There is an extremely important article here on Breivik’s funding, by Justin Raimondo.
It also makes plain that not only did Pamela Geller post a string of virulent anti Norwegian-Muslim articles on her website, not only did she travel to Norway to address a hate rally, not only did Brehvik post to her website and quote it as an influence. She actively supported and encouraged those planning to use terrorism.
This is an excerpt from an email she says she received and posted on her blog:
“I am running an email I received from an Atlas reader in Norway. It is devastating in its matter-of-factness.
“Well, yes, the situation is worsening. Stepping up from 29 000 immigrants every year, in 2007 we will be getting a total of 35 000 immigrants from somalia, iran, iraq and afghanistan. The nations capital is already 50% muslim, and they ALL go there after entering Norway. Adding the 1.2 births per woman per year from muslim women, there will be 300 000+ muslims out of the then 480 000 inhabitants of that city.
“Orders from Libya and Iran say that Oslo will be known as Medina at the latest in 2010, although I consider this a PR-stunt nevertheless it is their plan.
“From Israel the hordes clawing at the walls of Jerusalem proclaim cheerfully that next year there will be no more Israel, and I know Israel shrugs this off as do I, and will mount a strike during the summer against all of its enemies in the middle east. This will make the muslims worldwide go into a frenzy, attacking everyone around them.
“We are stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast.
As Raimondo says, Geller goes on to say that she is protecting the proto-terrorist’s identity so he won’t be arrested. We do not know how this wannabe terrorist in Norway relates to Breivik or his other “cells”. Geller may know but the police are not asking her.
There can be no doubt at all that, were Geller a Muslim, this amount of evidence and connection would have her in jail by now. Do not hold your breath.
‘dreoilin, in the sad case Bob Marley there could have been other factors ?’
Like, umm, the fact that Marley’s dad was a white Englishman ?
Wayne,
What I find disturbing is that nobody in Norway or the UK or Europe for that matter can voice against immigration. For example, if you say something against immigration then you are labelled a racist or a faccist or whatever. There are many countries that control immigration tightly including: Switzerland, Japan, Korea, China, UAE, Qatar, Taiwan, etc. It would seem to me that there is absolutely no reason for Norway to have such numbers of non-european immigrants? They had no colonies etc.
The subject of racism is another taboo. I am not Norwegian but if I were a young Norwegian male then I would not want foreigners competing for the girls in my country. Everyone I ever met wants to score with a scandinavian girl. Women in Spain for instance, spend huge sums of money to dye their hair blonde to please Spanish men! this is universal and the scandinavians throughout history (read any saga, history book, Irish tale whatever) are known to be pleasant to the eye. Imagine some woman wanted a foreign man, eventually she might desist and marry a local, but if now you bring in foreign men into your oil rich country and give them equal opportunity to the locals, then a percentage (hard to know how many) will marry the foreign man. So why should a Scandinavian person not be by definition racist? Besides these “white elephant” topics that nobody can discuss without being lynched, is the reality that the Norwegian Labour party must be run by a bunch of left wing Marxists after votes for why would they take on so many refugees. I did visit Oslo in 1994 and I did not see hardly a single immigrant! I went back in 2001 and the place looked as diverse as London. This is a country with no colonies! I asked some ethnic norwegian lady in the street how come there were so many people of race and she said to me quietly “a series of left wing governments have allowed them in”. While we cannot accept what this killer has done, I honestly believe that the Labour party has some responsibility for this. They bought votes with immigrants so they cannot be removed, and they do not allow discussion on immigration and label everyone a bigot who contradicts their policty. So how is that a democracy? you cannot protest against them and you cannot vote them out, and they are fundamentally changing the demographics and the culture of Norway?
Re: Technicolor:
*
“yes, he lied about ‘genocide in Leicester’ (Muslim population around 3 percent); he can quote whoever he likes on the definition of genocide: we all know that it is, as the OED says, ‘extermination’”
*
For the record, it was Techie who lied — twice:
FIRST: I said nothing about the Muslim population of Leicester. I said (see above) that the ethnic population of Leicester is estimated at 51.43%, in support of which I cited:
ETHNIC POPULATION FORECASTS FOR LEICESTER USING POPGROUP
*
by James Danielis, September 2007
*
Cathie Marsh Centre for census and survey research. A dissertation submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of MSc. in Social Research Methods and Statistics, in the Faculty of Humanities.
*
Year 2011, Total population of Leicester 279933, Ethnic population 143,963 (51.43%).
*
http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/research/documents/EthnicPopulationForecastsforLeicester.pdf
*
SECOND: The Oxford English Dictionary does NOT define “genocide” primarily in terms of “extermination.”
It defines genocide as “the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group” and cites the first usage of the term as R. Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, (1944) p. 79: “By ‘genocide’ we mean the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group.” Source: www2.iath.virginia.edu/holocaust/genocide.html.
*
More explicitly, Lemkin stated:
*
“The crime of the [German Nazi] Reich in wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world. …
*
It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.” The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that.
*
More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.”
Re: Technicolor:
*
“yes, he lied about ‘genocide in Leicester’ (Muslim population around 3 percent); he can quote whoever he likes on the
definition of genocide: we all know that it is, as the OED says, ‘extermination’”
*
For the record, it was Techie who lied — twice:
FIRST: I said nothing about the Muslim population of Leicester. I said (see above) that the ethnic population of
Leicester is estimated at 51.43%, in support of which I cited:
ETHNIC POPULATION FORECASTS FOR LEICESTER USING POPGROUP
*
by James Danielis, September 2007
*
Cathie Marsh Centre for census and survey research. A dissertation submitted to the University of Manchester for the
degree of MSc. in Social Research Methods and Statistics, in the Faculty of Humanities.
*
Year 2011, Total population of Leicester 279933, Ethnic population 143,963 (51.43%).
Re: Techie’s lies
*
SECOND: The Oxford English Dictionary does NOT define “genocide” primarily in terms of “extermination.”
*
It defines genocide as “the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group” and cites the first
*
usage of the term as R. Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, (1944) p. 79: “By ‘genocide’ we mean the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group.” Source: www2.iath.virginia.edu/holocaust/genocide.html.
*
More explicitly, Lemkin stated:
*
“The crime of the [German Nazi] Reich in wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world. …
*
It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.” The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that.
*
More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.”
Pingback: Obama’s whistleblower war suffers two defeats | A New Worlds in Birth
Suhayl:
.
Living in S.E.A I have seen a lot of issues surrounding skin colour and the desire to be light skinned. I’m no expert on the matter, but my impressions are that the desire to have light skin over here is not really connected to western influence. It’s seen as an indicator of wealth and location. Living in a city you are more likely to be pale, working in a field you are more likely to be dark. I’m constantly amazed when I see construction workers covered head to toe in heavy clothing, their face wrapped up leaving only a slit for the eyes working in 35+ degree heat when I’m almost dying from heat exhaustion sitting in the shade with a t-shirt and shorts. It’s funny to see but in virtually every foreign/local relationship I have seen, the foreigner wants to be darker, the local wants to be fairer and neither can convince the other of what is more attractive.
.
All:
.
I love multiculturalism and laugh at how quaint my parents were when they talk of sweet and sour chicken being exotic when they were at university. According to the Australian census more than one fifth of the population were born overseas. Furthermore, almost 50% of the population were either:
born overseas; or had one or both parents born overseas.
In terms of net migration per capita, Australia is ranked 18th (2008 Data) ahead of Canada, the USA and most of Europe.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism_in_Australia
While there are some race issues in Australia (where aren’t there?), I do think it is a very successful example of multiculturalism making a country stronger and a hell of a lot more interesting to live in.
.
All that said, I am going against the grain and agreeing with Oldmarks definition of indigenous. I’m Australian and identify as such, but I wouldn’t call myself indigenous Australian, and I think many many Aborigines would be quite upset with me if I did. I was taught that scientifically indigenous refered to biology that evolved it’s characteristics based on the local environment, I don’t think you can say that of people living only a few generations in a location.
.
Alfred:
.
Your use of the word genocide is ridiculous at best. Your are being obtuse when you pretend your use of the word is in line with the spirit of the word as it is used by most people today. While there is dispute over the precise definition of genocide, it is legally defined as;
.
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
.
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
.
Furthermore go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history and look at the many many examples of genocide over the ages. None of them really strike a resemblance with what is happening in the UK today. Your definition is so broad that it can be used at almost any time society changes/evolves. There is no pure ‘golden age’ as you seem to imply. Nothing is constant, in order to evolve, old ways must end.
Dreoilin, brilliant maxim! I must store that one up!
.
CheebaCow, fascinating post and thanks for sharing it with us. Forgive my ignorance, but what does S.E.A. stand for? Is that ‘South-Eastern Australia’?
.
I think we need to be careful, as risk pandering to the racist Right’s agenda and discussing matters with which only they are obsessed.
.
As an example of a purveyor of Far Right ideology on the web (though why specifically on this website, one wonders?), Has Alfred/ Can Speccy forcefully and clearly condemned Breivik actions on this blog? Instead, he seems to spend most of his time providing gleeful apologia for them. He seems more concerned with “miscegenation” than with one of those who share his political outlook shooting nearly 100 children dead. I think that says it all.
.
And so, through the words of Alfred and Larry, both of whom seem antitherical to much of what seem to me to be the central theses of CM’s blog, we are witnessing the de facto union of two forms of violent extremism, a union exemplified by the words of (the likes of ) Pamela Geller/Robert Spencer and the actions of Anders Breivik.
.
We must thank both of them for allowing to witness this fascinating spectacle.
CheebaCow, this is why I said that the racist Far Right’s importation of the word, ‘indigenous’ was appropriating a word from an entirely different context (the historical decimation, apartheid, etc. imposed on Australian Aboriginals, American Indians, etc.) with immigration of black, yellow and brown people (because that’s what it’s about) into Western Europe from the 1940s onwards. By using the term, they want to pose as victims. Hence also the “genocide” mis-usage. They are providing justification – in the current context – for the actions of Breivik; for that is what this ‘philosophy’ leads to. Words do not exist in a vacuum. They are used to oppress black, brown and yellow people living in Europe. That is the basic intention.
.
This ought not to be about justifying the presence of brown, black and yellow people in Europe. But that is what the racist Far Right want to form the central discussion. Here, on this blog, they are attempting to amplify and capitalise on Brievik’s words and actions. I think we should be aware of this.
There is no doubt that terrorism is being used by the global elites to create a manageable chaos. During the last decades there were no major terrorist attacks that would not enhance the rule of Western secret services, global oligarchy and competency of TNCs at the expense of civil rights and freedoms.
The most phantasmagoric example was 9/11. Once the propagandistic effect of the war against Al-Qaeda that resulted in occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and establishment of the US military infrastructure by Chinese and Russian borders in Central Asia has faded away, a body resembling bin Laden was buried in abyss. Ironically now al-Qaeda fighters are fulfilling NATO’s mission in Libya terrorizing local population in a hunt for Gaddafi. Another factor for ‘priority shift’ was the conclusion of a clandestine deal between Taliban and the US envoys on the conditions of the US military presence in Afghanistan (American non-interference in gradual take-over of power in Kabul by Taliban was guaranteed). We can only speculate on other clauses of the deal, but logically it should include the share of drug-trade-originated profits and the US blessing for Talib advance deeper to Central Asia. Objectively now the radical political forces in Central Asia and Arab countries subject to ‘green revolutions’ earlier this year are fully complying with the chaotization agenda of the global elites.
So for elite strategists ‘Islamic terrorism’ can no longer serve as an effective tool for achieving their global goals. This card is already played off. They needed to create another chimerical doctrine hostile to both their own project and boiling Islamic pot. A neo-fascist movement abundantly stuffed with Christian symbolism would be an ideal option to arrange a big show.
READ MORE: http://orientalreview.org/2011/07/29/blond-beast-and-the-future-of-terror/
Thanks for that Link Thomas, also thanks for illuminating those who make out/believe they resemble somekind of divine genetic disposition.
For the umptieth time I have come across this debate and its becoming boring to see these sterotypists wrap themselves in knots.
Ah well back to the subject shall we after this enlightening interlude. Should we bother to write on Pam Gellers site?
I looked at it and on reading the comments of gun touting knuckle draggers and zionsists, who are well inflamed with having their queen bee sullied by her own past liabilities, they just don’t like it up them, I have decided that its really not necessarry.
Unless we can view his carribean off shore accounts and follow the money, a hard task because our radical fundamentalist capitalists have made sure that these havens do not have to answer to tax laws or any other for that matter, a bit like blackbearts treasure island.
This action smells of P2 and that he got the support of Borghezio, who then retracted his vague support for Breivig days later, is a good lead.
Was Borghezio told to retract it by his Northern league brethren?
Guardian readers’ editor on the paper’s reporting of the killings in Norway
.
Remember the initial reporting that Islamic terrorists were behind the bombing and shooting in Norway?
.
Peter Beaumont and his editors are called to account, and the Guardian readers’ editor Chris Elliott doesn’t pull his punches. Er, not exactly.
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/31/open-door-norway-massacre-coverage
Suhayl:
.
Sorry I should have been more clear. By S.E.A. I mean South East Asia.
.
It’s interesting this talk to indigenous, and what definitions mean to people. In the Australian context I think the scientific definition I spoke of has had a positive effect on racism in Australia. Most Australians understand that they are not indigenous, and it is therefore somewhat hypocritical to get upset about ‘foreigners’ coming here. I would also argue that it has allowed Australians to have a wider concept of what it means to be Australian. Everyone I know in Australia considers a person Australian simply if that person has decided to spend the rest of their life living in Australia. While my friends are definitely on the more liberal end of the spectrum, I think that attitude is generally held by most Australians.
.
Where I’m currently living there is a large Scandinavian population of travellers and expats. In almost every respect, the most chilled group of people I have met. Polite, kind and generally good people, I have been shocked at the amazing levels of xenophobia expressed by these same people when it comes to immigrants in Scandinavia. It’s weird, I would say these same people are exemplary travellers in general and show great amounts of respect to all the locals they meet while abroad, but when it comes to people moving to Scandinavia all bets are off. In the Scaninavian context, the elite, the majority are still indigenous, so the same scientific definition of the word ‘indigenous’ can have quite different implications.
.
Nevertheless I think denying the scientific definition of the terms adds fuel to the racist fire. It gives racists an easy rhetorical point to complain about why liberals can’t accept simple facts. Kind of live passing laws against holocaust denial. It gives the crazies an easy propaganda victory when they can claim the government is not prepared to argue the case and instead makes it illegal to even discuss the issue. In my opinion nothing hurts David Irving’s case more than when you actually see David Irving make his case, the guy is clearly a fool and more people should see that.
.
I agree with what you say about Alfred. A couple of days after the Norway events I posted a link to Breivik’s propaganda video after having already watched it. I nearly added a comment to the effect of ‘This video remind you of any posters philosophy?’, but then thought to myself, nah that’s a low blow I won’t go there. A few days later I come back and read Alfred talking about a ‘genuine (true?) crusader’. I couldn’t believe he had the audacity to post a public comment like that. He has no shame or credibility.
.
*phew* that turned into a much longer post than expected.
Thanks for that link to peter’s article Mary, have left my guist, Cheebacows report of Scvandianvians abroad is marked, it is a very European, not just Scandidnavian notion that they manage to behave in forweign climes, but become rabid when others like their own home country.
Globalisation always favoured large multinational corporations, their regulative frameworks and rights, that of the working populations or multicultural pressures that surround their ideas of global governance.
BTW here is an example of the best of Australian multiculturalism. A white guy, playing a Chinese immigrant, playing an Aborigine. Very funny, playing with stereotypes while at the same time being sensitive and honest.
youtube.com/watch?v=051noekdjtU
.
The same guy playing a private (public for you Brits) school girl but showing a side of Australian racism. Still very funny, but much darker.
youtube.com/watch?v=cWpan7ZjSI8
Ingo:
.
I have experienced similar attitudes from other Europeans. However I have found this attitude to be more common with Scandinavians and also more extreme. I have always assumed that previously people migrated to Scandinavia far less than other parts of Europe, is this wrong? This could explain the relative vehemence of the Scandinavian xenophobia, they are ethnically more homogeneous. But you know, being ethnically pure and isolated isn’t exactly a good recipe for success, just ask the dodo.
Sorry I dropped a thought.
This could explain the relative vehemence of the Scandinavian xenophobia, they are ethnically more homogeneous and this is more tied into their sense of national identity. However these things can change. Only 50 years ago racism in Australia was so bad they we were famous for it. I think Australia still has that reputation to some degree, but the reality is that in terms of race issues Australia is now unrecognisable from what it once was.
Yeah but Suhayl, Cheeba Cow; if my mother and father were both French, and had moved permanently to Oxfordshire, and I was born in Oxfordshire, and lived in Oxfordshire, and went to school in Oxfordshire, I think I would be native British/English, by definition, wouldn’t I? And the term ‘indigenous’ is quite straightforward: I would be indigenous to the country, and also a native of the country, much as I might prefer to be French. I would, I guess, have dual nationality also: these points are, as Suhayl says, complex.
With reference to the Australian situation: everyone knows that the British descended with force and imprisoned and tortured the local population; their descendants then proceeded to brutalise, marginalise and discriminate against the Aborigines in the most racist, cruel and vicious fashion possible. The same attitude persists in the current treatment of asylum seekers, held for years in desert prisons with no hope of freedom. And we see that attitude in the Far Right all over the world. How people think and behave is of course far more important than arguing the toss about definitions: I’m just trying to show that the Right’s argument is redundant on every level. They might bring in the parlous treatment of the Aborigines but this is rank hypocrisy, not a debating sword thrust to be avoided. Unless, of course, they are suggesting that all pink Australians be ‘repatriated’: I don’t think they are, you know.
Guest: yes, I realised this about skin pigmentation all on my own – no need for scientists! It is quite quite obvious that skin pigmentation is simply a response to sunlight or lack of it (though, rather sweetly, in the Just So Stories, Kipling has the previously sandy-coloured Nubian turn himself into ‘the most beautiful blue black’ as a camouflage in order to be able to hunt, since the animals had moved from the sandy desert into the dark forest in attempt to avoid him) What is tragic is the lack of celebration of the different cultures which have sprung up around the world – the Arabic greeting ‘the morning is scented with jasmine’ instead of ‘hello’ for example – because in Arabic countries it so often is. The writings of Rumi, the paintings, the different musical scales. I could go on..
Of course, the Sami people (‘Lapps’) living in nothern Scandinavia (‘Sapmi’) – Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia – would be able to tell us all about the arrogance of some aspects of Scandinavian officialdom over the years. It – this relates to institutionalised problems – belies the general (usually, wrt individuals, true) impression of ‘tolerant Scandinavians’ one gets elsewhere in the world. So, there may be an interesting nexus there.
.
If anyone’s interestd, the traditional song/chant of the Sami people is the ‘joik’ (pronounced ‘yoik’), a wordless communing with nature, a little like the Andalaucian ‘cante quejio’ (sorry, can’t put accents on the letters here!). I can’t post a sound link right now, but if you search for ‘Marie Boine’ or ‘Wimme’, you’ll be able to hear some modern joiking. It’s very powerful and reminds one a little of American Indian chants (a la Buffy Saint-Marie) and more obviously of trans-Arctic Shamanism of which Sami culture is really a part. The reindeer an the drum are central. The Vikings et al were seen as sort of crass southerners.
.
I once was honoured to be interviewed, live, from Bridgeton, Glasgow on my mobile ‘phone by a radio station based in northern Norway about a play I’d written, based on Sami folk-tales and music for the Theatre Workshop in Edinburgh (‘Saame Sita’), when the interviewer started to sing/chant a joik, live on-air. It was cosmic.
.
theatre-workshop.com/events/2003/december/saame_sita.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimme_Saari
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mari_Boine
Technicolour, do go on, please. It’s so enriching and positive. Go ahead and joik!
Furthermore, CheebaCow, if you look at Finns, for example, they do not appear entirely ethnically homogeneous. There are quite a few swarthy Finns, many of whom look a little Saami (‘Lapp’). And I’m not just talking about northern Finland.
.
Norway is a sea-faring nation, which means that, as with, say, Orkandians and Shetlanders, many people will have worked abroad, all over the world, in the oil an fishing industries.
.
The Kingdom of Sweden was a major player in Europe at one time and indeed, with its larger population/size, etc., Sweden was/is regarded as the regional power. Swedish troops fought in many of the major engagemnets of European history.
.
In the late ‘Dark Ages’ and early Middle Ages, The Vikings developed major trade routes with the various Arabic (and thence African) Empires, down through the Volga, Black Sea and so on. Many Russians and Ukrainians are descendants of the Varangians, i.e the Vikings. And we know that the Vikings established settlements in Greenland and North America.
.
So it’s not as though Scandinavia has been somehow isolated until recently. And where trade goes, so do genes.
… not to mention the Irish and British connections, the Normans (who went to Sicily, etc.), the Byzantine Empire… and more recently, think of Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam), who is part-Swedish, part-Greek, very obvious Londoner, etc. That’s just one story. These things go both ways and in all directions. Europe generally, and (even) Scandinavia specifically, are simply not as homogenous as might appear at first sight.
Tech:
.
I understand your argument in regards to indigenous, I just think you are failing to acknowledge the real scientific meaning the term also has. Cane Toads can be found all over Australia, have been there for countless generations yet they are not an indigenous animal of Australia. I’m Australian, but because I am not indigenous to Australia I burn in the sun much more easily that indigenous Australians.
.
I am not trying to downplay what happened the Australia’s Aborigines, it was almost a complete genocide. So effective that today Aborigines are almost unseen in the large cities. However the situation in Australia now is incomparable to what it was in the past. 60 years ago it was considered multicultural for an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scot to sit around the table together. Now when I take the train into the city white faces are often the minority. Inter-racial relationships used to be scandalous, now no one bats an eye. Per head of population Australia has 3 times the net migration of the UK, over twice as many as the US, but I would argue there is less racial tension in Australia than the US or UK. Like I said before, Australia still has it’s issues, but to compare what happened to the Aborigines with the political and social climate of today or with the asylum seekers issue, you are severely downplaying the significant steps taken by Australian society as a whole.
.
BTW you know why the refugee prisons are in the desert and on remote islands? It’s because people protested against them too much and repeatedly helped refugees escape and offered them shelter. The government was forced to move them into places where protesters literally couldn’t get to.
Suhayl:
.
I am aware that Scandinavia wasn’t completely isolated. I was just speaking in relative terms. Am I wrong in thinking that relative to much of western Europe, Scandinavia is more isolated? I’ll admit on this issue my thinking is very simple, Scandinavia is cold and less attractive to migrants and secondly I find it much easier to spot a Swede in a crowd than perhaps a Brit or Spaniard.
“60 years ago it was considered multicultural for an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scot to sit around the table together”
.
These days the barman just says “Is this some kind of joke ?”
‘All that said, I am going against the grain and agreeing with Oldmarks definition of indigenous’ – thanks for that CheebaCow
‘Living in S.E.A I have seen a lot of issues surrounding skin colour and the desire to be light skinned. I’m no expert on the matter, but my impressions are that the desire to have light skin over here is not really connected to western influence’
Your impressions are absolutely correct Cheeba. The mongol invasions that followed in the wake of Ghengis Khan had a profound effect on the ethnography of most of Eurasia. Most historically literate Europeans (ie not the likes of Technicolour) know of the Golden Horde, their occupation for more than 2 centuries of the area now comprising Belarus, Ukraine & eastern Poland, and the genetic legacy left by this event. In your part of the world, the mongol invasions had the effect of shifting what now comprises the Thai & Lao peoples south and east of the Golden Triangle, away from their original homeland in the eastern foothills of the Himalaya, and into SE Asia & Indo China. There they encountered black skinned Australoids (probably very similar to the present day Andaman Islanders) who were no match for them militarily or culturally, and who were largely slaughtered en masse. Only a few such tribes remain on the SE Asian mainland, as a pathetic ethnic remnant, in the forests close to the Thai/Malasia border.
The distant, collective memory of this event undoubtedly affects present day attitudes in SE Asia to skin colour (the wealth & success of the Chinese minority there, who are generally lighter skinned that the now indigenous Malays, Thais & especially Khmers, is also, of course, a factor).
‘Where I’m currently living there is a large Scandinavian population of travellers and expats.
Sounds like Phuket or Pattaya ? If it is,Cheeba, it is possible you may have shared a beer with Breivik’s step father, who, like thousands of his fellow copuntrymen, winters there each year- a fact Breivik recounts in his rambling ‘manifesto’ for European UDI.
‘So it’s not as though Scandinavia has been somehow isolated until recently. And where trade goes, so do genes.’
Agreed Suhayl, but in the case of seafarers the genes are exported, not imported, a pretty basic distiction. How many of these Vikings returned home from their wanderings with a local wife a la Pocahontas ? Very few, I would think.
Wayne – right on. But I see you have been politely ignored, so far. An interesting dynamic as Suhayl would say 😉
.
These ideological debates are rather tedious, with definitions of words being disputed violently whilst as you say, there are white elephants in the room that do not fit with either ideology and so they remain un-discussible.
.
These would-be philosopher-kings like to imagine that the truth with regard to immigration is a universal constant, independent of the people. To them, politics is not about preferences, it is about politically correct truths that can be arrived at by experts, with expert knowledge. They dare not suggest that the people should be asked what they want, because they fear that the people would disagree with their cherished beliefs. No, they say, we cannot allow this because the people cannot be trusted not to be racist, or hypocritical, or selfish.
.
There has been enough empirical research to establish that feeling in control of one’s living environment is a primary pre-requisite to feeling happy with one’s life. Conversely, discontent is universally the result of centralised unaccountable politics, be it in Norway, Egypt, Libya, the UK etc. Nobody asked the Norwegian people – how much immigration and how fast is OK? When one is told what to do and what to believe, the inevitable resentment can be rationalised in different ways. The more thoughtful of us will realise that the source of the resentment is the frustration of not being in control. Others will build up irrational bias against immigrants and will find ‘facts’ in support of such bias, ignoring contrary evidence.
.
The immigration-is-bad ideologues are hopeful that the people would continue to express anti-immigration voting patterns if the questions were put to vote directly. They do not realise that a large part of the anti-immigrant feeling is born of frustration of not being asked. But perhaps they do not care anyway, imagining that this is their only realistic chance of some sort of success. The immigration-is-great proponents are pushed into authoritarianism by their distrust of the people. It is an embarrassing admission for them so they prefer not to talk about it.
.
But both sides are fundamentally mistaken about human nature. People are generous, they are magnanimous, they understand justice intuitively. No society is completely homogenous and people for the most part can identify with minorities and sympathise. If only the Norwegian people had been asked, perhaps murderous nuts would not have found the negative public sentiment to feed on.
I prefer to take John Pilger’s view on Australia. He has written extensively on the situation. This is his latest.
.
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/the-invasion-of-australia-official-at-last
.
btw Australia is a Zionist stronghold as you will see if you visit the Australians for Palestine website.
Evgueni: I would propound a third theory: ‘immigration’ *is*. One can of course try and live in a fortress: otherwise, as Suhayl points out, people have always moved. It is also part of human nature. I asked a BNP man I talked to, who had been railing against ‘them’ coming over here (in much the way that Wayne describes) whether he had never lived or worked abroad. It turned out, after a pause, that he had, in Europe and Australia, and thoroughly enjoyed it: far more than living in the UK in fact (part of his problem was the rotten life someone on low wages with a family in a council block leads here). His eyes, afterwards, were marginally less fanatical than before.
Asking questions is therefore good. ‘Asking’ the Norwegians would also be good, but there is so much propaganda and untruth directed at the general population these days that you might have to ask several questions, and give several answers, in order to arrive at any real conclusion. Think of the people who have swallowed the ‘Oslo is fifty percent Muslim’ canard. Their response to your question would, I predict, often be very different to their response if they knew the facts. To suggest anything else, while I share your view of untrammeled human nature, is, I think, naive. Even with otherwise decent people who have swallowed the lies and propaganda against gypsies here, it takes a good fifteen minutes of fact sharing before they come out from behind their artificially generated barricade of fear (and/or alchohol. Without that, as far as they are concerned, the gypsies are ‘different’, ‘not like us’ and, in essence, can lump it.
CheebaCow, I’m sorry, but I find an attempted parallel between cane toads and people somewhat stupid. Cane toads do not work, pay taxes, or send children to school and cannot speak up for themselves (though they have certainly been made to suffer). Otherwise, I tan very easily; would I be ‘more Australian’ than you if I were born there?