One of the reasons I concentrate on the European front of the Great Jihad is to counter the frequent assertions (usually by Americans) that “Europe is lost”.In recent discussions here and elsewhere, the “Europe is doomed” meme has expanded to include the entire culture: “Western Civilization is doomed.”
The Cassandras may be right. Doom may be on the way.
I’m no prophet, so I can’t say.
Back in 1985 William F. Buckley gave a speech to an audience that included President Ronald Reagan. An excerpt from the speech is apropos here:
A year before National Review was founded, I spent an evening with Whittaker Chambers, and he asked me, half provocatively, half seriously, what exactly it was that my prospective journal would seek to save. I trotted out a few platitudes of the sort one might expect from a 28-year-old fogy, about the virtues of a free society. He wrestled with me by obtruding the dark historicism for which he had become renowned. Don’t you see? he said. The West is doomed so that any effort to save it is correspondingly doomed to failure.- - - - - - - - -
I drop this ink stain on the bridal whiteness of this fleeted evening only to acknowledge soberly that we are still a long way from establishing for sure that Whittaker Chambers was wrong. But that night, challenged by his pessimism, I said to him that if it were so that providence had rung up our license on liberty, stamping it as expired, the Republic deserved a journal that would argue the historical and moral case that we ought to have survived: that, weighing the alternative, the culture of liberty deserves to survive. So that even if the worst were to happen, the journal in which I hoped he would collaborate might serve, so to speak, as the diaries of Anne Frank had served, as absolute, dispositive proof that she should have survived, in place of her tormentors — who ultimately perished.
I’m with WFB on this one.
Since the correctness of apocalyptic prophecies will not be determined within my lifetime, I’ll dedicate the rest of my days to describing the culture of liberty that deserves to survive, to exhorting people to pay attention, to cajoling the reluctant to make an effort to reverse our civilizational decline, and to deterring the preemptive surrender of our leaders to Islam.
If a large enough proportion of the West believes that we are doomed, then we are indeed doomed.
But the converse is also true. Indigenous Europeans still outnumber the colonists by at least ten to one, except possibly in France. In the United States the situation is similar. If a large enough proportion of us decided that we would not tolerate the eradication of our cultures, then our cultures would not be eradicated. It’s as simple as that.
The process begins here, and in many thousands of similar virtual locations. It begins in small street gatherings and conversations in local pubs.
It begins neither in the learned journals nor in the halls of the academy. Ministers of government and television personalities are not part of the process of change.
Change occurs when ordinary people in large enough numbers get fed up with those who supposedly speak on their behalf.
The system in our cultures is chaotic, and like any chaotic structure it can flip into a new state without any warning. It is inherently unpredictable.
All the predictors of doom, all those who are absolutely certain that Western Civ is done for: you know this because of… because of what, exactly?
Because you have the gift of prophecy?
Because you have inside information?
Because you are smarter than the rest of us?
Because your powers of reasoning and calculation are superior to those of any supercomputer, and can project the behavior of chaotic social systems generations into the future?
Or do you just know it? In other words, is it a matter of faith?
If so, I’ll match you: my faith for your faith.
I won’t be around to find out who’s right, so you young folks among our readers will have to pay attention.
Wait thirty years and see if that loopy old Baron Bodissey was right.
42 comments:
Baron, I believe you are correct. We need that hope, not the one promised by politicians, and active participation in sustaining that hope. But we are fighting Big Brother and the monied elite which could lead to exasperation and submission by many.
However, I also believe that, according to some prophecies, that a change is coming. As the Mayans and other meso-American natives look at time as circular, not linear, a change in the "Age of Man" is coming. What that will bring I do not know and would not hazard a guess.
The West and the world are fast approaching a crossroad.
Found this quote to be apropos:
We're in a giant car heading toward a brick wall and everyone's arguing about where they want to sit. - David Suzuki
Tom
I share your faith, Baron, but I reckon things can go terribly wrong.
I see three things in play right now that may prove our undoing.
The first is the fact that our informal network faces an army with unprecedented power and money headed by a single man named George. This man bought an entire US party in 2003 and with incessant propaganda has split our nation. It is not George Bush. It is one of the few Nazi collaborators still alive--George Soros.
The second internal threat we face is the reliance on the populace of bankrupting entitlements. These are driving immigration in the US and Europe.
Finally ignorance. I think that we as societies are becoming less aware of present and historical realities or that we don't give them the importance they need and deserve.
In the mission statement of my humble blog you can read WITHIN EVERY SIX YEAR ELECTION CYCLE WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PEACEFUL TURNOVER--REVOLUTION, IF YOU WILL--OF OUR GOVERNANCE.
You've written at length about distributed vs heirarchical networks. If we fail to turn over our (heirarchical) governments that are seeking our delayed ruination right quickly we may have to seek other (distributed) means.
livefreerdie-
Hindus had similar ideas regarding the macro circle of time--but time marches forward in the dimensions we live in.
How about we're on a giant ship with a rudder dearly in need of repair?
I'm convinced we're doomed.. but I'm still going to fight.
Baron said:
I won’t be around to find out who’s right, so you young folks among our readers will have to pay attention.
Wait thirty years and see if that loopy old Baron Bodissey was right.
I hope you have a succession plan in the works to keep what you started going (if it's prudent to neither confirm nor deny this in a public forum like this, I will understand). One thing that sticks out from looking at photos of the groundbreaking Counter-Jihad Summit is the rather advanced age of the heavyweights.
I always learn something from this blog - thank you.
I had no idea that's how George Soros escaped the fate of 2/3 of the Jewish population in Europe. I was disgusted by the man before - now I'm truly sick to my stomach. What a callous, sociopath George Soros is.
If Elie Wiesel were willing, I would love to see the two of them have a "discussion." Elie Wiesel feels guilt for just surviving the Holocaust and this piece of human garbage feels no guilt for profiting from it?
The problem is the left. At least half of the 10 to 1 majority are cultural traitors who, in some cases ardently wish, and in other cases don't care about the destruction of western civilization.
Of course the problem is the left. Every liberal advance has hurt me personally and hurt this nation.
If we can't educate people to quit nursing at the public teat and vote these rascals out of power we will end up with blood being spilt to sort things out.
Those who marshall the instincts (which are eternally fresh for every fight for survival) will prevail.
Those who confuse this inner, organismic clarity (the self-loathing class) and who cling to a negative vision of the future, will defeat themselves.
External enemies are simply tests of your natural resolve.
Only those who (unnaturally) undermine their desire to live, and who fail to love this world enough to seek their own best qualities, succumb to the struggle with a foe who may be wrong, but who believes in his folly more seriously than you believe in your intelligence.
The decision is made by everyone, every day.
Educating children to doubt their own country's vision, to slant their own past toward the cripplingly negative, to confuse their own instincts, and to deny their own future... for p.c. and multiculti reasons... is the "poison in the wellsprings of being" that threatens us and our tomorrows.
It is a matter of will.
We either rise to the civilizational challenge or the challengers' will dominates.
The simplistic and dogmatic are dangerously in touch with their instinctual strengths.
The more "educated" risk losing contact with their organism's wisdom by allowing their healthy skepticism and self-criticism to exceed their boundaries and lose their sense of purpose ( to keep us strong) and thereby become morbid and corrosive and not an invigorating tonic.
We need to listen to the voice of the immune system.
White blood cells do not dither over the "arguments" of infecting bacteria, they simply destroy them as deadly invaders.
Nations need this same survival-level of clarity.
Or they have lost their most vital meaning, and will then lose everything else.
The future goes to the brave.
All together now: "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquari..." Sorry...I'll just sit down and shut up now.
Seriously, I'll be damned if I'm going to throw in the towel while I've still got a breath left. I don't believe Western civilization is a lost cause.
This is going to be a long fight, made longer by the basic decency of the West. In the end, I believe Islam will do something that pushes us to what I call the "Popeye Point" ("That's all I can stands, 'cause I can't stands no more!") and we will remember that we once had a spine and a stomach for slaughter.
What's being done here and on many other sites is important. It is vital to the cause that Islam should be subjected to scrutiny and ridicule...especially ridicule.
Islam is mad. It cannot be reasoned into acting sanely. It must therefore be provoked into acting so insanely that its marginal adherents reject it and its die-hard adherents either self-destruct or give the West no choice but to destroy them.
We need more cartoons, more "Fitna"s and an ever louder chorus of Bronx cheers aimed at our enemies...and the spine and stomach to deal with them when they reach their "Popeye Point".
None of this is going to be pretty.
Well said Average Joe! Let's provoke them into making a mistake.
The Unbeliever
“If a large enough proportion of us decided that we would not tolerate the eradication of our cultures, then our cultures would not be eradicated. It’s as simple as that.”
Oh, really?
Let us suppose that in order to get through university, you have to pretend to affirm that our society should eradicated, because it is racist, colonialist, imperialist, capitalist, exploitative, and is destroying the planet. Suppose that if your blog says something different, you are going to be prosecuted for spreading racial hatred, harming the earth, and so forth. Suppose that if you say something different, those you love are likely to be murdered, and the police will not do anything about it.
What then?
It really is not that easy to preserve liberty. Liberty always costs blood, and freedom will always require forms of social organization capable of killing people in substantial numbers.
James A. Donald --
I said it was simple; I didn’t say it was easy.
If a large enough proportion of us decided that we would not tolerate the eradication of our cultures, then our cultures would not be eradicated.
That’s a big “if” there. But if it happened, our cultures would not be eradicated.
Those of us who wish to effect this outcome must work hard for scant reward if we hope to see the end result. And those of us over 50 will not see the end result, whatever it might be.
But if we do nothing more than post, argue, and complain, then we will surely lose. Our words must evolve into various forms of direct action.
But change will come. Many thousands of good, decent, dedicated people are waking up. Some of them are even willing to sacrifice blood and treasure for the cause.
The first step in this program is to stop saying “This can’t be done” or “The West is doomed”. The later steps will unfold and become discernible as the Tao takes it course.
Well said Baron.
Islam is weak without the cover of the multi-cult. The multi-cult has a mass of internal contradictions that will crack it apart over time.
The sooner it happens the less bloody it will be but either way I think we'll win. Keep up the information war.
Baron;
"All the predictors of doom, all those who are absolutely certain that Western Civ is done for: you know this because of… because of what, exactly?"
Because that's the way the Great Game is played.
Didn't you read your Orwell?
The extrenal enemies are used as cat's paws in the internal power struggle for supremacy of the polis.
When enough of us proles and outer party schmucks believe that all is lost, then soon there will come "the Man on Horseback" to turn our winter of discontent into Glorious Summer.
That's usually how it turns out. Except that every now and then, the external enemy refuses to be content with his alloted role and really DOES want to clean our clocks.
I think the situation today is the opposite of what you said about Orwell.
In 1984 , the people of Oceania were always being told of the great war against either Eastasia or Eurasia (as you said)
What's going on here is that info that we're even in a Great War is actually being suppressed from the people.
@ Joe
"Islam is mad. It cannot be reasoned into acting sanely. It must therefore be provoked into acting so insanely... "
I've been saying this for some time now, although a little more provocatively as the Baron can attest.
If there is one thing I have learned it is that Islam is patient. They know the current trajectory of demographic trends and therefore have decided to simply wait us out. And as long as our own governments aid them via immigration policies the trends are accelerated each year. So, why act before they are ready? They won't. The only way to get them to act while we still have advantage is for us to provide the spark.
Unfortunately I haven't done the research required to provide hard numbers for what I like to call "The Tipping Point" but I'll provide a general description.
It is a generational rather than total look at the population of Europe. All European countries are still overwhelmingly white but what are the percentages in the critical fighting age age groups? In France for example what percentage of France's population aged 15-35 is white? What of Britain and the Scandinavian countries? With each successive generation the balance tips towards Islam. The question is, when IS The Tipping Point? The time to act is not as far off in the future as we like to believe.
comment
My favorite historian, William H. McNeill, has pointed out that successful civilizations adapt and change to the problems confronting them. He is correct. Having said that, we must know what is adaptation and what is submission. I believe we can not only survive, but flourish, if we are willing to make some sacrifices and pursue the war against all forms of terrorism with determination. We all know the expression, "to pull the rug out from someone's feet." We knock them down by removing their foundation--their support. My miniscule contribution is to do what I can to pull the prayer rug out from under the feet of Jihad Islam; to show it is not a valid religion, but a murderous regime. Baron, et. al., are doing great work with this as well!
Baron, Thank you for the article. I am constantly going back and forth between "we're doomed" and "we will eventually win". Articles such as yours remind me to fight the negative urges. And, Lord knows, there are PLENTY of negatives out there.
Liberty does deserve to survive. The problem is, do we deserve liberty? Our forefathers fought and died for it. A good chunk of this country is squandering it.
@timbre,
On pulling rugs..
Perhaps the biggest rug for us to pull, should be our money that we pay these desert fascists each day for their oil. Because that rug, all that money from the West really ties their whole room together.
But as everyone knows all too well, there are global elites who don't give a rat's behind about countries and constitutions, that favour strong financial ties with, for instance, the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia (prime sponsor of Salafism around the world), as in the past the same elites favoured strong ties with, an financed, the Communist revolution and the National Socialist warmachine.
The least citizens should demand is Saudi-free fuel.
Furthermore, I'd like to note that perhaps those idiots touched by the worldwidewarming-hysteria could for once turn out to be "useful idiots" in the fight against jihad.
Vincep:
"What's going on here is that info that we're even in a Great War is actually being suppressed from the people."
The war has (at least), two sides. From the Islamists POV, it is WE who have been long on the offensive. We have exported them our culture,(something that even we in and of the West often view with alarm), exported by diplomacy and force of arms, our belief in egalitarian democracy, and,(probably most threatening to them), our belief that government and religion should be forever at arm's length from each other.
We ourselves still wrestle with THAT one from time to time.
In many ways, Islamism can be described as a response to "Baywatch" and women's suffrage, and legalized abortion.
And don't for a minute underestimate the allure of what we have. (Beyonce's thighs, anyone?)
Look at what it has done to our own faiths, especially in Europe, where a scant 500 years ago we were burning each other at the stake over Papism and Heresy.
I see no reason that Islam should not similarly fail to maintain it's heretofore primacy in the politico-cultural life of its' lands also.
As to my point about Orwell, I'd observe that the shock generated by 9/11 lasted until calls were made to allow airline pilots to carry guns to defend themselves with. If the oligarchy were REALLY scared by what the Cave-dweller and his minions had done, we'd fly with an IDF trooper carrying an UZI sitting with his back to the cockpit door, and no-one who even remotely looks Arab would be allowed near an airport.
Instead, we heard how pilots can't be trusted with guns, and focusing on Arabs at the TSA checkpoint is "racial-profiling".
This is how we can gauge just how dangerous our masters consider this ragamuffin to be.
Tell me again why Tora Bora wasn't ringed with US troops, then saturated with nerve gas and napalm?
Had I been calling the shots, that's how I'd have gotten him.
And if he had escaped, I'd chase him around the world with neutron bomb blasts.
Would anyone except tribesmen REALLY miss the Pakistani Tribal Areas? I'd offer that Pakistan might conceivably appreciate our ridding of them of what, by all accounts, is naught but a lawless wasteland.
There is a third way of looking at this. As Chambers once said, it is idle to talk of preventing the wreck of Western civilization, for it is already a wreck from within. This was well before Islam was at issue in our future.
The same entity that brought us the rot of socialism, and defended communism, now favors us with defending the virus of Islam. Our enemy was always within. The rot of socialism has ennervated all that was great in the cultures that valued liberty. The poison of Islam may be the cure, for as Thomas Paine said, evils, like poisons, have their uses, which no other remedy can reach. It is focusing our atention, is it not?
The Baron says:
Indigenous Europeans still outnumber the colonists by at least ten to one, except possibly in France. In the United States the situation is similar.
Well said about the Europeans, Baron. But, if I'm not mistaken, the "indigenous" population of the United States totals less than a million and generally lives in or near reservations that were set up for them by your and my conquering race.
Do you really, think, Baron, that the U.S. is fundamentally a European "indigenous" civilization similar to that of the "old continent?" If so, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of your own nation.
We are a nation of immigrants. When this nation has welcomed new immigrants it has thrived. When it has shut its doors it has stagnated. And those immigrants have never been exclusively white Europeans. And, even when they were mostly White Europeans, they were still stigmatized as "others" by the Anglo-Saxon Protestants that were the first conquerors from Europe.
Please explain yourself, Baron.
Sagunto & Xlbrl: Excellent points--I agree.
deadbambi: Could you please enlighten me (and perhaps others) as to why you have brought George Soros into this conversation, and why you have tried to smear his life experience as a victim of European anti-semitism?
Bilgeman:
I reject the analysis that Western immorality contributes to the motivation to engage in Jihad.
Muslims attack Non-Western Non-Muslim cultures just as much as they attack the West.
Essentially being a Non-Muslim is viewed as us being on the Offensive from their POV.
Their POV is a demented irrational one.
VinceP:
"I reject the analysis that Western immorality contributes to the motivation to engage in Jihad."
I didn't categorize us as immoral, why do you? It is what it is...some is good, some is bad.
You reject the analysis...okay. I don't see Asian terrorism as a threat to Europe or America, and our civilizations have been in collision for at least as long we and Islam have.
"Muslims attack Non-Western Non-Muslim cultures just as much as they attack the West."
Certainly, but it's the West that I'm mostly concerned with. The Asians and Africans will have to primarily look after their own interests.
"Essentially being a Non-Muslim is viewed as us being on the Offensive from their POV."
That was my point.
We have been in their lands, (in one form or another), for far longer than they have been in ours.
Now that there are sizeable minorities of them among us, we realize that they may very well be passengers of a Trojan Horse.
And useful to more than just the external enemy.
"I’m no prophet, so I can’t say."
Well, my predictions have been more or less acurate so I can tell you people that the West will - for sure - expirience really dark times. Like those of the fall of the Roman Empire.
But the Vikings will look like innofensive cats in comparison with this new barbarians.
Will it fall? I don't know, but the Guy over the clouds will turn the light off in our bedroom for a while...
You should also have the "Rivers of Blood" speach in mind, from Enoch Powell. That man was a Churchill of his time.
"But the converse is also true. Indigenous Europeans still outnumber the colonists by at least ten to one, except possibly in France. In the United States the situation is similar."
I wish! Or maybe there is only one type of colonists: muslims. If that's the case it is indeed sad.
It is sad that many people still believe that Europe can be maintained with Zulus, Hindus and Tibetans or that America can strive with Mexicans, Bolivians and Nigerians.
Your position here Baron, if that's the case, is indeed irrationally Islamophobic.
The only reason why muslims are a bigger threat than the others is because they have already a well designed plan. Others will made it up sooner or later.
It's the same kind of logical that demonizes the great freedom fighter Malcolm X and praises the leftist "poor clerig", Martin Luther King with all his dreams.
After all, I liked this post very much.
And Baron, the reason usually is C "Because you are smart than the rest of us?".
"I won’t be around to find out who’s right, so you young folks among our readers will have to pay attention.
Wait thirty years and see if that loopy old Baron Bodissey was right."
Now that's directed to me! I will wait thirty years but I could be waiting fiftie Baron! I am planning to be around in 2057 and around and well by 2037 so, I'll tell you how it went or something.
Charlesmagne said:
"It is a generational rather than total look at the population of Europe. All European countries are still overwhelmingly white but what are the percentages in the critical fighting age age groups? In France for example what percentage of France's population aged 15-35 is white?"
Well, I read recently an essay of a friend of Le Pen about how, at a National level, 25% of those under five years old are non whites (I don't like the term white, I will use European), non Europeans (or, of course, of mixed race and therefore will not indentify as white). He then explained that many of the 75% white weren't all that French. That many of those 75% were Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese or other ethnicity and that many of them would be raised by leftist parents and that many would also turn out to be gays.
He then explained how this 75% European France would be less virile than the rest, how they will have less sons then the 25% non European.
He also talked about miscegenation and he tought of something like that:
France will be 75% European. Of those 75% 37~38% will be girls. So, only some 35% of the French population would be able of generating a white child.
Taking in consideration how the non-Europeans are more viriles than Europeans and that (he said this implicitly) European girls are the more desirable and that for the non-Europeans to possess a European girl is a sign of status, we will have great problems...
If only 30% of France can produce white European children...
And we are not counting with new wages of immigrants...
We should look better after our women. And discourage them of getting involved with "ethnics".
It may be racist but I KNOW I am right.
One man can "fertilize" ten girls, but one girl can not fertilize two men. So women are way more important than man in an evolutionary stand.
We have to protect the European women. I don't careabout the Pandas, this specie is way more worth saving.
"Do you really, think, Baron, that the U.S. is fundamentally a European "indigenous" civilization similar to that of the "old continent?" If so, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of your own nation.
We are a nation of immigrants. When this nation has welcomed new immigrants it has thrived. When it has shut its doors it has stagnated. And those immigrants have never been exclusively white Europeans. And, even when they were mostly White Europeans, they were still stigmatized as "others" by the Anglo-Saxon Protestants that were the first conquerors from Europe."
I am no American but i could not hear this Marxist nonsense, and sit quiet.
Gordon,
you are the one with missconceptions about your own Nation. First of all, your Nation is not a Nation, it is a State.
Also, "white Americans" are as much European as any European.
You don't become less European because you are in America, you become less European every time you become a lesser man, when you turn into marxism as you seem to be doing.
You are not a nation of immigrants, you coward leftie, YOU ARE A NATION OF COLONISTS, or did the Native Americans invited you and your familly to join their multiculturalism. Everyone that entered your country and his not a Native American is a colonist: Black, white, yellow... all colonists!
And I will even add this to you. America was founded for white people to white people. Or do you think your beloved founding fathers make America to include the Natives and the Negros?
With the hell! It was also to be only White "English"! The rest is multiculturalism. America does not weakens when it stops recieving immigrants, it weakens every time that multiculturalism pours in.
When the Irish and the Italians and also the Jews poured in... America got divided, it eventually overcomed its difficulties to be then divided between White Black and "Mexican or Native".
I don't care if Americans want a "white America" or not, after all, that's their problem. What you can not do is say that America is a dream that every one can enjoy (go tell that to the poor blacks and the Mexican illegals!), that America is a Nation of immigrants (that acidentally wiped out the Natives. Also, a kind of immigrants that have the discernment to classified themselves as "the conquer race". In what do you differ exactley from the muslims and other "ethnics" of Europe in a Native American view of the world?) and that America was builted for all.
America was even more worried about "Aryan purity" than Nazi Germany so don't come with bullshits of a proletarian society.
Every group has the right to own their space. The Natives in the U.S.A. were incompetent in controlling there space just like as the Europeans are now being incompetent. Tribes like this two disearve one thing: to be dispossessed by the superior ones who wiped them out.
So, I guess America is now white, and I hope it continue to be white. I read somewhere that America is 75% white... you will not be white for to long. I fear for what a really multicultural America (like Bosnia, not with minor communities but with well defined peoples) might become.
Concearning the logics back then. The Natives in the U.S. were wiped out by the superior Europeans.
Can you see anything superior about those who are gaining controle over Europe? I can not. If I could, it would be desearved to Europe, it would be Natural Selection, the improovement of the species. Unfortunateley, it is a leftist trama and it will label Humanity at a lower level as possible.
Now, it is not the superior that wipes out the inferior, it is quiet the opposite.
I will wait for the cryes of racism to pour in.
Sorry Baron, for being so explcit.
Nodrog --
The Indians are no more “indigenous” than we are. There was an earlier wave of occupancy in North America of quite different origin, the paleolithic people who knapped the “Folsom points” in the Southwest and hunted the ice age fauna.
These guys were exterminated or absorbed by the next wave of immigrants, the “Native Americans” who are closely related genetically to the Siberian Asiatic groups.
The Folsom hunters may well have exterminated an even earlier group. The archeological evidence is very scanty and ambiguous.
With the possible exception of the Australian aborigines, no ethnic group now extant has occupied its current territory since the first humans arrived there. Everybody is an immigrant.
And Afonso is right -- the land belongs to those who are strong enough and ruthless enough to take it and hold it. I propose that we become strong and ruthless enough to avoid being supplanted by the new colonizers.
And by “we” I mean the descendants of white Europeans, along with those who have adopted European culture -- which, of course, includes a lot of non-whites and non-Europeans.
It’s a loosely defined and amorphous hodge-podge I call “the West”, and it’s worth defending.
Part of that defense requires us to cut immigration to a trickle, and, if we don’t require that trickle to assimilate and become like us, then to cut it off completely.
It’s not immoral, and it’s not rocket science, but for some reason we seem collectively unable to accomplish such a well-defined task.
P.S. -- I forgot Iceland. The first humans in Iceland were the Vikings, and their descendants still live there.
Well, let's see about the "hurray it's tribal day"-thing. Out with universal values and personal "natural" rights.. enter tribal supremacism and mob rule. It's all full of sound and fury..
I'd agree with anyone making a case for defending civilization, if necessary with the sacrifice of one's own life. But I would however emphasize that I'd really like to defend civilization, not some depraved doctrine of tribal progress. G.K. Chesterton said that any "..true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." I think he was right, not only that, but wise also. Styling the Counterjihad effort, which is only just beginning, as some sort of tribal survivalrace is to copy in large part those features that are among the most detestable in those desert fanatics trained in the islamic tribal cult of hate.
Thinking about Holland, all this indigenous stuff is quite easy: more than half of it didn't exist, so the ones with the obvious right to live there are the ones who quite literally built it from scratch, reclaiming it from the sea ;-)
Kind regards from Amsterdam,
Sag.
A certain group of people can create everything we hold dear, another group cannot even maintain it, instead they crush it all to dust like the buddhas of bamiyan or the farmlands of zimbabwe. Which PEOPLE would you therefore prefer to survive, prosper, and grow?
If you really do love bach, shakespeare, liberty, and science. . .you must line up in defense of the one and only European people who has achieved any of it, and the one and only people who intent to preserve and inherit it rather than cast it aside for their own particular religion, politics, culture, language, etc. I cannot imagine anything weaker than relying on chinese 'sympathizers' to carry on western civilization since it's just too hard for us, or less likely to succeed. It's just surrender in advance.
Baron,
"And by “we” I mean the descendants of white Europeans, along with those who have adopted European culture -- which, of course, includes a lot of non-whites and non-Europeans.
It’s a loosely defined and amorphous hodge-podge I call “the West”, and it’s worth defending."
I am not saying what is right or wrong. However I will like you people to consider that Europe is way to different from America in this regard.
In Europe we don't have other minorities than European ones. So Gypsies and all the others (maybe even the Jews!) are somehow "aliens". I am not saying they should all be expelled from Europe, actually I think they have contributed to "(maybe) European" culture and the Jews, definitely, to European advancements.
But truth must be told: The less of them the better, especially in percentage.
So you can imagine how it is going with all this "not succeeded" imported "ethnics" if even the "extremely well succeeded" Jews are tainted...
In America, all over the Americas, it is different. It was conquest and there are many non Europeans. Mainly Native Americans and Africans. The Native Americans in the (or so I consider it) "European-American" countries (United States, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Uruguay, Cuba?, Chile?, Costa Rica?) are a minority which is disappearing. Once again, it is sad to loose their culture, but the truth is, the less of them the better.
In countries such as Mexico and Colombia where Europe is "in power" but Europeans are less than one fourth, there is a great pressure and Identity crises over these places.
The Africans are another problem. In countries like America they are a tiny minority but there is the question about slavery. I personally think you could have dropped them all in Africa when Lincoln suggested it but now it is quiet an ethical problem. In Brazil it is really the less the better. And there are already some movements against Africans in Southern Brazil.
The point is, I don't agree with you when you say that the West is composed by white Europeans and some culturally assimilated "ethnics". I am not saying I am right, and I am also glad you included the Russians in your West. But if we are to clam them as "white", as Western, so in what can we say that blacks in Portugal and U.K. are not Western? Why the muslim blacks in America can not be Western?
The thing is, if there is a tiny minority that can be assimilated over time without changing the genetic and cultural composition of a given people they should be considered Western. (Ex. the Indians in Argentina, the North African moors in Spain and Portugal, the Jews in Europe if they wanted to do so, and many others.)
But this is not a case as a rule in America. It would be to ignore the differences.
It is so, and because the West I see is not a “a loosely defined and amorphous hodge-podge I call “the West”, and it’s worth defending."
For me the, "West" or as I called it, Europe, is quiet well defined and cut clear and it is worth defending.
I may love my country because I may happen to be somehow Portuguese, I may be a bit pro-white because I may happen to be somehow white, I may love the West, European Civilisation because I happen to be somehow European but it does not gives me strength to fight for it per se.
I think it is worth fighting for because my country and my people have made great achievements, achievements that no other Nation could accomplished. The National Pride I feel comes from that sense of superiority that may not lie upon me, but that superiority that lies somehow upon my country and my people, its History, its relation to the Transcendent and to the Divine, its legends, etc. In summary, I can see my Nation as mine, but more than that, as somehow superior.
The "racial" pride I may have does not come from me being white, it does not come just from the vast majority of great men being white, it comes from the fact that white European women are much, but really much more beautiful than any other on earth, the fact that White European peoples have done so many great deeds that it is somehow superior. Not because I am superior myself but because I am part of something that is somehow superior. The fact that every "ethnic" prefers a white girl shows that biological superiority. These white European peoples have created the European Civilisation.
And European Civilisation, the West. It is not the greater because it is my own. It is the greater because it happened to be so. We ruled the world in the XIX century. Hitler made his army and fought "white Aryan Europeans" over power - let's face the facts - but if he wanted, he would not turn its army against the most powerful armies of the world. The thing is, we could easily have eradicated the other races from the face of Earth but we didn't. In a near future we may fall victims of out superiority or the so called Mongolian race can be destined to govern the world, I don't care. The fact is that our Civilisation, Western Civilisation was so superior that it achieved World hegemony and lost it because of internal fights; And it created wonderful cities like London and especially Rome. It created everything we can recognise as good as beautiful. Western Civilisation was indeed the most perfect thing the Human species have made and is worth defending because of it, not because it is my own.
So I am an elitist bastard, I want the best for Humanity, I think that Man kind must walk towards the path of God and as so I stand for superior things. That’s why I stand for my Nation (of which without, my people and culture could not be protected), European Civilisation and the people that made it, the European peoples that stand as somehow the nobility of Humanity in so many regards that it can not be occasional. And we weren’t elected by God as the Jews, Europeans made it by themselves!
The lunacy of the world shows when one can not state clearly that what is best, what is superior, must be preserved and must even have primacy over what is worst, what is inferior.
I distinguish right from left in this way. It is leftist to put Humanity at the lower level possible and to fight what seems superior. The right is elitist and tries to make even what is more disgraceful sublime. It puts Humanity at the higher level as possible and then concepts like “meritocracy”, “elitism”, “justice”, “differentiation”, “responsibility”, “honour” emerge against the leftist mantras of “equality”, “liberty(nage)”, “love (from nothing)”, “class struggle” and others.
The West must be preserved, the West or Europe (and of course the U.S.A. is part of Europe (or still is at least)) is well defined and it is composed of its many Nations. Nations are the most basic level of this civilisation. And persons are the most basic level of this Civilisation's Nations. So that it is a crime to let "ethnics" in and call them Western when they can not be assimilated without "damaging" the best the world has. It's a crime to call Nations such as Kosovo, Bosnia Herzegovina and Albania as European. The people's genetics may be European but genetics without culture is nothing in the same way as culture without genetics leads to degeneration (of the Western Culture). Look at South Africa, look at Japan (This countries have their own non Western interpretations). Why do you, Americans, criticise Mexicans, is it because they have too much "Spanish influences"? Is that what makes them less Westerners?
We have to clear out - and Baron this is really important - for what we are standing for. You can stand for a white America without being a racist. But you can not stand for the West just as being anti muslim, because they are not the only aliens destroying the West.
---------------------------
Sagunto,
"I'd agree with anyone making a case for defending civilization, if necessary with the sacrifice of one's own life. But I would however emphasize that I'd really like to defend civilization, not some depraved doctrine of tribal progress. G.K. Chesterton said that any "..true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
You can not love a Civilisation, the only way for you to love a Civilisation is by starting to love your own Nation.
You shall not hate the muslims.
You shall love your people.
That's why that friend of you said.
I will try to stop going at Gates of Vienna for one week or two because I don’t think is normal to elaborate a comment like this one in the dark in forty minutes as if my opinion was going to change something. BAH! I scared you GoV reader!
Also, I don’t think this kind of jokes to be normal either.
Afonso Henriques
Baron, the "white European" culture you say we have in the U.S. - does it include room for millions of Mexican and South American immigrants, tens of thousands of Caribbean immigrants, millions of East Asian immigrants, hundreds of thousands of South Asian immigrants (at least the Hindu ones)?
Or are you excluding these people from your United States of Nirvana?
They are our future. Not the washed out descendants of the Scotch-Irish.
@Afonso,
Relax, try a little decaf once in a while..
Sag.
Afonso Henriques, you should have your own blog so that people can discuss your ideas without having to listen to the "anti-racist" scolds around here. (Although I commend you for posting here too.) If you want me to proofread your English before you post, I'll be glad to. You can find my email in my Blogger profile.
Afonso is right that an overwhelming percentage of nonwhites don't want to carry on Western civilization. They want to come to the West and replace its culture with their own.
John Savage says: an overwhelming percentage of nonwhites don't want to carry on Western civilization. They want to come to the West and replace its culture with their own.
This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding and misconception about immigration to the U.S. for all ethnic, racial, and religious groups with the arguable exception of Muslim immigrants. (I can't speak to the situation in Europe, but the logic of my argument would seem to apply there too)
Does the Mexican peasant come to this nation, often illegally, because they want to live just like they did in Mexico?
Does the Haitian day laborer come to this nation because he wants to live like he did in the slums of Port-au-Prince?
Does the Indian engineer come to the U.S. to live like he did in Bangalore? Does the Indian doctor come to the U.S. because she wants the same type of hospital conditions as prevail in Mumbai?
Do the Chinese cargo container people come to the U.S. as spies and infiltrators egged on by the Chinese government, because they want to replicate conditions in Chungking or the rice paddies of the Lower Yangtze?
They come to this country because they want to be Americans. And that means learning English and generally assimilating into American society.
It's the way it is, and hopefully always will be. And it represents the true American identity, not the identity frozen from the 1950's in the minds of the latest xenophobes and know-nothings to pollute our political culture.
@tpfkag,
speaking about Europe (Holland in my case) and espec. the arguable exception of Muslim immigrants..
Migration has always been a feature of international trade and I know my country is and has been a nation of immigrants. Historical research shows that it came with the usual frictions now and then but by and large it always went pretty well. But it all went horribly wrong when our politicians allowed some companies to recrute temporary labour from Muslim countries in the early seventies. With every passing day it is beginning to dawn, even on some of our politicians, that the problem is the imperialist doctrine of Islam that was invited in along with those people. We are still in the process of only just realizing in what specific way the many problems with Islam differ fundamentally from our past - quite successful - history concerning immigrants.
Europe isn't lost, it's waking up.
Post a Comment