Very convincing piece ! :yep:

And so, while our attention and money and men and materiel and morale are monomaniacally focused on, and squandered in, Iraq, the very years in which Western Europe could still be saved, the years in which other, better leaders could help its people come to their senses about Islam, and could be supported in this by a muscular United States with all of its resources, time is wasted, and much else is wasted as well. The inertia in Iraq, the stubborn refusal to comprehend the irrelevance of this pseudo-"democracy" to the more important task of constaining, containing, dividing, and demoralizing the forces of Islam, maddens. Clocks tick, and eventually, demography becomes destiny.

Re: Good bye Europe
 

That was obvious from the beginning. It is aimed at his own group, and those who might join it. To convince people that his way is the right way, he identifies some real problems in Europe, and then blames them on all possible deviations from his ideology.

Not that socialism isn't problematic, and a lot of the socialist parties in Europe are quite pro-immigrant (even though their European socialist voters don't like them at all), but demonstrating that is not his goal, he just wants to warn his people to keep their faith and breeding performance high, or else...

You could make a similar case against the Church, which also is quite pro-immigrant and pro muslim appeasement in Europe despite opposite feelings from many followers, but he doesn't put that in his article.

To illustrate this, here's another text with some good questions/problems (similar to the first article in the thread), that also recommends a racial ideology that many people (more than with the first article) will probably dislike. The form also makes it more obvious that he is primarily addressing those who are already ideologically close to him.
http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs0208c.html

Of course, this can create some image problems for the more moderate people who also see these problems, as their opponents can try to push them in the same corner as the radicals who asked similar questions.



Also, the part about population reduction is flawed. Why should we fear population reduction? Some countries in Europe are densely populated, and a small, gradual reduction would put less pressure on the environment. The problem is not population reduction, it's population displacement by a hostile, anti-European population. Follow the suggestion to attempt to outbreed the muslims, and you'll just end up in a miserable, overcrowded country.

Reading this thread makes our U.S. illegal immigrant problem seem almost like a blessing in contrast. I certainly have more in common culturally and religiously with the hispanics and the other latins coming here from Mexico and points south than I think I ever will with muslims. Plus, there is a large percentage here that try to assimilate, learn English and have no desire to return to their homeland. Illegal immigration has certainly caused it's share of social and economic headaches in the U.S. but I must confess I prefer burritos over burhkas any day.

Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War
 

Thanks for the correction Avon Lady. You're correct. :oops:

While many attribute this to Abraham Lincoln, further research shows that the phrase was actually coined by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert Jackson.

But nevertheless, I think you'll agree that democracy is not a suicide pact either. ;)

:yep: Indeed, count your blessings Torplexed and Americans ! I'm, serious, I never understood thes American issue with Mexican influx. I wish they came this way :rotfl:

Neither one is like the other.

But who the hell do they think they are?!

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/7366/upsidedown3qv.jpg
Whittier area students from Pioneer, California and Whittier high schools walked out of classes to protest the proposed federal immigration bill March 27, 2006. The protestors put up the Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at Montebello High. (Leo Jarzomb/Staff photo)

Good bye Europe
 

@ scandium:
This question is very easy to answer for a Dutchman.
For centuries through our strong emphasys on maritime trade and our traditional freedom of religion, we have been a country of immigrants. Immigrants from Flanders, the Cologne area, French Hugenots, Portugese Jews, Protestant English, poor Germans from the Münster area, Eastern European Jews, the list is practically endless. At the same time we grew from seven fairly independent Provinces into a Nation state. We devellopped a national identity: being a Dutchman stands for something, be it positive or negative. All or most of those immigrants left something, or perhaps I should say: added something to our culture and our economy.
Later, after WWII, we took in a huge amount of people from the Dutch Indies, including Chinse, later 'guest laborers' from poor European countries like Italy, Spain and Greece, then in the '70s a huge influxe of black and 'Hindustan' people from Surinam, boat refugees from Vietnam etc. All these people cause hardly any problems (at least after the first generation). They work, start firms, their children study, they play football, complain about the weather, in one word; they become Dutchmen. And they are widely accepted as such with complete disregard of the color of their skin.

Things went wrong with Muslim immigrants.

How come?
One clear answer only. All the groups I mentionned came to Holland to survive and/or lead a better life. With all the problems their integration costed, one thing was clear: they accepted our culture, were happy with the chance they got, and decided to participate in their new country. They could keep their own habits, their own religion, their own expressions, but under the - liberal - laws of this country. They accepted the - as it is called - dominant culture and integrated - sometimes without assimilation.

The problem with Muslims (I realize I am generalising but it is for arguments sake) is that they don't accept our culture, including our legal system, as dominant. That's because that place is reserved for Islam, which has not devellopped yet to distinguish the true place of a religion in a culture. That's the problem in one line and the result is that we are expecting the impossible from immigrants: integration into a society that they consider as inferior and often hostile towards Islam.
But of course our centre-left government in the seventies - and all the demo-socialists (somehow I like that term) on their left flank - kept their eyes firmly closed for upcoming racial/religious/cultural problems, thought us that the Dutch culture was a thing of the past, consequently decided to scrap history from the list of obliged school subjects and declared Holland as the torchbearer of a new, so called "Multi Cultural" Europe in which criticism of other cultures was harsly suppressed by the tought police but criticism of our own Jewish Christian heritage subsidised by the Government.
Now even some lefties (were forced to) see that things went way out of control and measures are being taken to restore the situation back to normal, which is a hell of a task.

So to answer your question: any immigration to this country is welcome as long as they accept it as their country, accept out culture as dominant and are willing to participate in our economy. That should be the only selection. And I dare to conclude that Arabs/Muslims are bad immigrants from the point of view of their new host society.
I am sick of people who come here, claim state welfare including child support for children they supposedly have according to local birth certificates and send the (=our) money to Morocco, as has happened in the past.

Only general point of view:

Think first why they are escaping from their countries and why are this countries in this points.

Think about: how the things would be in your country if you decide that is better to risk your live, cross half Africa, put to sea on a overcrowded ship or small boat without knowing to swim, without water... and arrive on a country that is different on language and culture?
And finally you find a work... a work that no one of this new country wants. You work for hours, your pay is ridicolous and you can be fired when the boss wants because you have no papers. You don't even exist, But you achieve to enlarge the money and can live on a 30 m2 flat with other 20 people, eat a bit, and send some to your familly.

And now think how the country is in that situation: yes, we, the poor Europeans that are being invaded, where there. We invaded their countries, took their wood, gold, platinum, diamonds... primary resources.
We enslaved them and, when they revealed, we left the country, but before leaving, we put a tribal leader that will sell the resources to Europe while we support him whith weapons, a lot of weapons.
And if the things are growing stable... a little help to the rebel faction in order to create civil disorders or even a civil war will put them again into darkness.

At last, think that if it wouldn't be for the inmigrants, you will have to work from 12 to 70 years old, because if not, there will be no money to support our way of life.

NO MAN IS ILLEGAL.

Just like the US at the start of the 20th century. Yet immigrants become integrated with the country, were proud of their citizenship and for the most part became contributors to society.

Think of the slums and tenaments of the Lower East Side.

These people came from all walks of life and succeeded to blend in to that melting pot called America.

Now ask yourself why that is not happening in Europe today. And keep in mind that there were almost no social and health services that come anywhere near today what immigrants are receiving throughout the western world.
So this is about revenge? Historical agendas? Europe should bend over and take what it deserves, is that the new line?
Plenty of people are. That's a fact.

Good bye Europe
 

@ FERdeBOER:
In my posting earlier on this page I was talking about legal immigrants, who are, certainly seen from the point of view of their hom countries, pampered with social benefits and government aid workers to promote integration.
I just wanted to make the point that if you want to immigrate, you'll have to accept the culture of your host country as dominant. If you don't, you're not immigrating but invading.
Another example. In Holland there is a discussion about a (Muslim) school girl that refuses to shake hands with men.
First I should tell you that we Dutch have the strange habit of shaking hands when we meet others or are intoduced. Been doing that for ages.
This girl says that her religion forbids any physical contact with males above 12. The reason is obvious, it is a female suppressing cultural rule of a oversexed and undercivilised male dominant desert tribe from the Dark Ages.
Some Dutch took offense for not being greeted by her in our funny Dutch way. She went to the Anti-discrimination Board which declared her position valid, even in our society. This is definitly the wrong signal. My solution: Integrate, and if this society is asking too much, go back to your tribe!

Watch me jump to Islam's defence! :yep:

Are Muslim men allowed to shake hands with other women (whether Muslim or not)? If yes, then you have a point in this particular case. If not, however, and the prohibition of shaking hands in Islamic law/customer with the opposite gender is equivalent for both men and women, then your claim in this particular instance is wrong.

I speak from first hand experience, pun unintended.

OK. So it was intended. Sue me!

Avon Lady,

Is what you have referred to in your link covered under the Jewish law of Tzniut which if I recall correctly is the area of modesty? And if so and I'm on the right track here, is this law or principle behind why orthodox Jewish women cover their hair outside of their own house be it by a hat, scarf, wig or other method?

Correct. Tzniut is the Hebrew term for modesty.
Yes, like myself. Specifically the law of hair covering is for married women and generally when they are in the presence of other men.

Good bye Europe
 

@ The Avon Lady:
If somebody greets you in a Western country like Holland by streching out his/her hand and you refuse to take that hand for reasons of modesty, you are making a mistake. Whether it concerns a Muslim man or woman is not the determaning factor for my claim.
The mistake is that, while the rule that has been given in your religion, may be very valid within the timeframe and/or within the society in which it is generally accepted, you - as a new immigrant - have moved to a new society, with another culture and you have to think hard whether that is acceptable for you and - if not - how far you will compromise without shutting yourself up in your own subculture.

I know this kind of problems can pop up within Judaïsm as well as in Islam. However, there it is - if I am well informed - not only a matter of modesty but also of cleanness and hygiene. That had its merits, 2.500+ years ago in the desert, but those rules are archaïc an sometimes offensive.
I once knew a stewardess with KLM who was asked by a fundamental (male) Jewish passenger if she had her period, otherwise he did not want to be served by her. My reaction: go hich hiking or fly El Al. Nobody ordered you to fly KLM, but if you do, you accept the local norms.
(Although religious Jews sometimes prefer to fly KLM to enjoy non-kosher food, not having ordered a kosher meal beforehand but blaming KLM for a mess up in order to justify themselves with their friends. KLM countered those tactics by keeping scores of extra kosher meals on Tel-Aviv-Amsterdam-New York flights.)
:D

This kind of behaviour, whether based on religion or archaic customs, is often considered very offending if not discriminatory by the autochtones, who are reaching out to help newcomers integrate in our society.
As far as I know, especially the Jews are masters in strechting the interpretation of those rules in such ways that they are not to much hindered in their daily live by these rules themselves, in the proces circumvening their original intention. To give an exemple: observant Jews are not allowed to make fire or light during the Sabbath. When my father was young (in the early thirties of last century) he and his friends went to Jewish families on Friday nights and earned a few dimes by switching on the light in their houses. Nowadays modern wigs have replaced old time veils and electronics has come to the help of the observant Jews. Hotels in major Israeli cities have a "Sabbath-elevator" which is set to stop at each floor so you can get in and out without pressing - and lighting - a button (or having to resort to the stairs).

While this may sound funny, opportunistic or even hypocritical to some, observant Jews are fully justified to set their own religious parameters and shouldn't care about world opinion.
However, a problem arises when one decides to settle in a different country and culture and especially when one interacts with the autochtone population. Because not observing the dominant rules of normal behaviour is a statement: I moved to and am now living in your culture, but my own culture forbids me to follow your cultural rules. In other words, my culture is superior and I don't accept your culture as dominant.
Well, you really have a problem then, because you are offending another ethnic group or culture. Integrate or move back, too bad.

By the way, the link you gave clearly states the archaïc, sexually induced, male dominant view on the "problem" of normal physical contact between men and women (weird that neither the fundamental Judaïsme nor the Islam takes the possible sexual tangent of physical contact between men and men into account! In those cultures men to men contacts can be quite intense, embracing and often kissing is considered acceptable. This is in my view proof of the male-dominant background of those rules).

... but are not asked", I would like to add.

Demanding women not to do certain things and cover themselves up to a certain degree is a typical male-dominant easy way out-rule. The problem clearly lies with men who are obviously susceptable to hit the "slippery slope" of "disrespect" and even possible "sexual harrisment" when seeing an unveiled woman or touching her in "even the most non-erotic form".
Poor Jewish and Muslim men, what should we do about them. I guess those religions should come up with some drastic rules for men to behave, for instance a ban on looking at attractive women. The problem is that unless you resort to Burka's and Niqfa's or whatever garbage bag-style of clothing, women still can be attractive to men, and often want to be so. Sexual attractiveness is created by G-d, God, Allah and any denial of this sexual tension only serves to magnify sexual frustration.
I mean I can honestly say that - ostentably contrary to the men the quote reflected upon - I can shake a man's or a woman's hand with the most non-erotic thoughts...
:D