Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Coming Soon - Infidel Blooger Ally

Heads up Wraith Readers. I will soon be contributing to the new blog Infidel Bloggers Alliance as an Ally. Try to control your excitement.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Illegality is Crime. Duh.

Bush's immigration proposal is a non-starter. The guest worker idea is a sham. The "workers" will in no way be "guests". They will stay. Why would they want to go back to their homelands after 6 years working in the US? "Guest Worker" is just another term for immigrant. Name one nation with a guest worker program where the "guests" left on their own accord. Here's a hint - the answers aren't France, Holland, or Germany.

Don't get me wrong. My wife is an immigrant, a legal immigrant. (and she is more anti-illegal immigration than I am). Both of us have endured the lengthy, confusing and expensive legal immigration process. To grant amnestry by paying some nominal fine is an insult to all those who have gone through the legal channels. (To be even remotely fair the fine would have to exceed the sum of all the various application fees for travel premission, work permission, etc. This is unlikely as it would make the fine would quite steep.)

The entire immigration reform discussion rests on several false premises. "The border cannot be secured." Wrong. The federal government may lack the will to secure the border. It may be expensive and inconvenient. It may piss off a lot of people but it is possible. Borders are and have been secured all over the world and throughout history. For the government to admit that it cannot secure the nation's borders is tantamount to abdicating sovereignty since one of the primary goals of the nation-state is control over a defined physical space.

"Illegals are taking jobs that Americans don't want." Wrong. They are taking jobs that Americans don't want at the wages the employers are paying illegals. It's Economics 101. If there are no workers at a given wage then the employer must increase wages to attract workers. Americans would take all the jobs that illegals now have if the compensation were sufficient. I would make beds in a hotel or wash dishes or cook for your neighbors for a certain wage, but not for $4 an hour and no benefits.

Sure, raising wages enough to attract Americans to agriculture, construction, and to the manual labor and service sector jobs illegals take would increase prices for a wide variety of goods and services but that's how the economy works. Suck it up buttercup. Maybe paying the true cost of goods and services would make American consumers re-evaluate our purchasing habits and stop buying crap we don't need.

Like it or not illegal workers are competing with American workers and driving down wages and prices. How could they not be? Think of the jobs illegals take. Now ask yourself who performed those same jobs 40 years ago? 75 years ago? Who washed our dishes, built our homes, mowed our lawns, unloaded our trucks and worked in meat packing in 1950? Americans. Why? Because employers paid them enough to do so.

Employers of all types, from Wal-Mart to the local bar to the family next door, love illegals because they get labor at below market rates. Any rational immigration reform must include draconian punishments against hiring illegals. Not simply crushing fines and jail time but orchestrated public shaming of those convicted. Display their names and faces in newspapers and on tv. Provide a searchable index on the Web. Ostracize them as the criminals that they are.

If we want to increase legal immigration as part of the reforms, I am all for it. Clearly I support legal immigration. The point is not, as the noxious Oliver Willis believes, to keep out the "brown-skinned folks" but to control who comes into our country and why. The point is Law. Illegal immigration is crime. Those who promote it and enable it are criminals. By definition.

Lawlessness promotes lawlessness.

Update: More in the comments section here.

Friday, November 18, 2005

Depp on France: "It's Insane."

Coming from Edward Scissorhands that is something indeed. He's lived in France for years with his French wife, singer-actress-model and general hottie Vanessa Paradis.

Depp on the French intifada: "I don't know how they'll recover from this." No one does Johnny. No one.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Neo-Nationalist "Join Forces" in Europe

The Brussels Journal reports: Far Right Parties in Europe Join Forces.

Nationalist parties from seven European countries convened in Vienna last weekend to join forces. The “patriotic and nationalist parties and movements” signed a so-called “Vienna Declaration” calling for a stop to immigration in the entire European Union and the defence of Europe against “terrorism, aggressive islamism, superpower imperialism and economic aggression by low-wage countries.” The parties also reject the European Constitution and demand that “geographically, culturally, religiously and ethnically non-European territories in Asia and Africa” will be excluded from joining the European Union.

Of course, international nationalism is, let's just say, odd. Nevertheless, we will see an increase in neo-nationalist organizing in response to Islamism in Europe.

Update: Commenter Cosmophant brings up "civilizational nationalism". Perhaps we could call it "civilizationalism." Quite a mouth full. There is no doubt that the various neo-nationalists across Europe do share many of the same high-level goals. But what really unites them and what will increasingly bind them together is their shared enemies, Islamism being chief among them. Western nations have a history of being divided, of bickering among themselves only to unite in the face a a common external enemy. In 1814 who would have thought that Britain and France would be allies against a united Germany in 100 years? In 1939 who would have imagined that the US, Italy and Germany would be allies against the Soviets in only 10 years?

In times of conflict, history takes some strange turns. Hang on.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

The Coming of the Eurabian Civil War

Mark Steyn wrote about the recent Muslim riots, “As France this past fortnight reminds us, the changes in Europe are happening far faster than most people thought.” In a contradiction I’m sure he’ll appreciate, I think Steyn is at once too pessimistic and not pessimistic enough concerning Europe’s future in the coming Eurabian Civil War. He’s too pessimistic in that I do not believe that Europeans will submit to Islamization or flee the Continent in the face of ongoing conflict. Europe may have endured 2 or 3 generations frozen in an arctic multicultural wasteland but this is too weak a force to fully deface two dozen centuries of Western civilization. The European spirit sleeps inside the glacier. The heat from ten thousand fires will one day awaken it.

And this is why he is not pessimistic enough. The Eurabian Civil War is currently one sided. The Islamofascists are fighting against a vapor with the illusion of substance, a mist enveloping a somnambulant society. Sooner, far sooner than many believe, Europe will awaken and show itself for what it has always been: an aggressive, xenophobic, ethnarchy, jealous of its traditions, proud of its homogeneity, subject to enthusiastic waves of mass violence and enthralled by its angry gods (whether it’s Christ the Crusader King, Siegfried, Santiago Matamoros or some mutant deity as yet unborn). Elsewhere I have described this as neo-nationalism. The blinkered and stunned media will describe it as a backlash but it will only be the assertion of Europe’s true nature. The strengths that allow Islamofascism to succeed in its struggle with brittle, liberal democracies will prove of little use against a resurgent European nationalism. (Just imagine how a modern day Richelieu or Bismarck or Franco would have responded to the Madrid bombing. Reconquista indeed.) This is, of course, bad news for those of us who grew up in and care for liberal democracy and enjoy the freedom and prosperity it provides. European neo-nationalism will most likely be hostile to US interests and downright anti-Semitic. But European civilization existed long before the dawn of liberal democracy and will exist after its sunset. We currently languish in the twilight. The Islamists delude themselves that it is the dawn of the Muslim Age of the Restored Caliphate rather than the darkness into which they will be cast.

None of this will be pretty. The violence will be up-close and quite personal. Europe’s neo-nationalist future will be one filled with paranoia and fanaticism and blind, desperate struggle. Much of value will be lost. You may say that I am naïve; that Europeans have already submitted in the minds; that they are proto-dhimmis waiting, however reluctantly, to convert. But I say that thousands of years of ethnic fervor, cultural pride, fierce localism and passionate Faith are not erased in two or three generations. Civilization is more durable than that. However the civilization that endures is not the faithless, hedonistic, pre-packaged multicultural slop that we have known for 60 years. It is something else entirely.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

French Media Censors Riots; National Front Support Grows

Telegraph | News | Le Pen benefits from unrest with 'wave of far-Right recruits'

'A television news executive admitted last week to censoring coverage of the riots for fear of encouraging politicians such as Mr Le Pen. Jean-Claude Dassier, the head of the rolling news service LCI, told a conference in Amsterdam: "Politics in France is heading to the Right and I don't want Right-wing politicians back in second or even first place because we showed burning cars."'

This is in France, not China or Cuba or Syria. At least parts of the French media will not show certain images of real events, actual newsworthy event happening in or near the neighborhood of their audience purely for political reasons. It is beyond me why the French allow this. What's more, it seems like censorhship in France, like censorship in most places, is not working.

'Mr Le Pen, 77, has summoned "legitimately worried and fed-up French people" to assemble in Palais Royal square in the city centre" Monday evening. His popularity jumped five points in an opinion poll for Paris Match'...

A five point increase from the 2002 presidental election results would put him at 23%. A broad neo-nationalist coalition could probably get 30% of the vote, based on 2002 figures. I would bet most of the Rightist nationalist parties have seen an increase in support similar to that of the National Front, putting their combined support somewhere in the mid-30s and growing.

'Marine Le Pen, his 37-year-old youngest daughter and political heir, told the Sunday Telegraph that her father, one of France's longest serving politicians, had been vindicated.'

'"The Front National predicted and warned this violence would happen 20 years ago. It has been political madness for 30 years since we allowed immigrants to come here as cheap labour at the behest of French bosses," said Miss Le Pen, a mother of three, lawyer, Euro-MP, local councillor and president of the FN's youth wing. "It has been impossible to assimilate these people, simply because there are too many of them."'

Friday, November 11, 2005

Anne Applebaum Backs Me Up on the French and Immigrants

The difference between Katrina and the French Intifada:

The deeper difference is that however ignored or mistreated America's black underclass may be, most Americans do think of its members as Americans. By contrast, I doubt whether most Frenchmen even contemplate the possibility that the African and Arab immigrants and their offspring who make up their underclass, and who are both perpetrators and victims of these riots, could ever be truly French, even if they hold French passports (and millions do).

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Is the National Front Gaining Members?

I don't see how they could not be. But what the hell do I know?

Jackie Blanc, the National Front’s head in Marseilles and a pied noir who left Algeria at the age of 25, says the recent rioting has boosted support for the far-right party. “Our programme is being proved increasingly correct.”

Jean-Marie Le Pen, the party’s leader, says it has recruited 2,000 to 3,000 members since the riots started. He plans to take full political advantage, appearing in a televised debate on Saturday and holding a rally in central Paris on Monday to ram home his anti-immigration message.

This is starting to get interesting. Stay tuned.

The First or the Only?

Mosque Attacked in France: In the town of Carpentras in the south of France a person on a scooter threw two fire bombs at a mosque before fleeing, police said. People inside the mosque witnessed the attack, though there was little damage and no one was hurt.

Granted, it's a pretty lame attack. So far. If what passes for the 'authorities' in France don't stop the mass arson and anarchy citizens are ever more likely to take direct action themselves. I wonder if there have been more of these that the media has not reported.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

They Should Make the Plane Out of the Black Box!

Checking out my recent hits I noticed this one, from a Google search: what is inside mecca's black box?

Inside the Black Box is a big, shiny pile of No One Knows. But my guess - a meteor. A rock that fell from the sky into the vast and barren desert. An artifact of Arabian pre-Islamic paganism grandfathered into Islam. Theologically speaking why would Muslims care about a pre-Islamic shrine? They shouldn't. But Muhammad (Mohammed, Mahomet, etc) compromised with the pagan locals and made up some reason to keep the Ka'bah or Kabba. The locals recognized the supremacy of Islam and, more importantly, the political supremacy of Muhammad, and in return they got to keep their quaint little pilgrimage box and all the money it generated during the pagan holidays, which were also coated with a vaneer of Islam to make them respectable.

The same sort of thing happened in Europe as Christians converted the barbarian tribes. The missionaries let the locals keep some of their more important shrines, relics, festivals and heroes, but covered them with a fresh coat of Christian paint. The demi-gods and warriors were the priests rebranded as saints, for example. The difference here is that the Christians admit it and are not threatened by their own history.

Theological Housecleaning

I got a few hits earlier in the week from this MSN Search: why did God chose mahomet,muhammed. Needless to say I found this strange and a little ironic. For any future readers out there looking for this phrase let me answer the question as clearly as I can.

Why did God chose mahomet, muhammed, mohamed, or muhammad? God didn't. It never happened. The Archangel Gabriel never spoke to this guy. He's not a prophet of God. It's a story. Fiction. Untruth. Like Lord of the Rings or Spider-Man.

And while we're at it let's dispell the media propaganda that 'Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God.' No. Negative. Nein. False. As in not true.

Christian theology is clear and uncompromising on this point. Allah is not remotely similar to the Christian God. Not now. Not ever. Allah is not God. Moreover, Christianity does not respect Muhammed, Mahomet, or Mohmed. He is not esteemed in Christian history or thought. On the contrary. Despite all the multicultural claptrap of late, Christianity has since the Middle Ages considered Muhammed and Mahomet to be a blasphemer and idolater. Just ask Dante and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Muslims labor under this bizarre and self-serving notion that people are naturally muslim and that somehow they get turned to other, 'false' religions. Again, for the record - prior to the writing of the Koran and the Qu'ran, (which was written by humans not recited by an angel) in the early 600s AD no one was ever a Muslim. None. Prior to the writing of the Koran the total number of Muslims in human history was exactly zero (0).

Since then the vast majority of people have not been Muslims. Today, again despite all the propaganda about how fast Islam is supposed to be growing, most people alive by a wide margin are not Muslim and will never become Muslim. Write this down for future reference. Most people ever to live were not Muslim. Most people alive today are not Muslim. Most people yet to be born will not be Muslim.

Clear? Thanks. I hope that helps. Have fun searching.

National Front Watch 1

Le Pen claims that the National Front has been "submerged" with prospective members and supportive e-mail since the rioting erupted.

Le Pen will speak at a National Front demonstration Monday, November 14, at the Palais Royal in Paris.

'Le Pen said it,' say the posters advertising his rally in parties in Monday. 'Le Pen warned that immigration was out of control, that law and order had broken down, that our national sovereignty was being given away, that the days of violence and race riots and civil war were coming. Le Pen always said it. And Le Pen was right all along.'

The Train and the Pig

Writing in the Spectator Rob Liddle relates this incident in France.

Incidentally, my Eurostar train to Paris was attacked, just outside Rouen, by a wild pig, causing a two-hour delay on the line. The sanglier clambered down a steeply wooded embankment, paused contemplatively by the tracks and then launched itself, head first, at the 15.19 express from Waterloo to Paris. The Eurostar was an incalculably heavy, irresistible mass of hurtling steel; the pig a hopeless, minuscule excrescence of gristle and sinew. It was, therefore — if we anthropomorphise — palpably a suicide attack. You see, even the wild mammals have had enough of what’s going on in France and have taken recourse to direct action. Sooner or later the white, Christian majority will follow suit: there will be torched mosques, there will be stabbings, there will be more grotesque upheaval. For the intellectually lazy, lefty British journalists covering this inflammation: this is not Brixton 1981. It is, in the true sense of the word, more fundamental than that.

Citizens of the State, not Members of the Nation

John Vinocur and many American commentators are simply asking too much of French society.

Of course France is a racist society. How could it not be? Governmental, media and academic elites cannot remake centuries of culture and identity over the course of one generation by wishful thinking and mass marketing.

In 1900 France was as it had been for hundreds of years. Political and economic systems may have come and gone but France remained a nation of ethnically French Catholics who spoke French. Despite regional differences it was, by today’s standards, mono-ethnic, mono-lingual, mono-religious and mono-cultural. (Jews were small and disliked minority. Protestants were a largely regional and disliked minority. Both groups spoke French and were visually indistinguishable from other French. Muslims were rare oddities in a few big cities.)

In the decades after the War (quite suddenly in terms of the life of the nation) the French government allowed immigration from non-European, non-Christian countries. The “guest workers” did not interact with native French, except in the highly structured environment of industrial labor. A Frenchman born in 1945 could still have lived with very limited interaction with non-native, non-European immigrants. In the sixties the governing elites developed an ideology for keeping the immigrants and their descendents in the ‘suburbs’ but this ideology was just a Leftist veneer on segregation. A French child born in 1965 would have grown up in a society where the general, unspoken assumptions of life had changed but were still recognizable to his grandparents and great grandparents: the value and superiority of French culture; the beauty and power of the French language; the supremacy of French esthetics and cuisine; the centrality of French Catholicism, if not spiritually then at least ceremonially.

Into this society the elites are asking the French people to accept people who are clearly non-French, ethnically, culturally, and religiously, as if they were French. A society that used to argue over regional accents is asked to treat as French people who speak with heavy foreign accents, if they speak French at all. Are they just supposed to acquiesce to the collapse of the French nationality into the mere legalism of a passport?

Where exactly in French history and culture, except in the daydreams of bureaucrats, does the average Frenchmen get the resources to recognize and treat a second generation Tunisian Muslim as French? How does this second generation Tunisian Muslim recognize himself as French? French culture, like many cultures, views itself as the pinnacle of human development. The French have for centuries looked down on other Europeans. How then does anyone realistically expect them to change the definition of French-ness to accept 5 million people who their forebears would have seen, without question, as foreigners?

When it comes to racial attitudes, the US is the exception. France is the rule. Japan, China and Korea are just as racist, if not more so, but of course they didn’t let in 5 million North Africans. Turks are horribly racists against the Kurds. Who thinks they would treat 5 million white Christian immigrants any better? Look at how the Egyptians treat the Copts who are ethnically and linguistically identical to the majority. Why is France different?

This is not to excuse European racism. However, the countries of Europe are not administrative sectors on a map (despite the fantasies of EU managers). They are Nation-States; the products of historical forces over long periods of time. We sometimes confuse the two terms, Nation and State, because they have been joined in our minds for so long but they are quite different. The immigrants who live in France are citizens of a sovereign network of governing institutions known as the French State. They are not members of the ethno-linguistic-cultural group known as the French Nation. They will never be.

The definition of Frenchness cannot be changed by government declaration or newspaper columnists or the conscious, deliberate actions of well-meaning people. It took centuries of wars, revolutions, and purges; of literature and artistic achievement; of liguistic and religions evolution; of the slow accretion of traditions to define Frenchness. It is not subject to engineering or manipulation.

It is long passed time to be realistic. The prospect of integrating millions of non-Europeans into European nation-states is far more daunting and complex than the Euro-elites ever imagined. One does not change the modern expression of an ancient culture by fiat.

They Keep Pulling Me Back In

The French riots have brought me out of retirement. I'll post some thoughts soon.