In part I of this series, we discussed Nazism, racism, Islamism, and the tendency of the 'conservative' Right to demonize their own to avoid certain labels themselves. Since the definition of the word 'racism' has been increasingly broadened to include almost all discussion of race, especially if you're white, it's important to look at the dictionary definition itself that Joseph so graciously provided last night:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

There it is. The word denotes a hatred of other peoples or a malicious discrimination against them because of their race. What it does not denote is an affection toward one's own people and a desire to defend them and their culture against violence, hegemony, and discrimination by people of other races, nor does it necessitate a callous disregard for the plight of one's own people, nor an acquiescence to every wanton desire of other ethnic groups in an effort to appease them.

We all belong to an ethnic group, or race if you will, like it or not. There is no escaping that fact. At this point, perhaps it would be helpful to define what a race actually is. Steve Sailer gives perhaps the most useful definition when he defines race as, "A partially inbred extended family." This definition best explains why everyone has a natural affiliation towards one's own kind. It is perfectly natural to love one's own extended family, both from a biblical and a purely naturalistic perspective, is it not?

Perhaps one of the reasons Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is so popular is that it repeatedly makes references to bloodlines, ethnicity, soil, and kin. The references to such in Tolkien's books are so replete it would take quite some time to enumerate them now. But as the plot unfolds, it becomes clear that the goal of Mordor is to, "Destroy the world of men." The reader becomes intensely interested in seeing the survival of the people of Gondor, Rohan, the Shire, and the mountain homes of the dwarves. It appeals to us on an instinctual and almost animalistic level, does it not? Was Tolkien a closeted Nazi or crypto-fascist for writing about such things, or is he simply appealing to a common-sense view of the world that almost everyone takes (or at least used to take in the West)? The other thing to note is the connection between the different peoples of Middle Earth and their soil. The Shire folk have the Shire, the Numenoreans have Gondor, the dwarves have the mountains. The peoples are characterized by their land and soil. Is the great Christian writer Tolkien some horrible racial separatist, or is he again appealing common-sense?

It may be somewhat cheesy to bring up a fictional narrative, but I think it illustrates how far Westerners (read: people of European descent) have slid from a basic common-sense view of the world. The Europeans are not racist for wanting to preserve their various ethnic groups on their own soil, they just want to be a people. Who are we to condemn that? Does that mean that they fit the definition of racism above, or are they just using some basic Tolkienesque reasoning?

The question becomes ever more relevant if we look at the demographic trends in Europe, and as I will explain later, the United States. The native peoples of Europe are being swamped by third-world immigrants thanks to the feckless actions of their 'leaders.' These people are also bringing with them considerable crime, hostility toward Europeans, and a religion that is so contrary to even pre-Christian European culture that it baffles the mind.

When Tacitus wrote about the Germanic tribes to the north of the Roman Empire, he basically described them as wild, but they treated their women well, were basically monogamous, and practiced a certain egalitarianism. On the contrary, Islam is an Arabist religion where women are to be treated as chattel, slavery is acceptable, and paranoia is the rule. "Me against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger."

Cultures don't just fall out of mid-air. They come from the various peoples and their geography and religious presuppositions. If foreigners are coming at such a rate that they're not adopting the culture of the nation that adopted them, it's not longer immigration, it's an invasion and colonization. People groups are entitled to self-defense, as the sixth commandment implies, especially when the invaders have a 1350 year history on enslavement and subjugation akin to the terror wreaked by the Assyrians in the ancient world.

Fjordman put the following questions to Charles Johnson recently:

OK Charles, since you make this to be about racism, I'd like to hear your definition of racism. The indigenous population of all European countries is white. If European countries would like to maintain the indigenous population as the majority, this by extension means a white majority. Do you think the people in, say, Norway, have the right to desire an immigration policy which ensures a traditional demographic majority, or is this racism? If so, how come non-European countries are allowed to desire the same thing without being attacked? Since you're so preoccupied with racism, will you also launch an equally passionate campaign against the Whiteness Studies now taught in increasing numbers of American educational institutions, sometimes with the support of public money?

after the whole Vlaams Belang debacle. After this dodge:

No, the debate is not about "white European racism." It's about the disturbing ideologies of two political groups that have hitched a ride on the anti-Islamization movement, and whether it is smart to allow this or, as I believe, it is political suicide. Your question is meaningless in this context.

Fjordman responds:

No Charles, in my view, it is anything but meaningless. This whole public exchange over the past week has been, and still is, enormously damaging to the counter-Jihad efforts, but I do agree with you on one thing: This is not just about egos, it is also about real issues. The question is which issues. My claim is that this debate exposed an anti-white bias in the West as a whole and in the Unites States in particular.

You still didn't answer my question, by the way: Do I have the right to limit immigration in order to preserve the traditional demographic majority in my country, their heritage and culture? Yes or no?

This whole discussion about neo-Nazis is clouding the real issue: Anti-Semitic Fascists already control much of Europe. It's called the European Union. Splitting Belgium, the ideological and geographical heart of the EU, will do a lot to undermine the EU and Eurabia, and this is the policy of the Vlams Block. The British participants of the CJC also agreed with this.

Charles, when he finally answered the original question, responded thusly:

You still didn't answer my question, by the way: Do I have the right to limit immigration in order to preserve the traditional demographic majority in my country, their heritage and culture? Yes or no?

Yes. Are you happy now?

Now answer my question: is it smart for the counter-jihad movement to make allies of parties with undeniable fascist and racist backgrounds?

I suspect you'll answer yes.

Emphasis mine.

During the entire exchange, the wicked little moonbats at LGF were slinging vitriol onto Fjordman to the uttermost. Fjordman, one of the best thinkers in the blogosphere on jihadism, and one of the few who's willing to risk his life for his cause, was treated like a troll by people who should have thought first before they spoke. To his credit, Fjordman didn't respond in kind. The comments on LGF now sound like the very howlings of hell, they've degraded so far into moonbattery and doublethink.

Note that Charles finally answered Fjordman in the affirmative. Does that make him a racist, a crypto-fascist, or a Nazi? No. It merely means he acknowledges the aforementioned common-sense facts about the world and applied them after much dodging and doublethink. I suggest we all do the same before slandering others. I will humbly attempt to address the demographic situation in the United States in the same manner in Part III.