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.
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.UPDATE:
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.
The discussion continues. Reply to me by Marcfrans:
To which I replied:
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).
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?