This strikes me as a very negative development. I am quite aware that most in the counter-Jihad do not share my point-of-view. But, I also believe that most in the counter-Jihad have CONFLATED MY POINT-OF-VIEW WITH THAT OF CHARLES JOHNSON.
I believe this is an unfair characterization of what I believe has been a more subtle critique on my part.
Charles Johnson has called the Vlaams Belang party a neo-fascist, or neo-Nazi organization. There is some historical foundation for such a statement, and in fact, one of my best friends, who used to live in Belgium, told me back in 2003 (long before the Vlaams Belang had become an issue in the counter-Jihad movement) that she had personally witnessed members of the Vlaams Blok marching in the streets carrying placards filled with Jew-hatred.
All that being said, it is true that the VB are, at this point, one of the few parties in Europe who are supportive of the state of Israel.
I do not call the VB a neo-Nazi/neo-fascist organization. I call them what they clearly are; an Ethnic Nationalist political party.
And, here are the big distinctions between Nazism and Ethnic Nationalism;
1) While it is true that Nazis were Ethnic Nationalists themsevles, not all Ethnic Nationalists are Nazis (that is, they are not all murderous supremacists - in fact, the Native American movement is an Ethnic Nationalist movement, and Japan is an extreme example of an Ethnic Nationalist state),
and
2) Nazism is fascist in it's foundation, whereas Ethnic Nationalism is not necessarily. However, given the circumstances in Europe at this time (with the below replacement indigenous birth rate vs. the above replacement immigrant birthrate), Ethnic Nationalism WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO THE ENACTMENT OF FASCISTIC LAW.
There is no way around this. If Europeans are not breeding and immigrants are, then there are only four ways to deal with that problem,
1) kill the immigrants
2) round up the immigrants and incarcerate or deport them
3) make laws limiting the amount of children immigrants are allowed to have
4) make laws denying non-indigenous people equal voting rights
I challenge anyone to offer a different solution, and thus to refute my points. Go ahead, make my day. I would love to believe that DeWinter and people like him, who are after all some of the only people in Europe who seem to clearly perceive the threat of Islam, are on my side.
But alas, I do not.
Furthermore, I would like to note that Wilders is now, apparently, advocating a policy which would have led to war in any other era. To call for the breakup of a neighboring state, and the ceding of the land to one's own state is an act of aggression, and would have been considered a prelude to War in any previous time throughout history. And yet, in modern Europe, this will be treated as a minor squabble.
But, is it? If Wilders party does indeed win the elections, and if he is to head a new coalition government in the Netherlands, then he will be in an unprecedented (in the post-WWII European world) position of power for a man of his stated policies. Imagine if Nicolas Sarkozy called for England to cede the lower half of it's land to France. Or even more precipitously, imagine if Andrea Merkel called for the annexation of Austria. It's impossible to imagine, and rightly so, don't you think?
Does not such a scenario portend dangerous times ahead for Europe? Is this not a reawakening of imperialism within the heart of Europe? Are we so used to thinking that Belgium does not matter that we would be content to cede part of it's territory in the interest of peace?
Can anyone say Czeckoslovakia?
From Vlad Tepes Blog:
The Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders, whose Freedom Party PVV remains the biggest in the polls, wants the Dutch government of Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende to help dissolve Belgiumso that Flanders, the Dutch-speaking northern half of Belgium, can be reunited with the Netherlands.
Hat tip Bjorn: From The Brussels Journal
Wilders refers to a recent survey of East West Global Index which indicates that Belgium ranks 152nd in a list ranking 200 countries by their reputation, behind countries such as Algeria, Romania, Libya, Liberia, Eritrea and South Ossetia.
Wilders and his fellow MP Martin Bosma have also asked the Dutch government to replace its ambassador to Belgium by an ambassador to Flanders, who is to help the Flemings achieve their independence as a first step towards reunification with the Netherlands. “Belgium is almost history. Great. The future is for an independent Flanders in a federation with the Netherlands,” Wilders said in a statement today.
Wilders is expected to win the European elections next month. In an attempt to stop the growth of the PVV, the centrist Dutch parties, the Christian-Democrats of Mr. Balkenende and the Liberals, have begun to copy his position on Europe (less power to the European Union and no admission of Turkey to the EU). Many Flemings hope that they will copy his position on Flanders, too.
Earlier this week, Flemings were reminded that Belgium is bad for Flanders when politicians from Wallonia, the French-speaking southern part of Belgium, campaigned against the candidature of Luc Van den Brande, a Flemish Christian-Democrat and former leader of the Flemish regional government (1992-1999), to become the next Secretary General of the Council of Europe in June 2009.
Initially it looked like Mr. Van den Brande would get the job for which he had the support of Karel De Gucht, the Belgian Foreign Minister, a Flemish Liberal. Walloon politicians, however, objected to Mr. Van den Brande having the position because, though he is a moderate who defends the Belgian state, he is in favour of more autonomy for Flanders.
The Walloons wrote a letter to the representatives of the Council of Europe, an organisation of 47 European nations, objecting to their compatriot getting the job. Even Olivier Chastel, the Belgian Deputy Foreign Minister, who is a Walloon Liberal, spoke out against Van den Brande. As a result, Mr. Van den Brande has been removed from the shortlist of candidates for the top position at the Council of Europe. This has made many Flemings aware that, despite the fact that they are the majority in Belgium, their interests will never be defended by Belgium.
Meanwhile, the political debate in the Netherlands centers on the question whether political parties are willing to join a coalition led by Mr. Wilders if his PVV becomes the biggest party in The Hague in the next general elections in May 2011. All the parties of the Dutch Left have ruled out a coalition with Wilders, but the centrist parties have not.
See also:
Wilders Looks for European Allies, Suggests Reuniting Flanders and Netherlands, 12 May 2008
More:
BNP leaders hope it's the 'perfect storm' that will sweep them to power
39 comments:
Pasto - we can debate this issue until blue in the face. We all know that Europe will eventually come down to two sides with the sheeple in the middle wondering what the hell happened.
The Islamo-fascists vs the Neo-fascists.
This will occur because the European leadership is gutless in facing the challenge and like in the 1930s - just what the EU was created to avoid - a tyranny will emerge from one sector or the other and it's off to the races for Europe once again - or if the sheeple grow a spine and through the bums out of office they may prevent the civil war.
I doubt it.
I've said some of the following before....
I'm not sure that Europe is incapable of resorting to ethnic nationalism as the only means to combat Islamification there.
Furthermore, as WC said, the European leadership is gutless and has allowed the over-immigration of Europe. By that term I mean letting in those who will never assimilate to Western ideals. The leaders of European countries allowed this fracturing of their culture to occur, and now there is hell to pay.
Two antithetical cultures are now occupying the same geographical territory.
Like it or not, this polarization has set the stage for whatever is coming over in Europe.
I always wondered what it was like from 1618-1648
By the way, for the record, I have presented the arguments in the first part of this post (relating to why Ethnic Nationalism will inevitably lead to fascistic law) to both Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller (in email, comments, and on my radio show in interviews with Spencer himself) on numerous occasions.
I have received no counter-argument refuting my points.
Robert Spencer has ignored my points (yes, he never even addressed them), while Pamela has simply ridiculed me.
I am still waiting for them to address the points one by one. it is not complicated stuff. Tell me what options there are, given the circumstances of modern Europe? What would an Ethnic Nationalist state do in the case of an immigrant population which is outbreeding the native citizens?
If the Ethnic Nationalists are willing to call for an Ideological definition of their culture, instead of an Ethnic definition, then I would ask them to refrain from ever using Ethnicity as a category in any statement whatsoever. But, they do not do that. Instead, the Vlaams Belang's charter is dedicated to establishing a new state for the Flemish people.
If Ethnic Nationalists did, indeed, redefine their culture along ideological grounds, then they would no longer be Ethnic Nationalists and issues like Flemish ethnicity would not matter.
And, it also would not matter whether an immigrant was black, brown, or yellow.
Using Ethnicity as a pretense to attack Islam is absurd, because Islam is not an ethnicity, it is an ideology.
Using a Constitution to eliminate a religion is anti-human rights. However, using laws and the Constitution to eliminate religio-political ideology from one's land is not anti-human rights. The advocacy of Jihad is sedition according to our laws as they already exist.
Additionally, in the United States, we have a body of laws called the RICO Statutes which we would be able to use to shut down Saudi and Salafist-funded Mosques in the United States.
If we are to attack Jihad and Sharia within our borders, we must use laws and ideology to do so. It is unjustifiable to ever use Ethnicity as a means of attacking Islam, or any group of people.
I'm not sure if I am arguing here or augmenting. The nation state is still a new thing and by no means ubiquitous no matter what the maps say. Many of the problems in South Asia are in fact problems of Nation states as concepts over more typical concepts of group identity to say nothing of Africa. In fact, part of the impetus of the resurgence of Islam as a geopolitical force was the mistaken attempt to use it as the tie that binds to forge disparate groups into a common nation state.
It is logical for the family to extend itself to the tribe. It is also logical for the tribe to extend itself to a supertribe with a more abstract unifying factor such as ethnicity and perhaps even more abstract such as religion. The Nation state seeks to unify people based on geographical factors such as defensible borders but require that all within those borders share some sort of common values that can be codified into law. These codes are in fact culture plain and simple. So the experiment into multi ethnicity can be and is successful in many places and can be successful in all places so long as the value set is consistent. However, when you go to multiculturalism, where you no longer require that all people share the same values the nation state is doomed. Once you no longer even have the abstract tie that binds of values so that all ethnicities and races can cooperatively exist for the purpose of growing a nation state, likely a decent into the direction less abstract tribalism will follow. I find this all to be extremely predictable.
My issue is with the concept of multiculturalism. And while it is not anti human rights to make a religion illegal, (merely calling a belief set a religion should not give it any guarantees) having a religion which is anti state and anti law is unconstitutional or certainly should be and must be made to be.
From the addition that Pastorius provided to this posting:
The 'perfect storm' of which Griffin spoke is a confluence of various voter concerns such as the credit crunch, Islamic extremism, immigration and disaffection with Brussels.
But the BNP believes that the tipping issue for significant progress at the ballot box is the MPs' expenses scandal.
[...]
Almost overnight, it is no longer a matter of what the BNP is - a marginal group with a rotten ideological core - but what it is not.
Pastorius, you claim that nationalists have only four ways to deal with the immigration problem, and your list includes killing, rounding up, incarcerating, deporting, (presumably) sterilizing and denying "non-indigenous" people equal voting rights. Do you really think that the VB's one million voters support killing and sterilizing, etc., or is this part of the VB's super-secret hidden agenda that their hoodwinked voters are clueless about?
In the VB's own words, or at least the clunky Dutch-English translation of them, "VB wants a solid immigration stop". So, amazingly enough, there is a non-genocidal solution to the seemingly inevitable Islamic immigration invasion and conquest of Flanders. Unless of course you consider a policy to stop immigration to be genocidal as well.
So let me ask you: Do you support the VB's "solid immigration stop"? Yes or no.
Pastorius,
If the Ethnic Nationalists are willing to call for an Ideological definition of their culture, instead of an Ethnic definition, then I would ask them to refrain from ever using Ethnicity as a category in any statement whatsoever. But, they do not do that.And there's the rub! And an important point, IMO.
So, why don't they restate the definition? Political expediency so as to unite more people under the party's banner? Something else?
Vlad,
It seems to me, you and I are largely in agreement. And, where we seem to disagree, I believe we may simply be using different definitions.
You said: ... when you go to multiculturalism, where you no longer require that all people share the same values the nation state is doomed. Once you no longer even have the abstract tie that binds of values so that all ethnicities and races can cooperatively exist for the purpose of growing a nation state, likely a decent into the direction less abstract tribalism will follow. I find this all to be extremely predictable.
I say: Yes, I agree. Multiculturalism is a disaster in the making. The American model of a nation based on the protection of the rights of the individual by a strong Constitution, and then backed up by laws, is an ideology which is built to last longterm, and creates a "Melting Pot" effect, where new ideas are brought in, tested against the basic structure, and then either are burnt out, or become refined into something which is the reacher for the new ingredient.
This is not what is happening in Europe, it seems. Instead, Europeans are returning to Ethnicity as a defining element.
You say: ... it is not anti human rights to make a religion illegal, (merely calling a belief set a religion should not give it any guarantees) having a religion which is anti state and anti law is unconstitutional or certainly should be and must be made to be.
I say: Well, here's how I think of it. Let them have their religion, without the parts of the religion which are against the law. If, as is the case with Islam, whole swaths of the religion are contrary to the Constitution and the law of the land, then we should ban the advocacy of those parts of the religion. Anyone caught still advocating Sharia and Jihad ought to be tried for Sedition.
As I said in my comment above, we already have the laws on the books, we ought to use them.
Let me also be clear about this; I think the word Ethnicity is a very slippery word. I think we use three words, where we ought to use two words. We use
Race
Culture
Ethnicity
where should only use
Race
Cutlure
The problem with the word Ethnicity is that, unless we use it reflexively with the word race, then it means nothing. Clearly, Ethnicity is related to race in the strict sense, in that one can not have an ethnicity without being of a particular race. However, one can be part of a culture without being part of a race.
Hence, I believe racists often hide behind the sanctuary of the word ethnicity when they are trying to front a racist agenda.
We ought not allow them to do that.
If we just call it culture, then we can reduce it to a set of values, or ideals, which we can codify in words. If a person learns those ideals, there history and founding principles, and swears allegiance to those ideals, then they can become part of the culture. That's how we do it in America.
Sure, Muslims could pull some taqiyya, but the minute we catch them advocating Sharia or Jihad, we imprison them for Sedition.
Jeppo,
You asked: Do you really think that the VB's one million voters support killing and sterilizing, etc., or is this part of the VB's super-secret hidden agenda that their hoodwinked voters are clueless about?
I say: No, I neither believe the 1 million people who voted for the VB, nor the party structure of the VB, would want to kill or sterilize it's immigrant population, nor do I believe their is an agenda to create an apartheid state.
In fact, I did not say that.
What I said is, those are the only answers. I repeat, I did not say this is the agenda.
But, if those are the only answers, when one is working within an Ethnic Nationalist paradigm, then what answers could be proposed as the pressure becomes greater as the years force the inevitable demographic changes?
Jeppo,
You said: In the VB's own words, or at least the clunky Dutch-English translation of them, "VB wants a solid immigration stop". So, amazingly enough, there is a non-genocidal solution to the seemingly inevitable Islamic immigration invasion and conquest of Flanders. Unless of course you consider a policy to stop immigration to be genocidal as well.
So let me ask you: Do you support the VB's "solid immigration stop"? Yes or no.
I say: I think nations ought to be able to choose who they let in their country, and for what reasons. In other words, I believe nations have sovereignty over their own borders.
However, I do not think that the VB's policy of putting a complete halt on immigration solves the demographic problem which is already inevitable.
In fact, you know it doesn't. You know too much to get away with playing stupid with me, Jeppo. You know that major cities in Europe are already inevitably going to turn majority Islamic within just years. And, you know the situation is only going to continue to get worse and worse.
I am proposing a solution which has to do with laws and ideology, and your champion is proposing a solution which has to do with Ethnicity.
You want to deny that?
"You know that major cities are already inevitably going to turn majority Islamic within just years. And, you know the situation is only going to get worse and worse."
Yes, but wouldn't it be better if Europe's supposedly inevitable Islamization was at least slowed down? *That's* why stopping immigration, a large majority of which is Islamic in Europe, is so important. They have to start somewhere, don't they? Or should they continue to rush into Islamization?
Jeppo,
You are added to the list of people who refuse to address my argument.
By the way, Jeppo, sorry if I'm being a dick about this. You seem like a decent enough guy. I believe I am talking sense here, and I am frustrated by the fact that for over a year-and-a-half, the two sides in this argument have been
You guys are Nazis
vs.
We love Ethnic Nationalism
There has yet to have been a real discussion of the place of Ethnic Nationalism in the sweep of history or the progression of cultures towards real freedom and human rights (Thanos, Epaminondas, and BabbaZee notwithstanding).
Additionally, I have yet to have anyone address my concerns about the words Ethnicity, Race, and Culture, except for Truepeers, whose opinions I respect, but who I believe is dead wrong on this issue, in terms of law.
So, there you have it, Thanos, BabbaZee, Epaminondas, and Truepeers have made an attempt at going further with the argument than simply calling those on the other side names.
That's it.
And, all I'm calling for, when it really comes down to it, is that we use our own already existent Constitution and laws to deal with the problems we face.
What a radical I am.
Jeppo, I recall your mentioning in one of your comments on this blog that you're in Canada. Which part of Canada, may I ask?
"Wilders" is not just some nationalist who all of a sudden decided to "call" for this. He did not dream this up.
This "breakup" almost happened in the a while ago (a year or two? Time flies.) without his help at all.
Big rift b/t French and "Flemish" as my Belgian friend says. Been going on for a long time. Wilders saying something about it just brings it to peoples' attention.
And gets him blamed for it.
That said, it does seem that Europeans just have not in any way, shape or form internalized the "all men created equal" = NO TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS NEED APPLY.
Seems like there is always a tendency to appease then submit to the "strong man."
It's happening here, too. We are just a few years behind. Only difference is that here there is still a group of republicans who do not want to bow to the strong man. Who will probably be eliminated before tyranny becomes completely overt.
Don't think there is quite the same spirit in Europe.
My opposition to ethnic nationalist groups like the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses, or the Parti Quebecois is based on their leftist ideology, not the fact the that they're ethnic nationalists. That's just the way that people naturally associate themselves, with members of their extended ethnic, religious or linguistic families.
So I don't a problem with the Flemish, for example, having a nationalist movement based largely on ethnicity, language and religion, and especially when they're opposed to Belgium, the EU, Islamization, mass immigration and other lunacies. I'm far more worried about the trans-nationalism of the UN, EU and NAFTA than the nationalism of European conservatives.
Sorry if I'm not addressing your arguments, Pasto, but there is more to a nation than just a Constitution or Bill of Rights. Was Toussaint L'Ouverture any less a man of the Enlightenment than Thomas Jefferson? Wasn't the Haitian revolution based on the ideals of its the American and French predecessors? So what happened? A nation is built on the blood, toil, sweat and tears of those who came before us, and we in the West are very lucky indeed that our ancestors bequeathed to us what they did. The Haitians weren't so lucky. We should be careful about whom we want to pass on our patrimony to (i.e. not Muslims).
Abu, GTA
Are you in touch with the Shaidle/Vlad Tepes crowd at all? You need not answer if you prefer to remain as anonymous as possible.
Jeppo,
As I've stated before, I do not like Ethnic Nationalism of any kind, whether it be the Congressional Black Caucus, the Native American Movement, La Raza, the VB, French Quebec, Japan, the French way, or whatever. I think that, at bottom, it's all a bunch of blood and soil bullshit rooted in Pagan mythology and lacking in the modern sensibility of building nations on laws and ideas.
I guess I'm a very disrespectful American. I may be the most disrespectful of all Americans; the Ugly American.
Anonymous,
I am well aware Wilders did not dream this up. But, as a politician poised to take power in the Netherlands, I think he is making a real mistake to encourage it.
Pastorius, that's a lot of people on your blacklist just for the crime of organizing themselves (by ethnicity, language, religion, culture) like people have around the world since the beginning of time. I mean, Japan?!? Do you want to legislate against normal human behaviour?
No, you're not an ugly American. An ugly American wants to remake the world in the image of America, and gets in the rest of the world's collective face about it. The rest of the world doesn't want to be Americanized, nor should it. Part of the natural beauty of our world is its human biodiversity, represented by about 200 mostly ethno-linguistically based nation-states. Cut Quebec, Japan, France and the rest some slack for wanting to remain distinctive nations rather than provinces of Multicultural Globalist Empire.
Abu, there's a "crowd"?
From what I've read in the past, Shaidle + Blazing Cat Fur + Right Girl + some hangers-on in Toronto + some connection in Ottawa. People behind Vlad Tepes are in there somewhere.
Jeppo,
I don't have a blacklist. I'm the guy who doesn't blacklist anyone.
Pamela, Baron Bodissey, and Dymphna were all contributors here. They quit. I didn't get rid of them.
I have attempted to maintain good relationships with both Charles Johnson and Robert Spencer.
Alas, it is impossible, because they are all set on fighting.
I didn't start the fight, though I have not been reticent to state my opinion.
By your definition of an Ugly American, I am indeed an Ugly American. I do believe Europe should sever it's Ethnic Nationalist roots, and move permanently on to a system built on the ideology of human rights grounded in a belief in absolute truth; rights of man, established before the states birth.
I do believe this is what should be done, and must be done, if Europe is to survive.
Europe will not survive as a group of Ethnic Nationalist nation states in my opinion.
Europe cannot survive as a group of ethnic nationalist states. No one can.
I may not be as well versed as all the rest here on this, but once the Islamic issue is resolved (IF it's resolved) what's then to stop one ethnic nationalist state from turning on another. German against Franks against Poles? Just because they said so?
That's an awful lot of trust to put in someone who just eliminated (not necessarily killed) a whole group of people because a few (maybe many few) in their group had a violent ideology.
Ah yes, you say, but did not Americans inter Japanese because they were Japanese during WOrld War II?
Indeed,we did. And probably not our finest hour.
However, when the war was over, what happened to those Japanese? Will you then treat the remainder of Muslims that way? Allow them then to come into your countries, or remain if they are already there?
Or is the ethnic nationalist goal to see them gone, forever?
A far different outcome then we had for the Japanese.
Maybe I'm just simple-headed but that's okay by me.
Clarification before anyone gets excitable -- it's okay with me if I'm simple-headed :)
Its not ethnic, its cultural. Ethnic connotes race. Ethnicity in this sense is immutable. Culture is something that can be taught. Proof of this can be found in the fact that it changes so rapidly. The issue is not racist, it is culturist.
Traditionally we have used our schools and our laws to guide our culture. This was done on an appreciation for our culture and its fragility. This has mostly included popular movements. Puritans, the two Great Awakenings, the Freeman's bureau and Beecher's spreading of women's schools, Abolition and Prohibition, naturalization and immigration laws and the Americanization movement have all been culturist. It was the moral crusade of Progressivism that led to our large government and its programs.
My point is that we have a long culturist history with techniques to draw from.
What do traditions tell us? Though vetoes repeatedly, we finally passed culturist immigration laws in 1921 and 1924. These excluded against Southern and Eastern Europeans. The quotas were based on the 1890 census. We also have many other court cases and immigration laws to draw upon. The obvious application is having another culturist law aimed at restricting immigration from Islamic nations. This is not racist, it is culturist. If this cannot fly, you'd get the same effect by outlawing immigration from terrorist nations.
In terms of laws - We have the right to take our naturalization laws seriously. There is a language component. Besides this, there is a loyalty clause. You can use a crude instrument like causing people to decide. But there is also the ending of monetary remissions to the home country to make people choose their loyalty. We can also stand up for our law as a component of our culture. That means no Sharia law. That means no polygamy, etc. Our institutions can use our languages.
Without invoking law changes we can invoke the schools. These need to teach our historical western narrative as a progressive one. One also based on values of duty and responsibility. You teach this by teaching the culturist history mentioned above. The schools of all nations are culturist. They transmit the dominant culture. We should enlarge the scope of our national holidays. We should have thematic parades, etc. This does not mean that those who do not want to partake do not, but we have a right to celebrate our majority culture. When it is a good culture, like ours, it is good to do so and serves important culturist purposes.
Domestically, thought this does not address Islam in the U.S., we have a culturist tradition of controlling our mass media. Before a sense of decency made law superfluous. When everyone behaves you don't need law. We had Comstock laws and the FCC regulating radio and TV. Going back to more stringent standards of morality on the public airwaves would, in the age of internet, be only a symbolic measure. But it would send a signal saying we esteem - as did Jesus and Socrates - the soul and reason. This would model the idea of collective guidance for folks.
We must welcome foreign investment, but we cannot allow culturist imperialism in the form of Saudi Funded Whabbi Mosques. Obviously, because of the 1st Amendment, citizens may build whatever religious dwelling they like. But there is no international right to build mosques in America. And, herein, the demographics you mentioned come in; we live in a democracy. That means, in part, the majority gets to direct the community via votes. That is self-government.
The ACLU needs to be counterbalanced by recognizing the legal standing of the majority culture. This is also a tradition. Read the first and second case concerning Jehovah's Witnesses - Gobitus. The need for a community to perpetuate itself had standing then. And throughout most of our history it has been assumed by the law that culturist rights exist and can balance out individual rights. The modern idea that one individual's sensitivities overrule the entire community's right to perpetuate traditions should be reversed. You do not have the right to build a porn shop next to an elementary school. That is our tradition.
We must also remember that culturist profiling is not racist profiling. And that while racist profiling would be bad, culturist profiling - because diversity is real - is rational and necessary. Splitting the two allows rational dialogue. This allows you to explain to Muslim citizens of America, that only anti-American mosques will be watched. You get the community to acknowledge that this is necessary and scrupulously avoid keeping an eye on ANYONE for whom there is no probable cause.
Were the demographic measures frozen as they are now, and were Muslims to get NO ADVERSE TREATMENT, they'd likely be fairly content and moderate. Remember that rising populations and intimidation feed terrorism. If we praise our culture in our schools and in our discussions, if we provide fun holidays, most every citizen will more enjoy being an American.
Behind all of this, we need a shift in public discourse. Right now we would dismiss many of the above solutions as 'racist.' This has nothing to do with race. We must recognize it as culturist. This means we can discuss it rationally because diversity is real. And, we must embrace this fact. Multiculturalism needs to be counterbalanced. We will always have diversity. But we must stress our unity. We must also take cultural diversity seriously. We cannot blindly celebrate diversity and call all questioning of this formula racist. We must embrace culturism and be culturist.
We should also use culturism to counterbalance globalism. We have an international side. Despite what multiculturalists say, we have a core culture. We are the West. We are not the world. Since other nations do not accept refugees we need not. Other nations are cultures, we should be too. We should support Israel and other western nations because they are western. We should not send aid to Muslim countries. Muslim countries do not help us out. Other civilizations are culturist, we should be too.
When we use the word culturism we challenge multiculturalism. When we use the word culturist we help silence those who abuse the word racism to stop conversation. We stop being the only globalists and counterbalance the rights of individualists. Using the words culturism and culturist will help us stabilize ourselves. Spreading them will free up our national dialogue and help us remember our traditions. When we do this we'll see many positive culturist options for stabilizing the West. You can immediately start to help for free today. Use the words in conversation, challenge multiculturalists with them.
Wow, get busy ripping down your old house and look what you miss.
Reading the 26 comments since I looked here yesterday - one thing is obvious.
America is an EXCEPTION to a lot of problems SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE we are nation of refugees.
I am glad we are a culture less goop melange as some have put it (like Spengler @ AT).
Every nation's immigration policy is their business. If Belgium breaks up, that's their biz. If the Flemish opt for a culture which is 'culturally' white, non diverse and exerts unconscious pressure on those different in any way to 'become white' or leave (gee, sounds like another system's way of dealing with unwanted religious and non conforming monorities), well that's their biz, but excuse me if I notice, and in my observation report that it's fucking racist, by the by. But what the hey, they support Israel, right?
If they want a civil war with muslims and walloons, well, as my grandmother would say "ge zintah hay" (go in health)
It is my judgment that if a nation like the USA halts immigration we r fucked.
Europe already is.
They created this in the 70's (thanks Bat Y'eor).
They already did a nation state-culture-religious war (Thirty Years War)without quarter and fought it out over a generation with no final result.
I read a lot of solutions about votes, nation states, and cultures and am reminded of Zia ul Haq remarking rather blandly to a VERY ARROGANT SELF CERTAIN Barbara Walters, that ..what made her think that an open democratic society, with individual rights was going to survive, or even be successful as long as dictatorships had been around, or (cryptically) OTHER SYSTEMS? I worry that he was right.
Multiculturalists seek to create cultural enclaves of separateness, bound together in a society of offended victims, usu by another group...white men of one sort or another.
Ethnic nationalists seek to enforce a single answer by blood and soil according to whoever was there at an ARBITRARY moment in history, determined by ??????, luck, arms, demographics?
The USA has consciously chosen a different way FROM THE BEGINNING and we are not going to be able to 'solve' this either by multicultural stupidities, nor by unitary arbitrary cultural defense of what SOME CONCEIVE OF as the Magna Carta thru the lens of Franklin's glasses.
American culture is a mess. America civilization is a mess.
There is a reason for this.
It was intended to be a revolutionary society, open and changing.
What others may do is their business.
Here, we had better not kill the experiment BECAUSE WE ARE SUDDENLY FRIGHTENED PEOPLE, INSECURE, AND WANTING TO HIDE BEHIND ABIGAIL ADAMS' SKIRTS
Epa,
I was wondering why you hadn't weighed in earlier.
You said: America is an EXCEPTION to a lot of problems SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE we are nation of refugees.Is or was an exception to a lot of problems?
Pastorius, I don't think that you've fully thought through the dark side of a nation-state based on nothing but the ideology of "human rights". Protecting "human rights" today in Canada and Europe means an extra-legal bureaucracy persecuting and silencing Christians and conservatives and other non-protected groups for expressing their beliefs, even privately. In British Common Law countries including the US, our real human rights date back to the Magna Carta and the rights of free-born Saxons before that, not to the modern Thought Police deciding that our ancient freedoms violate their totalitarian "human rights" laws.
We're free because our ancestors fought for our freedoms over and over again throughout the ages. The roots of Liberty are deep in the West, but shallow to non-existent almost everywhere else. That's why freedom and human rights can't just be imposed on foreigners with no history of either, at least as we understand the terms. It's not in America's national interest to try to enforce a neocon/liberal imperialism around the world. It's a policy that's bound to fail, cost countless lives and dollars while doing so, and will only succeed in fomenting anti-American sentiment everywhere, including in the US. Just worry about your own freedoms being eroded by the steady creep of unaccoutable judge-made or bureaucrat-made law in the name of protecting someone's "rights".
I challenge anyone to offer a different solution
ACCEPTED:
DEMAND ASSIMILATION.
CONVERSION - OR AT LEAST MAKE THEM FORMALLY REJECT SHARIA - ND MAKE CITIZEBSHIP DEOENDENT ON THAT.
SHARIA = SEDITION IN ANY DEMOCRACY.
I challenge anyone to offer a different solution
ACCEPTED:
DEMAND ASSIMILATION.
CONVERSION - OR AT LEAST MAKE THEM FORMALLY REJECT SHARIA - ND MAKE CITIZEBSHIP DEOENDENT ON THAT.
SHARIA = SEDITION IN ANY DEMOCRACY.
rejection of sharia should be a no-brainer.
completely inconsistent with our form of government, archbishop of canterbury be damned.
My 'buds' in the persian gulf always told me that islam in the end was incompatible with american democray where the rights of the individual count as much as the will of the majority, and the rule of law created by man, MUST trump faith
Shariah cannot exist along with the constitution.
We don't have to even demand assimilation.
Shariah can exist here as no more than the dietary laws, such as Halal and Kosher.
If Islam cannot be fulfilled here without Shariah there is NOTHING we, here, can do about that.
It is not our problem to resolve.
Immigrants who come here expecting to inculcate the ideas and compulsory behaviors of Shariah should think twice, and go elsewhere.
It is incompatible with American law.
That's really all there is. All consequences flow from that.
Shariah is incompatible with the constitution.
Epa,
You said: If Islam cannot be fulfilled here without Shariah there is NOTHING we, here, can do about that.
It is not our problem to resolve.
I say: I agree completely. It is not our responsibility to help Muslims redefine their religion. It is only our responsibility to enforce our own laws and Constitution.
If we don't enforce our own laws and Constitution, then it is our fault. After all, we get the government we deserve.
I believe most people don't have a friggin' clue as to what our Constitution says, or what our Founding Fathers intended.
I'm hoping that the pressure of the times we live in will force us to reexamine our roots.
That's what it's doing for me. I know that.
Jeppo,
You are right in your comment, a nation state based purely on ideology is dangerous, and the EU is such a state, isn't it?
The key difference between America and Europe is we believe our rights are God-given, not designed by man. Our rights come before everything else, and they are absolute.
The European model believes they are malleable, not absolute.
Americans who believes in the "Living Constitution" model are like Europeans, believing that truth is malleable.
We have the same problems here.
One question that is worthy of asking is, is Europe capable of believing in absolute truth anymore?
Culturist John,
I love your comment. You're so much more eloquent than I. You say the things I wish I would have said. I'm glad you write here.
:)
Thanks Pastorius!!!
Post a Comment