Thursday, November 22, 2007

Center For Vigilant Freedom Comes Out For Le Pen?

Christine Brim, the leader of Center for Vigilant Freedom for North America, posted the following today:

Daniel Ben-Simon wrote a fascinating piece in Haaretz on the rapidly re-aligning politics of Europe, especially on the emerging alliance between conservative and moderate Jews and right wing parties.

Worth noting - we did not invite anyone (nor did anyone attend) from Le Pen’s party in France to the Counterjihad conference, due to his current and past positions on Israel, the Holocaust and anti-semitism. And if we had, we have no idea if they would have accepted; like all political parties they have their own objectives. However, Le Pen is far from a marginal actor in France; he came in second to Chirac in the 2002 presidential election, and finished fourth in the 2007 election.

We suggest looking for the possible movement of Le Pen’s political party Front National towards the center-right, as they may change their platform to pro-active support to improve the situations of European Jews and Israel. The same trend is happening in Austria, and with the BNP in the UK (also not invited and did not attend the conference).

If such parties specifically state pro-Israel positions, and take real actions opposing anti-semitism and disavowing previous positions - and reach out to Jewish constituents and encourage Jewish participation in party positions - these are real actions to observe, and to approve. They have not done this yet - but are starting. If they have representation in the EU Parliament or their national parliaments, their statements and how they vote are other good indicators.
Ben-Simon’s article shows the trend:

AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France - Two small and vulnerable communities, one
constituting about 1 percent of the population and the other about 10 percent,
are the fulcrum of the 2007 French presidential elections. The Jews and Muslims
in France have fulfilled a decisive role in determining the political agenda for
some 60 million French people.

First, the Jews were hit. In the fall of 2000, when the Muslims began
to avenge the damage done to their Palestinian brethren in the territories, the
lives of the Jews of France changed. Within months, hundreds of attacks on Jews
and Jewish institutions were reported. Community leaders raised the alarm, but
the French government dismissed the events as incidents perpetrated by criminals
or delinquent youths.

The socialist government headed by Prime Minister Lionel Jospin
deciphered the new reality, but feared sparking a communal and ethnic
conflagration that would set fire to the republic. Thus, only rarely did
government spokesmen mention the ethnic origin of the perpetrators or their
victims. Only when synagogues and schools were hit was their link to Judaism
mentioned. Only when Jews took to the streets and demanded that their country
protect them, waving the flag of Israel alongside the French flag, did France
concede that this was a new wave of anti-Semitism. In the past it had taken a
Christian form; this time, it was described as Muslim anti-Semitism.

Seven years later, the all-clear can be sounded. Attacks do continue,
but they are much less severe. Here and there curses, here and there shoving,
here and there slogans on walls. The murder of Ilan Halimi a year ago was
considered the height of the anti-Jewish campaign that began in the fall of
2000. These seven years have shaped the new politics of France’s Jews. Real
fears have grown strong sometimes to the point of exaggeration and have caused
the Jews to prefer a right-wing to a left-wing candidate.

It is almost certain the extreme right headed by Jean-Marie Le Pen will
benefit from the terror that has settled in the hearts of the Jews. In the past,
Jews did not vote for Le Pen because they saw him as a racist and a xenophobe.
As long as they felt protected, they condemned him and his opinions. But in
light of their feeling that the state has abandoned them, some see him as a
worthy address.

While the state has not admitted to the growth of extremist elements in
the Muslim community, Le Pen more forcefully emphasizes his well-known opinions:
Muslims, or most Muslims, should go back to their countries of origin. The enemy
of my enemy has suddenly become a friend. A Jewish doctor in this picturesque
town said a few days ago that many of his friends intended to vote for Le Pen.
“Of course, because he is the best for the Jews of France,” he said. A friend of
his, an economics professor who took part in the conversation, conceded that
although things had improved, most of the Jews of Aix-en-Provence would vote
either for the right-wing candidate Nicolas Sarkozy or Le Pen. “I have a feeling
that Le Pen will do very well in the coming elections,” he said.

In the last elections, in 2002, Le Pen got most of the votes in the
mixed cities, where veteran French people live alongside Muslim immigrants.
Sarkozy, the leading candidate, is for this reason trying with all his might to
pull votes that have already leaked into Le Pen’s camp. Segolene Royal, the
left-wing candidate, knows that hundreds of thousands of votes have gone to the
margins, pursued by fears and insecurity.

To a great extent it is the Jews of France who have marked out the new
path the 2007 election is taking. True, in the election campaign everybody is
talking about the economy, unemployment, education, allocations to the weak, the
level of universities, the need for increased military power, France’s place in
Europe and its relationship with the United States; but floating above all these
important issues is the question of France’s identity.

In what country do they want to live and how France will look in the
future are two of the questions that the French voters are placing before their
candidates. Who would have thought that France, too, would become entrapped by
the politics of identities and would not be able to extricate itself from them.
One hundred and two years after religion and state were separated and a way of
life instituted that erases identities, France finds itself struggling over what
is left of the republican revolution. On this level, not only the Jews have
fulfilled a significant role since the fall of 2000, but so have the Muslims,
since the riots of the fall of 2005.

This reflects a certain desparation, in my opinion. Many in the counter-Jihad are grasping for help from anyone from whom they might receive it.

However, the counter-Jihad movement, if it is to become a large movement, must above all, stand for a body of ideas, and not merely stand against the international Jihad.

Why do we stand against the International Jihad? The answer is rather simple, if you were to ask me. Because the Jihad is being waged in order to install Muslim rule (Sharia law) across the world. Sharia law calls for the stoning to death of apostates, adulterers and homosexuals. As such, it is opposed to the idea which is embodied in the Infidel Bloggers Alliance headline, which reads:

All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.

The thing is, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and his party the National Front, have never, as far as I can tell, made such principles their highest priority. In fact, Le Pen, is an Ethnic Nationalist.

Here is a little bit of history on Le Pen:

The language of Le Pen and his publications leaves no doubt that the leader espouses bigotry and anti-Semitism and sees little problem with of exterminating the Jews.

In 1987, he said that the Nazi death camps were "a mere detail" of World War II. In 1990, he was convicted of incitement to racial hatred by casting doubt on the Nazi persecution of Jews and Gypsies under a French law banning such rhetoric. He was fined the equivalent of $233,000 and has appealed the sentence to the European Court of Human Rights.

In those days, Le Pen seemed to be compulsive in belittling or ridiculing Auschwitz. He was critical of a then-cabinet minister named Durafour, and in referring to him said, as in a joke and with a smile, "Durafour-crématoire’ It was a pun on "four," French for oven.

Le Pen’s most egregious recent’ comment, evoking widespread protest from parties across the political spectrum and from human rights and Jewish organizations, was that "the races are not equal’ It was a comment that was repeated by the newly elected Mayor of Vitrolles, Mine Mégret, and seems to be a staple of the FN ideology. Both Le Pen and Mme Mégret elaborated on the statement by noting that, after all, different races have different strengths. Thus, both said, Blacks are better at sports.

Now, one has to wonder about the Center for Vigilant Freedom, an organization which the Infidel Bloggers Alliance has, up to now, supported. Does the Center for Vigilant Freedom stand for the freedom of all individuals to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

And, if they do, then why are they so willing, indeed almost eager, to make alliances with organizations like Vlaams Belang, and Le Pen's National Front, when they have a history of racism and anti-Semitism?

Is it enough that such parties disavow anti-Semitism and begin to make pro-Israel statements? Is not history filled with characters who were willing to make alliances with former enemies for a period of time in order to gain an advantage? Does not Le Pen's decades-long history of racism and anti-Semitism warn us against jumping into such alliances?

Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French white power freak that "Vigilant Freedom" is on the brink of endorsing if he'll just say what they want to hear, met in May 2005 with:

David Duke
Don Black of Stormfront
Kevin Alfred Strom of National Vanguard
Nick Griffin of the BNP

... and several other white nationalist and neo-Nazi scumbags.

I hope everyone on that side of the controversy is happy with their new neighbors.

It looks like a political oxymoron, but Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front is poised to strike an alliance with France's large immigrant Muslim community.

A generation after France's right-wing party began its surge with a tough anti-immigration campaign tinged with both racism and anti-Semitism, three factors are coming into play that could spell a strategic realignment.

These factors, which are still little grasped outside political circles in France but will have an enormous impact, include:

* The Islamicization of France is largely a fait accompli. It is assumed that 6 to 8 million citizens or residents of France, 10% to 13% out of a global population of 62 million, are Muslim by now. And that the Muslim community, being more prolific, is much younger than the rest of the population: As much as 25% of French citizens or residents under 20 is Muslim, with the number reaching 40% or 50% in the big cities.

* The National Front is surprisingly popular among Muslim immigrants or second-generation Muslim citizens. For all its campaigning about immigration, Mr. Le Pen's party has always extended support to Arab and Islamic causes abroad, from Saddam's Iraq to Arafat's or Hamas Palestine, and from Al Qaeda to Iran. And it is as firmly anti-American and anti-Jewish as the Muslim community itself tends to be.

* The attraction of the French far left, which accounts for another 20% of the national vote, toward Islam, rabid anti-Americanism, and even anti-Semitism, a phenomenon underscored by the emergence of Dieudonne, a former liberal music-hall humorist who has turned into an enormously popular French equivalent of Louis Farrakhan. Dieudonne, the son of a black Camerounese father and a white French mother, claims that Jews were the main European slave traders in the 17th and 18th centuries. He refers to civic and educational programs about the Holocaust as "memory pornography." He has welcomed the electoral victory of Hamas in Palestine. According to the philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, he is in moral terms "Le Pen's son."

Mr. Le Pen's inner circle seems to have entertained such a strategy for quite a time. Back in 1999, Samuel Marechal, one of Mr. Le Pen's sons-in-law, stated that France was becoming "a multiethnic and multireligious society," and that "Islam was now France's second religion."
During the 2005 riots, when even communist and socialist mayors were asking for police and even army deployment in the French urban communities, the National Front refrained from any active anti-immigrant or anti-Islamic campaigning.

Over the last weeks, in the wake of the crisis over the Danish cartoons, the National Front has sided with Muslims in their claim that "religious sensibilities must be respected."
Political analysts wonder how far the experiment can go. The real issue, many analysts say, is a schism within the French far right on who is the chief enemy.

The National Front has always been a coalition of two very distinct political families: Neofascists, like Mr. Le Pen himself, and traditional, Christian right-wingers.

Neofascists think Jews and Americans are the chief enemy, rather than Arabs and Muslims. In a way, they even tend to celebrate Arabs and Muslims as fellow fascists. As for Christian right-wingers, they see Arabs and Muslims as the chief enemy.

For years, Mr. Le Pen has been pretending he is a Christian right-winger rather than a Neofascist and that resistance to Muslim immigration is his major concern. Now he has emerged on the side of the Neofascist branch and is ready to drop the anti-Muslim issue.
Perhaps it is time for regime change within the Center for Vigilant Freedom.
Or perhaps it is time for counter-Jihadis to define what they stand for, and start a political party which represents those ideals.


VinceP1974 said...

Oh my God.. enough already.

I'm so sick of this non-ending distraction about European poltical parties.

You're an American right? If so... shut up about it already.. let the Europeans sort out their politics.

The bottom line is either the Muslims are deterimined to essentially kill us all or they aren't.

If you believe that's their plan do you think they're taking a time-out while all this stupid backbiting about Europeans is going on?

When the Jihad wants their hudna it's so they can strengthen themselves...

this stupid LGF-induced hudna is weakening us.

I dont read Jihad blogs to get the play by play on where every evil nazi in Europe is today. And especially not from Americans who aren't even in Europe and probably have no first hand informtion about it anyway.

Pastorius said...

Ok, Vince.

Epaminondas said...

Vince...we ain't winning squat allied with people who believe in a white europe.

We GUARANTEE islamozoid victory if we do. GUARANTEE IT.

I don't believe the nazi thing. I do believe the white europe thing.

The sooner that line is drawn the better for all.

This is not going away.

Conservative Swede said...

Hi Pastorius,

You should consider this comment by Wimbledon Womble:

"When Jews start to support the Far Right, despite the historical baggage of some of them, you know things are far worse than anything Charles de Californie du Sud could possibly understand."

It's not Christine getting desperate, it's the European Jews. Christine is just receptive enough to hear it. The Jews have always been the canary of the mine.

So when the Jews start turning to the Far Right parties of Europe, what does that tell you, Pastorius?

VinceP1974 said...

The only solution for Europe is going to involve a catastrophic civil war.

I sometimes wonder if you guys have thought this through to its conclusion.

Demographically Europe is already conquered... it's a fait acompli.

Thats how i see it anyway.

I view this whole new obsession about political parties to be like worrying about a pedicure meanwhile your leg is being amputed.

Epaminondas said...

I reject the frame of choice womble outlined.

It's no different from fascists or commies, choose. Welcome to 1929?

Americans will NOT support 'white europe' in the end.

I bet your take on the 'jews supporting the far right' is, as a characterization of a people a convenient CANARD.

I'll wait on that one.

Epaminondas said...

If you have ANYTHING more than anecdotal references to jews choosing the far right, let's have the URL's.

Conservative Swede said...


I had the same kind of discussion with Marcfrans over at TBJ earlier this year. And then i blogged about it. Here's what I wrote:

Back in the '30s again

>> We are back in the '30s again. With persecution and harassment of the Jews. Jews fleeing our countries. And with the parliament of the street by stormtroopers, back then in brown shirts, while today with black clothes and ski-masks. Most people didn't notice, or cared to notice, that this was going on back in the '30s. They were simply to comfortable, cowardly and irresponsible. Likewise, most people don't notice, or care to notice, today.

Let's send Marcfrans back to the '30s. A Jew comes running down the street, having just escaped a rain of stones of a nearby pogrom. He turns to Marcfrans for help, and Marcfrans tells him that there is nothing to worry about, because throwing stones like that in the streets is illegal. Then he lectures the Jew about how we live in a democracy, and that if he is not fully content with the situation of the country he lives in, he should just turn to his member of parliament, so that his issues can be dealt with in a democratic way. Giving people lectures in this way gives Marcfrans a high sensation of self-righteousness. I doesn't worry him the least that his words are empty and have no connection to reality. But is Marcfrans merely innocently naive or is he also complicit in the atrocities?

Back to the 21st century. The mob rule of the stormtroopers is again like it was in the '30s, only under different symbols. It's a rule of political correctness (originally a Stalinist invention). The keyword for the veritable lynch mob to set after someone is today "racist!". 'Racist' a word that effectively has the same ostracizing function as 'kafir' has among the Muslims. Or as calling out "contra-revolutionary" or "capitalist pig" after someone under Maoism or Stalinism. So is Marcfrans innocent here? Is he just neutral in the situation, defending his Panglossian dream? I think not. He has clearly sided with political correctness. He is eager to call out "racist" against anyone who is not staying within the pole marks of multiculturalism. Well aware of that this is the call for projecting the collective hate of the mob against that person. Quite as all other PCs, Marcfrans takes pride in using "racist" as carelessly as possible. It is seen as a way of showing that you are faithful to the cause.

Dear Marcfrans, it is not possible to take a middle position regarding Nazism, Maoism, Stalinism or multiculturalism. These ideologies are so extreme that a middle position effectively means supporting it. Don't support something that you will deeply regret when you get older!>>

VinceP1974 said...

>Americans will NOT support 'white europe' in the end.


Americans have been supporting an Arab-only,, Muslim-only Saudi Arabia for nearly 100 years now.

Your theory fails. Plus you don't speak for me. I'm an American and while France/Germany's betrayal of the US pre Iraq-war did totally alienate me from wanting to ever help those nations again.. when it comes down to reality there really is no choice but to help them.

If you think you're going to have the luxory to pick and choose who you're goign to allow protect their own country , as if it's up to you anyway, then that tells me you have no concept of the threat that Islam poses.

Pastorius said...

Conservative Swede,

I didn't say anything about Jews being desparate.

They might be, but I can't speak for Jews. I am not Jewish.

Let me be clear, I think members of the counter-Jihad movement are desparate. And, they have not sufficiently defined themselves.

Until they do they are a ship without a rudder.

Pastorius said...

And furthermore, just to be clear, my use of the word "desperation" was aimed at Christine Brim and those who are supporting such ideas as Christine suggests in her post at Center for Vigilant Freedom.

Conservative Swede said...

"If you have ANYTHING more than anecdotal references to jews choosing the far right, let's have the URL's."

Go to CVF and read up on VB, already there you find plenty. Then consider the list of attendees of the conference.

Since Jews are just as easily fooled by the fear of Nazi ghosts as you are yourself, we will not find a majority of Jews. But we find a very significant minority among the Jews, and we start finding that the Jews are becoming over-represented among the people supporting the far right. Given the a priori resistance of Jews to any sort of far right, this is indeed very highly remarkable. And call upon anyone with a genuine interest for societal issues, especially regarding Jews, to hold back the knee-jerk reactions, and lean back and think for a while. And read. And learn. And reconsider.

But people full of fear or hate won't do that.

VinceP1974 said...

Its not just the Jews who are moving to the Right parties..the gays in the Netherlands are too.

In fact, the massive rallying of homosexuals to the populist right, had just been predicted by a survey of the magazine Gay Krant, which foresees a [political issue?] for the local “iron lady", Rita Verdonk, ex-minister known for for her xenophobic declarations and her tough stands regarding immigration. The politician has started a new movement baptized Trots op Nederland ("Proud of the Netherlands"). "She is the homosexuals’ diva", says Laurent Chambon, French sociologist and elected Labour official in Amsterdam, with amusement. "Because of her, homosexuals on the right are coming out of the closet."

Epaminondas said...

VinceP- that's a load, and a deflection. I am talking about Dewinter's words. HIS freely chosen words. Ironically you seem to be advocating white europe as an acceptable goal. By using such words, Dewinter and Vlaams group themselves with some VERY unsavory people here. UNACCEPTABLE people to me. Thus in advocating white power, they are counterjihad not in purpose, but in functional effect, and are every bit as reprehensible as Qutb. EVERY BIT. BTW, more than several arabs have threatened me DIRECTLY so you can can that angle about recognizing things.

Swede - nothing you have posted is ANYTHING more than opinion. If you have DATA, not stories about this jewish person or that, DATA which shows the mass of jews NOW supporting ethnic national parties as a function of fear of muslims, I'd love to see it. I would LOVE to see it.

I'm jewish. So LET'S SEE YOUR STUFF. And in case you think I'm something I'm not, I haven't voted for a democrat for president here since 1976.


Phillip Dewinter HIMSELF, in HIS OWN WORDS, decided where I stand.

Conservative Swede said...


What in my sentence "It's not Christine getting desperate, it's the European Jews.", is so unclear that you manage to read the opposite of what I wrote in every single aspect?

I notice that you speak of the counter-Jihad movement as "they". And it seems that you do not care about the European Jews. Fine. Then you do not belong on our ship, anyway.

If you one day would take an genuine interest in the situation of the European Jews, then you would be able to start understanding what we are talking about, and would be able to hold an informed opinion. A genuine interest and an informed opinion is the only thing separating you from the ship.

Pastorius said...

Conservative Swede,

You are right. I misread you sentence.


As far as me not caring about European Jews, well that's quite a thing to say to me. Why don't you go ask around about me a little bit.

And, I guess your way of caring about Jews is to encourage them to support Le Pen, huh?

That's a little bit like standing in the train station and encouraging them to get on the train.

Epaminondas said...

Vince --"its not just the Jews who are moving to the Right parties..the gays in the Netherlands are too."

You assume facts not in evidence.

Swede - I've seen all that and it ALL anecdotal.

Frankly I'd love to get Andy Bostom in a room and talk to him, I have a feeling that he would be as uncomfortable NOW as Spencer is.

Who in the US would have known any of this beforehand? Who would have DREAMED that invited to the counterjihad conference were those whose major goals included 'white europe'? So the list of attendees means BUNK. Think Spencer would have associated himself with white power advocates?

I'm heading for TURKEY.

Conservative Swede said...


"White Europe" is something Dewinter said back in 1991. If you are still that obsessive about it, then there's surely no cure for you.

VinceP1974 said...

>Vince --"its not just the Jews who are moving to the Right parties..the gays in the Netherlands are too."
You assume facts not in evidence

Um... i provided the URL to what I was saying.

I assume nothing. I'm not in Europe, so obviously i read it somewhere.. and i provided you with what I read.

I'm sure Europe is devastated at your refusal to "help" them... they'll be laying flowers by the embassies to mourn your non-contribution.

What was it that you were actually going to do had they met all your requirements?

Conservative Swede said...


Just hold it for a minute, sit down and think about what this means. The Jews in Europe have since some five years ago started to support the Far Right, despite the historical baggage of some of them. Think about it.

To me this is one of the many signs that tell us that things are far far more worse than most people can imagine. Are you open to the possibility that things are far more worse than you can even imagine, in spite of how much you do know?

And let me ask you and Epa, if I can demonstrate to the two of you how the Jews are overrepresented in Europe in supporting the far right, will you then change your mind about this whole thing? Will you stop opposing the conference, and stop speaking of the anti-Jihad movement as "them", and instead join us?

It will take me quite some time to collect the data, it's based on what I have been reading through many years. But if you tell me that this would be the one decisive thing that would make you change your position, then I really think it would be worthwhile the effort.

Do we have a deal?

Epaminondas said...

Swede -- he just REITERATED he meant it, within the last two weeks, I HEARD HIM DO IT.

Then he tried to justify it with words which, had Hillary Clinton uttered them, would have had us all laughing.

Or is this new information to you ...SHIRE NETWORK NEWS, an extensive uninterrupted interview.

Vince ...your assumption was about the jews moving to the right. The word JEW appears nowhere in that article and I questioned the anecdotal at VERY BEST - assumptions of swede, regarding jews now becoming european ethnic and color nationalists of the right because they choose white power advocates out of fear of muslims.

Maybe your lack of faith in me is a problem.


Pastorius said...

Conservative Swede,

I used the word we when I asked, "What do we in the counter-Jihad stand for?"

I switched to "they" when I referred to CVF whom I am losing faith in.

I would love to believe that CVF stands for freedom, but by making alliances with people like DeWinter and Le Pen they tell me they are willing to put up with fascism and ethnic nationalism.

The idea that there are Jews who support far right parties does not mean much to me. Jews are all over the map politically, just as other people are. Human beings are free, and the more free they are the more diverse their choices are.

No group of people walks in lockstep politically.

Epaminondas said...

Swede you think I oppose the conference, I do NOT.

I oppose the presence of WHITE POWER advocates among those who, in standing for FREEDOM, also are against Sayd Qutb and that kind of Islam, the ascendant form of Islam in the world. I believe that the presence of such people among those who know we are in a real war guarantees defeat. Based on Spencer's words, he certainly regrets such people were there

I have spent more time out the USA (where ever cardiac research is done) from 1987 - 2003 than in it. So I am not ignorant. I have been VERY active politically here, especially in primaries (NH) so I am not uninitiated in that way as well.

The jewish data would be very interesting to me, but my point there is that I simply don't believe the jewish people would choose white power for safety in a europe which has abused them for 2 millenia. And if they did I would advise them as a brother to MOVE. But if you have such hard non anectdotal data, I would truly love to see it. Seriously.

Mr. Dewinter should have said he was wrong to have said what he did, and he realized it was a political and moral impossibility. But his words REVEALED him, instead.

The more people hear that interview, in which he was very polished and smooth, the more alarmed people will be.

I could care less about Charles Johnson in this, btw

Conservative Swede said...

I think the large number of Jews joining these groups, strongly suggests that these groups are neither anti-Semitic nor white supremacist. But you are obviously not open to this interpretation even if you would see data of this Jewish presence.

Conservative Swede said...

"The jewish data would be very interesting to me, but my point there is that I simply don't believe the jewish people would choose white power for safety in a europe which has abused them for 2 millenia."

So European history is 2 millenia of "white power" abuses against Jews. With this cartoonish view of history it is clear that you are fundamentally against what we are standing for. The Jews in Europe have started to realize that they cannot afford the luxury of such delusions as yours. Jews have gone from clarity to clarity. First in Israel. Now in Europe. It will come to America too and then you will lower your head in shame for the many things you have said here.

Conservative Swede said...

"The jewish data would be very interesting to me, but my point there is that I simply don't believe the jewish people would choose white power..."

You and I agree about the assumption you make in the second part of the sentence. Therefore, such data will demonstrate that it is not about "white power". Agreed?

Pastorius said...

Careful Epa, the salesman is going in for the close.


VinceP1974 said...

Sorry about my tone earlier.. I been in a bad mood this morning and my moody italian took over.

Pastorius said...

Sorry to hear you were in a bad mood. Hope you're feeling better.

Conservative Swede said...

Pastorius: "Careful Epa, the salesman is going in for the close."

Yeah, careful. You might end up on the side of the anti-Jihad resistance.

However, what you take as a sales pitch is straight forward logic. And Epa sees that. And I recognize the difference between you and Epa here. Epa would care if he saw what I see among the European Jews. He just hasn't payed attention.

You wrote:
"The idea that there are Jews who support far right parties does not mean much to me. Jews are all over the map politically, just as other people are."

It's a superficial view as this one that could lead a person to see VB as Nazi-like. It's in a superficial view as this one that Jews can be Nazis just as much as anyone else. We know how to the leftists, the Jews of Israel are Nazis. The funny thing, but not so surprising when you think of it, is that the neo-Nazis also describe the Jews of Israel as Nazis.

It's only in this superficial view that e.g. SD can be seen as Nazi-like. In spite of its very clear pro-Israel, pro-American and pro-Zionist stands.

Take the position of Ted Ekeroth in that party. I know Epa will say that this example is only anecdotal, and that you will say it doesn't matter the least how many Jews that join a "far right" party -- as long as the leftist establishment of the European PC regimes describe them as Nazi-like, you believe them first.

However, anyone knowing the basics about Nazis and Jews can see what this means. Anti-Semitic and Nazi parties do not tolerate Jews in any visible position in their groups. They do not care about becoming more presentable if it means adding Jews to their ranks. An anti-Semitic or Nazi party will not compromise on its core tenant in order to appear "presentable". They make the exception for self-hating Jews however. So someone like Israel Shahak would obviously be welcomed by Stormfronters if he felt so inclined. Also, the leader of Croatia's anti-Semitic fascist party is actually a Jew named Mladen Schwartz. But someone like Ted Ekeroth is a poor candidate for Nazis to pick up because he is an ardent Zionist and therefore kryptonite to the Nazis.

To anyone knowing the basics about the nature of Nazis and Jews/Zionists this is all clear and conclusive. But is it to Epa and you?

Pastorius said...

Conservative Swede,

I certainly wouldn't allow you to define the terms of the debate for me, and that is what I was making fun of when I called you a salesman.

There are Jews who support Ahmedinejad. And, there are Jews who are anti-Zionist because they believe the only good Israel is one that is established by the Messiah.

There are all sorts of Jews.

Why don't you give us the evidnce, and see what we think. Until then, I'm feeling like a guy who got suckered into watching some three-card monty idiot on a streetcorner.

Pastorius said...

Conservative Swede,

I have a question. When you say Jews are turning to "far-right" parties, what does that mean? What does it mean to be far right?

If a party is pro-Freedom, pro-capitalism, and is protective of a Western notion of Human Rights, then they aren't what is typically defined as a far right party.

Far right typically means "xenophoci and anti-immigration", according to the media.

I would be more prone to call a party "far right" if they were Ethnic Nationalists or if they believed their race to be the supreme race.

For instance, the Sauds are far right according to this definition.

David Duke is a far right politician.

Here is an article about another person I would consider to be involved in far right politics:

I'm don't particularly like the term "far right" because the media conflates it with mainstream right, and often as in the case of the Nazis, the media is actively involved in promoting the idea that certain groups of far right when they are, in fact, socialists.

Dag said...

I hate to think of all the times I woke up in the morning and claimed "I can't go to school today. I'm sick." And the answer was always the same: "Your students are depending on you, and the dean says you'll never get tenure if you keep cutting class."

Damn, but being sick is such a legit. excuse for laying around doing nothing. I should, though, in hind-sight, claimed that my students were European Nativist neo-Nazis and White supremists; taht would have left me free to sleep in every day for all of my whole life-- and feeling good about it.

Pastorius said...

Yep, that's me, Dag. Pastorius, the guy who does nothing.

Meanwhile, all the reat of the population is spending between two and twenty hours per day digesting this information and putting it into readable form for people.

While you are busy formulating witty putdowns of me and the others here at IBA, I think I'll get back to my work which, apparently, is nothing according to you.

Pastorius said...

By the way, Dag, you are a contributor here at IBA, and as such you are always free to post any appearences you will be making in the public eye.

I have no idea how it is that I've gotten on your bad side, but have away at me and do it on the front page if you'd like.

Pastorius said...

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention this Dag:

You are a total dweeb.

Dag said...


Conservative Swede said...


I just gave you a piece of evidence but you didn't even pay attention, because you have a problem in following simple logic. Any Jew who goes to meet Ahmadinejad or joins a anti-Semitic party is a anti-Zionist and self-hating Jew. However, whatever I say you just mechanically repeat that there are all sorts of Jews with all sorts of opinion. But if I talk about pro-Zionist Jews, they do not have all sorts of opinion. E.g. they are not anti-Zionits. Did you follow that? Or did that look like another salesman trick to you? It's called logic.

Epa wouldn't miss this. He knows well that Nazis and Zionist Jews are like oil and water, they repel each other like nothing else. He's probably embarrassed by now over you superficial idea about Jews, and lack of interest.

PS. "Far right" as in outside what is accepted by the (leftist) establishment, such as in any opposition to Muslim immigration.

Pastorius said...

Pro-Zionist Jews are in agreemtn on Zionism. That's true. However, I know pro-Zionist Jews who are leftist Reform Jews, and I know pro-Zionist Jews who are conservative and Orthodox.

One thing you are right about is that I don't understand your point. It could be because I am stupid.

VinceP1974 said...

epa said:
>Vince ...your assumption was about the jews moving to the right.

I didn't assume that.

From this thread's first story is this quote:

fears have grown strong sometimes to the point of exaggeration and have caused
the Jews to prefer a right-wing to a left-wing candidate."

> The word JEW appears nowhere in that article and I questioned the anecdotal at VERY BEST - assumptions of swede, regarding jews now becoming european ethnic and color nationalists of the right because they choose white power advocates out of fear of muslims.

The article I linked to was about gays not Jews.. The reason I thought it was pertitent was that usually the same people who hate Jews usually also hate Gays.. of course the stories are about two different countries, so the parties involved are different. And my impression is that the parties mentioned in the NL story are less controversial than the ones being talked about here. The thing they have in common is that the same forces are at work driving an increasing number of Jews and gays to the right-wing parties that normally would never have happened if both these groups werent target of sharia-based hatred.

Here is what I said:

"Its not just the Jews who are moving to the Right parties [this was a reference to the news being reported in this very thread]..the gays in the Netherlands are too.[this is a reference to the URL i provided]"

Warren said...

Which pro-Zionist Jews are in positions of power in the SD VB or Le Penn's squalid mess?

To assume that WN's wouldn't tone down their rhetoric to garner votes is silly.

magnus said...

I don't see any problems with the quote of the Haaretz article by CVF, and by you too! (I havn't been at LGF and dont know if Charles also quote the article, but since he never let anyone he criticize reply with facts I avoid to go there; actually I don't like your style now either, and therefore really don't like to post this comment here.)

Why do you accuse CVF for that information? It was very interesting, I think. Your accusation (that CVF embrace Le Pen or will do that soon) is groundless, and is therefore, I think, pure evil.


One of all the strangely "Charles obeying" LGF comments printed at CVF says that fascists cooperate with Hamas. In Sweden the 1-year old non-socialist government (especially the right-liberal Moderaterna) has given Hamas big money benefits this last year, and that is a continuation of the former Social Democrat (Socialdemokraterna) government. Also the onn-socialist government asks for a dialogue with Hamas, just as Socialdemokraterna does.

The only party opposing any such contacts, money or any cooperation with the Hamas is -- guess who -- Sverigedemokraterna. That party accused as a semi-Nazi party which is on the bandwagon in the anti-Islamisation movement.

So which parties shall the anti-Jihad movement cooperate with? The Hamas friendly? Hm...


Please, try to educate, show some dignity as well as humbleness regarding facts and accusation.

This, as I mentioned, totally empty accusations and immature behaviour seems as if it was coming furiously from the devil himself!

Pastorius said...

No, I don't.

However, my point has never been that Jews are converting to Nazism.

My point is that I am concerned that many Infidels seem to be desparately grasping for whatever help they can get in our fight against the Jihadis. And, some are forming alliances which I don't believe to be wise.

Conservative Swede said...

CS: Do you know any Pro-Zionist Jews that are Nazis?

Pastorius: No, I don't.

Next question: Do you think there exist any?

Epaminondas said...

CS: "Epa would care if he saw what I see among the European Jews. He just hasn't payed attention."

Again you make LARGE assumptions.
DO I care, sure. Would it move me on Dewinter?
Only Dewinter can do that.

However, it would inspire me to make a lot of phone calls to people I know asking them some hard questions over there. It would prove that jews deserted their heritage and history and the Talmud for the false perception of safety

I would think their european heritage got the best of them.

European jews were 'good germans' in the 20's and 30's and are dead, including about HALF my family. From the escapees we learn they were AFRAID of the commies, and thought those other guys would be a better choice. Some, right up until November 1938, in the last few weeks actually. And then, so sorry.

See if you 'get' my point in this.

The reason there IS an america, is because of europe.

We have some similar values. As nations go, we have very similar values AS AN IDEAL, but we are not at all the same.

We are the children of the people who felt they had to get out of dodge. We are not here because our great grandparents got a promotion.

Therefore what lies between us right at this moment is precisely why our antecedents left or had to leave.

We are the children of awful, political, and religious refugees, and those who could find no hope of equality in, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You are claiming there is only a perceptive difference between what you see in VB and what we see, that objectively as Henrik has put it elsewhere 'they are fine'. Our heritage, and the european history which made america argue to us the difference is OBJECTIVE, and they are not.

Think about all that.

Pastorius said...


My point has never been that Jews are converting to Nazism.

My point is that I am concerned that many Infidels seem to be desparately grasping for whatever help they can get in our fight against the Jihadis. And, some are forming alliances which I don't believe to be wise.

Conservative Swede said...


It's just a simple question. Surely you can answer it. I have to take it step by step now, since you missed this point the last times. So there will be one more question after this.

So again:

Do you believe there exist any Pro-Zionist Jews that are Nazis?

Pastorius said...

Guess what. I'm not going to play your game.

Why don't you get to your point?

Are you afraid of something?

Pastorius said...

Guess what. I'm not going to play your game.

Why don't you get to your point?

Are you afraid of something?

Pastorius said...

If that is his point, then, it is simplistic and ridiculous.

I will repeat:

My point has never been that Jews are converting to Nazism.

My point is that I am concerned that many Infidels seem to be desparately grasping for whatever help they can get in our fight against the Jihadis. And, some are forming alliances which I don't believe to be wise.

In case you guys aren't getting MY POINT, I will spell it out for you.

When I use the term "Infidels", I include Jews in that group.

In other words I am saying that Jews (as a subset of Infidels) are among those who would form alliances which I don't believe to be wise.

AMDG said...

> This reflects a certain desparation, in my opinion. Many in the counter-Jihad are grasping for help from anyone from whom they might receive it.

Our situation is desperate; I think no reasonable person can deny it, can you?

> However, the counter-Jihad movement, if it is to become a large movement, must above all, stand for a body of ideas, and not merely stand against the international Jihad.

Well, I see a contradiction in this statement. If the movement is going to become large, it should be encompassing and focus on the main issue, instead of looking for ideological purity.

And these are just two comments; the entire article is deceptive starting from the title: the CVF is stating conditions for the possible collaboration. And the conditions are appropriate in my view. Already said: pure evil.

BTW, I see an Irish cross in the image on top; conclusion: White supremacists!

Pastorius said...

You think it would be hard to get Westerners to agree on the idea of Freedom of conscience for the individual.


And yes, you're right, that's a Celtic Cross there. Conclusion? I am a Nazi.

Conservative Swede said...


The Jews are not only the canary in the mine. Zionist Jews also serve well as a litmus test.

If a party is joined and supported by Zionist Jews, while it's described as Nazi-like through the widespread propaganda megaphones of the PC establishment. What are you supposed to believe? Logic and appropriate litmus tests are good ways of assessing the situation. The ostracism of the establishment just animates the reptile brain and stifles any clear thinking.

You remember BTB (bromothymol blue) from school? You put it in a substance, and if the substance is acid, the BTB makes the whole thing go yellow, and if the substance is a base, then the BTB makes the whole thing go blue. BTB is an indicator of pH.

Now I put the BTB in the liquid for you, and show it turns blue. And then you get annoyed with me, and say that you were not at all interested in the BTB and what colour it would take, but in whether the liquid is acid or a base. And you continue to say that the whole thing is simplistic and ridiculous, and a game you do not want to play. How can I explain the concept of a litmus test to you?

This applies directly to your concerns that CVF and the anti-Jihad resistance network would be allying themselves with Nazi-like parties. If these parties are joined and supported by Zionist Jews, do you still believe that they are Nazi-like? If the liquid turns blue when we put BTB in it, do you still believe that it is acid?

Conservative Swede said...


Dewinter was asked about what he said back in 1991, and then he answered that it was a metaphor. What would you have wanted him to answer? That he's against a "white Europe" and wants a multicultural Europe? What answer would have pleased you?

I wouldn't use a concept as "white Europe", but it doesn't imply white supremacism. "White Europe" is simply a historical fact. It's part of who we are historically. It has nothing to do with Nazi theories of racial purity. "White Europe" wasn't created in a Nazi lab, it grew naturally through ten thousands of years of history. They are the indigenous people, quite as there are other indigenous people in other places.

However, quite as the confederate flag makes some people think that you want to reinstitute slavery (seriously!), there are people who think the expression "white Europe" could only mean Nazi theories of racial purity. Therefore it's better not to use it. But so Dewinter hasn't been using it since 1991.

Pastorius said...

Conservative Swede said:

"What would you have wanted him to answer? That he's against a "white Europe" and wants a multicultural Europe? What answer would have pleased you?"

That's funny because Lord knows, the only other answer could have been that he's against a white Europe. He couldn't have said he was willing to let the demographics play out as they may given the decent immigrants who already exist in Europe, right?

No, he couldn't have said that, because that is not one of the possible answers in the mind of Conservative Swede.

Let's look at it again. Conservative Swede said:

"What would you have wanted him to answer? That he's against a "white Europe" and wants a multicultural Europe? What answer would have pleased you?"

I'm still laughing, CS.

Give 'em enough rope.

Sorry if I'm not being culturally sensitive to you, my Euro friend, but you are the butt of an American joke here.

VinceP1974 said...

I think CS is doing a great job.

Since no one knows me I was just keeping my opinion to myself :)

Pastorius said...

He is doing a good job ... at exposing himself.

Conservative Swede said...


If you had followed what has happened in Europe during the last decades, and the situation that the reckless policy of the socialists/liberals has put us in, you would have known that letting the demographics play out as they may really isn't a viable option.

I recommend you Fjordman for a starting point for reading up on this.

In another and ideal world without several decades of reckless leftist/liberal poisoning, we could easily have said "let the demographics play out as they may". But all this capital has been wasted by the leftists/liberals, and now the only thing left to do, is to do the best from saving us from a devastating civil war.

Btw, I'm glad for you that you can feel such schaudenfreude at the plight of Europe. Quite as Mark Steyn and Charles Johnson. We are getting loads of new allies from America right now. But the ones gloating at the misery of our situation have... exposed themselves.

So thank you Pastorius, I don't think we need you. You seem to be much happier working for the counter-counter-Jihad of Charles Johnson. Make your day, and come out of the closet now.

Conservative Swede said...

So you are a multiculturalist, but you make the exception for Islam.

Sorry Pastorius, but multiculturalism is a deranged Utopia and it doesn't work at all. I rather see the mosaic of indigenous people around the world preserving their own countries and cultures, than this ongoing steamrolling of local societies and traditions, orchestrated by the central command by our Culturally Marxist elites.

So we will have to agree to disagree about that.

If we had had a healthy immigration/integration policy in the first place -- Muslims or no Muslims -- and not this vicious form of centrally commanded Cultural Marxism, you and I would have had an all different discussion by now.

But you seem unaware of what has happened in Europe during many decades. Immigration/integration is a complete mess no matter where people come from. If you check no documents and hand out all this money for free, etc., you will attract all the wrong people, no matter where they come from. And even the right people will start behaving badly and abuse the system.

In Sweden it's virtually impossible to immigrate just because you've found a job. The only way in is to throw away your documents, and then yell "asylum" once inside. Many of them pay high amounts of money to human smugglers to enter. A complete mess has been created. The Muslims are the worst of the problems we have, but not the only one. I'm not blaming the foreigners who come here abusing the system, I blame the system. But is has destroyed the ability for a normal immigration policy for quite some time. What is needed now is firefighting, and restrictiveness aiming at getting back to normality.

It's true that there are people who are more concerned with whiteness than I am. For me the only thing I'm concerned about is that the indigenous population is guaranteed to remain a majority. But without changes this will be gone already in two generations.

You see I just do not buy into the idea of "no friends to the right". There are people who want to go further than me, but I can still work with them under the current circumstances. The only people I can't work with are anti-semitic crackpots, and people obsessed with white genes. And they are both useless anyway, and too likely to side with Islam.

But most people that put ethnicity before multiculturalism are not like that, and you will have to make that distinction and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

In Europe national identity is historically based on ethnicity. The dream you have of changing that is exactly the dream that is destroying Europe now.

I cannot see why we couldn't have different models in America and Europe and still support each other in the fight against Islam. Why the need to impose this conformism?

Epaminondas said...

CS, Dewinter crawfishing with great skill on an undeniably WHITE SUPREMACIST position, BLEW IT for american support, and for ANY hope of real support from any center anywhere.

Follow me - the OPPOSITE of white supremacy is NOT multiculturalism it is equal opportunity. The opposite of white supremacy is SOCIAL MOBILITY for all citizens (irregardless of the personal customs, religion or color).

But as you say, and REVEAL, and TRULY in his mind, in your mind and in the mind of MANY MANY OTHERS, he could not repudiate white supremacy.


Yesterday on the busiest shopping day of the year, in what would ostensily be a monocultured, monocolored northern new england I took a good look around as a result of all this. I heard about 6 difernet languages, and saw every race imgainable. Everyone was CULTURALLY SPEAKING doing the same thing. Cursory observation, sure.

But signifying Assimilation. Why? Because if you study hard and go to school, you prbably have the same shot as everyone else, and if you make it you get MORE respect than if you are the son of someone else's accomplishment.

Now, what Dewinter said DENIES this. By saying it's a metaphor, by being COMPELLED to crawfish around on that because he needs HIS BASE to know he is not weakening he has demonstrated his priority.

Will you PLEASE forget this nazi thing. I don't think VB is nazi. I think that in their movement are so many White Supremacists hiding in the cultural defense baloney that they are hopelessly compromised.

I see the same thing whenever I post on the need for american border security. In the border security movement are so many who are 'cultural defenders' (code word alert) that I get reams of email from them as if I agree with these pricks. So I hate to post on it now. But I do when it comes up.

If we, who are against jihad with ALL WE ARE DOING feel this way, what do you think most americans would think (if they even noticed). Of course, one way to get them to notice these guys is to take them in and mention them as allies all the time.

That would be the END over here. We in this movement would be in the minds of americans ... DAVID DUKE. White supremacy is the same.

By the way, at one time, the south could have made the exact same argument you made...'hey that's our heritage, we can't help it'

Sorry but in the USA it hasn't been the same for even two generations, starting with the election of Andrew Jackson, which the Virginians group really thought meant the end of the USA as they knew it. It's ALWAYS changing heritage. It's ALWAYS changing cultural norms. This makes a lot of people very nervous. It always has. That's why Stormfront exists, btw. FEAR.

I will go back again to square one. It was INADVISABLE for VB to be at that conference. They can do whatever the hell they want in Flanders. I really don't care. It's their nation. But when they cross the border as they did .... it's no longer the same.

DeWinter had a choice. He made it. Fine.

But the result as you can see is now that we have two movements, one that accepts white historical cultural imperatives as an endpoint (however you want to say it) as a valid cost of doing business, and one that will have nothing to do with it.

I worked against the KKK face to face. That's all you need to know about where I come down. I have heard it all to my face. From 'nice' people at the country clubs. It's all the same. All one thing, and it's NOT counter Sharia or counter the vile hatreds preached in the mosques and paid for by oil.

Pastorius said...

Conservative Swede,

I forgot to tell you, in my previous comment, just so you'll know; I am a big fan of Fjordman's writings. I have read almost everything he has ever written.

You said: So you are a multiculturalist ...

I say: No, I am not a multiculturalist. I am an American. (Ask Baron about this.) In America we have a tradition of assimilation. We call it the Melting Pot.

I agree that Multiculturalism is "deranged Utopia."

Sensible immigration policy would recognize that only a certain number of immigrants (as a percentage of population) can be assimilated over a certain period of time. Assimilation must be done through education, while at the same time acknowledging that assimilation is a multi-generational task. Additionally, i must be acknowledged that the assimilation of immigrants is relative to the the culture from which they are immigrating. Hence, it might take more to assimilate immigrants from one culture than it takes to assimilate immigrants from another culture. Certainly, we see that it is almost impossible to assimilate those from a Muslim culture.

Additionally, I think we ought to shop immigrants, meaning we ought to only allow in those immigrants who actually have a talent we need and an eagerness to contribute said talent to our society.

You said: "The Muslims are the worst of the problems we have, but not the only one. I'm not blaming the foreigners who come here abusing the system, I blame the system."

I say: I understand. You are probably aware that we have quite a problem with immigration here in the United States as well. In fact, I live at ground zero for the problem; Southern California. So, I have to live with the problem everyday.

Let me ask you this; if you

1) deport problem Muslims (defined as those who have a desire to see Sharia made the law of the land)

2) then you shut down immigration altogether for a period of time

3) changed policy (change the rules of political asylum, began to look at immigrants for the talents they bring)

would those who are there (once again, other than the Muslims) be impossible to assimilate?

Where I live, we have immigrants from all over the world. Only Muslims looks to be almost impossible to assimilate.

Conservative Swede said...

...would those who are there (once again, other than the Muslims) be impossible to assimilate?


But we need to add (4): drop all generous welfare hand-outs to no-good people.

Pastorius said...


I agree with you there.

It seems that, perhaps, you and I aren't that far apart.

And, it doesn't seem that you needed Ethnic Nationalism to make your argument.

VinceP1974 said...

There is somethign you both need to do though..

check out this movie trailer

VinceP1974 said...

Even the Muslims are voting for VB.

Man oh man, this VB party is really something... for such a vile NAZI white power party it sure knows how to attract Jews and Muslims.

I have to laugh at these Americans who know nothing and yet pretend to have a moral high ground to judge others from.


She meets more people like Jamal, but she feels they're fighting a losing battle against the fundamentalists. She says that the moderate Muslims are walking a tightrope, between the Muslim fundamentalists and the right-wing (ie, nationalist) Flemish extremists. I had trouble understanding what she meant, but she later brings example of Muslims who vote for Vlaams Belang. I doubt most Muslims are in danger of becoming nationalist extremists, though. As Fraihi says, if they vote for Vlaams Belang, they do it out of protest, fear and disillusionment.

As one example she brings Fatima, a Moroccan immigrant in her 60s. She doesn't see herself as integrated and doesn't think she acts any different in Belgium then she did in Morocco. She came in 1968, got a hearty welcome, worked with Belgians and generally enjoyed herself. She followed up on her kids - went to PTA meetings and made sure she knew where they were going at all times. A friend of hers complains that her son lives off benefits, even though he could work. There is discrimination, she says, but the 2nd and 3rd generation don't want to work and just use it as an excuse. These youth are coddled by multicultural and integration organizations, all in the name of tolerance.

According to Fatima the problem-youth are problematic because they have become fully Flemish. She suffers from the extremist Muslims who demand that she wear a headscarf, soemthing that she'd never done in morocco. The moderate Muslims are the first victims of Muslim extremism, but nobody takes care of them. She supports the Vlaams Belang program: stopping immigration, reducing marriage immigration and cutting off the integration sectors. She sees Vlaams Belang as the only party which is upset at Muslim extremism, who wants to treat immigrants strictly but justly. Moderate Muslims are fed up and feel that they've been left on their own. Fatima wants to vote for a more moderate party, but only after the danger from Muslim extremism is dealt with.


Conservative Swede said...


It seems that, perhaps, you and I aren't that far apart.

No we aren't, and we shouldn't need to be.

And, it doesn't seem that you needed Ethnic Nationalism to make your argument.

That's correct. I can make my argument without referring to Ethnic Nationalism. But my whole point here is that I do not see the need to distance myself from those doing it.

Historically national identity in Europe is based on ethnicity (and so it is in almost all places around the world except for in America and Israel). Ethnicity is a hodgepodge of things, including culture, race, climate conditions, genes and a common history, that have been weaved together into this hodgepodge, of which we do not know what is what, and it doesn't matter. Even culture changes very slowly, I often says that culture floats as slowly as glass.

Ethnic groups are carriers of culture. Erase the gypsies from Spain, what do you think would happened to the flamenco? If not gone, it would never be the same.

The day the indigenous (white) people of Europe is no longer in majority, Europe as we know it will no longer exist. This means that the uniquely liberal and egalitarian (I'm not using the words in a ideological sense here) sort of societies that we are used to and cherish will be gone in Europe. To state that is common sense, and not an extreme position. It's a moderate position in opposition to extreme things that are happening now.

So then comes an American and says, why don't you just change your national identity and make it just like the American identity? Well, things just don't work that way, and it's a way of playing God. America looks like it looks because of it's history, so does Europe.

If you think it's so easy to change the national identity just in a whim, why don't you just throw away your historical identity in America and adapt e.g. the Israeli concept of national identity? Putting religion (Christianity) at the center of the definition of who's an American. I can argue for that this is an improvement since it gives you a stronger defense against Islam. Why don't you just throw away our historical identity and let the politicians work out a centralized plan for changing (improving) your national identity?

Like it or not, historically our identity in Europe (as in most other places) is based on ethnicity. Everywhere the national identity is based on history, also in America and Israel. It's simply just not viable to throw it away. Trying to do so means dangerous social experiments, and this is exactly what has been forced upon is in Europe during the last decades.

However, the concept of white nationalism is crazy, and ideological. There simply isn't a white ethnicity. Europe is a mosaic of many small nations. However, I do not have this problem with "white Europe". This is simply a historical fact.

So Europe is based on ethnicity, many small ethnicities, like it or not. However it's the most cosmopolitan civilization, most open to people and influences from the outside, that there has been. Just compare us to the Japanese, e.g.

Pastorius said...

Conservative Swede,

Read my latest post, "Race, Ethnicity, and Culture," to get my opinion of the word "ethnicity."

As to your comment, you are veering back into a Ethnic Nationalist argument when you say,

"The day the indigenous (white) people of Europe is no longer in majority, Europe as we know it will no longer exist. This means that the uniquely liberal and egalitarian (I'm not using the words in a ideological sense here) sort of societies that we are used to and cherish will be gone in Europe."

What exactly are you saying here, CS? Are you saying that Indians and Chinese people who have been inured in European tradition (and thus assimilated) can not possibly sustain a Liberal and Egalitarian culture?

You see, that is a racial argument.

You appear to be making the point that you don't believe Chinese people, in general, are capable of being Liberal and Egalitarian.

I don't buy it.

Conservative Swede said...

OK, you didn't understand. And you can only think ideologically, and in extremes. I'll get back to you another time.

PS. The answers to your questions are in what I already wrote, if you just read it carefully.