Saturday, April 07, 2007

Two Variables: Patience and Impatience

Kepiblanc responded thoughtfully in the comments to Michiel Mans’ post about the impending European Civil War. His essay is worth reproducing here in its entirety.

He was replying to to Zerosumgame, who asked, “Who wins?”:

Well, we do — of course.

Patience, by Gilbert and SullivanA religion, an ideology, a culture or an empire have three strategic options: to win by the word, the sword or the womb. In the case of Islam, the first two are out of question. To convince intelligent people to adopt the unbelievable stupidity of Islam is impossible, and hasn’t been accomplished anywhere. Up until now the expansion of Islam has been by the sword and the sword alone. Islam has managed to defeat several medieval cultures, mostly by outnumbering them in theater, and by use of excessive brutality. Not by military skills such as tactics, weapons technology or bravery. And Arabic armies are notorious for their incompetence, disorganization and fatalistic cowardliness. They never managed to go further northwest than Poitiers-Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna, where they met far superior cultures.

With respect to those two options — the word and the sword — Islam’s strategic situation is completely hopeless today. Surrounded on all sides by people who have gone through some process of enlightenment, education and technological evolution Islam finds itself in an abysmal cul-de-sac.

That leaves Islam with one option, and one option only: exporting their birth-surplus. In fact, that’s not a real option, but a necessity. Islamic countries are unable to feed their own populations, and increasingly so. When — not if — the oil wells run dry they’ll starve to death unless they can a) take over Europe or b) scuttle Islam.
- - - - - - - - - -
So, they’ve chosen to take over Europe. So far it’s going reasonably well with some 50 million Muslims already in place and another 70 million soon to enter via the EU-nomenklatura’s high treason. But almost all those Muslims are entering strange lands indeed: highly civilized, technologically advanced nations with diverse and complex infrastructure and — first and foremost — educated, polite, patient citizens who don’t turn to violence easily. At least not until the straw breaks the camel’s back. And that back is weakened by the hour. The majority of the intruders are uneducated, primitive, ignorant welfare-receivers whose only skill is reproduction. They live on the camel’s mercy. Without the naïve support of the “chattering classes” they’d be toast.

Now, let’s take a look at the battlefield and the echelons. The Islamic Army can muster some 50-100 million individuals. But half of them are women and the rest whining, screaming, seething amateurs led by crazy imams acting as dilettantish officers. They are unable to rely on their fifth column white “intellectuals” who haven’t any military skills whatsoever. And almost none of their numerous offspring make it past elementary school. They don’t use the terrain, don’t spread out or fortify perimeters but stay lumped together in big cities. Here they can fight by means of wreaking havoc, carbeques, looting, raping and — generally speaking — harming themselves. Only one offensive tactic has worked, namely terror. By inducing fear into “the chattering classes” can they postpone the inevitable: their unconditional surrender

The Muslim Army doesn’t have a clue about its opponents’ strength. They don’t know that in a heartbeat that enemy can cut off their fortresses — the cities — from everything, food, water, power, communications, heating, sewage, clothes. Everything but childbirth. And they still don’t realize that their Quisling-friends among the politicians and in the MSM are blind, naïve and completely dissociated from the public at large. They live on illusions, bravado and mercy.

The culprit for the Muslims is time. The variables are patience on one side and impatience on the other. If they choose the first option and hope that continued baby-booming will do the job, they’ll have to restrain from major violence and terror at least some 50-100 years in order to collect the vital welfare from the surrounding productive community. And even then all those babies will stay uneducated, unskilled, primitive, and ignorant. Unless they don’t. If not, they’ll hardly stay Muslims. So their choices are: produce hordes of losers, savages, — and, in the end, starving children — or see them assimilate, integrate into society, grow a brain, discover common sense and dignity In short: abandon Islam.

If — on the other hand — they are impatient and choose the second option, namely to go for a quick and violent takeover, they’re no less doomed. In that case they cannot even hope for Quisling-support. The battle will be over almost before it starts: they’re too few to make deportation impossible and the more violent they get, the fewer restrictions will bind their opponents’ hands. In any case: it’s over.

Michiel Mans thinks the “civil war” will come much sooner than 2025. I agree. And I hope so. We’re already in a ‘phoney war’ with micro-battles all over the place and the rumbling of the deep underground is becoming stronger by the hour. And the rumbling is articulated: ENOUGH.

53 comments:

Ivan said...

"They never managed to go further northwest than Poitiers-Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna, where they met far superior cultures."

Superior cultures, or superior IQs?
After all one of the greatest predictors of military success is the relative intelligence of the army in question. That is why most armies rigorously screen for IQ and base their officer organisation on one great IQ based caste system.

White Europeans have an enormous and documented IQ advantage over most of the Muslim world, especially in relation to the North African and Arab immigrants. It is for this reason that I think - even if white Europeans were a minority vis-a-vis the Muslims, they would still defeat them in open war quite easily due to the IQ divergence. After all, the high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews vis-a-vis their Arab foes is THE main reason why they have repeatedly outwitted and defeated them on the battlefield, and also explains why, despite having such small numbers, they are still considered the preeminent superpower in the region. The g-factor, general intelligence, and its relation to military victories is an area of history just waiting to be explored.

I'm sure that one of the main reasons the Muslims never succeeded in conquering Europe, even when they had superior numbers, was because they didn't have the requisite IQs.

gun-totin-wacko said...

I have some issues with this whole post. Some of them have been addressed in the original thread, but I would argue that Arabic soldiers are not inherently less brave than others-Jew or European.

I'm nowhere near being an expert, but my understanding is that the Arabic culture, being based on nomadic herding relies on mobility and deception. Thus, Arabic people for cultural reasons, make better "terrorists" than "soldiers". Their culture says strike where the enemy is weak, and get away before he brings superior resources to bear. For most of recorded history, this is how they have fought.

However, with training and equipment, they can make decent- perhaps not good, but decent- soldiers. Witness the 1973 War, where Israel just assumed that the Arab armies would collapse at the first sign of an attack. They learned their lesson, though still winning a major victory.

In my experience from the US Army Infantry School as well as discussions with a friend who lived in the Mideast for several years, there are problems with making soldiers of Arabs. They are often, to put it somewhat delicately, not highly motivated. They tend to work hard to get out of hard work. My friend had a military student learning English as training for an educational assignment in Europe. He asked the man, a devout Muslim, how he would manage to balance his religion with his duties when he reached the assignment. The man replied that he wasn't going to go on the assignment, but was taking the class only to get out of training with his unit.

Finally, I would mention that these traditions are both good and bad, from a conventional military standpoint. The armies of Saladin, for instance, as I understand it had many-perhaps mostly- non-Arabs. Persians, Turks, etc. The Arabs were used as scouts and raiders. With a conventional force to support them, they worked very well. In regular operations, no.

So combine the "raider mentality" with nationalism and a religious fanaticism, and you get a man who will blend into a crowd and blow up anyone- men, women and children- for the sake of his God.

And that makes for a scary opponent.

Dymphna said...

gun-toter said (not all that wackily)--

So combine the "raider mentality" with nationalism and a religious fanaticism, and you get a man who will blend into a crowd and blow up anyone- men, women and children- for the sake of his God.

In the short run, and on a small scale what you describe is effective. And if you have homocidal maniacs using bio-chemical weapons, it could be an even larger scale success. I mean, what if the 9/11 bozos had decided to bring those along on their mission?

But even those are not large enough. The kinds of evil acts -- the ones that go beyond the realm of rationality -- eventually become the straws that our poster talks about: the ones that break the spine of the civilized camel that keeps us polite, nice and well-meaning. Kill him, and then the rules of engagement undergo a metamorphosis...and those who guard the perimeters, as k.p. put it, will be ready. They are ready. It's just that we are not among them. We are the sheep, they are the sheep dogs. The invaders are the wolves, circling, circling.

Wolves are smart and cunning creatures, but sheep dogs are even smarter.

I wasn't going to post on this phenomenon, of the point where people begin to say BASTA!...I mean given that it's Easter and all, I wanted to ignore the brutality for awhile.

However, the time is ripe. As we believers say, it is a kairos moment. In this case, the proper time to talk about how this is beginning to change even now, especially in the UK.

Their camel is on life support and the nomenklatura haven't a clue that it's dying.

I can't whip up a post very quickly -- I am a tortoise blogger compared to the Baron -- but I'll have something up today. In between fixing Easter baskets and working with a teenager, showing him how to succeed in school even when the deck is stacked against you, I'll be clipping from links sent by our readers, and adding my own pov.

Consider what I put up next as merely a coda to what kepi blanc has described so precisely...

Roy said...

"They never managed to go further northwest than Poitiers-Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna, where they met far superior cultures."

Superior cultures, or superior IQs?
After all one of the greatest predictors of military success is the relative intelligence of the army in question. That is why most armies rigorously screen for IQ and base their officer organisation on one great IQ based caste system.


My understanding of history is that both those affairs were shaky propositions. I tend to much believe that providence plays a larger role in historical outcomes than it gets credit for. I find that a bit unsettling these days.

livfreerdie said...

The only problem I see is that when it comes to the last straw is the EU and UK citizens are not as well armed as the Americans. I see it getting bloody with an attack on our schools and children which will lead to an enormous blood-letting against anyone resembling a Middle Easterner. I question that has had me pondering, and giving me a headache, is on what side will the military stand.

Tom

Mission Impossible said...

I would have thought, the Communists and Wet-Liberals that have had the American State Department under their control since the 1940s (when McCarthy announced his 400 odd list of names) is a far bigger threat to Western civilization than Islam or Muslims. Every major foreign policy initiative coming out of the USA since Eisenhower's incompetence over Suez has been well to the left of Socialist.

Voyager said...

The only problem I see is that when it comes to the last straw is the EU and UK citizens are not as well armed as the Americans

Wow...gun ownership really stopped Mexico from populating Us cities

robert in england said...

Nor should we forget that the greatest warriors of islam were the Jannisaries, who were Christians taken from their families while young and raised to fight for the sultan.
Even the Ottomans didnt trust muslims as soldiers.

Jeremia said...

From now on, disregard anything put on the web by Sir Henry Morgan. My google/blogger/blogspot account has been hacked, profile altered, password changed.

This post will come up under the name "jeremia". No, I never created any account in this name.

Given some of my machine's behaviour - for instance I can't get into Up Pompeii - I suspect I've been hacked too. Problem is, my security (Zonelabs suite) tells me I'm clear. However, when I checked earlier, some of my settings had been changed, so ... hacked?

I'll start a new account when I can think of a name I like, and when I get the disk I need to reformat. It'll be a week or two.

I'm posting this here because lots of people read this blog.

Thanks for your indulgence Baron, Dymphna.

kepiblanc said...

Gun-toting whacko said : So combine the "raider mentality" with nationalism and a religious fanaticism, and you get a man who will blend into a crowd and blow up anyone- men, women and children- for the sake of his God.

Maybe, but we're talking about Europe here. Especially up here North it's not exactly easy for a Muslim to "blend in". So after a few bombs going off in public places I reckon it will be really hard - and dangerous too - for "raiders" to go anywhere. Bombs or no bombs.

And about the Muslim "soldier", just to illustrate his wisdom : in Denmark every man - including "Danish" Muslims - must appear in front of a military board who will submit him to a psycho-technical test and an IQ evaluation. But very, very few Muslims pass the tests whereby they exclude themselves from getting military training and weapons skills. So, either they fake the tests or ..eh... 'nough said.

FluffResponse said...

Passive people will avoid confrontation for as long as possible. Am not sure that the primitives will lose, though it's cheering to hear that someone thinks so.

At least the word is getting out. It's okay to deplore Islam.

Conservative Swede said...

"They never managed to go further northwest than Poitiers-Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna, where they met far superior cultures."

We lost all of Northern Africa and the Near East to them. All of it Christian homeland, with the same Greek-Roman-Christian cultural heritage as ourselves. We lost Minor Asia, Constantinople, etc., and most recently Kosovo. And we do not seem to be planning to get it back.

IQ is a minor factor. It is the will power to win that counts. And Jihadists are exceptionally highly motivated.

Ivan said...

Kepiblanc - yes that would be in line with European norms. Muslims (esp Arabs & West Africans) have difficulty getting into the army due to the IQ tests. The latest data from Lynns 'Race differences in Intelligence' puts the avg Middle Eastern (incl South Asians & North Africans) IQ at 84 (the rich oil states avgd this low as well, so you can't blame it on lack of nutrition). This is 1 SD below the European mean.

These people would be no threat in a proper one-on-one war even if they had superior numbers.

ConservativeSwede - With terrorism things get a little fuzzier, as within the Muslim population there is great VARIANCE in IQ. Most terrorists, for example, seem to be self-selected from a high-IQ substratum of the Muslim population. These guys know their stuff (you don't design complex bombs and elude capture for long with a decent brain) The British guys I believe were of Pakistani descent, a substratum of whom (usually with last names like Khan) are highly intelligent, even more so than whites, and make up a disproportionate number of western doctors etc. These are they guys that need to be focused on for counter-terrorist purposes.

Most Muslims are too unintelligent to conduct a proper terrorist plot and elude capture, which is why there have not been many attacks in France etc, where Muslim immigrants come from very low IQ regions of the world. They just pointlessly set fire to stuff, and are easily containable (were the political willpower there). A lot of immigrants to Scandinavia are Somali, who are woefully unintelligent. Lynns IQ and the Wealth of Nations didn't have data on Somali IQ due to the fact that it has no govnt, but neighbouring Ethopia scored 63! So one would expect Somalia to be in a similar range. From a terrorist/all out war perspective, we really don't need to worry about them. Just crush the low IQ rapists and leave the rest alone (and of course stop any more from coming)

Robert in england - interesting point about the jannisaries. I wonder if they were selected on the basis of IQ? I know that old Byzantiums main guard, the high-IQ Scandinavian Varangians, were selected on the basis of their military prowess (strongly correlated with IQ) They were the best soldiers in the Empire, the only ones who successfully defended their part of Constantinople against the fourth crusaders.

Conservative Swede said...

Ivan,

My point about IQ is that it won't help us with higher IQ if we do not have the will power to win, the focus to win; if we do not even have the concept of what it is to win (cf. Iraq e.g.)

Islam has always been underestimated by West. Instead Western powers have been focusing on fighting each other. This is how Byzantium was lost. Last time around Westerners attacked other Europeans in order to hand over Kosovo to the Muslims on a platter.

I just don't think that it is wise to continue this historical mistake of underestimating them.

They took more than half of what was once the Roman Empire. And the idea doesn't even exists in our minds to take it back. This is the most definite measure of military victory. They are historically far superior to us in military victories.

Those were other days, you would surely say. But their strongest weapon remains the same--their religion. Their fear of their god and of Islamic hell. And the guarantee of going to heaven (including wine and kinky sex) if dying in battle, or the promise of gang raping right-hand possessions if the battle is won.

A win-win situation for their repressed libidos, that is. A diabolically effective formula.

al fin said...

It is possible for muslims to "blend in" inside Europe if Europeans willfully blind themselves to obvious differences. Multiculturalism is alive and well in Sweden, Norway, Belgium, and the UK. Intentional self-blinding is popular among post-modern multiculturalists in Europe.

Islam is not a religion, and should not receive the protections of a religion. Unfortunately, the EU is determined to disarm all of Europe--both intellectually and morally, as well as in terms of privately owned weapons and means of defense.

Ivan said...

conservativeswede - IQ is one of the central deciding factors on the battlefield, of that there is no question or debate, which is why all the world armies treat IQ scores as gods holy writ. All else being equal - High IQ armies beat Low IQ armies, all the time. Also keep in mind that the current inhabitants of the Middle East are technically the same people genetically as they were pre-Muhammad. ie. they probably had the same IQs. So it is conceivable that they lost the battles with the Muslims when they were Christians because they had the same low IQs as they have now (when they are Muslims).

The Muslims found the fighting tougher and tougher the more they got into Europe - the more they got into the higher IQ parts of the world. Avg IQ 84 Christians in the Middle East may be pretty easy to defeat, well, it's an even match - so numbers matter. But Austrian avg IQ 102 guys, or really high-IQ Normans? Not so easy. They were also CRUSHED by the astronomically high-spatio-visual IQ Mongols. Indeed the Mongols dealt a greater blow to the Muslims than all the crusades in the world.

Now returning to your main point. I agree with your comment, all else is not equal. ie the Muslims appear to have a greater morale and confidence than the west. So we shouldn't underestimate them, and I do not mean to be irresponsible here. I believe culture matters. But if you check the op-polls rather than guilt-ridden elite pontificating, you discover that most European PEOPLE don't actually want these Muslims people here, and would never have agreed to it were they given a choice.

- a couple'a reinforcement points

1. Most Muslims in Europe ARE unintelligent, they do poorly on IQ tests, and this impacts negatively on their ability to organize themselves coherently, wage wars etc.

2. They are completely dependent on the surrounding society for sustenance, be it welfare, jobs whatever. These can be cut off easily.

3. The general population is decidedly more hostile to them than are the elites (media politicians etc), and a breaking point could come soon when all the liberal whining in the world will mean nothing. I daresay many of them fear they day when the European people will actually be listened to.



All in all, if it does come to war - THEY WILL LOSE.

turn said...

I've commented at various sites for well over a year that the ferocity of the eventual European response should not be underestimated; some have agreed while others have posited that the European male is too far gone in complacency to fight for anything.

What I haven't seen on this thread is something I wouldv'e expected in well-thought-out comments.

I can't see around a certain corner that my logical mind demands as inevitable. And that corner has nothing to do with 'slammi I.Q. and everything to do with Western P.C.Q.

When we, imdividually or in groups, start to fight back we're going to get tangled in our legal systems. By our own laws we will become criminals and face much more than a civilian action as the Flying Imams are bringing.

Wein the U.S. also face the doctrine of Posse Comitatus, preventing military action within our borders.

I'm afraid the coming battles will be little more than deadlier versions of our race riots of the '60s

gun-totin-wacko said...

All this talk about relative IQ is nice, but Conservative Swede hit it pretty well: Willpower plays a huge role. Given the crisis in confidence in the West, which most of the GoV regulars agree on, the question becomes "will the Westerners fight?"

Alas, I'm one of those ignorant provincial Americans. Never having made it across the Pond, I can only guess what will happen there.

However, it does seem to me that the System in Europe will have to change along the way. I'll defer to those who know better as to how the populace feels, but if the governments won't act, then what?

As someone wisely said, "An army of deer led by a lion is more to be feared than an army of lions led by a deer."

Which in retrospect pretty much makes everything else I've said in this comment redundant. Sorry.

Roy said...

All in all, if it does come to war - THEY WILL LOSE.

But you have another enemy to vanquish before it can come to that. If it doesn't come to a stark choice of unequivocally picking one of two sides (as a war would necessitate) - it appears that Europe will die a death of a thousand cuts. Of the two enemies you face , the 'superior IQ's that produced the postmodern relativism that renders so many otherwise intelligent people stupid is by far the bigger enemy. Islam is really a trivial matter after you rediscover who you are, what you stand for as a culture, and what is worth fighting for. And (yes, we have the same challenge in North America, only to a slightly lesser extent).

It wasn't until Charles Martel got people united around a common banner and presented a united front that the tide was turned the first time around. You need a new Charles Martel - but having told God to 'take a hike', He might not be providing you with one this time around.

Ivan said...

roy - is your avg European citizen a postmodernist? I don't think so. They are confused about what they are, for sure, but all the op-polls show they are dead-set against non-western immigration, and all the post-modern relativism in the world hasn't changed that. I recall one poll which showed that something like 85% of Europeans agreed with the Popes speech on Islam, or thought he shouldn't apologise or something. They may not go to church, but your average Joe believes in the west, even if the media clowns don't.

And most Europeans would choose their own side om a war. The liberal elites live in their own self-selected enclave, they are an absolute minority vis-a-vis the general population, and if it came to war nobody would listen to them, human nature would win through on the macro level and you would get your common banner.

We do have the willpower, it's just not so obvious because the elites pretend otherwise.

Zerosumgame said...

The culprit for the Muslims is time. The variables are patience on one side and impatience on the other. If they choose the first option and hope that continued baby-booming will do the job, they’ll have to restrain from major violence and terror at least some 50-100 years in order to collect the vital welfare from the surrounding productive community.

Islamists, I believe, are in fact, full of patience. They believe their victory over the infidel in inevitable, and when you think victory is inevitable, there is no need to do something foolish to rush it along -- just keep probing for weaknesses and exploit them. And they are making slow, but steady and measurable progress. Already they have 750+ "zones" in France, that for all intents and purposes, have been abandoned by the authorities and are now under sharia law. Those zones grow in number and size with each year. And I do not think they have to wait 50 years, but 25-30, when the majority of youths in France will be Muslim. Remember, rioting and violence is a young person's game.

And even then all those babies will stay uneducated, unskilled, primitive, and ignorant. Unless they don’t. If not, they’ll hardly stay Muslims. So their choices are: produce hordes of losers, savages, — and, in the end, starving children — or see them assimilate, integrate into society, grow a brain, discover common sense and dignity In short: abandon Islam.

This assumes that the primary goal of the Muslims is prosperity. Sure they'd like to be prosperous, but it is secondary to the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. Once it is established, all the world's riches are theirs to exploit.

Conservative Swede said...

Ivan: IQ is one of the central deciding factors on the battlefield, of that there is no question or debate, which is why all the world armies treat IQ scores as gods holy writ. All else being equal - High IQ armies beat Low IQ armies, all the time.

This war is not going to happen on any battlefield. While the high IQ army press their uniforms and line up at the battlefield, the low IQ army decided to not show up and went ransacking their city and raping their daughters instead.

High IQ does not imply being street smart. Higher IQ is surely always an advantage to slightly lesser IQ. But when the high IQ meet the really low IQ, it can many times turn out to be an impediment. If there's any relation between high IQ and street smartness it is inversely proportional.


Also keep in mind that the current inhabitants of the Middle East are technically the same people genetically as they were pre-Muhammad. ie. they probably had the same IQs.

No they were not mongrel Arabs as they are today. This is what demographic Jihad did to these lands. You look at our own future if it is not stopped. Maybe a few centuries from now, in a forum somewhere, someone will write that "Of course the Europeans lost to the Muslims, they were of the same low IQ breed themselves as we can see today."

You should read about the history of the cradle of human civilization, the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, just to name a few. Then you will see what kind of people lived there before they were outbreeded by mongrel Arabs. And you will also fully appreciate how very much Arabic imperialism has destroyed of human civilization.

Roy said...

Ivan - I do hope you are right about that. I must have be having bad streak of luck in who I recommend Fjordman, Little Green Footballs, and others articles to then. Could it be that an all-consuming rabid anti-Americanism prevents them from agreeing with anything I say, even though they really do agree? :-) (It seems that in my experience Brits get nasty and Swedes slip into a coma, but Aussies are totally on board - yes, I know - different continent but the same 'family').

But you'd know better than I - and I certainly hope you are right. But it still seems to me that Europeans generally lack the will to take a stand and that is the main problem.

Yorkshireminer said...

The question is always the tipping point, it usually happens when a declining power equal a rising power. The big clash this century might not be between islam and the west but between China and America when the Chinese feel that they are equal in might to America. What is really holding Islam together is that fact that we can't as yet get out from the wests dependency on oil. This transfer of wealth has been fueling the arms build up in the middle east fueled mainly by the west to recycle the wealth. It also allows them to finance there fantasy which are basically the same as the Nazi only this time it is Ein Caliphate Ein Ummah Ein Allah. They have fortunately not been using it to industrialize otherwise I think we would be in real trouble. We are trapped in this morbid deadly embrace, a sort of dance of death. Once we cure ourselves of this dependency then we will have more room to maneuver. One of the things that was missed by most in the west when the cartoon crisis hit, is that Denmark is virtually independent for fuel oil as they have enough for there own use from the oilfields in the Danish section of the North sea. In 1970 during the oil crisis it was a different matter and they would most likely have caved in. Denmark also generates 20% of there energy need from two great windmill parks one in the north sea and another in the Baltic. Danish exports to muslim countries are also a very small proportion of there total exports so they were able to hunker down and wait until it blew over. Things are very different for countries like Britain France and America, where the ability of our economies to perform is very much dependent on the flow of middle eastern oil. Denmark also has a proportional voting system which means that the muslims will not be able to control parliament until they have a majority in the population which will never happen as the muslim birth rate in Denmark is falling rapidly towards replacement rate. Britain's situation is very dire having a first past the post system, the labor party in fact any party that is in Government is dependent even now on the muslim vote which goes very far in explaining the dimmi attitude of the British Government at this time. The House of Commons consists of approximately 650 members from 650 constituencies or voting areas around the country. These constituencies usually vary in size from several hundred square miles in the North of Scotland to a few square miles in the city centers they are adjusted at fairly regular intervals to account for internal population migrations. What also determines who wins an election is not the rural areas who vote usually for the conservatives but the marginal constituencies which are usually in the cities. The labor government of 1964 had a majority in the House of Commons of only 4 seat which could have gone the other way if a couple 1,000 people had voted the other way. Muslim migration to these areas will determine who gets and stays in power, this is why it has been grovel grovel grovel for last few years, upset the servants of Allah and you are out of power. The other interesting thing is that you need between 20% and 30% of the vote before you start to register in the house of commons. The liberals for years got just under 20% of the votes in election after election and sent about the same no. of MPs to Parliament, 20.
“LARS HEDEGAARD” says that in 5 or 10 years we should be in a form of low intensity war something on the lines of Northern Ireland. I think he might be right. France is possibly now in the beginning stages of such a war. I think we should define this low intensity war as a war when the military are used on a continuous basis, and not as now the civil police. I think that this sort of thing that the British Government was thinking about when they slipped through parliament the THE CIVIL CONTINGENCIES BILL. In 2004, it makes grime reading when you get through the Gobbledygook here is the link if anybody is interested.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/40036--a.htm#end

If you read the Bill you will see that the Government is certainly aware of the dangers of a civil war and streamlined there response with this Bill. The question is once again where is the tipping point, will Europe descend into a form of low intensive anarchy if it doesn't sort out its dependence on middle Eastern oil or will it come when some middle eastern country decides to try and wipe out Israel. Then all the bets are off. Islam in Europe will be dead. A major war in the middle east would mean the suspension of oil to Europe, the economy would collapse and civil unrest would follow with all the dire consequence for islam. When you are out of work hungry no job and a family to feed it is easy to see who will be the scapegoat. The political scene will unravel quicker than it did between 1914 and 1918 or between 1939 and 1945. Denmark unlike the rest will suffer far less collateral damage than Britain France or Germany, for several reason. One Denmark's muslim problem is concentrated in three main regions Odense Copenhagen and Aarhus which can quickly be sealed off from each other. Denmark until a few years ago consisted of a few large islands and approximately 500 smaller islands all the major islands have been joined up by a set of bridges during the last 50 years. It only takes a few men and a machine gun post to protect the bridges which denies for the muslim the ability to concentrate any forces they have, but allows it for the state. If a civil war does break out it will be easier for Denmark to contain it than say France or England for they will be quickly be able to isolate it and take out any threat one after the other by concentrating there armed forces first at one place and then at the other. Secondly Denmark will be left alone to get on with the job as the larger European powers will have problems enough. Thirdly the Danish armed forces which may be small, but as far as I know are very well armed German Leopard tanks are not something one would like to meet of a dark and rainy night. The Danes will fight have not doubt about that. In 1940 Denmark gave up basically without a fight when the Germans invaded, Denmark was basically indefensible, they suffered the same sort of denigration that the Brits are getting now over the surrender of the marines in the gulf over the last few days. In 1944 the Germans tried to take over guarding the Danish King. The Kings life guards fought back and fought them to a standstill. The Germans left with about 20 dead to mourn, and never tried it again. This of cause is one of the problems, the muslims like the Germans before them, see what they want to see. When they see the Danish life Guards marching down towards the royal palace resplendent in what they see as fancy dress costume they forget that they are not toy soldiers they forget that it is not blank ammunition they have got in the magazine but real ammunition and that they will use it if instructed by their Government. The same goes for Britain and I am sure for France. Muslims would do well to view the situation not from the position they do now, as being superior to the Infidel, because they have been brought up to believe Islam is inherently superior, Big Mo said it is so. They have to take off their religious rose colored glasses and get real.
Kepi is right it is just a matter of when where and how it will start, but the result will be the same, some countries like my own, England will suffer grievously, but a European civil war is going to happen

Zerosumgame said...

OT:

Latest stats from Alexa as to the origin of GoV traffic:

Canada35.8%
United States25.8%
United Kingdom23.3%
Denmark4.2%
Switzerland3.3%

1) Stephen Harper must be proud.
2) Where the $#@! are the rest of my fellow Americans?
3) You gotta do something to get our Viking crowd back.
4) Archonix is either living for this blog, or he has recruited some friends to help him.

Conservative Swede said...

gun-totin-wacko said...
All this talk about relative IQ is nice, but Conservative Swede hit it pretty well: Willpower plays a huge role. Given the crisis in confidence in the West, which most of the GoV regulars agree on, the question becomes "will the Westerners fight?"


We should be clear about what will power means in warfare. It means the preparedness to go further than the enemy, to outdo him in brutality.

As an example. At the point we start the war (by deciding to start fighting back), the Muslims stage a hundred Beslans around Europe. Can we stomach that, or do we back off? Maybe better to live in peace and dhimmitude after all?

In the old days we had the preparedness to do some carpet bombings or drop some nukes, to demoralize the enemy. But today people go squeaking over a little Srebrenica.

Both the states of America and Israel were built on ethnic cleansing. The trick is to write the history afterwards to erase this from the collective minds.

I recommend reading the self-described left-wing Israeli historian Benny Morris. He started as the unofficial leader of the so-called New Historians, criticizing Israel's actions of 1948. But by looking long enough into the abyss, he started seeing things more clearly:

"There is no justification for acts of rape [...] or acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians.

...

Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history."

turn said...

1st I want to recommend to evryone that they read the transcript of a symposium attended by Robert Spencer et al.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27737

conservative swede writes:
:This war is not going to happen on any battlefield. While the high IQ army press their uniforms and line up at the battlefield, the low IQ army decided to not show up and went ransacking their city and raping their daughters instead."

Yes--precisely. Which brings me back to my earlier point. Whereas authorities are fearful to enter many neighborhoods and districts, if WE were to enter one in order to project force we'll probably go to the lock-up.

And another thank you to conservative swede for correctly pointing out that the region so despairingly in need of intellectual change today was not always so.

Perhaps one of the reasons for a lower IQ is simply generation upon generation marrying close cousins.

gun-totin-wacko said...

Yorkshireminer,

I would merely point out that the bridges in Denmark can work both ways. If the Muslims get to a bridge first, with sufficient force, they can-at least on paper- hold it against the Army, at least for a time. Or blow it, and fortify themselves in an area until they are ready to attack the neighboring area. Recall Arnhem, where the Brits and Poles held the Bridge against tanks, despite not having adequate supplies and weapons.

Conservative Swede said...

Thank you turn,

It has been mentioned several times-- in this excellent series by GoV about European Civil War--how people hope for the war to come soon.

I just want to make sure everybody is clear about what we are hoping for. As been said, the Muslims will not suddenly at some point in time, put on uniforms and line up nicely on a battlefield. There most probably won't be any clearly defined start of the war at all. There will just be the ever gradually increasing low-level civil war of terrorism, gang mobsters, rapes, lobbying, bullying, street fights, car burning, etc. In many cities, the civil war is already here.

Sometimes this is called an asymmetrical war. But many people who say they want war, condemn it when our side acts "asymmetrically". But it is an impossible position to say you want a war, and at the same time condemn these actions: 1) the Muslims won't line up in uniforms, 2) our governments won't declare war on Islam. The only option left are the kind of white street mobs we've seen recently in Holland and England. And they are at war with the Muslims and our governments at the same time. This is truly a revolutionary situation.

This is what it looks like what you are hoping for.

Given this situation, and what I said about will power: It is essential to support our side no matter what. Technical arguments-- like "they did something illegal"-- should not be applied.

turn said...

A couple more points to ponder.

The European 'elites', and to a degree the general population, have promulgated and reinforced the social(ist) agenda of the nanny state, and as a result of low birthrates among native Europeans, immigration is providing the workforce paying the retirement benefits to an increasingly aging populace.

That the immigrants and their progeny are also a drain on European economies matters not--there aren't any serious proponents of changing the largesse system.

Second: as conswede correctly points out "It means the preparedness to go further than the enemy, to outdo him in brutality." War is hell.

If it comes to that, can any Western military open fire on women and children when they're in the midst of rioting 'slammis? That would go against every grain of civilization

So then what--Do we antiseptically round them up for deportation? Put them en masse into boxcars?

And send them where? What if their former homelands refuse to allow them to reintegrate.?

The original Algerian immigrant that came to Paris or Marseilles in 1954 may well be dead today; his grandchildren might not be welcomed back.

So are we to have camps? Maybe re-education camps where they can work, be trained in trades and be converted to Christianity? There's far to little of Christ in the backwater of Christendom that Europe has become.

I'm with you conswede about what we should do--but the reality is that many will pay a high price indeed before the law prior to the time when defence of the native Europeans becomes paramount.

It will become a 'revolutionary situation' because the current EU leadership is unwilling and unable to face the truth of the coming years.

Yorkshireminer said...

Dear Gun,
the bridge at Arnhem was situated in a built up area. The British airborne to defend there end of the bridge were fighting in an urban situation, which made it easier for them to defend,these bridges in Denmark they are not. Secondly the bridges I am talking about are considerable stronger structures, they do not as at Arnhem span a couple of hundred meters but several miles. Any Muslim terrorist would need more than a couple of hundred pound of semtex. Thirdly the Danes are certainly aware of the Danger and have put emergency plans in place. Storbelt bridge is I think nearly 15 miles long and literally joins the two parts of Denmark Jutland and Zealand together. Imagine the Mississippi being 15 miles wide and the only connection to the west was one bridge over the Mississippi. No I don't think that this is a problem. The Danes are quick and usually well ahead of the learning curve. Let me give you an example, shortly after the oil shock in the seventies the Danes got serious about there dependence on foreign oil. They were not of cause encumbered by all that profit that the large oil companies earned that could be diverted to lobby congress. They set up organization to do research into this problem. They were certainly not discouraged by what can and can't be don't. I used to travel past the Atomic research station by Riso on Roskiled Fjord. The Danes had somewhere in the region of 30 different types of windmills working in the grounds of that complex, this is 30 years ago is it any wonder that the Danes generate 20% of there energy from wind power. They even built a zero energy house in the ground of the technical high school at lyngby. You wanted to raise the temperature in the living room you changed the light bulb from 60 watts to 100 watts. You live in Copenhagen then most of your heating is from the condensed steam from the two main electrical generating plants Svanemollen and H.C. Orseteds verk. The redundant heat didn't get dumped into the rivers as happens with most of our power plants in the west it was pumped through pipes under the street to heat the different apartment blocks. The Danes even considered the possibility of using the redundant super oil tankers to bring boiling volcanic spring water from Iceland to do the same. Energy saving and alternative fuel was certainly at the forefront of Danish thinking 30 years ago, and I am certain it is at the forefront of there thinking now. If you really want to know what is going on at the forefront of Alternative energy, just below the radar, then check out this link and listen carefully what is happening in Europe. Then let me know what you think.

http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/recordings/2007/070217_Perendev_MikeBrady.mp3

Conservative Swede said...

as conswede correctly points out "It means the preparedness to go further than the enemy, to outdo him in brutality." War is hell.

Quite so. But above all: War is psychology. Even the traditional battlefield battles were not resolved as in the Hollywood movies where the two sides met in a rowdy crowd in the middle of the field slaughtering each other. The common scenery was how the two lines approached each other, up until one side collectively decided they had the inferior position and decided to flee. It wasn't necessarily the numerically inferior side that fled. Psychology meant a lot. This is why Carolus XII put more focus on the cavalry than the cannons (in spite of heavy cavalry being rather unmodern in the 18th century). His cavalry was trained to attack in one concerted shock. Great psychological effect! Of course, cannons and mortars objectively did more damage. But this is not how war works, and Carolus XII realized this. It's psychology before anything else. And of course hell.

I tried to be careful how I put the words in the sentence you quoted above. The keyword is preparedness, not brutality. But in the end, quite a lot of brutality might be needed. It all depends on the enemy. This is what the preparedness is for.

If it comes to that, can any Western military open fire on women and children when they're in the midst of rioting 'slammis? That would go against every grain of civilization

This example assumes a conventional warfare situation. My answer is: I cannot see any good coming out of that, on the contrary. Actions should follow the line of command. However, the military leadership must have the preparedness to carpet bombing Teheran or nuking Mecca. And without hesitation. Ethnic cleansing will become necessary, but massacres should be avoided.

So then what--Do we antiseptically round them up for deportation? Put them en masse into boxcars?

If our governments where not on the wrong side in this revolutionary situation, they could have stared acting now and resolved most of the problem peacefully and nicely in the following way:

1) Forbid and close all mosques promoting sharia and/or jihad. This will lead to the closing of all mosques. Muslims will no longer feel "welcome" and they will voluntarily start to leave en masse.

2) Cut of the supply of welfare money and transform it into go-back-home-or-wherever-we-dont-care money.

And send them where? What if their former homelands refuse to allow them to reintegrate.

If it ever comes to that, why not Iraq?

Conservative Swede said...

I'm with you conswede about what we should do--but the reality is that many will pay a high price indeed before the law prior to the time when defence of the native Europeans becomes paramount.

Yes. So let's not give them our condemnation on top of it. I know, these pioneers will look like hooligans and act like hooligans. As I said, this is the look of the civil war we are all waiting for. Well, I think it's already here.

In our hearts we must always support these brave boys.

gun-totin-wacko said...

Thanks for the explanation, York. I'll check out the link.

Ypp said...

Typical self-greatness feeling of "modern" people, especially Europeans. Oh, they are so intelligent! Unfortunately, that does not help in some circumstances. They will be surprised when their high-IQ heads will be cut off by primitive butcher's knives.

turn said...

OK. Maybe I need to come to this from another direction.

War can be described as, from least to most, the forceful projection of a tribe's, a nation's, or an alliance of nations' WILL upon another's.

There have been no 'set-piece' wars in which America has participated since Korea.

Gulf War 1 was almost such; it quickly devolved into the rout it had no chance not to be.

Almost no future wars (except perhaps with China) can be in the model of a 'set-piece' but must inherently be assymetrical in nature.

If, after the inevitable period of citizen (native European) uprisings ( with their subsequent legal actions) the component nations of the EU come to the realization that they must actually take action, the question remains: what will that action be?

There is no 'preparedness' to out-brutalize an enemy. The only way your enemy can concede your superiority at such brutality is to demonstrate it--it is not truly comprehensible until after the fact of it.

The quote "War is hell" was not so much the overall opinion of the General credited with the statement as much as the observation that when one is fighting in it one is in the 'state' of hell. Do not get me wrong. I'm not in favor of the 'kinder, gentler' war. The best war is absolutely bloody and brutal and, most importantly, a war in which that application of WILL is quick and decisive.

conservative swede wrote: "This example assumes a conventional warfare situation. My answer is: I cannot see any good coming out of that, on the contrary. Actions should follow the line of command. However, the military leadership must have the preparedness to carpet bombing Teheran or nuking Mecca. And without hesitation. Ethnic cleansing will become necessary, but massacres should be avoided."

Actually, I'm not assuming any such thing as a conventional (set-piece)battle scenario. I wrote: can any Western military open fire on women and children when they're in the midst of rioting 'slammis?"

In your response to that part of my question, you finish with: "Ethnic cleansing will become necessary, but massacres should be avoided."

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Shoulda, especially, never works out.

I wouldn't be adverse to a retaliation in the event of another 9/11 to include the destruction of the black rock of Mecca, but I'm not sure wholesale destruction of sites in the ME would sufficiently cow the immigrant population of Europe.

Prior to closing ANY mosques will be the necessity to redefine islam (properly) as an ideology rather than a religion. UN Declaraion of Universal Human Rights guarantees any and all religions as being inherently legitimate.

Good luck with that.

As far as "voluntarily leaving en masse"--again, to where?

"Cut of the supply of welfare money and transform it into go-back-home-or-wherever-we-dont-care money."

Hey--as far as I'm concerned, no welfare for anyone able to work. But the current law in Europe is what it is. Until there is
significant legislative and social change the immigrants have the law behind them.

Lastly, you're proposing that a troubled and fractured nation of 25 million ansorb another 50 million....

Conservative Swede said...

As far as "voluntarily leaving en masse"--again, to where?

Sweden is the country which receives the most Muslim migration (in absolute numbers). So I guess most of them would end up here. Warmly welcomed by Fredrik Reinfeldt and Mona Sahlin.

Thanks for the conversation so far Mr Turn. I'll have to turn back for more replies tomorrow.

Profitsbeard said...

It all depends on the self-confidence of the attacked people.

Islam has been on the march since 622 A.D., and has been repelled several times because the populations under threat of Mohammedan genocide and subjugation believed in their own civilization more strongly than the monomaniacal imperialists and terrorists of the pedophile warlord believed in their "creed".

Will is the muscle, but requires a belief in self (or civilization) to flex it.

The West has been in the throes of a revisionist self-loathing level of historical re-"education" since the post-WW II era. (Not that it didn't have plenty of sins to regret and atone for.)

But allowing your past regrets to erase your future possibilities (even for making amends) is suicidally stupid.

As if the Islamofascist enemy did not have far greater sins to apologize for and to regret.

But they never seem to.

Because of the most dangerous aspect of the fixated mindset and simplistic "morality" behind expansionist Islam: that they considers their inhuman crimes and cunning lies to be a shining example of their "faith", based on the Machiavellian model of Mohammad's shameless and bloody conquests.

The cruelties and horrors and rapine and devastation committed by jihadists to promote Islamic world dominance are considered to be their shining glories.

While the West understands that its previous depredations are nothing to feel anything but sorrow for.

What we need to remember is: if you let a worse belief defeat yours, you then have no further chance to correct your past wrongs.

Being reduced to vassals, chattel, and slaves.

Who will no longer have the fatuous luxury of guilt feelings about their own former failings.

Or the luxury of anything -but bowing, grovelling and wishing they had understood their own civilization's value a little more clearly.

And damned strongly.

Mission Impossible said...

I can't help thinking that all this debate around the proposition: "an army with a superior I.Q. is bound to win," is just a lot of hot air. I do sympathise with it, but it really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Others have already highlighted the importance of the "will to win" but there are surely many other factors dictating ultimate success.

The French lost at Agincourt because of the weather: it had rained heavily just before the battle, causing the heavily armoured French forces to get bogged down in mud. Then there are tactical errors, such as Hitler's mistiming of his attack on Russia. The first delay in progress saw the Germans fighting in the midst of a near-Siberian winter.

History is full of similar examples: strategic errors, misfortune, lack of planning, treachery, et al.

Presently, our societies are being threatened from within, by people who are colluding with the strategic aims of Islam. Some of you posting here need to stop fighting shadows. The energy of Americans would be better spent helping David Horowitz's campaign for his Academic Bill of Rights, that spearheads his brave fight against the Marxist takeover of many of America's leading Universities (at least their Humanities Faculties).

As for Mona Sahlin, in Sweden, she is another candidate for a cold blade. She epitomises everything that has gone wrong in the European body politic.

turn said...

Mr. turn would be my da, thank you very much!

I'm a yank, surname is Danske with Scot and Yorkshire blood in the 'mix'. But when I look in the mirror, I see an (aging) modern Viking.

That said, Europe is important to me. It is the seat of what I regard as my shared culture--the brothers I don't even know.

As such, I share in the collective guilt AND pride in our collective deeds--we succumbed to our basest movements AND we prevailed over them.

We are now faced with this most desparate challenge--how do we solve this mess of islamist (what I disparagely refer to as 'slammi) takeover of Europe

I most heartily do NOT want to see anything like a repeat of Europe's actions against the Jews in the 30's and 40's of the last century.

On the other hand, I do wish to see Europe remain European--but that is for Europeans to decide.

Only sometimes does a battle define or settle a war--I think we have many battles to come.

Mikael said...

Yes, if it comes to that, we will fight and we will win. Even if the Muslims forms militias Beirut-style a single company of Danish Special Forces could take them out one at the time without loosing a man, of that I have no doubt. The relatively few ethnic Danes and peaceful (read: non-Muslim) immigrants could be evacuated from the ghetto's and the areas sealed off. Tactically the Muslims don't stand a chance. This goes for most of Europe.

However, if a revolutionary civil war broke out it would lead to an immense change in the political culture. The political elite would have to go, as they will be seen as the ones that brought on this misery in the first place. The power-vacuum will mostly be filled with pocket Mussolini's and turncoats, men like Milosovich. And when the Muslim threat have been dealt with, will such men be willing to step down? I'll wager you a six-pack they won't! They will find new enemies. The neighboring country for example. "That border dispute weren't really settled back in 1872, now was it?" "You want a piece of us? Come and claim it!"

If Europe once again degenerates into tribal warfare, what side will the US back? And the vast Russian army, already having it's ranks filled up with 50 percent Muslims? Will they stand idly by when their bro's are being kicked out of Europe?


I'm not worried about a stand-off with the Muslims in Europe, but it could easily be turn out to be a shot in Sarajevo, a war that would suck in the rest of the world, and in that case, God help us all!

Birkebeinr said...

I´ve been reading through the most interesting comment-section in GoV ever. But I'm sure that the approach to this situation is wrong.
The inevitable show-down with those angry muslim kids will just be a prelude to what will come.
A lot's more people than Mikael should see the next phase around the corner.

There is a notion in the American rightwing blogsphere that all those Europeans are dulled in by some kind of Soma. Materialism, decadence, marxism and total unwillingness to see the result of their bad political decicions.

This is true regarding the babyboomers, the sixty-eight generation.
They grew up, starring at a full plate provided by their parents, our grandparents.
And they spilled it all away like spoiled kids do.
My generation of ethnic north-european males are faced with an increasingly heavy tax-burden, rediculous expensive housing, all kinds of immoral practises - sanctioned by law, lots of insane pc taboos, an expectation of guiltridden gratitude just for existing in this wonderful brave new world.
Like they, the sixty-eights, created western civilization with some magical gesture. We're starring at the grim fortune of being debt-slaves the rest of our lives. Not because of expensive consumer-loans our parents idulged themselves in during the eighties. No - our loans are for housing us and our children.
So if the declining trend in the US continues and interest rates rises from the present five to ten percent - we'll find ourselves in a economicaly quagmire.
A whole generation will be in a Fugazi.

So, what is the shape of things to come?

Back to the thirties -
Fighting spirit among my generation, born in the seventies or eighties, is rising - radical right nationalism and tribalism is the trend.
Now, what will happen is; firstly come terror attacks and lot's of violence from those poor muslim neighborhoods.
Promptly followed by general ethnic uprising against muslims uncivilized behavior

Then, the main course, real civil war.

Ancient national grievances will pop up like mushrooms in the autumn.

As Conservative Swede (Goth or Svea?) almost managed to point out : let's cheer for those hooligans. But, the idealists will be fighting for Scanian or Jamtelands freedom. Not against muselman. The muslim problem will be like the bullet in Sarajevo.


Like most of my fellow Scandinavians I will live and die in Norden. So I'll se it trough even if things should turn seventeen century again - Barbaric beyond believe.

From what I know, Scanians are foremost sich and tired about beeing repressed by the Goths and Sveas. The muslims invation is just another burden the Swede has laid upon them to "swedify" and humiliate the Scanians. I have yet to meet a Scanian who call herself "Swede". It´s defiantly "Scanian" or "Danish".

Then it's the Swedish airforce use of sacred Jämland burialmounds for bombing exercise. Historical grounds dating back to the eleventh and twelvth century when Jämland was a free Norwegian dependance. This nation was, just like Iceland, buildt by Norwegians fleeing persecution during the civil war period.

Just to point out a very few issues concerning my increasingly nationalist, traditionalist, under-waged, over-taxed generation; some historical dates:
1178, 1645, 1658...
1814 - Metrosexuality - Feminism - Pascifism - Gaynes - Political correctnes - Aimlessness - the Muslims know how to deal with such evil and we should thank them for coming to our frrozen world, a hundred years more and the swedes would become groupthinking androgyn cyborgs reproducing via tubes and outlandish contraptions.

turn said...

Europe damn well NEEDS a revolution.

The surest way for that to lead to a power hungry thug in charge is to devolve into enclaves of tribal and ethnic communities that remember every historical defeat on the path to nationhood.

Divided we fall.

Do not let this descend into a civil war among Europe's best and brightest--your shared culture is more important by far than your historical misery of power struggles.

I would truly despair to see, when that time comes, a man of ethnic European blood side with a 'slammi against another european because of some centuries old grudge.

We have a saying--keep your eyes on the ball.

The subject here is to reclaim the areas of the world from the incursion of muslims and the threats to Western civilization they inherently bring. And I want this to happen without the horrors of the third reich.

Don't get me wrong--I don't expect it to be pretty. But I don't want us to lose our humanity either.

The average European reading this will probably dismiss my nexr statement as naive American blather. Be sure you have an alternative that is better.

Europe must find patriot statesmen that can lead its people out of the swamp it has become. Your model is a failure--so find a new model. We all recognize the failed elements; scrap them and begin something new.

Conservative Swede said...

I most heartily do NOT want to see anything like a repeat of Europe's actions against the Jews in the 30's and 40's of the last century.

Let's just sort out who and what are on which side!

Nazism was Jihadism imported to Europe from Islam. This time we are fighting Arabic Nazism, which is the original one.

If we are going to drown ourselves in guilt ridden floods of Christian weakness "Oh we are the first sinners!". Well then, the Jihadists/Nazis will win. And you know that's very bad indeed for the Jews too!

The Jews themselves, who are not affected by the Christian collective guilt over Nazi atrocities, would know the way, and has already shown it:

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing."
Benny Morris

And that's the way to avoid repetition of the Jihadism against the Jews of the '30s/'40s!!!

Kirk Parker said...

Voyager,

I recommend you re-read the very part you quoted, in particular "when it comes to the last straw". I don't know, or even know of, anyone who thinks we've reached that point in the US. If we ever do (and I certainly hope it doesn't come to this), the guns will indeed come out and the amount of firepower in private citizen will turn out to be much more than equal to the task.

Beach Girl said...

Wow! I liked the post because it gave me something else to consider - the self-imposed isolation of the Muslims in the UK and in parts of Europe. A seige has always worked well in bringing about surrender and in this case I would hope deportation.

To Voyager regarding US guns not keeping our cities from being invaded - many of those guns have been and are being used by citizens to protect themselves in their homes. Our laws keep us from forming vigilante groups and rounding up the illegals.

On the issue of Posse Comitatus, prevention of military action against citizens within our borders, that is to keep the military from attacking Americans. The National Guard can be called out to stop whatever. Our military can be used on our borders to defend us from invasion as directed at least 5 times in the US Constitution, recently used as a doormat by Nancy Pelosi on her road to Damascus.

Last statistics I read showed over 295 million guns in hands of citizens in Texas alone. Thank God.

To Kirk, I sense that we have the bubblings of near-anarchy in some parts of the nation, not full-blown but the betrayal of our government to stop the current invasion, the deaths of over 21,900 Americans at the hands of illegal aliens from any nation of origin - we may get tired of being collateral damage as the politicians troll and prostitute themselves for votes.

Actually, in the US, there is much to be said for the blister being popped sooner rather than later.

I did like this post because - IQ discussions aside - if those under seige can't get food, water, etc. - we win! But then it always goes back to that tiny mouse in the corner - do we have the will to focus and defend our way of life or do we sharpen the swords for our own beheadings. I suppose that depends on which company gets the contract to make the swords and which Senator or Congressmen is "in bed" with the company's owner.

Great discussion you have all had. I have to say I had hoped the British had learned from WWII but for PC sake to refrain from teaching of the Holocaust so as not to "offend" one of the low-IQ Muslims you folks spoke of seems rather shakey to me.

Where are the leaders going to come from? My other question that I'd like to toss out is: what event do you think will be like America's "shot heard round the world" that put the flame to our Revolution? An illegal alien driving drunk in Virginia Beach just killed two young women - the argument is 1) it is a drunk driving event or 2) he's here illegally ergo, had he been deported for other crimes, these young women would be alive.

What will be the spark that makes the "civilized", Western World say almost in unison, "ENOUGH!"

Will it be the killing of hundreds of thousands or will it be building a mosque next to a pig farm in Katy, Texas? Will it be one too many calls to prayer in a Western city makes us rise up like the man who kills his wife of 50 years because she puts the top in the toothpaste incorrectly?

You are all "smarter" than I, so what will it be? What will move us to action?

Beach Girl said...

One more little question: now that the rabid imams have whipped up all those young wannabe terrorists, how will they (the imams) put the lid on to keep the lads in line since the Islamists are getting the surrender they dream of with what seems to be no oppostition as of yet in Europe?

Dan said...

I can’t help but wonder about many of the closely held assumptions.

What do we really know about the attitudes of the average European? To what degree do they believe the multicultural BS? I reckon much of it is the elites being out of touch with the masses.

Are the Europeans cowards? If so deportation is probably out but not for the reason everyone seems to think. Fear becomes rage in an instant and after the sudden slaughter there won’t be many survivors left to deport. Cowards generally will fight after their backs are to the wall, but they tend to be extremely vicious and brutal when they do.

How dumb are the Mohammedans? The French car-b-que didn’t look mindless to me, they were creating undermining the French government and creating instability while operating just below a threshold that would justify lethal force. I thought it was diabolically brilliant. They may be dullards on average but they clearly are being directed by someone who isn’t and this is what worries me; if it comes to war Europe will win but what if it doesn’t come to that?

These aren’t just wild youths, the reason stupid people accomplish so little is they will follow instructions to a fault, even when circumstances change and in no longer makes sense. What did we see in France there was an unsettling consistency to the MO countrywide

Dan said...

"Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other one thing."
- Abraham Lincoln

David M said...

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 04/09/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

Gordon Pasha said...

I don't think the West has an oil problem. They need to sell it to us as badly as we need to buy it. What we have, is a problem with facing up to, and admitting to, one simple, overriding truth.

Islam is not a religion. It is an expansionist, violent, retrograde, supremicist political doctrine, whose followers work tirelessly to bring about a new world-wide dark ages. Once we admit this truth, there will no longer be a big problem dealing with the invasion, no more than there was any problem dealing with Nazi fifth-columnists and Nazi sympathisers.

Until then, we will continue removing our shoes and and leaving our shaving gel at the airport security checkpoints, in order to pretend that we are all just as guilty and dangerous as the mass murderers.

have a nice day.

Gordon Pasha said...

p.s. and only slightly OT.

Regarding the appearance of the Sheep Dogs on the scene, keep an eye on Le Pen's performance in the upcoming French presidential elections, this month. He is only polling about 15% now, but bear in mind that many people refuse to admit that they intend to vote for the Front National. If he scores above 18% or 19%, he may make it into the 2nd round, like he did in the previous election, where he would face off one on one with Sarkozy (probably). IMHO, the majority of FN voters vote for Le Pen for one reason and one reason only, because he is willing to face up to the impending civil war, and despite all of the FN's other distasteful aspects. Some things just never change.

Anonymous said...

I have to say that I cracked up when I read about how UN resolutions make our survival illegal. If I had my way, the UN would be the first thing to disappear! In a civil war, who cares about UN resolutions?