Save Western Civilization > Save Europe

Basic JTF ideology for European countries

<< < (9/13) > >>

Ulli:

--- Quote from: Moralist on August 20, 2010, 02:16:20 AM ---
--- Quote from: D2I on June 23, 2009, 05:40:22 PM ---
--- Quote from: FreedomFighter08 on February 17, 2009, 04:08:07 PM ---Europe needs saving. It's now overrun by Affirmative Action Muslims, Socialists, and Nazis.

--- End quote ---

The nazis are minor nunance now, i would worry more about the communist/leftwingers  who are equally anti-Semitic to the neonazis and they are way larger in numbers and better organized then the neonazis will ever dream of becoming.

--- End quote ---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_%28communist_current%29


--- Quote ---Anti-German (German: Antideutsch) is the generic name applied to a variety of theoretical and political tendencies within the radical, communist left mainly in Germany and Austria. The Anti-Germans emerged as a distinct political tendency as a response to the rise in racist attacks and nationalism in the wake of the German reunification. "German" should be understood in the sense of criticism of ideology.

The term does not generally refer to any one specific radical left tendency, but rather a wide variety of distinct currents, ranging from the so-called "hardcore" Anti-Germans such as the quarterly journal Bahamas to "softcore" Anti-Germans such as the circle around the radical left journal Phase 2, originally conceived as a federal discussion bulletin for the Antifa movement in the wake of the dissolution of the Antifaschistische Aktion/Bundesweite Organisation(Antifascist Action/nationwide Organisation). Some Anti-German ideas have also exerted an influence on the broader radical leftist milieu, such as the monthly magazine konkret and the weekly newspaper Jungle World.

Furthermore, the most common practical and theoretical position commonly associated with the anti-Germans, that of solidarity with the state of Israel, is not a position exclusive to the Anti-Germans. The groups Krisis and Exit around the publicist Robert Kurz,[1] as well as many Antifa groups in Germany also hold Israel-sympathetic opinions, while rejecting any identification with the Anti-German current.

The basic opinions of the Anti-Germans include support for the state of Israel and - although this is only true for some - American foreign policy such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a critique of mainstream left anti-capitalist views, which are thought to be simplistic and structurally anti-Semitic,[2] and a critique of anti-Semitism, which is considered to be deeply rooted in German cultural history. The Critical Theory of Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer is often cited by Anti-German theorists along with the original Marxist.[3] In 2006 Deutsche Welle estimated the number of Anti-Germans at between 500 and 3,000.[4]

--- End quote ---

--- End quote ---

Actually I like this group. But I highly doubt, that they are communists. Plus they are a very small miniority. If all "leftists" would be like this guys, we all would love leftism.  :)

Moralist:
A related group in the Netherlands:

http://www.doorbraak.eu/gebladerte/30091v01.htm


--- Quote ---De Fabel van de illegaal 62, January/February 2004

Author: Eric Krebbers


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not coming to the rescue of multiculturalism

It is by now "politically correct" in the Netherlands to be against multiculturalism. Everyday politicians and opinion leaders are bashing the "the completely failed multicultural society", as they call it. They want to force refugees and immigrants to "integrate", and internalize "the Dutch language and culture". This attack is clearly motivated by racism. But should the radical Left defend multiculturalism because of that?

A few years ago the multicultural ideology was still central to mainstream politics. Policy makers, opinion makers, the professional middleclass and worried civilians could almost all be considered multiculturalists. Central to multiculturalism is the "recognition of the cultural diversity" of the Netherlands. Other "national cultures" should be respected as much as possible. And different habits and traditions of immigrants should be seen in their "cultural context" and therefore not be condemned to quickly. On the pretext of "unity in diversity" immigrants should be given their own place in society in order to save "their own culture". Also measures should be taken to help immigrants socially and economically. In this context there's sometimes also talk of the problem of Dutch racism. The positive and optimistic image of multiculturalism, back then, depended for a large part on its firm disapproval of racism and the organized extreme Right.

Imaginations

When we look at society, our political vision mostly determines what we see. The radical Left, of course, first and foremost sees capitalist, patriarchal and racist power relations that have to be fought. Multiculturalists, on the other hand, mostly want to see a lot of "national cultures" that differ a lot from each other, and which should all be saved if possible. Thinking in "cultures" and their accessory "peoples" is a nationalist political choice. Like nationalism, multiculturalism also suppresses the awareness of power relations within these alleged "peoples" and the oppressive practices within these alleged "national cultures". Actually "peoples" and "national cultures" are nothing but imaginations promoted by people in power who want to undermine the Left struggle against oppression. "National cultures" and the multicultural society only exist as a product of all continuous activities aimed at "saving" those "cultures".

Especially immigrants and refugees are being addressed in connection with their "national culture". They are supposed to see themselves in the first place as representatives of some or another "national culture". They should all hand over that one special "national culture" - and not some other - to their children, for instance by special lessons in "their own language". All immigrant and refugee behavior is supposedly guided by "their culture". In this way the "Moroccan culture" supposedly determines the behavior of boys whose parents or even grandparents have left Morocco long ago. Also, immigrants and refugees are supposed to especially aid members of "their own cultural community". Even those immigrants and refugees, who regarded the "culture" in "their own country" to be too restrictive and fled to the Netherlands to escape it, are here being glued to "their culture" again by multiculturalists. For the government always recognizes and sponsors the most conservative immigrant and refugee organizations which supposedly best represent "the original cultures" of the countries of origin. Organizations based on more progressive ideas would supposedly not be "authentically" enough "culturally". In that way the government affirms the unequal power relations within immigrant and refugee communities and weakens the position of workers, women and minorities. The government for instance regularly meets with imams and mosque leaders as if they represent all immigrants and refugees from Turkey and Morocco.

New Right

Although their protests against the extreme Right are mostly sincere, multiculturalists do share with the extreme Right the central idea that all people are determined by and belong in "their own culture". The new Right current within the extreme Right movement even made "culture" their central concept. The new Right and multiculturalism both see the world first and foremost as covered with a colorful blanket of numerous "unique cultures". "We must strive for the conservation of a most diversified multicultural world as possible, accepting the absolute equality of all cultures", says Luc Pauwels, the most important ideologist of the Flemish extreme Right party Vlaams Blok.(1) "In the multicultural vision there's no room for universal human rights like those of the French revolutionaries. Instead, it should be recognized that people are predestined - by historical, geographical and many other factors – to live in different places, to uphold their own traditions and rituals, and to use different moral codes and languages."

The most important difference with the multiculturalists is that, although Pauwels favors a multicultural world, he is against multicultural states. "No roots without land, no culture without roots. Every identity is threatened with assimilation and disappearance if one separates it from territoriality", Pauwels thinks. And different "cultures" next to each other in one country would automatically lead to civil war or dictatorship, according to Pauwels. Most multiculturalists, on the other hand, are in favor of a dialogue between the alleged "national cultures" in one country, and against Pauwel's apartheid or separatism. Also, the new Right wants to promote "the own culture", but because of "the right to diversity" it does not want to force it upon other "peoples". According to Pauwels that would be "cultural imperialism". Multiculturalists on the other hand very seldom explicitly refer to their "own national culture". But through their one sided and paternalistic focus on "ethnic minorities" and "their cultures" they implicitly define themselves as the starting point, as normal.

Spring rolls

Also because they could count on the warm support of the conservative elites of immigrant communities, multiculturalism remained an interesting ideology for the Dutch political elite for a long time. Multiculturalism creates separate communities centered around different "cultures". That resembles the model that dominated Dutch society since the beginning of the twentieth century and which was very effective against radical resistance. The working class was in this way kept divided and each part was ruled by the elites of their own community (catholic, protestant, socialist and other). That made solidarity difficult and organizing counter power from below virtually impossible.

Multiculturalism also comes in very handy when advertising the exploitation and exclusion of worker migrants. Multiculturalists always stress how much worker migrants and refugees add to "our" economy and "the cultural live". They tell moving stories of hardworking Turks cleaning "our" toilets, of artistic Africans crafting such beautiful art for "us" and the Vietnamese spoiling "us" with their spring rolls. Multiculturalism likes to ascribe certain "cultural" capacities to every population group. Much less interested are the multiculturalists in immigrants or refugees who cannot, or who are not allowed to, make themselves useful for "our economy". These people shouldn't count on support from the multiculturalists when they are for instance threatened with deportation. Although multiculturalists do protest against extreme Right racism, they never do so against the racism of the state or the deportation machine.

Assimilation

By the end of the nineties the growing racism and the dominance of the Right led to the elite dropping multiculturalism. The multicultural nationalism that promotes "every group its own culture" got traded in for a conservative nationalism with its forced assimilation policy. Immigrants and refugees are being pressured more and more to embrace conservative and capitalist norms and values considered to be "the Dutch culture". This development occurs simultaneously with the need at the top to find a black sheep to focus on in these times of economic problems.

The current Right criticism on the multicultural society always contains hardly hidden racism against immigrants, refugees and Islam. Although the radical left also has a lot of criticism on multiculturalism, it is not very wise to start attacking it right now. It is better to fight racism, without defending multiculturalism. For the radical Left should not get involved in the thinking in terms of "cultures". Or be seduced to classifying humans in "cultures" or "peoples". Or pleading for dialogues between "cultures", whatever that may be. Nor striving for "cultural conservation". But also not for a "cosmopolitan culture". Instead of looking at "cultures" for the causes of all kinds of injustices, the radical Left should simply focus its attention on unequal power relations and fight them.

Note

1. "Een spook dwaalt door Europa...", Luc Pauwels. In: TeKos 95, 1999.

--- End quote ---

SHALOM2:
I am an infidel or if you prefer a volunteer with the EDL in the UK. The people of Europe are sick to death of this cancerous ideology called islam. I say the people of Europe and not the politicians, as they are as dangerous as the cancer we wish to repel. We in the EDL are called right wing fascists, lol, which couldn't be further from the truth. Our volunteers are ordinary working class citizens demonstrating peacefully to protect our childrens heritage. The Jewish EDL is of the same principles. Our politicians being either Christian or Jewish are the biggest danger to this country. Greed and corruption knows no bounds. We have over a thousand mosques in our tiny island, and over 100 sharia courts. All of this cancer must be removed. As the Prime Minister of Turkey said, THE MOSQUES ARE OUR BARRACKS, THE DOME OUR HELMETS AND THE MINARETS OUR SPEARS. If this isn't a declaration of a take over, then I am a monkeys uncle. Islam must be banned from the West along with the war manual, the koran.
NO SURRENDER-AND LONG LIVE ISRAEL. SHALOM.
 

Yaakov Mendel:

I have to say I do not like this thread very much. There are people with different opinions and backgrounds in JTF and this list of principles does not necessarily reflect everyone's views. New members who are not familiar with JTF yet may be deterred by this kind of declaration if they view it as leaving no room for debate.

1pen2books:
Up to the moment and reading te history of Europe or of the whole world I have never seen a single case where a dramatical change of the social and political situation was changed by peaceful means.
If one wants realistic and clear changes, it is necessary the use of violence.
Concentrating our atention on the Islam-problem, what I said above becomes logical.
In fact, Islam wouldn´t be able to keep on invading Europe if leftist politicians and  parties, some help organizations, school and universities teachers and neighbours asociations in towns were ....say....controled in a way or the other.
Violence is necesssary.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page