Derbyshire, the Nation of Islam and Islam

I read Derbyshire's original entry about Nation of Islam etc., again.

Lawrence Auster wrote about it: "[Derbyshire] said that there are homegrown Muslims, like the Nation of Islam, and that separationism, meaning stopping immigration or reversing immigration, won't help us with them."

But Derbyshire says much more than that!

Read the whole thing carefully from the beginning. The overall issue is the poll of the U.S. Muslims. Derbyshire points out the inclusion of the N.o.I. adherents. And then goes on to say "That skews the whole thing, both response-wise and solution-wise.", the "whole thing" here referring to U.S. Muslims in general. And in specifying how the whole thing becomes skewed solution-wise, he says that therefore "none [my emphasis] of the policies proposed by 'separationists' is relevant." Why? Because of Nation of Islam. Because of these guys--who are not even Muslims--none of the real Muslims can be "separated". Yes, this is really what he is saying.

But the last paragraph is even more interesting. Derbyshire takes us through his argument in three steps:

1. "N.o.I. types seem to be interested mainly in encouraging black racial solidarity and sounding off about the wickedness of whites".
2. "Giving unpleasant answers to questions asked by pollsters like the Pew Research people, comes under the heading 'sounding off' and probably shouldn't be taken very seriously."
3. "Excluding N.o.I. respondents from the poll figures would likely give a clearer picture of the actual danger."

So according to Derbyshire the "unpleasant answers" in the Pew poll come excessively from the N.o.I. respondents, and if they were removed, we would get "a clearer picture of the actual danger". That is that there is not as much of an actual danger from Islam, as suggested by the Pew poll, according to Derbyshire. As pointed out by Robert Spencer, we cannot expect more than this from someone who thinks that Karen Armstrong is worth reading.

What would mislead us the first time reading Derbyshire's entry is that he, in the middle of his three-step argument, interleaves the comment about the N.o.I. adherents not being the ones engaging in "martyrdom operations". With a less careful reading this will leave the impression that he means the opposite of what he does when he talks about getting "a clearer picture of the actual danger". As anyone else with a liberal mindset about Islam, Derbyshire is, of course, aware of that suicide bombing and terrorism comes from among the real Muslims, but imagines that this is a fringe, and that proper Islam is not like that. Read further...

Answer to Derbyshire

John Derbyshire just wrote an answer to my "theory", at the NRO Corner: Separationism & Its Discontents. The following is an open letter from me to John Derbyshire answering his post.

Derbyshire starts with writing:

My assertion (last week) that the Jihadwatch website is "separationist" continues to generate 2,000-word exegeses from people who must be in dire need of something better to do.

Well, it made me get your attention :-)

I know I will look to the world as someone with nothing better to do, but nevertheless I will here take my time to answer you. What you have written is directed to me, and only me, since Lawrence Auster has declared that he does not share my view.

The purpose of my original text was to describe the political climate in the U.S., while comparing it with that in France (this is also where I put back the focus in my last answer to Lawrence, before I read your post). Something happened to Spencer and Fitzgerald which in their receiving end, in all effects, amounted to being hit by leftist shaming. You were in the transmitting end. The focal point of what I wrote was in describing the current political climate in the U.S. and the kind of dynamics leading to the reactions of Spencer/Fitzgerald. I realized, of course, when I wrote it, that it was a bit of a stretch to compare you to a leftist commissar. But I just had a bit of fun with it, quite as I'm sure you had when you linked "separationists" to Jihad Watch. No harm in that.

Derbyshire:

One more time, for the record: Hugh Fitzgerald, the second main blogger on Jihadwatch (i.e. with Robert Spencer) is a separationist, if the word means anything. Being highly hospitable to Hugh, Jihadwatch, if not a separationist website, sure is hospitable to separationism. So I'm at a loss to see where I've said anything much wrong. If you want to pick nits, perhaps instead of saying "separationist websites like Jihadwatch" I should have said "websites hospitable to separationism like Jihadwatch." But for heaven's sake.

But why do you spend all these words about your linking, without addressing the only interesting question: Why you linked "separationists" to Jihad Watch? The main purpose of a web link is to be informative. Every other link on the Internet from "separationism" links to Auster's ur-text. These are informative links. But this clearly wasn't the intention with your linking, since it's not informative at all. People who didn't know and were interested to learn more about separationism, and followed your link to the main page of Jihad Watch, didn't get anything out of it. It doesn't lead to any information about separationism, even if a web search among the Jihad Watch articles is performed. You are too good a writer not to understand the purpose of informative linking. So you had a different purpose. A common other purpose of linking is the wish to associate or juxtapose two things together, for one reason or the other. But since I now have your attention I will no more speculate about it, but ask you directly: What was your purpose?

Derbyshire:

I can't even see what these people are steamed about. If Islam is, as Spencer & Co. claim, the world's most intolerant religion, founded by a crazy pedophilic warmonger whom Muslims perversely persist in regarding as the model for humanity, separationism looks pretty sensible to me.

I can almost hear your yawning when I read this part. "Yeah, maybe Islam is this overwhelming fatal threat. But who's got the time to bother about it. Let's have another cup of tea instead..."

Derbyshire:

Why do the Jihadwatch guys so furiously disavow it?

The Jihad Watch guys have their hearts in the right place, but fear the wrath of political correctness. But aren't we all? You save your ass by being detached and disinterested about the issues. You are a cool guy, smart, and make many excellent comments. But you know well, saying the things that you do, that if you put your heart behind it, you'd be in big trouble. So that's why you make sure to stay detached and disinterested. Myself, I stay anonymous.

Derbyshire:

While I'm not a separationist myself, I don't mind it. I mean, I don't see anything immoral, deplorable or "racist" about it. (Islam is not a race.)

I appreciate this declaration on your side. I already like you more.

Derbyshire:

I just don't see how separationists can, constitutionally and in good conscience, "separate" native-born Muslims who don't want to renounce their U.S. citizenship, as most surely don't

It just takes the political will. In fact, much is done already by showing a firm political will: that the tide has turned, and that you won't back off. Muslims will leave voluntarily, for many different reasons. Look at Rebecca Bynum's excellent Separationist article (which I also suggest that you link to, next time you use the word "separationism"). Her first point is:

1. Define Islam as the political ideology it is, so that it is no longer protected by “freedom of religion” and our laws against sedition come into effect.

Already this will take care of many of the native-born Muslims. In my program, all mosques advocating jihad and sharia should be closed. In practice this will force all mosques to close. With no mosques, Muslims will leave en masse. And these are all constitutional measures in good conscience. Only people in favour of tyrannical terror rule, would be able to honestly object.

And ultimately constitutions can be rewritten. If the social contract can be mischievously undermined and perverted, decade after decade, by handing out citizenship left and right to people who shouldn't have had it in the first place, it can also be rewritten. I know rewriting the constitution looks like an impossibility for Americans, but e.g. France does not have this hang-up.

But before we reach such an Hobbesian situation, the Separationist program as lined out by Auster, and now Bynum--all constitutional and in good conscience--should be followed. In order to avoid, or ease, a future Hobbesian situation.

Best Regards,
Conservative Swede

Update: I have found Derbyshire's e-mail address, and now sent this to him. Read further...

Derbyshire, Separationism, and Jihad Watch

(Just posted a second update to this text, at the end)

Regarding my description, in my previous post, of John Derbyshire's behaviour--his leftist shaming tactic--in the Separationism/JihadWatch affair, all created by Derbyshire, Lawrence Auster had doubts "Well, it hadn't occurred to me that Derbyshire was up to something deliberately mischievous...". To which I answered "I cannot think of any other explanation for Derbyshire's behaviour."

Read the whole exchange between me and Auster, posted at VFR, here:

Derbyshire, Separationism, and Jihad Watch: Conservative Swede's theory

And here follows my latest answer to Lawrence:

Lawrence Auster wrote:

Calling him a "commissar" is wrong and exaggerated, but he is not on our side on the Islam issue, and it is a reasonable guess, though personally I doubt it, that he was trying to smoke out Fitzgerald as an Islamophobe.

My answer:

I said he used a tactic worthy of a leftist commissar. and I stand by that.

But I do not mean that Derbyshire was aiming for Fitzgerald. He couldn't have predicted that any more than al Qaida could have predicted that the WTC buildings would fall to the ground. No, he was aiming for Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch as a site. And more specifically at the discrepancy between Spencer's position and Fitzgerald's position, which has been pointed out by you many times. I have defended Spencer's strategy in front of you many times, as a strategy that makes sense in the current political climate [Up until a certain point; which might have been reached now. More about that in a future comment.], but it has this glaring weakness. A weakness that can be exploited by the shaming tactic of a leftist hit artist. Compare it with the case of Horowitz, who also held a stance that made a lot of sense in the current political climate. But also that one with such a weakness, that could easily be abused by a leftist hit artist. In the Horowitz case, the Undercover Black Man, in Spencer/Fitzgerald's case John Derbyshire. If you had denounced your "racism", as Fitzgerald is now denouncing his "separationism", I'm sure you would have been able to stay at Frontpagemag.

If Derbyshire had aimed specifically for Fitzgerald he would also have linked specifically to the Hugh Fitzgerald section of Jihad Watch. But that would have thwarted the whole purpose. Compare it to: i) Undercover Black Man linking specifically to your site calling you a "racist", or ii) Undercover Black Man involving Horowitz in the affair. In the first case the weakness of the dicrepancy is not exploited, and nothing will happen. In the second case, the weakness is exploited, and the shaming tactic will have great effect. But the exact effects cannot be predicted, no more than when a kid throws a rock into an ants' nest.


A VFR reader wrote:

I think CS has it wrong. John was simply linking to what he thought of as the hard core anti-Islam folks.

Maybe Derbyshire is also under the illusion that Frontpagemag is the hard core anti-PC folks, and next time he will link the word "racists" to the main page of Frontpagemag?

If Derbyshire did the linking in all honesty, out of ignorance, how come then that he could pull Auster's ur-text on Sperationism out of his sleeve in less than two hours? Anyone having read that text would be fully informed of all positions of the people at hand. And having read this text, this would have been the only honest place to link the word "separationists" to, right?

If Derbyshire would have done this in honesty and out of ignorance or sloppiness, wouldn't his answer to Spencer have been one acknowledging his mistake? A mistake as big as linking the word "racists" to the main page of Frontpagemag. But maybe Derbyshire was not at all acting disingenuously. He's an honest man, and not at all a leftist hit artist. But his great flaw is that he cannot admit a mistake. He rather goes on, pretending that it's raining. He browse the web fervidly, and within two hours he find Auster's text about separtionism, which he had never read before. Read it and find the link to Jihad Watch in Fitzgerald. Relieved, he can now post something without having to admit a mistake. This is a really strained hypothesis. Anyone who believes in it?

No. His behaviour, in ever single step, fits the one of a leftist hit artist, Undercover Black Man school. Auster's ur-text on Separationism was of course known beforehand by Derbyshire. And he knew well the positions of all people involved: Spencer, Fitzgerald, Auster. And he decided to exploit that, using shaming tactic. Throwing a rock into the ants' nest, by juxtaposing "separationists" with Robert Spencer's site. The kind of juxtaposition that must be the oldest leftist shaming tactic in history.

Update:

To this Lawrence Auster answered:

Very interesting. I'm impressed by your argumentation. But I'm still not sure what I think of this myself.

My answer:

Compare it to your own article The revolution eats its children. The typical behaviour of a right-winger is to have an apologetic, as well as defensive, position towards the people to the left of him, while denouncing the people to the right of him as something evil. Derbyshire fits this pattern.

Derbyshire also fits the pattern of nonchalant conservative poseurs, such as Mark Steyn or Spengler at Asia Times. Spengler has written:

"Gathering dust half-read on my desk are a number of books recounting the supposed evils of Islam - by Ba'at Yeor, Oriana Fallaci, Serge Trifkovic, and many others. There is not a speck of theological insight in the stack of them."

Thereby distancing himself from serious Islam critiques in a nonchalant way. He also characterized Robert Spencer as a sort of inverted Karen Armstrong. So Robert Spencer gets hit by these kind of guys all the time. But while Spengler's perspective is a ridiculous von-oben, up in the clouds, I'm-not-gonna-get-my-hands-dirty perspective, he never used any dirty shaming tactic as Derbyshire did.

2nd update:

Lawrence Auster e-mailed me:

I now simply disagree with you on this. I don't think any "shaming" tactic happened. See my comment in the thread.

Spencer had a button to be pushed, and it was pushed by Derbyshire. And indeed it didn't take much effort, that's true. A more neutral perspective--without taking any sides--would be to compare Undercover Black Man and Derbyshire to arbitrages, flattening out imbalances of the "opinion markets".

Indeed in our exchange has focused too much on the actions and intentions of Derbyshire. Equally important, or more, are the reactions of Spencer and Fitzgerald. In their receiving end, what they were hit by was typical leftist shaming tactic. It triggered their fear center, fear of being stigmatized and excluded from the community. It's because of this effect that I refer to it as leftist shaming tactic. And Derbyshire was the guy who put himself in those shoes. Maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally. Anyway, the major point of my original paragraph about this was to describe the kind of societal climate, which is prevalent in the West.

Derbyshire made his link in a sneaky way, well-informed and seemingly with the intention to push this button of Spencer's. Then it will of course be a matter of taste whether this will be considered as good behaviour or bad behaviour. What is interesting with the whole though, is that you, Lawrence, have been hitting on this button for long, exposing this discrepancy between Spencer and Fitzgerald. You did it in a fully honest and intellectual substantive way. But with no effect. Then comes Derbyshire, from an establishment position at NRO, pushing the same button, while dismissing the idea of Separartionism (with a nonchalant poseur-style reference to the Nation of Islam). And Derbyshire's problem with Spencer doesn't seem to be that Spencer speaks too little truth, but too much. The interesting thing is that now, when the blow comes from such a direction, it fully works as a shaming tactic. Spencer starts writing silly things about never having heard of anyone advocating the "bribing" idea. Fitzgerald backs off with the tail between his legs.

This is the political climate we have today in the West. Intellectually honest debate, as you've done visavi Spencer, has very small effect compared to striking at their fear center, which was what Derbyshire did (disregarding any speculation on whether he did it fully intentionally or not). Of course, if your pushing would have worked, rather than Derbyshire's, it would have taken Spencer/Fitzgerald into the completely opposite direction. But this is not the direction in which things gravitate in our society, since fear dominates logic. Read further...

America and France — dusk and dawn

(Since I wrote this, it has spurred quite some discussion at VFR and even the NRO Corner. Follow my discussion with Lawrence Auster here, and read my answer to John Derbyshire here, and yet more here)

By the time of the Iraq invasion I believed that Bush and Frum had a plan, and I was furious about France and the behaviour of Chirac. I loved the site of Dissident Frogman, even so much that I considered calling myself the Dissident Meatball. But the scenery has changed, and the image of America as a strong defender of the West was merely an illusion. What I didn't expect, though, was for France to become the front troop in the defense of the West. But here we go:

In the United States President Bush and the Senate are pushing for the immigration bill S.1348, which amounts to instant legal permanent residency to all illegal aliens in the U.S. A.k.a. amnesty. Lawrence Auster correctly describes it as the Comprehensive National Suicide bill.

In the meantime, in France, newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy, has appointed his new government, including the new Immigration, Integration and National Identity Minister, Brice Hortefeux. Sarkozy's closest friend and ally for more than 30 years.

In the U.S., the proponents of the immigration bill seek to rush it, as quickly as possible, through the Senate without any real debate. There is no opposition to it among top politicians, neither among Republican ones. And presidential candidates McCain and Giuliani are entirely supporting the bill. The only opposition to bill S.1348 among the elite comes from a handful of talking heads, such as Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, Laura Ingraham. But as Dunnyveg pointed out at VFR: "[T]he only real difference between their positions on amnesty and Ted Kennedy's position is that they want the illegals sent home first." So everybody with a voice in the media in the U.S. is in favour of amnesty (one way or the other) for 12 million illegals, and then permanent residency for all their relatives too (a total of ?? millions). Any other opinion is considered xenophobic, i.e. taboo.

In the meantime in France, Sarkozy's new minister of immigration, Brice Hortefeux, has ruled out legalizing undocumented immigrants en masse. Just like that! Already official policy. What looks virtually impossible in the U.S. is already accomplished in France.

The reason why anything except for amnesty is considered taboo and undiscussible in the U.S. is because the politicians constantly say that they cannot have overnight deportation of the 12 million illegals, which in the U.S. media landscape is considered as the only imaginable alternative.

In the meantime in France, Brice Hortefeux, the new minister of immigration, said "he planned to adhere to the policy of deporting illegal immigrants from France. The number of deportees was expected to reach some 25,000 this year, and Hortefeux said he would ensure that figure is reached." Once again, what is not only considered as impossible in the U.S., but also as bad and evil, is already underway in France. While an American politician panics when hearing of deportation, denying that it is at all possible, the French minster is careful to make the promise to his people, not to deport to few. And this in the face of the governmental election coming up already in June. I cannot imagine two political climates so different as America and France. Like two different planets.

In the U.S., the shallow conservative poseur John Derbyshire disingenuously links the term Separationism to the main page of Jihad Watch, with the intention of shaming Robert Spencer; a tactic worthy of a leftist commissar. Derbyshire explains part of the Separationism agenda as "bribing foreign Muslims to leave the U.S.A." Once again Derbyshire shows his preference for leftist smearing tactics in his choice of the word "bribing". Spencer calls the idea of "bribing" absurd, and writes "I have never heard of anyone advocating it, though someone may." Even Hugh Fitzgerald crumbles in the face of leftist commissar Derbyshire's shaming tactics, denying that he ever offered any "solution" to a "problem", or ever suggested "bribing". Such is the political climate in the U.S. today. Read about the whole thing here.

In the meantime, France is "bribing" their Muslims to leave: France to Pay Immigrants to Return Home. What is considered so unthinkable in the U.S., that even Hugh Fitzgerald backs off in fear, is already being done in France.

The development in both America and France will be highly interesting to follow from here on. Sarkozy is not so easy to get a grip on--so I'll need to get back to that--but from what I can see, the important features of Sarkozy are the ones I have mentioned here. Furthermore, in America, it is possible that the elites have pushed things too far this time, and that a real counter-reaction would happen. Either way, the times are a-changing.

And those freedom fries are inedible political junk, make sure you get real French fries. But don't buy any French wine, those guys are too smart to export any good wine outside of their country. Get some cheese though. Read further...

Vive la France!

France to Pay Immigrants to Return Home

"New French President Nicolas Sarkozy made immigration a central issue of his campaign. Now, his new minister for immigration and national identity says its time to start paying immigrants to leave the country."

This is exceptionally good news. I must go out and buy French fries ;-)


Update: Read more about it at Parapundit and VFR, and also here. Read further...

Western Civilization through Aphorisms

James W, one of my regular readers, always send me the most amazing aphorisms and observations by e-mail. I must say that it's great to have readers, as James, who understand so well what I'm trying to say.

This is what he wrote to me on April 25th:

I've only just read your posts this week. We are, of course, always impressed with someone when his opinion is the same as our own. And since your opinion is insightful and, to my knowledge, unique as well as urgent, I do overly flatter myself presently, and will restrain myself with a Franklin quote- Admiration is the daughter of ignorance.

Still and all, I am perhaps halfway through cobbling a project together describing Western Civilization through Aphorism. It is meant to use pithy sentences in forcing truths upon our memories. Both to establish, and defend, Western Civilization for the everyman, and as a guide as well as a reference. I've selected roughly a thousand such timeless observations, and the devil is in presenting these jewels in a setting where they cannot be misunderstood and are easily accessed. One example- 'When we argue for our limitations, we get to keep them.'

I am not a writer, although I have become good enough to recognize one. Although great writing and great thinking are mutually reinforcing, there is not so much of that as I would have thought...
I feel a debt to those men who left us observations of incalculable importance, in language turned so beautifully it cannot be improved upon. How little we now understand, or are likely to. This is the purpose of my project. Understandings that are to the point, searing, often endearing, and occasionally quite hilarious...

After my post Christian ethics—to be or not to be?, he wrote:

Thanks, swede, and I am premature in my own project, but you may as well get used to the response you are getting. We cannot right ourselves without incisive and pointed understandings first. My blogger account is literally unusable at the moment, so I would respond to your latest post here by saying first that the observations made about the left and secular Christianity are exactly what people (certainly myself) are looking for. I understood the odd expressions of the Left to often have an ersatz Christian origin, but just had my thinking firmed, straightened, economized, and clarified by that post. This is exactly what I seek. Your question is, where do we go with the culture from here to survive. I expect there are many more answers to that than you chose to examine for the purpose of your post. Having many answers is not presented here as a better thing than a few, but perhaps something here will have resonance.

• ERIPIDES — There is in the worst of fortune the best chance of good change.
• MENCIUS — We survive on adversity and perish in comfort.
• ANTOINE DE REVAROL — The most civilized people are as near to barbarism as the most polished steel is to rust.
• LORD ACTON — Everything secret degenerates. Nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.
• JEFFERSON — It is in our life and not our word that our religion must be read.
• G.K. CHESTERSON — It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it.
• BARLOW — He who thinks to save anything by his religion, beside his soul, will be a loser in the end.

It may be too ambitions, but I tend to think we must replace Europe's lack of faith with an understanding of the better angels of Western Civilization. There is much to mine there. The Romans understood their own virtues and lack of them, and so understood better the alternatives. We have far more to be appreciative of then they did, so let us mine it. For those of you who may eventually find God in a foxhole, all well and good in the addition.
I look forward to your posts.

This is exactly the kind of dialog I'm looking for here in my blog. Thank you James. The very loooong historical perspective. Without that we will get lost in the details of the shadow theater. I would never have thought myself of describing European civilizations through aphorisms, but when I see what James is sending me I think it is great. I haven't written much yet of how to reconstruct our civilization if Christian ethics has to be thrown out. But I will get to it. I'm still at the point of building my case regarding Christianity, democracy, Wilsonianism etc.

In order to say something short about the issue. People who have seen clearly the evil side of Islam, multiculturalism, etc., often conclude that everything will fall apart, that all will be lost. But it's merely modern liberalism and its institutions that will fall apart, along with Christian ethics. The shell, the theater will be replaced. A transition of mythology. A new civilizational narrative. But most of who we are and what we do will remain the same. People have forgotten how strong our Roman, Greek and Pagan roots are. Their importance are downplayed in the narrative of the Judeo-Christian civilization. But just because they do not play a starring role in the shadow theater currently running in the Platonic cave, it does not mean they are not important. Just look at the Industrial Revolution. What do we see in that, if not the combination of Greek science and Roman organizational skills? (and I do not see any Judaoid priesthood behind it)

So build the reconstruction from Roman, Greek and Pagan roots. I would add some "Chinese wisdom" in seeing the spiritual sphere as teachings instead of religions, which allow for combining many teachings/religions. The Western/Christian concept of religion is exclutionist and repel any other spiritual influence. The Chinese way of combining Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism is superior. And not so different from our own original polytheism. And given such a setup and I would also throw in Jesus into the reconstruction. Jesus is largely misunderstood. We almost exclusively look upon him through Christian eyes, and the Christians never understood well what he intended to say.

Read further...

Nazism as Jihadism, and vice versa

Nazism was the first encounter of Jihadism for modern Europeans. This is why I prefer to call Islam: Arabic Nazism. Calling it Arabic Nazism is a way to translate it into Western language, making it comprehensible to Westerners in a word they already understand. Both Lawrence Auster and Ali Sina describe Mohammad as a successful Hitler. Ali Sina adds that Mohammad was worse than Hitler, since Hitler was not a sexual pervert (pedophile etc.).

Now some quotes of great thinkers who understood well the true character of Islam. First Winston Churchill (1948):

Hitler’s sentence was reduced from four years to thirteen months. These months in the Landsberg fortress were however, sufficient to enable him to complete in outline Mein Kampf, a treatise on his political philosophy inscribed to the dead of the recent Putsch. When eventually he came to power, there was no book which deserved more careful study from the rulers, political and military, of the Allied Powers. All was there—the programme of German resurrection; the technique of party propaganda; the plan for combating Marxism; the concept of a National-Socialist State; the right position of Germany at the summit of the world. Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.
(hat tip: Uriasposten)

Then Karl Jung (1939):

We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. (He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god). That can be the historic future.
(hat tip: Andrew Bostom)

Finally Hilter himself, while persuading his associates that a Jewish holocaust would be tolerated by the West:

Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

He was of course correct about this. His mistake was in trying to conquer all of Europe. Had he only settled for conquering Poland, Austria and a little more, while gassing all the Jews to death, nobody would have reacted. Which is shown today in how nobody cares about the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan (no not Darfur, the millions killed before that). Or Bangladesh in 1973.

All these genocides committed by Jihadists: Arabic or European Nazis. I.e. by Islam or the European Islam-clone.


Update:
Søren Krarup of the Danish People's Party compared the Koran with Main Kampf, this week in the Danish parliament:

The Koran here corresponds to Karl Marx' Das Kapital or Hitler's Mein Kampf. It's the holy book aiming at dominating everything. It's the totalitarianism.

Mogens Rukov wrote about the same thing today in Beringske Tidene. He points out that those who are horrified by Krarup's comparison, react so because they haven't read the Koran. And that it took him no more than a morning session, back in the '80s--browsing through the Koran, looking up the word Jews in the index, reading those pages--to find out its Nazi character.

(Both links in Danish) Read further...

Jewish God, anti-Semitism and Oedipus Complex

I promised before to explain what I mean when I say that anti-Semitism is the cultural Oedipus Complex of the Western/Christian civilization. In order to do that I need to give some background.

Religion seems to me to have been a clever civilizational invention. In the days when humans lived as hunters and gatherers, we can imagine a leadership of muscles. Change of leadership happened when the alpha-male was challenged by one of the younger ones that had grown strong enough. This sort of leadership could only perform the basic function of protection. It could only lead a smaller group. It lacked the intellectual substance to create more organized and larger communities.

Religious myths have probably always been part of human societies. But it is not until religion grows stronger--which leads to work-up of symbols, leading to hieroglyphs and alphabet--that more organized societies become possible. It's hard to see how intellectual leadership could have been introduced without religion. How would the weak guys with the books be able to challenge the leader of muscles, without a really big guy on their side? A giant symbolic leader, much more powerful and stronger than the leader of muscles. Polytheism was replaced by monotheism, which allowed for building a more solid hierarchy, since there is only one top. And allowed for the intellectual leadership to outbalance the leadership of muscles.

Christianity is a Jewish invention. Jesus was a Jew, St. Paul was a Jew, etc. Their monotheistic God was exported around the world. Before this the Romans had their Gods, the Greeks theirs, and the Germanic people theirs. With the spread of Christianity their national Gods, having the same ethnicity as themselves, was replaced by a foreign God.

Going back to my description of civilizational evolution--simple tribes, polytheism, monotheism--where does it seem to lead? As religion evolves, God(s) become less and less personal and more and more abstract. The polytheistic Gods were more personal, with more human flaws. And you were able to oppose them or ignore them--there were always other ones. Monotheism made the single God more distant as well as perfect (so how could he be opposed?). Follow this development in the tangent direction and you will end with a God that has lost all personal characteristics and become fully abstract--a mechanical God. A hierarchy of principles, with the principle of goodness at the top. Leading to a society where people adore mechanical saints such as the United Nation or International Law, which they consider unopposable.

Adding to this the background of having imported a foreign God, and denounced your former national Gods, is there any surprise that this undermines nationalism and leads to universalism? Let's also add the Christian traits of weakness, meekness and goodness, and we have a self-sacrificial universalism, which at the point when it has fully evolved into a "mechanical God", becomes directly suicidal.

I once said that I am a godless theist. That's diametrically different from being an atheist. My Gods have been stolen from me and I miss them. From one perspective Christianity is the most devastating anti-theistic movement there ever was. There's no other movement that has denied the existence of so many Gods and killed them. Islam, someone would say, but when Islam entered the stage, the job had already been done by Christianity. Christianity paved the way for Islam, and is still doing so.

So are we surprised that the most devastating anti-theistic movement in the history of mankind organically growed into a godless secular society of mechanical principles? Looking at it from such a perspective I'm not.

As I said before about empire and slave morality: a novel concept helps us seeing things in a new perspective. From this new position we can reuse the novel concept again and again and come to yet more insights. I find the concept of foreign God very interesting and useful. But for the Jews this God is not foreign, it's their good old national God. What does that mean for the Jews and their position in our society? For their self-confidence compared to ours?

Now to the anti-Semites. First of all I like to tell them how completely Jewish they are in their stance (as well as leftist, of course). Also Nietzsche describes anti-Semitism as the "the final consequence of Judaism". Their struggle in the net only makes them become more entangled and stuck in it. They have walked up on the stage of the Platonic theater, participating in the play as the bad guys. This is the exact opposite of leaving the cave. Tragic figures.

Then I'd like to tell them that they haven't even got a first clue about how influential the Jews are. The dead Jews. Mind you, not the Jews living today, their power is infinitesimal compared to the dead Jews. No, not those who died in the Holocaust, silly. Their influence is insignificant. It's dead Jews such as Moses, Ezra, Jesus, St. Paul, etc. I'm talking about. By importing their national God while denouncing our own, we made them getting an immense influence over us. We inherited our religion from them. We became children of their spiritual and moral culture.

Anti-Semitism thus means an immature reaction to this "father figure" (i.e. the Jewish culture we inherited from), which is forever inherent in Christianity. These people want to revolt, but cannot formulate their case, and do not know where to direct their anger. It's like the adolescent revolt of the Oedipus Complex: the wish to kill one's father. Clearly we all need to get over our fathers and become independent of them. However, killing him is not the way. The father killer is not one who's gotten over his father, but someone obsessed with him. I'd like to inform the anti-Semites that they could kill hordes of Jews, but the influence of Judaism upon us comes from dead Jews. So how would more dead Jews at all change the situation? If anything, it will make it worse.

Just as a disclaimer: I'd like to state that I do not wish to say that it is typical of anti-Semites to want to kill Jews. The common denominator is fear of Jews. But I just had to say so to draw the parallel with the Oedipus Complex, didn't I? And there has indeed been, and still are, quite a few anti-Semites who both wanted to, and killed Jews.

We need to get over the Jews, or more specifically Judaism, with it's slave morality, monotheism and inversion of values. Quite as we need to get over our father and become independent of him, in order to grow up. As grown ups, I think we should leave the Jews alone, while respecting their God as the only existing God--for them! (as the Romans humorously put it).

The Jews and their nation Israel should thence have our full support. They have faced Jihad longer than any Western nation. We must be strong allies with them. We must discard any Judaistic inversions of values (as e.g. in anti-Semitism) when looking upon the conflict of Israel/Palestine.

And in order to grow up we must leave Christian ethics. Read further...

A beautiful picture

THIS is Hallgrimskirkja, a church in Reykjavik, Iceland. At 74.5 metres (244 ft), it is the tallest buildings in Iceland. It took 38 years to build the church; construction work began in 1945 and ended in 1986. The statue in front of the church represents Leif Eriksson, the first European to have landed in North America (Vinland).

Click on the picture for a larger, and rather impressive, image.

UPDATE:
Lawrence Auster wrote to me "Very impressive. And so Nordic looking. "

Which made me put words to what it is I see: "I like the fact the it's a new church, so nicely built. That's far too rare. I think the picture is impressive both esthetically and in the narrative it conveys, e.g. with the statue of Leif Eriksson in front of church. This picture tells the story of substantive pride of European civilization (how many other such shots could be taken of things built after WWII?) And there was of course a very good photographer, finding the perfect photo opportunity." Read further...

The shadow theater of paradoxes - a preview

HERE follows a yet another letter I sent to Lawrence Auster (that was not published). Once again I suddenly managed to condense quite a lot of my thoughts in one shorter text. This time tying together the shadow theater of paradoxes of anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Christian secularism. The text can be seen as a preview of what is to come in this blog.

It started with Fjordman sending the following quote to Lawrence Auster, by Al-Zawahiri encouraging minorities around the world to join the holy war:

"Al-Qaida is not merely for the benefit of Muslims," he said. "That's why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world."

Auster commented:

Zawahiri's remark raises an intriguing question. The anti-Semitic white right doesn't like to oppose Islam, because Islam is the enemy of the Jews. Will Zawahiri's call for jihad against whites stir the far-whites from their anti-Semitic stupor?

To this I answered:

Of course they won't (and I know you're not holding your breath either). After reading Nietzsche I saw that anti-Semitism must be understood as the Oedipus complex of the Western/Christian civilization. I doesn't take five minutes talking to an anti-Semite or neo-Nazi to realize that they are completely leftist in their posture: Israel is a racist state, and evil because they are powerful against the weak (the Arabs), yada yada. But furthermore, the most interesting observation about anti-Semites/neo-Nazis is how completely Jewish (using Nietzschean "psycho-analysis" terminology) they are.

I understand that this proposition is utterly baffling to most people. I intend to write more about it in my blog, to make a convincing argument, and introducing people to this new perspective. There are many parallels. How the European anti-Americanism is indeed Americanism gone berserk. There is no questioning of the fundaments of the American universalist creeds in anti-Americanism. The criticism is all based on America not living up to its own ideals. Same with fiercely anti-Christian secularist. Everything they say emanate of sanctimonious (Christian) goodness. Their hate is directed towards all elements of Christianity that keeps the inverted values of Christian ethics in check and balance. Funny how they do not believe in heaven, since their behaviour does not make sense for a non-lunatic unless he believes that he will be rewarded in heaven. They are indeed competing to get before the Christians in line to heaven.

Christianity being the bottle, Christian ethics the genie having been let out of the bottle, and the anti-Christian secularist the one trying to smash the bottle against a rock. Likewise, now that American (Wilsonian) universalist creeds have been successfully spread and internalized in the West, the people Americanized in this way are trying to smash America against a rock. However different in nature, I think there is even a parallel to some degree in how the Roman empire fell. The fall of Rome could be attributed to a large degree to the immense success of the Romans to spread the Roman way of life to virtually all corners of the empire, in a way that rendered the city of Rome, and thereby its political structures and fundament, insignificant. Some sort of bottle/genie there too, in other words.

More about anti-Semites and their cultural Oedipus complex another time.


UPDATE:

VFR reader Roger gave the following answer to Auster's comment:

No it won't. Such anti-Semitism does not have intellectual origins and cannot be dismissed for intellectual or pragmatic reasons. It arises out of severe personality psychopathology characterized by projective mechanisms resulting in a paranoid delusional system. This becomes the primary force in such people's whole motivational system and takes on an obsessive quality. No real threat such as those posed today to the West can compete with the imaginary threat of the Jews.

It's all true. Unfortunately, it's not uniquely true for anti-Semitism. Read further...

Christianity: slave morality with a symbolic master

I got several interesting comments to my post Christian ethics—to be or not to be?, which touches upon things that I want to discuss. Go read them, if you haven't done so yet, there's a very interesting discussion going on there. And there are so many things I will have to comment upon, among others the question regarding my description of how to reform Islam (which includes destroying Mecca, among other things).

I start with part of my dialog with Mr. Spog, concerning Christianity and slave morality. In the comment section I had written to him:

I'm not saying that an ethical system needs a religious component to work, in general. What I'm saying is valid specifically for Christianity, with its Christian ethics, which is a slave morality originally invented by the Jews in the Babylonian exile. Slave morality can only work well if it is centered around a master as the hub of the ethical system--in this case the Christian God. Remove the (symbolic) master and the whole system disintegrates, and the slave morality acts as pure self-destruction.

To which he concluded:

The idea of a slave morality requiring a master could be extended to the political level: a Christian empire, under a non-Christian master class, may be workable, while in the long run a Christian democracy will not be (as we are now seeing).

Great, Mr. Spog. Now we are definitely speaking the same language. We see here how applying the pattern of a novel terminology upon known things, makes us see them in new interesting ways, providing us with new insights. Previously I applied the pattern of empire upon the United States. This has many advantages by providing us with a common terminology for comparisons with the British and the Roman empire, among other things. This time the pattern being applied is the one of slave and master morality--with my addition to Nietzsche's terminology, making the distinction between slave morality centered around a master, and slave morality deprived of its master.

Your answer, Mr. Spog, is parallel to Machiavelli's idea that the ruler of a country should not follow Christian ethics himself, but just as well should appear as a good Christian in front of the people. And your idea is rather close to the thoughts I had when I was still a Christian civilizationist. But I do not think it could work any longer. Times have changed very much since the days of Machiavelli. There's a very good reason why Nietzsche said "God is dead" by the end of the 19th century. And this has very dire implications upon the possibilities of building a strong civilization, of any kind, based on Christianity. And furthermore, I'm no longer convinced that we should aim at an empire as a first step (but of course in the longer run.)

However, in July 2006, when I was still a Christian civilizationist, I wrote the following to Lawrence Auster in a letter (it was never published). I use the mentioned terminology to sorting out the weaknesses and strengths among liberalism/socialism, Fascism and Christianity:

There's no way to keep Judeo-Christian slave morality without putting back a proper master into the equation, i.e. God and Christ.

Slave morality is the invention of the Jews under the Babylonian exile, and it’s a very clever invention. A complete defeat was turned into nationalistic strength by this invention. But this original slave morality was a powerful machine with a gigantic master at the center. The slave morality of liberalism/socialism-- where there are only slaves, obsessed (bordering paranoia) by equality and freedom (in spite of living in the most equal and free historic context ever), and no master and no direction--is a recipe for suicide. Fascism trumps liberalism/socialism by having a master, the cult of the leader. But is still too weak since it’s a human leader, and no human leader can match the requirements of this equation. The people will fall prey to the arbitrary decisions of this leader. Christianity, with it’s symbolic leader, God, is superior in this comparison, since this symbolic leader represents the accumulation of cultural traditions and wisdom, and therefore grants stability and success.

So only last year, I would probably have agreed with you. But I no longer do. "God is dead"... What does that mean, really? What has happened to our civilization? It means that the genie of Christian ethics has been let out of the bottle of Christianity, all while our ruling elites are doing their best to smash this bottle against a rock. In our society, the "holy people" are no longer pious Christians and priests, but leftists and the cultural elite. The recipe of you and Machiavelli, while working in previous times, doesn't look viable anymore. Christian ethics is living a life of its own now. Any attempt to build a Christian empire, with or without a non-Christian ruling class, would be torn down from under, by the fierce revolutionary egalitarianism of Christian ethics.

My assessment is that Christianity cannot be mended. The only way out is to leave Christian ethics. But the idea of a God, or a few, is not so bad, as I indicated in my letter to Auster. But we need to go through a major transformation of mythology. More about that in another post. Read further...

The Horowitz / Mills / Auster affair

I'm a bad blogger. I have ignored my own blog for a whole week. I have been spending the time commenting at VFR. I guess it is as commenter James W said, also for me, that VFR is like a car wreck I cannot take my eyes off. It's mesmerizing.

I've been commenting on the affair started by David Mills, the Undercover Black Man, by making David Horowitz expel Lawrence Auster from Frontpage Magazine, based on the accusation that Auster is "racist". There are so many sides of this story and I have been discussing with Lawrence and making comments all week. Here are the places where I made longer comments:

First in the original thread by Auster, Horowitz expels me from FrontPage, where I made three comments, and all of them are found in the lower third of the page (scroll down). The first one about the steamrolling power of the racism accusation, that not even Horowitz manages to resist, even though it was not directed directly at him. And about how it was the same Undercover Black Man who also made Robert Spencer call Auster a racist. My second comment is a follow up to that discussion. The third comment is an investigation about whether David Mills, the Undercover Black Man, is really black or not. As a result of this Auster now calls him "Barely a Black". I wrote to Auster already April 21 about the James Walcott article:

Wolcott's title of his article is "Ebony Kicks Ivory's Ass", but where's the ebony? Undercover Black Man is white, isn't he? Look at the photo at his blog. Look at his style, attitude and taste, etc.

The photo I'm referring to is a picture he made of himself staring into a photo copier, dark and blurry. But nevertheless I smelled his true colours, as it were, already then. And I was right.

In the entry called Betrayal, I wrote about the importance of never to accepting the PC format, regardless of content.

Then came the shocker! That Horowitz had actually published the Auster article that allegedly was the basis for the "racist" accusation that made Horowitz expel him. At this point I said to Lawrence: "Oops! The plot thickens. You've got a full hand, and Horowitz looks utterly weak and confused. I almost feel sorry for him."

The following comments were written after this incriminating discovery:

• First, my comparison between David Horowitz's surrender to PC and Pope Benedict's surrender to Islam following the Regensburg address last year.
• And finally, about The twisted racial psychology of liberals. Where I expose David Mills own anti-black sentiments, based on his own words.

All good articles, that I should probably have spent the time to write for my own blog. But now instead you get a summary of all that I wrote on this topic. So that's good.

It seems that I'm better at writing when I'm in a dialog with someone, rather than just writing a post. But now I have more and more commenters of my own that I need to get into dialogs with.

Read further...

Back in the '30s again

In the discussion at the Brussels Journal which I referred to in my previous post, Racial Obsession, commenter Marcfrans is the most interesting case. As far as I can judge he's something of a neo-conservative, pro-Christian right-winger. His stance shows clearly to us, what is a major point of mine, that the poison is not unique for the leftists or liberals. Marcfrans has sided with political correctness and multiculturalism, even if he would deny it, and try to put the blame on leftists.

Here's what I wrote in my last reply:

We are back in the '30s again. With persecution and harassment of the Jews. Jews fleeing our countries. And with the parliament of the street by stormtroopers, back then in brown shirts, while today with black clothes and ski-masks. Most people didn't notice, or cared to notice, that this was going on back in the '30s. They were simply to comfortable, cowardly and irresponsible. Likewise, most people don't notice, or care to notice, today.

Let's send Marcfrans back to the '30s. A Jew comes running down the street, having just escaped a rain of stones of a nearby pogrom. He turns to Marcfrans for help, and Marcfrans tells him that there is nothing to worry about, because throwing stones like that in the streets is illegal. Then he lectures the Jew about how we live in a democracy, and that if he is not fully content with the situation of the country he lives in, he should just turn to his member of parliament, so that his issues can be dealt with in a democratic way. Giving people lectures in this way gives Marcfrans a high sensation of self-righteousness. I doesn't worry him the least that his words are empty and have no connection to reality. But is Marcfrans merely innocently naive or is he also complicit in the atrocities?

Back to the 21st century. The mob rule of the stormtroopers is again like it was in the '30s, only under different symbols. It's a rule of political correctness (originally a Stalinist invention). The keyword for the veritable lynch mob to set after someone is today "racist!". 'Racist' a word that effectively has the same ostracizing function as 'kafir' has among the Muslims. Or as calling out "contra-revolutionary" or "capitalist pig" after someone under Maoism or Stalinism. So is Marcfrans innocent here? Is he just neutral in the situation, defending his Panglossian dream? I think not. He has clearly sided with political correctness. He is eager to call out "racist" against anyone who is not staying within the pole marks of multiculturalism. Well aware of that this is the call for projecting the collective hate of the mob against that person. Quite as all other PCs, Marcfrans takes pride in using "racist" as carelessly as possible. It is seen as a way of showing that you are faithful to the cause.

Dear Marcfrans, it is not possible to take a middle position regarding Nazism, Maoism, Stalinism or multiculturalism. These ideologies are so extreme that a middle position effectively means supporting it. Don't support something that you will deeply regret when you get older!

Read further...

Racial obsession

In the Brussels Journal thread by Fjordman, A Christian Background for Political Correctness?, a discussion is taking place that displays all too clearly the sick and perverted minds of modern Westerners, both to the left and the right.

It started with Armor writing the following:

I don't believe that Western self-loathing is widespread. Mass immigration is imposed on us by a small minority of people who enjoy harming European society, but do not wish to harm themselves. At the same time, most Europeans still oppose the population replacement policy, in spite of all the brainwashing. I think what prevents a European popular rebellion is mainly intimidation by the administration and the left-wing media. They try to make us think that straight-thinking Europeans are a minority.

I do not agree with Armor that self-loathing is not widespread among Westerners--something that is evident from the discussion thread itself.

However, I didn't take long for Marcfrans to pull the race card, to what Armor had written.

To which I answered:

Armor wrote: "Our governments want to replace us with third-world immigrants."

Marcfrans reacted: "But, as to your 'racism'. Yes, I truly find that abhorrent. I do not judge people on the basis of physical characteristics that are God-given, i.e. over which they have no control themselves as individuals."

Marcfrans' point seems to be, that since third-world people cannot help what they look like, then we must accept that our governments in the West are in the process of replacing us with these people.

Why must we accept this, Marcfrans? And why are we "racists" if we oppose it? Are you sure you do not suffer from Caucasophobia?

Marcfrans wrote to Armor: You asked me why I would want to "transplant the European soul into third world bodies"? Did I declare such a wish? Did I say anywhere that I wanted to go to the "Third World" and turn the people there into "Europeans"?

No, the effect of what you have been saying is: that once they have come here to replace us, you want to turn them into Europeans. I know, it's an even more twisted idea... No wonder you missed that this was what Armor referred to. Still, this is the twisted idea that you promote, even though you are obviously at the same time in denial about it.

And after a reply by Peter Vanderheyden, I wrote this:

There's no limit to the obsession with race coming from Peter Vanderheyden and Marcfrans. They are unable to deal with the issue at hand, otherwise than in a hysterical way, only because the people involved have a darker skin colour. As Armor pointed out the issue is about the people from the West being replaced by people from elsewhere. The issue goes through twisted loops in the minds of Vanderheyden and Marcfrans, and ends up not being addressed at all by either of them. Vanderheyden and Marcfrans are so stuck in racist thinking that they are 110% blind to the fact that this is not an issue of race. Would the two of you be equally hostile to objections, in a scenario where the Belgian and Dutch government where in the process of replacing their populations with Germans? Or the replacement of Estonians with Russians? I think not, and this illustrates well how stuck they are in racial thinking. That they both suffer from what Fjordman has labelled as Caucasophobia.

It's a lunatic religion of self-hate and self-destruction. I find Marcfrans being the most interesting specimen here. Since he shows the ability to think on other issues. He appears to be pro-Christian and right-wing. And this is exactly one of my major points. Even so, he completely shares this extremist positions with the loony leftists here, a position far more extreme than communism ever was.

This is symptomatic of the mob mentality Utopianism at display here. These gentlemen are only able to reason in terms of absolute extremes. If someone claims that Paul Belien never sleeps, the sensible response to this is not the complete reversion of that statement, to claim that Paul Belien always sleeps. But this is exactly the way that Vanderheyden and Marcfrans reacts as soon as an issue involves race (or they perceive it as doing so). Unlike myself, Vanderheyden and Marcfrans do not have a relaxed relation to the race of different people. Instead any such issue strike the fear center of their reptile brain part. And any thinking is blocked out.

City after city is in the process of replacing it's original population with people from elsewhere: Rotterdam, Antwerpen, Brussels, Malmö, Marseille, etc., etc. This is real. But in the extremist, and racially obsessed, mindsets of Vanderheyden and Marcfrans this issue does not even exist. To them there only exist the two absolute extremes: i) that we welcome that the original European population is completely replaced by people from the third-world, or ii) that nobody from the third-world is accepted. And since they can not conceive of anything in between the two, and they consider the second as completely forbidden and taboo. They avoid to discuss the whole issue, and instead their reptile brain go through fits of Tourette's syndrome spurting out "racist!" to anyone who is not in 110% agreement with the first point.

Furthermore, a abhorrent and sick kind of cultural imperialism is at display here, where both Vanderheyden and Marcfrans fantasize about separating culture from genes, and inducing their culture into people of darker skin (both ideas make me associate to the laboratories of Mengele). Of course, the people of the third-world (including those coming here to replace us) are not generally interested in this.

In effect, by their extremist position, Vanderheyden and Marcfrans are supporting and collaborating in the current spread of Arabic Nazism around Europe. In the history books, Vanderheyden and Marcfrans will be described as being among the ones responsible for the rape epidemic of European girls as a result of the mass immigration. But the dusk of the freedom and safety of the women that they are supposed to protect, does not bother them the least. Not more than their "soul mates" bothered about protecting the freedom and safety of the Jews, back in the '30s and '40s. We find them being just as naive and irresponsible, as too many people were, the first time Jihadism struck in the center of Europe, in the name of Adolf Hitler and German Nazism.

Such irresponsible extremist fantasies, as Vanderheyden's and Marcfrans', will always pave the way for death and horror.

UPDATE:

The discussion continues. Reply to me by Marcfrans:

If you are going to cite other people, you should at least try to do it in an honest way, i.e. place citations in a proper context.

You juxtapose two sentences of mine against a particular sentence of 'Armor' which has nothing to do with what I said. If you want to understand Armor's racism you have to read the full text of his contributions under this thread (and other threads as well). Moreover, I largely agree (and have stated this clearly!) with Armor that the immigration policies pursued by his government (France) in recent decades will prove very destructive for France, and its democracy, in the medium-term.

I certainly do NOT suffer from "Caucasophobia", and hopefully from no other phobia as well. I have repeatedly stated my support for 2 fundamental principles. (1) First, that people should govern themselves by 'democratic means'. In practice (and to simplify) that means genuine preservation of freedom of political speech for all citizens of the polity, and de facto alternation of political power at regular intervals between genuinely different ideologies. And (2) second, that any people (that are manifestly culturally and geographically distinct) should have the fundamental right to self-determination. Just like individuals in a true democracy should have a right to self-determination in a 'reasonable' fashion.

If these statements are too abstract or too general in nature for you, I will try to be very specific to help you understand. It is my contention that the Swedes, as a people, should be able to control totally (without outside 'imposition' of any kind) as to who they will allow to become a member of their polity, i.e. the Swedish people should 'democratically' determine what their immigration policy is. But, as 'democrats', they should never make distinctions between themselves, i.e. among Swedes themselves, on the basis of physical features over which individuals have no control. Democrats judge fellow citizens only on the basis of their ideas and behavior, not on the basis of their nose, skin color, or whatever. That would be 'primitive' and certainly undemocratic. The law should be blind as to people's looks and ideas, i.e. it should apply equally to all citizens. However, the law should not be blind to people's behavior. In fact, it got to ensure that they all obey the law (including immigration law).

To which I replied:

Marcfrans,

Your last reply verifies what I already said.

Once again you show your dishonesty, and unwillingness for proper debate, by once again pulling the race card against someone who is obviously not a racist: "If you want to understand Armor's racism...". Already that tells us a lot about who you are. Who you "understand", and who you would fiercefully fight against.

Moreover, you appear to be a democratist, i.e. an adherent to the dogma of democracy as the only way. To clarify what you mean by democracy you write: "But, as 'democrats', they should never make distinctions between themselves, i.e. among Swedes themselves, on the basis of physical features over which individuals have no control. Democrats judge fellow citizens only on the basis of their ideas and behavior, not on the basis of their nose, skin color, or whatever. The law should be blind as to people's looks and ideas, i.e. it should apply equally to all citizens."

Let me reconnect you to reality: The modern democracies of the West has turned into soft-totalitarian rule by a chattering elite, which no other group has the political power to change, least of all the people. And these elites have come very far in their policy of replacing the original European population with people of the third-world (you have to take in account the number of children of each category to see where we are already at).

The original democratic contract between the ruling elites and the people of the nation has been completely broken and perverted. So everything you say are essentially empty words. Except for the quote above. This tells us that you are fiercefully against stopping and reversing the mass influx of third-world people into the West. And this since you would perceive it as being based on their "noses" and "skin colour". The position of Armor is considered the worst possible one by you. A taboo, that goes completely against your dogma of democratism, and other fairy tale dreams of yours. Your position is clear: better to be replaced by third-worlders, than risk being a racist in the eyes of people such as Peter Vanderheyden and Bart Vanhauwaert.

I know your type. The interesting thing with your kind is that while you, as shown above, consider it completely verboten for white people to protect the ethnicity of their nation. You measure it with a completely different scale, when third-world countries self-assert their ethnicity. And that is Caucasophobia, my dear.

You are an irresponsible coward who's got nothing else but empty words to say in defense of a system of modern democracy of which nothing is left but an empty shell. In effect you support multiculturalism and its disastrous effects, and the only thing you consider completely verboten is to reverse its effects. When you are old an look back, will you feel the shame for being complicit in this monstrous transformation, for failing to protect your women from violence and rape? Or are you too much of an irresponsible person to even being able to feel such shame?

Read further...

Christian ethics—to be or not to be?

(Make sure to follow the comments section of this post, great contributions have been made there)

When I first came to VFR, in 2005, I had recently left my America-centric neoconservative view, which had grown as a result of 9/11, and evolved into a Christian civilizationist. Here I describe this development in a dialog with Lawrence Auster. But since then my crab walk back through the many layers of history--in search for substance for our civilization--continued, and I have evolved further. The following comment by a VFR reader, a year ago, opened my eyes to something important:

Western liberals secretly yearn for their own subjugation because liberalism is, at the end of the day, the demand that one abnegate oneself by treating one’s own people and identity as no more valuable than that of the Other, while doing precisely the opposite of this is the precondition of existing at all, for an individual as for a people. This Christ-like self-sacrifice is, of course, secularized Christianity, and in the absence of the Christian faith that Jesus forgives us every day for not living up to His example, it has no choice but to seek worldly outlet in self-destruction.

Christian ethics without Christian religion is fatal.

This recent comment, by VFR reader Mark E., further illustrates the dilemma:

This is also the answer to your VFR thread on "Christianity and Liberalism": so-called "liberalism" today is pure pity religion--weakness as virtue and strength as evil, non-whites are small and weak, women are small and weak, "gays" are small and weak, the handicapped are small and weak, those without "health care" are small and weak, "the planet" is small and weak, etc. It is a living breathing parody of Nietzsche's critique of Christianity--it shows him to have been a true prophet and diagnostician of humanity.

"Christian ethics without Christian religion is fatal." By simple logic we can conclude that there are only two ways to go from there: 1) Either we put God and Christ back into the equation in order to balance the Christian ethics and make it less suicidal, i.e. we'd need a resurge of Christianity, and once again making our civilization being defined by Christianity. 2) Or we must leave Christian ethics altogether.

Previously I held the first position. Read my dialog with Auster at VFR to see how I motivated this: Evolution of a European conservative. But today my position is that we need to leave Christian ethics to save ourselves and our civilization. However, I'm open to the possibility that one solution would be more fit for Europe and another for America. But my important overall point is the following: If it turns out to be impossible to make the Westerners once again believe in the Christian God, and make Christianity become a strong self-asserting substance for our civilization, it becomes a moral imperative for us to decisively leave Christian ethics, in order to stop the suicide of our civilization. Could we all agree on that, or is anyone still in favour of civilizational suicide? Is our self-image as people full of goodness, according to Christian ethics, more important to us than our survival?

A crucial question is, once the genie of Christian ethics has been let out of the bottle of Christianity, could it be put back again? Could the clock be turned back? This doesn't look easier to me than uninventing the nuclear bomb. Quite as liberalism, Christianity has evolved, and continues to evolve, as an organic entity. I do not believe that the clock can be turned back in either case.

In a letter to Lawrence Auster I have described this major theme of my blog in the following way:

A theme of my blog will be the following. An ideology/religion/culture
is not eternal and constant, but evolves organically. It will go from
bud to flower, and then to fruit, that will mature and eventually become
over-ripe. Certain things of this process will be encoded already into
the seed, but might not become manifest until very late in the process,
some of it not until the very end. In fact, to some degree, the time
horizon for the end and how it will happen, will be encoded already in
the seed.

You have described well this life process of liberalism, and how many of
the problems could be found already in the seed, even though they didn't
become manifest until now. My discussions with you--but also influenced
by Nietzsche and the many great commenters at VFR--made me realize that
Christianity, and more specifically Christian ethics, needs to be
scrutinized in the same way. Christianity has a much longer life cycle
than liberalism. In a shorter historical perspective they can look like
two different things. But in a longer perspective they look more like
the same thing, more specifically regarding the Christian ethics, which
is the one thing that makes Christianity unique among religions. So
regarding the most important thing--the Christian ethics--liberalism
and Christianity have this in common, only that it is more unfettered
in liberalism.

Liberalism is best understood as a branch of the Christian tree, as I
see it. Could the outgrowth of this branch be predicted already from the
Christian seed? The liberalism branch is over-ripe and rottening. Is the
same true for the whole Christian tree? Looking at e.g. the Catholic
Church and Vatican II it certainly seems so. If Christianity is
over-ripe, within this model, there's no way to see how it could be
restored back into a mature fruit, no more than liberalism. Could the
clock be turned back for Christianity into a time when it was in a more
functional stage. When would that be, and how could we then freeze it
into an eternal constant? And if we could do so, why not doing the same
for liberalism?

A continuation of this allegory is to consider how over-ripe fruits that
are about to rot, will spread many new seeds, and thereby continue to
live in new forms. Just take the over-ripe fruit of the Roman empire
that spread so many many seeds, before it rot and died, that makes us
still have Roman cultural DNA within us and around us in so many places.
All these organic entities have many beautiful sides while they are
flowers and mature fruits: the Roman empire, Christianity, liberalism,
the British empire, modern democracy, American hegemony, etc. But they
also have differently long life cycles, and some of them are dangerously
short.
Read further...