You may want to watch the video Mom, Dad, I'm German. It crudely demonstrates the stupidity of multiculturalism and the fact that it is only compatible with European nationalism if the visible minorities are not visible; once, they are, homogeneity is lost. Take the United Kingdom, where non-Whites identify as British, rather than Welsh, Scotch, Irish, and English. Britain will become a nation-state, rather than a multinational state when the last of its indigenous peoples is breeded out. Of course, there will be little need for the new Britons, Polynesian in appearance, to pay attention to Cromwell or Churchill, unless they are recast and re-painted as non-Whites themselves.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6251168310803139225

MarcFrans:

If you truly have little interest in responding to my opinions, then why the longwinded "nitpicking"? For someone more interested in ideas than words and sentences, you spend a great deal of time repeating yourself. Instead of resorting to simplification, labels and mud-slinging why don't you engage in academic debate for once. One should be able to argue both sides of an argument and choose the more convincing of the two rather than only spout rhetoric from one side.

MarcFrans: " 'Who would deny that people are "part of larger tribal, national, religious and civilisational communities.' Certainly not me."

Nevertheless your statements are more individualistic, which of course is your perogative.

MarcFrans: "But civilized people are able to apply general principles 'fairly' when judging individuals, whereas 'tribal' people often are not."

Fairness is an ambiguous and subjective concept, so too is "civilized." If, as you note above, every human being is part of these successively larger communities, how then, can one be "civilized" and another "tribal"?

MarcFrans: I presented 3 separate ideas: (1) I explained why your interpretation of anti-Americanism as "inherently" European was wrong. 

Actually I was arguing that you claimed anti-Americanism was European, when you attempted to incorrectly label statements I made in a previous post.

MarcFrans: "...I pointed to the moral need to take a clear side in a conflict or dilemma where there is no sensible moral equivalency between the sides."

You have failed to challenge my claim that one can choose sides and still remain a moral relativist, and by moral I am referring to objective universal standards of value, which differ among religions, philosophies and individuals. I have heard proponents of American foreign policy refer to the West as "good" and the Middle East as "evil," and that this struggle naturally warrants invasion, occupation and rendition. However, I am of the opinion, that there is no higher morality as such, that the universe as we know it is amoral and therefore without judgement, and that human values are merely agreements between two or more individuals, with religion providing a transcendental authority to make the agreements binding i.e. God says so, rather than we agree this is best, because the latter can be debated and disagreed with. There is no difference in practice between claiming that one's cause is in one's self-interest and that one's cause is morally good. But please refrain from using the term "moral" without explaining what exactly that means to someone who may not share your views.

MarcFrans: "And (3) I reiterated the 'racist' nature of your refusal to make a distinction between the concepts of "culture" and "race"." 

I have always made a distinction between race and culture. On the contrary I have claimed that race or physical characteristics is inseparable from ethnicity or nationality, which also includes culture. Racism generally means racial supremacism: not once have I advocated supremacism along these lines or suggested that European nationalisms be absorbed into White nationalism.

MarcFrans: "Your response, again, underscores the deep racist nature of your views on culture and ethnicity, and of course as a 'democrat' I do not contest your legal 'right' to hold such views.  But I definitely contest them on moral grounds."

You mean "liberal democrat." Secondly, you have yet to establish what those "moral grounds" are.

@ Kapitein Andre

Two points.

1) Logic is indeed basic, or a basic requirement for sensible speech.  It can most easily be taught in "symbolic" or "mathematical" ways. It used to be taught in 'traditional' European philosophy faculties under titles such as "symbolic" logic, "formal" logic, or whatever.  Do not get hang up on individual words (like "symbolic"), which can have various meanings, but focus on the main ideas presented or on the 'big picture'. 

2) You truly are a parser of words and a nitpicker.  You focus on individual words and individual sentences, not on the ideas presented.  In so doing you continue to set up senseless strawmen. Take for example the one in your last sentence.  Who would deny that people are "part of larger tribal, national, religious and civilisational communities". Certainly not me.  But civilized people are able to apply general principles 'fairly' when judging individuals, whereas 'tribal' people often are not.  There is no need for us to engage in lengthy nitpicking on the meanings of a word like "tribalism", because it is totally irrelevant for the main point on the 'racist' nature of your views on ethnicity and culture. 

I presented 3 separate ideas: (1) I explained why your interpretation of anti-Americanism as "inherently" European was wrong.  (2) I pointed to the moral need to take a clear side in a conflict or dilemma where there is no sensible moral equivalency between the sides. And (3) I reiterated the 'racist' nature of your refusal to make a distinction between the concepts of "culture" and "race". 

You totally ignored the first two points or ideas, and commented on individual sentences and words, out of the broader context, without ever addressing the basic ideas.  You did, however, address the third point, for which I am grateful.  Your response, again, underscores the deep racist nature of your views on culture and ethnicity, and of course as a 'democrat' I do not contest your legal 'right' to hold such views.  But I definitely contest them on moral grounds. 

Finito.

MarcFrans: "Your refusal to make a proper distinction between culture and race, in short your 'racism', is obviously beyond improvement."
 
Well I appreciate your attempts to improve me...are you Swedish?
 
MarcFrans: "...there are very very few "white Chinese, Japanese, and African tribesmen."
 
Can there truly be White Chinese, Japanese and African tribesmen, or will these simply be Whites living in East Asia and Africa?
 
MarcFrans: "Iranians, however, come in 'all' or at least in many colors."
 
Not really. Iran is dominated by Persians and Azeris, the latter being more Turkic; the remaining groups are almost indistinguishable from Persians except the Kurds who are found in Iraq, Turkiye and Syria also.
 
MarcFrans: "We are now in the 21st century and more than a billion Chinese still do not have 'democracy' and self-determination."
 
Firstly, the Han Chinese have national self-determination. Secondly, their civilisation has never been ethusiastic about democracy, as they are more communitarian than Western nations.
 
MarcFrans: "...they live under 'rule of men' and not genuine 'rule of law'. By contrast, 'Chinese' in a number of other places of lesser racial purity do actualy [sic] have benefit of 'rule of law'."
 
We all live under the "rule of men." Those Chinese living abroad are mainly from Hong Kong and moved only to protect their wealth from the Chinese government after the handover. Hong Kong never chose liberal democracy, it was simply a prosperous colony under British dominion.
 
MarcFrans: "Ultimately, you must recognise that principles (in the sense of moral values) are more important than 'looks'."
 
Principles change; they are not linear as you are suggesting. Societies alter their principles to match their current level of prosperity and peace and in times of crisis. "Looks" stand the test of time, although for how much longer we can avoid all looking the same I know not. If "looks" were unimportant, people would not try to save rare animals, and they would not have borders and immigration controls. In case you have not noticed, "looks" continue to have a remarkable correlation with culture, in case you were under the delusion that the entire human race wants to create a united global superstate along American lines, the only difference being skin color. Furthermore, even in societies not affected by European aesthetics, paleness in females makes them higher on the marriage-eligibility pecking order. I am sure that even if each and every last blond was exterminated and every race mixed that people would continue to dye their hair and fight over who is "whiter" or "blonder."
 
MarcFrans: "...only principles in the end can ensure inidvidual [sic] freedom in any society, not physically-based attributes which will perpetuate tribalism, cronyism, and arbitrary power."
 
The entire human race is composed of tribes. Nor do most humans perceive themselves merely as individuals, rather they are part of larger tribal, national, religious and civilisational communities.

MarcFrans: "European (which is what you are)."

How do you figure that?

MarcFrans: "...smart Europeans are not anti-American, only dumb ones and ideologically-blinded ones are."

I am assuming that you have the necessary evidence to prove this correlation between intelligence and political view on American foreign policy? I am also assuming that you are using the term "dumb" to mean stupid, rather than the condition of muteness.

MarcFrans: "...you need a refresher course in 'symbolic logic'."

Logic is basic, not symbolic.

MarcFrans: "...there is no room for moral relativism implying that both sides have a reasonable case or comparable objectives.  They do not."

Au contraire. Short of backing up one's claims by appealing to a transcendental authority, as Muslims have done, moral relativism reigns. While a Westerner may feel compelled to kill and even die for his or her civilisation and a Muslim may be equally passionate about theirs, this does not suggest moral superiority on either side, for both claim it and both cannot be right. While one may justify their own self-interest, this does not mean that it is morally superior than anyone else's self-interest.

MarcFrans: "...a civilisational struggle which will likely continue until Islam itself can be reformed or reform itself."

Islam will never "reform" precisely because of the temporal issues that impact its followers, namely geopolitics and economics.

MarcFrans: "For example, the wide media mis-characterisation of 'Abu Ghraib' illustrates this perfectly.   People allow their petty resentments to override common sense and become unable to make contextual and proportional judgements."

I fail to see how the Abu Ghraib incidents were "mis-characterised" by Western media. While Muslim soldiers and paramilitaries have done far worse, this fact does not lessen the actions committed by those American soldiers, and it did nothing more than soil American arms, which were not considered very "pure" at the time anyways.

@ Kapitein Andre

1) You must really make an effort to remain honest. 

Indeed, I accused you - based on a lot of empirical observation - of "longstanding and shortsighted European anti-Americanism".  That states simply what it states. Firstly, it states that you are expressing "European" anti-Americanism, i.e. either as a European (which is what you are), or 'anti-Americanism that is very common in Europe.  Both interpretations would be reasonable for the adjective "European" in that sentence.  Secondly, it states that such anti-Americanism is "shortsighted" and "longstanding".  The first adjective is an opinion and the second is a factual observation.

You canNOT logically deduce from that sentence that I was saying that "anti-Americanism" is INHERENTLY European.  It certainly is not.  As you yourself like to point out with your reference to "approval rating" in much of the world, anti-Americanism is quite common in non-European resentful cultures as well.  Moreover, smart Europeans are not anti-American, only dumb ones and ideologically-blinded ones are.

If you still persist in your nonsensical interpretation of that short sentence, you need a refresher course in 'symbolic logic'.  It is an unacceptable 'leap' or projection to read that statement as implying that anti-Americanism would be "inherently" European.  The statement did not say that, and did not reasonably imply it either!

2) I repeat, in the matter of radical islam's assault on the west you are "either with us or against us".  You must clearly determine for yourself on which side you are on, and there is no room for moral relativism implying that both sides have a reasonable case or comparable objectives.  They do not. 

Some of your observations and speculations about geopolitical developments, 'interests', and actions or inaction, are certainly interesting. Some are, in my opinion, clearly misguided. But all of that is secondary.  You must clearly know on which side you are in the 'long war' with radical Islam, which is a civilisational struggle which will likely continue until Islam itself can be reformed or reforms itself.  And, I am sure in your more lucid moments, you will be able to recognise that many Europeans (and some Americans) do not even recognise the struggle as such.  And sometimes they even 'root' for the islamist side.  For example, the wide media mis-characterisation of 'Abu Ghraib' illustrates this perfectly.   People allow their petty resentments to override common sense and become unable to make contextual and proportional judgements.  If you cannot see that many Europeans and some Americans are rooting for the 'other side' in America's battles with radical islam in many parts of the world today, then you got your head in the sand.   

3)  Your refusal to make a proper distinction between culture and race, in short your 'racism', is obviously beyond improvement.   Indeed, there are very very few "white Chinese, Japanese, and African tribesmen" (Iranians, however, come in 'all' or at least in many colors).  So what?  You think that speaks well for these cultures?  We are now in the 21st century and more than a billion Chinese still do not have 'democracy' and selfdetermination.  They have no access to free and diverse information, and they are subject to very arbitrary 'justice'. In short they live under 'rule of men' and not genuine 'rule of law'. By contrast, 'Chinese' in a number of other places of lesser racial purity do actualy have benefit of 'rule of law'.   The case of Japan is more complex and subtle and deserves a long treatise of its own. And I am sure you do not want to hold "the African tribesman" up as an example. 

Ultimately, you must recognise that principles (in the sense of moral values) are more important than 'looks'.  Indeed, only principles in the end can ensure inidvidual freedom in any society, not physically-based attributes which will perpetuate tribalism, cronyism, and arbitrary power. 

MarcFrans: "I did not state that anti-Americanism is "inherently" European. I said that it is "shortsighted" and "longstanding".  Very different!"

Actually you accused me of harboring "longstanding and shortsighted European anti-Americanism [italics added]." Are you now backtracking and lending more weight to the "longstanding" and "shortsighted" portions?

MarcFrans: "In the matter of radical islam's assault on the West, you are indeed either "with us or against us"."

Washington used that phrase to denote those states that were included in its "coalition of the willing" and those that refused to join, even though the latter were against Islamism. Many regard radical Islam to be a product of socio-economics (e.g. poverty, low education, low skills and unemployment) and geopolitics (e.g. the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the American military presence in the Gulf and Western interest in Middle Eastern natural resources). Are they suddenly collaborators because they did not support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? It is not as though Europe sits idly by as the United States brings peace, prosperity and liberal democracy to the world through force of arms; regimes and political groups even worse than the Taliban flourish around the globe and India, Pakistan and North Korea were able to amass weapons of mass destruction without fear of American intervention a'la Iraq. The United States is not combating "terrorism" in the world and its root causes, it is protecting its interests. If the United States economy was addicted to spicy cabbage rather than oil and gas, American soldiers would be occupying Pyongyang today. This is not to say that Islam is not on a collision course with the West, rather it is to say that European states and the United States are acting in their own short-term so-called national interests. The EU believes that international pacifism and appeasement and domestic law and order will ensure its safety; equally erroneously, the United States believes that its armed forces can keep Islamists' "over there."

MarcFrans: "A repetition of Vichy-type behavior will not save anyone, certainly not Europeans."

As far as illegal immigration is concerned, the United States is eagerly awaiting annexation by Latin America, particularly Mexico. I can mud-sling too.

MarcFrans: "I am neither an American, nor a "neo-conservative".  Ergo, I am definitely not an "American neo-conservative"."

You wrongly claim that I am Belgian, so I am returning the favor. If you are not American, than refrain from extolling a society of which you are not even part; it is far easier to glorify the ideal of the United States than it is to examine your homeland's policies. Perhaps I am an American disgruntled with American foreign policy and the colonisation and Islamisation of Europe, in which case you have no business arguing with me about the former. Secondly, neo-conservatism is the combination of traditional conservative social values with classical liberal economic ones. After all of your posts, you're claiming that this label doesn't fit you? You are certainly not a reform or classical liberal, nor do your statements suggest fascism or socialism.
 

MarcFrans: "At the same time, it is definitely "racist" on your part to limit "ethnicity" purely in terms of some misbegotten concept of racial 'purity'.  It is not only "racist", but worse, it is stupid and ultimately destructive for that ethnicity."

So there can be White Chinese, Japanese, Iranians and African tribesmen? There can be Black Poles, Chinese Italians, Japanese Norwegians, and South Asian Irish? Of course not. If everyone looked the same, there would be no need of separate states for their would not be nations; in this case, the only cultural diversity would come from differences in climate, geography, etc. The ends of multiculturalism are in fact cultural homogeneity along Western liberal and social democratic lines; unfortunately, one billion Indians, one billion Chinese, and one billion Muslims have a different idea of global culture than the Anglo-American Western one that prevails today.
 

MarcFrans: "Yes, the ongoing conflcts in the muslim world do "increase" Europe's demographic problems."

I appreciate your agreement. 'Nuff said.

@ Flanders Fields

The terms "Left" and "right" describe different sides of the political spectrum in both Europe and America.  Obviously, different people can and will use different criteria to classify or place people on that spectrum.  

As you know, in America the term "liberal" generally overlaps with 'left' and "conservative" with 'right'.  In Europe the term "liberal" (in a political classification sense) does not mean very much any more. Traditionally, in some countries (like the Benelux for instance) it used to stand for the third alternative (besides Christian Democrats and socialists) in an economic sense, and in that sense they were considered 'right'.  However, culturally (in terms of personal 'values' and foreign policy for instance) most European 'liberals' have moved sharply left, and 'traditional values liberals' in Europe seemed to have moved on to other (often 'nationalist') parties on the 'right'.

Your statement that you do not consider "liberals as leftist" must be very confusing for North Americans.  certainly for US citizens, and also for Canadians for whom the "liberal party" is definitely considered on the 'left' (even though they have an even more leftist party in the NDP).  For Europeans your statement may make sense in an economic policy sense, perhaps, but not really in a broader cultural sense.  European 'liberals' have been infected by the moral relativism and the  post-modernism of academia just as much as most other Europeans.

Armor, I think all of us tend to have traits you describe and those are natural.  I refer more to an obsessive type of focus where nationalist expression is tangentially related, if at all, to discussions about other matters.  I have not observed that focus with you in the least, and really have only noticed it as a problem with a few, some gone, which derail rational discussions of issues of importance or throws them into argumentive pits which prevent further rational discourse.  I hate to lose those people who are persuasive and articulate and who could add a lot to our thinking and discussion, but who cannot control their personal indignation, and it seems that they choose to go when they tire of being defensive when called on the problem.

Marc, I use the term left too loosely, but I haven't found a way to classify who I mean in more concrete ways.  I do agree with you on the libertarians and business interests, as well as the so-called neoconservatives (who are leftists who call for market expansions through use of governmental coersion and increased immigration).  These are really opportunists who cooperate with leftists when it puts a nickel in their pockets, but who are just as dangerous or more so because of their lack of conscience and pretense of being conservative. 

Just to clarify further, I don't consider liberals as leftists, unless they cooperate with leftists and repeat popular leftist talking point phrases which places them in the catagory.  Classical liberals are as important to our societies as are moderates and conservatives.  I detest having to use the term so often, but it is too difficult to describe each time in a different way and everyone knows in their own mind what the term describes.

@ Flanders Fields

I am not interested in "fingerpointing at each other", but I do 'fight' wrongheaded attitudes and ideas.  Among the latter I include Kapitein Andre's blatant anti-Americanism (probably based on his attachment to deepseated and imagined racial 'purity') and his manifest 'racism' embodied in his refusal to make a proper distinction between culture and race.     

Generally I agree with your analysis concerning immigration, but not with your exclusive focus on the 'left' in that regard.  A significant part of the responsibility for the undermining of traditional western values and for rampant immigration can be attributed to 'rightist' forces, particularly so-called libertarians and 'business interests'.

@ Kapitein Andre

Please, read more carefully, and do not create 'strawmen'.

1) On your first point.

-- I did not state that anti-Americanism is "inherently" European.  I said that it is "shortsighted" and "longstanding".  Very different!

-- "Approval rating" is not an 'argument'. On the contrary, it is often a sign of "kuddegeest". 

--  In the matter of radical islam's assault on the West, you are indeed either "with us or against us". A repetition of Vichy-type behavior will not save anyone, certainly not Europeans.

-- I am neither an American, nor a "neo-conservative".  Ergo, I am definitely not an "American neo-conservative".

2) On your second point, I do endorse your desire to preserve "national cultures" and the right to self-determination for all cultures (if truly 'democratic' processes are followed in doing so).  At the same time, it is definitely "racist" on your part to limit "ethnicity" purely in terms of some misbegotten concept of racial 'purity'.  It is not only "racist", but worse, it is stupid and ultimately destructive for that ethnicity.  

3) Your third point is again pure sofistry.  Yes, the ongoing conflcts in the muslim world do "increase" Europe's demographic problems.  But, they only do so marginally, and they are certainly not "responsible" for it.   The responsibility for Europe's demographic problems lies EXCLUSIVELY in European policies, past and present.  One could just as well claim that Europe's 'inaction' and 'free-rider' behavior is more responsible for muslim 'refugees' than American actions.  Millions of Afghan refugees have returned to Afghanistan after the Taliban removal (not all from Pakistan, far from it).  If today some of them are fleeing again, it is because ONLY Americans, Canadians and Australians are willing to fight, while the Germans, Italians, etc....want to play glorified 'peacekeeper' in safe areas up North.  And, nobody commands that Sweden has to take in Iraki refugees.  Let the so-called peaceful and 'stable' Arab countries take care of Arabs.  If the Swedes and other Europeans would actually be willing to DO something concrete to defend 'democracy' and pluralism in Irak (and elsewhere), then they wouldn't have to be so 'pluralistic' at home.   

"but I really think it is from a learned response that has become ingrained in many Europeans that America is the true source of evil in the world"

This is an exaggeration. According to the french media, America is more stupid than evil. Anyway, I think you should just shrug off silly anti-Americanism. It may irk you, but I don't think it has very harmful consequences. What should worry you is the lack of intellectual freedom it indicates.
Anti-Americanism manifests itself as the tendency to condemn America as a block, without any nuance or reservation, at the smallest pretext. It is mostly done by the leftist media, but it can be infectious. For example, you have a leftist explain to you that the Iraq war was all about oil. The Americans are imperialists because they won't let the Iraqis live happily by themselves under the rule of Saddam Hussein. As a conservative, you reply that the American government is really stupid to think that it can transform muslims into democrats. We should let Arabs be Arabs. In the end, even though you have contrary opinions, you reach a kind of agreement with the leftist: the USA is to blame. I think that even the right tends to be influenced by the left-wing anti-American brain-washing.
Personally, although I like the United States, I do have a few anti-American tendencies. For example, I like it when José Bové dismantles a McDonald restaurant, or when he harvests someone else's field of genetically modified corn.

Thank you for illustrating my point, Kapitien.  I value the potential you have for contributing to discussions on problems which we share.  You offer opinions at times which are well thought out and illuminating, even where I disagree with you.  At many times, however, you tend to fall back on gratuitous statements of anti-Americanism which take away from any credibility which you attempt to establish, and seemingly invite disagreement so that you can continue a diatribe critical of the US generally.  It may be because you wish to have another opportunity to use the phrase "au contraire", but I really think it is from a learned response that has become ingrained in many Europeans that America is the true source of evil in the world and that it is the mission of any European educated into leftist thought patterns to point this out on every occasion.

We hear the same propoganda in the US, so we are accustomed to hearing it, but in the US it is from leftists whom we know to be intentionally repeating ignorance in a biased manner.  The same items repeated by otherwise intelligent Europeans often originate in US media and are picked up and repeated by your European media and predominately leftist instructors.  We Americans feel shocked and offended when we engage in discussion with otherwise intelligent people and hear these snippets of leftist tinged bias repeated. We know that there is intentional obscuring of good effects which may flow from conduct of world affairs by certain US policies, but you are not aware of those, or if you are, your opinions are tinged with the leftist soundbites which pound anti-Americanism into every discussion.

Europeans do not seem to remember more recent history where the US and Europe cooperated to establish good in the world, but many Americans still have those memories which have not been eradicated by our leftists here, despite their strong attempts to do so.

I will point out for illustration where this entire dialogue seems to have originated in this discussion.

35,000 Iraqis to Sweden this year

Sonamaca: 

"....After 12,000 last year and 3,000 in 2005. If this pace continues throught next year, newly arrived Iraqi immigrants will make up nearly 1% or Sweden's population.

Add in the flood of Somalis, Bosnians, Turks, North Africans, and Sweden will be an Islamic country in a generation."

@Sonomaca
 Kapitein Andre: 

"If the United States did not invade Iraq, this wouldn't be so. It is not surprising that Europeans frown on the projection of American military power in the Middle East, as this only causes increased demographic problems for Europe."

MarcFrans: "I think...his [my] 'ailment' lies...in longstanding and shortsighted European anti-Americanism and 'racism', which both help to undermine western civilization itself."

Firstly, I fail to see what makes "anti-Americanism" inherently European or shortsighted. Tthe United States arguably has the lowest approval rating throughout the world of any time in its history, among allied, enemy and neutral states. Either the United States is good and the rest of human civilisation is evil, or there may be some merits to the criticism of American foreign policy, past and present, much of which, incidentally, comes from Americans themselves. Criticism does not imply hostility, and is often constructive. Surely Western Europeans are allowed to differ with the United States on issues that affect them directly, such as the flow of refugees after the Coalition invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. However, there is a "with us or against us" attitude that seems to prevail in American neo-conservative discourse, one that may have applied in the pre-1993 bi-polar world, but is obsolete and crude in one made more complex and in which the left-right spectrum is a useless instrument. Accusing critics of American foreign policy of "anti-Americanism" is no different than labelling critics of Israeli policies anti-Semitic, Western Europeans socialists or communists, or Americans fascist. Mud-slinging is not debate; in this respect you differ little from those self-appointed enforcers of political correctness than patrol the popular and academic discourse of the West.

Secondly, the West is founded upon the small European nation-state, in contrast to the opposing social choices of anarchy and empire that prevailed in the rest of the world, where a single ruler could lead an entire civilisation into stagnation and collapse e.g. the Ottoman, Chinese and Mughal Empires. While inheriting civilisational cultural traditions (e.g. Germanic, Slavic, Romantic, Celtic and Christian), that coalesced into contemporary Western civilisation, these nation-states nevertheless struggled to assert their primacy over their neighbors, all the while resisting transnational movements that attempted to erode their sovereignty e.g. dynastic (e.g. the Habsburgs), religious (e.g. Catholicism and the Papacy) and ideological (e.g. Marxism-Leninism). Central to the European nation-state was the nation: an ethnic group composed of various tribes united by lineage, conquest or both, whose membership was determined by the principle of jus sanguinis, which in spite of immigration, remains the basis for citizenship in most of Europe, residency aside. I do not see how it is "racist" to want to preserve the ethnic purity of European nation-states; without strong ethnic majorities, European states will lose their national cultures, as non-European newcomers will find it naturally irrelevant to assimilate into a culture that is not theirs and take pride in history that is not theirs or their ancestors and in heroes who look markedly different from them.

MarcFrans: "it is indeed absurd for the 'Captain' to blame Europe's contemporary "demographic problems" on "projection of American power in the Middle East"." 

Au contraire. A neat twisting of my words. I claimed that American foreign policy, namely the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in "increased" demographic problems for Europe; I never claimed that American policies were responsibile for even most of them or that there would be no Iraqis in Sweden save for the invasion. Of course, Europeans could simply massacre refugees as they tried to enter Europe, on land and sea, but of course, the United States could annihilate Iran and the Arabian peninsula with nuclear strikes, removing the hotbeds of radical Islam...yet neither scenario is palatable or likely.

It is indeed too easy for those of us who are of like mind toward the evil that is Islam to become finger pointers at each other.  Whether in Europe or in the US, it does nothing for the unity we should be expressing for each other.  Americans find it difficult not to respond to criticism thrown in by some Europeans.  Europeans find it difficult to understand that the criticisms they level are more from intentional social conditioning from the left, which despite their denials, has turned many of them to be able to slip easily into anti-American rhectoric.

We each have problems from leftists.  The US has made mistakes in embracing multiculturalism and PC and allowing their media to freely espouse anti-Americanism, not only internally, but exported to join with the media of Europe for a big madrassa of anti-Americanism.  This was primarily promoted by leftist elements in the US.  The left in every place pounds it into the people through media, politics and many other sources.  We all have a common problem with our media.  In the US, there is finally some competition on surface levels.  In Europe, I see little.  Everyone seems focused here on repeating the mantras of the leftist leaders.

The fact is that whether it is the US or Europe, we have lost control over our governments.  Government policies in either place tell us how much immigration they choose and the sacrifices we must make to accomodate it.  The opposition by Americans or by the British people or people anywhere the problem exists doesn't stop problem immigration.  Immigration is being imposed upon us.  It is being used to further weaken the citizen in Europe or in America, and the leftist, shariaist/minority alliances are removing our traditional rights.

Our arguments back and forth over whose leaders are responsible for this or that have no bearing on what we are going to do to counter this continuing imposition, and increasingly an inquisition, against us.  Our communications could much improve if we kept in mind that our goal of finding solutions is much more important than demonstrating our knowledge of world history, particularly since the main Western history was that of our cooperation to build and maintain societies which are now being demolished without our consent.

None of us want sharia, but we don't want leftist's who impose it and assist demolition of our values and freedoms.

@ perfektm

Indeed, westerners should stop blaming themselves for the misbehavior of others, and hold each one and everybody responsible for their own behavior. 

1) While I must confess having at times some difficulty understanding your use of the English language, at least some of the specific points you seem to want to make, I think that I broadly understand the larger picture that you are trying to describe.  And it is truly a 'miracle' that India - despite its material poverty and its incredible diversity and multiculturalism - has developed into the world's 'largest' democracy.  There is little doubt that freedom of opinion/expression is today better respected by governmental authorities in India than in Europe.  Other indicators of India's genuine democracy can be found in the fact that (1) the wide variety of state governments in India reflects a wider ideological spectrum than in Europe, and (2) that recent turnovers of power at the federal level represented genuine ideological power shifts.

2) I think that you cannot accuse Kapitein Andre of "Dhimitude".  He is too much aware of the danger that Islam represents for the survival of democracy in Europe.   No, his 'ailment' lies elsewhere, namely in longstanding and shortsighted European anti-Americanism and 'racism', which both help to undermine western civilization itself.

3)  On his latest specific 'gripe', it is indeed absurd for the 'Captain' to blame Europe's contemporary "demographic problems" on "projection of American power in the Middle East".  These demographic problems are the result of changes in European cultures and behavior patterns in recent decades, and for that no one else is to blame but the Europeans themselves.   But, it has always been easier to blame others for 'own' problems, particularly when cultural 'elites' turn 'resentful'.  There is no doubt that all of this plays into the hands of Al Qaeda and its numerous 'soul mates'.  One of its founding 'principles' was the goal to unite all muslims - the muslim world - against the West, and particularly against those in the West who would be willing to actually 'fight' against the planned 'khalifat' for the world.   Five years ago the road to that goal was clear enough for Al Qaeda.... Today, among the many effects of the "projection of American power" in the Middle East, one can discern a growing split, even signs of a civilisational 'civil war' in Islam.   If history is any guide, 'civil war' is an essential pre-requisite to the acceptance of 'faith without certainty', i.e. for the tolerance of other opinions on an 'equal' basis.   It is still going to take considerably more time before utopian leftists and 'resentful' rightists in the West will be able to recognise this. 

If the United States did not invade Iraq, this wouldn't be so. It is not surprising that Europeans frown on the projection of American military power in the Middle East, as this only causes increased demographic problems for Europe.

Thank you, Perfektm.  You have given me enough information for now.  It is going to take a while for me to absorb this. I have had no experience with this subject until very recently.  You have given connections and background that I have not found to be available in reports that I have read.

I am providing a link for the video you cited on the mosque.  I urge anyone who is interested in seeing what kind of presence this will establish in the West, not only Britain and Europe, to view it.  The link is:   www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKqjuNBUZKw&eurl=

The Saudi funding and the initiating and supporting role of Tablighi Jamaat is mentioned in the video, along with other facts.

Perfectum, you are very good at relating background and history.  I, too, have enjoyed reading your stories.

Do you have information regarding a movement which I think began around the time your history lessons ended, specifically on Tablighi Jamaat?  They are said to be concentrated in Pakistan, with a type of headquarters in a location called Raiwind.  They are low-key, but are a major movement which is not very familiar to the West although many known terrorists have had connections with or through them.

They are said to be the primary backers for the mosque in London (I refer to it as the Britainistan Mosque) with Saudi financing.  I have done a posting on the mosque with links to information on Tablighi Jamaal, but the sources seem to differ somewhat on their views of them.  It was said to have originated in 1927 under leadership of a Kandhalawi at Mewat, India.

I am in full agreement that group identity is crucial for human beings, corresponding with the need for belonging in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This sense of belonging is beyond one's family, and human history has demonstrated that its focus is membership in one's national community which is synonymous with ethnicity, people, folk or volk. No ideology, policy or programme, be it egalitarian, liberal or some combination thereof, has successfully broken the bonds of national identity; surely the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON proved this fact.

However, while ethnic nationalism dominates political philosophy in the rest of the world*, the West remains dedicated to a globalism which is as much a resurgence of colonialism and Romantic empire-building as it is a good-intentioned, albeit arrogant, attempt at uniting humanity, and increasing peace and prosperity. Both of these seemingly divergent motives are at work in current American foreign policy with regards to Iraq, in which they have eliminated a potential threat and secured their economic interests. Pacification of the multiethnic and sectarian state aims not only to secure American interests but to prove that liberal democracy is superior to all other socio-political systems and that even its most ardent critics (i.e. Muslims) can be shown that it is the higher and better way. Unfortunately for American strategic planners, Muslims would rather die than accept true liberalism. Similarly, China remains as it has been for millennia - a communitarian society controlled by mandarins - in spite of liberalising its economy, which was a policy aimed at national gain rather than some sort of ideological acceptance of Western norms.

So the West can either sit on the sidelines and pretend there is no game, and be colonised by other civilisations that are playing the the same old game, or accept that liberalism is not humanity's destiny; rather, it is a choice and one that can be changed.

*Monoculturalism and its attendant genocide and forced assimilation is only on the rise in Asia and Africa. Islam can be considered nationalistic as it is more of a pan-Arab denomination of Judaism than a cosmopolitan religion. Islam and Muhammad did for the disparate Arab tribes what Genghis Khan did for the Mongols and successive emperors did for the Russians.

I like your 'outside' view. It is good to read it, to learn. Could you expand a little on:

"but perhaps west also need to move a bit now... rechecking the mistake west made after ww2 by providing racist the command of asia..

where europe need to learn, that evil need to be fought... Europe learned fighting is evil.... what i can say, when we all are stragling due to lies left behind from our ancestors..."

E.g.: what are those 'lies'?

Thanks.

"Most of the recent immigrants to Britain are European."

I think third-world immigration to Britain is now at a record level, but I do not have the figures. Maybe you can give them.

"Integration in general hasn't been a problem in Europe"

I think immigration to Britain is now at a record level. So the real problem is immigration, not integration. Focusing on integration is a way of saying that immigration doesn't even have to be discussed.

We don't even know what "integration" is supposed to mean. Does it mean finding a job and learning English, or does it mean becoming undistinguishable from a European? Is it a question of making life easier for immigrants, or of limiting the disruption caused by immigration? What's the use of immigration if they have to become completely assimilated? What about the "cultural enrichment" they are supposed to bring? I certainly don't want immigrants to become assimilated or even integrated, and I don't think it is their wish either. I'd rather they lived in their own no-go areas than in my street.

It is true that islam is an obstacle to integration. What we should realize is that many (sons of) immigrants precisely turn to islam as a means not to become assimilated. It gives them an identity, and it adds meaning to their life. They become part of a larger civilization, instead of being nobodies. That is what Europeans should do too. We should defend our European identities against the loony left. People are supposed to have identities. It isn't satisfying to be nothing. At an even more basic level, we should defend our physical existence against immigration. So, I don't think that buddhist temples should be any more welcome that mosques.

@perfektm

Well, I think integration in general hasn't been a problem in Europe. When you read carefully any immigration related subjects - especially when exposing troubles - it almost always includes Muslims. So it's more of a special problem.
Actually sometimes it gives me the feeling most of them don't come as immigrants but as invaders. Their rules, customs and quran come first. Our money second (the latter being probably the only thing they accept from us). Always and seemingly at any means turning the quarters they live in into no-go areas, closed up muslim enclaves. Asking for sharia law (take a look at current surveys - the support for Sharia law among Europe's muslims is alarming) 

Like personally I wouldn't mind a Hindu or Buddhist temple in the neighbourhood. But I would mind a mosque. The difference for me is that I neither have the impression Buddhists or Hindus want to impose their belief on me, neither have heard of or experienced any Hindu/ Buddhist motivated violence.

And as you point out, you are still a Hindu and don't seem to feel oppressed in your faith. The great thing about Europe currently is that it's - still - in fact secular and although having Christian roots in no way imposes religious values on its people - whether they be Christian or others.

They should at least put as much energy as they do in promoting islam into informing people about the very history,nature and teachings of this "religion".
They are far from being peaceful.
Here's a link I recently found which addresses most subjects regarding islam's teachings and the implications they have.
 

http://www.investigateislam.com/dead_hand_of_islam.htm

Mutual understanding and respect is the base of tolerance. If the first is not given, tolerance becomes mere self mutilation.

Many of our corporations will be first to implement this socialist prescription.  They often do this before there are other standards or requirements in place.  They do so without having to justify to anyone, whether it is government or society, and especially not to jobseekers who must embrace this capitalist imposed socialism or go without employment.

This is the standard of operating proceedure for those in the socialist network, whether they operate in NGOs, private foundations or government.  One of them presents a grand scheme changing and breaking up resistance in established society.  Business socialists pick it up and institute the practice.  Leftists in the other areas praise it as being open-minded and a practical solution to the ills of our old society and strengthen it to become established as legal doctrine.  The press massages people's feelings and explains how the misguided traditionalists are wrong and bigoted in resisting changes to their society that have been in place throughout history. 

With leftist businesses, government opportunists, NGO and private foundation activists and media propogandists firing over our heads, the individual today has little opportunity to take cover.  We should at least find out who is shooting at us and start lobbing a few grenades to stop their advance.

Firstly, I agree with the American system for private companies. Secondly, as far as the public service is concerned, Sweden's set holidays should reflect its culture and traditions i.e. retain the existing Christian and pagan holidays it currently has in place for public employees. Thirdly, the United States is a secular liberal democracy and a self-proclaimed "melting pot." Therefore, the only set holidays for American public employees should be secular ones e.g. Memorial Day, etc.

I'm not sure I understand what this Swedish organization is proposing, or that it is such a major change. In the United States, a company is free to close for any holiday it chooses, or remain open on any holiday it chooses. The governmental offices, on the other hand, have ten set holidays, two tied to pagan/harvest rituals (New Year's Day, Thanksgiving Day), and one tied to a secularized Christian holiday (Christmas Day). For the past dozen years, I have myself celebrated "Jewish Christmas Eve," even though I was raised Lutheran. That means that, like millions of Jewish Americans, I eat dinner on Christmas Eve at a Chinese restaurant (whose non-Christian proprietors choose to keep their restaurant open, God bless them) and see a movie (at a theater run by Muslim Pakistanis, who choose to keep their theater open, God bless them). There are no official Jewish holidays in the United States, but Jewish-owned companies can close for Rosh Hoshana, Yom Kippur, Passover, or even Purim if they feel like it. Is this Swedish organization proposing that the GOVERNMENT change its holidays? Or are private companies bound by law to close on official holidays?