Better dead then red?

From time to time I read blogs such as The Gates of Vienna and The Brussels Journal that are devoted to the “coming culture clash between Moslems and the West.” I go to these blogs because sometimes they alert me to interesting stories and issues that I would otherwise miss. Yet they always leave me feeling profoundly troubled.

It is not that I find anything wrong with the idea of worrying about a culture clash. Throughout history, most of the worst clashes have come from having two different cultures in close proximity to each other. So I don’t think that it is unreasonable to be concerned about a growing Moslem subculture in Europe or to worry about the effects on global stability of a growing Moslem demographic. Wars are made of such things.

To be sure, it is not a foregone conclusion that there will be troubles because of these things. As the Turks proved with their Janissaries, there is nothing stopping blond, blue-eyed boys from becoming warriors for the Turkish culture. By the same token, there is nothing stopping Turks or Arabs from adopting western values.

But can and will are two different things. Many people have lived for a long time in the company of other cultures and never lost their hate for each other. One thinks of the former Yugoslavia, one thinks of northern Ireland; one even thinks on how African-Americans have been in this country for over 200 years and we still have racial problems. I bring these points simply to note that just because you throw people together does not necessarily mean that they will get along.

That should be obvious, but many people seem to take it as a given that immigrants to Europe will adopt western values. I think we can safely say that on present evidence that remains to be proven.

All the preceding was just to say that it is not the fears of The Gates of Vienna and others of that ilk that disturb me. Rather it is their solutions that worry me. They seem to be willing to do anything to make sure that the west “wins” any and all future clashes.

Now traditionally, American conservatives have looked down on those who were willing to do anything in order to live. If you have nothing for which you would die you have nothing to live for and all that. To a certain degree, this belief carried over to their views on how society should behave. They believed that it was better for western society to risk annihilation then for it to risk falling under communist dominion. For them it was “better dead than red.”

Those conservatives who are worried about the Moslem hordes seem to have a similar ethic. For them, everything is on the table to ensure the survival of western culture except surrender.

But to my mind, this raises a question; what does the survival of western culture mean? Does it only mean keeping places where white people are in the majority from being overrun by dark-skinned dudes? Or does it mean upholding certain values?

It seems to me that if trying to insure the survival of western culture means upholding certain values, than there are some things you cannot do even for survival’s sake– assuming that you truly hold that it is better to die than to lose western culture, of course.

For example, if it became necessary to raise up Hitler to save western culture, can you truly claim to be saving western values? At best you are preserving your language and your skin color. Are those things really worth doing anything for?

Whenever I hear people saying that we need to do whatever it takes to ensure the survival of our culture, I hear people announcing their allegiance to the god “Volk“. How is he any better than Allah?

I always want to ask these questions on Gates of Vienna and the other such sites but I don’t. It never seems like a post comes along where I can ask those question without seeming like a troll. But I can never go to those types of sites without thinking them in my head.

4 Responses to “Better dead then red?”

  1. […] _uacct = “UA-1202685-1″; urchinTracker(); Map of the Ethereal Land The Ethereal Voice Front Page – Politics – Money – Knowledge – Art – Food – Fun Masthead About Better dead then red? By Ape Man | May 4, 2007 – 8:28 pm Posted in Category: Front Page, Politics From time to time I read blogs such as The Gates of Vienna and The Brussels Journal that are devoted to the “coming culture clash between Moslems and the West.” I go to these blogs because sometimes they alert me to interesting stories and issues that I would otherwise miss. Yet they always leave Click Here to continue reading. […]

  2. Ape Man,

    Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

    I’m afraid you have set us up as a bit of a straw man here. I’ve said repeatedly — although I’m too tired to find all the links just now — that the issue is not race, but *culture*.

    Many black Americans (presumably most) share the same culture as their white compatriots, and we are all better off for it.

    Just last weekend, a relative of mine got married. She’s white, and her husband is black. They got married in an AME church, and the reception was in a Knights of Columbus hall. The maid of honor was a lesbian.

    It was a real multicultural extravaganza! But without any self-consciousness, and all thoroughly American. We had a great time, and I was completely comfortable there.

    My point is that when we all share the same culture, race is not an issue. But Islam is a radically different culture, and most Muslims (most, not all) do not share our value system.

    That’s the issue. And when violence is seen as a way to assure cultural hegemony, then we have trouble.

    I don’t advocate violence, as I have said repeatedly. I believe that if we work through traditional American (and other Western) constitutional means, and live up to the letter of the law, then we can prevail without violence.

    Our task is to make our governments conform to their respective constitutions, and to their electoral mandates.

  3. Ape Man says:

    Barron,

    Unfortunately, I am not the best of writers. So I think you missed the thrust of my post.

    I am perfectly aware that you and most of the others involved in this issue do not think that it is a matter of race. The answer I expected for the question “Does it only mean keeping places where white people are in the majority from being overrun by dark-skinned dudes?” was no. And the expected answer for “Or does it mean upholding certain values?” was yes. I am sorry if you felt that my post implied that you would answer those questions differently.

    But saying that you want to preserve western values says nothing about what you think those values are. That is revealed by your purposed solutions to the problem. It is here that I start to get uneasy reading your site and others like it.
    You say…..

    I don’t advocate violence, as I have said repeatedly. I believe that if we work through traditional American (and other Western) constitutional means, and live up to the letter of the law, then we can prevail without violence.
    Our task is to make our governments conform to their respective constitutions, and to their electoral mandates.

    At the very least I think you are side stepping the issue. Let me quote from one of your most recent posts…

    “Paul Weston wrote on your blog that Europe will face a civil war by the year 2025,” he said, “but I think he underestimates how soon it will be. Within five to ten years at the most Swedish society will collapse. It can’t be avoided; the Swedish welfare state is simply unsustainable.

    “But the civil war won’t start in Sweden. Sweden is too far gone. I think the civil war will appear first in Britain, which has the second-worst conditions. But the British still have a spirit of resistance.”

    Gaia agreed vehemently. “People in Britain will eventually reach the breaking point,” she said. “Just beneath the surface people are really, really angry, and it will take just a little spark to set it off. The hostage situation in Iran only made it worse.”

    Then latter you wrote this…

    So civil war comes first to Britain, and social collapse comes first to Sweden. What’s in store for the rest of Europe?

    Fjordman sees different outcomes in different countries, depending on the policies of the individual governments. As civil unrest increases, it’s possible that ethnic homogeneity will increase along with it. Immigrants will concentrate in the major cities to form de facto Islamic states, while native Europeans take refuge in the smaller towns and countryside, and resist further immigration and Islamification.

    “Europe may well become a patchwork of different kinds of states,” he said, “with Sharia installed in places like Rotterdam and Hamburg, and more rural areas maintaining the traditional culture.”

    But when the welfare spigot is turned off, expect the conflict to intensify and become more brutal. Cities teeming with large immigrant groups — whose families may lose their customary means of support — could become predators on the surrounding areas.

    These are some quotes from the comments on that post (made by other people, not you)….

    “Bosnia in the 90s will be a mere foretaste of what’s to come. That resultant rage will sweep all political considerations aside, and the Multi-cultis will simply evaporate into the ether, if only to avoid the inevitable and just retribution. It will also expose the ruling orthodoxy for the shallow depth it really has on the prevailing philosophy of those societies so affected.”

    “Richard: That has occurred to me too, that eventually Islamic supremacists in the West will overplay their hand and, in doing so, jump the proverbial shark.”

    “so, it is better to act now, while there is (I hope) still a chance that by curbing immigration, welfare reform, unrestrained free speech, unwavering defiance to the dhimmitude, etc. etc., the situation may be resolved without all-out war.”

    “but we all know that our political elites will not take the necessary action, and so the inevitable conflict lumbers on towards us, and once that dam bursts, who knows how bloody and destructive the conflict will become; a series of little skirmishes or a full blown raging inferno.”

    “In the case of Europe this option will not exists. It’s: get rid of the Muslims or die!”

    Part of a soldiers training (at least in this country) revolves around teaching them what they should not do, even if worse comes to worse. In actual fact, this training is often ignored. But it would be worse if we sent soldiers off thinking that everything was permissible.

    It seems to me that getting people all hyped up about how dark and bloody it could get without addressing how one should behave morally in such situations is a bit like handing some one a gun and telling them to take care of the problem with a wink and a nod.

    That is what makes me what to ask, what is the thin red line that people won’t cross?

  4. As for our commenters: if they stay within the limits of civility, they may state their opinions, no matter how obnoxious. My allowing them to do so does not mean I agree with them.

    You are confusing descriptive writing with normative writing. Neither Gaia nor I advocate what we see coming, but we see it coming nonetheless. If we all act soon to change the way we conduct our political affairs, the worst may be avoided. But we must see the possibility of what lies ahead before we can act to change it.

    I’m saying, “A speeding truck is about to run over that little child!”

    I don’t want the truck to run over the child. In fact, I hope that my words might help someone grab the child and pull her out of harm’s way.

Leave a Reply