Wednesday, 11 July 2012

Decades ago, some British heavy industries like ship-building had lost their international competitiveness. Trade unionism was so deeply entrenched that the work practices had become surrounded with inefficient restrictions. Business and jobs began to be lost. When company managers tried to roll back some of the "workers' rights", they were greeted with strike action and trade union militancy that made the companies even less competitive. The workers were concerned about the loss of business and jobs, too, but they had failed to correctly diagnose the problems afflicting them. They saw everything through the mental frame of evil capitalists exploiting poor workers. And in response, they demanded even more workers' rights, intensifying the problem rather than alleviating it. Now nearly all of those jobs are gone.

Why do I mention this? Because we are seeing the very same thing in the Counterjihad movement. Intellectual error, resulting in a failure to properly understand what is happening to us, is causing Counterjihadists to embrace pseudo-solutions that in fact only intensify the problems afflicting us.

Look at this tragi-comic Brussels Declaration:
To Preserve Free Speech, Civil Liberties, Human Rights and Democracy, against all efforts to injure and usurp those universal principles, we call upon leaders in all nations to support this 2012 Brussels Declaration to Safeguard Individual Liberties and Human Rights:

Reasserting that Human rights and liberties are universal, individual, equal, inalienable, and self-evident irrespective of philosophical, cultural or religious considerations, as a matter of long-held principle;

Considering that any honest defender of Democracy has the right and the duty to uphold and defend free speech, civil liberties and human rights;
Source: Brussels Declaration

Equating democracy and human rights is a sure sign of intellectual failure. Anyone who has spent any amount of time thinking about it realises that a rule-based system of government (bureaucracy) of the kind that administers "human rights" and a system of government based on the unalloyed judgement of the people (democracy) are polar opposites. The purpose of human rights is to suppress democracy, not enhance it or buttress it.
Affirming the irrefutable fact that sharia law as articulated and applied is incompatible with and destructive to free speech, civil liberties and human rights and as such is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy (as stated in the 13 Feb 2003 judgment of the ECHR);

Acknowledging that the declaration known as “Cairo Declaration of Human Right in Islam” also commonly referred to as the “Cairo Declaration” curtails all human rights under sharia law and sharia normative behavior restrictions (CDHRI Articles 22, 23, 24)on the pretense that “All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah”(CDHRI Article 1);

Observing that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), being the creator of Cairo Declaration and its current main proponent has, by its continuous and single-minded activity, proven to be the principal international politico-religious organization working to restrict free speech, civil liberties and human rights and to enforce sharia in the world;
Why are these people blithering on about the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights and sharia regimes elsewhere in the world? Do we not have enough to worry about in Europe? Has the Muslim demographic in Britain not literally doubled in the last ten years? The focus of the European Counterjihad movement must be on preserving European civilisation - and to hell with the rest of the world. As I have observed before, promoting the ideology of human rights only makes sense for a Counterjihadist if your focus is on offence (attacking Islam where it is already entrenched). If your focus is on defence, as, for those of us in Europe, it must now be, the ideology of human rights is your worst enemy. Because it prevents you from taking any of the vigorous actions necessary to preserve your own country or civilisation. Yet still we see the European Counterjihad movement intellectually dominated by Americans living in completely different circumstances from us, which means the focus of their anti-Islamic efforts is indeed on offence (Islam outside of their home territory).

In a sense, these Counterjihadists are afflicted by the same kind of xenomania as the do-gooders and multicultists who have caused the problem in the first place. What inspires the Marxoid Guardian-loving left? Love of the alien. Concern for the well-being of the alien at the expense of our own well-being. These ICLA activists are exhibiting exactly the same symptoms. When their focus should be on preserving France, Belgium and the Netherlands from the Muslim immigration invasion, they are instead wittering on about how women have a hard time getting a driving license in Saudi Arabia or gays can't hold pride parades in Algeria, etc.

Maybe this is just a death spiral our civilisation can't get out of. When even the people who are most aware of the problem are afflicted by the same intellectual errors that caused it in the first place, maybe it's time to give up, move to the remotest corner of Iceland, build a bunker and learn to hunt elk.

What are some possible responses to the Mohammedan mind virus now afflicting Europe? Ban the practice of Islam? Can't. They've got a human right to practice their religion. Stop Muslim immigration? Can't. It's against human rights to discriminate on the basis of religion. Stop Muslims importing their spouses? Can't. It's against their human rights. And so on ad infinitum. At every juncture, the response to a proposal that might limit or contain the threat Mohammedanism poses to us is "Human rights!". And yet here we see people clearly well-versed in the threatening nature of Islam calling for even greater support for human rights. How utterly tragic. I think I need to post some more articles explaining in greater detail what's wrong with the idea of human rights. This is only a minor blog. Not that many people read it. But what the hell, I have to try. At least until I move to Iceland and shoot my first elk.








61 comments:

Grace said...

We might join you if you get a good deal on a used bunker! We're about ready to jump ship ourselves, and it's possible the results of the US presidential election in November might just be the tipping point for us. We've been daydreaming about a deserted island for years...but I like the snow better. :)

Anonymous said...

Love your raving hysteria. Keep it going. (Is this comment deleted yet?)

Anonymous said...

CZ

DP111 said..

Excellent statement of the counterproductive position of the counter-Jihad movement.

All of your general points I agree with. Forget banning the koran though. That is pointless, for as long as Muslim populations continues to grow, any policy is pointless. OTH, if Muslim population is continuously reduced by some means, banning the koran etc, is a waste of time, as the problem will be solved soon.

Now one has to think how can one create conditions where it is possible to reduce the Muslim demographic in stages. We must bear in mind that we cannot do so by dictat. The strategy has to be based on current realities, part of which will be to change the current political and social atmosphere.

Current reality is that we live in an extreme an liberal political atmosphere, where tolerance has to be extended even to the murderously intolerant. Where chain migration of Muslims into the country on family re-unification grounds is deemed a human right.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Right. And we change the current political and social atmosphere by challenging the idea of human rights, presenting it as a threat to democracy. Popularise the mental frame of "bureaucracy vs. democracy". It would a slow, patient work of persuasion. But you can't win if you have misdiagnosed the problem in the first place and are only digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Enza Ferreri said...

I have a slightly different opinion on this. I think that the problem does not lie with the concept of human rights in itself, but with the way it is applied.

Human rights is a valid moral principle but, like all principles in ethics, is not absolute: it has to be applied to the circumstances, and possibly limited by other coexisting valid principles.

The case of human rights and Islam that Cheradenine describes is similar to the situation of those judges who sentence people to prison terms for killing or injuring a burglar that entered their property.

The law against committing murder or assault is valid, and it does not need to be changed. It is the way these judges apply it that it is wrong, because they don't give enough importance to the circumstances that limit its scope, in this case the right to self-defence and to defend one's property.

We see here again the similarity between illegal immigration and strangers invading somebody's house without permission.

The use of "human rights" on the part of the liberal establishment to protect Islam and Muslim immigration to Europe is wrong not because the concept of human rights is not valid per se, but because these people do not consider its limitations. In this case, the limit to the validity of its application derives from Islam itself. These people do not know what Islam is, do not realize (or so it seems, we can't tell whether they pretend or not) that Islam is the greatest threat to human rights that we face today, and that any measure to limit its influence, particularly in the West, far from being considered a violation to human rights, should be seen as the best way to protect them.

Our task, in my view, is to educate the public on what Islam really is, which the overwhelming majority of Westerners still don't know.

Denying the validity of the concept of human rights would be counterproductive both theoretically and strategically.

Theoretically, because it is a useful framework, which would be wrong to reject in the absence of something better. In the final analysis, many of the objections we have to Islam have a foundation on human rights, principle which derives from our Christian tradition.

The concept of human rights is one of the best weapons we have against the theoretical armoury of Islam.

Strategically, because it would be immensely more difficult to dismantle the idea of human rights, in ethics as well as in politics, than to expose, denounce and criticize Islam for what it is. If we frontally attack the whole idea of human rights, we lose credibility because there are really no good arguments to do it. If we attack the way "human rights" is used as if it were an absolute value, without looking at what other values may limit its scope, and in particular without a knowledge of how Islam is the enemy number one of human rights, we have a better chance of convincing other people.

And please don't shoot elks.

Anonymous said...

Enza Ferreri

DP111 said..

Appreciate your comment.

The problem is that Human Rights legislation applies to humans, which includes Muslims. The problem we have is with the ideology of Islam itself. One cannot though make an exception to Human Rights for individuals who follow Islam. If we tried to do so, we will be faced with the same dilemma that the Spanish Inquisition was confronted with- how to determine which Muslim converts to Christianity were genuine. In this case it would be modified to which Muslim was sincere or not in applying sharia.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

But we do have something better. Democracy. Nationalism. People having the right to decide what goes on in their own ancestral homelands, without artificial limitations resulting from an elite-imposed rules framework.

The problem is not that we need to convince people. People are already convinced. Ordinary people. Polls show majorities in most of the countries of Europe fear Islam and the effect it is having on their society. The problem is the gulf between elite opinion and the opinion of ordinary people. But the infrastructure of human rights is simply a means by which elites can force their prejudices on ordinary people, denying them democracy.

The third-world immigration catastrophe, and its most threatening element, Islamic colonisation, would never have occurred if the opinion or ordinary people had been respected.

The essential problem we confront is elites imposing their false ideals on ordinary people through the suppression of democracy in the name of what they insist are higher moral claims. And they use the ideology and the infrastructure of human rights to do it.

Something is good or bad according to its practical consequences. What are the practical consequences of the ideology and the infrastructure of human rights? The dispossession of the people of Europe of their own ancestral homelands, the islamic colonisation of their living space, the creation of no-go areas, the inability to confront mortal enemies living in our midst, etc. If those aren't good arguments against it, I don't know what a good argument is. There aren't any good arguments in favour of it. Even in non-democratic countries it has been shown to have a negative effect.

Anonymous said...

DP111 said..

CZ

The evidence that the counterJihad movement is having an effect on the social and political climate is when the MSM starts to notice and then attack it in the tried and tested manner - "Racism".


Guardian publishes "a see-through attempt to demonise certain political ideas by branding them racist"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/guardian-publishes-a-see-through-attempt-to-demonise-certain-political-ideas-by-branding-them-racist.html#comments

Anonymous said...

DP111 said

CZ

And then the counter to the Guardia article

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100170161/the-liberal-medias-war-on-trolling-is-becoming-increasingly-intolerant-and-censorious/#disqus_thread

Read the comments. Blogs such as yours are doing a fine job.

Anonymous said...

DP111 said..

CZ wrote: Something is good or bad according to its practical consequences. What are the practical consequences of the ideology and the infrastructure of human rights? The dispossession of the people of Europe of their own ancestral homelands, the islamic colonisation of their living space, the creation of no-go areas, the inability to confront mortal enemies living in our midst, etc. If those aren't good arguments against it, I don't know what a good argument is.

It is a good argument but does it contradict the moral precept that all humans are created equal? That we are all equal before the law. That we must not judge a human on the basis of his/her religion. Or for a crime that he has not committed, or even worse to judge a person that some day his descendants will invoke sharia, when the time and numbers are right.

Admittedly, Islam is a religion unlike any other, but the problem still remains. Even for Christians who are concerned what will happen to Christendom once Muslims are a near majority, the policy of removing Muslims by contravening Human Rights legislation, is not the way. Some other way that doe not involve contravening Human rights, must be found. Something that makes following Islam, even in its minor customs, becomes a problem.

Enza Ferreri said...

Cheradenine

I agree with DP111 that you are doing a fine job.

Democracy is also not absolutely good. It has its limitations too. Both Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected, and the Islamists have been taking over the Middle East and beyond, from Iran to Palestine, from Egypt to Libya and Tunisia, through democratic elections.

The only way in which we can criticize the Muslim Brotherhood's ascent to power is by pointing out that a democracy which does not uphold values of equality, non discrimination against non-Muslims and women, and in short human rights, is not a real democracy.

Enza Ferreri said...

And also, regarding what you say: that judging human rights from what you enumerate as its negative consequences, this idea should be discarded.

This could be a valid argument only if you could show that these are consequences of human rights principles themselves but you cannot show that because, as I said before, they are only the consequences of an absolute idea of human rights, which does not take into account the circumstances to which it's applied.

You wouldn't abrogate the legal punishment for murder only because sometimes it's been used to jail people who murdered in self-defence.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

I'll make a post to clarify what I mean in my criticism of human rights. Primarily what I am referring to is a constitutional framework that allows laws to be struck down by unelected people based on their idiosyncratic interpretation of written rules. Do away with that legal infrastructure and the concept of human rights is much less harmful.

But you're exhibiting exactly the symptoms that I described in the article. You say we need human rights so we can criticise the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? But why would we want to? Why not just focus on Europe? This obsession with "bringing civilisation to the savages" is just another aspect of the xenomania that is the root cause of Europe's current predicament.

When I saw democracy must be allowed to prevail, I am talking about Europe, not trying to prescribe some universalist moral code that must be applied everywhere. The universalist impulse is another of the causes of our current predicament.

Even if we did agree that being able to criticise the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was somehow a great and desirable thing, what demonstrable good has come of it? Absolutely none. Counterjihadists who embrace the idea of human rights so they can criticise the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are guilty of exactly the same failings as the Guardian-reading multicultists: sacrificing the well-being of your own people because of a concern with the well-being of aliens.

Enza Ferreri said...

Cheradenine

I actually predicted, when I wrote about Egypt, that you would say something along the lines of what you did, i.e. that we should concentrate on Europe.

My point here is not to "bring civilization to the savages". I agree with what Oriana Fallaci said in her books, that we should "leave Muslim countries cook in their own broth" as we say in Italian, namely non intervene in their affairs.

We may even be talking about two different
things here without having realized it so far.

I think that you concentrate on the political aspect of things, whereas I believe that both the legal and the political frameworks must have a basis in morality - it does not mean necessarily that laws and politics must coincide with morals, but there must be a correlation.

And ethics by definition obeys universal laws. Universality, as you probably realized when reading Singer, is a necessary condition of a system of ethics.

So, I share your indignation at how human righs principles are applied by supernational entities like the European Court of Human Rights for example. But I fail to see where the denial of human rights can lead us in a positive sense.

In a previous comment you said that something is good or bad according to its consequences.

That, for instance, is a universal principle.

Look at Egypt, again. They have "democracy" now, and they have nationalism, the Muslim nationalism of the ummah.

Those are the two values which you say are better than and would replace human rights. So, following this logic, we arrive at the conclusion that attacking and killing Christians in Egypt is OK because it is democratic in the sense of being supported by a majority of Muslim Brotherhood, Islamist voters, and is nationalistic because the ummah revolts against the "alien" infidels.

Those are the consequences of "democracy" and nationalism without human rights in Egypt. Are you happy with those consequences? I am not. And what happens there is hugely worse than what happens in Europe, bad as the latter is.

Of course we should concentrate on Europe in a practical sense and act in Europe, but we can only act rationally if we have principles that could be (I underline this word) theoretically applied everywhere.

Otherwise, think of this. What would guarantee that the majority of Europeans could not act in wrong and even abhorrent ways?

Majority rule, i.e, democracy, without a moral universal set of rules can simply become the dictatorship of the majority to oppress the minority (and it's used in this way, again, in Islamic countries). It's the mob rule that you see in lynching.

I have to say the you misinterpreted my intentions when I said the we can't criticize the Muslim Brotherhood's access to power in Egypt without reference to human rights.

By that I didn't mean that criticizing the MB is an overwhelming requirement in itself. as you seem to have thought.

I meant that we need fundamental conceptual systems that work as basis for our political actions and can be applied universally (which is different from absolutely).

I think that you got closer to a proper understanding of my position when you said: "Primarily what I am referring to is a constitutional framework that allows laws to be struck down by unelected people based on their idiosyncratic interpretation of written rules. Do away with that legal infrastructure and the concept of human rights is much less harmful."

But this is similar to what I said: the problem is not human rights, it is the wrong way this idea has been used and applied.

Having said that, yes, it would be interesting to know, maybe in a future post, what kind of world, or Europe, you envisage. And possibly I could do the same.

Enza Ferreri said...

I forgot to add that reason is universal.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

"And ethics by definition obeys universal laws. Universality, as you probably realized when reading Singer, is a necessary condition of a system of ethics."

It's clear that peoples around the world have had different systems of ethics since time immemorial. There's no reason why they shouldn't continue to do so.

"Look at Egypt, again. They have "democracy" now, and they have nationalism, the Muslim nationalism of the ummah.

Those are the two values which you say are better than and would replace human rights. So, following this logic, we arrive at the conclusion that attacking and killing Christians in Egypt is OK because it is democratic in the sense of being supported by a majority of Muslim Brotherhood, Islamist voters, and is nationalistic because the ummah revolts against the "alien" infidels.

Those are the consequences of "democracy" and nationalism without human rights in Egypt. Are you happy with those consequences? I am not. And what happens there is hugely worse than what happens in Europe, bad as the latter is."

I'm not particularly happy with those consequences, but I also don't care that much about them. I care about preserving European civilisation. As I already pointed out, what I said was in reference to Europe, not an attempt to prescribe a social order to be applied everywhere on earth. You have to have basic faith in the decency of your own people. I do have faith in the decency of the people of Europe. So I think democracy is the best system for them. If you give democracy to a bunch of evil savages, of course they will use it to do stupid and evil things. That's why I supported the dictators in the Middle East who have now mostly been overthrown. Because savages require harsh, authoritarian government.

What is happening to Europe is the result of European elites becoming mesmerised by their own intellectual abstractions. It is time to be more pragmatic. If I'm filling out a donation form for a charity and some thugs break into my house and start smashing it up, it's time to stop filling out the form and deal with something more practical.

In any case, from the fact that democracy sometimes produces unpleasant results, it is unsound to derive the conclusion that we should institute a system that suppresses or limits democracy. Someone walked down the street once and was stabbed, so we should all go round wearing stab vests all of the time?

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Can you or any other supporter of human rights cite me some examples where either the ideology or the legal infrastructure of human rights prevented some bad things from happening that would otherwise have happened through free operation of the democratic process? I venture to suggest that you can't, because there are none of any significance.

How threatening the Muslim presence is in a particular country is a function of how many Muslims there are there relative to the rest of the population. It's that simple. No human rights rhetoric or set of legal instruments is going to make any difference.

So, let's sum up. Many Counterjihadists, and virtually the entire western world, are deeply attached to an intellectual abstraction called human rights. All of the demonstrable real-world effects of this abstraction are damaging to the well-being of European civilisation and have no apparent effect in palliating the horrors of non-European civilisation (sic). Nonetheless, disregarding all the real-world effects, people continue to exhibit an almost quasi-religious attachment to this abstraction, hoping that somehow, somewhen, it will come good and start to be beneficial.

You say the problem with human rights is the way it has been used and applied. But if human rights leave the realm of rhetoric and begin to be embodied in real-world instruments, there is no way for them to be applied that does not involve unelected people limiting the democratic choices that majorities are allowed to make. It takes us straight back to the pre-democratic era in which elites are again in control of our societies. It is clear that the support for islamisation and third-world immigration generally comes almost exclusively from the European elite, mesmerised by their intellectual abstractions like human rights, and is not shared by ordinary people.

So by consenting to a legal infrastructure that involves bureaucrats overruling democrats based on simplistic written rules (human rights) you have essentially handed the elites carte blanche to impose their undemocratic utopian fantasies on the majority of the European people, which will, in time, result in the end of European civilisation.

Enza Ferreri said...

You seem to derive from what I said conclusions that are not warranted by it, carrying them much further than I did.

If I wanted to give the elites carte blanche as you write, I would not conduct the fight that I am.

I also predicted, for the second time, what you would reply: in this case, that we should trust the people of Europe.

Of course I overall trust Europeans not to act like people in Islamic countries.

But can you or I or anybody else trust the majority of a large population implicitly and absolutely just because they belong to our ethnic group and culture (as you put it, "your own people")?

I remember not long ago lynch mobs against supposed paedophiles, who sometimes were not even that.

And what about the "Guardian-reading multicultists" with whom you unjustly associate me?

They are part of "our people" too. If they increased and became a majority, we should, following your premises to their logical conclusions, either accept their "democratic" dictum or emigrate to the end of the world.

Maybe this is what you think, I don't know for sure.



There's something I'd like to ask you: do you know many counterjihadist individuals, groups or blogs that reject human rights?

Anonymous said...

Sounds nice going to Iceland, but for the elks, I'm afraid they're rather scarce

Btw, did they manage to establish that mosque in Reykjavik yet?

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

If I thought that a clear majority of the people of Europe really wanted to hand over their ancestral living space to aliens and for Europe to be transformed into Eurabia then I would accept its moral legitimacy and, yes, might well then leave Europe to its fate.

You are still dallying with abstractions and ignoring the effect those abstractions have in the real world. It's like people who say they are Communists but didn't like the kind of Communism that existed in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc., claiming real communism had never been tried yet.

Let's boil it down to practicalities. Do you believe that there should be codes of rules and unelected people to interpret those codes of rules with the power to strike down laws that, in their opinion, do not conform to them? And, if so, what do you do when the unelected people say you can't ban burkas, can't ban genital mutilation, can't deport Muslim rapists, can't limit Muslim immigration, etc. because, in their view, it doesn't conform to the written rules. You just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, the elite have spoken. We can't go against human rights." Because that is the logical implication of your support for a human rights infrastructure.

There is a world of difference between a lynch mob and something that happens through a democratic process. Does it mean that a majority might decide to persecute a minority in their midst? Yes. There is no way to design a system that could abolish all the vagaries of human nature. Bad things happen sometimes. In any case, unleashing the persecuting impulse against Muslims is exactly what we need to do in some form if we are going to survive. These people need to be persecuted and driven out of our countries.

No. I don't know any Counterjihad groups or blogs that are against human rights. That's why I write these posts. Because I can see that they have made a fatal misjudgement owing to a lack of intellectual clarity.

Why don't these human-rights-supporting Counterjihadists tell us the endgame they envisage? How do they see the Muslim colonisation of Europe ending? With docile Muslims who have agreed to conform to human rights? And should we just let the Muslim demographic go on growing and even become a majority because the Muslims have promised us they will abide by human rights principles once they're in charge? That's laughable.

There are only two possible end scenarios: the Muslims take over and forcibly islamise our societies; or the Muslims are driven out of our countries.

Which scenario do you prefer? If the latter, does the idea of human rights facilitate or obstruct achieving the goal of driving the Muslims out of our countries?

Enza Ferreri said...

I'll answer the last set of questions first, because I can see that you keep attributing to me things that I haven't said and ideas that I don't support, despite the fact that I have repeatedly tried to dispel these misconceptions on your part, so there is no point in repeating myself.

What you call "abstractions", anyway, are necessary. We can't live without theories, even with their limitations and disadvantages, because without them we can't understand the world.

You use abstractions too, inevitably.

The comparison with communism is misplaced. Marx theory had already been confuted by historical events long before the time you are referring to, because its predictions (like that the socialist revolution would first occur in industrially advanced England, just to give you an example) did not materialize.

So, people who clung to it were ideologues who, despite claiming to believe in "scientific socialism", did not follow the scientific method by accepting the verdict of the history lab.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I just disagree with your views, and you use a bit of ad hominem attack tactics by comparing me to Guardian readers, multicultists, communists and so on. If you were a Guardian reader yourself, you'd have probably called me fascist or racist by now.

I think that there are broadly three theoretical possibilities regarding Muslims and Europe: a) Muslims will integrate, b) Muslims will multiply and impose Islam on everybody, c) Muslims will not be part of Europe anymore.

I think that Islam and European civilization are incompatible, not just because Islam is bent on destroying anything which is not Islam - what you can call the "supremacist reason" - but also because our fundamental principles and Islam's are in direct, logical contradiction, and trying to reconcile them is like squaring a circle: you cannot solve a logical contradiction with compromises, as you could solve a conflict of interests for instance. We can call this the "cardinal reason".

Hence, among my theoretical possibilities of future developments I did not put that non-integrated Muslims and Europeans can coexist in peace in the same polities without interfering with each other.

Possibility a: I don't think that it will happen.

Possibility b: that can happen and it's a real danger, but I'm optimistic enough that, before we go too far along that road, there will be protests and rebellions from the native Europeans to a scale and intensity that something will intervene to stop that trend.

Possibility c: I see this as, eventually, the most likely thing to happen. It will follow, as I said, a lot of strife, possibly civil wars, and maybe not even all in one go. Maybe the Muslims will be pushed back and they will return after a period, and possibly they will eventually be defeated. I can't predict the future as far as that. It may be similar to what happened during the Crusades, it took several wars and centuries. The final defeat of the Islamic armies at the Gates of Vienna, after all, was only in the late 17th century, a few centuries ago, and now Islam is coming back.

Which is also another, historical reason why it's impossible to be blind to what happens to the rest of the world, as you seem to suggest, because the rest of the world will haunt you as much as you try to hide.

So, if you wish to be practical, as you suggest we should do, that's a practical reason.

Enza Ferreri said...

I mentioned that European civilization and Islam are in direct contradiction in their fundamental principles. Part of that contradiction is the former's belief in human rights, inherited from Christianity.

Human rights will not, as I have explained a few times before, obstruct this course of events. Only their misguided application may, temporarily, delay it.

We should not throw away the baby with the bath water.

"But if human rights leave the realm of rhetoric and begin to be embodied in real-world instruments, there is no way for them to be applied that does not involve unelected people limiting the democratic choices that majorities are allowed to make...
So by consenting to a legal infrastructure that involves bureaucrats overruling democrats based on simplistic written rules (human rights) you have essentially handed the elites carte blanche to impose their undemocratic utopian fantasies on the majority of the European people, which will, in time, result in the end of European civilisation."

I must say that this is the first time that I've been accused of contributing to the end of European civilization. Anyway, I don't think that there is no way for human rights to be applied that does not involve unelected people. In fact, it's elected people who in the West have allowed this unwelcome development to happen, the major political parties in power in European countries have done nothing to limit the power of judges, courts and bureaucrats, so you may say that the consequences that you (and I) deplore so much are due to the democratic process as well.



"what do you do when the unelected people say you can't ban burkas, can't ban genital mutilation, can't deport Muslim rapists, can't limit Muslim immigration, etc. because, in their view, it doesn't conform to the written rules. You just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, the elite have spoken. We can't go against human rights." Because that is the logical implication of your support for a human rights infrastructure."

It is not the logical conclusion, and I never said that I support the "human rights infrastructure". You put words in my mouth. I said that I support the principle of human rights, but not the way it is being applied by supranational courts, which is what I suppose you mean by "human rights infrastructure". The examples you have given I condemn, and I have made it so clear in previous comments that I really can't see how you can continue to misunderstand me, unless you wish to do so.

The problem is with these supranational courts, not with human rights. And when the problem lies with national governments applying human rights laws to avoid limiting immigration etc, these people have been elected. So you can see that democracy does not solve the problem.

I really would like to see what world you imagine without human rights, I'd be curious.

There was a time when I used a pseudonym but I don't any more because if we don't take public responsibility for our own ideas the hope for success decreases.

Alas said...

I have read the debate between CZ and EF going on here and it is very interesting. I am confused on one point though which is, how can EF support human rights but not necessarily be against democracy? To me if you are for human rights, and then let's say that a majority would wish to discriminate against Muslims by, for example, banning the koran, or stopping Muslim immigration, or some such policy, then the principles of human rights and democracy would clash, and you would have to pick one?

I personally don't believe in either human rights or democracy, all I want is to not be invaded by third world immigrants, and if absolutist monarchy of military junta can deliver this for me, then I will support these.

Also, EF, may I also say that you seem to imply that human rights are democratic because we subscribe to them and we have a democratic system of government, our politicians (who are elected) do not get rid of it, and so it must therefore be democratic. But I put it to you that we do not have democracy at the moment, not in the true sense of the word, as in rule by the people. If we had this, and voted on every issue, we would not be in this predicament. We have representative democracy, but the problem is, our representatives do no such thing, and there is a limit to which representatives the people can choose, placed on us by the elites. If you say anything against third world immigration you are instantly destroyed by the media, other politicians, and the courts; how is this democracy? How can we even have democracy without free speech which is necessary for its existence?

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

First of all there are no ad hominem attacks in anything I've posted in this thread and I'm sorry if you've misinterpreted it that way. We are discussing ideas. The fact of similarity between those who embrace human rights and the Guardianistas is indisputable. It is a concern, an obsession even, with the well-being of people outside of their own society. People who embrace human rights do so because they want to lecture people in other countries on how they should live their lives. But why, after all, should we care? Most especially, why should we care when our own civilisation is being devoured? Is it not more sensible to focus on preserving it? Most of the rest of the world seems to get by just fine without lecturing people in other countries on how they should live. This obsession, a kind of mind virus, shared by both multicultists and those who oppose them, is unique to European civilisation. It is what is destroying us.

You say you object to these supranational courts. Can you give me some examples of how the idea of human rights has been applied successfully then? If there aren't any, how would you envisage the idea of human rights being applied in the real world, or do you think it should exist only at the rhetorical level? If you acknowledge that all the real-world applications of the idea are damaging, is it not irresponsible to go on promoting it, at the very least without drawing a sharp distinction between the idea as you envisage it and the idea as it is currently applied? It's like someone saying they loved Communism back in the Cold War without failing to make it clear that they were opposed to the totalitarian communist regimes then in existence.

You ask what kind of world I envisage without human rights? Well, it would be just like this one except unelected bureaucrats wouldn't have the power to overrule elected politicians based on their idiosyncratic interpretations of simplistic written rules. What exactly is it that you think the idea of human rights is contributing to the world? You talk as if it was some palisade holding back the forces of darkness. Do you really believe that?

I'm not sure what the relevance of your point is about a pseudonym. I've used a pseudonym ever since I posted here and I intend to go on doing so. Presumably you knew this before. So why do you object to it now? It's naive to think that we're living in a fair world. We're living in a Soviet-like system where people can be deprived of their liberty and livelihood if they express unapproved ideas. Using pseudonyms is as valid a defensive strategy in contemporary Europe as it would have been in the old East Bloc.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Let's look at your scenarios for the end game in Europe. "there will be protests and rebellions from the native Europeans to a scale and intensity that something will intervene to stop that trend." OK. And what could stop that trend except the physical expulsion of Muslims? Nothing. Can we expel Muslims with a human rights infrastructure in place or a code of human rights rules that says "all people must be allowed to practice their religion" and "no one may be deprived of their citizenship"? No we can't. People involved in the Counterjihad movement who support human rights simply haven't thought through the end game scenario. They think that if they can make enough people aware of how threatening Islam is, somehow a magic solution will just appear that will allow us to solve the problem while still being nice. But there won't be any nice solutions. Being nice has got us to where we are. And the only way out of it is to get nasty. And we can't do that with human rights restrictions in place.

Possibility c: Here you envisage civil war. Do you think any human rights might be violated in this civil war? Would it not be better to avert the civil war by expelling the Muslims before it occurs? But we can't do that because of human rights rules, both the legal infrastructure that enforces them and the informal power these ideas have in the minds of people.

The logical consequence of the continued application of the ideology of human rights - and the ethic of non-discrimination that it embodies - is, exactly as you describe, an apocalyptic civil war and the end of European civilisation. So, if these ideas are taking us towards that conclusion, why not abandon them and find better ones?

The alternative to living our life according to a system of rules is to use our judgement instead: democracy instead of bureaucracy. If our judgement tells us Islam is evil and our society should be better off without Muslims in it, we should trust it and not allow us to be constrained by simplistic written rules like "people have the right to practise their religion" instead.

You say I keep attributing things to you that you don't really want or believe in. I've no doubt that you object to the way human rights rules are applied in contemporary Europe to favour islamisation and mass immigration from the third world. But even though you don't like that, it is the consequence of ideas that you do support.

Enza Ferreri said...

Alas

Democracy is sometimes incorrectly understood as simply the majority rule.

But this is not the case, because this could allow a dictatorship of the majority over a minority and this goes against the principles of freedom for everyone on which democracy is based.

So, democracy is not just a "head count", and there is no real democracy without human rights, which means, among other things, respecting minorities.

This is why intelligent commentators of the "Arab Spring" do not believe that what's happening in those countries is true democracy.

"you seem to imply that human rights are democratic because we subscribe to them and we have a democratic system of government, our politicians (who are elected) do not get rid of it, and so it must therefore be democratic."

No, it's not what I said or implied.

"But I put it to you that we do not have democracy at the moment, not in the true sense of the word, as in rule by the people. If we had this, and voted on every issue, we would not be in this predicament. We have representative democracy, but the problem is, our representatives do no such thing, and there is a limit to which representatives the people can choose, placed on us by the elites. If you say anything against third world immigration you are instantly destroyed by the media, other politicians, and the courts; how is this democracy? How can we even have democracy without free speech which is necessary for its existence?"

A full democracy does not exist. Churchill said that democracy is bad, but everything else is worse. Democracy has many defects, because the majority can be very wrong on many crucial issues.

Anyway, of course ours is not a perfect democracy, and at this time it is rather wanting, and the examples you give show it clearly, anybody can see that.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

"Democracy is sometimes incorrectly understood as s
imply the majority rule."

That is exactly what democracy is. Please don't attempt to redefine the meaning of words. If you think the optimal system of government is a democracy with constitutional constraints then say that, but don't claim it's somehow the only authentic form of democracy. Democracy means rule of the people. That's it.

"So, democracy is not just a "head count", and there is no real democracy without human rights, which means, among other things, respecting minorities."

Respecting minorities? Like Muslim minorities? We should respect them? And how exactly are we going to solve the problem they present to us while respecting them? We aren't. As you noted yourself, the end game is civil war. But you prefer to accept that outcome rather than adjust the ideas that are taking us towards it?

I find it amazing that people can think like that. Even when they can see the disaster looming, they still have such a quasi-religious attachment to their principles that they can't abandon them and just go walking on into the abyss.

alas said...

EF

I would disagree with your view that democracy means something other than majority rule; I'm sure we all know that this is a Greek word and means roughly people power - not people power tempered with an element of oversight by the elites who advocate a universal system of ethics. I am aware of there operating many systems which incorporate democratic elements such as America's which also respect minority rights in the bill of rights and the super majoritarian procedures required to pass laws, but this is not pure democracy; pure democracy could be found in Ancient Athens. At least that's my opinion, I'm not very well read on democracy.

"the problem lies with national governments applying human rights laws to avoid limiting immigration etc, these people have been elected. So you can see that democracy does not solve the problem." and "I don't think that there is no way for human rights to be applied that does not involve unelected people. In fact, it's elected people who in the West have allowed this unwelcome development to happen, the major political parties in power in European countries have done nothing to limit the power of judges, courts and bureaucrats, so you may say that the consequences that you (and I) deplore so much are due to the democratic process as well." To me this read that human rights were democratically chosen?

Enza Ferreri said...

CZ

I'll be brief because I have not got any more time now.

Examples of human rights advances: vote for women, abolition of slavery in America, anti-discrimination against blacks in USA (unless you are opposed to these, I don't quite know anymore - I read people here saying that they would support absolute monarchies, so anything goes).

"If you acknowledge that all the real-world applications of the idea are damaging, is it not irresponsible to go on promoting it, at the very least without drawing a sharp distinction between the idea as you envisage it and the idea as it is currently applied?"

But I have. I start thinking that you're joking now. Either that or you can't read or you just don't wish to accept that I have.

The question of the pseudonym is relevant because it allows you to say things that you cannot support without hiding. How can you "expel Muslims" if you can't even do that, especially given your continuous reference to "the real world"?

"Here you envisage civil war. Do you think any human rights might be violated in this civil war? Would it not be better to avert the civil war by expelling the Muslims before it occurs?"

I didn't spell this out because it seemed perfectly obvious to me: the civil war may (I haven't got a crystal ball, it's just a hypothesis, as are yours) be conducive to a change in government policies which may lead to your "physical expulsion of Muslims".

How do you expect to "expel Muslims" if you recognize that our leaders are not prepared to do that?

"The logical consequence of the continued application of the ideology of human rights - and the ethic of non-discrimination that it embodies - is, exactly as you describe, an apocalyptic civil war and the end of European civilisation. So, if these ideas are taking us towards that conclusion, why not abandon them and find better ones?"

First, I didn't say anything about "apocalypse" and the end of European civilisation. I think that you should read a bit more carefully. As I said, and I'll say it hopefully for the last time: it's the wrong *application* of the ideas, not the *ideas* themselves that are taking us in the wrong direction.

"The alternative to living our life according to a system of rules is to use our judgement instead: democracy instead of bureaucracy. If our judgement tells us Islam is evil and our society should be better off without Muslims in it, we should trust it and not allow us to be constrained by simplistic written rules like "people have the right to practise their religion" instead."

Muslims and indeed Islamists could say the same: we live according to our judgement and we do not need to justify it rationally.

You renounce any distinction, yours is an acceptance of moral relativism.

"You say I keep attributing things to you that you don't really want or believe in. I've no doubt that you object to the way human rights rules are applied in contemporary Europe to favour islamisation and mass immigration from the third world. But even though you don't like that, it is the consequence of ideas that you do support."

Ibidem. Read my reply above. It is not the ideas, it's their incorrect application. Ad infinitum.

Don't you have the impression that we are going around in circles, largely repeating the same things? I do.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

""If you acknowledge that all the real-world applications of the idea are damaging, is it not irresponsible to go on promoting it, at the very least without drawing a sharp distinction between the idea as you envisage it and the idea as it is currently applied?"

But I have. I start thinking that you're joking now. Either that or you can't read or you just don't wish to accept that I have."

You expressed some objections to the way it is applied, not a wholesale rejection. But the people at the Brussels conference didn't even do that. I have asked you if you agree that unelected people should have the power to strike down laws based on their interpretation of written rules. You haven't answered that question.


"The question of the pseudonym is relevant because it allows you to say things that you cannot support without hiding."

What things do I say that I cannot support without hiding? What do you mean by that?

"How do you expect to "expel Muslims" if you recognize that our leaders are not prepared to do that?"

We will have to elect new leaders who are prepared to do it.

You cite various historical changes as proof of the great effect human rights have had in the world. But these things happened before the idea of human rights or even the phrase had established itself in the public mind. No one, or almost no one, talked about human rights while campaigning for these changes. The notion of "human rights" only really took off in the 1970s. Read Samuel Moyn's book "Last Utopia". So far from demonstrating the need for human right, they demonstrate the exact opposite by showing that positive moral changes can come about without it. What beneficial effects do you think the idea of human rights has in the contemporary world?

"Muslims and indeed Islamists could say the same: we live according to our judgement and we do not need to justify it rationally.

You renounce any distinction, yours is an acceptance of moral relativism."
So, according to you, people, in making their democratic choices, should have to demonstrate to a panel of unelected bureaucrats that their choice is rational? And, if not, presumably the bureaucrats could strike it down.

"Read my reply above. It is not the ideas, it's their incorrect application."
If you support a system in which democracy can be overruled by bureaucrats based on simplistic written rules then you are morally responsible when the bureaucrats apply bad ideas with damaging consequences. It's like saying monarchy would have been fine if only we'd had better kings and queens. Some systems are inherently prone to "misapplication".

Let me ask you something. If you were in sole charge of Europe right now, with absolute power, how would you solve the Muslim problem?

Anonymous said...

DP111 said..

The problem is not with democracy or Human rights. The question has arisen as a consequence of the large sale presence of Muslims in the West, and the challenge their politic-ideological religion poses on our civilisation, i.e., democracy, including Human rights, and all that is embedded within what we would call civilisation. For Human rights, I include not just the EU Humnan rights, but all the Common law from Magna Carta onwards.

If we have to loose either democracy or Human rights, to remove Muslims from Europe (which is the only real solution), then we have lost the war of ideas. That would be an admission of defeat. It goes without saying that loosing Europe to Islam would be far worse.

But there has to be a way to achieve complete victory, with our civilisation intact, without having to take draconian policy measures.

We are heading to a civil war. It may end in total victory, but if we look at history, both past and very recent, in dealings with Islam, it has always ended in partition. Bosnia being the very latest example. The thought is quite simply appaling. Just imagine, London or Paris becoming the next two Sarajevos.


Enza Ferreri

Just read your piece at Jihad Watch.

I have been posting on the plight of Christians in Islamic ountries for more then a decade. Its really good to see that people in Italy at least, are voicing their concern publicly.

I hope you continue to use your office to bring a measure of consolation at least, to the persecuted.

Enza Ferreri said...

alas

Of course the etimology of the word means "governmnent of the people", but meanings of words don't need to respect their origin, they have a life and development of their own.

Definitions:

"a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. "

"political or social equality"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy


"The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democracy

"the practice or principles of social equality"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/democracy

"Majority rule" is only one, non exhaustive definition.

Democracy and human rights are also historically connected, through the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Enza Ferreri said...

"I have asked you if you agree that unelected people should have the power to strike down laws based on their interpretation of written rules. You haven't answered that question."

I have actually, through all the things that I said. Of course I don't agree.

"You cite various historical changes as proof of the great effect human rights have had in the world. But these things happened before the idea of human rights or even the phrase had established itself in the public mind."

You are factually wrong about that. The idea of human rights was enshrined in the American Constitution and in the American Declaration of Independence, so long before those events took place. That was the inspiration behind, for instance, Abraham Lincoln's abolition of slavery. Lincoln was also a principal framer of the US Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."

Also notice the Christian reference to "the Creator": the American Founding Fathers were Christian.

"What things do I say that I cannot support without hiding? What do you mean by that?"

Why do you use a pseudonym exactly, if not because you are expressing views which you would not publicly support if you were using your real name?

"Respecting minorities? Like Muslim minorities? We should respect them? And how exactly are we going to solve the problem they present to us while respecting them? We aren't. As you noted yourself, the end game is civil war. But you prefer to accept that outcome rather than adjust the ideas that are taking us towards it?"

I've been writing several posts on your blog now, enough, in conjunction with our email correspondence, for you to understand that those ideas that you attribute to me are not what I believe or say.

This makes me think at this point that there is a problem of communication of some sort on your part.

You probably prefer to think of me all these absurdities. I don't know the reason - I don't know you enough, maybe it's just a joke - but it's ultra evident from your behaviour.

If you do, fine.

I don't want a civil war, it was just a prediction. Of course a change of government policies would be better, but I don't know how likely it is. My prediction was simply that a revolt of some sort - I don’t about a civil war, that would be the extreme case - might produce those government policies, but my prediction is as good as any.

A direct political change would of course be infinitely preferably.

And it's not human rights that are making a change of policy more difficult, but their application. So I have already answered what you say below.

"I find it amazing that people can think like that. Even when they can see the disaster looming, they still have such a quasi-religious attachment to their principles that they can't abandon them and just go walking on into the abyss."

Unfortunately I find that you have a great attachment to your opinions about me: even when over and over I clarified my position, which you misunderstood, you can't get rid of your prejudices about it. Maybe you are simply attributing to me ideas that you've found in other people, I don't know.

Enza Ferreri said...

"So, according to you, people, in making their democratic choices, should have to demonstrate to a panel of unelected bureaucrats that their choice is rational? And, if not, presumably the bureaucrats could strike it down. "

No, not at all: they should demonstrate it to themselves, they should be satisfied that they've made a rational choice.

I don't know why you go on about unelected bureaucrats as if they were my pals and bosom friends and I had chosen their appointment. You've got my views the wrong way around.

Can we call this a truce and I'll turn my computer off? You can also answer DP111 who have made interesting comments.

Believe me, you write to me but you have in mind other people with different ideas from mine.

Enza Ferreri said...

DP111

"But there has to be a way to achieve complete victory, with our civilisation intact, without having to take draconian policy measures. "

It's exactly what I hope and may very well happen, an increasing awareness among the native population which can lead to changes.

Thank you about all you say regarding the persecution of Christians.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Maybe that's true since I am surprised to hear you say you don't support a system in which judges or other bureaucrats can strike down laws based on their interpretations of written codes. But if you don't support that, then I don't understand how you see the idea of human rights being applied.

Why do you use a pseudonym exactly, if not because you are expressing views which you would not publicly support if you were using your real name?

To make it less easy for Antifa types to cause me minor harassment. I don't see why I should make it easy for them. I'm sure a Google pseudonym wouldn't stop an actual government if it decided to come after me. But what you say implies recognition of the fact that people can suffer various kinds of unpleasantness for simply expressing unapproved ideas. And do you think that's the way it should be? Do you think the proper response to that situation is to boldly use our real names then self-censor within the limits of approved thought? How is that brave? Alan Ayling, using the pseudonym Alan Lake, had been involved (perhaps still is) with the Counterjihad scene in various ways, providing funding to the EDL, etc. When his real name came out, he was sacked from his job. Is the world a better place because of that? Or would it have been a better place if he had used his real name and self-censored to the point where the ideas he expressed would not have got him sacked from his job?

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

"You are factually wrong about that. The idea of human rights was enshrined in the American Constitution and in the American Declaration of Independence, so long before those events took place. That was the inspiration behind, for instance, Abraham Lincoln's abolition of slavery. Lincoln was also a principal framer of the US Constitution."

Read what you quoted. "All men are created equal". That excludes women, so those aren't human rights at all. And some of the same people who wrote those noble-sounding words kept slaves, suggesting your interpretation of what they meant is not what they actually meant. Since the idea of "human rights" achieved ascendancy in the 1970s, history has effectively been rewritten to project it backwards in time as if people were animated by a modern idea of human rights in previous eras. As I've said, Samuel Moyn's book make this clear.

On some factual points, Abraham Lincoln did not abolish slavery. He declared it abolished it only in territories under Confederate control, in other words places where his writ did not run. It was a wartime expedient designed to instigate slave revolts in territories controlled by his enemy.

You seem a bit confused about American history in claiming Abraham Lincoln was one of the principal framers of the US Constitution. The US Constitution was written in the latter decades of the 18th century. Abraham Lincoln wasn't even alive then. He was president from 1861 on.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

"If we have to loose either democracy or Human rights, to remove Muslims from Europe (which is the only real solution), then we have lost the war of ideas. That would be an admission of defeat. It goes without saying that loosing Europe to Islam would be far worse."

Most countries in Europe only became fully-fledged democracies in the post-WW2 era, the same time at which they formally subscribed to the concept of human rights even if they mostly ignored it in practice for some time afterwards. Not coincidentally, this was also the moment at which Europe began to be colonised by alien peoples, Muslims among them. I don't accept that either democracy or human rights are defining elements of European civilisation. European civilisation existed before these ideas were broadly accepted.

"But there has to be a way to achieve complete victory, with our civilisation intact, without having to take draconian policy measures."

I don't believe there is. And that really is the problem. People are still looking for a nice way out of this. And there isn't one.

If you think there is, I'd love to hear your proposals. The only idea I can think of that would have even a chance of solving the Mohammedan problem without wholesale expulsion is my Probationary Citizenship idea, which would involve targeted expulsions, coupled with a complete ban on Muslim immigration.

Anonymous said...

DP111 said..

CZ

In response to your very challenging question, here are my first thoughts

First I will try to surmise the cause of the crisis in the West.

So far we have looked at the problem of Muslims in the West as a consequence of uncontrolled immigration. But even if there was controlled immigration, that problem would arise sooner or later, because of the high birth rate of Muslims. The only option would be to stop ALL immigration, for to discriminate against Muslims only would be cowardice and admission of defeat.

Its not Muslims, or Islam that is the problem. The problem is that we as a people, and very particularly the ruling, political, academic and media elite, have lost all confidence in Western civilisation, or more precisely, the roots of civilisation.

To state the very obvious, and boy it needs stating in bold 22 font type. There has never been a civilisation as glorious, both past or present as European civilisation. Its contributions have provided philosophic, intellectual, political, scientific, technological, medical, musical, spiritual, literary, and more, throughout the world.

Unlike other civilisations, it has not collapsed because of being static. Atrophy has not yet been its fate. Its foundations are such that it is dynamic and adjusts to circumstances. It continues to advance structurally, as well as geographically. In reality, it has already conquered the world. From Japan, China, India to the other side, From the North to the South, European civilisation holds all the cards. All over the world, the way commerce, education, technology, music, political, intellectual and much else, are guided and acted out, are within the parameters of European civilisation (V S Naipaul calls it Universal civilisation), or measured against European civilisation..

To withdraw within Europe, would therefore be totally out of keeping with European civilisation. Nothing is predictable in life as there far too many parameters, but perhaps it is inward policies that have caused a civilisation to atrophy and die.

Anonymous said...

DP111 said

Contd.

For some reason, the last 50 years has seen a collapse of confidence in our civilisation. What the cause or causes are, is a matter of debate. The practical effect has been to allow quite abnormal and outlandish customs and ideologies to flourish in a soil that gives them nourishment. These customs are totally antithetical with European civilisation. Multiculturalism is the outward embodiment of this collapse.

What we need to do is to assert the values of our civilisation, a universal and astoundingly beautiful civilisation that has no bounds.

First, the normal custom of any nation that deems itself a nation.

1. No other language to be supported by the state except the national language.

2. No ban of immigration, but it needs to be limited and selective. Asylum seekers to be thoroughly vetted, and asylum to be granted for a limited duration.

3. Citizenship granted only after vigorous examinations that ensure that the candidate is fully in tune with European values. It may be withdrawn if there are grounds of misbehaviour or deception.
The above are simply normal for any nation.

Now for some simple and enlightened values that we need to assert, without in any form or manner targeting a group or ideology. These are normal for any nation or culture, and most certainly ours that is tolerant, humane and just.

Enlightened social values to be asserted by law

1. Ban FGM totally. This is totally against our values. Anyone engaging in this outrageous custom has to pay a penalty.

2. Ban child marriages. This custom is not in keeping with enlightened European values.

3. Ban polygamy. Again, it is not in keeping with enlightened European values. Besides it causes immense headache when it comes to financial and inheritance cases. Our laws have evolved over centuries based on marriage between one man and one woman. We cannot have the absurd situation that we overturn centuries of values, tradition and law, just to cater for people who are here quite voluntarily.

4. “Honour” killing punishable by the usual legal penalties. In addition, as the crime is a violation of the codes of European values, those who did or aided in the murder, to be deported.

5. Ban raw Halal meat in shops. No Halal slaughter whatever in Europe. The slaughter of dumb animals is against our tradition of humane attitudes to animals. There is no requirement whatever that we overturn our traditional values for other cultures, who are here of their own will.

These values are good, beautiful and true, and therefore need no justification. How on earth it has come to pass that I have to state the above is the real question.

As we bear no ill will, we will allow Halal meat to be imported. To prevent disease and contagion, it has to be pre-cooked and frozen. The food will be from strictly vetted companies and licensed.

Penalty for failure to comply with 1, 2, 3

The penalty is not incarceration, as we recognise that people have the right to have their own customs, but in their own countries, which may or may not allow it. The penalty is therefore deportation repatriation.

If we just did these, which are not unusual or targeting any group, but a simple and normal assertion of values that are consistent with the norm of being a nation and culture, we will have made European soil fertile to what is good, true and beautiful, but inhospitable to what is the reverse.

People who do not agree, to what are after all are enlightened values, will leave of their own accord. In addition, if we as humans, recognise that uprooting is a trauma for all humans, we offer generous financial help, many more will leave. Its a pity, as we would like to see them as part of Europe, but they have the freedom to live where they like.

The upshot will be that Europe will no longer appear to be a soft target, particularly to those who wish to do us harm, and are planning an easy entry.

Enza Ferreri said...

Cheradenine

"Read what you quoted. "All men are created equal". That excludes women, so those aren't human rights at all. And some of the same people who wrote those noble-sounding words kept slaves, suggesting your interpretation of what they meant is not what they actually meant. Since the idea of "human rights" achieved ascendancy in the 1970s, history has effectively been rewritten to project it backwards in time as if people were animated by a modern idea of human rights in previous eras. As I've said, Samuel Moyn's book make this clear."

"Man" in English has two different meanings, which in Latin and Greek have two separate words: human male (Latin: vir and Greek: aner, genitive andros) and human species member (Latin: homo - hence homo sapiens - and Greek: anthropos).

The prevailing interpretation of "men" in the American Declaration of Independence is the latter. The main point in our discussion, anyway, is that both women's rights and black rights activists interpreted it that way, since you say "But these things [vote to women, civil rights etc] happened before the idea of human rights or even the phrase had established itself in the public mind.".

The people who advanced these positive changes made explicit reference to the American Declaration of Independence, so they obviously were thinking in terms of "human rights" and not "white human male rights". Therefore the changes were inspired by the idea of human rights.

"You seem a bit confused about American history in claiming Abraham Lincoln was one of the principal framers of the US Constitution. The US Constitution was written in the latter decades of the 18th century. Abraham Lincoln wasn't even alive then. He was president from 1861 on."

No, I am not confused at all. This also answers what you said about slave owners and slavery. The original Constitution, unlike the Declaration, did not contain the phrase “all men are created equal” exactly because many of the framers of the Constitution were slaveholders, and even those who were strongly opposed to slavery accepted the compromise to bring the southern States into the Union.

Following the Civil War, the United States abolished slavery, gave blacks the right to vote and equal rights to all Americans. That's why the Civil War is sometime called “the Second American Revolution". These constitutional amendments established the rights that Abraham Lincoln believed in and fought for. There is a movement towards recognizing Lincoln as a framer of the US Constitution because of that.

Suffragettes were calling for women's *right* to vote, and black leaders in 1960s America for civil *rights*.



All these were references to the natural rights view in ethics.

Every intelligent, valid and effective political movement and idea must have a foundation in some ethical theory.

There are three main schools of thought, three main theories in ethics: the rights view, utilitarianism and Aristotle's theory of virtue.

Of these the best in my opinion is the Kantian natural rights view, which has its ultimate foundation in Christianity but can and has been used successfully by secularists too.

When I asked you with what you would replace human rights, you said democracy and nationalism.

But democracy and nationalism are not ethical theories, they are mainly political concepts.

If you take away the rights view, we are left without an ethical foundation for our fight.

As every great political movement, we need an ethical goal: in fact when you said that you were opposed to the rights view, or at least the concept of human rights derived from it, I was not sure any more what you stood for, ethically and therefore also politically. People could be for democracy for all the wrong reasons: that's why we need an ethical goal to identify with.

Enza Ferreri said...

Going back to Islam.

You asked me for examples of when human rights have been used to help our criticisms of Islam. I think you'll find myriad examples everywhere: every time somebody, on the Right but also on the Left, criticizes Islam for going against women's rights, homosexual rights, non-Muslim rights, all this helps strengthen our position.

Of course change will not happen overnight. And, regardless of what others do, we can use the concept of human rights to successfully show the public what's wrong about Islam.

You say that polls show that most ordinary people are already on our side. Not very effectively, though, if we are still in this predicament.

The problem, in my view, is that people in, say, Britain, France, the Netherlands and other European countries, have an uneasy feeling about Islam but, not having a profound or even adequate knowledge of its doctrines and history, can't really be on our side. There is a difference between an instinctive reaction - which many people, given all the current propaganda, will probably ascribe to something wrong in themselves like racism or "Islamophobia" - and a genuine awareness of the rational reasons for opposing Islam.

This is why our task is to inform the public on the reality of Islam, its doctrines, its practices, Mohammed, the Koran, the history of Islam and what happens today not just in the West but also in the rest of the world, especially in the countries where Islam has already imposed itself, to show what could happen to Europe in the not so distant future if current trends continue.

In this education campaign the concept of human rights is fairly and squarely a great ally of ours. It is a concept that is widely accepted, and it is a formidable weapon, because it can be used to show that Islam is overall destructive towards human rights.

One thing that, in my opinion, we should do is to explain that Islam is not really a religion but a political doctrine with some religious elements.

When people in the West are told that Islam is a religion, they immediately associate it with Christianity and sometimes with Judaism, and that creates a lot of misconceptions about Islam.

Accepting the definition of Islam as purely a religion has two negative effects: the first is to make Islam look better than what it is by associating it with Christianity, and the second is to make Christianity look worse than what it is by associating it with all the well-known consequences of Islam like violence, intolerance and terrorism: the latter enables fanatical atheists like Richard Dawkins to attack Christianity by attributing to it all the negative characteristics of Islam, conflating everything in the vague term "religion" and attacking it all.

I would like to ask Dawkins what he would do if someone blamed science for the flat earth theory or the Ptolemaic geocentric theory holding that the earth is at the centre of the universe. They were all theories, after all, and they were scientific because they could be disproven, which has been done.

To treat all religions in the same way, without looking at their differences, is like treating all scientific theories, past and present, in the same way, which is patently absurd.

Now, going back to our discussion which has been also useful to clarify our positions and have better ideas of where we are going, I think that by now each of us knows what the other fundamentally thinks on this issue. So we can stop this discussion and maybe other ideas will develop later.

If you wish to continue having a discussion with an imaginary debater that supports ideas that are not mine, of course you are welcome to do so, but you don't need me for that.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

"The people who advanced these positive changes made explicit reference to the American Declaration of Independence, so they obviously were thinking in terms of "human rights" and not "white human male rights". Therefore the changes were inspired by the idea of human rights."

What it was re-interpreted to mean later is irrelevant to the question of what it meant when written. Since women did not have the right to vote then, we can infer they were not included in the ideas of the authors.

A defining element of the idea of human rights is its transnational nature. The campaigns you refer to were specific to individual countries. They were civil rights campaigns, not human rights campaigns.

"Following the Civil War, the United States abolished slavery, gave blacks the right to vote and equal rights to all Americans."
But Lincoln didn't because he was dead.
"These constitutional amendments established the rights that Abraham Lincoln believed in and fought for. There is a movement towards recognizing Lincoln as a framer of the US Constitution because of that."

Your attempt to cover your embarrassing mistake about Lincoln is laughable.

"Every intelligent, valid and effective political movement and idea must have a foundation in some ethical theory"

Rubbish. Do you really think everyone who has ever campaigned successfully for political change did so on the basis of some finely worked out moral calculus? An instinctive sense of right and wrong is sufficient.

"As every great political movement, we need an ethical goal: in fact when you said that you were opposed to the rights view, or at least the concept of human rights derived from it, I was not sure any more what you stood for, ethically and therefore also politically. People could be for democracy for all the wrong reasons: that's why we need an ethical goal to identify with."

This is exactly the kind of woolly philosophizing that got us into plight we're in. My ethical goals are to restore free speech and democracy and to preserve European civilisation from demographic conquest by Muslims. I see those things as inherent goods. I don't need to justify it in any other way. The Muslims are causing bad things to happen in Europe. The more Muslims there are, the worse those things will be. I want those bad things to stop. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

"You asked me for examples of when human rights have been used to help our criticisms of Islam."

No. I asked for specific examples of practical achievements that the idea of human rights had brought about.

"In this education campaign the concept of human rights is fairly and squarely a great ally of ours."

Yet I am still able to criticise the bad things Muslims do abroad without making any reference to human rights. You still haven't enumerated what the policy solutions to the Muslim problem are or explained how they are compatible with human rights.

"To treat all religions in the same way, without looking at their differences, is like treating all scientific theories, past and present, in the same way, which is patently absurd."

Yet that is exactly what human rights frameworks do in according everyone the "right to practise their religion".

"If you wish to continue having a discussion with an imaginary debater that supports ideas that are not mine, of course you are welcome to do so, but you don't need me for that."

You keep saying that but you explicitly said that a democracy wasn't a true one unless it had protection for minorities. I would like to know how you envisage this protection for minorities working and what happens when a minority comes along that doesn't deserve protection, like Muslims. Surely you can see that it is precisely because of such a system that we are in this predicament?

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

@DP111

Most of what you say is true. I fail to see how your programme would offer us a realistic way out, however. As you note yourself, even if we cut off immigration, Muslims will eventually come to dominate us through birthrates alone. The number of expulsions your policy proposals would result in is too limited to make a major difference.

As I've said, people are still looking for a nice way out and there isn't one. Sometime, in the latter half of this century, Europeans may find themselves involved in genocidal warfare in their own countries, completely with mass rapes, foreign jihadi contingents, ethnic cleansing, possibly even nuclear exchanges.

They are going to look back on us - the generation who saw the problem coming but agonised over ways to resolve it while still being nice - with utter contempt. No one will be interested in ethical theories or non-discrimination then. They will be engaged in a brute war of survival and they will ask how their ancestors could have been so weak and foolish as to let it get to that stage.

alas said...

CZ your very last point you made is exactly why I hope that the economic car crash we are witnessing play out will not just be a depression but hopefully the complete breakdown of our financial and political system so that we can begin this unpleasant business you talk of now and not in fifty years time.

Baron Bodissey said...

Well, there's no such thing as bad publicity, I suppose.

But facts is facts, so let's get one of them pesky little facts straight:

Yet still we see the European Counterjihad movement intellectually dominated by Americans living in completely different circumstances from us, which means the focus of their anti-Islamic efforts is indeed on offence (Islam outside of their home territory).

FACT: There were precisely two (2) Americans at the Brussels Conference. Myself and one other.

The event was conceived, planned, organized, and implemented by Europeans (with me as a hanger-on). The main players were French, German, Austrian, Danish, British, Swiss, Italian, and Belgian.

Do you really believe those people are so stupid and/or weak that they could be "intellectually dominated" by me and one other American (who simply attended, and was not in on the planning)?

If I were a European, I might well be insulted by your apparent casual contempt for your fellow Europeans. Do you really believe they could be so easily manipulated by the Evil Yankee?

What is this, the Protocols of the Elders of Washington?

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

I don't make any reference to you at all in this article so I'm not sure what publicity you're referring to.

In any case, no one is saying you are evil. I appreciate the work people like you and Robert Spencer do and have done. You are the founders of this movement and, as such, do indeed play a dominating role in it. It essentially revolves around your websites, both of which have influenced me greatly. The number of Americans physically present at the conference is not relevant since thinking within the movement has been shaped by your websites over the years.

In important ways, the American perspective is different from ours because the Muslim presence there is much smaller, free expression has not been criminalised and you do not have trans-national human rights courts telling governments they can't deport Muslim rapists or limit Muslim immigration because it would violate human rights.

Yes, unfortunately, I do believe my fellow Europeans are so mentally weak that they would allow themselves be dominated by Americans. Indeed, I know it to be true, since I see our governments acting in a similar way all the time. A bizarre irrational fascination with America is part of the explanation for why European elites disastrously tried to turn their countries into "nations of immigrants" (sic).

There is no personal or even nationalistic animosity involved in this. I simply feel that the differences in the European perspective are not adequately taken account of currently.

As I wrote before:
"Those of us involved in the Counterjihad movement in Europe must learn to decouple from the American perspective. That doesn’t mean we should regard American anti-jihad activists in anything other than a fraternal way. It does mean we should cease to slavishly follow their example."

Baron Bodissey said...

I didn't mean publicity for me. I meant publicity for The Brussels Process, which is very important. I'm glad you were willing to contribute to it.

The Brussels Process is not a one-off. It's not just a thing that happened on July 9 2012. It's an ongoing dialogue; a dialectic, if you will. That's why it's termed a "process".

Your contribution to that process is important. Your posts caused an immediate discussion amongst various people (Europeans, I might add) concerning the importance of emphasizing "negative rights", the contradictions and incoherence of the UDHR, the differences between the "British tradition" and the "French tradition", and so on.

These are useful conversations to engage in, and I thank you for your role in creating them.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Well it's good to know there are people reading the website. I have my doubts sometimes.

Anonymous said...

DP111 said..

CZ

What I've suggested are first steps, little steps, one at a time. There are a couple things that follow from these

1. Once we assert our values, those that cant abide with them, either leave voluntarily or will face repatriation if they break them.

This starts the process of reducing numbers. At the moment the population slope of those who wish us harm is positive. Once it flattens or even becomes less, it discourages them from thinking that the wind is blowing their way.

2. The urge to come to the West by enemies of the West becomes less, as the victory light at the end of the tunnel is out.

3. It also puts doubt in the minds of those who wish us harm.

Now I take it for granted that organisations, Muslim perhaps, will oppose these quite normal policies. If they do, they are out, as they have shown that they do not regard such small and enlightened steps to defend civilised values, are legitimate.

This wont stop there, as the reaction will be fierce. Its the process of reaction and counter-reaction that will get us to where we want to be. In fact I'm relying on it.

Little steps, one at a time. From the little step banning FGM, child marriages, polygamy, to bigger steps, such as banning Halal. The last will definitely cause many to leave.

Tension will now be palpable. But so far we havnt done anything but assert what are in fact enlightened values, that are the basis of civilisation.

What these steps have done is put a marker, an unstated warning, that we mean business without in any way appearing authoritarian. In fact, we appear sublimely humane.

The unstated warning encompasses everything, for by then the situation will be clear to all, most importantly to our people, that we have done everything to avert a tragedy. The last is vital, for without showing the population that we have been more then reasonable, there is no hope for carrying out anything substantive.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Some of what you say is similar to my Probationary Citizenship idea, but it needs to be pushed further than you do to bump up the numbers. For example, I have proposed that there should be a charge "Failure to Integrate" which only probationary citizens would be liable to. What failure to integrate means could be left open-ended, and the decision should be made by a jury on the simple basis of whether the continued presence of this person or family is likely to be of benefit to the indigenous people.

So, for example, anyone wearing a burka or a veil, or Muslim pyjamas, anyone demanding special treatment, anyone participating in sharia courts or other symbols of a parallel society; anyone doing what Choudhary does; anyone demanding restrictions on free speech, anyone who talks about the "Ummah", etc. should be charged with Failure to Integrate and removed from the country.

That immediately raises the question of where they will go if their countries of ancestral origin don't take them back. You haven't addressed this point. In my post about "Muslim Repatriation", I suggest creating a new country in Africa to act as a sump for the unwanted.

But you persist in regarding "non-discrimination" as somehow a defining element of our civilisation that we must preserve at all costs. I don't see how that view can be maintained. Up until a few decades ago many European countries maintained global empires that systematically discriminated against non-Europeans. And this was true throughout the era when European civilisation was at its zenith. The mania for "non-discrimination" is an aberration of the modern period, a period in which European civilisation has been in decline. So how is this idea somehow fundamental to our historical identity?

Anonymous said...

DP111 said

CZ wrote: But you persist in regarding "non-discrimination" as somehow a defining element of our civilisation that we must preserve at all costs.

On the contrary. What is being proposed is very discriminatory, but not on the basis of race or even culture, but on the basis of enlightened values. It might be that these values conflict with race or culture, but its the race or culture based values that have to give way. No compromise.

CZ wrote: Up until a few decades ago many European countries maintained global empires that systematically discriminated against non-Europeans. And this was true throughout the era when European civilisation was at its zenith. The mania for "non-discrimination" is an aberration of the modern period, a period in which European civilisation has been in decline.

As you know, we cant go back. We are where we are, whether we like it or not. Its a highly connected world, and bound to get even more connected. Those old concepts of discrimination will not stand today.

We must bear in mind that we have to operate within the political and social structure that we are in, and that permeates everything. Anything, no matter how small that violates the principle of non-discrimination will be attacked as "Racist" or "Far Right". Moreover, we will have lost the immense advantage we have.

But why should we hark back to days of old. Civilisations collapse because they lose confidence in themselves, which then makes them static. In their plight they first try to ignore the collapse, then try to draw a wall around themselves. Both of these are symptoms of defeat, and eventual collapse.

How did European values and systems dominate the world in the last century, even though there were very few Europeans bestriding the world. They did so because they had confidence that their values were right and just. And now? We are compromising on values within Europe, that would make the the old Europeans simply shaking their heads in dismay.

The civilisation we have inherited is a dynamic one because its foundations are good. Far from withdrawing, we have already conquered the world. Its only in the last 50 years, we have, for some reason, lost that confidence. Multiculturalism is the outward manifestation of that collapse of confidence.

What I see as victory is a Europe re-discovering its confidence. The rest will follow.


--------------------------------

CZ, Enza Ferreri

Many years ago, a similar situation occurred on Gates of Vienna and before that on LGF. There was a depth of depression after 9/11, and the lack of any idea what to do except draconian solutions. We are moving in the right direction. I remember Berlusconi's obvious statement that Western civilisation was far superior to any, and being immediately howled down by all. Now, Angela Merkel and David Cameron have both declared multiculturalism dead, and no one is quibbling.

Thank you both for your informed articles, and CZ for raising an issue that needs re-visiting and refreshing.

It really is a pleasure to discuss without acrimony and abuse.

Anonymous said...

Cheradenine,
At times you seem a touch beleaguered in this ongoing debate, but don’t despair – you are correct and they have failed to grasp the hollowness of the golden calf to which they have so naively nailed their tattered colours. Human rights are a Trojan Horse whose record of destruction is every bit as black as you’ve painted, These protocols are little more than a set of judicial tools for the elite to manipulate society and ride roughshod over minor irritants like the will of the people or the survival of identity.

Let me make this clear, if anything you have not gone far enough. Under the banner of human rights not only has mass immigration devastated Europe, but through their corporate worship of the individual have heralded the destruction of nations and the coming of universal globalisation. This project goes far beyond the merely economic, the EU is a prototype for further subjugation of identity and extension of the melting pot. Human rights are a sophisticated mirage of benignity that hides an inhuman goal – it’s evil dressed in the mantle of the Virgin Mary.

The current societal paradigm, as brought to us barbarian Europeans back in 1945 by our new masters on the Potomac, is cracking at every joint – social, economic, political and cultural. As you’ve already indicated, there will be but one way out of this hell, and that will be through a sea of blood. You may well be the only counter-jihadist blog which attacks human rights, but you’re also the only such author who’s thought through the end game and the hopeless situation we’re facing in Europe.

Once this is all over and the survivors crawl out from the ruins it will be time for Europe to re-emerge from the shadow of Uncle Sam – though by then it’ll be ‘Tio Sam’ – and retake our place among the real players on this planet.

Keep up the good work,

Wurrukatte

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Tio Sam. Haha, I love it. Well, I should be well prepared for that. My Spanish is coming along nicely.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

@DP111

"As you know, we cant go back. We are where we are, whether we like it or not. Its a highly connected world, and bound to get even more connected. Those old concepts of discrimination will not stand today.

We must bear in mind that we have to operate within the political and social structure that we are in, and that permeates everything. Anything, no matter how small that violates the principle of non-discrimination will be attacked as "Racist" or "Far Right". Moreover, we will have lost the immense advantage we have."

Think how different the world is now from only 100 years ago. If the Europeans of the WW1 era had been told that in the not too distant future their descendants would allow legions of primitive Asians and Africans to colonise their countries, they would not have believed it. To them it would have seemed like the craziest dystopian science fiction.

My point is this: we have to believe that changes of enormous magnitude can occur, profound revolutions in sentiment that seem almost inconceivable today. We don't have to accept the world as it is. We can imagine a better world then work to bring it into being. The world as it is now denies the rights of peoples to preserve their own peoplehood by reducing ancestral peoplehood to the status of state-based citizenship. (Of course in practice it's only applied to European peoples.)

What we need to do is insist that such things as peoples exist, have a special moral entitlement to the territory that is ancestrally theirs and have the right to preserve their own peoplehood. It will involve the introduction of new moral claims into the thoughtspace of the world. But I believe it can and will be done. And those moral claims will eventually be as widely accepted as "anti-racism" and "human rights" are now.

Anonymous said...

DP111 said

CZ wrote: What we need to do is insist that such things as peoples exist, have a special moral entitlement to the territory that is ancestrally theirs and have the right to preserve their own peoplehood. It will involve the introduction of new moral claims into the thoughtspace of the world. But I believe it can and will be done. And those moral claims will eventually be as widely accepted as "anti-racism" and "human rights" are now.

By and large, I agree.

I need time to reflect though.

Can we return to this subject in a month or so?

In the meantime, it is satisfying to know that despite the incessant multikulti propaganda by the authorities, the MSM and all, the MSM now needs to attack bloggers for creating "Islamophobia".

When the MSM starts to attack us, we know we are being effective.

CZ

How did your move go? I hope you are happy. Has the summer been fine in your part of the world. Here, it has been a disaster.

All the best and take it easy. Blogger fatigue is a well known phenomenon.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

I like it here, but it's too hot in the summer.

Enza Ferreri said...

""Following the Civil War, the United States abolished slavery, gave blacks the right to vote and equal rights to all Americans."
But Lincoln didn't because he was dead.
"These constitutional amendments established the rights that Abraham Lincoln believed in and fought for. There is a movement towards recognizing Lincoln as a framer of the US Constitution because of that."

Your attempt to cover your embarrassing mistake about Lincoln is laughable."

Although Lincoln died in April 1865 and was dead in December of that year when the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution ended all slavery, he had been instrumental in pushing the amendment through Congress.

I didn't make any mistake, as I've written as a comment to one of your latest posts http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/whats-wrong-with-human-rights.html?showComment=1342465562231#c6083502183446856515:

"The recognition of human rights in America started with the Declaration of Independence and continued with the abolition of slavery, which is why Lincoln, who helped push through the U.S. Congress the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which finally ended all slavery in December 1865, is part of the process."

Do you really think that I write something without checking my facts first?

You seem to have a narrow understanding of historical developments as processes.

The rest of my comments are there.


You have become more and more uncivil through this discussion, and this comment of yours is probably the worst.

Anonymous said...

Yes Enza, Lincoln did abolish black slavery in the USA, though as Cheradenine has already indicated, at the time his declaration was worthless – freedom for blacks in the Confederacy, where he had no power, while slavery continued in Federal states such as Kentucky and Missouri. But no doubt you would argue his heart was in the right place and it wasn’t really just a cynical ploy to stop Britain and France from recognising the Confederacy.

However, all this misses the point. Where was Lincoln’s mandate? Did the people – i.e. the White nativist population who had elected him – crave freedom for the slaves? Was Lincoln the great democrat? No. In reality his announcement was greeted in New York with riots so serious that troops had to be pulled from the frontline to quell them.

Rather like WWII which is portrayed today like some crusade against the Nazi pogrom of the Jews, the American Civil War is heralded as the war to end slavery. Both these standpoints are idiotic. In WWII men were not fighting for the Jews any more than Unionists were fighting for the negro in the American Civil War – both these views have been engineered by certain interested parties post war.

Lincoln’s anti-democratic moralising was most famously taken up by Kennedy whose plans to enfranchise the blacks were carried out post mortem by LBJ – in the teeth of public opposition. This was to be the beginning, I would argue, of contemporary forms of ‘human rights’ as used to bludgeon peoples and societies into line for the benefit of the globalist project.

One has to admit that our political and cultural elites have been consistent for their chief characteristic – betrayal of their core constituencies – has remained unaltered. In Europe there has never been a mandate for mass immigration in any country, and yet in our fabled democracies mass immigration is universal. Which brings us to perhaps, the ultimate question: what does ‘democracy’ mean in our ‘democratic’ societies? It obviously has nothing to do with the will of the people, leaving one to question our attachment to so caustic an agent as representative democracy. Let’s put it this way, no tyrant or despot would ever have dared embark on programmes of racial and cultural annihilation. No such concerns hinder the operations of our modern anti-democratic ‘democracies’. Who then are really the greatest monsters to have trodden European soil? Hitler? Robespierre? Stalin? Or the faceless nobodies who inhabit the corridors of power today busy orchestrating the Great Eurocide – all in the name of ‘human rights’?

Wurrukatte

Enza Ferreri said...

I am continuing this discussion on my new blog http://www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk/ on which I write several posts on this subject, as well as many other topics.

Diversity Macht Frei

Iostream

Share It

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews