enslavement), the bi-partisan (or tri-partisan, like in the UK, or hepta-partisan, like over here in Holland) Central Banking progressivists. The only exception to that is the other one of our existential FOEs, the "minority" of the Muslim ummah. The progressivists of all political stripes might think that they can/must handle Islam right now (though some multiculti sorcerers are having second thoughts about managing this apprentice), Islam can and will - as we all know - use their studied parasitism to effect a complete take-over of our societies.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

What really happens in these multikulti schools, shock horror the student break themselves down into their ethnic groups despite the propaganda and pressure to conform to the multkulti template.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado, you're right in that I really don't think most blacks have agency, either in America or Africa. This is because the average black African IQ is said to be 70, and in America it's 85. Black crime and welfare are totally enabled by leftists. If a black guy rapes a woman, it's his fault. If a white parole board lets him out and he rapes another woman, it's the fault of the parole board and the white liberals who haven't run them out of town yet. Like I said to EV, read the papers.

The ANC in South Africa would never have come to power without the Soviet communists supporting their guerrilla war, and the Western world, especially America, putting economic pressure on the white government. Black people are on the whole, not responsible for this. Only the intelligent blacks at the top are responsible, because they're smart enough to know better and to have made better choices, but the retarded majority aren't responsible. They were used as weapons by the tiny black elite and the rest of the world, which is truly responsible.

OTOH, more Muslims have agency. They may not be the sharpest people, but they do have more of a middle class, and more of them are capable of learning technical subjects and running their own society, however badly.

What both blacks and Muslims have in common is that they both are an existential threat to the West, because in large numbers, leftist politicians can use them to destroy the white culture that already exists. White culture can't exist for much longer, as it continues to be undermined by Muslim, black and other non-white immigration.

I think there's such a thing as being too on topic. In other words, this blog is all about the threat of Islam, so if someone like me points out that we are in very big trouble from other groups, one could say I'm off topic, and yet, in this case, I'm right to do so. It's like we're all trying to put out a fire, and some people refuse to notice the pit bulls. So what good is fighting the fire if you have a few dogs chewing on you?

Sagunto said...

latté island -

"In other words, this blog is all about the threat of Islam [..]"

A very fine and astute observation. So why all the detouring about blacks, ethnicity and agency through IQ scores?

So far, you didn't mention one particular "ethnic" group, known for its high average IQ score and political progressivism (and I wouldn't want to encourage you in doing so).
Is that comment yet to come, along the line of "the higher the IQ-score of a certain ethnic group, the bigger the threat"?

Sag.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto,

it's not a detour, it's part of the same problem. And in this thread, when Escape Velocity praised African Christians, or at least said they weren't much of a problem, that's when I had to discuss blacks. Some people don't have the daily experience of walking in their local park and seeing entire African clans having a picnic. Not once in a while, but every day. Africa is right here, right now. Christian or Muslim, those people are overrunning the West, so that's why it needs to be said, in a thread where some deny this.

Oh, I mention the Jews sometimes. I differ from anti-semites in that I say it's not all the Jews, and other groups are doing the same things, but I'm definitely not one for covering things up. In fact, has anyone noticed how fair I am to anti-semites? That's because I partly agree with them. I only said to FC he was overstating his case, not that he was wrong or a bad person. If I were Empress of the Jews, some of them would be in Zimbabwe right now.

Hesperado said...

Sagunto, you wrote:

"Islam can and will - as we all know - use their studied parasitism to effect a complete take-over of our societies."

I disagree. In my estimation, given the astronomical superiority of the modern West over Islam, Islam cannot and will not effect a complete take-over of our societies.

And secondly, they won't even be able to come close to doing that merely by "studied parasitism" alone, without a great deal of violence.

Hesperado said...

Sagunto, you also wrote:

"They ["multiculti apparatchiks"] would never criticize Moroccans, let alone Muslims, for their local careers as leftist politicians depend on the Muslim vote, and Moroccans vote as Muslims and these are Muslim majority neighbourhoods. So they blame white flight..."

The one erroneous word here is the word "for" which I have highlighted. In English, it implies a causal conjunction. You are implying that PC MCs (I prefer that term) are only being solicitous to Muslims because of need for votes (a similar explanation as when we blame various "elites" for being greedy of Saudi bribes). But these factors are in fact secondary. With rare exceptions, I don't believe these Western PC MCs are evil. If they actually could absorb the fact that Islam is a deadly threat to our societies, they wouldn't continue to support Muslims for votes or for money. They would do the right thing.

The primary causal factor here is the sincere PC MC belief that most Muslims are good people -- and furthermore, are good brown people, which, according to the PC MC doctrine, raises them to the level of poor victims of our cruel Western Colonialism and post-Colonialist bigotry, who thus thus need our help like little children or precious animals, so that we can assuage our eternal White Guilt.

(This same mechanism operates with regard to all ethnic minorities, and blacks as one minority with certain singular features particularly in North America. That doesn't mean the problems are the same distributed among Muslim and non-Muslim ethnic peoples).

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

"I disagree"

Of course you do. When I read back my lines just now, I also did on this point. I write from txt files and then paste bits of content into the comment window. With all the Ctrl+c/v going on, trying to handle Blogger's whims, I lose part of my original comment every now and then, which in this case should have read: "in an attempt to effect [..] etcetera".

Your second point leaves me with a little * sigh * (if you permit me returning the favour ;-)
You know my many statements here at GoV better than to suggest that I don't reserve for Islam their rightful share in a "great deal of violence". So I'm sorry, but I have to disagree (in order) to agree.

I do understand your habitual reflex, given the text I provided, but alas! If you want genuine disagreement, perhaps we'd better discuss the political manoeuvring of Mr. Wilders. Other topic perhaps.

For my views on the metaphor of Islamic parasitism, see this recent topic on GoV

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Hesperado said...

latte island,

I didn't say black violence isn't enabled by PC MCs. But the way you formulated it, blacks are some kind of raw material, inert by themselves, until Leftists come along and exploit it in order to destroy our society. This view, if it is yours, contains the double error of apportioning too much of the blame away from blacks, and also attributing too much of a Macchiavellian conspiracy theory about Leftists -- not only in their dastardly intent, but in their dastardly capability. The problem of the enablement of black violence (and of other similar problems, Hispanic gang violence, Muslim jihad, etc.) is subtler and more complex, including unwitting collusion by millions of otherwise relatively sincere and intelligent Westerners in all walks and positions of sociopolitical existence throughout the West, reflecting a vast sea change in worldview and culture that has occurred in the West over the past half century.

"The ANC in South Africa would never have come to power without the Soviet communists supporting their guerrilla war..."

That's not the West. That's a pocket of the deep Third World. To conflate that kind of systemic disorder and disease, with a cultural substratum ripe for exploitation by Communists, with a West that is astronomically healthier, is to blur lines and categories rather egregiously.

"Black people are on the whole, not responsible for this. Only the intelligent blacks at the top are responsible..."

Well, in certain regions of Africa, I only agree with the lack of responsibility insofar as Africans do behave like animals on the savannah.

"OTOH, more Muslims have agency. They may not be the sharpest people..."

It's not so much that they are not "sharp", it's that their capacity for sharpness is nearly wholly re-routed onto a fanatical obsessive-compulsive disorder which in turn focuses on supremacist expansionism based on hatred and paranoid fear and wholly willing (when able) to use ultra-violence to effect the change it seeks. As part of the psycho-culture that breeds and orders that OCD fanaticism, there are numerous habits of society and mind that have the effect of various forms of individual and collective stupidity; but while Muslims may be stupid about some things, they can be monomaniacally intent about the things they obsess about -- which, as we know, unfortunately includes our destabilization and/or destruction.

[continued next]

Hesperado said...

[continued from last]

"What both blacks and Muslims have in common is that they both are an existential threat to the West..."

I'd agree with Sagunto here: the term existential threat is similar to intifada, in that it imputes too much. A sociopolitical problem can be vast and dire and still not rise to an existential threat. That term should be reserved for Islam (and prior to that, for Communism, for example). To employ that term too promiscuously detracts from the genuine existential threats -- from the problem of Islam. There are enough quantitative and qualitative features about the problem of Islam to qualify its singularity, if not uniqueness in this regard; and if we are going to go around calling other things existential threats, then we will then be forced to find a new term, worse than that, to adequately denote the singularity if not uniqueness of Islam.

"...if someone like me points out that we are in very big trouble from other groups, one could say I'm off topic..."

The point is analytical precision. We may agree that other groups represent "very big trouble" for us; but the point is how precisely does "very big" differ from the "bigger" trouble Islam presents. It seems you mush the two together by finding their common thread in a larger looming existenial threat -- that dastardly cabal of Macchiavellian Elites who are really pulling all the strings, evil spiders inside the Body of the West slowly eating its insides out, and exploiting more or less passive pests (blacks here, Muslims there) who happen to be available. I cannot subscribe to this view, as it is ultimately gnostic and reflects a curious alienation from the organic health of the West (and moreover follows various gnostic patterns of thought that have perennially popped up here and there throughout Western history in the form of various heresies and cults over the centuries).

I thus only agree that "it's part of the same problem" insofar as the basic reason why PC MC is being so solicitous of Muslims derives from the PC MC axiom of Reverse Racism, which concerns self-understanding of the white West vis-a-vis non-white non-Westerners (since PC MC regards Muslims as non-white and, of course, non-Western).

Hesperado said...

Sagunto,

You know my many statements here at GoV better than to suggest that I don't reserve for Islam their rightful share in a "great deal of violence".

Allow me to depict the contrast of our two positions, as I see it, more starkly:

For me, the only reason why Islam is dangerous is because of Muslim volence. If Muslims weren't violent, I wouldn't significantly care about their beliefs, or their presence.

Now tell me you don't disagree.

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

Hesperado -

More *sighs* from Amsterdam here. Kind request to chew your food a little better before you swallow.

I'll quote what you wrote:

"You are implying that PC MCs (I prefer that term) are only being solicitous [..]"

The tiny word "only" is at fault here and I'll tell you why.
I used the word "for" the way I understand it, meaning "because". Now if you'd carefully read my background info, that I provided free of charge, you would have been able to see that this is a specific case of PC MC, and not overgeneralise in your reply. That's why I prefered to use the more apt moniker of multicultural apparatchiks here. And they really cater to the Muslim vote in this local Amsterdam district, because they are local administrators, working in Muslim majority local neighbourhoods. Get the picture?
I'm not talking general abstract PC MC here, like you do. I could provide you with more details if you like, about the openly stated strategy these administrators employ, but I trust you have more appreciation now for the detailed information I provided as a follow up on the article. I live here and I know these people. They are a special case indeed.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

"now tell me you don't disagree"

I don't.

I'd probably use more words though, and demonstrate my Dutch "eloquence".

hotcargirl said...

Quote:

EV says...

I think we have the opportunity to make a distinction here. While the statistics are true. African Americans are not the threat to European Civilizaiton that Muslims with their Islam is. Perhaps the greatest reason is that the vast majority of them are Christians. Islam is a political ideology, with vast numbers and resources, one that is agressively imperialist colonialist, with its own supremacist Shariah Legal System...and 1.5 billion people (1/5th of the worlds population on 1/5th of the worlds land with important reasources contained there in ).

Subsaharan Africans are mostly Christian, and are not Hell Bent on World Dominion....in solidarity with their African American Brothers.

Now while their are certainly problems with American Blacks, they dont pose the threat that Muslims do, not even close. They arent an existential threat.

Just as the Jamacians and Carribean Islanders are no threat to the UK existentially, while being involved in high rates of crime.

Hope that makes sense.

End Quote

Thank you, EV, for your clear insight. For a moment I was beginning to believe GoV was Stormfront (or the like). One is entitled to believe blacks or Latinos are ALL violent and not their cup of tea. This is not my opinion, though

It can be quite myopic and simplistic to believe life and people are conveniently categorized as one thing only or another. Statistics play a slippery slope. However--it was my impression GoV pertained to the threat the West faces against Islam. Islam is an ideology. Last I checked, people were human.

Most native born Americans certainly understand the difference between black Americans (who by the way have resided in the U.S. for generations and are part of the culture, not ALL negative either/think Jazz music et cetera. But that takes a certain amount of sophistication) and the violence from Islam against ALL Christendom since it's inception.

The latter, I believe poses the greater threat. Many mutilated and destroyed victims and cultures throughout history have proven this to be the case so far. Also, most Africans do not care for American blacks and vice versa. Different culture, mindset et cetera.

Baron Bodissey said...

hotcatgirl ¬--

Any given position discussed in the comments you read here does not necessarily represent the views of Gates of Vienna. Commenters who stay more or less on topic, remain civil, avoid incitement to violence, and forego obscenities are welcome here and will be allowed to speak.

You may well find all manner of racism and so on here, but that doesn’t worry me. Racists should be allowed to speak their minds freely. If they are wrong on the facts, they may be refuted. The rest of it is their opinion, and opinions don’t threaten me.

As for American blacks being an intrinsic part of our culture, they most certainly are, but using jazz as an example is superficial at best, and may even be a mistake, since rap “music” may be offered as a counter-example to illustrate a contrary race-based principle.

The first black people arrived here in chains in 1619, hundreds of years before the ancestors of the vast majority of modern Americans came to these shores. My family goes back a long time in Virginia, but many of my black neighbors have been here for five or six generations longer.

I live in an area that is about fifty-fifty black and white (ignoring the Mexicans, who are not yet all that numerous). The community is fairly integrated, and has been for a long time — there are no “enclaves” of either black or white. The problem of urban ghettos is huge, but those areas are vastly different from this part of the rural South. I don’t have the population statistics, but I assume there are millions of blacks (and also millions of whites) who live in the same circumstances.

Separation will be no solution to any of our problems, not out here. Disengaging the races from one another would entail the complete destruction of society. This is why I don’t support separatist rhetoric. I don’t want to move to Idaho so that I can be in an all-white society. I was born in Virginia, and I like it here, warts and all.

This is not to say that race doesn’t cause problems, because it does. Some black people hate all white people, and some white people hate all black people. But a majority of both groups would resist any push to separate the races geographically, which means that such a “solution” could only be enforced here tyrannically, though unimaginable bloodshed.

I am opposed to all “solutions” of this sort.

Those who have to endure the degradation and squalor centered on the black urban underclass may devise solutions appropriate to those particular problems. But such solutions are almost certainly not appropriate out here.

Our readers are, generally speaking, intellectuals, and the vast majority of intellectuals live in urban or suburban areas, so that what I describe may be totally unfamiliar to most of them. It is, however, a reality.

As I say, I don’t have the demographic statistics for it, but I suspect that this situation is not insignificant in the country at large — it just doesn’t get that much media attention.

Anonymous said...

EV, I'm not sure what part of Western civilization being a product of white people you don't get. No matter which people replaces those of European descent, Western civilization is gone. You are missing the big picture - this is what I'm trying to get across. This and the fact that Muslims can create far better societies than blacks, so if I'm to be displaced, I'd rather have the former. This doesn't mean that I somehow endorse Muslims or Islam. Maybe you view Muslims as a threat because unlike blacks, they would create another civilization, instead of no civilization at all, but either would destroy European culture and civilization.

The fact that you somehow think that the ANC appreciates British culture is farcically amusing. And I'd like you to do this mental exercise. Let's suppose you are right and that Africans are black skinned Europeans who would create the same culture as us. Why would it really matter what they do if we continue on the same path and our own people won't exist anymore? Considering that our descendants won't exist or have a country, why does it matter that the people who displaced them would keep our culture?

Hesperado, that's why the right-left paradigm is completely stupid. It is born inside the framework that is very much part of our problem. And you are wrong - blacks are possible of chance only insofar as we force it on them. Muslims can give up Islam in 50, 100 or 200 years and create a civilization independent of it. Yet you can look at South Africa to see what blacks do when they don't have things forced upon them. To be honest, I prefer not having a society that includes outsiders and then forces its values on them and expects those people to measure up. And latté is right - blacks have no fault in being in Europe. The people who allowed them in are to blame. But again, this is the logical end of the Enlightenment.

Sagunto, no, I hardly care if I am to be shot in the head by a sniper rifle or a shotgun. I just wanted to point out that there's no major difference and that the focus solely on Muslims in terms of school integration is foolish. I'm not the one who started saying that black Christians are ok, while Muslims are bad. :)

I'd like to point out to you, since you seem to be fairly sensible, that most Muslims don't really care about world domination. I'm not exactly sure to how many of them the readers of this blog actually talked, but I talked to them in more than a single country. Also, I have a boyfriend who is in the military, so he has friends who have been in Afghanistan or Iraq - most Muslims there don't really want to dominate the world. Any group of people though is an existential threat to another one if its to displace it.

Or we could do what South Africans did and lord over the people who moved here. But Netherlands becoming that would pretty much change the way the Netherlands have been historically completely, right? Either way, the Netherlands will stop being Dutch in any form or purpose. The reason why this matters is because our peoples and cultures will be wiped out even if we get away from the Islamic threat, if we are demographically overrun.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado, existential threat means a threat to one's existence. Anything that destroys an European people or its culture is an existential threat to that people. For instance, Wilson's Americanism should have been seen as an existential threat in WW1 by quite a lot of Europeans. Or America's influence on Germany was an existential threat from a German's point of view, since Germany right now is devoid of any meaning due to it.

And if you care about Muslims due to their violence, shouldn't you see blacks as even worse, considering that they commit even more of it?

hotcargirl, so you believe all Muslims are violent? More Muslims are peaceful than blacks relative to their population share ANYWHERE in the world. And I'd like to point out to you that Muslims have did pretty cool things too - for instance, their architecture can be quite pleasant. Or we are to devoid anything they did of worth just because they are Muslim? Since I see that comparisons to neo-Nazis are ok on this blog, I suppose this is what Hitler did with the Jews too. I can do the reductio ad hitlerum too, you're not the only one.

Baron, I'd like to point out that when you compare the first people getting somewhere, you do it with the first representatives of the other people. Phil Ivey is probably better than me at math, but this is of no relevance if I am to compare myself to averages or compare average groups.

And I'd like to ask you something. Why shouldn't Muslims be part of Israel because most Palestinians lived there for longer than most Jews did? Or the logic applies only to groups we like(not that I have a problem with that, I think Jews should keep Israel).

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -

Point taken. The first point that is, about the sniper and the shotgun. ;-)

And some of the other points too, though not directed at me:

"This and the fact that Muslims can create far better societies than blacks, so if I'm to be displaced, I'd rather have the former. This doesn't mean that I somehow endorse Muslims or Islam. Maybe you view Muslims as a threat because unlike blacks, they would create another civilization, instead of no civilization at all, but either would destroy European culture and civilization."

Well actually only the very last part of this statement, behind the comma. I'm not sure whether you haven't bought into some aspects of the historical "Muslim Civilization" myth, but that would be a point of dissent beyond the scope of this topic. Speaking of which, the quite logical reason for Muslims being the focus of this topic is the very fact that it is "local news" about Muslims, not blacks. I already explained the misnomer "black schools" to prevent misconceptions about the situation in Amsterdam-West. I accept the wider implications of your remark of course.

I have some difficulty though, coming to terms with the main thing you wish to point out to me. And thanks by the way, for the compliment, I'll try to be worthy of it ;-)

Your claim in quotation:

"[..] most Muslims don't really care about world domination."

That too seems like a reasonable statement. What I'd like to do however, is do a "Hesperado" on you - with a twist, not by explaining that you have obviously been infected by traces of PC MC, but by inviting you to consider the following:

To me, your statement looks like a version of the well known but not entirely unproblematic meme, circulating in the big tent of the Counter-Jihad initiative.

"There are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam."

I think you'd have no problem agreeing that the whole phenomenon of the so-called moderate Muslim is rather unclear. The existence of "moderate" Muslims is probably inferred by many politicians from the fact that not each and every Muslim is blowing up stuff and killing people over cartoons all of the time. But what of people with some more advanced knowledge about the real dangers of Islam?

You write:

"I'm not exactly sure to how many of them the readers of this blog actually talked, but I talked to them in more than a single country."

I've talked to Muslims from countries all over the world, just by staying put in ye olde Amsterdam ;-) But let's stop talking for a moment and go back to the theme (or meme) your personal experiences are variations on. How about turning the slogan I quoted - that features the quite artificial split between a religion and its followers - on itself? My question would be:
as it is true - like you and I both understand, that Islam shows no signs of any moderation, what's to think then of the relative weight and significance of the highly ephemeral phenomenon of "moderate" Muslims within an Islamic context?

In all of the decades that we have been witnessing our politicians playing midwife to the forced ascendancy of Islam in the West, I never ever saw an example of "moderate" Muslims fighting in our corner for the sake of freedom and liberty of all, and winning that battle. So isn't it true then that the best one can say about "moderate" Muslims, is what Pat Condell described as their problem, i.e. that they have been quietist to the point of insignificance?

Is it just the alliteration that keeps them, the Moderate Muslims, alive in our thoughts? Or is there more substance to "moderateness" in Islam. I mean, poison, administered in moderate doses, will ultimately kill you just as well.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Baron Bodissey said...

Rebellious Vanilla --

Baron, I'd like to point out that when you compare the first people getting somewhere, you do it with the first representatives of the other people. Phil Ivey is probably better than me at math, but this is of no relevance if I am to compare myself to averages or compare average groups.

And I'd like to ask you something. Why shouldn't Muslims be part of Israel because most Palestinians lived there for longer than most Jews did?...


Don't be disingenuous. You've been around here long enough to know that I don't subscribe to the notion that the first group to arrive owns the land.

The land belongs to those people who are willing and strong enough to take it by force and hold it. That's why Western Europe will soon belong to the Muslims if present trends continue.

I pointed out the fact that blacks arrived in America before most whites got here to confound the idea that prior arrival somehow confers a right of ownership. It doesn't. Neither the whites, nor the blacks, nor the Mexicans, nor the Indians were here first (The Indians simply dislodged their predecessors, Folsom Man [or whatever they call those palaeolithic dudes nowadays] from the territory). That's been the way it's done since humans first started migrating.

My point was, and remains, that there is no non-violent non-tyrannical way to separate a 50-50 population that is thoroughly intermixed, and whose members will resist being relocated.

It would be a bloodbath beyond description.

In my part of the country the solution to these issues, whatever it might be, is not separation.

We got ourselves into this mess over a period of four centuries. It may take us that long to get out of it, assuming that we can get out of it at all.

Zenster said...

EscapeVelocity: You would prefer the Taliban to Mugabe.

Touché.

Sagunto: … hard-line multiculti apparatchiks … have started to blame Moroccans in order to restyle the whole thing into somewhat of an ethnic issue, adopting some of the anti-immigration narrative, though not the practise [anything better than saying something offensive about Islam].

Like the proverbial busload of lawyers on the lake bottom, this is a good start as it obliges the Liberals to adopt a moralistic framework that will eventually force them to examine their own set of morals.

Yes, it will be like pulling teeth through the rectum but if this is the only way to make it happen, then so be it.

So they blame white flight and try to force the native Dutch families still inside their enclaves into submission, like East-Germany's administrators tried to blame the ones fleeing their little socialist utopia.

Congratulations, your analogy is superb and works on all levels. This Dutch bilgewater is simply more of the same "scientifically planned" social engineering with more of the exact same disastrous results.

Sagunto: Islam can and will - as we all know - use their studied parasitism to effect a complete take-over of our societies.

I would substitute "effect" with "attempt". See next comment:

Hesperado: I disagree. In my estimation, given the astronomical superiority of the modern West over Islam, Islam cannot and will not effect a complete take-over of our societies.

And secondly, they won't even be able to come close to doing that merely by "studied parasitism" alone, without a great deal of violence.


When enough people in the West finally realize what sort of existential threat Islam represents, the gloves will come off and it will not be pretty.

No other culture does network centric mechanized warfare like the West and it will lay total waste to all who cross swords with it. At present, and for some decades to come, Islam will continue to be nothing more than a military fleabite on the Western elephant's rump.

The demographic issue is another matter entirely but it, too, will only manifest as a driver of the larger military conflict that is yet to come. All that the demographic problem will do is assure some especially messy complications ranging from mass deportations to concentration camps.

However nasty those ideas sound, they are nothing compared with what the Muslims would do to us were the tables turned.

Anonymous said...

Sag, I'm good at math. Most Muslims being moderate is of no consequence to me because if 10% of them aren't, it pretty much screws up the whole society they live in. This is why I hardly care what a moderate Muslim is and what a Jihadist is. I know that as long as they are in any major way in our societies and they are allowed to do whatever they want, I'm going to have to go through more pain than necessary and that my people will come under threat due to their presence. This is what I need to know. And it's the same about any human group, not just Muslims. Group trends and tenedencies, while not mattering on an individual basis as much(for instance, I have both nonwhite and Muslim friends), in terms of social, cultural and immigration policy are fundamental.

And I didn't start the whole blacks are noble people to have around, while Muslims are evil. I pointed out that this idiotic school integration policy happens in the US since about the time my parents were born.

I also do agree with you that Muslim feats are exaggerated in the West, but I didn't grow up there. My religion says that Muslims go to hell and my history books are filled with battles in between us and them. I don't have the silly vision of the West on them.

And I don't see why Muslims(or Jews for that matter) would fight for our culture. It's ours, not theirs. This is what I keep telling to people who have some fundamental hatred of Jews because they are leftist and came up with mostly ideas that undermine our culture. It's farcical to expect outsiders to fight for you against their own. Only foolish Westerners do this.

Baron, I'm glad to hear that. I thought for some reason that you ascribe to the idiocy that somehow being somewhere gives you a right to that land. This is why I asked you that question. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)

Anonymous said...

Oh, and an even better analogy related to blaming fleeing people, especially in the context of integration idiocies - liberals blaming parents who don't want their children to go to 'diverse' schools for being racist. This is a far better comparison than the one to East Germany. While I'm not sure about East Germany, I know that in Eastern Europe, the communists didn't think of such preposterous ideas like moving a different people in my country, creating diverse schools, undermining the classical educational system or family and so on.

Sagunto said...

Zenster -

You wrote:

"Sagunto: Islam can and will - as we all know - use their studied parasitism to effect a complete take-over of our societies.

I would substitute "effect" with "attempt". See next comment:"


See previous comment ;-)
I already followed your advice before you gave it, a miracle!

[See previous comments @Hesperado in this thread, starting 2/10/2011 11:57 AM - the whole thing was a bit of a self-inflicted canard I'm afraid]

See why it is always wise to read all comments by Sag?

As always,
kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sagunto

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -

I always applaud better analogies, and your description is crystal clear and very cogent, only it's not really an analogy but a near perfect summary of the whole article this topic started with. Thanks anyway ;)

"This is why I hardly care what a moderate Muslim is and what a Jihadist is. I know that as long as they are in any major way in our societies and they are allowed to do whatever they want, I'm going to have to go through more pain than necessary and that my people will come under threat due to their presence."

There you go, that's all there is to know. So why mentioning at all the Muslims you talked to, wo expressed no ambitions towards world domination? Moderate Muslims are an integral part of the system of Islam.
Even if they're not visibly infected by the SHR-virus or suffer from the Sudden jihad Syndrome, Moderate Muslims do spread Islam. So why look at clues for intentions as long as their behaviours are circumscribed by the Islamic culture that shapes their lives? We as Westerners are a very "intentional" people; always on the lookout for real intentions behind the actions of our fellow men. Along with it come such notions as honesty, decency, trust, real honour and personal responsibility, to name but a few characteristics of Western inter-personal attribution. At least with decent traditional folk.

I submit [sic!] that this "intentional" approach, as applied to understanding the "hearts and minds" of practising Muslims, is doomed to failure and of no consequence to begin with. Some cultures, and the peoples produced, do differ substantially. By the way, I'm not talking about (c)overt apostates here, or MINO's (Muslims In Name Only) but neither were you, so that point needn't be discussed.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Zenster said...

Sagunto: Moderate Muslims do spread Islam. So why look at clues for intentions as long as their behaviours are circumscribed by the Islamic culture that shapes their lives? [emphasis added]

Bravo. It is becoming increasingly clear that, in order for the counter-jihad to succeed, one principal meme which must be broken is that of the so-called moderate Muslim.

They simply do not exist and, even if they did, they are of such total insignificance with respect to defeating Islam that they are of no consequence, save that they "do spread Islam".

In light of the fact that they do spread Islam, they suddenly become part of the problem and can no longer be construed as being any part of the solution.

… this "intentional" approach, as applied to understanding the "hearts and minds" of practising Muslims, is doomed to failure and of no consequence to begin with.

Thus should read the epitaph of Cultural Relativism as applied to Islam. It is just one more meme that interferes with meaningful consolidation of the counter-jihad and, therefore, a domain of the enemy.

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -


Your global message might be paraphrased as (and I don't mean any kind of derogation here):

"Enjoy your Tribe!"


Am I correct?
Sag.

P.s.: You probably haven't seen the documentary film "Enjoy Poverty" (yet). Think you might like it. It's savagely honest. It is from a Dutch artist by the name of Renzo Martens.

He filmed himself, travelling 2 years in Africa with a "prophetic" message for its poorest people. Basically this: "You better face up to the fact that the foreign aid workers are not here to really help you. Their main clients are the caring people of the West, not you, and the progressives running the pity industry won't help you. You help people far away to feel better about themselves."
Poverty, he asserts, is a commodity, so he goes there and says: "Own it, take back your poverty and please enjoy, because you will keep depending on foreign aid and therefore you will remain poor for the rest of your lives."

Here is a telling scene from the film: "Enjoy Poverty"

Anonymous said...

Because of statements made here that equate the average Muslims to the Taliban, which is the same as equating the average black person with a rapist or a murderer and both are false. What I was trying to draw is the distinction in between individual relations in between people and policy aspects and group dynamics, which are the same for both cases.

And I'd like to point out to you that people create cultures, not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto, not really. I can enjoy the feats of other tribes, but your own identity is defined by your tribe. What shocked me about all Westerners is the distorted view that they have about their own history. History, culture(and by culture, I don't mean the stupid understand of some value system from the Enlightenment period, but its totality) and blood make someone who he is. It is more complicated than this, but it is pretty much how Europeans saw things traditionally. This is why we are losing, actually. We don't know who we are, who our enemies are, nor do we know the terrain on which we have to fight. If you read Sun Tzu, you know what this means.

Sagunto said...

Zenster -

To follow up on your last comment. I think there are two approaches to the whole phenomenon of the "MM": the right approach, belonging to phase II of the CJ initiative, and the "useful" one, belonging to phase I of the CJ initiative.

Phase I = education of the public.
Phase II = prompting the educated to further action.

On this subject, I recently posted some ideas, and perhaps it's good to repost them here - before I go to sleep, in answer to your latest remarks. So here goes:

Phase I:
The "exegetical exercises" I referred to in an earlier post, are a good and necessary first step to confront the world with the truth. With it comes all of the explaining, the quoting of Suras, the debates with PC MC journalists and Muslim advocacy groups that people like Robert Spencer are engaged in, and so on and so forth. Also with it come some politicians, walking a fine line reaching out to more and more people still sitting on the fence, who have some notion of "fishiness" about Islam. With that come all the discussions about "best practise" and tactics within the CJ initiative. So be it. This is all part of an educational programme in kind, created and perpetuated at grass roots level, trying to bypass the MSM via the internet (and other relatively free media) and thus inform evermore wider spheres of the general public with the truth about Islam.

I think that this programme is still in need of filling in some important parts, mainly of scientific and educational interest, like for instance a truly in-depth psychological and (if you will) anthropological analysis of the illustrious and highly ephemeral phenomenon of the "Moderate Muslim". I would very much like a fine expert such as Nicolai Sennels to ditch his flawed and outdated Club of Rome world-view, and foster a project on the largely forgotten group of one half of all Muslims, the Muslim women. I submit that a genuine interest in "moderate" Muslims should by all means make them a prime target as a group to be thoroughly researched. So far, Muslim women have mainly vanished into the background of ongoing discussions, dominated by violent or stealth male jihadists, only to gain incidental prominence as "victims" (and victims only) of Islam, e.g. in the odd Amnesty report (when even they can no longer deny the many stones flying around in Muslim majority lands), or as "promises" for integration in PC MC government reports (see this photograph for instance). I think researching this group and, on a more general level, providing well researched arguments as to why "moderate" Muslims are a threat to our freedom just as well, is extremely important. I already have thought of a title for the publication: "Holy Gruel: the Quest for the Moderate Muslim". (Obvious room for improvement here).


Phase II:
But this is only a first step, and I think some of us must already look ahead and proceed to acknowledge that the whole of Islam is really a one package deal. That supports the next project of viewing Islam primarily as a machine or system with a certain modus operandi, creating predictable results for freedom everywhere it is allowed to operate. "Peaceful" or "Moderate Muslims" are part and parcel of this machine.
This perspective will, in my view, put an end to perpetual debates and discussions over the stated or inferred intentions of violent sync non-violent jihadis, activist "vs" non-activist Muslims and worst of all, the MM chimera of "moderate" Muslims, et hoc genus omne.

Signing off to bed now, kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Homophobic Horse said...

"Because of statements made here that equate the average Muslims to the Taliban, which is the same as equating the average black person with a rapist or a murderer and both are false. What I was trying to draw is the distinction in between individual relations in between people and policy aspects and group dynamics, which are the same for both cases."

These expressionist swirls of tautology really are redolent of florid narcissism. I can't think of any other explanation for it. But my point is this: why shouldn't a "group dynamic" be an individual personality trait writ large?

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -

"And I'd like to point out to you that people create cultures, not the other way around."

Thank you, but I have another take on that one and I'd like to give the formula back in my own wording:

People create culture and are created by culture.

It is even more intricate and interesting than that, but now we're really venturing off to unknown worlds beyond the topic at hand, so for me, it ends here.

Take care RV, and thanks for the exchange,
Sag.

Anonymous said...

Good discussion. The "forced busing" in the schools here in America has pretty much ended, since it lost liberals more working-class voters than any other issue, by far. It still occurs occasionally when some stupid judge takes over a school district because of some stupid lawsuit, but it ALWAYS results in white flight and more segregation than before, so the liberals have stopped pushing this. Their preferred way of screwing the whites now is to send infinite amounts of money taxed from the wealthier districts into the bad districts, where it gets predictably stolen and wasted.

The one thing that might work which they don't do is give the money directly to the parents in the bad districts, in the form of school vouchers, so they can afford to send their kids to non-government schools. Much less money would actually be spent this way, because the private schools are so much more efficient -- each voucher would be for less than the cost of educating a student in the public schools, with the mathematical consequence that the public school district ends up with more money per student than before and so theoretically ought to do better.

However, the liberals would then lose their platform to indoctrinate the next generation of students, and the teachers unions will never accept a reform which increases the amount of money available per public school teacher if it also reduces the overall number of public school teachers.

Here in the USA, schools are funded and managed locally, so parents can vote with their feet, but big problems are caused by state-level programs which funnel money from middle-class districts to poor ones (a regression analysis would reveal that there are two relevant variables, the wealth of the district and its political slant; in my state the Republicans are oblivious to the phenomenon so the Democrats always ensure that their towns get the lion's share of the money even assuming equal wealth). This is why I'm looking for a new state.

Anonymous said...

(continued)


As for the Muslims vs blacks discussion: here Muslims are insignificant, and the disorder in the schools that black students cause when the schools are not strictly run is limited by the localization of the system. Sometimes misguided liberals or traitorous leftists will directly ruin a school district by redrawing boundaries to re-integrate while at the same time running the schools in an undisciplined way, but the biggest problem for most middle-class families is usually going to be low educational standards and PC/MC propaganda rather then disorder and violence. That is already reason enough to home-school if you can afford the time to do it (one good thing about my state is that home-schooling is not hindered at all).

It is far worse in Europe from the parent's point of view, because of the greater centralization--you can't just "move to a better district" like you can here. Ultimately the biggest real estate price factor is not "location, location, location" but "schools, schools, schools" and everyone knows it. That's an underappreciated reason the housing market here collapsed -- they gave all those mortgages to people who were bound to bring down property values when considered collectively because of the relationship between demographics and achievable school quality.

Anonymous said...

Homophobic Horse, because groups show tendencies, while individuals vary inside the group too. Let's pick for instance a financial analogy. You have an index(DOW, for example), right? The index can go up, while individual stocks can go down or vice versa. If you want, ask polymathblogger about it and he can write a nice explanation for you if my analogy didn't shed some light. :)

Hesperado said...

Rebellious Vanilla wrote:

"And I don't see why Muslims... would fight for our culture."

Wow. I'm stunned by such a blatant admission of ignorance from someone who frequents a counter-jihad blog and has participated before. Where does one begin? Do we have to hash over the entire Koran, the Hadiths, the Sira, the Tafsirs, the innumerable writings of major Muslim intellectuals, scholars, clerics over the centuries right up into our own 21st century?

Someone else school RV. I'm too weary.

Hesperado said...

P.S.: (Just to be clear, my last comment assumed that RV's phrase "fight for" meant "try to take over" -- not "support us")

Anonymous said...

Hesperado, I think that you need some schooling - reading comprehension apparently is something you lack. I don't find any reasons in the Quran or Hadith that shows why Muslims would fight to preserve our culture.

When you fight for something, you fight in support of that thing. I didn't know that fighting for love means trying to take over love. :)

Hesperado said...

RV,

I got confused because you had been spending most of your time downplaying the Muslim threat, so the proper sense of "for" didn't go with your overall flow.

It still doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Hesperado, as far as I can tell, RV intends to say, "Why do we expect foreign third world Muslims to fight on behalf of the ideas and people of indigenous modern Western Christian culture.

For myself only, I would add, "In addition, devout foreign third world Muslims follow the Koran which explicitly instructs all Muslims to fight against the ideas and people of indigenous modern Western Christian culture."

EscapeVelocity said...

Im too tired to make a comment.

EscapeVelocity said...

and foster a project on the largely forgotten group of one half of all Muslims, the Muslim women. - Sagunto

This is most definitely a major, perhaps the major area to promote. Muslim Female, empowerment, resentment, and the promotion of the Feminist Agenda among them.


But as to your general discussion, a plan of action. The Western Left has already written the blueprints and executed the plan...no need to rewrite it. It will have to be adapted to Islam and the Muslim world, but the playbook has been written already.

If you want to destroy Islam and Muslim society and culture, just study the writtings of the Western Left. It would be nice if the Left wasnt allying themselves with Islam....then we could unleash them upon the Muslim World.

What they need is lots of funding, as the Soviets funded and assisted the Western European and American Left. Help with intellectual firepower as well.

EscapeVelocity said...

The Romanians must look back fondly at their old Ottoman Empire days.

EscapeVelocity said...

Response to RV,

"I'm not sure what part of Western civilization being a product of white people you don't get. No matter which people replaces those of European descent, Western civilization is gone."

Black Africans in Africa are not replacing Europeans. They have largely adopted European/Western Civilization (imperfectly and uncompletely for sure.) There is no doubt that their is residual racial animosity there.

----

"The fact that you somehow think that the ANC appreciates British culture is farcically amusing."

Appreciate is the wrong word, they are practicing it. The majority of South Africans are Christian and they educate themselves using British ciricula...which focuses on Greco-Roman and Christian philosophical underpinnings and ideas. They run a British style government down to the last T. Certainly there are residual cultures and cultural traditions there, which are backward and so on and so forth. But South Africa, while being a Western Cvilizaiton country...isnt looking for world domination of racial supremacy either. They are content with their country....even if they vote with the OIC in the Third World Non Aligned Block (actually they see themselves as BRIC level nations...and are a regional superpower, economically, culturally and militarilly.

------

"Why would it really matter what they do if we continue on the same path and our own people won't exist anymore? "

What Africans are doing in Africa has nothing to do with what is going on in Romania or other European Indigenous or Majority countries.

----

"latté is right - blacks have no fault in being in Europe. The people who allowed them in are to blame."

That would be the Western Left, a bunch of Europeans that did that.

----

"The reason why this matters is because our peoples and cultures will be wiped out even if we get away from the Islamic threat, if we are demographically overrun."

Not so. Your culture can survive if newcomers are assimilated and adopt your culture. That is the proper way to do it. Multiculturalism and mass immigration, low vs high fertility rates, will produce dire results for your culture.

But it is the Western Left that is facilitating this...in cahoots with minority groups for sure, but without a core of Europeans pushing the agenda (look back to the 60s Baby Boomers for how these ideas became politically empowred in the West).

Zenster said...

EscapeVelocity: Muslim Female, empowerment, resentment, and the promotion of the Feminist Agenda among them.

At one time I, too, thought this might be a productive avenue.

At present, all resources should be directed away from Muslims and towards preserving Western culture.

For all intents and purposes Muslim women are useless. Look at Islamic taqiyya spewer, Amina Baghajati.

Now, please keep in mind that it is Muslim women who willingly wield a piece of freshly broken glass to scrape away the clitoris of their own young girls and then tell me that there is any hope for these abject facilitators.

Literally every avenue into Islam is so conjested with walking human corpses that it is a fool's errand to attempt any outreach. The risk of radical reversion, SJS (Sudden Jihad Syndrome) and a host of other repeatedly demonstrated Muslim terrorist hijinks removes all worth from any such effort.

If anything, Muslim women must be left to the not-so-tender mercies of their ultra-patriarchal societies until they take a page from Lorena Bobbitt and begin cutting short the domineering bullies that pass for men in Islamic culture.

Sagunto said...

Zenster -

"EscapeVelocity: Muslim Female, empowerment, resentment, and the promotion of the Feminist Agenda among them."

I'm afraid that @EscapeV [#82] has completely misread what I tried to say about the research needed on "Moderate Muslims". It's funny to read a comment that expresses support of your ideas and then witness how the entire point is missed. What I definitely not proposed was to engage in a little social engineering of our own, spending resources on feminist waves engulfing Muslim women. That is progressivist tinkering and it won't work. Apart from the predictable failure of such ill conceived projects, I also don't endorse progressivism, at all. The Soviets have tried in the past to target Muslim women in several attempts to weaken Islam inside the USSR borders, but all projects amounted to one big failure. There's an interesting study about this whole thing I have lying somewhere over here (among thousands of others ;-)

So to be absolutely clear: my mentioning of Muslim women as research objects was to illustrate how research on the phenomenon of the "Moderate Muslim" could be conceived. That means resources spent on the CJ phase I, to educate the public about how exactly "Moderate Muslims" e.g. Muslim women fit their role in Islam, and play their part in its grand take-over operation. Evidently, a lot of doctrinal energy is spent within Islam precisely on Muslim women, to keep them "moderate" i.e. subdued.
The goal, as I said in my views on CJ phase II, should be to show how Islam works to destroy freedom. So from that perspective it is instrumental to show how all different kinds of Muslims work as bits and parts of this machine. No more guessing as to their motives or plans and so on. Just show how the machine works.

EscapeV interprets all of this as some kind of plan, as if the CJ initiatives I propose are akin to some Five-year plan or some, directing resources to Muslim target groups, pushing plans destined to fail. That impression is false.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado, I'm not downplaying it. I'm assessing it realistically in comparison with the violence of other groups. This doesn't mean that because they have better crime rates, that I want them around, for instance. And it would be even more farcical to expect them to fight for OUR culture. Just look at a nation as a partially interbred extended family and its culture is the collective values, arts etc of that group. Why should someone from another family fight against his own family members, in defense of the values of another family? It doesn't make sense to expect outsiders to fight for your values.

EV, Muslims aren't as silly as Westerners. First of all, their morality isn't based on empowerment, so they'd have less of an interest for it and secondly, they're not stupid enough to give free speech to their enemies. If the conservatives would have got this, we wouldn't be here now.

And yes, what Africans do in Africa is of no relevance, just like what Muslims do in Iraq doesn't really matter - as long as both stay there! But you know they're not and that was never the point. And your characterization of South Africa is hilarious. I won't even debate it anymore because anybody who is familiar to the subject is probably laughing out loud right now.

And yes, black Americans are actually the same as WASPs after about 400 years of living together. There's no difference among the two besides the hue. Actually, if white Americans disappeared, people wouldn't even notice it. Everything in America would go on the same. Do you actually believe this? Because if so, it's really funny.

Anonymous said...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Neither Muslims or blacks or Hispanics are the real "enemy." Whites are their own worst enemy. We've brought this upon ourselves, and we'll never be able to resist destruction, be it at the hands of Muslim jihadists, black supremacists, or Chicano reconquistadores, if we don't first critically examine our own society and reform it from within.

And despite being an ethnonationlist, I agree with Baron Bodissey that separatist solutions in America aren't practical. I believe the ethnostate model is ideal, but I'd not be willing to fight a race war to get there. We whites royally screwed up over the last few centuries, and so we'll have to devise new strategies to continue as a people into the future, while at the same time accepting the diverse nature of the United States, and resisting any "melting pot" schemes.

EscapeVelocity said...

This thread is evidence that we are screwed, and will continue to be.

EscapeVelocity said...

I mean RV is admiring Muslim behavior as something to emulate.

We have Free & Open Societies, and I would like to preserve that. That doesnt mean self destructive societies. Tolerance is good....but that doesnt mean diversity promotion, moral and cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and legal and material aid for any and all deviants/deviancy.

Homophobic Horse said...

RV: Thank you for confirming my intuition

I bet you have a great future ahead of you ;)

Anonymous said...

Agent, I hardly understand Americans with their ethnonationalist silliness. The only type of nation is one based on ethnicity. You can only be born in a nation and the members of one share the same language, descent, history and the like. Still, if Europe is to do anything, Americanism and most of the things about the US have to become laughable around here.

And yes, we're our own worst enemy. White people made blacks citizens there, for example.

EV, I hardly admire the Muslims. I suppose putting things in proportion is admiring them. If we are to get at admiring, you are the one fawning about at how Africans implement our culture as long as they are Christian. And an open society means what we have today, including having Muslims around and giving them equal political freedom. So I am not really the one admiring outsiders.

Anonymous said...

RV - I agree with you that ethnonationalism should be a redundant term. Unfortunately in my country, civic nationalism is the reigning orthodoxy and will no doubt continue to remain so for decades to come, until our own Third World populations overthrow the Left/Right liberal establishment and replace it with tribalism. That's the only thing that makes me look forward to 2050, when whites' faith in propositional nationhood shatters after seeing the reality that Third World populations just aren't interested in "shared values" and "ideals".

Unfortunately that will be a rather harsh lesson, and one I'm not looking forward to experiencing in my old age.

EscapeVelocity said...

"And an open society means what we have today"

Yours is the classic over-reaction.

We dont have to replace the Leftwings version of open society....with Ethno-Nazism. In fact the Leftwingers version of the open society is insane. One can have an open society, sans open borders, one can have a tolerant society, sans mass immigration of Third Worlders. Or promoting multiculturalism. Tolerance is a good thing, but as it once meant, the lack of legal prohibition...not this diversity promotion and legal and material aid to any and every deviant or minority group.


" including having Muslims around and giving them equal political freedom. So I am not really the one admiring outsiders."

That is the whole point of the discussion, which flew over your head aparently. Islam and its agents are an existential threat to Western Civilization, dealing with this hostile ideology and its agents within and without our countries requires extra-ordinary response.

Anonymous said...

Agent Chameleon, you are right about whites being their own worst enemy. I also agree with you and the Baron about the impossibility of racial separatism in America -- the blacks have been here as long as the whites and there has been enough mixing that there is a continuum which cannot be rationally partitioned. This means America cannot have the kind of ethnostate that used to be typical in Europe; however, tremendous improvements are still possible, especially if white people start thinking of themselves as an interest group (this is already beginning to happen, partly thanks to Obama and his anti-white administration).

The damage that has been done to American society comes from the reversible steps of letting in too many immigrants in the last 45 years, and transferring wealth from the productive to the non-productive. If (the vast majority of) immigrants who are not yet citizens are not allowed to become citizens, and birthright citizenship is modified, and illegals are made to leave, and if we stop subsidizing dysfunction, and stop anti-white discrimination, American society will naturally become more segregated and white people's interests will be naturally favored. Because of the incapacity of the non-white groups, which liberals are not allowed to admit, this can even be accomplished in a formally color-blind way, which makes it politically feasible here.

It won't take until 2050 for whites to realize that non-whites don't buy into propositional nationhood, they are already beginning to see how they have been played for suckers. At some point the PC/MC crowd will become so ridiculous that most people will ignore their shrieks and it will become cool to be "realistic". If this point occurs within 5 years we may be OK; if it occurs 20 years from now it will be too late.

EscapeVelocity said...

We can prevent a race war Agent Chameleon sees coming by reversing the Leftist policies that are creating that situation...and also creating general degradation of society of all peoples.

EscapeVelocity said...

polymathblogger's last post has the right of it.

I do think that whiteEuros and males, Christians already have...need to organize for identity politics overtly, and that will scare the bejeebus out of the Leftist minority groups, who will then support (like they already should have done if they were honest about equality and civil rights) a colorblind society, equality of opportunity, and before the law.

But Islam is beyond that, its an existential threat to Western Civilization itself, and therefore it must be dealt with extra-ordinarily.

Anonymous said...

Agent, that's exactly why Europeans should see America as a foreign power and not part of the same civilization - that's if we are to be around. The damage done by America to Europe is fairly consistent and without the two being adversaries, nothing will improve. Unless America changes, which Baron and Polymath noted, rightfully so, that it is impossible. So there's one so

Polymath, how is letting in too many immigrants reversible without deporting them, which is unlikely? I'd like to point out that nonwhites are already a majority in the under 3 years old section and those people are citizens. And even if everyone who isn't a citizen is deported, due to the people who already are citizens and the birth rate differentials, the picture is pretty bleak, even if whites act as an interest group.

And removing the citizenship of under 3 years olds is the same as of anyone, since it would be ex post facto legislation. Also, white people caring about their interests would make America ungovernable considering that the polarization of society would get fairly extreme. So if whites wake up, I hardly see America still existing in its present form.

What I find amusing is the idea that you can have free speech or freedom of thought in a country that is diverse. If a country is held together by an idea, opposite beliefs have to be eliminated by force.

EV, all non-Westerners are. And if tolerance is all that is left of the West, no offense, but it is hardly anything worth saving. Western civilization is far more than a bunch of stupid platitudes(using HL Menken's definition here) and ideas from the Enlightenment period.

And thanks for the reductio ad hilterum. I'd like to point out that Nazism is a fairly revolutionary movement that actually denied quite a lot of traditional things in Germany - for instance, the troops weren't allowed to pay their respects to Wilhelm's tomb. I want Europeans to embrace and understand their history, not deny it. Which is what you want Europeans to do. Because an open society can exist only insofar as the group on which it is forced on has their identity denied. Multiculturalism is the logical conclusion of it.

Also, I am hardly a socialist. For instance, I support the privatization of education, healthcare, the dismantling of retirement benefits and doing away with unemployment benefits. I think you have far more in common with the Nazis than I do, if push comes to shove. Obviously, all this could have been avoided if you wouldn't have brought them up. :)

About identity politics, no offense, but to paraphrase von Clausewitz, war is the continuation of politics with the admixture of other means. The corollary is that politics is a part of war, without using all the means. And just like in war, in politics, if you come from a side that is seen as wimpy, you must do some feats of superior strength before anybody fears you. If I was a Muslim or another outsider, I'd see the whole thing as a big joke(especially if an interest group wants equal treatment - that pretty much makes it redundant).

And the whole color blind, equality thing is amusing. This makes me recall the men who are against feminism because it doesn't want women to be drafted, wants preferential retirement ages, more money for research for female diseases and so on. I find this amusing because you'd expect people who are against feminism to advocate traditional gender roles, not more equality. And we get to what I mentioned here. If the biggest objection we have is that immigrants aren't PC enough, why bother?

EscapeVelocity said...

You are in dire need of Christianity.

The logical extension of tolerance is not multiculturalism. Tolerance is tolerance.

I prefer tolerance...not Diversity Promotion and Multiculturalism...and not intolerance and pogroms.

I support Europeans embracing their heritage and culture and actively and unashamedly promoting it in the public sphere as the zeitgeist.

That includes Christianity, which you reject. So much for embracing European culture and heritage, I guess.

You are the mirror image of Racist African Nationalists and the Taliban.

Sagunto said...

EscapeV -

I would agree with you on the subject of Christianity and European culture, if it weren't for the fact that a substantial part of Christianity lost its traditional bearings to modernity ("enlightenment" subversion) and is actually part of progressive society, promoting multicultural "tolerance". This would include almost all of European protestantism and "cultural Christianity", and Catholicism insofar as it subscribes to the disastrous iconoclasm of Vaticanum II.

rebelliousvanilla -

I know your comment (#98) wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to thank you for it anyway. Clear, truthful and forceful. Though some differences of opinion remain, I like your style. If I didn't know better, I would almost be tempted to call it "enlightening". ;-)

Take care,
Sag.

Anonymous said...

EV, yet I have no problem with Christianity, especially if we do the right thing and make it the state religion(and you return the religion to the meaning it has 300 years ago, not the PC, inclusive one of today) - you know, how Europe really was. And I didn't know the Bible is centered around Europeans and cares about them not going extinct.

And thanks for calling me a racist. I will take it as an admission of defeat, since it is name calling and that is the most graceless way of losing an argument. :) Not that I actually really care about racism. I'd like to point out to you that if you consider me racism and you consider racism something inherently evil, you consider all of Europe's heritage up to the mid 20th century as being evil. How do you expect Europeans to actually defend and identify with their heritage if you consider that evil? Also, by its nature, an identity is exclusive, not inclusive. The meaning of racism exists only within a progressive worldview. Actually, with so many definitions, it hardly has any meaning inside any framework. The way I see racism is that whenever it's brought up, it means I'm on the right track in terms of debating a progressive(if people understand what I mean, hat tip to them and lots of respect).

Sagunto, the problem is that Catholicism, for example, has to act as the lobby of the third world because that's where most of the Catholics are. Due to Christianity being an universal religion, it stopped having a meaning in terms of mythology when outsiders adopted it. And I think the influence of Christianity on culture prior to the Enlightenment is overrated. Sure, people were religious and practiced their religion in their communities, but no state policy or government system had a Christian character.

Let's pick Vlad Tepes, who is someone that people like around here. I'd like to point out that adultresses and thieves were tortured or killed. Thieves had their skin removed from their feet. Or let's go to foreign policy - when he decided to not pay tribute to the Ottomans anymore, he invaded Bulgaria and killed about 25,000 Muslims, regardless of gender or age. Then the Ottomans invaded Wallachia, where another 20,000 impaled Muslims were waiting for them. Sure, he built a bunch of churches, but he was hardly a good Christian. No European leader really ruled based on the ethics of Christianity.

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -

"Due to Christianity being an universal religion, [..]"

Universality an sich is not a problem in traditional Christianity, as long as it is kept firmly in check by the specific transcendent authority that keeps the balance (and prevents Christianity from slipping down the slope of secular enlightenment universality).

"And I think the influence of Christianity on culture prior to the Enlightenment is overrated."

Perhaps that applies to some extent to your native country, but the Church was Europe, prior to and even long time after the tragedy of the so-called "reformation". Many leaders ruled, based on Christian ethics and practise (see my war-list against Muslim armies).

Then, with all due respect, you state in plain falsehood:

"No European leader really ruled based on the ethics of Christianity"

Let's put that down to a lack of knowledge about the Christian history of Europe. Just study the historical events that provided this Blog, GoV, with its very name, and stand corrected :)

Let me enlighten you with a short-list of events, featuring Christian leaders shaping European history, and ask your opinion:

- Charles ("the Hammer") Martel and his men weren't they Christian leaders, when they defeated the Muslim invaders at Poitiers, AD 732?
- Perhaps St. Thomas Aquinas who expanded the Christian notion of just war, also some kind of a "misunderstander" of dhimmi Christianity?
- The battle or siege of Belgrade, AD 1455, which "decided the fate of Christendom" and is still commemorated by victorious noon bells (ordered at the time by Pope Callixtus III) to this day. Also not a victory against Muslims by typical Christian leaders?
- The Spanish "Reconquista" surely had something to do with Christianity and Christian leaders, did it not? Perhaps they weren't Vladist impalers, but that wasn't like anything resembling a pillow-fight with the Muslim armies, was it?
- The crucial victory at Lepanto AD 1571, one of history's most decisive naval battles, remembered in Chesterton's poem, also not fought by Christian leaders against Muslims? Dhimmi Christian wimps having a lucky break again?
- And as primus inter pares: Pope Innocent XI (ok, sounds a bit "dhimmisch", but don't be fooled by that name), who managed to unite the ehm.. well, Christian armies of Europe and call them to the Battle at the Gates of Vienna against the Muslim Turks. This Pope, the initiator of the Holy League, forging an alliance between the German Estates and the King of Poland, pressing the Christian leaders to expel the Turks from Hungary and beyond. This Pope also not a Christian leader then?
- Or the notable King Jan III Sobiesky of Poland, who first prayed with his men to the Holy Virgin Mary, then defeated the Turks and was later dubbed by these Muslims as "the Lion of Lechistan"? Does that sound like a nick for a Dhimmi Christian?
- Let's march on with those leading Christian misunderstanders of Christianity, and proceed with the wholesale expulsion of the Turks from Hungary by Christian leaders ;-) ... and so on, and so forth.

I forgot to mention the Crusaders of course, and Christian leader Pope Urban II, rallying Christian leaders for the 1st Crusade.

It's altogether a shortened short-list, I know, for history provides us with a sheer endless account of these fairly "unmeekly" displays of power by Christian leaders, churchmen and armies who went on the offensive against the Muslim invaders in the Holy Land and the European "Abendland".

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto, I do agree that real Christianity, the one in which you burned for a wrong interpretation of the Bible doesn't have as much of a problem with universalism. Or those parts of Christianity, like Orthodoxy, which are concerned with the communities in which they operate, not with what Africans are doing and how we can shuffle more resources there or how to get them here. Churches here help our poor, build houses for mothers who would otherwise have abortions and so on - you know, strengthen society instead of weakening it. I obviously can only applaud such things, even if I don't believe in God. And I also agree that believers don't take the place of Jesus Christ on the cross, which is what secular people do and they make matters worse.

And by Christianity's influence on Europe, I didn't mean that people didn't live their lives in accordance to Christianity. What I meant to say that Christianity reinforced group interests, instead of making it a sin to defend them. This is why Europeans had no qualms about slaughtering each other, despite their similar faiths.

Related to war, don't worry, Vlad Tepes was Christian too, but I'd hardly consider his acts Christian in nature. The fact that Europeans used the cross as a rallying banner to fight Muslims is normal considering that religion was the fundamental difference, but what you miss is that we slaughtered each other in a similar fashion and we didn't use the cross then. Just because someone is a Christian doesn't mean that they act in accordance to Christianity. I'd like to mention that I am a Christian too considering that I am baptized and I accepted holy communion. But this is beyond the point.

So we agree more than you think about this. We agree that the way Christianity was isn't as much of a problem and in a lot of ways it was a really positive influence. Where we disagree is what acts are to be considered Christian. For instance, Vlad Tepes acted in the name of the cross when he invaded a foreign country and slaughtered unarmed civilian people regardless of their gender or age. I hardly consider these acts to be part of the Christian ethic, regardless of the religion of the people doing them(I would lead a Christian army as a Christian and rally behind the cross if that was to happen). Where we also disagree is about how Europe was organized. Spiritually, I agree, that the Church was Europe prior to the Enlightenment. But in terms of how policies were implemented(see citizenship) we had a more Roman system, than Christian. Obviously, European culture is a blend of Roman, Greek and Christian values and thought, combined with artistic and other contributions of Germanic people(more often than not). Only a fool would deny that. :)

I would have no problem with Christianity if it returned to how it was, but I doubt the Ginnie can return inside the bottle.

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -

Because it is always thoroughly illuminating and entertaining to disagree with you on some specifics (I second your observation that we agree on a lot of things), allow me to revisit another one of your comments (# 57) concerning the exploits of the Muslim tribe, in which you display an undaunted disinterest - in spite of your disclaimer to the contrary, in being associated with those who regard Islam with some measure of esteem, by leaving unendorsed the deconstruction of the Myth of Islamic Civilization.

You wrote in this thread [and I leave out parts, to emphasize my point]:

"[..] the fact that Muslims can create far better societies than blacks [..] Maybe you view Muslims as a threat because unlike blacks, they would create another civilization [..]"

I regard claims like the above as erroneous attempts at revamping the parasitical appropriation of a civilized host culture by Muslims as "Muslim Civilization", thus perpetuating the myth that Islam is capable of creating "civilization". This can i.m.o. only be done in utter disregard of historical facts. Islam creates nothing, and certainly not anything remotely resembling "civilization". It will always bleed the civilized host culture dry, before ultimately showing its real face: death and decay.

Thanks for the exchange,
Sag.

Baron Bodissey said...

Rebellious Vanilla --

And I also agree that believers don't take the place of Jesus Christ on the cross, which is what secular people do and they make matters worse.

Modern secularized Christians are even worse -- they want you to take Jesus' place on the cross. They plan to stay well out of the way, wringing their hands over the plight of the poor victim on the cross.

It's the same with charity -- they want their governments to coerce money from everyone else to send to Zimbabwe and Haiti. But they hold onto as much of their own pile as they can.

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -

Your comments are a treasure trove of both astute observations on European tradition and misperceived European history.

You wrote (#101)

"I have no problem with Christianity, especially if we do the right thing and make it the state religion(and you return the religion to the meaning it has 300 years ago [..]"

I can't believe this recommendation from someone who has shown a keen eye for the devastating effects that political "enlightenment" brought upon traditional European culture.

Let's take the historical example of Holland for instance.
The political use of Christianity (around and before 1700 A.D.) as a state religion easily turned it into a "religion of the State", setting the stage for "Radical Enlightenment", i.e. the later progressivist state-worship, you and I despise. That is exactly where the so-called "reformation" went wrong. It is concomitant with the birth of nationalism in Europe (glorifying the "nation" or "la Patrie", the synthetic political concept of progressivists), for several "nations" were founded as protestant nations (even when the majority of the people stayed true to tradition and remained Catholics, like in the Netherlands). Strip the transcendent dimension of this already politically contaminated state religion, while setting loose its universalistic aspirations for the "betterment of mankind" (recognize some political "Americanism" already?) and we see the disaster of Enlightenment already in the making.

That's it for now. Will be back to answer your rebuttals.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto, Africans are unable to create a civilization, so it's not like I'm measuring the civilizations of Muslims with some great thing. And it goes from literature to architecture and other things. You really want to do a historical comparison in between the Arabic&Turkish civilizations to Africa's? Just because I view things realistically, it doesn't mean that somehow I think that Islamic civilization is all spice and all things nice. It's not.

Also, you should be consistent and not attribute to Christian culture the things that developed independently of it either(the Roman and Greek cultures that influenced European culture, for instance). Not that I'm comparing Christianity to Islam, since the latter is far worse(ha, as an atheist, I afford making these distinctions without being biased).


In regards to a state religion, that should be understood as the representative church of a country(the Romanian Orthodox Church, in the case of my country) being awarded special status and its members being the sole citizens. Religion should be used to bind a people together and exclude outsiders. And as someone from a country like mine, where we had Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox people living together, this was interesting to see. Each church kept the citizen lists - not the state. So you couldn't really have political sway, in say, Brasov(Kronstadt) or Sibiu(Hermannstadt) without being part of their church - which was Protestant. I was referring to something along those lines. I don't advocate the blend of the church and the state, but the religion of a people being given preferred legal status above the other religions.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say America changing was impossible, I said America becoming a true ethnostate was impossible. But that doesn't mean it can't be greatly improved. As for being Europe's adversary: Europe is a bad influence on America just as America is a bad influence on Europe (in somewhat different respects), both have a lot of work to do, and bridges need to be built between the groups in both places that are working in the right direction. Letting in immigrants is reversible before they are citizens, which most of them are not. And it is obvious that you don't have to directly deport people, if you make it impossible for them to work and cut off state benefits to them they will self-deport. It is really easy to enforce laws that prohibit companies from hiring immigrants illegally, once there is the will to do it. And birthright citizenship is being re-examined, there has been a very impressive amount of movement on this. Non-whites will only become a majority if we both keep non-citizen immigrants legal and illegal here, and keep birthright citizenship, for at least 20 more years (the current cohort of under-3's which is minority-white is small in absolute numbers). It would not even be ex post facto to remove citizenship from under-3-year-olds if their parents are either illegal or "obstetrical tourists", since it has not been definitively settled that the birthright citizenship laws apply to them as they do to people who have settled here legally. All of these things are already part of the political discussion, within the "Overton window" here. (By the way, Sailer has a great book review here which discusses how this window on immigration has moved recently: Byron Roth’s The Perils Of Diversity: Apologies To The Grandchildren".)
(continued next comment)

Sagunto said...

Rebelliousvanilla -

Many thanks for your reply and for returning to this thread that is slowly covered by a web of new threads. Let's see how long we can continue to revisit this topic and refresh our little differences of opinion and perspective :)
And thank you for the brief insight into the local situation of your native country with respect to religion. As usual, I will bypass the many points were we are by and large in agreement. They form the background, the landscape so to say, of our discursive journey.

And let me cut right to the chase and start with a quotation that contains not a single true assertion:

"Also, you should be consistent and not attribute to Christian culture the things that developed independently of it either(the Roman and Greek cultures that influenced European culture, for instance). Not that I'm comparing Christianity to Islam, since the latter is far worse(ha, as an atheist, I afford making these distinctions without being biased)."

Being consistent is a virtue, but there are even more important things, like staying true to verifiable historical facts.
And speaking of attribution and consistency, how about applying a little some to your own comment?

"And it [Islamic civilization] goes from literature to architecture and other things."

Historically speaking (as we do), it seems that you attribute things to Islam that it didn't create. They were Roman and Greek culture that Islam "parasited upon" and ultimately bled dry.

And your second point about making unbiased distinctions as an atheist, well, I am an atheist as well. But I would never support the spurious claim that atheism can afford one making distinctions between religions without bias. :)

Lastly, to take you up on your claim that my view on European history is somehow inconsistent: it is not.
What is lacking here is not consistency, at least not on my part, but a firm and comprehensive grasp of the history of the medieval Church of (Western) Europe on your part. So in that respect, I can understand why you'd view my comments as being inconsistent, for they are indeed inconsistent with your historical perspective, maybe incompatible. Let me keep this real short and just show you why I think that I'm being consistent here, and explore/explain in a later post, time permitting and if you are still interested in our refutational ping-pong game (that I have vigorously enjoyed playing so far). The Church of Europe survived the slow outwardly decay of the Western-Roman Empire and was partly a continuation of that very same empire, just like the "barbaric" kingdoms of the Vandals and the Goths. Classical civilization was not destroyed by Barbarians or by Christians. I am not only thinking of the Latin language, or Canon Law and so on, or the preservation of Classical literature by the monks of the West, but also of the fact that the real destruction of Classical culture and civilization was effected by Islam, from the middle of the seventh century onwards.

Cu back (I hope),
Sag.

Anonymous said...

Polymath, I'd like to point out that jus soli citizenship means a simple fact - regardless of who you are born by, you are a citizen if you are born on the soil of the specific country. And if it is interpreted in any other way, the former slaves wouldn't have been made citizens because that was their only claim to citizenship - they were there.

And as long as America is based on progressive values(and they were like that since the founding), America needs to be seen as a foreign, alien culture or we won't get out of this trap we're in. Minor changes are inconsequential in this matter. Considering that traditional Europe is completely different to what America is, these things can't be done without a falling apart. And this doesn't mean that Americans are bad people and can't be worked with.

In regards of demographics, I am young enough for this to matter. Even with barring immigration and deporting illegals, whites are in the minority, even by a small margin. But this doesn't matter - it's not old people who fight revolutions, is it? Muslims are a small part of Europe too, I suppose we shouldn't be concerned, right?

I'm going to be amused by how unpopular Social Security will be. A white old population being maintained by a nonwhite young population.

Sagunto, Roman&Greek and Islamic architecture are really different. And no, you are inconsistent. Classical civilization was largely non-Christian and attributing it to Christianity is silly if you don't attribute the things Islam 'parasited' on to Islam. Still, this discussion is academic. The point is that Muslims can build a far better place to live than Africans, which was the point I was making.

And since we are at classical civilization - that civilization, just like ours became rotten to the core and needed to be destroyed. I hope we will be wiser this time and rebuild faster. I'm optimistic about it.

Anonymous said...

It's hard to keep up with this thread. Re jus soli, it has been clearly held all along that birthright citizenship is not automatically granted to all babies born here, but only those whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Thus, American Indians were not granted citizenship because they were considered to belong to other nations which retained relevant aspects of sovereignty, nor were children of visitors of of foreign ambassadors and so on. However, those legally granted permanent residence but not citizenship did get to have their children made citizens automatically, and slaves were citizens because they had always been subject to the laws here. The legal gray areas are of two types: (1) how permanently someone had to be here before being regarded as eligible to have their children qualify for birthright citizenship (in practice there has been no attempt to challenge the citizenship of people whose parents were here illegally or even on tourist visas, but there has certainly been no definite finding that they are eligible in the absence of specific legislation granting this, and they could be told tomorrow that they are not citizens and might well lose eventually in the courts, see here), and (2) which parent the child inherits the status of when they have different statuses (this btw is why the birthers are barking up the wrong tree, Obama's ace in the hole even if he was born in Kenya is there was no valid marriage between his parents at the time he was born because BO Sr already had a Kenyan wife so there is no technical legal way to tie BO Jr to him, the courts will have to act as if Miss Dunham got pregnant by an unknown American and happened to be traveling in Kenya at the time she delivered her gift to history). The upshot is that the changes to the citizenship and immigration laws that I propose can be done statutorily and administratively if the political will is there and don't require a Constitutional Amendment, therefore they are politically feasible though difficult goals; the Supreme Court has enough precedent to rule either way in the absence of an amendment, but they will ultimately follow the election returns. If this is done within 20 years whites can remain a majority, especially if immigration and citizenship laws are combined with welfare cutoffs and dysfunction is no longer subsidized.

Getting back to some earlier points: polarization of society is becoming extreme anyway, and the sooner the better as far as whites acting as an interest group is concerned, this is one of the biggest mistakes the LibDems have made recently. And you can have free speech in a country held together by an idea if the defenders of the idea are competent, the problem in America is that the destructive traitors have taken over the media, schools, and entertainment while those who should have defended the traditional American culture stupidly imagined it was so self-evidently great it could stand on its own without defenders. (Note I say the traditional American culture not the political propositions -- those should have been defended on the particularist grounds that they were right for America and Americans rather than universalist grounds that welcomed everybody in; Adams, Franklin, and Washington understood this though Paine and Jefferson did not). Today the old media and educational monopolies are collapsing and there is hope of getting the right points across to the upcoming generations.

Anonymous said...

(continued)
There is some political jiu-jitsu involved in initially using the progressives' own principles against them, without committing to those principles irrevocably, but it is possible to go a very long way and to lay much of the necessary groundwork before getting around to the eventually necessary direct attack on the core progressive principles -- first all the PC MC absurdities have to be destroyed, and HBD science needs to be widely explained, but those things will happen which will make the great flip possible (free speech eventually breaks the brittle unstable structures of lies that result from preference falsification due to social pressures, as Kuran has explained).

The relationship of Christianity to all this is quite complicated and I will write about it at greater length on the "small differences" thread. Politically, there is a great deal that we can agree on that does not depend on the issue of Christianity vs atheism, the point is to have an anthropologically sound understanding of how societies function, historically Christian statesmen have been capable of this. But when the Church gets involved with politics (rather than statesmen and politicians at the same time being good Christians and wise political leaders), especially across borders, very serious problems arise (though internationalist and universalist causes do have their place, as long as they are not at the expense of particular nations, in which case churches too easily become tools). Baron is right about modern secularized Christians. Once you lose Christ it is fatal to retain Christian ethical attitudes because you inevitably make the state play the role of the church and use it to carry out your moral impulses, with the critical difference that the state is coercive. The superficial similarity which is evoked by the word "charity" hides a fundamental conflict. The surprising and fortunate thing is that despite this, Christians and atheists can find common ground in saving our society from the disasters it is rapidly approaching, because defeating our common enemies will be accomplished by destroying their dangerous false religions (Islam, PC/MC, Envirocraziness, leftist nihilism, etc.).

Anonymous said...

(continued)
The opposition between traditional Europe and America is real, because America was founded in reaction to the bad side of traditional Europe (republicanism has some genuine advantages over monarchy, though both are OK with a proper Constitution), but the commonalities ought to be more important especially in the current struggle; unfortunately all the bad things about Americanism have been triumphant for the last 40-50 years, while Europe's worst tendencies (not the same as America's) have also been ascendant. It's amazing to me that threats like totalitarian Islam and third world dysfunction, which are alien to BOTH America and Europe as they have traditionally been, are making such unimpeded progress and that America and Europe can't oppose them either separately or together. (Ultimately that's because both have been poisoned from within by leftism.)

The demographic math is tricky but the situation is not irreversible yet. However if it comes down to fighting rather than voting, the point of no return is sooner because young people matter more for that. In America at least it will be voting rather than fighting for longer than in Europe (my guess is Europe will explode earlier than America, which will have an unpredictable impact on which way America goes). And yes, social security is doomed, because unlike private pensions and state pensions, which will bankrupt companies and states, there is not even a legal obligation to pay specific social security benefits, Congress can cut them at any time (or print money to pay for them) so the people who depend on Soc Sec are screwed, regardless of the demographics of who is paying for whom.

Anonymous said...

Polymath, your case isn't good enough in regards to jus soli applying only to some because of the following:
1)diplomats and their families can only be declared persona non grata and are a recognized category of people who aren't in the jurisdiction of a state's law
2)American Indians were in the same category
I will give you an example. If I was a diplomat in America, I could go and slap your whole family and the US would just be able to declare me persona non grata, but I'd not be liable for prosecution, no matter what I do, unless my country revokes my diplomatic immunity. It's the same in regards to taxes and American Indians. So my question is, if a Mexican slaps your family or doesn't pay taxes, is he guilty of assault or tax evasion? Because if he is, he is inside the jurisdiction of the US of A.

There's a reason why the deconstructionists took over - they squash dissent, while the 'right' in America is simply a mirror of them.

I'm more confident about fighting than voting, fyi. Maybe my trust in European men is misplaced considering the recent decades of outright wimpiness, but both Muslims and Africans are downright horrid at fighting.

And I don't see the current struggle as similar, if what America is to do is stay founded on progressive ideals. But at least soon Americans will look different than Europeans and we will be able to see you as foreign easier.