2005 December 25 Sunday
Jews Hide Their Religious Identities From Muslims In Sweden
Muslim immigration is bad.
I have before me a study published Oct. 20 in a leading Swedish daily, Dagens Nyheter, which reports that "Arab and Muslim attacks on Jews are rising sharply in Swedish society [while] silence surrounds Muslim Jew-hatred." The study, inadequately translated from Swedish, was prepared by two Swedish social scientists, Sverker Oredssom, a professor of history, and Mikael Tossavainen, his research assistant.
The situation has become so bad, they report, that "Jews in Sweden today often feel compelled to hide their religious identity in public: necklaces with stars of David are carefully hidden under sweaters, and orthodox Jewish men change their kippot [skullcaps] to more discreet caps or hats when they are outdoors. Jews in Sweden nowadays get secret telephone numbers to avoid harassment. In Sweden. Today."
In a Swedish population of some 9 million, there are about 20,000 Jews, mostly in Stockholm, Sweden's capital. The social scientists blame the Muslim migrants, now 3.9 percent of the Swedish population, for the growth of anti-Semitism.
A Jewish professor at the University of Copenhagen was attacked for quoting the Koran in a lecture.
Muslim immigration is bad. Multiculturalism is retarded. Intellectuals who support multiculturalism should be ashamed of themselves. Multiculturalism means importing Pakistani beliefs about gang rape into Australia. Multiculturalism means importing Lebanese Muslim clerics who think women who do not completely cover themselves deserve to be raped.
Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohamad, 34, has been quoted by a newspaper as telling a lecture at the Bankstown Town Hall, in south-western Sydney, that women who wore skimpy clothing teased men.
"A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No-one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world ...," Sheik Mohamed was quoted as saying in the lecture.
"Strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses, mini skirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature."
Chattering leftie fools make a big deal on the need for tolerance. As I see it they have it exactly backward. What Western societies need is extreme intolerance. We need intolerance for Muslim rape gangs in Australia or in the French banlieues. How about taking their members and whipping them to death in public squares? What we need is intolerance for Muslim rioters. How about issuing assault rifles to French police on occasion of the next Muslim riots in France with orders to shoot to kill? How about revoking the residency permits of any legal immigrants who violate laws and deporting all the illegals?
A Pakistani rape gang went on trial in Australia in the summer of 2005.
They are probably the most violent, prolific gang rapists Sydney has known, with as many as 18 young victims. But until now the extent of the horrific crimes of four brothers from Pakistan has been kept secret.
Yesterday, more than three years after they went on a six-month rampage, luring girls as young as 13 to their home in Ashfield to rape them, suppression orders forbidding publication of their trial details were lifted.
The father of these rapists defended their innocence even after viewing a video the kids made of their raping.
But to their father, a GP in Sydney's west, it is Australia that is unjust.
Last month he told Sydney Morning Herald journalist Natasha Wallace: "You are the enemy of the Muslim . . . they [his sons] are not rapists."
Dr K has maintained his sons' innocence all along, even after viewing in court one of the videotapes police found inside their rented Ashfield house. It showed a comatose 13-year-old girl, drunk or drugged, and the brothers performing degrading criminal acts on her body.
During one of his sons' trials, Dr K revealed his views about Australian girls to a reporter: "What do they expect to happen to them? Girls from Pakistan don't go out at night."
What did the Australian government expect would happen to their own citizens after the government let in people who come from such an un-Western culture that holds women in such contempt?
A Muslim cleric in Denmark claimed that women who do not wear headscarves are asking for rape.
An Islamic mufti in Copenhagen, Shahid Mehdi, has sparked political outcry from the left-wing Unity List and right-wing Danish People's Party, after stating in a televised interview that women who do not wear headscarves are "asking for rape."
All the illegal alien Muslims should be deported. For the rest Steve Sailer proposes an excellent idea: buy out the residency and citizenship of Muslims in Europe. The same would work just as well in other Western countries.
Update: Jamie Glazov interviewed Justus Reid Wiener about his new book on Palestinian Muslim persecution of Palestinian Christians.
FP: Christian Palestinian women have suffered terribly. Can you tell us some of the details of their plight?
Weiner: Christian women suffer rampant sexual harassment, rape and even forced marriage. For example, Islamic militants have attempted to force Christian women wearing modern, revealing clothing to conform to the strict, modest Muslim dress code. In addition, Muslim men have attempted to rape Christian women, sometimes achieving their objective. These victims may, ironically, end up marrying the man who raped them because in their society they are regarded as unclean for marriage purposes.
Christian men risk being jailed when they intervene to rescue Christian women being attacked or insulted. The Muslim perpetrators get off scot-free because they have family members in the upper echelon of one (or more) of the 12 "security" forces.
Of course this is the same sort of behavior that we see with Muslim communities in many Western nations.
Weiner's book is entitled Human Rights of Christians in Palestinian Society.
This shows the contradictions of tolerance as a value. Tolerance is not a value at all, if it does not mean freeedom from aggression and nothing else. Those who want freedom for aggression equivocate on tolerance, as if it could be a reasonable alternative to value tolerance of aggression. Actually, it is freedom for aggression which is intolerable. Rulers are making no mistakes here; they know what they want to get tolerated, and move boldly and immorally towards such impractical objectives.
An excellent quality of the Sailer proposal is that it sets up self selective forces which get the lowest earning and highest crime and hostility prone, with foreign connections, to be the more likely to take the money and run, insofar as they are bad on those scales. Sweden should matter to us insofar as the advancement of civilization matters to us; Sweden is at several times the level of the US in terms of scientific publications per million. Who would object to anticivilizational forces being justly ushered out of a place with this sort of importance for the future; wouldn't it have to be those who long for the destruction of civilization? It is those with wretched irrational impulses towards aggression, who see civilization as an obstacle in their way.
I wonder if something more than just cultural differances is behind this 'rape' phenomenom
in Europe, Australia and, if you look, even in the US.
Hindu India has a liberal attitude towards sex which predates our own post WW2 libertinism.
To my knowledge, and perhaps someone knows otherwise, Hindu women in India are not 'gang
raped' by Muslim men there. In Indonesia, though Christians are attacked and even beheaded
by Muslim gangs, to my knowledge, the attacks do not include rape.
I suspect there is an element of racism in the raping of white women and, dare I say it,
that white women are seen as more attractive than the immigrants own brand of woman. Of
course it could also be that Hindu women are not raped by Muslim gangs because, in India,
the Hindu community will give a heaping helping of 'what for' to the Muslim minority should
such attacks take place.
Of course, the supreme irony is that no one more than the Jews have worked so ferociously and assiduously in destroying any vestige of nationalist solidarity and self-interest in the White western world, and have upheld the rights of immigrants and encoraged massive Muslim immigration.
For those interested in a full and scholarly account of this, I refer you to the works of Dr. Kevin MacDonald,- which are freely available on the internet,- and refer to, in the main, the agitation behind the disasterous 1965 Immigration Act in the USA.
"Be careful for what you wish for - it might happen".
Randall, two further points:
1/. The "buy-out" plan is a complete non-starter and non-brainer, the sooner you stop wasting your breath by mentioning it and letting it die its natural death the better.It is no more tha a "fell-good" obfuscation and irrelevance.
It just won't happen.It will NEVER EVER happen.
The immmigrants are not stupid (though I grant their White supporters are).They realise that the realistic sums of money, hard cas, that would have to be offered for them to even consider leaving must rank in the *tens of millions* of dollars in order to compensate for the lifetime benefits that will accrue (free first-class healthcare, pensions, education, housing, welfare benefits, legal protection, affirmative action etc etc), in comparision to the dirt and dust and capricious police of their native sh*tholes.They know this.They WILL NEVER GO VOLUTARILY.Their womenfolk will endager the lives of their children by repatriating - this ids probably the strongest human force of all, much, much, stronger than the puny bribes Sailer foolishly champions.
And anyhow, the political class will never sully their perfumed little hands by doing something so "illiberal", and more to the point admit that they have been wrong for the past 50 years.
2/. The political class will never turn their guns upon those whom they love and cherish.But turning them on a spontaneous uprising of Whites, seeking to stop dispossession - well that's a different story.
I want to highlite two details--seemingly minor details--in your article, Randall:
1. The father of the boys who gang raped children that denies his sons did anything wrong--even in the face of video evidence--is a medical doctor. I suggest he poses an acute danger to his patients--especially female patients--just as he obviously posed a danger to society at large. I suggest we leave the intelligent muslims to fester and die in the cesspools where they find themselves now. I don't care how smart they are--we don't need them. (Especially when one considers what "mean" their offspring are likely to regress toward.)
2. Even though the Time article about Bellil's book is a couple years old now and even though I feel horror and disgust over what happened to her, I feel compelled to state my disagreement with Bellil's conclusions: One does not solve a rat problem by respecting vermin. I suggest the French adopt the same attitude to the problem of sexual violence in the banlieues that the british raj adopted toward the custom of suttee (burning widows on their dead husbands' pyres): "It is our custom to hang those who burn women. You have your custom at night, and we will have ours at dawn."
Unless of course, Bellil means the simple respect of fulfilling the state's duty to uphold the rule of law for the innocents in the banlieues.
I don't see why any importing or exporting of any Moslems is necessary. In the western world we have a system of justice, just enact it. No need to persecute a minority group, as soon as the buying out of citizenships and residencies ensues, you will have a large number of people rising up against the idea saying that it is discrimination. If you want to change on a larger level you must do it slowly and constantly. Take Israel as an example, they have managed, though with much headache, to slowly kill off very large populations of Palestinians, but done so with surprising little backlash from the world (not including the Arabs). If you start kicking out everyone that is a Moslem from Western cultures it will cause polarity in issues and also cause the innocent (and probably well educated, rich, and connected Moslems) to put up a fight which will cause needless problems for the plan.
If you want to change on a larger level you must do it slowly and constantly. Take Israel as an example, they have managed, though with much headache, to slowly kill off very large populations of Palestinians, but done so with surprising little backlash from the world (not including the Arabs).
What are you talking about!!! Israel is constantly working to manipulate and control the make up of its population to keep a Jewish majority. Israel does exactly what you are suggesting in spades! In addition to that Israel has many laws that effectively discrimination against non-jews. Also, note the large wall Israel is currently building.
Nabusman, but once the justice system is put into use the rapes have already taken place. Why not prevent them, by preventing groups of people who are more likely to commit such heinous acts from being in your country in the first place?
The circumstance of hostile immigration has reached a level which requires national action. This is an urgent requirement for the survival of civilization, by now. Less than 15 years ago the situation with crime was the corresponding threat, and pragmatic moderate right types said that nothing much could be done, because it would be racism to put millions into prison. We have since reached the point where outcries of racism and discrimination, attempted diagnoses of xenophobia and the like, are not suffcient to stop the people from broadly, persistently and unappeasably demanding that the hostile immigration problem be dealt with by extreme means.
"Sweden should matter to us insofar as the advancement of civilization matters to us; Sweden is at several times the level of the US in terms of scientific publications per million. Who would object to anticivilizational forces being justly ushered out of a place with this sort of importance for the future; wouldn't it have to be those who long for the destruction of civilization?"
Reasons why I don't give a shit about contemporary Sweden:
1) It's ultra-PC.
2) It's left-wing. For example, its socialism, immigration policy and penal code.
3) Due to its left-wing & PC leanings, it is unable to adequately safeguard its citizens' security, especially its women from unnecessary sexual abuse.
4) Its political leanings, especially in the context of the EU, affect other countries, who don't completely share its political beliefs, in a negative way. I'm talking about its political influence being used to manipulate the EU's stance on foreign policy, immigration policy, socialism and the death penalty.
I might be able to go on. However, offhand this is a good list of reasons why modern Sweden is annoying. Whatever scientific advancements the world will miss when and if the EU 'falls' will be largely replaced by the rising Far East and India. That's not to say that any of us in America should welcome an Islamic Europe and the concomitant replacement of much of its ancestral culture. But Europeans can only change their fate. America is largely powerless.
I looked up the source for the data on this
from the 4 02 issue of Scientific American, p.25
...and the newer data is now a bit more favorable to the US in this comparison.
You seem to be saying that refusing to allow an ethnic group to immigrate is persecution. I find that idea absurd.
Criminality has a cost. Why should we burden ourselves with that cost?
The Israelis have killed very few Palestinians. The Palestinian population has grown year after year.
I care about the Swedes because they are not our enemies and they are our friends. Yes, they have foolish tax policies. So do we to a lesser extent. Yes, they have bad immigration policies. We probably do to an equal or greater extent.
My attitude about the various countries in the West if we do not stick together we'll hang separately.
I think Steve Sailer's proposal is useful because it promotes a couple of concepts that need wider understanding: A) Citizenship is an economic good; B) We could bribe some liabilities to leave.
As for the willingness of the Muslims to leave: I agree with P.T. Barnum. There's a sucker born every minute. Some of them could be convinced that they could be very successful in Morocco or Pakistan if they had a big starting stake of money that would make them rich in those places.
The fact that the father is a doctor demonstrates that even higher IQ Muslims are problematic. Though if he got his MD in a Muslim country he's probably not as smart as an MD trained in Australia.
Another point: Even when the majority of a population are fools who deserve what's coming to them there's always people who are not that way who will suffer the same fate. Look at us. If the majority thought as strongly as we do about a number of subjects the country would be a much better place.
Also, I really think Westerners ought to spend less time playing status games to find such big differences between each other. Sweden is not that different from the US. It is pretty similar as compared to Middle Eastern countries or African countries or Latin American countries.
If there was something we in America could do to convince countries, like Sweden, of its follies, I would be all for doing it. America's experience in Iraq should convince everyone that trying to govern another country is fraught with complications. Writing critiques on blogs like this is helpful to a quite limited degree. I'll be cheering if the passive majority in the countries of the EU demand change and castigate the elite who would deny them. We in America cannot really do it for them- and as you alluded, we have our own problems.
Secondly, Sweden is much like America at this time. Sweden may very well be majority Islamic in 50 yrs- maybe not, as demographics in the long term are hard to definitively predict. However, it will almost certainly be more Islamic than now in even 10-20 yrs. Let's see if we still think it is still so similar to America at that time.
Thirdly, I realize our immigration policy is bad. But, really, are you really suggesting Mexican illegals are as inimical to classical liberal democratic values as the threat posed by Muslim illegals? There is a lot of work that needs to be done on our immigration policy, and illegal immigration is a serious drain on our economy. No one here disputes this. However, the EU has it a lot worse.
Fourthly, explain to me what you mean by 'My attitude about the various countries in the West if we do not stick together we'll hang separately.' Maybe I could be for it, but how do you expect to implement such a policy when much of the EU is following a 'blind' multiculturalist agenda with respect to immigration? By the time the EU figures out that they drastically need to change, many of its countries most in need of change will have such large immigrant populations that it will be all but impossible to carry out under the current democratic constructs. Also, there is too much resistance to change by the current powers that be. For example, how many politicians in France are still blaming 'racism' and 'poverty' for the riots?
Fifthly, I'm honestly not trying to gloat about the EU's plight- although I admit it might seem like I do this. There are going to be a lot of innocent individuals harmed if the economic, educational and criminal situation in the EU worsens. Sad, unnecessary and, most importantly, avoidable. Hopefully, some of them can get out or 'fortress' themselves if need be to mitigate the impending disaster. I dunno.
Lastly, I realize that with respect to issues like crime, we are focusing on the victims of sensational stories like horrific gang rapes. I don't have a problem with this if it can help fascilitate change with respect to immigration policy. However, I simply want to point out that if the situation in the EU deteriorates to such a large extent, it may very well not be safe for a lot of innocent 'brown' peoples too. A lot of the concerns regarding this issue after 9-11 were proven to be unfulfilled. However, if there really is widespread hysteria in the populace (like due to the portable nuke scenario of Invisible Scientist), I don't think these type of concerns would be misguided. I'd worry if I were a foreign-looking person living in the EU (or in any country in the Western world) during such a time. Most of the immigrants in the EU (even the Muslim immigrants) aren't raping or blowing up things even if they are disproportionately represented among the terrorists and criminals. If I were a 'brown' person (Muslim or not) living in the EU right now, it would really be in my interest to contain the extremists and support immigration change- if only for self- preservation.
One further comment on the "Sailer buy-out plan".
The vast majority of non-White French Muslims were actually born on french soil, this trend will only increase.
To hence will they be "repatriated"?
Ok, to make a point clear, I am all for kicking out Muslims in Australia, France, or any other country that they are causing problems. But this should not be done in one fell swoop, not due to ethical considerations, but due to the fact that many innocent Musilms will be thrown out as well, they will cause problems and the leftist groups in these countries will become more staunchly against such action.
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear I am saying that what Israel is doing and has done is a model that these countries with a "Muslim problem" should follow.
Yes that is true in hindsight, if it was known that letting these groups of Muslims into the country was going to cause problems then yes we should have stopped their inflow. But, to say that lets stop all immigration of all Muslims no matter what country they are comming from (ie not just the Middle East, but also Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and scores of African nations) is simple lunacy. That type of stereotypical action will not work because unless the majority (including the leftist) are brainwashed into believing that all these people are "evil" (which I might add is rather hard because the difference between a Indian Hindu and Indian Muslim is slight to most white Americans or Europeans.
What I believe is irrelevant. For the record I agree with you. But, the majority, including the leftists, will consider it persecution to single out a religious group and throw them out of the country. And when they start believing its persecution it will be met with much resistance. Hence, what I am proposing is to kick them out, but do it in a slow and steady manner which stays under the radar to a certain extent and deflects resistance from the leftists.
You are probably right, they may have killed off very few, but the point is that they have removed them from their land to an extent. This is a model that I believe should be adapted and used for the removal of Muslims in other countries.
But given the current separation trend between the upper and lower classes everywhere, it is almost certain that Europe will see a lot more violent events like in Paris. Although only 10 % of the French population is Muslim, it was written in some articles that at least 20 % of the infants in France are Muslims, and I assume that the same high birth rate exists for the Muslim communities in Belgium, Holland, England, Spain, Italy, and Scandinavian countries. This means that by 2020, probably more than 30 % of the voters in France, Belgium, Holland, and a few other countries will be Muslim. And combine this with the certainty that within 20 years, portable nukes will be available in large quantities at a reasonable price, the picture will be very violent in Europe. Several cities will be nuked by 2025.
The dynamic of the West's relation to the Islamic world is left out in the discussion of the treatment of Arab Christians in the muslim world. Arab Christians are unfairly viewed as collaborators and sympathizers of the West. They are viewed as potential traitors because of their religion.
Moslem immigration is a terror offensive against civilization. Rape is a terror weapon, in this context, conspicuously tolerated by authorities in order to promote civil war and unprotestd tyranny. Equality and brotherhood of all mankind, including hostiles such as the moslem, are slogans, mere propaganda to hasten war and dictatorship. Freedom for aggression is what these offcials who wave in and subsidize hostile immigration cohorts, mean by freedom. Freedom from aggression is what these authorities are in haste to destroy. It's now or never for them.
John Bolton wrote:
Equality and brotherhood of all mankind, including hostiles such as the moslem, are slogans, mere propaganda to hasten war and dictatorship. Freedom for aggression is what these offcials who wave in and subsidize hostile immigration cohorts, mean by freedom. Freedom from aggression is what these authorities are in haste to destroy. It's now or never for them.
I do not fully understand what you are saying: Do you mean that the true goal of the officials who are running the government is to increase the number of Muslim immigrants for the secret purpose of engendering a future totalitarian fascist government when the public opinion turns against the Muslim immigrants as a result of the pre-meditated policy of bringing the Muslims into the US and Europe to cause the public to panic and accept a fascist government? Is that what you meant? Or did you just mean that the government officials are just being stupid without a hidden agenda other than making the west more like east?
What I mean is that officials look for ways to increase conflict of an irreconcilable character, because power can be gained from this. If one looks to the bottom line, and observes who among decision makers stands to gain in the currency of power, the objectives can be inferred. The moslems come in here, because of the especially irreconcilable nature of their conflicts with the majority. When the goal is absolute power, the obstacle is the reconcilability of the parties to civil conflicts. This is why offcials have all but given up on the class war; there is a reconcilability between the parties in conflict. Thus arises the depraved enthusiasm for moslem immigration; officials have found a conflict which is absolutely irreconcilable. Having found this elixir, through which petty offcials can become gauleiters, and prime ministers can become dictators, they gleefully rush to add on more and more of it. Of course there are plenty of officials who don't know what they're doing; but the accusation of deliberate fomenting of conflict on towards absolute corruption, refers to those who do know what they're doing.
Having found this elixir, through which petty offcials can become gauleiters, and prime ministers can become dictators, they gleefully rush to add on more and more of it. Of course there are plenty of officials who don't know what they're doing; but the accusation of deliberate fomenting of conflict on towards absolute corruption, refers to those who do know what they're doing.
Thank you for your explanation, but this leads to the following question: When the civil war starts as a result of the immigration scheme devised by the politicians who want to use the future paranoia and chaos in order to gain absolute power, how exactly will this elite use their new-found power? Will this elite use the absolute power in order to subjugate the Moslem immigrants to appease the white Europeans, or will the elite use the power in order to make the white Europeans slaves of the Muslims?
Once officials have the pretexts that they need for the establishment of despotism, the minorities become disposable, and the rulers pretend to be stalwart defenders of the nation. They just need a plausible national emergency situation to justify rule by decree, and this has to be provoked somehow. Moslem immigrants are ideal for this, provided that they are numerous, low class and violently hostile enough. When communists took over, they did not put proletarians, but themselves, into power. Likewise if and when the left of the prosperous democracies make their move, they will put themselves, but never moslems, into power.
I'm reminded of Britain and Europe in the 1930s. Should the US have written them all off just because their politicians were foolish about the gathering storm? Your position strikes me as defeatist. You concede too much ground before the outcome has been decided. We can't defend our cultures and societies with that sort of attitude.
Is there enormous folly to behold? Yes of course. Is big damage accumulating in various Western societies. Again, of course.
As for your fears that actions by Muslims could make Westerners turn against all brown people: I think this will turn out to be unfounded. Though I wish this fear motivated a lot more brown people to oppose Muslim immigration.
As for the trouble the US is in with Hispanics versus the troubles the Euros are in with Muslims: I do not know who is in greater trouble. One can point to Rotterdam or Paris for big demographic troubles. But are those cities representative? I do not think so. I also expect the Euros to cut back on Muslim immigration. I'm not so sure about the US with Hispanic immigration.
The point is that the Muslims - and all other non-Whites on the European continent for that matter, ARE HERE TO STAY.AS i said, the "buy-out" plan is trash, not worthy of a moment's consideration.The fact is that thousands of Muslims and motley other third-worlders are enerting Europe as I sit here and type - and the European governments are keen to take them and let them settle.
Demographic trends tell us that by mid-century, France and some other main European nations (most likely the UK also, although their government delights in playing a statistical cover-up fraud), will reach a situation where non-White population approaches majority status, what's more the non-White sector of the population will be young, vigorous and growing while the White component will be literally old, decrepit and dying.
If the White Europeans actually make a last stand defence is a moot point, personally, for a number of factors I believe with a 95% certainty (or thereabouts) that they wil not, and will accept their fate meekly.
The time when any serious action could have been taken to divert this demographic displacement of an entire race passed 30 years ago.It is too late to change this now, it really is an inevitable force of nature, the biological equivalent of a tsunami.
Enoch Powell and others warned at the time.
So what do you suggest, Mr. Digby?
- Prohibit religious expression (esp. hijabs and head scarves) to eliminate the badges of identification and promote assimilation the assimilable and expatriation of the rest?
- Zero-tolerance enforcement of harassment laws, workplace equality laws and the like?
- Just put up with the aggression against our values?
I'm interested in anything you could suggest which results in neither warfare nor capitulation.
Since Randall Parker is a devout follower of Kurzweil who is the number one futuris who predicts that within a few decades the combination of biology, artificial intelligence and nanotechnology will transform the genetic record of the human race, and the issue will be different...
But seriously, the issue is not so much color, but culture: The Indian and Asian immigrants are doing very well in terms of economic and cultural success and assimilation, and they are contributing to the American culture. The only problem is the unassimilable groups.
I can remember 25-30 years ago when Britain was declining due to socialism and unions. Businesses were getting shut down due to coal strikes and other strikes. In the US Carter was enforcing price controls and regional allocations of oil that were causing long lines at gas stations. Commentators saw capitalism as a failure and the Soviet Union was supposedly growing more rapidly economically than the West.
When Reagan took office he was thought crazy for predicting the collapse of communism. But attitudes on communism versus capitalism have shifted greatly since then.
My view is that in order for a different set of beliefs to replace the existing set of beliefs some people have to start asserting the new set of beliefs. They've got to lay down the arguments against the conventional wisdom and the arguments for a different set of beliefs. It might seem that the reigning conventional wisdom is undefeatable. But that is just not true.
Look at where we are now. One of the current myths is about how all religious faiths are equally good and valuable and compatible with a free society. But that myth is under attack in some quarters. Sam Harris argues against this position in his new book and I've seen him on TV talk shows arguing the obvious: that religions differ in important ways. He attacks the very notion of faith as being somehow an exalted thing to embrace.
Another major element of the conventional wisdom is that we are all equal in ability and in basic goodness. That position is going to be absolutely eviscerated in the next 10 years. It has already begun to be. But the rate of the destruction of that myth is going to accelerate every year. It might even be discredited in 5 years.
The situation today is far, far more insidiuous and subtle and deep in its implications than the supposed triumph of socialism that occured in the 60s and 70s.
The fact is this: There is an actual ongoing genetic relacement of the indigenous peoples of the White west with third world invaders of markedly differnt genetic qualities and characteristics.- This is an actual replacement of a people, a culture, a race - incalculably more important than the imposion of a political system - which wax and wane through the decades according to whim and fashion.
Perhaps an analogy is the settlement of North America by Anglo-saxons in the 17th to 19th centuries.North America is undeniably an entirely different place settled by an entirely different people and culture when compared to the culture of the plains Indians, who incidentally if undisturbed would be roaming the praries and forests of America today, in their merry little way - unchanged from the stone age.
The fact is that the situation unfolding in the coming decades in such major European countries as France and Britain is completely beyond a peaceful resolution.Either one side will predominate or the other will, as history teaches us so many times.Of course, the third-world invaders have the full armory of the state, the political class and media at their disposal.
As I said before the only "good" that might come from this hopeless and forlorn situation is that it serves as a warning to other White nations that have not (yet) embarked down this suicidal path.
A vain hope indeed.
Kenelm Digby wrote:
"The situation today is far, far more insidiuous and subtle and deep in its implications than the supposed triumph of socialism that occured in the 60s and 70s.
The fact is this: There is an actual ongoing genetic relacement of the indigenous peoples of the White west with third world invaders of markedly differnt genetic qualities and characteristics.- This is an actual replacement of a people, a culture, a race - incalculably more important than the imposion of a political system - which wax and wane through the decades according to whim and fashion.
Perhaps an analogy is the settlement of North America by Anglo-saxons in the 17th to 19th centuries.North America is undeniably an entirely different place settled by an entirely different people and culture when compared to the culture of the plains Indians, who incidentally if undisturbed would be roaming the praries and forests of America today, in their merry little way - unchanged from the stone age."
On this occasion, a when you are using the word "third world", are you including the Asian immigrants and many Indian immigrants whose average IQ is almost 10 points higher than the white Europeans? You are saying that "if left alone, the American Indians here would be roaming the continent unchanged from the stone age", but at the same time, I can also say that "if the Asian race were left alone, they would dominate the world in science, technology, and all other areas, simply by virtue of ranking the highest in the IQ food chain, and this is what's happening now." Will you make an exception for the Asians so that they don't get deported?
Hate me if you will, vilify me, excoriate me and do all those other nasty things, I am big enough to take it.My objections are based purely on racialist grounds, and the in tellectual and ideological support I claim for my positions are based on the excellent work of Dr. Salter in Australia in his academic "Ethnic replacement theory", if you care to google it up and peruse.
You still have not answered my question about where exactly you think you are in the IQ food chain. Given that Chinese IQ is 10 points higher than the white Europeans, are you still going to discriminate against them on racial grounds? I mean, if you are white, maybe their higher IQ entitles them to discriminate against you, and then you have no right to complain because of your philosophy. For the record, I am not Asian.
Two points to my answer:
There is only one law that nature and human society has obeyed since the dawn of recorded history, namely "might is right".You can argue the toss on all sorts of "moral", legalistic, religious and other grounds, but simply put the only game in town is and always has been dominance.The fame of the winner is preserved, the loser well, he's just erased from the annals of history and dies a miserable death.("the coward dies a thousand times").
This is seen in a slow time-scale in the evolution of species, the fate of empires, and in a perceptible time-scale in the the fate of publicly trsded companies that asuffer under bad management.
Secondly, as a man of pure White European extraction my only loyalty is to my race, which is in the final analysis, the rpository of my genotype extended to the universal.
Whether my race is less intelligent, physically weaker, less attractve (all propositions I dispute), I will fight to the death, if necessary, to preserve it against invaders who wish to supplant it.
So, what you are saying is you embrace primitive tribalism and the biological imperative of dna. Is this correct?
All I am saying is that wish to see the biological perpetuation of my own particular subspecies of man.
Not a very difficult concept to grasp, one would have thought, but apparently these days it's the highest heresy possible to utter.
Incidentally, the Jews and the East Indians are the absolute masters of grasping this truth and cleave to it today as ferociously as they have done for countless centuries.
Basically, ever since the advent of that spreme mystery of all mysteries, the truth of which we can still only gues t, ie the "emergence" of organic, biological life capable of reproduction, on the Earyh's surface,this has been the driver towards the quest to complexity - and the incalculable , inordinate sum of suffering all sentient life has endured through the millenia.
A simple 'Yes' would suffice.
You called my positions "primitive". I was merely trying to relay the intellectual and philosophical basis behind my postions.
Tribalism is primitive. Nothing could be more primitive than the biological imperative of dna, which predates even single-celled organisms.
Your great nation was founded on much more evolved and civilised principles: namely a nation founded on shared ideas and values and not on shared genes or religion.
The current problem is an invasion by tribes of people who do not share those ideas and values, but who value their tribe instead. You seem to think the solution to the problem is to reject the founding principles of your nation in favour of primitive tribalism, and I disagree. I think the solution is to reject tribalism while rejecting the invading tribes.
Warfare is primitive. Yet we do not always have a choice. Is tribalism primitive? The Pakistanis in Britain are mostly marrying their cousins. If does not want to live under the tribalism of immigrants then in certain places where the tribalists are flocking in one does need to respond on their level and treat them as a foreign tribe attacking your own tribe.
My point is that Britain is going to become tribal but not because of the decisions of Kenelm. It is becoming more tribal because of immigrants.
namely a nation founded on shared ideas and values and not on shared genes or religion.
You sound like you've been sold on the false history propounded by Proposition Nation neocons among others. No, Brtiain was not founded on shared abstract ideas. The monarch is the head of the Church of England. The place has become less religiously based mostly because the natives have become less religious. Shared genes had a lot to do with the sense of common bonds.
What you are missing is the fact that humans (including the ones who deny this until they are blue in the face) really do feel more bonds, loyalty, and sense of obligation to those genetically closer to them. Kenelm's trying to point you toward that realization by telling you about Frank Salter's book.
To understand the Middle East it is important to realize that the ratios of genetic distances are more skewed for family versus outsiders than in, say, England of 100 years ago or 50 years ago. So Englishmen could have more loyalty toward a larger group (i.e. England) rather than family because the differences in genetic distances were not as great (there's a scientifically more precise way to say what I'm trying to say).
At the risk of appearing crude I re-stte my postion in a different form.
According to Daewin's theories, which are now near universally accepted, the continuation and perpetuatin of life on Earth is a struggle, the up-shot being speciation predicated on the inheritance of favorable characterstics through natural selection.
The whole end-game of this "dance of life" is that the progeny of a species containing favorable genetic characteristics is perpetuated.Anything else is a perversion.
From the perspective of a strand of DNA, I agree anything else is perverse. However, as a part of the soma and as a rational being, I could not care any less about the perspectives of strands of DNA. We are entering an era when we will rise up against our masters and enslave DNA to OUR purposes and benefit.
I apologize. I thought Kenelm was from the more evolved American nation. I did not realise he was from the more primitive UK. The UK was founded on the principle of might makes right and by a series of tribal invasions followed by gradual integrations.
Saying that warfare is primitive is similar to saying shelter is primitive. Just as an R2000 home is less primitive than a cave, Germany's Blitzkrieg was less primitive than the Greek phalanx.
When you state that Britain becomes more tribal because of immigrants, are you not restating my point about an invasion by tribes of people?
Perhaps with our limited human consciousness one can rationalize that DNA is the closest thing to "God" that our minds can conceive to.
Who are we to question the subtle ways of "God"?
You are free to worship DNA if you choose just as you can worship Ba'al for all I care. I choose not to worship either.
It always amazes me that so many gullible people fall for the guff that the USA is a "proposition nation", whatever that means, a lie first put out in very recent times by some journalist or other.
The fact is the USA was born in blood, conquered by force of arms, by Anglo-Saxons - for Anglo-Saxons.
The Naturalization Proclamation of 1790 (or thereabouts), specifically limited the granting of citizenship, by the founding fathers to "Free White Persons Only."
I believe this law was not repealed until the 1960s.