His main point was that “[p]ublishing this sort of thing will be fatal to your overall aim.”
I sent him this response:
- - - - - - - - -I disagree that “this sort of thing will be fatal to [our] overall aim.”
Our overall aim is to air many different viewpoints, to encourage open discussion of those viewpoints, to allow our commenters to debate, and to arrive at some sort of synthesis based on the “distributed intelligence” of the internet.
When I post a piece by somebody else, it does not necessarily represent my own point of view. On Mr Smith’s essay, in particular, I included a disclaimer, because I disagree with him at several points.
Nevertheless, his position is a well-reasoned one, and deserves to be heard. Especially after the debacle at LGF, I refuse to squelch people who are genuinely trying to discuss these issues in good faith.
As for civil war: Mr Smith is not advocating a civil war (I wouldn’t publish his essay if he were; that would verge on incitement). He considers civil war in various European countries to be quite likely in the not-so-distant future, and he’s not he only writer gazing into the entrails of the beast and arriving at the same haruspicy. His sole point in that civil war might not be the worst of all possible outcomes.
I’m not concerned with our blog’s “reputation”. That reputation will rise and fall with the fads and trends of the day, and is not important.
What’s important is the truth, insofar as it can be determined, and the survival of Western Civilization — which goal I think we all can agree on.
I advise you to get into the comments and make your presence felt there. Or send me a well-written and carefully thought-out essay of your own refuting Mr Smith’s points, and I’ll consider publishing it.
Anyone who approaches the discussion reasonably and calmly is welcome to be heard at Gates of Vienna. That has been my policy for three years, and I’m not going to change it.
Thanks for writing. I really do respect principled disagreement.
— Baron B.
15 comments:
This may just be a point of semantics but I would really question the idea of "civil war" in Europe because Europe, despite some people's wishes to the contrary, is not a single civil society but a melange of national identities. In the event of hostilities breaking out there would be a very fast restoration of national identity as the primary rallying point, as the factions that previously fought out their proxy wars within the European institutions return to using their own armies to fight them.
The question is, how would this pseudo-civil war play out? At the first stroke it would appear much like a civil war, with large-scale civilian disturbances being suppressed by the police or the new EU Gendarmes - paramilitary police without national allegiance. But, and this is a big but, there would come a point when the outcry against the imposition of this force would cause military and civil leaderships at the national level to start disobeying the supra-national organisation. At that point it would revert from an apparent civil war to an actual international war with the added fun of fractured government, treasonous commanders and fifth-columns rising up to try and destabilise things. The internal warring would die out faster or slower within different nations as the war got in to its full swing and Pro-EU or Anti-EU factions rose to overall control of those various national military and government institutions. There would be purges of "traitors" and the like (and a run on lamp-posts and ropes no doubt), lots of hallmarks of apparent civil conflict, but on the background of a much wider-ranging war of national independence. The end result would then be either a military conquest and destruction of the nation states by the Union or a fractioning of the continent, with the Union holding some areas and others retaining their newly independent status, which would ultimately see the EU dissolved and destroyed.
I think the point is,it'd be a mess. I'm not sure it's the ideal solution to the problems. Peaceful disentanglement would be far better, as it would allow the nations of Europe to begin controlling their immigration and foreign policies again in a peaceful and productive manner. War is not inevitable, nor desirable, but it is becoming more and more likely as the days pass.
Archonix --
Note that I said, "civil war in various European countries".
Maybe, to be more clear, I should have said, "civil war WITHIN various European countries", that is, between the civil authorities and the populace within a given country.
I'd like to make something very, very clear at this point, please. I don't want war, civil or otherwise. I just want to live in my country, among my people, have coffee in the morning, beer in the evening, and mow my lawn in peace. Except that I can't live in peace with every last part of my country and existence threatened and that threat brought in and encouraged by our politicians.
Eurabia is coming, very soon, and the peaceful options are political victory for a patriotic party, or Eurabian victory. Perhaps it's not very apparent from across the pond, but here in the UK it's almost certain that a patriotic party will never win. The discussion is so much under the sway of Godwin's law that the question can barely be raised. Which leaves us with Eurabia.
Thankfully, a friend sent me a quotation in an email today which I think addresses this perfectly:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself" - J.S. Mill.
Right now I am retorting to myself:
"Am I just living in a paranoid fantasy? How do we know for sure that this Eurabia thing really is true?"
I'm looking for a way out, just like Conservative Swede looked for a way out.
Does Europe even have the resolve? I mean, how long did Byzantium plead for help and they were ignored? If the Christians won't help each other, what of the nihilists in Europe? Is there a Charles Martel or John Sobieski in the future of Europe. I hope so, because civil war isn't just fomenting in Eurabia, it is happening here in the States, to a lesser degree. I am just saddened that the two groups who should be on the same side are now separated by this one word. Racism.
Interesting post, Archonix and Mees-ter Smith. It looks like civil war WILL break out in several European nations within a half-dozen years, probably first in Holland or Sweden ( or my favorite ridiculous non-nation: Belgium )
I think that the 'last straw' ( history is rife with Last Straws; my favorite is the Quebec / Intolerable Acts--or shootin Joe Connolly and others in Kilmainham Gaol ) will be a series of riots by "youths" where the Usual Suspects take over control of police and other services in several urban areas, and the national govt does nothing, followed by Islamo-fascists and looney leftist from other nations flocking to the 'newly liberated zones.
Mr Smith just want to cut his grass; I just want to sit in the churchyard at Clara Vale and watch the water flow under that pure spare plain & perfect bridge.
But They won't let us alone.......
Then of course there is the elephant in the room: in the event of civil war across Europe, what will Washington do?
It's hardly a slam-dunk to presume that George W. Bush's successor, or his/her own successor as the case may be, would send any significant U.S. armed forces to Europe's and Britain's rescue. A Democratic president surely won't have it for obvious reasons (more on this later). But I'd hazard that even a GOP president would be hard-pressed to defend a group of nations which have collectively scorned and tried to hold back the "hyperpower" ever since 9/11/2001. "Let Europe tear itself apart; they had it coming," I can almost hear some conservatives say. They may even look upon a EUrabian victory as a feature, not a bug, under the reasoning that an outright enemy is preferable to a troublesome nominal "ally".
Throw in America's already sizable military commitments in Iraq and elsewhere (which may or may not still be needed by the time the European civil war starts), and the war-weariness of a large chunk of the American public, and it seems most likely to me that Washington will basically sit on its hands. (Private organizations like Blackwater, of course, are another matter altogether.)
On the other hand, given her husband's administration's track record in the Balkans, one can't help but wonder whether a President Hillary Clinton might not actually intervene in the European civil war on behalf of the Muslims...
Note that I said, "civil war in various European countries".
Then I was right, it was just a point of semantics. Sorry for the long rant. :)
First off I'm not sure how you could have a true civil war in Europe. My impression is that civilians are decisively disarmed.
For a real civil war, like the Yugoslavian ones of the last decade, there need to be two military forces to fight. One might be guerella, or militia.
Civil disturbances can escalate but will eventually be put down by the government. A big riot or even a series of them isn't a civil war.
Look at what is going on in Venezuela right now. The government has passed the point of reason, and the mad dictator is now taking more and more power into his hands. Soon he will be President for life with total one-man control of the media.
Many, many ordinary Venezuelans disagree with his rule, and have been mounting huge street protests for a several years. But it's not having any effect. Eventually the leaders will be rounded up and that will be that.
Who exactly do you envision facing down the police/military of a combined EU "peacekeeping" force sent in to quell, for instance, Danish native riots?
Having said that I don't want a war, I'd like to re-state that this is a discussion of hypotheticals and my opinions of such hypotheticals are in no way endorsed by anyone except myself.
Zeke, I tried to post an answer to you earlier on this on the post of my original piece, but it looks like gremlins ate it, here's hoping I have better luck this time.
Yes, civilians are disarmed. Completely. However, that's just a state of affairs, and as the saying goes, the situation is always fluid in war and politics. All that wuold be needed would be a change of mentality and a growth of passion and a desire for a real substantial change in the state of affairs (and, indeed, the affairs of State), after that it's just a question of details. Weapons can be procured illegally, as the Gunslinger pointed out a while back, and where they can't be procured illegally... well, I hear necessity is the mother of invention. Just look at the major martial arts of the east, most of them arose out of times worse even than the ones today, when not only was weaponry outlawed, but learning how to fight was also outlawed. Kata and other forms used to be hidden in dances, so I hear, and we can see the surviving tradition of that even today in capoeira.
The saying is 'where there's a will, there's a way', but I think we'd do well to realise that sometimes it takes a little while for the way to catch up to the will, and sometimes it (the way) has to be forced open.
All of which, of course, is completely hypothetical and not the ideal. My ideal would be a nationwide BNP victory, forcing a complete shift in the political paradigm here in the UK to more patriotic lines. But if that weren't to happen, then we need to look again at that quotation from J.S. Mill.
MrSmith, doesn't the BNP make you nervous? Somewhat nervous? No Mosley Ghosts are evoked?
But where else does one go? Labour--excuse me....New Labour--is a collaborationist stooge factory, the Tories are hopelssly lost......
Start another party on your island, MrSmith. Canada had the Reform Party came out of nowhere a decade or so ago and won 70 seats to the 'Progressive Conservative' 2 --out of 300.
...and that fellow on another thread who said that Ireland isn't part of Europe was correct, thank God & Jesus, Mary & Joseph
and I like your blog. I think The Tide is about to wash you away, but I appreciate your efforts
Simon de Montfort,
Mosley ghosts? No, not really. Powell, yes, but not Mosley. In either case, I'm less concerned by the ghosts of Christmas-past than by the ghost of Christmas-yet-to-be-banned.
Starting a new party? I don't think there's time, and I don't think splitting the political power of those who think along these lines will help. A concerted effort is what's needed, and thus a rallying behind one effort. The BNP (of which I am not, nor have ever been, a member) is the most viable existing such option, so here's hoping they win. As the Gunslinger said, all of our options are bad.
And thanks for the 'well done', when the Tide comes, we'll see what happens, but for now I can still stand and rant at it to turn again.
I think if there were to be an all out civil war in Europe it would be devastating, not as devastating as the entire continent slipping into the abyss of commu-islamism. As to which side the US would be on it would be the muslims hands down, Both republiCAN'ts and demoCRAPS would back the muslim "freedom fighters"
I liked old Enoch. I heard him speak in Parliament once, back when one had to stand in line outside Westminster and then sit in line on a bench in that huge drafty lobby. Must have been November of 67. Harold Wilson sat with his stubby feet up on the table like a Swell and frequently picked his nose
Heath looked like a mortician
Rhodesia had declared independence two Novembers ago, and Enoch made their case, which was doomed of course. He tried to make an intelligent case for 'racial identity' as a valid non-evil concept--and that was doomed, too
Maybe a few years down the road America will be too embroiled in its own immigrant-fuelled problems to bother itself with what's going on in Europe.
Post a Comment