Danish nationalist's answer to Pakistani immigration: Topless Danish women.

[ZeDoCaixao]

Denmark's tightened immigration laws should deploy a new weapon – bare breasts – to deter newcomers, the far-right People's party said last week. A documentary film on Denmark that is shown to immigrants as part of the test for entry should include topless bathers, said Peter Skaarup, the party's foreign affairs spokesman. "If you're coming from a strict, religious society that might make you stop and think: 'Oh no,'" he told the newspaper, Jyllands-Posten. "Topless bathing probably isn't a common sight on Pakistani beaches. I honestly believe "

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/15/europe-immigration-far-right-threat)


"Far-right". Jesus.

[Curtis24]

Holy shit, they sunbathe topless in Denmark?? give me the names and locations of these beaches...

[Debaser11]

^ For now, they do.

[Sahson]

Where's the video?

[Magister Eckhart]

It's a novel approach to the problem, I'll give them that, but one should beware throwing the baby out with the bath-water. There's nothing essentially unWestern or unDanish about modesty, and the Europeans could benefit from a little puritanical awakening to reintroduce a sense of discipline and willpower.

Then again, there are right-wing ways of pursuing this sort of thing; the Lebensreform movement in Germany comes to mind; they were by an large racialists and authoritarians who believed in the improvement of health through nudism. The Nazis jumped on the bandwagon in the mid-30s, but the movement originated in the 1880s.

I don't think it's especially effective, because it's too easy these days for that sort of thing to just slip into a hyper-sexual neo-hippie movement that neglects chaste admiration of the body and favours orgyistic hedonism. And even in the form it took on the right-wing, a simplistic materialist racialism is never superior to any form of spiritual asceticism and puritanical discipline.

It's better, therefore, to combat Mohammedanism in other ways rather than degenerate anti-religiosity and anti-traditionalism.

[Matritensis]

Yes,who in his sane mind would move to a topless garden? :rolleyes2:

[Magister Eckhart]

Yes,who in his sane mind would move to a topless garden? :rolleyes2:

That's an interesting stance for someone who lists his politics as "conservative" and religion as "Roman Catholic".

[Heimmacht]

That's an interesting stance for someone who lists his politics as "conservative" and religion as "Roman Catholic".

Well, the Roman catholics that I know are pretty openminded.

[The Ripper]

Gah, more idiocy. Just because the Muslims quite rightly consider "western" culture to be decadent, doesn't mean we have to become even more decadent to repell them.

DPP aren't nationalists imo.

[Matritensis]

That's an interesting stance for someone who lists his politics as "conservative" and religion as "Roman Catholic".


Not a stance,it's called silly humour...something that this forum is unfortunately almost completely devoid of.

[Eldritch]

That's right, nigga. Us "extreme-right wing populists" have got topless Nordic babes, and all you responsible moderates have is this:

http://i55.tinypic.com/sbssaf.jpg

WHERE IS YOUR .... :zzz

[The Ripper]

That's right, nigga. Us "extreme-right wing populists" have got topless Nordic babes, and all you responsible moderates have is this:

http://i55.tinypic.com/sbssaf.jpg

WHERE IS YOUR .... :zzz

Awesome picture. :D

[Monolith]

Gah, more idiocy. Just because the Muslims quite rightly consider "western" culture to be decadent, doesn't mean we have to become even more decadent to repell them.

Finally, some sanity.

[antonio]

I have nothing against nudism while it keeps away from Leftist orbit (you know what I mean) but I agree with R. It's like some Northern Europeans, instead of assuming their Leftist and Socialdemocratic weak views about societies and human migrations had driving Europe to disaster (Southern ideological counterparts are at the end just brainless monkeys eager to copy Scandinavian or French models) , pretend to fight that disaster with more Leftism, after to check out from themselves that inmigrants are anything but Proggessives. Frankly pathetic! At Spain some Progressives (a minoritarian stream of still dominant tolerant tendence) like to show up their panic against Muslim machism. It would be a hilarious thing to watch radical Muslims revolting against their once allies (at least in Spain, a country very refractary to mid point or gray stands) (radical Atheists, Feminazis) ...obviously they would had reasons enough. :D

[CelticTemplar]

You must give the Danes props for trying, but Wagn. is wright, it could just belooked apon as somesort of neo hippie movment.

[Joe McCarthy]

It's a novel approach to the problem, I'll give them that, but one should beware throwing the baby out with the bath-water. There's nothing essentially unWestern or unDanish about modesty, and the Europeans could benefit from a little puritanical awakening to reintroduce a sense of discipline and willpower.

Then again, there are right-wing ways of pursuing this sort of thing; the Lebensreform movement in Germany comes to mind; they were by an large racialists and authoritarians who believed in the improvement of health through nudism. The Nazis jumped on the bandwagon in the mid-30s, but the movement originated in the 1880s.

I don't think it's especially effective, because it's too easy these days for that sort of thing to just slip into a hyper-sexual neo-hippie movement that neglects chaste admiration of the body and favours orgyistic hedonism. And even in the form it took on the right-wing, a simplistic materialist racialism is never superior to any form of spiritual asceticism and puritanical discipline.

It's better, therefore, to combat Mohammedanism in other ways rather than degenerate anti-religiosity and anti-traditionalism.

You should spend some time on the Continent. They forsook modesty long ago. With that in mind, if nudity and obscenity can be employed as Muslim repellent, so be it. Bruce Bawer has made similar arguments. Unless Muslims are willing to accept European toleration of nudity, gays, etc., they shouldn't be let in. Though I'm probably as Puritan as most Muslims on a personal level, I agree. It is a case where liberal values can actually be used to help save Europe.

[Waaltz]

It is a case where liberal values can actually be used to help save Europe.

If these Muslims have anything right it's their modesty, masculinity and anti-homosexuality. If we want to to save Europe, degrading and weakening ourselves from the inside even more with this sexual communist bullshit isn't the way. And who the hell thinks this approach would deter a bunch of Arab men?

[Osweo]

THis won't do any good whatsoever. Why do they assume that most Muslims (like any society with strict rules) aren't hypocrites?!

And, there's a long tradition of 'one law for us, one for them' among Pakistanis. They're happy to screw around with our sluts, and simultaneously burn their own daughters to death for looking at a Qafir.

If anything, this will rouse the 'jihadically-minded' even more in their fervour to take us over. As long as it's relatively easy for an immigrant to run a business here, they'll keep coming, end of story.

[Wyn]

THis won't do any good whatsoever. Why do they assume that most Muslims (like any society with strict rules) aren't hypocrites?!


Th explanation is quite astounding:

"If you're coming from a strict, religious society that might make you stop and think: 'Oh no'"

Bare tits are going to deter Muslim men?

[Megrez]

Where is Wulfhere... I'd like to ask him whether the idea of the Folk-mother riding a horse nude through Mercia has to do with scaring muslims away :confused:

[Joe McCarthy]

Bare tits are going to deter Muslim men?

It might deter a few. The point really is that the DF is not proposing something new. Denmark is ALREADY a nudity, hedonism infested cesspit. If emphasizing that a bit more can deter some of the more pious Muslims, it certainly can't hurt.

My own personal values have been dubbed 'Muslim' by some I know. That being said, Denmark is too hedonistic for me.

[Joe McCarthy]

If these Muslims have anything right it's their modesty, masculinity and anti-homosexuality. If we want to to save Europe, degrading and weakening ourselves from the inside even more with this sexual communist bullshit isn't the way. And who the hell thinks this approach would deter a bunch of Arab men?

I think the anti-homosexual reputation of Muslims is a bit overdone. 50% of Afghans are reported to have engaged in homosexual sodomy. The distinction between them and Europeans is cultural - as Europe flaunts it, legalizes it, and even allows them to marry.

And again, baring breasts to Muslims is nothing new. You guys are acting as if this is some great crossing of the Rubicon. Bare breasts in Denmark has been a norm for decades, centuries even. Nordics have never been too keen on clothes.

[The Ripper]

"They're raping our women because they consider them sluts, pieces of meat."

...

"Quick, show 'em your tits, girls! That'll work!"

...

Some master plan. :coffee:

And the idea that further subverting whatever moral fabric that continues to persist in our nations, the idea that continuing this subversion, which is at the very heart of our dilemma, is going to somehow save us, is the most ridiculously idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. :rolleyes:

[Arne]

They look like Gipsies http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/11/15/1289841691485/A-Roma-family-leave-a-cam-006.jpg

[Joe McCarthy]

"They're raping our women because they consider them sluts, pieces of meat."

...

"Quick, show 'em your tits, girls! That'll work!"

...

Some master plan. :coffee:

And the idea that further subverting whatever moral fabric that continues to persist in our nations, the idea that continuing this subversion, which is at the very heart of our dilemma, is going to somehow save us, is the most ridiculously idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. :rolleyes:

Opposition to Islam is the natural consequence of liberalism. It's just that many liberals haven't yet discovered it, but more are beginning to. Muslims oppose all that liberals hold dear - one-handed magazines, freedumb, deMOCKracy, faggot 'weddings', etc. If one can ride the wave, why not? It's better than standing against it.

[The Ripper]

Opposition to Islam is the natural consequence of liberalism. It's just that many liberals haven't yet discovered it, but more are beginning to.

Sure they have discovered it. They go by names such as the Sweden Democrats, the Danish People's Party, Neo-conservatives and Geert Wilders.


Muslims oppose all that liberals hold dear - one-handed magazines, freedumb, deMOCKracy, faggot 'weddings', etc. If one can ride the wave, why not? It's better than standing against it.

The liberals are trying to do to the Muslims what they did to us.

[Joe McCarthy]

Sure they have discovered it. They go by names such as the Sweden Democrats, the Danish People's Party, Neo-conservatives and Geert Wilders.


Yes, and especially in the case of the DF and Wilders, tangible results are being made as a consequence. Wilders has helped broker a deal to reduce immigration inflow and DF backed legislation slowed down inflow into Denmark. That these are essentially liberal people is relatively unimportant, as the main point now is to close the floodgates. Reactionary wannabe Evolan 'aristocrats', jackbooted thugs and the like have no chance of achieving such things.


The liberals are trying to do to the Muslims what they did to us.

Let's hope they succeed. Pacifying Islamic cavemen with beanie babies and satellite porn might get them to stop blowing us up. In the meantime the scary nature of Islam helps drive opposition to immigration.

[The Ripper]

Yes, and especially in the case of the DF and Wilders, tangible results are being made as a consequence. Wilders has helped broker a deal to reduce immigration inflow and DF backed legislation slowed down inflow into Denmark. That these are essentially liberal people is relatively unimportant, as the main point now is to close the floodgates. Reactionary wannabe Evolan 'aristocrats', jackbooted thugs and the like have no chance of achieving such things.

What we need now is a (re)discovering of identity and tradition. If the Muslims choose to heavily segregate, good, because that alone goes a long way in demonstrating that we're not all the same. It would be worse if they assimilated.


Let's hope they succeed. Pacifying Islamic cavemen with beanie babies and satellite porn might get them to stop blowing us up. In the meantime the scary nature of Islam helps drive opposition to immigration.

Actually, its sort of why they're blowing "us" up, you know. Also, why do you want to see them go through the same cultural degradation and decay? So they can all immigrate here? ;)

[Debaser11]

THis won't do any good whatsoever. Why do they assume that most Muslims (like any society with strict rules) aren't hypocrites?!

Right. Last I checked it was mostly men immigrating. And last I checked Muslim men thought European women were whores (and to some degree that may be valid). And last I checked, Islam allowed for double standards where infidels are allowed to be treated in almost any way a believer sees fit (which frees them up to screw European women regardless of consent). And last I checked, the Muslim population was contributing to per capita increases in crime on the continent with rape being one of the emphasized categories. Last I checked, Europe has been decadent like this for decades, basically. They still flood in like rats. This just doesn't add up to a deterent on any real level.

And as others have pointed out, even if it did actually repel them, this just degrades the culture we want to save in the process. Even if it worked, it would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Loddfafner]

Didn't one of those bicycle monarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_monarchy) - either Netherlands or Denmark, already make videos featuring topless bathers and gay couples so as to ward off Muslim immigrants?

[Magister Eckhart]

Well, the Roman catholics that I know are pretty openminded.

Then they aren't real Catholics. Then again, nowadays finding a dedicated Catholic is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

At any rate, I think Riippumatto has hit the nail on the head; the liberal tendency toward destruction of cultural values and eradication of religiosity is what drives the opposition to Mohammedanism among these groups, not a loyalty to real Western traditions and civilization.

They are trying to combat Mohammedans with scientism, and they haven't awakened to the fact that slowly but surely people are wearying of the soulless void of their idealised post-religious society.

[Loddfafner]

Sexual freedom based on mutual responsibility is, I believe, one of the great achievements of European civilization. It is a part of the greater process of throwing off the yoke of theocracy. The sooner the European Right realizes this and ceases from driving the sexual dissidents (with the most at stake in defending Europe from Islam) into the hands of multiculturalism, the faster we can build a coalition broad enough to defend ourselves.

[Magister Eckhart]

Sexual freedom based on mutual responsibility is, I believe, one of the great achievements of European civilization. It is a part of the greater process of throwing off the yoke of theocracy. The sooner the European Right realizes this and ceases from driving the sexual dissidents (with the most at stake in defending Europe from Islam) into the hands of multiculturalism, the faster we can build a coalition broad enough to defend ourselves.

Where do you see sexual freedom ever based on mutual responsibility? There is only one form of sexual experience that has any form of mutual responsibility and that's marriage. Everything else is shameless hedonism or masturbation.

Yoke of theocracy? Sexual ethics were and are far looser among the founders of theocracy - the Jews - than they ever were among our Germanic ancestors; the entire basis for the concept of marriage being one man and one woman is Germanic, and while the idea of adultery exists in Judaism, it exists in almost every culture that upholds loyalty and respect for its womenfolk.

Sexual "dissidents" are sexual deviants, and there is no place for sexual deviance in any society that upholds values like honour, discipline, responsibility, or any other traditional virtues.

[Loddfafner]

Where do you see sexual freedom ever based on mutual responsibility? There is only one form of sexual experience that has any form of mutual responsibility and that's marriage. Everything else is shameless hedonism or masturbation.

One can engage in a considerable degree of sexual freedom without spreading diseases, wreaking havoc with others' emotions, or abandoning children. Hedonism has its place, though it is insufficient for my own art of living.


Yoke of theocracy? Sexual ethics were and are far looser among the founders of theocracy - the Jews - than they ever were among our Germanic ancestors; the entire basis for the concept of marriage being one man and one woman is Germanic, and while the idea of adultery exists in Judaism, it exists in almost every culture that upholds loyalty and respect for its womenfolk.

Our Germanic ancestors lived much more interesting lives than nineteenth century German nationalists have given them credit for. There is enough evidence for female warriors and male priestesses to rule our ancestors out as templates for contemporary Christian conservatives.


Sexual "dissidents" are sexual deviants, and there is no place for sexual deviance in any society that upholds values like honour, discipline, responsibility, or any other traditional virtues.
'Deviant' is a misleading word. A genius is a kind of deviant. Men can behave honorably towards their mistresses; as for discipline one might learn from the more reflective of the practitioners of BDSM.

[Magister Eckhart]

One can engage in a considerable degree of sexual freedom without spreading diseases, wreaking havoc with others' emotions, or abandoning children. Hedonism has its place, though it is insufficient for my own art of living.

Our Germanic ancestors lived much more interesting lives than nineteenth century German nationalists have given them credit for. There is enough evidence for female warriors and male priestesses to rule our ancestors out as templates for contemporary Christian conservatives.

'Deviant' is a misleading word. A genius is a kind of deviant. Men can behave honorably towards their mistresses; as for discipline one might learn from the more reflective of the practitioners of BDSM.

Hedonism has no place but to destroy; it is havoc wreaked on the order of a society and the survival of a culture. It is the defining feature of all the negative aspects of modern living.

I don't know what sword-maidens and practicers of seidh have to do with any of this; they're as well attested as the sanctity of marriage in Germanic culture. I remind you that sexual deviancy in the lore is always accompanied by bad fortune, and that the language of ancient Germanics has never been especially kind to sexual deviants of any stripe; the masculinity and abuse of sexual excess and disloyalty in the language is quite self-evident. It would appear that you suffer from the inadequacy that plagues many heathens, namely a categorical rejection of anything that looks remotely Christian. I hope I am mistaken in this evaluation, but if I am not I encourage you to grow out of this close-mindedness and look more carefully at the history of interaction between Germanic Culture and invading Christianity as the latter was assimilated.

The rest of this is semantics. You know full well what the phrase "sexual deviant" means; "deviant" is a universally negative category in both contemporary English and in its root: this is the material point.

A man who behaves "honorably" toward his mistress necessarily behaves dishonourably toward his wife, the woman more deserving of loyalty and honour. Keeping mistresses and concubines is never honourable.

Sado-masochism is not self discipline, it is a perversion of the first degree. If you cannot differentiate between asceticism and masochism, I am not sure where we can really go with this conversation; they are not especially nuanced categories. The inability to tell them apart speaks to either tremendous deficiency in mental capability, of which I do not believe you guilty, or a wilful ignorance of the disparate spiritual categories into which either falls, which, considering the materialism that you seem to imply throughout your posting, is more likely the case.

[Loddfafner]

Cultural vitality requires a balance between the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Hedonism is an inevitable part of that mix, whether you find more pleasure in the ecstatic or in the serene. If you define hedonism in terms of destruction, that is, well, semantics, as it has inspired its share of great art.

Likewise, a healthy culture requires a dialectical balance between normality and deviance. If you consult any experts on deviance, you will find that they struggle hard against the common misconception that it is synonymous with "bad". I would even advise such experts to abandon the use of the term altogether for the sake of clear communication and scientific progress.

As for sadomasochism, it seems that you have an impoverished understanding of the concept. I suggest that you hire a dominatrix and ask (as part of her condition of employment) to lay down her whip and engage you in philosophical and political conversation about how her regular customers play with the nuances of erotic discipline and the texture of more ordinary relationships of power. If she is especially good at her job, you will also learn how Freud was not up to the task either.

[Svipdag]

Meet them on the tarmac. or the pier, or wherever they enter, with a herd of pigs.

[Osweo]

Drunken gay pigs. :grumpy:

[Eldritch]

Drunk naked lesbian pigs.

[Curtis24]

nvm.

[The Ripper]

Drunk naked lesbian pigs.

Single drunken naked lesbian pigs! Without the company of male pigs! Behind the wheel! Topless!

[Groenewolf]

Didn't one of those bicycle monarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_monarchy) - either Netherlands or Denmark, already make videos featuring topless bathers and gay couples so as to ward off Muslim immigrants?

The Netherlands, it was part of a package of measures to help immigrants integrate better. It was never meant as a way to keep them away. Just to make sure that they respect the decadency of our society and not our more older traditions and history.

[Joe McCarthy]

Actually, its sort of why they're blowing "us" up, you know.

I disagree. Muslims blow us up because they're Muslims and we're not. It's that simple. Muslims attack a wide assortment of people besides Westerners, including Asian Buddhists, who can't be accused of corrupting Muslims with porn and Britney Spears. Muslims are at war with everyone they touch. They have, as Samuel Huntington said, "bloody borders."


Also, why do you want to see them go through the same cultural degradation and decay? So they can all immigrate here?


We liberalized and Westernized Japan after WW2 and I dare say all concerned are better for it. The Japs traded in armed conquest and Bushido for Sony. And if you notice, we didn't just automatically start receiving hordes of Japanese immigrants as a consequence. As Japan has long been overpopulated, it would theoretically follow that we should have, but theory and reality are different things. Liberalizing Muslims does not necessarily entail immigration. It's much more complicated than that.

[ZeDoCaixao]

I disagree. Muslims blow us up because they're Muslims and we're not. It's that simple. Muslims attack a wide assortment of people besides Westerners, including Asian Buddhists, who can't be accused of corrupting Muslims with porn and Britney Spears. Muslims are at war with everyone they touch. They have, as Samuel Huntington said, "bloody borders."

Guessedworker quotes (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/new_european_fashion/#c103258) Churchill:

“Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”



We liberalized and Westernized Japan after WW2 and I dare say all concerned are better for it. The Japs traded in armed conquest and Bushido for Sony.

You did see the "grass-eaters" thread? I wonder that neutering can be viewed as bettering.

[Joe McCarthy]

You did see the "grass-eaters" thread? I wonder that neutering can be viewed as bettering.

Japan is a happy, productive country with the world's third largest economy. Best of all, they're no longer slaughtering people in aggressive, Mongol-style conquests. Certainly a plus for us if nothing else, and in the end, that's the important thing.

[Loddfafner]

As for sadomasochism, it seems that you have an impoverished understanding of the concept. I suggest that you hire a dominatrix and ask (as part of her condition of employment) to lay down her whip and engage you in philosophical and political conversation about how her regular customers play with the nuances of erotic discipline and the texture of more ordinary relationships of power. If she is especially good at her job, you will also learn how Freud was not up to the task either.

There is no lack of literature and film that explore these concepts. Genet's play, The Balcony and Pasolini's film "Salo" come to mind.

[The Ripper]

I disagree. Muslims blow us up because they're Muslims and we're not. It's that simple. Muslims attack a wide assortment of people besides Westerners, including Asian Buddhists, who can't be accused of corrupting Muslims with porn and Britney Spears. Muslims are at war with everyone they touch. They have, as Samuel Huntington said, "bloody borders."

Where does America and Islam border?


We liberalized and Westernized Japan after WW2 and I dare say all concerned are better for it. The Japs traded in armed conquest and Bushido for Sony. And if you notice, we didn't just automatically start receiving hordes of Japanese immigrants as a consequence. As Japan has long been overpopulated, it would theoretically follow that we should have, but theory and reality are different things. Liberalizing Muslims does not necessarily entail immigration. It's much more complicated than that.

You emasculated Japan, imposed your will upon them and their society is hardly a very balanced one today, but rather something out of a cyberpunk novel.

[Turkophagos]

Holy shit, they sunbathe topless in Denmark?? give me the names and locations of these beaches...

You mean bitches...

[Magister Eckhart]

Where does America and Islam border?

Joe actually has somewhat mischaracterised Huntington's thesis, which is about the conflict of Western Civilisation, not just the US or even dominantly the US, and Islamic Civilisation.

Ref. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996)

The "bloody borders" of Mohammedanism actual denotes the violence done by that civilisation against all of its bordering civilisations - i.e. all civilisations in which it comes in regular contact - because of a drive for conversion in the Mohammedan religion; the principle argument, however, is that civilisations are defined by their primary religious expression rather than by anything else, and the conflict of these religious expressions gives rise to the conflict of civilisations.

[The Ripper]

I've read Huntington, and his paradigm, even if interesting, is far too simplistic. Islam's bloody borders are local conflicts, not part of some global "clash". The American war on non-liberal tradition, however, is global.

[Magister Eckhart]

I've read Huntington, and his paradigm, even if interesting, is far too simplistic. Islam's bloody borders are local conflicts, not part of some global "clash". The American war on non-liberal tradition, however, is global.

While Huntington's own model may simplify things with his reliance on religion, is that really a reason to throw out the entire structure of civilisational theory, which has been built on for some two hundred years?

I might add that there is no "American war on non-liberal tradition". Liberalism has been fixated on the eradication of illiberal modes of thought and production since its very inception, and to ascribe the project of "civilising the savages" just to America is more simplistic than you accuse Huntington of being. Europe is the mother-soil of liberalism. Europe invented America. I encourage all of you anti-American Europeans here to keep this in mind.

The Liberal project that America embodies today it does not embody alone. Neo-colonialism comes as forcefully from European soil, as well as from NGOs and trans-national bodies like the UN, as it does from America, and if you think that liberal imperialism begins and ends with Iraq and Afghanistan, you have a very, very immature understanding of the relationship of liberalism to the rest of the world. It is not America that is the enemy or is even to blame; all of Western civilisation, every single individual born of the Faustian world-feeling, has a part in this and a common enemy in Liberal ideology and a common destiny in the coming Caesarism.

[The Ripper]

While Huntington's own model may simplify things with his reliance on religion, is that really a reason to throw out the entire structure of civilisational theory, which has been built on for some two hundred years?

I don't contest the existence of what Huntington calls "civilizations". I simply disagree with many of his conclusions.


I might add that there is no "American war on non-liberal tradition". Liberalism has been fixated on the eradication of illiberal modes of thought and production since its very inception, and to ascribe the project of "civilising the savages" just to America is more simplistic than you accuse Huntington of being. Europe is the mother-soil of liberalism. Europe invented America. I encourage all of you anti-American Europeans here to keep this in mind.

America is the vehicle. This is what matters.


The Liberal project that America embodies today it does not embody alone. Neo-colonialism comes as forcefully from European soil, as well as from NGOs and trans-national bodies like the UN, as it does from America, and if you think that liberal imperialism begins and ends with Iraq and Afghanistan, you have a very, very immature understanding of the relationship of liberalism to the rest of the world. It is not America that is the enemy or is even to blame; all of Western civilisation, every single individual born of the Faustian world-feeling, has a part in this and a common enemy in Liberal ideology and a common destiny in the coming Caesarism.

You make a lot of assumptions concerning my opinions. I don't disagree with really anything you said there. But America is the Great Satan, there is no circumventing that. American elites imposed the current order upon Europe, with the help of European collaborators, naturally, but impose they did nevertheless. Our liberal-democracies, especially after the liberal "end of history" in 1991, has always been American inspired and American-backed. The elite in charge may be cosmopolitan, international, whatever, but American world hegemony is their principal tool.

[Magister Eckhart]

I don't contest the existence of what Huntington calls "civilizations". I simply disagree with many of his conclusions.



America is the vehicle. This is what matters.



You make a lot of assumptions concerning my opinions. I don't disagree with really anything you said there. But America is the Great Satan, there is no circumventing that. American elites imposed the current order upon Europe, with the help of European collaborators, naturally, but impose they did nevertheless. Our liberal-democracies, especially after the liberal "end of history" in 1991, has always been American inspired and American-backed. The elite in charge may be cosmopolitan, international, whatever, but American world hegemony is their principal tool.

America is a vehicle. And I don't make assumptions about your opinions in particular, I was really levelling that last part at a general anti-Americanism that permeates a lot of posts by a lot of different people here. I apologise if it came out sounding personal.

American "elites" did nothing of the sort; England and France played just as great a role in destroying "illiberality" on the continent. If you are going to restrict it to a single entity, it's Anglo-American culture that's to blame, not America alone.

"End of History"? Fukuyama was echoing Hegel 100 years earlier. Every liberal in history has believed he was living in the End of History, and they continue to think that way. If America is a vehicle, then America is a tool, not a cause nor any form of "Satan" (I assume you mean "adversary" here); rather, it is the permeating spirit of monied power and Liberalism as a world-view and ideology that is the real adversary. But Anglo-American power structures and European trans-national and non-government organisations are all working together under this Liberal spirit, and to think otherwise or place all of the blame at any single entity's doorstep is pure self-delusion.

[The Ripper]

American hegemony is liberal hegemony. Weakening that hegemony will bring about new alternatives, to both Americanism and Liberalism.

[Magister Eckhart]

American hegemony is liberal hegemony. Weakening that hegemony will bring about new alternatives, to both Americanism and Liberalism.

That's the point: it's not. Liberal hegemony will continue even if you change the vehicle, because America is not its source - it permeates the West. What is called "Americanism" by many is not American at all, and it's not an "-ism" in need of a new name: it is liberalism.

To think that a weak America means a weaker liberal order is like saying that voting Bush out of office was going to magically end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and make the USAPATRIOT Act go away - it's wistful dreaming and completely divorced from the reality of the cause of these phenomena. America is not the cause of liberalism, it is one petty vehicle among many, which happens to be useful right now.

If anything this thread should prove that liberal hegemony is anything but American - even the "far-right" in Europe believes in it and is doing its damnedest to further its goals. Liberalism is a Western, a Faustian, phenomenon, and is only American insofar as America is part of the Western/European civilisation.

[The Ripper]

That's the point: it's not. Liberal hegemony will continue even if you change the vehicle, because America is not its source - it permeates the West. What is called "Americanism" by many is not American at all, and it's not an "-ism" in need of a new name: it is liberalism.

America, unlike Europe, was founded as liberalist society. Europe also has alternative visions.


To think that a weak America means a weaker liberal order is like saying that voting Bush out of office was going to magically end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and make the USAPATRIOT Act go away - it's wistful dreaming and completely divorced from the reality of the cause of these phenomena.

I don't see the analogy. Americanism, liberalism, has very much been exported from US of A to Europe post-1945. You cannot deny this. Americanism would weaken along with America, and it would open up new possibilities for Europe.


America is not the cause of liberalism, it is one petty vehicle among many, which happens to be useful right now.

No, its not the cause, but it is what maintains the American liberal world order. Her entertainment and military industry are its main exporters.


If anything this thread should prove that liberal hegemony is anything but American - even the "far-right" in Europe believes in it and is doing its damnedest to further its goals.

That just goes to show you to what extent Europe has been Americanized. And just because the media misuses the term far-right doesn't mean we have to.


Liberalism is a Western, a Faustian, phenomenon, and is only American insofar as America is part of the Western/European civilisation.

Like I said, it permeates America, while it has been often expelled from Europe, which has as its roots a far more varied history than America which was founded on the liberal idea.

[Eldritch]

Single drunken naked lesbian pigs! Without the company of male pigs! Behind the wheel! Topless!

With Muhammed cartoons tattooed on their skin!


There is no lack of literature and film that explore these concepts ... Pasolini's film "Salo" come to mind.

Hmm, wasn't film just about what happens when society, which usually keeps cretins from indulging in their basest and most pathetic fantasies, falls away all of a sudden?

Wasn't this thread about topless sunbathing once upon a time? I understand why that is an issue for Muslims, who suffer from a collective mass psychosis, but I don't see why we have to butt our heads together about it.

[Svanhild]

That sounds a bit like the Femen movement in Ukraine. :wink

[Pallantides]

That's right, nigga. Us "extreme-right wing populists" have got topless Nordic babes, and all you responsible moderates have is this:

http://i55.tinypic.com/sbssaf.jpg

WHERE IS YOUR .... :zzz

Trolls are real...:eek:

[Osweo]

America, unlike Europe, was founded as liberalist society. Europe also has alternative visions.
...
Like I said, it permeates America, while it has been often expelled from Europe, which has as its roots a far more varied history than America which was founded on the liberal idea.
That's it; America functioned as a kind of release valve for currents that would otherwise have been stamped out completely in Europe. Had their been no such colony, a lot of these ideas might now figure as mere historical footnotes in our time. That includes the Bible Belt style religion (gob-smackingly alien to Europe) as well as the political inheritance.

Seems to me that it's natural for Americans to wish to see their country as a necessary and logical development of Europe - its fulfilment even - but the bundle of historical and geographical chances that produced it might rather hint otherwise.

[Debaser11]

Well, in fairness, I don't exactly see Europeans putting up much of a fight against this globalist juggernaut. Muslims don't want it; you guys for the most part preach it. I've said it before, but as a lowly American from "redneck" Texas who's traveled and met Europeans from all over, listened to hours of the BBC, and just observed your government policies and elections (which are so Marxist as to be frightening to the typical white American), it seems clear to me that you guys buy into hyper neo-liberal humanism just as much if not more than most Americans do. In that respect, calling America "the Great Satan" is asinine. Your countries choose to be self-destructive. Scape-goating America will only cause anyone looking to actually fix the problem to miss the forest for the trees.

[Osweo]

Well, in fairness, I don't exactly see Europeans putting up much of a fight against this globalist juggernaut. Muslims don't want it; you guys for the most part preach it. I've said it before, but as a lowly American from "redneck" Texas who's traveled and met Europeans from all over, listened to hours of the BBC, and just observed your government policies and elections (which are so Marxist as to be frightening to the typical white American), it seems clear to me that you guys buy into hyper neo-liberal humanism just as much if not more than most Americans do. In that respect, calling America "the Great Satan" is asinine. Your countries choose to be self-destructive. Scape-goating America will only cause anyone looking to actually fix the problem to miss the forest for the trees.

There's something there, but at the end of the day, it all boils down to the emasculation of the Great War. Every day I go through villages with memorials; more men died in those four years than even LIVE in most of them now. That we were misled so easily after such a shock is hardly astounding. The bravest and best were minced, and the young grew up without the experienced voice of many uncles, fathers and grandfathers.

So what's the USA's excuse for falling for it all? ;)

I'm not 'scapegoating' exactly, but many of us recognise that change here without change in America itself will be difficult if not impossible, due to the various pressures involved.

[Debaser11]

There's something there, but at the end of the day, it all boils down to the emasculation of the Great War. Every day I go through villages with memorials; more men died in those four years than even LIVE in most of them now. That we were misled so easily after such a shock is hardly astounding. The bravest and best were minced, and the young grew up without the experienced voice of many uncles, fathers and grandfathers.

So what's the USA's excuse for falling for it all? ;)

I'm not 'scapegoating' exactly, but many of us recognise that change here without change in America itself will be difficult if not impossible, due to the various pressures involved.


We agree there. But at the end of the day, people always have a choice.

[Magister Eckhart]

America, unlike Europe, was founded as liberalist society. Europe also has alternative visions.

Your logic is entirely flawed: Europe was "founded" as a primitive power-structure of mystical vision actualising into a body politic. Would you say that, therefore, Europe has no "alternative visions" from this primitive form?


I don't see the analogy. Americanism, liberalism, has very much been exported from US of A to Europe post-1945. You cannot deny this. Americanism would weaken along with America, and it would open up new possibilities for Europe.

Liberalism has not been "exported" from America; liberalism has developed in Eastern and Central Europe thanks to an earlier development of the broad liberal tradition that has long dominated French and Anglo-Colonial world-feeling. America is one part of a much broader reality and a much broader Cultural Spirit: liberalism.


No, its not the cause, but it is what maintains the American liberal world order. Her entertainment and military industry are its main exporters.

There is no "American liberal world order" there is only a liberal world order, and America is its present embodiment. This goes back to your failure to recognise the ability of America to change, either by evolution or by great epochal events, just as Europe changes by evolution or great epochal events, because America is Europe, it is not a child, it is not a fulfilment, it is not a continuation, it is the West, as much as the geographic and sub-culture of Europe is the West. We are all driven by the same ideology and within the same Zeitgeist. Whether any European doesn't want to be associated with Americans or any American doesn't want to be associated with the Germans, the French, the Finns, makes no difference: we are all part of the same world-feeling and the same organism.


That just goes to show you to what extent Europe has been Americanized. And just because the media misuses the term far-right doesn't mean we have to.

Europe has been industrialised and liberalised far longer than America; the domination of the liberal world-feeling, the domination of money and the strangulation of the spiritual notion of "man" and "people" and "culture" by a material view have been long in the making, and the drivers of this reality are all European; America is merely the most powerful embodiment of the world-feeling, it is neither the source nor the sole actor.


Like I said, it permeates America, while it has been often expelled from Europe, which has as its roots a far more varied history than America which was founded on the liberal idea.

It has never been expelled from Europe. There has never been a movement, not even a communist one, in contemporary history, that has not acted within the interests of material, of commodity, and of money. Not even National Socialism, not even Fascism, nothing was born outside of liberal notions of "the people", of "the economy", and of the relationship between the two. National Socialism was nothing without industrial interests. Communism is nothing but the shifting of control of the mode of production from one group to another - there is no change to the paradigm. You are a liberal. Unless you abandon material, abandon the notion of "the people" as a broad mass, abandon the action of consumption itself, you are acting as a liberal because the society in which you live is liberal.

Some of us may think like Caesarists, we may think like Aristocrats, we may want not to live in the confines of liberal culture, and we may deny that reality for ourselves, but at the point when we do we cease to be part of our community and part of our society, and become part of a new paradigm. The Apricity is a different paradigm, socially speaking, than "the West" right now, because it represents a gathering of persons resisting, of placing themselves outside of their society and, in heterogeneous ways, rebelling. Organically, Europe is liberal. Organically, the West can be nothing else until it changes as a whole.


That's it; America functioned as a kind of release valve for currents that would otherwise have been stamped out completely in Europe. Had their been no such colony, a lot of these ideas might now figure as mere historical footnotes in our time. That includes the Bible Belt style religion (gob-smackingly alien to Europe) as well as the political inheritance.

Seems to me that it's natural for Americans to wish to see their country as a necessary and logical development of Europe - its fulfilment even - but the bundle of historical and geographical chances that produced it might rather hint otherwise.

No. America was born from European expansion; the colony has not sustained liberalism - liberalism has sustained the colony. The existence of the "Bible Belt" does not preclude liberalism, it's merely another incarnation. the notion of religious survival merely means a survival of a Christian liberalism rather than a Scientistic liberalism, like what dominates Europe.

There is no chance. Europe as a reality gave birth to Australia and America and Canada and New Zealand, and when they broke away from Europe they are born as independent sub-cultural embodiments of the Western cultural reality. This is not a wish, it is not a desire, it is not even a fear or anxiety, it is a damning, inescapable reality. Nor is this view an American phenomenon - indeed, it comes from Europe itself. Manifest Destiny is European colonialism born in microcosm.

We are all doomed the same, and with America's fall the power may shift to a European country (it won't, but if it did) it would only mean that someone else would become the guardian of the liberal world-feeling that we cannot escape, and likewise America and Europe have equal potential to give rise to the Caesar-figure. In fact we are almost already there: the overt blood-politics of the left, of Obama, hailed in Europe and America and Australia and Canada and New Zealand et al. alike, unites the "minority"-Cult by blood rather than merely by money-power or even by Marxist class. They are united not by race either but by a primitive violent desire.

The West shall have its Caesar when the native Western peoples are united in a similar violent drive, a similar anational drive toward the crystallised Imperium of panem et circenses. If it does not, it will die before its time of a spiritual cancer embodied in the tumour of coloured immigration.

[ZeDoCaixao]

Wagnerian, you really have absorbed your Spengler. Good show here. I could add to it but there is no need: you say everything.



The West shall have its Caesar when the native Western peoples are united in a similar violent drive, a similar anational drive toward the crystallised Imperium of panem et circenses. If it does not, it will die before its time of a spiritual cancer embodied in the tumour of coloured immigration.

I should have this tattooed on my forehead.

[Joe McCarthy]

Where does America and Islam border?


Huntington's theory of "bloody borders" applies to civilizations, not individual countries. The point is that Islam is at war with widely disparate peoples that have nothing to do with giving them internet porn and Hollywood sleaze. Simply blaming the United States is once again a simplistic explanation.


You emasculated Japan, imposed your will upon them and their society is hardly a very balanced one today

I'd say Japan is doing quite well. They are a homogeneous, wealthy country - something that few others can claim these days. Only someone trying to look on the down side could say post-WW2 Japan has been some kind of failure.

And that we imposed our will on them was a GOOD thing. We saved much of the civilized world from a horde of Sea Mongols.


but rather something out of a cyberpunk novel.


And this is somehow not preferable to butchering British settlers and turning Dutch women into sex slaves?!

[Joe McCarthy]

Seems to me that it's natural for Americans to wish to see their country as a necessary and logical development of Europe - its fulfilment even - but the bundle of historical and geographical chances that produced it might rather hint otherwise.

That view is not exactly unique to Americans. One of the first to promote it was an Englishman, Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man:


The remarkable success of the English as colonists, compared to other European nations, has been ascribed to their "daring and persistent energy"; a result which is well illustrated by comparing the progress of the Canadians of English and French extraction; but who can say how the English gained their energy? There is apparently much truth in the belief that the wonderful progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people, are the results of natural selection; for the more energetic, restless, and courageous men from all parts of Europe have emigrated during the last ten or twelve generations to that great country, and have there succeeded best. Looking to the distant future, I do not think that the Rev. Mr. Zincke takes an exaggerated view when he says: "All other series of events- as that which resulted in the culture of mind in Greece, and that which resulted in the empire of Rome- only appear to have purpose and value when viewed in connection with, or rather as subsidiary to... the great stream of Anglo-Saxon emigration to the west." Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilisation, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations."


And frankly, all of this ignorant baiting from Europeans of America as this great Whore of Babylon promoting a liberal imperium is just so much hogwash. The post-war record of America has been markedly more conservative than that of Europe, and while the US was doing things like defending apartheid with UN vetoes, states like Sweden, Holland, and most of the rest of Europe were calling for crippling sanctions on South Africa and severing relations with her entirely.

[Joe McCarthy]

There's something there, but at the end of the day, it all boils down to the emasculation of the Great War. Every day I go through villages with memorials; more men died in those four years than even LIVE in most of them now. That we were misled so easily after such a shock is hardly astounding. The bravest and best were minced, and the young grew up without the experienced voice of many uncles, fathers and grandfathers.

So what's the USA's excuse for falling for it all? ;)

I'm not 'scapegoating' exactly, but many of us recognise that change here without change in America itself will be difficult if not impossible, due to the various pressures involved.

The often overlooked factor in Western decline, including racial decline, is the pressure brought to bear on the West, especially the US, by the Communists during the Cold War. The USSR was supporting anti-colonial rebels from the start, and was incessantly propagandizing against America's racial order. This had profound effects as the old colonies became independent states, and accused America of being racist, thus giving the Soviets the advantage. American policymakers, fearing a red avalanche, responded by dismantling our racial system - a system that most of Europe never had to begin with, and which even some of the most conservative of Europeans impugned. Take a look at this anti-American Nazi propaganda poster portraying us as a KKK ridden, backward lynch mob:

http://www.datejesus.com/american-liberators.jpg

That poster was directed at the Dutch public in 1944, btw, and the imagery of us dropping bombs on castles is highly ironic given what the Nazis had done to Rotterdam.

[Osweo]

That view is not exactly unique to Americans. One of the first to promote it was an Englishman, Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man:
Heh, what he said in 1870 or whenever is probably a bit different to what he would now!


There is apparently much truth in the belief that the wonderful progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people, are the results of natural selection; for the more energetic, restless, and courageous men from all parts of Europe have emigrated during the last ten or twelve generations to that great country, and have there succeeded best.
Immigration shifts since Old Chuck's day have rendered a lot of this void, so I hear. ;) "Bring me your unwashed... bla bla melting pot" :p ... :(

It was a bit over-romantic of Darwin to forget that not ONLY bold pioneers left for Amerikay. Plenty of oddballs, paupers, down and outs, criminals and fanatics went too!


The often overlooked factor in Western decline, including racial decline, is the pressure brought to bear on the West, especially the US, by the Communists during the Cold War.
This could have been disregarded as mere annoyance. The buzzing of gnats. The American public didn't see anything that the Soviet propagandists cooked up, they were shielded from this very well. They saw what they were supposed to see.

American policymakers, fearing a red avalanche, responded by dismantling our racial system

Do you seriously think that the Third World was 'saved' from this by changes in American internal politics?

The average African had no clue what was going on in Alabama at the time. If Comintern had tried to tell him, he would've remained largely unresponsive anyway.

Take a look at this anti-American Nazi propaganda poster portraying us as a KKK ridden, backward lynch mob:

http://www.datejesus.com/american-liberators.jpg

That poster was directed at the Dutch public in 1944, btw, and the imagery of us dropping bombs on castles is highly ironic given what the Nazis had done to Rotterdam.
Nobody ever saw this poster save a few at the time, and the denizens of internet boards in recent years.

The US state didn't give a damn about things like this. Changes there have been for other reasons than hostile powers printing a few hysterical pamphlets and placards. Change has only come in our modern technologically complex societies when the rich and powerful allowed it.

[The Lawspeaker]

http://www.datejesus.com/american-liberators.jpg

That poster was directed at the Dutch public in 1944, btw, and the imagery of us dropping bombs on castles is highly ironic given what the Nazis had done to Rotterdam.
But you conveniently forget then that the US Air Force bombed the living daylight out of Rotterdam (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardement_op_Rotterdam-West) as well (1943) and did the same thing to Nijmegen (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardement_op_Nijmegen) (which was only shown to be a couple of years ago to be no accident), Venlo (http://historie.venlo.nl/gebeurtenisinfo.asp?gebeurtenisID=14) etc (http://www.4en5meienschede.nl/archief/00010/?char=B&tijdlijn=&monument=). Although yes.. the British made a similar mistake on the 3rd of March 1945 (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardement_op_het_Bezuidenhout) in The Hague when they overshot their target by about a mile.

I remember once reading a cynical joke about the Americans: when the British start bombing the Germans look for cover. When the Germans get going the British run for cover but when the Americans join in EVERYONE runs for cover.


http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/hgvn/webroot/files/Image/collections/NIOD01_AF0623.jpg
The Nazi's printed this one in I think 1940 or 1941: Stay indoors ! British pilots have no mercy for innocent civilians!

[Joe McCarthy]

[FONT="Tahoma"]But you conveniently forget then that the US Air Force bombed the living daylight out of Rotterdam (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardement_op_Rotterdam-West) as well (1943) and did the same thing to Nijmegen (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardement_op_Nijmegen) (which was only shown to be a couple of years ago to be no accident), Venlo (http://historie.venlo.nl/gebeurtenisinfo.asp?gebeurtenisID=14) etc (http://www.4en5meienschede.nl/archief/00010/?char=B&tijdlijn=&monument=).

I didn't forget. It just goes without saying that our actions were not comparable to those of Germany's, so it was needless to even mention it.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Osweo
Heh, what he said in 1870 or whenever is probably a bit different to what he would now!


Agreed. I'm sure he'd have a far dimmer view of Englishmen today than then.


Immigration shifts since Old Chuck's day have rendered a lot of this void, so I hear.

We've received Third World dreck since then, but then so has Europe, so any ill effects have been meted out to both of us. Nevertheless, Darwin's vision happened in its essentials. America became the leading power and remains so to this day. The only real difference between now and his time in geopolitical terms is that America replaced Britain as the global hegemon. I know that eats at you Brits, even if few of you will openly admit it, but the fact that this is the case adds a bit of credibility to ol' Chucky's thesis, no?


"Bring me your unwashed... bla bla melting pot"

Ah yes, the good ol' 'melting pot'. Who coined that term? Why, it was the English Jew Israel Zangwill! Thanks!


It was a bit over-romantic of Darwin to forget that not ONLY bold pioneers left for Amerikay. Plenty of oddballs, paupers, down and outs, criminals and fanatics went too!


Sounds more like Europeans heading off to the Crusades if you ask me.


This could have been disregarded as mere annoyance. The buzzing of gnats. The American public didn't see anything that the Soviet propagandists cooked up, they were shielded from this very well. They saw what they were supposed to see.


It could have been ignored and it should have been, but that does not absolve the Soviet Union of responsibility.


Do you seriously think that the Third World was 'saved' from this by changes in American internal politics?


Hard to say. What is certain is that if we had not dismantled our racial system, the chances of a red avalanche would have been heightened.


The average African had no clue what was going on in Alabama at the time. If Comintern had tried to tell him, he would've remained largely unresponsive anyway.


African and other Third World leaders were certainly aware, and that was more than enough.

And the Comintern dissolved before the Cold War.


Nobody ever saw this poster save a few at the time, and the denizens of internet boards in recent years.


It seems you missed my point. If even the Nazis were lampooning us for our racial system that pretty much blows to bits this fantasy that the European right indulges itself in that America is this liberal hell polluting pristine Europe.


The US state didn't give a damn about things like this. Changes there have been for other reasons than hostile powers printing a few hysterical pamphlets and placards. Change has only come in our modern technologically complex societies when the rich and powerful allowed it.

Yours is a highly novel position for someone who thinks 'pressures' from the American 'man' is keeping the European nigga down (in fact, European nationalists, in discussing America, frequently sound like niggers blaming the white man for their plight). Surely we should expect consistency from you in acknowledging that the Soviets (a European power) applied pressure on us.

It's to be noted at this point that the great Communist hegemon that threatened the world for over seventy years and did so much damage to our civilization came from Europe, not 'Amerikay'.