Friday, November 30, 2007

Dream on, we'll never die!

"No man, no problem". That was Stalin's idea of a solution and it is alive and well in the so-called progressive, multicultural west of today, as the words of a French general say:

French Lt. Gen. Xavier de Marnhac also said the problem of tense relations between Kosovo's ethnic Albanian majority and Serb minority would eventually reach a "biological end" as the average age of the Serbs was much older.

Back in the days of civilisation, before the dark times, before post-modern relativism there was a name for such behaviour: genocide. Sixty years ago the euphemism was "final solution" now it's "biological end".

If I were this general I'd be more concerned about the "biological end" not dissimillar to the one he refers to in Kosovo and Metohija sweeping the suburbs of French cities then about something happening in a foreign country. But that is too much to ask since this would require the ability of critical thought long since eradicated among the so-called elites.

I'll save him the trouble and tell him that we'll sooner see the "biological end" of his nation then mine. Some vitality is still left in us if for no other reason then to spite the likes of him, whereas his country is spiritually dead and his rise to the rank of a general is the greatest testimony to that fact.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

"Is it cold in here, or is it just me?"

The movie quote is from a 1993 action movie "Demolition man" , with Silvester Stallone, Sandra Bullock and Wesley Snipes. It was your untypical Hollywood blockbuster because of some of the major parts of the story.

Anyway, Stallone playing the tough LA cop and Snipes playing an extremely violent criminal are put in a criogenic freeze as a new form of punishment for participating in an incident that had many innocent people killed. As time goes on the city of LA undergoes radical changes. And this is where the typical part of the plot ends. Because the dystopian world shown in this movie is far away from your usual Hollywood apocaliptic picture. In this movie, the dystopia is based on leftist liberalism!

Seems far fetched? Let's look what is in the film. Guns are banned and deemed thing of the past as is any form of violence, even by the so-called law enforcement agencies. Meat is illegal as well as any kind of spicy food and smoking too. Pregnancy is strictly planned by the governrment. Words deemed unpleasant are replaced with conjured-up phrases such as homicide being referred to as a "non-sanctioned life termination".

Sound familiar? Yep, many of this exists today in reality. We have the ban of smoking in public places, we have all sorts of agencies, governememnt and not, moving towards the ban of advertisement or an outright ban of various foods because they feel "it's bad for us". Then there is "Planned parenthood"...

But most of all, we have the inept governements and security forces unable or unwilling(it does not really matter) to do what it takes to protect people from dangerous criminals and at times even protect themselves(as the situation in Paris shows it quite well) thanks to decades of brainwashing with political correctness.

At the time the movie was savaged by critics, who in their reviews were talking about the trees while missing the wood completely. Superficially, it is a brainless action movie. But, it was meant to be on purpose in order to show the liberal dystopia stripped down to it's subtext. Not even the surname of Sandra Bullock's character, Lenina Huxley, rang any bells. But if it's any consolation for the moviemakers, they were much closer to predicting the future then they could possibly imagine.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Orwell for all times

It would be easy to write about "1984" or "Animal farm". Instead I offer one of Orwell's critical essays dated from August 1941 about H.G. Wells(hat tip:Brussels journal). The large part of it is valid today as it was 67 years ago:

What has Wells to set against the ‘screaming little defective in Berlin’? The usual rigmarole about a World State, plus the Sankey Declaration, which is an attempted definition of fundamental human rights, of anti-totalitarian tendency. Except that he is now especially concerned with federal world control of air power, it is the same gospel as he has been preaching almost without interruption for the past forty years, always with an air of angry surprise at the human beings who can fail to grasp anything so obvious.

It's the same with the globalist and universalist pundits of today. Why secure borders when we'll have a globalist democratic world? Why fight for territory when we will have transnational unions where everything will flow freely? Even the self-righteous anger directed at anyone opposing this view is easily identified.

Before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even of peace, you have got to eliminate Hitler, which means bringing into being a dynamic not necessarily the same as that of the Nazis, but probably quite as unacceptable to ‘enlightened’ and hedonistic people. What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the S.S. men patrolling the London streets at this moment. Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the ‘sacred soil of the Fatherland’, etc. etc.), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered from. The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions — racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war — which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.

For decades patriotic feelings were being systematically supressed by liberal globalist intellectuals and in many countries, Serbia being among them, the consequences are devastating. Young people without a sense of purpose and direction, breakdown of family and morality, cultural decline, lawlessness cities and lands being taken over by foreigners.

In this part Orwell also refutes in advance the historical revisionism on World War Two being a fight for "universal values" and a "united Europe". Nonsense. Anti-nazi coalition was formed by countries and peoples who were fighting for the preservation of their nationhood from a monstrous ideology that sought to subjugate and destroy them.

Orwell continues:

...unfortunately the equation of science with common sense does not really hold good. The aeroplane, which was looked forward to as a civilising influence but in practice has hardly been used except for dropping bombs, is the symbol of that fact. Modern Germany is far more scientific than England, and far more barbarous. Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany. The order, the planning, the State encouragement of science, the steel, the concrete, the aeroplanes, are all there, but all in the service of ideas appropriate to the Stone Age. Science is fighting on the side of superstition.

Science without morality leads to dehumanization and evil. Huxley covered it well in the "Brave new world" and history has seen it in practice with the "works" of Dr. Mengele. But that sure does not stop the liberal globalists of yelling "Science, progress, reason..."

There is so much more in this essay, be sure to read it all. You won't regret it.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Yet more delusion combined with sycophancy

You'd think that events on the ground have discredited the "Iraq light unto the muslim nations"(copyright Hugh Fitzgerald) project beyond all repair. But there are still those yet to descend from La-La Land back to planet Earth. One of them is a certain Bill Sammon. Sayinf that his interview for Frontpage Magazine about his new book "The Evangelical President: George Bush's Struggle to Spread a Moral Democracy Throughout the World"(a title worthy of anything that the North Korean media might say about Kim Jong Il) paints a rosy picture about Dubya's policies would be an understatement. The delusions are too many to list here, I'd just comment on two:

(1) Not many presidents can say they liberated 50 million people. Think about that. Bush freed 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan from two of the most brutal and repressive dictatorships on the face of the planet.

And what were those "brutal and repressive dictatorships" replaced with? What did the people of those countries vote for? Sharia law and islamic theocracy, an antithesis to freedom if there ever was one. And what about the PA? Aren't the Palestinians, technically speaking, free people because Hamas was elected in free elections, held thanks to relentless pressure from Washngton? How does this fit in the equasion?

(2) Bush established balance on the U.S. Supreme Court, which used to have four liberals, three conservatives and two swing votes. Now the court has four liberals, four conservatives and one swing vote. The president's success in installing John Roberts and Samuel Alito will have ramifications long after Bush leaves office.

Harriet Miers? Does the name ring a bell? If not, she was Bush's first choice for Supreme Court, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. She was stopped only due to a general revolt among conservatives. Yes the SCOTUS is balanced now, in no way thanks to Bush.

Amazing to what lengths people are willing to go in order to defend their agenda even when it it shown to be utterly unrealistic and based on fantasy.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Weekend personal posts

As of this weekend I'll start writing some personal posts so that all of my readers can find out something about me as a person. Life isn't just politics, you know.

Anyway, this year I finally got married and moved away from my parents and it will be the first time I celebrate my slava. Serbian readers know full well what I am talking about, but for others slava is an exclusively Serbian custom. Each family has it's patron saint that it celebrates. Mine is St.Nicholas and it falls on December 19th(December 6th according to the Julian calendar still used by the Serbian Orthodox Church). On that day the priest usually comes into the home and blesses it as well as the whole family. Slava is also an occasion to gather family and friends around a variety of dishes and drinks. My wife has decided to start the preparations early so she already began looking for appropriate recipes as well as food at a bargain price. I suppose it's because this is the first time and she wishes for everythig to be perfect.

Yesterday I watched football from 4 PM until midnight. You must be thinking that I am insane now! Bolton did not impress me in spite of beating Man United. There is no reason why Red Star shouldn't be able to beat them. Serbia ended it's qualification with a hard-fought 1-0 win over Kazakhstan. Enough said. Then it was Inter against Atalanta in Serie A. Inter's superiority is embarassing, they were practically without their midfield and Ibrahimovic remained oon the bench yet they won without breaking sweat. And as final I saw Real Madrid draw away against Murcia. "Merengues" were rather lackluster and could be satisfied with a point.

In spite of all this football I still managed to catch last 30-40 minutes of the "Shawshank redemption" with Tim Robins and Morgan Freeman. I saw in in a theatre some 12 years ago and let me tell you it's much better on the big screen. Talking of which, it's been ages since I've been in the cinema, but then again there is not much to see. December usually brings something so I'll pay attention.

Sunday was workout day and then football on TV in the afternoon again. But no worries, my life isn't that monotonous and I'll show it next weekend hopefully.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Melanie Philips, delusional as they come

The title may take aback some readers, but tell me, what would you call her after reading this blog entry of hers where she describes a debate between a self-described "moderate muslim" Ed Husain and a fully-fledged apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Philips still firmly hangs on the the Great White Hope of "moderate peaceful islam" in spite of all evidence saying that such a thing simply does not exist. Her only argument is the existence of men like Ed Husain who still claim to be muslim and claim that by having found a "new interpretation" and discovering the "pluralistic tradition of islam" they managed to renounce jihad. Melanie Philips blindly signs on to these claims never actually bothering to ask Husain or herself what are these "pluralist traditions", when did they exist and what islamic texts do they derive from. On the contrary, she attacks Hirsi Ali for allegedly not refuting a rather fantastic claim for which no evidence was given.

If Philips wanted to do a serious analysis of the debate instead of wishful thinking, she could have done worse then taking a look at Robert Spencer's opinion on "moderate islam": I have noted many times: there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Every school of jurisprudence and sect that Muslims consider orthodox teaches that it is part of the responsibility of Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims under the rule of Islamic law.

In other words, Philips' and Husain's "pluralist traditions of islam" do not exist or consist mainly of tactical differences of how to wage jihad. Husain's "interpretations" go no further then himself.

Islam, or any other set of beliefs for that matter, can not be what some of it's adherents want it to be or would like it to be. It has it's scriptures and ideological tennets layed down in print and the ideological authorities that give it's meaning. Husain's and Philips' intentions may be honourable, but ultimately they are deluding people with this theory and putting them in great peril.

Thursday, November 22, 2007


Qualifications have ended so now I can enjoy league football every weekend without interuption until the Holidays(no I'm not adopting political correctness, it's just that us Serbs celebrate Cristmas on January 7th), thank God. As for Serbia's performances, the less said the better. Here's waiting for South Africa.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Unfair to the "islamic rage boy"? No!

Remeber him? He has become the symbol of violent islamic demonstrations for whichever reason they care to come up with. A reporter of "Daily mail" went to Kashmir to meet him and to tell his story. The details of the article prompted some sympathy at the Gates of Vienna. Having a rather good memory, I was certain I had read something about the Rage Boy previously where he praises ayatollah Homeini. So I did a bit of googling to find if such an article exists and, lo and behold, there it was.

I'm sure that I'll be forgiven for not being sympathetic to the Rage Boy.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Numbers that prove me right

In my essay about how Europe renounced it's Christian roots I attributed the main cause of that phenomenon to the WWI. I wrote that after that war people for the first time started abandoning their religion en masse. Admittedly, I did not base my assertion on any concrete evidence but merely on circumstantial data. Bruce Walker at the American Thinker provided numbers that fully support my thesis(hat tip: The Barnyard):

...In his book, The Dictators, Richard Overy states that in the decades preceding the First World War Germany was becoming increasingly secular, and that after that war, from 1918 to 1931, 2.4 million Evangelical Christians formally renounced their faith as well as almost half a million Catholics. In Prussia, only 21% of the population took communion and in Hamburg only five percent of the population took communion. Before Hitler, German religious leaders were publicly condemning the rise of moral relativism and decline of traditional religious values.

Weimar Germany largely had abandoned Christianity and increasingly was embracing hedonism, Marxism and paganism. There, decline of Christianity in Germany led directly to the rise of Nazism. Professor Henri Lichtenberger in his 1937 book, The Third Reich, describes the religious life of the Weimar Republic as a place in which the large cities were "spiritual cemeteries" with almost no believers at all, except for those who were members of the clergy. The middle class went through the motions, but lacked all living faith. The workers, influenced by socialism, were suspicious of the church. Even in the countryside, preachers had little influence on the people. In the 1938 book, The War Against God, by Sidney Dark and R.S. Essex, describes pre-Nazi antipathy toward Christianity by noting that churches had lost all their vitality and that their services were lifeless. Mower, in his 1938 book, Germany Puts the Clock Back, wrote that by 1920, God and Christianity had been in steady decline, a process that had begun in 1860. Mower talks about a culture not so much casual as vicious about sexuality. He writes of art sickened into atonal music, about the absence of any sense of sin, about entire graduating classes in high school turning up for birth control devices, and about the commonplace occurrence of abortion.

Sound familiar? By all means, read the whole article!

Good shot, but wrong target

Ann Coulter explains(in her own way, of course) in a recent column why people should be careful about what they wish for when they express desire to have democracy in Pakistan. She makes some good points but her entire venom is directes at the liberals. What about Bush, Anne? Does not his administration also pursue the goal of the Pakistani democracy? Why does he get a pass on that especially since he is in a position to do real damage unlike the liberal journalists and professors mentioned in Coulter's article?

Furthermore, how does the praise of the "Iraq democracy" in this piece fit in the equasion? Last time I checked the people there overwhelmingly voted for islamist parties, just like they would in Pakistan. Why was there no insistence on finding an "Iraqi Ataturk" that will drag them into modernity? Because Iraq doesn't have nukes? But didn't they say Saddam had WMDs and...Oh, never mind!

Pity that blind partisanship destroyed what had a potential to be a thought-provoking column.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Kosovo "elections"

Reuters reports that the turnout on the "elections" in Kosovo and Metohija was "a record low". As predicted, Serbs boycotted the elections en masse but the low polling numbers of Albanians were an obvious surprise. Reuters immediately offered an explanation:

“This is not about independence. Turnout was low because people are depressed. This is about the economic situation — no water, no electricity, no jobs,” said analyst Berat Buzhala of the Albanian-language daily Express.

Is it?

Since the arrival of the UN administration on Kosovo and Metohija no census has been made. In fact, the only census officially recognized dates from 1981. The numbers of Albanians are based on extrapolations and have been grossly inflated for political purposes. Add to that the fact that it is not known how many Kosov and Metohija Albanians are native and how many come from Albania and there are the real reasons for this "surprise".

The question that poses itself now is whether Serbia will know how to use this in it's favour. Will we demand a full census on Kosovo and Metohija? Are we going to finally challenge the propaganda myth of "2 milion Albanians"?

Johnson all over the place

It seems that the campaign Charles Johnson has started against some European nationalist parties has got him quite confused. So confused that he, in fact, does not know where he stands anymore. On november 8th Johnson replies to one of the comments which expressed fear that he will be booted of the anti-jihad wagon:

They can't boot me off something I never jumped on.

A couple of days later he gives some of his ideas on how to deal with global jihad:

What I DO support to deal with the jihad: much stronger legal barriers to the spread of hardline ideology, including monitoring mosques and Islamic schools, strictly limiting immigration from Islamic countries, and maybe most important, finding some way -- any way -- to eliminate the poisonous Saudi influence from our society and our politics.

Wait a minute, didn't you just say you do not nor have you ever belonged to tha anti-jihad movement?

Also, a blogger by the name of Conservative Swede, has another interesting angle on this affair. Apparently, Johnson has been informed three months in advance about the anti-jihad conference in Brussels as well as about the fact that Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna will be participating in it. The obvious question rises: why didn't he voice his alleged concerns prior to the conference? Charles' answer is that he was flooded with e-mails and couldn't read all of them. Given the list of the participants in the conference which included the likes of Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'Or and Andrew Bostom the explanation can hardly hold water. A prominent anti-jihadist blogger to miss out on the conference featuring who-is-who of the anti-jihad movement? Then again, he does say now that he's never been an anti-jihadist in the first place.

As I noted earlier these are hardly the first incoherences he made throughout these events and I'm sure he'll make more(when he is not busy banning dissenters from his site).

Friday, November 16, 2007

A virgin only once? Not any more!

At least not in the UK, where the National Health Service has decided to finance hymen transplant operations. So in the future when asked what was it like the first time some women will reply:"Which one?"

Joking aside, this is just the level of absurdity modern societies have reached in the quest for a multicultural world and a world without absolute values. It's going to take a lot to reverse this, something of tectonic proportions.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Another side of the LGF/VB controversy

Robert Spencer has published his take on the situation aroused by Charles Johnson and LGF and their attack on some participants of the Counterjihad conference in Brussels. He made his intentions clear, and made some good points but some things left me baffled.

I'll start with the latter. Spencer expresses doubts whether Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna have indeed renounced nazism and racism and cites some examples and then gives a rather vague reply by Fjordman, which is a part of a bigger essay but which was just a general remoark. Spencer completely ignores specific answers to charges against VB put out by the same Fjordman, Paul Belien of Brussels journal and other bloggers. Why? I suppose this is because of his perpetual war of words with CAIR and other islamist groups who toss the "nazi" canard like it is nobody's business and Spencer does not want to give them ammunition. His pre-emptive dissasociation with potential nazis, however, has lead many to a comclusion that he lends credence to the charges of Charles Johnson. VB and SD(an unfortunate acronym, but what can I do) are, even according to Robert Spencer, the most pro-Israel parties in their countries and SD is on record of having expelled all it's members with pro-nazi leanings. What more does Spencer want? The leaderships of VB and SD can in no way control every single one of their members nor can they come up with 100% fool-proof way of screening new members. As I noted in one of my previous entries, many genuine racists join the parties demonized as "racist" by the establishment because they believe such propaganda. Besides, my opinion is that there will be no pleasing the likes of Charles Johnson. They will not let go of the "racist" and "neo-nazi" canard until those smeared with it accept completely and unconditionally their variant of political correctness.

That said, Spencer does make some important points. In major countries in Europe there is no coherent political organization dedicated to fighting global jihad, and those that exist are suspect at best. Take the BNP, for example. I must admit I'm sitting on the fence when it comes to them. Their leader, Nick Griffin is on record of having given statements that could constitute Holocaust denial but has said since that his views on this have changed. Now, I accept that people can indeed change their opinion on a matter when confronted with facts or even their political philosophy, but is the change of heart sincere or is it pure opportunism? In France practically the only anti-jihad party was the Front National of Jean-Marie Le Pen. He has been made into a bogey man ever since the 1990-ties and some of the unsavoury comments he brought upon himself. But another big concern should be that in the previous elections FN has made inroads towards the muslim community and has accepted some tennets of multiculturalism. As for Germany...Oh, dear, just imagine if a politician would declare himself "a German nationalist"! A major political organization in at least one of these three countries dedicated to defending the indigenous people and by extension European civilization without having any pro-nazi baggage. Don't anyone tell me I've become politically correct, because Europe had such parties before the multiculturalist takover in the past 3 or 4 decades. It's the only way Europe can break with this trend which is spelling an inevitable end for the continent.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Latest from Caroline Glick

Caroline Glick in her latest piece deals with the instrumentalization of muslim minorities and immigrants in the modern nation-state. In it she touches the subject of Kosovo and Metohija. While it is a worthwhile text when it comes to giving out current, it is devoid of theoretical basis for such events and a bit ambiguous when it comes to the Kosovo and Metohija issue.

Glick never explains the attitude of islamic theology towards peoplehood and the nation-state. In short, islam does not recognize either nations or nation-states. It is a quintessentialy universalist religion. The only earthly political entity islam permits is the umma, it's own religious-political organization. A muslim's loyalty is to umma and umma alone. Nation states are a blasphemy since the sovereignty in such an entity is of the people whereas in islam sovereignty belongs to Allah, as per Qur'an 2:107.

Another qualm I have with the text is the part about Kosovo and Metohija. I can overlook the obligatory bash of Milošević but the tone of the paragraph I did not like. The whole issue seems to be not whether Kosovo Albanians had any right to claim other people's land but whether Serbia is "democratic", "democratic" in a way a contemporary western liberal or mainstream conservative would see it. What if Serbia, or any other country for that matter wasn't "democratic"? Does this mean islamic minorities can subvert it and that the US and the west should support such subversion with all means necessary? This elevation of "democracy" to a god-like solution to all ills in the world will far more likely be the undoing to the nation-state and civilization then any rebellious minority.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Why now?

AP reports that Albanian paramilitary organizations are infiltrating the northern part of Kosovo and Metohija, mostly populated by the remaining Serbs. This is hardly news. They've been doing this for months.

So why now decide to report on it all of a sudden? The answer is rather simple. Remember the floscule how Albanians might get restless if they do not get what they want? This report is to further enforce this perception, to serve as a means of pressure on the public opinion both in Serbia and all other interested parties. This game is as vile as it is apparent.

Don't expect, however, anyone to ask the obvious question:"What gives them the right to threaten with violence if they do not get what they want?"

Blood, tears, deceit and hypocricy

Italian football claimed another victim. Lazio fan Gabriele Sandri was killed by a policeman, accidentaly they say. Fans, regardless of the club they support,did not buy this and reactions, many of them excessive, started coming like an avalanche. More then just their inappropriateness per se, they also obscured the real issue.

In the first hours after the incident, the Italian media gave bombastic headlines about a big fight between Lazio and Juventus fans that claimed a life. Throughout the afternoon rumours were spread alla over TV stations that laziali along with their interisti friends, were headed towards Parma to square it off with Juve fans who followed their club there. As time went by, the truth was inevitably creeping out. As it turned out, no more then 10 people participated in the so-called mega-fight, which was not really a fight at all but a mere trade of insults and pushing around in which poor Sandri hasn't even participated but rather slept in his car.

And now everyone is scandalised with fans' behaviour! Yeah right! What about the cop who shot at live targets in order to control a simple fight? And the media who gave unsubstantiated rumours and outright false reports? Anybody gonna mention them? Will any of them answer for their actions?

It was clear why they started out with the big fight story. It wasn't just to cover-up for the police. They wanted to use the incident to demonize and posibbly liquidate ultras groups which have been a thorn in the side of the authorities for years. I do not believe for a moment that the ultras are angels, far from it, but it is quite clear that in order to satisfy some economic and political interest the tendency is to "sterilize" the footballing public and make more "theater-like".

The reaction of Italian official organs, state and sporting, is a picture of malice, cynicism and hypocricy. Serie B and C were halted next weekend and away fans were banned. The minister of sport even wanted to halt the whole championship. A cop shoots, kills an innocent man, the media make false reports, all hell breaks loose as a result and the ones who are paying the price are the fans. E viva la logica!

Don't let the pictures from the riots in Bergamo and Rome fool you, the responsibility of this lies entirely on the shoulders of the Italian authorities and media and the public by inquiring about their actions throughout this sordid affair must not let them get away with this.

Friday, November 09, 2007

A much deeper problem - part two

European establishment right-wing parties have already undergone the transfromation the American conservative movement is still undergoing. "God, family, country" was long since substituted with "anything that is politically advantageous" at best or at worst the so-called right-wing leaders proved to be complete frauds. The immigration topic was made taboo in every sense, especially in context of preserving a country's national identity. After the demise of Enoch Powell nobody wanted to touch the subject with a ten-foot pole. Parties that had the courage of taking on the issue of immigration were routinely labeled as "nazi" and "racist".

In the past years the problem could no longer be avoided and the parties advocating immigration restrictions all of a sudden became respectable. Or rather, their positions did. Tell a lie enough times, however, and it becomes the truth. The citizens of European countries were held back from voting for "racists". There was another problem as well. Many genuine racists believed that anti-immigration parties were racist and decided to jump on their band-wagon. Therefore, it was much easier to vote for the establishment parties who professed to have adopted an anti-immigration position but who later would go on with the same old.

In such a spritual state of the "right" in Europe and the conservative movement in America, it is all to natural that any movement or organization seriously devoted towards the preservation of a nation in Europe, which in effect means the preservation of the ethnic make-up of the state founded by such a nation and by extension it's racial make-up. Since mainstream conservativism in America now largely lies on liberal premises of absolute non-discrimination, parties, organizations and governements that cherish etnicity immediately become heirs of the nazis. The universalist principle that inevitably comes along as liberal baggage does not permit someone to examine the specific history of a nation and a continent and when it does it is only to enforce the view of European people's being hateful. Therefore lunatic columns by Ralph Peters and a "conservative" blogger Charles Johnson expressing discomfort with people wanting to live alongside their own(and later backtracking once confronted with a direct question whether European countries have a right to preserve their historic ethnic make-up).

Yet the same "conservative" pundits and bloggers who deem European peoples as "expert haters" chide Europe and it's peoples for not standing up to Hitler sufficiently and for not joining the war in Iraq. While this seems completely contradictory and schizophrenic on surface, once the ideological tennets of mainstream American conservativism are analyzed as well as the way of thinking that has taken over. History is interpreted in the context of the ideological premises of "freedom", "democracy" and "non-discrimination" and so WWII became a "fight against tyranny" and the Iraq war "a battle for democracy". In the name of "democracy" and "freedom" everything is permitted even waging war. In fact, that is the only war permitted waging and one which is even prescribed. Those who do not join in on it, even if they do it for all the wrong reasons, are immediately given white feathers. On the other hand, even mild desires that do not conform with leftist liberal premises are declared nazi-like by self-appointed guardians of moral purity.

And now comes the scariest part. In case of a nationalist revolt in Europe against the ruling elites and global jihad they are aiding and abetting with their policies on immigration and and which the mainstream conservatives in America claim that they are fighting, whose side will these American conservatives be on? Will they see this as a reawakening of Europe and it's step back away from the precipice it is standing now? Or will they denounce it as a "revival of nazi tribalism" and even worse, advocate the sending of troops to put down the revolt and protest the "persecuted immigrants and muslims"? There is every indication that it would be the latter.

Until mainstream conservativism in Europe and America ditches the liberal premises it is built on no real progress will be made in protecting their countries from those wishing to subdue them.

Monday, November 05, 2007

A much deeper problem - part one

The sorry spectacle of Little Green Footballs had me thinking about a more serious issue I haven't covered previously. Wandering around the net I have seen quite a bit of disdain towards Europe and it's peoples by American mainstream right-wing commentators and some blogs, message boards and web sites deemed "conservative". It ranges from simple smug sense of superiority to nearly psychotic hatred(such as this article by Ralph Peters) What is the reason of such attitude and where are the roots of it? And what consequences will it have on the future?

While I am not old enough to testify to this, older people claim that this is a fairly recent phenomenon. 15 years ago such feelings were all but non-existant. How did it come to pass? The simple answer would be the natural arrogance of the only remaining super-power. Simple and simplicistic. Because there is much more to it then plain arrogance of someone who bore the brunt of a victorious battle. Anti-Europeanism manifests itself primarily not in the extensive glorification of American role but in the denigration of European identity history and culture.

There is quite a long prologue to his story. The American conservative movement has undergone significant changes in the past 20 years or so. Desperate to deem themselves likeable to the overwhelmingly liberal mainstream media they took a turn to the left. Some of the most fundamental principles of conservativism were gone such as national identity and culture along with border protection. People that had nothing to do with real conservativism had not only joined the movement but became it's most established figureheads. Mainstream conservativism in America was shaped into a new ideological mould, the liberal premise of absolute equality and multiculturalism has taken over. Debates over nation, ethnicity, traditional morals and religion became taboo. The belief in God as a Higher Power, a central pillar of conservativism in Europe and America since Thomas of Aquinas, was replaced with the worship of "democracy" and "equality" the way liberalism sees it and thus everything that came as a product of such "democracy" was beyond criticism. No thought was given about the culture that made the ideas of personal freedoms and equality before the law possible.

It is little wonder that establishment conservatives, by and large, in the wake of 9/11, bought the myth that it was done because the jihadists hate America's "freedoms" and "democracy" that "makes no discrimination among people"(literaly). And even less wonder that they immediately saw the spreading of the ideas of "democracy" as the solution to all the ills in the world. As an addition to the already significant watering-down of conservativism came the "liberals mugged by 9/11". Although largely still adhering to liberal premises of absolute non-discrimination and equality they bought the right to conservative prominence by giving blanket support to the "war on terror" and "spreading of democracy".

Europe had a different history then America and a different social order arose as a product of it's historical and cultural development. Over centuries different nations and countries developed, based largely on etnicity and cultural similarity. While someone may obtain a passport of a certain European country, that same person could not etnically belong to the nation that created that country. The establishment conservatives in America immediately siezed this as a fact that proves American superiority. "Anyone can become American" they boasted.

But what does it mean to be American? Or more importantly, what do the mainstream conservatives of today mean by "being American"? Are they talking about a piece of paper or adherence to certain culture, spiritual and moral principles?(*) As it has been shown a number of times mainstream conservativism in America(and in Europe, to an even larger extent, more on that in part 2) has purged itself from any rational debate on culture and has swallowed multiculturalist premise of absolute equality of all cultures and religions hook, line and sinker. God forbid that someone suggests that being American means respecting some spiritual Higher Good and that there are people not able to do something like that. That is racist, you see!

Knowing that more is needed then a passport to make somebody American, they immediately pulled the "freedom" card out of their sleeves and declared that it is "freedoms of the American system" and the celebration of it that is the quintessential defining tract of an American. The best explanation of the absurdity of such a position was given by David Yerushalmi, in his op-ed piece on the polemic between John Derbyshire and Robert Spencer about Spencer's new book. Yerushalmi, taking firmly Spencer's side, writes:

In truth and in short, Derbyshire and the secularists (not R. Spencer and the Christians) are in the dock to answer the question: if America is worth discriminating over, why? Without divine providence, what makes us a People and therefore worth discriminating against the OTHERS who demand the “human right” to work here at will or the “civil right” of free speech to preach and map out the destruction of our constitution? If the sole GOOD that is America is freedom and democracy, and not a transcendent value that makes our People unique and worth defending, then how do we deny freedom and democracy to the OTHERS who of course would come here to ruin what it is we are as a nation and People?

His answer necessarily boils down to either a nonsensical contradiction or a secular tyranny no different from tyranny simply. His answer will go something like this: we “worship” freedom and democracy but not to the point that we allow others to destroy our freedom and democracy. This is really the relativist moral argument articulated in a political context: “a freely consenting adult can do what ever he wants as long as it doesn’t impinge on the like freedom of another free adult”. The problem with this argument, aside from the many well known practical ones, is that it is based on the rejection of truth and its replacement with Process. Since there is no qualitative truth, there can only be a fair or just process (i.e., free choice, voting). Now, don’t misunderstand. Freedom and choice are wonderful things, but if the Process is the Highest Good, then there can be no defense to the use of the process to destroy the process. And that of course is what we see before us today in the embrace of tolerance and multi-culturalism to the point of suicide.

What I just described is the nonsensical contradiction in Derbyshire’s position. Now, since Derbyshire will claim not to be a relativist, I imagine, he will simply stop short of the contradiction and pronounce that he has the right to “preserve” his way of life against such assaults. But on what basis does a nation preserve itself against such assaults? Just because the majority are not Muslims today? What if the Muslims are content with simply coming here and quite peacefully converting Americans, generation by generation without any violence in order to overturn our constitutional republic by a two-thirds majority? On what basis then will he resist? If his Highest Good is a Process, he loses. Understanding this, he must rely on his simple “secularist” argument that today we are the majority and must vote to preserve that majority. But that again is placing the process of democracy in the position of the Highest Good. The quality and nature of the American People as a Christian nation is of no value for him. He has only to rely on quantity; on numbers.

By deeming everyone paying lip service to the "democratic process" worthy of American citizenship, regardless of whether they cherish the historical roots of a nation, mainstream US conservatives sow the seeds of it's destruction. While most realize this subconsciously, they are unable to shake off the fundamental beliefs of leftist liberalism, in order to reverse the trend. As a rationalization for this inability, they proclaim such views racist and nazi-like and as a consequence all those that seek the protection of ethnic makeup and traditional nationhood are labeled as such.

(to be continued)

(*) This question is a paraphrase of a line from "Hitler - The Rise of Evil". In it, Robert Carlyle playing the main protagonist during the Munich coup trial responds to a question by the judge "Are you German?" with "Are you talking about a piece of paper or the blood in my veins?". I have repeatedly proven with my previous posts that in no way do I endorse the views and ideology of Hitler and the NSDAP. But, taken completely out of context, the line does show that there is more to nationality then a passport.

Friday, November 02, 2007

Off the deep end

This is where LGF and Charles Johnson have gone, in my opinion. Certainly, after reading the latest accusation thread against the Vlaams Belang I could not reach a different conclusion. LGF now claims that VB is associated with the white supremacist movements in the USA. His evidence? VB leaders appeared on the same radio show as David Duke! I kid you not! Considering that David Duke recently appeared on major US television networks(regarding the disgraceful Holocaust denial conference in Teheran) that's one long and distinguished list of associates Duke has, if we follow Johnson's logic. Futhermore, they expanded their attacks on the Brussels journal and Paul Belien. Their sin? Stepping up for the rights of a political party that denounces homosexuality.

Fjordman, in his latest essay at the "Gates of Vienna", aptly shows not only the inconsistency of the LGF position but also the madness of it, plainn and simple. He also revealed how Johnson blatantly contradicts himself. Fjordman writes:

There is no other continent where the indigenous peoples are being systematically stripped of their heritage, displaced in their own cities and are subject to violence and abuse with the active participation of their own authorities, yet where this is celebrated as a victory for tolerance and where the natives are banned from even verbally opposing any of this. Yes, I think this reveals an anti-European bias.

I asked Charles Johnson about this: “OK Charles, since you make this to be about racism, I’d like to hear your definition of racism. The indigenous population of all European countries is white. If European countries would like to maintain the indigenous population as the majority, this by extension means a white majority. Do you think the people in, say, Norway, have the right to desire an immigration policy which ensures a traditional demographic majority, or is this racism? If so, how come non-European countries are allowed to desire the same thing without being attacked? Since you’re so preoccupied with racism, will you also launch an equally passionate campaign against the Whiteness Studies now taught in increasing numbers of American educational institutions, sometimes with the support of public money?” He first claimed that the question was “meaningless,” but after I pushed him, he reluctantly replied that yes, Europeans have the right to resist being turned into a minority in their own countries. Good. He didn’t answer me regarding the issue of Whiteness Studies, though. I kept pushing him, and he finally replied: “Since you’ve repeated this several times, I’ll answer it. The fact that I do or do not post about one thing has absolutely nothing to do with what I post about something else. That is a complete red herring, and you know it.”

However, as I have shown in a previous blog entry, when asked more or less the same by another poster, Johnson gave the opposite reply. So which is it?

There is another, much more disturbing thought by Fjordman in the same essay:

Many Americans say they are tired and will never become involved in Europe again. Fine, I can understand why. But another question is, if native Europeans actually start fighting back against Islamization for real, whose side will Americans be on? Will they be on ours, or will they back the poor, Muslims victims of European racism and xenophobia, just like they did in Yugoslavia?

Judging from the aggressive hostility towards anything European they are indoctrinated with, I fear the latter.

Well, if Fjordman by "Americans" means liberal leftists and a good portion of establishment conservatives, I'm afraid he's right.

Saudi king in London

Wanna bet that someone will lose his job over this?