I dont accept that India is a democracy at all. It is a totalitarian despotism that prevails over there now. Even mild dissent is met with brutal police brutality. When student doctors rallied against religion and caste-based quota for admission and jobs, they were badly beaten up. Same is the case on any right wing protesters who are beaten up by the government that is for muslims, by muslims and of muslims. Neo-mogul rule by neo-colonialism is what goes on.

Brits left after their rule. The islamic mob didnt leave. There was no de-bathification nor Nuremburg type trial for the holocaust on Hindu victims of whom more than 60 mil had perished no any compensation has been paid, nor compensation for the victims of the hate crimes or reparations for the pakki wars.

Riots occur frequently on trivial pretexts for
* Saddams hanging
* Bush visit
* Danish cartoon
* Falwell remarks against their prophet
* temporarily missing Kashmir relics
with no provocation nor revenge nor link/connexion to any Hindu of leftist or rightist type but for all events that happened outside her borders!!

More than 110 million islamic sectarian gangsters were dumped on the Hindus despite two separate homelands called 'fakistan' and bangla desh were given to islamofascists carving out the best river deltas of the undivided India. Yet, pakkis keep waging war and running killing fields on BOTH sides the borders like Charles Taylor did to the African masses.

Who will throw the Taylors of fakistan into the jails of the Hague?

Wonder of wonders: kosovars got jailed today for terror plot but their cousins in KOSOVO are getting comlete control all the Kosovo land essentially kicking out the Serb minority, thanks to the U.N. Will EU act to oppose this absurdity?!

1)  Religions are not a race and in my opinion do not deserve special protection.

2)  True racism is based on genetic not cultural identity.

3)  Race is very poorly understood but sociolologists throw it around like it is a absolute science.

"

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."

I otherwise like your comments but you are very gullible here.  It has been widely shown that the "huge increase" in anti-semitism reporting in europe has been largely due to a propaganda campaign to 1) keep disgruntled jews in Israel from leaving 2)  encourage any jews left in europe to move to Israel.  I don't doubt that muslim immigration is going to increase anti-jewish/israeli sentiment in europe but this is largely due to the very actions of jews/israelis in former Palestine.

You all took this bait hook, line and sinker.

@ Conservative Swede

If you are going to cite other people, you should at least try to do it in an honest way, i.e. place citations in a proper context.  

You juxtapose two sentences of mine against a particular sentence of 'Armor' which has nothing to do with what I said.  If you want to understand Armor's racism you have to read the full text of his contributions under this thread (and other threads as well).  Moreover, I largely agree (and have stated this clearly!) with Armor that the immigration policies pursued by his government (France) in recent decades will prove very destructive for France, and its democracy, in the medium-term.    

 I certainly do NOT suffer from "Caucasophobia", and hopefully from no other phobia as well.  I have repeatedly stated my support for 2 fundamental principles.  (1) First, that people should govern themselves by 'democratic means'.  In practice (and to simplify) that means genuine preservation of freedom of political speech for all citizens of the polity, and de facto alternation of political power at regular intervals between genuinely different ideologies.  And (2) second, that any people (that are manifestly culturally and geographically distinct) should have the fundamental right to self-determination.  Just like individuals in a true democracy should have a right to self-determination in a 'reasonable' fashion.

If these statements are too abstract or too general in nature for you, I will try to be very specific to help you understand.  It is my contention that the Swedes, as a people, should be able to control totally (without outside 'imposition' of any kind) as to who they will allow to become a member of their polity, i.e. the Swedish people should 'democratically' determine what their immigration policy is.  But, as 'democrats', they should never make distinctions between themselves, i.e. among Swedes themselves, on the basis of physical features over which individuals have no control.  Democrats judge fellow citizens only on the basis of their ideas and behavior, not on the basis of their nose, skin color, or whatever.  That would be 'primitive' and certainly undemocratic.  The law should be blind as to people's looks and ideas, i.e. it should apply equally to all citizens.  However, the law should not be blind to people's behavior.  In fact, it got to ensure that they all obey the law (including immigration law). 

@ pvdh

Individuals and cultures (peoples)  change over time.  It would be pretty sad if they didn't, because change is necessary for 'improvement'.  But, sovereign peoples and adult individuals should be able to determine for themselves this change, i.e. they should self-govern.  It is certainly deplorable when individuals' and peoples' fates are determined by others. 

Therefore, in the matter of immigration policies in Europe, three things stand out as particularly offensive.  First, the perverse self-hatred for their own existing culture among a sizable segment of the ruling naive-left orthodoxy. Second, the undermining of genuine democracy, particularly by violating constitutional free-speech rights, particularly in the context of religions, immigration, etc... Third, the scapegoating of legal immigrants by some for the actions of their own democratic polities.   If Armor and Conservative Swede have problems with current immigration policies (as I do), they should take it up with their politicians and opinion makers, not with fellow citizens on the basis of 'looks'.

Your last comment on the "neocons" is silly.  The removal of Saddam's regime, and the 'war on terror', have nothing to do with wanting to impose one's world view.   They are defensive in nature, and they are indeed reactions against genuine threats.  They are attempts to help shape the 'environment' to ensure survival for democracy and freedom.  History clearly teaches that 'gathering threats' must be confronted IN TIME, or the consequences can be catastrophic.  While it is easy for people to disagree in genuine democracies about the specific nature of needed actions, it is imperative to at least be able to recognise gathering threats, rather than keep ones' head in the sand a bit longer.  And it is utterly foolish (as the European public at large is doing today under the impact of recent very poor leadership) to confuse ones' friends with ones' genuine enemies, simply because one disagrees with specific actions of friends.     

"Marcfrans' point seems to be, that since third-world people cannot help what they look like, then we must accept that our governments in the West are in the process of replacing us with these people."

You should make up your mind. What exactly do you want to conserve, the culture or the genes?
For Marcfrans it's clear. He is a defender of the culture, and to some extend I can follow that position. But in your case, it seems that genes matter more. That makes you definitely a racist. Not that you are not entitled to be one, but we should never be afraid to use the right term.

Mind you, conservatism is at the end always a lost cause. Culture or genes, neither of them is conservable, as they are both under constant alteration.
(If you met one, you would probably deny any acquaintance to a Swede how lived a few hundred years ago.)
We might try to push it a bit in the right direction, but we shouldn’t overestimate our influence. It’s like Vanhauwaert says: It’s the people that define culture, religion and –in our western countries- governments. History is full of people how tried to model the world to their vews. It’s a long list of failure, misery and blood spilling. The last ones who believed they could do it, were the neo-cons. And we haven’t seen the end of that yet.

Armor wrote: "Our governments want to replace us with third-world immigrants."

Marcfrans reacted: "But, as to your 'racism'.  Yes, I truly find that abhorrent.  I do not judge people on the basis of physical characteristics that are God-given, i.e. over which they have no control themselves as individuals."

Marcfrans' point seems to be, that since third-world people cannot help what they look like, then we must accept that our governments in the West are in the process of replacing us with these people.

Why must we accept this, Marcfrans? And why are we "racists" if we oppose it? Are you sure you do not suffer from Caucasophobia?

Marcfrans wrote to Armor: You asked me why I would want to "transplant the European soul into third world bodies"? Did I declare such a wish? Did I say anywhere that I wanted to go to the "Third World" and turn the people there into "Europeans"?

No, the effect of what you have been saying is: that once they have come here to replace us, you want to turn them into Europeans. I know, it's an even more twisted idea... No wonder you missed that this was what Armor referred to. Still, this is the twisted idea that you promote, even though you are obviously at the same time in denial about it.

We are lucky to have Bart Vanhauwaert among us. He's a living example of what I and Fjordman talk about. A real specimen, showing us how the self-hate becomes totally unrestrained, and completely blinding, in the secularized Christianity he represents. Thank you for your performance, Bart!

We see how Christian ethics started with eating its own God, and then continues to eat its own honour as well as all of its historical memory--all while hysterically screaming to the world "We are the first sinners!". Continuing to eating its own civilization, its own people, and eventually itself. End of story. No more Christian ethics. (Never again.)

For those of you who found this article interesting, as well as the BJ entry The Crux of the Matter: Is America the EU’s Enforcer?, they both stem from discussions Fjordman and Lawrence Auster had with me. So far this has taken place as private discussions, but since two weeks go I have started blogging about it. You are welcome to take part in the discussion at my blog: Conservative Swede.

I have criticized the Wilsonian world order, as well as Christian ethics. Both are areas in which we need to reevaluate and change. I have barely started. There will come much more.

Warmly welcome!

marcfrans says: "But, as to your 'racism'. Yes, I truly find that abhorrent. I do not judge people on the basis of physical characteristics that are God-given, i.e. over which they have no control themselves as individuals. "

It doesn't matter whether the immigrants' skin color and crime rate can be explained by genetics, by free will, or by God's intervention. Unlike you, I am not judging anyone. I just think that Europeans should have their own life. I don't think that some third-world people deserve to be inserted among us, while others do not. I don't care whether immigrants are worthy people or not. Our lives belong to us, and immigrants do not need us to exist.

If you are looking for deserving immigrants, then what you need is Chinese immigrants. They work the hardest, are clever, and more law-abiding than Europeans. According to your crazy reasoning, you should ask them to come over and replace us.

You said you'd like Europe to remain European, but not necessarily with people who look European. That declaration makes you a leftist ! The leftists are people who would rather ignore the real world. In the real world, only a European can be European. As every good leftist, you lack a consistent point of view. It isn't clear what your criteria are for allowing immigrants to stay. Is it hard work and law-abidance, or is it cultural proximity ?

Third-world immigrants differ from Europeans by more than their looks. They behave differently. This is why European jails are full of muslims. Immigrants also have a stronger ethnic conscience than Europeans. They know that their history and their ancestors are not the same as ours. Even the law-abiding Chinese behave differently from Europeans. So, I do not really need to bring up the question of the physical differences in order to oppose immigration, and your opinion that skin color should not be considered has no practical consequence.

However, there is nothing wrong with having a policy of white immigration only (or no immigration at all). It is a good way to prevent racial violence and to maintain some cohesion and meaning to our life. The leftists who say that any discrimination is morally wrong suffer mental confusion. If we are comfortable living with white folks, there is no reason we should bring immigrants to Europe. Besides, the reality of immigration to the West is not just that we have to rub shoulders with people we would rather avoid. Immigrants are quickly replacing us, with the help of big intellectuals like Marcfrans.

@ Yitzak

I know that Vanhauwaert and pvdh cannot read well (what is in front of them), as illustrated again by their latest responses (to their own invented strawmen), but does this apply to you as well?

How can you possibly claim that under my "logic" countries like "Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela..." would be "genuine democratic nations"?   I agree with you that these are NOT "genuine" democratic nations, but how can you possibly claim that they are under my "logic"?!  

There are only 2 possible explanations for this absurdity.  Either you did not read my expositions on "democracy", or you don't know the crucial empirically-observable facts about "Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela".  

Once more, "genuine" democracy requires among other things: freedom of political speech, regular power alternation between different ideologies, constitutional safeguards of fundamental INDIVIDUAL rights, equality before the law, etc...  These attributes do not prevail in the current political systems of Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela, although they are not totally absent either in some of them.  

There certainly is not freedom of political speech in Turkey and Malaysia.  There is not freedom of religion for 'muslims' (and others) in those countries either, because 'islam' is beyond public criticism in both these places, and a muslim cannot openly change religion without severe judicial consequences.  In Malaysia, the constitution itself explicitly discriminates among the 3 major ethnic and religious groups, and the Executive actively implements this discrimination.  And in Venezuela today virtually all power is now concentrated in one man, presumably for a very long time in the future (without external intervention).  There is still a 'formal' machinery with the trappings of democracy, but there is no longer "genuine democracy" in Venezuela.  Parliament was 'elected' under an electoral boycot of the opposition.   All major 'independent' media have now been 'closed', etc...and the judiciary is no longer 'independent' from the executive.  

Now, can you explain to me why my "logic" would turn those 3 specific countries into "genuine" democracies?  

@ Armor

You asked me why I would want to "transplant the European soul into third world bodies"?  Did I declare such a wish?  Did I say anywhere that I wanted to go to the "Third World" and turn the people there into "Europeans"?  Moreover, the concept of "soul" is way beyond 'my paygrade' and 'belongs' to the Deity.  I would not have a clue about how to "transplant" that. 

But, as to your 'racism'.  Yes, I truly find that abhorrent.  I do not judge people on the basis of physical characteristics that are God-given, i.e. over which they have no control themselves as individuals.  I only judge them by their opinions, and above all by their behavior or actions (e.g., like for instance breaking immigration laws or other laws of their 'host' countries).   

Your 'racism', if widespread, is truly a frightful indication of Europe's future.  Just as much as the blind perverse cultural selfhatred of much of the 'left' in western civilisation is today.

marcfrans wrote: " If the immigration issue does not effectively gets tackled, it is because it does not rank suffciently high in most people's minds as important enough to get tackled. In most western countries the democratic tools are available for effecting change.

Immigration continues because the democratic tools have been broken. One of the worst problems is that the media are under the control of a small far left minority. I think that a change of policy is more likely to be brought about by violence than by the normal political process. Anyway, immigration will have to stop at some point for mechanical reasons.

" the ridiculous claim that the Soviet Union in the 1970's was more of a "democratic country" than "Western Europe"

My comparison is between Russia in the 1970's and the West now. There were problems in Russia at the time: human rights violations, little freedom of speech, economic hardship, an inefficient administration... What I say is that the aspirations of ordinary Russians were probably not very far from the aspirations of Gromyko and Brezhnev.

" I certainly do NOT share your 'racism' (not meant as an insult) in wanting "European children who look like us". I agree with the 'European' part, but not with the look-alike part. "

1) It is natural to like the way our own people look like, and it is a perfectly good reason to refuse immigration from Africa.
2) I don't understand why you would want to transplant the European soul in third-world bodies. I think you watch too much TV.

Our Western “moral and ethical values” are profoundly influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking.

Strange that people can state sentences like this all on itself as being the absolute truth that doesn’t need any further clarification.
Like Vanhauwaert points out so justly, it could well be just the opposite. It’s our moral and ethical values that might influence, or even define Christianity. After all, Christianity came from a people living in a dessert-like country, that had very little to do with the culture in Rome or Athens. Hence it took a few centuries after the death of Jesus, before the first Evangels were fully written. That there has been a lot of "hindsight interpretation" is sugested by the difference between the old and the new testament. In fact it's so high, that the term “Judeo-Christian” as a sugested unity in a religious context, sounds very artificial. Even after the recording of the vast amounts of evangels, it took an other century to distinguish the real ones from the apocrypha. This suggest a long adaptation period, in which the moral and ethical values of Christianity were defined. From a cultural DNA or “meme” point of view this makes sense. The christian Religion, as a meme has a strong survival potential. Yet a lot of it's originaly associated mem's had no meaning within the western world. Other meme’s that by slight alteration succeed to connect to the religious core, augment their survival chances.
All this seem to support Vanhauwaert vision, rather then Fjordman’s.
'quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est' may be a famous quote of Augustinus (Just as Tertulianus, a Berber, by the way), that doesn’t mean it was true from the beginning.
Afterwards The dogmatization of the Roman Catholic Church, had of course a big “conservative” influence in the west. This resulted in bitter crimes against the never the less evolving ethics. (Think of the Magdalens in Ireland.) luckily, the influence of the church has faded away in recent years. As a result, Catholic dogma’s often read as anachronisms that makes one laugh. It sounds incredible, but it is true: Only recently the pope abolished “officially” the limbo.

I absolutely agree with Armor what is wrong with having children who look like us? Preserving our race and culture, disliking multiculturalism is not racism.

@ Armor

 I DO share your frustration about the apparent 'intractability' of the immigration issue, and the selfdestructive behavior of the political extreme left in many western countries.  But you have a big problem with accepting the reality of "democracy".   If the immigraton issue does not effectively gets tackled, it is because it does not rank suffciently high in most people's minds as important enough to get tackled.  In most western countries the democratic tools are available for effecting change.  If it does not happen, do not blame the presumed absence of "democracy" - that is nonsense - but, rather, blame the people, and especially the misnamed 'elites' in media and education systems.  They too will have to live with the consequences of their own 'shallowness', shortsightedness and stupidity. 

I certainly do NOT share your 'racism' (not meant as an insult) in wanting "European children who look like us".   I agree with the 'European' part, but not with the look-alike part.  Like Kapitein Andre, you have to try to make an effort to make the proper distinction between 'culture' and 'race'.  The first is man-made, the second is God-given.   And, since you dare to make the ridiculous claim that the Soviet Union in the 1970's was more of a "democratic country" than "Western Europe", I fear that understanding of the essence of democracy will continue to escape you, so that discussing it further between us would be ...pointless. 

@ Perfktm

It is not reasonable to aim for a "perfect" democracy, so it would also not be reasonable for anyone to blame India for failing "to be a perfect democracy".  I also suspect that your blaming of "Ghandi" for India's ills is excessive and too one-sided.  

I largely agree with your opinion about Islam's destructive impact on India's past history in terms of political development.  Unlike British colonialism, islam's colonialism did not advance the cause of 'democracy' at all in India, nor anywhere else for that matter.   It did help create 'art', though, like the Taj Mahal for instance.  But that is a very different kind of issue.     

Marcfrans wrote: "What could "popular sovereignty" possibly mean in practice in the absence of freedom of speech?!"

I didn't criticize what you said about democracy. You gave a list of requirements for democracy to work. I think your list is correct. But if we look for a simple, short definition, it should be: popular sovereignty !
We do not have sovereignty of the people in the USA and Western Europe at the moment. Most people still think that they live in a democracy because they do not know the correct definition of democracy. They tend to associate the idea of democracy with things like wealth, the absence of violence, the presence of competent technicians in the administration...
A low level of governmental violence does not ensure democracy. Conversely, I think that a government who killed a few political dissidents once in a while could easily be more democratic than the USA and Western Europe. Here is an example: in the 1970's, the Russian part of the Soviet Union was not exactly a democratic country. But it was more democratic than current Western Europe because the government and the population had similar aspirations for their country. Popular sovereignty was not that far. On the contrary, there is presently a huge gap in the West between popular aspirations and government policy. We want to have European children who look like us. Our governments want to replace us with third-world immigrants. We are asked to choose between Bush and Kerry, Gordon Brown and Cameron, Royal and Sarkozy, but the result is always the same: more immigration. What prevents democracy is the dominance of the extreme left. Instead of carrying out our will, our governments are implementing the immigration and culture agenda of the extreme left. Instead of democracy, we have soft dictatorship, with the trappings of democracy. In the USA and some European countries (not france!) people still try to make democracy work at the local level, but I think what they achieve for their local community is compromised at the government level by the immigration policy.

In the end, respecting human individual rights is not what makes a country democratic. It is easy to imagine a violent democracy, or a humane dictatorship that allows some freedom of expression outside the main stream media.

In order to bring back democracy, we need to end the dominance of the far left in public life. I don't know how... Plato and Montequieu didn't say anything about that. I don't think the answer lies in the American bill of rights either.

@ Yitzak

Please:

- reread my earlier exposition on democracy;

- try to put (and keep) things in a proper perspective;

- do take 'opinions' with a deep grain of salt, especially if they originate from organisations like "Amnesty International" and "Human Rights Watch". These are organisations that started with very good intentions, but that have to a large extent been taken over by people with 'bad' ideological agendas.  They are not yet as bad as the absurd UN Human Rights Commission (both the old and the new one), but in some respects they have lost all credibility with me, especially because of their inability to keep a proper perspective.   They do good work at times, but they also often make matters 'worse'. 

India is not a country like a typical European country.  It is a continent, with many cultures and ethnicities, with many 'states', and a federal system.   It is still very poor in terms of per capita income.  How could it be otherwise?  After 50 years of soviet-type central planning and socialism, and surrounded by islamist cultures to its west, muslim Bangladesh and the extremely cruel Burmese dictatorship to its east, and totalitarian China to its north.  But.....it has freedom of political speech, it has effective power alternation between different ideologies at the federal (central) level, it tolerates a wide variety of political philosophies of governments at the state level (from 'communist' state governments to extrem-rightwing 'nationalist' state governments, etc....) .   In India, power is effectively limited and 'distributed', there is effective power alternation and their is freedom of political speech (so that matters can be constantly 'corrected' and change remains possible). 

You should NOT judge such a 'continental' political system of over a billion people on the basis of specific incidents, or details, or individual cases!   There are "human rights abuses" in EVERY country.  And particularly in 'democracies' the wheels of justice can work extremely slowly, especially in federal systems where federal and local/state competencies overlap and compete, and where the judicial process will normally be very lengthy.  The main issue is not whether there are human rights violations, but whether there are effective avenues in place that make it possible to address them in a 'fair' and impartial way. 

On the specific point of the "anti-conversion law" I would like to know more about it before saying much.   But I advise you to rely on serious sources before you do also.  Is this a 'state law' or a 'federal law'?     It is not surprising that in a complex society like India's that there will be a legal framework in place that governs "conversions" and "proselytising".  That exists in European countries' like France and Germany as well.    But the Indian constitution does guarantee freedom of religion, and the facts of religious diversity and of "conversions" all over India prove the point.  

India is today, the largest genuine "democracy" in the world, and it is certainly not a perfect democracy.  But, as far as I know, the Indian parliament is not passing legislation that criminalises certain forms of political speech, nor are they trying to ban political parties on the basis of their 'programs' or ideas, as they are doing in several west-European countries today!

@ Van Hauwaert

Understanding requires an 'open mind' and the ability to resist setting up 'strawmen'. At least, you got to try to read what is written, and not to respond to imaginary writings.

1)  I doubt that slavery disappeared in Europe "first", and certainly if you include (the European part of) Russia in Europe.  Indeed the 'gulag archipelago' was a manifest form of "slavery", and lasted well into the second half of the 20th century.

2) Yes, slavery existed in countries with a judeo-christian heritage, but it existed in virtually every civilisation.  It was part of the human condition, and was certainly not specific to the judeo-christian tradition.   What you ignore is that the resistance to "slavery" also originated in the 'christian' west, and that the success in abolishing it from most of the world is almost exclusively due to the efforts of 'christian' countries.   In this context, the actions of the British parliament and of many individuals and groups in western countries in the 19th century, had nothing to do with "technological and economic progress", but everything with their christian 'sensibilities'.  

Moreover, if slavery existed in the west with its judeo-christian heritage, it also existed in the west with its Greek-Roman tradition.  Why single out the 'christian' aspect of western 'tradition' and blame that for "slavery".   It would be equally ridiculous to blame the Greek-Roman tradition for slavery, but I would not to do such a ridiculous thing, unlike you with your singling out the 'judeo-christian' aspect.  

3)  Like most western lefties and relativists, including many 'christian' priests and bishops, you have this mistaken notion that "the bible" is about societal political arrangements.  It is not!   The original Christian 'message' was about the individual's relationship with God.  It was about the individual 'virtuous' life.  It was about saving one's soul in whatever political and social environment one had to live.  I repeat, the bible was written by people 2000 years ago, for people of 2000 years ago.  It was not a political tract or 'manifesto' like that of Marx for instance.  The bible only "recognises" slavery, in the specific sense that its authors obviously were aware of its existence.  How could they not be?  Slavery was a societal phenomenon that was all around them 2000 years ago.  The bible certainly did not 'approve' of it, it simply did not address such political societal matters.   The bible did not approve of the Roman occupation of Judea either, etc... It simply did not address such questions.    

4)  Who claimed that "real democracy" is a "christian invention"?  Did I?  Did Fjordman?   I certainly did not.   So, why set up such a ridiculous strawman? 

I simply made the observation that, historically, real democracy was effectively 'realised' first in SOME christian western nations.   That is an observable fact.  You can now develop many theories about the why of that phenomenon, but you should not deny the observable fact itself.  There have been many other non-western nations with 'advanced technology' and 'economic wealth', relatively speaking in the same time periods, but with no.....democracy! 

@ Armor

There is still a lot of misunderstanding.

1) Fjordman was talking about the role of "christian ethics" and I certainly was talking about opinionmakers in western society (like the educational system and media).  So, we are NOT talking about social misfits, violent youth and the like.  We are talking about politicians, professors, bishops, newspaper editorialists, TV commentators and the like, and the ideas and attitudes which they propagate.  At the same time, there is no doubt that "self-loathing" or "perverse (cultural) selfhatred" among the 'educated classes' and 'talking heads' does contribute to a certain degree of societal 'acceptance' of anti-social behavior among violent 'youth' and others.  The whole concept of societal 'elites' promoting mass (low-skilled) immigration and multiculturalism clearly goes along with cultural/civilisational self-loathing.  It is a way of destroying the 'old' own-culture, or a failure to appreciate its value. 

2) Vanhauwaert did indeed downplay his/our "christian roots" and seemed to prefer our Greek/Roman ones.  But, in the context of his topic of "moral DNA", that seems very far-fetched.  Morality is a question of personal 'virtues'.  The concepts that typical westerners today hold w.r.t. virtues are clearly in large measure rooted in judeo-christian beliefs, not in ancient Grecko-Roman beliefs.  It suffices to read a bit about the actual behavior of Greeks and Romans 2000 years ago to recognise that their behavior was very different from modern Europeans in almost every respect.  The ancients were certainly not constantly 'appologising' like modern Europeans are, and definitely not about their ancestors.  And they certainly did not show any 'compassion' for non-Greeks or non-Romans.   

Vanhauwaert, and the typical postmodern western relativist as well, makes the mistake of judging people in the distant past by 'standards' of the current ruling orthodoxy in his own culture of today.  That is absurd behavior.  He complains about the presumed acceptance of a 'societal institution', like slavery, in the bible.  But the christian gospels were mostly written almost 2000 years ago, by people of 2000 years ago, who were addressing other people of 2000 years ago!   And "slavery" was virtually a universal societal institution then.   One should not expect these 'authors' of 2000 years ago to use language, examples, and metaphores of today!  One should not compare individual people like that accross the centuries!  However, by contrast, one can judge different 'cultural traditions' by their practical results today in different and differing empirically-observable societies across the world.    That requires more empirical observation and historical knowledge, and less "self-loathing" based on abstract ideological precepts. 

3) Your concept of "democracy" is much too simplistic.  We both know where the etymological roots lie of the word "democracy", but surely our modern understanding that we give to the concept is a bit more complex than "popular sovereignty".   If 90 percent of Iranians or Saudis say that they would like 'sharia law', does that make it "democratic"?  Of course, not!  What could "popular sovereignty" possibly mean in practice in the absence of freedom of speech?!  If the average person does not even have access to 'alternative worldviews', how could he or she exercise "sovereignty"?  One cannot exhaust a complex concept like "democracy" in a few paragraphs, but my previous posting should have put you on the 'right path'.  At least, one hopes....

marcfrans said: "You seem to misunderstand. Fjordman's expression of "self-loathing", and mine of "perverse selfhatred", are not meant in a personal or individual sense."

I don't think the self-loathing theory makes much sense. What I see is antisocial behavior by the extreme left. When a teenager destroys a phone booth, no one will suggest this is because he hates the West. When a left-wing nut supports mass immigration, it doesn't mean that he hates Western civilization either. He will just damage anything he can. In fact, many leftists now want Japan to start accepting mass immigration. Maybe their real problem is rich-country-loathing ? What part of western society do the self-loathing westerners hate? They hate the police, and "bourgeois society". They like criminals, and heroin addicts, because it is so romantic! They like disorder, and hate authority... And they probably see the West as a source of authority in the world...
A good question: Do they like third-world immigrants? Of course not. For example, they encourage immigrant teenagers to defy authority and imitate the African-American thug culture. Not very good advice. I think they just like to destroy other people's lives.

"Witness the first reaction of Mr Vanhauwaert to the article, in which he clearly expressed a low opinion of the 'christian roots' of his own culture and civilization."

He only said that christian roots are overrated. He likes Greek and Roman roots better. Why not !

@ Armor

You seem to misunderstand.  Fjordman's expression of "self-loathing", and mine of "perverse selfhatred", are not meant in a personal or individual sense.  They refer to "loathing" or "hating" of one's own culture and/or society.  Indeed, as individuals most people (also lefties) tend to have a 'good opinion' of themselves.

The loathing of own society is certainly very widespread in the West.  There is nothing like that to be found in similar degree in other civilisations.  It is in a sense an 'aberration', deriving from the high degree of freedom of expression realised in western society, and the failure of many to link duties (of effort and of responsibility)with that 'right' (of freedom-of-speech).   It is definitely widespread in Western civilization today. Witness the first reaction of Mr Vanhauwaert to the article, in which he clearly expressed a low opinion of the 'christian roots' of his own culture and civilization.   It is an opinion without sensible context and proper empirical observation.   He did not seem to realise that in order to properly judge the results of his own 'roots', one should look around the world and look at the 'results' of different 'roots'.   Where do you think this comes from?  From the ideological bias in the educational system and, thus also, the media.

The compassion of the extreme left is fake. The leftists are more selfish than most of us. Because we trust human nature too much, we tend to give leftists the benefit of the doubt. We would like to think that they are kind and generous in a stupid way. But then, how come they are so violently hostile to their political opponents, and to any conservative traditional institution? I think the truth is that leftist extremists enjoy committing vandalism against society. Their behavior evokes not so much christian compassion as juvenile delinquency. And I think much of their stupidity is fake too. They choose to be stupid, irresponsible and destructive.

Fjordman wrote: " One major component of Western self-loathing is the idea that we should we be punished for crimes, perceived or real, committed by our ancestors "

I don't believe that Western self-loathing is widespread. Mass immigration is imposed on us by a small minority of people who enjoy harming European society, but do not wish to harm themselves. At the same time, most Europeans still oppose the population replacement policy, in spite of all the brainwashing. I think what prevents a European popular rebellion is mainly intimidation by the administration and the left-wing media. They try to make us think that straight-thinking Europeans are a minority.

@ Doney

1) By "In historical terms...until very recently" I meant approximately "until World War 2".  I doubt that you could name 1 'non-western' country that could be reasonably declared a "democracy" before the middle of the last century.  Except perhaps a few countries in South America at the time (for limited time periods, alternating with autocratic periods).  In this context it should be recognized that South America is a special case, in the sense of having some legitimate claims of being 'associated' with Western civilisation, but not really being part of it.  Most of South America was a mixture of native-Indian cultures with European colonialism super-imposed.  Today the 'native' component is increasingly asserting itself and 'democracy' is hanging by a thread in some countries, and lost in others. 

2) While there is no such thing as a 'perfect' democracy, there are reasonable criteria by which one should measure the 'beast'.   Perhaps the most important ones are the effective implementation and respect for fundamental individual rights, such as 'habeas corpus' and freedom of political speech, association, etc....The presence of a 'formal' machinery of elections, and of merely 'formal' separation of powers between executive, legislative and judiciary branches is not 'proof' of democracy.    What is required is actual regular power alternation between different ideologies (or parties) and of political personel, as well as de facto preservation of fundamental (constitutional) individual rights.   By those measures the number of 'former European colonies' that have been able to retain genuine democracy is a small minority.  The largest exception, and a major one (!), is India.  There are very few others like that today.    In order to give some weight to empirical observations of this kind, one also has to take into account  the length of time of the current political regimes in countries.  The presence of 'democratic' attributes must have gone through several electoral cycles before one can say with confidence that they have taken hold and can survive political 'crises'.   Most ex-colonies of former European colonial powers have had elections of the 'one-man-one-vote-one-time' variety, followed by chaos and then by a variety of Potemkin-democracies.         

marcfrans: "In historical terms, it [democracy] remained exclusively limited to parts of the western world until very recently, and it certainly has been lost again in most of the former colonies where it was bequeathed at independence."

Most of the former colonies of European powers, both in numbers of countries and in numbers of people, are now democracies. 

This is the most stimulating article by Fjordman that I remember, and congratulations to marcfrans for the most informative comment that I remember from him!

While it is true that democracy as we know it was born very recently, I believe (but I am not sure) that European democracy originates from the assemblies of the Germanic tribes, which gave rise to the parliaments of the Nordic countries and of England. If anybody knows better, please correct me.

It has been said that Western civilization was born from the merging of Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Germanic traditions. The Germanic tradition has received relatively little attention, partly because the ancient Germans did not write much, but also to avoid associations with a certain political movement of the 1930s.

@ Vanhauwaert

You are mistaken.

1) "Slavery" is a big word that can cover many different phenomena.   Historically, it has existed in almost every civilisation in one form or another, and was a 'normal' part of the human condition.  It certainly was preferable to the 'alternative' practice of annihilating other tribes rather than enslaving them.   It exists even today in 'milder' (?) forms, for instance in the form of 'indentured' labor in some societies, or in the abject powerless position of women in certain (stress on "certain") muslim societies.

In modern times slavery disappeared in most of the world largely because of the actions of western ('christian') nations, and  - ironically - as a byproduct of European colonialism in Africa, Asia, and the Americas.   Particularly, the actions of the British navy (after the formal ban declared by the British parliament) in mid-19th century were noteworthy in this respect, although slave-trading over land continued in parts of the Middle East (and central Asia) until deep in the 20th century.

2) Ideas of "democracy and citizenship" definitely do have important roots in ancient Greece and Rome, but they were certainly NOT implemented in those societies in any way that would be recognisable to modern westerners.   The famous Athenian 'democracy' was limited to a very small segment of the population and co-existed with formal slavery (just like in the southern US in the 18th and early 19th century). It is noteworthy that Athen's 'limited democracy' did not survive long against the onslaught of other Greek and non-Greek 'tyrannies'.

Actual 'democracy' and full citizenship for all members of a 'polity' was first actually realised in western 'Christian' nations, and nowhere else on the planet.  In historical terms, it remained exclusively limited to parts of the western world until very recently, and it certainly has been lost again in most of the former colonies where it was bequeathed at independence.  

Moreover, the growing trend of 'criminalisation' of political speech in western European countries suggests that democracy is on the decline today in Europe as well.  

Judeo-Christianity is regularly given credit for forming our so called moral DNA, like in this article. I don't think there is a historical basis for that attribution though.

Look at the timeline. It took nearly 1900 years of Judeo-Christian heritage to abolish all forms of slavery throughout the Judeo-Christian world. (Maybe because in that pinnacle of Judeo-Christian morality, the 10 commandments slavery is explicitly acknowledged!) Democracy and citizenship have demonstratable non-Christian roots in the Greek and Roman culture. And even now, the only way society can accept both the old and new testament as a moral guiding book is by engaging in a selective and creative revisionist reading by skipping the more egregious parts.