New York Times articles reported the Turkish genocide on November 12 1914 and January 11, and January 13, 1915. Pdf of NY Times articles.
From January 13, 1915 New York Times:
“Talaat Bey, the Minister of the Interior, has stated to the Councillor of the Greek Patriarchate that in Turkey henceforth there will be room only for Turks. While he was profuse in assurance to the Greek Minister regarding the cessation of anti- Greek persecutions, no real amelioration of the situation is perceptible.”
Now the Turkish government is “profuse in its assurances” to the EU, the Pope, and to those stout defenders of Americans and Christians, C. Rice and George Bush that they have stopped anti-Christian persecutions. This is because there are so few Christians to persecute, that it hardly counts compared to the numbers before?
New York Times coverage of September 11, 2001.
9-11 Report and articles
9-11 5 years later
NY Times 1914, 1915 repeat of above link
bin Laden’s 1996 Fatwa and Declaration of War on America.
“The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH’S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places -the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka’ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims- by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies.”
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
Is this now true of France, Denmark, London, Dearborn, Washington, etc?
“…no real amelioration of the situation is perceptible.”
That is care of Bush, Blair, Rice, 9-11 Commission of Hamilton Kean, the Iraq Study Group of Baker Hamilton, Democrats, Republicans, MSM, profs, etc.
“…no real amelioration of the situation is perceptible.”
For Christians in Turkey from 1914 to the 2006 Pope Visit.
For the West after 9-11.
Population of Anatolia 1915 before Genocide Ottoman Official records
Muslims were 5.6 million, total population was 9.1 million. So 3.5 million were non-Muslim. So the genocides or suppression of Christians, Jews and others by the Muslims was really about getting rid of about 40 percent of the population.
Genocide is about getting rid of the people, if we can coin a Yogi Berraism. The Muslims wanted to get rid of 40 percent of the population. This was to take the land, houses, businesses, and money of the victims.
It was a delayed completion of the conquests in previous centuries.
According to the following source, the Muslims killed 3.5 to 4.3 million Christians between 1900 and 1923 in Turkey.
“Statistics Of Turkey’s Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources” By R.J. Rummel.
Demographics of Turkey
Christian Genocide Minor Asia webpage
Reference on 1942 Tax Law
Unpleasant Genocide Arithmetic
If the population is stable and one group is given an advantage so that its net growth rate is higher than a second group, then the second group will go extinct.
Proof:
In equilibrium the average growth rate is zero. So if one group is above the other in growth rate, it must be above zero and the second group must be below zero. So the second group goes extinct.
Islam is about giving its members advantage over others. So over time Islam is genocide of non-Muslims. Islam was developed in 622 AD when times were hard. This was the Dark Ages. Some think a volcano was responsible for it, but it was a harsh time of scarcity. Islam was designed to give its members a leg up in that time of scarcity over non-Muslims. So Islam is a religion of genocide in population biology terms.
search Christians Turkey 1914
ISHR Christians in Turkey
Holy Land Foundation shut down after 9-11.
–
Comments at Jihadwatch.org
..
Second article quotations below. (first article is also interesting on confiscations of non Muslim foundations in Turkey. They still haven’t returned them as required by the EU.)
“September 5, 2005
WORLDWIDE TAX OVERVIEW
by Cathy Phillips, editor of Tax Notes International “
“On the morning of November 12, 1942, the citizens of Turkey woke up to the most draconian wealth tax ever envisaged. While the tax in theory applied to the entire predominantly Muslim nation, in practice much of its burden rested with the minority Christian and Jewish communities who primarily resided in Istanbul, formerly known as Constantinople. Neither the rate of taxation nor the taxable base and its derivation were made public.”
“Tax assessments were arrived at in secret, and individuals were directed to settle their government assessed liabilities within two weeks, without any appeal provisions in place. The penalty for Christians and Jews who failed to do so within a month was deportation to forced labor camps in eastern Turkey in addition to having their property confiscated. The tax was initially also extended to Christian and Jewish schools, as well as to churches and synagogues, but not to Muslim institutions, because they were owned or funded by the government.”
Formatting of tables is better in the original.
” Table 1: Statutory Tax Rates
Provision Applied to Applied to
Rate on wartime profit Muslim Turks Non-Muslims
12.5 percent 50.0 percent
Additional tax zero Up to 50 percent of personal wealth
Source: Faik Okte, The Tragedy of the Turkish Capital Tax.”
“In an otherwise officially secular state, taxpayers were classified as Muslim and non-Muslim, denoted with the letters M and G, respectively./2/ The latter included Jews and Christians, including Armenians and Greeks. Assyrian Orthodox Christians also fell in that class. An additional class of taxpayers were the Donme, denoted by D. The Donme were Jews whose ancestors had converted to Islam in the 17th century./3/ Like the Jews and Christians, the Donme were taxed at rates higher than those that applied to Muslims.”
“able 3: Tax Assessments of Minority Institutions
Christian and Jewish Institutions/*/ Number Assessment (TRL)
Schools 88 227,550
Churches and Synagogues 27 119,200
Hospitals 7 86,750
/*/ Zero assessment for Muslim institutions, which numbered in the thousands.
Source: Faik Okte, The Tragedy of the Turkish Capital Tax.”
“Table 4: Effective Tax Rates by Religious and Ethnic Affiliations
Merchants by Affiliation Tax Rates (percent)
Muslim 4.94
Greek Orthodox 156.00
Jewish 179.00
Christian Armenian 232.00
Source: C.L. Sulzberger, “Turkish Tax Kills Foreign Business,”
The New York Times, Sept. 11, 1943.”
Reference on above 1942 Tax Law
Population of Anatolia 1915 before Genocide Ottoman Official records
Muslims were 5.6 million, total population was 9.1 million. So 3.5 million were non-Muslim. So the genocides or suppression of Christians, Jews and others by the Muslims was really about getting rid of them.
It was a delayed completion of the conquests in previous centuries.
..
New York Times coverage of September 11, 2001.
9-11 Report and articles
9-11 5 years later
NY Times 1914, 1915 repeat of above link
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
…
bin Laden’s Fatwa compared to Talaat Bey in 1914 saying Turkey for Turks only.
bin Laden’s 1996 Fatwa and Delcaration of War against America.
“The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH’S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places -the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka’ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims- by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies.”
Repeat of
From January 13, 1915 New York Times:
“Talaat Bey, the Minister of the Interior, has stated to the Councillor of the Greek Patriarchate that in Turkey henceforth there will be room only for Turks. While he was profuse in assurance to the Greek Minister regarding the cessation of anti-Greek persecutions, no real amelioration of the situation is perceptible.”
Is this now true of France, Denmark, London, Dearborn, Washington, etc?
“…no real amelioration of the situation is perceptible.”
That is care of Bush, Blair, Rice, 9-11 Commission of Hamilton Kean, the Iraq Study Group of Baker Hamilton, Democrats, Republicans, MSM, profs, etc.
..
With respect to my colleague Limes in this case, sometimes you can extrapolate. “Mathematical models might be useful five or ten years out, but don’t extrapolate decades into the future. The unsustainable never is.”
98 percent of Turkey is Muslim today
Ottoman Empire 40 percent Christian 1915
So the Christian population went from 40 percent in 1915 to less than 2 percent today.
So with respect to my colleague, what turned out to be unsustainable in Turkey was Christian life.
“On December 21, 1995, Bethlehem became one of the areas under the full control of the Palestinian Authority. It is capital of the Bethlehem district. The current population of the town is about 40,000. The Christian population is no longer the majority, but a special statute requires that the mayor and a majority of the municipal council must nevertheless be Christian.”
“Bethlehem’s former mayor, Hanna Nasser, says an estimated 2,000 Christians in Bethlehem have emigrated during the period of 2000 – 2003. Fifty years ago, Bethlehem was overwhelmingly Christian. Today, it has a Muslim majority.”
Bethlehem wiki There is a need to understand the genocides and forced deportations against Christians and Jews in the entire Middle East in the 20th and 21s centuries.
==
http://civoc.com/newsline/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=9
The above is from CNN and the gentle lady from Lebanon, a Chrisian, tells how Hezbollah is taking over. They have large families, drive out the Christians to take their lands for their families and then vote themselves in power. Terrorists are in the government of Lebanon, which was once Christian.
This is what happens. It is happening in America, England, Denmark, France, Germany , Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, etc.
This is happening to us now. We must stop immigration. Critics say, it hasn’t happened to us already. Then when it does, if they were here, they would say its too late to do anything. This is what they say about immigration, and nukes in North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. They will let Saudi Arabia and UAE get nukes. They let Russia and China get nukes and the left even gave them the secrets.
They invented Mutual Assured Destruction after the fact to make it sound logical. This was to cover up betrayal. The Ph.D.’s at RAND who made up MAD were covering up the espionage by Russia still going on.
The people justifying nukes for Pakistan, Iran and North Korea today are the same leftists anti-Westerners who covered up communist subversion in the 1940′s and 1950′s and let Russia get the bomb. They said it was ok, it was MAD. Russia will be 50 percent Muslim in 50 years or less.
When they use those nukes on us, will it have made sense to have let Russia get nukes in the 1940′s? The professors lied and betrayed us in the 1940′s just as they do today. Harvard, Princeton, University of Chicago, Berkeley, Stanford, Yale, etc. were covering up espionage then and are betraying us now.
The Christians in Turkey went from 40 percent in 1915 to 2 percent or less in 2006. This is what happens when we listen to the liars and West haters on the Left. We have to fight, not let our politicians, profs and MSM betray us. They can’t think beyond today’s headline. We must. We must act. We must tell them to stop immigration totally. We must denuke NoKo and Pakistan and stop it in Iran and Saudi Arabia. These are enemy homelands funding invasion of us by immigration.
This is real. This is what history is. Civilizations fall. Ethnic groups go extinct. You either face up to reality and do something about it or you disappear from the planet. That is what the Left has wanted since Marx.
We need to stop immigration, give our young adults economic security from no immigration and let them get married, have big families and stay married. That comes from job security. Job security comes from no immigration.
Immigration was started in Europe in the 1950′s. In the US in 1965. In both cases, it killed job security for the young. In both cases it brought the population rate below replacement We need to support young adults with job security and end every type of immigration. This includes H1B, family reunification, asylum, etc.
We need to stop the genocide of Christians in Lebanon and the Middle East and support them. We need to say that this genocide of Christians is what Islam is about from the beginning and is now. Islam was an ideology developed in 622 AD during the Dark Ages to justify taking Christian lands and subjugating them so that their population would decline over time.
Now Islam is on the march again, during a time of demographic stress created by their own birth rates. Their birth rates make their lands unlivable so they have to invade ours. We do nothing but allow it. The Left and the betrayers like McCain, Kennedy, Bush, etc. want this to happen to us. They lied during the 1965 Immigration Act and said it wouldn’t change anything. They lied then and lie now. They want our demographic democide. They work for it and lie to our faces.
Democide happened in Turkey. The Christians went from 40 percent in 1915 to under 2 percent in 2006. This is happening now in the US and Europe. Its reality. We must stop immigration now. This includes family reunification, lottery, waiting in line, etc.
…
Robert Spencer Jihad Watch: Pope Rage in Istanbul Comments
Limes and Malinois are right, if we respond. If we wait for the invisible hand to stop immigration completely, not just a token amount, then it will happen.
We have to be politically active. We have to persuade. We have to write to Congressman and Senators. It doesn’t happen by itself.
Once we project our exctinction, and anticipate it will happen if we don’t change, then we still have to act based on that expectation. If no change means we go extinct, and we don’t actually change it, then we do go extinct.
Immigration causes extinction of all the genes in a country, and on a rolling basis every annual cohort of immigrants.
See
Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic
and more at this search on “Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic”
We also have to denuke Pakistan and Iran, and support the Christians in Lebanon, Africa, etc.
“Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic” is a mathematical theorem. If the assumption of sustained immigration is true, the consequence that genes go extinct follows. This applies to everyone here, and everyone who comes in any given year.
Each cohort of everyone here, including those newly arrived, has its genetic survival ratio asymptote to zero if immigration continues.
To avoid the consequences of the mathematical theorem, the assumption has to be completely avoided. Reducing immigration doesn’t avoid the assumption. Immigration has to be zero. Close doesn’t work. Its a theorem.
Limes and Malinois have said if we change things, the consequences won’t happen that will happen if we don’t change them. But we have to actually change immigration to zero, not just reduce it a lot.
This article represents opinion, hypotheses, speculation, and perhaps our last chance. All other disclaimers apply.
Re Vlaams Belang Thread at Jihad Watch
November 16, 2007The thread at Jihad Watch, started by Robert Spencer, has a lively discussion on BNP, Vlaams Belang, Fjordman, Brussels Journal, Paul Belien, Filip Dewinter, Charles Johnson, Little Green Footballs, LGF, etc. Spencer has said he doesn’t want to pour gas on this fire but see it go out in effect. The thread has terms like Nazi, neo-Nazi, white nationalist or nationalism, white supremacist or supremacy, etc. Spencer says he thinks most people involved want to save Europe. He also says we should try to avoid this fight getting out of hand, which to some extent it has. I agree with Spencer on this and applaud him, as well as Charles Johnson for their work and contributions. The thread, “Vlaams Belang, Charles Johnson, and all that”:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018805.php
Many have commented on this debate including Vanishing American, Lawrence Auster, New Sisyphus, Vdare, Gates of Vienna, Winds of Jihad, etc.
So how do we think about this or discuss it? One way is to take assertions, make them hypotheses and then try to test them. Its usually best to have several hypotheses that conflict to test them against each other. Most assertions in this form are false, and so we have to choose among several false hypotheses which is most useful, none of them being true. Or they are uncertain and we have to consider probabilities that are difficult to estimate.
Most posters would agree there is an unacceptable risk of a major downgrade in the level of civilization in the West. This includes a loss of personal freedom, physical security, and some form or another of discrimination or persecution directed at those posting on the board or others they identify with.
Persecution in the form of affirmative action is already happening in most Western countries, and in non-white countries is sometimes directed at white minorities. Examples are in Zimbabwe and South Africa, which both have affirmative action against whites. (How do whites fight discrimination against whites except by banding together? Are they supposed to just quietly watch others receive the hit and do nothing?)
Most posters at Jihad Watch want some form of immigration restriction that would include Muslims but possibly others. When in Western countries have their been substantial restrictions in immigration? Who made the restrictions and for what reasons?
Most posters likely agree that if the current immigration laws are continued, the results will be unacceptable. So they want them restricted. How can that happen? That gets us back to when and why has it actually happened in Western lands. Or we might look at non-Western lands as well for this.
A transition from allowing immigration to not allowing it is rare? The US did it in the 1920′s. Aside from minor restrictions, when else has a Western land gone from heavy immigration to substantially restricted immigration?
The transition from high immigration to low is not something that has happened often in the West. So its wise to consider when it happened in the past and why it succeeded, and why it has failed to happen in so many countries, even though the people want it.
Why don’t people resist immigration more? Do people think they gain from immigration? Or do they think they are harmed? Polls seem to have a wide dispersion of results on what people believe on this.
Is immigration beneficial? We can test that by looking at median wages. Median wages for men have not changed in the U.S. since 1973. Women’s median wages in the U.S. are the same as men’s were in 1960.
Who is going to vote for this immigration restriction? Without the support of whites can it happen? Why will whites vote against immigration? What do they get? What other groups are needed? What support will it get among such groups?
One concept is that the effort should be stated as stopping Muslim immigration, but not any other type of immigration. Would that work to avoid persecution, loss of freedom, etc? Since those are happening now as Enoch Powell predicted in his Rivers of Blood speech, we are in fact already experiencing persecution, loss of freedom, and discrimination.
Will the public support a stop only Muslim immigration position? Or is that less likely to work than a stop all immigration position? Experience to date suggests the elites find it very difficult to tolerate any discussion of stopping the immigration of one group but not the others. Its also not clear that this would achieve much. In fact, its a math theorem that it will still lead to genetic replacement, and thus the almost complete extinction of whites.
So we have lets call it the PC counter jihad position:
Lets consider as alternative stop all immigration.
Which of these proposals will the left, public, mainstream elites, etc. call nativist, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, white nationalist, white supremacist, Eurocentric, etc? The reaction to Virgil Goode and some others suggests that the proposal to stop Muslim immigration only will get the bigger reaction of calling those proposing it names.
Those who have gone along with a total halt of Muslim immigration include Lawrence Auster and it appears also Robert Spencer. So this proposal is possibly more likely to get them called names than a total ban on immigration.
What sort of alliance can be built to stop only Muslim immigration? With whom? As compared to stopping all immigration?
What is the chance to do this without a lot of luck and help from all those inclined in this direction, even for their own reasons? Very low. It will take building an alliance of many and they will have many motives. Survival of what they cherish will surely be part of it.
What is the chance that those pushing this won’t be called bigot, racist, nativist, xenophobe, white nationalist or white supremacist if white? Or being called neo-Nazi, Nazi, fascist, Hitler, thug, etc. whether white or not? The chance of escaping these names is likely zero, whether the effort to restrict immigration succeeds or not.
Traditionally, in the US, third parties push an idea until a major party adopts it. If that is the formula for success, then third parties like BNP, Vlaams Belang, Swedish Democrats, Constitution Party in the U.S., etc. are the main avenue of success. They need to get a critical level of votes to move the major parties. This might be as low as 5 or 10 percent. It only has to be the difference between the votes the two major parties get. That is usually less than 10 percent and often less than 5 percent.
This is a doable level in most Western countries using the existing third parties. So far, no major Western party has embraced a total ban on Muslim immigration. Neither has one embraced a total ban on immigration. So at this point, the best play according to history is to get behind third parties that already exist on this issue and support them until a major party switches.
Getting 10 percent of the vote for such third parties is a reasonable target. We can hope that this will be enough. But it might take more. Ten percent is quite doable with the existing third parties. All of that vote could come from whites. So an appeal to whites who will vote that way consistently may be enough to succeed if we use the history of 3rd party platforms in the U.S.
Opposition to illegal immigration amnesty has already been achieved in the U.S. The people stopped the 2007 amnesty in the Senate by a call-in campaign. That is a major change. They then stopped several follow on efforts in October 2007.
During those debates, the issue of Muslim immigration was never a major part of the debate. Thus the proposal to advocate stopping Muslim immigration only, according to this evidence, was not a winner compared to opposing a more general category of immigration, illegal immigration. In fact, it might even have been counter-productive to advocate a ban of all Muslim immigration at that time.
There are many arguments against legal immigration besides those against Muslim immigration. China is spying on the U.S. Chinese spying can only be stopped by stopping all immigration from China. The same applies to know-how transfer to nuclear states like Pakistan or budding ones like Iran.
Reversing the median wage stagnation in the U.S. since 1973 requires training Americans in college instead of non-Americans. So this economic argument supports stopping all immigration not Muslim immigration only.
Hypothesis: A proposal to stop Muslim immigration only has little chance to succeed. In that case, counter-jihadis advocating this approach only are really advocating defeat. Their position is self-indulgent self-destruction. But its also destruction of the West. So its really no different than leftism, if we accept the relevant assumptions or hypotheses.
If BNP gets 10 percent of the vote at a general election in the UK for parliament, this might be sufficient to tip the Conservative Party in the UK to propose a ban on all immigration. This would be a major shift. At that point, many voters would switch to Conservative. Or they might subtract enough from Labour to elect the Conservatives. The BNP Ballerina supported the BNP, despite her partner being non-British and non-white. She did so not as a counter-jihadi but for reasons of British nationalism.
This is the motive for many people opposed to immigration, including in countries that currently restrict it, i.e. the entire non-white world. So if we look at history or countries that currently restrict immigration, reasons of race, ethnicity, nationalism in a traditional sense, etc. are the reasons everywhere and always we might hypothesize. If there are exceptions, they are not many.
The end of Western civilization would be a calamity. It would certainly be one for whites. They would likely suffer greatly and be reduced to a small minority with some probability. The overall picture presented by the third world today is that third world rule is bad for the people living under it. So its something to be opposed.
Opposition that actually stops Muslim immigration only is highly unlikely to succeed it appears at the present time. So for short term success, stopping all immigration is a better route. This, according to US third party history, may only require a consistent 10 percent vote for it in general elections. That can come from whites alone.
The 2007 call in suggests that non-whites support immigration restriction, but are not going to make calls. The call in in 2007 was likely mostly white. But the non-whites didn’t call for immigration they simply sat back and let the whites do the calling. This suggests non-whites would be quite comfortable for a BNP party to do the public pushing for ending immigration. They may call them white supremacist at every stage, but would be quite happy to let them succeed without opposing it.
People living in the West from the third world came here to escape the third world. They are quite willing to let whites stop new immigration and to maintain the existing high level of society. The left will call any effort to stop immigration white nationalist, white supremacist, xenophobic, etc. However, the US Senate 2007 call in shows that non-whites are quite willing to let activist whites stop immigration and preserve the West as it is and not let it turn into the third world.
All that is necessary is for enough whites to consistently call in to their reps and vote this way in elections, make contributions, blog this way, post comments at WaPo, UK Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, etc. and it will happen. The left will call these whites, white supremacist. Non-whites are quite happy to let these whites stop immigration completely.
Then the West can continue on as it is for a longer period of time. The above appears to be the only plan grounded in empirical reality. This plan means getting a critical mass of whites to call in, post, etc. This group can be motivated by anything, as long as they want to stop all immigration, legal and amnesties, asylum, student, etc. its enough to save the West. The more motives allowed, the more who will call in. The non-whites and other whites are willing to sit on their hands while this white minority makes it happen. They too want the West to stay the way it is.
The non-whites who are willing to sit on their hands while motivated whites call in, include Muslims, Hispanics, Asians, blacks, and Native Americans. Whites who didn’t call in to the Senate in 2007 in the U.S. include leftists, liberals, business people, university professors, green card holders, new citizens, etc.
Everyone who supposedly is ready to call the whites calling in names, and who might in fact do so, are willing to sit on their hands while the motivated whites do the calling for ending immigration. The vast majority of whites and non-whites just want it to happen. They don’t want to do it themselves.
So we just need a committed consistent group of whites to stop all immigration, who are willing to call, contribute, and vote for third parties to succeed. We are actually pretty close to this in many Western countries. BNP is one of the best of third parties for this, as is Vlaams Belang. So we are quite close to getting somewhere.
There are many pro BNP comments at UK Daily Telegraph and UK Times. Many people commented at UK Daily Telegraph that Nick Griffin of BNP should be in the top 100 conservatives. Many at UK Times suggested British mottos that were very anti-immigration.
This is a train that has arrived. The counter-jihadis just need to get on board and stop calling the whites who want to stop all immigration white supremacist and white nationalist. The PC counter-jihadis are doing more against their cause than they realize. They are a little like leftists who want it to happen, but don’t want to take responsibility and do what is necessary.
The way to convert major parties is to get the 10 percent vote for BNP and Constitution Party and others. This is quite doable with the existing third parties, blogs, issue groups, etc. We just need to pour it on. So we should stop calling each other names, advocate for all immigration to stop and make our phone calls, vote third party, contribute, and post at WaPo, etc. for ending all immigration including all legal immigration.
Stopping illegal immigration doesn’t work for counter-jihadis since that allows legal Muslim immigration. The only route for counter-jihadis to stop Muslim immigration is to make sure the anti-illegal immigration movement expands to stop all legal immigration in the US context. They also have to make sure that other countries also stop all immigration including student visas, guest workers, asylum, and family reunification.
The only way to stop all Muslim immigration is to stop all legal immigration. That requires a 10 percent third party support. The counter-jihadis can fill out part of that. This is their best realistic chance.
A list of rules to consider:
==
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/11/15/vlaams-belang-charles-johnson-and-all-that/
Robert Spencer, “Vlaams Belang, Charles Johnson and all that”:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018805.php
Leon the Pig Farmer, one of my favorite posters at Jihad Watch, supports BNP at the above site and so did one or two others. Charles Johnson picks up on the above thread:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27922
Lawrence Auster on the LGF thread.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009233.html
New Sisyphus, says why can’t we all unite:
http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2007/11/popular-front-of-right.html
Frank Purcell says patriotism isn’t nationalism.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/real_patriots_dont_hate/
Vanishing American picks points out some problems with the Purcell and New Sisyphus approaches, as well as Charles Johnson’s attempted purge of the right in neocon fashion.
http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/11/nationalism-and-patriotism.html
http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/11/unite-on-right.html
The following has many links to many posts on the LGF Charles Johnson Vlaams Belang controversy.
http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/11/10/list-of-posts-on-vlaams-belang-and-sweden-democrats/
Posted in Fjordman, Immigration Moratorium, Jihad Watch, Leon the Pig Farmer, LGF Racism Comments, LGF Vlaams Belang, Vlaams Belang, White Nationalist, White Supremacist | 9 Comments »