The simple pleasures of walking

Sadly, in our modern age of automobiles and other forms of rapid transportation, we've forgotten the more simpler and at times more pleasurable experience of walking. And I'll be the first to admit I'm guilty of this.

Not that I don't walk on a regular basis, I most certainly do. In my line of work, I walk an average of 7 miles(11.265 km) per shift. However, it's been a while since I last enjoyed a walk around the neighborhood just for the joy of it. And what a joy it most certainly is!

One thing I particularly like about walking is that it helps clear my mind and helps it to think more clearly. In fact, many of my most insightful thoughts have come to me while on a walk. Many commentaries that I've written here first started off as random thoughts that came to while walking. The difficult part, however, is trying to remember enough to write down on paper or type out what I thought. Sadly so many potentially good posts have been lost that way. Oh well!

It's an old habit I sincerely miss, and since spring is upon us now I will certainly try to get back into it. And I suggest all readers of this blog to get out (if they can) and take a nice refreshing walk once in a while.

Many studies have the many health benefits of regular walking, even at moderate paces. This alone should encourage people.

So feet, don't fail me now!

De Gaulle on Nationhood

Thank you Lawrence Auster for providing this wonderful quote from former French leader Charles De Gaulle, which provides great insight into the issue of what constitutes a nation (in particular his nation of France). De Gaulle certainly does not advocate complete ethnic homogeneity for France, and insists that foreign cultures and peoples can indeed live peacefully within French society. However, he takes aim at the multiculturalist worldview by stating that France is primarily an ethnically European nation with European traditions and should remain so!

The logic De Gaulle uses could easily apply to any other European nation or even America (which was founded largely by settlers of European descent). Every nation has had its basic ethnic core, and it is wise for that nation to protect that core. Otherwise that nation will lose its identity and become something entirely different.

"It is very good that there be yellow Frenchmen, black Frenchmen, brown Frenchmen. They prove that France is open to all races and that she has a universal mission. But on the condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are after all primarily a European people of the white race, of Greek and Latin culture, and of the Christian faith. Try to mix oil and vinegar. Shake the bottle. In a moment they will separate again. Arabs are Arabs and French are French. Do you believe that the French nation can absorb ten million Muslims, who perhaps tomorrow will be twenty million and the day after forty million? If we adopt integration, if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered as Frenchmen, what would prevent them from coming to settle in mainland France where the standard of living is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises, but Colombey-les-deux-Mosquées!"

Cardinal Mahony is an embarrassment to the Catholic Church

Well, I'm sure many readers of this blog already know that Cardinal Mahony is full of you know what. Heck, I just recenty proved fully that he is full of you know what.

Nevertheless, Barbara Simpson gives us more reason to believe why Cardinal Mahony is full of you know what and is nothing less than an embarrassment to the Catholic Church.

Quite frankly, it's because of people like Mahony is why I largely ignore anything said by the clergy nowadays. Seriously, almost anything of worth concerning the Catholic Church and the faith is now largely spoken by laymen. The clergy (with the exceptions of more traditional-minded priests) by and large wishes to live in its own little world that's completely isolated from reality. This is largely because of two reasons: 1) secularism has pretty much restricted the clergy to the margins of social life and 2) because of that the clergy is desperate to appear "relevant" to the modern world.

Yet as Pat Buchanan noted, by making themselves "relevant" they really make themselves "irrelevant".

Are Immigrants really good for the economy?

Discussions concerning greater restrictions on immigration are heating up on Capitol Hill. I say it's about damn time! Although I'm skeptical that anything really significant will be passed into law, at least the widespread discontent many people feel towards illegal immigrants will be brought out into the open.

In order to try to defend this massive horde of immigration into our nations, supporters commonly insist they are a great benefit to the economy. "They do the jobs we don't want to do" or "We benefit from the skills and education they bring with them", and so on.

Is any of this really true? Not according to Alistair McConnachie, who debunks many of the common myths about economic migration. Although addressing the issue of immigration from a specifically British perspective, nevertheless the arguments easily to America or any other Western nation for that matter.

McConnachie refutes everything: from how we should allow immigrants in for reasons of morality and social justice(which is common for fraudulent religious leaders like Cardinal Mahony) to that if we don't allow immigrants in many companies will go out of business(I love the answer given to this one!).

And what about the popular "Immigrants do the work we won't do", I'll let the man speak for himself:

This is not necessarily true. Are we to believe that without any immigrants we would have no cafes, no waiters, no cleaners. Of course not. The only reason immigrants are doing these jobs is because they don't pay well enough for indigenous people to accept them.

Relying on immigrants to do this work is a form of slavery. Instituting a modern form of slavery is immoral. It is not a sign of a progressive society. It is certainly not something of which we should be proud. Instead, it is morally right to do our own drudgery work.

In fact, McConnachie exposes the hidden racism and immorality that hides behind most arguments made in favor of mass immigration. I've already commented on the strong links between liberalism and racism, and how the only thing that has changed in the last forty years or so is whom that racism is directed towards. Liberals used to degrade Blacks and Asians as uncivilized heathens, but now they direct the same hatred towards Christians of European descent.

So three cheers for Alistair McConnachie, whose website Sovereignty I have in my links!

Hillary Clinton thinks she speaks for our Lord Christ

At least when it comes to issues like restrictions on immigration. I like how Pete Fisher deals with this obvious absurdity:

Here is a woman, who has spoken to the entire nation about adhering to biblical principles with a history that would shame the devil himself. So I would like to find where Hillary gleaned her knowledge of scripture and question what she has said when what I have read and learned is contrary to her statement.

And question it Pete certainly does. He gives a real basic outline of the many positions Hillary(along with Bill) Clinton have taken in the past that clearly violate Biblical teachings. Particularly the stances they've taken on gay marriage.

And to paraphrase Pete's closing remarks: Mrs. Clinton, please do us all a favor and spare us the bullsh*t! You're not a Christian, and to label you even a heretic would be too kind!

Apparently this new attempt to play spokesperson for Our Lord and Savior comes on top of her recent attempts at playing the big macho chickenhawk(after all, a modern woman needs to sound as tough as any man!).

Yet the sad truth is that many Christians buy into Hillary's arguments that restrictions on immigration is somehow contrary to the teachings of Christ. Pete Fisher does a fairly good job of refuting these sentiments from a basic Christian position. But what about a more specifically Catholic perspective?

Well sadly, the Catholic Church has not been immune from asserting similar positions to that of Mrs. Clinton. A very recent example of such is when Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony told priests to "Defy Immigration Law!". Yet this is only the beginning.

The website The Social Agenda claims to outline the basic positions of Catholic Social Doctrine. In article 10 concerning the International Community, it has a section detailing the issue of immigration. I can't the section entirely, but this sections sums up its position pretty well:

"[T]he Synod Fathers recalled that the Church in America must be a vigilant advocate, defending against any unjust restriction the natural right of individual persons to move freely within their own nation and from one nation to another. Attention must be called to the rights of migrants and their families, and to respect for their human dignity, even in cases of non legal immigration."

I've already commented on the fact that much of what passes off as "Catholic" social doctrine nowadays is nothing more than Liberal garbage. This, along with Mahony's actions, are perfect examples of such.

For those seeking a more Traditional Catholic stance on immigration, one need not look further than the Catholic Encyclopedia. In the entry concerning migrations, and under the subsection dealing its legal control it states(and I highlighted important points):

The legal control of migration began when it ceased to be collective and began to be individual. Laws have been passed preventing people from leaving their native land, and also, by the country of destination, forbidding or regulating entrance thereto. Extensive regulation has been found necessary applying to transportation companies and their agents, the means of transportation, treatment en route and at terminal points. The justification of public interference is to be found in the right of a nation to control the variations of its own population. The highest necessity is that arising from war: on this ground nations almost universally regulate very closely the movements of population, forbidding emigration, that they may not lose their soldiers, and guarding immigration as a military precaution. Restrictive measures are also justified on grounds of health and morals, and on the general ground that a national family has a right to say who shall join it.

Right here we see the Catholic Church defending the right of nations to restrict immigration, even on the grounds that it has the right to decide who shall become a member of its "family". If you read further, it even states that the concept that people have certain "rights" to immigrate is one of "rather recent date".

So the common notion that the Catholic Church's support for immigration is based on theology is groundless. It also shows how much Liberals have completely perverted the Church's teaching even in social affairs.

However, I hope I helped clarify the real Catholic position on this issue. Go forth and spread the truth!

How about a little Subsidiarity?

That's the argument made by Dr. Jeff Mirus over at Catholic Culture. He contrasts the traditional Catholic social principle of subsidiarity(i.e. the decentralization of political power) with the current trends of just the opposite; the greater centralization of political power. Perfect examples of this trend, according to Mirus, are: the UN, the EU, the World Court, and within an American context the Supreme Court. Each institution seeks to usurp the traditional sovereignty and jurisdiction of more local-based authorities; whether it be nation-states, regions, communities, etc.

In contrast, Mirus argues, subsidiarity is based on the notion that "each task in any commonwealth should be handled at the lowest level possible and that, conversely, there must be a compelling reason to remove authority in any matter from a more local to a less local jurisdiction."

Perhaps it should be noted that this reliance on local authorities was a major feature of the Medieval feudal system, in contrast to popular myth.

So yes, how about a little subsidiarity?

The Easter Bunny offends non-Christians

At least according to Tyrone Terrill, the human rights director at St. Paul City Hall in Minnesota.


Yes, just look at that furry little bastard; sitting there, with his eggs, just waiting to offend somebody at any moment. You make me so sick!

John Paul the Great - part II

I'm sure Catholicam Speluncam Masculum will really enjoy this. I posted his skeptical remarks about John Paul "the Great" over at Catholic Community Forum, and it's caused quite a stir between the Traditionalists and the Neo-Catholics there.

Sadly, I haven't had time to more fully engage in the discussion. So enjoy!

Vatican reconsiders the Crusades

It appears now that the Vatican is willing to take a more positive stance towards the Crusades than in the recent past. This is certainly good news.

One area being contended is the notion that the Crusades were an unprovoked war of Christian aggression against Islam. Not true: Much of the area where the Crusades took place were originally under the rule of the (Christian) Byzantine Empire, until the Islamic armies conquered them in the 7th century A.D.

In fact in recent years, many commonly held myths about the Crusades have been exploded by historians. Rather than being motivated primarily by greed, historians now claim that most Crusaders fought out of a genuine religious zeal. Not only that, but most Crusaders came from more common social backgrounds(tradesmen, peasants, etc.) as opposed to purely coming from the nobility. The line between Richard the Lionheart and Peter the Hermit(who lead "the People's Crusade") was more blurry than originally believed.

Not only that, Jay Williams in his recent book The Way of the Crusades has even given light to major cultural achievements that were made both in Europe and the Islamic world as a result of the Crusades.

So the tide is turning against those who wish to bash the historical practices of our ancestors. Catholics, let us follow the lead of the Vatican in defending and vindicating our faith and heritage!

White racists, go back to Europe!

So remember people: if you're of European descent, you've been here illegally since 1492!

Hip-hop trends spread to suburban kids

Simone Sebastian has the story for you.

How nice to know that kids as young as six years old are adopting this immoral subculture that glorifies criminals!

For those who remember, I actually warned about this trend in my post concerning the decadent nature of suburban living, where I explicitly mentioned how much suburban kids "put on the charade of acting like real gangstas from the ghettos" and offered the advice of allowing these kids the chance "to live out their fantasy and see what gangsta life is really about."

Only differences is that I assumed this phenomena was by and large restricted to teenagers, not mentioning anything about pre-adolescent children.

I have very little to say about this, except that this only shows how far our culture has degraded!

There is no such thing as man!

A classic quote taking aim at the cosmopolitan worldview, spoken by a devout Catholic!

"[T]here is no such thing as man in the world. During my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, and so on; thanks to Montesquieu, I even know that one can be Persian; but I must say, as for man, I have never come across him anywhere; if he exists, he is completely unknown to me."
--Joseph de Maistre Considerations on France

Why Rebellion is pointless!

It's no secret that much in the world is messed up. It's no secret that many things need to change. That's not the secret. The real secret is what is the most effective way of changing the world and challenging the corruption one finds in society? Sadly, most peoples' perception of challenging corruption in society in the end really doesn't amount to much.

That's the argument put forth by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter in their recent book Nation of Rebels : Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture. In this earth-shaking book, the authors challenge many of the short-comings of many countercultural movements, and how in the long-run they don't achieve anything significant.

Far too often, countercultural movements engage in what is termed social deviance as opposed to genuine social dissent. That means rather than actually challenging the cultural and philosophical basis of the society they oppose, they simply deviate from the norms of that society. This usually involves adopting different forms of dress, speech, or behavior than those accepted by normal society.

Yet people who engage in such activities honestly believe they are challenging the status quo, when in fact they are not. All too often, these "alternative" lifestyles go mainstream and become the latest "coolest" trend or fad. The market seizes the commercial potential of these lifestyles and seeks to cash in. The market knows all too well the potential value of rebellion. Everybody wants to "stick it to the man". Yet in the long-run, it doesn't achieve anything important.

At worse, as the authors argue, it can lead to the glorification of behaviors that are outright anti-social. This is especially true with the Hip-Hop subculture; were gangsters, pimps, whores, and so on are portrayed as figures to be admired. In any sane society, these figures would have been looked down upon and restricted to the margins.

Nevertheless, there are several flaws with the authors arguments. Many of these flaws are addressed in Michael Sandlin's review of the book, although he's speaking from a New Leftist perspective (which is quite clear when you read the piece). However, Sandlin is correct in many points in criticizing the authors, particularly how many of the book's conclusions amount to nothing more than justifications for the corporate status quo. And the fact the author honestly argues that the McDonald's sells fries that are superior to anything found in half the bistros in Paris is also quite absurd. I also take particular issue with the authors' negative review of E.F. Schumacher's Small Is Beautiful and his theories of appropriate technology.

However despite all this, Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter have done a fine job of exposing many of the flaws that are common to countercultural movements. If genuine change is to occur within society, these flaws must be avoided as much as possible.

An Anarchist essay titled "Don't Defy Authority, Reject It!!", also takes aim at the rebellious spirit found within popular culture and how it only reinforces the status quo. As the article states, rebellion means nothing more than "go ahead, bitch all you want; you're effectively powerless in this system. Let off some steam. Defy authority. 'Be young, have fun, drink Pepsi.'"

What is needed is a full rejection of the status quo, since it is "far deeper in scope and breadth. It is not mere rebellion for the sake of style and fashion; rather, it is the refusal to accept oppression, and unwillingness to oppress, yourself."

Possibly one of the few times I find myself in (partial) agreement with Anarchists.

Uncle Sam needs you, but doesn't want you!

As the number of military casualties in Iraq continue to ever increase, it should probably intrigue most people to know that the U.S. military shuns most people of recruiting age from serving. Anything from having a tattoo to having been prescribed ritalin will get you disqualified from military service.

Why is the military being so picky? David R. Segal explains that "[r]ecruiters are looking for reasons other than themselves...So they blame the pool."

With the number of total recruitments decreasing, how long can the military continue on with its current policies? One high school senior even found out how desperate some recruiters can become. Sooner or later, the military will have to make some dramatic changes.

BTW, I myself was rejected for service due to some health conditions. Oh well!

Let's Have An Army of the People!

I've already laid out my basic views on national defense in the first post of this new blog. My basic position is to favor a military system similar to Switzerland's, which is based upon an armed citizens' militia.

This has been a topic I've been meaning to address to some length for a long time. I've already commented on many military issues in several other posts on this blog. This article provides good information about how the Swiss military operates. A very good book to read on the history of the Swiss military(especially in the modern era) is Stephen P. Halbrook's Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II.

So the big question that people will ask is why an armed citizenry? Well the most important reason for an armed citizenry is that it's a good guarantee of deterring foreign invaders. Who on earth would want to invade a country if they knew they would have to face literally a "nation in arms"? There would be an endless list of difficulties for any such invader facing such a force: mounting casualties(with the possibility of waging a lengthy and costly war of attrition), constant harassment from local bands of riflemen, ambushes, etc.

It would just be one hell of a mess. And it is this very possibility that has deterred many would-be aggressors from invading Switzerland. And the fact that Switzerland has a long history of having one of the finest military forces in the world (think it's just a coincidence that the Popes relied on Swiss guards for protection?) only added to that deterrent.

Not only as a deterrent to potential tyranny coming from abroad, it's often argued that an armed citizenry will also deter potential domestic tyrants. If a government tries to oppress a citizenry that is heavily armed, they run the risk of sparking many potential armed insurrections.

Then there is the also the obvious argument that an armed citizenry could potentially help reduce crime. Pretty hard to commit a crime when you face the great possibility that your victim is heavily armed. This may also explain why Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Let's face the facts, most citizens who own firearms are law-abiding. Why punish them as criminals?

Another important aspect of having this form of military is the fostering of a strong sense of civic duty. This was the main reasoning behind Niccolo Machiavelli's advocacy of an armed citizenry in his 1521 treatise the Art of War (not to be confused with Sun Tzu's text).

According to Machiavelli, a citizen willing to give up his most sacred duty to a mercenary (which you could correctly characterise most professional soldiers as) is a also a citizen willing to give up his basic liberties, since he clearly doesn't value them enough to be willing to defend them.

Contrary to popular myth, it's perfectly legitimate for Catholic citizens to bear arms to defend themselves, their families, and/or especially their nation. Armed citizen militias were quite common throughout Medieval Europe. Most famous example of such Medieval militias (at least in the English-speaking world) was the Anglo-Saxon Fyrd. The ideal of the patriotic citizen soldier was also commonplace during the renaissance (most famous proponent of such being Machiavelli). So a clear connection between Catholicism and the idea of citizen soldiers can be made. In fact, Francis X. Maier of Crisis Magazine recently wrote out a Catholic case for conscription.

The moral case for citizen soldiers can be well laid out. The question becomes, how do citizen-soldiers compare to professional soldiers on the battlefield? Many defenders of a professional military insist that citizen-soldiers are just not that of the same quality as professionals.

For example, Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute (cited in Maier's article) contends that "[c]ombat in places like Iraq and Afghanistan is 'real soldiering' that requires well-trained, disciplined, motivated, professional troops."

How on earth professional soldiers are better trained, disciplined, motivated, than conscripts is really in the eye of the beholder. The Swiss and Israeli militaries are considered some of the best quality militaries in the world, and yet they both rely on citizen-soldiers. Some have argued that these are the unique situations because conscription is a matter of "national survival" or "national identity". Nevermind that's the entire point behind any kind of military force.

Some also charge that citizen-soldiers are ill-suited for combat in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course that assumes that the United States should be fighting wars 5,000 miles away against countries that pose little or no threat to us. Yes, professional armies are certainly better at fighting all sorts of little (pointless) wars half-way across the world. The example of the British Empire certainly proves that. However that begs the question of whether or not fighting all sorts of little (pointless) wars half way around the world is really in a nation's interests. In the long run, it has shown it is not really worth it!

Indeed, as Andrew J. Bacevich argues in his recent book The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, a revival of the dormant concept of the citizen soldier would help in curbing America's endless military involvements overseas. The fact that civic duty and military service have become so distant from the everyday lives of average citizens has given politicians free reign to send our fighting boys off to some far distant corner of the globe without fearing much repercussions on the home front. Not to mention many of these politicians and warmongers never even served in the military themselves.

Hopefully I have been able to lay out at least a basic and concise case for an armed citizenry as the basis for a nation's defense. For a more detailed case for a citizens' army, I highly recommend Gary Hart's The Minuteman, Restoring an Army of the People.

An agnostic critique of anti-religious bigotry

I recently found this interesting column written by Fred Reed, a non-conformist commentator, takes aim at the deeply held hostility towards religious devotion that is found within American society. It's especially entertaining considering the fact that the author is an agnostic of all things!

Fred Reed writes commentaries on all sorts of social and political issues, and generally challenges many of the deeply held beliefs of the status quo. In fact, I've enjoyed many of his commentaries, and I'll add his website to my links.

Men of Europe, prove them wrong!

"Many say that European Manhood is dead. Men of Europe, prove them wrong.

Many say that European Christianity is dead. Men of Europe, prove them wrong.

Many say that European men stand by and do nothing while their wives and daughters are violated. Men of Europe, prove them wrong.

Many say that European men stand by and do nothing while Holy Mother The Church is desecrated. Men of Europe, prove them wrong.

Do not resort to vigilanteism. A firm backbone and a resolute heart will show the stern stuff you are made of. Bullies and thugs are by nature, cowards. Once the evil-doers see your courage and fortitude, they will slink back to their desert holes. A faint heart and weak will shall only embolden them.

Take up the Sword And Shield of St Michael. Place upon you the Armor of Christ. The Mantle of The Holy Mother will protect you.

My European brothers, the Lion of Satan is threatening once again. Vienna, Tours, Lepanto... Men of Europe have proven their worth in the past. To the Polish sons of King Jan Sobieski, to the Gallic sons of Charles Martel, to the Spanish sons of Don Juan of Austria, arise and defend your wives, children and homes! Above all, defend Holy Mother The Church.

CHRIST DEMANDS IT!"

--Catholicam Speluncam Masculum, "Where Are The Sons Of Charlemagne?", The Lair of the Catholic Cavemen blog

Why Pope John Paul II should not be called "Great"

I usually don't' agree with the Catholic Cavemen (they come off as too Neo-con for my tastes), nevertheless they make some very interesting arguments against the current fad of referring to the previous Pope as John Paul "the Great". The author claims that only two other popes in history have been given the title of "Great" and John Paul II's achievements don't even match them. I also like how he mentions that not even Pope St. Pius V is not given the title, despite the fact he protected Christendom from both Islam and Protestantism.

Also the argument that the canonization of saints have degraded into nothing more than an "ecclesiastical popularity contest" and how it only serves to cheapen the value of being canonized a saint(and by extension, cheapens the Catholic faith as a whole), hits the nail right on the head.

So thank you for exposing this Neo-Catholic charade!

Milosevic's death and looking back on the assault against a Christian nation

Well yesterday former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his cell in the Hague. This while he was still on trial for war crimes.

What will his legacy be for Serbia and the Balkans? I really cannot say much on that issue. What I can say is that the United States and NATO were clearly wrong in launching an unprovoked war of aggression against Serbia back in 1999, while the Serbian army was waging a campaign against the terrorist KLA (an evidence shows they may have had ties to Bin Laden).

Vojin Joksimovich has written a wonderful analysis of that whole mess in his article "Kosovo: The West's Gift to Terrorists". He goes to lengths showing how the NATO bombings violated everything from NATO's own charter to even international law. And that Kosovo has not benefited much from NATO's occupation of the region, which has only allowed Albanian cartels to run wild. And Joksimovich is not alone in making these arguments.

In June 2004, Carl Meyer of G2mil gave his commentary on how we bombed the wrong side in that war. In his column dated January 26 of 1999(a few months before the bombings began) titled "Kosovo: Don't Go There", the late David Hackworth flatly stated "Kosovo belongs to Serbia...What right does Clinton have to attack an independent nation -- Serbia -- whose troops and police are fighting insurgents in their own land?"

Good question Mr. Hackworth. And Kosovo most certainly does rightfully belong to Serbia. Joksimovich states that Kosovo is "the cradle of the Serbian civilization and the site of some 1300 Serbian Orthodox religious monuments. It provides identity to the Serbian nation. It is equivalent to what Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria mean to the Jews." Kosovo was the sight of the famous battle that occurred in 1389, in which King Lazar fought against the invading Turks. If there is one historical event that defines the Serbian national identity, this is it.

This only makes it even more appalling what NATO did to Serbia, it was a direct assault on a nation's historical and religious heritage. Bob Djurdjevic described the attacks on Serbia as nothing less than an anti-Christian crusade perpetrated by a secularist globalist elite against a patriotic Christian people.

So while the media will largely try to focus on the supposed crimes conducted under the leadership of Milosevic, let us also take a hard look at the crimes conducted by those people who accuse him of such. They have blood on their hands as well, the blood of innocent people whose only crime was belonging to a Christian nation that believed in protecting its heritage.

Immigration restrictions, not cartoons, are the cause of Islamic rage at Denmark

That's the story according to Paul Belien's article "Denmark’s Intifada", which he wrote for a recent edition of The American Conservative. As he states towards the beginning of his article:

"Those who believe that the whole issue has to do with 12 cartoons are naïve. Denmark is being punished for its alleged Islamophobia. Its crime is not the publication of 12 drawings in Jyllands-Posten, a paper in the rural province of Jutland. Its crime is the staunch refusal of the Danish Vikings to allow Muslim immigrants to impose their laws upon their host country."

Very interesting indeed. Of course, sadly, you're probably not going to hear this position mentioned in any mainstream media outlet. For that would force the establishment to question many of its deeply held positions concerning immigration and multi-culturalism.

Perhaps Belien is right when he concludes his article stating that perhaps all is not lost for Europe just yet, for Denmark has successfully held its ground against the Muslim world. Several months earlier, France also successfully(though hesitatingly) held its ground against Muslim rioters. Perhaps my hope for the return of Charles Martel has come true at last!

Europe is saying farewell to Multi-culturalism

MSNBC News has the story for you. I for one say "Good riddance to bad rubbish!"

Ironically, almost exactly one year ago I commented about multi-culturalism's increasing unpopularity in Europe and exposed many of its basic flaws in the logic behind the concept.

As I stated:

Arab culture can only flourish within Arab societies, European culture can only flourish in European societies, etc. This is certainly different from the multi-culturalist paradigm that several cultures can flourish together within the same society. Arab and European culture simply cannot flourish side by side within an European society and vice versa. The two cultures adhere to completely different value systems; and in large because Arab society is based on Islamic teachings while European society has largely been based on Christian teachings. The two cultures are simply not compatible, which is why they have often gone to war with each other (remember something called the Crusades?). A good book that further articulates this is Roger Scruton's The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat.

In contrast to multi-culturalism, I advocated what Alain de Benoist has termed ethno-pluralism, and I explained the difference between the two concepts:

Like multi-culturalism, ethno-pluralism celebrates the full diversity of cultures and ethnicities around the world. But unlike multi-culturalism, ethno-pluralism recognizes that true diversity can only flourish in their appropriate social contexts.

So maybe there if hope for Europe yet!