There’s a new kid on the block.
Welcome a new blogger called summer patriot, winter soldier. Pamela drew my attention to him, and his top post is an outstanding piece of writing (his permalinks don’t work right, so all I’m leaving here is the main blog link).
During the last few months a bitter controversy has raged over which political groups in Europe are acceptable, and which are to be considered beyond the pale for Americans to associate with. Many people have given up hope; they say in effect, “Europe is lost.” Others object to every nationalist party or organization in Europe as “fascist” and “neo-Nazi”, without offering any ideas about who else there might be that will fight vigorously against the Islamization of Europe.
Winter soldier joins the ranks of those Americans who choose to stand with Europe now, and who see the necessity of being inclusive in our alliances. He makes his case with incisive logic and engaging wit. I’ve excerpted the most important parts of his essay below:
let us consider for a moment, just who is going to rise to europe’s defense against the demographic conquest of islam. — will the bureaucrats and advocates of universal sameness who wrote the legislative enactments opening europe up to almost unlimited muslim immigration and occupation, and who have made it illegal for europeans to even speak out against this, or to speak derogatorily about any aspects of islam, will they rise up against their legislative efforts? will they speak out against islamic immigration? will the socialist and communist politicians who find in these immigrants a ready voting block for their perpetuation in office be the first to speak to the defense of europe by islam?
well, we can engage in this series of rhetorical questions until we work our way well over to the right of the political spectrum, before we find any likely candidates to rise to the defense of europe from islam depredation. the key point to be considered in this little exercise, and it seems entirely logical to me, is that we might very well expect european nationalists to be some of the very first people to rise up and vocally demonstrate that they have no liking for the prospect of having islam overrun europe. is there something surprising about this, something so wholly sinister about this situation that i have missed?
more importantly, what is wrong with it?
…is there something inherently wrong or immoral about a frenchman or frenchwoman being proud of being french, and wanting to preserve the attributes of his or her ethnicity and heritage? is there something inherently wrong or immoral about a frenchperson being proud of being a child of the reformation and the enlightenment and a civilization stretching back to greece, something wrong with being proud of being an adherent to western values and not giving a whit about the values of islam? is there something wrong about taking pride in these things, even in a world where we are supposed to accept the worth of the other fellow? and, if we cannot admire our own heritage, then why in the hell do we have to give a fig for the other fellow’s?
– – – – – – – – –
what harm can befall us from association with european nationalists, for it might be expected that as these people gain some influence with their fellows, and most likely to their left because there are just not a whole lot of them to their right, that a more centrist flavor, a more centrist hue, might attach itself to their attitudes, and that they might become indeed more acceptable to their fellow citizens and to us.
might not a prudent appreciation of the issue associated with trying to help european nationals and nationalists suggest the establishment of criteria to determine when it might be alright to link up with them, to offer them help, to work in league to establish policies and postures by which to oppose islamic expansion. it would not be unreasonable to take a detailed look into the history and current status of party platforms and party goals be in order. it would be prudent and cautious to see if the party recognizes the right of the state of israel to exist, to call for or extend complete diplomatic recognition, to spell out its commitments for its country or the european union to come to the aid of israel if israel is attacked. to satisfy the reasonable concerns of persons worried about attitudes such parties or person have with regards to jews and judaism, it would be prudent to examine the pronouncements of parties and persons with regard to the holocaust.
we are smart people. we understand how to perform these functions, as they are part and parcel of our procedural and institutional lives. all of us know the “ins” and “outs” of advise and consent hearing, background checks and the like.
do we not have the ability to formulate a screening litmus to be applied in a logical and procedurally adept way to make these determinations, to come up with some methodology besides ad hoc panic and hysteria?
surely there must be some process that could be adopted by persons of good will that would be more orderly and procedurally gifted than a lynch mob mentality run roughshod.
if a political party is burdened by a spokesman who is a ring-tailed unrepentant lunatic, but the rest of the party seems reasonable enough, ought we not in the interests of garnering more people to our cause, allow the party some procedure whereby the offending person is excised from the midst?
surely if legitimate concerns are raised about the suitability of parties or persons, appropriate remedial measures can be crafted to address those concerns, and, if possible cure those concerns.
right now, the muslims, after 60 years of economic bonanza, provided them absolutely free by the west in terms of cash and by the oil companies in terms of infrastructure, still have no industrial or economic or inventive capacity: they are as industrially inept and incompetent as the first day they stepped from camels to cadillacs. the iranians cannot keep their aviation in the air because in sixty years they haven’t even figured out how to make spare parts. to the same obtains for all the arab militaries, as the arabs have never bothered to figure out how to make anything. have you ever seen one item of arab commerce in any store that you have ever shopped in, except something made with a rhino horn. by contrast, the israelis stole the entire plans and blueprints to a french fighter, and had the thing in the air and operational in a short number of years. by contrast, the israelis have one of the most modern and advanced computer industries in the world, and arms manufacturers, and so on.
by what virtue should the muslims succeed to the power and wealth of europe: in centuries, they have not risen above subsistence economies, and we are going to turn europe over to them without a struggle, or helping in a struggle to prevent it, because we cannot get our white patent leather gloves dirty associating with undesirables?
france and england and germany make some of the best fighter planes in the world, and england makes one of the best fighter/attack bombers ever to take flight. france and england and germany make tanks that are state of the art, and though they might not be quite the main battle tank that the m1 abrahams is, they are not that far behind, and in head to head battle they would inflict casualties on the abrahams, and given enough of them, they could perhaps come out ahead in a war of attrition. france and england and germany and spain, given the airbus consortium, also have the capability of making airplanes with extremely heavy lift capabilities. does that mean anything to anybody in terms of the ability to manufacture strategic bombers?
france, germany, england, spain and the rest of the eu are an economic colossus; again not what they might be were they not staggering under the weight of eu social programming and taxes, but a still respectable economy. think, if you will but for a moment, at the technological riches available to islam at the conquest of europe.
and, oh yes, that other little matter.
france and england have the ability to make nukes, and they have the ability to deliver them, either by air, or by nuclear submarine.
does that give anyone pause?
if you, gentle reader, are reading this and you have not stopped to consider this, than you are probably just a bit obtuse.
france and england have about 200-300 warheads apiece, and the ability to launch them, from off of our shores, from off the shores of israel. given the distances involved in a sub-surface launch from the confines of the mediterranean, israeli citizens would not have a chance to finish their breakfast eggs before the arrival of a nuclear strike.
we cannot give this up to the muslims, not without helping those who would fight it.
we already know that a considerable segment of the social and political spectrum of those countries will not fight. the left will not, as their intellectual blinders prevent them from seeing the problem, and will do so right up until the curved knives lie against their throats. will the t.v. reporters who perpetuated the fraud of al dhura, will they fight islam? will the leftists who lionized yasser arafat, will they fight the muslims? the politicians and social elites will not, because they think they will ride the matter out: after all, they are saying to themselves in the dark corners and recesses of their minds, not all of us will be killed, some of us will survive.
what is the worst conceivable thing that could happen by consorting with european nationalists? another hitler? give me a break, the chances of another hitler rising out of all of this is so remote as to be ridiculous. it is preposterous. even so, the chances of this are exacerbated by isolating the nationalist parties, offering them no other recourse than extremism: cooperation with american conservatives who will help them fight the jihad also serves to have persons in place, the americans, who will moderate any tendency towards extremism.
what is the worst thing that could happen if islam took control over europe? then, my friends, the prospect of another holocaust looms not as an unlikely possibility, but as a scenario which takes on the magnitude of an eventuality.
what is the fate of israel if europe comes under the sway of islam?
well, in all probability, israel ceases to exist. if italy and france go islamic, then almost of a certainty turkey has become a fundamentalist islamic state well before, and israel’s fate is sealed. her strategic and tactical situation is absolutely untenable, and the only thing she can do is be destroyed where she sits.
Read the rest here.