Armor said: "For my part,I'd rather immigrants did not integrate.I'd rather give them the whole of Britain or Italy,and let them keep their third-world ways,than have them intermingle with the whole population of Europe".

I have no idea what the Italians have done to deserve this,but I do know that it wasn't  that long ago that Armor was telling me how fervently he supported the cause(s) of the Scottish nationalists,Welsh nationalists and even the people of Cornwall in their supposed bid to throw off the yoke of the Westminster parliament,and now he seeks to unilaterally  hand over their lands  to hordes of "third-worlders".Oh well,as they say in the Colonies,"Go figure".

ps If I were you,I'd crack open another bottle of wine before composing my  response to Armor's latest offering.I think you're gonna need it.

pps Save some for me!

atheling:

GK Chesterton astutely observed that "America is the only nation founded on a creed".  He is right.  That creed, which says that "all men are created equal", with the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, guarantee that every citizen, no matter what skin color, ancestry, etc..., will be treated equally before the law and must be regarded as an American.  It took some time and a grievous Civil War to eventually grant that freedom to blacks in America, but that's simply a case of the weaknesses of human nature, not of the American ideal.

Jefferson obviously didn't thought non-europeans were of the men created equal he spoke of. The Founding Fathers were all racists and Abraham Lincoln too, he even seriously considered sending blacks back to Africa, and racial segregation was the law until the Supreme Court used the Brown VS Board of Education to push their egalitarian (or is it anti-white?) agenda.

(see the Paul Craig Roberts article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/brown.html

Do you want me to post Jefferson or Lincoln quotes about race? (You can google them if you want.)

Unless you believe that nobody up until Felix Frankfurter and Earl Warren knew what the American Ideal and the Constitution was all about you have to admit that the vast majority of americans had no problem with treating different races differently and enter that in the historical record when you think or speak of America and its history. Recycle all the multicultural platitudes you want ('A nation of immigrants', 'America is just an idea', etc.) but your revisionism can only be accepted by people who do a very selective reading of history.

I would even say there has never been a more racist western country than the USA up until the 1960s. I think its racial laws were the strongest (I don't remember having heard of or read about anti-miscegenation laws in Europe outside of the Nazi era). And most white countries were racists until that period (the 1960s). Australia has its White Australia immigration policy, many Canadian politicians 50 or 60 years ago would openly said the country was for whites, and in England had Enoch Powell given his Rivers of Blood speech 20 years earlier he would have been applauded instead of being attacked.

Unfortunately I do not have a time to respond in length so my answers are only very telegraphic. I totally agree that I do not know US mentality and thus I can only extrapolate my perceptions of the life in the US. with respect to my Central European experience. However this experience tells me that you (and of course Europe) are in serious troubles. It seems that you agree that there are some reasons to be a bit disturbed but from your answers I feel that you believe that I (and Fjordman) are strongly exaggerating. In this "clinch" only time could tell us more. And another point, being deeply non-PC person I must challenge the idea that "the race" should be banned for good from any considerations (for example hot topic immigration). I believe that the people should decide and not any taboos. If they want it so be it.

@ Lamedon

While there is little doubt that the 'average American' has little knowledge about Europe, and also little interest for it, you suffer equally from numerous misconceptions about the USA.  Let's attribute it to Hollywood and the media, shall we, so as not to make it too personal?

1) Discussing someone's ethnic background has nothing to do with "racism" and neither does it preclude "color-blindness" in a judgemental sense.  In a literal sense, color-blindness is a physical defect that requires medical attention.   It is a measure of current racial tensions in Europe that you could even see it that way.  The average American does not see it that way at all.  Only (1) a (sizable) segment of blacks in the USA sees everything through the racial prism, and (2) a part of the radical left.  Neither of them behaves very 'American', and that is broadly recognised by other Americans of all ethnicities and background. 

2) Your comparison with Yugoslavia is not valid.  Yugoslavia was NEVER a democracy with freedom of political speech, and its various ethnic components were largely (but not totally) geographically distinct.  That means the absence of a democratic (which certainly requires a nonracial) spirit, with focus on the individual and not 'groups'.  It also means that external forces (neighbors) could easily tear it apart.  There never was a Yugoslavian 'creed', whereas in the US there has been one for over 230 years, based on the ideals of its Constitution, and indirectly supported by its 'diversity' which helped preserve genuine freedom of political speech. 

3) You are right about the "pandering" going on, including by certain "highranking Republicans (in the pockets of 'big business').  But these are not 'true believers', just out for a buck.  On the ideological left that is were you can find the true believers.

4)  Your comparison with the Turks and Kurds in Germany, shows you don't understand the USA.   Two large groups is always a 'natural' problem.   Go to the suburbs of any major American city, and you will find people having neighbors from all over the world, or 'natives' with ancestry - often very mixed - from ALL over the world.  You do not understand American ethnic diversity.  It is very different from Germany.   But, as mentioned, there is a growing problem with concentration of illegal 'Mexicans' in the southwest.

5) We agree on the need for self-determination of existing cultures or peoples.   The focus should be on culture, not race.   Your fight should be with your cultural left, and with selfish business interests, which prevent sensible immigration policies (including proper assimilation policies).   Your fight should not be with people on the basis of how they look, but on the basis of how they behave.   Otherwise, you would be as 'primitive' as the nondemocratic world.

For Lord's sake, American people, do not play with words and do not waste your time in academical discussions and rather wake up to the problems which could devour us all if not countered in time. Our countries are changing and many of those changes are bad.

So sorry for this highly critical entry, marcfrans and atheling but the king is naked.

@ Atheling

I wonder if Lamedon is aware of the difference between Indian Americans and Native Americans.  Many non-Americans tend to think of Indians or Indian-Americans as 'natives', not as immigrants from India in Asia.  Bobby Jindal's parents came from India when he was a child.  Instead of "balkanisation", his election to a Governorship shows the opposite, it shows integration of numerous ethnic groups.  It shows that an 'ethnic' can be elected to  top political positions in the US, just like there are (and have been) a 'Philippino' governor in Hawaii, or a 'Chinese' governor in Washington state in the northwest, and an Italian governor in New York, a 'Swedish governor in Michigan, a 'Mexican' governor in New Mexico, etc...

Of course, Lamedon is right that some politicians pander to groups like La Raza and similar groups. These politicians tend to be leftist ones (mainly from the Democratic party in the US), just like in Europe.  And I also think that the comment about "dual loyalties" is of some relevance. This is a growing problem in some southwestern states (including California); so, the 'balkanisation' charge (or fear) has some merit.  But not in the short term.  As long as America's immigrants come from all around the world, there is no significant problem.  It is the concentration of immigrants from 1 or a few broad cultures that should be a cause for concerns about balkanisation (particularly at certain state levels).

I share the concern of 'Suziq' about groups like the Nation of Islam and the nation of Aztlan, but I think that he/she may overrate the importance of such groups.  These are truly marginal groups, but who get much attention in the sensationalist media.  It is true,as you say, that previous generations of latinos/hispanics integrated well.   But the same cannot be said about more recent ones, and that certainly applies to the large and recent illegal contingent.  Whether immigrants integrate and assimilate, or not, depends not so much on the immigrants themselves as it does on the receiving culture.  It is not so much immigrants who are causing balkanisation as it is leftist (and some rightist) politicians and media undermining America's traditional immigration rules.   It is the contemporary misguided 'concessions', and even plain advocacy for illegality, by a number of major politicians and organisations that threatens balkanisation in the future.

Anyone in the U.S. past the age of five is well aware of the argument against making generalizations.  That is why I said "many," not all.  Nevertheless, you condescend to lecture me by erroneously assuming that I meant all.

Let's not get off track here with niggling pedantry.  The point is well made and should not be ignored:  There is a significant movement in the United States, ostensibly led by an organization called "The Nation of Aztlan," that would like to see the non-Hispanic population subdued under Hispanic - e.g., Mexican - rule.

And what does "Aztlan" mean? "Aztlan is the mythical place of origin of the Aztec peoples." Ergo, the founders of this Aztlan movement seeking to establish dominance over the U.S. identify themselves with Aztecs.

The Truth About Islam

I should add that I have never felt anti-white racism so strongly as when I've gone to buy "The Final Call" newspaper from black Muslims with the Nation of Islam.  The hatred in their eyes at my innocent white face was palpable.  And here I was trying to learn about their cause!  Ah, my bleeding heart liberal days - no more!  The Truth About Islam

You and your readers have already covered everything so well, you don't really need my comments.    But, yes, there is and has been an anti-white prejudice for some time now.  In the U.S., the whites are besieged by Mexicans, for instance, alongside of whom march misguided white lefties who don't have a clue that they would be the first to go if the Aztlaners got their way and turned the U.S. into a Mexican nation.    You see, underneath many cute and cuddly Mexicans remains the heart of an Aztec - oops!    I'm not allowed to say that, am I?  Well, actually, the Aztlaners themselves make that point clear by beating their chests and threatening a violent overthrow of whitey.  So, you see, we've got our own problems on this side of the Pond.  One day, perhaps we will see a clash in the U.S. between the Muslims from the north and the Mexicans from the south.  Looks like it's going that way.  One thing is clear:  Whites will be squeezed into oblivion.    So, it's perfectly cool to save the dolphins and whales, but not the white race.    Check out this frightening site:    The Truth About Islam   

Below is a post I left at LGF, but unfortunately I left it at the end of an old post, so I suspect Charles may have a better chance of seeing it here:

It's unfortunate that so much concern is wasted over accusations of "racism" in our society, and it's even more unfortunate that one of the strongest proponents of western liberal tradition allows himself to be a victim of it. Because Charles, a victim you are allowing yourself to be by catering to the howlers of the left.

"Racism" is a fabrication, a show stopper, a nuclear bomb in the arsenal of the multiculturalists. Yet its only strength as a weapon lies in our acceptance of its value as a weapon. Sticks and stones may break bones, but an accusation of racism sends many on the right yelping like whipped curs, and it's a shame, because if we all stood shoulder to shoulder and ignored the accusation, or better yet mocked the accuser, the weapon would be about as effective as calling someone a "poopoohead." Why does no one take the Han Chinese, or the Japanese, or for that matter the Arabs, where xenophobia and "racism" are so encultured that no one even thinks about it, to task? Why are accusations of racism only effective against Great White Guilt?

What is so particularly wrong about a nation or a culture wanting to live with people racially like itself? What is wrong with a arguing for a racially homogenous nation? Do China or Japan owe some moral obligation to the rest of the world to flood their borders with non Han or non Japanese "races?" In fact, I'm quite concerned, given both the level of hatred against caucasians by non-caucasians, and the level of self hatred among caucasians themselves, at our prospects as future minorities in our own homelands. Where then is there to go? That may be a concern for the next generation or the one after that, but I have kids, and I'm concerned now. Simply mocking as "unreasonable fear," the prospect that history just might repeat what it has repeated thousands of times before is irresponsible in the extreme.

Sure, the moron brigrade, the Stormfront idiotarians, exist. But they are supremacists, and that's a very different animal. Supremacy is a dangerous tradition, and the certainly the underpinning of Hitler's "scientific racism." One could profitably argue that it is a philosophy, is it can be graced with such a description, to be avoided at all costs. But to lump all opponents of ethnic immigration into the same cesspool is sloppy conceptual thinking, wrong, and dangerous. Keep down growing anti-ethnic immigration sentiment and we'll get increasing mass radicalization. When that happens, it's a short step to violence.

But I think my main concern is that by handing power to the left in playing along with the 'racism' game, defenders of western civilization are voluntarly tying one hand behind their back in a war that requires every atom of fighting ability. If a concerted effort is made by the right to devalue the accusation, to dismiss guilt by association, to laugh at the idea that a podium shared with a Nazi means one is a Nazi; it won't be long before the accusation of racism is about as effective as claiming Martin Luther King is a genocidal maniac by virtue of some minor ideological convergence with Stalin.

http://lighthorse.blogspot.com/ It's unfortunate that Charles has taken the position he has on this issue.  It's imperitive that we get past the "racism" issue, or we'll be fighting a war with one hand and a leg tied behind our back.  No other "race" goes to the ridiculous lengths that Caucasians do to deny any pride in their genetic heritage - in fact, no other race even thinks about it.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with people wanting to live with people like themselves...Han Chinese wouldn't welcome a flood of non-Hans any more than they welcomed the Mongols; Arabs clearly don't care much for Semites in their midst, Blacks seem to have real issues with Whitey in places like Zimbabwe, and places with multiculture historically forced upon them, like India and the Balkans, interacial casting, murder and general mayhem is rather commonplace.  Yet some in the west, meaning liberal caucasians, seem to believe that we can deny history and wish it all away; that if we believe hard enough, and apologize enough, we'll all turn a lovely shade of sepia and dance off into the sunset. 

Fjordman good post. Racism exists in hiring in the US. So-called "affirmative action" is basically a racist policy and anti-white. They call it "positive discrimination" which is a complete nonsense and misnomer. If you listen to the left all discrimination is bad, which I agree, however its ok if the person is white (or nowadays Jewish).

Hiring should be based on ability not on some politically correct system which is by definition is blatantly unfair and at its core racist.

My primary point, though, has been that - what should we do about our borders and our current immigration policy .... and ..... what do we do about people who are already here and have been for years (many with families, jobs, kids, etc...) - are two vastly and hugely different questions.

That is one reason that immigration "reform" which tried to bundle it all up, failed miserably. They are two totally differnt issues that need to be addressed one at a time.

Read VDARE.com to understand the magnitude of our problems in the U.S.A.

Stellar blog and patriotic above all. 

Andrew, I think what DD meant was not "supporting voluntary segregation through voting or the political process" but "supporting voluntary segregation" in practical terms, by living. And I think this is largely true. There is some degree of integration between the European and East-Asian population groups in large cities. But even that is not absolute.

Atheling is correct. If you are reading people saying that "americans of every race are supporting 'voluntary segregation' ", you are either being lied too, or reading someone who hasn't a clue what they are talking about. It simply is not happening.

The entire immigration debate is about illegals, and about the radical changes in culture (primarily language) that happen by default with a massive influx of foreigners who are all from a similar place, and thus the de facto separation of cultures that occurs. Americans are almost universally opposed to that separation, not for it, and the fact that it is happening de facto, without any political approval for it, is the entire problem.

It's an extremely important distinction that any correct analysis of the US in this issue depends upon understanding.

DD -  First off, it's incorrect to say that to be against amnesty is to be for deportion. Here's the deal with the latter, and why deportation is bascially out, for Islamic immigrants as well as Mexican ones.

To do it, you are talking about an industrial effort along the lines of.... well..... um..... the Holocaust, I guess, since any other analogy wholly eludes me. We're talking trains, roundups, an entire beauracracy of thousands existing for the sole purpose of uprooting millions of men, women, and children against their will and shoving them across a border. Am I wrong? We are talking about MILLIONS of people here, not just a more aggressive policy of deporting criminals or nutty imams.

Here in the states, a young (Mexican) woman was to be deported. She hid in a church for sanctuary. The priests, of course, granted it and railed on the goverment. College kids, who need to feel good about themselves and for whom smoking pot isn't enough, rallied to her cause. CNN showed video, globally, of menacing looking US Marshals outside the church (cue Darth Vader music). Politicians pointed to her to show what a monster tyrant that George Bush is to want to drag a screaming mother out of a church to hurl her into a furnace... I mean, deport her.. (after a brief pause to slice her neck and drink a little blood, of course).

Getting the picture?

This is what "deportation" is all about, no two ways about it. Our very souls will not allow it, even if we can justify it for reasons A, B and C. We don't have the political will, and part of me is glad of that, 'cause ya know what? *I* wouldn't have the will to do such things. If it was someone I knew, *I* could easily hide him or her in my basement.

That is why I tell people here in the states to simply ASSUME that every single illegal alien, unless they commit a violent crime or the like, once they cross the border, is gonna stay. Not necessarily get citizenship papers, which is what amnesty is about, but they are gonna stay. No two ways about it. We will never have the will to do otherwise on anything but a tiny, peicemeal basis. And THAT is why controlling our borders, frankly, with an iron fist if necessary, is mandatory. That is tough work too, but politically much easier to do than deporting the already here and ensconced.

I'm not trying to "allow" or not allow you in Europe to do anything. I am pointing out what I truly believe is or is not possible.

One caveat, everything I say could change.... after one or two Western cities are wiped from the face of the earth in a WMD attack or the like. But, barring a civilizational upheaval that would be akin to an out and out race war, where the global media' s satellites are shot from the sky and free use of the Internet shut down for military reasons, what you propose just ain't gonna happen. That's not a moral judgement, it's a political reality.

What great thoughts and arguments parsing back and forth!  This is "Whiteness-in-Action," and it clearly manifests an underlying common cultural consensus with respect to the value of debate.  It is a strength, and not a liability.  Agreement comes at the cost of explicitness...and explicitness is necessary in order to articulate minutae, and clear articulation of details is the hallmark of dispassionate intelligence.

So, let's get it straight...precisely just who are we fighting, and exactly why are we fighting them?  It is important to lay our cards on the table.

I haven't read and absorbed all of these writings, but I will opine in a general way with respect to some of them.

Firstly, Europe is the "special case."  It is the recognized HOME of white people and as such must be provided with a unique status with respect to such. 

(Though, in truth...so-called "white" people were quite at home in the levant, Asia Minor, the Cauacasus, La Russe, and Northern Africa until relatively recently...say, for instance, since Mohammed the prophet??*?.)  No one should take Mohammed seriously as a Prophet of the Judeo-Christian God.  He was a sham, and his legacy is death, his m.o. was genocide and terror, and his hatred and slaughter of millions of the Christian Peoples (from the Atlantic to the Pacific) relegate him to the status of an anti-Christ.  Which the political left, of course, can't help but adore unabashedly.  

Secondly...it is in the interest of America to see Europe survive, and vice-versa, as well as prosper.  (I would even venture to say that it is in the interest of both of us to foster the survival of Russia and Latin America, as well.)

Thirdly, the cultural (racial) preservation of White Culture within it's geographical homeland is indispensable for the survival of everything "Good," provided it is connected with it's Christian Heritage. 

If this connection is lost...all is lost, and whiteness is altogether even worse than uselessness.     

Let's identify our objectives, and create a "TransAtlantic Manifesto." Then, let's "go-for-it," without apology or regret. Remember, "they" are already implementing their well made plans before our very "dumb-struck" eyes, and we fumble like fools as we rush to give them the keys to the castle. This is stupid, guys. Make alliances with people who are culturally your brothers...because no matter how ugly they may appear to be, they are still not as ugly as what comes next.

I believe it is a mistake to use the term "ethnic cleansing" regarding Latino - European relations in the US.  Ethnic cleansing requires some sort of ideological or institutional support, and radical Latino groups are a preposterous minority among American Latinos.  Latinos and other Americans live in close proximity in many places with minimal social friction; third generation Latinos out-marry to other ethic groups at astronomical rates.  The problems in LA are an extreme example, not replicated all over the country to such a degree.  It easy for a European American to move into a Latino area in much of the country; to highlight one opposite instance and use such an inflammatory term is hyperbole. It is NOT however racism. 

People in general need to chill about racism.  Everyone's a little bit racist.  Anyone who denies it is a coward.

1) I don't understand your first point.  Why should my suggestion to Europeans to "raise their sights etc..."  involve "adapting some of America's ideals".  Unless you meant to say "adOpting" instead of "adApting".  But, even then, European anti-Americanism would be irrelevant here, because  most Europeans are not aware about American ideals, or the 'American creed'.  Their media depicts most Americans as stupid, super-materialistic, and 'racist', and their biggest 'source' in that regard is Hollywood itself.  Most of them really have no idea... It is not much different than the 'Arab Street', really.   Why do you think their politicians behave the way they do?  They know very well the 'climate' that has been created by Academia and media, and they foster it themselves, just like the 'politicians' in Egypt, etc.. do.

2) I do believe that most Americans have a positive view of Europe and, of course, leftist Americans (including again most of Hollywood certainly) like European 'socialism'.   Most Americans are not as 'political' as the typical Brussels Journal commentator.  They do not judge Europe in a political way, but rather see it more as an attractive tourist possibility.  Most rarely ever even read a newspaper and, if they did, they would (four out of five times) get a positive picture painted of Europe in their newspapers.  Most Americans get their 'news' from the old TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS), and from CNN, and that news is overwhelmingly positive about Europe and quite often imbued with a subtle form of perverse self-hatred of America.  Remember, only perhaps 2 to 3 million out of 300 million Americans gets to see the more 'balanced' view of Fox Cable News, etc...  I know these trends are slowly changing somewhat, and the longer this anti-Americanism in Europe continues and the more craven most European politicians continue to behave on the geopolitical chessboard, the more likely anti-European sentiment in America wil begin to approach eventually the level of anti-American sentiment in Europe.  But the mainly-leftist cultivation of hatred for the 'other' center of Western civilisation is much more advanced in Europe than in America, in my opinion.  

3) The issue of the purported 'racism' of the Vlaams Blok (VB) and of other 'nationalist' parties in Europe is hard to explain to Americans.   Sure, there are 'racists' everywhere, and you can see it in some commentators on this blog too.  But the Vlaams Blok is not more, nor less, racist than other Europeans in general.  'Racism' is the label that the ruling cultural left uses in Europe to shut up those who criticise their dogmas.   Indeed, the left is no less racist than the right.  Its racism just takes different, often more subtle, forms.  I believe (perhaps mistakenly) that Fjordman has in the past written some interesting articles on that subject.   Many in Belgium also claim that the 'nationalist right' (the fount of the VB) 'collaborated' with the Germans during WW2.   The truth is that people from all walks of life collaborated with the Germans/nazis then, and in my view those on the nationalistic right tended to do it for more 'idealistic' and less selfish reasons.  But, be that as it may, even today, Europeans still have not 'digested' WW2, and they are actively abusing history to fight contemporary political battles.  For me, the crucial fact is this, it is not the nationalistic right in Europe that is currently undermining democracy in Europe.  No, it is the naive-left orthodoxy (ruling nowadays in many European countries) that is doing that, by actively seeking to exclude parties from the political process, by hanging false (long story!) labels of racism on opponents, and especially by arbitrarily criminalising forms of political speech.     On the other hand, as you can surmise from some of the commentators here, it is not a priori certain that if the 'nationalist' right were to come to power that democracy would survive in Europe either.    The truth is that genuine 'traditional' judeo-christian values are in short supply these days in Europe, and increasingly in America too.    

...exists between the USA and Europe.

I think many Americans (including those at LGF) don't understand Europeans and many Europeans don't understand Americans.

So much for the assertion that "Americans <em>are</em> European".

GK Chesterton astutely observed that "America is the only nation founded on a creed".  He is right.  That creed, which says that "all men are created equal", with the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, guarantee that every citizen, no matter what skin color, ancestry, etc..., will be treated equally before the law and must be regarded as an American.  It took some time and a grievous Civil War to eventually grant that freedom to blacks in America, but that's simply a case of the weaknesses of human nature, not of the American ideal.

Anyway, I think the difference between America and Europe (as well as other nations and continents) is that ideally,  <em>anyone</em> can become an American so long as he assimilates to our society and adopts that "creed".

Now, since European (or insert "Italian" or "British" or whatever you choose)culture doesn't have a "creed", but is based on physical characteristics, food, language and customs, (and used to be religion too) etc..., then I suppose that means that anyone who does not possess those characteristics cannot "become" European.  Is that right?  Please remember, I'm not European, but I'm trying to analyze this.

Now, without being "judgmental", it seems that Europeanism <em>is </em>based on race.

Not so in America.

I'm beginning to see why LGF thinks the BJ, GofV, etc... are "racist".  What they don't realize is that it's the case in <em>all</em> other countries as well.  <em>America is the exception, not the norm.</em>  Can a white person emigrate to Japan, adopt their customs and language, and then eventually think that he is finally "Japanese"?  I don't think so.  I'm certain that the Japanese wouldn't think so either.

Racism cannot exist in America, because our Constitution would not allow it.  However, in other nations, racism is the norm, and I don't think that's exactly wrong. It's just wrong for America.

Now I posted something like this in GofV, and some Euro got angry and called me a "left winger", and said that my analysis and position about America's ideal of a non racist society was made in order to justify my existence there (being only half white, myself).  That was vicious.  It seems that his hatred towards America and Americans, and his resentment over this brouhaha has blinded him to what I think is a reasonable and objective discourse.

Secondly, I visited the Vlaams Belang site and read their manifesto.  I saw absolutely nothing  offensive about their position.  I don't know their history, but I do think that people and associations <em>can</em> change.  I got in a fight over at the Britain and America site because I was defending the BNP's position over immigration.  I stated that "Britain is not America", therefore it seems that certain American ideals cannot be applied. 

Being of a "minority" in America, yet a fully assimilated one, I demand that immigrants in our country <strong>become</strong> American.  That means learn English, understand and respect (if not love) our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our laws, celebrate American holidays, participate in civic duties, etc... I object to illegal immigration, and I think we need to shut our borders and become more selective in our immigration policy i.e. no Muslims, no criminals.  

Well, that's my two cents, rambling as it is...

Sigh. Why aren't the html codes working???

DD -  One thing to consider about where LGF is coming from is that the question "Is immigration a good thing for Europe" is a different question than "We are now where we are, immigration-wise, where do we go from here?" (I'm reminded of the difference between "Was invading Iraq a good idea?" and "We are in Iraq, what should our forward policy be?") The first question is good for cheap pontificating, hindsight without the burden of responsibility, and is virtually irelevant, vs. second question which is far more complex and difficult, mainly because he who answers it has no hindsight and must take at least a small measure of responsibility for the outcome.

I think LGF is acknowledging that the Muslim immigrants ARE there. (And the Mexican immigrants ARE here.) Thus a measure of, well, American style assimilation, is an order. Maybe the Swedish / German / Italian culture is not about that, but y'know what? It's too late. Because genocide and massive deportation is just not gonna happen. It just won't (thankfully). So in that sense, the whole "lack of trust" thing is interesting, but irrelevant. We've gotta handle the current reality that millions of immigrants do exist where they are.

Stop immigration, certainly uncontrolled immigration? Absolutely. I think BJ and LGF are on the same page there. I don't think Charles has said anything about demanding immigration into Europe, but he would say that the immigrants are there, and must be assimilated and treated fairly. His problem is that people wedded to racial purity, which I think is danced with a little bit here, are not going to assimilate such people, and that leaves...... ?

Abandon that racial element, and LGF and BJ will get on just fine.

I am not entirely unsympathetic with native Europeans thinking EXACTLY like what native "peoples" do all over the globe with the blessings of the UN and Western multi-culti's, but I am not sure it will accomplish anything, and, again, it dabbles just a little to close to the darkness.

I would repeat a thousand times, I don't think immigrants are near the problem that native Europeans (and Americans) are of the left who celebrate and encourage such immigrants NOT to assimilate. The potential horrors of the future than can be laid directly at the feet of such people boggle the mind.

"Neo-Nazi groups are generally quite marginal, for the very simple reason that people don’t like them."

Except for the media. They fall in love with any neo-Nazi they can find.

I live in northern Idaho. Guess what's the first thing a lot of people ask about when they learn that? Why would I live among the legions of white supremacist, Aryan Nation, brown shirters that inhabit the place?

I have never met a Nazi in Idaho. My wife is not white and she has never experienced any racist attitudes expressed to her here.

What the media portrayed as an Aryan "movement" centered in a "compound" in Idaho was actually a large house with about 20 people living in it headed up by an itinerant preacher. They are no longer here (I guess they went back to California), but oh did the media love them! They practically made TV stars out of those losers with constant reports on their most mundane activities. The 20 people were portrayed as if they were 20,000.

this is it. Can someone explain to him What the function is of such groups in the European Parliament?! EP Party Groups determine what subjects will be discussed during the plenary session of the EP, they can amend. It is necessary to be organised in such a way to receive some of the EP's manna. Forming an EP Party Group doesn't mean there is an ideological commonality but that there is a common policy ground!

Flemish representation in the US

I read The Brussels Journal every day; I don't read LGF at all unless somebody I do read happens to link to it.

Good journalism has an eye and ear for what's most important, lets the facts and ironies speak for themselves, and doesn't get unhinged in dealing with fools. It's those qualities, best exemplified by Paul Belien's writing, that has made The Brussels Journal a daily "must read" for me.

Yesterday, I visited an exhibit, "Tapestry in the Baroque: Threads of Splendor," at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. It documents the splendor that was Flemish tapestry in the 16th-17th century and how it then spread to other European centers after Alva and his Spanish storm troopers invaded the Netherlands, forcing many of the craftsmen to flee. This exhibit, one is informed, was "made possible in part by "the Flemish government." Can the establishment of embassies and consulates be far behind?

A proper immigration policy, whether European or American, should be based on whether the prospective immigrant passionately desires to adopt the language and the political and moral culture of the nation entry to which is sought. He or she should give evidence of likely being a net gain for the adopting nation rather than a negative factor.

Americans puzzling over European reactions to Islamicization need to take a reality check with respect to the Mexifornia phenomenon, our analog to Eurabia.

RS

1) The nutty racism (of the anti-white variety) that pervades big parts of the 'soft' sciences or humanities in American and European Academia today is well known, and Fjordman is right to complain about it.  But, in my opinion, he is overblowing its importance.  And the real problem today in that part of Academia is not so much 'racism' as such, but rather an intolerant anti-democratic mindset that does no longer value ideological pluralism in Academia itself and undermines freedom of opinion and speech.  These radical-left people are on the whole much more anti-capitalism (what they naively call anti-the-system) and anti-American, than they are anti-white.  They are not given much credence in mainstream American life of the adult variety, but they remain absurdly protected for a bit longer by (misnamed) 'academic freedom'.

2) I broadly agree with the comments made by Andrew X and fully support his contention that the real issue is - and should be - not race, but culture.  Europeans should fight and preserve the best of their culture.  They should raise their sights way beyond the superficial desires for physical looks and concern themselves with values.  

3) Fjordman is probably 'right' in claiming that people of European descent are "probably among the least racist people on the planet right now".  As a positive (empirically verifiable) observation that is probably true.  But such a claim can in noway justify racism anywhere, and not in Europe either.  And it only blinds him to who the real enemy is.  Europeans who want to preserve the survival of their traditions and culture have to first recapture their culture and political system from the stifling embrace of the naive-left orthodoxy that controls and rules it today.  They have to defeat politically the European 'white' left,  rather than  looking for a foreign-looking bogeyman.  

4) Fjordman asks "whose side will Americans be on".   Historically, they tend to be on the side of the 'persecuted'.  If Americans in general would be aware of the ongoing violations against freedom of political speech in Europe, they would definately be on the side of those whose 'speech' is being criminalised.  But, sadly most Americans are not aware of that reality.  Their media does not do a very good job at reporting about the reality of European conditions, and neither does the European media do a good job about reporting on American conditions.  Indeed, this article of Fjordman certainly misreads the importance of anti-white racism and of anti-Europe attitudes in America.  The average American has a positive view of 'Europe' on the whole, whereas the average European does not have a positive view of America.  And in my opinion they are both wrong, and misinformed.  The mainstrean media in Europe demonises the USA on a consistent basis, whereas the American media do not do that about Europe.  I think that Fjordman is losing perspective here about the relative importance of certain phenomena.  

5) Whatever the merits and demerits of the Clinton intervention in Yugoslavia, the fact is that muslims were the victims of attempts at ethnic cleansing there.   It is foolish and morally repugnant for Fjordman to imply (in his penultinate sentence) that they were not (by berating Americans for their intervention).   The fact that the European 'white' left on the whole refuses to see the reality of ethnic cleansing undertaken by muslims around the world (once they control a particular polity) against nonmuslims  (either through violence or through explicit discriminatory legislation) , that is no excuse for parts of the European right to descent into manifest racism.    Europeans would do well to ponder the warning given by 'truth serum' in his "hard choices". 

DD - Outside of the three blogs in question, I have not done a lot of research on SOIE, VB, and SD.

But I am not trying to say I have. I merely am looking at the unfortunate LGF - BJ/GoV conflict itself.

That person X supports me does not logically mean that I support person X is a very good logical point.

As to "what good is immigration", I have a list of things that are fantastic about LEGAL immigration, but I am an Amercian, with a very different political culture than European nations. No judgement there, it's just a different culture.

Thus I have been on LGF making some of BJ/GoV's case that it's a smidge arrogant of Americans to sit over here and get all judgemental of Europeans in this issue, and the fact that our (US and Euro) elites think that racial consciousness on the part of Group A is wonderful, racial consciousness on the part of Group B is just peachy, racial consciousness on the part of Group C is a glorious celebration of diversity, and racial consciousness on the part of Group D is some sort of horrifying outrage on a par with an act of war, is passing strange, to say the least.

I despise the "racial consciensness" game overall, as it is a weapon of charlatans, hucksters, and outright fascists of the worst sort. But let's keep in mind the acedemics, journalists, and politicians who are directly responsible for setting these groups against each other. Hint: they aren't hanging out on the right,

This whole rumour-mill has run wacko. SIOE with Gash&Gravers are, in my opinion, the ones to be handled with some caution. They tend to attract white-pride types with their brashness, and they are bound to run into trouble for their style. I quietly liked that they fell out of favor with GoV, blaiming everyone around them for their own faults. Disassociating from them made me use GoV significantly more. I'm Danish, and though I never met Gravers in person, I heard enough about him to not really want to do so. Gash is said to be worse.

truth_serum, it seems you have no first-hand knowledge about VB whatsoever when you suggest tiny SIOE to distance themselves from them. Feel free to join the provocative line of SIOE. If you happen to get something useful done, let me know. If it happens that *there* you'll meet actual WP persons, I will certainly not be surprised. If you enjoy that kind of company, great. I will not join you.

It was at LGF I learned about the existence of a 'Stormfront' group. Vlaams Belang and GoV would never post a link to those people.

I think Charles is seduced by his own success (LGF *is* big), blinded by radical left-wing (!) smears, and - in what is unfortunately a bit typical American - somewhat oblivious that there can be other approaches than his own. Admitting mistakes doesn't seem to be something he does. He can rave and rant all he wants, he's still barking up the wrong tree. He falls deeper into bigotry for every piece of evidence so eloquently dismantled by Christine.

Oh. The leader of the (benign) Danish Nazi party just got 60 days behind bar for assaulting a policeman. With a little luck, that loss of honour will make his org evaporate. That's about it for right-wing extremism in Denmark :)

What's 'Right' anyway? Some say that Jew-hatred is 'Right'. In that case, I'm very clearly 'Left'. Some say that fundamental respect for private property is 'Right'. In that case, Nazis were 'Left', as they ursurped Jewish property with glee, financing WWII. Some say that nationalism is 'Right' (and it seems Charles is somehow making flawed associations here). In that case, supremacist & expansionist ideologies like Communism, Nazism and Islamism are 'Left', as they seek(ed) by force to transcend the limitations of traditional nation-states. Some say that the SA tactics of using violence to scare their opponents into silence were 'Right'. In that case, the left-wing extremists in Denmark, as well as the Islamic youth doing riots are 'Right', and VB, GoV etc. are 'Left'.

It's all a bit messed up, isn't it?

One thing that I consider making a difference is the attitude to treats, intimidation & violence to further a cause, be it either gross, as in physical violence, or subtle, as in stigmatizing your opponent with derogative labels such as 'racist', 'extremist', 'Islamophobe' etc. The idea of the latter is to leave your opponent undefended and vulnerable in the public debate, leaving it up to various confused types to actually execute the kill. We need to protect each other, dig out the good old solidarity (of course not as in 'covering up mistakes'). It's a good word.

I think it's time to unlink from Charles and LGF, both mentally and in code.

(Cont.)

1)      What Charles does show is a profound unease with the European right, and one that is not unjustified. The fact is, we all know (if I may caricature for a moment) that European starry-eyed enamorment of extremes is all too familiar by now. It has been almost exclusively of the left since WWII, but, to read many of the European rights own web pages (such as the BNP, not Europe, I know, but still…), we find that they can be just as socialist, just as hostile to “evil capitalism”, just as anti-American as their Trotskyite counterparts. We find the very weird sight of neo-nazis and the like being downright sympathetic to the same Arab terror movements (overseas at least) that will happily ensconce themselves in Europe to fight for the Eurabian agenda. The only possible explanation is that they despise the Jews, who have FAR less of a footprint in Europe today, and remain physically indistinguishable from indigenous Europeans, more than anyone or anything else, including a host of people, who, far from trying to “fit-in” as so many Jews have always done, take the exact opposite track of setting themselves up as total opponents of the very culture that they live in. In essence, one wonders if many Muslims in Europe are doing exactly what Jews have, I believe, been unfairly accused of doing in the early 20th century, i.e. trying to “take over” institutions, to their own ends, etc. That some rightist groups can look over the landscape of today and STILL see Jews as the greater threat simply boggles the mind.

2)      So given the past history, I think what Charles, and I, and those dreaded “neo-cons”… would like to see, is the parties of the Euro-right say loudly and forcefully that they are NOT about skin color, they are not about “The Jews”, and that all are welcome in their movement. They ARE about culture, they ARE about tradition, they ARE about language, they ARE demanding that citizens and immigrants have obligations, and they ARE NOT about apologizing for any of the latter, even though the people who created all that are basically White Christians (horrors!). And that Muslims are welcome in such movements, but are expected to adhere to the Judeo-Christian foundations and history of the nation which they have chosen to be a part of. If that is not acceptable to them, there are plenty of airports out there. But skin-color, and heritage, meaning “race”, is off the table for discussion, exclusion, or measurement in any way. Maybe these parties are already saying this and it is not being heard (are they?), but maybe they have an obligation to their own movement to say it repeatedly and loudly.

I’m just a bloviating Yank, so what do I know, and much of what I say here can apply to the US as well, but that’s not the issue here. I guess what is is that, if these parties of the Euro-right want to fight this battle most effectively, they probably need to be REALLY REALLY forthright about some of their failings in these matters, past and present. Charles seems to be of a mind that they are not doing so. If he is wrong, let it be said loudly and clearly, and for the sake of Western Civilization, let us get back onto the same page as soon as possible.

(Bear with me, posting trouble)

First off, I’m a nobody sitting at a keyboard. Words cannot express the appreciation that I have for Charles Johnson and the hours he has put in creating a clearinghouse of information about the inroads Islamofascism is making in Western society, and it’s all too effective use of our own pathetic cultural weaknesses in advancing it’s totalitarian agenda. My appreciation equally extends to Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal.

I thus feel like I am not only watching the falling out of friends, but, far more important, the falling out of allies for whom the only winner is the totalitarian movement.

So, some observations that might be my tiny little contribution toward healing the rift.

1) Charles is wrong to banish these links (GoV and BJ) from his blogroll. It is his right to have whoever he wants on his blog, but he is now a “public figure” (of sorts), and others are within their rights to judge him for it. It just seems totally petty, a wrong way to treat an ally in the movement, and ill-befitting the spirit of the blogosphere.

2) His vehemence over this issue strikes me as a bit over the top, but that’s just me. Like, for example, US troubles with France or even Russia in 1944, go ahead and get on record, but belaboring the point seems like you are looking for an ill-timed fight.

Now in his defense….

3) One reaction of many is to hurl “neo-con”…. Blah blah blah. Feel free to differ with me, but I think the whole “neo-con” thing of the past decade is absolute horse-puckey. Far more people are accused of being “neo-cons” than label themselves as such, and thus the very phrase is more about those saying it than those it is said about. The fact that it, as a charge, seems to gravitate toward prominent Jewish-Americans and ardent supporters of Israel is not lost on many, nor that the-word seems to be used far more by non-Americans than Americans. Many of those so labeled are simply conservatives who are not liked by others, and are saddled with the dreaded, “ooh, scary neo-cons…” label by those who are opposed to American conservatives for all the standard reasons.

(cont.)

" Neo-Nazi groups are generally quite marginal, for the very simple reason that people don’t like them."

So is the KKK but the media/government parades them out front every once in awhile to try to keep "whitey" in his place. It works pretty well too on people like Johnson and many of his readers. Whenever the KKK is mentioned there are people waiting in line to berate them even though the KKK is toothless and has had little to no impact on anything for 40+ years. This is lost on the bigger message of keeping whitey docile while giving strength to all other race groups. The truly Orwellian aspect is that all other race group get a pass. Even though groups like LaRaza or NAACP are working for their race and ultimately the undermining of whites this is somehow different. Some in the US see the Hispanic invasion as different from the European Islamic invasion because they appear less or minimally violent. It doesn't occur to them the the end result will be the same.

"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?"

This shows just how ingrained "multiculturalism" and anti-white prejudice has become into this country. "Whiteness studies" or "white privilege" is not a unique idea nor relegated to just a few schools. In fact there is probably very few universities or none at all that don't have Departments of Multiculturalism, Or Departments of Racial Studies or Black Studies or Chicano et al. Which are all anti-white. It is not just the college level either. Web page from Seattle public schools.

http://www.seattleschools.org/area/equityandrace/awareness.xmlA

Link from the above address.
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible

Knapsackhttp://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

Many of these folks are so indoctrinated that they would expend all their energy fighting the "evil white racist" while allowing and in fact encouraging all the anti-white studies, rhetoric and hatred. I wonder if they ever stop to think what result all these classes, seminars, College Dept. etc will have on them and their posterity? Race doesn't matter. Right???

Mr Belien and fjordman:

 
If SIOE's movement depends on American support then it will have to disassociate itself from Vlaams Belang and the Swedish Democrats.

 
It is a hard truth and a perhaps a hard choice, but face it you must.  It is really that simple.

 
Charles Johnson is quite correct when he says:

 
"The real point behind all this is that letting the counter-jihad movement be tainted by association with groups like the Vlaams Belang is simply not smart. It’s counter-productive in the worst way, because Americans will not support a movement that can be tied to groups with racist and Nazi pasts. I happen to believe it’s also morally wrong. And I don’t believe Filip DeWinter’s smooth evasions, any more than I believe Tariq Ramadan’s."

 
American's will never, ever support a group whose leader, Mr DeWinter, believes it is ok to associate with the likes of David Duke.  He is an X-Grand Dragon of the KKK for goodness sakes!

 
You can blame Charles all you want for bringing these facts to light...but they would have become known in any case at some point....and the result would still be the same...."Americans will not support a movement that can be tied to groups with racist and Nazi pasts."

 
You can try and wish it away...or rationalize it away...but I repeat..."Americans will not support a movement that can be tied to groups with racist and Nazi pasts."

 
You MUST reconsider....or figure out a new strategy without us.

 
Having said all that...I would dearly love to support you, but will not if VB or SD is a part of SIOE.  I have made my choice...you two must make yours.

 
Charles, if you are reading this...ignor Amsterdamsky...he is the resident loon that nobody respects at BJ.

Hmm, Johnson being a Neocon wouldn't it be natural for him to see the US as vastly superior in comparison to European culture, thus making him a racist? Perhaps he's doing us a favor with his assault. Anyhow LGF never had any meaningful impact for me, so its no big loss to me.