August
28th 2007
Posted under Europe & Immigration & Political Correctness
Norwegian blogger Fjordman recently wrote these words in the Global Politician:
Resisting mass immigration to Europe is not about “white supremacy,†it is about our continued physical existence. We live in a world demographically, and perhaps soon economically, dominated by Asians. Whites have a right to exist, too. Or don’t we?
His article has received much international attention, as it should.
Edmund Buke on 28 Aug 2007 at 10:59 pm #
God bless him for having the courage to speak the truth in this dark hour.
.
Andrew T. on 28 Aug 2007 at 11:59 pm #
Rights exist for individuals rather than groups arbitrarily defined by the Cabal. If private citizens want to organize themselves in a way that does not produce coercive laws and statism, that’s their business.
The writer of this thread should prove that this isn’t just an indirect way of stating a scientifically unsupported belief that whites (such as me) are “superior” or “the ideal race”. That would then imply that an African who doesn’t want white immigrants to tarnish the “purity” of his country is equally as valid.
That quote is coming from Europe, the only part of the world where the population is steadily decreasing due to low birth rate.
Bede on 29 Aug 2007 at 12:05 am #
I don’t think that one race is necessarily superior nor do I support any type of hatred.
But I do think that a people has the right to protect itself from extermination.
Andrew T. on 29 Aug 2007 at 12:23 am #
You’re certainly right about that, Bede.
But I have to tell you that I am far more proud of: my ideas and values which are mine because I reasoned them to be moral, and being a part of the human species that the Creator made in His image, than I am of the history of my race (which I never had any control over whether or not I was born into it, and could never participated in prior to having been born).
Big Bad John on 29 Aug 2007 at 12:49 am #
Global Politician is turning out to be a pretty solid publication, isn’t it?
@Andrew, why does it have to be about supremacy? It is simply about mine. Just as a parent loves his own children more than a stranger’s kids, so it is also natural for people to prefer their own race. Based on the same principle just extended out.
I think people should take more pride in their accomplishments than their race, but ideas are not what hold a society together. Never have been. Common blood, language, culture, religion, etc. do. Look at a map. Why is America supposedly immune to this?
“That would then imply that an African who doesn’t want white immigrants to tarnish the “purity†of his country is equally as valid.”
Absolutely. More Power to them.
Big Bad John on 29 Aug 2007 at 12:53 am #
Bob Whitaker’s Mantra:
“Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”
“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
“They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.”
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
Nathan Powers on 29 Aug 2007 at 1:58 am #
Read Camp of the Saints. It’s happening all around us.
Bede on 29 Aug 2007 at 2:08 am #
The emphasis on “individuals” over groups is a result of classical liberalism, not conservatism. Conservatives have always placed the group (whether it be family, tribe, or region) ahead of the individual.
Read Thomas Felming’s: Morality of Everyday Life: An Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition
Andrew T. on 29 Aug 2007 at 2:45 am #
Whereas I hold to the rational position:
Individuals are singular thinking people, whereas groups describe a shared cause and/or organization amongst two or more individuals.
Andrew T. on 29 Aug 2007 at 2:46 am #
e.g. The term “group” describes nothing if not a multitude of individuals.
Harold Crews on 29 Aug 2007 at 12:09 pm #
At heart this isn’t a political problem. This is a problem caused by the decline of faith in God, specifically Christianity. If there is no reason behind existence, then there is little reason to exist. And suicide is what is happening. Europe having forsaken its wellspring is dying. There may very well continue to be remnants here and there who have not forsaken God, but without a re-evangelisation that would be it.
There are also other aggravating factors. Part of the problem is wealth of course. Europe is undergoing a demographic shift due to immigration and low birth rates. Immigrants are attracted to the wealth and the favourable labour markets. But say in a country like Argentina, whose population is approximately 95% European descent (primarily Spanish and Italian) there is limited immigration do to a poor economy. They also have stringent immigration controls there. I have looked into immigrating there or Uraguay and am still considering it.
It would be very difficult to eliminate all immigration, maintain prosperity with cradle to grave welfare states, and have a birth rate below replacement levels. Something has to give. You can open immigration up to Christians from third world countries, say the Philliphines or attempt to attract white immigration, say whites currently in Africa. They are in a tenuous situation. You can cut benefits to the social welfare state. This would immediately put many natives back into the labour market while simultaneously discourage immigration. Which would decrease wages and thereby discourage immigration. The decrease in taxes would also do much to increase real incomes and would increase births at least on the margins.
As I mentioned there are political actions which would ameliorate the problem. But a solution ultimately would require a restoration of Christianity in Europe. For that to happen may require some very dark days in deed.
Elizabeth Wright on 29 Aug 2007 at 6:58 pm #
As a black, I’ve discovered over and over again that whites who insist on denying other whites the right to propagate among their own, are usually themselves somehow compromised with coloreds. Their resounding, persistent theme of — “Whites should not believe themselves superior and must prove this by intermarrying with every group under the sun” — usually stems from their own personal intimacy with members of some colored group. And, let’s face it, mass immigration equals miscegenation. Anyone who insists on opening their country’s borders is insisting on the diminution of their own culture, race and society.
These lovers of the multicultural are always harping on about all the human qualities over which we have power, as if one has no right to take pleasure in those qualities that nature dumped on us, in which we took no part.
Why should anyone care that others wish to perpetuate the features of their own race/group? I have friends, a married couple, who are determined to procreate as many white children as possible. They are the whitest of whites, with the bluest of eyes. Who cares if they do or don’t think their race “superior?” They just want to see their race survive. They don’t need any excuses for this. But those who would deny them the right to make, say, a dozen children, if they so choose, for the reasons of race that they give, should mind their damn business. (They now have four children, with one in the oven. From the looks of things, I suspect they will stop at six, not at the 15 that they threaten.)
If some little African tribe were dying out, and members decided to make a conscious effort to encourage procreation, it would be just dandy among the PBS, NPR crowd, who would send cameras to cover the wonderful story.
Jews yap about this procreation-demographic problem all the time, but it’s all right for them to want to maintain and increase their numbers — for cultural/racial/ethnic reasons.
Andrew T. on 29 Aug 2007 at 8:16 pm #
It’s perfectly alright for the Jewish community to be concerned with its diminishing existence and Biblical observance, because Jews are not a race. In fact, there are Jews of virtually every race in every part of the world.
Contrary to what Jewish leftists in Israel and elsewhere wish to impose, the only historical qualifier that’s been used the status of Jew or non-Jew since the most ancient Biblical times is Halakha — religious Judaic case-law intrinsic to the Mosaic Instruction, not ethnicity (note, though, that maternal descent is the qualifier for Jewish identity from birth, other than of course conversion). So Israeli leftists are actually racists since they have inconsistent racial criteria rather than a covenant.
Ernest on 30 Aug 2007 at 4:30 am #
“Anyone who insists on opening their country’s borders is insisting on the diminution of their own culture, race and society.”
Absolutely! Many Americans have become willing to commit suicide/genocide just to prove they are “not racist”. The mantra has become it is culture not race. As if culture just blossomed out of thin air. It is amazing just how much progress the socialist really have made over the last 40-50 years even among so called conservatives or right leaning individuals. The responses are almost Pavlovian. It will be both scary and interesting to see where all of this diversity nirvana takes us. We will see how long the mantra holds up as either the US crumbles around us or government takes even more control then we can imagine over us.
Weaver on 30 Aug 2007 at 9:57 am #
It’s heartening to see increasing numbers of Europeans willing to defend themselves. As more speak out, perhaps nationalism will become socially tolerable, and religion more socially tolerable.
Even if one suspects it “evil” to love one’s own and to oppose a globalist state, consider that a leftist state would have nothing to define itself as. Any sort of group pride or religion would be attacked out of fear of a new nationalism or religion. The result would be a world without identity and without meaning. Such a world could not resist committing suicide as technology increases. Nationalism and religion provide order, meaning, and identity; members can feel a part of something greater than themselves. If the ties of blood, history, and faith are ripped apart, they will only be reformed (that is, if humanity survives the ripping.)
—
Andrew T., wasn’t tribal membership inherited via the father? Also, atheist Jews are still Jewish, and conversions are not sought out. It is a more ethnic religion than is Christianity.
Margaret Bartley on 30 Aug 2007 at 11:11 am #
The issue of immigration is not an all-or-nothing issue. It’s not like either we clamp down on the borders, and don’t allow anyone in, or else it’s flood-gate time.
What we need is a good public discussion of why we want immigration. what is it supposed to do? Is it because we owe the world something? Is it because we are too rich, and we need to be brought down to Third World levels? Is it because we need to import certain kinds of labor?
As it is, I suspect that immigration is the bribes our corporate rulers are extending to undeveloped countries to allow those corporations to go in and exploit their resources, both natural and human. In return, those corporate leaders will lean on our politicians to open our borders to a free-flow of immigrants, which will relive some of the pressure for good government in the developing country, will help depress wages and working conditions in our own working class and middle class, and will also provide a source of hard currency, when the guest workers send money home.
In other words, our trade representatives are trading OUR standard of living and OUR traditional society for THEIR corporate masters’ enhanced wealth and power!
Elizabeth Wright on 30 Aug 2007 at 1:23 pm #
“It’s perfectly alright for the Jewish community to be concerned with its diminishing existence and Biblical observance, because Jews are not a race. In fact, there are Jews of virtually every race in every part of the world.”
===========
Where does the nerve come from to mandate that race must be excluded from the choice of procreation?
As for the case of the Jews, you can talk forever about the non-racial aspect of the group; religious Jews still consider biological lineage, i.e., maternal descent, the critical factor. Call it what you choose; it sounds like “race” to me.
And why should Jews be the standard for all others to follow? Because they might choose some other factor does not mean that race cannot be a choice for members of other groups. Why should anyone care about your epithet of “racist?” Terms and expressions can have no more power than we grant them. I grant “racist” no power at all.
Andrew T. on 30 Aug 2007 at 6:40 pm #
No, the matrilineal descent is not a question of race per se — as the mother could be of any genealogical background assuming she were a convert. The rationale, projecting back into ancient times, is that the mother is the parent that creates an intimate bond from infanthood. Calling it a question of initial “tribal identity” (the most diverse tribe I can imagine, ever since the “mixed multitude” of monotheistic Habiru-Hyksos tribes that fled Egypt approximately 3-and-a-half millennia ago) may be more accurate.
Religious Jews are unequivocally opposed to intermarriage since the child is born a non-member of Israel if the mother is a gentile, or will still have to constantly decide between the conflicted teachings of the father and mother if she isn’t.
Non-religious Jews are considered such because they fall into a religious criteria (that, in their case I suppose, they’d rather not fall into).
Until the year 70, which was the beginning of the end for ancient Judaism because of the Roman occupiers, religious Jews were the most successful “missionaries” in the world. Persecution under crescent and cross has led to extreme ghetto-ization and a modern definition of the 7 “Noahide commandments” completely alien to the ancient an Talmudic definition of those gentile prerequisites (namely, the minimum threshold of non-idolatrous observance for positive interaction in the observant Jewish community), the first extant prototype of which is found in “Acts” 15 (see the Encyclopedia Judaica article).
Weaver on 02 Sep 2007 at 1:32 am #
Margaret Bartley writes,
There’s a George Washington quote I want, but I can’t place where it’s from. Argh.
Well in any case, I venture to suggest immigration is almost always bad. It creates divisions and lessens the ties of a nation to its origins. It also creates foreign attachments, since the immigrants don’t forget from whence they originate.
At best immigrants melt into a nation and become as much apart of it as a native. In other words, at best an immigrant is as good as is a native, and at worst he is only a citizen in name with attachments only to his foreign land or, even worse still, to no nation at all.
“Greed is good” libertarians argue that we want those who would abandon their native nations for monetary gain, but conservatives, though agreeing that government should be reduced, come from a totally different view. We believe man is a social being and that morality is vital to a nation and more important even than the form of its economy. A greedy immigrant looking to become rich is not wanted. This is the type who will exploit the nation for its own personal gain.
Libertarians and conservatives are allies who happen to agree on many things, but their principles and the paths they follow to come to their similar conclusions are quite different. As conservatives forget their own rich arguments, they take up the shallow, dogmatic logic of the libertarian.
Andrew T. on 02 Sep 2007 at 4:38 am #
As I’ve found, one of the only issues where paleolibertarians and paleoconservatives greatly differ is Free Trade. On that issue, I consider Pat Buchanon’s quote authoritative.
Weaver on 02 Sep 2007 at 2:13 pm #
Bah, you’re forgetting social issues.
There would be a fight over whether to allow
*a property owner to bulldoze an historic church that he owns
*city building codes that require a certain style
*pornography to be sold within city limits
*blue laws
*gay marriage
*sin taxes
*open borders
*usury.
*perhaps large business; conservatives reject monopolies more strongly
*protection of the environment
*traditions for tradition’s sake despite its violation of libertarian ideology. That is to say, fairly neutral traditions in general are defended for their own sake to provide a sense of continuity and identity.
Many conservatives idealise the Swiss military; though it’s defensive, it is mandatory. Conservatives also tend to emphasise the importance of habit and tradition; we tend to doubt man’s ability to reason. We also tend to doubt man’s ability to use technology for good.
A more controversial issue is that conservatives are more prone to question democracy whereas libertarians seem to simultaneously wish for the mob to rule and for their own ideals to be obeyed by the mob which has more socialistic tendencies. Conservatives tend to favour weeding out the worst with voter tests at the least. They’re also of course more prone to respect aristocracies, monarchies, and other authorities.
Conservatives tend to favour a more closed, class based society. I am currently not one of these. Americans of course have a tradition of rejecting class. Conservatives also tend to believe government can do some good, e.g. defending social (e.g. morality) and environmental capital and protecting the nation from powerful businesses acting against its interests, e.g. a cartel. I’m very interested in distributionism while a libertarian considers that socialism in denial.
That’s just off the top of my head. Conservatives and libertarians are united by a common enemy. Take away the managerial state, and they’re at each other’s throats. Libertarians are of the left. They view man as an individual; conservatives view man as a social being with a complex hierarchy of ties. The ideal for a conservative is the survival and well being of his religion, nation, and loved ones; the ideal of the libertarian is liberty.
Weaver on 02 Sep 2007 at 2:24 pm #
I recently read an article by Rothbard in which he writes,
I suspect that conservatives would tend to strongly disagree. They don’t mind working hard for their community, as is necessary, provided their fellow citizens are pulling their own weight. The same goes for the military: leaders are respected for enduring the same hardships as their men.
However, Rothbard is caught up in his delusions of individualism. If all a man cares about is himself, he cares not that his neighbor is not pulling his weight, or so goes the train of thought.
—
I appreciate the response, but I must disagree with you here. There is a great deal conservatives and libertarians disagree on. Our alliance is but of necessity. To a libertarian, conservatives are eco-fascists; to a conservative, libertarians are anarchists. The greatest fear of a conservative is chaos. The greatest fear of a libertarian is nationalism and group ties. Truly, we’re natural enemies bound by an unnatural alliance.
Harold Crews on 03 Sep 2007 at 1:25 pm #
The choice is not between order and chaos. The real question is what factors are to determine the order. An order that must be imposed by the State tends to limit the sophisitcation or intricancy that the order may take. An order that must be imposed is an order that would not arise organically. That is because it is to the benefit of some faction at the cost of the rest. Though the term anarchy is used it is done so in the sense of a non-imposed order, not in the sense of chaos. The term anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. There would be few things more ordered than advanced capitalism with its high degree of the division of labour.
Perhaps it would be best to illustrate metaphorically. The proponents of the State argue that the choice is to have a garden or a bramble. This garden may be well tended and very pleasing to the eye and senses. The bramble will probably appear to be chaos. But that would be a mischaracterisation. Don’t mistake randomness for chaos. Don’t infer the inability to perceive order as the absence of order. The bramble does posses order. There are plants that associate with other plants. The typical animal life find their sustenance there and in turn perpetuate the bramble. The bramble takes care of itself. Its order is organic. The bramble’s ability to perpetuate itself means that the bramble is far more likely to continue than the garden. The garden’s order is apparent however. Its order though is generally not designed to perpetuate the garden. That is the gardeners job. Further the gardeners whim can radically change the order of the garden. Just hope that the gardener does not consider you a weed.
Paleolibertarianism is not opposed to order or heirarchy. It is opposed only to state imposed order or heirarchy. It defines the State as that institution that claims a monopoly of coercion. Further it is not opposed to custom or tradition.
Andrew T. on 03 Sep 2007 at 2:55 pm #
Harold, without a government to provide a rule of law (with a monopoly on the legit use of force) within its specified geographical area, there is no hope for justice. There would be no force that could be relied upon to peacefully settle disputes, punish crimes, and lead investigations. There would be no fire and police departments, for if such forces went to the private sector they would be corruptly swayed by the dollar. And that’s chaos.
A “private defense agency” on the other hand is accountable to nothing. When one or more would theoretically come into conflict, the one that is the most genocidal and brutal wins the clash, effectively street gangs.
Weaver on 03 Sep 2007 at 3:21 pm #
Harold was right about the fair tax (at least relative to the VAT; making it destination based is preferred) and the nature of the consumption tax (doesn’t actually encourage savings, at least not in theory), I’ve been doing some reading, but he’s not gonna win me over here
(communicating that he was right on some of the previous discussion.)
—
The paleolibertarian ideology says it’s not opposed to those things, but I think applied to reality it is. Open borders, free trade, total rule by property ownership: it would destroy environmental capital as well as the social capital upon which culture and tradition thrive. Diversity and interdependence of states is meant to lead to peace in theory; destroy the nations, and there are no longer nation-states to fight.
The applied of full ancap is essentially a return to monarchy, isn’t it? A few property owners owning a large amount of property and capital with workers. Though he’s only one ancap, Rothbard I believe defended slavery provided it was a voluntary contract.
Well what is to protect the children of those slaves and the children of those who do not possess defenses? As Andrew says, it would devolve into gangs who would then build up new states. What is to make people obey the rules?
Andrew T. on 03 Sep 2007 at 4:16 pm #
Isn’t slavery, by definition, an involuntary contract?
Weaver on 03 Sep 2007 at 4:43 pm #
Not if someone voluntarily joins into it; the clincher I suppose is that he couldn’t back out of the deal, ever. The children, however, would be free under Rotherbard’s ideal, at least as I recall it, though I wonder how they’d fare if being born into nothing and finding no one else to accept them aside from their parents’ master.
Regardless, I suspect most ancaps or at least libertarians would reject slavery. So, it’s probably more of a straw man.
—
An addition: governments can be dangerous to be sure, but the conservative wishes to put the best in charge. The businessman can hardly be more trustworthy.
I just thought of a libertarian rebuttal to the conservative: a businessness man pursuing mere profit, the libertarian can reply: a politician pursuing mere power. In either system I suppose there’s the tendency for those who pursue power above all else to gain it. Success at the pursuit of such power does not of course make one the best to rule for a nation.
Harold Crews on 03 Sep 2007 at 5:15 pm #
As far as the elimination of the State, that is pretty much utopian twaddle. It is the result of original sin. Minarchy is about the least government that can exist. A geographical area containing people will have a government, even if it is little more than a warlord.
Andrew, you obviously have a higher opinion of police than I do. Why is public corruption preferrable to private corruption? In case you haven’t noticed, areas that are more affluent tend to have better schools, fire stations, libraries than those in areas that are less affluent. For the sake of the point, if there were no government and schools and fire stations were determined solely by the monetary concern just how would that be chaos? To me that is perfectly understandable. If you have money, then you have schools and fire stations. A follows B. Rather predictable isn’t it? The State is not the source of order. Ultimately God is. I see no reason why God can’t work through markets at least as much as he works through the state.
Few of the paleolibertarians that I’m familiar with support open borders. Most blame immigration to enticements of the welfare state and the circumstances present in central america.
Enviromental capital, I’m not quite sure what is meant by the term. But I would think a property owner is far more apt to be a careful steward then a governmental owner. If some business as injured you then you can sue them.
As to changing customs, traditions or institutions, all mortal things change and even eventually die. This is inevitable. If there is no reason for a custom, tradition or institution to continue other than sentiment then its vitality has vanished and it will soon pass. There is nothing wrong with maintaining it for sentimental reasons. If it no longer suits its original purpose then it has already changed. I may mourn the passing of family members, but that is the nature of things. There is no standing still.
Harold Crews on 03 Sep 2007 at 5:24 pm #
I suppose theoretically a corporation could become abusive. If it developed its own security force. A possible example would be the owners of the coal mines. Workers kept in near bondage by debt to the company store and labour relations by the company through the tommy gun. Absent a government to enforce a monopoly, I can’t think of any circumstances under which the company could force customers to buy its products in the long term. But then that might be caused by a limited imagination. With the communcations that we have there are always calls for boycotting this company or that for alleged egregious conditions in some plant of one company or another. Not all economic decisions are made solely with economic considerations.
Weaver on 05 Sep 2007 at 6:42 am #
Due to the length and disorder of my reply, I’ll need another day to polish it up I’m afraid. Sigh, life would be so much easier if we were only telepathic, though perhaps while easier our lives wouldn’t be as much fun. (yes, that’s meant as a jest at the concept of progress.)