HBD Books

The reactions to my post on the BNP the other day made me want to categorize the European right, defined as those that want to unapologetically cut off immigration and preserve their people, and American conservative reaction to it.

There are two main kinds of European rightist parties. Here they are in chart form. I include the name of the party, the country, its representation in the EU parliament and in the nation’s parliament.

Category A) Pro-Israel, capitalist, more libertarian. Often justify their anti-immigration positions as defending “values.”

 The most power lies with the Italian block.  They’ve passed some of the toughest laws in Europe on immigration.  In Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands patriotic parties have a good deal of representation but the rest of parliament works together to make sure they have no influence.  

Category B) More ambivalent or hostile towards Israel, socialist, nostalgic for fascists or kingdoms of European past.  

It may seem strange that the first thing I mention about each group is their attitude towards Israel.  This issue doesn’t seem central to who these parties are but is to how people have reacted to them.  

The BNP used to be solidly in category B, but has now become very pro-Israel by European standards.  They are somewhere between A and B.  

The hostility to Israel from Category B groups sometimes turns into Islamophilia.  Deceased Austrian leader Jörg Haider, despite always opposing Muslim immigration, used to visit Mummar Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein.  What this was supposed to accomplish politically I have no clue.  Jean Marie Le Pen’s National Front has reached out to Muslims in France.  The results have been disastrous.  This article from the NY Sun article is informative, if unfairly using the “fascist” smear.

The National Front has always been a coalition of two very distinct political families: Neofascists, like Mr. Le Pen himself, and traditional, Christian right-wingers.

Neofascists think Jews and Americans are the chief enemy, rather than Arabs and Muslims. In a way, they even tend to celebrate Arabs and Muslims as fellow fascists. As for Christian right-wingers, they see Arabs and Muslims as the chief enemy.

For years, Mr. Le Pen has been pretending he is a Christian right-winger rather than a Neofascist and that resistance to Muslim immigration is his major concern. Now he has emerged on the side of the Neofascist branch and is ready to drop the anti-Muslim issue.

The Christian right-wingers – who may have provided more than 50% of the party activists and more than 50% of the voters – are horrified, feel betrayed and have started deserting en masse. Many are turning to Philippe de Villiers, France’s chief Eurosceptic, who is quickly reorganizing his own party, Mouvement Pour la France or MPF, into a nativist, Christian-minded, anti-Muslim group.

According to the newspaper Liberation, the global National Front membership has dropped from 40,000 in the late 1990s to 20,000 in 2002 and to 12,000 in 2005.

Le Pen’s courting of the Muslim hoards has cost him almost 75% of his membership.  

Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom draws a line in the sand to separate himself from Category B.  

Wilders echoes some of the arguments against multiculturalism that have convulsed Germany in recent years. Like many on the traditional German right, he wants the European Judaeo-Christian tradition to be formally recognised as the dominating culture, or Leitkultur. ‘There is no equality between our culture and the retarded Islamic culture. Look at their views on homosexuality or women,’ he says.

But if Wilders shares positions and aims with others on the far right in Europe, he is also a very specific Dutch phenomenon, viewing himself as a libertarian provocateur like the late Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh, railing against ‘Islamisation’ as a threat to what used to be the easy-going Dutch model of tolerance.

‘My allies are not Le Pen or Haider,’ he emphasises. ‘We’ll never join up with the fascists and Mussolinis of Italy. I’m very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups.’ Dutch iconoclasm, Scandinavian insistence on free expression, the right to provoke are what drive him, he says.

Whether any of these parties gain any support from mainstream conservatives in America seems to depend on their stance on the Jewish question. From Wilders’ Wikipedia page.

Wilders lived in Israel for two years during his youth and has visited the country 40 times the last 25 years.^[39]

Wilders stated about Israel: “I have visited many interesting countries in the Middle East (Tunisia, Turkey, Cyprus, Iran) but nowhere did I have the special feeling of brotherhood that I always get when I land on Ben Gurion International Airport.^[15] Dutch public TV channel Nederland 2’s daily news programme Netwerk reported, that numerous American supporters of Israel financially supported Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) and openly approved of his message towards Islam and Islamic terrorism.^[40] Wilders told an audience during the report, that “We [in the West] are all Israel”.^[40]He has also said “Israel is the West’s first line of defense” against what he perceives to be a threat posed by Islam.^[41]

Unsurprisingly Wilders is the only restrictionist politician PC enough for the American right.  

I’m not into assimilation.  The Spaniards got their subjects in the new world to assimilate into their culture.  They ended up with a continent and a half of short, Brown, low IQ third-worlders who speak Spanish and venerate the Virgin Mary.  Is that what we eventually want? 

In my opinion, Muslims are the best immigrants.  Here’s why:

1) They’re not likely to intermarry with whites.  Have you ever seen a white guy walking down the street with a woman in a hijab?  Islam forbids marriage with unbelievers.  To the extent that they take their religion seriously, Muslims will stay away from the white gene pool.  I hope Muslims in Europe and America become more religious.  I can’t find the statistic now, but something like half of Afro-Caribbeans born in Britain have a white mother or father.  A Muslim population will stay separate.  That will allow them to eventually be expelled or given their own part of Europe with whites taking the rest.  

2) They’re not likely to take kindly to feminist and homosexualist brain washing.  The entire society might end up with less of it. Do Swedish teachers make boys wear dresses in schools with a large Muslim student body?  I really doubt it.  Here’s American homo Bruce Bawer warning about gay rights in Europe being in trouble thanks to the growing Muslim demographic.  I’m guessing that the coming decades won’t see many sodomy marches in European cities with large Muslim populations.  There’s no reason people who engage in certain sexual behaviors need to march in the streets.  Why not an S&M parade?  Shame on the men who let such a thing go on in their city.  Bawer mentions rape is up too thanks to Muslims, but you’d get that with any low IQ group.  He wouldn’t dare mention black rape in an article.  At least Islamization has a few positives.  

3) They’re easier to oppose.  Blacks come to a Western country and rape, kill and live off welfare.  All the while they claim that they’re being denied opportunity and are simple victims of discrimination.  Muslims rape, kill and live off welfare to a much lesser extent.  They do so while demanding freedom of speech be tossed aside and gloating over their eventual takeover.  Who’s more likely to create a backlash?  

Of course, the ideal is no immigrants from anywhere.  I support every one of the parties mentioned above on those grounds. Capitalist or socialist, pro or anti-Israel, secular or religious, I don’t care.  Any bad social or economic policy can be reversed. Once Europeans are gone, so is Europe.  

If two parties want the same amount of immigration, the one that is less assimilationist should be preferred.