Saturday, August 06, 2005

Majority would curb freedom of speech

It is easy to always blame the media for our lack of genuine debate. It is a fact that almost 70% of Norwegian journalists vote for Socialist parties. Since even our "centrist" parties would be considered Democrats by US standards, it means that maybe 80 - 85 % of our journalists are Democrats from an American point of view. And yes, this is a problem. But right now VG, which is Norway's largest, and Scandinavia's second largest newspaper after Sweden's Aftonbladet, has less censorship on its blog than I do here. They accept unregistered comments, which I do not anymore, and they allow some comments that even I would have deleted. Although this is commendable from a free speech point of view, I suspect they will face increasing pressure to stop this. I have posted some comments there myself. Nothing unusual or outrageous to my readers here, just pointing out that Islam itself is intolerant and that Islamic terrorism in Europe has been caused by massive Muslim immigration, not by the war in Iraq. This triggered some self-proclaimed anti-racists to say that I was a neo-Nazi, and that unless VG barred me from posting such racists comments, both the newspaper and myself (they wanted my IP address) could be charged with and prosecuted for racist remarks. So far, VG has continued with its lenient censorship at its blog. I mention this just to show that, in all fairness, the journalists aren't always the problem:

Majority would curb freedom

A vast majority of Norwegians say they'd like to see limits placed on the constitutional freedom of extremist groups, like neo-Nazis, to express themselves. They'd also favor a ban on public meetings of racist groups or Muslim or Christian fundamentalists. A survey conducted by TNS Gallup for Norwegian Social Science Data Services in Bergen showed eight out of 10 Norwegians supporting a change in current constitutional rights regarding freedom of expression, speech and assembly. "This is very surprising, and shows that there's a certain anti-democratic current running through the population," said lawyer Cato Schiøtz, one of the Norway's foremost experts on freedom of expression. Schiøtz linked the NSD survey results to "an element of common intolerance" lying under the surface of lofty claims to the contrary.

Danes wish to limit freedom of expression

Six out of ten Danes want to make it a criminal offence to express sympathy for terrorist organisations and attacks. In other words, voters now seem willing to tighten existing anti-terror legislation introduced after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Next week, the far-right Danish People's Party is to discuss ways to limit freedom of expression when it comes to expressing sympathies for terrorism. Nonetheless, the ruling Liberals have dismissed tightening current anti-terror regulations. This morning, Liberal MP Birthe Rønn Hornbech said that the need to demonstrate political will to clamp down on terrorists should not lead to the creation of a police state.


At August 06, 2005 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I mention this just to show that, in all fairness, the journalists aren't always the problem

True, there are some journalists who try to remain impartial and write with their journalistic ethics intact, though the majority ARE part of the problem. Then there are others, like David Aaronovitch in England, who is merely a mouthpiece for the Marxist left. I wouldn't even begin to give them anything resembling a "pass" just yet.

As to curbing any type of speech. This is a poor man's version of dealing with the problem at hand. The solution is national and racial homogeneity. With that, there is no need to worry about offensive speech or sympathetic speech towards an "unpleasant" topic, like Islam. Prior to the immigration fiasco that has infested the west, how many times did one worry about saying something offensive to a fellow Norwegian, or Swede, or any other European and then worrying about being brought up on charges for "speech"? Curbing an absolute freedom is NOT an answer that will be viable for any length of time. People know what is just and unjust. No matter how much legislation is brought forth. If it was a matter of simple legislation to keep the masses happy and compliant, then all Whites would be already walking in goose step fashion towards their eventual demise at the hands of all the third worlders in their respective countries.

The only viable solution is repatriation of all non-Europeans back to their homelands. This will be the only salvation for Europe. For the other European diaspora, it is much trickier. Australia can do it. Canada can do it though does not have the backbone to do it. The US will decay to second if not third world status and eventually balkanize. This is how I see it. The left has brought upon us a potential armageddon due to their hatred of White Christians, intolerance, racism*, and abject contempt for the west.

The left is racist in the fact that they are anti-White racists and subconsiously view non-Whites as beneath them, hence the need for all the "special" treatment that is thrown towards the non-White's way. If you view another as an equal, then there is no need for special treatment, is there?

At August 06, 2005 6:06 PM, Blogger hbl said...

On limiting freedom of expression: I think it is pretty well accepted that free speech rights do not extend to yelling Fire! in a crowded theatre or to advocating overthrowing the government by force. This idea and legislation that supports it cannot be considered undemocratic.

However, there has also sprung up a certain attitude that would limit speech considered politically incorrect; limited in some cases to the point it falls under criminal sanctions.

I am thinking of a case a few years ago where a college student, who happened to be Jewish, upon being disturbed in his studies by a raucous gathering outside, went to his dormatory window and shouted, "Quiet, you buffaloes." But, beause the noise makers were a group of African Americans, the remark was considered racist and became a nationally reported incident.

Things like this are troubling. Whether situation will self correct, only time will tell.

At August 06, 2005 6:09 PM, Blogger Ole said...

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759

At August 06, 2005 6:50 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

The only viable solution is repatriation of all non-Europeans

That's not an option.

At August 06, 2005 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only viable solution is repatriation of all non-Europeans

That's not an option.

Why not? Seriously.

At August 06, 2005 7:12 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Because it's morally wrong. If I even have to explain that, there's something seriously screwed about your ethics. Fighting Islam is about an ideology, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali has done this better than you ever will. With your hang-up about Jews, your ideas of racial purity and total lack of any sense of morality, what's there to distinguish you from a neo-Nazi? Seriously?

At August 06, 2005 7:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should apostate Muslims, Indian Hindus, Chinese people, Vietnamse, etc, who have assimilated nicely into European society and contributed, be deported simply because the Muslim population is a problem?

What you talk is nonsense ethnocentrist.

I'd rather have a brown apostate living next to me than most white converts to Islam any old day. In fact the white converts are often much more fanatical and intolerant.

At August 06, 2005 7:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! Calm down, man. My ethics are just fine, thank you. They have been "redefined" due to my observations, readings, and age.

I am not opposed to outbreeding because there is a percentage of all peoples to look outside their own ethny for compatible mates. However, this is a far cry from what we have forced upon us, which is race replacement in all European derived nations. If it wasn't, there would be no need for abhorrent "hate" legislation to keep the masses in line.

As to my "hang up of Jews", perhaps you have me confused with someone else, because the only thing I said about Jews was their role in immigration policies in the US, which certain Jewish scholars and writers freely admit themselves. I am simply repeating THEIR assertions and the evidence that points to their involvement in these matters. I also stated in that post that they are not the problem. WE are more to blame for allowing liberal ideology to seep into our psyche and allow such legislation to occur in our countries. This is no "hang up".

As to Nazi or Neo-Nazi, I am not one for the simple fact that I do not wish to oppress or eradicate anyone and only want Whites the freedoms everyone else enjoys as well as the opportunity for survival intact. Labelling someone a Nazi is a serious offense. Be careful not to fall into the trap that your opponents do to you in order to stifle opposing views and discussions on these issues.

I have travelled extensively and last year visited Scandinavia. The reason was because I wanted to SEE Scandinavia and not Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey. If wanted to see those places, I would have gone there. That is the issue and despite these immigrants are simply pawns in the elite's global chess game, it does not matter. The collective European largesse of morality, money, and subsequent immigration policies does not equate to some sort of enlightenment of anyone involved. It only brings about chaos and upheaval. As mentioned previously, Europeans have an absolute right to prevent their demise. A right that all people deserve.

Now, I understand your views and predicament here and will graciously bow out of these discussions if that is your wish. I do not want to bring any sort of trouble for you. I am not your enemy.

At August 07, 2005 12:13 AM, Blogger sissyblue said...

I agree with ethnocentrist, and also Fjordman. We can't repatriate anyone, yet. If they ever do achieve their goal of setting off nukes in one of our great cities, then the stakes change considerably. I do think it's funny that they want us to leave their countries, but it's OK for them to flood into ours.

Regarding limiting hate speech, I think it's a good idea. Nobody needs to go around saying it's a good thing to kill innocent people. The Middle East just needs democrasy and education, in their own countries. Maybe they'd stay there then.

At August 07, 2005 12:32 AM, Blogger PD111 said...


I posted an article on Gates of Vienna. I wonder if you came across it.

The Freedom of the Burqa. (Bodissey provided the very apt Title)

The crux of the article is that one has to be PC and ultra-liberal in your arguments when writing to the MSM.

At August 07, 2005 12:40 AM, Blogger PD111 said...


Your nick and words suggest that you value racial ethnicity above cultural ones. This is so akin to racial purity policy, that the vast majority of people in the world will reject it. So even if you were right, and I don't believe you are, you arguments have no purchase whatever.

We live in a world of fast and easy travel. In fact the economy of the world is based on this. Your policy will put a severe restraint on the flow on people and ideas. Islamic terrorism is doing that already, what with the border controls coming up in the US, UK and even France. Besides, I would prefer any day that we have Hindus or Buddhist engineers who integrate well without any problem, then a white muslim converts. Have you heard of David Smith, an Italian convert to Islam?

There is no going back on the free movement of people. Cheap air tavel is here to stay. Again, liberalism (and its child PC) ie tolerance, is a virtuous idea and is the natural development in developed democracies - it is a consequence of individualism, is here to stay as well. There is no point in bemoaning it.

At August 07, 2005 12:41 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

DP111: Yes, I saw it. I think one idea is to label the fight against Islam as the emancipation of a billion slaves. That's a noble and just cause.

At August 07, 2005 12:43 AM, Blogger bordergal said...

It's not necessarily race that is the issue, it is SHARED VALUES. I have a heck of a lot more in common with my african american friends then I do with a white muslim female who wants to stuff herself into a burqa.

That is why multiculturalism is a bunch of baloney (polite version), it undermines the shared cultural assumptions that are necessary for a harmonious and functioning society.

Ayan Hirsi Ali fits in well because she believes in the values of western civilization. She would do equally well in the US, I am sure.

Other immigrants never will accept those values, and should either be repatriated or not allowed into the country in the first place.

At August 07, 2005 12:47 AM, Blogger PD111 said...

I'm not sure if I posted this but it seems appropriate on this thread.
Apologies Fjordman if I have.
The adage is that generals are always mentally fighting the last war. In effect, generals are unable to cope when circumstances prevent them from fighting in a manner they have trained for. Terrorism in the 20th century in different places, revealed the inadequacies of Western armed forces, as they were not trained to fight a ruthless war with equal ruthlessness, given the PC atmosphere at home.

So it is in a cultural war. The political culture in the West has changed to political correctness and liberalism to such a extent, that even those who do not wholeheartedly subscribe to it, regard it as a good thing but for the presence of an ideology that does not value liberalism and tolerance, except as a tool to wipe out all tolerance.

In this atmosphere of ultra-liberalism there is no point in complaining that Political Correctness prevents us from fighting an intolerant ideology. Just as a modern army has to change its tactics to go along with changed social circumstances, so do we have to in a cultural war.

The same tools of PC and ultra-liberalism, can be used with greater justification in this war. Needless to say, Muslims are the first victims of Islam. They are NOT the target but our main social concern. As victims they are objects of sympathy and compassion.

Sympathy and compassion should be our passwords to gain entry into the MSM. It is well nigh impossible to gainsay arguments based on compassion.

At August 07, 2005 12:58 AM, Blogger PD111 said...


Please don't go. Different ideas, particularly if cogently argued, are challenging. Without them we will all suffer.

you posted:My ethics are just fine, thank you. They have been "redefined" due to my observations, readings, and age.
Now, I understand your views and predicament here and will graciously bow out of these discussions if that is your wish.

Please, if you think it worthwhile, explain to us why you believe so firmly that you are right?

Why? I because I get the feeling that you are withdrawing with a feeling that you are right and you cannot be bothered to waste any more time on this blog. It makes me uncomfortable.

At August 07, 2005 6:22 AM, Blogger RobertinArabia said...

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself: Thomas Jefferson

"One of the world's greatest problems is the impossibilty of any person searching for the truth on any subject when they believe they already have it."
--Dave Wilbur

And finally it has been forgotten that the condition which must precede every act is the will and the courage to speak the truth - and that we do not see today either in the Right or in the Left.- A certain German politician.APRIL 12, 1922, in Munich

It seems to me that the majority of modern Europeans believe they are free as long as they are permitted to say and write anything they are permitted to say or write without being arrested.

At August 07, 2005 12:38 PM, Blogger José said...

ethnocentrist says The solution is national and racial homogeneity.
You should reconsider that kind of statements. The problem has nothing to do with races but with values.
There is a minimum of values that are a must in orden to live peacefully, and are those values which all people must respect in order to live in the West.
Unfortunately Islam is a problem because of its political ideology, which is against democracy, freedom and peace.
I insist it has nothing to do with races.
I hope you reconsider your statement if you don´t want to be labeled of something that may be you aren´t.

At August 07, 2005 3:37 PM, Blogger Kledo said...

You should reconsider that kind of statements.

jmaria, why should he reconsider his statemensts? Is this a soft form of Inquizition?

I believe that ethnocentrist is closer to the truth than anyone other from those involved in this disscusion.


Because everything what (for example) fjordman or pd111 have said is about ameliorating of consequences.

The reason of the inevitable final failure of our civilization is our sellout of its spirit & soul. I have to make perfectly clear that 'liberalism' or 'libertaniasm' is intellectual AIDS and definetely not a soul of any civilization.

This implicate that fjorman's effort is doomed to result in vain. He will never be able to repair building which has already lost its bottom.

Those who think my words are rough I suggest to read the story about the fall of Rome.

At August 07, 2005 6:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my posts, whether they agreed or disagreed with them. I think having open and honest discussions about topics are a must and stifling dialogue out of fear of persecution is the way of the Marxist (and the Nazi for the left leaning readers of this blog).

I just want to explain a few things that have been brought up. First for pd111, the reason I said I would like to remove myself from this discussion is that I know Fjordman's discomfort with such topics and he walks a fine line in what is allowable and what is not, in the eyes of the "controllers". It appears his personal beliefs also go against topics such as this. I respect him and his blog and do not want to bring about any sort of trouble; therefore it was out of this respect and concern that I would rather not post, and not due to a "can't be bothered" attitude. I think he has done a tremendous service for Europeans in bringing to light the near totalitarian control of the governments of Northern Europe and the mess that is Islam.

Now, why do I think I am right? My beliefs have changed drastically over the last 5-10 years. I was liberal minded and quite tolerant, however, with each passing day and each witness to unfairness and inequality that is heaped upon White European people, I began getting more upset and wanted to know why things are the way they are. I travelled, read, and observed and what I have learned is that there is an "elite" and the slovenly masses. The current immigration fiasco has had its birth with the Kennedy-Heller Immigration Act of 1965 for the US and the other European derived nations have had changes roughly around the same time. Therefore, there was some sort of consensus in a change to global immigration policies of first world nations. This is not a coincidence in my mind and represents an agreement of the "elites". Things started off slowly, however have been sped up to lightning speed, especially in North American countries. Bush, the wacko, has allowed the flooding of the US with over a million of illegal immigrants per year. Clinton allowed it as well, though Bush has promoted it. Bush and his family are a dynastic bunch that have had control and power since the 1800s. Bush is for the Bushes ONLY and they are benefitting in many ways out of his presidency. Regardless of Bush and his reasons, other countries have followed suit for their own reasons and follow the "script".

We have millions of non-homogenous and non-assimilating immigrants in nearly all European derived nations with the White majority being muzzled in varying degrees to avoid voicing any objections to these changes. This is a recipe for disaster because 1) people realize discrimination when they see it and 2) people will only stay silent for so long due to fear. We are seeing more and more objections to this script with each passing day and I fear there will be hell to pay when the bubble explodes. We are seeing micro bubbles exploding in certain places as is. Sweden, Denmark, Holland are such places where the people are becoming fed up. In the US as well, people are doing things to bring attention to not only illegal immigration but legal as well. My beliefs for this are that it was essentially started out as some ideology of the left to allow others “not so privileged” into western countries and has morphed into a reality that is destroying the very nations that allowed this largesse. I’m unsure as to the true reasons of why the insanity is allowed to continue but some possibilities are 1) low birth rates of Whites (which is only compounded with tremendous immigration), 2) menial labour, 3) votes for the left since immigrants vote liberal, 4) create a mass of “slaves” that will work for a pittance, 5) “mix” everyone racially and through interbreeding so there won’t be any more conflicts (an egalitarian ideal though unlikely), 6) create tremendous chaos in order to enact totalitarian, military states to “keep the peace”, 7) destroy the western culture and race due to deep seated hatred by Marxist Whites. I’m sure there are other possibilities and I honestly do not know which above is correct, though I have a leaning towards 3, 4, 6, and 7. Maybe it is a combination of most or all.

Now, why do I have my current views about race and race realism? I think it is important to point out that I have daily contact with all sorts of people from all different races and enjoy the company of many and it goes without saying that it is important to treat everyone as individuals, which I do. However, my generalities about race and European diasporas does not conflict with my treatment of individuals. The two are not mutually exclusive. I think that it is imperative for Whites to maintain homelands because we need them as a culture, race, and peoples. The New Worlds, though tragic if lost, are not critical to our survival as a race of people. Europe is an absolute must. Without a homeland, we as a people will be nomads and will have lost our way with no identity to associate with. The only successful “nomadic” people who have survived over the centuries are the Jews. They have survived due to their religious beliefs and their tribal nature. Without those two things, Jews would have become extinct long ago. I have met Mexican Jews, South American Jews, Russian Jews, South African Jews and all my closest friends for the last 15-20 years are Jews, so I do have some sort of idea of what I speak here. We, as European Christians, do not have it in us to be this tribal. As some have stated on this comment thread, it is our individualism, morality, ethics, and recently secularism that is our way. These traits, though highly noble (aside from secularism), are what makes European Whites unique and sought out, however they are also our Achilles heel. Our sense of honour and fair play supersedes any tribal inklings we may have and opens us up to invasion and parasitism, as we are seeing first hand.

Another reason is I think it is morally repugnant to displace and replace an entire race of peoples. These immigration policies, both legal and illegal, along with the draconian “hate” speech laws are nothing but genocidal policies enacted against European White people and their countries. NO ONE would tolerate a genocide policy enacted against any non-White race of peoples, including the same non-Whites that these policies that would be directed against them. Why should we? We shouldn’t though the only reason we do is out of our “morality” and “individualism”. I no longer follow that belief and have become more tribal as time ticks on. That is what I try to relay to others when I post of such things. Our very existence is in the balance and the gravity of the situation is quite severe.

A final reason is what I stated above in that what good is having two Nigerias or two Turkeys instead of a Sweden and a Turkey? How much immigration is ENOUGH? At what percentage of the population of the majority is the moratorium on immigration declared? 1%, 5%, 10%, 50%? Why do we need immigration in the first place from genetically distant peoples anyway? It serves absolutely no purpose and the current maxim of “they will do the work Whites won’t do” is nothing but a ruse.

Some here have stated that they favour having apostate Muslims, Indian Hindus, Chinese, Blacks next to them instead of “Muslim Whites” or some use the term “white trash”. This is the belief of cognitive elitism, which I hold to have some value. I too would rather have people of my social standing around me as well, however, the problem with that is several fold. First, white trash is us. They are our ethny and as much as we would like to discard them, they are our people. Similar to an annoying uncle or cousin that we cannot stand though tolerate due to kinship. Cognitive elites of other races have ethnic interests that are different from ours. They have values that are instilled in them that look to favour their own ethny, when push comes to shove. They are tribal. One need look no further than one airport in Canada. When I travel to visit relatives there, the entire airport staff from taxi drivers to support staff to cleaning staff to food services is comprised ENTIRELY of South Asian Indians. Now tell me, do White Canadians not want to work at the airport? How does an entire airport manage to hire all Indian staff? Do people think that South Asian nepotism had anything to do with it? Where one Indian hired in a position of importance secured the hiring of ALL Indians to fill all positions? To me, this is a perfect example of ethnic interests that our non-White immigrants practice when allowed to in our countries. This is not unique to South Asians either. All other races are ethnically driven, nepotistic and tribal, except Whites who are individualistic. That is the problem with cognitive elitism when practiced with non-Whites.

In ending and sorry for the super long post, we have been lied to and are currently fighting for our very existence. I understand that repatriation is quite an unpleasant and possibly immoral act, though we are not obliged to sacrifice ourselves and our very existence for unselfishness and altruism. I value diversity and what we had WAS diversity. I travelled to Norway to see Norwegians. I saw Danes in Denmark. I do not want to see Saudi Arabia in London, like I did see when there. We need to save our countries, our heritage, our values, our traditions, OURSELVES. Having a US full of Mexicans, a Europe full of Muslims, a Canada full of Africans and Jamaicans, an Australia full of Asians is NOT the way to do it.

Sorry again, Fjordman. Despite you not agreeing with me and becoming angry, I honestly do respect your hard work here and this IS the last of my postings on this subject if that your wish, which I will infer to be your wish unless you state otherwise.

BTW, I agree with Kledo. We are witnessing a second fall of the Roman empire, though now it is the entire western culture and race.

At August 07, 2005 6:48 PM, Blogger ThBadMonkey said...

Islam is the main issue, as it is has the most violent adherants to its cause.
Western civilisation will get more conservative with more Islamic violence. Nobody cares about any intellectual arguments, only if they feel immediatly threatened. This is probably related to the Western concept of super- individualism, that Western people are not a "group", mass, herd, gaggle, etc, but are individualistic, and singular. Which is why we dont have the ability to act in "our" benefit, and expell the problem.When the money runs out, and the threat is overwhelming, we will act collectively, but that may be 10 years or more...and I think it will have to be definative, as in "forener bad", "native good"...There is no way to get that with a majority of people in the west, yet...
If it happened now it would only be a half ass measure...

I tried to post at that newspaper blog, with no results. Bummer

At August 07, 2005 7:03 PM, Blogger ThBadMonkey said...

The sad thing here is the neo-racism of the left. Left wingers assume all people are "Western" or wish to behave in a "Western " way... This is Neo-racist,as it does not see conservative Islam for being conservative, etc... (Until the bombings)

Apparently, ONLY violence can end the third world takeover, but it has to be a big show, not street level individual violence. Muslims could wipe you all out if they did it slowly, one at a time...

In Ohio, there was a rape of a little 9 year old, and the people REACTED PROPERLY. They burned his house down, and put the hoods on.

Ohio will have less of a problem with rape, or any violent crime. and more mexicans will want to leave where they can be 'free' to behave as THEY wish to, not conform to the "stiff white mans way"...With all that testosterone, they get really fidgety, and horney..

At August 07, 2005 11:36 PM, Blogger PD111 said...

Just read your post. It certainly is long. I need time to digest. Will get back you by tomorrow.


At August 08, 2005 10:22 AM, Blogger Ole said...

Your post certainly was a long one but very interesting and quite scary.What it all boils down to, is that you believe that the separation of the races is the solution to the problems we are now facing here in America and Europe. I do not, I can not, accept this. It goes against everything I've been brought up to believe as an American. I have been to school and have served in the Navy and have worked with people of a different race than me. And we were all very much "American".
I find your post scary because there is an element of truth in what you say and some people could be persuaded to follow your line of thinking because of it. Our problem(s) today are strictly a cultural one. We have an enemy with the Moslem people -and in my opinion it is with all the Moslems and not just the radical extremist- because they want to see all westen thought and beliefs destroyed. There will not be any other solution acceptable to them.

At August 08, 2005 4:34 PM, Blogger bordergal said...

Fjordman, many of the articles you put on this website are about the very same problem that ethnocentrist is discussing. Why are you offended by his comments?
He is politely putting forth an argument in favor of western civilization, which in Europe and the US is mostly the creation of European stock. It is quite possible to debate his ideas on the merits.

Iraq recently wrote into their DRAFT CONSTITUTION that the demographics of their country must remain the same.

Why is it so horrible to posit the same for a western culture?

At August 08, 2005 7:58 PM, Blogger José said...

ethnocentrist, you are right in most of you wrote, your mistake is to confuse race with values. I don´t care to preserve any race, I only want to preserve and expand certain values, it is on that we, westerners, have failed. If you insist on race you may be confused with a racist, and it seems you aren´t.

kledo, I have explained why he should reconsider his statements about race, if he doesn´t I don´t care, this is not a hard or soft inquisition.

You say The reason of the inevitable final failure of our civilization is our sellout of its spirit & soul.
I do agree, but it has nothing to do with race but with values.

At August 09, 2005 1:07 AM, Blogger PD111 said...


The whole long march of Western civilisation has taken us away from allegiance to a tribe, ethnicity, confessional or group loyalty. It has taken us towards individualism, and it is this that has been responsible for the great leap in civilisation in all history. Conceding the principle of ethnocentricity freezes that march, and it is inevitable that decline will occur.

Again, if one concedes the principle of a White tribe, then it will not stop there. Back will come the fissiparous tendency towards ever more fractious tribal identity. It is the nature of tribes that they belong to it, and do not recognise the humanity of other tribes. Thus wars that will be fought in future, and they will come, will revert to the level of brutality, which a tribe shows to enemy tribes. It will be back to the medieval ages except this time with far more lethal weaponry. Not immediately but the process will have begun. WWII is a potent example when the Germanic and the Japanese tribes took that route which led to the most serious violations of human rights on a grand scale. In passing it is worth noting that the Muslims owe no allegiance to any other except to the Ummah. That is they are tribal, and it shows in the barbarity with which they conduct war. The murderer of Van Gogh even stated that he had no sympathy with Van Gogh’s murder, as he did not recognise her humanity. Now I’m not in any way suggesting that you yourself harbour any such feelings, but it is the nature of the tribe to deny humanity to others outside the tribe.

Europe will be White long into the future, but you wish to lay that principle in writing. This is a dangerous not only for the above reasons, but if one concedes that principle, then one has no reason to deny it to others. You state that others do it anyway. But it is the principle that bothers me. You stated, “Australia can do it. Canada can do it though does not have the backbone to do it”. Do what? If one has conceded the principle of ethnocentricity, then it is White tribes in Australia, Canada, the US, and the whole of Latin America that will have to come back to Europe. Accepting the principle of ethnocentricity requires such a massive upheaval that it is inconceivable.

I willingly concede that the large-scale immigration of non-European cultures into Europe has happened at too rapid a pace. This has been mainly because of a lack of any standard for immigration, as well as the availability of modern travel. Modern travel methods though will get increasingly better so we have only one choice left. This rapid pace of immigration has led to resentment on the part of the native population, as well as the marginalisation and ghettoisation of immigrants, and in some cases, the ghettoisation of native peoples. Aboriginals in Australia and native Americans come to mind. In Europe this ghettoisation is particularly acute in the Islamic component of the population. But this ghettoisation is to a large part due to the tribal nature of Islam itself. The tribal nature of Islam has frozen the development of Muslim people, made it barbaric in dealings with others. In effect, stopped the clock for them in the 7th century. Your proposal will lead us in the same direction as Islam. I do not wish to see our response to Islam taking us towards a mirror of Islamic society.

Points 1-7 that you raise, leads to you to believe that some vast sort of conspiracy has been hatched by the elites. I cannot see such a conspiracy ever taking place. For it to be consistently applied from Australia to the US, over space and time, spanning such disparate leaders such Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Thatcher, Chirac etc would deny the independence of leaders and the electorates. I just do not see such a conspiracy spanning over 30 years, through thick and thin. What is more likely is mere drift.

You stated, “First, white trash is us. They are our ethny and as much as we would like to discard them, they are our people… They have values that are instilled in them that look to favour their own ethny, when push comes to shove.”
In the war we are in, if push really comes to shove, you would be seriously mistaken in putting your trust in a Muslim, White or not. The Muslim has already given his allegiance to Islam and the muslim community. Since 9/11 we have seen plenty of instances of this treachery. Johnny Lindh etal.. I would much rather have Sikhs or even Hindus, by our side, when push comes to shove with islam. White Muslims and Muslims in general have allegiance to islam and not to any nation state or other. Also what of the Christian Arabs, Africans and Asians, who but for their colour, have identified with Western Christian culture even before they set foot in Europe. Do we deny them the right to fight on our side? Where will they go? Back to Islamic lands, and in the circumstances, would be a death sentence. The proposal you make is somewhat similar to the BNP programme. It is a wrong prescription for many reasons, as well as being defeatist.

Do we have a problem? Indeed we do. If it were not so, I wouldn’t be writing all this. The problem we have is with Islam not being able to withstand the challenge of the liberal democratic civilisation that is now the dominant culture of the world. It is reacting viciously as it sees that the future is not with islam. This problem is not unique to Europe but spans right across the globe. Coincidentally, just yesterday, was an article in ‘View from the Right’, which lays out the agony that India is in - a liberal democratic state with a very large muslim presence.

And therefore, just as in the U.S., Britain, France, Israel, and every other Western or Western-influenced nation we can think of, there is in India a profound and unresolved conflict between nationhood and liberalism which, if it is made the highest and defining value of the state, means the end of nationhood.

It is well worth reading.

And that is the crux of the problem that we have to solve – to reconcile the apparent conflict between nationhood and liberalism. We need to find a way that does not lead to the death of either.

Western civilisation, and in this context, it is in the main a European civilisation, has been outgoing. It has gone forth into the world and its vitality has conquered all before it. And it is not just Australia, USA etc but other cultures increasingly adopt this unique civilisation that puts the individual at its core. The last bastion that is yet to fall is the Islamic one. The reaction from the likes of bin Laden, is an indication of how worried they are, that the young in the world of Islam are becoming increasingly Westernised. The bin Ladens see the death of Islam as a culture, and hence the violent reaction that we see now.

I’m confident that we will solve this problem as we have others in our history. My confidence is based on the fact that we are a dynamic culture and a not static one as Islam. Islam is unable to change its behaviour, as its culture is set in stone in the 7th century, and that is going to be its downfall. Ours is not. We rapidly try out different strategies till we come up with the appropriate one. What I do not wish to see is that we take actions that are regressive, becoming a diffident civilisation unable to withstand a challenge, and withdrawing into its shell. Western civilisation is far too robust and outgoing for that to be even contemplated.

Best regards.


At August 09, 2005 2:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thank you for your response and the words you write emit a heartfelt belief in your stance on this subject. Since I have promised not to further this topic, I will uphold my promise and not do it here. I have set up a blog of sorts, though have no intentions of running it as a blog. It will only be to continue this dialogue if you or anyone else wishes, including Fjordman. I will copy and paste my initial long post and your reply and we can take it from there. I, like you, will have to give your post some thought and then reply to it, maybe later tonight or tomorrow. Please go here if interested.


Post a Comment

<< Home