Having clicked a link called "Jean-Marie disagree" in the Referrers Column of this site, I have landed on Frogman's blog once more. He calls himself a dissident but sounds exactly like the rest of the media, trying to demonize anyone who objects to mass immigration. How can you believe his anti-islamic rhetoric when you realize that he supports the replacement of Europeans?

Here's what he says in his post (May 1):
"Rockets hit the Israeli town of Sderot on Wednesday, as they have since Israel was accused by the EU of using "disproportionate force" in her answer to Hizballah"
(...)
"it happened to interrupt an Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony—an event that, according to Brigitte Bardot's idol Jean Marie Le Pen, didn't really happen. Or wasn't that bad anyway. A mere detail you know."

I think what Le Pen means is that we hear too much and too often about "the holocaust". Anyway, Brigitte Bardot should not be held responsible for what he says.

About Israel and the Hizballah, I read here that "a white American is more than THIRTEEN TIMES MORE LIKELY to be injured by a black American than an Israeli is likely to be harmed by a Palestinian."

Immigration to Europe and the USA is responsible for more and more similar violence against white people, and it will probably lead to a few civil wars in the near future. Our politically correct frog and most Jewish organizations support this criminal policy. So, why are we supposed to care that a holocaust ceremony has been disrupted last Wednesday in Israel? I don't think Arabs should launch rockets at Israel, but the damage they do is nothing compared to all the people killed and raped thanks to the policy advocated by the PC frog.

OK, let's try this again.  If your differences with the Muslim immigrants are racial, religious, or tribal, then America has no dog in this fight.  My own family's racial, religious, and tribal affinities are so mixed that I can neither take sides nor sympathize with those who do, and I am only the second generation to have been born here.  Did you know that only 20% of US marriages take place within the same ethnic origin?  Or that marriages between Catholics and Protestants are as common as those within the same denomination?  Or that nearly 50% of American Jews marry Gentiles?  Imagine Jews being more threatened by love than by hate!  One American Muslim with whom I am acquainted married a Japanese girl, which is not surprising when you consider that about half of the Americans of East Asian ancestry marry outside their ethnic group.  I have nieces and nephews who can trace their forebears to Africa and to the Creek Indian nation, as well as to nearly half of the present EU member states.  My wife's family includes a Korean branch.  My son's girlfriend speaks Portuguese with her parents.  Every one of us is as American as any other.  Our family considers Washington to be the Father of our Country, even though he died more than 100 years before my grandparents arrived.  Under the circumstances, it is difficult for us Americans to regard the classic European blood-and-soil nationalism as anything but an atavism.

Our country is creedal, not national.  Our creed is that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with equal rights, and that they may rule themselves by common consent according to whatever form is convenient and advantageous.  Anyone can sign up, and there are few requirements beyond doing your part and minding your own business.  We have been absorbing "outsiders" on these terms for hundreds of years and can make an American out of anybody -- it's entirely voluntary.  Why can't you make a Dutchman or a Belgian or a German out of your immigrants? They're already there, and they aren't going away – time to be realistic.

If you really think that ethnic cleansing is the way to go, do not count on the US to pull your chestnuts out of the fire.  Been there, done that, got the headstones.

Oh my you just don't see the big picture, pfew doddio, y're so far off I can't help but laugh..

Just like this little doddol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJuaZKBABO0

Now cut the loiter!

@ Armor

"Playing with Sagunto", is an unfortunate turn of phrase to use on a reputable website like the BJ. However, and to answer your question, eh, NO.

@ Sag'

I bet you thought you made that word up as well, didn't you?  Oh Sag', you have no idea how much more bizarre this conversation could get. Let's stop now, I beg of you, while we both retain a semblance of dignity.

You want proof?

http://www.chucklebutty.co.uk/Diddymen.html

See, I told you.

So you know what it means then? I sure as hell didn't but it just came out of my keyboard: loitering. Anyway, it sounded English and a bit like "leuteren", that's Dutch.

Sag.

That's true. Let's just say that this loiterist is always loitering with intent. ;-)

Somehow, I saw that one comin' ...

You didn't actually "pause to think," now did you?

How dare you compare such a cultural icon to a mere footballplayer!

Don't tell me, let me guess. ( pausing for thought) I know, Ken Dodd.

Did you know that Bergkamp and I share a common ancestry?

;-)

@ Armor

1) The answer to your first question (about "mass expulsions") is: 'because I am a democrat (with a small d), and in a genuine democracy constitutionally-protected individual rights must trump any self-proclaimed group rights'.  In fact, if Europeans were able to restore their former constitutional individual freedoms and to actively pursue law enforcement and serious judicial punishment, there would be no need for expulsions of 'legal immigrants'.  Many of them would not want to live in a society where democratic values are adhered to. 

2)  Your example of the "Malians" may be true, but that does not undermine my broader point about islamist "intimidation" (leading to legislation that is destructive of freedom of speech in the past decade or so).

3)  The most distinguishing difference between 'developed' societies versus 'underdeveloped' societies is adherence to the 'rule of law' in the former versus 'rule of men' in the latter.  Or, if you will, a primitive society can become a civilised one to the extent that 'rule of men' can be made to coincide with 'rule of law'.  To make that possible, society got to learn to govern itself by 'values' (respecting of the individual) as opposed to links of "family, race (and religion, I would add)".  Only in that specific sense is "culture more important than race and family". If you want to go back to the tribal past of Bretagne that is your business.  I, for one, will not give up on the European 'Enlightenment'.

4) If you want to misuse the term "neocon", be my guest.  I am not an enforcer of any "ban".  The sad part is that you know that and yet make such a ridiculous assertion.

5)  Actions speak louder than words.  People are quite capable of holding their politicians accountable.  If they don't, it is because on the whole they do not agree with you - at least not yet - nor do most of them agree with me.  They find other things more important.  I know that.  You do not want to know that.

Did you know that, in all probability, you are descended from the Black Prince? You are also related to the prophet Mo', while kappert appears to be descended from Confucius and Nefertiti.(No surprise there !!!).

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200205/olson

;-))

[quote: mf]

"..the big picture - not the immediacies of the moment.  Islamization is a real threat today, but it could only become so because the cultural-left has managed to undermine freedom of speech in Europe.."

Well marcfrans, I'd like to believe your assertion that the threat of Islam represents "the immediacy of the moment". I wish it were true, but it isn't. Islam has been a threat for more or less 1400 years now, and that's quite a bit longer than the "cultural-left" (whatever that is) has been around. So I quess it's you that has been a bit caught up in the moment, so to speak ;-)

Oh well, deliberante senatu..

Sag.

@ Sagunto

1) My perspective does NOT "exclude the other point", and I certainly do not want "to play down the threat of islamization".  But, it would be preferable if you could focus on the long term and on the essence of the matter - the big picture - not the immediacies of the moment.  Islamization is a real threat today, but it could only become so because the cultural-left has managed to undermine freedom of speech in Europe, thereby preventing timely 'corrective mechanisms' in society and politics to occur.  Freedom of speech is the essence of the matter.  In my lifetime there have been other threats before, but freedom of speech was then preserved in the Benelux countries.  No longer today!.  And there will be future threats and challenges to 'democracy', long after islamism will have committed 'suicide'.  You should focus on the essence for preserving free societies and democracy, and that is freedom of (political) speech, for the sake of your posterity.  

2) I agree broadly with your description of the creeping 'islamisation' in Dutch society and the various forms this has taken.  Note that Armor is probably wrong when he claims that elections in Europe have been unfree and unfair for "the last 40 years" or so.  The problem of unconstitutional laws being passed that undermine freedom of speech (and thus that make elections unfree and unfair) is a more recent one, of perhaps the past 2 decades.   

@ Armor

1) Your title is a bit silly, in a 'sofist' sort of way. Indeed, if democracy does not exist in Europe today, then it cannot be "at risk". But, that is not the normal way of using language. When we say that something is at risk, we imply that it exists AND now is at risk or maybe not at risk (as the case may be). And you (should) know that.

2) We agree, in principle, that BOTH freedom of speech AND immigration matter. We differ on a lot of the specifics w.r.t. immigration. You want a total stop and 'repatriation'. I want 'control' of immigration, strict enforcement of the existing laws, and 'democratic' procedures to be followed in making any changes to the law (which requires genuine freedom of speech for ALL citizens).

3) No, the intimidation comes from BOTH 'immigrants' and from leftists. Some of the former use explicit threats (and deeds!) of violence against persons, and the latter use both (limited) violence and the legislative and judicial machinery to criminalise opposition.

4) NO, these 'leftists' are not "a tiny crazy minority imposing etc...". They may well be a majority in most west-European countries, since parliaments are a reflection of political parties and their programs. You fail to see the reality that the culture has become broadly "naive-left" because the educational systems and the media have largely gone that way. I use the predicate "naive", because it is based on (1) moral relativism and on (2) 'naivete' about the nature of (most) nonwestern cultures. However, you should know that not all leftists are "naive". There are lots of thoughtful 'social conservatives' who are not naive about nonwestern cultures but who are 'leftist' in a traditional economic sense. But the majority of European voters has become largely naive-left in a cultural sense, because the educational system and media are constantly preaching naive-left values to them (values which undermine the ideas of self-responsibility and of holding all people accountable for their actions).

P.S. Your usage of the word "neocon" is absurd. It is based on a misconception. Instead of reading superficial blogs, read a serious book (for example: Jacob Heilbrunn, "They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons", Doubleday 2008). Antlanticist will laugh. He knows the book contains 336 pages.

...

Mf, your last remark needs some adjustment on my part:

"..I also agree that an issue like Japanese whaling is "a lesser issue" than immigration is for Europe today, but that is besides the crucial point, which is the imperative of maintaining freedom of speech for maintaining democracy and free societies.."

Let me first underline what my argument is not about. It is not about the wider issue of immigration; it concerns the specific threat of Islamization. Those two are not the same of course, but often the issue of Islamization is somewhat "veiled" by euphemisms like "youths" [young Muslim carbecue'rs] and "immigrants" [when actually Muslim colonists are hinted at]. In Dutch, we have the inadequate dichotomy "allochtonen" and "autochtonen" that is often used to obfuscate the fact that it's really about people from all kinds of backgrounds, worrying about the advancing monoculture of Islam, introducing a new kind of "apartheid" in our large cities, threatening the "old" idea of our open society (open to skillful immigrants, as we in Holland have always been), and most certainly not a matter of "natives" against "immigrants".

The latter is a discourse Islamists would really like, in order to stage themselves as victims of anti-immigration sentiments, and I've come to notice that some people who call themselves counterjihadists strangely enough give in to the temptation to adopt a similar framing of the matter. Such indiscriminacy can only serve to distract from what should be the central focus of critical attention, and that's the focus on the imperialistic doctrine of Islam.

Well, after this long "speech" (sorry for that), you won't be surprised when I say that my point, on which you seem to agree, actually is pretty much to-the-point. It's just that it falls outside your somewhat narrowed-down focus for now. The wider issue you speak about, i.e. that of "maintaining freedom of speech", is precisely what's associated with the Islamization of Western society, so there's a close connection between your formalistic argument and the wider issue I adress. It's just a matter of viewpoint, literally where you stand.

Corrected ;-)

Kind regards from Amsterdam,

Sag.

Oh well, perhaps not quite (stubborn Dutchy).

But I think it's safe to repeat that I second your view on one crucial aspect of the matter. It cannot be stressed enough that punishing people's thought and expressions, turns our legal system into the long arm of some BB (Big Bother) thought-police. But, step back just a little, and you might agree that other aspects are no less crucial. I only reacted to your comment, because of your rhetorical question that in relativist discourse often features as a sophism to play down the threat of Islamization. I'm not speaking of intent here, since you seem to share the worries of many in the West, it's just that such linguistic "devices" tend to attract my attention.

So there's the consensus. Now let me clean up some small matter, just to be clear:

You argued,

"..No, I do NOT think that the "subject matter" of the charge (against Bardot) should matter.."

So you already said that, but what follows cannot be stated enough and I support your view. The point is however, and I'm sorry if I seem to repeat myself, that you apparently think that your perspective necessarily excludes the other point, i.e. the specific importance of the content, which, in a wider context, directly feeds back into your own argument about arbitrary jurisprudence. The direct link of the content at hand (Islamization of justice) and your more structuralistic focus (foundations of rule of law and democracy) seems somewhat lost on you. That's all I'm saying: Zoom out a bit, and widen the range of your argument.

"..I fully agree with your concern about islam, the UN etc...but I would not talk about "special privileges" for Islam, at least not in a proper legal sense.."

Well, I would agree, but for the way you approach the matter. My view would probably be slightly less legalistic. Again, I'd  say that the point you make here is completely sound, but not the whole tune ;-)

As soon as punishment for "islamophobia" becomes enshrined in jurisprudence, then what de facto happens is the legalization of censorship, specifically targeted at the critical investigation of Islam. What we're witnessing now is exactly the legalization of privileges (in the form of group-rights, infringing on the basic rights of individual citizens). Demanding group-rights and having those granted, puts the axe to the base of justice, which is founded upon inalienable individual rights that are universal instead of group-specific.

You can imagine what follows: bits and parts of Sharia law will be introduced into various strata of society (halal banking, et cetera..) and again followed by formalization into some form of jurisprudence. For all other religious and political appearences, Islam is basically a body of Law. To know the Koran for instance, is not nearly enough to start discovering what Islam is all about. For that, one should study all important fatwa-collections (prescriptions for day-to-day behaviour by the ulama) to become acquainted with the idea of just how formalistic and juridical Islam itself actually is. It also may give you an idea of things to come. The process that is already somewhat ironically described by JihadWatch director Robert Spencer as the next phase of Islamization: Lawfare (upon Western notions of justice, while using them to further the islamist agenda).

I'll adress your last statement in a follow-up

Sag.

@ Sagunto

No, I do NOT think that the "subject matter" of the charge (against Bardot) should matter.  What really matters is that she can be charged on the basis of expressing OPINIONS.  Once you allow a legislature to pass laws that criminalise opinions instead of actions, you have opened the door to arbitrary subjective jurisprudence and to the perpetuation of opinion-orthodoxies in society.  In essence you have made future elections 'unfree' and unfair.

I fully agree with your concern about islam, the UN etc...but I would not talk about "special privileges" for Islam, at least not in a proper legal sense.  What has happened in Europe in essence is that islamic intimidation is beginning to pay off, in the sense of undermining freedom of speech (and thus inevitably democracy), just like it has always done in most of the muslim world.   But the fundamental reason why this is happening is that naive-leftists in Europe have pushed for and passed laws that undermine freedom of speech, thereby 'emasculating' natural forces of opposition to that islamic intimidation. 

I also agree that an issue like Japanese whaling is "a lesser issue" than immigration is for Europe today, but that is besides the crucial point, which is the imperative of maintaining freedom of speech for maintaining democracy and free societies.  There are many other issues, besides immigration, that could potentially be turned into 'taboos' by unconstitutional and anti-democratic laws, and that could equally have deleterious effects on the democratic 'quality' of societies in the long term.

[quote: mf]

"..What does it matter what the subject matter is that led to Bardot being charged? What matters is that she has been charged for expressing an OPINION

Would it be OK for you if she had been charged for complaining about "the Americans", GWBush, the pope, ..."

et cetera.

The answer is simple:

you're right about the opinion part. That is one crucial aspect, but not all. The other crucial aspect is the one you forgot to mention or perhaps consider to be of less importance. You ask the hypothetical Q in a way that obscures the fact that BB would never have been taken to court or labeled a "fascist" for criticizing the pope and all the other things you mention. And exactly that all too obvious bias is the other crucial point, of which the BB case is but a minor illustration: that the special privileges Islam has been able to carve out for itself in the public space -in being disproportionately shielded against criticism- are  now beginning to undermine the most basic judicial assumptions like that of evenhanded justice. We all know about the hate speech laws and the way Islam seeks to use the UN to impose santions on "Islamophobia". So in that sense the subject matter of course is of essential importance. It's a small example of a much bigger issue, very much unlike Japanse whaling, wouldn't you agree?

Sag.

@ Armor

I am still trying to figure out what exactly the "hooey" is that you accuse me of. But I am certainly not going to accuse you of being "crazy", simply because of that. 

1) I agree with your comments on the "Dissident Frogman".  And, if you could actually read what is in front of you, instead of obsessively following your imagination, you would have noticed that I had nothing 'good' to say about the 'frogman'.

2)  You have a valid point about my statement about the "subject at hand".  Indeed, in re-reading I noticed that you were addressing an assertion made by 'Mitch'.  My apologies for that.  I was addressing the subjects raised in the Brussels Journal's posting, and those subjects were 'freedom of speech' (of Bardot) and absurd 'moral equivalency' (posited or implied by Frogman).

3) Why bring up my grandmother?  Does that help your 'argument'?  European history (of the first half of the 20th century) being what it was, I had the misfortune of knowing only 1 grandmother, not 2.  And my "judgment" of her was certainly NOT based on her 'looks', on her skin color, nor her hair, nor her nose etc... My (adult) judgment of her was based on her character and 'culture', in the sense of her actions (for me and others), her determination, her values, her 'love' and goodwill.... I have been called "crazy" for less.   

@ Lamedon

If there is an "elephant" in the living room, it seems to me that you are the one who put the elephant there in the first place.  

-- What does it matter what the subject matter is that led to Bardot being charged?  What matters is that she has been charged for expressing an OPINION (in the form of a complaint) and NOT for an illegal ACT or DEED.  Would it be OK for you if she had been charged for complaining about "the Americans", GWBush, the pope, Japanese whaling on the high seas, annual Canadian 'culling' of seals, the Chinese occupation of Tibet,....you name it?

-- Nowhere in the Frogman 'article' do I see a denial of France's right to control its immigration as it sees fit.  I do read a lot af anti-French opinions in his article, and especially his ridiculous assertion about "two equally totalitarian factions".  It seems to me that the BJ is intent on exposing the absurd moral equivalency implied in Frogman's ranting.  The fact that there are lots of 'nutty' American blogs does not justify you going off on an imaginary hunt for "neocons".   

"Irak is today "liberated" from the Bath regime of Saddam & sons, but whether Arab and muslim cultures can achieve modernity and democracy is largely up to them".

Spot on. And that, my friends, is precisely the reason why this Atlanticist supported the Iraq war. For decades, I have had to listen to Arabs/Muslims and their non- Arab and non-muslim Western apologists tell people like myself that, if only the West would stop supporting strongmen like Saddam, the Middle East could be as modern and democratic as the West. Well, as far as I am concerned, the most recent war in Iraq has given 'em all the chance to test that theory (literally) to destruction. And this, I hasten to add, is the opinion of someone who has more in common with Peter Hitchens, than that of his elder sibling, Christopher. Now, you try telling Peter Hitchens he's a neocon, and see what kind of reaction you get. Trust me, it won't be pretty.

The BJ is certainly right in raising the rhetorical question of (immoral) "equivalency" between Brigitte Bardot and islamists.  No serious person could fail to make that distinction and to realise that there is no moral equivalency between Bardot's actions and those of islamists.

While most contemporary Europeans ignore - for sure, to their long term detriment - the impact of widespread anti-Americanism in their midst on the American public, that is no justification for Dissident Frogman to let his emotion trump reason.  It is very small-minded of him to fail to support the freedom of speech of Bardot in France today, simply because of her past associations and failings.  He is wrong and simple-minded to claim that this is "a dogfight between two equally totalitarian factions". Not so.  And, a genuine 'democrat' would believe in the freedom-of-speech of everybody, including 'unsympathetic' people like Bardot.   

At the same time, it is equally silly for mindless anti-Americans to let their emotions trump reason as well, irrespective of whether they are Europeans, Canadians, or Arabs.  Johnnycanuck is a good example. Labelling people ("neocon Trotskyites" or "pro-American sycophants") does not advance the argument, and making wild charges about immigration of muslims and about Turkish EU membership is totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion.  Moreover, raising the Irak matter in this context illustrates irrational obsession and not rationality.  For his information, Irak is today "liberated" from the Bath regime of Saddam&sons, but whether Arab and muslim cultures can achieve modernity and democarcy is largely up to them.  There is no need to blame Americans for Arab and muslim failings.  Just like the Germans needed to be "liberated" from their totalitarian dictatorship, it was mainly up to the Germans to use their 'liberation' for whatever purposes they deemed worthwhile.

As usual, Armor got it wrong.  The subject at hand was freedom of speech (of Bardot), not "mass immigration".  And, yes, a nation is (or should be) like "an extended family" which recognises an overriding common interest (and support).  But in a proper 'family', individuals do not get judged on the basis of (given) physical differences (of gender, 'looks', etc...) but rather on the basis of 'character' and effort, i.e. on the basis of culture.  

Thomas Landen:While the West is confronting a new enemy some prepare to fight the long dead enemy of the last war: Fascism

Well said. For the neocon Trotskyites and the various pro-American sycophants who've become their useful idiots it is always 1939.

How brave of Dissident Frogman to be ready to turn his rifle on Brigitte Bardot! BB is taking a stand against the changes to her country while DF's American heroes support mass immigration of Muslims to the West and Turkish membership of the EU. But, hey, Iraq is "liberated"...Nothing else matters!

I agree.

Some people seem to delight in calling everything apart from their own convictions "fascist", i.e. more or less the equivalent of "something bad". Oblivious to the actual roots of fascism, they often style themselves as progressives, which is quite ironical considering the fact that fascism, communism and national-socialism -all belonging to the extended family of socialism- were revolutionary "progressive" leftist movements.

On a slightly less revolutionary note, it might be added that equating group membership to "identity" and reducing that to politics in such fashion that virtually everything in life indeed becomes political.., that in itself is one of the lower-key manifestations of "good old" fascist ideology.

The people who attack BB and BJ for speaking out against a doctrine of submission, probably lack any substantial knowledge about the history of a doctrine they use with such apparent ease as a label to discredit opposition. Perhaps they might be aptly described as the ever present "useful idiots".

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sag.

DF is not the most eloquent prose stylist in English, but my French is worse, and his heart is in the right place.  Your ellipses skip the most important points of his argument.  There is a tendency among many Muslims and among many Europeans to see the others as inferiors.  That they are now struggling for supremacy is no reason to approve one over the other.  That would be the shorter DF.

I am an American.  My ancestors lived in European countries that were traditional enemies for nearly 1,000 years, and my existence is probably the result of poor marksmanship.  Appeals to blood, soil, religion, and culture do nothing for me, since one cancels out the other.  Frogman's enemies are those who will not live and let live, and so are mine.

If you will not assimilate your immigrants, will not admit them as full citizens, will not permit them (indeed require them) to earn a living, then you will suffer the consequences of trying to maintain a nation within a nation.  You have the right to demand that immigrants learn the language.  You have the right to demand that the new Europeans adhere to the minimum standards of conduct.  You do not have the right to consider them your inferiors, and you must demand that they reciprocate.  You do not have the right to demand that they eat the same food or attend (or avoid) the same churches.  You have the obligation to make a society which they can join as full partners.  You have the obligation to make them eager to be part of it.  When you see that your newest citizens are your most zealous, then you have done enough.

A well-ordered society is one in which everybody stays out of each other's hair and agrees to the same set of rules.  If someone wants to make a fool of himself, as long as he does not hurt anyone else, why not let him?

The big mistake Europeans make is thinking that the nation is like a family.  It is not.  It is more like a company, where position and function are adventitious matters, and membership or position is not related to your fundamental identity.  Citizenship is concerned with what you do, not what you are.  Patriotism is the sense of gratitude that results from this opportunity to serve.

To tell you the truth, if Belgians who speak one language cannot share the same territory with those who speak a different one, there is no hope for you to learn to live with anyone else.  We fought our civil war over more important matters.  Good luck with yours.

I have noticed that big nasty neo-con from California had hijacked this post. He has truly bred an unbelievable lot of sycophants on his site.

This old Brit will say what you polite Americans will not ; frogmans' attitude is the same attitude that twice last century allowed the German army to march in Paris . 

The next time they come , get rid of them yourselves ! 

She is correct about Halaal butchery but it seems no Frogs have the balls to go after Kosher butchery which is equally inhumane.

That is the attitude which will finish the West. Who cares about aliens when it is such a fun to attack each other. And demonstrate your high moral values.

The BJ's resident philosopher and peacenik, kappert, writing about a fellow (American) blogger

[quote]

"huu...now they are picking up their guns...".

Which raises the question, how do you stop the fire, when the other side controls all the water?