Reflections On The Revolution In France (Daniel Pipes' Backhand Nod To Edmund Burke Alert)

Frontpagemag.com ^ | 11/08/05 | Daniel Pipes

[dsc]

"Okay, you FR geniuses ... Let's hear you define exactly what Pearl's third response is suppose to mean, and just how it differs from his first."

To me it means (a) drastically slashing welfare; (b) elimination of immigration of mooselimbs; (c) mass deportations; and (d) a shoot-to-kill policy WRT rioters, combined with international cooperation on finding and killing terrorists and especially ringleaders.

[vimto]

Dear Old Enoch, has a ruefull smile today........

Yes indeed.

But poor man, outcast from UK politics as a racist. When 7/7 happened suddenly 'rivers of blood' seemed prophetic not hysterical. He stood up and told the truth and took the stick with considerable dignity. We should hold a memorial to rehabilitate his memory.

[bboop]

Wow, thanks for posting that. Where are you, in England? My great-grandfather was born in Tunbridge Wells. Like that is relevant here, but ....

[Riflema]

Thanks so much for bringing up Enoch's comments from 1968(?). I recently had the opportunity to read the actual speech he delivered and his whole thrust was that large scale immigration would swamp society's ability to assimilate and lead to the "rivers of blood".

Funny how things work out innit?

Not sure he had the Frogs in mind, but he was pretty prescient about the UK's own junior jihadis too.

[G.Mason]

They both are capitulation. MHO

[G.Mason]

Interesting. So you think that ... " undo the negligence and indulgence of past decades." ... means France suddenly becoming like the 1940's Soviets, or Mao's Chicoms?

That's a good one.

[dsc]

"means France suddenly becoming like the 1940's Soviets, or Mao's Chicoms?"

There's a real problem with your position.

The barbarians are not "at" the gates, they are inside the gates. There ain't but one way known to man to get them back outside the gates again.

Just as there is a difference between pushing a little old lady out of the path of a speeding bus and pushing a little old lady in front of a speeding bus, taking the measures necessary to defeat this latest mooselimb attack on Christendom is hardly the the equivalent of "the 1940's Soviets, or Mao's Chicoms."

We must not let the fear of becoming like the enemy prevent us from doing what is necessary to defeat him.

[G.Mason]

You misunderstand the comparison.

Do you think the old Stalin Soviets, or China's Mao, wouldn't have killed this Islamic vermin? Inside the gates or outside the gates. They would have been slaughtered.

Odd that even now we don't hear of any of that scum migrating to China. Hmmm?

[Zionist Conspirator]

I remember years ago a friend told me that, "All hope is lost because they are outbreeding us." His "they" was Mexicans who don't assimilate, but it's pretty much the same for the Islamofacists.

Also, I believe this is the theme of one of Pat Buchanan's book, The Death of the West.

Okay, I realize that I am probably putting my foot in it, but I must point out that Catholicism (at least theoretically) is a universalist religion that doesn't really recognize national distinctions (in fact, this is one reason for its supposed superiority to Judaism). That being the case, this "we" vs. "they" talk sounds somewhat heretical. Do Mexicans have a different "gxd" than white American Catholics? Aren't Mexican Catholics the co-religionists or American White Catholics? Why do palaeo American Catholics therefore treat them like an alien enemy with an alien "gxd?"

In practice palaeo Catholics are actually more sympathetic to moslems than to Mexican Catholics since they blame American multiculturalism on "Zionism." But if Mexican and American Catholics have the same religion, how can they have different cultures?

Ultra-right American Catholics, like Black and Hispanic leftists, seem to consider race and ethnicity as the highest bond. The implication is that Catholics of different colors are basically different tribes with different religions and different "gxds," despite the official teaching of the Church. Otherwise the putting of Catholic Mexicans in the same category as moslem Algerians doesn't make sense.

[Clemenza]

His "they" was Mexicans who don't assimilate,

Actually, third generation Mexican Americans have a high rate of intermarriage. The problem is that, due to uncontrolled illegal immigration, we have so many first generation in our midst (the first generation of any ethnic group never assimilates).

[Wallace T.]

The peculiarity is that the most conservative American Catholics from a theological standpoint are the most likely to support strong border controls. You would think that those who prefer the Council of Trent to Vatican II and consider the High Middle Ages as the pinnacle of "Christendom" would want a return to the open borders of medieval Europe. The modern nation state was by and large a product of the Enlightenment, when civil authority superceded ecclesiastic authority. In 1400, when Catholicism was virtually the only religion in Europe north of the Balkans, Europeans were more likely to think of themselves as Bavarians, Burgundians, and Castilians first and not as Germans, Frenchmen, or Spaniards. By the 17th Century, the Catholic Church was forced to compromise in order not to lose further territories. Thus, the king of France and the emperor of Austria could appoint or at least veto the appointment of bishops in their respective realms. National differences mattered more than religious ones. One suspects even "rad trad" white Catholics would prefer white evangelical neighbors to Hispanic Catholic ones.

[rob777]

The implication is that Catholics of different colors are basically different tribes with different religions and different "gxds," despite the official teaching of the Church. Otherwise the putting of Catholic Mexicans in the same category as moslem Algerians doesn't make sense.






Good point.

[Zionist Conspirator]

One suspects even "rad trad" white Catholics would prefer white evangelical neighbors to Hispanic Catholic ones.

That's precisely the point I was making, though I believe one can replace the world "suspects" with the words "can be sure of."

Modern palaeoconservatism owes as much to modern racialism as it does to ancient or even medieval ecclesiology (witness Joe Sobran's defense of Instauration, a blatantly racialist publication).

[Zionist Conspirator]

The implication is that Catholics of different colors are basically different tribes with different religions and different "gxds," despite the official teaching of the Church. Otherwise the putting of Catholic Mexicans in the same category as moslem Algerians doesn't make sense.

Good point.

Thank you.

I hope my point is not misunderstood. I am not defending Mexicans or open borders. I am saying that I can understand Catholicism and I can understand nationalism, but I cannot understand he bizarre mixture of both that palaeocon Catholicism has become.

[Jimmy Valentine]

You are of course, perfectly correct.

Hello to you big guy; hope that all is well with you.

Big Regards,

[dsc]

"Do you think the old Stalin Soviets, or China's Mao, wouldn't have killed this Islamic vermin? Inside the gates or outside the gates. They would have been slaughtered."

Yes, that's true. However, suppressing the "insurgents" in France with live ammunition and deporting the rest wouldn't make France their moral equivalent.

[dsc]

"Ultra-right American Catholics, like Black and Hispanic leftists, seem to consider race and ethnicity as the highest bond."

We live in different universes.

Over here in mine, nothing in your note matches up with reality in any particular.