Anti-Islam demonstration still forbidden; and is it possible to win back America?

(Note: Below a reader says that my reference to the possible “violent overthrow” of the EU contradicts my previous refusal to post comments calling for use of arms, and I and another reader reply.)

The mayor of Brussels, Freddy Thielemans, has blocked the planned mass rally for September 11, the slogan of which is “Stop the Islamization of Europe,” though there is still the possibility a court will allow the demo to go forward.

Now let’s be serious. The Islamization of Europe simply means the increase of the number of Muslims in Europe. This demonstration is of course silent on immigration, silent on the actual physical presence of Muslims in Europe. Yet even this essentially toothless demonstration against Islamization has been prohibited.

This brings matters to a head. The people of Europe are closed out of the major media. They are closed out of politics. (See how the EU rulers ignored the French and Dutch referenda against the EU constitution by changing the constitution into a “treaty” that requires no popular approval.) Deprived of any voice through normal political channels by which they can speak against the surrender of Europe to its ancient enemy, the people organize a peaceful street demonstration as the only way left to them to express their views, and that also is taken away from them.

If the court backs up Thielemans, if this and other anti-Islam, anti-EU demonstrations continue to be prohibited, what recourse will be left to the people of Europe but the violent overthrow of their present governments?

Which also raises the question: if the Europeans rise up against the quasi-totalitarian super-state under which they live, whose side will the U.S. government be on? We have previously pointed out the disturbing possibility that the real function of the U.S. military presence in today’s Europe is to protect the dictatorial EU from the people it rules.

- end of initial entry -

Mark Jaws writes:

Today I am a little confused. Over a month ago you edited out a comment of mine discussing the likelihood of traditionalists and racialists having to physically fight to ensure their survival. I did understand your not wanting to have such views advocated—at least for the time being. Now today, however, you mention the possibility of Europeans having to violently overthrow their tyrannical governments. If it is OK for you to bring this up for Europeans, why is it verboten for Mark Jaws to discuss the same problem and solution here? After all, you have mentioned that the demonic liberals will never let us go peacefully. So, why the difference?

LA replies:

I don’t remember your exact comment, but I guess the idea of using force to resist a tyrannical government strikes me as different from the idea of calling on people to start killing other people. I think the first falls within a legitimate and traditional sphere of American political understandings, and the second does not.

Maybe I’m contradicting myself, maybe not. We’d have to see the discussions in context.

Mark Jaws replies:

You posted my comment, but in your response to me (which I long ago deleted) you said, “I am omitting the words “to fight, if necessary,” since I will not air such sentiment in a public forum.”

I am a very thick skinned, brash New Yorker, Mr. Auster. On the lower East Side and in the military I was worked over by the best. In fact, CNN’s senior security analyst, retired Brigadier General Jim “Spider” Marks, once threw me up against a wall as a result of my having mouthed off to him (a superior officer). So I never take offense to what others may say about me—in public or private. I see myself strictly as a right wing shock troop, whose job is to attack our enemies and legitimize our views, and in doing so prepare the way for better men to emerge and take charge.

I was just wondering if perhaps in your thinking out loud about Europeans having to violently overthrow the EU tyranny, you might have come around to my way of thinking—and expressing so in public. In which case, I would be delighted.

LA replies:

You’re raising a legitimate question about what I allow and don’t allow at this site. I’ll reply later.

Mark E. writes:

You have not contradicted yourself here. There is a difference between the people’s right of revolution against tyrannical government, and a call to vigilantism or civil war.

First, you are speaking of different objective conditions, between Europe and the U.S. In the context of the story, you are clearly referring first and foremost to the potential need for Europeans to take to the streets and hold a demonstration anyway. Their merely occupying space and refusing to leave would be an act of “force” in that sense. Your post is about that in Europe the government has taken away people’s fundamental rights, and the people of Europe may be justified in defying and even opposing, extra-electorally, their governments. This is classic American liberal (the good kind) theory—sovereignty ultimately resides in the People, the People have a right of revolution if the government becomes tyrannical, etc. The United States, fortunately, is still a bastion of free speech, in which even most American “liberals” would not want European laws and regulations.

Second but related is the difference in the context of your particular subject.

We do not know from Mark Jaws’s comment what was the subject in response to which he made his edited-out remark, and therefore we don’t know the context. But the idea of “nationalists and traditionalists fighting back” sounds more like vigilantism or civil war, and not revolt against government tyranny.

I can imagine that perhaps your post to which Mr. Jaws submitted his “fighting back” comment was about illegal immigration. Personally, I think it is wrong, definitionally, to call illegal immigration an “invasion.” (I am long past tired of materially inaccurate war metaphors.) Because if it were a real invasion—men with guns—then we would have a right to use force against the individual invaders. But we do not have a right to use force against illegal immigrants as individuals just because we don’t like that they are here illegally. Why do we recognize that we do not have such a right? Because we recognize that they are not in fact “invaders.”

Whatever the topic may have been, I can think of any number to which a call for “fighting back” would have been regarded by you, justifiably in the context, as being inflammatory, irresponsible, wrong, immoral, etc.

You recognize your responsibility to maintain the tone and dignity of your site, and to beware of reader calls for too-radical action. Anyway, it is easy for people to get worked up and say blow-off aggressive things in response to reading some of your posts; and it is not unwise for you to be like the saucer that cools the tea (to use the overtaxed Senate simile).

And BTW, none of this is to rag on Mark Jaws, only to point out important distinctions.

LA replies:

Mark Jaws’s comment that I edited appeared in the entry entitled “How to save the Constitution,” posted on July 27, 2007. To provide context, here is the closing point of my initial article:

The only way to restore constitutional government in this country is through a revolutionary—or rather counterrevolutionary—constitutional amendment that essentially throws out the judicial usurpations of the last 70 years. If there is still an American people that cares about constitutional government in general and about the right of communities to govern themselves in particular, the attempt to pass such an amendment could become their focus and their rallying cry. Instead of forever agonizing impotently about liberal judges, the American people could take the initiative in the matter and seek to put the power back in their own hands. I’m not saying that such an amendment would have a realistic chance of passage in the short or medium run. But proposing and arguing for it would bring the real issues front and center and show the American people that our government, and our fate, are in our hands.

Mark Jaws commented that my idea was impractical because of the divided nature of the country, and therefore the best that traditionalist whites could hope for was to create all-white areas that they could govern. I disagreed, and said:

Maybe I’m impractical, but if the choice is between seceding from America, and trying to win back America, then I still agree with Samuel Francis’s argument that the correct aim for traditionalists is to win back America.

Mark Jaws replied:

While I agree with all of the principles stated by Samuel Francis in his advocating a majoritarian reconquest of America, it is not likely to happen unless traditionalists consolidate political power at several state levels. We all know that demographics is destiny. There is no way with the current and ever worsening ethnic situation nationwide in which white voting strength is being inexorably diluted (even in southern states) that we traditionalists will be able to abolish affirmative action and elevate white culture over the multicultural morass being foisted on us by powerful media elites. And even if we did pass one law after another, as the people of California did in the 1990s, federal judges will render our laws and ordinances unconstitutional. However, if you give me a state that is populated with 80% of tough and hardened white traditionalists, then one locality after another will be able to pass and put into force hundreds of Hazelton-like ordinances that would overload even the ACLU.

If we traditionalists are to survive, Mr. Auster, we will eventually have to consolidate and fight. There is no getting around it.

What appears above is his comment as I posted it. In his original comment as sent to me, the last paragraph had read as follows:

If we traditionalists are to survive, Mr. Auster, we will eventually have to consolidate and fight—with arms. There is no getting around it.

I wrote back to him:

I left out that part about “with arms.” It wasn’t necessary for the rest of your message, and I’m not going to be getting into stuff like that on a public blog.

So Mark E.’s point is correct. Mark Jaws was calling for the use of arms in what sounded like a civil-war, ethnic civil war-type context to establish traditionalist white-majority states. That went beyond (1) my idea of a constitutional counterrevolution, (2) Sam Francis’s call for the re-assertion of cultural dominance by America’s historical majority people, and (3) my Jeffersonian statement in the current entry that if the government of Europe becomes totalitarian, cutting off all avenues of political expression, then the people of Europe would be left with no recourse but violent revolution against such a tyrannical state.

Mark Jaws replies:

Thanks for the explanation, Mr. Auster, but I am sticking by my guns (and puns).

First, you have said on several occasions that America is not far behind where Europe is heading. We know that American leftists are just itching to impose hate speech laws and speech codes on the entire society as they have managed to do on college campuses throughout the country. With Latinization and millions of new Democratic voters, the Left will win election after election in the coming years and pack the federal judiciary with ideologues who will view the imposition of “anti-hate speech” legislation as a “compelling national interest.” These same judges will undoubtedly render “unconstitutional” any attempt by conservatives to limit the excesses of the Left and to control Third World immigration. They will eventually attack the home schooling movement and religious figures who advocate traditionalist positions. We can probably kiss the First Amendment goodbye in our life time. It is not my intent to be melodramatic, but I think we are perhaps only a decade behind where the EU is now and closing fast. The tyranny awaits us.

As a result of demographic trends and an emboldened and power hungry Left, I don’t see how anyone can seriously consider the call by the late Mr. Francis for a “majoritarian reconquest.” The education system is—and will remain—in the sinister clutches of our adversaries. Once again, we must consider the ever growing cohorts of non-white anti-whites, particularly Hispanics, who will become the majority population group by the end of this century. Mr. Auster, I grew up with Puerto Ricans for 22 years. Unlike last century’s immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, who came to embrace the heroes of Anglo-Saxon America, today’s Latinos could not care less about the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Pact, George Washington crossing the Delaware, or even the Fourth of July. They have their own heroes (by their standards), their own holidays, and their own Weltanschaung—which in no way is compatible to western thought and reason. We are having a hard enough time keeping our own children from being brainwashed, so to even think about imposing a majoritarian reconquest on the impending non-white majority is grasping at straws.

To summarize, the Left will become increasingly hostile to white conservatives and will do its utmost to prevent the constitutionally-based reawakening you are wishing for. Although I sincerely wish we could simply ignore the Left, it will certainly not ignore us. If the West in America is to survive, it will be in consolidated white enclaves which had better be prepared to fight for the right to be left alone so that its people can chart its own destiny.

LA replies:

I have never said that we are assured of victory or even of survival. I do say that as long as we are not conscious and organized as a people in resistance to liberalism, then we are finished, but that if we became thus conscious and organized, then everything would change, all kinds of things that are now impossible for us would become possible. So, for me, the main thing is to get to that place where things become possible. Given that we are not there now, given that we are not even in the game yet, to declare definitively that recovery is impossible is premature and the essence of defeatism.

The irony is that secession would also require that we become conscious and organized as a people in resistance to liberalism. Thus the minimal requirement both for the “reconquer America” strategy that I favor and for the “secessionist” strategy that you favor is the same. So why not get to that place where things become possible and find out what is possible, rather than writing off the best possibility beforehand? And if the best turns out not to be possible, there is the second best. But shouldn’t we at least strive and hope for the best, before giving up on it?

Mark Jaws writes:

I concur with your two-tier strategy which requires baseline racial consciousness and organization among the dwindling white (and perhaps Hindu and Asian) population. If we can peacefully preserve our culture and our traditions from leftist Third World onslaught via the Lawrence Auster way, I am with you 100%. I just don’t think that is ever likely to happen.

Since we know most whites and Asians can never live peacefully and voluntarily with majority black and Hispanic populations, in the future we can expect white (and light) flight not only at the metropolitian, but at the regional level as well. With chauvinist Hispanic governments legislating anti-white, socialist Latinization, we can expect that long anticipated awakening among white traditionalists (along with conservative East Asians and Hindus). However, by then it will be too late to change the Constitution. As you know, we would need close to 300 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate. Ain’t gonna happen, Mr. Auster, and if by some miracle we did get our majoritian reconquista through Congress, we’d need 38 states to ratify. In the near future you can kiss off the whole southwest, Texas, Florida, and the usual suspects north of the Mason-Dixon line, particularly New England, which perhaps by then may be more aptly called New Caribbean.

Given our understanding of human nature and this unfortunate demographic trend, the Mark Jaws Option is something that we should not dismiss out of hand. We should begin to consider how secession could possibly play itself out and encourage discussion among the like minded. I do not hang around with the militia crowd. My circle of friends and acquaintances inlcude active duty and retired officers, FBI agents, and mid-level business executives. Several of them share my view and a few even commented that in such a conflict “our side will have the oil, the food, the guns, and the people who know how to use them.” I do not share these words with you lightly. I served a career in the Army and spent four years in the airborne. To me, and millions like me, Western culture is worth fighting and dying for.

LA replies:

Then why not seek to win it back, instead retreating to enclaves?

Mark Jaws writes:

The more I read your work (the article on Latino anchor babies and an attempt to change the law, which will no doubt be ruled unconstitutional), the more I would hope you come to the conclusion that the Majoritarian-Reconquista mentioned by the late great Sam Francis and Lawrence Auster is just not going to work, even if whites are rekindled with the sparks of racial consciousness, simply because there will no longer be anything majoritarian about us. The future I see will be characterized by white alienation (from the non-white majority), white consolidation (and don’t forget Europeans and South Africans), white indoctrination (regaining our culture and deprogramming our young), white militarization (you can skip this if you’d like), and white nullification (of federal law). That is how we are to survive.

LA replies:

I’m not at all dismissing your ideas. I just think we have to start from where we are. And where we are is the United States of America. A movement that starts with abandoning and seceding from the United States of America, I can’t see it. Once we give up on the U.S., what do we stand on?

I’m not saying there is not a logic to your position. One could say that from the traditionalist point of view the U.S. is simply unreformable, and that the effort to reform it will be wasted. That’s your view. You should argue for it. Maybe you’ll end up convincing me.

Mark Jaws replies:

Fair enough, Mr. Auster. I really, really enjoy your threads on Christianity and society. I have read much on Catholic history and its effect on molding western thought, but as far as where do we go today, nothing comes close to what I read at VFR.

Mark Jaws continues:

I do not say this lightly, but I believe that the America that you and I grew up in and loved (I am 52) is gone, and things (with Latinization and Islamification) will only get worse. As our numbers dwindle, so will our ability to retake our culture and traditions on the national scale that you dream of. There can possibly be no living with the emerging and menacing non-white majority. Blacks are simply unreachable and forever hostile, and Hispanics, many of whom are blinded by their own hubris, unfounded arrogance, and ethnic chauvinism, are not much better. Given the pronounced dysgenic effect and welfare mentalities plaguing these populations, their behavior will only worsen. You also have 75 percent of Moslems worldwide believing it was the Jews who flew those planes into the towers, so how will we and our children possibly be able to live peacefully and prosperously with this new majority? We simply cannot.

Mr. Auster, I view the American house as being infested with water damage, mold, rot, termites, and vermin, with incompetent landlords whose solutions is to hire Moe, Larry, and Curly to fix the problem. It is time we build our own house—with, or without a housing permit.

Contrary to the unhealthy percentage of my fellow racialists who are tainted with anti-Semitism, I hold Israel up as an example of white nationalism and as an entity to be emulated. We know that until they created their own state with their own laws, policies, traditions, culture, schools, and other institutions, our ancestors were forever stuck on slippery and thin ice, regardless of well their current situation may have seemed. Peace one year—pogrom the next. As I told you earlier, even if you temporarily did retake the American culture, given the demographics, any gains would be on similarly thin ice. Our survival is too vital to have to depend in any way on the non-white majority.

LA replies:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the group consciousness, cultural energy, and political organization that it would take to create and maintain the all-white mini-nation you are speaking of does not now exist. Your thought of creating it is, given current cultural and demographic realities, at least as utopian as the Francis-Auster hope for a renewed white-majority America. Since both projects require the coming into existence of something that does not now exist, why not aim at the more hopeful of the two projects, rather than the less? Why not seek the rescue of our country, rather than its abandonment?

Mark P. writes:

Very interesting discussion between you and Mark Jaws. I do have a few points.

First, I agree that a certain level of censorship should be applied by you to VFR. The main theme of your site is noting the inconsistency and incoherence of the modern conservative movement and how it has contributed to the liberalization of America. Furthermore, you offer real solutions. Something like that should not be tainted by wild-eyed, radical ideas that distract from VFR’s core purpose.

Second, someone saying that he sees himself as a “shock troop of the American right” is somewhat disturbing. It’s not because I don’t like the idea or haven’t said or thought similar things. It’s just that I am completely aware of how utterly fringe my ideas are. When I hear or read someone else echoing my views, especially in public, I usually treat that person with suspicion. I feel like I’m being baited.

Third, it is simply not possible to build white-separationism from the ground up. Civilian society is too atomistic and disorganized for something like that to take hold, barring some iconoclastic event. There is, however, one institution that does fit the bill … the military, or, more specifically, the military-industrial complex. The MIC is a largely white institution. Entry depends on volunteerism and the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT), filtering out a good 3/4 of the non-white population. It has the discipline, the command structure and the narrow objectives necessary to unify disparate elements of white society. It also has an extensive network of private contractors and defense industries that employ lots of talented and educated whites, and tertiary industries like agriculture and machining necessary to keep the MIC going. In fact, the military appears to resemble the old U.S. white-centric economy from the immediate post-war period.

The irony (for VFR) is that building this enclave requires that the War on Terror continue. More and more resources must be sucked from the civilian economy, especially from the health/welfare/education rackets, and the only vehicle we currently have is the WoT. Furthermore, the WoT cannot be successful, but must maintain a holding action against enemies forever. Thankfully, this holding action is fueled by enemies with bad intentions and a Western ideology that enables them, making the MIC the only credible solution to the problem. Better yet, each thwarted or successful terror attack encroaches further into the civilian economy, eventually creating the national-security state. Under these two vehicles, much of the Third-worldization of America will eventually be purged.

To put a positive spin on this, even if the VFR method fails, we will still win, although America may be changed from its present form.

LA replies:

I think Mark P. is trying too hard to come up with a scenario. To me it seems wacky and kind of desperate, but, since this thread is already dealing with outre possibilities, what grounds have I for not posting it?

Mark Jaws writes:

I would like to address Mark P’s concern about my having described myself as a “right-wing shocktroop.”

I learned at an early age the force multiplying effect of turning the tables on left-wing bullies, who for years have managed to thrive in the vacuum created by those on the right who have lacked the courage, guts, and temerity to stand up and be counted. So first and foremost a right-wing shocktroop is both controversialist and confrontationalist. Whereas just about all whites wilt when confronted by a leftist, or better, a non-white leftist, a shocktroop holds his or her ground and goes on the attack, with little or no regard to racial taboos—but always mindful of logic, reason, and the facts.

Twice in my career I had to commandeer Army racial indoctrination classes (which were mandatory for all soldiers being deployed to Europe), and point out how ridiculous it was for the “instructor” to preach that “only whites could be racists.” Back in 1992 while still in the Army, I single-handedly started a Rush Limbaugh Fan Club and over the course of a year managed to successfully lobby the Armed Forces Network and the Pentagon in getting Rush’s show aired. Before I retired from the military in 1995 I again single-handedly organized and orchestrated a European-American Week at the Norfolk Naval Base, which was very well received by the entire command. While living in the Norfolk/VA Beach area I was the guest of the local radio show devoted to confronting in person anti-Semitic Afro-centrists and Farrakhanites who claimed that today’s Jews are “impostors.” Again—I stood alone. Today, among all of those folks ticked off in my county of 120,000 about illegal immigration, I again am the lone person to get off his butt to organize a lobbying effort.

These are the activities of a right-wing shocktroop, Mark P, and if we are ever are to save America, there will have to be hundreds of thousands of such people, who can take the ideas discussed at VFR and put them into actions and policy.

Mark E. writes:

That you edit reader comments, rather than just have the typical open message board, is one of the things that makes your site special. Because you read and edit your reader’s comments you become intimately familiar with what they have written; while editing you have to think with the reader’s mind (what is he trying to say and how best to say it) and with your own editorial mind (do I want a statement like this on VFR? does this reader really want me to publish this comment as written?) This creates a real relationship between you and each commenter. And maintains high level of discourse on your site.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 05, 2007 11:30 AM | Send