Anybody who has been reading the news about the Austrian elections realizes that the European Counterjihad is moving into a danger zone. Those of us who understand the situation on the ground in Austria know that it’s a little more nuanced than the “LOOK OUT! NAZIS!!!” reaction of the Western press would indicate, but the MSM can only paint these issues in bold, bright, day-glo colors. The Nazis won! The Jews are in danger!! SHRIEK!!!
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t real issues — the ridiculous FPÖ stance on Iran, and its refusal to support Israel — but those weren’t the focus of the election. The significance of last Sunday’s vote is that a huge number of Austrians gave up on Socialism and Socialism Lite (i.e. the ÖVP) and voted for the only parties that seemed to offer any real hope of resisting the Islamic juggernaut that is rolling through Austria and the rest of Europe. The electorate may sour on the FPÖ eventually, or the party may change its positions. But a major earthquake has struck Austrian politics — 7.9 on the Richter scale, with aftershocks likely to roll across the rest of the continent over the next few months.
It’s unfortunate that the only way in which the issues can be presented is through the distorting lens of race. The past cannot be escaped. The present cannot be described clearly. And the future cannot be rationally planned for.
As long as good, decent, ordinary people must cower under the bed in fear of being called racists, change is impossible. Muslim immigrants will continue to pour into Europe, the freedom of European citizens will be further eroded, and the possibility of a non-violent solution to the crisis decreases every day.
In the comments on a post earlier this week, several people discussed the fact that European nations are widely disparate, and to lump them together as a fictive “European” or “white” ethnicity is absurd. That’s one of the problems with looking at all of this through the racial lens, because there are important differences (and similarities) among Europeans that have nothing to do with race.
The English, the Swedes, the Italians and the Czechs are all “white”, but also quite distinct. Yet when the Swedes, the Italians, and the Czechs emigrated to America (and presumably also to Australia and Canada), they assimilated to Anglo-Saxon culture, even as they retained varying degrees of attachment to their ancestral homes.
The same is not true of all other cultures. Not every group assimilates equally well. To the racialists, race is the issue; to the culturists, culture is what’s important. But no matter what the explanation is, the differential ability of groups to assimilate is undeniable.
– – – – – – – – –
Unfortunately, since race is the only framework in which this can be viewed, such plain facts are denied. No one can discuss them without being called a racist. If you’re employed in government or academia and you say these things, you can kiss your career goodbye. Honest factual discussion is completely strangled except in pariah forums like this one.
But it’s true: not everyone assimilates quickly and thoroughly in America. Muslims may be the most extreme example, but other groups — such as the Chinese — assimilate more slowly and less completely than the Dutch or the Poles. In fact, Southern Europeans are just slightly less assimilable than Northern Europeans. The cultural compatibility index seems to be highest among nations ranging from Ireland to Finland and south to Central Europe, Germany, and the Pyrenees.
Interestingly enough, the French are an exception in this, as they are in so many things. Some French immigrants assimilated fully in the United States, while other pockets of them, particularly in the Northeast — this group is often lumped together with the ethnic French “Canucks” from Canada — stubbornly refused to integrate, and were all but monolingual in French well into the 20th century.
However, as a general rule, there is a broad swath of ethnicity that has no trouble becoming American. That’s why “American” is an ethnicity, and not just an idea, whether we like to admit it or not. The “idea” is possible because it’s an idea that is native to Northern Europe, and resonates with most people who come from Northern European cultures. In America these Europeans can recognize something familiar, and vice versa.
But all that is changing now, and will soon be lost. The “idea” of a constitutional republic based on liberty has gradually been deconstructed and replaced with a new idea, an ideology of “diversity”, “inclusiveness”, and “multiculturalism”. America must become more brown and less white, more Muslim and less Christian, in order that the Global Utopia may be realized.
Unfortunately, the latest arrivals from Europe will recognize this idea, too. They know it all too well. It’s one of the main things they attempted to escape from when they left Europe.
In the same comment thread, Fjordman had this to say:
The “white nationalist” label is totally meaningless in a European context. First of all, nobody calls Asians, Africans or others who fight for their dignity and right to exist black, brown or yellow nationalists, so why should we be called white nationalists if we do the same?
Moreover, it’s just plain, factually wrong. Europeans have been waging wars against each other for thousands of years. There is hardly a spot on European soil where a person can stand and not say “You did this bad thing to us X number of centuries ago, and we still hate you for it.” We view ourselves as Italians, Norwegians, Poles, Irishmen etc., not as “whites.” The differences between northern and southern Europe, as well as between eastern and western Europe, are profound. Let us not kid ourselves about that.
The irony is that precisely the kind of verbal and physical attacks we are being subjected to now could potentially change that. Maybe, if this is supposed to be a “post-national” age and we are attacked by transnational ideologies of different kinds, native Europeans will create a “transnational” ideology of their own to defend themselves. This will be an ideology dedicated to the defense of a shared European civilization and to the peoples who have historically created it. I don’t foresee that pre-existing national identities can or should disappear, but there will perhaps be another layer of “Europeanism” added on top of this. Europe as a cultural alliance, rather than Europe as a single nation.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Multicultural regime imposed by the EU and the UN actually produced that which it fears the most? A newly-forged pan-European nationalist identity, but one that rejects Multiculturalism, immigration, and Islam.
Yet another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. For they sow the wind, and they reap the whirlwind…
Everything I’m saying here is clearly racist, but it also happens to be true, which is one of the basic problems that we encounter when discussing this topic. What we say here and what the White Supremacists and Nazis say actually overlap.
If neo-Nazis believe that Multiculturalism is a bad thing (and they do), does that mean we should stop opposing Multiculturalism?
Obviously not. One has to accept that people whose other opinions we don’t like may agree with us on this particular issue. It’s discomfiting, but we have to get used to it.
So the discussion will always be fraught with difficulties, and we are all racists simply for joining in it. To prove you are not racist you would have to shun all conversation on the topic.
The best course, in my opinion, is to take a deep breath and say, “I’m a racist. The reason that I’m a racist is that I cherish my own people and prefer the company of my own kind over that of foreigners. I accept my basic racism, and I’m OK with it.”
There. That wasn’t so bad, was it?
Now that we’ve got that out of the way and established that we’re all racists, let’s see if we can find our way through the cultural minefield that this issue has become.