SIOE

[quote]kamui wrote:

The next question is “why is there no conservatives in Europe ?”.
And i’m afraid the answer is not socialist international conspiracy. But conservatism own (and i would say intrinsic) weaknesses.

But it’s another story. For another thread maybe.

[/quote]

I don’t agree.

Collectivism and socialism are related but not the same thing. They began to take form in England after the Great Reform Bill of 1832. In 1865 Walter Bagehot published his treatise The English Constitution and described the origins and decline of Old Toryism and the social structure of English society:

‘If a political agitator were to lecture peasants of Dorsetshire and try to excite political disssatisfaction, it is much more likely that he would be pelted than that he would succeed…they would say that, “for all they have heard, the Queen is very good,” and rebelling against the structure of society is to their minds rebelling against the Queen.’

Bagehot described England as a “deferential nation.” He realised that this state of deference, loyalty and cohesion was under threat. Seven years later after the passing of the Second Reform Bill he said of popularist statesman:

‘…if they raise questions on which the interest of those orders is not identical with, or is antagonistic to, the whole interest of the state, they will have done the greatest harm they can do…they will have suggested topics…which will excite them against the rich; topics the discussion of which in the only form in which that discussion reaches their ear will be to make them think that some new law can make them confortable - that it is the present law which makes them uncomfortable - that government has at its disposal an inexhaustible fund out of which it can give to those who now want…If the first work of the new voters is to try and creat a “poor man’s paradise”, as poor men are apt to fancy that paradise, the great political trial now beginning will simply fail.’

That’s socialism. Collectivism begins with the rejection of Benthamite individualism. But as you say, a topic for another thread.

The happiest man in England:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It just doesn’t make sense. Surely they’d be just as likely to “radicalise themselves” due to disenchantment with the mainstream parties?
[/quote]

We are speaking about a fraction of National Front activists here.
Most of them never had anything to do with mainstream parties, they never will, and without the National Front, they probably wouldn’t have either.
There is nothing to disenchant here.

[quote]
I meant that is the political example to follow for the conservative movement. Conservatives must not only engage at all levels of the political process but also co-opt or destroy rival parties.[/quote]

I understood the theory, but that does not answer my question.
Let’s say i’m a conservative.
I know that there “are no-go areas in major cities. “Morality patrols” enforcing sharia. Gang rape epidemics. Terrorism” in my own country.
I want to do something about it. Without extremism. The conservative way.
Where do i start ? Concretely.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

The next question is “why is there no conservatives in Europe ?”.
And i’m afraid the answer is not socialist international conspiracy. But conservatism own (and i would say intrinsic) weaknesses.

But it’s another story. For another thread maybe.

[/quote]

I don’t agree.

Collectivism and socialism are related but not the same thing. They began to take form in England after the Great Reform Bill of 1832. In 1865 Walter Bagehot published his treatise The English Constitution and described the origins and decline of Old Toryism and the social structure of English society:

‘If a political agitator were to lecture peasants of Dorsetshire and try to excite political disssatisfaction, it is much more likely that he would be pelted than that he would succeed…they would say that, “for all they have heard, the Queen is very good,” and rebelling against the structure of society is to their minds rebelling against the Queen.’

Bagehot described England as a “deferential nation.” He realised that this state of deference, loyalty and cohesion was under threat. Seven years later after the passing of the Second Reform Bill he said of popularist statesman:

‘…if they raise questions on which the interest of those orders is not identical with, or is antagonistic to, the whole interest of the state, they will have done the greatest harm they can do…they will have suggested topics…which will excite them against the rich; topics the discussion of which in the only form in which that discussion reaches their ear will be to make them think that some new law can make them confortable - that it is the present law which makes them uncomfortable - that government has at its disposal an inexhaustible fund out of which it can give to those who now want…If the first work of the new voters is to try and creat a “poor man’s paradise”, as poor men are apt to fancy that paradise, the great political trial now beginning will simply fail.’

That’s socialism. Collectivism begins with the rejection of Benthamite individualism. But as you say, a topic for another thread.[/quote]

I never say a word about collectivism, and i only mentionned socialism because you did.
I fail to see how all this contradicts what i said.

[quote]kamui wrote:

We are speaking about a fraction of National Front activists here.
Most of them never had anything to do with mainstream parties, they never will, and without the National Front, they probably wouldn’t have either.
There is nothing to disenchant here.
[/quote]

But surely they could be just as easily radicalised by disenchantment with mainstream parties like I said. The fact that they have never been involved with mainstream parties could very well be evidence that they are disenchanted with them. So the mainstream parties could be said to be radicalising them and not the National Front when they become disenchanted with it.

That would all depend on the person. If they are a good writer - write. If they are a good teacher - teach. If they want to get invovled in the political process - do so - they could become leaders, propagandists, party hacks, hatchet men, power brokers whatever.

[quote]kamui wrote:

I never say a word about collectivism, and i only mentionned socialism because you did.

[/quote]

I mentioned socialism as part of the reason why there are no conservatives in Europe. You said the failures of conservatism have more to do with the rise of socialism. I was pointing out that socialism is related to collectivism and how they came about in England.

Au contraire - I am citing sources to prove my case that it was not the failures of conservatism nor even a failure of Old Toryism/“Eldonism” that led to socialism but rather socialism was an insidious and foreign ideology let loose on an unsuspecting populace. Socialism is Marxism/Communism by gradualism. It did not evolve as a consequence of the failures of conservatism.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The happiest man in England:

WTF???

[quote]
But surely they could be just as easily radicalised by disenchantment with mainstream parties like I said. The fact that they have never been involved with mainstream parties could very well be evidence that they are disenchanted with them.[/quote]

Obviously they are disenchanted with them.
I never said they weren’t.

[quote]
So the mainstream parties could be said to be radicalising them and not the National Front when they become disenchanted with it.[/quote]

It didn’t say the National Front was radicalising them.

I said this

[quote]Since they won’t govern and don’t influence the mainstream parties in any remotely useful way, their only real achievement, beside the undermining of the communist party, is that they make a quarter of the french electorate worried, angry… and powerless. De facto.
Now, what will do all the people they convinced when they will realize that their political investment is (and was from the beginning) totally vain ?[/quote]

and i said this :

[quote]
When people are prevented to apply political solutions to what they see as a vital problem, they start radicalizing themselves[/quote]

In other words :
-There is no room for these people in the mainstream parties, since they instrumentalize the “islamization of Europe”.
-They had found a party who pretended to represent them and wanted to fight the islamization of Europe (the National Front), and they now start to realize this party is powerless and won’t actually fight anything.
-Those who doesn’t want to abandon activism altogether will have to find something else. And this will probably involve extra-parliamentary groupuscules, and, in some cases, radical extra-parliamentary groupuscules.

The process already started :
Some of the “founding fathers” of the National Front already left the boat to create their own groups. Bruno Megret’s MNR, Carl Lang’s PDF, Pierre Vial NDP, the “Terre et Peuple” movement, etc. (and if the last one is not extremist, i really don’t know what extremism means).
A growing part of the young generation (les “jeunesses identitaires”) think that “Le Pen is too soft”. They refuse the leadership of Jean Marie Le Pen’s daughter and what they perceive as the “mainstreamization” of the party.

So, no, they are not radicalized by the National Front (rather the contrary). They radicalize themselves because they begin to perceive their National Front adventure as a failure.

The heart of the problem is that our political system currently has no room for them, which force them to sit outside of it.
And if we really want to put the blame on someone, we should probably put it on the media/intelligentsia who managed to make immigration (and ethnic) issues “taboo”.

[quote]
I mentioned socialism as part of the reason why there are no conservatives in Europe. You said the failures of conservatism have more to do with the rise of socialism.[/quote]

I said that the reason why there are no conservatives in Europe has something to do with the weaknesses of conservatism.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes. And i still fail to see how it’s related to our topic.

[quote]
Au contraire - I am citing sources to prove my case that it was not the failures of conservatism nor even a failure of Old Toryism/“Eldonism” that led to socialism but rather socialism was an insidious and foreign ideology let loose on an unsuspecting populace.[/quote]

Technically, these quotes doesn’t prove that socialism was an insidious and foreign ideology let loose on an unsuspecting populace.
They only proves that, a long time ago, someone thought that socialism was an insidious and foreign ideology let loose on an unsuspecting populace…

But even if your interpretation of socialism history is true (mine start a bit earlier, with Saint Simon), that’s not enough to explain its complete disappearance.

Why was conservatism immune system not strong enough to fight back this insidious and foreign ideology ?
Why didn’t conservatism survive at least as a minority, in the opposition ?
Why did conservatism never recovered ?
If conservatism had no weakness, what made socialism so strong, comparatively ?

No.
But “marxism/communism by gradualism” is a form of socialism.

Correct.

Neither did I. I said disenchantment with the National Front would not be likely to radicalise them anymore than disenchantment with mainstream parties that they are not involved with. I didn’t express it well:

SM: “…and not the National Front when they become disenchanted with it.”

Okay I understand what you are saying now. We are really just quibbling over cause and effect.

Where blame should be apportioned is not really relevant.

Au contraire. You said:

[quote]The next question is “why is there no conservatives in Europe ?”.
And i’m afraid the answer is not socialist international conspiracy. [/quote]

You mention Saint Simon below. It’s difficult to pin a point in history and say that’s where socialism begins. I would say the Hussite movement was certainly a model for the French revolution. And there have been similiar movements throughout history. But of course, I was referring to the French revolution and the French intellectuals that sprung up amongst the rotten remnants of the ancien regime. And whilst there is no madman stroking a white cat in control of “international socialism” the intellectuals that drive the movement are malevolent.

Good questions but very involved. A topic for another thread.

Perhaps I didn’t express myself well. What I meant, is that the end result of Marxism/Communism and Socialism are the same(classless society) but that socialism is (supposedly) achieved through slower, incremental changes.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The happiest man in England:

WTF???

[/quote]

Is that incomprehensible or what? That is the extreme level of pandering to islam that the socialists go to. Here is how they defend it. If you ,merely question it, you are a racist. If you speak out against it, you are a racist. If you actually care enough about it to organize politically and use the legitimate legal means for dealing with this, they will brand your party racist, then the government will investigate and persecute you (ie BNP).

Iranian/Press TV asset George Galloway wins Islamic Republic of West Bradford:

Yes, European cities are doing well. Brussels, capital city of the European Union - here are ten of the eighteen ruling Socialist Party caucus members circa 2007:

  1. Fatima Abid

  2. Mustafa Amrani

  3. Samira Attalbi

  4. Mohammed Boukantar

  5. Ahmed al Ktibi

  6. Mounia Mejbar

  7. Mohamed Ouria Ghli

  8. Mahfoudh Romdhani

  9. Sevket Temiz

  10. Faouzia Hariche

Don’t worry. The other eight are socialists. The EU’s global government is in safe hands.

Mark Steyn on “moderate” Muslims:

'…as we always say, the “vast majority” of Muslims oppose “extremism.” These are the so-called “moderate Muslims.”

The “moderate Muslim” is not entirely fictional. But it would be more accurate to call them quiescent Muslims. In the 1930s, there were plenty of “moderate Germans,” and a fat lot of good they did us or them.

We know, because Western politicians and religious leaders tell us so incessantly, that the “vast majority” of Muslims do not support terrorism? Yet how vast is the minority that does? One percent? Ten percent? Here are a couple of examples that suggest it might be rather more. Dr. Mahfooz Kanwar, a sociology professor at Mount Royal College in Calgary, went along to a funeral at the city’s largest mosque and was discombobulated when the man who led the prayers - in Urdu - said, “Oh, God, protect us from the infidels, who pollute us with their vile ways.” Dr. Kanwar said, “How dare you attack my country,” and pointed out to the crowd that he’d known this man for thirty years, most of which time he’d been living on welfare and thus the food on his table came courtesy of the taxes of the hardworking infidels.

As Licia Corbella wrote in the Calgary Sun: “Guess which of the two men is no longer welcome at the Sarcee Trail mosque?”

Final score: Radical Islam 1, Moderate Muslims 0.

Here’s another example: Souleiman Ghali was born in Palestine and, as he put it, raised to hate “Shiites, Christians - and especially Jews.” After emigrating to America, he found himself rethinking these old prejudices and in 1993 helped found a mosque in San Francisco. As Mr. Ghali’s website states: “Our vision is the emergence of an American Muslim identity founded on compassion, respect, dignity, and love.” That’s hard work, especially given the supply of imams. In 2002, Mr. Ghali fired an imam who urged California Muslims to follow the sterling example of Palestinian suicide bombers. Safwat Morsy is Egyptian and speaks barely any English, but he knew enough to sue Mr. Ghali’s mosque for wrongful dismissal and was awarded $400,000. Mr. Ghali was forced off the board and out of any role in the mosque he founded. And, as the Wall Street Journal reported, Safwat Morsy - a man who thinks American Muslims should be waddling around in Semtex belts - is doing a roaring trade: “His mosque is looking to buy a building to accomodate the capacity crowds coming these days for Friday prayers.”

That’s Radical Islam 2, Moderate Muslims 0.

…(O)ne can’t help noticing that the most prominent “moderate Muslims” would seem to be more accurately designated as apostate or ex-Muslims, like the feminist lesbian Canadian Irshad Manji and the California academic Wafa Sultan. It seems likely that the beliefs of Mohammed Atta(9/11 hijacker) are closer to the thinking of most Muslims than those of Ms. Manji are.

The pseudonymous apostate Ibn Warraq makes an important distinction: there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam…all of the official schools of Islamic jurisprudence commend sharia and violent jihad. So a “moderate Muslim” can find no formal authority to support his moderation. And to be a “moderate Muslim” publically means standing up to the leaders of your community, to men like Shaker Elsayed, leader of the Dar al Hijrah, one of America’s largest mosques, who has told his coreligionists in blunt terms: “The call to reform Islam is an alien call.”

And even if you’re truly a “moderate” Muslim, why should you be expected to take on the most powerful men in Islam when the West’s media and political class merely pander to them? What kind of support does the culture give to those who speak out against the Islamists? The Iranians declared a fatwa on Salman Rushdie and he had to go into hiding for more than a decade while his government and others continued fawning on the regime that issued the death sentence. The Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh spoke out and was murdered, and the poseur dissenters of Hollywood were too busy congratulating themselves on their courage and bravery in standing up to Bush even to mention their poor dead colleague in the weepy Oscar montage of the year’s deceased. To speak out against the Islamists means to live in hiding under armed security in the heart of the so-called “free world.”

Meanwhile, Yale offers a place on its campus to a former ambassador-at-large for the murderous Taliban regime…

In 2003, Abdurahman Alamoudi was jailed for attempting to launder money from a Libyan terror-front “charity” into Syria via London. Who’s Abdurahman Alamoudi? He’s the guy who until 1998 cerified Muslim chaplains for the United States military, under the aegis of his Saudi-funded American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. In 1993, at an American military base, at a ceremony to install the first imam in the nation’s armed forces, it was Mr. Alamoudi who presented him with his new insignia of a silver crescent star.

He’s also the fellow who helped devise the three-week Islamic awareness course in California public schools, in the course of which students adopt Muslim names, wear Islamic garb, give up candy and TV for Ramadan, memorize suras from the Koran, learn that “jihad” means “internal personal struggle,” profess the Muslim faith, and recite prayers that begin “In the name of Allah,” etc. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - the same court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words “under God” - decided in this case that making seventh graders play Muslim for two weeks was perfectly fine, just an interesting exposure to a fascinating “culture” from which every pupil can benefit.

Oh, and, aside from his sterling efforts on behalf of multicultural education, Mr. Alamoudi was also an adviser on Islamic matters to Hillary Rodham Clinton.’