Shhhhh!!! Enough already. Otherwise, with your track record, you know what'll happen next. Somebody is sure to hang out the "Verboticists are Verboten!"sign.Then we're BOTH screwed.

@Atlanticist

A site to revel.

'Roots' out the source of many of the world's woes. ;-)

'mornin', Capo'

The BS referred to in my previous post does NOT originate in the 'colonies', and certainly does not come from you.

Cue the Clue:  http://www.verbotomy.com/verbottle.php?jargonism_id=11085

;-)

BS rolls off our colonial tongues very easily, but 'stront bore' !

Tip of the hat to the keepers of the Mother tongue.

Nite.

Armor, my impression is that Jamie Glasov and Co. at FrontPage do not support Arabs replacing Europeans, so I think you have it backwards. If I did detect it I would run away from them a hundred miles an hour. You are certainly right about American Jewish organizations, but they are mostly secular Jews (in name only) that support policies that stab Israel and Judeo-Christian civilization in the back. It is another story with Jews in Israel and Eastern Europe; they are too close to the reality of Islamic evil to play in the Western secular sandbox. There are many Jews in the West that are opening up against the seculars, such as Debbie Schlussel. I am also seeing rumblings amongst Jews about the Jew haters appointed by the big BO. It is easy to blame the Jews for our problems, but there are a lot more self-hating post-Christians that are sticking it to us. If the West goes down we have ourselves to blame, not the Jews.

(My) translation? Reverse the letters of the last two words and you get:

Lord protect us (all) from the "closed-minded" B***S'ers (in our midst). 

Goodnight.

Brief is good. The trick? The words selected and how they are employed.

Example:

@ marcfrans

Lord protect us from the "closed-minded" 'stront bore'.

;-)

For the record:

1)  Loyalty is a moral virtue. I do try to be loyal to "my people".

2)  I do NOT think "that an Eskimo or a Javanese have as much of a right...to welfare payments (in Flanders) as any son of a Flemish family".  In fact, I believe the opposite.  The fact that Armor makes such ludicrous assertions does not make them true.   However, I do believe in the right to self-determination of the Flemish people, and thus in determining their own policies governing 'citizenship' and immigration.  And I do strongly believe that the law should treat ALL CITIZENS equally (irrespective of their looks or 'origin').   

3) I also DO mind that "my family and friends" may "face a dim future and fear violence".  Furthermore, contrary to Armor's assertions I have on numerous occasions criticised "the (lax) immigration policy" (of Belgium), and most particularly its fairly-recent absurd "snelbelgwet" (fast-track-citizenship-law).   

4) I have never explicitly stated that "Europe needs at least SOME immigration", even though it would be commonsensical to make that assumption. It certainly does not a priori necessitate any NET immigration.  And, while I do agree that the European publics have been subjected in recent times to absurdly high levels of immigration, I also maintain that they are partly responsible for that development because they have not held their politicians 'accountable' for it.  

5) Anybody who can claim that I embrace "an ideology of race-replacement" must be delusional.  Finally, I can also recommend "reading a collection of Flemish magazines published before 1960", and I have no desire whatsoever to tell the Malians how they should organise their immigration policies.

Let the record show....that there are many manifest lies and stupidities floating around the internet      

@ Capodistrias

I am well aware that there is no genuine individual freedom in the (political) world of Islam.  So, I am at a loss as to what the relevance could be of your 'reply' to my posting.  I specifically stated that one should be guided by principles, and not by "likes or dislikes, nor emotions of hate and love".   You cannot possibly think that my values/principles have much in common with those commonly on display in much of the islamic world.  My "love of humanity" certainly does NOT extend 'to loving much of what humanity puts on display' everyday (including Western decadence).  I did not refer to "humanity" but to "my (own) humanity", which means that I must act as a human being, which is the essence of (human) morality, i.e. acting in accordance with your true (purposeful) nature.  Let me assure you that my perception of true human nature is most likely to be very different from that held by the authorities in the "native land" of the nice old couple in your example.

On second thought, I recognise that your post must have been born by frustration with being banned from another tread on this website.   As you (should) know, I am all with you on that.  For, tolerance of freedom of speech (in the sense of 'opinion') is very much part of my principled understanding of the 'true nature of being human' (as opposed to being inhuman).   

Re A better plan for the West; a new Cold War submitted by Rembrandt: well said! I couldn't agree more. The problem is that the West is on its death march in the opposite direction, and the march accelerated with the election of the great BO. While we need to continue discussions like this I think it is imperative that we try to understand to as deep a psychological level as possible why the West is committing seppuku and why the Left is in alliance with the Islamists. I have been struggling with this for quite some time and just recently came upon 'United in Hate' by Jamie Glazov. The following excerpt for the book is on Amazon. Jamie may have opened the door a bit. Here’s the excerpt:

The believer's totalitarian journey begins with an acute sense of alienation from his own society--an alienation to which he is, himself, completely blind.

In denial about the character flaws that prevent him from bonding with his own people, the believer has convinced himself that there is something profoundly wrong with his society--and that it can be fixed without any negative trade-offs. He fantasizes about building a perfect society where he will, finally, fit in...

A key ingredient of this paradigm is that the believer has failed to rise to the challenges of secular modernity; he has not established real and lasting interpersonal relationships or internalized any values that help him find meaning in life. Suffering from a spiritual emptiness, of which he himself is not cognizant, the believer forces non-spiritual solutions onto his spiritual problems. He exacerbates this dysfunction by trying to satisfy his every material need, which the great benefits of modernity and capitalism allow--but the more luxuries he manages to acquire, the more desperate he becomes. We saw this with the counterculture leftists of the sixties and seventies, and we see it with the radical leftists of today. Convinced that it is incumbent upon society, and not him, to imbue his life with purpose, the believer becomes indignant; he scapegoats his society--and ends up despising and rejecting it.

Just like religious folk, the believer espouses a faith, but his is a secular one. He too searches for personal redemption--but of an earthly variety. The progressive faith, therefore, is a secular religion. And this is why socialism's dynamics constitute a mutated carbon copy of Judeo-Christian imagery. Socialism's secular utopian vision includes a fall from an ideal collective brotherhood, followed by a journey through a valley of oppression and injustice, and then ultimately a road toward redemption.

In rejecting his own society, the believer spurns the values of democracy and individual freedom, which are anathema to him, since he has miserably failed to cope with both the challenges they pose and the possibilities they offer. Tortured by his personal alienation, which is accompanied by feelings of self-loathing, the believer craves a fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where human estrangement is thus impossible. The believer fantasizes about how his own individuality and self will be submerged within the collective whole.... As history has tragically recorded, this "holy cause" follows a road that leads not to an earthly paradise, but rather to an earthly hell in all of its manifestations. The political faith rejects the basic reality of the human condition--that human beings are flawed and driven by self-interest--and rests on the erroneous assumption that humanity is malleable and can be reshaped into a more perfect form. This premise spawned the nightmarish repressions and genocidal campaigns of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other communist dictators in the twentieth century. Under their rule, more than one hundred million human beings were sacrificed on the altar where a new man would ostensibly be created.

I had the pleasure the other day of giving an elderly couple whose car had broken down a ride home. They were converts to Christianity from Islam who still visit and often stay for prolonged periods in their native land. As I kidded them about being model citizens in their native land, their tone suddenly turned sad and sullen from happy and talkative. Two words were their simple response: "No Freedom."

It was several moments before we resumed our good natured and spirited conversation.

BTW, be careful with that love of humanity, if you combine that with the 1st Commandment you fall into full fledged Catholicism and you will be banned from ...nevermind;)

@ KO

You made two very perceptive points in your reply to Rembrandt.   Indeed, it is "the message of Western freedom" that should be used against the Muslim threat, as an instrument of 'change' (or subversion of reigning cultural values in the Muslim world), rather than the message of contemporary Western slavery to leftist and decadent values.  The latter is currently having the opposite of the desired effect, i.e. it is strengthening jihadist and obscurantist forces in the Muslim world.  And, I also agree that Muslim countries should not be treated as "a bloc".  For example, Turkey is probably still more useful to the US as a NATO member today than most West-European countries currently are (but this may be changing in the foreseeable future).

Thank you for putting Armor 'straight'.  I could not have phrased it as well as you did.  But I am sure it will make no difference to the closed-minded.  I do value my family, my country, even my 'race' and gender, but above all I value my humanity.  That means that I am first guided by 'principles', i.e. by certain moral values (which hopefully will reflect themselves in surrounding cultural values) and not by physical phenomena. If, in specific concrete situations, my humanity may superficially appear to come into conflict with my family, my country, my race, my gender...or whatever, I know that I should be guided by principles, and not by likes or dislikes, nor emotions of 'hate' and 'love' etc... 

The West needs the sorts of strong policies against Islam that were used against the Soviet bloc during the Cold War.  We need to push THEM for the same sorts of demands they make against the West. For example...

Immediately stop all military and economic assistance to the Middle East. No more military hardware and technology. Turkey needs to be immediately kicked out of NATO.

Use diplomatic pressure to denounce Islamic cultural excesses routinely and stridently in the United Nations.  Levy intense pressure on Islamic regimes to allow open elections with secular alternatives to current power structures, to outlaw religious discrimination and dhimmi policies, to guarantee civil rights and to agressively prosecute all hate speech in their borders.

Diplomatic pressure to Islamic states to allow religious freedom and diversity.

Develop methods of reaching the Middle East "street" with the message of religious freedom and self determination to subvert Islamic regimes.

Start Radio Free Middle East broadcasts into the Muslim world to inform the captive populaces of the other religious choices available to them as persons of self determination.  Encourage them to dissent from the path of forced theology.  Encourage them to assert their individual liberties.

Encourage the introduction of "decadent" forms of culture and art into Islamic culture.  Encourage feminist and same sex equality movements, minority rights movements and secularist movements, particularly atheism. 

Indoctrinate Islamic immigrants in European countries with Western values.  Television, billboards and radio broadcasts regularly report and contrast the ethos of freedom against the rigid and sterile modes of Islam.

Use "reverse dhimmification" to pit moderate Muslims against extremist ones.

Create loyalty oaths to as a condition of employment for immigrants.  All must declare first loyalty to Western values and the homeland both as a condition of entry and for employment.  Violation results in immediate deportation and confiscation of property to pay the costs.

Lastly, Islam views the world as a duo-lithic structure of the House of Peace and the House of War.  Therefore, develop a strategem that holds the ENTIRE Islamic world accountable for the excesses of any one. 

Namely, a Nuclear attack by Iran against the West is an attack by all of Islam itself, and will be dealt with accordingly.  Publicize our intention to target Mecca, Medina and other holy sites with appropriate weapons as one form of retaliation.

In short, we need to quit CODDLING the Muslims and start utilizing their own strategies against them. Conservatives in the West need to launch grassroots efforts to build a massive powerbase of populist support, built around very simple and basic ideas for dealing with Islam.

KO: "The West did not originally embrace tolerance for its own sake, but as a lesser evil than civil war.

European tolerance is not restricted to religion. I think it has probably more to do with genes than with political calculations. Anyway, other parts of the world have known religious conflicts too. They should have become as tolerant as Europeans in order to avoid civil war. But the truth is they are usually less tolerant.

"That calculation does not apply when factions are not of one people"

I agree it is easier to expel foreign muslim agitators than it would be to expel Cat Stevens. But what's needed is repatriation of all immigrants whatever their religion.

There is nothing morally wrong with expelling immigrants and racial traitors (like Marcfrans). Immigrants have their own countries to go to. But we cannot morally prevent anyone from keeping to his religion. If European authorities were prepared to cancel freedom of religion for immigrants, I suppose they would also be prepared to expel them, and that is what they would do.

"an American is speechless before the folly of Europeans in importing millions of Moslems"

An informed European is speechless before the claim that the third-world colonization of America is not nearly as worrying as the building of mosques in Europe. Compared to the prospect of racial annihilation, the problem of Islam counts for nothing. In fact, the immigration situation is worse in North America than in Europe.

Thank you, Tiberge--I think--for this informative article. No European community should permit the construction of mosques in its territory.  Islam is a system of religious and political domination that is incompatible with Western liberties.  Islamic immigration should be ended.  Islamic outmigration should be encouraged.  Islamic organizations should be banned.  Conversions of well-established Moslems should be welcomed, but only with due skepticism.  It is pitiful that there should be such a strong and politically active Islamic presence in the heart of old Austrasia. 

Liberals of all stripes may ask, what kind of freedom requires banning an ideology or a religion?   Freedom means freedom from illegitimate authority.   Islam's primary agenda is to supplant the traditional spiritual and political authorities of non-Islamic peoples.   We know this to be true.  We need not wait for the next attack to find out.  It means that any Islam-oriented participation in Western political systems is already an exercise of illegitimate authority.  One Islamic vote for which a Western politician must curry favor with an enemy of the West is one too many.  Westerners must struggle to be free of Islam in the same way they have struggled to be free of Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and other less spectacular tyrannies.  

The West did not originally embrace tolerance for its own sake, but as a lesser evil than civil war.  It was better for Protestants and Catholics who are members of one people to live together than to destroy their peoples through mutual slaughter.  That calculation does not apply when factions are not of one people or are otherwise too far apart to want to make such a peace treaty work.   Civil war is preferable to an intolerable cohabitation. 

Switching gears:  Islam is the tyrants' Trojan horse.  By destroying the traditional peoples through importing Moslems, the tyrants of the EU and allied statists and socialists will find no obstacle to establishing their dictatorships.  Indeed, with rioting unleashed by Moslems, the remnants of the people will beg for the imposition of authoritarian power, which the tyrants will be only too happy to deliver. 

The Moslems and the tyrants can thus live in symbiosis for a long time.  (Cf. the Democrats and the Blacks in the U.S.)  The Moslems can provide votes while the tyrants give them tax money.  The Moslems can riot from time to time, or commit murders and robberies on a retail basis, demonstrating the people's need for the tyrants and the need to keep paying off the Moslems.     

As I have said before:  an American is speechless before the folly of Europeans in importing millions of Moslems into their beautiful countries, when Americans had already committed a similar, well-publicized folly in importing millions of Africans--the consequences of which have been on display for 400 years.