The English gained a nation, largely at the expense of the French, while the Bretons lost their national identity to the French. Crazy English? Don't you mean Crazy like a fox? (or, as  your compadre Jose might have said, crazy as Zorro).

Are you any relation to Emperor Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico?

http://www.joincalifornia.com/candidate/7735

If so, perhaps this helps to explain the remorseless 'Armoronicanization' of that particular state of the union.

;-)

Charly I of the UKA (united kingdom of America) won't grab us, 'cause we - of the Independent Bishopric of New Nederland - are under the protection of our venerable elect (dec. 5th every year), Sinterklaas (i.e. Saint Nicholas of Smyrna, one and only national Saint in Holland) and his servants, the "Zwarte Pieten" (black Peters):

misc. footage of the Dutch Saint

Check out these websites.

How does Charles I of America grab you?

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/america/monarchy.htm

Or this, the official website of the 'American Monarchy'.

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/monarchy/page1.shtml

:D LOL!

That British West Florida site, my god, it really shows your true colours ;-)

Meanwhile, this ludicrous claim by some neo-British cannot go unanswered. So here's one for the Dutch, in fond remembrance of the numerous Anglo-Dutch wars:

re-claimed territory of New Nederland

Sag.

I believe I've identified one possible future trajectory for this thread.

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/royalcello/vpost?id=3056614&trail=30

also see: http://dbwf.net/

;-)

@ Wheeler

I find it pretty depressing that a "former marine and Eagle Scout" would write the stuff that you write.  In your bio, you claim to be "a worldtraveller", but I question wether you have looked below or beyond the 'surface' on your travels and whether you have looked at the actual (empirically observable)  consequences of absence of democracy.

Certainly, democracy can be a vehicle that leads to "socialism and Marxism", but the reverse can be equally true.  This vehicle business does not say anything about the quality of a political system.  Clearly, once a political system has evolved into Marxism, it is no longer a 'democracy'.  And the record of "socialism", viewed from the perspective of individual freedom, is also a depressing one.   

It is true that the great philosophers of Classical Greece were already aware of the dangers of a simplistic notion of "democracy".  And the tyrannies of their time were pretty horrendous.  I see their warnings as an admonition to adhere to a more mature or refined interpretation of the term "democracy". 

I am all for "Republicanism" too, with its implied notions of limited government and of virtues.  But the only Republic that I could adhere to would have to be a 'democratic' one.  To me that means that the people ultimately 'rule', and not some monarch, nor some self-perpetuating elite or clique. For the people to actually 'rule', that means that they must be able to 'control' their government, and not vice versa.  And to control their government, the people must be able to change it at regular intervals, if they so desire.  In practice that means that (temporary electoral) majorities rule....temporarily, under Constitutional provisions - such as freedom of political speech and habeas corpus for citizens - that protect the (every) individual from temporary electoral majorities.

Who was it again who said that democracy is the worst system of government...save (except)  for all the others?  It must have been a wise man who travelled with his eyes wide open.

""Democracy is a white people’s invention, and it works only in a society grounded in classical European ideas, with elaboration by late 18th century Euro-Americans.""

As Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn all point out is that Democracy is the worst form of government and leads into tyranny. Much of the European intelligentsia have always scorned democracy.

The European government of choice has to be Monarchy or Classical republicanism (mixed government). That has been the constant standard.

I refer you to The Classical definition of a republic for your info. Democracy is the vehicle of socialism and Marxism not of Traditional European culture.

I think you're right, and I agree.

Neo-paganism is the word. 

It seems that this piece is more about neo-paganism. (i.e. "to reconstitute as a tribe, with its own culture, totems and taboos") It doesn't call for a return to the orthodox faith of tradition, the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity. I find that hard that to reconstruct European identity, Christianity appears nowhere in this article as one of the cornerstones of reconstruction.

The article seeks a symbol for this new European tribalism; a vulgar class symbol.

What happened to the symbol that Charles Martel fought under or the Crusaders? What symbol was shown to St. Constantine, and under it he crushed his enemies?

I find it weird that in trying to bring back tradition, we leave out the one of the biggest traditions. Jesus Christ is Lord and there is no other substitute.

What brings a predominantly left person like myself to a blog like the Brusselsjournal? The main reason is that one can only expect to learn if one is willing to listen and genuinely understand opposite views. And it must be said, I’ve learned a lot. It’s amazing how highly interesting things have to be searched amongst incredible amounts of crap, but it’s worth going through the burden. There are a few guide lines. If Marcfrans or kapitein do react, there his a high chance the subject contains something worth considering. Yet this tread shows me that this guideline can only be used as a rule of thumb. I did my best trying to read the deep thoughts of our Japanese friend. I had to give up half way.    The article is in my opinion a good example of drawing a map first, and then trying to force the real world into the conceived shape. I even went through the burden of reading the reactions. But right now it only feels like a big waste of time.    

@Armor:

I believe that you are giving rather complicated answers to questions that still need to be asked.

These include:
1. Why are there variations in physical/aesthetic characteristics?

2. Do these variations correlate with variations in intelligence, muscle type and mass, subcutaneous and visceral fat deposits, propensity for longevity or disease?

3. What is the ultimate purpose of this diversity?

4. What is miscegenation and is it moral, amoral or immoral?

5. Do subraces and races exist?

6. If so, how do they relate to nations, which can both join and divide these groups?

7. Are ideals in the area of aesthetics and intersexual selection innate or environmental (e.g. media derived)?

8. Are the goals of individuals and groups fairly similar or do they diverge, and if so, does this correlate with above?
@marcfrans:

RovingDemon will have a rewarding career in data processing or alternatively in a Humanities faculty, looking at the sheer number and length of his comments. Of course, time is the one commodity that cannot be bought, sold or exchanged. So I briefly skimmed over his discussion of the so-called "Alpine Bloc".

I've encountered "Alpinists" before, and they tend to troll racial anthropology forums. It is unusual to see one here. While Alpine is a legitimate sub-racial group, and is largely considered the remnants of the Indo-Europeans (who survived in the mountainous regions of Central Europe), it is not so culturally. Not unlike the Uralic peoples that inhabited present-day Russia, the Alpinids were absorbed by Northern and Southern European tribes. Most were absorbed into Germanic tribes, except in Italy, where they comprise some 50% of the genetic pool.

Therefore, it is ridiculous to speak of Alpine in the cultural or socio-political sense. Although, it would be interesting if Switzerland, Austria, Northern Italy, Southern Germany and parts of Southeastern France merged into a single country. It might make more sense than the current arrangement.

@marcfrans

Did you realize that one anagram possible from the name BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA reads...

A Barbarian, he mocks us.

;-)

@ Sag

Yes, I remember visiting some castles in Luxembourg where the links to the House of Orange were extolled with pride.  But, since the Luxembourgers are now so stinking-rich, I am sure the Alpine Bloc will welcome them. And, they do speak some kind of German (but non-Alpine) dialect, Letzeburgisch.  On the other hand, the  farther they get up on the social-climbing ladder, the more likely a Letzeburger will be speaking French.   I can recall a time when that was also very much the tendency in...Holland too, and in Flanders of course (the truth must be told).  

@ Atlanticist

I don't think it is fair to compare down-under loonies with Kappert.  Having spend a few years in New Zealand academia (a long time ago), I can assure you that it is understandable for some people there (in Kiwiland and Aussieland) to 'feel' far removed from the realities of this world.  Hence..."pacifist warfare" in Melbourne.  But, Kappert lives in the land of Merkel, Stoiber, Schroeder and the Kapitein, where maintaining a close connection with reality is essential for survival.      

See:

http://wizard.gen.nz/alfsarmy.html

I suspect @marcfrans that you also must have raised at least one eyebrow upon reading that the (grand) Duchy of Luxemburg suddenly belongs to the "Alpine bloc". ;-)

That's no small feat for a Duchy whose history was always part of, or closely linked with, the history of the Low Countries (or 17 Provinces):

link for Alpinists

Looks like some creative history can move mountains.

Sagl 

It is not every day that Hollywood can be 'topped'.  But 'RovingDemon' has done it.  I suspect he is a Californian.   He clearly has gone 'native' (in/to the Alpine Bloc), of course, but I am not sure whether the Kapitein will be pleased with that, or not.  In any case, I particularly liked the bit about Putin selling parts of "worthless lands" to...the Alpine Bloc of course.  That must have been right after he turned off the gasline, and Stoiber threatened to send in Kappert's pacifist army, while Die Linke party agreed to build nuclear power plants and die Deutsch-Franzosische Freundschaft was put to rest in Bitbe(u?)rg.    

China has peacefully organized a kind of political-customs union with Chinese-dominant populations in Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and the Philippines, without firing a shot, simply because China has become such a dominant global force that, unlike the United States in its own heyday in the 1960's, is also demographically secure. While China does allow in small numbers of very high-skilled and accomplished individuals from elsewhere in Asia, Africa, Europe and an increasingly turbulent Australia and North America, they are encouraged to return home after working for several years. China does not allow mass immigration of people who refuse to work and are simply seeking turf, a lesson that Britain, Australia and North America were unable to learn-- instead, its labor needs are met with increasingly sophisticated robotics, ethnic Chinese Diaspora returning home, and somewhat higher birth-rate Filipinos and Vietnamese, who ultimately blend in with little difficulty. Also, the Chinese are not so obsessed with illusory, constant economic growth that they threaten their demographic and cultural foundations as North America did, and while the Chinese government has some democratic features, it selects its leaders on the basis of performance and achievement, without being vulnerable to the kind of short-term thinking, media stupidity and polarization that has done so much damage to so many Western democracies.

China is determined not to repeat the disastrous demographic blunders of Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and Sweden, so even as the Chinese achieve great and extraordinary technological advances in medicine, space exploration and increasingly sophisticated computer technology, demographically they stay Chinese. The One Child Policy had never been fully applied to high birth rate rural regions of the country and, in any case, it is repealed for good by the year 2011, as China's population stabilizes.

What's left of high Western civilization and culture is by now centered in Central Europe and the Alpine bloc, with Austria and Germany (basically along the lines of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire) serving as the main focus. The catastrophe of World War I, and of the British and American involvement in it (with subsequent destruction and loss of the European overseas empires), becomes readily apparent in its awful aftermath a century-and-a-half hence. German becomes the main language for what remains of Western scientific and cultural leadership, and a German lingua franca for business, diplomacy and cultural exchange becomes common (even as French still retains some cachet for couture and cuisine). However, China and the Chinese language far exceed anything produced out of Western centers.

The Alpine bloc, having pulled through the crisis, also begins to attract embittered White emigrants from North America and Australia who've seen their countries fall apart. The Alpine bloc in turn begins, gingerly and cautiously, to try to unify the remnants of the West in a scientific and technological culture which, if still far behind the output of a vigorous and entrepreneurial China, will at least begin the long and difficult road to a recovery of the battered West, finally beginning to awake from a crisis that began in 1914. While German and the West in general are far from ever matching the entrepreneurial and technological prowess of China and the Chinese, the Rump West hopes that its engineers and scientists will be able to reach greater heights of creativity in its science and technology than the Chinese, in analogy to the period of the European Scientific Revolutions starting in the 1600's.

The Rump West now has modified, but still strict immigration and entry guidelines, and cultural solidarity, along the lines of Japan-- hospitable and welcoming to strangers outside Europe, allowing for strictly enforced temporary stays of highly-educated and skilled non-Westerners, and very small numbers of high achievers to stay permanently. But following in the footsteps of Japan and China, the Rump West centered in the Alpine bloc is determined to never repeat the same mistakes that have, by now, ruined Britain and North America. A pro-Natalist, partly Christian resurging returns to the Rump West, stabilizing the population, even as dwindling oil supplies demand a very careful rebalancing of growth and ecological priorities. A small remnant of a now-partitioned North America attempts to rebuild a portion of Western civilization there, although the devastation wrought by the turmoil of the previous 3 decades pushes the best and the brightest from North America to migrate to the Alpine bloc.

2045: Russia, buffeted by decades of catastrophically low fertility, high mortality among ethnic Russians (cheap vodka still doing its damage), and rapid immigration and high birth rates of inflowing Tajiks and Kazakhs recruited for cheap labor like Mexicans in the USA, is now forced to confront its own demographic crisis, as the predominantly Muslim Turkic population reaches near-parity with the generally older native Russian population. Russia, furthermore, is stunned by the demographic shock waves sweeping through North America, Australia and especially Britain which-- unlike the White settler nations-- has been a White nation for millennia, now suddenly under control of a mostly Muslim, South Asian leadership. The mismanaged, corruption-prone Russian economy has been largely deprived of profits from Russia's natural resource wealth, leading to massive riots and civil unrest across the vast land that the authorities in Moscow are completely unable to control.

Desperate for cash and on the brink of political and social collapse, the Russian government sells off portions of the Russian Far East to China, Japan and Korea, in roughly equal portions to make sure that none of them gains too much at the expense of the others-- while still retaining the most oil-rich and mineral-rich portions of Siberia. (The Chinese and Korean populations in particular, are deeply angered at first by what they feel is their government's wasteful expenditure of tens of billions of Euros for what they see as "agriculturally-poor wasteland" from Russia, similar to Americans' reactions to "Seward's icebox" in Alaska in the late 1860's, but the government in Beijing mollifies the people's irritation by suggesting that it is a reclamation of lost Qing Dynasty territory, even if of very little actual value.)

Meanwhile, in the West, Russia sells off the Kaliningrad exclave to Germany (in a joint move with Belarus, which sells off parts of its own largely worthless western lands to Germany/EU), in the wake of greatly warming relations with Germany that had been initiated by Germany's pro-Russian Chancellor Edmund Stoiber, following the fall of Angela Merkel's government in the wake of the global economic crisis in 2008 and the German people's general anger with Merkel's perceived excessive pro-USA stance. Russia also sells off portions of its northwest corridor to Finland and a surprisingly resilient Estonia, the new "Balkan tiger."

The cash infusion provides Russia with enough capital to attract the remaining ethnic Russians still in other Central Asian and Baltic countries, with a new government-centered push, "Russian work done by the Russian people," finally allowing Russia to move away from dependence on hiring cheap-labor Muslim Tajiks and Kazakhs. Many of the Turkic peoples still in Russia are literally bought off in return for going back to their home countries, while others (especially those in jail) are deported.

The rump Russia survives as a Western nation, but still facing economic straits, and with a roiled and still heavily Muslim southwestern/Caspian region.

2050: The shock and turmoil of "the fall of Britain," the similar collapse of Western society in Canada, the USA and Australia, and the ongoing crises in Sweden and Russia, have fully awakened Continental Europe from its PC-induced slumber, as the effects of demographic naivete become painfully obvious to all. As an emergency measure, immigration is limited either to intra-European movements (excluding the now majority-Muslim England), or to co-ethnic Diaspora in the Western Hemisphere (such as ethnic Italians, Germans, Dutch and others in what's left of North America and South American countries). By now, China has become the unquestioned global economic and technological center, and the remainder of the West desperately seeks to master the Mandarin Chinese language (which is fortunately published in the Roman alphabet alongside the old-fashioned Chinese characters) to keep up with advances in science, business and technology.

So the tough truth is this: Over the next 40 years, some Western countries will collapse as Western countries (mainly Britain, Sweden, the USA, Canada, Australia, possibly also Russia), while others will not. And the survivors will be shocked enough by the fall of the other Western countries to take their demographic status seriously.

Here's a possible timeline:

2020: Scotland finally becomes independent, at which point a newly independent England and Wales is shocked to discover that it has a South Asian/African (predominantly Muslim) majority population.

2025: Canada's "mid-decade census" shows a majority South Asian/Muslim population, much like Britain.

2030: The USA becomes majority non-White based on the 2030 census, as Latinos consolidate their hold on the US Southwest, and both Latinos and African-Americans consolidate political control over their regions in the Southeast. Michigan becomes "Michiganistan," a Muslim-majority state with autonomous status. Hawaii regains its independence after years of campaigning by indigenous Hawaiians, with Guam and Puerto Rico following suit. The United States, in serious financial trouble from decades of foolish imperial overextension and warfare-welfare excesses, all but sells off its Pacific Ocean island possessions to raise cash. Conservative and liberal Whites-- the former headquartered in the Upper South (Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia, as the Deep South is now majority African-American), Great Plains and Montana/Wyoming/Idaho, and the latter with their power base in New England, are nearly at war with each other, and move toward mutual secession.

2035: Australia now declares its own non-White, heavily Muslim majority in the mid-decade census, of predominantly Malay stock (Muslim Malaysians and Indonesians), and supplemented by Lebanese, South Asians and Sudanese. With China now the world's unquestioned superpower, both economically and technologically, the ethnic Chinese in Australia become the new economic and political elite as Australia's White population continues to dwindle. Nevertheless, Australia is facing almost intractable challenges of drought and water management, which leads to political instability and further infrastructure disrepair. The still-predominantly White southwestern portion of Australia, headquartered at Perth, moves to secede from the predominantly non-White eastern Australia and aboriginal-dominated northern Territories.

Meanwhile, England has its first Muslim, Pakistani prime minister, and as the remaining White population deserts the now largely-devastated England for new homes mostly in Alpine Europe, a South Asian elite takes hold in England. In the South Asian and Muslim world, this is seen as "just desserts" for past British imperialism and a great victory for the "Global South," which now has effective control of a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The rest of Europe is appalled and the PC arrogance permeating the Continent finally collapses for good, with peddlers of PC orthodoxy removed from positions of political and media power as the disastrous consequences of their muddled thinking become inescapably obvious in Britain, North America and Australia. They contemplate expelling England from the EU and closing off their borders-- on the pretext that England (which is distinct from the UK, which joined originally), now a Muslim land, had never been a party to the Maastricht Treaty. Their decision is made easy, since the new leaders in London, flush with confidence and posturing, withdraw from the EU themselves, attempting to display to the world that their "island of Muslim prosperity" in England will be a new global power.

2040: Sweden, shocked by the demographic decline and collapse of Britain and North America, finally realizes the grievous blunders committed by its leftist, PC-addled politicians in previous decades, moving to halt further non-European immigration and to expel millions of Africans and Asians on the basis of "economic nonproductivity." While the Swedes are ultimately successful in preserving their demographic majority, the sudden move toward repatriation precipitates a smoldering civil war that devastates Sweden, almost ruining it economically.

IOW, even though France has done almost everything wrong, they've been lucky and they too will emerge from this crisis intact as a Western nation. Not quite as strong as the Alpine bloc, but they'll do fine. I'd say the same is true in general for Norway and Finland, for similar historical reasons. (Sweden is the anomaly here, apparently embracing the PC extremes of Canada and Australia even though Sweden's colonial history is in Russia, not in Africa or Western Asia where their immigrant wave is coming from. Sweden may pull through OK, if for no other reason than that they've started the mass immigration process late, and the Global South is a little iffy on going to the cold reaches of the Arctic circle, even given Swedish welfare. But I wouldn't put any krone on that.)

What about the Netherlands and Belgium? A toss-up IMHO. The Low Countries seem to have been infected with much of the worst of PC multiculturalism and Proposition Nation stupidity, as your own examples above suggest. Still, the Netherlands in particular has a much stronger strain of nationalism than anywhere in North America or Australia, and in fact the Dutch have among the toughest immigration laws in Europe. The assassination of Theo van Gogh enraged the Dutch in a similar way as "les emeutes" enraged the French-- mosques were burned and torn down across the Netherlands in anger. And Holland itself is a rather miserable place for Muslims, who are not only banned from wearing the headscarf, but have to pay thousands of Euros even before getting to the Netherlands, to take a difficult exam, watch almost pornographic material, and generally learn that they aren't welcome. (Which is maybe why so many of the French and Dutch Muslims are leaving to go to Britain, Canada or Australia...)

And Belgium? Again, the Walloon-Flemish conflict probably doesn't help things much, but it's qualitatively different from the mutual Scottish-English hatefest, in that unlike in Britain, the two sides don't want to ruin each other as much as they want to be free of each other. Belgium has a genuine nationalist party with the Vlaams-- something we'd never see in North America or Britain-- and I found most Flemings to be very nationalistic when I was there. In fact, among Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, seems like a disproportionate number are going to Flanders rather than to the Netherlands as South Africa falls apart. For similar reasons, the Walloons are also pretty nationalistic, even though it's the more maddening and spottily effective French-style nationalism.

The best thing for Belgium IMHO is for the Flemings, the Walloons, and the small German enclave in eastern Belgium to basically become self-governing-- which I guess to some extent is happening anyway. This would be the best way to guarantee their ethnic solidarity.

And regardless, the current financial crisis is itself helping to impose a check on the most idiotic PC stupidity in the Netherlands and Belgium (who have been particularly hard-hit). They're realizing that, in fact, they can't run a welfare state and support Third World deadbeats since they can't push themselves so deeply into debt. With the collapse of this rather ridiculous "Anglosphere bubble," with the fantasy of unlimited credit for welfare, military adventurism and loan-shark economy, other countries (like the Low Countries and France) are being pushed more toward common sense.

I don't see a Western future for the White settler nations, in any case. The United States already has a majority non-White (predominantly African-American and Latino) population among elementary school students, so we can easily see the future there, and it's not European. The US Southwest, and even much of the Southeast, will be majority Latino or Black, and essentially distinct from the rest of the country.

Australia is busy taking in millions of Sudanese, Somalis, South Asians, Filipinos, Indonesians and Malaysians, all imported onto the world's most barren continent where the White population has already well passed the demographic transition. Australia's future is therefore probably not Western, at least in most of the country-- it's more of a SE Asian Muslim character, something like Malaysia with an East Asian (Chinese and Vietnamese) elite class.

Canada has both among the highest per-capita Third World immigration rates in the world, with among the lowest native birth rates. Canada will likely be a Muslim/African/South Asian majority country fairly soon, with a Chinese-dominated West Coast.

The sad thing is, on an individual level, vast majority of people from these Third World countries are entirely decent, kind, good people. Problem is, when they stream into a Western country in very high numbers, tribal interests inevitably set in, with all kinds of intertribal ugliness as we've seen elsewhere in the world. And our Gramscian elites actively foment such group conflict.

Britain has the bad luck of having a past imperial association with South Asia, as well as West and southern Africa, and portions of the Middle East (in particular Iraq and Yemen)-- all places with very high birth rate, non-European populations (Muslim or otherwise) who retain their very high birth rates and customs generations after moving to Britain. These weren't necessarily, in any way "strong colonies" of the British-- the Afghans for example defeated the British like few other powers, annihilating an entire British army in the mid-1800s, and British imperial attempts in Iraq (the 1922 rebellion and eventual expulsion) and in the portion of Yemen that they ruled (the Aden Emergency) were generally disastrous. Still, that past association, however tenuous, is enough to basically fling the UK's doors open to mass immigration from these countries, due to the "Pod" mentality in British media and the Lib-Lab-Con coalition's utter supine capitulation to political correctness. And this mass wave of peoples from the Global South is not only very physically different from the native British, but also extremely distinct, often even outright hostile, religiously and culturally.

To make matters worse, in terms of pure numbers, Britain has by far the highest inflows in Europe (700,000-800,000 annually, almost all from South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean) and also the highest outflows of native Britons, with emigration levels approaching half a million annually (with Britons going especially to France, Spain, Germany, Italy or the Low Countries these days). This makes the problem even worse, since the Lib-Lab-Con major party coalition in the UK must pander to the fast-growing South Asian/African population, at the expense of the native White Britons. (Furthermore, millions among the "native-born Britons" are of Caribbean or Pakistani descent themselves.) And the BNP in Britain is virtually powerless, due to the power-sharing and coalition practices in British policies.

Among the British themselves, the English and the Scottish in particular utterly HATE each other, with the Welsh and northern Irish having their own gripes. In fact I wonder on some level, if the utter demographic destruction of England in particular over the past decade, has been perpetrated in part by the so-called "Scottish Raj" leading the Labour Party, who see themselves as covertly continuing a fight that's been waged since the days of William Wallace. So maybe the best thing for the UK would be for the Scots to gain their independence in the next decade, which in turn might allow for some nationalist sentiment to percolate in England and Wales.

Still, Britain, and England in particular, is disappearing as a Western country, and it is probably too late to stop the process.

But France? As much as the French have royally screwed up nearly everything on this topic, I actually suspect they'll wind up fine. Part of this, is that the Muslims in France vastly overplayed their hand-- those riots in the Paris banlieues so enraged even Socialist-leaning French, that France over the past 3 years has actually passed among the toughest and most stringent immigration laws in the West. While I find Sarkozy to basically be a snake, he is indeed much tougher on mass immigration than any of his predecessors.

For another, immigration into France is generally misunderstood, as I found out when I worked there. A very, very large minority of the Syrians, Lebanese, Tunisians and Algerians in France are of Christian Arab stock and Jewish immigrants, not Muslims, so the oft-quoted figure of "4-5 million Muslims in France" is actually a lot lower when the demographic/religious mix from Arab countries is taken into account. While these immigrants-- unlike the Turks in Central Europe-- are physically distinct from the native population in France, the discrepancy is nowhere near as extreme as in Britain, where the South Asian, African and Caribbean population differs so much physically and culturally from the White Britons. Many Syrians and North Africans, especially the Christians, trace their descent to the Romans or even to the Germans (e.g. the Vandals, who set up a North African kingdom), and so a large proportion of the North Africans and Arabs, physically speaking, are physically indistinguishable from, say, Sicilians or Greek Islanders. (See e.g. Zinedine Zidane and other French soccer players.)

As an example, check out these Turkish models: http://forum.politics.be/showthread.php?p=3707733

If you didn't tell me offhand that they were Turkish, I would have guessed that these models had hailed from somewhere in Northern Europe, such as the Czech Republic or maybe Latvia, or perhaps northern Italy or the more Balkan mountainous regions of Greece. Now, I realize that the people who become models don't necessarily reflect the physical characteristics of the population as a whole, but in my experience throughout Central Europe, the rank-and-file Turks didn't look *that* different in their essentials from the models on that Webpage-- maybe a little more toward the Tuscan Italian/Western Greek spectrum in terms of appearance. But still, the Central European Turks overall didn't look altogether too much different from the stocky Alpine peoples in southern Germany or Austria.

Now, I realize that physical appearance isn't everything, and that too large a population inflow could still culturally swamp out European Christian lands-- which is why I don't remotely support the idea of Turkey acceding to the European Union, and nor do the vast majority of Austrians and Germans. (Fortunately, for once, the EU did something right by requiring unanimous assent to any such accession, which Cyprus, Austria, France and many others in Europe-- many of which would even demand referenda-- would never allow. Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty, in fact, precisely because the Irish have no interest in flooding their small country with millions of Turks.)

Still, in manageable numbers, it's fairly easy for these very European-appearing Turks-- especially Christian and secular Turks-- to blend into German and Austrian society almost as well as the Czechs, Poles and Estonians have, and I found quite a few amusing examples of Turks "being more German than the Germans themselves" when I was working there. Germany has recently gotten very tough about its immigration policies, not only reducing overall Turkish immigration sharply, but effectively shutting out deadbeat Turks period (and also kicking out those Turkish Gastarbeiter who don't contribute).

So in summary-- Central European/Alpine countries, particularly Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Austria and probably Italy, will be just fine. Despite their own flirtations with addle-headed US/UK-style multiculturalism, they're historically lucky in having relatively few immigration links with Africa and Asia, focusing more on Eastern Europe, and in general on having a much more nationalistic streak than Western European nations. I do realize that their birth rate is below replacement, but I'm not worried about that-- historically, many countries have had periods of sub-replacement fertility, but that only matters if they use the period to demographically replace themselves (as the USA and UK are doing) with a different racial/ethnic group. OTOH, Central Europe and Japan, which all have sub-replacement fertility, will just ride out the period as such nations have in the past-- their populations will shrink a bit, but then more pro-Natalist attitudes will kick in, and the population will stabilize. (Meanwhile being filled in somewhat with Eastern European and Balkan stock.)

This, naturally, then leads us to ask: What of the future for Western European nations like France, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia, which is more where you're focusing on? Here, it's a mixed story.

As I mentioned, countries like Britain, the Netherlands and France suffer from "post-imperial hangovers" in which, to compensate for their sense of feebleness and lost glory, they pretend that they're still "world nations" and have opened their borders up to their respective former colonies. This, combined with their dangerous absorption of US-style political correctness (which is truly oppressive in the UK, Canada and Australia) and proposition-nation confusion, has weakened the nationalistic bonds that have enabled them to stay strong as nations for so many centuries. Still, the severity of the problem varies from country to country.

Great Britain, I'm sorry to say, is on the brink of ruin and demographic takeover. It pains me to say it-- while I'm galled by the foolish, self-destructive policies of the United Kingdom over the past century, I still love that country and the potential of its people. But I have to call it like it is, and I've spent more months working in Britain (in England in particular) than any other European country. And England is facing disaster, demographically speaking.

Takuan,

Just wanted to add something to your excellent comments here (which I hope are reprinted across the Web), as I've worked not only in the USA and Canada but about 2 dozen other mainly Western countries:

I actually think that at least a big chunk of Europe is in much better shape long-term than the United States, Canada and Australia. This is in part because nationalism in general has more "room to maneuver" in European countries than in North America and Australia. Possibly because Europeans in Europe are genuinely indigenous-- while North America and Australia are settler nations (with a different indigenous population) and obviously much less of a European history. (Although there are exceptions, as I'll talk about below.)

I know this is in some ways contradictory to what Fjordman has said, and certainly as an American it's very different from what I used to think-- but long-term, demographically, Europe (outside of the rapidly self-destructing and deluded UK and possibly Sweden and Russia) will pull through this, while most of the White settler nations will not.

Central Europe in particular, including the so-called "Alpine bloc" nations like Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Denmark, Luxembourg and probably Italy (nations on that longitude, at least), will probably wind up in the best shape. Historically speaking, for the most part they did not have maritime empires in Africa and/or South Asia like France, Belgium, Britain and the Netherlands, so their historical orientation is different to start with.

Whereas in the UK it seems depressingly "natural" to so much of the population, to have millions of Pakistanis, Zimbabweans, Somalis, Yemenis, Bangladeshis and other South Asians-- who will very soon be the majority population in north and SE England-- and in France, nobody is surprised by having so many Lebanese, Laotians and Vietnamese, it's very different for the Alpine bloc.

For the Central European nations once in the Austro-Hungarian, Danish, Prussian or other similar empires, their historical orientation was toward Eastern Europe or Scandinavia rather than Africa or Asia, and that's still where the focus is today. When I work stints in Austrian cities and quite a few places in the still-economically hurting (but fairly cheap) eastern Germany, I'm repeatedly surprised at how many "Austrians and Germans" I run into, who spoke perfect German, to me seem indistinguishable from the native-born-- but then tell me they're actually Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Estonians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians or Finns. This, in fact, is still the vast majority source of immigration to these countries today, and unlike in the UK (where the 2004 "one-off" opening of the borders to Poles has largely reversed, with the vast majority of Poles earning some extra pounds and then heading home as the UK economy has collapsed), among the Alpine bloc countries, those Eastern Europeans stay and basically blend in with the population.

When I looked at a list of instructors at the University of Graz on the one hand, and a list of moving company employees on the other, it was remarkable how the lists basically seemed to have Czech and Slovak names-- even though they identified themselves as Austrians. I also noticed this with Denmark, which has a decent-sized Finnish and Baltic population.

The Turkish question inevitably comes up here, but on this too, I was very surprised when I worked and mingled with the locals. The Turks in Germany and Austria were disproportionately Christian-- perhaps precisely because they were fleeing Muslim persecution in Turkey-- and physically speaking, almost all the Turks were physically indistinguishable from European Mediterraneans like Italians, Greeks and Slovenians. If anything, I found more blond, blue-eyed/green-eyed/hazel-eyed Turks than I did Greeks or Sicilians! Part of this is that again, historically, the Central Asian Turkish invaders under Osman and the other sultans suffered such heavy losses, that they essentially reconstituted much of their armies with janissaries-- who were basically Balkan or Germanic Christian children raised to be the tip of the Turkish spear, and admired as their bravest fighters. Plus, the preexisting Greek and Balkan population, dating from Byzantine times, basically stuck around (albeit at a lower economic status) to constitute a very large fraction of the eventual "Turkish" population.

1. There is nothing inherently "Third World" about tribalism. On the contrary, it is universal.

2. The vast majority of non-Whites in Europe and Europe's settler societies are complicit in the race and ethnicity-based competition for resources, social status, etc. Complicity is not conspiracy, but the percentage of non-Whites not involved in some form or another is small enough to be statistically insignificant.

3. Conservatism is a failed ideology because it was a reaction to the Enlightenment. While liberalism was individualistic and egalitarianism was communitarian, both threatened the continuity of existing institutions - the monarchy, aristocracy, church and state. Conservatism ultimately co-opted liberalism in order to endure, while maintaining a communitarian leaning by appealing to religion and nationalism. Now that Westerners can no longer agree upon the basis for communitarian affinity beyond civil definitions, conservatism is now liberalism for special interests. Liberalism fails when it is impure - whether it is co-opted by the right or left. However, given that the response to the social and demographic challenges facing the West must be communitarian, so too must the ideology driving it. It is high time to make a decision one way or another - for the individual or the group. In times of crisis, having both is a luxury ill afforded.

4. Appealing to the American constitution now is not unlike appealing to a rock for answers. Conservatives still cling to the notion that we can return to the past, when Europe was for Europeans, no one cursed, etc., etc. Those times are over.

<i> "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the
votes decide everything." 

Somehow, American conservatives
haven’t heard that one. </i>

Yes we heard that one. We also know: "those who register voters decide everything." 

I don't think my last remark was all that 'presumptuous', not with regard to substance. But anyway.
The picture you paint of the so-called "Dark Ages" just seemed a little outdated, perhaps due to the fact that you picked it up decades ago. But today, it is no longer supported by any serious scholar of that period. But never mind scientific research. Even today's encyclopedias no longer use the phrase "Dark Ages" in the old sense. That was simply my point, albeit phrased somewhat (okay, guilty as charged) lightheartedly.

And thnx for reminding me about snarks and such. You're absolutely right that I should pay attention to it. Sometimes I get a little giggly en "snarkish" when - to me - a passage I read seems a bit heavy-handed or even bombastic, apart from factual errors. And I only just can contain the urge, when reading things like:

[Qte:]  "..I use a Japanese nom de plume for deep reasons.."

..to put in a little request of my own, to kindly keep  those personal asides to a minimum. In online exchanges of views, I don't particularly care about anyone's biography or anything. Just the promised interesting viewpoints will do fine as an invitation to discussion. You sometimes have trouble with snarkery? Fine. I occasionally don't think much of streched out, pumped up metaphores and prophetic "we" speech.

But that should all just be rather small potatoes with respect to content, or so one would think.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sag.

We need to fight for what we believe, what we are for, more than fight what we are against. Perhaps you can think of a name (other than antipods), a name that expresses the goal.

I hope you keep writing.

We used to put cats and pigs on church-sponsored pyres, after trying and torturing them for their work on behalf of Satan. We burnt 50,000 -100,000 women to cinders for witchcraft. There are several torture museums in Europe that I'd recommend for your attention. I'd also recommend you learn something about the Albigensian crusade and the other crusades --what they did in Europe, including Constantinopol, before even setting foot in the Holy Land. As to the returning crusaders, I recommend you read up on the Teutonic Order and the Battle of Grunwald, 1410. 

I have no patience for lying and self-serving apologetics. On the other hand, in opposition to liberals, I don't see the above and all the other darkness in the past as a reason for any self-flagellation whatsoever. In addition to the positive side that existed even during the Dark Ages, let alone the Middle ones, any people I know something about was as bad/ backward or worse than us at those times, and most still are.

Lastly, I have requested previously that you stop the snark and the presumptuousness. You do not have a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom; are probably too young to understand what they are. If you don't like what I write, don't read it. I have no time for dealing with your character deficiencies, and shall stop answering your posts. 

"but never back into darkness."

Tell me you don't believe that weary old and thoroughly refuted myth about the so-called Dark Middle Ages? Hope your upcoming essays contain the somewhat more thought-provoking info that you promised ;-)

Sag.

I do not see religion as the re-uniting glue of the West at all, though it is a thread in the common denominator. I do think there is a lot to be said for Christian culture, provided this is not twisted to leftist ends.

Somehow we forget that a lot of good happened during the Enlightenment, and that the people who carried its torch both in Europe and in America called themselves Christian, were deeply spiritual, and yet dismissed religious dogma. Montesquieu and Goethe come to mind, as do the most important of America's founding fathers, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson et al. They (the Americans) called themselves deists. Washington for instance was observed to kneel in prayer in the field before a battle, but largely refused to attend church services.

Many traditionalists blame the Enlightenment for all our current woes, i.e. putting man in the center of things, but like much everything else, it's all a question of balance. The Enlightenment happened because the Church had veered far out into  darkness. Now it's kind of too light for my taste; it's time to swing back toward the comforting shadow, but never back into darkness. And I am not keen on the Evangelicals either; it's an entirely anti-intellectual movement. Refusing to use one's brain and power of critical analysis cannot be the basis for regeneration, or, as a social-political force we are stillborn before we have been born. 

I believe that we should not deny a seat at the table to atheists and agnostics either -- provided they are not leftist. The two are NOT inextricably linked, despite a lot of silly propaganda one hears, at least in America, about these "Godless" unworthies.

Some of the most moral, developed, indeed great individuals I have known don't even have a notion such as God, e.g. Confucians and Daoists, including Zen. Confucianism is a thoroughly secular philosophy, yet if you know enough to skirt its pop, distorted image, it's quite admirable, if not really adaptable to the West. But Zen is adaptable. One of the great Christian mystics of the 20th century, Thomas Merton, was a Zen adept.

You may not follow these debates in the American media, but some of the best, most incisive conservative writers, e.g. John Derbyshire, Heather MacDonald, are constantly being attacked by "conservatives" for being "Godless atheists."  This is beyond silly. 

Here's the most concise Dutch history lesson about religious diversion I can come up with.

[Qte:] I am not familiar with this aspect in the Low Countries, perhaps it’s different there.

Well, here goes..
When the Netherlands took their more or less definitive form, a residue of religous denominations was left behind; different groups opposing each other. This fragmentation has always contributed to the decentralization of power, right up till the 20th century. 
So in a way,  when religion still stood for something, it ensured that Holland never became as centralized as some other states, or completely dominated by just one denomination. Fragmentation has paradoxically been our strength and it nicely fits a bunch of (still) very individualistic folk.

Now, with protestantism emptier and more insignificant than ever and Catholicism, since Vaticanum II, severely damaged as some sort of last truly religious stronghold against modernity, the "unity of denominations" is within reach indeed. Some unity.

Furthermore, your redoing from the right is even easier done than said (in Holland at least) but pretty useless, because empty christianity, whether inspired from the left or right, won't be of any help to roll back Islamization. You'd have to take it upon you to not only unite (easy, already done) but also to re-traditionalize (impossible). I don't see that happening. Also, those leftist elitists in no small number are exactly those uprooted, "kindharted" christians whose ecumenical goodwill has extended far into the East to include Islam as well, eyes wide shut, no matter what the embraced "Abrahamitic" brethern do to upset this "dialogue".

Only B-16 has voiced some serious reservations.

Kind regs,

Sag.

Absolutely right about the RCC as pathfinder for Mexico. There was a long article in the LA Times about the LA Archdiocese and their acting virtually as a fifth column on behalf of Mexico. But something similar is true for mainstream Protestant denominations. They are up to their ears in gays and trannies, Muslims and Africans and "social justice." It appears that the only semi-conservative prince of the Anglican/Episcopalian faith is a Nigerian. Hillary Clinton's main push on the left road has been her Methodist faith.

And the Jews have by and large substituted the main tenets of left-liberalism for their original religion. HIAS, that used to help Jewish refugees emigrate to America is now instrumental in bringing African Muslim refugees to America. The only difference in all these things is the motivation. Catholics are acting in the narrow interest of the church and against the interest of the society of which they are a part. But the Protestants and Jews are pure Pods:  they have been hypnotized to such an extent that they are bringing destruction onto themselves first and on society second (Which BTW turns Kevin MacDonald's Jewish evolutionary  theory on its head, but that's a topic for a different occasion).

So I have not been commenting about the present state of religion but about the desirable state that those who are interested in escaping from Meccania must adopt.  People, my people, first. My religion and my other universalist sentiments second. I know this has been tried in the past in Protestant/Papist struggles, with only partial success. We'll have to see to it that this time it succeeds.

I am aware of Christianity light, and do not believe that religious differences are our biggest problem, but it still is a problem. Religious bigotry was our biggest blight, however, for centuries, and its echo is still with us. You only need to spend a couple of days in Scotland, or visit successively in Poland and Russia, to realize how important religious differences still are in Europe. I am not familiar with this aspect in the Low Countries, perhaps it’s different there.

And yes, the ecumenical rapprochement has been going on for ages, but it has been guided by leftists. I see a way to redo it from the right; not to create a new Universalist Church but simply to recognize that these differences are silly and ought to be de-emphasized, GIVEN the common challenge before us. The force arrayed against us – primarily our own, homegrown Pods, the janissaries for Islam and the Third World that ride behind them, – is overwhelming. Unless we recognize and learn to value above all what we have in common, rather than dwelling on past wars and antipathies or ongoing differences in religious dogma, we have no chance.

This is just one of many aspects, and by no means the center of the plan that I will suggest (in Parts 3, 4 etc) as a road for ethno-conservatives (i.e. what I call Antipods). And do please remember that what I am going to suggest will be highly idiosyncratic and perhaps not from the angle you are used to.  I use a Japanese nom de plume for deep reasons, in addition to  shallow ones.   I do not expect that you will agree with or even like what I have to say, but I hope that you will find it at least thought-provoking.

Allow me to chip in on that one:

[Qte:] "..Catholic - Protestant - Orthodox [..]
just different retailers buying from the same wholesaler.."

Seems that such a view has been spreading in Western society for ages already, and put into practice in various ways:

- ecumenical "dialogue" among different christian denominations

- the phenomenon of "cultural christians"

- pleas for some sort of civil religion, loosely based on the Golden Rule and christian notions, i.e. christianity-"light"

These matters have been interpreted as either a blessing or as indicative of decline.

Curious to know what sort of setting aside you'd like to advocate, and whether that would result in kind of a political movement or rather some novel kind of christianity.
Some ideas pertaining to this matter are discussed for instance in "Without Roots" between B-16 en Marcello Pera.

Kind regs,

Sag.

* Adding to my previous post (and your reply) about the PvdF (A) in Holland.

In de '70s this party was hijacked by the "new-left", and mass-immigration sored to new hights as the welfare state expanded.

Former leader, Prime Minister, and grand old Man, Mr. Willem Drees (nickname "Vadertje Drees", somewhat like "Dear Father Drees" without the religious connotation), left the PvdA, warning that Holland was getting overcrowded (11 million at that time; even the Queen didn't recoil from expressing the same view).
He said when he spoke of 3rd world immigrants [transl from Dutch]:

"The Dutch state has in many different ways become busy doing things that were charitable in purpose, but that have become too much of a burden to the people of Holland. With its overcrowding and mass unemployment these things could simply not be afforded.."

 [Dutch]:

"Nederland is in vele opzichten dingen gaan doen, die een menslievend karakter droegen, maar die voor het Nederlandse volk te bezwarend zijn geworden. Met zijn overbevolking en met al die grote werkloosheid kon Nederland zich deze dingen niet veroorloven.."
 

The consumer society is destructive everywhere, once it gets past a certain point. It's certainly so in Japan and Hong Kong, and is probably getting so in some parts of China too. But East Asians have a unifying glue that whites lack. One notices immediately in the Orient how beneficial it is not to take religious differences seriously within the same ethno - racial group. If whites could put behind them the whole Catholic- Protestant - Orthodox mess of history, wipe the slate clean and agree that these are just different retailers buying from the same wholesaler (a point I'll make in Part 4), and there are much bigger problems to worry about than their different mark-ups and wrapping paper, much good could be accomplished.

pickled radish: " the hundreds of millions of people who are on the menu, about to be served as the entree, remain unaware and unsupportive of the few, brave objectors of conscience who are now being consumed as hors d'oeuvres."

What we have now is consumer society, with white society as the main commodity offered for consumption.

“The European Union,” writes Fjordman, “is a naked power grab by the elites in order to dismantle the nations there are supposed to serve.”

This is the kind of thing Fjordman will say. But I still think the EU was originally created to protect Europe. The likely reason why it has become a vehicle for a hostile ideology is that EU member states themselves have turned against their peoples. Or is there really a crazy EU bureaucracy that has grown a will of its own? I think it is unlikely.

"But American conservatives, equally with Euroleftists, propped the doors open for the whole world, and forgot that the world, whites excepted, is tribal."

I think it is true that European society, in many places, used to work in a non-tribal way. Today, it seems that our western governments are trying to create a civic, universalistic society where individuals are interchangeable. What they don't realize is that our society used to be like that, to a certain extent. Paradoxically, living in a modern country where every one shares the same ethnicity probably feels like living in a universalistic society, because it means you can ignore ethnicity. It is a good place for democracy to develop.

Thank you for this information. What's even more relevant is that such a party was conceived by autochtones, and there is at least one equivalent in every Western country now. It's in this that our disease lies.

The autoch Pods bring in more allochs. Some of the allochs, like the author of this http://www.unitedagainstracism.org/pages/partreplux03.htm , turn into Pods themselves while others sit quietly (or not) waiting to take over the whole mad Pod country within two generations. It's stranger than any fiction even a sick genius might conceive.

:)

Well, before we start swappin' dates of birth, I must honestly confess that the particular fleur du mal is someone else's creative achievement. Worthy of king-size print, comes electiontime..

In Holland this progressive party is re-dubbed, PvdA: Party for the Allahthones [the latter being a specification of allochthones]

Sag.

Good work. I knew you were a younger man. The adeptness with computer art seems to support that inference.

Here's the alternative PvdA emblem. To fit your title: PvdF

Sag.

Double wow, I like this even better.

One little element. Concerning Frank Van Hecke, it was not even a provincial paper, it was a small-city-paper in a 50.000 people city.

The police declared openly that, if Van Hecke's immunity was not lifted by the European parliament, they would not prosecute the known author who freely admits he is the author, who is a member of the "Vlaams Belang" but only at the level of the small city. Van Hecke didn't even know or see the article before it was distributed.