Tuesday, 11 September 2012

Anyone who reflects deeply on why Europe is being islamified cannot long escape recognition of the fact that it is simply one, and certainly the most pernicious, aspect of the de-Europeanisation of the continent more generally. Our governing elites, obsessed with their ideology of anti-nationalism, are deliberately facilitating the colonisation of our countries by Asian and African peoples. Islam is simply the most toxic part of the cultural baggage these people bring with them.

Those who see what is happening and are alarmed by it tend to react in one of two ways: they either strive to isolate Islam as being the locus of the problem, while accepting Establishment ideology in other respects, for example by affirming their anti-racism and their support for human rights; or they consciously militate against Establishment mantras and define themselves in opposition to them.

It seems to me that neither approach represents an adequate response to our plight. The first approach, the one pursued by groups like the EDL or British Freedom, for example, is insufficient because, even if successful, it would ultimately fail to safeguard the long-term existence of Europe’s peoples. And because it’s not clear that even islamisation can be averted without challenging the intellectual framework – the toxic nexus of anti-nationalism, human rights, citizenship, Ius Soli – that is bringing it about. At least in their public positioning, these people have accepted the idea that the collective existence of peoples is something that should be defined solely in terms of citizenship, an administrative status allocated by governments.

They reject the idea that a sense of trans-generational genetic connectedness between people is something that either has value or moral legitimacy. I know for a fact that some of the people involved in these movements do have concerns that go beyond the encroachment of Islam upon their own territory. They grieve for the loss of their peoplehood more generally. Yet, whether for reasons of pragmatism or cowardice, they refuse to say that publicly. Perhaps they simply lack the vocabulary or conceptual tools to articulate their sense of loss in terms other than “race”.

Those pursuing the second approach consist of people who overtly proclaim themselves to be racists or “white nationalists”. They define peoples’ collectivity in terms of race, proclaim (usually) all Europeans to be members of a white race, and, while not necessarily asserting the superiority of this race over others (although many do), simply say that they wish to pursue and defend its interests. This approach is essentially an inversion of Establishment ideology.

In my view, however, the notion of a “white race” is just another aspect of the intellectual genocide being inflicted on the peoples of Europe. Like the “melting pot” fantasy, it seeks to obliterate the distinctiveness of Europe’s peoples by blending them into some greater collectivity. The bond between people across the generations, what we might call lineage or ancestry, is not something wicked or morally repugnant. It is not something that decent people should recoil from. It is a healthy and natural part of what it means to be a human being, although it is only one part of any reasonable definition of peoplehood. But each of Europe’s peoples have distinctive lineages of their own. Those who seek to preserve this ancestral peoplehood – in other words nationalists – should beware of being bewitched by fantasies of a “white race”. Danish nationalists should be concerned with preserving the distinctiveness of Danes, including the genetic ancestry of Danes. French nationalists should be concerned with the distinctiveness of the French, including its ancestral biological aspects, (or even sub-groups of the French population, something we see expressed in the “regional” identitarian movements in France). To homogenise all these groups together into something called a white race is just another form of genocide, one that is almost as bad as the “post-racial” citizenship fantasies of the governing elite.

Like many of the most pernicious concepts driving the European Genocide, such as the “nation of immigrants” or “melting pot” fantasies or the idea that a nation is something that should be defined in terms of shared values, it originates in the experience of Europeans living outside of Europe. In other words it arises among people who have been deracinated, separated from their own ancestral homelands and kin groups. Confronted with the hordes of Africa and Asia, these people, in their desperation, fumble for ways to affirm their own difference.

It is a well-known phenomenon that groups of expatriates have a tendency to engage in bombastic and even preposterous exaggerations of their own distinctiveness. As their sense of self is challenged by the environment in which they find themselves, they lapse into self-caricature. Indeed, this is one aspect of the contemporary islamisation of Europe. Muslim youths, whose families may have lived in Europe for multiple generations, are not only more religiously radical than their parents but often more radical than youths living in traditionally Islamic countries.

When young women arrive in Britain from Bangladesh, where they may wear short skirts and live in a relatively modern way, they are amazed to see how backwards and primitive the Bangladeshis living in Tower Hamlets are. It’s the same story when Turks from Turkey visit their relatives in Germany. I remember reading that Muslims living in traditionally Islamic countries in the Middle East and North Africa find “British” Muslims funny. To them, they seem more like parodies of Muslims than the real thing. Many British people might view the Orangemen of Northern Ireland, with their exaggerated assertions of Britishness, in the same way.

This is the kind of unhealthy, unnatural milieu in which the notion of a “white race” germinates. Among the deracinated. Those who have been sundered from their tribe. From their history. Europeans living among their own ancestral kin communities in their own historic homelands should not allow their identity to be defined by the parboiled fantasies of expatriate desperadoes, people who consciously turned their back on their own kind and now feel themselves swamped by the challenges of an alien environment.

It would be as if British people allowed the parameters of Britishness to be defined by the Orange Orders of Northern Ireland. Such a definition could only lead to an obliteration of nuance. But it is that very nuance that constitutes a people’s true character.

The best way to resist the European Genocide, I suggest, is to promote, on the moral, intellectual and political planes, the idea that the peoplehood of the world’s peoples – in other words whatever it is that makes them distinct, embracing their genetic ancestry, culture, language, religion and shared history within a physical space – is something precious that needs to be preserved. Think of the distinctiveness of the world’s peoples as being endangered species like pandas. The notion of a white race does not help preserve that distinctiveness, at least in Europe; instead, it contributes towards its further erosion.

As I have argued before, the conceptual framework of racism, as used by our governing elite, is essentially a fraud, one that is designed to pathologise natural instincts. If you accept this conceptual framework by defining yourselves in terms of it – whether by declaring that you are a racist or a non-racist – then you have walked into a sucker’s trap. If I asked you whether you were a heretic, what would your answer be, yes or no? The correct answer is neither. The correct answer is to reject the premise of the question.






20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Visit http://diomalco.com to see information about and the petition on the HMG website: Protection of Children: Underage Marriages, together with a link to the Petition URL

alas said...

Interesting article CZ. But you leave people like me in a quandry. You see there are a great many people like me who have two parents from different parts of Europe; one of my parents is Scottish and the other Greek. If one of mine were African for instance, and I looked black, then this wouldn't be such a problem as I would be able to fit in in Africa, and would probably want to be amongst my own people.

I agree with your premise that Islam is merely the biggest part of a problem which is the de-Europeanization of Europe, and within that obviously the de-Frenchification of France and that of Spain etc. I also agree with you that we should seek to preserve the individual nations.

However, there should be room for substantial nuances here, in my opinion. Somebody with Austrian heritage would probably not be seen as an immigrant in Germany, and not Belgium in France, for instance. Likewise people with Irish ancestry in the UK are considered to be fully British. Likewise, the Interior Minister in France, who is part-Spanish, looks as though he is French.

I guess what I'm arguing is that I support both your points, but it should be a sliding scale. I don't believe that everyone from Calais is a wog, as the saying goes. An African migrant makes a far bigger splash in Europe than does a European migrant. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this point, as it is a big issue as far as I am concerned, and for all, I assume, people who don't like seeing their communities, countries, race, and civilization being lost, but who are of two European ethnicities.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

I'm not saying there is no greater connectedness between a Frenchman and an Englishman than a Frenchman and an African or that Europeans shouldn't see themselves as connected in a way that sets them apart from non-Europeans, just that "white race" is too crude a way to do it. Maybe I'll write a follow-up essay to expand on my visions of European peoplehoods and their interconnectedness.

alas said...

I look forward to reading it. I don't know how Europeans can see themselves as being connected in a way separating them from non-Europeans other than all belonging to the 'white-race', though.

Anonymous said...

DP111 wrote..

Good article CZ

I would simply posit that multiculturalism in one nation is bad, for it leads to the nation becoming schizophrenic, and eventually leads to civil conflict.

However a planet that is multicultural is good, with each nation adopting and practising the culture that is intrinsically its own.

Just this, without any reference to race,or religion, will solve 90% of the problem of the present multicultural West. One cant take every possible situation into account, but reduction of the present mess by 90%, is a happy outcome, and would be sufficient for each nation to happily tolerate exceptions of mixed marriages etc., which will in any case, get smaller with each generation.

Anonymous said...

CZ, you are warm, but not quite there, yet. You are probably not European, at least not from the continent.
The idea that its advocates call peoplehood and its detractors nationalism has been shredded in 2400 years of European history; Hitler was just the last plague, not the first or even the 50th one (I am leaving the Russkis out, as their "Europeanness" is debatable). It's that blemished record that has driven the utopian framers of the EU and that powers the multiculti zombies who run formerly-white countries. If you want to revive European peoplehood, you have to deal with the past disasters of peoplehood, or else this cannot fly.
As you correctly point out, the White Race ideology is a sucker's trap also. Yet, it's not because it's inherently a wrong or unwholesome idea. The notion has become toxic because its main proponents have been hateful, ignorant and lying yokels. And on the few occasions when they gained the upper hand politically, e.g. in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Rumania, they proved to be vile, murderous scum of the very worst order.
But that doesn't mean that there is no white race. Or that this race didn't create what we call Western Civilization. Or that the survival of this civilization is not inextricably bound to the white race and racial consciousness of its members.

All that doesn't need to be fanatically deterministic. Deterministic white racism is for idiots; people who know more and have less darkness inside know and appreciate that such icons of Western civilization as the founders of Christianity, or Alexander Dumas father and son, or Pushkin (Russia, but still) or dozens of Jewish giants of culture and science were not of the white race(or only partially so). This has parallels even in much more race-driven polities such as Japan, that already in the 19th century adopted Lafkadio Hearn as its own and allowed a Scottish sea captain to found Mitsubishi (with a Japanese partner).

It's absolutely crucial that we retain this feeling of belonging to a big family linked genetically and culturally, though unseemly quarrels have occured much too often. That quarelling has to be put in the past so that the family can proceed on a smoother, calmer surface while retaining the separate identities of its members.
Takuan Seiyo

Anonymous said...

Speaking of a sucker's trap, I've always disliked it when non-Muslims describe themselves as "infidels." Why would any self-respecting person use a Muslim frame of reference to define themselves, even ironically?

daithikent said...

Anon 01:08 Likewise. It is a horrible 'frame of reference'. I highly dislike it. And it is very insulting to Christians - to our faith and culture.

Anonymous said...

There are differences between Western nationalists concerning the Jews and Israel. Some support Israel like geert Wilders or breivik. Other anti immigrant politicians also support israel in order to avoid the label of antisemitic or neonazi . Other nationalists are against Israel. The point is that many Jewish elites are responsible for multiculturalism and they have huge influence in world affairs. Judaism is similar to Islam. The orthodox Jews are more radical and fanatics than many muslims. Israel has a racist immigration policy and gets away with it. In conclusion, Jews and muslims hate each other but they are both enemies of white Europeans

alas said...

How the hell can Jews be enemies of white Europeans when they are white Europeans? I don't get all this dislike for Jews. On an individual basis many of them are liberal and cosmopolitan, and so on an individual basis I dislike those people, but at the end of the day I can walk down a street and come across Jew after Jew and not know it or feel like my country has been taken away from me. And if Israel has a racist immigration policy then isn't that a good thing? And proof also that most Jews are not liberal dicks.

Anonymous said...

@alas
You are right and Anon. is wrong. It's not white racial consciousness that's a sucker's trap, but the "Joo is the root of our misfortune" that is. As a point of fact, Askenazi Jews are white Europeans, but they are not the same race as the proto-Europeans. "Semite" says it all.
But so what? By that definition, it's debatable whether the Hungarians are Europeans. They are, after all, kins of Atilla the Hun, from Asia.
And Armenia isn't exactly in Europe either. Besides, the Jews have been in Europe in small numbers since about 300 BC, and in very large numbers since 70 AD, when they were brought over by the Romans as slaves, after their failed insurrection. Racists who try to unwind the immigration policy of the Roman Emperor Titus are insane, given particularly how Jewish and proto-European DNA have intermixed since then.
That the majority of Jews supporrt utopian "world-repairing" ideas and policies that are very harmful to us is a fact that must be acknowledged and dealt with. But it's no different from the majority of white women and the majority of Scandinavians supporting the very same destructive ideas and policies.
Takuan Seiyo

alas said...

Anon 20.28 I found your emperor Titus comment very amusing.

I agree with the general thrust of your argument though; if they look white, they're white.

Anonymous said...

The radical orthodox Jews like the haredi are similar to the conservative Muslims. They both have too many children, never work and collect the dole, and both are religious fanatics The only difference to the Muslims is that most Jews are white with blonde hair and also that Jewish terrorists are unheard of in the west. Of course there are many more secular Jews who are moderate and liberals compared to Muslims. The point is that I am not so sure if Israel and Jews should be considered friends and allies of white European people. Many Jewish elits and jewish lobby groups are responsible for multiculturalism which caused the mass immigration of Muslims in the west. Maybe the Jewish strategy is to divide and conquer. Western nations have become very weak because of third world immigration so now many westerners view Israel with more sympathy. Jews are very strange people.

Anonymous said...

In conclusion, you are an appallingly stupid moron.

Anonymous said...

You can also encounter Jew after Jew on the streets without being assaulted, robbed, or murdered, which is another nice advantage Jews have over the descendants of Ishmael.

Anonymous said...

Repairing the world isn't some random idea that a majority of Jews inexplicably happen to support. It's a central tenet of Judaism. I'm surprised that a person of your colossal intellect and erudition –as well demonstrated by your innumerable turgidly-argued posts here and elsewhere – wasn't aware of that. Or of the correct English spelling of your own name, Mr. Seiyō.

alas said...

Very hard to follow an argument with so many anons lol

Anonymous said...

Many jews are religious fanatics and very racist people. The Jewish lobbies have a huge influence in world affairs. The difference between Muslims and Jews is miniscule. Both are religious fundamentalists who segregate themselves from other communities but at the same time playing the race card in order to protect their way of life.

Anonymous said...

Judaism is another creepy religion like Islam.
No difference between ultra orthodox Jews and conservative Muslims. An enemy of our enemy is not our friend.

Anonymous said...

So what? Jews may have lower crime rates but they have destroyed all western nations with their political agenda of multiculturalism. Jews are a racist segregated group like the Muslims. Of course Muslims as a group are an underclass with relatively high crime rates. All in all, Jews and Muslims are both enemies of a white Christian/atheist European.

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews