The 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”:
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:
Proposed: to stop only Muslim immigration.
Lets consider as alternative stop all immigration.
Proposed: to 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:
- Don’t attack what the US Department of Justice says is already true, e.g. “racial differences exist“.
- Don’t attack what the New York Times has already said, e.g. differences in the frequency of socially desirable traits may be genetic between groups.
- Don’t attack what Nobel Prize winners for DNA work say that is on our side.
- Don’t attack science or science papers that are on our side.
- Don’t attack what you actually believe yourself, or those saying it.
- Don’t attack people on our side because others do.
- Don’t forget to make your calls to your senator and reps asking them to stop all legal immigration including student visas, asylum, guest workers, H-1B, family reunification, diversity, and no amnesties.
- To stop all Muslim immigration requires stopping all legal immigration, asylum, student visa, family reunification, diversity, guest worker, H-1B, etc.
- That means you have to oppose all those types of legal immigration in your calls to your reps.
- Contribute to organizations like NumbersUSA, Fairus or BNP that oppose any and all immigration, or Vdare or Jihad Watch, American Renaissance, etc.
- Don’t attack people on the right who are pushing for what you want.
- Don’t repeat what leftists say.
- When you want to attack someone on the right, pick someone on the left and attack them instead. Those who make millions from immigration are always good ones to attack.
- Consistently criticize any politician or candidate who favors a category for immigration for that support. You can still vote for the least of evils if you want, and should vote for someone, but make it known everywhere you can including the candidate, that you oppose their support of legal immigration in any form. Especially do that with those you vote for. If you vote for someone, but oppose them on a position, write to them about it and tell them you voted for them despite their position in favor of some type of legal immigration, or because they were the least of all evils, but this is your most important issue.
- If you are white, you will be called Nazi, neo-Nazi, racist, bigot, fascist, and yes white nationalist and white supremacist. The left has learned we are most afraid of being called white nationalist and white supremacist. This means they will use those to stop us until we treat those names the same as bigot and nativist. Learn to list this whole list as what we are called, and don’t call others these names. Don’t call yourself these either. Treat their use by anyone ever as joke words that make that person ridiculous and non-serious. This has to be a united front. The words Nazi, fascist, bigot, racist, xenophobe, and even white nationalist and white supremacist have to be treated as non-serious words that make the person using them a joke if they are attacking with them.
- The left will use any word we are afraid of. They will find a word that makes us afraid. We have to learn, not to call ourselves that, and to list it as a word that automatically disqualifies the person using it as non-serious, at least in that instance. If they are on our side, we can forget it as we go forward.
- Anyone on the right using white nationalist or white supremacist to attack others on the right is saying this a serious word to use against the right. That gives the left a weapon against us. We must not use white nationalist or white supremacist as serious terms to attack anyone. We must not refer to ourselves using these words. We must treat them the same as the words bigot and nativist, joke words.
- The recent LGF debate over Vlaams Belang has empowered the left to call us white nationalist and white supremacist. These are the new words to make us afraid. We have to make these words into non-serious words the same as we have bigot, nativist, and racist. If there is any word we fear to be called, the left will find it. If we call ourselves that in attack, they will be able to figure out what word we are currently afraid of. They will then use it to silence us and make us fight against our own beliefs and positions. They will make us make the humiliating abject apologies they delight in. This we must never do. (Only those facing prosecution can be excused for such an apology.) We must go on the attack and make jokes about their most powerful words of attack against us.
- We must never use the words the left calls us against each other as serious. We must treat everyone of them as a joke word that discredits the speaker.
- This is a strictly school yard fight. The other kids know which words get to us. Sticks and stones may break our bones, but being called white nationalist and white supremacist will never hurt me.
- We are playing on a school yard by school yard rules. This is a fight without adult supervision. The other side are full of bullies and we have to fight back with school yard rules. The other side is a gang. We have to win.
- The other side doesn’t really want to win, as shown by the lack of call ins in 2007 for amnesty. No one called for amnesty, not even professors. I asked the Senate staffers and they said no one at all was calling in for amnesty. Not even the most extreme liberal. This was in Virginia. None of the leftists and immigrants living in Northern Virginia called in for amnesty. No one who works for Washington Post who lives in Northern Virginia called in for amnesty to Virginia senators. No one who works at the Civil Rights Division of DOJ who lives in Northern Virginia called in to their senators for amnesty. Or it was very few. But staffers did tell me at times, it was zero. The senators figured this out. The most extreme people who testify, the millionaires and billionaires, the petty bosses, the farmers, etc. none of them called in for amnesty. PC neocons who live in Northern Virginia didn’t call in for amnesty. People on TV for it didn’t call in. The Senate figured that out, they live here too. The left doesn’t want to win. They don’t want to live in the third world, they want to live here. They want us to call in and to call us names at the same time. They want to be hypocrites. Let them, don’t be them.
- Now that we have used the words white nationalist and white supremacist, and white nationalism and white supremacism to attack each other, the left knows that these are words some on the right will use against each other. Its not a secret, its on the internet. That means all of us will be inundated with these words. The other kids know we are willing to use them on each other on our side of the playground, so they know some of us are afraid to be called these words, those using them to attack for sure. That means we will be inundated with these specific words until we show we don’t care. We have to treat white nationalist and white supremacist the same as we treat Nazi, bigot, racist, nativst, xenophobe. By using them against our own side, we guarantee the left will pile these on all of us until we treat them as non-serious words whoever uses them. That is how the playground works. The kids on the other side figure out the words we use on each other we are afraid of. Now we have to show them we are not.
- Note that it doesn’t matter what the words mean. All that matters is we called kids on our side these names. The kids on the other side know we are afraid of these words. So they will taunt us with them until we show we don’t care. This is how the playground works.
- Those who have used the words white nationalist and white supremacist to attack others on the right are guaranteed to have these words used against them until they show they treat them like the words nativist, bigot, racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, etc. Those who have been called this should regard this as satisfaction enough. You don’t have to do anything more. The leftist bullies will use these taunts until those on the right who used them will turn on these words and not care about them. This will happen no matter how much emotion anyone on the right has right now about what has happened. Everyone on the right should cool off and realize that under schoolyard rules, those who use these terms as serious will be called them until they aren’t serious. The left knows they are called fascist and Nazi back and that these words stop people listening and discredit the speaker. We have now arrived, because we used the words seriously on each other, at the point where white nationalist and white supremacist are the new fear words. Get used to being called them, whether you used them or didn’t.
Robert Spencer, “Vlaams Belang, Charles Johnson and all that”:
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:
Lawrence Auster on the LGF thread.
New Sisyphus, says why can’t we all unite:
Frank Purcell says patriotism isn’t nationalism.
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.
The following has many links to many posts on the LGF Charles Johnson Vlaams Belang controversy.