Looks like the short New York Times knockoff of Pat Buchanan’s Death of the West I mentioned recently is only one of several. Daniel Pipes has an article in Jewish World Review (a Jewish writer in a Jewish publication, although both perhaps atypical) deploring the “hollowing out of Christianity” in Europe, the low birthrates there, and the resulting third-world (specifically, Muslim) immigration: The human comedy of the coming Muslim Europe. How will these themes play out in general public discourse if more people start talking about them? At FrontPage, for example—a publication with hundreds of thousands of readers and somewhat of a mainstream presence—Larry Auster has a hard-hitting article on Muslim radicals and immigrants calling for exclusions, roundups and deportations, even of citizens. It will be interesting to see what lines get drawn.
Reading James Howard
Reading James Howard Kunstler’s “The City in Mind” and some of his other work, one comes away with the thought that hey, the Europeans with their older walkable cities and towns, their more mass-transit systems, and their lower birth-rates might actually be better off if the overall oil situation worsens significantly —which, according to Kunstler and others, it will, inevitably.
That they have taken in third-world muslims seems problematic, sure, but who knows? Surely the truth will win out. Perhaps they might be converts to a revitalized faith, or a sort of innoculation against violence.
Still further, although the EU is strengthening, the recent tightening of muslim immigration by the Dutch points up the fact that, unlike, say, New Hampshire, the individual states of the EU still maintain a certain degree of control over their nation-states and its inhabitants. One of the arguments for strong states within a union was that the states could try out various things on their own, and all the states could learn from one another in a sort of state-state competion. With regard to immigration, the EU has more of that than we do. Here the immigration game seems DC or nothing. There a Swede could say, hey, look what they did in Holland, let’s do that here. Or, let’s not do what they did in England. Here it seems a tiny faction has taken control and to take national control would be a tremendous effort. There one strong reaction could lead to others —and most of their states have a different voting system whereby so-called extremists can actually get into the governments.
Finally, Europe is attached to Asia, so I imagine it’s a little tougher to keep people from just walking in. We have less of an excuse.
Excuse me if that’s a bit random.
One can only wonder on
One can only wonder on exactly what grounds—if any—Catholics who harbor views similar to Mr. Culbreath’s are able to react to the Pipes article with anything resembling alarm.
Point number two: How deeply gratifying it is to see Enoch Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech vindicated more and more lately, here and elsewhere! As Peter Brimelow has said, it ranks as one of the great political speeches in the English language. That nickname given to it by hostile journalists is a misnomer, but no matter—the important thing is that people are seeing now how right Powell was.
Unadorned, do you really
Unadorned, do you really fail to see the difference between race and religion? I would not be opposed, in principle, to the forcible deportation of Muslims from Europe on religious grounds. Islam is a wicked religion and a positive threat to the West, whereas Arabs, as Arabs, might be friends or foes.
From the log entry:
“[…]
From the log entry:
“[…] Larry Auster has a hard-hitting article on Muslim radicals and immigrants calling for exclusions, roundups and deportations, even of citizens. It will be interesting to see what lines get drawn.”
Of the many that get drawn, one line will delineate a certain kind of Catholic, a certain kind of Evangelical Protestant—like Jimmy Carter, for example—and a certain kind of Christian in general as it may be represented in other Christian denominations: the kind which will strongly sense that Auster’s proposals threaten to take away its grand self-sacrifice achievement, its supremely difficult and oh-so-noble achievement of having come to terms with the need to sacrifice its own nation, its own race, its own ethnicity, in the name of “accepting change.” For nothing in the world will these types of Christians accept Auster’s ideas which threaten to rob them of their “hard-won” (hard-won in their eyes) acquisition of self-esteem based on self-sacrifice. They’ll fight his ideas tooth and nail rather than go back into that black hole of low self-esteem and depression they originally struggled so hard to climb out of.
This is only one of the lines that will be delineated. There are tons of others, of course.
In a comment above, I
In a comment above, I wrote,
“Of the many that get drawn, one line will delineate a certain kind of Catholic […].”
Here’s Juan Mann, writing tonight in Vdare.com:
“The EOIR publishes an updated list […] every three months […] of organizations authorized by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to employ pretend-lawyers [which] reads like a who’s who of the Open Borders Lobby. […] Guess who’s the biggest? […] Out of the 503 ‘recognized organizations,’ the undisputed leader of the pack, with 156 separate non-profit groups for a whopping 31 percent of the nationwide total, is—Catholic Charities! Then there are 26 Lutheran groups, 22 offices of something called ‘The International Institute,’ 18 offices of ‘The International Rescue Committee,’ 13 Jewish groups, 8 ‘World Relief Corporation’ offices, 3 Quakers, 2 Episcopalians, and 2 ‘interfaith’ groups. The rest are a hodgepodge of legal aid operations and storefront leftist causes. […] It’s one more example of how the Permanent Government extends extraordinary privileges to the Treason Lobby […].”
( http://vdare.com/mann/lawyer_racket.htm )