An Open Letter to MoveOn.org about Syrian Refugees

15 comments

1. R_Moreland says:

   December 2, 2015 at 2:54 am

   I wonder…how many of those Europeans and Americans who are today opening their arms and homes to Islamic “refugees” were also involved in the anti-apartheid movement? How many of them protested Ian Smith’s government in Rhodesia. or the Portuguese colonial empire in Africa? Or are old timers who took the side of the FLN against Algerie Francaise? And once the euphoria of opening the gates wears off, find themselves and members of their family victimized by criminal violence, terrorist attacks, no-go zones, car burnings, being denied housing by their “own” governments, or perhaps just having to cover up when walking down to the market?

   Will they now realize why white colonial administrations kept the lid on the third world? Why the OAS fought tooth and nail to prevent Algerian independence? And why South Africa had apartheid? I’d like to think so. But I wouldn’t count on it. We can see here in the USA Homeland that most liberals (whatever that means today) still believe in the egalitarian myth even after decades of failed social engineering policies (see Guillaume Durocher’s articles).

   It’s like some civilization death wish, pace Burnham’s “Suicide of the West.”

   Of course, much of this is the result of globalist power brokers using control of media, corporate foundations, NGOs and the rest of the Outer Party to make the “refugees” the Number One feel-good issue of the day. It beats Kony 2012 all hollow!

   It might be useful to create a written record of these decadent days to explain to future historians how the West self-destructed. Place it in a time capsule as a sort of message from those who witnessed it first hand.

   1. c says:

      December 2, 2015 at 4:08 am

      I believe that many of the people you mention may belong to the left side of the RKWP party. The Right Kind of White People party. ‘Even when we’re the minority, when our ways are considered unrighteous according to the popular religion, when all we have are empty formalities and lifeless institutions – they’ll still keep us around! We’re the good ones!’
   2. Bjørn says:

      December 2, 2015 at 8:18 am

      Regarding your belief in our nihilistic nature: Andrew Anglin had a rather interesting take on feminism in an article yesterday, stating that feminism grew out of a demasculination of the western man. And since feminism more or less have castrated its target, it si subconsciously screaming for islamic men to invade and force women to submission again. Regarding feminism not as a result of western decadence, but rather as a reaction to the weakened western man, continuously pushing him harder to react, is a rather original thought….
      Maybe that is a way to counteract these negative movements we are encountering: To look upon the as a scream for help?

      1. c says:

         December 2, 2015 at 4:41 pm

         This is one of the darker suggestions, and probably applies in many cases.
         More commonly, but along the same lines, it may just be a way of placing European men in such an impossible position that they must act like men (protectors, builders, risk-takers) again or be subjected.

         Most white women do not hate white men, but they definitely play games. I have been with a group of young white women, all of whom will probably marry affluent white men, whom insisted that they will keep their own last names when married. I doubt that they will, but even if they do: these are their FAT’HERS’ names.
      2. Stronza says:

         December 4, 2015 at 12:30 am

         And since feminism more or less have castrated its target, it si subconsciously screaming for islamic men to invade and force women to submission again.

         We don’t want, ever again, to have to submit just for the sake of submission. The idea that we have to submit to men no matter what – this is straight out of the Christian bible: “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is appropriate for those who belong to the Lord.” All you “traditionalist” men out there, I didn’t know you were so gung-ho on the bible.

         Women didn’t originally gobble up the feminist propaganda because they were evil or weak, but because there was a basis for feminism looking so attractive.

         1. c says:

            December 5, 2015 at 12:36 am

            Many people don’t want to submit. Men don’t want to work for men less educated or less ethical than themselves, creating profit for others by the sweat of their brow. Men don’t want to obey the career politicians that are inevitable in most modern regimes. Men don’t like being gassed or cut to ribbons by machine-gun fire.

            Some men submit because they are cowards or fools – possibly it’s the majority, possibly not. The better men do these things so hurtful to their pride, their bodies, and their ‘peace of mind’, because they adopt the attitude that life is tough and they want to achieve certain ends. These ends are often private goals about freedom and prosperity, but they can never be completely indifferent to public life. Ambitious men may even plan to make profound and ‘revolutionary’ public changes, but after all the changes have been made, men will still need to do all the things I mentioned above, and not just the cowards or fools. If they stop doing it, it’s the ‘end of the line’ for everyone and everything.

            In the past, women who wanted to pass on their own ideas, habits, family traditions to their children, did so by concentrating on the crucial early stages of childhood development – early education. This is a truly “formative” stage physically, mentally and emotionally, and has traditionally been the preserve of women.

            I think it very difficult to do this while pursuing an professional education and a career in very competitive conditions, and I would honestly like to know what any women think about giving up your child’s early education to a mass-society that has a very small interest in their mental, emotional and corporeal health. I do not think that poor families can enlist the number competent professional educators (nannies, tutors, nutritionists, etc) that the upper-middle classes can.

            I also do not see what is so humiliating about the role often assigned to women about managing a household’s income while the man produces it. Women may indeed be more economically minded than men – ‘smarter’, some would say. Most women take an interest in men who have greater earning potential than themselves, and I think that this is normal, healthy behavior.

            The kind of vitriol with which the above arguments meet and the stoic silence of decent men on these subject, WILL open the door for the most inimical and reactionary forces because their insanity seems a little more functional than our own. They will not be polite, they will give commandments from the Koran, the Bible, out of their own heads, wherever. I happen to agree with the above posters that some people are sick, resentful, are anti-civilization and actually crave this sort of thing.

            1. Stronza says:

               December 5, 2015 at 12:46 pm

               @c: It’s not an either/or matter. A woman can be a good woman, taking care of her family, not following a career outside the home, etc. – but under pro-traditionalists’ standards, she still has to listen to her husband just because he is male.

               What if the husband is just plain wrong about something? According to old fashioned Christianity, the wife is just going to have to suck it up. Men mis-spend money that should go to the family and their welfare, this happens all the time. When the wife says no, we can’t afford that luxury (motorcycles, big McMansion house, etc.) she is a Bitch.

               In the past, women who wanted to pass on their own ideas, habits, family traditions to their children, did so by concentrating on the crucial early stages of childhood development – early education. This is a truly “formative” stage physically, mentally and emotionally, and has traditionally been the preserve of women.

               My dad would tell us when we were little, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” but he never elaborated on it. However, you can concentrate all you like on those crucial early stages and yet the kids turn out opposite of what you thought was right. I know of a super ultra liberal couple who raised their boy to be a peacenik, no toy guns, preaching liberalism all the time, etc. – you know, the whole ball of wax. Well, when he came of legal age, he joined the Marines. LOL!
            2. c says:

               December 5, 2015 at 6:22 pm

               Your points are well taken. Thanks also for the good humor of your reply. I think that the Marine is a bit rare, but even the Marine probably took a lot of his parents’ words about social responsibility to heart, and obviously possessed strength of character.

               North-western European women have usually had the right of complaint, which is more than is extended to many soldiers, laborers. This cannot be avoided, I think – the greater the task, the less room there is for complaint during its performance. I prefer the English stiff-upper-lip approach to the slave-driver and his whip, to ‘decimation’, etc.
               But I also think that if all Englishmen (or Germans, or Japanese, etc), should lose their nerve, then the slave-drivers will reappear from without or from within, and today they carry more than whips.

               I feel that the sphere of marriage in Europe has usually been far less one-sided and authoritarian than the military or labor, or even democratic politics. Our parliamentary democracies, supposedly a chaos of different opinions, often mean two warring factions, each with a party ‘Whip’. Revolutionaries are even tougher on factions. Feminists accuse dissenting women of ‘internalized misogyny’ – this is like saying “you are too stupid to even fathom the depths of your treachery”.

               Women have had other means of influence, which they still employ, but which are not talked about by modern sophisticates. About this, I can only say that IF most men are potential Bluebeards, then women prior to 1968 simply must have been doing something to protect themselves from being slaughtered! You might compare it to ‘meta-politics’ and ‘politics’ – when one cannot speak and act openly and from a dominant position, one must resort to alternative ways and means. I happen to think that this is one of the areas where most women excel most men.
2. c says:

   December 2, 2015 at 3:03 am

   When I was a student, a leftist professor, someone now vocally pro-immigration and opposed to national borders, admitted to me in private that the West was doomed and that Islam would take over. This was over 10 years ago. I will not identify them, because they are still employed, and this was said to me candidly in a matter-of-fact way, not maliciously. This person was white, quite ‘cultured’, a good teacher, not a damaged ‘justice warrior’.

   Looking back, I do not know whether they are suicidal or whether they believe that one must simply adjust to the inevitable as peacefully as possible – so that modern equivalent of ‘the library at Alexandria’ will be allowed to stand by our merciful conquerors. I no longer care. They are not ignorant about what is at stake.

   I wonder how many more are like this.
3. Peter Quint says:

   December 2, 2015 at 11:13 am

   The thing about it, is that we are not doomed if we don’t want to be. We have a religion and a political system which have betrayed us at every turn and have never produced leaders to take up our cause.
4. Arindam says:

   December 2, 2015 at 11:46 am

   I think a much harsher stance is preferable: you are facing an existential conflict here, after all.

   First of all, there is no Islamic culture. What passes for Muslim culture is a hideous mishmash of pre-Islamic cultures forcibly mixed up by the rampaging Mohammedan hordes in the course of their jihads against the civilized world. In practice, Islam is an anti-culture, as all that is pre-Islamic or non-Islamic is slowly but steadily destroyed under the influence of its utterly intolerant theology. Your average Greek can probably tell you about the labours of Hercules or the Trojan War, and the average Frenchman or Irishman has some pride in his Celtic past: ask an Egyptian about the struggle between Osiris and Set – or ask an Afghan about his country’s Buddhist heritage – and you’ll soon discover the difference.

   Second, calling Islam ‘fascistic’ is highly offensive – to fascists. Fascists seek to uphold their national heritage (and perhaps they go overboard on this… but that’s another matter), whereas Islamists seek to annihilate it in favour of their creed. After that, they set about annihilating whatever doesn’t fit in with their particular sect. After that, they set about annihilating whatever doesn’t fit with their particular interpretation of Islam. In short, Islam is inherently destructive in a way that Fascism never was – because at most, fascists destroy what they deem decadent, whereas Muslims destroy virtually everything, (as their rampages in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Mali etc… demonstrate again and again).

   Last, but not least: the clash of civilizations metaphor is not only invalid, but seriously misleading. What we have here is not a conflict between two cultural organisms – but a cultural organism being invaded by a cancer. Jewish extremists in Israel who declare “You cannot coexist with cancer” – evince a far better understanding of the threat that the typical European or American. You don’t need to apologize for fighting a cancer. You don’t even need to make justifications. Indeed, you certainly don’t need to discuss whether it is worth doing or not.

   You simply find the best methods of dealing with the danger and apply them.

   [I would be happy to demonstrate and defend the cancer metaphor, but this post is long enough as it is.]

   1. Leon says:

      December 2, 2015 at 1:28 pm

      @Arindam – While I agree with the gist of your comment, I have a few quibbles.

      “First of all, there is no Islamic culture. What passes for Muslim culture is a hideous mishmash of pre-Islamic cultures forcibly mixed up by the rampaging Mohammedan hordes in the course of their jihads against the civilized world.”

      While that may be true of the origins of Islamic culture, the fact is that Islamic culture today exists and, as we have seen in the Sudan, even such a level of civilization is better than no civilization at all. As far as I’m concerned, so long as Muslims stay out of our homelands, I can respect Muslim culture at least to the extent that I have no problem with them practicing it -in their own lands. One thing we cannot afford is to expend our efforts in a global crusade against Islam, much as the Israelis would want us to.

      “Jewish extremists in Israel who declare “You cannot coexist with cancer” – evince a far better understanding of the threat that the typical European or American.”

      Jewish extremists treat Europeans and Euro-Americans the same way.

      1. Arindam says:

         December 3, 2015 at 3:42 am

         I’m certainly not asking for the West to attempt a new set of crusades – I’m sorry if I gave that impression. In my view, all that’s needed is for the West to extricate itself from West Asia, and let the rest, (Iran, Russia, China, India) deal with the Muslim problem with the necessary ruthlessness. For a long time now, Brussels and Washington have been supporting Sunni regimes (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) and movements: that needs to stop.

         It is open to question whether the alternative to Islam in Sudan is ‘no civilization at all’: prior to the Islamic invasions, North Africa was dominated by the Byzantines and other Christian and pagan influences, so it is entirely possible that an African Christian culture would have emerged there instead. One could point to Ethiopia as an example of that.

         [Of course, the case of South Sudan – where massive and horrid inter-tribal violence has resulted after its separation from Sudan, is the obvious counter-argument. However, this could be attributed, at least in part, to the damage done to its society by the long civil war that preceded its independence.]

         There are two main reasons why I use the cancer, rather than the culture metaphor: firstly, it is far more accurate, and secondly, it denies Islam respectability. If one dignifies Islam by calling it a culture, one merely weakens one’s own position, because it is difficult to justify opposing another culture – especially in the political climate that prevails in the West today.

         However, it is the accuracy of the cancer analogy that is most stRiki-Eiking. In his ‘The Cancer Stage of Capitalism’, the Canadian philosopher provides seven defining properties of cancer:

         1) an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in a host body that

         2) is not committed to any life-function of its life-host; that

         3) aggressively and opportunistically appropriates nutriments and resources from its social and natural hosts in uninhibited growth and reproduction; that

         4) is not effectively recognized and responded to by the immune system of its hosts; that

         5) possesses the ability to transfer or to metastasize its growth and uncontrolled reproduction to sites across the host body; that

         6) progressively infiltrates and invades contiguous and distant sites of its life-hosts until it obstructs, damages and/or destroys successive organs of their life-systems; and that

         7) without effective immune-system recognition and response eventually destroys the host bodies it has invaded.’ (The Cancer Stage of Capitalism, page 171).

         Professor McMurthy applies this analysis to capitalism – but it applies equally well to Islam. Indeed, both are killing the West: one slowly, the other, somewhat more swiftly.
5. witty tongue says:

   December 2, 2015 at 3:51 pm

   The author wrote: “a religion that borders on the fascistic.” Fascistic?? Seems like ‘fanatic” is a better word.
6. cecilhenry says:

   December 4, 2015 at 10:54 am

   These sorts of criticism of the violence of Islamic immigration and refugees or the undesirable effects of ‘welcoming’ them into Western nations missed THE key point.

   And everything else is secondary.

   The West including Canada and America is a culture created by a specific people and it will be destroyed if that people is dispossessed. Europeans everywhere have the self-evident right to secure their homelands for themselves, without regard to the claims others make upon it.

   Nobody’s flooding Africa with Non-Africans and giving them free health care, affirmative action and special privileges.

   Only White Countries are doing it, only White children are affected, and only White politicians are allowing it.

   It doesnt matter now beneficial they may be, Whites need the own space, their own nations. It is a basic need and a basic right.

   Focus on that basic. Everything else just gives them another excuse to justify White Genocide.

   After all, if Muslim DON’T see to do any harm are you suggesting that replacing Whites with Muslims is ‘just fine’??? IT isn’t.

Comments are closed.