Nazis and Islamists
From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2007-11-07 09:20
During the Second World War, the Nazis worked on plans to build the “Amerikabomber,” an airplane specially devised to fly suicide missions into Manhattan’s skyscrapers.
Albert Speer, the Nazi Minister for Armaments, recalled in his diary: “It was almost as if [Hitler] was in a delirium when he described to us how New York would go up in flames. He imagined how the skyscrapers would turn into huge blazing torches. How they would crumble while the reflection of the flames would light the skyline against the dark sky.” Hitler hated Manhattan. It was, he said, “the center of world Jewry.”
Less than 60 years later, Hitler’s plans were executed by Muslim immigrants living in Germany. At the 2003 trial of the network around Mohammed Atta (the pilot who flew into the World Trade Center), Shahid Nickels, a German convert to Islam and a friend of Atta’s, said that the Islamists had targeted Manhattan because it is “the center of world Jewry, and the world of finance and commerce controlled by it.”
The parallels between Nazism and Islamism are overwhelming. Yet the subject is a taboo. When last March the German historian Matthias Kuentzel, author of “Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11,” was to give a lecture at the University of Leeds (Britain), the university authorities cancelled the lecture after threats from Muslim students.
There is a war going on between the Jihadists and the West. We are losing the battle because, as so often in man’s history, our political leaders think that they are still fighting the previous war. Europeans who warn against the danger of Islamism are considered – and sometimes even prosecuted – as xenophobes, racists, even neo-Nazis.
The European Left, in league with the Islamists, is constantly reminding the Europeans of Hitler and the Nazis, accusing Europe’s identity, the very core of its being, of being intrinsically evil. Hence, attempts to rob Europe of its identity are seen as “good,” even when those eager to eradicate this identity leave no doubt that they will eradicate the Jews first.
Unfortunately, some American “conservatives” are also blind. Last year, Ralph Peters wrote in the New York Post that Europe’s identity is stained by “ineradicable viciousness.” He said that the Europeans are “world-champion haters,” who have “perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing.” Mr. Peters’ message is similar to that of Ayyub Axel Koehler. Last June, Mr. Koehler, a convert to Islam and the chairman of the German Council of Muslims, told German church leaders that Europe should be ashamed of the “trail of blood” that it had left throughout the world down the centuries.
To some, defending Europe’s identity is seen as a characteristic of neo-Nazism, while they fail to realize that Hitler’s real successors are the Jihadists. To many Europeans it now seems that the only way in which Europe can atone for the crimes of the holocaust is by looking on passively while others prepare a new holocaust.
And so, ironically, Hitler will get his way and win the war after all. Contrary to what is generally acknowledged, the Fuehrer did not care about Europe’s or even Germany’s identity. Those European nationalists who today take their inspiration from Charles Martel, the Germanic leader who beat the Arabs in 732 at the Battle of Tours, cannot be neo-Nazis for the simple reason that Hitler explicitly wished Martel had lost the battle.
“Had Charles Martel not been victorious,” Hitler told his inner crowd in August 1942, “then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world.” Hitler told Albert Speer that Islam is “perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament.” If the Muslims had won in Tours, the whole of Europe would have become Muslim in the 8th century and “the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of [Europe]. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.”
Today, Germany, like the rest of Western Europe, is rapidly turning Islamic. In addition to the many Muslim immigrants, 4,000 Germans convert to Islam each year. As always the converts are among the most radical. Last September, Fritz Gelowicz and Daniel Schneider, two young German converts to Islam, were arrested as they were preparing to bomb Frankfurt International Airport. Hitler would have been proud of them. And he would have loathed the so-called “racists” who worry about their country losing its national identity.
This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on November 7, 2007 .
It is absurd to imagine a
Submitted by Vincep1974 on Thu, 2007-11-08 15:10.
It is absurd to imagine a baby-making race with immigrants.
But you are in a baby-making race with them. That is their explicit policy. They are deliberately trying to out-breed you.
You can say it's absurd but that is what is happening.
They know it.
baby race
Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2007-11-08 15:34.
" They are deliberately trying to out-breed you. "
No they are not. They are just behaving the same way they would in their home countries if they had all the money we give them.
But maybe our governments really want to destroy us ?
I don't think so either. Some of the leftists in government like to destroy things, but most politicians are just satisfied with letting the media dictate the policy. They are cowards who don't want any problem with the extreme-left. They just hope they will be dead before civil war breaks out.
The Immigration Situation Will One Day Resolve Itself In Europe
Submitted by FLLegal on Thu, 2007-11-08 08:24.
The Islamic Immigration Situation Will One Day Resolve Itself In Europe.
1. The Islamists will kill you;
2. You will kill them; or
3. You could go down the dhimmi road of compromise and SUBMIT.
The Islamists won't have it any other way.
From the actions of your leftist and socialists elites and political leaders, I think they have chosen Option #3, i.e. submission.
I on the other hand would prefer ridding my country of all traces of Islam, i.e. deportation and or Option #2 before they do Option #1.
The longer Europe waits to act the harder and bloodier it will be to do Option #2 and Option #1 becomes a greater possibility and/or assured outcome with Option #3 looking ever more "attractive" to avoid Option #1.
Yet many are doing Option #4 which is Convert.
European birth rates # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2007-11-08 06:48.
........
You now call your vacation scheme "a joke". I called it (a) "silly" (joke). Of course, deportation will be a "horrible tragedy" for a sizable segment of immigrants. There is no need to pretend otherwise, and it is morally unacceptable to hide that truth. Better is to 'signal' to the outside world IN ADVANCE that deportation will be the 'norm', the swiftly enforced norm, for those who willfully break the law (including immigration laws). If the incentives to break the law are taken away (including government subsidies for illegals), then future "horrible tragedies" could be minimised and most avoided. The people responsible for these tragedies are not the people who insist on enforcing the rule-of-law, but rather those who have willfully 'encouraged' foreigners to break the law. I am sure we agree on this latter point.
I also agree with you on the mindset of Tarik Ramadan. But, I do not know what the legal basis was/is of his working as a Swiss citizen in France, Belgium, and now the Netherlands. If he is not an ILLEGAL immigrant then I do NOT think that he should simply be summarily expelled to Morocco. I do not think that civilised societies can grant rights to individuals and then for no justifiable reason simply take them away. If you want to live in a society where the rule of law is respected, then you have to abide by the law too, and you cannot arbitrarily apply it to some and not to others. The crucial question here should be whether Ramadan is lawfully in the country and whether he has adhered to the laws of the country. The crucial factor CANNOT be whether you like him or not.
We simply disagree on a fundamental point. I want to live in a country where there is genuine rule-of-law, as opposed to arbitrary rule-of-(ruling)men. You want to live in a country where everbody looks physically alike. I most certainly do not.
European birth rates
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2007-11-08 06:39.
@ Armor
Let's look at some of your arguments.
1) Your first and last points relate to neigborhoods, violence, housing projects, etc...
One problem with this is the timing. European birth rates started to drop sharply long before immigration became a hot potato in the last 2 decades or so. In Eastern Europe it was clearly linked to the anti-religion ideology of the communist party and the 'hopelesness' of daily living in the 'workers paradise' (except for the nomenclatura). In Western Europe the explanation is more complex than simply saying "1968", etc...but the changing 'mores' leading to the so-called 'sexual revolution', family breakdown etc...were no doubt important factors. Immigration was not a significant source of problems in neigborhoods, housing projects etc...in the 1960's and 1970's. More recently, I suspect that birth rates have fluctuated, and in some case even risen, despite immigration having become a major 'problem'.
Also, European welfare states are supposed to have relatively few really poor people in housing projects etc... This does not explain the broader decline of birth rates throughout society. I suspect that the rich and better-off are NOT having more childeren than the poor. If true, this would undermine your housing and insecurity argument. Also, if insecurity and violence were such major problems then you would expect the people to change the politicians. In the USA, they certainly did in New York and Washington DC. Do you remember the predecessors of Rudy Giuliani, or the infamous Marion Barry of DC? The voters said after a while: enough of this nonsense.
2) Yes, welfare systems 'attract' unskilled and 'unmotivated' (in the sense of resisting assimilation) immigrants. But, it does NOT mean "fewer European babies". It simply means higher tax burdens. And given positive growth rates in national income - admittedly modest ones - it does not even mean lower disposable incomes. It simply means higher RELATIVE tax burdens on GROWING incomes.
3) It is simply factually INCORRECT to say that average European "wages do not go as far as they used to". The problem is not on the wages side, not even on the tax component of the wages side, but the problem resides in the changing life style choices, i.e. consumption choices. We are back to the changing 'mores' or cultural behavior patterns, with 1968 as a somewhat arbitrary marker.
4) You are right to say that large-scale unskilled immigration is partly responsible for higher unemployment at the lower end of the labor market. Although I have no doubt that government policies (making labor markets increasingly inflexible) are a more important explanatory factor in that regard. The impact of higher unemployment rates on the overall birthrate I would think to be marginal. And, in any case, if higher unemployment tends to lower the birthrate somewhat, it could equally be argued that the increased job security (resulting from less flexible labor markets) for the majority would in and of itself then raise the birth rate.
4) I agree that discriminatory 'affirmative action' programs could have a negative impact on the 'native' birth rate, but again the effect can be at best marginal as it would only apply to a small segment of the work force..
.......
Bullseye
Submitted by atheling on Thu, 2007-11-08 07:23.
marcfrans said:
"It is simply factually INCORRECT to say that average European "wages do not go as far as they used to". The problem is not on the wages side, not even on the tax component of the wages side, but the problem resides in the changing life style choices, i.e. consumption choices"
Indeed, we see the same attitude in America regarding the decision to have smaller or childless families. It seems that many people would prefer to have one or two children so they can afford to buy 2 or more cars, computers for each member of the family, $150. sneakers, and designer handbags.
I recall watching an old American TV show called "The Waltons", which took place in the Depression era Virginia mountains. This family had 7 children and 2 grandparents living with them. The children did chores like raise chickens for eggs and churned butter. They wore hand me down clothing and never threw a scrap of food away. Yet they were happy and secure because they were a tight knit family that understood the need for everyone to work together to survive.
Now I'm not saying that those were great times, but it does tell me that there was something about the character and the values of the American family back then which we rarely see now: sacrifice and family cohesion.
Maybe it's a bit better to have 4 or 5 kids instead of just one and forego the second car, or the designer clothes and a laptop for each family member... a little bit of privation can help build character and strength. If a society decides to level every mountain (obstacle), they will produce weak members.
birth rates
Submitted by Armor on Fri, 2007-11-09 00:06.
Marcfrans wrote: "Of course, deportation will be a "horrible tragedy" for a sizable segment of immigrants."
It seems that immigrants think nothing of leaving their home countries to go to Europe. Presently, they arrive here in record numbers. So it is a bit of a joke to argue that leaving Europe would drive them to despair.
"European birth rates started to drop sharply long before immigration became a hot potato in the last 2 decades or so."
And the reason why they did not bounce back to their normal level a few years later is third world mass immigration.
"if insecurity and violence were such major problems then you would expect the people to change the politicians. In the USA, they certainly did in New York and Washington DC. Do you remember the predecessors of Rudy Giuliani, or the infamous Marion Barry of DC? The voters said after a while: enough of this nonsense."
I think you are dishonest. Our democracies do not work and you know it. I'm glad for New Yorkers that Giuliani was able to improve their security, but he is still described by the VDare website as an "immigration devotee with few equals". And you know that immigration is the main source of insecurity. There is a huge gap between what people want and the policy they get. A recent example is what happened to Nigel Hastilow (see the topic "Racist Underbelly"). He had to resign as a conservative candidate for writing this: "Enoch (...) was sacked from the Conservative front bench and marginalised politically for his 1968 'rivers of blood' speech warning that uncontrolled immigration would change our country irrevocably. He was right. It has changed dramatically."
The reason most Conservatives say nothing against immigration is not that they favor immigration. They shut up because they want to keep their jobs. This is not democracy. Most voters are against immigration. Most politicians are probably against immigration. But you get sacked by the direction of your political party if you have the courage to speak up against immigration.
choices
Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2007-11-08 14:27.
Atheling said: "I recall watching an old American TV show called "The Waltons", which took place in the Depression era Virginia mountains."
By the way, as an aside, I think the Depression wasn't very hard on a family like that who was almost self-sufficient.
"This family had 7 children and 2 grandparents living with them. The children did chores like raise chickens for eggs and churned butter. They wore hand me down clothing and never threw a scrap of food away. Yet they were happy and secure because they were a tight knit family ..."
Materially, you could still try to do that now. You could still raise chickens, cultivate your small patch of land, and wear hand me down clothing. You can find used clothing for free. But you won't live as a happy family if you live outside society. Although you could join the Amish.
I think society has now become more comfortable, but you cannot decide to forego some of the economic progress and choose a simpler way of life where you can raise more children. I think many decisions, like both the husband and wife having to take jobs, are almost dictated to us by the circumstances where we live.
@Armor
Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2007-11-09 01:01.
"I think society has now become more comfortable, but you cannot decide to forego some of the economic progress and choose a simpler way of life where you can raise more children. I think many decisions, like both the husband and wife having to take jobs, are almost dictated to us by the circumstances where we live."
Well there you're wrong. I know of MANY large Catholic American families whose fathers are the sole breadwinners. They are attorneys, air traffic controllers, doctors, etc... They have five, six, seven, even eight children. The mothers stay home and take care of the household. They all own their homes in nice, quiet neighborhoods. They manage quite well financially and do you know why?
1. They are frugal with food. Instead of buying prime rib they buy chuck roast.
2. They have only one television in the entire house.
3. They have only one computer in the entire house.
4. The children wear hand me downs and they buy from discount clothing stores instead of fancy department stores.
5. They have 2 modest cars which they take care of so they last a long time.
6. The children all have chores by which they contribute to the smooth running of the household.
7. In the summer, the teenage children have to find jobs so they can learn to have a work ethic and save money for college.
8. Lastly, and most importantly, they all teach their children that material riches are not the most important thing; what matters is character, hard work and honesty.
And I see this type of large American family in the present day. They are not typical anymore, but they exist. And I know it works.
Because that's the kind of family I grew up in.
vacation / deportation
Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2007-11-08 02:23.
My vacation scheme was only a joke. What I mean is that expelling immigrants does not need to be a horrible tragedy. After all, they tend to be home sick when they are in Europe, and they are mainly here for the money. A number of them have members of their family scattered in several European countries. Why not a family reunion in their place of origin? I know it will cause some minor inconveniences, but we can provide financial assistance.
An example: Tariq Ramadan was born in Switzerland, but he is obviously less interested in Switzerland than in his fellow Arabs living in Belgium, France, and now the Netherlands. What would be wrong with expelling him to Morocco?
By the way, in French, the word "deportation" has long been associated with the idea of sending people to concentration-camps. I don't know if it is also the case in English.
No impact of immigration on European birth rates?
Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2007-11-08 02:19.
Marcfrans: "the issues of (1) immigration and of (2) the suicidal 'native' fertility rate in Europe, are clearly two very distinct issues."
The only reason our birth rate decline can be considered as suicidal is immigration. Without immigration, our population could have ups and downs, and get back to a normal level, with nothing changed. But what's happening now is that immigrants are replacing us by making babies in our place. It is not exactly a suicide, as most Europeans have never agreed with the mass immigration policy.
Marcfrans: " the fertility rate of a culture has little, if anything, to do with immigration. "
I think immigration and the immigrant birth rate are the main factors driving down our birth rate. If you contest that, please explain what's wrong with the arguments I had previously given to Atheling. Sorry for the copy & paste:
- A violent neighborhood with no proper policing is not the right environment to have a large family. Many people simply see no future for their children in a society destroyed by leftism and immigration.
- Our welfare system (housing subsidies, family allowances...) was meant to support our own people. But it is now used to support the installation of immigrants and their baby production. It means less European babies.
- Fifty years ago, European workers earned enough so that their wives could stay home and look after the children, and they would still be able to buy their own house. Now both parents have to work. As a result, they have less children. One reason why our wages don't go as far as they used to is that we have to pay taxes to help the immigrants settle. We must also pay more for their social services, the jails, the police, firemen, etc.
- Due to immigration, unemployment is higher among unqualified workers, and their wages are lower. Unemployment and low wages mean they will have fewer children.
- Many of our minimum wage jobs are subsidized, particularly in the administration. Originally, the aim was to help every European integrate into society. But many of those subsidized jobs are now set aside to be given to immigrants that we import from Africa and Turkey. The result is disintegration of European society, and fewer European children.
- Our first subsidized housing projects were built for the less well-off in our own society. But gradually, the Whites have had to leave for security reasons. Immigrants made their life unbearable, and the schools had been destroyed. The Whites have to find a place somewhere else, at a price they can afford. A higher rent for a smaller appartment means fewer children.
Not all bad, sometimes a bit...s...
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2007-11-08 00:40.
@ Armor
My attempt to give you a little psychological boost has obviously failed, because you have now descended into sillyness.
I repeat, I agree with you that a demographic race with immigrants would not be a sensible goal. But, the issues of (1) immigration and of (2) the suicidal 'native' fertility rate in Europe, are clearly two very distinct issues. Atheling certainly has a point that the fertility rate of a culture has little, if anything, to do with immigration. No, in the absence of any particular physical impediments, fertility is essentially a reflection of cultural values and corresponding 'optimism' (and concern or interest) about the future. It's really about the ultimate question whether there is more to life than the 'self'.
You have now descended into sillyness, by:
-- proposing a 'surreptitious' scheme that would use 'vacations' for purposes of deportation. This would be a ridiculous way for a society to collectively put its head in the sand, instead of pursuing a clear and rational policy;
-- by demanding a prediction of the Japanese birth rate in 2050.
Personally, I do not think that in and of itself population 'stability', or even a modest and slow decline in total population level, would necessarily be a 'bad' thing, for a rich and densely-populated country like Japan (and Belgium too). But, it should raise questions about the culture when people do no longer want to procreate in order to 'extend' themselves in time. The real debate here should be about the underlying values that might produce such a result.
@Armor
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2007-11-07 23:09.
"We don't need to deport them.We just wait until they unsuspiciously take a vacation to visit their friends and family.And then,as soon as they are past the border,click,we lock the gate".
Umm,so how do you suggest we get them all to vacation at the same time?
Or,are you of the opinion that these immigrants are all as dumb as surRealCanadian's pet goldfish?
@Atheling & Atlantist919
Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2007-11-07 22:06.
Atheling said:"Even if you deported all of the immigrants and sealed your borders, your population will still dwindle and die UNLESS YOU HAVE CHILDREN."
We don't need to deport them. We just wait until they unsuspiciously take a vacation to visit their friends and family. And then, as soon as they are past the border, click, we lock the gate.
If we didn't take in immigrants, white birth rates would necessarily pick up at some point. There would be nothing to worry about. The same is true is Japan. Their population is diminishing. So what? The place was too crowded. The population level will stabilize one day.
Atlantist191 said: "How many 'pure' Bretons currently exist,'untainted' by the 'intermingling' of Breton and French genes?"
I have never mentioned racial purity. People change gradually from one place to another, from Brittany to Russia. What makes it possible to claim a particular national identity is a number of different things: a definite territory, a common history, a language, traditions, a political ideal... But race also contributes to national identity.
@Armor
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2007-11-07 22:19.
"If we didn't take in immigrants, white birth rates would necessarily pick up at some point."
You constantly make these absurd assertions with absolutely no support -where is your proof for that? Japan and Korea don't have immigration per se and their fertility rate is below replacement level as well.
You're chasing a red herring here. The problem is that Europe no longer believes in a future as a result of discarding their Christian heritage and embracing socialism.
Japan's birth rate
Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2007-11-07 22:57.
" where is your proof for that? "
I can ask you the same question about Japan. Where is your proof than the Japanese birth rate will not start picking up before the middle of the century? Do the Japanese themselves worry about that?
Saying that their population is below replacement level sounds like sensationalistic journalism. It would be enough to say that their population is currently decreasing.
According to wikipedia, "Japan's population is expected to drop to 100 million by 2050 and to 64 million by 2100". But I think that kind of long-term prediction is rubbish. You cannot predict how people's behavior will change in 50 years. And it is easy for the government to take a lot of different measures to increase the birth rate. If they have not done it yet, it means that maintaining the population level is not their priority.
"Where is your proof than
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2007-11-07 23:16.
"Where is your proof than the Japanese birth rate will not start picking up before the middle of the century"
Uh, you can't prove a negative... didn't they teach you that in school? Still waiting for your proof for your assertions...
However, here is a site where you can find out about the fertility rates of all the countries in the world, which is updated frequently:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
Re: Armor,not all bad
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2007-11-07 19:11.
If Armor takes some of his own arguments to their logical conclusion,this is what we would find :
1 It would be OK for,say,New Zealand to be overrun by uncontrolled white Australian immigrants,or Australia to be overrun by uncontrolled white US immigrants,on the grounds that all subsequent offspring would remain "looking the same".
2 Similarly,there would be little point in Brittany gaining political and economic independence from France if that independence was predicated on the grounds of racial purity.How many 'pure' Bretons currently exist,'untainted' by the 'intermingling' of Breton and French genes?
No,Armor is NOT all bad,and contrary to what Armor might choose to believe about people like myself,I have never characterized him as such.
Armor, not all bad
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2007-11-07 18:15.
I agree with Armor on the specific point that "a baby-making race with immigrants" would not be a sensible goal to pursue. One of the most pernicious ideas (often promoted by corporate interests, but now gratefully adopted by many leftists for ideological resons) is the notion that immigration IN GENERAL would be beneficial from an economic perspective. This is nonsense. There is no correlation between (a) economic performance of ESTABLISHED societies and (b) population density, nor with (c) absolute population levels. Favorable numbers for the most important economic variables, such as per capita income and unemployment rates, can be found in population-dense countries and population-sparse countries and, vice versa, so can unfavorable numbers in that regard.
This is not to deny that specific INDIVIDUAL cases of immigrants could be highly beneficial from an economic perspective, but other cases could be equally detrimental. And, of course, the economic perspective is but one among many perspectives that should be considered.
So, Armor is not "all bad". But his 'racism' is definitely bad. From a moral perspective, what should matter is the content of culture (and especially values), not race.
babies
Submitted by BollekeBoy on Wed, 2007-11-07 17:33.
The European population has become too addicted to the welfare state. They abandoned their traditional Christian heritage in favor of all those government programs, and became very self-centered as a result. Having babies would interfere with their lifestyle, and that is why they don't do it. They are living in a present tense culture with little interest in their past or their future.
The only example that I can think of where the majority of Europeans are worried about the future is the whole global warming bit. Which even if it is true, with current European birthrates, there will be very few Germans and Frenchmen around to see the results anyway.
Ralph Peters isn't Charles Johnson
Submitted by RS on Wed, 2007-11-07 17:25.
Paul Belien writes:
Unfortunately, some American “conservatives” are also blind. Last year, Ralph Peters wrote in the New York Post that Europe’s identity is stained by “ineradicable viciousness.” He said that the Europeans are “world-champion haters,” who have “perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
Paul, your latest article has lots of wonderful material -- notably the irony of the Islamic jihadist fulfillment of various Nazi projects (flattening the NYC skyscrapers, annihilating the Jews, and redressing Islam's defeat by Charles Martel). Thanks!
But I think you missed the tongue-in-cheek side of Ralph Peters' New York Post op ed. His formulations are sometimes over the top, and this was certainly one instance of that. But his take-home message was: the Islamists are in for an unpleasant surprise. The Europeans are not going to let them take over their continent. Apparently passive now, at some point there is going to be a very strong counter-reaction against the Islamists.
True, Peters impugned the motives of the Europeans, but he was surprisingly optimistic about the end result, that there would be no Eurabia.
Despite Peters' "motor mouth," I think he'd be the first to welcome genuine signs of U.S.-European collaboration in the security arena against Islamists and their Mideast state sponsors.
If he were really so down on Europeans, he'd be attacking them nonstop. He's not. He's no Charles Johnson.
Peters was equally outrageous in his commemts against former U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Ralph is a journalistic version of George Patton: impulsive mouth but a genuine patriot.
Re: Criticizing Islam
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2007-11-07 16:18.
Poor,poor,Armor.Still "at sea",I see.
Criticizing islam
Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2007-11-07 15:52.
Some people criticize islam because it is more politically correct than opposing the population replacement. Others criticize islam so as to sound conservative, even though they support the population replacement. It is funny to see a measure of cooperation between the two sides. For me, islam is not the problem.
PB: Last year, Ralph Peters wrote in the New York Post that Europe’s identity is stained by “ineradicable viciousness.”
Maybe he was joking? In the same article, he also cites the Crusades as proof that Europeans are more inclined to violence than Americans (He doesn't say anything about Charles Martel). Can he really believe that at the time of the Crusades, Jefferson was in Virginia, working on the American constitution?
" This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on November 7, 2007 "
Together with the painting?
Nice cross!
Population replacement...
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2007-11-07 16:53.
Why is it that those (i.e. Armor et al) who oppose the population replacement in Europe are not campaigning to have indigenous Europeans have more babies?
For all of your complaining and blaming, why are you not out there doing something about your suicidal fertility rate? If Europeans were having larger families you wouldn't be having this problem now would you?
So what are you doing about it? And how many of you actually have more than 2 children?
campaigning for more babies
Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2007-11-07 17:40.
Atheling writes: "Why is it that those who oppose the population replacement in Europe are not campaigning to have indigenous Europeans have more babies?"
It is absurd to imagine a baby-making race with immigrants. Especially when you realize that immigration and the immigrant birth rate are the main cause why we cannot restore European birth rates. As I described somewhere else (Lizards at Play: The More-PC-Than-Thou-Game), immigrants are crowding us out. And also, "if it was not for third world immigration, there would be plenty of money around, and it would be easy to take the right measures to increase our birth rates. But if we try to take that kind of measures under the present circumstances, we know the biggest increase will be in the birth rates of immigrants." So, the only solution is to send immigrants back to their home countries, where they can be reunited with their families, and perfectly integrated in society.
Europeans do not behave like immigrants. They will not have many babies if they do not have a proper job, a proper place to live, and an acceptable future for their children.
I found this on the AmRen website:
"Survey Shows Global Issues Leave 1 in 7 British Adults Reluctant to Have Children — Immigration a greater worry than climate change or natural disasters."
The survey was published last October by the Mental Health Foundation (London).
Excuse me, but...
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2007-11-07 19:14.
It's not "absurd" to have large families, nor did I say that one should have a "baby-making race". However, to paraphrase Mark Steyn, demographics is a game of the last man standing and from where I see it, the last man standing in Europe is NOT going to be an indigenous European.
Even if you deported all of the immigrants and sealed your borders, your population will still dwindle and die UNLESS YOU HAVE CHILDREN.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
painting
Submitted by Paul Belien on Wed, 2007-11-07 16:11.
The painting is from the Charles Martel entry on Wikipedia. It is a disgrace that the painter added this symbol of the American White Supremacist movement to his painting. It shows that the painter is a racist.
Kuentzel
Submitted by Paul Belien on Wed, 2007-11-07 14:08.
A friend emailed me the following info about Matthias Kuentzel:
I have also been informed that Kuentzel's lecture was not cancelled, but resheduled and delivered last month.
The Vilification of Fjordman
Submitted by PierreLegrand on Wed, 2007-11-07 14:02.
The multiculturalist have a firm grip on what the public perceives as reality. The years we spent ignoring the education system have come home to roost in the United States. Certainly in the current fratricide we are witnessing between LGF and Brussels Journal the most obvious fact is most Americans are completely unable to perceive facts outside of the framework they learned in school. If the world does not fit the template taught to them by the left in school they simply take out a hammer and beat it until it does. Witness the struggle to simply understand the violent history of Islam.
I have said it before and it bears repeating. The Islamists would make a fatal error in attacking us and causing mass casualities. On our present course we will surrender shortly...with all of us turning the others in for "bad thoughts".
Pierre Legrand
The Pink Flamingo Bar
@Rob
Submitted by Pankukas on Wed, 2007-11-07 11:00.
When you say "we're never shown much in between" - do you mean media? That is, perhaps, - true, at least in Europe and when it comes to how America is perceived. Just to illustrate: in Latvia, people who follow the news from abroad, are more likely to know who senator Craig is, than to know what McCain-Feingold Act is (much less - to undertand what is at stake in the debate about freedom of political speech), or that ACT has agreed to pay third highest fine in FEC history. Even such news utterly irrelevant to Latvia as Westboro Baptist [Tragicomedy] Church being fined gets air time on taxpayer funded public TV (point being: see how crazy those SoCons can be)!!!
There is only one possible solution IMO: to reach past the smokescreens and the medium to do so is Internet. As the information gets balanced out, so will the perceptions and attitudes. I'm one example: opponent of war in Iraq in 2003, firmly convinced it was and remains a worthy cause in 2005 (after Iraqi parliamentary election). Wishing Mr. Bush were voted out in 2004., thinking he is all right and willing to choose him over any leftist or illiberal liberal any time. Never say never when it comes to people being able to make distinctions, when given fair and balanced information.
Our media generally shows two kinds of Europeans
Submitted by Rob the Ugly American on Wed, 2007-11-07 09:42.
The 90% or so who seem to be intolerant socialist-types who dream of constructing giant beaucracies to manage the world, and the 10% or so who still seem to cling to Nazi dreams. We're never shown much in between, and since both groups seem to be equally hostile to the US, we tend to just shrug and move on. The focus of power in the world is shifting; it's much more important to us that the US is the most popular country for people in India, than that Europeans still hate us. I think you're expecting too much of Americans to make the distinctions you're writing about.