Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Nov 29, 2013 | 54 comments

Is Europe becoming Eurabia?

Assuming you’ve not been living under a rock, you will have heard of the term “Eurabia”.  Now, there are some people who just can’t stand it.  The lively chaps at “rational wiki” describe it like this:

Eurabia is a conspiracy theory

Say no more.  One can’t go around believing conspiracy theories, can one?  If you start down that route, you end up believing really weird things, like, I don’t know, that Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon conducted secret diplomacy to extend the Vietnam war, and got tens of thousands of American GIs and who knows how many Vietnamese killed, just to put Nixon in the white house, or that the CIA betrayed Nelson Mandela to the Afrikaner Police, or that the CIA itself was formed from former Nazis, hired en masse at the end of the second world war, or that JFK was sharing a bird with a mafia don and used her to help set up an assassination attempt on Castro, or that Clinton used cruise missiles to destroy the Sudan’s only medicine factory just to distract from Monika Lewinsky.

That’d be just terrible, wouldn’t it?

RationalWiki goes on:

Unlike most conspiracy theories, Eurabia can be traced to a singe source and a single author. The Jewish historian Gisèle Littman published the book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis in 2005, under the name Bat Ye’or [...] Proponents of the Eurabia theory rarely provide evidence.

I haven’t read Ye’or’s book on Eurabia, but I have read her extensive works on dhimmitude, the institutionalized discrimination that Islam prescribes for non-Muslims.  Her technique is simple and devastating: she first does a very learned exegesis of the fundamental texts, and then provides large chunks of the primary sources for you to read yourself.  There is little to argue with there, since it is something of a knockout way of arguing.  Taking a brief look at this book, I see that she is following a similar approach, working closely from official EEC and EU documents.

The chaps who set “rational wiki” up have apparently never learned that, “If you have to say you are…”

Okay, that’s a little cheap scene setting.  Now to the more serious business.

The basic idea behind Eurabia is as follows: through a combination of high birthrates, high immigration, and high conversion (please note that last one), peninsular Europe gaining an ever larger Muslim population, and this means that it is becoming more Islamic in its political character

Stated like that, it is an idea that is impossible to argue with it.  It is like discussing global warming – releasing gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere must necessarily have some effect.  So it is with the Eurabia theorists – there are a range of predictions, from the mild to the cataclysmic.

One has to be careful.  Paranoia about population has lead to some very unpleasant things in the past.  It is not hard to find paranoid and dangerous takes on this subject, such as this video, which has been ably dealt with elsewhere.  A much more measured study of the matter is this Pew poll which predicts the growth of Muslims to about 8% of the population of Europe in seventeen years (by 2030) and an worldwide rise to about a quarter of mankind – 2.2 billion.

This poll is often cited as a ‘refutation’ of Eurabianist thinking, but that analysis misses an important question: what is the effect of Muslim population right now?

Well, as things stand at the moment, Muslim minorities have effectively abrogated freedom of speech with regards to Islam throughout Europe, seriously eroded women’s rights, begun cleansing Jews from cities and countries, helped themselves to a de-facto veto on who Europeans may or may not vote as their representatives, and raise their own paramilitary forces.

That is what a minority have succeeded in doing.

None of that is an exaggeration:

1)  The veto on free speech.  Please try to criticize Islam publicly in any European city; you may find yourself arrested or killed.

2)  Erosion of women’s rights – well, as “Islam wiki” tells us 

Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married…Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.

It should come as no surprise that the increase in Muslims in Europe has gone hand in hand with an increase in rape  (along with things like forced marriages, honour killings, FGM etc).  Now here’s the interesting thing: during a discussion about the sexual grooming gangs in Britain, Mo Ansar – who  is a genuine reformist – let drop that he was threatened with death for trying to put a stop to this and speaking about it.  Think on that.

3)  Ethnic cleansing. Just try asking the Jews of Malmo.

4)   As to the veto over whom we may or may not elect, try asking Pim Fortuyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Geert Wilders.

5) Paramilitary forces – look at the sheer number of jihadists emerging from Europe these days.

Believe me, I could go on like this, and others have.

This is the situation with a 6% Muslim population.  Now, what exactly will that look like when that number climbs ever higher?

To this, a few other questions need to be asked: Is there any Muslim majority country where infidels enjoy anything like full rights?  Is there even any significant Muslim minority that goes out of its way to defend the rights of infidels (the way, say, anti-racist and anti-fascist campaigners defend the rights of minorities)?  Is there any hope that this will change significantly in the future?

Answers: No, no, and no.

In fact, it is almost eerie how closely you can link Muslims as a percentage of population with the level of violence toward non-Muslims.  Please take a moment to look at the following link.  Yes, the author has an axe to grind, but the fact that a list like that can even be put together should be worrying.

Take a look at what is going on through the House of Submission.  In 1914, Constantinople was about half Christian.  Now it has almost none.  In Turkey as a whole, the Christian population has dropped from 15% to 1% over the same period.  Look at present day Egypt, where the Copts are fleeing as fast as they can.   Or look at the Central African Republic.

This is one of the largest, most thorough cases of ethnic cleansing ever conducted – and no one seems to want to remark on it.

Can one blame Europeans for not wanting their descendants to be in that position?  As of this writing, 74% of Frenchmen think that Islam is incompatible with their country.  So do 51% of Germans, who also say that Islam does not belong in their country.  Again, can you blame them?

But it’s not just ancestral Europeans.  In my experience, infidels from India and Christian Africa are a lot more blunt when it comes to saying what they think about Islam.  Consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Sabatina James.  Or consider at least one American immigrant, Bruce Bawer:

The main reason I’d been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventually saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their American Protestant counterparts look like amateurs. Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn’t issue fatwas. James Dobson’s parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn’t telling people to murder their daughters. American liberals had been fighting the Religious Right for decades; Western Europeans had yet to even acknowledge that they had a Religious Right. How could they ignore it? Certainly as a gay man, I couldn’t close my eyes to this grim reality. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me. I wasn’t fond of the hypocritical conservative-Christian line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but it was preferable to the forthright fundamentalist Muslim view that homosexuals merited death.”

 

This passage neatly illustrates that what is going on with Islam in Europe isn’t “immigration” by any normal definition of the term.  When people move to a new country to adapt to its ways of life and become part of it, that’s “immigration”.  When people move to a new country and are determined to fundamentally reshape it in their own culture, that’s called “colonization”.  For example when the largest Muslim gathering in Norway wants to see homosexuals and adulterers stoned to death.

There’s the following paper that should raise at least some eyebrows.

In terms of estimated probability of having a strong religious identity, a Muslim born in the UK and having spent there more than 30 years is comparable with a non-Muslim just arrived in the country.

Now, I happen to be pro-immigration, and I could give a lot of reasons why.  Apart from anything else, I am strongly in favour of Europe deepening its ties to India and Christian Africa (the big growth opportunity in the coming decades).  I’m not in favour of having a big question mark over the future.

This isn’t just happening in Europe.  I hear similar stories from Tanzania to Singapore.

Eurabia or Eurosiberia?

There are some paranoids who think that Europe will eventually be integrated as part of a global caliphate.  I don’t think that is possible.  The jihadis have not been able to re-establish the caliphate in the Muslim world.  However, the presence of Islam has acted as a massive power-up to native European fascist parties.  You cannot dismiss arguments against immigration as racist when it leads to some of the stories that routinely pop up

The neo-fascist writer Guillaume Faye has written about a coming cataclysm of European civil war that will end with peninsular Europe becoming unified with Russia into a vast, anti-liberal, anti-democratic Empire called “Eurosiberia” (you can google this term, but I am not putting up a link to some of those websites).  What I fear is of a Europe torn apart between native fascists on the one hand and the jihadists on the other.  There is a significant chunk, as this paper shows, of people for whom “Muslim” is simply a proxy for “immigrant”.

Now, the simple fact is that, when it comes to taking a hard line on Islam, Moscow’s your bet. Look here and here.  The European far-right – and I am saying this again, “far right” in continental Europe is the real deal – has long wanted a union with Russia for a number of reasons, and there are numerous documentaries on the training camps and weapons trades that travel from that part of the world throughout all of continental Europe.

So what we’ve got is the recipe for a civil war between two hideous factions, between Eurabia and Eurosiberia.

Something to think about.

  • http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

    Say no more. One can’t go around believing conspiracy theories, can one? If you start down that route, you end up believing really weird things,eurabia/#sthash.fh5l1Ktq.dpuf

    This is poor rhetoric. No number of doubted-come-true claims makes any one claim more likely to be true, or even more reasonable to entertain. This is identical in form to when every crackpot says “oh sure, nobody believes my ‘crazy’ idea that the lizardmen are controlling the weather to rig the world series, but everyone doubted man could fly, or step foot on the moon, too!”

    The basic idea behind Eurabia is as follows: through a combination of high birthrates, high immigration, and high conversion (please note that last one), peninsular Europe gaining an ever larger Muslim population, …

    I’ve seen no evidence of significant conversion to Islam in Europe, and you provide none here.

    Re: Erosion of women’s rights. You provide no evidence of this. People breaking the law is not evidence of rights erosion.

    I fully believe there are serious issues with Islam in Europe, but this post seems ax-grindy to me and lacking in objectivity.

    • ThePrussian

      To take that in order, yes, the first part is flippant, but it’s in response to a shoddy argument. I was particularly vexed by the failure of rational wiki to state any of the evidence against its case, running with the ridiculous “conspiracy theory” smear. Perhaps I should have omitted that, but there it is.

      As regards my not providing evidence for the erosion of women’s rights, I did provide some, but with issues such as the now endemic problem of honour killings in Europe, the spread of FGM, the existence of l’enfer des tournantes in France, that some judges in Germany are now OK with wife-beating because the Sharia says it’s okay, the existence of areas within cities where it is dangerous to be an unveiled woman, or the recent adoption of sex-segregation in UK universities, I suppose it thought it needed little more support. Sorry, I was wrong about that; I sometimes forget the difference the Atlantic makes.

      EDIT: Here’s a study on FGM in Europe http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/female-genital-mutilation-in-the-european-union-and-croatia-report

    • ColonelNeville

      You’re not really interested in looking at the harsh reality of Islam though, are you. No, really.

    • andyrwebman

      I don;t think the conversion rate is significant – indeed it is actually possible that the rate of apostacy from Islam is higher.
      There is evidence, however, that the birth rate and immigration rate is overwhelming these effects.
      Consider the “percentage of population that is Muslim” in the UK. Overall, it’s around 2.5% – but the percentage of young people is more like 8-10%. It is very possible that the true extent of Islamisization has been hidden by our older generation. Once they die out, what will the situation for the young be?

  • Peter

    Prussian, when did
    they redefine “civil war.” Libya, Syria and soon Egypt are civil wars, despite
    outside help. Do you see a pattern here? Civil wars involve countries not
    continents that your rhetoric suggests. By this logic, then, WW2 was just a
    European civil war. But there is something missing in your contention that
    because of Muslims and the rising neo-fascist factions it will result in your
    fanciful civil war. Tell me, where are the standing Islamic and fascist armies?
    Where are their tanks, artillery and jet fighters? I asked you once before if
    these neo-fascists have reached senior levels in any of the police or military forces
    in any country, you never answered. So, this ludicrous idea of a Muslim/Fascist
    civil war will never happen in my lifetime or yours.

    • ThePrussian

      To take the question of “where are the armies?”, well where were they when Bosnia went tango-uniform? The jihadists received aid from Iran and Saudi Arabia and according to some, bin Laden was there causing mischief. Meanwhile, orthodox Russia rallied to the Serbian cause. You think things have gotten any better? There is also the matter of the neo-Nazi underground that has been buying and distributing weapons for decades – and I mean serious hardware. RPGs, grenades, semi-automatic weaponry… I’ve seen some of the stuff recovered in busts, and it isn’t pretty. And as to your comment about “where neo-fascists are in high levels”, when parties like the Front National are _already_ set to win power, then that’s a bit of a silly question.

      To these semantics about civil war – if one country gets into serious trouble, it will spread very quickly. If, say, France explodes that will have a massive radicalization effect on both sides. Bosnia – a relatively small scale conflict – drew in the Orthodox and the Muslim world. Do you care to imagine what would happen if similar troubles were to erupt throughout Europe? Both the jihadists and the neo-fascists think in super-national lines; after all, one of the earliest champions of European Union was Julius Evola.

      I do hope you are right that I never live to see this – but please don’t act as though this is something completely fanciful and just cooked up.

    • ColonelNeville

      You…”…where are the standing Islamic and fascist armies? Where are their tanks, artillery and jet fighters?” If you were aware, while many Islamic states do indeed have these things, Islamic Jihadists do not need or really use them at all. Thus every one of the over 22,330 death dealing Muslim terror attacks since 911…Thus the 1000′s of beheading videos, car bombs, kidnapping, IED’s, hijacking, rape, mutilation, mass murder, mayhem etc, and all without jets, tanks and artillery.

      Thus 9/11, Bali, Madrid, India and the Sudan and Algeria and New York and Pakistan and Israeland Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeriaand England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh andSaudi Arabia and Turkey and Morocco and Yemen and Arkansas andFrance and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosniaand Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia andCalifornia and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Georgia and Jordanand United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania andIllinois and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark andEast Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlandsand Afghanistan and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal and the Maldives and Argentina and Mali and Angola and the Ukraine andUganda and North Carolina and Germany and Arizona and Lebanon andIran and Kazakhstan and Sweden and Azerbaijan and Iraq and Scotlandand Macedonia and Bulgaria and Cameroon and Massachusetts and..

      thereligionofpeace com, jihadwatch org, atlasshrugs2000 typepad com, politicalislam com, vladtepesblog com, qsociety org, prophetofdoom net, zombietime com, steynonline com, pjtv com, barenakedislam com, fbi gov, faithfreedom org…

    • mugasofer

      “I asked you once before if these neo-fascists have reached senior levels in any of the police or military forces in any country, you never answered. If that happened I would be worried.”

      Greece?

  • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

    As far as I know, “Eurabia” was coined by Oriana Fallaci, on her writings about Islam just after 9-11. Aren’t the so called Rational Wiki guys even aware of that?

    • Al

      I don’t think there is any evidence that Oriana Fallaci coined the term. Fallaci did, however, remark that “Muslims breed like rats.” The woman was also a notorious homophobe and was angry at the Jews in America because they held power and she believed that they controlled the media.

      • ThePrussian

        “Eurabia” is originally traceable to the 1970 Euro-Arab friendship committee. As regards Fallaci, I think you mean the one who fought against the real fascists and wrote a blistering denunciation of European anti-semitism and defended Israel. Yes, I’ve seen that quote that’s hawked around, but weirdly I cannot seem to find a primary source – just a website that, to put it mildly, isn’t well disposed to her and says it is “very hard” to find the original article. Funny that.

        • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

          And the homophobia charge, do you know anything about that?

          • ThePrussian

            Don’t know that much about that – I’ve seen her supposedly apologising for it, but it’s all third hand stuff. On the other hand, she publicly challenged the Ayatollah Khomeni, when he’d just risen to power, about the relentless lynching of gays that had started ever since he was installed – and threw her chador in his face in defence of women’s rights.

        • Nicolas Krebs

          About Oriana Fallaci’s claim that “sons of Allah breed like rats”, it is in her books “The Rage and The Pride” and “The Force of Reason”. For the later, look at Google books SlNnAAAAMAAJ, p.53, “breed like rats”.

      • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

        My bad (about the coining).

      • ColonelNeville

        Balls. So what is your favorite aspect of global Islamic jihad then? thereligionofpeace com, jihadwatch org, faithfreedom org, zombietime com, atlasshrugs2000 typepad com, islammonitor org, fbi gov…

    • andyrwebman

      I think, like many left wing debaters, they are concentrating on the originator of the argument rather than the logic and evidence behind the argument itself.

      Many have independently come to the same conclusions, and the Eurabia term is just a catchphrase – its use cannot reliably be used to deduce the process of reasoning that the user has undergone.

      • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

        I think you’re right

  • Nicolas Krebs

    You wrote:

    “The basic idea behind Eurabia is as follows”

    Well, their are many ideas behind Eurabia.

    The Eurabia idea is, basicly and according to rationalwiki.org, “a conspiracy theory and a doomsday scenario about the imminent total Islamisation of Europe.”

    You wrote:

    “There are some paranoids who think that Europe will eventually be integrated as part of a global caliphate. I don’t think that is possible.”

    Then you are calling Bat Ye’or (whose 2011 book is titled “Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate”) a paranoid. Can I hug you?

    • ThePrussian

      To that last, no you can’t.

      If Ye’or’s book really does predict something like a global caliphate – that’s fantasyland stuff. Minor example, the Iranian nuclear issue. This is usually discussed in terms of their desire to wipe out Israel. That’s probably true – but it is likely that the Shia know they are outnumbers, and with iranian birthrates down the tubes, they need a guarantee against the Sunni majority which hates them like you wouldn’t believe. And if you ended up with say, Iran and Pakistan or Iran and Saudi Arabia throwing nukes at each other, you think India, China, Russia would do nothing? Even in Europe, I think the more likely scenario is a crash of civilization and Europeans – I mean continental Europeans – reverting to their primal way of war. A lot of the anglosphere thinks of continental Europeans as nanny state wimps, too effete to fight. They’re wrong. For a number of historical reason, Europeans tend to be very pacifist up until the point they’re not. Nice has almost been completely exhausted, nasty is about to show up again.

      However, I’ll withhold judgement on Ye’or’s book until I’ve read that one. There’s a different between Islamization and the establishment of a Caliphate – a big difference.

      • Nicolas Krebs

        I am glad that you knew the demographic crash in Iran.

        About an Islamization like Nazification, I see the analogy and I acknowledge it is still Eurabia-zation.

      • ColonelNeville

        Nazi means National Socialist Workers Party. “Nazism is socialism with German characteristics” Adolf Hitler. Socialism is the collectivist left. Thus total gun control, state abortion and eugenics, total nationalization of industry, all speech controlled by the state, hatred of individuality, hatred of Christianity, welfare state, ecofascism, no property rights, enemies lists, concentration camps, mass conformity etc. Read ‘How Green Were The Nazis?’, ‘Hitler and Stalin: parallel lives, and ‘The Pink Swastika’ for some insights.

        Right wing as a pejorative was a phony Stalinist propaganda tactic to attempt to make out the West was evil and Soviet communism was good, after WW2.

        Right wing is actually not a ‘wing’ of anything per se, as true conservatism is not extreme…If one has more economic and individual freedom, these things do not somehow become ‘extreme’. Authentic conservatism is merely a set of four proven principles. Respect for The Constitution, respect for life, limited government and low taxes and personal responsibility. This means rule of law, private property rights, free speech, the right to bear arms, free markets, free trade, free movement of people and ideas, innovation, enforcement of contract etc…We conservatives see human nature as it is: flawed. There are no perfect ‘solutions’ just trade offs. Conversely the left believes it must trade individual freedoms for ‘perfection’.

        The left has no logical limits on it’s belief that it can ‘perfect’ the world and people, and is thus naturally extreme due to it’s collectivist nature. All the left’s alleged solutions always call for ever bigger government and more regulation and taxes and less individual freedom.

        See Thomas Sowell, Milton Freidman, Hayek, Mark Steyn, Bill Whittle, David Mamet, Alphonso ‘Zo’ Rachel, Rep Lt Col Allen B West, Victor Davis Hanson, Dennis Prager, Mark Levin, P.J O’Rourke, prodos com etc. No, really.

        • Al

          Balls.

          • ColonelNeville

            Yes, I have them and that is why I read a rather lot and thus present facts. Quote where I am allegedly wrong and counter with evidence or don’t. You’re of the left, ain’t cha. Get help from Bill Whittle, Zo, Mark Steyn, Thomas Sowell, P.J O’Rourke, Daniel Greenfield, zombietime com, thepeoplescube com, lookingattheleft com, iowahawk typepad com, Mark Levin, David Mamet and Michelle Malkin.

          • Al

            Can’t me assed, mate. You’ll just ignore the evidence when I present it, as many who have made the same arguments you have do, so there’s no point. Suprised you didn’t tell everyone to read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg too.

          • ColonelNeville

            Riiight. Yes, of course…who can “be assed” providing evidence when they have none because there is none and they cannot even quote where I am allegedly wrong because wait for it, I’m not.

            I “made an argument” by stating easily verified on the public record empirical facts. What do YOU usually do, sir?

            You don’t read, do you. Excellent phony posturing, fluffy. You’re of the bundled cliched opinion left, ain’t cha. No, really.

          • Al

            Alright, well for starters, let’s take your your claim about the Nazis and total nationalization of industry. Hardly any nationalizations of formerly private firms occured during the Third Reich. In addition, there were not very many enterprises newly created as state-run firms either. The most spectacular exception to that rule was the Reichswerke Hermann Göring which was founded in 1937 for the exploitation of the German bad-quality iron ore deposits. There was even a deep conviction even in the highest ranks of the Nazi elite that private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains and technical progress. The principle mentioned above that Four Year Plan projects were to be executed as far as possible by private industry was explicitly motivated in the following way: “It is important to maintain the free initiative of industry. Only in that case one can expect to be successful.” Some time earlier a similar consideration was expressed: “Private companies, which are in charge of the plants to be constructed, should to a large extent invest their own means in order to secure a responsible management.”

            In fact, the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State-owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party.

            The reason Nazism differs entirely from socialism, is because it
            bases its entire being, its essence on a community based on
            race/nationality. The driving force of history, to the Nazis, is shared
            heritage that must be preserved and perpetuated. The central economy of Fascist States thus works to this end and nothing else. When Hitler replaced the trade union movement and imprisoned German socialist leaders in the mid-30s, he created a new movement in order to control the working classes. He called this the‘German Labour Force’. The name is significant. Before this, the trade union movement and the German communist/socialist groups associated with it, were international in their scope. They supported their comrades around the World.

            They were not understood in terms of national borders. Suddenly, they became the ‘German’ labour force. Their whole point, was advancement of the nation state. Alongside this new movement cloaked in patriotism, was a list of ‘un-german activities’. This included striking. Anyone who turned down ajob in both the public or private sector was named ‘work shy’ and imprisoned. 8.3% of the unemployed were conscripted. It is important to note that a Fascist State depends on the strength of its armed forces, this is Nationalism, not socialism. Here is a song sung by the new
            ‘German Labour Force’….

            “We demand from ourselves service to the end, even when no eyes are upon us.

            We know that we should love our Fatherland more than our own life.

            We vow that no one shall outdo us in loyalty,

            That our life shall be one great labour service for Germany.

            So in this solemn hour we pray for blessing on the oath we take,

            We thank thee, Fuhrer, that we have now seen thee,

            Do thou behold us as thine own creation?

            May our hearts ever beat with thy heart’s pulses, Our lives find inspiration in thy love,

            Behold us here! Thy Germany are we.”

            This highlights, again, the difference between Nazism and the far
            left. The far left bases its existence on class. It stands to obliterate
            class, ending in a completely classless society. Class is the driving
            force. Race, nationality, religion, sexuality and most other social
            constructs are not important. This is in stark contrast to what we see in this song. The German Labour Force had a purpose. That purpose was the advancement of the nation. The line: “We know that we should love our Fatherland more than our own life” is the key to the difference between Fascism and the far-left. The far-left is more often than often completely obliterated by Fascist forces. The Fascism of Hitler attempted to destroy the far-left. Fascism cannot abide the far-left. The two are vehemently opposed.

            The Nazi Charter of Labour does not grant total control over the
            means of production to the workers, as you would expect if the Nazi’s truly were a party of the far-left. Instead, it states that the ‘leader of the enterprise’ (also known as the employer:

            “……..makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise.”

            This, along with the banning of trade unions, cut wages (from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labour, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labour), the banning of strikes, the outlawing of collective bargaining, and the move to make the labour force a cog in the Nationalist machinery suggests unequivically that referring to the Nazi’s as a far-left party, could not be more ignorant of historical fact and the environment in which the left had to exist under a Nazi leadership.

            Let us also not forget who supported, and who opposed Fascism.
            Communists and Socialists across the World opposed the Nazi’s.

            Between 1933 and 1939 150,000 Communists were imprisoned by the Nazis purely for being Far-left. A further 30,000 were executed. The oldest Communist party in Germany, the KDP started in 1919 (the biggest outside of Russia) was declared illegal by Hitler in 1933. All Communist publications were closed down. Other Socialist groups – The Baum Group, Red Orchestra, Home Front, the Uhrig Group – were routinely terrorised by the Nazis, imprisoned and executed. In 1944, there was a workers uprising in an attempt to inspire a socialist revolution, in which 200,000 workers were arrested. This isn’t far-left.

            Economic centralising is meaningless without a purpose. The purpose of the Nazi’s Fascist centralised state is perpetuation of the Nation based on perceived heritage – be it race, religion, or any other man-made social phenomena that they claim is a natural way to order society. All economic planning in the Nazi’s Fascist centralised economy is geared toward the advancement of the Nation. It is a war economy. By contrast Left wing economic centralisation does not hold the Nation, or race to be a great natural truth that must be protected and advanced. It works to create a more equal society based on wealth distribution. It
            is international in its approach to social relations, and has
            absolutely no regard for perceived social heritage.

          • ThePrussian

            That’s a very good, and very crisp summary of the salient facts.

          • ColonelNeville

            Actually, I didn’t feel it was crisp or a summary of the salient anything except a willful counting of the tress – one that entirely misses the forest of the identical Nazi and communist machines of socialist mass murder. No, really.

          • ColonelNeville

            Hey, thanks for the thoughtful,
            detailed and I believe sincere efforts in reply. Sadly, your ‘correct truth’ about the allegedly more nuance and pure ‘for the worker’ motives of the communist socialist progressive Marxist collectivist etc, left are entirely imaginary. There is only one motive for the left and that is total power.

            Amusing apology and agitprop fantasy regarding
            some alleged worthwhile nuance between socialists in jackboots and socialists in fur hats- and even a laughable complete difference between the National Socialist Workers Party [NAZI] and Reds, means literally a nihilist nothing in the end to the millions of dead – and especially to millions of ordinary and skilled people who flee commie and socialist lands en masse.

            There is no difference worth a damn – If I saw commies or
            Nazi’s marching up my roadway, one would shoot them both with equal aim – and it’s exactly why one may say and posture such agitprop drivel safely in the free and prosperous West, but why one is not so stupid as to actually live in a Marxist cesspool – based as they are on lies and murder via first coercion, intimidation, and threats, then with power the arrests ALWAYS begin, [the enemies list is always long and never stops growing] then ever more murder and the rest of the mass conformist fraud, theft, destruction, depravity, spite, envy and madness.

            It’s why Germany ended in a smoking ruin and every commie
            prison state ends in total dysfunctional criminal paranoid collapse and in the utter ruin of some 170 millions of peoples lives [and counting] and their societies.

            globalmuseumoncommunism org. Daniel Greenfield at
            frontpagemag. Bill Whittle, pjtv com, Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn, Jonah Goldberg, Jamie Glazov, P.J O’Rourke, thepeoplescube com, hfontova com, babalublog com, therealcuba com, discoverthenetworks org

            Nazi’s and commies are about as different as “potatoes
            and turnips” as the ordinary Germans called the endless communist and Nazi fights for, wait for it, TOTAL POWER over life and death of everything and everyone. This is WHY communist gulags, concentration camps and firing squads are identical to NAZI gulags, concentration camps and firing squads, and for that matter, Islamic ones. It’s why the Soviets moved their millions of state enemies into former NAZI concentration camps almost as soon as the NAZI’s fled.
            ALL collectivism is the same individual murdering and liberty destroying mad beast.

            Again, as for commies being opposed to something they allegedly disagreed with the Nazi’s on beyond their own lust for control, balls. When the directive came from Stalin to embrace the Hitler Stalin Pat, millions of comrades just sang an entirely different tune on command with as much belief as before and then
            switched back again. Now the left align with Islamic jihad and attack Israel and Jews and most of the left goes along with it. That’s mob mentality top down collectivism.

            I don’t give a damn about “beautiful ideas” of socialist “equality”. Millions of now annihilated “useful idiots” have repeated such agitprop tripe for a century. YouTube the great YURI BEZMENOV. If you really believe it, you have been indoctrinated…you’ve been had..

            No, really.

          • Al

            See, what did I say? I said that you would ignore the evidence and you did. Bravo.

          • ColonelNeville

            “ignore the evidence” eh. Er, but I see that’s what you are doing. You see the trees but not the forest because you want to and you can – because the reality of collectivism doesn’t effect you, does it.

            55 million murdered by National Socialism and 170 murdered [and counting] is of no interest to you and is willfully unregistered in your apparent moral void and shakes not your repellent fantasy’s of nuance and alleged difference.

            Ah, yes, no nationalizing of industry in Germany you say. Ah, not always the precise explanatory term per se, [I see you admire precision even when it's meaningless and wrong] but the same result as ALL industry served the Reich. You were not free to run any business as you saw fit and have no visits from the Gestapo as I recall. Nazi Germany was a crony dominated and appropriation and theft and redistribution system and is what helped gain and keep support from the people virtually right up to the end.

            But I digress…The only difference between commie socialism and Nazi socialism is that the Nazi’s were defeated and put on public trial, while communism and communists have never been publicly [apart from light slap farces like the communist Khmere Rouge trials et al] put on trial and properly held to account for any of its crimes.

            The phony posturing and Utopia musing revolutionaries of the left live in a fantasy life completely supported by the system they despise. No, really.

          • Al

            Na, the Nazis were conservatives and you love them and think they are the best and you want to become one. And this is defo true coz I say so.

          • ColonelNeville

            Are you deliberately witless or naturally obtuse or simply venal and mentally ill?

            The NAZI’S were ugly, humorless, mob mentality uber bully lying socialist collectivists like, wait for it, you.

            You present yourself as one of those phony spineless twits who defeat themselves the more they express their own profoundly unread, incurious and conformist opinions of bundled leftist mediocrity. You are despicable and repellent.

            I happen to be a pro Israel Christian living in a very, very Jewish neighbourhood by choice. No, really.

          • Al

            I think it’s funny that you talk about genocide, then endorse a genocide denier (Spencer) and a genocide advocate (Greenfield).

          • ColonelNeville

            Gee, what a surprize.. no quotes and zero evidence to support your ever more utterly baseless phony scattergun ad hominems and witless strawmen made from whole cloth fraud. When the left speak as you do one almost invariably finds they have not seriously read the people concerned very much or usually not at all – or do not read – or if they read, it’s not worth a damn. Do you possess a shred of authenticity or decency? Nup.

            Actually you don’t appear to “think” honestly or logically much and you’re not “funny” at all but my, my, you are a venal, lying logical fallacy spouting sadly typical leftist. I was perhaps right, in that you really do present yourself as someone with some kind of peculiar and deliberately or naturally obtuse, personality defect. Are you always such a shallow bore and fake? No, really.

          • Al
          • ColonelNeville

            You have presented yourself as a laughably repellent and pathetically rotten person. Honestly, are you mad? You are a left liberal. No, really. You are on massive photo display and dismantled at the following sites…zombietime com, lookingattheleft com, ringospictures com, thepeoplescube com, iowahawk typepad com.

          • ColonelNeville

            Er, but I always suggest people read [left] Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. It’s an outstanding, factual, very worthy and readable book.

            And I’ll wager you are described in delicious detail within its massively and empirically footnoted and sourced pages. This is always a good reason for the left to hate any of the many books that they relentlessly and resolutely never read.Carry on.

          • ColonelNeville

            “…read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg too.” Excellent advice. Take it.

          • ColonelNeville

            Ah, but I did, especially as you didn’t, wouldn’t, couldn’t read it. [left] Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg is a great empirical, massively sourced book – filled with rather uncomfortable facts, especially uncomfortable for the socialist sodden left.

            YOU are welcome to quote anything from it that is allegedly wrong and counter with massively empirical sourced EVIDENCE. I can wait. No, really.

          • ThePrussian

            Read ‘em. To this “right” and “left” terminology, you are mistaking the US right for the European right. Who do you think many continental Europeans would describe as the most famous liberal US politician? Ronald Reagan.

            The European deep right has less to do with the world view of Bill Whittle, and a lot more to do with that of Pat Buchanan and David Duke. And as to Hitler, he basically fused all the worst elements of the right of his day- ultranationalism and racism – with all the worst of the left – totalitarianism and eugenics.

          • ColonelNeville

            Dear Prussian, nice site and some good articles and thanks for the thoughtful response. Unfortunately I believe your analysis is er, confused, lacks defined clarity and is thus incorrect. Mark Steyn has described European misunderstandings of what they believe America and Americans are, including Reagan.

            Er, as for “European deep right”, you would need to define this new to me term and well, name them. They are I wager, often typical never die Euro fascistic bigotries, [fasci being a Mussolini coined term for socialist collectivism] narrow special interest to rent seeker crony types to collectivist and largely for more state power for themselves and other death spiral Euro nitwits etc.

            Few [if any] are truly for authentic free markets, less regulation, more free speech, and individual freedom etc. Re the Brussells EU clique are all rather classic Euro elitist cum Soviet styled creeps plus around thirteen are er, Muslims…Hey, what could go wrong…

            The great Geert Wilders for example, while a very good man is actually a rather typical European pro-welfare state liberal who has merely taken the time to study the hideous facts of Islam, but is I believe, no limited government conservative. While there are EU folks who do not all ascribe to the 60 plus years of U.S enabled Euroweenie fantasy land philosophy, the Euro zone is not really the great Thomas Sowell country.

            Fascism, socialism, communism, Marxism, progressivism, nationalist militarism, collectivism, Nazism and Islam ad nauseum are actually the same kind of collectivist lusting and individual freedom hating beast. This is why they become not so strange bedfellows and all have virtually the same tactics, language, concentration camps and Gulags. See thepeoplescube com, globalmuseumoncommunism org, zombietime com…

            Racism is very European, very socialist leftist and well, racism and identity politics is very Democrat Party thing. The Democrat Party was founded on racism and is sustained by racial demagoguery. See Bill Whittle and Zo and blacknationrepublicans com, margaretsanger blogpot comon same. YouTube vid Maafa21 and Racist Democrat History. Prodos com is a neat local source for insight too.

            Read the massively footnoted and sourced [left] ‘Liberal Fascism’ by Jonah Goldberg and ‘Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama’ by Ann Coulter.

            I wish you well and enjoy your well read and intelligent pieces. No, really.

          • ThePrussian

            Thanks for the nice comments. In roughly reverse order then…

            I’ve read Goldberg, and I have more importantly, read the authors that he stole the best bits of his book from – Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, Ludwig von Mises. Golberg marries this to a lot of specious junk, such as the idea of the “God State” being traceable to Darwin, or some nonsense about “Darwinian eugenics” – this from a man who doesn’t mention the name “Francis Galton” once in the book. I am not even going to touch Coulter, except to note that starting a history of racial demagoguery in the seventies is highly suspicious.

            Next, I will thank you not to throw that term “euroweenie” around, and not to insult my people. I really am getting tired of this attitude from Americans who seem to forget that it is one thing to build a free republic when one is protected by two oceans, and all the native people have been conveniently wiped out. It is quite another when one has to fight a rebellion against an existing ancien regime, while simultaneously holding off the surrounding cultural predators.

            If you want to use the term “weenie”, let me point out that Europe’s soil has drunk far more blood than America ever has. The US lost a piddling five hundred thousand in the second world war – Russia alone lost eight million soldiers. Watch this:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiTid1kiXM4

            You know what that history teaches me? That war isn’t something to celebrate.

            I am not one of those reflexively anti-American Europeans. The United States is the product of the highest moments of European civilization and has twice been responsible for the liberation of my Fatherland, and we should never forget that. That doesn’t mean I am going to put up with insults.

            If you want to talk socialism, let me point out that the social democracies of Europe are a) not socialist, and b) moving in a more market-oriented direction while the US is moving the other way. Yes, Europe has been historically way more collectivist. We never had a choice. When you have vast empty lands (I repeat: conveniently emptied of natives) you can afford rugged individualism; when you are surrounded by predatory empires, it is another thing entirely.

            As regards the European deep right, I suggest you start here:

            http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2012/10/18/are-american-atheists-crybabies/

            And also here:

            http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2013/07/31/fascism-regular-and-islamic/

            Also read Al below.

            I’m not talking about the right wing of Thatcher and Reagan, I am talking about the right wing of Julius Evola. This is the true, reactionary deep right, the one that is violently anti-American because of the radical nature of the American revolution. It also is distrustful of capitalism and of globalization, and tends to be extremely environmentalist. This is the right wing that yearns back to the days of monarchs and emperors. This is like nothing you have ever seen.

          • ColonelNeville

            Hey, thanks. A rather large response, but I’ll try.

            “…stole the best bits of his book from…” I can’t imagine what that
            actually means. How and where? He’s a very good author who wrote an excellent footnoted and sourced
            book. He “stole” nothing.

            “…specious junk”… Again, where? I have read none. Er, as for “Darwinian eugenics” – Eugenics and Darwin belong entirely together as eugenics sprang and came from Darwin and various
            socialists. Darwin spoke of his hope to weed out the inferior stock, as he saw it. The left and Hitler admire Darwin and would be lost without his 19th century cluelessness.

            Everything in Jonah Goldberg’s book is empirically correct.

            “I am not even going to touch Coulter..” Er, but you did – with logical fallacy in
            absence of having read here excellent and massively footnoted and source book.

            “…except to note that starting a history of
            racial demagoguery in the seventies is highly suspicious”. Why suspicious? Of what? Are 44 years of demagoguery not enough?

            The Democrats ARE racial and racist demagogues.
            This is why any dissent or questioning of economic or foreign policy etc, is regularly answered with phony tactics of “racist!” and other fraud. So au contraire, the Democrats and much of the left are racists as clearly for them everything is about race.

            “…native people have been conveniently wiped out.” Really? There a several millions and there is no “wiping out” lately for oh, about a century. Have you been chowing down on those two Marxist Critical Theory creep frauds of Chomsky n’ Zinn?

            “…when one has to fight a rebellion against
            an existing ancien regime…” Er, the Americans fought the British Empire…and er, the Germans and er, the Japanese etc, etc…

            “…while simultaneously holding off the surrounding cultural predators..” Er, the Indians, Mexicans et al, and gee, THE CIVIL WAR…the natural environment was pretty tough too. Oh yes, WW1 and 2, the Korean War and Islamic terror etc, etc.

            Oh, yes, bankrolling the military protection of Europe because Europe couldn’t, wouldn’t and wanted to spend on
            more important things like socialist statism. And what did you get? A Europe filled with decadent and childless statist socialists who look down on or despise America.

            “The US lost a piddling five hundred thousand in the second world war”
            So these half a million heroes that liberated an often collaborationist Europe are “piddling”? Riiight. Ugh – Maybe they
            should have stayed home then.

            “Russia alone lost eight million soldiers..”
            Yes, they did. And not just to Nazi’s but in large part because Stalin and his commie filth pals didn’t give a damn about Russian troops lives.

            ” You know what that history teaches me?
            That war isn’t something to celebrate”. Really? Celebrate slavery under a totalitarian regime much? There are still plenty to celebrate about. Start with Nth Korea, Cuba and Iran.

            Yeah, war is a real bummer, except when it’s bought with the blood of heroes who gave us all we have so that people can be
            ungrateful enough to fantasize that the world is not filled with wolves and unpleasant things with power. It’s easy to adopt a pacifist stance when one has nothing under threat. Orwell and many others have written about the passive support for oppressors that is the default of “war is not the answer!” crowd. It depends what the questions are such as do you want to live or die or be a slave or free? So nothing worth fighting for then?

            “If you want to talk socialism, let me point out that the social democracies of Europe are a) not socialist, and b) moving in a more market-oriented direction while the US is moving the other way.” Sadly they are indeed socialist variants of one shade or another, and yes, America is shifting ever more to a socialist death spiral, thanks largely to the socialist left, Democrats and RINOS. Still, Europe is an impossibly long way from being anything like American enterprise. See Bill Whittle on American exceptionalism.

            By the way, my first wife was French and she was just as I thought she’d be….

            “Europe has been historically way more collectivist”. And how is that working out? Two world wars, no country a democracy’ for longer than half a century, the birthplace of Nazism, communism,
            Marxism, fascism, socialism, welfare state failure, Gulags, hundreds of concentration camps, eugenics, ecofascism, radical nihilist homosexual activism and spreading Islamofascism and millions leaving for America etc, etc. Five stars.

            “We never had a choice.” A rather er, forgive me, a “weenie” like admission, don’t you think? Are you not men?

            “When you have vast empty lands “Er, Russia is rather vast…Are they in Europe? So not even room for individuality eh? Got it. Er, no.

            “(I repeat: conveniently emptied of natives)” So you said. Marxist Critical Theory, Zinn and Chomsky never ending guilt drivel.

            “…you can afford rugged individualism;” So individual freedom is expensive and not creative or of value then, whereas collectivist socialism is free of no cost then? Er, individual liberty has ONLY ever been won by hard effort and blood and “eternal vigilance”. No one really ever GIVES you your God endowed liberty.

            So freedom doesn’t work then? In the mindsets of for Europeans and other socialists, apparently not.

            “…when you are surrounded by predatory
            empires, it is another thing entirely.” Yeah, the whole world just loves America which has no enemies. Er, no. Do you really want me to list 260 years of formidable enemies aimed at America? The U.S is THE number one target for every scumbag terrorist and dictatorship on the globe.

            “I’m not talking about the right wing of Thatcher and Reagan,” You say that like it’s a bad thing. Reagan saving over 70 lives as a lifeguard and freeing half a billion Europeans with firing a shot is pretty good I think. Ditto Thatcher who literally saved a collapsing, wait for it, socialist Britain and never whined she was just a woman and a victim of men or anything.

            “I am talking about the right wing of Julius Evola.”Do I have to look him up? Never heard of him. Big Thomas Sowell and George Washington fan is he? Big on limited government, low taxes, free
            speech, private property, right to arms and so on? Doubt it.

            “ This is the true, reactionary deep right, the one that is violently anti-American”…As I see “right” as conservative love of individual liberty above all, these are two contradictory positions. The
            first is cancelled out by the impossibility of the second.

            “..because of the radical nature of the American revolution.” It wasn’t radical per se, especially in any violent French Revolutions mob mentality sense, [which was radical in all senses] but in fact was extremely law abiding, hence John Adams successful defense of British soldiers who fired upon Americans. Thus the brilliance of the Founders clarity of vision and the resultant Constitution etc. The American Revolution is virtually the only revolution that made a country better as it valued law and eternal God given truths above all and saw flawed human nature as it is and acted accordingly.

            “It also is distrustful of capitalism and of globalization, and tends to be extremely environmentalist.” Well, they should simply reverse that and be distrustful of environmentalism, and be extremely pro capitalist and pro globalization, THEN Europe wouldn’t be enmeshed in the continent wide bankrupt failures and collapsing birth rates that they are.

            “This is the right wing that yearns back to the days of monarchs and emperors.” Er, the American Revolution was ABOUT
            getting rid of the absolute rule of monarchs and kings. I know of not a single authentic conservative who yearns for kings and Queens. Idolizing leaders as messiah’s is a socialist left thing, thus the Che the child killer tshirts and Mao badges, JFK and the hysterical lauding of the Obamessiah as some kind of special being too, instead of the typical life-long Chicago dirt bag socialist leftist and serial lying phony racialist politician he clearly is.

            Again see Bill Whittle.

            “This is like nothing you have ever seen.” Er, really? In what way pray tell? When Europe does something politically fresh and of value to liberty loving individuals “yearning to be free” so they start flocking back after three centuries of leaving Europe…let me know. No, really.

          • ThePrussian

            My answer was eaten, so I shall make this quick.

            1) Golberg lifts the best part of his book straight from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff, He then marries it with his own weird and creepy ideas, such as his comments that the Nazi party was run by a gang of shifty homosexuals.

            2) Coulter’s history is specious because it begins at the point after the hard left broke the forces of entrenched US racism.

            http://www.theliberal.co.uk/hitchens.htm

            3) Darwin was not the founder of eugenics, it is just a lie to say otherwise. He was an outstanding opponent of racism and of slavery and in many ways far more advanced on both these issues than Abraham Lincoln. It is slander to say otherwise, and the fact that Goldberg doesn’t know that, nor know the first thing about Galton does not recommend him to me. With this sort of intellectual machinery, no wonder the US right keeps loosing.

            4) The smallpox virus killed 95% of the inhabitants of native America. The few that were left were easily defeated by home grown militias. There was never any need for a military caste or a centralized state. And THAT, sunshine, is _why_ the US has been able to be far more libertarian than Old Europe. Note that I am not saying that I like Europe’s collectivism – I don’t – but I am pointing out that there is a difference of building a free society on an emptied land and building one when you have to overthrow the local tyranny and hold of the menaces of surrounding powers at the same time. There is a difference between describing why something is so and endorsing it. You inherited your good fortune, show some understanding for those of us who did not.

            5) You have a persistent and irritating habit of assuming what I think, rather than dealing with what I actually write. Furthermore, you are evading and ignoring that I specifically credit the US for twice liberating my fatherland.

            6) You asked me to explain what the European deep right is, I explain it,and you start telling me it’s something else – vide that weird question about whether Evola read Thomas Sowell (what a question!). Look, get it straight: the US right hearkens back to the US revolution. The European right considers the US revolution a continuation of the revolutions it opposed. Once again, you are confusing describing and endorsing.

            If you really want to learn the difference, start with the following essay by Hayek:

            http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

            And so on. You have a particularly insulting tone that I do not care for. I would suggest that you more carefully read other peoples arguments, and also that you stop these puerile insults to the people of Europe.

          • ColonelNeville

            Balls. The often incompetent teller of tall tales since boyhood, Darwin was a peculiar and often enthusiastic racist and the virtual father of eugenics. Without Darwin there would be no Nazi eugenics or Holocaust. Charles son became a head of the British Eugenics Society and his idiot cousin Galton was a rabid disgusting genocidal racist incompetent fraud. Thus Darwin’s tome and his original uncomfortable and problematic title now commonly deleted:

            “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

            AN interesting insight into Darwin. Finding himself on an island where the docile for millennia bird life were incapable of reacting to threats, Darwin proceeded to use his rock hammer to smash in the heads of countless thousands of the creatures all day long as a sort of psychotic past-time, all the while laughing away at their “stupidity”. He handed the hammer to a prominent shipmate who joined in and who er, later committed suicide on returning from Darwin’s untrained, often incompetent endeavours. But I’m sure Charles was a wonderful caring man to other inferior species as he saw them…and he most certainly did.

            Darwin was a man not a God and did not displace God except for the often unpleasantly simpatico. No, really.

            http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm

            http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

          • ThePrussian

            That is just a lie. Darwin was a lifelong opponent of slavery and committed to racial equality.

          • ColonelNeville

            Mebbe so, but those were STILL his ideas and he wrote about them…explicitly, so they would be Darwin’s er, “lies” then. A man can hold two opposing ideas wholeheartedly. For example and not my words, but say…I love my wife but I seem to feel better when she’s not around. Or ‘I am against slavery and the inferior types that would make perfect slaves.’ It’s possible for Darwin to be as terrible a racist eugenicist as he clearly was and still be a good man at home and among friends as he was – and still be utterly misunderstood by his incurious fans and the common incurious go alongs who swallow his myth whole and usually at school. Read Ascent of Man and The Origin Of Species.

            They are abysmal and nothing , nay NOTHING like we are led to believe. They neither present evidence or prove his ludicrous 19th century theory in the slightest – and in which Darwin HIMSELF explains that he cannot and won’t do this! It’s sad and hilarious at the same time.

            So much received er, wisdom is a crock narrative supplied by others with a rotten agenda. Pick a subject and the common belief especially if acceptable to ‘progressive left types and middling go alongs, is usually bullshit. As Darwin and his theory and almost his entire life was and is. He was criticised at the time, not always because of his er, brilliance and daring, but his incompetence and gawl.

            No, really.

          • mugasofer

            ““I am talking about the right wing of Julius Evola.”Do I have to look him up? Never heard of him. Big Thomas Sowell and George Washington fan is he? Big on limited government, low taxes, free speech, private property, right to arms and so on? Doubt it.”

            Way to demonstrate the Prussian’s own point for him.

          • ColonelNeville

            After reading the often unreadable Julius Ebola, sometimes he is almost er, correct, but no cigar and mostly a useless mess. Like most European intellectuals apart from Toqueville et al, Julius Evulva is it seems, utterly clueless and incapable of comprehending America, it’s character and people. In short Orange Julius is an irrelevant forgotten European drag.

            Oddly and call me a weirdo, but instead of obscure Prussian wearers of egg stained ties [apart from great Austrians like Von Hayek, Von Mises and Von Halen] I prefer the entirely readable, empirical, witty actual Americans and those who chose to become Americans, like Thomas Sowell, P.J O’Rourke, Mark Steyn, Bill Whittle, Milton Friedman and The Founding Fathers. But please, you go with the laughably off the mark, verbose and otherwise fun-filled Prussian. No, really.

          • ThePrussian

            Is reading comprehension really that difficult? I said I was OPPOSED to the right of Julius Evola, and said that it was a much more scary phenomenon than people knew.

            Re: the American authors you list, I’ve read them all. If you care to stick around, you’ll see that I have been following the Steyn/Mann case, and Mark Steyn has been very sweet and endorsed this site several times.

            Nice of you to return. If you go to my anti-racialist Q & A you’ll see what I mean.

          • ColonelNeville

            Sadly “reading comprehension” can be difficult…reading you. O.k, cheap shot. Hey, maybe it is me. I do ride a motorbike…It’s just nice to have an argument with someone like you who is clearly smart, serious, well read and a hard working blogger who doesn’t go comment blocking crazy. A sure sign of a worthy site…whatever the differences of opinion.

            You say you’re opposed to Jules, eh? Glad to hear it. But I want guns anyway. Julius Epileptic still of the er “right” for you eh? If you imagine so. I don’t. At all. Apparently like most folks, I can’t use his jumbled droning.

            I searched Julius Marlow Evolver for any trace of the four proven principles of conservatism ie: respect for life, respect for The Constitution, limited govt and low tax, and personal responsibility – and I could find nothing but turgid drivel.

            Great to hear about your praise from the great Mark Steyn. I noted that he has indeed endorsed your site. It’s because you have some worthy stuff here. But er, that doesn’t mean he agrees with all though, does it.

            Anti-racialist eh? Meaning people who base their judgements on the idea of race first. Odd technique, unless a singular ethnic profile is immediately trying to kill you and repeatedly. Hey, actually it’s that culture trumps everything, as Steyn says, and it’s true.

            Sempre Fi, Prussian. No, really.

          • ColonelNeville

            Not much of a stretch to make it so er, eerily Darwinian. So eugenicsy! So Sovietsky, so Cubanisty, so Nth Koreanishy, so national socialisty…

            Julius Evola sung to Ivory Madonna – with minimal lyrics change.

            Julius Evola boring in the dust,
            Waiting for the manna coming from the west.
            Bankrupt weirdo Darwin, empty were his lies,
            Death a certain harvest scattered from the skies.

            Skin and bones is creeping, endless mountains of dead.
            Ancient eyes are peeping, from his peanut head.
            Politician`s argue sharpening their knives.
            Drawing up their bargains, trading baby lives.
            (chorus)
            Atheist eugenics dying in the dust,
            Waiting for the manna coming from the west.

            Hear the bells are ringing, nihilisms on it`s way.
            Hear the Angel of Death, what did Mengele say?
            “The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

            “Away with this shit!”

            To people who were about to be sent to gas chambers…

            From Elie Wiesel’s ‘Night’. “Not far from us, flames, huge flames, were rising from a ditch. Something was being burned there. A truck drew close and unloaded its hold: small children. Babies! Yes, I did see this with my own eyes … children thrown into the flames. (Is it any wonder that ever since then, sleep tends to elude me?”

            Night. http://www.shmoop.com/night/mortality-quotes-3.html

            http://www.auschwitz.dk/mengele.htm

            http://www.yadvashem.org/

            http://www.globalmuseumoncommunism.org/

            http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/default.asp

            http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

            http://www.therealcuba.com/

            http://babalublog.com/

  • Pingback: Preguntas sobre islamismo | Teocidas.com