Another excellent blog entry by Mr. Auster — an extremely good statement.

I try to read every word published every day on “View From the Right” but somehow had completely missed Carl’s post referred to here by Mr. Auster. Carl’s is an extremely good statement (and an appropriately stark one) of the alarming situation in the UK presently, which is the fault of the Blairites:

“Tony Blair … is so enthusiastic about destroying what few shreds remain of traditional England, … is so insistent on importing Muslims into the UK (whose Muslim problem is nearly as bad as France’s) … . As I stated in another thread, the UK is for all intents and purposes a totalitarian regime run by a club of entrenched Tranzis — complete with ‘Diversity Directorates’ and other Orwellian controls ruthlessly enforced on the native white population (who apparently have been brainwashed into the acceptance of their own demise much like many of the Jews in Auschwitz).”

Question: we all know Blair is a big accolyte of impeached former “president” Clinton. We were all aghast at that speech by the latter in which he couldn’t contain his glee at the impending forced transformation of the United States from a white-Euro-majority country to an Afro-Asian-Muslim-majority one, a deliberately planned-and-executed transformation he confidently predicted was on schedule for completion (thanks largely to his eight corrupt years in power) by around mid-century. And we all know that Tony “Clinton-lite” Blair is following in his mentor’s footsteps (just as his wife is following in Hillary’s), leading his country down the same path which Bill, Hillary, Janet Reno, Doris Meissner, Eric Holder, and other hand-picked Clintonian goons and stooges (and Bush ones too — James Ziglar picked up exactly where Reno and Meissner left off) undertook to force this country onto, with excellent success so far. But what use will it be for Blair (or for Bush, for that matter?) to engage in, and win, this *military* clash of two civilizations, only to allow the other side the final victory through *immigration and demographics*?

Would not the advent of Muslim majorities or pluralities in the UK and US within the next 45 years amount to a victory for the other side regardless of the approaching battlefield outcome? A Muslim majority is already confidently predicted for Holland within fifteen years — that’s HOLLAND, folks!!! Remember? The land of windmills? Wooden shoes? Hellooooo??? Anybody home???? — within FIFTEEN years those cute little white-lace-with-the-upturned-corners-Dutch-maidens’-peasant-caps traditionally worn by the women across the English Channel from the Mother Country will have turned into burqas and chadors unless Pim Fortuyn’s programs be adopted in time — and time is running out.

Let’s wisely adopt Pim’s programs here and in the UK too.

Their opposition to halting this racial transformation is the unforgivable crime the neocons are committing against this country.

Maybe when someone literally starts to kill you it is possible even for a committed leftist to make (more characteristically liberal) unprincipled exceptions?

Blair’s position here would be a typical unprincipled exception, except for the fact that he finds himself so painfully isolated on the British left. When leftists/liberals make unprincipled exceptions, they usually make them in unison, according to that unerring group instinct they have that tells them exactly what the politically correct line is at any given moment.

I made a post somewhat on this subject several months ago. The establishment comservatives are calling for war against “Islamic terorist states.” But at the same time, they favor (or at least accept) bringing unlimited numbers of Muslims INTO America. This very policy brought about the WTC attack by the same kind of people they call “The New Americans.”

I also predicted that if we occupy Iraq, more “immigrants” than ever would be flooding in. There would also be more potential terrorists. Our government wails, “We can’t stop an attack.” They have never even considered a curb on Muslim immigration.

Finally, can anyone explain why Blair, Bush, etc., desire this transformation of their respective countries?

David, I couldn’t agree more with your excellent post. I agree with it one-thousand percent. If I had the chance I’d scotch-tape it, text-side-down, onto Bush’s, Rove’s, and Blair’s faces so they would be sure to see it and read it (scant hope they’d ever answer it, though).

I remember many years ago (this was I think maybe in the late 80s? — in any case, WAY before the Western immigration crisis became full-blown) reading in the newspaper about President Mubarak of Egypt’s
extreme difficulty dealing with a domestic Islamic Fundamentalist organization called something like “The Islamic Brotherhood.” It was the sort of group that, in later years, thought nothing of machine-gunning European tourists visiting the pyramids, for example, and which at the time of the article was engaged in planting bombs around Egypt and shooting up groups of Egyptians in an effort to topple the Mubarak government by means of an especially vicious brand of domestic terrorism. At the time, Mubarak’s government and two or three other Arab governments were having really a lot of difficulty dealing with these thugs, whom they thought of precisely as that — as thugs, not “freedom fighters” — whom they wanted in the worst way to capture and string up, but couldn’t manage to bring them under control despite their best efforts.

I remember the article ended with Mubarak warning that the countries of the West, including the U.S., who might think they were immune, BY NO MEANS WERE, and within some years thence the same violent groups of Islamic fundamentalist crazies (and that was exactly what Mubarak thought of them — not in any sense “fighers for Islam against Israel,” or “freedom fighters engaged in a patriotic struggle against Western hegemony,” but Islamic fundamentalist CRAZIES) — the selfsame lunatic groups, he solemnly predicted with quiet but complete confidence in the sense of a friend warning a friend, would begin operating in Western countries. He said this in two spirits: that Westerners who made insinuations about Egyptian incompetence at catching them were going to see for themselves, in a few years, how difficult this truly was, and secondly, I felt at the time, in a spirit of a true “heads-up” warning of impending danger for Western countries — sort of, “I wouldn’t wish these creeps on my worst enemy, let alone on countries I more or less get along with — so, you in the West had better watch out. Just some friendly advice — make of it what you will.”

Why then were these populations massively brought into this country and those of Western Europe?

If anyone from the Bush-Rove administration is reading this, let him or her now become aware of something which they perhaps are not hearing from their inside-the-beltway yes-men and narrow interest-group lobbyists: People out here are fed-up to here with this excessive incompatible immigration crap — in fact they are outraged by it, they see absolutely no reason on earth why it is being done, and they want it stopped.

Report that back to your bosses, the President and Karl Rove, please. What part of “WE WANT IT STOPPED” can’t you understand?

Mr. Auster asked a while back “How does it feel?” to be on the same (antiwar) side as the Mumia lovers, homosexual activists, etc.

Here we have an example of the tables being turned. Tony Blair has as his mission to destroy traditional Britain institutionally and demographically. He is far more dangerous than the few “Free Mumia” kooks we get at antiwar marches, because he has power. Even more dangerous, his whole worldview is of a piece with the famous “tranzis” so beloved of this forum. I think if we took a close look at the “tranzis” in power or in positions of influence (I am thinking Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan, etc), we would find that most of them favor this war.

Even the President’s latest speech justified the war in “tranzi” terms of ending suffering and “liberating” Iraq. Occupied Iraq will be just another social engineering project for these people, giving them more jobs and more power. I hope that feels good, Mr. Auster.

Mr. Young has it all wrong. We on the pro-war right are not on Blair’s side in advancing the Transnational Progressive (Tranzi) agenda. Rather, he is on our side in defeating Hussein and eliminating his weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Blair is not the issue at all, since it’s not just Blair who pushes the Tranzi agenda, but the whole political leadership of Europe. Now, suppose all of Europe had supported us in this legitimate and necessary war. Would that have meant that right-wing American supporters of the war were in allegiance with Tranzism? No, it would have meant that the Tranzis, though they they have an cultural/global ideology antithetical to our own beliefs and interests (as Blair does), nevertheless were rational human beings who saw the necessity of removing the grave threat represented by Hussein. We would not be approving THEIR illegitimate Transi ideology; they would be joining with US in a legitimate effort of collective defense.

It is quite the opposite with the Anti-War Party. Both the anti-war right and the anti-war left have relied on the most unprincipled, reactive, vicious, stupid, and anti-American arguments throughout this debate. The anti-war right and anti-war left have not been united in a just cause, but in a collective leap into irrationality and irrelevancy.

Further proof that Blair is helping our side, rather than we helping his side, is that much of the British left and his own Labor Party are rebelling against him. They see his actions in support of the U.S. as a betrayal of the Tranzi cause.

(By the way, whoever coined “Tranzi” out of John Fonte’s term “Transnational Progressive” made a really worthwhile contribution.)