A sea of content available online ready to be distributed via paper

You do not have to be a writer genius to become an editor of a conservative newspaper/magazine. There is a vast ocean of well written stories, essays etc. critical of multiculturalism and in support the conservative view that has never been published by the MSM. There are probably more than 20-30 internet based right wing blog-news-sites which will gladly offer to forward their essays/stories to you as long as you credit them as the author. As such, anyone who wants to start their own English/French/German/Spanish speaking etc. conservative newspaper/magazine could easily gain access to a vast database of stories and articles presently unpublished in paper format and you would therefore not need to hire any journalists/reporters.

Costs related to paper distribution

I have acquired a price estimate from the largest all-in-one publishing companies in Oslo: 07 Group. Since the general price level in Norway is quite expensive I would assume that this would be even cheaper in other countries.

 

Distribution/copies: 5000

Format: 19,5x27,5 cm (standard magazine format)

Pages: 96

Press: 4/4 CMYK

Paper: 90g arctic volume white H or equivalent

Assembled: two metal staples (back-stapled)

Address printing on copies: 500 separate addresses printed on each copy from subscriber database

Packaging: freely on palette

Price for 5 000 copies: 4482 Euro (without sales tax)

Price per copy: 0,9 Euro (without sales tax)

Price per additional 1000 copies: 481 Euro

The price is based on the following:

Material: The publishing company receive a PDF file from the blog/news site.The final file may be reviewed by the company before print.

End note: realistically, it is likely that at least 50% of publications attempting to go from the internet into paper format will fail, due to politically motivated sabotage or refusal from the distributor (after pressure from local or national government or other political left wing pressure groups. However, seeking national distributions for publications critical of multiculturalism should be a prioritised task and we owe it to everyone to do our best in this process. As of now, there are no cultural conservative paper publication in Norway, Sweden and several Western European countries. As for Denmark; BT and Jyllands Posten are considered somewhat remotely conservative.

 

 

Because our survival depends on it

 

 

“He who saves his country, violates no law.”

Napoleon

 

 

The Strategy of Western Survivalists

By Fjordman

 

I have mentioned several times the possibility that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have done. The enemy has been regrouping and now largely controls our media and educational institutions less than a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We did not have public trials against the supporters of Marxism just as we did against Nazism. That was a serious mistake, and it is of paramount importance that we do not repeat it. If or when the European Union collapses and multiculturalism is defeated across the Western world, we need to stage public trials against the creators of Eurabia and the lies continuously told by our media and academia. They need to be exposed as evil and politically crushed.

This leads us to ask the following questions: Less than a generation after the fall of the totalitarian Soviet Union and its puppet regimes in Eastern Europe, we are watching the rise of the European Union, which is rapidly moving in a totalitarian direction in Western Europe. Some of the former Communist countries in Europe are now freer than their Western cousins, although this will soon change as they are indoctrinated by the EU. Is there a connection between the fall of the USSR and the rise of the EUSSR, as former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy[1] has indicated? Have we entered the Cold War, part 2? I notice how many former Marxists now passionately support multiculturalism and mass immigration, and listened to one prominent Communist “intellectual” in my country attack free speech as a concept a few days ago. Could the European Union ever have been a good idea, or was it flawed from its very inception? That’s something to ponder. I’m willing to consider the possibility that something “went wrong” with the EU at some point, but right now I’m leaning towards the conclusion that the EU has always been a flawed institution. Most of us just didn’t see it for what it was.

Lastly, I will focus on Milton Friedman, who along with F. Hayek is one of the villains of Klein’s book. According to her, Friedman has stated that “only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” Friedman believes that during a crisis, we only have a brief window of opportunity before society slips back into the “tyranny of the status quo,” and that we need to use this opportunity or lose it.

This is actually very good advice, and it’s in my view the strategy Western survivalists should now follow. When I first started blogging I was concerned with how we could “fix the system.” I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed, and perhaps shouldn’t be fixed. Not only does it have too many enemies, it also has too many internal contradictions. If we define the “system” as mass immigration from alien cultures, globalism, multiculturalism and suppression of free speech in the name of “tolerance,” then this is going to collapse. It’s inevitable.

The goal of Western survivalists — and that’s what we are — should not be to “fix the system,” but to be mentally and physically prepared for its collapse, and to develop coherent answers to what went wrong and prepare to implement the necessary remedies when the time comes. We need to seize the window of opportunity, and in order to do so, we need to define clearly what we want to achieve.

What, exactly, is Western civilisation? What went wrong with it, and how can we survive and regenerate as a vulnerable minority in an increasingly hostile world?

Let the debate begin.

 

Source:

 

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/strategy-of-western-survivalists.html

1. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

 

 

Christianity, Pros and Cons

 

By Fjordman

 

Blogger Vanishing American[1] continues what is gradually becoming one of the most important discussions of our age: What role does, or should, Christianity play in Western civilisation? Is it the bedrock of our culture[2], as Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch thinks, and is our decline associated with abandoning it? Or is Christianity, as John Derbyshire puts it[3], a religion for once and future slaves, an ideology that is now fueling globalist ideals and undermining our borders through mass immigration?

 

The Christian-non-Christian divide is perhaps the most difficult divide to overcome within the West today. I’m struggling with this myself. Some of the criticism of Christianity, or at least the way many Western Christians are behaving now, is legitimate. I have heard Catholics claim that multiculturalism and Political Correctness are tied to Protestant culture. I’m willing to consider that possibility. There are significant doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants regarding redemption and the sinful nature of man. Maybe some of this is tied to the Protestant concept of “salvation through Faith alone.” However, when it comes to just plain old-fashioned dhimmitude and abandoning national borders, Catholics are at least as bad as Protestants.

 

The Second Vatican Council from the 1960s was good for reaching out to Christians of other denominations, Protestant and Orthodox, and for reaching out to Jews. The problematic aspect is in relations to Islam. The big Achilles’ heel of Christians in general, and of Jews, when confronted with Islam is the idea of a “shared community of monotheists worshiping the God of Abraham.” As long as this myth is maintained, Christianity can actually in certain situations be a bridge for Islam to enter the West, rather than a bulwark against it. I have seen more than once Christians making common cause with Muslims as “men of faith” against the godless forces of secularism. I notice, however, that Christians hardly ever do the same with, say, Hindus, so it must have something to do with a shared sense of monotheism.

 

Christianity is growing fast in South Korea. It is interesting to see how newly converted Christians react in non-Western nations. I’ve been critical of Christianity sometimes because it is one of the impulses behind the Western inability to protect our borders, and it is. But it is Christianity within a specific cultural-ideological context that reacts like this. Koreans don’t have the same problem, as far as I know. Nor did we, until the 1960s and 70s. So what changed? It can’t all be related to Christianity, can it?

 

As vanishing American writes[4]:

 

These days we hear so many arguments against Christianity, such as from the ‘proselytising atheists’ like Dawkins and Hitchens, and then we hear the arguments from the secular right which attack Christianity for being too pacifistic. The atheists claim that Christianity fomented violence, and that it is as militant and bloodthirsty as Islam, or in fact worse, and on the other side, we hear that Christianity is a religion of slaves, which weakens and emasculates the West. So Christianity gets it from both sides; it’s too militant, it causes wars and persecutions, and at the same time, it's a religion that turns men into milquetoast pacifists. Does this make any sense?

Christianity contains elements of both militancy and pacifism, but it is not one or the other. […] We know that our forefathers did not believe Christianity commanded them to be pacifists, or to erase borders and nations. To assert that they, for centuries, were wrong and that we are the first generation to really understand Christianity and the Bible is arrogant in the extreme. If anything, we today, on the average, are far more ignorant than our ancestors where the Bible and the faith are concerned. If anybody is wrongly handling the word of God, it is likely to be us, not our forefathers. Their brains were at least not addled by nonsense and Political Correctness, and I trust the consensus of our forefathers through the centuries rather than the consensus among today’s compromised generation.

In a comment on VA’s blog one of his readers writes[5]:

I used to be a devout, practicing Christian. Today, I cannot recognise myself in any brand of Christianity currently available. Nor am I alone. Many of my friends tell me: “I can't enter any church now without having to leave my brain at the door.”

In this regard, the evangelist, fundamentalist churches are no better than the liberal ones. I once attended a presentation at a nearby Pentecostal church about Third World poverty. The cause? Lack of infrastructure. All we had to do was dig deeper into our pockets and the problem would be solved.

I’m sorry to say this but the cause is deeply rooted and largely intractable, at least in the short term. We will not help the world’s poor by welcoming them to our shores. We will simply destroy ourselves in the process.

John Derbyshire is more right than wrong. Yes, medieval Christianity had no qualms about resisting invaders, but medieval Christians (as Protestants love to point out) had adulterated their faith with pagan beliefs. Over the past few centuries, Christianity has stripped itself of its pagan accretions. In the process, it has become as much a threat to ourselves and our loved ones as Marxism used to be, if not more so.

That sounds like a harsh judgment. It is.

 

 

Source:

 

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2383

 

1. http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/

2. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017941.php

3. http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/christianity_good_islam_bad.php

4. http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/08/which-christianity-part-ii.html

5. http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/08/which-christianity.html