wrong thread

"in any case, there is a vast difference between emphasizing our culture over our nature on the one hand, and claiming that we are able to teach millions of immigrants to become European. "

Exactly. And even if it was possible (which it isn't), we can only observe that it has not been done so far.

"surely the inbreeding among many Moroccans doesn't help their offspring's futures in the West."

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

"But your theory does not account for all those black or Asian adopted kids growing up in white families who are doing great and are European in everything but their skin color. "

1) You are wrong. I don't know where you data comes from, but you can be sure that Asian kids growing up in white families will not behave in the same way as African kids growing up in white families

2) But it doesn't matter. We can only observe that on the whole, immigrants do not behave like us and tend to cause problems.

"And why do you think blacks in the United States still differ from whites? Do you think their childhoods in gettos have anything to with it, or the fact that about two thirds of them nowadays grow up in single-parent families? That dressing up and doing one's best in school is considered by the overwhelming majority to be "white behavior", and that those who do are labeled "coconuts" (brown on the outside, white on the inside)? Does all the explaining-away by anthropologists, sociologists and criminologists perhaps further hurt their cause? Or is just that nasty African genetic blueprint still bothering them? "

I think your racial theories are wrong, but it doesn't matter. I think that African violence is a valid reason to avoid having any African immigrants. I don't care whether it comes from their genes or their unhappy childhood. Besides, I am against any immigration, even from the polite non-murderous Chinese, because I like my European fellows as they are, with their mental and physical features, and I think they have a right to exist, and I don't want them to be replaced by anyone. Population replacement is a crazy ideology.

"Immigrants who add a net value to society in economic and social terms are more than welcome as far as I'm concerned."

Unfortunately, you won't find any third-world immigrants who can add a net value to European society in social terms. Just read Robert Putnam. Third-world immigration destroys white society.
Current immigration puts a huge burden on the economy. We could reverse the policy and start accepting only high-achieving students. They would contribute to the economy instead of taxing it. But I think society is not just about increasing a country's GDP. What makes us rich is our humanity, love, and the social relations between members of society. Immigration from the third-world will not improve that. And I don't care about the GDP.

"There is nothing wrong with a highly selective system that will admit only higher-educated immigrants"

Here is what is wrong with it :

1) they are not wanted by the white population (except by a minority) and they can only destroy society's cohesion. What's happened in the last decades is a huge rape of Europe.

2) their competence will be missed in their native countries.

(By the way, admitting only higher-educated immigrants is a form of IQ selection. Aren't you ashamed?)

"There are plenty of immigrants who in fact do make a great contribution to our societies. "

No, there are not. Any contribution from some of them to the economy is more than offset by their participation in what can only be called a population replacement. They should contribute to the economy of their own countries and allow us to exist.

"My solution: close the borders for unskilled immigrants, who are a net burden to our countries, and repatriate those who engage in criminal and/or extremist activities. "

There would be nothing inhumane in repatriating all of them.

Fjordman: The truth is that the European Union is directly responsible for much of the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe, both by importing Muslims and by appeasing Jihad at home and abroad.

Applying this logic to American gun-related crime, the Constitution and the NRA are responsible for all of the murders and injuries in the United States involving firearms.

Fjordman: The Holocaust is shamelessly exploited as an excuse for creating an artificial superstate and above all for imposing restrictions on free speech for everybody who wants to oppose this project.

This is not the fault of Europeans. Fjordman should ask himself why there exists a "Holocaust industry" but not one for the Holodomor, Great Purge, the Eastern Front, Poland, etc.

Fjordman: If a Swede is really lucky, he will first get battered by Muslims, and then beaten up a second time by his own Leftists for objecting to being beaten the first time. The state does next to nothing to prevent either. Native Swedes who resist a mass immigration that will render them a minority in their own country within a couple of generations have been classified as “racists,” and racists are for all practical purposes outside of the protection of the law.

Progressiveness at work.

Fjordman: Western governments are pushing for independence for a group of Jihadist thugs...

What they fail to take into account is that the Albanians ethnically cleansed the Serbs from Kosovo during the Second World War. However, as marfrans is so against redressing historical grievances, one might as well grant them their independence or allow them to merge into Gross-Albanien.

 
Fjordman: The only possible solution then, apart from a global war to the death which nobody wants, is to separate ourselves from the Islamic world as much as possible.

Perhaps the Muslim elites seek a "global war to the death"? Like that prolonged 17th century deluge it may just clear the air, as storms are wont to do.

Fjordman: And by “we” I mean non-Muslims in general, not just Westerners.

Including Israel I suppose. Not to suggest that Israelis or Jews should not have a sovereign nation-state, but rather to say that such 'separation' (or segregation or apartheid) would invariably quell discussion of a 'two-state solution'.

Fjordman: This entails completely and permanently stopping Muslim immigration in any form. However, in the USA, Canada and Australia, and certainly in Europe, simply stopping Muslim immigration is no longer enough. Some of the Muslims who are already here need to be expelled. There is no way around this. No, I have never suggested expelling all of them, but the most hardcore ones who push for implementing sharia laws here need to be deported, yes.

Full agreement, although I would expand "some" to 'vast majority'. I suppose then that the Muslims would be well within their 'rights' to expell non-Muslims, deny trade and the extraction and export of their natural resources. Perhaps this supply shock will encourage greater interest in Africa, or at least its non-Muslim parts.

It is time for Europe to have a logical reason to accept any new immigrants. The immigrant should learn the new language before they arrive. They should have a needed job skill in their proposed new country and have a job waiting. They should be required to pass a basic IQ test with a score of 100.

Any arrest should be cause for immediate deportation of the entire family. There should be no ‘chain immigration’ of a horde of relatives of the original immigrant. They should be banned from collecting any form of welfare.

Better still,Genghis Khan,Condoleeza Rice,or Marie Antoinette!

Perhaps TBJ commentators who have signed up to the race over culture theory might consider running a personal background check on themselves before submitting further comments on this issue.

http://www.dnaancestryproject.com/

@ Armor

I give up!   Where did I write that "immigration should continue"?  Where?

How could one have a rational discussion with someone who cannot read?  Let alone devise a rational immigration policy with such a person?

You are an inveterate strawman-producer.  You start off with a presumption of what I think, and then you 'read' that in whatever I write, irrespective of whether that is what I wrote or not.  Hopeless...

@ Armor

You have asked those questions before, and they have been clearly answered.  If repetiton is necessary, it is because you do not read well, and simply like to set up strawmen.

1) Yes, it is quite possible that recent large-scale immigration to Europe may have lowered average "intelligence" in Europe.  It is possible, but I doubt it, nor do I think that that should be the main issue w.r.t. immigration. Note also, that I think that there are many different forms of intelligence, and that morality SHOULD always trump "intelligence".  I have met too many 'very smart' - but 'bad' - people in my life, to think otherwise.  Adherence to certain cultural values (e.g. like courage, honesty, etc...) is much more important than any particular form of "intelligence".

2)  We broadly agree that European immigration policies over the past three decades or so, have been 'bad' for Europe, and certainly have failed to promote integration of non-European newcomers.  The proper response to that is NOT to introduce 'racism' in current immigration policies, but rather to introduce 'intelligence' (and common sense) and less naive-left dogmatism.  I repeat, immigration policy should be guided by the principle of cultural self-determination and common sense, and democratically decided upon in parliaments.  Obviously, none of this is possible, unless you live in a genuine democracy where freedom of political speech is effectively guaranteeed and respected.  That would for instance exclude Belgium today.  

3) Putnam's theory is 'bunk'.  American democracy has historically been protected by ethnic 'diversity', which helped to prevent 'group think' (clearly the source of European totalitarianisms in the 20th century).   What happened "since the 1960's" is not the result of ethnic diversity, but rather the result of cultural change (essentially among the then-large 'white' majority) in America.  What has happened is essentially the victory of leftist marxist ideas in Academia and media.  I repeat, your fight should be with (mainly white) leftists who are undermining ideological diversity in western civilisation - indeed who want to destroy that civilisation - using a 'vail' of misleading and facile talk about racial diversity and false victimhood-fabrication.  In short, you can blame people, any people, for their 'culture' or behavior, but never for their looks (or at least that part of their looks over which they have no control).  You can still blame most of them for being too fat, for instance.... 

Thank you for those kind words.And a Happy Thanksgiving Day to you and yours!

Ditto.

My ideas are "racist and fascist" and "idiotic", ok, I won't deny the possibility. But I havn't heard ANY substantive critism of my "fascist ideas" whatsoever.

Paraphrase with extrapolation: "People like you are the reason closet/nascent ethnocentrists like us keep getting called racsist and fascist by neo-cons and cultural Marxists."

What can I tell you, just the price of doing business.

Why do you care what cultural Marxist and neo-cons think anyways? Because they have the sheeples ears and they might get the sheeple to turn against you?

I'm forced to recall what Don Corleone told the Frank Sinatra stand-in at the beginning of the Godfather Part I while D.C. was shaking him, "Be a man!"

Is it that you think my ideas wouldn't actually work or is it because they are "racsist and fascist" and are therefore evil and must be ipso facto rejected?

My ideas wouldn't work? Again, of course they would, how do you think the European empires conducted themselves at even the turn of the 19th into the 20th century?

Further, were Britain, France, Germany, and the United States "fascist" at the turn of the century? To say yes I think would be an abuse of language and the term fascist.

As for Watson: he (to my knowledge) has never done the relevant research himself on racial differences in intelligence. He has presumably read and been convinced by the research efforts of such luminaries as Rushston, Jensen, and Lynn.

Watson remarked that he was "inherently gloomy" about the prospects of Africa because its people are too dumb to maintain (much less design) a modern technological society.

Read the works of Rushston, Jensen, and Lynn for yourselfs and see if you don't come away convinced that intelligence is preponderately genetic, and that racial differences in IQ are therefore mostly intractable. If you don't come away almost completely convinced I do know what to tell you, I guess De Nile ain't just a river in Eygpt.

I think I've heard enough.

Personally,as with so much that is discussed and debated here at the BJ, I find myself in total agreement with Marcfrans in his assessment of you and the nonsense you peddle.Goodbye.

This stikes me as argument by a reduction to the absurd. I don't think generally society should use as its organizing principle what effect its policies will have on the exception to the rule, statistical outliers, and aberant behavior, etc. But since you ask, why not, if you're game I'm game.

Homosexuals and porn stars? I'm not keen on these things but if thats what floats someone's boat go for it, so long as it isn't shoved down the throats of normal people. If the state has to regulate it to achieve this effect I'm all for it.

Also, if any one is actually "breeding" while engaged in porn then shame on them. Shoddy trade craft buddy.

Further, the state has a compelling interest in regulating these high risk lifestyles to protect the common good. If bathhouses and porno production are not conducted in a responsible manner shut them down.

Gays, lesbians, interracial partnerships and hot black-on-white porno action? I wouldn't recommend white gays and lesbians engage in interracial partnerships, I think they'd be happier if they didn't. I think gays and lesbians should be encourage to cultivate long-term same-race partnerships which would include white children (adopted in the case of gay men, invitro fertilization from a white sperm donor for white lesbians) if they desire it.

In one of my earlier posts I stated that non-whites would not be allowed in Western countries unless they are talented non-white elites who have a cultural contribution to make provided they would not breed with whites upon pain of legal punishment. If a white gay or lesbian can snag one of these non-white catches more power to them.

In the case of porno production in Western countries white-on-colored heterosexual "action" would not be allowed because it has the attendant risk of non-white pregnacy. If its white-on-black homosexual "action" I say go at it so long as reasonable precautions are taken.

@ Bogaers

1) Viewed from a world perspective, and also an historical one, Flanders and 'Holland' (in a broad sense) do have much of a common heritage.  It's the Schaveiger-types, who have been enlisted to advocate counter-natural 'unions', and who undermine natural cultural unity.  But then, multiculturalism is a 'marxist' idea that is destructive of all culture.  The Russians realise that now today, and hence seem to be over-reacting to the debris left by the illusions of the past century.   Schaveiger is 'in' for a lot of surprises, resulting from current illusions, when he gets older.

2) Saddam only "feared" his own people in the sense that any despot does, i.e. he realised that terrible injustice can breed terrible hatred.  (As an aside, hatred can of course also be inbred, based on perceived - not actual - injustice).  But, Saddam did not "fear" his people in the sense of expecting to be overthrown.  In his early years he did, of course, but not in the 1980's and 1990's.  His control was too absolute, all-encompassing, and incredibly cruel.

3) Western countries would be well advised to let other Arab countries carry any substantial 'refugee burden', resulting from the "mayhem" that is in large part instigated by some of these same countries (and by Iran) in Iraq.  At the same time, it is to be hoped that recent reports of refugees returning to Bagdhad are true. It suggests that the security situation in Iraq is genuinely improving.  I am only in favor of the Americans staying in Iraq TO THE EXTENT that they can work mainly through local allies and can get Iraqi society increasingly pay for the economic costs involved.  Something like the South-Korea model, with gradual withdrawal over decades is conceivable.  But it is unlikely, given that the overall environment is very different.   We will see. 

4) Yes, we agree, that different forms and degrees of despotism in the Middle East can be expected.   As long as genuine democratic governance in the Arab world remains out of reach, the western 'interest' is to help ensure that there will be many despots (preferably 'enlightened' ones), instead of 1 or 2. 

5) I am grateful for your response to the racist and fascist ideas of the 'captainchaos'.   The man is obviously blind to the decadent trends taking place in his own presumed 'superior' culture today, and he obviously has no understanding of history (nor judeo-christian morality, I would add).   It is, indeed, all about culture (in the sense of values), not about skin color or any other physical manifestations.  But human arrogance is universal, certainly not limited to western 'fascists'.  If it is true that you are a "recent graduate", then you are clearly another indication that the future of Europe is not (yet) lost.  

You say,"Whites should only breed with other whites".

What about homosexuals and porn stars?

Should white lesbians be allowed to take non white partners and white male gays be allowed to take non white partners,and vice versa? And would the porn industry be regulated to only show white on white action,black on black action etc., ?

Finally,who should be responsible for enforcing these new regulations,the individual or the state?

When assessing of the intellectual merits of the races one must use two standards: group average ability to achieve (group average IQ) and the peak achievers ( the most brilliant members of a group).

Northeast Asians have a group average IQ of about 105. For whites it is about 100. They have us beat there.

But Northeast Asians also most likely have a narrower IQ distribution (as do on average all women when contrasted with all men regardless of race) which produces the effect that you won't find as many dumb Northeast Asians as whites but you also won't find as many brilliant Northeast Asians as whites.

Besides the evidence for this gleaned from intelligence testing even a superficial survey of history attests to the truth of this proposition. Our intellectual giants trump theirs in terms of one to one comparison and and absolute numbers hands down.

With regards to the example you cited, the cellist Yo-Yo Ma, he may be a very great musician or even the best presently in the world. So what? Sh*t happens. Did he invent the cello? Did an Asian? Does he compose his own music and if so is it qualitatively better than any piece of music ever composed by any white man? Can any Asian ever even be said to have come close to being considered the greatest composer ever? No on all counts.

Even if some Asians were smart enough when marinated in Western culture to achieve at the level of white greats why were Asians not smart enough as a group to create superior culture to our own on their own, not with our help? Because taken as a group they are not genetically equiped to do so.

As far as where Yo-Yo Ma resides I don't see a problem with a few talented exceptions to the rule I laid down earlier of no non-whites within Western countries. But Yo-Yo Ma or other exceptions should not be allowed to breed with white women because that would be a genetic loss (of external physical appearance) for both Asians and whites. Whites should only breed with other whites, that is more essential now than ever.

So let's take the case of the world famous cellist,Yo-Yo Ma as a "for instance".What,in your estimation,makes him such a fine and gifted musician? Is it largely due to his racial background or his cultural environment? Would he have been an even more accomplished musician had he been born French AND white? And to which country would you wish to see him deported?

Yes it is mostly about race because our race produced our culture, not the other way around. The only other people that have demonstrated the ability en masse to uphold our culture are Northeast Asians. But they have not demonstrated the ability to build upon that culture as we have. So our culture could conceivably continue on in the hands of Northeast Asians but we would not be gauranteed of its progress and perfection.

Besides, I like the way white people look. I don't want to see us die out. To me this alone is sufficient justification to do what must be done. It is a matter of the will and nothing else. If we are for ourselves who can be against us?

You say,"If one places other things above the survival of his race and culture...he is not serious".

But for you this is virtually all about race NOT culture,right?  

The first question we must ask ourselves as individuals is, "Are the unprecedented and superior accomplishments of European man a product of his unique genetic endowments?"

If one answers in the negative I don't know what to tell you aside from, "You are not serious!" Is it not self-evident that if other groups (races) could have achieved as we have achieved they would have? Of course it is, they (other races) have not because they cannot.

Their failure is not our fault therefore we should cease to act as if it were. No amount of effort by the European peoples on their behalf (short of genetic reengineering) can make them as successful as us.

If one answers in the affirmative we can proceed to a solution. Having answered in this way we can now allow ourselves the courage to admit that their failure is not our fault and therefore we should cease to act as if it were. No amount of effort by the European peoples on their behalf (short of genetic reengineering) can make them as successful as we are.

Having gone this far it necessarily logically follows that if European man dies so does his culture. The next question we must ask ourselves as individuals is, "How highly do I value Western culture and what am I willing to do to preserve and perpetuate it?"

If one places other things above the survival of his race and culture again I say that he is not serious.

If one places NOTHING higher than the survival and perpetuation of his race and culture then I assume (that is if he is serious) he will act like it. He will act to assure this outcome by as Malcolm X say "any means necessary."

How does having ANY non-whites within the borders of Western countries serve the attainment of this goal? The anwer is none therefore they (non-whites) must go.

Why are any Arabs within the borders of European countries? To assuage our guilty consciences about our supposed responsibility for their civizational failure and to engender good will from Arab government so they will cut European countries a better deal on oil.

But couldn't we just take their oil without asking their permission or providing them with any compensation? Of course we could, that is precisely what we used to do! How many troops would it take to secure a few dozen oil well, maybe ten thousand?

The ONLY final solution to our Eurabia/Islam problem requires us to shed our maudlin moralizing and masochistic guilty mongering. When we do this the solutions to our problem are simple and relatively inexpensive.

@ Bogaers

1) While I can understand and accept that the 'Dutch' do not consider themselves to be 'Flemish', I would hope that the new generations of Dutchmen (including yourself) could broadly agree that the Flemish are part of Dutch culture, and could best be considered 'Southern-Dutch'.  To do otherwise would be foolish and self-destructive in the long term for all the 'Dutch'.

2)  I doubt very much that Saddam "feared his own people".  His methods of absolute control where much too cruel and too all-encompassing for that.  Any anticipation of "revolution" certainly had nothing to do with any "truth" about WMD.  The latter (including new acquisition, based on the world's second largest proven oil reserves) were temporarily put 'on hold', until he could succeed in bribing himself out of the 'box' that the US had put him in after the first gulf war (with no-fly zones etc...). By the end of the 90's decade he had pretty much accomplished that goal with willing helpers in leaders of China, Russia, France, etc...  I must repeat that the latter did NOT "subordinate themselves to international law". In fact they subverted such 'law' and refused to implement it, thereby proving that much of it is not 'law' at all, but rather 'words' or 'pr'. 

3) Whatever your complaints might be about Rumsfeld's policies, you recognise that "he wanted every American soldier out of Iraq within a month after the invasion".  Doesn't that indicate that the word "invasion" is inappropriate?  It shows that the goal was to remove the totalitarian obstacle of the Baath regime, and to prevent Saddam's (re-)emergence as the PanArab leader undermining western goals all over the Middle East.  Is it not ironic, then, that the anti-US hysteria in the leftist western media (followed in the muslim world) keeps falsely claiming that the war was about oil and about occupation etc....while you claim that Rumsfeld wanted American soldiers out as soon as possible, and only used enough to remove Saddam, but not enough for "occupation"?

4) No, concentration of power canNOT mean "basically ALL hands in that region".  That is a contradiction in terms.  Concentration means in the hands of 1 or a few very bad people.   I repeat, Saddam saw himself as a PAN Arab leader, and was seen as such by many in the Arab world. For example, do you remember, after he invaded Kuweit, how Arafat and the King of Jordan hastened to Baghdad to offer 'support' and offer feilty to the 'great leader'?   I could observe myself, as a staff member of an international organisation at the time (and with 'experience' of life in Iraq), how many of my presumably highly-educated fellow Arab staff members (many with doctorates from western universities) spoke approvingly of the 'rape of Kuweit' because it showed the power of a 'great' Arab leader (Saddam).  It would basically be the equivalent of you as a Dutchman looking up today at Hitler because he promised 'Germanic greatness'.  But, Hitler is the past.  Baathism, or Arab nazism, just as much as islamism, is of TODAY.

5) One can endlessly speculate about 'what ifs', after US withdrawal from Iraq, etc... We have to consider all options of life today, i.e. post-Saddam, and endless recriminations in that respect are not constructive.  Morever, one cannot know for certain what would have happened if Saddam had succeeded in getting out of his 'box', and he was very much on the way of doing so before the misnamed "invasion".  Any "unmanageable flow of refugees to Europe" is as much a result of (a) silly European immigration policies and (b) Europe's refusal to help with CONCRETE ACTIONS inside Iraq in recent years, than anything else.

But on the core issues we agree, i.e. scepticism about our "liberal elites" and about the improbability of any "Islamic Enlightenment" in the foreseeable future.

@ Bogaerts

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.  I am glad there is at least one other Flemish person who seems to be broadly on the same wavelength as me on this subject.  I will focus on a few further points of mild disagreement between us.

1) The removal of Saddam's regime was the result of a long process that started with the first Gulf war (almost 20 years ago).  Besides the 2 arguments you explained, many others have been advanced over the years and many others must have figured in the decision.  Concerning the first one, I disagree that the WMD issue could have been settled "given more time".  Both the inspection regime and the UN sanctions regime were waning and failing, because they were increasingly being undermined by China, Russia, France, etc... It has now also been confirmed that it was an express goal of Saddam to keep the WMD issue purposefully 'unclear'.  In short, he himself did not want the inspection regime to reveal the truth in that regard.  So, how could "more time" have settled the issue?

2) I agree with your philosophical criticism of the neocon argument, but I do not think that that is the ultimate strategic reason behind the Iraq part of the ongoing war.  The goal is to prevent concentration of monopoly power in the intolerant muslim world, not pie-in-the-sky 'democracy'.  Saddam saw himself as a PAN-Arab leader and his threats (and power) were not limited to Irak, far from it.

3) With hindsight it is now very easy for every self-proclaimed expert to criticise the many obvious (and not so obvious) tactical mistakes that have been made by the Bush Administration in executing its policy.  I take issue with 2 specific points you made.  First, the war did not lack "legitimacy".  That charge is a pure EX POST media mantra of America-haters.  There was ample justification in 'international law'.  However, this would require a long and detailed discussion about the actual nature of international law, as opposed to its fictional version one encounters all over the leftist western media.  Also, second, "hands-on support" from Europe, China and Russia, is an impossibility by definition.  Particularly China and Russia are never guided by international law, but rather exclusively  by (their respective) regimes' interests, and see the US as a major obstacle to those interests.  They would have never supported implementation of actual international law (including the 19 Security Council resolutions against Baathist Iraq) unless it would be in their own narrow interests.  The case of 'Europe' is a bit more complex.  But one can fairly say that the Chirac-Schroeder axis was more interested in weakening the USA than it was in 'international law'.  For understandable reasons.  They wanted 'popularity', not enforcement of 'international law'.

4) I strongly disagree with the proposition that "the Unites States took on a burden that it couldn't carry".  Both in an economic and in a military sense, the current burden is truly only a small fraction of the burden the United States carried for instance during the Cold War, say between 1950-1990.   But you may have a point in a political sense.  And that tells us something about the nature of American culture today, and about the perfidiousness afflicting much of the rest of the western world.

5) I also disagree with your statement that "Irak will be a greater threat to our security than it was in 2002".   If so, it would certainly NOT be because of Saddam's removal.   The Muslim world as a whole will remain a serious threat as long as it can accumulate massive resources based on oil-based wealth, and as long as it cannot realise its own 'Enlightenment'.  The latter will inevitably require a long period of great 'instability' in various parts of the muslim world (as it did in Europe several centuries ago).  Our goal must be to prevent the concentration of power in that world.  That was and remains the strongest argument for the removal of the Baath regime.     

@ Bogaers

1) I agree with you that one cannot categorically rule out any intervention, nor advocate indiscriminate intervention.  Both, simplistic isolationism and interventionism, have to be avoided.  Our future depends on being able to look ahead, to discern gathering threats, and to maintain the ability to act militarily when manifestly necessary, or even when judged probably necessary.   I also agree with you that the prospects for "liberal democray" in the muslim world are very poor.  They even seem poor in Europe today, and perhaps even in America as well, given that (a declining) part of the 'right' still suffers from manifest racism and (a growing) part of the left is increasingly 'illiberal' and particularly intolerant of (political) free speech.  

2) I DISagree with your comments on Iraq, and attribute them to media hysteria and to a lack of determination, both of which help to undermine the struggle for maintaining freedom in our world.  The removal of the Baath regime in Iraq was predicated on numerous reasons, which were amply discussed during the 1990's and which culminated in the overwhelmingly-approved "Regime Change Resolution" of the US Congress in November 1998.  The removal of the regime of Saddam (and the prospective one of his sons) was based on (a) grounds of morality, (b) grounds of international law (i.e. its enforcement), and most importantly on (c) grounds of national security.   While some of these reasons were always open for debate, which we can not exhaust here in a few paragraphs, the totality of them had an overwhelming impact on the American body politic.  And the totality of those "reasons" remains just as valid today as it did then.    The focus on WMD (weapons of mass destruction), during (legally) superfluous Security Council debates in early 2003, was a tactical mistake of the Bush Administration - one of many - partly undertaken because of pressure from the British government (Blair).

3) From a western national security standpoint, there is much less "chaos" today in Afghanistan and Irak, as well as many other places, than there was pre-9/11.  There are now numerous opportunities to 'exploit' local divisions and work with local 'allies', unlike in the past when there was total monopoly power of 2 very unfriendly totalitarian regimes.  Obviously, I am using the term "chaos" in a very different sense than you.  You seem to be parroting the self-hating western media, and seem to be oblivious to the (largely unreported) rapid 'improvement' going on in Irak in recent months.  Whereas, I consider the term "chaotic" from the perspective of western security, i.e. in terms of whether we can have any impact on local 'outcomes' or not.   Our goal should not be 'democracy' in the muslim world, but rather to prevent the emergence of concentrated monopoly power (with control of resources, oil or otherwise) in the hands of very 'bad' people.  

P.S.  It may well be true that the Americans will be "abandoning" Afghanistan in the next few years, especially if the left regains the presidency.   But, why is it always up to "the Americans" to do the right thing?   Continental Europe - to the limited extent it ever cared about Taliban etc... - has already abandoned it today.  And what about that pretend-beacon of 'international law', the UN, what are they concretely doing to DEFEND human rights in Afghanistan with more than 'words'?     

Even if it was possible to transform Mexicans and Arabs into clones of our own children, what's wrong with the way we used to be succeeded through the centuries by our own children?

Armor, I have no problem with stopping immigration. That we even need immigration has never been fairly, openly and satisfactorily debated. It''s like the Global Warming mantra, sure, but, where is the hard science. 

 Immigration should be based on an as needs bases not mindless goodwill or some lame lefty multi-culti feel good attitude.

At least here in America we can debate that issue, Europeans are forbidden that basic right.

Neither European countries or Americans should interfere into Muslim world. Of course they should also keep Muslims outside of our territories. Muslim civilization can  be improved but only by their own effort and this is very long process. Every interference from the so called west is counterproductive. Trade with them but not mix! 

captainchaos - speak for yourself, you don't speak for me as an American. Mexicans and Arabs have adequate IQ's. Yours isn't looking so high after reading your silly rant.

The issue of Mexican illegals in America isn't about the intelligence of Mexicans, it's about the issue of a sovereign nation re-establishing control of its borders and restoring due process to immigration. The problem with the massive immigration of Muslims into Europe is about their failure to assimilate into a secular society. Too many don't.

Lets just assume that all the Muslims could be magically transformed into Secular Humanists this very instant - what then? Europeans would still have a very large problem, just because these people ceased to be Muslims does not mean they would cease to be Arab. What is the problem per se with Arabs you ask? They have a low group average IQ, thats what. Its about 85-90. Any white man with an IQ that low would justly be called an idiot, but that their group average!

Many studies have documented a strong correlation between low intelligence and criminality.

Why do Europeans suppose we Americans are so pissed off about the Mexican hordes that are flooding our country, after all they are not Muslims? Its because on average (that is: taken as a group) they are less intelligent, more prone to criminality, and Welfare dependency. Just like Arabs in Europe Mexicans do nothing for us Americans that we couldn't do for ourselves and better. MEXICANS AND ARABS ARE A NET DRANE TO WESTERN COUNTRIES - KICK THE BUMS OUT!

Well put, Mark Bogaers.  The other problem with Islam is that there isn't enough time left to reform, not in the time it would take them to reverse the murder and mayhem that's been unleashed in its name.

The West will soon be threatened with Iran's nuclear bomb if all goes as planned for them. In between now and that is the likely prospect of another Big One in the order of 9/11 or worse that might be thrown our way.

That a significant number of jihadis have had exposure to democracy and secularism while living among us in the West and that hasn't changed their attitudes can't be ignored and doesn't bode well for reforming Islam.

Most of us are beyond hypothesizing or caring if Islam can reform itself at this point for the same reason that if a homicidal maniac has a gun in your face examining his root issues would be the least thing on your mind. 

I think I'd have to agree with Fjordman on this one.  Islam is not just another religion comparable to Christianity.  Secularism is embedded in the latter, while Sayyid Qutb, intellectual godfather of the Muslim Brotherhood, called it Christianity's "great schizophrenia," this term obviously carrying a negative connotation.  The very Western values we still cherish today (albeit it less and less, thanks to the cultural revolution of the 1960s) are mostly rooted in our religious traditions.  To assume that Islam will follow us into achieving prosperous liberal democratic societies is to deny both its illiberal character and history's general unpredictability.

I have a hard time understanding the calls for an Islamic reformation.  Do we mean a "Reformation" (notice the capital R) in the Christian sense of the word?  For the Reformation in the West in fact entailed a return to scripture, which is nothing other than the literal meaning of the word "fundamentalism," and is already taking place within Islam.  The importance of the Christian Reformation was its challenge to Rome's absolute authority over religious matters.  Together with the schism of Orthodox and Roman Christianity, and the establishment of the Anglican Church independent of Rome, the Reformation set an important precedent for the history of the West: the authority of a single religion under an absolute worldly ruler -- by itself illegitimate, according to the Scripture -- will never remain unchallenged.  This, of course, had implications far beyond religion, which is why the Westphalian Peace is still regarded as a landmark in international politics.

The remaining option, then, would be an Islamic "reformation" without the capital R, meaning something like a revolutionary move of the Muslim world toward individualism, liberalism, secularism, and democracy.  This would, in fact, be more of an Islamic Enlightenment.  In short, we are asking of Islam to reform itself into something for which it has neither the foundations nor a natural longing.  Only Islam can reform itself, and since it is, I think, not a coincidence that the world's free societies are concentrated in the West and authoritarian regimes rule the world of Islam, it still has a long way to go.

These regimes reflect Islamic culture, not the other way around.  Overthrowing them won't bring any more freedom or democracy, just another despotic dictator.  As Dutch "populist" right-wing politician Geert Wilders recently stated, Muslims have to strip the Qur'an of half its pages.  I wouldn't bet my money on that happening.  And even if it will, a liberal democratic Islamic world is not necessarily going to be the natural outcome.

The Holocaust is shamelessly exploited as an excuse for creating an artificial superstate and above all for imposing restrictions on free speech for everybody who wants to oppose this project.

Can Fjordman name the Jewish organizations campaigning against this shameless exploitation of the Holocaust and demanding an end to the restrictions on free speech in Europe? Nope. The UK doesn't yet have laws against Holocaust denial. It does, however, have draconian laws against "incitement to racial hatred", which were introduced and have been steadily strengthened at the behest of the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Jewish Community Security Trust. Fjordman knows that Jewish organizations are the world's most powerful enemies of free speech, which is why he's scared to direct a word of criticism towards Jews for their central role in the destruction of the West.

Fjordman:

Islam isn’t reformable.

Of course it is. It just needs some sustained tough love: the overthrow of intolerant regimes that are encouraging jihadism and the annulling of the Islamic world's oil domination. The Islamic regimes that refuse to reform can be replaced by those that will.

This just needs the right leadership in the West. That's what's been lacking so far. 

LGF's, while worth a quick glance as an Islamofascist news aggregator, was never a site of much substance beyond that. Since its inception, Johnson has cultivated mind numbing sycophants ("the lizards" as he has designated them, heck he often tucks them in at night with musical clips, grow up!) with the same echo chamber infantilism as Daily Kos at the other end of the spectrum. The positive side to his accusations, and on his part protracted behind his wall, is that he has driven thinking folks to examine his accusations which in my opinion isn't serving him well.

Europeans are in so much more serious danger than we are. They are trying against political forces not aligned in their favor in arresting the encroachment of Eurabia. Considering how nascent their newly forming resistance movement is, one has to give some benefit of the doubt that the good guys in Europe will purge themselves of undesirables.

Thanks to the Brussels Journal and Gates of Vienna, the complexity of this can be examined and debated on comment threads that are transparent and not subject to banning because you aren't spewing the site owners viewpoint.