Monday, October 23, 2006

Caucasophobia — the Accepted Racism

The Fjordman Report
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files.

I had written much of this essay more than a year before I finally decided to post it online. A couple of personal experiences brought me onto the subject of non-white racism. I hesitated to post it, mainly because I instinctively dislike writing about anything related to race. I was brought up that way. Partly, I also convinced myself that I was first and foremost against Islam, and that writing about skin color would only complicate this fight.

The evil imperialist Cristobal ColonHowever, after thinking about it for some time, I find that none of these arguments hold true. I am tired of ideological censorship. Western nations can never mount a defense against Muslim immigration if this is always dismissed as “racism.” But above all, if you believe that non-white racism exists, it is actually immoral not to deal with the problem and its victims. I am convinced that not just non-white, but also anti-white racism, are real and underestimated phenomena.

In London, an elderly driver who had a heart attack careered into a bus. Here you had a dying man, people trying to save him and police trying to clear the scene. Meanwhile, black youths at the scene just wanted to fight the cops. They shouted, ‘Who cares — it’s just a white man’.”

The incident confirmed my suspicion that some of those who keep talking about “Dead White Males,” meaning basically every great Western thinker in history, are actually lamenting the fact that not all white males are, well, dead.
- - - - - - - - - -
We demand Raza Studies!I have watched Mexicans who were illegally in US cities quite openly shouting racist slogans against the majority white population, with little or no reaction from the media. Yet Americans who want to strengthen border controls against Mexico are denounced as “racists.” Why?

I have heard two explanations for this one-sided focus on white racism only. The first one is that white people are more racist than non-whites, a claim I find highly dubious in the 21st century. The other is that we should focus mainly on white racism because “white people are so powerful.” But are whites always powerful? We are, demographically speaking, a rapidly shrinking global minority. We are even a shrinking percentage of the population in the West.

Mohammed go BOOM!Following the Danish Muhammad cartoons incident, Bob Simon from the “60 Minutes” magazine on American TV made a program about Denmark, which he commented was “very Caucasian.” Journalist Samuel Rachlin complained that the picture presented was one of blond bigots who oppressed the powerless Muslim minority. Are 5 million, white Danes “powerful” compared to a billion Muslims?

John Derbyshire of the National Review Online has written about the prevalence of what he calls “Hesperophobia,” fear and hatred of the West. I will suggest that a more accurate term would be Caucasophobia, fear of white people.

I see two potential objections to this term. One is that negative feelings towards whites are less a matter of fear than of hatred and contempt, which is partly true. But I find Caucasophobia to be a catchy phrase to counter claims of Islamophobia, whatever that is. I loathe the term “reverse racism,” which indirectly implies that white racism is the norm and non-white racism is just a “reaction” to this.

The other objection is that the term Caucasian frequently refers to Arabs and Indians, too. However, in March 2005, peaceful white, French demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths. One 18-year-old named Heikel added that he had “a pleasant memory” of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground. The sentiment was a desire to “take revenge on whites.”

Riots in suburban ParisNotice that these were Arabs attacking Europeans. I have also heard Pakistanis and Turks refer to Europeans as “whites.” I thus find it justifiable to use the term Caucasophobia of racism against people of European stock.

Barbara Kay of Canada’s National Post writes about a new fad called Whiteness Studies:

“The goal of WS is to entrench permanent race consciousness in everyone — eternal victimhood for nonwhites, eternal guilt for whites — and was most famously framed by WS chief guru, Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University, now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.”

La Raza demonstrationSome of the inventors of Whiteness Studies have stated their goals quite openly: “Abolitionism is also a strategy: its aim is not racial harmony but class war. By attacking whiteness, the abolitionists seek to undermine the main pillar of capitalist rule in this country.” And: “The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white.”

Conservative social critic David Horowitz comments that: “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.” However, despite widespread criticism, at least 30 institutions — from Princeton University to the University of California at Los Angeles — teach courses in whiteness studies.

While Western academia are busy warning against Islamophobia, Caucasophobia gets the stamp of approval. College professor Mike S. Adams writes about conspiracy theories he’s heard among students attempting to blame various social ills on white people:

“The Mona Lisa was painted by an African artist and stolen from a museum in Ethiopia. Most of the great works of art are African in origin and stolen by white people. This is done to promote the myth of white cultural superiority.” Another one: “It is a proven fact that U.S. Coast Guard ships – on orders from President Bush – were seen crashing into the New Orleans levees during Hurricane Katrina. Bush did it to kill black people living in government housing projects.”

Adams presents this as funny, but I don’t think it is.

Kamau KambonDr. Kamau Kambon, former North Carolina State visiting professor of African Studies, told a forum at Howard University that: “We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. (…) I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. (…) The problem on the planet is white people.”

Kambon may be an extreme example, but he is the product of a disturbing climate where accusing whites of the most insane things has become socially acceptable, even encouraged.

Kenyan ecologist Wangari Maathai, winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize, has reiterated her claim that the AIDS virus was invented in some laboratory in the West as “a biological weapon aimed at wiping out the black race.” Would anybody get the Nobel Peace Prize if they were white and stated that black people are trying to exterminate all whites?

I understand that there are grudges from the colonial era, but not all of Africa’s problems can forever be blamed on Western colonialism. The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. It mainly promotes huge bureaucracies, corruption and complacency, while Africans are taught to be beggars, not independent. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice, according to him.

White GuiltShelby Steele is the author of the book White Guilt. According to him, “White guilt effects everything having to do with race in America. (…) White guilt is what made collective responsibility a source of liberal power in America. And it remains a source of power regardless of who or what is cast as a victim — blacks, the environment, gays, illegal immigrants.”

As Allen G. King, an employment defense attorney put it: “I just have to leave you to your own devices, and because you are a white male,” you will discriminate. In other words: You don’t necessarily have to do anything; you’re a racist simply because you’re white and breathe.

René Descartes, French philosopher and one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution, or a Dead White Male as Western students now learn, is famous for his statement Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. Apparently, if Mr. Descartes has been alive today, he’d have to rephrase that to “I’m guilty, therefore I am.”

All Western nations, at least for a while longer, have white majorities. As long as anything white people do is considered “racism,” the West has no chance of closing down Muslim immigration. Until the “anti-Whitey” movement has been discredited, we can thus never win the fight against Islam.

According to Muslim reformist Bassam Tibi, “Accusing somebody of racism is a very effective weapon in Germany. Islamists know this: As soon as you accuse someone of demonizing Islam, then the European side backs down.” In other words, merely accusing whites of racism is enough to shut them up.

I heard the Dutch-Somali critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali be told that if she had been white, she would be called a “racist.” Which essentially means that if you’re white, you’re not allowed under any circumstances to stand up for your own culture, far less criticize non-whites. It doesn’t matter whether what you’re saying is actually correct. Whites have thus effectively been disfranchised in matters related to immigration or the preservation of their own countries.

We cannot defend the West against Muslim immigration unless we defeat Political Correctness. And we cannot defeat Political Correctness until we have utterly demolished the ideas that all whites are racists if they defend their culture or desire self-determination, or that non-whites are only victims of racism.

Traditional Norwegian costumeIf you ask people how native Norwegians are supposed to keep our culture when we may soon be a minority in our own country, many reply that “there is no such thing as Norwegian culture”. We eat Italian pasta and Chinese food and are otherwise “Americanized.” So, everybody is supposed to keep their culture, except people of European origins? All cultures are equal, but some are more equal than others? Why is colonialism always bad, but not when my country, which has no colonial history, gets colonized by Third World immigrants?

Isn’t it by definition an encroachment on the rights of the native population if they have to subdue their cultural identity to please people who just moved there out of their own, free will? In Norway, our authorities seem to solve this dilemma by simply stating that this is a terra nullis, a land without people or at least a land without culture. The rights of the Norwegian people don’t count because the Norwegian people don’t exist.

We shouldn’t idealize mass-immigration too much. When one group of people move into a territory where another group of people already live, this has usually throughout human history ended in war. Either the newcomers will be expelled, or they will subdue or wipe out the previous inhabitants, or the groups will divide the country between them.

I see little reason to expect any different result where the indigenous population happens to be white. In fact, it is perhaps even more likely, given the fact that we belong to the racial group that has been dominant in world affairs for centuries and that quite a few non-whites hate us because of this. Add to this the fact that a good deal of the immigrants are Muslims, who usually persecute the non-Muslims regardless of race, and by far the most likely future for my children or grandchildren if the current immigration continues is a choice between fighting for their lives or leaving what used to be their country behind as refugees.

Exactly why am I obliged to accept this? Dispossession, while being muzzled by our own leaders and media, doesn’t feel very tolerant to me. In Norway in 2001, a colored teenager called Benjamin Hermansen was killed by two neo-Nazis. The murder triggered one of the largest protest marches since WW2, led by the Crown Prince and the Prime Minister, and schools across the country marked the funeral with one minute of silence.

Later in 2001, the Oslo police released statistics showing that the number of rape charges in the city was rapidly increasing, and that the majority of these cases were with a white victim and a non-Western perpetrator. These numbers were quickly buried. Moreover, in the area of Oslo where Hermansen lived, Holmlia, white Norwegians are quietly leaving due to harassment from immigrants. Hermansen’s murder received so much attention precisely because it was so rare. Muggings, rapes, and stabbings of whites by non-whites, however, happen on a regular basis.

All over Western Europe, and indeed over much of the Western world, there are now areas where it is dangerous for white people to live. This never triggers any outrage. On the contrary, it triggers accusations of racism if the white population resist continued mass immigration, despite the fact that we have accepted more immigration in a shorter period of time than probably any people has done peacefully in history.

Swedish radical feminist Joanna Rytel wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,” for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, stating things such as “no white men, please… I just puke on them.” After receiving a complaint because of this, Swedish state prosecutor Göran Lambertz explained why this didn’t qualify as racism:

“The purpose behind the law against incitement of ethnic hatred was to ensure legal protection for minority groups of different compositions and followers of different religions. Cases where people express themselves in a critical or derogatory way about men of ethnic Swedish background were not intended to be included in this law.”

Mosque in MalmöIt certainly isn’t because racism against the white population doesn’t exist. The wave of robberies the city of Malmö has witnessed during this past years is part of a “war against Swedes.” This is the explanation given by robbers with immigrant background. So why is this never taken seriously by the authorities?

Western proponents of Political Correctness are ideologically close to White Supremacists, since they assign a “special status” to white people that they don’t give to anybody else. It doesn’t make it any more just that this “special status” is negative. The opposite of White Supremacy can perhaps be called the White Worthlessness Syndrome (WWS). Self-hating white Westerners are victims of WWS.

I do not see why I should have to choose between White Supremacy and White Worthlessness. It is one thing to reject the idea that your culture should be forced onto others, it is quite another thing to say that you shouldn’t be allowed to retain your culture even in your own country. The latter is simply a matter of self-preservation, the most basic instinct of all living things down to bacteria level.

I have a right to preserve my culture, too, even though I have blue eyes, and cannot see anything “racist” in not wanting my children to become a persecuted minority in their own country through mass immigration. That you are denounced as a White Supremacist for just stating the obvious shows how deeply entrenched and internalized this anti-white bias has become.


Unknown said...

Saharians: No, but we need a long break from mass immigration to reassert control over our borders, and have a genuine debate about the future of our countries without PeeCee censorship. And we need to start clamping down on anti-white violence and view it for what it is: Racism.


Fjordman, I think it is time for Swedish and Norwegian patriots to set up governments in exile, just like occupied countries did in WWII.

You can't have change without dialogue, and to have a dialogue you need to get everyone's attention. A government in exile would underscore the fact that neither country is no longer in any sense democratic.

It would be interesting to see if the government could be set up in cyberspace, instead of London.

Some advice: Don't attack the monarchy, and don't call for revolutionary changes. What you want to do is start an honest dialogue about what Scandinavians want for their countries. If the majority are content to have their children and grandchildren live under Sharia and hand the country over to third world immigrants, there is not much you can do. Your goal should be to establish a forum where people can send a message to the establishment that it is not racist to want to keep your own country, and that its OK to be proud of your own culture and traditions. What you want to do is bring the discussion into the open and not let the establishment control the debate.

Rob Spear said...

Fjordman, I am not sure that it is democratically possible to have a long break from mass immigration in many parts of the west. The womenfolk, as a block, feel a great need to believe themselves to be "nice", and, as the media continues to tell us, the only way to be nice is to encourage the mass immigration of poor, deprived people from the third world. Unless the large amounts of immigrant-on-white violence are actually publicised, that is already half the vote lost. And that is not including the immigrants that are already there.

Essentially, I don't know about a "war of liberation", but I don't see how western culture can be defended without a major consitutional shakeup.

Subvet said...

Interesting article, very thought provoking. It brings to mind a conversation my wife and I had when I moved to Texas to marry her several years ago.

She is quite a bit younger than I, therefore more in tune with the current enviornment in our public school systems. Anyway, in this conversation she related that while growing up she always wished she'd been of Hispanic or Black descent. Seems the emphasis on historic positive achievements was always given to those of a non-white background. For that reason there were zero white role models cited at any time. Not George Washington, not Abraham Lincoln, etc. At one point she (and her white classmates) were told by a black teacher they were racists by virtue of their being white. The teacher was removed after another student complained. Still, this sort of thing is happening in Texas, not one of our supposedly liberal states. Wonder what it's like elsewhere?

She's thirty-one now, college educated and highly Christian in her outlook. By "Christian" I mean forgiving, charitable, caring and trusting. Ask her and she'll own up to a resentment for the enviornment she was raised in.

So I wonder what kind of undercurrent is being generated among the white members of our society in general? And at what point it will erupt upon the national scene?

Vanishing American said...

First, thanks, Fjordman, for saying things that need to be said.
All of the Western countries (historically majority white) are under assault in the same way. Many people in America deny the seriousness of our situation here by saying that our invasion from Latin America is not so bad, because 'at least they're not Muslim', 'they're good Christians,' etc. But I think many Americans are in denial; we are under threat here too.
Our cultures in the West have become so feminized; as an earlier comment (by rob spear) said, many women feel the need to be 'nice' and accepting of all. We are reluctant even to hurt people's 'feeling' with un-PC words; how can we begin to have a dialogue? The other side would have nothing to contribute to a dialogue except cries of 'racism! xenophobia!' I don't know what it will take to change this situation; maybe things have to get a lot worse before they turn around. Europe seems to be edging closer to a crisis; it may come later in America, but we are all in the same boat, for the same reasons. The Third World people envy and hate us, and our 'niceness' and devotion to PC have only earned us more contempt.

Eleanor © said...

Fjordman-Thank you for pointing out what needs to be said. I will pass this on.

Beach Girl said...

Two things: (after thanks for the post)

1) several years ago I heard a man on talk radio say that the major "problem" for white folks in America was that they didn't have a group consciousness - ie, no NAAWP. We tend to see ourselves as individuals under the law and do not tend to attack the law in groups, thus giving up our individuality.

2) several years back I worked at an essentially all-black university founded by the dreaded white folks (go to the board room and all you see are the pictures of "dead white folks"). After a faculty meeting one day, one of the black professors in the department took me aside and said, "We aren't going to discriminate against you because you are white." I was nearly rolling in the corridor at the thought - someone not white would be prejudiced. Of course, I know/knew anti-white racism is vile and active - but it was just really funny to hear that she was concerned that I would have thought anyone would discriminate against me. In truth, I never gave it a thought. I do now.

But one other thing - there is also violent anti-women hatred going on in our hip-hop world and it is not being attacked by the black families. Why do they allow their young girls to be so poorly treated? Why aren't black communities outraged at the illegal immigration, etc. which will and is resulting in the loss of entry level jobs they and white youth have depended upon for a long time?

Political correctness is censorship by any name.

One request - if possible - sounds silly. Islamophobia just sort of rolls off the tongue. Caucasophobia is a little more difficult. Since Caucasian is a race, I think including many nationalities, is there a shorter "name" for the phobia? Don't be smart. I'm looking for a new "coined" word here. Like WASPophobia! Sorry, should control myself and leave the thinking to greater minds.

God bless you all!

X said...

Beach girl, how about "blancophobia"?

Pastorius said...


I think yours is an idea whose time has come.

I have posted on it over at the Infidel Bloggers Alliance. I don't know the html code to create a link. So just go to:

and scroll down. You'll find it.

eatyourbeans said...

Fjordman: About f-ing time somebody said it. We will lose until we love ourselves again. The enemy will chose to label this hatred. This is an old cracked record, which needs to be broken over our knees for once and for all. Lately, I've noticed a tone of militancy on this site. Good. Good.

Simon de Montfort said...

I agree with Saharians, with all the attendant consequences: Whites in North America and Europe ( with 'Pacific Rim' Asians as probably-reluctant allies ) are already at war with a virulently ugly and vile enemy: an evil " tripartite axis" of Islamic fascism ( anti-Christian ), African-Hispanic-Middle East rascism ( anti-White ) and radicalized white leftists ( anti-conservative as well as all of the above )

Losing this war will result in millions of white people being killed and, incedently, the destruction of Western civilization. So, if any of you white folks out there want to stay alive and have a future for your children--and continue to enjoy incendentals like freedom and liberty and limited government--know your enemy and start taking steps to defeat your enemy.

If you don't, bad people who hate you will kill you. Alles klar?

Darrin Hodges said...

We have similar issue's in Australia. Im a member of the Australia First Party, which is usually described as a 'racist,extremist' organisation. All we are doing is defending the native white population, it's heritage and it's future, we face the threat of Asianisation, Islam is a secondary threat to us. I'm routinely denouced as a neo-nazi, white supremacist and KKK member for daring to suggest that our culture and heritage is as valid as anybody else's, along with the fact that we advocate that Australia should remain a majority white european country, nobody has given me a convincing reason why Australia should not remain so.

Our heritage is being undermined and nobody says anything, being under the pressure of white guilt. The famous 'Captain Cook Landing Place' was renamed to 'Meeting Place Precinct' to appease the Aboriginal minority, it is simply a way of disenfranchising white Australians from their cultural roots, to create empty vessels into which the cultural marxists and pour their own brand of hate.

On the subject of marxists, the left are literally doing logical loop-de-loops in order to meld together contradictory ideas. A prominent feminist author wrote that it is ok for minority cultures to oppress their women, providing the woman has an exit, to me it's like saying if only the nazi's had build emercency exits in their gas chambers, things would have been ok, utter madness!.

Vol-in-Law said...

Europeans (in any Euro-culture country) are used to seeing themselves as the dominant ethnicity or race, the default. This view is even stronger on the left than the right. It made sens/we are going to need to get used to seeing Europeans as just one culture amongst many - a bit of humility is warranted, but that doesn't mean denigrating European culture. Quite the reverse. A Chinese student said to me, in London, words to this effect:

"You have created a great civilisation here. Too bad it won't last."

To the Chinese, we are on our way out, corroded by cultural Marxism and uncontrolled immigration.
Personally, I think our cultures will have to change, but need not necessarily be destroyed, if we can adjust our viewpoint in time. And the survival of western civilisation is a worthy goal, whether you are white or non-white, whether you live in Dusseldorf or Delhi*. We've brought a lot to the world - some bad, much of it good. Our passing would be a huge loss to the human race.

*Incidentally, India was anti-US during the Cold War, since USA backed Pakistan. The reason India is pro-US now is that India sees the US as opposing a global Islamic threat which also threatens India. India is very similar to the USA, a huge, diverse country of many races and cultures with a common, if ill-defined, core belief system (in USA it's Christian & patriotic, in India it's Hindu & patriotic). If Pakistan goes fully jihadist India will become the US's most valuable ally.
I reckon that if USA is to survive as its power diminishes it will need to come see itself in terms similar to India - a powerful nation, but one among many. It will need alliances and to work for stability against the forces of chaos that seek to destroy everything.

Unknown said...

Vol-in-Law: To the Chinese, we are on our way out, corroded by cultural Marxism and uncontrolled immigration.

And they could well be right. Personally, I think we have already lost the fight for continued Western world leadership before we even knew it had started. The fight for continued Western existence is about to begin. We haven't lost that one yet, but we need to change or ways, and soon, or we could end up as the late Roman Empire, overrun by the barbarians.

Maybe this is indeed the Chinese Century:

The Retreat of the Western World Order

3. The Asian/Chinese century

The world will return to the Asia-centric system we had before the rise of Europe and the West. Multiculturalism and uncontrolled mass-immigration destroy the internal cohesion of the decadent West, which will slowly fall apart as it has lost the will to defend itself and the belief in its own culture.

The wars in the Balkans in the 1990s will in hindsight be seen as a prelude to the Multicultural World War. Just as Imperialism caused WW1, Fascism WW2 and Communism the Cold War, Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration will drag the West into a war with the Islamic world. Instead of a Westernization of the Balkans, we get a Balkanization of the West.

Will this be a world dominated by China, or by Asia as a whole, including India? Perhaps India and Southeast Asia will be bogged down by instability caused by Muslims. The Chinese will watch from the sidelines, quietly playing both sides against the middle as the West and the Islamic world destroy each other. In the end, China will reign supreme as the last man standing.

Mission Impossible said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

Mission Impossible --

I had to delete your comment because it violated the PG-13 limits we set here at Gates of Vienna.

Here's a slightly redacted version:

Mission Impossible said…

Another good article, that hits the target, Fjordman. Thank you.

saharians mentioned Indiscriminate multiculturalism. I think that is a very excellent and concise term to describe what has been our greatest cultural mistake.

But I disagree with vol-in-law, when he writes: The reason India is pro-US now is that India sees the US as opposing a global Islamic threat which also threatens India.

Look ... Islam has been "threatening" India since the 8th century, so nothing new there. No, on the contrary, India is "pro-US" only because it profits handsomely from being so. For over 10 years, it has been taking the US workforce to the cleaners. The Indian elite are dripping in cash thanks to American largesse in handing over millions of jobs and whole business operations to Indian companies. If that isn't grounds to be pro-US then I don't know what is. Personally, I wouldn't trust an Indian as far as I could throw a Humvee.

Indiscriminate Multiculturalism is an American creation, which was then exported to most other western nations. Even Australia caught the bug until it woke up to reality, and acted to reduce their reliance upon it. America has been the most foolish and arrogant nation the world has ever seen. Why? Because it got an empire for free (with minimal effort) from the British, following World War II, and it profited handsomely from the war. Out of all the western nations in 1945, it was only America's industry that was still intact. It also benefitted from giving refuge to talents that had escaped naziism and/or communism during the 1930's and 40s, thus giving it a temporary technological edge. This is why you then found you had a communist insurgency of your own, which McCarthy tried (in his inimical way) to clean up.

If we exclude peripheral issues such as the Race Riots and Vietnam, then we can see that between 1945 and 1970, life for nearly all American's was unusually carefree and secure. In this atmosphere of material excess and moral laxity, America forgot that it was now the nation responsible for defending Western Civilization, its culture, and traditions. Feminist theologians helped to shape a new mindset, which gave rise to the Dead White Males hostility, that Fjordman has so rightly pointed to. Radical Feminism entered Britain in 1972 (or thereabouts) when the Hearst Corporation launched their Cosmopolitan Magazine (for British women) in London. Its content was very radical and it soon changed the English Rose into a bitch, par excellance.

Part of this new theology was to denigrate white men ... we had (allegedly) been responsible for Empires, for treading on the Black Man, for looking down our noses at Asians, et al. Apparently, all we did for nigh on 400 years was rape, pillage and plunder. It is surely strange how the British managed to build one of the World's largest and finest rail networks in sub-tropical India, whilst busying themselves raping, pillaging, and plundering!!?*!

Sympathy for the Black Man has formed a significant part of this process, because throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, the newly feminist women were being encouraged, by an increasingly radical media, to f*** only blacks. So powerful was this urge to copulate with Black men that some white women would go out at night, wearing black armbands to indicate they had no interest in their white contemporaries. If you are tempted to regard this as a form of insanity, then I would be sympathetic to you.

This was the first phase in the undermining of the white man, and thus of white civilization. Of course, one could delve more deeply, and see that our decline began during the Jazz Era, in the USA, which is what prompted (in disgust) our Egyptian friend to create the Islamic Brotherhood. For the Arab despises the idea of Black men impregnating their women even more than we once did.

The Japanese liked to quip that the problem with America was the Black man. I think that is a rather unfair and inaccurate caracature, as the problem is not so much Black men, as Black street (ghetto) culture. That has done more to dumb down white American's than even your average Marxist teacher.

Then, in the wash of all this radical sexual and cultural behaviour came changes to America's immigration policy. Instead of restricting immigration to Europeans and to people who might have some skills to offer American society, someone (your leftist State Department?) had the bright idea of opening America's doors to the poor and destitute of the world ... I mean ... the whole world. Yep, arrogant America was going to right every wrong, exalt the God's of Compassion, and offer the chance of a new life to every third world citizen. And to make sure they had enough extra's to make all those MTV movies more colourful than a garden in spring, you became intent on turning every American city and major town into a mini representation of your perverted ideals: a veritable United Nations in every neighbourhood.

You considered this to be a moral imperative, and even got some hair-brained economists to dream up a theory that an economy can only be vibrant if you have thousands of representatives of every race on earth, competing for every job.. Well, at least every job not owned by those peddling these rainbow political ideologies.

As the Mexicans have recently demonstrated, they may be illegal immigrants but they have rights! They can demand that you offer them work, shelter, or an amnesty. And if you refuse? Well, they can threaten trouble, violence, and even more of them. After all, the biggest industry in the American sponsored Third World has been the production of babies.

And what does America do in response? Well, it leaves the leftist State Department untouched, to carry on its mad, Gramscian policies. And to pander to their desires, two female Secretaries of State have been appointed in the past 20 years. That, my friends, is two too many.

With all due respect to the ladies visiting the Gates of Vienna, not to mention Dymphna herself, one may be somewhere near the truth when one states the biggest danger to the continuation of Western Civilization is the American Woman. She is out of control, understands nothing outside of her own community, cares little of anything that fails to pander to her own volatile emotions, is arrogant and demanding to the extreme, and is directly responsible for some of the most insanely liberal policies yet concocted in western polity. American female ideologues have enjoyed far too much influence over both American domestic policy and international strategy. It is they who cannot stand the body bags; it is they who endlessly preach compassion when a strong fist is needed; it is they who are the rabid promoters of the vapid and destructive gender politics that has almost paralysed American democracy, not to mention its legal system.

We Brits used to say American women were particularly good at "giving head" because they needed to find (learn) a way of restoring harmony after giving their menfolk hell for the rest of the day. Linda Lovelace could only have been an American woman! Well, its about time you American men stopped this wimpish response to your overly-strong women, and got a grip of the situation, because on present trends, Chinese historians will be holding you responsible for trashing Western Civilization within the short span of 60 years; after the British managed to hold, develop and nurture it for almost 500 years into the greatest source for good the world has ever seen, only to be embezzled into handing it over to you. Some achievement, huh?

I accept I have written some stark generalities in the above paragraphs, yet I am not (even if you refuse to accept I am not) anti-American. But, I do expect many will see more than a kernal of truth in them. This decline in Western fortunes has happened on America's watch: of that there can be no doubt. The responsibility therefore lies upon you to put your own house in order first. It is time to take the Nancy Pelosi's and Hillary Clinton's of this world right out of the western political arena before we are all taken to hell in a handcart, waving Gay Liberation, Women's Rights, Pro-Abortion, and Anti-Racist placards as we go.

Mission Impossible said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

While Fjordman does have valid and important points, I am somewhat reluctant to accept the term Caucasophobia, simply because I don't see how the phenomenon it is supposed to describe has anything to do with phobia. Because if it has nothing to do with phobia, then it shouldn't be called phobia.

It seems Fjordman realizes this himself, though:

I see two potential objections to this term. One is that negative feelings towards whites are less a matter of fear than of hatred and contempt, which is partly true.

Then again, Caucasophobia is probably too awkward to both spell and pronounce to be put into general usage, which, given the objections to the term, might actually be a good thing.

Unknown said...

Then again, Caucasophobia is probably too awkward to both spell and pronounce to be put into general usage

Well, why don't you come up with a better term, then? I'm all ears if somebody can find something better. Until then, I'll stick to this one.

Mission Impossible said...

Yes, Baron, your redaction amounts to the removal of just three letters and their replacement by asterisks in the four word f*** (found in the 8th para) ... which is a correct action. Clearly, I overlooked this in my enthusiasm to make a strong point. Otherwise, my 10/25/2006 8:17 AM post (re-posted at 10/25/2006 8:29 AM) appears to read exactly how I originally posted it. I am unable to identify any other changes, nor any omissions. An important clarification me thinks, as I wouldn't want readers to think you'd done a major re-hash when none has occurred.
Thanks and regards.

Vol-in-Law said...

"Look ... Islam has been "threatening" India since the 8th century, so nothing new there. No, on the contrary, India is "pro-US" only because it profits handsomely from being so"

Um, it's the US that has changed (in India's eyes) not India! India has always resisted Islamification, indeed is an almost uniquely resilient culture. But now from the Indian POV, Islam is attacking the USA, that means the USA is now India's natural ally. After all, the USA would have to be insane not to defend itself, eh? "My enemy's enemy is my friend" - I think India is just waiting for the USA to realise that Pakistan is a mutual enemy of them both, and start bombing. Now, personally I think India may have a long wait, but I can see their POV.

Indigo Red said...

I am not averse to people of other skin colors coming to my country (USA, in particular). The concern I have is the loss of the Western Culture and Heritage. The philosophy of the West is far more valuable to me than the color of skin.

To many American Blacks, Condi Rice is white. To many American Whites, Ice Cube is Black. And no one knows what the hell Michael Jackson is!

Mexicans are Latin, but Italians are not. Latin Americans are not Latin, but Hispanic; the Spanish, however, are not. The English are Anglos and Angles are only German. Germans are Franks. The French are Francs and Francs are weenies.

Might I suggest:
miso- hate
occicdent - countries of Western Europe and America

Misoccident - one who hates the west; misoccidentalist; misoccidentalize; misoccidentalization.

Mission Impossible said...

Indigo red ... of course, your distinctions are correct. For example, a black (negro) community has existed in Britain since the 1600s if memory serves me well. I could do nothing else but consider their decendants ethnically British, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to bar all further immigrant arrivals from Africa.

It is indeed all a matter of culture, but at the same time, a blanket moratorium (lasting 7 years minimum) must be placed upon immigration into Europe from outside of Europe, and upon immigration into the USA from all basket-case countries (which means the vast majority). Putting it another way, all nationals from non-OECD countries need to be barred entry for settlement and employment until further notice.

That way, the dust can be allowed to settle, and meanwhile we can work out what to do with the millions of illegals we have absorbed during these past 15 years of leftist (Hillary Clinton-esque and Nancy Pelosi-esque) insanity.

As for names (what you wish to call this or that) remember, you can call an Orange a Potato if you want, but it will still taste the same.

vol-in-law ... I see what you are trying to say, but I fear you still have one foot firmly placed in an alter-Universe. Indians are past masters at profiting from others' misfortunes. You may think there's a love fest going on between India and the USA, but I could point out they have also been sending many diplomatic delegations to all those countries (except South Korea) America would regard as proto-enemies of the West. India is re-arming itself to the teeth with modern Russian weaponry, for example.

Um, it's the US that has changed (in India's eyes) not India!

No, it is India that has changed most my friend. Ever since they opened up their closed, Stalinist economy in 1992. In fact, the present Indian Prime Minister was the original architect of this change, when he was Finance Minister. The India of today is unrecognizable compared to the India of the late 1980s; not so for the USA.

Pakistan has been feted as an ally of the USA since the 1950s. So, maybe you can solve that riddle in your next posting.

Mission Impossible said...

flawed skull ... I suppose, given your moniker, that I should begin by commenting about the significant flaws inside your own skull.

I have had this kind of flamed reaction before from Indians pretending to have a balanced view of history. I'll let you into a little secret ... you are too "full of yourselves," nationalistic to the extreme, and a nation of loud mouthed, excitable braggards. I have yet to consistently find any other race of people who can place their hands on their hearts and say "I like India and Indians." I can assure you, I have travelled far and wide, and it is you people who are disliked, east, west, north, and south.

In truth, your shameful broadside of profanities, which you have just posted, hides an acute nervousness about the deep seated fear you and your overly wealthy elite harbour; namely a fear that more and more westerners are going to find out all about your secret economic strategies and machinations.

You are a race of cheating liars, who have been subsidized by more western aid and largesse than even the poorest parts of Africa. You race to boastfully place satellites into space, whilst you still have some of the worst illiteracy rates the world has ever seen (far worse than all African nations today). Frankly, you should be ashamed to boast about anything Indian.

India invented the zero? Yep, that sums it up nicely ... absolutely zero.

The history of the British in India is the most obscenely distorted historical account in existence, and that is largely the result of you Indians having a massive chip on your shoulders. You cannot even accept the Aryan immigration theory because that might upset your false belief that a European race of peoples had nothing to do with your earliest cultures. You have an international reputation for that big chip, and someday, somebody is going to knock it right off and then slap you collectively, right across your big mouths.

If the British were so evil in India, then why didn't a host of other British imperial possessions suffer similarly?? Why did the British only do consistently bad things (allegedly) in the Indian subcontinent? What about Malaysia? Oh, yes, and please spare me the Opium Trade business in China. I already know all about the reasons for that. You should thank your lucky stars the British defeated the French at Plassey, as Lord knows what state you'd be in now, had the French come to dominate the sub-continent. You'd probably still be insisting your women perform Suti (a despicable practise of self immolation that only the British had the guts to put a stop to). I undertand that female infanticide is rampant across India right now (thanks to MRI scans during pregnancy) which is why very girls are being born in India these days.

The reasons your account of your own ragged history is so biased and distorted --- for example your grossly exaggerated claim Hindu Marathas and Rajputs had already RECONQUERED 76% of the Indian subcontinent (are you sure it wasn't only 74.25%?) nonsense --- is because it is simply an artificial creation, predicated in part, on the profound influence leftist theology enjoyed over guiding the Indian independence movement since its inception.

Later, American agitators also piled in to help the re-writing of Indian and British Imperial history because they resented not having free access to international markets controlled by administrators of the British Empire (perhaps that is why you have a uniquely soft spot for America?). Let us not overlook Bengal (the home of the ubiquitous Indian author), which has been Communist for decades, right? Yes, I am fully aware Nehru was a Fabian; he was also a bit of a homosexual on the side too. Nehru (and your insane birthrate, which you still cannot control) screwed up your country, not the British. Get over it dude, grow up, and shut up.

You Indians are the most ungrateful and arrogant race I have met in 25 years of international travel. You are pro-American only because you have convinced yourselves, via endless mythology, that you are destined for greatness. Only a nation living in cloud cuckoo land could have feted Bill & Hillary Clinton the way India did back in 2000. Hell will freeze over before India ever achieves greatness; unless, that is, American naivette decides they want to export all of their industry and commerce for Indians to do on the cheap. Great for the shareholders and those working in New York, no?

Yes indeed, India and Indians have surely calculatedly and cynically stolen jobs from the West, and one day you will all be made to pay for it. I can't decide who I detest more ... Saudis or Indians.

As for the self-serving anti-Islamic alliance promise, what useful and dependable assistance is India ever going to provide? You did your best to stab Britain in the back by inviting the Japanese to invade your country during WW-II. I remember Mr. Bose and his antics very well.


Attention Administrator:

Regarding the multiple profanities contained in flawed skulls post of 10/27/2006 1:01 AM.

My post of 10/25/2006 8:17 AM was deleted by you because it had just one single reference to a four letter word, which was then edited to read f***. Furthermore, my unfortunate use of that four letter word was not directed at anyone.

I trust you will see the contrast in their (mis-)use since. I am not sure flawed skull's post has met PG-18, let alone PG-13.

There again, you can leave it posted, so your readers can have a truer impression of the Indian mentality. I think we have been too readily impressed by their cheery and friendly smiles. Smiles can hide a lot of things, including the truth.

Vol-in-Law said...

flawed skull:
"Indians are on your side (not talking bout the government necessarily and your most genuine friends if you choose to accept the hand, do so, but spare the patronization if you choose not to."

Leaving aside the animosity above, I think this is an important point. America is eventually going to have to get used to the idea of dealing with India (and China) as equals, not as passive objects to be acted upon.

As for colonialism, well I guess the British occupation of India was not particularly brutal (by world & historical standards - bad things did happen), but I agree with something Theodore Dalrymple said:

"The good that (Imperalism) did was passing, the harm lasting."

He was talking particularly about post-colonial Africa, the world's biggest disaster zone, but to a significant extent it's still true of India. India is a democracy and even has more or less the rule of law; so it is one of the most successful post-colonial nations, but it was still left with a terrible legacy of western Marxism that infects the ruling classes and has done much to impede India's growth and development.

Unknown said...

Please save this discussion for later. I had no intention of attacking India when I wrote this post. I have no particular interest in attacking somebody else's culture, I'm mainly interested in the right to keep my own.

Mission Impossible said...

flawed skull ... you can rant, rave, and accuse as much as you want. In fact, I recommend you continue. All it does is reveal to a wider audience, the true nature and attitude of your typical Indian.

If I am indeed way over my head, then I don't see how you are the one to prove it. The fact that you had to write that statement surely underlines your smug arrogance. There is no point continuing with you beyond this post, as all you are going to do is respond with another bunch of wild accusations. I often wonder how you people can sleep at night, with that nasty serpent moving around so much in your guts.

You also failed to properly address any of the detailed points I listed in my last post, simply because you cannot afford to do so. Truth can hurt, huh? Especially when you've enjoyed 10 years or more of ignorant Westerners swallowing whole, your grandiloquent mythological fantasies.

You say India waved off international aid offers following the 2004 Tsunami. Yes, that is correct, but let us examine some of the reasons. Firstly, India was not the worst hit; more deserving nations were Indonesia and Sri Lanka (although it was notable Indians cried and waled by far the loudest for the camera). Secondly, the Indian government would have been embarrassed to take even more aid monies from gullible westerners as several Indian business dynasties had (near that time) been looking to purchase foreign companies for cash, and Indian pundits had already printed about half an Amazon's worth of paper claiming the 21st was going to be India's century. Thirdly, foreigners had already donated to your Gujarat Earthquake Appeal only to find a large proportion of it had been stolen by unscrupulous middle-men. The official explanation was: "unaccounted for." These are the real (political) reasons why Aid was refused; it was not due to any high-minded or authentically noble sentiment expressed by India's spokesmen.

Me racist? Why is that? Because I refuse to accept at face value what you and your ilk say, and claim about Indian history? Your tongues are far too slippery to trust. I only make my judgements on behaviour and actions, and I have seen enough. I have worked and travelled in your country, north and south, so please spare me the assumptions that I am making this up out of malice or sheer prejudice. I will admit though that your women, when they are not being killed in the womb before they even have a chance to grow into magnificent females, are by far the most desirable to take to bed.

Your language on this blog has also been offensive, in a personal sense, and you have thus lost credibility due to your cheap attitudes. Indians have a habit of lecturing others about behaviour. I suppose it's your Gandhi-esqe sense of grandour that makes you think you are the self-proclaimed conscience of this world.

You can bend the truth, and you can re-write history as much as you want, but one day, that kind of dishonesty is bound to come back to bite you, and if I have my way, that bite is only going to get bigger as the years role on. There are a few scores yet to be settled, and they will be.

vol-in-law ... excuse me, the British did not "occupy" India. Please don't use loaded words so carelessly. We administered and profitted from the place. How can a nation of fewer than 30 million occupy a sub-continent? The French and Portuguese maintained colonies within India for as long, if not longer than the British. It was the Muslims who occupied (and destroyed) India my friend. You are making the same silly mistake about India, as you probably would when asked about the origins of slavery. Again, it was the Arabs, Ottoman Turks, and Islam who created, established, and profited most from slavery in Africa. Therefore, western apologists are taking responsibility for errors made in the first instance by others. It is very dangerous to be glib, unless you are prepared to return and correct your error. And finally, colonialism in Africa was given a bad name by Belgium and its King Leopold. Their crass and brutal mishandling of the Congo has distorted everyone's perception of the good done elsewhere in Africa by some other European powers, including Britain. If you don't believe me, then go there and ask Africans directly. Regards, MI.

Mission Impossible said...

Dearest Fjordman ... the British people (and their history) have been under systematic and cynical attack far longer than Norwegians, Americans, and any other westerners. So, you'll have to forgive (and properly understand) my desire to pick up my mace & shield and defend my people and their proud legacy. I realize it has all been slightly off topic, but I only originally mentioned India in passing, in the first place (scroll up). The kind of robust responses I am known to post on Blogs are the kind of stuff we all should have been prepared to give decades ago ... had more of us done so, we would not find ourselves in the cultural and political mess we are now in. I am very knowledgeable about India and Indian history and am therefore more than willing to sing its praises, but I won't stand for the kind of dishonest attitudes shown by "flawed skull." Best regards, MI.

Vol-in-Law said...

MI wrote:
"vol-in-law ... excuse me, the British did not "occupy" India."

OK, if you think it's a loaded term please substitute "British rule in India" for "British occupation of India".

MI wrote:
"colonialism in Africa was given a bad name by Belgium and its King Leopold. Their crass and brutal mishandling of the Congo has distorted everyone's perception of the good done elsewhere in Africa by some other European powers, including Britain"

I'm not disputing that British rule in Africa had many beneficial aspects, _while it lasted_. It's not surprising if many elderly Africans feel nostalgic for that era. But if you look at Africa now, the colonial legacy looks to me almost wholly negative. I think Africa would have been better off if we Europeans had never had anything to do with the place. That they'd have been even better off without Arab slave-raiding & exploitation doesn't change that.

In fact I think modern western involvement in Africa, albeit now primarily through the NGOs, is still helping to screw the place up further. Ideally we should be buying their exports and otherwise leaving the place alone.

Baron Bodissey said...

Certain commenters here have crossed the bourn from civil and temperate behavior into the unacceptable, and I have been forced to delete the offending comments. I'm too busy to try to bowdlerize them into shape; you all may re-type them in an acceptable fashion.

I also had to disable trackbacks because of the foul language in the titles of some of the linking posts.

This, as I have said ad nauseum, is a PG-13 blog, even when it's a Fjordman post. If things continue to deteriorate, I shall close the comments.

Baron Bodissey said...

Mission Impossible --

I just read your snarky little dig.

I have to sleep sometimes. When I woke up this morning, as soon as I saw all the f-bombs, I took prompt action.

Your comment, even without the cuss words, skated perilously close to my limits about name-calling. Be careful.

The keywords here for discourse are civil and temperate. That doesn't mean you can't have fun, or make naughty references, or argue with one another.

It means that you pretend you're having this conversation in a room with a lot of 8-year-old kids hanging around nearby, and act accordingly.

Personally, I find it a lot more satisfying to direct a well-timed insult at an opponent without ever crossing the line into name-calling or vulgarity. It requires deftness and elegance, and is its own reward.

Pretend you're Oscar Wilde, and skewer your enemy with a rapier of wit and irony...

Mission Impossible said...

Baron, frankly, I don't recognize the "snarky little dig" you are referring to.

I believe I adequately addressed your original *** edit with my 10/25/2006 1:47 PM post. There are no hard feelings, except I was (justifiably) frustrated you failed to state the limits of your redaction, leaving readers free to speculate on the extent of your editing. That was not a particularly polite way of treating my original 10/25/2006 8:17 AM post on this thread as it had the effect of calling into question my whole writing style. I am sure you did not intend to give your site visitors such a misleading impression.

As for your 10/27/2006 10:18 AM advice, I can appreciate what you are saying, but I don't need impromptu lessons on how to express myself politely, particularly when the "teacher" wrongly insinuates the use and presence of vulgarity that was never employed by this author (except in the single rhetorical sense already admitted to earlier).

Baron Bodissey said...

Mission Impossible --

I didn't object to any vulgarity in your comment; I objected to your name-calling. When commenters descend to name-calling and ad-hominem attacks, it kills the thread. Other people are turned off and quit commenting.

Archonix and Zerosumgame have done this more than once with their flame wars.

Flawed Skull --

Blogger doesn't allow blocking, and I wouldn't do it anyway. See my remarks to MI above for an idea of the limits I would like people to abide by. That's all I ask.

PG-13 on language and graphic descriptions. "Civility and temperance" covers the rest of what I'm looking for.

Mission Impossible said...

Aurea mediocritas.

Cui peccare licet peccat minus.

Mission Impossible said...

vol-in-law ...

In fact I think modern western involvement in Africa, albeit now primarily through the NGOs, is still helping to screw the place up further. Ideally we should be buying their exports and otherwise leaving the place alone.

I largely agree with you about the NGO activity. But who's NGOs are they? The United Nations' of course, and they are being administered from Turtle Bay, New York City, the capital city of gay liberalism and white guilt. No wonder we have a problem.

As for buying their exports, the west has been trying to bring Africa into the future since Firestone (USA) set up a 30,000-acre rubber plantation in Liberia in 1926. Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) was until recently, the breadbasket of Africa; now under the mad Marxist Mugabe, many people in Zimbabwe are malnourished, as food production has collapsed and exports have evaporated. Even South Africa (the United Nations' shining star) is losing it ability to feed itself, and to export. All these have occured since the USA sponsored decline of white privilege in Africa, and the naive imposition of America's Constitution upon the Third World by (we know better) Wilsonian apparatchiks in the leftist State Department.

I think Africa would have been better off if we Europeans had never had anything to do with the place.

It sounds like you are another westerner suffering from a serious dose of white guilt. Vol, we could not avoid Africa even if we had tried. Our arrival was inevitable. So, we need to deal with the reality of our proud history and stop flagellating ourselves over what might have been ("might have been" might have been worse!).

Here is some reading matter to broaden your perspectives on this issue:

Guilt, Blame, and Politics, by Allan Levite

White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era, by Shelby Steele

Happy reading.

Mission Impossible said...

Footnote for Baron ...

I'll pretend to be Oscar Wilde, if you pretend to be Gore Vidal in lycra. Fair deal?

I have already explained my reasons for the robust nature of my responses to flawed skull in my short post to Fjordman (see 10/27/2006 5:50 AM).

Apart from my semi-humerous mis-use of his nom-de-plume (my opening line), I think most readers would struggle to identify where I made use of outright "name calling" and "ad hominem" attacks against flawed skull. I barely addressed him directly at all in my two lengthy responses, although I certainly generalized about Indians and India with a dose of hostility. But I have my reasons. You might like to consider the number of American lives that have been ruined by the outsourcing of computer-related work to India, these past 5 years. American graduate programmers have been hit very hard indeed.

In contrast, flawed skull's 10/27/2006 1:01 AM post (which you have since deleted) contained text directed only at me, and which was punctuated by at least four words of outright vulgarity. In his subsequent posts he has continued his unambiguously ad hominem comments, but in truth, that bothers me far less than his dreadful recourse to vulgarity in the first instance.

It appears (at least to me) you have been so determined to apply "fair play" that you have indiscriminately directed the same charges against me, as only actually befit flawed skull. In fact, and for reasons I can only guess, you have made three separate charges against my nature during this thread, in what I can only assume is a calculated slight. Frankly, you should be more wary of criticizing a man's style; criticise his content by all means, but never his style.

Brits and Americans share the same language, yet we often find we are mutually unintelligable. To the average Briton, the nature of normal debate is quite different to that considered normal by the average American. British debate is usually far more robust, and personal. We call it "jousting." To American sensibilities, it tends to read and sound slightly rude, aggressive, and ad hominem. What we would typically consider a healthy exchange of opposing views, would cause the average American to reach for the telephone to call their Lawyer, or the unaverage American to pull out a gun.

Apart from your renowned obsession with litigation, this difference is also reflected in our respective political institutions. The British Parliament, which (as you should know) is the Mother of all Parliaments, is designed to encourage rowdy and passionate debate. This is our time tested way of ensuring a healthy democracy that is free of physical violence and recourse to arms. Hansard, the book that records all British Parliamentary proceedings, is full of great, oratory, and enlightened debate, that inspires the soul. In the American Congress, however, what passes for debate is too often insipid chit-chat, partly because American politics is not about debate, it is about lobby groups, and the Beltway. I do hope, for your sakes, that stronger and healthier debates take place in State legislatures. It is because your democracy fails to debate serious issues properly that your Supreme Court can step in and make landmark changes that completely override your State and Federal legislatures. An amazing state of affairs. This is rule by politized yet legal dictat ... it surely isn't democracy.

Since the British New Labour's close association (in the early 1990s) with America's New Democrats, under the Clintons (remember the New Covenant?) we have witnessed the importation of what we cannot avoid but call "American practises" that have undermined our traditional democratic model and led (within the space of 10 years) to a virtual totalitarian dictatorship, fuelled by politically correct theology.

Another example of insipid American debate, are the exchanges one often sees on Larry King Live, or the so-called "debates" organized by the networked news channels: CNN, Fox, etc. Everybody is so busy being nice, whilst claiming "my idea is better than yours" ... "no its not, my idea is" ... ad infinitum, that nothing of any worth is ever said, and the party who is so blatantly wrong (or nuts) is never exposed. Small wonder key laws take an age (and a lot of behind the scenes dealing) to get passed. Just look at the nonsense surrounding your border fence bill!?!

As a race, Indians are very excitable, and they also appreciate the kind of robust debating exchanges that the British (probably) introduced into their Parliamentary system (the Lok Sabha, or lower house). This would explain flawed skulls' willingness to level attacks against me to score points. I can't blame him too much for that ... after all, I know things that would completely undermine most of our assumptions about modern India. He has a lot at stake, and doesn't want to lose his privileges.

To be frank, this thread had already died before the noisy exchanges started (it was already 4 days old), so I don't buy-in to your argument that a wider discussion has been killed here. In fact, if my observations are correct, then what tends to kill threads is not so much the indiscretions of two mutually antagonistic posters, but rather the speed in which they respond to each other, which tends to elbow out other contributors; in other words it is their dominance of the debating space that is the problem.

Let me make this clear to you BB. I am never interested in Flame Wars. My rule? After two posts I always desist, as I have better things to do. You will see (for example) I announced my intention to cease responding to flawed skull as early as the 2nd para of my 10/27/2006 5:41 AM post. So, I don't appreciate being repeatedly accused (by you) of misdemeanors that are not clear cut, are irregular, and/or even borderline. As I said earlier, I think there is some other issue about my earlier contributions that has bugged (or offended) you, and you have used this thread as a pretext to inflict a small wound. Feel free, it is your blog, but be prepared for an acerbic response as I have a right to self-defense.

I consider your Blog a very important one and will go out of my way to defend it. The rules that apply are your rules, as you are the recognized owner. We are all (most of us) grown ups, and we can quickly self-regulate ourselves and get back to homeostasis after a flare up. We don't (or shouldn't) need patronizing lectures on how to conduct ourselves. All you need to do is state the limits you are prepared to accept before you begin to delete entries. Your application of a PG-13 level is a noble one, and one in which I shall cooperate (as I have already stated) but you should remember, important blogs sometimes highlight issues that engender passionate responses. It might be better (sans all obscenities) to live with the consequences, until they are obviously getting out of hand. In my exchanges with flawed skull, they were not getting out of hand, as I had already posted my regulation two responses.

I trust I have now adequately addressed this episode and explained my position clearly.

Enjoy your weekend and keep up the good work.

Vol-in-Law said...

" Me: I think Africa would have been better off if we Europeans had never had anything to do with the place.

It sounds like you are another westerner suffering from a serious dose of white guilt"

Not really, I'm just trying to be realistic. You wouldn't dispute that the American Indians (Red Indians) and Australian Aborigines would have been better off if we hadn't colonised their lands, would you? But I don't personally feel guilty about it, any more than I feel guilty that my Germanic ancestors destroyed the Roman empire, or that my Celtic ancestors had Saxon slaves, or my Scots-Ulster ancestors took Irish land, etc etc.
I think you can make a reasonable case that the British Empire was beneficial to the British - Scotland & the Scots especially benefitted hugely - and that it benefitted the world through its legacy, but not that the balance sheet was everywhere and entirely positive. Again, I take your point that if we Brits hadn't colonised Africa the French or Germans would have taken our share; if Europe hadn't colonised Africa eventually the Arabs or Chinese would have got there, etc. But I think it's best to avoid a romanticised view that the British Empire was for the benefit of Africa or India, it wasn't. And Africa in particular has been left hugely screwed up by the importation of western ideas like nationalism, Marxism and so on. The pre-colonial tribal societies there might not have come up to our moral standards of Enlightenment liberalism, but they were basically functional. The patchwork of western-style pseudo-nations superimposed on tribal fault lines that is Africa today is far worse.

Mission Impossible said...

Very good points vol.

I can fully accept and agree with those comments. Indeed, Empires can only (ultimately) be forged to satisfy self-interests.

Even if I have mischaracterised you as "being with white guilt," I still hope those Amazon book links (above) open up some new and interesting avenues of thought for you. You might then be in a better position to help someone with a genuine dose, one fine day!

Baron Bodissey said...

MI --

I'll give you the way it looked to me.

Flawed skull used some bad words and called some names.

You called some names, and also made a snarky remark to me because I didn't delete FS's comment right away (I was asleep).

I responded to your snarky remark, and not him, because he wasn't snarky to me.

Both of you called names, but didn't stray over the line into what I consider unacceptable name-calling.

If it hadn't been for his f-bombs, or your remark, I never would have got into the thread at all.

I like a free-for-all of ideas, and I expect the debate to get heavy from time to time. I don't like to intervene unless things get out of hand. You and FS didn't get out of hand.

Now if one you started charging the other with buggery, or called the other a coprophage, that woukd be another matter... ;)

Vol-in-Law said...

That'd be the cultural Marxism, freecyprus. :)

Mission Impossible said...

BB ... charging the other with buggery, or called the other a coprophage

Eh???? What was the point of that??

Either you stick to your previously requested PG-13 ... or you don't.

Baron Bodissey said...

Mission Impossible --

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Those two words are euphemisms, used deliberately and humorously to illustrate how you, a commenter, can circumvent the GoV strictures. It's like spelling sensitive words around a young child.

Both words would easily get into a PG-13 movie, since children (and many adults) would not know their meaning.

Anonymous said...

Bravo to Fjordman whose eyes are becoming WIDE OPEN to the extent of the problem. You've come a long way my friend from the days on your blog.

Bravo to the many of the commenters who have more than an air of militancy to their tone. Saharians and Mission Impossible spring to mind, though there are others.

I continue to grow optimistic with minds and attitudes like many of the people here. Whites will suffer and most likely significant losses, though they will not fade into oblivion that I feared just a few years ago.

Specifically to Beach Girl, though I doubt she will read this given my lateness to this party, it is ILLEGAL for Whites to congegrate AS Whites in many western nations. Even in the US, trying to form a White only group will get one targeted as a Neo-Nazi and terrorist group. The thought police ARE against us.

Fuller said...

For the whites that wrote... I'm a black man, and I have no problem with what Baron Bodissey wrote (aside from the sarcasm)...

You don't celebrate "white history month", but you could celebrate Russian, Italian, Norwegian, German, or French history, culture, etc... Start a movement. Many whites are new to the United States - let their culture be celebrated, too.

Why a generic "black history"? Because I don't have a country of origin outside of American Slavery. I have no idea where I came from aside from knowing I am the descendant American Slaves. I can not find out where I came from – or it would be very difficult if at all possible, because slave records were not always accurate - who owned who, who sold to who? What wasn’t destroyed by the Civil war was probably hidden. Shame, sin, and the obvious evils of human trafficking then and now discourage good records

Thus, "black history month" is away for this country to provide a history to some of its citizens who have none. I am not African American - I am American - sure, I'm a Black American, but I am only an American. I have other blood in me (white, Indian, maybe others), but I am obviously a Black American.

Being prejudice is wrong - white, black, Asian, African, European,... etc – no matter who does it, it is wrong. Our great country has issues with race on both sides. Let's all make sure we as individuals are not prejudice. A good test: do you scream and yell when your children come home to date and marry someone that is not your ethnicity? For me, as long as the person is a responsible and mature young adult (of the opposite gender… we need to specify now days – different topic altogether), I don't care who they marry!


Captain USpace said...

Very interesting and scary, hopefully a wakeup call for Europe. Very infuriating...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe knows
Iran never nuke Europe

if they swear to Allah
or embrace full dhimmi life

Unknown said...

There are no usenetters here, are there? I have been promotoing the following solution formula there for quite a while:

How the west repatriates the strangers

Motivation for the necessity: Our countries and societies are being
gradually destroyed by the massive presence of incompatible strangers
- especially mohammedans.

Definition for the strangers: all those from the third-world
continents Asia (inl turks, jews, gypsies), Africa, Latin America

Potential exceptions: those who are an asset to our societies AND are
adapted (BOTH conditons must be met)


The western countries - Western Europe, North America, Australia/New
Zealand - ally for this purpose in a syndicate which decides and acts

During the action's duration, a state of emergency is imposed.

The territory (= 'non-state') of the Western Sahara is occupied by
military force.

A port, airport and a camp are established.

A transportation flotilla is composed, consisting of e g
decommissioned large US navy vessels.

In our countries, the strangers are being called upon to travel to
the port of departure determined. Those not appearing voluntarily will be
brought there by administrative force. In those areas with a strong
presence of strangers ('kasbahs'), i e where collective resistance is
a probability, the military intervenes.

Local militant supporters of the strangers will be arrested and later
brought to trial for treason.

The floitlla shuttles - accompanied by a military unit - between our
countries and the Western Sahara, until the problem has been solved.

In the Western Sahara, the UN - supervised by western representatives
- will take care of the orderly repatriation of the deported third-
world citizens. India as the gipsies' country of origin provides a

Once the action has been finished, the 'professional jews' as the
situation's authors *) will be held accountable. This includes
payment of the damages caused to our states.

*) see Kevin_B._MacDonald#Jewish_role_in_facilitating_mass_immigration



Laudahns leitsatz:

Der deutsche hang von einem extrem ins andere zu fallen ist folge der
traditionellen 'verbotskultur': Anstatt wichtige gesellschaftliche
temen zu diskutieren, wird die debatte unterbunden. Konsequenz: Die
leute bleiben unreif, und die wichtigen temen brodeln unter der
oberfläche weiter - bis sie explodieren. Und das spiel beginnt unter
anderen vorzeichen von vorn. Dänemark, du hast es besser...

Balder said...

Fjordman's article is great, and it documents that racism from non-white groups towards Caucasians is significantly greater than the other way around, but it does not concern itself much with the question if the automatic condemnation of "real racism" and attaching importance to people's genetic heritage should be debated to begin with.

Similar observations to those made by Fjordman are also being discussed in an article I wrote, but it also goes deeper into the subject of the legitimacy of discrimination, racism and racialism per se. Fjordman debates the term racism as it is being used by the multicult lobby, whereas I discuss it more from the old and literal meaning of the word.

Please read 'Racism and the fight against immigration', I believe it contains arguments that are very useful to have at hand in discussions about race and racism, without having to resort to Nazi philosophy.

I can say that although I presented this article to a number of left wing anti-racists, I have not as perhaps could be expected, been condemned with the usual rethorics about being a Nazi a racist and so on. Apparently this makes some sense to people in general, also to some with definite multicultural viewpoints.

English version: Racism and the fight against immigration

Danish version: Racisme og kampen mod indvandringen

Baked_Alaska said...

How is it that a small ethnic minority STILL controls the banking institutions, the media...Please, while I don't condone racism, I call the shots as I see them. Last I checked whites were just another type of human, no more. Stop demanding privileges that you aren't willing to grant to others! Your amount of racial arrogance is astounding. If you steal something from someone else you give it back before claiming any moral superiority. The Eurocentric establishment has done little to that effect, it continues to shamelessly bleed the rest of the world dry. They fund wars and have a history of destabilizing foreign governments, even those that aren't 'terrorist'. Why? Because if the equally worthy peoples in the 'third world' got their act together and took reigns of their own destiny, that would spell the end of your neocolonialist rule. At a macroscopic level conflicts between immigrant groups fade into the background. There are FAR larger issues at hand, issues that ultimately lie at the heart of widespread social instability. Issues that you would do well to ask your pet white elected representatives about ;)...

Stilicho said...

I would like to find a group in Canada who, like me, think that Moslem immigration here is a dumb idea.

The people who make these policies know a few Muslim profs and their wives or husbands. They don't realize that the culture of many of the Muslims they don't know is quite different than that presented at seminars and cocktail parties by upper-middle class professors and writers.

Anyone here I can get in touch with?

Anonymous said...

This is an excellent article and it articulates very well what a lot of white people are beginning to feel.

There is one small point I think that many people are overlooking. The problems we are experiencing in the west come about because we never won the war on communism. Yes, the Soviet Union crumbled, the Warsaw pact disappeared, but the communists never did. They have been working away, overtly and covertly since the 1920's and 1930's to bring down western civilisation. Part of this was through the use of the Frankfurt School and the Critical Theory.

If you are not aware of what the Critical Theory is, it's a tool, an idea. Criticise something ad nausem. Criticise it the to the extend that it becomes an anathema to society and the feelings of guilt are built up.

We are made to feel bad about colonialism, but colonialism was actually not a bad thing. It brought law and order to most parts of the world. It brought civilised behaviour, modern cities and infrastructure.

Take a look at the countries that Britain colonised and you will see we brought about unity, education, health care, law , order, democracy, improvements in agriculture and farming. We brought peace to most areas we ruled and we swept the seas clean of pirates and slavers. Yet we are taught the empire was a bad thing. We are taught to despise our imperial past. We are taught that we did terrible things for which we must pay eternally for. Yes, some things were done in the name of Empire which were not good by today's standards. (Bombing and gassing the rebels of the North West Frontier by today's standards is something we should frown on but it wasn't then and we shouldn't be ashamed for it. We would simply not do it now).

Some blame for this unfortunately must come from our American brothers as their Presidents such as Wilson and Roosevelt, hated Britain and the empire so much they deliberately set about to destroy it. The American left are the perpetrators of Political correctness which has done some much damage to the cause of national identity and cultural heritage. I could go on...but won't! :)