If I have to choose between these two give me the Muslims.  Back To the catacombs!

Neo-Conservatives are liberals who don’t like the liberals’ position on Palestine.

To my mind the most egregious moves to limit free speech have been by the government in Britain. The prosecution of Nick Griffith of the BNP—twice—being only one of many examples. I understand some here would not like BNP economic policies or the fact that they are consciously a group that protects the interests of white folk. But how can an essay on prosecution of thought crime leave them out.

stari momak
Britain is paradise. Try Germany’s pc bolshies. There you have only to fart involuntarily next to a well you know to get ten years in the can.

Well written and incisive.  But it suffers from the absence of what Rene Girard came to realize about all human culture, regardless of how advanced and secularized it may become: we are still “religious” whether we admit it or not.  Only instead of the Judeo-Christian ethos that built western civ., we are returning to the primitive Sacred that is our human default religion (L. religare - to bind back) of blood sacrifice. 

The secularized West is being squeezed by the twin pincers of the primitive Sacred - post-modern paganism and the Scimitar.

As Belloc said, “The Faith is Europe, and Europe is the Faith.” Without the Faith, Europe is doomed.  A defense mounted by the likes of Bruce Bawer is no real defense at all, because it is defending something that is not based in reality and cannot last, what Paul Belien aptly calls “secular hedonism.”

@Tom Piatak

I agree that Bawer and Johnson have a strange idea of the West. Hedonist societies will always be doomed. Bawer isn’t a hedonist, he’s just a writer, who happens to be gay. Bawer is not advancing any revolutionary movements, just the right to be gay—that’s it. And, frankly, I don’t see much wrong with that. I would be irritated at gay movements, if they kept bashing the West, while ignoring intolerance everywhere else. Bawer doesn’t do that, he is equally critical of all intolerance of gays everywhere. He may be a liberal, but he’s a consistent one.

Charles Johnson OTOH, is a certifiable nutjob. I sometimes surf to his “news” site and especially the comments of his ‘lizzard army’—how pathetic—just for my amusement. Also, his constant denouncements of AP, Reuters et all for supposed “anti-Semitism” or anti-Israel bias is pure comedy. And his commenters keep shouting: ‘Yes Charles! You’re right! Evil Reuters! Down with them!!” What loons, what hysteria.. My, my, may he never quit his work for all our amusement!

Thus, I wouldn’t compare him with Bawer at all. Johnson is against Islam, but he defames the only people who stand up to it. (Smart move, dude!) I’m not much of a fan of Vlaams Belang et al myself, but I don’t see why they should be declared verboten, especially by some intellectually challenged Bushophile US-blogger.

Paul Belien is a decent, worried man and he should be helped, not defamed. We’re all in agreement that Islam would be a bad new fad for the West, let’s agree on that.

Great article and balanced neutral summary of many contentious issues. Great comments above.  I agree with Stari Momak and Maciano.  Curt is also right on about Germany.  I personally support BNP, Vlaams Belang and the others fighting for their freedom and the West. 

If whites lose Europe, they will not survive anywhere is my view.  I think the same applies to America and we should also not give up Australia and NZ.  There is a war or process underway against whites that will result in their extinction if they don’t assert themselves and maintain control of their areas.

Maciano:

I enjoy your comments on this site and almost always agree with them, but I would point out that Bawer is quoted in the article as referring to Paul Belien as a “little Euro-fascist” because Belien wants to defend the specifically Christian content of European civilization.  Such comments are not helpful, to say the least.

Lawrence Auster has some incisive comments on this article that may also be of interest:  http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010788.html

I fully agree with the blogger who expressed a moral preference for the Muslims over their
gay and neocon critic Bruce Bawer. And while I think the Muslim tidal wave in
Europe has become an additional problem for an already sick continent,this advancing
takeover is not the major cause of European disintegration. The prevalence of a postmarxist
leftist ideology supported by the European managerial-media class and aimed at the
destruction of established communities and authorities, is the gravest problem now facing
Western and Central Europeans. Unless Europeans can overthrow their “democratic” elites in a
real counterrevolution, Europe as a civilization and as a collection of historic nations
will soon be gone. And I don’t hold out much hope for the Eastern Europeans either, as
they fall under the control of the Western media, the EU, and such culturally disfiguring
organizations as NATO.

Welcoming Muslims to Europe because they are “morally” preferable to homosexuals and liberals?  It sounds more like a Hobsen’s choice.  The former introduces tyranny, alien races, religion and culture to the old continent, while the latter stupidly allows that rot to invade.  A bad time to be European.

Great post.  In persecuting critics of radical Islam, Canada is becoming more Europeanized every day.  One consolation is that conservatives and libertarians in Canada enjoy the blessing of living in a large nation with vast wilderness areas.  One can always head for the hills, to escape from PC totalitarians.  The poor Europeans will have to evacuate their crowded nations altogether.

“ almost make we welcome a conservative Islamic takeover of Europe “ - that’s how good intentions pave road to hell. It’s inability to coose between two seemingly equal evils.

I cannot comprehend the posters here who have stated that they would prefer an Islamicized Europe to the hypersecular Netherlands model.  The latter, as distasteful as it may seem in many respects, retains the potential for a Christian renaissance; virtually without exception, Islamic regimes and cultures are hostile to other faiths.  Even more to the point, from an ethnic and cultural standpoint, an Islamic Europe would no longer be Europe at all.

I sometimes wonder if cultural conservatives who express sympathy for Islam do so out of a reaction to the belligerent path the neocons have taken us down since 9/11.  I don’t see why one can’t equally oppose the actions of the Bush administration and its allies and the actions of the militant Islamists against whom the “War on Terror” is being waged.

paul gottfried
A new Count Stauffenberg might do the trick. Or the brave men who now waste their lives defending the opium growing hyper-crooks in Afghanistan.

He refuses to admit that secularism and liberalism destroyed Europe… If the situation in Europe continues to deteriorate it will not be long before Bruce Bawer, for his own safety and that of his “partner,” will feel compelled to flee back to his native America.

What is it that makes multicultural fanatics so relentlessly blind to results of their idiotic wishful thinking? If there’s one hallmark of the progressive coterie, it’s the absolute lack of foresight that so marks all its proposals and policies. Simply: Progressives cannot imagine realistically a future controlled by their foolish ideas. Those results are nothing short of catastrophic. It’s always amusing to see one such blinkered idiot slams into the brick wall of reality. It would be even more funny if these half-wits weren’t suicidally poisoning the future for the rest of us.

The commenter “Original Jack” said:

“If I have to choose between these two give me the Muslims.  Back To the catacombs!”
To which Paul Gottfried replied:

“I fully agree with the blogger who expressed a moral preference for the Muslims over their gay and neocon critic Bruce Bawer.”
Here is the implied logic of my friend Paul Gottfried’s comment. Since, at this moment, secularist hedonism including homosexual liberation is the order of Europe, and since Mr. Gottfried fully agrees with the commenter who said, “If I have to choose between these two give me the Muslims,” then Mr. Gottfried is saying that at this very moment he sides with the Muslims in their jihad campaign to take over Europe. 

For years I have been criticizing paleoconservatives for their nihilistic stance of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Also, Paul Gottfried recently admitted, in an article at this website, that the paleoconservative movement in its bitterness toward its perceived enemies had discredited itself. 

I hope Paul will realize the nihilism he has fallen into here and pull back from the abyss. 

He should also note that the neocons he despises typically express Shadenfreude at the prospect of a Muslim takeover of Europe.

What about the Totalitarian Death Cult (aka “Islam") does Gottfried find morally preferable to The Corpse Formerly Known as Europe?

Here’s more grist for the mill.  Today a prominent Moslem leader in Canada demanded more power over the Canadian media, in order to deal with “hate speech” directed against his faith. And all this is to be assisted by taxpayer money, and overseen by leftist feminists in human rights tribunals.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=573457

Meanwhile in Quebec, the leftist academic Charles Taylor is blaming les habitants for bad relations with Moslems in la belle provence.  He is insisting that the Quebecois become more tolerant, not the other side.  Just another week in Canada.

AL: “What about the Totalitarian Death Cult (aka “Islam") does Gottfried find morally preferable to The Corpse Formerly Known as Europe?”

I think the preference was for muslims, that rather large group of people, under their misguided by somewhat congruent moral code, over this Bawer person, who sounds, from this article at least, like a bit of a mixed-up traitor, who, it should be added, adheres to the Neocon let’s have a PC paradise/ invade-the-world-invite-the-world poltics.

It should be noted that, unfortunately, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has formally supported Charles Johnson on this whole issue, specifically with regard to the unfair vilification-by-association of Vlaams Belang and Paul Dewinter.

More details in two essays on my two blogs:

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2007/11/little-green-footblogs-blogalism-part-2.html

http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/vlaams-belang-controversy.html

Migod, Ms. Bardot was gorgeous!  One more reason to lament the passing of Europe, as sexually repressed Moslems and feminists alike fight over the carcass.  The future is both tyrannical and ugly, in politics and aesthetics.

Based on this current thread, it now appears that in each of the three main factions of modern politics, the left, the neocon, and the paleocon, at least some people welcome the Islamic takeover of Europe.

First there are the left-liberals, who run Europe They positively welcome Islamization, by seeking the ever greater power of Islam in Europe, by silencing criticism of the growing power of Islam in Europe, and by advocating the establishment of sharia law in Europe.  Left-liberals openly hate the historic West for its supposed hatred, bigotry, and inequality, and seek its destruction. As I’ve written, in their heart of hearts, they would rather be hirelings of a new European Caliphate than leaders of a Europe they despise.  (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004846.html). 

Then there are the neocons, many of whom regularly express their contempt for Europe, whether because of its inherently Nazi nature (Ralph Peters, Charles Johnson), or because of its leftism, corruption, and anti-Americanism (Mark Steyn).

Thus Mark Steyn has written:

“Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. But getting there is certain to be messy, and violent.

“Until the shape of the new Europe begins to emerge, there’s no point picking fights with the terminally ill.” (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007033.html)

When not actively wishing for the Islamization of Europe, Steyn at best writes Europe off and says its finished, a prospect about which he expresses not the slightest sorrow. 

The huge popularity of Steyn, and the total absence of any criticism of him on the establishment right, can be taken as an index of neocons’ active desire to see Europe destroyed or their compete indifference to its destruction.

And now today, at this paleocon website, we see several people saying they hate the present secular hedonist Europe so much they would prefer to see European conquered by Islam.

So the left, the neocons, and some paleocons, while their motives differ, all agree that they would like to see Europe Islamized and subjected to a new Caliphate. 

What is this all about?  It goes back to before modernity, and is not limited to the Jewish reaction against Christian anti-Semitism.  Since Islam has always been the principal Other in relation to Europe, Europeans or Westerners who were deeply discontent with or alienated from the West, for whatever reason, would start to romanticize, identify with, and prefer Islam.  Instead of seeking to restore and strengthen what is good about the West, they would rather see it go down.

Lawrence,

You are being too optimistic. Go look at the discussions relating to Buchanan’s new revisionist tomb and you will see people wistful about the Nazi invasion of the USSR, as well as full Holocaust denial.

Paleoconservatism is not a coherent movement but a mirror of neoconservatism. As the neocons self destruct over democratization by the sword and big government, paleocons fall to nihilism.

Ron L has just called everyone at Taki Mag a bunch of Nazi’s and holocaust deniers. Maybe he should provide proof or leave.

This may be a case of a hobbit challenging a wizard, but, Mr. Auster, I believe you are taking Original Jack’s florid comment too seriously, and taking Mr. Gottfried’s later endorsement of the sympathetic feeling expressed in Original Jack’s comment to be an elevation of the former to a literal paleocon prescription.  I heard no such thing.  Surely you are familiar with the American sports cliché, “moral victory.” The “moral preference” Mr. Gottfried “fully agree[s] with” is similar: this guy Bawer and the likes of him do more damage to the West than your average regular muslim, immigrant or no.  Grading evils doesn’t necessarily mean advocating the lesser.  It’s like the comment “with friends like these...”

Why are so many Christian conservatives so blind to what their own beliefs have done to gays over the years?  I am currently living in a house in D.C. with several other young, gay professionals and students.  Among us is a 19 year old ex-Mormon whose family has put him out on the street merely because he is gay.  My own conservative Catholic family did the same thing to me when I was 16.  Are these experiences not supposed to affect us?  Are we wrong to want other young men and women to be spared the pain and rejection to which we have been subjected? 

As for the decline of Europe and the West, how is this our fault, exactly?  We aren’t responsible for the low birthrate.  How could we be - we’re only five percent, at most, of the population.  Europe has a low birthrate because European heterosexuals decided to stop having children.  Nor did we gays open the floodgates to Muslims.  Heterosexual European politicians did that.  As for Europe’s loss of faith, atheism long precedes the modern gay rights movement, and the most infamously atheistic empire in Europe (USSR) was, and still is, a hellhole for gays. 

I love the West.  I am as upset by the trends that I see as anyone else on here.  But I am fed up with conservative Christians scapegoating gays for these trends.  Our movement aimed at allowing us to live with the dignity you all take for granted is not to blame for the rock-bottom birthrates, the erosion of Christian faith, and the massive non-Western immigration affecting our countries.  Nor is treating gays like second-class citizens a prerequisite for a viable civilization.

Jews at 3% of American population lead about 99% of the pro-homosexual groups.  The homosexual movement would have gone no where in America without their organizational and media skills.  The Barney Franks, Bella Abzugs, and Ed Kochs led the way for government to make sodomy as American as apply pie.

So the Moslems want to clean out the gays and they dislike Israel hardly reason to fear them.

marc,

The homosexual movement has gone beyond merley wanting to be accepted.  Like the crusade against racism and feminism, its been used as an excuse to seize more and more government power and remake society.  That’s at least where my hostility to the homosexual movement comes from, although I have none towards individuals who don’t share the agenda’s goals.

Pablo H. demanded that Ron L. provide evidence for pro-Nazi, quasi-Nazi, pro-Muslim views at this website.  Walter Lewkowski has just provided some. 

Also, on a less unpleasant subject, Ron L. writes:

“Paleoconservatism is not a coherent movement but a mirror of neoconservatism. As the neocons self destruct over democratization by the sword and big government, paleocons fall to nihilism.”

I don’t know exactly what Ron means by this, but it’s fascinating.  He seems to be saying that since the only organizing idea of paleoconservatism is a shared belief in the evil of neoconservatism, when neoconservatism falls apart, the paleocons have nothing to believe in any more and so become nihilists! 

But of course the neocons—though they have discredited themselves a thousand times over in many people’s eyes—are still there.  Therefore the premise of Ron’s explanation of paleocon nihilism is lacking.

Marc is playing the same game that is played by all “moderates"—whether Muslim “moderates,” homosexual “moderates,” feminist “moderates,” or whatever.  “I don’t have an agenda against society,” these moderates tell us.  “I just want to live my life and be treated with dignity.” But notice how these “moderates"—and Marc is an example—act as though they are completely ignorant of the actual radical nature of the group or movement of which they are a part.  Marc doesn’t acknowledge any of the realities of the homosexual rights movement:  the anti-hate-speech laws that punish people for saying anything negative about homosexuality; the increasingly PUBLIC sexual display and behavior by homosexuals, such as the acting out of two lesbians at a recent baseball game which led to an enormous ruckus when an usher asked them to cool it; the move for homosexual “marriage” which among other things will lead to the elimination of the very concepts of “husband and wife,” “mother and father” from our laws and even our language; the standard view on the left that any opposition to homosexual marriage is simply mindless bigotry and that there is no reasonable basis for anyone to oppose homosexual marriage; the teaching in the schools of homosexuality as the complete equivalent of normal sexuality and marriage, which actually means treating normal sexuality and marriage as the equivalent of homosexuality; and the non-discrimination laws that force individuals and businesses to deal with homosexuals even if they don’t want to. Thus in Britain under the Sexual Orientation Regulations which prohibit any discrimination against homosexuals in the provision of goods or services, Catholic adoption agencies are now forced either to adopt to homosexual couples, or go out of business. 

Yet Marc, protesting meanspirited conservative Christian opposition to the normalization of homosexuality in society, acknowledges none of these realities. 

So Marc is exactly like one of those Muslim “moderates” who simultaneously claim that they are not radicals AND deny that Muslim radicalism even exists.  Since, according to the “moderate” Muslims, there is no Islamic radicalism, all opposition to Islam should cease, and anyone who attacks Islam is a bigot who should be silenced.  The moderates are thus the agents for the radicals. 

I see Marc in exactly the same light.  For him to show up at this right-wing website and announce that homosexuals are asking nothing more than to be treated decently, and that the homosexual rights movement poses no threat to society that anyone ought to be concerned about, deprives him of any credibility.

Ha ha ha I didn’t realize my of handed comment would raise such a stink. Any sane person would go for a secular Muslim society or even one like Saudia Arabia over a piss hole like Amsterdam. At least the Muslims don’t force me to say that an abomination is normal and healthy. They have some respect for the natural law. I don’t hate Homosexuale We all have our faults and sins. It is the forcing of the lie that this is good and healthy and to be promoted that makes me sick. Keep your dam habits in the bedroom and don’t inflict them on the rest of us. I try to be respectful to gays when I meet them.  The ones I know just want to be left alone.  Most of us don’t want our kids to end up this way.

So the Moslems want to clean out the gays and they dislike Israel hardly reason to fear them.

Moslems also want to dhimmify the West, which means they want to dhimmify YOU, ummm, Walt.  Hardly reason to fear them though, I guess. 

It seems like you’re a bit confused about who your mortal enemies are.

So the Moslems want to clean out the gays and they dislike Israel hardly reason to fear them.

Moslems also want to dhimmify the West, which means they want to dhimmify YOU, ummm, Walt.  Hardly reason to fear them though, I guess. 

It seems like you’re a bit confused about who your mortal enemies are.

“And I don’t hold out much hope for the Eastern Europeans either, as
they fall under the control of the Western media, the EU, and such culturally disfiguring
organizations as NATO.”

Prof. Gottfried,

Well, Russia is antagonistic to NATO, so that organization may just push it further away from the West.  As far as the media goes, I theorized (http://thenewfaith.org/2008/06/09/russia-for-russians/) that government control may be the difference between us and and them.

“Why does Russia seem to be pretty much the only white government that at least sometimes cares about the well-being of its own citizens over that of foreigners? Let me offer the theory that maybe it’s because the media hasn’t been in the hands of leftists. Something called Freedom House being has ranked the country 144 out of 169 in press freedom but then again they also call France and Germany free countries so I think we can conclude that their definition of freedom is the same as that of our friend from Human Rights Watch. If I had to choose between living in a country where I couldn’t criticize a patriotic government and one where I couldn’t criticize homosexual activists or immigrants destroying my country there’s no question about which I’d choose. The media has been by far the greatest shaper of popular opinion in the Western world at least since the invention of TV. Everybody under 20 doesn’t support gay marriage because they were taught to by their parents but because they grew up watching TV shows where gays were the funniest and best looking characters and anybody who had a problem with them was an uptight square. Russia is very late in getting all the pop culture garbage and if the government isn’t censoring it now they should.

At this point in his history, the mass media is our biggest enemy. As Oswald Spengler said ‘What we need is not freedom of the press, what we need is freedom from the press.’”

I’ll need more information before I write off Russia.  Remember, members of the old Soviet Union will have the advantage of watching the West begin to rot.  We’ll also probably see a decline in international institutions as ethnic conflict begins to rise in the West and low IQ non-westerns good for nothing more then collecting welfare checks begin to sink our economies.

Only a foolish or ignorant person would prefer Saudi Arabia to secular-humanist Amsterdam. A socially and theologically conservative Christian could live in Amsterdam, albeit with some problems from time to time, but not in Riyadh. So long as de Nederlands is a nominally Christian place, there is some hope for rejuvination and recovery, but contrast that with the Moslem world where one can be dhimmi or dead.

Marc’s plaint is similar to Bawer’s, and it boils down to really wanting to have his cake and eat it, too. The libertine assumes that everyone else will continue to hew wood, draw water, grow food, etc. and generally be boringly normal, providing all the needed services and protection as well as a target to make sport of, of course.

But the reality is as we see it: any society that abandons all standards in pursuit of hedonism, pleasure, doing your own thing, is completely ill equipped to resist the jihad.

Sadly, Marc and his friends are a tiny piece of the decay of the West. So are my heterosexual friends who decided to put off having children until it became impossible, and who then decided not to adopt, either...for that matter. There is no great, one, decision that slides us all into the abyss, but rather a collection of small decisions that all point in the same direction.

My advice to Bawer is to choose a side: either those unpleasant Reformed Protestants whom he disliked in Amsterdam and no doubt now dislikes in Norway, or the Jihad. Because in between them is only no-mans-land, if not now then in the not very distant future.

My advice to Marc is the same. Choose a side. Either you are with the West, and accept some limitations, or you are against it, and embracing the Jihad, which is death to you.

And on that cheery note, I bid all good night.

There are plenty of Christians living in Saudia Arabia. They can’t practice their faith,thus my call to the catacombs. Can a Christian in Amsterdam call homosexuality a sin without going to prison? At least in Saudia Arabia they don’t kill the sick and old people and push homosexuality down peoples throats. This fear of muslims is hysterical. The Muslims at one time controlled Hungry, Romania, Greece, Sicily, Naples, Spain, Portugal, and even raided England. We are losing because we lost our Faith. The Muslims still welcomb children and have no truck with the antihuman agenda of the gays and abortionists. They also spend a lot of time praying. Why wouldn’t God favor them?

@Tom Piatak

I didn’t know that Bawer had said that about Belien. It sounds unlike him and also it’s quite foolish to discredit Belien in such a banal way. I doubt Belien would write in similar terms about Bawer.

@Paul Gottfried

Actually the native French—of all European countries the most likely to be demographiclly eclipsed—population is having a babyboom upsurge. The decline in birthrates was stabilising (even though still abominally low) to replacement level again. France’s idea of giving families benefits for having a third child stimulates native family growth.

Just see the links here
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/05/french-more-fecund-than-irish.php
http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/408410.html

It could work for other European countries too.

Original Jack is perfectly proving my point.  He sees the wickedness and perversity of current Europe, feels that the Muslims are less decadent than that, and says, let the Muslims have it, at least they’re not so disgusting.

Jack has no sense of attachment, affection, or responsibility for his own civilization.  It means nothing to him.  He has no desire to try to save it.  The thought doesn’t occur to him. Since he doesn’t like what it is now, he’s perfectly happy to let Muslims take it over, the Muslims who will bring the total destruction not only of the BAD of our civilization but the GOOD as well. 

Jack is a thoughtless traitor to the West, a casual fifth columnist for Islam. And how many people in the “paleoconservative” camp are like him.

So-called paleoconservatives (how I hate that word) who feel sympathy for Islam in the West because of our current decadence are as attached to an “idea” instead of a concrete civilization as any neocon and are as much traitors to our traditions.  One does not side with the enemy when things get tough in one’s camp, when one does not get one’s way politically.

For Muslims, the West was decadent at the time of the high Middle Ages and Renaissance.  Our music, from Monteverdi and Corelli through Mahler and Bruckner, is decadent.  Our troubadours who inspired courtly, romantic love are decadent.  Those naked statues on Italian streets are decadent.  Our failure to physically beat women and allow them a choice in marriage is decadent.  Our systems of government, whether monarchy or republican, are evil.  The fact that we are convulsing at this time and going through a crisis does not mean we open the door intellectually to the people we have been fighting since before revelation in the form of Xerxes or Carthage.  The battle between Oriental despotism and Western freedom is ancient.  I suppose had Professor Gottfried, lost a job at a Roman school to a new-fangled group of reformers, he would have given Hannibal a map of the Alps.  Better to live under foreign rule than to lose political power, right?

Mr. Lewkowski,

Please pick up a copy of Leviticus. Homosexual relations were considered an abomination (not just a sin) worthy of death for 1200 years before Jesus was born.

Mr. Auster,

I fail to see how a movement that contains Jeffersonians, Calhounist, neo-Confederates, and those supporting mercantilist/Hamiltonian trade policy forms a coherent ideology.

Pablo,
Since I post here, did I just call myself a Nazi? Obviously, I was not suggesting that all people here or even most are. Unfortunately my language was imprecise and led to some confusion. However, there is a very vocal minority of Nazi sympathizers.

For instance at http://www.takimag.com/site/article/willing_executioners_the_holocaust_germans_and_collective_guilt/
San Fernando Curt and Max Nordau are in Holocaust revisionist mode. Charles Krafft, A curmudgeon , pclaudel, Richard J Buck, and Jessica are full Holocaust Deniers.

“Cicero” ventures into Holocaust Revisionism before deciding the the Jews were responsible for communist crimes. Henry Barth claims that Irving was a victim of the Jews.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/buchanan_lukacs_getting_personal/

And finally, there is Chris Moore, who finds an excuse to attack Jews in almost every post.

Pablo
As for people wistful about the Nazi invasion of the USSR
From “Buchanan, Kennan, and the “Good War””
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/buchanan_kennan_and_the_good_war/
We have Rick Johnson and Rob.

We have Werner Hoermann, who thinks that Nuremburg proved that Germany’s only war crime was losing.
http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/the_scapegoating_of_churchill/
I have more but there are posting limits.

RonL

I hope you are aware that most of us here are NOT nazi-sympathizers or anything like that. I for sure am not.

Takimag is regularly targeted by true anti-Semites, because they were pissed off for being banned some time ago—quite rightfully too—and they like to get on John Zmirak’s nerves. (The best is to ignore them. Although I can understand that you can’t stand their ignorance.)

Mr. Auster with all due respect, you are nuts. I am no traitor, I am a traditional Catholic who calls a spade a spade. I simply stated that the muslims have grown powerful because they have’t given in the to the abortionists and homosexualists and anti Christian Zionists who are destroying western civilization. A large part of the world’s oil is under their lands,as well. The people pushings all these vices are the enemies of the West. The Muslims and Christians go back a long way. They only get powerful when we let our civilization rot. They used to control a third of Europe, at least,for centuries and we still survived. Spain for 700 years, Hungry for 300 years, and the Balkans for over four hundred. Russia even for hundreds of years.

RonL. quit calling people Nazis who disagree with the little, nasty, zionist, entity. Why don’t you read Buchanan’s book? It’s main point is that we shouldn’t make commitments, we can’t or shouldn’t keep. He is for America first, not Israel, that is his only fault, in your eyes. The killing of the Jews was one of many terrible crimes of the twentieth century. The killing of the Christians and others in Communism was far worse. There were plenty of Jewish by birth mass murderers who helped kill millions, before Hitler ever got a vote in Germany. Richard Pipes has said ‘without Communism National socialism would have been impossible’. In other words National socialism was blowback from Communism. Just like Islamic Fundamentalism is blowback to our interference in Muslim lands.

“The killing of the Jews was one of many terrible crimes of the twentieth century. The killing of the Christians and others in Communism was far worse.”

I have no idea how a “traditional Catholic” could write something like that. What do you mean by “worse?”

It was a lot worse because there were many more people killed. It also fueled blowback like the Fascists and the National Socialists. They were a response to the excess of the Communists. In other words it lasted far longer and killed at least 10 to 20 times more people.

When one is talking about the systematic extermination of millions of people, I don’t know how one can make moral distinctions as to which is worse.

“Jack is a thoughtless traitor to the West, a casual fifth columnist for Islam. And how many people in the “paleoconservative” camp are like him.”

I fully agree with this statement, Lawrence, and I’ll go so far to say that anyone who agrees with Jack is no paleoconservative at all.  We can (and do) disagree on the exact nature and parameters of paleoconservatism, but it should be beyond dispute that it encompasses, at a minimum, a firm defense of Western/European traditions against those who would seek to change them, or express indifference to their changing.

Incredible! Any sane white person would rather live in a Holland and Europe with no Muslims and blacks than in Saudi Arabia. The primary reason that cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam are “piss holes” is because of Muslims and other nonwhite immigrants. Despite the pornography, prostitution, homosexual promiscuity, homosexual marraige, etc. an Amsterdam with no Muslims and blacks would be paradise compared to Saudi Arabia or even “secular” Turkey. Any sane white person would rather live in a neighborhood of white homosexuals than in a neighborhood of Muslims and blacks for the simple reason that one would be far more likely to be assaulted, robbed, raped (if female), terrorized, and murdered in the latter environment.

“So Marc is exactly like one of those Muslim “moderates” who simultaneously claim that they are not radicals AND deny that Muslim radicalism even exists.”

Lawrence,

I never denied that radical homosexuals do not exist.  I didn’t bring them up in my post because they were tangential to the point of my post, which is that conservative Christians might want to reflect more on how their religion has and continues to affect gays and lesbians as individuals.  I agree that gay people ought to similarly reflect on the fruits of our own movement. 

I agree with Dmytro that the gay rights movement has become a vehicle for people who want power both for themselves and for the government to which they have attached so much of their identities, and lament this change.

Regarding the specific effects you mention, I oppose any infringement on speech, including anti-hate speech laws against homosexuals.  I believe in equal standards of public decency for gays and straights.  I do not believe in any absolute right to marriage (it’s silly to say you have a right to a government-sanctioned relationship) and believe that it is up to the people of America (not the judges) to decide the nature of marriage in their society.  I do not believe that those opposed to gay marriage are universally motivated by mindless bigotry.  I oppose all anti-discrimination laws as unwarranted government intrusion into the realm of private business, including anti-discrimination laws against gays.

Again, I do not deny that radical gays exist or have had a detrimental effect on society.  That I didn’t bring them up in a single post on one website is pretty slim evidence from which to draw the conclusion that I’m playing some insidious game, as you allege.

Whoops, first line should read, “I never denied that radical homosexuals do exist.” Sorry.

Glad to see I am keeping the conversation going here. I spent 2 days in Amsterdam once. I walked all over the place at least 20 miles. It is a disgrace to declining western civilization. I know lots of people who lived in the gulf states including Saudi Arabia as construction people or oil people. They all lived well in gated communities. I could have gone myself, for that matter. The Vatican works with the Saudis and other conservative muslim states all the time, on moral issues at the UN. The Pope wants to engage muslims and push for freedom of religion so everyone can follow his concience. We can’t kill millions of muslims just because we disagree with them. They are human beings with a flawed view of religion. So are the Protestants, we shouldn’t kill people because of their religion. As Dr. Paul said they are over here because we are over there.  A bunch of Saudi Imans, just said this week that they want to engage Christians and Jews. That is the traditional Catholic view of the Pope, as well.

“I see Marc in exactly the same light.  For him to show up at this right-wing website and announce that homosexuals are asking nothing more than to be treated decently, and that the homosexual rights movement poses no threat to society that anyone ought to be concerned about, deprives him of any credibility.”

This is a particularly insane paragraph.  So everytime a homosexual speaks to people right-of-center, he is deprived of any credibility unless he first lists all the things about the radical wing of the gay rights movement with which he disagrees?  That’s pretty much what this paragraph says.  Someone should inform Justin Raimondo that if he wants to post here at Takimag, every post from here on should begin with a boilerplate denunciation of the radical gay left.

Also, I did not say that the gay rights movement poses no threat to society that anyone should be concerned.  I listed specific demographic challenges facing the West that I feel, in the long run, will be our undoing and pointed out that they are not the fault of homosexuals specifically. 

Lawrence, you are a brilliant writer and I read your website frequently.  But you are paranoid.

“We can’t kill millions of muslims just because we disagree with them. They are human beings with a flawed view of religion. So are the Protestants, we shouldn’t kill people because of their religion.”

Well, as a Protestant myself, Jack, I’m glad to know “you” (when did Takimag become an “officially” Catholic site anyway?) don’t want to kill me for my faith.  More seriously, when has anybody here said anything about killing “millions of Muslims”?  The issue is how we in the West view the prospect of Islam’s becoming the dominant religion in our nations, and I’ll say again that I can’t understand how any Westerner who calls himself a conservative (of whatever stripe) could profess indifference to this matter, or even prefer a surrender to Islam.

“Rifle at the ready, if need be.”

A hundred bucks says he drops it.

I just made the point that religious wars are wrong. Of course Protestants got it wrong. In fact I call the muslims, the first unitarian protestants. They both don’t accept the true roles of Christ and the Virgin. That being said, I like living in a Protestant ruled country over a muslim ruled one.

the original jack:
“ I simply stated that the muslims have grown powerful because they have’t given in the to the abortionists and homosexualists and anti Christian Zionists who are destroying western civilization.”

Please do explain how Zionists are destroying Western civ as opposed to liberals, who may or may not be Zionists, and leftists who are anti-Zionist.

“They only get powerful when we let our civilization rot. They used to control a third of Europe, at least,for centuries and we still survived. Spain for 700 years, Hungry for 300 years, and the Balkans for over four hundred.”

Byzantium under Heraclius was in a renaissance, but was drained by the victory in the last Byzantine-Persian War. The Islamic Armies which conquered Persia and swept into the Byzantine empire were a major force.

“RonL. quit calling people Nazis who disagree with the little, nasty, zionist, entity. “

Excuse me? I quoted people in comments that had nothing to do with Israel. Your anti-Zionism is making you blind.

“Why don’t you read Buchanan’s book? It’s main point is that we shouldn’t make commitments, we can’t or shouldn’t keep.”
Thanks, I have read all of Pat’s books and am reading his latest.

“He is for America first, not Israel, that is his only fault, in your eyes.”
Hardly. His history is wrong and he blinds himself to the threat of Islam to all the west including America.

“The killing of the Jews was one of many terrible crimes of the twentieth century. The killing of the Christians and others in Communism was far worse. There were plenty of Jewish by birth mass murderers who helped kill millions, before Hitler ever got a vote in Germany.”

True, but no more relevant than Stalin being a former Russian Orthodox seminary student. From Marx on communism is anti-Jewish and those ex-Jewish communists murdered many Jews as well.

“Richard Pipes has said ‘without Communism National socialism would have been impossible’.”
Too bad the German high command unleashed the Bolsheviks on the world in 1917.

“In other words National socialism was blowback from Communism. Just like Islamic Fundamentalism is blowback to our interference in Muslim lands. “

The NDSAP was a revolutionary party that collaborated with the communists in its rise to power and the Nazi regime was functionally allied to the USSR in 1939 and 1940. Those Germans who supported them in response to the communists were fools, enthralled in a delusion you come perilously close to.

As for interfering with Muslim lands, would you prefer that Iberia, the Balkans, southern Russia, Hungary and Romania, and Southern Italy and Malta all be Muslim?

I mean the the scum that rules Hollywood most of whom, are at least nominal zionists.  They simply hate Christianity and their work shows it. The old Jews of Hollywood were constained by Christian society and put out a pretty good product. Their kids are the worst cultural marxists around.

To all the paleos who desire alliances with Moslems, peace be unto you, and take off already!  Please vacate America to enjoy the tolerance and love of Saudis, Iranians, and Syrians.  Or would it be better for radical Islamists to control Hollywood and preach family values? Islam is just as incompatible with western Christendom as nutty leftism.  A pox on both their houses.

“Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with...”

It certainly won’t be easier for Israel to deal with. ...And maybe that’s a good thing.

And, yes, there are few women more beautiful than the Gallic Bardot. Could it be that an unrecognized component of the hatred left/progressives feel for the West is based in part on the pure envy they accuse everyone else of harboring?

Marc says about my comment to him:

“This is a particularly insane paragraph.  So every time a homosexual speaks to people right-of-center, he is deprived of any credibility unless he first lists all the things about the radical wing of the gay rights movement with which he disagrees?”

Er, no, that’s not what I said; and by claiming that that’s what I said Marc continues the same false innocence that I ascribed to him in my first comment.  I did not say that a homosexual must list all the things about the radical wing of the homosexual movement with which he disagrees.  I said that for a homosexual to act as though the radical wing of the homosexual movement doesn’t exist, and to act as though conservative Christian opposition to the homosexual movement is therefore baseless, deprives him of any credibility on the issue. 

In his earlier comment Marc protested the fact that the conservative Christians in this thread are too anti homosexuality, and he claimed that as a homosexual he wants nothing more than to live in dignity and be left alone, so why are people making such a big deal about homosexuality?  I pointed out that real nature of the homosexualist movement that he was whitewashing, and he calls that truthful portrayal “paranoia.”

The issue here is not Marc’s professed personal lack of radicalism.  The issue here is the nature of the movement to normalize homosexuality and expand homosexual rights, and the consequences of that movement, some of which I listed.  By presenting a prettified picture of homosexual rights and pretending that the radical agenda does not exist, Marc, whether consciously or not, is functioning as its agent.

By the way, my argument here is similar to Robert Spencer’s argument about “moderate” Muslims.

One more thing.  Marc writes:

“Also, I did not say that the gay rights movement poses no threat to society that anyone should be concerned.”

True, he did not say, quote unquote, that the homosexual rights movement poses no threat.  But that was the undeniable implication of his comment protesting Christian conservatives who UNFAIRLY attack the homosexual rights movement. 

This is something I run into constantly.  People want their statements about themselves to be taken at face value, and they can’t stand it when you identify their underlying assumptions.  But political discourse consists of trying to understand the real meaning—the underlying principles and ultimate logic—of what political speakers are saying, not just accepting as true their often self-serving claims for themselves, e.g., “I’m not a liberal, I’m a centrist,” “I’m not a radical Muslim, I’m a moderate Muslim,” “I’m a strong proponent of immigration restrictions.”

RonL. In regards to what to do about the muslims in europe. Two of my greatest hero’s are Ferdidand and Isabella, especially Isabella.

the original jack wrote:  “In regards to what to do about the muslims in europe. Two of my greatest hero’s are Ferdidand and Isabella, especially Isabella.”

I second that.  I want to add that I think most of this rhetoric about preferring the Muslims to the cultural Marxist European establishment does not come from a serious desire to actually ally with the Muslims, but from an observation about which of these equally deadly enemies of Western culture is more admirable in an altruistic sense.  It is an observation I happen to agree with, but our civilization was never defended from destruction by altruistic observations.  What Europe needs is true leadership in the vein of Ferdinand and Isabella, who understood that the future of their country and civilization future depended real action and not unnecessary talk about whether the enemies they faced from within or without were more despicable.

I did not say that a homosexual must list all the things about the radical wing of the homosexual movement with which he disagrees.  I said that for a homosexual to act as though the radical wing of the homosexual movement doesn’t exist, and to act as though conservative Christian opposition to the homosexual movement is therefore baseless, deprives him of any credibility on the issue.

Not mentioning the radical wing of the gay rights movement in a single post not dealing with the radical wing of the gay rights movement isn’t pretending that said wing doesn’t exist.  I didn’t mention the Holocaust in that post either.  I guess I’m a Holocaust denier too, by your impeccable logic. 

In his earlier comment Marc protested the fact that the conservative Christians in this thread are too anti homosexuality, and he claimed that as a homosexual he wants nothing more than to live in dignity and be left alone, so why are people making such a big deal about homosexuality?

I said that I wanted to live in a world where other kids don’t share my experience, as a teen, of getting kicked out of my house in the middle of winter and having to break into a distant neighbor’s van to find a warm place to sleep, just because my family found out that I am gay.  I don’t think that’s unreasonable. 

I pointed out that real nature of the homosexualist movement that he was whitewashing, and he calls that truthful portrayal “paranoia.”

No.  I didn’t call your portrayal of the radical wing of the gay rights movement paranoid.  I called your assertion that I’m here playing some insidious game with my posts paranoid, which it is. I’m not playing any games and it is paranoid of you to jump to the conclusion that I am. 

True, he did not say, quote unquote, that the homosexual rights movement poses no threat.  But that was the undeniable implication of his comment protesting Christian conservatives who UNFAIRLY attack the homosexual rights movement.

I gave specific examples of when I feel it is unfair of Christian conservatives to attack the gay rights movement.  I said it is unfair to blame gays for Europe’s demographic decline and the Islamic invasion of the West.  I stand by that because, again, both these phenomenon are the results of decisions made overwhelmingly by heterosexuals.  (If you have any evidence to the contrary you’re welcome to present it.) Stating that it is unfair to blame homosexuals for the demographic decline of the West or the Islamic invasion of Europe is not the same as saying that any and all critiques of the gay rights movement are off-base. 

People want their statements about themselves to be taken at face value, and they can’t stand it when you identify their underlying assumptions.

...Or when you attribute motives and attitudes to them which they don’t hold…

But political discourse consists of trying to understand the real meaning—the underlying principles and ultimate logic—of what political speakers are saying, not just accepting as true their often self-serving claims for themselves

Yes, it does, but you run the risk of typecasting people erroneously when you take this task on yourself.  I’m not saying your observations regarding Muslims or feminists or gays or any other group are completely off-base.  If I believed that they were, I would not read your blog, which (as I may have mentioned) I read fairly regularly.  But every Muslim who claims to be a moderate isn’t secretly rooting for the jihad, and every gay person who claims to be a moderate isn’t secretly rooting for the radical wing of the gay rights movement to triumph, erase traditional gender roles, force gay marriage on an unwilling populace, and declare the Bible hate speech. 

I don’t want any of these things. I think traditional gender roles serve most people well and should be preserved.  I think marriage should be defined by the people, not judges (as I said in my previous post).  And I would never want the state to deny anyone the right to his or her religion, in the name of tolerance or anything else.  That would be terrible.

Now, if I were heterosexual, you would have no problem whatsoever believing me.  But because I am gay, you think that I am secretly hoping for all these things to happen, and that my words to the contrary are intended to lull you and other conservatives into a false sense of security.  You think my statements are a ruse designed to neuter conservative resistance to the radical gay agenda.  Am I correct?  Well, my statements here are no such thing.  They are accurate reflections of my beliefs, and I would ask you if you really believe that no gay person can speak honestly, and take principled positions out of sync with the radical gay rights orthodoxy on these matters.

The issue here is not Marc’s professed personal lack of radicalism.  The issue here is the nature of the movement to normalize homosexuality and expand homosexual rights, and the consequences of that movement, some of which I listed.  By presenting a prettified picture of homosexual rights and pretending that the radical agenda does not exist, Marc, whether consciously or not, is functioning as its agent.

I pointed out one impetus behind many gay people’s support - including my support - for aspects of the gay rights movement: namely, our desire to spare future generations from the negative experiences we have had.  In doing so, I was trying to offer a necessary counterbalance to the idea, so prevalent among Christian conservatives, that gays are motivated by nothing other than a mindless hatred of tradition, heterosexuality, the family, etc… Forgive me if I did not go over all the negative reasons why gay people latch onto gay activism and thus seemed to offer a prettified picture of the movement.  I didn’t touch on these issues because I didn’t sense any lack of awareness here in that regard.

“San Fernando Curt and Max Nordau are in Holocaust revisionist mode. Charles Krafft, A curmudgeon , pclaudel, Richard J Buck, and Jessica are full Holocaust Deniers.”

Mr. Ron,
I’m not as holocaust denier.  I am a Holocaust non-affirmationist.

The Holocaust is a Jewish event, and I don’t begrudge them their memorials and celebrations.  I just want them to, as Sam Goldwyn would say, “include me out”. 

I object to the successful efforts of Holocaust activists to have my government tax me on their behalf.  This includes the obvious use of the Holocaust to bulldoze a hole through the sacred wall that separates Christian Church and state to set up public Holocaust religious displays. 

Also I object to US military exploits that are necessary because “one must never let (you know what) ever happen again”.

I think it is not appropriate to say that the left is building a European caliphate.  The internationalist left’s hope is to import enough muslims to diffuse national and religious traditions in Europe, but then to have second generation immigrants turn into hedonists as well.  And this might actually work: the muslim immigrants are in an insecure position, they are (also) easy targets for social experiments.

I also think that Europe is not really independent.  America’s plans for Europe are imposed on Europe, the hedonist cult for example, came from 60s America, and I am certain that there is not a single leader on the European political scene who is not hand-picked to suit U.S. interest.  Actually, this is more or less true for academic positions as well.

I can’t believe the utter insanity and statements I am hearing here!  “kill off muslims, kill off homos, mass murdering leaders of the past we should envy, anyone with skin darker than an albino is automatically evil”

This is raving madness, and if anyone here who posted comments about killing off leaders or people of a different look are then suddenly called and dragged out by the FBI, I will cheer them on all the way.

Let’s get some things straight here:

1.  We can all agree that immigration in the US and Europe is too much for now and needs to be slowed down.  No questions there

2.  ANY large scale immigration will bring problems, not just Muslims and dark people.  The Irish and Italian immigrants 100 years ago brought a larger increase in neighborhood crimes where they went, as do immigrants today from Eastern Europe who come to places like the US.  I know first hand.

3.  There is no massive campaign by homo’s to control the world, get over it.  There are very loud and vocal Homo’s who scream stuff that they intentionally hope will piss us off, but remember that most Homo’s just want to be the hell left alone.  It would be like saying that people like Chuck Hagel and Jerry Falwell represent the majority of Christians worldwide.

4.  Same thing with Muslim immigrants.  The majority of them are just people getting on with their lives, it’s the small but loud and vocal ones who go around screaming the hate and demanding people die.

5.  People seem here to have this idea that they should fight fire with fire.  Just because you have some dumb loudmouth black nationalist who gets publicity does not mean people have to lower themselves to his level and demand that the KKK should be our salvation, and just because some dictators in Arabia won’t let non-Sunnis openly worship does not mean we gotta round up Sunnis here and throw them in gas chambers.

6.  This whole idea that “brown people” are gonna take over is completely laughable.  This nonsense has been thrown around for over a century now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race)

Let me end by providing some links to help my arguments and show people some 3rd options other than what our neocon and liberal dominated media usually show:

prb.org/Articles/2008/muslimsineurope.aspx?p=1

lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020770.html

floppingaces.net/2008/05/11/religious-bigotry-from-the-right/

corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjdmMjZlY2M4ZDhhZGFjYjMzOGMxYTkyYmRhOTc0MTE=

bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm

Please pardon me for putting one link per message.  I was getting error messages every time I tried to send them all in one message.  If anyone knows why it was doing that please let me know for future reference.

Jerry, everything you claim is untrue.  When a liberal boot licker like Ms McBrown says you’re right you know you’re wrong.

Immigration should be stopped except for white Europeans.

Irish and Italians did not any more crimes than the Scots or Germans.  Try Sicilians and the flood from the Pale of Settlement.

Homos don’t want to control the world.  Nobody but you ever made such an idiotic statement.  What Homos want is to make my grandsons into sodomites.  So get over it!

Muslims don’t belong in America.  See above.

Gas is too expensive and gas chambers are out of the question, we don’t have the technology yet. 

Unless you hate white people and are a diversity / multicultural Nazis, you must see that America is way too brown now.

Jessica wrote:
I’m not as holocaust denier.  I am a Holocaust non-affirmationist.

“So do you think that the Holocaust occurred or not. If you are questioning it, you are in revisionist territory and if you are denying the facts, you area denier.
Res ipsa loquitur.

“The Holocaust is a Jewish event, and I don’t begrudge them their memorials and celebrations.  I just want them to, as Sam Goldwyn would say, “include me out”.”

1. 5 million non-Jews were also murdered in the Holocaust.
2. We do not celebrate the Shoah, we mourn it. You area sick puppy.

“I object to the successful efforts of Holocaust activists to have my government tax me on their behalf.  This includes the obvious use of the Holocaust to bulldoze a hole through the sacred wall that separates Christian Church and state to set up public Holocaust religious displays. “

1. Holocaust displays are not religious. You have issues.
2. The “Separation of Church and State” affects all religions.
3) Don’t get me started on it, because the Separation of Church and State is a leftist assault on the First Amendment and American society. It is an Orwellian purposeful and ahistoric reading of the non-establishment clause.

“Also I object to US military exploits that are necessary because “one must never let (you know what) ever happen again”. “

I’m certain that you do not “know what” happened since you think that only Jews were killed.
Furthermore oppose that arguement all you want, but don’t go into a position of I don’t like how some past event is used, so I will dispute it mode. That rank revisionism is something conservative oppose, even if some have become infected with the leftist disease.

All you neo-nazis remind me of a funny comic I saw once.  A white supremacist screams “out with the foreigners!” and standing next to him is a native american who says “Great.  I’ll go pack your bags”

mcbrown,

Europe is under US occupation.  Just like Eastern Europe was under Soviet occupation.  There are US Army bases in Italy, Germany, from time to time in Eastern Europe, and Bush is planning radar systems to be built in the Czech Republic, etc.  Do you think he does it to protect democracy in Europe? 

The phenomena described in the article can all be traced to this.  Europe is not entirely innocent, because some of the effects are magnified compared to the US.  For example, criticizing homosexuals can lend you in prison in Europe, whereas in the US you will likely “only” isolate yourself in certain careers.  But the whole gay rights movement started in the US. 

The traditional European left is indeed Marxist: its concerns are the plight of the working class or of those who are not in a position to assure self-determination (and whatever we think about the proposed solutions the concerns themselves have some validity).  Its campaign issues (and this was even so a few decades ago) were universal healthcare, free education, better public services, etc.  (To some extent the European right approved this system as well.) The American left was never a strong proponent of these ideas (although it occasionally did pay lip service to them).  In Europe it is only the last few decades that they have switched to gay rights, women’s equality, racism, immigrants, and finding nazis in every possible corner (the narratives behind these issues are often based on half-truths, or outright lies). 

Is it a conspiracy theory to notice this unidirectional convergence?  Can you say for sure, that were it not for the US military presence Europe would be on a different path?

A simple word search of this article dealing with the decilne of Christian culture lists the word ‘Muslim’ (or some variation thereof) a dozen times. The only time the word ‘Jew’ is mentioned is in the case of ‘Christian AntiSemitism’ while mentioning nothing about the fact that the most corrosive effect that Christian culture has sustained the last century has been at the hands of Jewish interests, not Muslim ones. Now let’s do another simple test here--WHo did Jesus warn mankind about, the Muslims or the Jews? WHo put Him to death and persecuted his followers, Muslims or Jews? WHo did St Paul say was ‘contrary’ to God and to men? St Paul warned us about the ‘conspiracies of the Jews’ and Jesus through His Church, saw to it that laws were passed protecting Christian society from the predatory ways of Jews, not Muslims. It is a no brainer--when we are talking about the true viruses destroying Christian culture--aborton, sodomy, usury, destruction of the family, etc, it is not the Muslims we have to fear, but the Jews. Indeed, when St. Paul warned that ‘anyone bringing a Gospel different from the truth, EVEN IF IT BE AN ANGEL OF LIGHT-- that perhaps he had in mind Takimag.com

Lawrence Auster seems to think the definition of conservative is being xenophobic rather than patridaphilic.

The question is not one of treason or lack of love toward the West or allying with Muslims against the cultural left. The question is should we, as conservatives, spend most of our time complaining about the muslims in our lands or the ones who demand we take them in?

And yes RonL, B’nai B’rith (aka the ADL) and other Jewish liberal groups are pushing liberal doctrines regarding sex and immigration. I suggest that you read their site (http://www.bnaibrith.org/issues/toler_div.cfm). According to their website:

“The BBI Office of Intercommunal Affairs is dedicated to advancing B’nai B’rith’s achievements in the area of tolerance.  These include landmark coalitions for civil rights, innovative inter-group cultural programs, campaigns for religious liberty, and the pursuit of governmental protections against all forms of extremism and bigotry.”

Of course, forms of extremism including traditional Christian morality about homosexuality, sex in general, rejecting pagan religions, anti-immigrant mentality etc… In short the any defense of the West is attacked by the Zionist B’nai B’rith.

Liberal and socialist Jewish Zionists have far more representation in Congress and all the governments in the West than any Muslim influence.

The issue is not their Zionism but their liberalism and socialism (though one could argue that Tikkun Olam is anti-conservative and forms of Judaism which promote certain interpetations of Tikkun Olam are a problem).

The Muslims are but a weapon. I say strike not at the weapon but at its wielder. Lawrence Auster is a faux traditionalist who wishes promote xenophobia as conservatism which will neutralize the conservatism because fear animates it when conservativism is animated by love of country.

I love the West and to defend it I must strike at the internationalist liberals and socialist that run the policies of the government not the disempowered masses of foreigners who will rally to the those forces to save them from the faux conservatives like Auster. Auster empowers the enemy promoting the culture of fear. Fear is opposite of Faith and the West must be defend in Faith because the West is the Faith. Auster is the traitor to the Faith and thus to the West.

Gentlemen to save the West we must strike the root.  Internationalist collectivism is root. Not Jews, not Muslims, but internationalist collectivism for “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood ( that means peoples like Jews and Muslims), but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

Septeus7,

Bnai Brith and the other liberal organizations are promoting liberalism over Judaism and an agenda that is very much antithetical to Zionism and the Torah. One cannot be an antinationalist and a consistent Zionist. He the ADL attacks real Zionist organizations and hates Kahanists more than members of the KKK.

Mr. Ron L,

I grew up believing as you do, in the inherent righteousness of the Jewish people.  I grew up thinking that Jews were a hard working, intelligent, and loving people.  They lived outside our Christian culture and that gave them a privileged position to view our way of living and to point out to us our shortcomings.  Theses innocent victims of superstitious prejudice had only one small imperfection, a short sightedness that prevented them from seeing Christ as the Messiah.  But they were good people one and all and their Israel was a beacon of light in the Middle East turmoil of darkness.

You must understand that no major news organ, radio, TV, newspaper, movies, magazine, National Review, Time, ever said or wrote a single word that would call into question the above beliefs.  This is life in America.

Some people made crude jokes and said unkind things, the gist of it was, “Don’t trust the Jews.” And then there was Joe Sobran.  Why was this good man persecuted?  He made the telling observation that an anti-Semite is not a person who hates Jews, but a person who the Jews hate. So there was an anxiety about my belief in Jewish people’s saintliness.  Then I read a review by Paul Gottfried of a Kevin MacDonald article.  By the time I finished A Culture of Critique, it all made sense.

Of course Jews are outside our Christian American culture, but that doesn’t mean they will level constructive criticism designed to help us Christians.  Of course they don’t believe in Christ, but this is not a peccadillo.  This is the white hot burning center of their furnace generating all the anti-Christian and anti-American programs and organization they have fashioned.  And they have been and are now the victims of prejudice, but not without good reason.

If you’re a Jewish person it makes sense to promote their pet causes and get worked up if non-Jews don’t go along with the schemes.  But if you’re not Jewish then you’re a useful idiot.

Jessica,

You misunderstand the situation.  The avenue on which you seem to be on is one where one can waste much energy and not doing anything against the real ills of the system.  The avenue for truly useful idiots…

Oh boy, another article about “Europe” focusing on Western, non-slavic nations. Hey guys, don’t forget about the other 2/3rds of the continent here.

Yes, Western Europe is doomed - that much is clear. But can we at least take comfort in the knowledge that Serbia, Russia, et al. are resisting the EU secular-liberal juggernaut and affirming their own sovereignty and cultural traditions? If you find Britain or Germany too PC-ridden, perhaps you should consider Russian (or Bulgarian or Serbian or Croatian) citizenship. Or are the Slavic nations beneath the notice of the largely Anglo commenters and editors on this website?

Quote from RonL: “Bnai Brith and the other liberal organizations are promoting liberalism over Judaism and an agenda that is very much antithetical to Zionism and the Torah. One cannot be an antinationalist and a consistent Zionist.”

I certainly agree that Bnai Brith promotes “liberalism (more properly called illuminism in my opinion)” and it is antithetical to orthodox Judaism and certainly the Torah. But political Zionism is very different story does not represent a typical nationalism but what the Zionist refer to as “diaspora nationalism” which not a traditional nationalism rather Jewish Lebensraum. I understand that the term Lebensruam is harsh but unfortunately it is correct.

The essential problem is that European Jewry was no immediate historical ties to Palastine but the Palastinian Arabs had homes and families there and so Palastine “wasn’t a land without a people for a people without a land.” The truth is in order for Israel to exist the “al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya” was planned well in advance of the Nabka by the Zionist Transfer Committee.

Of course this idea is no different from Lebensruam and Lebensruam is imperialism and in the modern era imperialism must result in internationalism because the conflict it will be used for creating a higher global governance to conflicts between the Zionist and Muslims as the region is put further into conflict because of imperialist adventures like and Iraq and Lebanon. In other words, WWIII will bring about “Global Governance” because of Israel and the manufactured “clash of civilizations.”

The problem is Zionism is militaristic nationalism as Daniel Larison has argued tends toward imperialism and what Israel needs is patriotism and first thing patriots do is define their borders and stay within them. What do Zionists refuse to do? Define their borders and stay within them and proving they are imperialists not patriots. I want Jewish patriotism not Zionism because I am a conservative. Not Eretz Yisra’el just Yisra’el. 

My friend, you do not understand the grand chess board and the “strategia della tensione.” Study the “strategia della tensione” and similiar tactics of spying, sabotage, and propaganda and you will recognize the technique in Auster’s writing.

Do you remember the CIA’s black propaganda campaign’s about how the Sandinista’s and so-called Red Terrorism such as the Bologna massacre represented a international communist terrorist network which was about to take over the United States?  Remember the Committee on the Present Danger....Richard Pipes and Paul Wolfowitz from Team B? Ring a bell?

The only way muslims are going take over Europe is we keep believing the lies and empowering the folks creating the mess and having the real opposition shut down by the xenophobic nuts who attack people not the power. Catholics should also remember “popish plots” of “Vatican Terrorism Expert” Titus Oates the 17th century Robert Spencer for the orginal “clash of civilizations.”

Stop believing the lies and aiming at noises (muslims masses) and shoot the gunman (Illuminism and its promoters) who muzzle flash clearly reveals his position.