History is driven by ideas. Ideas are driven by words. And, the engine of a word is its definition.
History is played out in the marketplace of ideas. One idea wins over another because a population of people find the idea to be more attractive. An idea wins out over time when it benefits a preponderence of the population.
When two groups of people argue over an idea, the side which has tighter, stronger definitions of their words and ideas will win.
If we expect to beat back the Jihad, we can not merely stand against Islam, we had better understand what it is we stand for.
The current blog wars have broken out, I suspect, over a series of misunderstandings of terminology. So, let's define our terms.
I believe we stand for our culture. Our culture is defined by a set of ideas upon which we generally agree.
Those on the other side of the Blog War seem to believe the culture we stand for is defined by ethnicity as much as it is by ideas. In fact, many of those on the other side in this blog war seem to believe that Ethnicity is the progenitor of culture.
This runs counter to my experience as an American. America is made up of people of many different ethnicities, and yet we have an idea of what it means to be an American. America has a distinct culture. If it did not, we would not have a problem understanding the idea that there are some immigrants who assimilate into American culture, while others don't.
Those who believe Ethnicity is the progenitor of culture believe that Ethnicity must be protected along with culture, or else the culture will be lost.
This is called Ethnic Nationalism.
I believe the Vlaams Belang is an Ethnic Nationalist Party. Their main priority is to see the Flemish area of Belgium break off from the Walloon (French area). Their objective is that the indigenous Flemish people have a right to self-determination. Such a priority is a hallmark of Ethnic Nationalsim.
However, Vlaams Belang's leader, Filip DeWinter, extends his Ethnic Nationalsim beyond the borders of Flanders to encompass all of Europe. DeWinter has been quoted as saying,
‘Yes, the Vlaams Blok (Flemish Block) chooses our own people first (slogan: Eigen Volk Eerst). And yes, the Vlaams Blok chooses a Flemish Flanders. And yes, the Vlaams Blok chooses a white Europe.’
So, let us look at the definition of Ethnic Nationalism (I look forward to hearing other definitions if you have a differing opinion):
Ethnic nationalism is a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity. Whatever specific ethnicity is involved, ethnic nationalism always includes some element of descent from previous generations. It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group, and with their ancestors, and usually a shared language.
Whereas a purely cultural definition of "the nation" allows people to become members of a nation by cultural assimilation, and a purely linguistic definition seeing "the nation" as all speakers of a specific language would make all those who learned the language members of the nation, the emphasis in the definition of nations (among nationalist movements) since the 19th century has shifted from language, culture, and folklore to a basis in ethnic origin.
The central political tenet of ethnic nationalism is that each ethnic group on earth is entitled to self-determination.
The problem with Ethnic Nationalism, as defined above, is, when it asserts that Europe, for instance, ought to maintain its ethnic heritage, it runs up against the realities of demographics and reproduction. For instance,
1) Europe already has many citizens who are not white.
2) The European citizens who are not white are outbreeding the white citizens, and they are breeding at above replacement rate (therefore, their population is increasing),
3) the white citizens in Europe are NOT breeding at replacement rates (therefore, their population is decreasing),
Therefore, the only way to ensure that Europe remains white is for government to intervene.
I can only see four possible solutions,
1) Europe already has many citizens who are not white.
2) The European citizens who are not white are outbreeding the white citizens, and they are breeding at above replacement rate (therefore, their population is increasing),
3) the white citizens in Europe are NOT breeding at replacement rates (therefore, their population is decreasing),
Therefore, the only way to ensure that Europe remains white is for government to intervene.
I can only see four possible solutions,
1) grant tax-breaks to indigenous population as an incentive to have children, and HOPE that the indigenous population will eclipse the non-indigenous,
2) Enforce a cessation in breeding for all non-indigenous peoples,
3) round up non-indigenous people and ship them out of the country,
4) kill the non-indigenous people.
So, it is my opinion that, since the first method can not be guaranteed to work as it is based on hope, there are really only three choices, and
ALL OF THEM ARE FASCISTIC.
Therefore, I believe that Fascism is the INEVITABLE OUTCOME OF ANY POLICY OF ETHNIC NATIONALISM IN EUROPE TODAY.
42 comments:
G-d bless you, Pastorius. Your heart is pure. Thank you for sticking to your guns.
Gracias, mi amiga.
And, the engine of a word is its definition.
-How can this be? We have had words for thousands of years, but dictionaries only for a few hundred. I think the power of words is in how they are used - often many different ways - depending on their context, a power due to the transcendent *effect* words have on us. The historically johnny-come-lately struggle to define words comes from our experience of their prior usage and effect. And also, we often struggle to find words to describe an experience for which we don't yet have a word.
So, take a word like "pornography", for example. It came about after the experience of pornography already existed. Someone saw somebody trying to represent sex in a way that sustained a desire to consume or enjoy a body, and then said to himself, hmm we need a word for this kind of thing and drew on Greek to find it. The word means, literally, the writing of prostitutes - i.e. the representations of those in the business of sexual desire, not those in the business of representing beauty as something that should resist our base desire to consume.
So, famously, a judge who had to rule whether a certain "artwork" was actually pornographic said, "I don't know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it," or words to that *effect*
"Ethnicity" is like that too. We know it when we see it, but we don't really know what it is. We begin with the experience of people in groups, people bound by some less-than-completely understood mechanism (is it shared culture? ancestry? both, and if so, how much of each? etc. etc.) and in order to transcend, if only momentarily, the confusion of what is being observed in this experience of people in groups, someone coined a new term, "ethnicity", from the Greek for "of a people". From its initial use in social science, a use that must have been somewhat ambiguous since it's clear that people have been struggling both to understand and to expand the use of the term ever since, we today exist in a world where we could observe the word being used in various different ways.
It seems to me it is hopeless to try and limit "ethnicity" to some preferred meaning or use. We should not worship words - such worship is the essence of Gnosticism, as if speaking just the right word at just the right time will have some magical, transformative or unveiling effect on reality. Of course it doesn't quite work that way. The world is changed in events, where language has a role, but alongside much else besides. We should respect the eventful reality that words merely point to.
Of course, we then have to find the words to represent that reality and the way we do this is always something of a mystery (thousands of scholars can spend centuries trying to explain what makes a great writer's choice of words great, but they can never reduce such questions to any basic rule, because language doesn't allow for that. It's the mark of our fundamental freedom. What makes Shakespeare's way of transcending his experience and imagination in words so great, is, to some degree, a never solvable mystery. What makes a word like "ethnicity" more or less popular than "race" or "nation" or "people" or "culture"; or, what influences how these words are to be used in association, and differentiated from each other, is not something that can be reduced to any hard and fast rule. Each user should simply make clear how he is using and differentiating them, or he might embrace ambiguity if this serves his communicational purposes.
The attempt to try to find hard and fast rules regarding language says a lot about one's approach to politics. It is the essence of modern "scientific" liberalism that it puts so much energy into making definitions and then tries to make reality conform to idealized prescriptions in words. It is, I believe, necessary to any politics of freedom today to overcome the modern liberal mindset by paying more attention to the means and *effects* of transcending conflict that we merely suggest in words, and less attention to trying to make reality conform to proper use of language.
What matters about someone calling for a "white Europe" is less what those words must mean (because, in theory, they could mean different things, such as an end to immigration, a restoration of some old national order, white supremacy, white defensiveness, intermarriage, etc. etc.) as the effect they will have on the political scene. I agree with you Pastorius that the effect of such words may well be deleterious today. But if the other guy can make an argument about how his words are actually pointing to a greater conception of freedom for all citizens in Europe who are committed to guaranteeing each other's freedom and fighting Sharia, Jihad, etc., I think he has a right to be heard. But even if he can't do that, he may still be in a position to do some good if he drops his unpopular words, but he can only know this if others engage him.
This runs counter to my experience as an American. America is made up of people of many different ethnicities, and yet we have an idea of what it means to be an American.
Yes, but then what is a hyphenated American, say an Italian-American. Does the "Italian" part refer simply to some supposed racial reality, or rather to a cultural one, or something of both? If Italians are a race, what were they before the creation of the modern Italian state and language, which are rather recent things on the Italian peninsula where regional dialects and cultures were prominent until very recently. In other words, can we create new races from marrying older ones? (It's worth remembering that hyphenated Americans came into vogue at the same time as the word "ethnic".)
those on the other side in this blog war seem to believe that Ethnicity is the progenitor of culture.
-I don't think so. The progenitor of culture is human interaction and events. Ethnicity is not the progenitor of anything. It is a particular way, or system, for representing the lived experience and shared understandings of a people.
Look, most Europeans are race conscious people, not least those who take the official multiculti line. Like it or not, that's the reality we have to work with. Now, you can well argue that people have a responsibility to protect freedom for all by insuring that newcomers are well assimilated into their nation, since a nation divided cannot stand as a free self-ruling nation. That's what I believe. However, by the same token, we have to admit that admitting newcomers must be the democratic choice of a sovereign people.
But what if neither situation pertains? When we have a situation in which an undemocratic elite has been transforming demography in a way the people don't want, in order to divide and conquer the people for whom they have aristocratic contempt, then we have a typical situation of a multicultural empire, of which history has seen many, all of which eventually fall apart under the internal conflicts that the elites have created but can never control forever. Nations, especially those bound by religion and covenants, may survive longer than empires and so it is natural and wise for people to seek their security in the smaller, more coherent, self-ruling, units. Those with hubris and ambition often prefer, however, the short-term opportunities for elitism enjoyed by the rulers of empires.
The present European empire will fall apart, sooner or later. When it does, as with any political collapse, there will be the potential for a lot of violence. There will inevitably be some loss of life. So, it seems to me that no one should talk about what can or should happen in Europe and pretend to be able to do so with clean hands and pure heart. Even if the best that can happen happens, it won't be without some minimum of bloodshed. Those who seek a guarantee of their righteousness - which is what modern white guilt liberalism is all about - may well be missing the point: if not this way, then what can you seriously offer by way of opening up Europe to its future? (I am really confused by those bloggers here who seem to be full of antagonism towards Islam, which is now an established and significant demographic reality in Europe, and yet at the same time talk as if they have an anti-Islam politics which is somehow non-violent, or at least far and away different from that of the race-conscious nationalists. Are they blind to the violent desires evident in their own blogging? And does one really think anti-Islam thought can be separated from racial questions in the European context where Muslims are mostly not white people?)
It seems to me that in trying to figure out the least bad politics for Europe, one will have to return to the idea that self-ruling nations will have to be a part of the equation since these are the key to maximizing democratic freedom. Any such nation can only be the representation of a people who think themselves a common people. Hence, if there is no such common sense today, because of immigration (which is not necessarily the fault of the old nationalists who lost control of their countries), then it will only be found either through atrocious ethnic cleansing, or through a new compromise we can't yet figure. Those of us who are against ethnic cleansing have to work seriously on figuring what that compromise might be.
Inevitably, its seems to me it will have to include the popular constituency - if not the present leaders - of parties like the VB, the largest party among the Flemings. Because there can be no self-ruling nation without such a constituency coming on board. These people need to be shown a way of compromising any pure-minded notions about white Europe in return for setting the stage by which there can become a self-ruling "Flemish" nation, one that assimilates those newcomers who are willing to live in Flemish freedom.
If that popular constituency is truly white supremacist and unwilling to find a workable compromise, then they should be cast aside. But since this would surely entail a far more bloody scene, in the end, than some impure compromise alternative, it can't be any good person's first choice. One has to encourage a necessary constituency to compromise with reality, not turn one's back on it. To do that, you can't turn your back on them and their reality.
But compromise begins with humility and the knowledge that even at our best, we are right only 55% of the time.
On the head pasto, on the head.
CARRY EFFING ON, DUDE.
The first step in any debate is defining the terms.
And, yes, we are engaged in a policy debate.
If definitions are not established, then one cannot more on to a worthy counterplan. Right now, we are engaged in affirmative and negative constructives.
Read more about policy debate
This is probably not helpful, but I'm tossing it in anyway.
The debate is over in my mind.
"THEY" are willing to accept 'white europe' as a metaphor, i.e. cultural history is WHITE so we must defend 'white' values.
That's is absolutely not only NOT what I signed myself up for, it's what I have been against myself.
That SIDE says equal opportunity in culture and life IS multiculturalism.
I say they are racists, and they don't even KNOW IT
I say THAT SIDE is what europe has always been and done, and that is exactly what they propose to KEEP (defending the culture).
I am saddened, but I have no doubt, any longer. I ain't them.
The idea that white supremacy advocates are 'OKAY' if they defend jews or are pro Israel is against every single thing I understand judiasm to be. It makes me want to PUKE.
The quality which makes one defend white europe is the SAME QUALITY which drives suspicion of jews, dampened by another danger.
Racist reasoning is all the same. ONE THING.
Debate is over.
We now have two movements.
Epa,
Debate is over.
We now have two movements.
I agree.
In a little while, I'm going to post an essay here and at my site about the topic. I've been working on the essay for the past several minutes--before I saw your comment.
TruePeers,
I recognize that words can have more than one meaning. I have degrees in both Philosophy and Literature, so the study of words, their usage, and their meanings took up quite a bit of my time.
However, as AOW says, the first step in a debate is to define our terms. If a word is being used in a sloppy mannter, as I contend the word "ethnicity" is, then it muddies up the water of debate.
I contend the word ethnicity is being used to mean both race and culture.
If this is so, then let us use, instead, the words race and culture so that we know what we mean, and so people like DeWinter can not pull any sleights of hand.
Do you understand my point? Do you agree?
TruePeers,
The idea that the definition of a word is its engine does not stand in opposition to any of you points about the elasticity of meaning in language.
I am certainly not trying to kill poetry here, nor am I trying to kill that which is undefinable in culture.
However, if a person uses a word and can not tell you what they mean by that word, then their argument lacks meaning for the, or as in the case of DeWinter, it has an occult meaning which he shares only with those in his coven.
Surely, you recognize that there are people who use words in tricky ways so as to pull such sleights of hand.
An example is the use of the word "rock n' roll" in the fifites. It sounded innocent enough to parents. "Oh yeah, my kid likes that rock n' roll music."
But, of course, the occult definition of the word "rock n' roll" was to have sex.
As such, the word had a subversive quality.
If DeWinter is using words in a subversive way, then we ought to be aware of it?
Agreed?
Great post, Pastorius.
That's why I believe Europe will never be able to match America as fas as integrating ethnic groups. When you come to this country no matter what ethnic group you are - you are an Amercian. Even if liberals tell you you're a hyphen - which infuriates me to no end.
A non-ethnic Frenchman, German, etc. will never feel like a European because the French et al. see themselves as nationalists first and Europeans second.
WC,
I am an "Adopted-American."
:)
Sanity still to be found, that is hopeful. Like Epa, certain people are saying things that are not what I signed up for either. Here's a great idea, how about those against religious based laws and refusal to be secular to a degree that is non-bellicose towards the people who were in said countries first standing together, wherever the heck they come from or what their skin color is like?
Pastorius is absolutely correct, and if you read the comments of some people joining the discussion at Gates of Vienna, you will see this even more clearly. There is NO option that does not lead to fascist policies. "Off with their heads!" is the catch-phrase now practically, yet somehow I thought we were standing up originally against those who were against human rights.
Seriously, GoV, comments for "An Army of Midgets", from last night, the "discussion" turned into a joke about how the initials for "Charles Johnson" were the same as for both "counter-jihad" and "CAMEL JOCKEY". "Christine" at the CVF blog has skewered Pastorius in a post update on LGF comments. And people wonder why some do not see the CVF as welcoming! Even if this gang did welcome slightly different views, which they do NOT, does anyone really want to join a group of people whose plans all inevitably lead to horrible outcomes?
I know, I know. I took myself out of this debate a ways back, but I sure as hell earned the right to comment on it, regardless of being put "on ignore" by certain elitists at GoV. Sorry, but when the pot calls the kettle the exact shade of black and does so in such a humorous way as to discuss the musings of "Tasty Beverage", good heavens, just think or how that looks to anyone not engrossed in the grit of this debate. It was just plain goofy, and would be much more laughable had not the commenters (the midget army, I'm guessing) seemed so serious.
Will at least some people step away from "the dark side" other than Pastorius, Epa, and whoever else I'm not aware of for denouncing this idiocy?
I know this is probably somewhat off-topic, but somehow the question popped into my head as I was reading thispost.
The question I would like to ask Pastorius, Epa, AOW, WC et al is, what are your positions on the idea of deporting Muslims from the West - would this be acceptable or not, and why (not)?
Anonymous,
I'm for deporting all those Muslims who support the installation of Sharia into Western law.
And, just so you'll know, I've said as much numerous times over the years.
Advocating for the implementation of Sharia law in a freedom-loving Western nation IS sedition, and it deserves the death penalty.
Deportation is a pleasant punishment compared to what such Muslims deserve.
I'm for deporting all those Muslims who support the installation of Sharia into Western law.
But what criteria should be used to establish whether they support the installation of Sharia? The fact that they say they want Sharia, the fact that they do something with the intent of installing Sharia, or simply the fact that they call themselves Muslims?
Deporting Muslims simply because they are Muslims, would that be acceptable?
It seems unacceptable to me at this time.
However, it seems to me that, ultimately, the answer to this question is up to Muslims themselves.
Up to now, there has been no appreciable Muslim outcry against Islamism, or political Islam. Neither is there any Muslim media outlet, academcie institution, political organization, or government of any appreciable size anwhere in the world.
So, considering those facts, what is it that Muslims are telling us? They, as a body, are telling us that they are a supremely dangerous group of people.
If one of the nutcase Islamist organiations who live in their midst pulls off a WMD attack against the West, I would imagine we will all feel differently about just who we ought to deport.
However, as AOW says, the first step in a debate is to define our terms. If a word is being used in a sloppy mannter, as I contend the word "ethnicity" is, then it muddies up the water of debate.
-I'm sorry but this reflects a conceptual paradigm I just don't belong to. The first step in a debate is surely to try to approach what is the object of debate. I say approach because what is ultimately the object of debate is something sacred, and the sacred is inherently paradoxical, not well reduced to definitions. In other words it can't be captured by either side, if both sides are well represented.
Is the object of our debate simply language, or is it a reality that no language is going to perfectly capture, precisely because language transcends reality? I think the latter. It is the transcendence that language effects that is the mark of the sacred.
I read in the comments above that this debate is already over. Well, to my mind, it hasn't started because there simply isn't any satisfactory identification or articulation of the conflict that needs to be transcended and the possible means (new forms of the sacred) of transcending it. Instead, there is a lot of name calling, a desire to draw lines, demonstrating the human passion to always fight the last war.
I contend the word ethnicity is being used to mean both race and culture.
If this is so, then let us use, instead, the words race and culture so that we know what we mean, and so people like DeWinter can not pull any sleights of hand.
Do you understand my point? Do you agree?
-I think I understand what you are trying to do. And I am just trying to say, in a friendly way, I think it is a mission you can't win. Race and culture, when placed next to reality, are words just as ambiguous as any other. Spending energy trying to purify terms means you will be spending less energy on disecting any given reality and trying to unravel, to the extent we ever can, the mysterious relationship between lived reality and our means of transcending it in language.
- I think I would hold to what I just said even if it weren't my own personal understanding of race and culture that they are somehow, to some degree, inevitably intertwined - which is not to say an individual immigrant can't assimilate to a new culture. It's to say that a large population as a whole can't just give up their existing culture one day and start a new one tomorrow. So, to my mind, if you are anti-Islam in Europe, you are against the existence of a significant population, not simply against its culture, and there is no way to thus pretend that you are not a "racist" but that the other guy who is more frankly race conscious is. This is why I can't take an extreme anti-Islam position. I think Europe must now accept this demographic reality, because ethnic cleansing absent a civil war would probably be a moral catastrophe for Europe that it might not survive, and start the slow work of generations of liberating people from Islam as it is presently understood. At the same time, I think they have to close the doors to any more immigrants from Islam or give up the ghost of European culture. The brute existential fact of demographics can't be separated from culture and treated separately, except in the mind. Sure we can have debates over purified terminology. Sure we can follow the ritual of "defining our terms". But we can't make reality conform to our terms, no matter how totalitarian we get in trying to make it.
There is always an unbridgeable tension between the envisioning of a "policy" - the ends one hopes to achieve - and the means by which power tries to implement its policy to achieve ends. In other words, when you accept that this bridge can't be crossed and maybe we shouldn't try, we may come to a new paradigm in which we begin to see a need to get away from means/ends reasoning and focus more on means while leaving things open-ended. Freedom doesn't need to define terms before a debate begins, freedom needs to bring the other guy into the debate by not hitting him over the head with a puritanical desire to insist on one side's opening terms. We have freedom to the extent we can both agree on some ambiguous space in which freedom will have its room to do its thing, the room for people to actually do politics, not just think it, the room where the ongoing, never resolvable, negotiation between reality and language can become an end in itself.
THIS DEBATE HAS NOT STARTED SO HOW CAN IT BE OVER?
However, if a person uses a word and can not tell you what they mean by that word, then their argument lacks meaning for the, or as in the case of DeWinter, it has an occult meaning which he shares only with those in his coven.
-you may be right about DeWinter, I am hardly in a position to know. You may be right about all the bloggers defending deWinter - they may all be crackpots in some respect, with a desire for quick violence as a "solution".
But that doesn't bring me to your position. I use words like ethnicity all the time. I can do my best to try and tell you what I mean by them. But my intellectual best tells me that there are, in reality, certain paradoxes that can't be overcome simply by pretending language can be made to refer unambiguously to reality. It can't. "Ethnicity" generally means "culture", to me, and a culture of a specific kind (I contrast ethnic to national culture). But ethnic has an element of "race" to it as I tried to explain above in contrasting the individual and the group in respect to the problem of assimilation. Reality, as I understand it, cannot be purified in language. Our culture is to some degree a racial phenomenon. Even American culture, with all due respect, is not some race neutral thing, as I see it. Some of the "Hispanics" in LA seem to appreciate this - is that maybe what motivates your approach to the question?
So, I want us to be able to recognize racial realities, and deal with them responsibly, without being "racist". Other voices here insist that anyone talking about racial realities is a racist. This is puritanical thinking and is just a screen for one's own Utopian thinking which may be full of (racial) violence in its own way. Is the only reason some are outraged by "white Europe" but not "yellow China" or "black Africa" because the latter have relatively fewer immigrants at present? What is their racial vision for the world, in future? And what must be done to achieve it?
Deporting anyone is going to get ugly. The people who would end up doing the actual job would end up being thugs who have dehumanized the entire group. Where would lines be drawn? One could go after those who seek and actively campaign or at least write or speak of implementing non-secular law, but it would turn into a witch-hunt. And it would have to be across the board, IMHO. These evangelicals I've got a St. Michael statue aimed at, they'd have to be treated the same, because they're doing the same. Same freakin' Taliban, different Holy book.
If anyone starts trying to deport from Europe, are they going to change our laws in the U.S.? Is "Christine" going to fix that one with one of her posts over at the CVF, because otherwise, we're looking at a huge influx of immigrants who are Muslims recently living in Europe to the U.S. & Canada, which is another thing that most posters over at GoV decry, the amount of immigrants already here in the U.S. Since they're the ones advocating it and I hardly think that Euro Muslims would just peacably go, I see this as advocating a new craze in the old-fashioned "death march". At best though, face it, they'd come here, in which case the dolt crowd is cutting off their collective nose to spite their Midget Army face. Reality, sorry, but that's what it comes down to, real-world, not blog-world.
Where does one draw the line for sedition, however, Pastorius? I personally believe that our current American political system is corrupt enough to warrant discussion of a major clean-up. Is that sedition, or is it sticking to what the Founders stated for us? When I said it before and linked George Washington's Farewell Address, many people here gave me accolades on the sentiment. If one views me as a right-winger/libertarian type and I say such things, I get applause. Viewed as a leftist, the same crowds jeer. So the line becomes impossible to draw there as well, you see? Purple haired environmentalists are going to get dragged down, but not soccer Moms in SUVs, that sort of thing.
You know, it isn't entirely horrid to just make it clear that you won't associate with people if they advocate things you think are horrid. What everyone needs is a much bigger set of cajones, IMHO. Might seem too out-spoken for some, but that's just reality, yet again. Stand up for yourselves. I got the Shahada taken out of a local school here, and would've done the same with a Bible verse, even though I'm Christian. People thought that was pushy at first, but in the end thanked me. So how about it, show some freakin' balls, and not just posting under pseudonyms online! I know many of you do this real-world, and I know AOW does, how bout the rest of you? This fight's commenced, get to fighting or get out, in other words.
Pardon me for leaving a post rather than a comment;)
if you are anti-Islam in Europe, you are against the existence of a significant population, not simply against its culture, and there is no way to thus pretend that you are not a "racist"
There is no race criteria involved in being anti-Islam, as Islam is not a race, so there is nothing racist whatsoever about being anti-Islam.
There is no race criteria involved in being anti-Islam, as Islam is not a race, so there is nothing racist whatsoever about being anti-Islam.
-well that's a fine example of living in language and not in full reality. Overwhelmingly, the Muslims of Europe are not white, ethnic, Europeans, and vice versa. That matters. The religious divide inevitably becomes a racial one too. The religion becomes a way of representing a racial reality, the sheer existence of a population that is socially, economically, professionally, intellectually, not in the same space as another population. You can insist that in logic it need not be seen that way, that religion and race can be conceptually separated, and religion made the gist of the matter, but you can't get all of reality to comply to your logic, short of absolute dictatorship. To the kid trying to survive his rough neighborhood and trying to figure out which gang to join, there's likely no theological entry test, even among the "Muslims".
Lex,
You and I are no longer in agreement on the subject of Islamofascism. Our differences are a matter of degree. However, the degree to which I see Islam as being a problem is in a completely different realm of measurement than the degree to which you see Islam as being a problem.
You believe that the problem of Christian extremism is as bad as the problem of Islamic extremism. I think that is outlandish.
I believe it is inevitable that we will be hit by a WMD attack by Islamic extremists. Because I believe it is inevitable it is as if it has already happened, as far as I'm concerned.
That is why I would say I am for deportation.
I am not a policy maker. Instead, as a blogger with a limited audience, I am, to some extent, an influencer of opinion. I see what I do as being to prepare the advanced guard with ideas which they will need to fight against Islamism if things shake out as I expect them to shake out.
TruePeers,
You say: "well that's a fine example of living in language and not in full reality. Overwhelmingly, the Muslims of Europe are not white, ethnic, Europeans, and vice versa. That matters. The religious divide inevitably becomes a racial one too."
I say: Only to sloppy thinkers who can not distinguish between culture, ideology and race.
I think you can tell the difference between an Arab Christian and an Arab Muslim, can't you?
Don't play intellectual opossum with us. We know how smart you are, so it doesn't work.
I don't know why you have interest in providing the excuse of fuzzy thinking and "shades of meaning" to our enemies on this issue.
Do you care to explain?
TruePeers,
You say: "ethnic cleansing absent a civil war would probably be a moral catastrophe for Europe that it might not survive ..."
I say: Historically, the only success any culture has had in dealing with Islam is to expel Muslims from their land. Other than that, it has been constant imperialism on the part of Islam.
Can you refute me?
I must admit I am confused as to what point truepeers is trying to make here. While I admit it's likely that there would be a correlation between race and religion in the case of Muslims, I fail to see how the existence of such a correlation would make a person being against the religion a racist, since it is his line of reasoning that is relevant in establishing whether or not he is a racist, not the consequence of his line of reasoning.
One might of course argue e.g. that deporting Muslims because of their religion would have the same consequence as deporting people who belong to races whose people happen to be predominantly Muslim solely because of their race, and that therefore the former would be de facto as racist as the latter even if race was not a criterion. However, the reality is that the former would not in fact have been racist, as the correlation between religion and race would not have been taken into account. On the other hand, if one were to argue against deportation of Muslims because people from certain races would be more at risk of being deported, then race would have been a criterion, and one would have risked becoming a racist.
I say: Only to sloppy thinkers who can not distinguish between culture, ideology and race.
I think you can tell the difference between an Arab Christian and an Arab Muslim, can't you?
Pastorius what does it mean to distinguish between culture, ideology, and race? I hope one day we can talk a walk around Brussels and when we see the people walking by, you can point out to me which parts of them are the culture, which the ideology, and which the race. In other words, I think we can only distinguish some things in the abstract, which is ok, as long as we don't think that this abstract distinction provides hard and fast rules for dealing with *people*.
Of course, if I have enough time I can tell the difference between an Arab Christian and Muslim. But if the difference is hard and fast why do you get Christians supporting the "Palestinian"-Jihadi cause? Anyway, my point is not the freedom of an individual to be whatever. The point is that where you have two large populations living side by side in conflict, you can't reduce the nature of the conflict to a single set of terms. The attempt to do so is the logic of the warrior not the peacemaker.
I don't know why you have interest in providing the excuse of fuzzy thinking and "shades of meaning" to our enemies on this issue.
-1)because I'm not quick to label every dislikable person an enemy; because
2)it's important to give your opponents a way out of the holes they are digging if you want to do something constructive. If there are any white nationalists who understand what I'm saying, it will not provide them any easy rhetorics; they already have those. I can only see myself as challenging both sides in the name of a greater freedom of debate. What motivates a lot of these nationalists is thinking the mainstream doesn't recognize their realities, for ideological reasons. Once they are recognized, with a proper sense of proportion - race exists but it need not determine anything - it won't do so much to support as undermine hate rhetoric and rabble rousers.
3)it would be easy to declare war on the white nationalists of Europe. But then we are either in the position of the EU, or in a position that does not yet exist on the European landscape and that can only come into existence once the current nationalists compromise their positions and bring their constituencies to a new politics with more respectable and responsible leaders opposed to the old ones. So it's a tricky game to encourage this new ground, one that requires carrots and sticks.
There is a third possible position, though maybe this is the EU position, opposing white nationalists to the point where they go haywire and all hell breaks loose. Quite possible. In other words, being theoretically or morally "right" but pragmatically in a position that is going to encourage greater not lesser bloodshed, as best as you can judge the situation, is not the right position, it seems to me.
I say: Historically, the only success any culture has had in dealing with Islam is to expel Muslims from their land. Other than that, it has been constant imperialism on the part of Islam.
-You are forgetting the history of Western colonization of Islamic lands which left in its wake both a secular and modern class of Muslims, and a fundamentalist revival. Long story short, but I think we have no choice but to again insist on "imposing" modernity in Islamic lands - however close they are now to home - and getting it right this time, for as long as it takes. The world is too small, there is no safe distance from these Jihadists with nukes, and unless we are willing to both separate and starve them (and if we do that first before trying everything else, we will be harming not strengthening our culture) we are going to have to have all kinds of interaction with them. So it is incumbent on us to use this interaction to push for change in their culture.
I'll now carry on with you via email if you want...
Good day to all! The future is full of opportunities to change Europe and the West for the better. Don't doubt it!
anon.
Yes, you're right, one's proper intent needs to be taken into account. But that's not going to stop others from calling you a racist. One's intent, however noble, cannot enforce its will or model of reality on others. And others will see what they want to see: you can't separate existential consequences from the narrow intent of your actions/reasons. We are frequently charged with "racism" because of alleged bias we are not even aware of. The very idea of "racism" depends on critiquing modern Western people for blindly valuing their culture at the expense of the continuing existence of "lesser" cultures. It is as much about the alleged lack of discrimination as too much discrimination. "Racism" can be whatever you want it to be if you are a serious leftist. It's all about critiquing the normal for taking norms as good things.
What I am really arguing about here is name calling. I really think the label "racist" is wildly overused. I've just been trying to turn the tables on "anti-racists" by showing how they might be labeled "racists", not that I am committed to that name game.
I don't know what to say other than I simply disagree with you more the more finely you make your point.
Pastorius, you have asked me to post evidence of this claim, and I continue to do so. You're also more than welcome to visit and see the actual attacks perpetrated by these said "Christians" against those like me, against many people I know. You know we'll still be friends.
As for your other statement regarding Muslims made to Truepeers which you asked if truepeers could refute you, I can if he won't. Actually, I'm now listening to a probably 4 page long email refutation being ranted in another room, which I won't bother to type out here. Suffice it to say, Islam has had the roughly the same track record as other religions. There have been clashes, true, but on the whole is the existence of Muslims and Hindus (and Sikhs, Jains, etc.) in India for almost the entire existence of Islam without expulsion not an example?
Especially compared to the bloodshed within Christendom over various schisms? We will concede that Islam does historically have a worse track record as far as treatment of non-believers as well as perhaps conquest (not the "royal we", I'm speaking for Lex & Mr. Lex here). But right now we are frankly seeing a reaction still to Imperialism, and protect ourselves as we must, we must also recognize that which we are seeing.
We can discuss further at length, but I do not think that the history bears out exactly as is being presented, and I can back that.
Muslims and Hindus got along?!?
And how do you explain Pakistan?
Here's what I said: ... the only success any culture has had in dealing with Islam is to expel Muslims from their land. Other than that, it has been constant imperialism on the part of Islam.
When you say what we are seeing in the world currently is a reaction to imperialism, it doesn't make much sense to me. It sounds like you are an Osama Bin Laden apologist, quite frankly.
Did we make the Muslims go on this killing spree? I don't think so. Of course, there was the Crusades, and of course, they want Andalusia back.
But, as you can imagine that doesn't hold water for me.
For instance, what imperialism over Muslims took place in the Phillipines? In India (that they had to cede Pakistan), in Indonesia, or Malaysia?
And, when was America ever imperialistic towards Islam? Answer: we weren't. Unless you are one of those people who ascribe to the notion of capitalistic hyper-power imperialism.
(Sorry, I don't. Muslim countries make an awful lot of money off our "exploitation" of their resources.)
However, is not America the Great Satan according to Islam?
You didn't spell out your points, so I am shadow-boxing here.
You can have Mr. Lex call me if he wants to set me straight.
Until then, I simply don't get what you are talking about.
And, have any Christian extremists threatened to behead you? I hope not.
"Muslims and Hindus got along?!? And how do you explain Pakistan?"
Historically, Hindus and Muslims in India have seen a mix of conflict and compromise over the centuries, depending on which despot happened to be in control of a region at any given time. Muslims were NOT EXPELLED from India when the subcontinent imploded during post-British rule. Arguing that this is the case is historically inept and pitiable inaccurate. It ignores the complexities of over 1000 years of history.
"Here's what I said: ... the only success any culture has had in dealing with Islam is to expel Muslims from their land. Other than that, it has been constant imperialism on the part of Islam." Islam has a terrible record of imperialism and to deny it is foolish. However, the same can be said for Europe -- and they have been significantly more successful than Islam (it is no coincidence that French and English have become the lingua franca of most of the world). But more to the point, other than specific pinpoint moments and location in the world, there is no historical basis for the position that the mass-deportations of Muslims will solve any issue because it has never happened, at least not as the fiction is portrayed here. Might it work? Certainly, but don't evoke history when there is no historical precedent for the argument. And if someone intends to evoke the historical record, then take the time to adequately delve into the subject matter rather than using it as an ill-conceived and poorly constructed crutch for ontologically subjective positions. Particularly in light of the fact that the historical record demonstrates, though not in this case with Mulsims, that when mass deportations take place, they lead to mass murder (see The Trail of Tears, the Armenian genocide, the Nazis, etc.). Simply put, if you are willing to evoke history to support the view of mass deportation, then 1) get the circumstances right and 2) take the time to dig deeper than elementary encyclopedia entries.
"When you say what we are seeing in the world currently is a reaction to imperialism, it doesn't make much sense to me. It sounds like you are an Osama Bin Laden apologist, quite frankly."
Recognizing the fact that European Imperialism is a factor in the realities of the middle east is hardly the position of a Bin Laden apologist. Rather, it is the mark of decent analytics and an attempt to holistically and inductively understand the complexities of what has led to the world in which we live. Recognizing imperialism's impact on the development of wahabi sects does not imply ethical relativism, nor does serve as an apology (as in the Greek meaning of the word) for a diabolical man and a diabolical system. It does, however, factor into the rise of fanaticism and the inflated (and idiotic) sense of xenophobic madness that has emerged in the middle east. Read a little T.E. Lawrence as a primer.
"Did we make the Muslims go on this killing spree? I don't think so. Of course, there was the Crusades, and of course, they want Andalusia back."
No, we did not. However, this doesn't change the need to look at the historical record in its entirety.
"For instance, what imperialism over Muslims took place in the Phillipines? In India (that they had to cede Pakistan), in Indonesia, or Malaysia?"
Spain ruled with an iron fist over the Phillipines -- the Spanish were remarkably adept at recording their practices. That being said, imperialism had little impact on Muslim/Christian relations there. I happily cede that point. As for India, Indonesia, and Malaysia, ask the British, French, Dutch, and Portugese. No one is suggesting that Islamic militancy stems directly from imperialism, but to deny the connections in the overall process is to ignore the realities of squaring one group against another to maintain control, the brutal economic exploitation of divergent groups, and the lingering hatred that exists between people who were brought together by the arbitrary whims of cartographers and regional governors. This has manifested itself not only amongst Muslims, but in Ceylon, Angola, Rwanda, and the list goes on. Attributing the entire problem to Islam is like using the logic that since more smokers have accidents than non-smokes, smoking causes accidents.
"And, when was America ever imperialistic towards Islam? Answer: we weren't."
Quite right. No question of it. The US has never made imperialist gestures in the middle east. However, this assumes that people like Osama Bin Laden conceive of the world in the state-focused system that we do. The US is an extension of Europe, of everything outside his particular understanding of Islam, the state, and culture. This doesn't mean the man shouldn't be hunted down (along with his cohorts). It does suggest that if we ever hope to find these people (particularly BEFORE another attack), then we need to think in terms that have validity and meaning in their contexts.
"However, is not America the Great Satan according to Islam?"
Technically, no. The epithet "Great Satan" has been ascribed to multiple people and nations -- we just hear about its relation to us. Furthermore, Islam has never made that assertion. The Koran was written long before we came about. But I trust the point is attribute the phrase, of course, to modern Islam rather than its origins -- I simply couldn't resist commenting.
Ultimately, I would contend that Islam is indeed fundamentally different than, say, Christianity and is inherently more prone to violence, particularly against non-believers. Statistically, the same can be said for people who grow up in a lower economic bracket. The same can be said for anyone raised in Detroit. I suppose it would do us all well to deport these folks as well. And lets sterilize a few retards while we're at it.
"And, have any Christian extremists threatened to behead you? I hope not."
No, nor will they. Again, there is little question that Muslims have led the charge in atrocities and subjugation, in brutality and imposition of their will. On the other hand, the Puritans had a less than spotless record, ask the people butchered by Cromwell. This may be as much an issue of will than ideology. The point in the end is that before anyone uses history as a justification for mass deportations, they should know something of history. Anything short of that devalues the argument and sets the stage for murder.
Hondo 67
But that's not going to stop others from calling you a racist.
Of course it won't stop them. What's important is that we do not accept the racist charge whenever it is false (ie. in most cases).
"Racism" can be whatever you want it to be if you are a serious leftist.
Well, not really, but obviously leftists can choose to categorize something as "racism" even though in reality it isn't racism at all.
What I am really arguing about here is name calling. I really think the label "racist" is wildly overused.
The reason the term "racist" is wildly overused is because it is frequently used about people who are not at all racists.
Long story short, but I think we have no choice but to again insist on "imposing" modernity in Islamic lands
The problem is Islam is not compatible with modernity, and so it will be a lost cause. It's better to recognize that Islam is our eternal enemy and deal with them as enemies.
The blogger Lawrence Auster has summed it up like this:
- Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.
- But we cannot destroy Islam.
- Nor can we democratize Islam.
- Nor can we assimilate Islam.
- Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.
I don't think Auster's idea of separationism is viable, because real separationism would mean allowing most of the Islamic world to starve to death and I don't think that can happen, given that it would prompt civil war in the West. And it can't solve the Islam problem in a world of ever more available WMD. I outline my argument here.
After skimming the post truepeers links to, it seems he and I don't agree at all about what to do with Islam. truepeers' position does not take into account the actual nature of Islam and he seems to confuse what Islam is with what Muslims do. Also, he seems to wrongly believe that interpretation is possible in Islam, which it isn't to any significant degree.
I would have discussed this in more detail, but the weekend's over now, so I don't really have the time.
I think you're confusing what Islam is today in totalitarian settings with what Islam might be - my point is we cannot know what it might be, with any certainty - in a non-totalitarian setting where people were free to deal with reality: e.g. the reality that no text can be read without being interpreted. Islam is interpreted every day, it's just that those who presently have authority in interpretation have more or less totalitarian ideas. If you believe the totalitarians always have to be in charge, then you believe, in effect, that we can never be safe from Islam. What form of separationism could leave us safe from an Islamic world steeping in all the resentments that presently exist and will only grow with further "separation"? We either separate so as to starve them all, or we force them to change so as to become compatible with modernity. I think it's a fantasy to believe there is a serious third way.
As I see it, people are confusing two completely different stances, and some people appear to be confusing them deliberately to sow further dissention:
Stance (1): white supremacists or white nationalists of the Hitler or David Duke variety,
Stance (2): people of white European ancestry who reject white supremacy, but who resist becoming a subjugated, disadvantaged, and powerless minority in their native land (or being forced into exile) by de facto foreign conquest. In other words, they resist and reject antiwhite racism in the same way that they resist and reject any other form of racism.
And yes, despite what CJ claims on LGF, there IS such a thing as antiwhite racism, and you can even hear it on al Qaeda recordings.
For reasons that should require no further explanation, stance (1) is completely unacceptable, while stance (2) is of no harm to anyone and should be acceptable to any reasonable person.
1389,
I have avoided defending CJ through all of this because I don't agree with everything he says or does, but I have to ask this question,
Where did he say there is no such thing as anti-white racism?
It's a bit hard for me to believe the man isn't aware of anti-white racism, having been all over the world.
Could you please provide me the quote where Charles denies the existence of anti-white racism?
I think you're confusing what Islam is today in totalitarian settings with what Islam might be - my point is we cannot know what it might be, with any certainty - in a non-totalitarian setting where people were free to deal with reality: e.g. the reality that no text can be read without being interpreted.
Truepeers himself seems to be confused here about what Islam is on the one hand, and the way Islam's nature manifests itself in different circumstances on the other hand. Obviously, Islam could potentially manifest itself in different ways in different settings, however at the end of the day its nature would remain essentially the same. And circumstances can change, after all, which is why we have to take Islam's nature into account.
Islam is interpreted every day, it's just that those who presently have authority in interpretation have more or less totalitarian ideas.
No, these people have authority precisely because they have the scriptures on their side.
If you believe the totalitarians always have to be in charge, then you believe, in effect, that we can never be safe from Islam.
Since the "totalitarians" are the true practitioners of Islam who have the scriptures on their side, it is natural that they are mainly the ones in charge.
What form of separationism could leave us safe from an Islamic world steeping in all the resentments that presently exist and will only grow with further "separation"?
We have no responsibility for the resentments of the Islamic world, and Islam is our enemy regardless of what we do - the question is whether we want to defend ourselves from an external enemy or from an external and internal enemy. I prefer the former.
We either separate so as to starve them all,
If the consequence of their Islam-induced backwardness is that they starve, then that is not our fault.
or we force them to change so as to become compatible with modernity.
We cannot do that as long as they remain Muslims. Besides, our aim should not be to save the soul of Islam, but to save ourselves, our values, and our civilization.
How about you round up those that refuse to accept the culture of the country that they move to, and banish them? How about you freeze immigration from nations that seem to be producing immigrants that don't tend to assimilate well?
That would be another option. But when the left blocks all reasonable options, all reasonable discussion even, sometimes it takes quick, unreasonable action to set things right.
Chemotherapy works, even though it kills off good cells.
If the cancer if islamic immigration with the rufusal to assimilate looks like it is going to be fatal to the host, then it is time for cultural chemo. It seems that we are being prevented from reaching any other choice.
I think a tee-shirt slogan says it well "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".
however at the end of the day its nature would remain essentially the same. And circumstances can change, after all, which is why we have to take Islam's nature into account.
-First of all, I don't see much that is true in Islam, so I expect that if the West were serious about forcing/encouraging the Muslim world to change, it would mean making it a priority to protect the rights of apostates and converts to Christianity.
-I don't think freedom will be good for Islam, i think it will undermine it. But, if I believe in freedom, it means I can't pretend to know or dictate what people can and will do with it. Unlike anon., I don't know how we can think of a religious revelation as having an essential nature IF we can imagine free people, living in history, with a sense of their responsibility to re-interpret that revelation. IF (I admit it's a big if) we can imagine modern Mulsims accepting that the Koran is not just "literally" the final and eternal word, but a document that still requires, and has always required, interpretation by free people, accordign to the demands of the places and times in which they live, as well as learning from history as a whole, then who knows what is possible? How can anon tell us what this Islamic true "nature" is without himself engaging in an act of historically-situated interpretation? If anon agrees with my historical interpretation that Islam has falsehoods at its core, then while we might agree that this limits people, how do falsehoods (or truths) determine anything? How can lies overcome what is true about our common humanity - that people, even slaves, cannot but help being free to some degree? We're not robots!
In other words, I am simply proposing we leave aside the impossible question: defining the essential "nature" of Islam, what it can or cannot be in future. Instead of spending all our energies in hating Islam, which means spending energy trying to define it, why not simply say, we are not going to tolerate totalitarian regimes that threaten us, as all totalitarian regimes do sooner or later, given the resentments they generate and have to focus on us. We are going to demand greater freedom, and transparency, in the politics of the world, without being Utopian dreamers about what we can achieve in the short term. Because, how can we be safe if we simply separate the Muslims and allow them to remain totalitarians? Once we lay down our bottom lines, and show a will to defend them, we don't have to worry about what Islam can or cannot be - that's for Muslims to worry about and discover under real pressure to change.
No, these people have authority precisely because they have the scriptures on their side.
-no, these people have authority precisely because people want to believe what you want to believe: that they (totalitarians) have the scriptures on their side. If people really want to believe otherwise, they will come to the conclusion that the Koran has to be read as a revelation that, for mere humans, unfolds over time, and they will find a way to reinterpret the dogma of eternal and uncreated truth accordingly. If I'm wrong about this you have to show how any reading of any text can be simply transparent, "literal", with no intepretation needed. YOu can't deny the humanity, even of Muslims. People are not robots simply responding to programs. That's just not how language works. YOu are confusing the admittedly great difficulty for people to break out of a totalitarian culture with the idea that it is impossible because of some computer program. Are you not aware that any workable, survivable, faith has to adapt to a changing world? Islam is changing now, in response to globalization, only it's becoming worse, arguably more totalitarian, than it has been. That may not be reason to be hopeful and starry-eyed, but it's not reason to say Islam must always be what it is today because of some determining "nature". There are no biological imperatives that determine the "nature" of a work of culture. SO what justifies the analogy to "nature"?
We have no responsibility for the resentments of the Islamic world, and Islam is our enemy regardless of what we do - the question is whether we want to defend ourselves from an external enemy or from an external and internal enemy. I prefer the former.
-Well, I believe in stopping believing-Muslim immigration (and licensing and policing mosques already here) except as a reward for those who have truly and well fought with us for their freedom. But while we still have political borders, we no longer have separate economies. It's one global economic system now. And you can't be outside it and survive. Hence the logic of the suicide bomber, refusing to deal with what he can't help but deal with when alive. And this inability to be outside the global system is the crux of the difficulty with the idea of "separationism". Our enemies are either going to be defeated or they are not going to stop trying to destroy the global economic system. If not defeated and/or changed, to stop them from trying to destroy the system, they will have to be isolated so much they will have no way to sustain themselves economically and many millions must die.
If the consequence of their Islam-induced backwardness is that they starve, then that is not our fault.
-easy to say, but a responsible thinker needs to take into account the impact on his own culture of people watching many millions being allowed to die (not to mention the more prosaic questions of spreading disease around the world from hundreds of millions of unburied corpses). You seem to forget that we are fighting a civil and moral war at home, and not just fighting Muslims. If you care about Western society, you have to come to terms with those who, quite rightly, won't let us starve millions of people simply because they were unfortunately born Muslim.
We cannot do that as long as they remain Muslims.
-maybe you're right but how can you know for sure? Maybe Islam has to be destroyed, or maybe there is some kind of workable reform we can't imagine yet. No one can know until many things are tried. The point is, we don't strengthen our civilization by coming to believe that we know what the future must hold. We save it by renewing our faith in the unpredictable nature of human freedom and the truths that can only be revealed from open interaction. If one day we see the destruction of Islam, fine, perhaps. But wouldn't it be better for our descendants if it were destroyed, at least in part, by Muslims realizing it was not true, rather than by us deciding right now that we must leave them all to die, helpless? Can you really justify your cold decision to your descendants, saving them from guilt and human self-loathing? Can you really make a convincing argument about some culture's inescapable "nature"? Do you really want to leave the impression that human beings can be trapped in hopeless situations with no way out? Or do you want them to learn from freedom in history, as something inherent to human origins and thus something that even Muslims cannot but enjoy, to some degree, however small at present?
Just to emphasize a point: I am not trying to be starry-eyed about Islam. i think we are in the midst of a horrific conflict that could destroy the world as we know it, and that will in any case last many years. My point is simply that to win this war, we are going to have to believe in something again. And that starts with respecting human freedom, and not denying that Muslims don't have it, to some degree, even if they say they don't want it. Reality is what it is.
Post a Comment