Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Hellish Saviors

The surrender of Vercingetorix to Caesar, 51 B.C.

I’ve been posting quite a bit recently about the “gang wars” in Denmark and the actions taken by the Danish chapter of Hells Angels against the Muslim immigrant gangs.

This is not an easy topic to deal with. The idea that violent, criminal, or marginal people may be the vanguard of the resistance to Islamization — it just doesn’t sit well. Unless our discussion includes a deep-throated and serious disapproval, we risk being labeled “criminals” as well as “racists” and “neo-Nazis”.

But it’s important to discuss the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be.

We would like our political leaders to cease importing of millions of Muslim immigrants. We would like them to show more spine in the face of Islamic intimidation. We would like our fellow voters to educate themselves so that they become aware of what’s happening and elect a new batch of leaders who will take a stand on behalf of their own people.

But in the world as it is, this shows no sign of happening. The existing paradigm — a system of lawfully-constituted democratic governance — has failed us.

If lawfully-constituted national leaders do not act, what happens? Will native Europeans go meekly to their doom?

Or will those who are already lawless act instead?

In the comments on my most recent post about the Danish Hells Angels, Zenster voiced his misgivings:

Hells Angels 5Let’s take a close look at exactly who it is that supposedly stand up to these Jackals.

Notice the skulls, references to Hell and allusions to death in general? Does anyone think that these are the sort of people who will come riding to the rescue of Western civilization in its finest form?

Moreover: It is too dangerous to ride through the city on a Harley with an HA logo on your back.

What does this simple statement tell you about the overall efficacy of Danish Hell’s Angels against the Jackals in general?
- - - - - - - - -
[…]

“It is not our responsibility to solve society’s problems. We just react when something bad happens to our friends or families” Horn says.

Pay close attention. None of the above means that these “iron horse crusaders” will come riding to your rescue, Jackals or no.

Much as I might admire Jønke’s open indictment of the Jackals as those who encroach upon the lives of decent Danish people, neither do I look upon the Hell’s Angels as any sort of saviors. They will protect their own and give others the hindmost, much like the Jackals.

Tell me, where’s the advantage in that?

This is a simple question, but it requires a complicated answer.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Let’s return to the world as it is.

In the eight years since 9-11, there has been no sign that any of the major traditional players in the existing political order “gets it”. George W. Bush fought “terrorism”, and he was the best we could hope for. Most European politicians — whether Left or “Right” — support Multiculturalism and are passive in the face of continued mass immigration. No one who wields power shows the slightest sign of dealing seriously with the coming social and financial catastrophe that the liberal welfare state has brought upon us.

In the world as it is, you can either have the Hells Angels, or you can give up beer and say “La illaha ila Allah, wa Muhammadun rasul Allah!”

It won’t be all that long before those are the only choices for Swedes, or Britons, or the Dutch.

I wrote a few weeks ago about what is likely to happen as the crisis worsens. Under the traditional social contract, in return for maintaining a monopoly on violence, our civil authorities are obligated to protect us from lawlessness and criminal predation. But they have abdicated this duty, and thousands of ordinary citizens are victimized every day as a result. A paralysis brought on by the twin ideologies of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism has immobilized the muscular system of the Western democracies and blocked any response to existential threats, both internal and external.

Or — to switch metaphors — consider cultural Marxism as the HIV of the West. Islam is just a virus of opportunity, a pneumonia that has taken advantage of our immunological deficiencies and ushered in the onset of full-blown AIDS in our culture.

We are trapped in a device of our own making, and there is no way to escape without surrendering the deepest truths and most cherished ideals that have held sway for centuries in Europe and the European diaspora.

But not everybody is stuck in the trap. Millions of ordinary people don’t buy into the PC/MC Weltanschauung. Their opinions are not that different from those of their grandparents and great-grandparents. They don’t agree with what their leaders are doing on their behalf, but they want to get along, to live a quiet life, to keep their jobs and avoid having their kids taken away by the child care authorities.

The average citizen may be angry and deeply resentful of the soft totalitarianism he’s forced to live under, but you can’t expect him to be a hero. He’s got everything to lose.

All that is changing, however. As working-class neighborhoods are overrun by “culturally enriched” crime, as unemployment rises, as governmental fiscal folly erodes the value of what little money people earn, they have less and less to lose. If official paralysis continues, eventually some of them will abandon all those decades of self-restraint and take up violent resistance. At some point people will snap.

And those who go first will be the ones who are already somewhat outside the law and not averse to violence. People who have less to lose, anyway. Roughnecks, misfits, and outsiders of various sorts.

In Denmark that means the Hells Angels.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Now let’s return to Zenster’s question: Tell me, where’s the advantage in that?

Well, for starters, Hells Angels in Denmark are doing exactly what you recommend: targeting Islamic leaders. In this case the leaders are the young thugs that lead the Muslim gangs, but they are still leaders, and they’re important in the criminal ecosystem of the immigrant underworld in Denmark.

Back in May, during the time I was in Denmark, AK81 — the group associated with Hells Angels — assassinated another immigrant gang leader. I had a discussion with one of the Danes about the situation, and he said, “You know, you can always tell it’s a Dane who does the shooting, because it only takes him one shot. BANG! [pointing to the center of his forehead] and the guy is dead. But when the Muslims shoot somebody, they spray the area with AK-47s and probably don’t even hit the target — just innocent bystanders.”

So even though both groups are criminals, there is a distinction to be made. And the average Dane understands that distinction. Even though he may find the Hells Angels repugnant, he finds the idea that his country might be overrun with immigrant thugs even more repugnant.

This explains the popularity of the Jackal Manifesto, and it explains why there is an explosion in recruitment for Hells Angels. The civil authorities have failed in their responsibilities, and a local alternative is emerging. Everyone would prefer that the police and the courts do their jobs, and that the murderous thugs were hauled into court, given due process of law, and then hanged by the neck until dead.

But that’s not going to happen. There is a void in the officially-sanctioned civil order, and nature abhors a vacuum. Something else is rushing in to fill it.

The process is not going to be the same in every country. The local resistance will take on different forms, based on the politics and culture of the country involved.

In Britain I expect it to be an alliance among various working-class groups, with “football hooligans” playing a prominent role. The stirrings of this development can already be detected, especially in the most “enriched” suburbs of London.

Nobody wants football hooligans as their champions and protectors. But they know how to put the boot in, and the ultra-politically-correct British police don’t. They know how to be culturally inclusive and non-homophobic. They know how to hit people with large fines when they drop fag-ends on the pavement or fail to sort their rubbish for recycling.

But they are unable to protect ordinary citizens from predatory criminals, most of whom are Muslim immigrants.

So what’s the alternative?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Regular readers are familiar with Zenster’s prescribed solutions, and I generally agree with them:

We need to target the top 2,000 or so radical Islamic leaders and send them to collect their 72 raisins.

We need make sure that the Muslim world feels such an overwhelmingly decisive blow — including glassing and Windexing™ Mecca, Medina, Qom, etc., if necessary — so that they learn what a “strong horse” really is and act accordingly.

We need to prepare the lamp posts, figuratively or literally, for the traitorous Leftists who are leading our countries into this mess.

And so on.

But who are “we”? Who is it that will do these things?

There is no sign, none whatsoever, that any Western leader — not even Geert Wilders, God bless him — will take such actions.

There is no evidence that 9-11 woke anyone up to what needs to be done. And there’s no evidence that a dozen new 9-11s will change the current paradigm.

When the inevitable nuclear or chemical attack against a major Western city occurs, it won’t be enough to incite that kind of response. By then the situation will be so bad that a major terrorist action will simply accelerate the descent into political chaos.

The West is done. You can stick a fork in it.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

But this is no reason to despair. The end of the West is not the end of the world.

There will be an interregnum of uncertain duration, and then something new will form, something built out of leftover pieces of what went before, in the same way Paris, Oxford, and Vienna were built out of the remnants of the Roman Empire.

A lengthy discussion around these ideas has emerged here on a thread that has kept going for the last few days. In the following paragraphs I’ll draw on what was said there, not just by me, but by Conservative Swede, DP111, Chechar, Watching Eagle, Furor Teutonicus, and others.

Conservative Swede often refers to the imminent demise of the reigning paradigm of the liberal West. This belief system could be considered a religious orthodoxy, except that the West has largely abandoned religion in its political systems and public policy. The prevalent Weltanschauung is an article of secular faith, so call it Orthodox Secularism: a set of ideas as rigid and unexamined as anything that a Calvinist could produce.

The liberal paradigm of Western Civilization was a natural outgrowth of Christianity, but once it was fully formed, it abandoned its theological basis. Like the cire perdue in a clay cast, the core of faith melted away, leaving the hollow shell of secular liberalism

But this secular faith is unrestrained by the Christian idea that man is limited and flawed. Under the secular paradigm, humans are inherently good and perfectible, and formerly Christian ethics — unmoored from any limitations — require the secular faithful to create a perfect human society on Earth.

All the murderous totalitarianisms of the 20th century arose from various perversions of this idea. But so did the kinder, gentler socialisms of one form or another that all of us live under now.

All of our societies have created fiscal and social Ponzi schemes which cannot last, which must eventually come crashing down around our ears. Because they have continued for generations, we think they can go on this way forever.

But they can’t. A brief and cold-eyed look at the structure of our political economies shows that they are on their last legs. Even without factoring Islam into the equation, another generation at the most is all we’ll get.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

So, knowing all that, isn’t it possible to take action? Is a collective effort to save Western Civilization even imaginable?

The current paradigm is a psychic structure that prevents our formerly Christian civilization from taking the kind of action that would allow it to save itself. At the moment this paradigm is in the process of slow-motion self-destruction, and the pace may soon accelerate so that the old framework will crumble quite rapidly in the next five years or so. The collapse of the welfare state will be the absolute limiting factor for the liberal paradigm.

That collapse, whether gentle or catastrophic, is unavoidable. In just a few short years we will either discover a different paradigm, or be in the midst of some sort of paradigm-less chaos.

The existing system has an internal logic that prevents it from correcting itself. No politician can get re-elected if he takes the necessary action and begins phasing out the welfare state. No civil servant can take harsh measures to ensure our long-term welfare, because that would be contrary to the deranged altruism of the dominant meme.

The very structure of the system prevents it from correcting itself. This is the Achilles’ heel of liberal social democracy.

We can’t even talk frankly about these issues in any major public forum. This little blog is a haven for cranks and weirdos like us, but there’s no way our voices will ever be heard by a significant number of people — especially those whose hands grasp the levers of political power.

Questioning the sandy foundation on which this immense and ornate castle has been built is simply not done. That’s why all of us here are loners and misfits of one sort or another, and not on government or university payrolls — at least not under the names that are displayed with our posts.

I’m still impelled towards grassroots organizing in an attempt to stave off the worst. I have a family and people I care about, so I have to believe there is still an alternative — I’m not ready to face the War of All Against All.

But if a solution can be found, it is not going to come through government or military means. Those can only come after the change occurs.

And we don’t have much time. In the last three years the polarization has only gotten more extreme. The PC/MC crowd is accelerating the bus towards the precipice. Barack Hussein Obama is at the wheel, and conservatives are hiding under the seats in fear of being labeled “Nazis”. What debate there is among those on the right is more often concerned with doctrinal purity than it is with hammering together a compromise and a coalition that might actually have even a remote chance of making a difference. The infighting will likely continue unabated until the final impact at the foot of the cliff.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Zenster is right about one thing: the Hells Angels will not be the saviors of Western civilization.

But nothing else is going to save it, either. There’s no alternative: the paradigm has to collapse.

The replacement paradigm — for there must be one; man cannot live without a paradigm — will be something we can’t even imagine now.

Our task is to mitigate as well as we can the period of chaos that lies between now and then. There will be no way to prevent various forms of violence and destruction — you can’t cut off life support to millions of people without lethal results, and there is a distinct possibility of geronticide in our future, whether via Obama’s health care plan or by some other means.

But eventually the chaos will subside, and a new civilization will emerge. As Conservative Swede pointed out, Islam will not survive long after the old paradigm disappears — a reinvigorated immune response in the remnants of Western culture will see to that.

So what will come next?

The current paradigm is based on an antipathy for what preceded it. We are modern; we are smarter and better than those who went before us, and everything prior to 1967 can be safely disregarded.

Part of the modern liberal ideal is the foolish notion that we can simply abolish by fiat millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. Just like that! We wish it all away. We’ll soon find out to our chagrin how mistaken we have been.

These absurd ideas will die with the liberal paradigm, and as a corrective, the successor civilization will reach back into our cultural history to find an alternative to the Enlightenment meme which is about to self-destruct.

The new paradigm and the new civilization will be built out of the fragments of what went before. So what we need to focus on is the construction of a modern version of the monastery at Lindisfarne, a networked sanctuary where what is good and valuable can be stored and kept for use in a future time after the chaos is over.

Grab an ink pot and a quill — we’ve got a lot of books to copy.

210 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 210   Newer›   Newest»
Malishious Intent said...

I agree with this reply entirely. I would much rather be under the rule of the Hell's Angels rather than be a dhimmi. Things are coming to a head and the real questions are what will be spared the sword or the flame?

vicktorya said...

Thank you one so ... Baroned ...!

You speak frank, and question widely, ever peering beneath the Emperor's ... whoops? !

Honor it is to call you friend.

deep respect to the Author of Truth.

to all who read -- spread depth of thought widely. It is rare, needed, and should be cherished.

With wit and pen, let us proceed,
Vicktorya

.com

(oh, and by the way, I just dubbed meself an oracle, so come ask questions -- I can straighten most things out -- to a point.)

Skalman said...

This is exactly why I keep reading this blog, and others I find interesting. The clear(and sometimes even brutally clear)thinking and writing, the foresightedness and analytical capabilities of the owners and guestwriters.

I find you to be a beacon of light in an otherwise very dark surrounding.

Excellent work, all of you. I´m impressed and thankful.

Signe said...

Thank you very much for an interesting and insightful article. Allow me to say that I think you are being much too pessimistic.

Western civilisation survived nazism and communism. It took a war, the holocaust, and a very long and risky cold war, but we prevailed.

I think we do need to worry very much about stealth jihad and demographics. And it may be true that Europe cannot be saved – because it will not be saved. We have the political leaders we deserve. Criminal groups turned paramilitary might very well be the first stage in a European civil war – but I doubt that Muslims would win such a war.

"No politician can get re-elected if he takes the necessary action and begins phasing out the welfare state." True, but a European majority would and could put a stop to welfare to immigrants as well as a stop for further Muslim immigration. That would buy us some time until voters are forced to quit the welfare state all together and establish a sound economic foundation.

If Europe does collapse economically and/or break down in civil war, well then USA and Australia are that more likely to wise up and do what is necessary to prevent you from going the same way.

Finally, when trying to predict the future, I think we need to take technology into consideration. We westerners have never been healthier or lived longer than now, nor do we have to work nearly as hard to get food on the table as past generations. This development is bound to continue (if we do not let ourselves be overrun by a pre-modern culture, granted).

Robotics is still in its first phase of development. And genetics - scientists might be about to solve the problem of old age thus increasing the average life expectancy in the Western world to who knows how many years. Well, in that case, all demographic bets are off.

Roman said...

Of course we will be better off under somebody like HA who have a code of honor not quite unlike the medieval knights. First of all they are not slaves of some evil deity! If they took over, the responsibilities of ruling would completely change their optics and social standing. Such changes have really far reaching psychological consequences. Anyway if the s**t hits the fan, some kind of authoritarian regime is bound to appear. Although I think the army is absolutely my top candidate as a potential governing power in such a situation.

Homophobic Horse said...

"Criminal groups turned paramilitary might very well be the first stage in a European civil war."

This is part of what happened in the Balkans.

Furor Teutonicus said...

Signe said...

Western civilisation survived nazism and communism. It took a war, the holocaust, and a very long and risky cold war, but we prevailed.


Hitler was not running your local take away/fast food, and Stalin did not have a monopoly on the "Mom and Pop" stores. There were no nazi "embassys" for them all to bend over in in your towns and cities, and the communists recieved no special banking arrangements.

They did not form 10% of the population, yet get special leave to approach Parliament which the other 90% do not. They did not get their special diats enforced for ALL in schools, Britain did not rip down it's flags because they complained.

Hitler nor Stalin had their birthdays, or the birthdays of their Wives celebrated in the "West".

St Georges days parades were not banned because Hitler found them offensive, and we were not banned from using barbecues because Stalin got upset.

There were no schools that were 90 to 100% filled with nazis or communists (except for most of the teachers).

THAT is the difference.

Von Brandenmburg-Preußen.

Furor Teutonicus said...

As to the Angels. They are doing ONE thing. They are showing us that we do NOT just have to lay down and take what is thrown at us.

v.B.P

Chechar said...

I may be relatively new to GoV but I would guess that this entry by Baron Bodissey is one of the best so far in his blogsite! In fact, I feel like Neo with the crew of the ship in the first film of The Matrix series where only a few people had awaken up from the dream of Maya in which humans are profoundly slept. As Con Swede knows, the police are inside us and through the thoughtcrime virus that infected our minds most people cannot see what is just in front of them. Can a big crisis wake them up?

* In the world as it is, you can either have the Hells Angels, or you can give up beer and say “La illaha ila Allah...

I believe it was in Christopher Hitchens’ review of Steyn’s book where he quoted a friend saying that the only people who had sensible views on Islamization were the extreme right-wing fascists. Hitchens was kind of shocked before his friend’s words but he loved nonetheless Steyn’s book (I for one believe that the BNP and the Sweden democrats properly address the problem and that they are not “fascists”).

* We need make sure that the Muslim world feels such an overwhelmingly decisive blow—including glassing and Windexing™ Mecca, Medina, Qom, etc., if necessary—so that they learn what a “strong horse” really is and act accordingly.

I am glad that you say this. When Auster posted the “nuke Mecca” entry by Westerner some GoV bloggers expressed typical liberal reserves at the thought of it. I see this is changing now…

* We need to prepare the lamp posts, figuratively or literally, for the traitorous Leftists who are leading our countries into this mess.

It’s the traitors leftists whose lamps have no oil the ones who should be severely castigated in the last days of our civilization (as I have told Solkhar, it’s them rather than Muslims who arouse my hate).

thll said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
thll said...

The Baron wrote: "...consider cultural Marxism as the HIV of the West. Islam is just a virus of opportunity, a pneumonia that has taken advantage of our immunological deficiencies and ushered in the onset of full-blown AIDS in our culture." How brilliantly put; this is sublime communication - the plight of the West made clear in a mere 38 ordinary straightforward easily understandable words.

I'm a regular visitor to Gates of Vienna because I find its clarity of word and thought a wonderful antidote to the mainstream media's obfuscation. Many thanks.

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kenny said...

I find the current situation in Denmark where immigrant gangs like the Black Cobras have managed to get themselves in the bad books of the Hells Angels quite fascinating.

I think the notion that the Hells Angels would rule, or even seek to rule, mainstream society to be a non-starter.

The HA have taken on other gangs many times, and in many other countries. In not one case did they seek to "rule" mainstream society.

So I don't think that living in a society where the Hells Angels are in charge is worth serious consideration.

Will the Hells Angels take on the Black Cobras and their followers though? Agsin, look at how the HA have taken on various other motorcycle clubs, in America and Canada and yes, in Scandanavia too. These conflicts can run for years, and the HA will resort to extreme methods in order to prevail.

I submit then, that history tells us not to worry about living in a HA empire. That's never happened before, and it's not going to happen now.

But we can legitimately anticipate that a day will come when the HA in Denmark have wiped their enemies out.

Regular readers here at G of V appear to hold the opinion that European politicans, by and large, are unable, or unwilling, to do anything about mass immigration. Since that is the context in which the HA are now acting against immigrant gangs in Denmark, does it not follow that if the goal is to put a serious check on the immigrant population in Denmark, then the actions taken the HA are necessary?

Tom said...

Baron, I read your words and smile. Your analysis and scenario are spot on. To anticipate and watch things play out will be both frightening and exhilarating. Winds of change are in the air.
By the way, the Wells Angels aren't going save us, but they are showing us the way we will have to save ourselves.

babs said...

"This little blog is a haven for cranks and weirdos like us"

Hey! I resemble that comment!!!

Gregory said...

Well, I'll tell ya. If I see a fight between Hells Angels and Middle Eastern skum, I WILL JOIN the Angels and help in their fight, even if it is for the wrong reason. At least somebody is fighting those a-holes for some reason.

Conservative Swede said...

Chechar,

When Auster posted the “nuke Mecca” entry by Westerner some GoV bloggers expressed typical liberal reserves at the thought of it. I see this is changing now...

You cannot have read that old thread very carefully. There was definitely more of Auster expressing typical liberal reservations against the ideas presented by GoV commenters (and yes Auster knows his reservations are liberal, as is indicated by the title to his first publication of Western's article: "Is Separationism too liberal?")

Read it all again, and you will find that Auster is strongly against properly defeating Islam (Carthaginian Peace), and calls it "cultural genocide". I have summarized his position here:

Auster against properly defeating Islam

Properly defeating Islam is, according to Auster, not only "cultural genocide", it's "insane" and "hubristic madness". And we get the typical liberal sort of humdrum from him, such as finding a solution not "violating their dignity and essence as Muslims".

And he writes this utterly Chamberlainian statement:
It is no shame for a Muslim to accept defeat, because he views it as temporary, and so he waits patiently for future jihadist opportunities to arise. The wait can be very long--centuries, in fact. And that should be just fine with us.

So being fully aware of the fundamental flaw of not properly defeating Islam, he's still strongly against properly defeating Islam. Instead he just want to stall Jihad, so that it can come back (his liberal sentimentality cannot stand the thought of hurting the dignity of the Muslims). Well, this sort of stallment (partial and temporary defeat) has already been done, around 1920. And as we know Islam came back with a vengeance.

"Far" right-wingers are generally so deprived (well, starved) of public people expressing our views, that we cling to even the tiniest little branch given to us. People celebrated for months after Bush said "Islamo-fascism" (once) in a speech. These are the most gullible people there are since they want to read into something things that are not there. They build a hen of hope out of a tiny feather. Sarkozy used this extensively in his election campaign, throwing out a couple of chicken bones to these people, winning the election, and then ignoring these people and what he had said. And I'm even not sure that all of these people have lost hope in Sarkozy, nevertheless.

Auster might sound strong at first glance, but upon closer examination he's not. He's still stuck in the liberal reservations stemming from Enlightenment thinking (yes our current belief system). He wants to build his solution on America and Christianity. He's still into saving and mending the Western Christian civilization. Accordingly, he still more worried about how we view ourselves according to the prevailing (and self-defeating) moral grammar, rather than dealing with real problems in a proper way. If Auster is the best America can produce, it's definitely the end of America. It'll be China that deals with it. And they won't be into the sort of moral hand-wringing and hissy fits of Auster.

Speaking of hissy fits. Auster went to great lengths in describing GoV commenters as generally bad and evil people in several blog posts, after this discussion. He even drew the anti-Semitism card (he often does actually). He even described himself as "GoV's Goldstein, the source of all evils".
Links:
The GoV campaign of personal destruction continues
"Conservatives" who embrace moral liberationism

Notice the "Chicken Little" attitude (which is so typical of Auster) in speaking of "the GoV campaign of personal destruction" against him. Accusing Baron Bodissey of encouraging this "mob psychology". And how real anti-Semites (Taanstafl) are accepted chummy members of the GoV community, etc.

Conservative Swede said...

Maybe Auster will wake up one day and realize how Quixotic his goal of rescuing the West is. This would vitalize his thinking.

Conservative Swede said...

Baron,

Very nice post!

The West is done. You can stick a fork in it.

He he! Well I prefer my meat rare. This piece of meat is definitely overdone.

Hot, hot, hotter than hell
You know she's gonna leave you well done
Hot, hot, hotter than hell
Burn you like the midday sun

Chechar said...

Con Swede:

I don't like to see instances of people in the counter-jihad movement fighting against each other. We are so few and yet we make enemies among us? Why? Soviet dissidents didn't behave this way during communist times.

Baron Bodissey said...

Signe --

Western civilisation survived nazism and communism. It took a war, the holocaust, and a very long and risky cold war, but we prevailed.

Fascism, Nazism, and Communism were aberrations — dangerous mutations, if you will — of the liberal Western paradigm.

But what is now about to collapse is the core of the belief system itself. It can’t be saved by continued application of more of the same, because “more of the same” — deranged altruism, the welfare state, unconditional immediate equality for everyone in the world — is the problem.

The problem can only be solved by the emergence of something new. And human beings do not abandon a paradigm unless it is destroyed before their very eyes. The paradigm is our worldview, the cultural glue of our societies, the explanation for the manifest structure of the created world, and our assurance that everything makes sense. No one will let go of it lightly; it must be seen to fail.

It will not be saved, because its very tenets prevent measures necessary to preserve it. If we began taking drastic action right now — severe cutbacks in social welfare, the reduction of the state apparatus, the devolution of power from the center to the localities — we might just barely have time to prevent the worst consequences, which are coming within a generation or less.

But to accomplish this, we would have to do things which are politically impossible within the framework of liberal social democracy. Social benefits to millions of idle people and the elderly would have to be reduced or withdrawn entirely. Can you imagine any elected politician in any country being suicidal enough to propose such an initiative? It’s not going to happen.

We will have to approach the brink first, and begin the slow topple over the edge, before action will be taken. And by then the liberal approach will no longer be an option; the reaction will be illiberal, undemocratic, ruthless, and probably brutal. It will be more like the Freikorps and less like the Ministry of Social Welfare.

We have the political leaders we deserve.

Whether we deserve them or not, we have the only kind of leaders that system is capable of producing. Great visionary leaders — think Winston Churchill — only arise when a threat comes from without. In our case the threat comes from within. Even the Muslim threat is within, feasting opportunistically on the weakened flesh of our culture.

The defining paradigm of the system itself is what is responsible for the mess. No solution based on that paradigm can be expected to fix it.

If Europe does collapse economically and/or break down in civil war, well then USA and Australia are that more likely to wise up and do what is necessary to prevent you from going the same way.

Unfortunately, the USA may well be the first to go.

I used to agree with you — Europe would go first, and stand as an object lesson for the USA. But the last couple of years have changed my mind. Much of Europe — even the socialist parts — is actually more right-wing now than the U.S. government. The Obama administration is taking action which will destroy our economy so rapidly and so effectively that the catastrophe may well hit us first.

Muslims may not play as prominent a role in it as they will in Europe, but it will be just as destructive.

Conservative Swede said...

Chechar,

I don't like to see instances of people in the counter-jihad movement fighting against each other.

I completely agree. But as you can see there are some people that simply cannot stand an open discussion with many dissenting opinions.

Here at GoV that works better than elsewhere, unless Russia is discussed.

We are so few and yet we make enemies among us?

Auster is very much an exception after all. He has declared "jihad" on so many people by now, that nobody takes this seriously any longer. Have you followed his obsessive lengthy attacks on Robert Spencer, year in and year out?

Unnecessary infighting is indeed bad. But failing to identify those who are hopelessly stuck in notorious belligerence, is indeed as much of a sin.

The idea of "we should all be friends", while at the same time putting a blind eye to those wreaking havoc, indeed reminds me too much of the current liberal order. Especially if it's the ones pointing out the worms in the apple that are considered the biggest sinners. In today's liberal society it is the ones pointing out trouble that are considered the sinners, not the ones causing the trouble. However, remove the worms, and it's possible with a friendly apple.

Soviet dissidents didn't behave this way during communist times.

They didn't have their police within!

Our fighting of the enemy within, the demons, makes Westerners go through spasms. It's a sort of exorcism, and it happens they squirt vomit in the faces of each other in the process.

However, if we understand that it is so, it will make it easier for us to deal with it.

Ali Sina described the same phenomenon well, when describing his process of leaving Islam. A process that literally sent him through phases of psychical convulsions.

Sean O'Brian said...

CS wrote:

Read it all again, and you will find that Auster is strongly against properly defeating Islam (Carthaginian Peace), and calls it "cultural genocide".

You don't much from the Carthaginian Liberation Organisation these days!

Sarkozy used this extensively in his election campaign, throwing out a couple of chicken bones to these people, winning the election, and then ignoring these people and what he had said.

Not only did Sarkozy run on an anti-crime platform in 2007 but the UMP ran on an anti-crime platform again in 2009. This shows that the UMP's contempt for the French people is total.

Sean O'Brian said...

You don't much = You don't hear much

Chechar said...

Con Swede,

Yes: I remember that I disliked the Auster/Spencer exchanges so much that didn’t bother to read them.

I am not young. Next month I’ll be 51. Yet… something inside me craves for a romantic “fellowship of the ring” in our fight against Sauron (Islam) and Sauroman (the treasonous Left). Or maybe this is the wrong analogy and, as the Baron has just written above, the real enemy is the current paradigm—Sauroman—and that it’s he the one who brought up this immigration threat? Yes: “equality” is a quixotic ideal of the French Revolution. We must get rid of it.

At any event I hope you guys are right. Historian Hugh Trevor Ropper made a profound impression on me: that the future just cannot be predicted. Are you really sure, Baron, about the forthcoming economic catastrophe? Are economists saying this? Who predicted the current economic crises a year ago? Can the future really be predicted? Couldn’t it be a wishful hope that one will live enough to see how the Sauroman statue starts to crack?

Kenny said...

Chechar,

I'm not all that young either, just seven years behind you. I agree that all this talk about economic collapse is (at present) just talk. After all, as the Baron says, he made some rather gloomy predictions about Europe, then Obama got himself elected and now the Baron's saying that America will go down the tubes, not Europe. Whoops!

These things happen, though. The future's an unwieldy beast.

Who would have predicted that the Hells Angels in Denmark would in 2009, be waging war against immigrant gangs?

Who would have predicted in October 2001 that we would be where we are today?

Still, thinking about what the future holds for us is part of the human condition, and so long as we don't overreach, it can bear some fascinating fruit.

If the Hells Angels wipe the Black Cobras off the map, then it's possible that other non-mainsteam groups will see that, and attempt to do likewise.

It's possible that the HA support group, AK81, may set a trend. The Angels are a global outfit, and there may end up being something like a low-grade war of attrition which involves not only "immigrant gangs" but Islamic troublemakers (Anjem Choudary take a bow) as well as mainstream, non-criminal European citizens.

Now that would be an interesting turn of events.

Dymphna said...

@Kenny

there may end up being something like a low-grade war of attrition which involves not only "immigrant gangs" but Islamic troublemakers (Anjem Choudary take a bow) as well as mainstream, non-criminal European citizens.

That 'low-grade war of attrition' is exactly the one that has been waged by the ruling oligarchy of media, academia, and the political class against the belief structure of average American citizens (I cannot speak for Europe). They have played divide-and-conquer using the strivings of blacks and women, turning these hopes into a parody of hatred and exclusion. Thus, conquering the public sphere so effectively, they use incessant indoctrination to effectively balkanize groups who were once part of the larger fabric of American life.

To switch metaphors, under this assault, which began seriously in the 1930's and bore fruit in the late 60's, they have seeded and re-seeded our once fertile soil with...salt. The public sphere is hopelessly contaminated, academe is the refuge of scoundrels, and politicians (with some exceptions) are self-serving opportunists.

Given all that, it is still difficult to foretell the future. Who could have predicted the present economic meltdown (actually a few economists did, by positing "what would happen if..." only to have those ifs become reality).

Now we have a self-anointed prince for our president, and a clown for his sidekick. The prince and the clown are a dangerous combination. We have only to look at their hapless interactions with Russia to see the depth of their unknowing. Who could have predicted such blunted hubris and stupidity?

Obama "won" the presidency and the White House, as he likes to remind us. A statesman has a mentality of service; Obama doesn't serve, he reigns. I predict a short-lived regnancy, but who knows what will follow?

Still, since we're human, we're both bound by the past and compelled to make plans for the future. Our plans are always based on our best guess of events that have yet to occur. Those who guess best are able to arms themselves against the worst imaginable while still hoping earnestly that the best scenario we can imagine is the real future.

Yes, our thought process is linear. The very few who can transcend linear thinking to glimpse some novel tertium quid and bearing no resemblance to our imagined worst and best futures are dismissed as cranks and quickly marginalized.

Baron Bodissey said...

Chechar --

Are you really sure, Baron, about the forthcoming economic catastrophe?

Yes. The only question is when it will happen.

There are two major components. The first is the inflated money supply (both dollar and euro). This has allowed the system to keep going past its natural end-point, but it can’t continue much longer. The latest layer of debt, which created trillions of new dollars, is not backed up by the creation any additional wealth of equivalent value.

As long as creditors keep buying more Treasuries, the reckoning can be postponed. But eventually there will not be enough customers for T-bills, and the only way to pay off the previous ones will be to print more money. Since this will devalue the remaining debt, there will be a stampede out of the dollar and into something safer, something more likely to retain value, such as gold or commodities. This is a vicious circle, and will generate hyperinflation. The dollar will lose value until the currency in circulation reflects the real worth of the assets it denominates.

The consequences will extend far beyond Europe and the USA. Much of the Third World depends on the continuous export of inexpensive manufactured goods to the First World. When nine-tenths of First World’s purchasing power disappears, the demand for cheap trinkets from Hogpenistan will dwindle to nothing. The impoverished people in these countries have no margin of safety, and millions will face starvation.

All of the above portends a political chaos which is inherently unpredictable. Bad things will happen, but exactly when, in what order, and to whom cannot be forecast.

The second component, which is even larger and more catastrophic, is the problem of unfunded fiduciary liabilities – government and corporate pensions, Social Security, Medicare, and all the other statutorily mandated giveaways that the government is legally bound to produce.

Estimates vary, but something over ten trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities exist right now. This amount is increasing with the birth of every new child and the addition of every hangnail-sufferer to the disability rolls.

Even if there were no demographic decline, the money will not be available to pay for all this largesse. It can’t be done. Governments will eventually have to renege on their promises.

The demographic decline makes it even worse. In twenty years or so there will be about two tax-paying workers for ever person drawing benefits. That’s not sustainable, and the system will collapse before we reach that point.

Mass immigration was supposed to keep this Ponzi scheme going for a bit longer. But that bright idea has backfired: immigrants, on balance, drain more from the system than they add to it. Thanks to immigration, the crisis will happen sooner.

We may take a certain bitter satisfaction in the knowledge that the consequences will be felt before all of the architects of the current system are dead. The day of reckoning will come sooner than they thought, and some of them may have to account for their deeds before they shuffle off this mortal coil.

Are economists saying this? Who predicted the current economic crises a year ago?

I first heard about the current crisis back in the fall of 2007, a year before it happened. An amusing PowerPoint animation about the subprime mortgage fiasco was circulating by email, and it described what the consequences were going to be. The forecast that was made back then has unfolded almost exactly as predicted.

These problems are not hidden – they are always clearly visible to those who choose to look for them. You have to learn the rudiments of economic theory, pick up a bit of jargon, and read some very long boring articles.

For years some economists have been quietly warning us (and the government) about all the chickens which are even now coming home to roost. The government, as usual, chose to ignore them.

ole said...

Is it too late to save vestern civilisation or not ?
My way of relating to this unavoidable question , is a purely emotional one .
I FEEL that accepting the "fact" that it may be too late , MAY be exactly what's going to make it come true.
History have a tendency of surpricing almost any observer.
From any specific point in time ,the future developments are almost impossible to map out ,there's always this one little factor we hardly related to, who suddenly becomes all-important.
The future of our civilisation has ALWAYS been hanging in a thread,as it is today.
And always after a week period (NOW!) there apeared on the stage a new generation , with a new and often brutal way of making things happen.
The generation being born now is going to have a tough time .
I belive that's exactly what will make them much more like their ancestors.

Kenny said...

We're in dire straits, how dire things will get I just don't know; but what I wonder about is whether this is down to sheer incompetence on those we have elected into power, or if there is deliberate design in their thinking. I can't see that it's all the former, for after all, one may be going down the wrong intellectual track, then wake up! It seems to me that there really is a strain of self-hatred involved in the thinking of our political & academic "elite" and I certainly agree that they have successfully "poisoned the well" of public discourse, so that the state of our nations may not even be discussed properly.

The Hells Angels don't have the same worries as the rest of us though. They're taking care of business, and doing what they've always done.

Only this time, their enemy isn't just another biker gang.

If our political leaders can't, or won't do anything about the reality on the ground, then it does seem possible that support groups like AK81 may thrive, and that shortly, there could be unofficial groups throughout Europe taking matters into their own hands.

What would happen then? Who knows? Right now though, given the Hells Angels' track record, I think it's safe to say that the Black Cobras have encountered an entity that is resistant to their poison, one that won't stop until they've cut off the snake's head and stamped on the body.

Conservative Swede said...

Checar,

Are you really sure, Baron, about the forthcoming economic catastrophe?

As a background for this, especially the impending dollar collapse, I recommend starting with this speech by Ron Paul in 2006. Where he gives an extensive historical background.

Ron Paul of Texas - The End of Dollar Hegemony

Who predicted the current economic crises a year ago?

Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Gerald Celente, Karl Derringer, James Turk, to name a few.

Here's Peter Shiff from 2006

Predicting it all. Listen to how everyone else is laughing at him and completely dismissing him.

Are economists saying this?

In order to so the economist has to: i) thoroughly understand the subject of economy, and ii) be serious.

Look again at the three video clips above. This so-called "economy news" are nothing by propaganda. The so-called economists are TV evangelists, coming on the screen just to tell everyone how fine and great everything is. Compare how serious Peter Schiff is with how flimsy all the others are. Look at how they are dismissing his arguments without even evaluating them, only because they do not fit the cosmetic image of reality that animates them.

Look how clueless they look today when looking at these clips from 2006. And mind you, not accidentally clueless but constitutionally clueless! And it's the same "economists" we see commenting on TV today, and the same politicians running our countries. Speaking of which:

Here Peter Schiff explains clearly and easily understandable the problem the led to the subprime crisis, And how the clueless politicians have done nothing to solve it but only makes it worse. (Start looking at 5m30s)

Chechar said...

* It seems to me that there really is a strain of self-hatred involved in the thinking of our political & academic "elite" - Kenny

Yeap. This is it. Self-harted in behind this all. And this is the hardest frame of mind to analyze. (Will try to do it in a future thread...)

Baron Bodissey said...

Kenny --

…what I wonder about is whether this is down to sheer incompetence on those we have elected into power, or if there is deliberate design in their thinking.

Either or both of these propositions may be true, but they still are not the problem. The deadly contradictions are built into the system. They’re part of the paradigm.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton:

“It’s the paradigm, stupid!”

While it’s important to identify traitorous, corrupt, and incompetent public officials, it’s even more important to focus on the system itself. The very structure of liberal democracy guarantees that the system will produce such people.

What’s more, it guarantees that deranged altruists will be thrust into positions of power and influence where they can do extraordinary harm. Sweden is perhaps the best example of this — the main problem is not corruption, but idealism. These people think they are doing what’s best for us. As fervent believers is the beneficial efficacy of the liberal paradigm, they are delivering their own country into ruin.

Don’t be mesmerized by self-hatred or treason. The real problem is in the shared belief-system itself.

The paradigm inevitably produces self-hating traitors.

Conservative Swede said...

Ron Paul, in the video clip above, gives the history of the dollar and the currency system of the world. How paper money was originally based on a gold standard, then the great depression and the gold confiscation of 1933, then the Bretton Woods system, which was a pseudo-gold standard (where only the dollar was backed by gold, and the other currencies were in turn backed by the dollar). But the system was phony (the US didn't have gold to back the dollar) which was shown when the French called the bluff in the beginning of the '70s.

So the Nixon Administration left the gold standard for the dollar. And now suddenly the dollar was just paper money without any backing at all. But the Nixon Administration did a neat trick to fix this problematic situation:

Ron Paul: Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup.

So the dollar is now backed by oil. Anyone who wants to buy oil has to first by dollars, in order to being able to buy the oil. This increases the demand on the dollar, and thereby its value.

And then comes a very interesting thing: Since November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil.

Suddenly it makes complete sense to me the determination with which the Bush Administration decided to invade Iraq, out of all countries in the world. This was a real threat indeed! To the dollar. But nothing one could speak of.

Likewise it makes complete sense how this operation lost its direction once this goal had been achieved (which didn't take long).

Today an Iranian oil bourse, that will trade raw oil in Euros, is underway.

However, Ron Paul, while being a true scholar when it comes to economy, is unfortunately clueless when it comes to Islam. He's cannot see that there are other ways in which Iran is a threat.

Chechar said...

Thanks for the videos Con Swede. I've watched them. But economics is still too an esoteric subject for me...

The paradigm inevitably produces self-hating traitors. - BB

Or self-hating traitors inevitably produce the paradigm. Chicken or the egg? The current Zeitgeist is still Marxist-oriented. I believe Marx should be turned again upside down and a sort of Hegel would emerge (not G.W.F. Hegel, but *a sort* of Hegel).

Conservative Swede said...

I wrote above:
This so-called "economy news" are nothing by propaganda. The so-called economists are TV evangelists, coming on the screen just to tell everyone how fine and great everything is. Compare how serious Peter Schiff is with how flimsy all the others are. Look at how they are dismissing his arguments without even evaluating them, only because they do not fit the cosmetic image of reality that animates them.

This sort of description holds for virtually every area of what is reported in the media, by experts, politicians, professors, opinion makers etc.

Not only reporting on immigration, Islam, the wars in Yugoslavia, etc., is deceptive and upside down. We have the whole climate alarmism about CO2! Bluff and fake all the way.

But it's like this about the things that are closer to us too, in our everyday life. Such as the myth, see the third Peter Schiff clip above, how the fact, that the vast majority of mothers today work even when their children are toddlers, is a happy and free choice.

An interesting area which I have also studied is about food. Also here everything you hear is upside down. The healthiest way of eating is actually the exact opposite of what our food authorities tell us to do. Yes it's true. There's no end to how phony and depraved the society we live in today is.
Here are some video clips about it.

So whatever you think you have learned from media, from university, from lunch discussions with colleagues, etc., the safest strategy is to assume that it's all wrong. I.e. if you are not read up on the subject yourself, it's safer to assume that the prevailing view is deceptive and upside down. It's more often so than not.

So, actually, the shortest path to knowledge is to assume that everything you have learned up until today is wrong.

It's fascinating the sort of hazardous and unhealthy products that is marketed today as healthy, with the support of the food authorities. An excellent example: check up how margarine is produced. You won't believe your eyes when you see.

Margarine becomes the perfect symbol of our current society. Our industrial society is used by the food industry to fill the market with food imitation with very low nutrition and real ingredients. We are living in the most shallow and hollow society thinkable, all upheld by the excellency in skills of the industrial society.

It's the same in every area:
Univeristies no longer produce knowledge and truth, but truth-like imitations of knowledge, which looks just as impressive on the surface (such as the global warming (AGW) scam).
Our democratic societies are shallow imitation of what they once were, looking cosmetically nice. Where people no longer live under freedom but a freedom-like imitation.
Our money do not hold real value, but are an impressive imitation of real value.
I could go on like this...

Roman said...

Chechar

"something inside me craves for a romantic “fellowship of the ring” in our fight against Sauron (Islam) and Sauroman (the treasonous Left)."

I understand you very well. Pity we are not in the Middle Earth, haha! Also thanks for the welcoming greetings the other day:-)

CS

Ron Paul: Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup.


Now I finally understand why Saudi Arabia is untouchable! Silly me!

Apparently opening the gates to Muslim immigration by EU was a part of the same deal, wasn't it, CS?

Truly mind-boggling!

CS
"The so-called economists are TV evangelists, coming on the screen just to tell everyone how fine and great everything is."

In Poland in the 80-ties we had "TV is lying!"(telewizja klamie!) sprayed on the walls by anti-communists, time to get the cans out again?


BTW, Germany might be the Aragorn indeed, and BB, Dymphna, CS&Co might be the White Council.
And I am just a silly hobbit...

Conservative Swede said...

Chechar,

Can the future really be predicted?

I we think we can say nothing about the future, we might as well give up science, and indulge in superstition instead.

Chechar said...

* Such as the myth, see the third Peter Schiff clip above, how the fact, that the vast majority of mothers today work even when their children are toddlers, is a happy and free choice. - Con Swede

Yes: I felt bad when I saw it. Modern women have forgotten their biological role and this is part of the mess that the current paradigm has brought upon us. I feel deep nostalgia when watching films of the 1950s…

What you say, that everything is upside down, reminds me why I stopped to edit Wikipedia. Wikipedians have a rule they call “reliable sources”. This automatically disqualifies all bloggers and has as holy writ what is said in MSM.

As I said yesterday in another thread, presently I am living in Spain. I stopped altogether reading Spain’s major paper El País since I read how they grotesquely lied about Bush and Islam (in the hard facts page they stated Bush hated it and that it’s good news that Obama wants to make amends to Islam; when in fact Bush never hated Islam in public or private!). The Spanish TV also sides the Palestinians and even in the town where I’m living a conference on how Israelis abuse the Palestinians was held this week.

Spanish people I have talked to don’t even want to visit the US out of anti-Americanism. Such is the level of paranoia and projection I have encountered in this country (not all of course, but quite a few). Obviously I can only find solace with my thoughts, writing and internet pals…

Roman said...

Chechar

"I stopped altogether reading Spain’s major paper El País since I read how they grotesquely lied about Bush and Islam"

Same with me. I read many papers online and most of them, just like many tv stations one can well describe as dhimmi-tubes (I think it is a great neologism, no idea where from), BBC fits this very well too. TAZ in Germany for sure, the list goes on and on. Probably I am stating the obvious anyway, haha! Basically only regional or local papers dare to publish something unfiltered every now and then.

Kenny said...

Checher,

Your comments made me think of the Italians who write books in the "mediterranean noir" genre, such as Massimo Carlotto and Gianrico Carofiglio.

I have heard that one of the reasons they are so popular in Italy is because people can't trust what the media, or the people in authority say. And these "novels" written by the likes of Carlotto are a more accurate reflection of reality. So if you want to read about what is actually going on in Italy today ...

Conservative Swede said...

Roman,

Apparently opening the gates to Muslim immigration by EU was a part of the same deal, wasn't it, CS?

Not to save the dollar of course. This on is due to white guilt and due to France. However, America's pushing for Turkey into the EU is due to NATO.

So there are all these different things, but yeah, the all fit together into the same hefty conglomerate. They have organically grown together, so it's not possible to take away just one bit. The whole monolith will have to fall to the ground and scatter into pieces.

BTW, Germany might be the Aragorn indeed.

Have you been reading my blog? :-)
My take on that LOTR ting

And I am just a silly hobbit...

I'm just a silly hobbit too. But remember how the hobbits held a pivotal position in that book.

Chechar,

Yes, Pallywood is an excellent example of such upside down reporting.

Chechar said...

Cited in CS blog:

"The Hobbits are bloggers like ourselves, brave and fighting against all odds."

Ha ha! But who is the ring bearer?

Conservative Swede said...

But who is the ring bearer?

I don't know. In my version Obama is the ring.

So who's gonna carry Obama and throw him into Mount Doom?
(Beware: don't put him on your finger during the journey)

Oh, and I forgot to say who's Sauron, it's prophet Muhammad of course.

Dymphna said...

@ Conservative Swede:

So, actually, the shortest path to knowledge is to assume that everything you have learned up until today is wrong.

It's fascinating the sort of hazardous and unhealthy products that is marketed today as healthy, with the support of the food authorities. An excellent example: check up how margarine is produced. You won't believe your eyes when you see.

Margarine becomes the perfect symbol of our current society. Our industrial society is used by the food industry to fill the market with food imitation with very low nutrition and real ingredients. We are living in the most shallow and hollow society thinkable, all upheld by the excellency in skills of the industrial society
.

Margarine! A genius metaphor. I only hope it catches on. Margarine is poison dressed up to look like butter and touted as being "healthier" than butter.

OT, but I ran across some research recently which had data to show that a low carb high protein diet prevented the growth of cancer cells in tumors. Turns out that the only thing cancer cells can draw energy from is...carbohydrates. Thus, to starve tumors, patients were given a protein diet. Yeah, they went into ketosis, but that is much less hard on the kidneys and brain than the various heavy-duty poisons they use in chemotherapy.

IOW, CS, you were right: high protein is a good idea beyond what you'd even imagined. Dare I say it? YOU WERE RIGHT.

Buying the conventional wisdom on anything is dangerous. If you don't believe me, look at the government's food pyramid, bought by the agribusiness conglomerates and sold to you, the consumer, by the FDA.

It's a Faustian bargain - don't believe it. The same swinging door that exists between the military and the armament industry exists between the FDA employees and agribusiness.

Hand-in-glove and *not* operating for your benefit.

Conservative Swede said...

Hi Dymphna,

Oh dear, did they do high protein. No that's not what I recommended. I recommend high fat (+ low carb). The protein should be kept constant. High protein is not good. Excess proteins is just transformed into carbohydrates by the liver, it can even lead to rabbit starvation when taken very high.

It's symptomatic of the medical community to fear natural fat (see my links above), and go for high protein instead of high fat, which is the obvious way to set someone in ketosis.

And yes, cancer cells can only eat carbs. Nice trick, eh? Cures a lot of other things too, even epilepsy.

IOW, CS, you were right: high protein is a good idea beyond what you'd even imagined. Dare I say it? YOU WERE RIGHT.

Yes, that's a big step in the right direction since it's low carb. But the truly health diet is high fat, high in natural fats: butter, cream, cheese, egg, fat fish, fat meat etc. The level of proteins shouldn't be changed much.

Margarine! A genius metaphor. I only hope it catches on. Margarine is poison dressed up to look like butter and touted as being "healthier" than butter.

Aw, I knew you would like the metaphor! The Margarine Society. Anyone who read in detail how margarine is produced will know what we talk about.

If you don't believe me, look at the government's food pyramid, bought by the agribusiness conglomerates and sold to you, the consumer, by the FDA.

Yes the food pyramid should be used upside down. It was introduced by George McGovern. Compare with Al Gore and AGW. Same concept of failed Democratic presidential candidate making a career in a revivalist movement around an upside down idea, to "save the world": video clip.

Conservative Swede said...

Rabbit starvation

So,
high protein -> not good
high carb -> makes you fat and causes many diseases
high fat -> makes you slim and healthy in all sorts of ways

Zenster said...

Baron, I am truly grateful for your closer examination of my own points.

I will ask that people notice how I do not entirely dismiss what the Hell's Angels are doing, I only question just how healthy they will be in terms of preserving what is left of the culture we have today.

Relying upon the HA is like hoping that the Jesse James Gang will put things right in a lawless wild west town.

To be sure they understand that only pushback has any worth in dealing with Muslims and this is a vital message that they can convey.

“You know, you can always tell it’s a Dane who does the shooting, because it only takes him one shot. BANG! [pointing to the center of his forehead] and the guy is dead. But when the Muslims shoot somebody, they spray the area with AK-47s and probably don’t even hit the target — just innocent bystanders.”.

One question: Is that more a result of Danish meticulousness or a genuine artifact of HA methodology. Clearly it is the former. The comparison is still important because of how evil the Muslim "spray and pray" technique is.

But who are “we”? .

While your distinction about those who live nearest the law's borders, if not outside of them, has merit the more meaningful upheavals will arrive with a wider public's involvement in the "non-electoral discontinuities" predicted by El Inglés.

Only action at a truly major level will bring about anywhere near the large-scale that is required.

For many years I have predicted a Muslim holocaust both in Europe and, eventually, in the MME (Muslim Middle East) as well. Islam's entire operating model literally makes this a necessity.

There is no evidence that 9-11 woke anyone up to what needs to be done. And there’s no evidence that a dozen new 9-11s will change the current paradigm.

When the inevitable nuclear or chemical attack against a major Western city occurs, it won’t be enough to incite that kind of response. By then the situation will be so bad that a major terrorist action will simply accelerate the descent into political chaos
.

Several years ago I also predicted that another similar or worse 9-11 style atrocity will produce a Muslim kristallnacht that will target Islamic businesses and structures.

All of these things are coming. It is only a matter of time and continued inaction both by Muslims and Europe's social engineers who are painting themselves and their pet barbarians into a very nasty Hobbesian corner.

Dymphna said...

Obviously, I left out the middle term in this syllogism: fats. I simply presumed they came attached to proteins since I forgot the mantra about "lean" chicken, that the common wisdom stresses re protein intake.

Fat is necessary for the metabolism of proteins and in using them, one achieves satiety. So I miis-spoke: I *didn't* mean low fat proteins. As long as one eats fatty protein, there is little chance of taking in more protein than the body needs since one becomes sated very quickly.

But my interest here is in the use of the diet for cancer treatment. As someone who had cancer ten years ago, I am at a higher risk for its re-occurence than someone who has never had cancer. It is good to know that the body can (to use computer jargon) build a work-around the tumor by starving it of carbs.

Zenster said...

ole: I FEEL that accepting the "fact" that it may be too late , MAY be exactly what's going to make it come true.

There is a grain of truth with this in that resigning oneself to the inevitable removes from the table all pre-emptive options and proactive measures. This sort of "bowing out" only turns everything into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sweden is perhaps the best example of this — the main problem is not corruption, but idealism. These people think they are doing what’s best for us. As fervent believers is the beneficial efficacy of the liberal paradigm, they are delivering their own country into ruin.

This is a vital observation as it reveals the true nature of the socialist beast. Sweden, along with Norway and Denmark are among the world's least corrupt nations. Therefore, it can only be the liberal paradigm that is responsible for Scandihoovia's near-total meltdown.

In an astounding display of arrogance and hubris, these altruistic bed-wetters have determined that they know "what is best" for Swedes and forced it upon an unsuspecting and unwilling population.

To do this requires a towering sense of elitism and, even more important, the profoundly misplaced belief that our world simply could not operate without these smug bastards at the helm.

Lamp posts, indeed.

Zenster said...

Dymphna: Margarine is poison dressed up to look like butter and touted as being "healthier" than butter.

As a person of Dane descent, for whom butter is one of the three food groups, I have always regarded margarine as some form of industrial waste.

My hypochondriac stepmother religiously consumed margarine and eschewed butter in general.

Guess who had the heart attack at age 40?

The same swinging door that exists between the military and the armament industry exists between the FDA employees and agribusiness.

I'm far more concerned about the revolving door between America's State Department and Saudi Arabian interest groups. It is nothing but thinly veiled treason.

Conservative Swede said...

Dymphna,

Well I care less about if you misspeak, than the fact that you did something that has improved your health! :-)

Way to go! So you are in ketosis now - yeehah!

As long as one eats fatty protein, there is little chance of taking in more protein than the body needs since one becomes sated very quickly.

Yes, the rabbit starvation is when interpreting "high protein" strictly. By eating rabbit, chicken and such. Fatty meat is the good stuff. I recommend bacon.

To the fatty meat I add butter and cream. Thus the body gets sated even more quickly, and gets even more healthy fatty acids and fat soluble vitamins. With fatty meat we get a fat/protein ratio of 50/50. We want the proteins down to 30%. The excess is transformed into carbs by the body and makes the ketosis less effective. I.e. the excess can be eaten by the cancer cells.

But my interest here is in the use of the diet for cancer treatment.

Yes, and it's good for a whole number of things. Also for example diabetes.

Baron Bodissey said...

Zenster --

Relying upon the HA is like hoping that the Jesse James Gang will put things right in a lawless wild west town.

You need to pay closer attention to history.

Some of the most respected dynasties in Europe were founded by lawless brigands. Or take the Kennedys, whose fortune and political influence grew out of bootlegging during Prohibition.

There’s nothing like successful banditry to launch a political career, especially if the dirty money can be laundered through association with the trendiest social causes.

A shewd and violent outlaw can be transformed into a respectable and popular ruler overnight when the time is right. We are about to enter a convulsive historical period in which such metamorphoses will become commonplace.

For many years I have predicted a Muslim holocaust both in Europe and, eventually, in the MME (Muslim Middle East) as well…

…I also predicted that another similar or worse 9-11 style atrocity will produce a Muslim kristallnacht that will target Islamic businesses and structures.


If this is to happen, it will only be a the hands of non-governmental agents. Our leaders will not do it. We shot our bolt with George Bush — he was our best chance, and we won’t get another one before the Empire falls.

         Don’t change before the Empire falls
         You’ll laugh so hard you’ll crack the walls

Zenster said...

Baron Bodissey: Some of the most respected dynasties in Europe were founded by lawless brigands. Or take the Kennedys, whose fortune and political influence grew out of bootlegging during Prohibition.

I am fully aware of this but continue to question just what portion of respecability the HA will actually seek.

I really don't see them worrying too much about preserving Europe's museums and other cultural treasures. Too often they are low-brow in their priorities, precisely the thing that makes them so good at pushback against the Muslims.

There is also the concern that our more modern world will not allow for the sort of earlier transition that you cite. For HA to assume the degree of power you note, there would have to so massive a failure of European civilization that it is also quite possible these outlaw gangs would have been crushed in the death throes of a collapsing EU.

Zenster said...

Baron Bodissey: We shot our bolt with George Bush — he was our best chance, and we won’t get another one before the Empire falls.

Here, we must agree to disagree. Another attack that surpasses the 9-11 atrocity, especially a WMD attack, might spur such strong demand for retaliation that even Obama could not (again) abase himself before our enemies without risking impeachment or forcible removal from office.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

I will ask that people notice how I do not entirely dismiss what the Hell's Angels are doing, I only question just how healthy they will be in terms of preserving what is left of the culture we have today.

The question is: What are you comparing with? If you are comparing to some ideal entity that doesn't exist, there's really no point to it, is there?

Furthermore, "preserving what is left of the culture we have today". The idea here is not at all that this is what they are fit to do. That should be clear from the Baron's writing.

And "healthy". Yes! They can and will deal with the Muslims. That's very healthy!

Relying upon the HA is like hoping that the Jesse James Gang will put things right in a lawless wild west town.

Well, what sort of men does it take to put things right in a lawless Wild West town? There is a very good movie that I recommend: "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". Lawrence Auster (just to mention his positive sides) pointed out the important analysis of that movie "It's about the idea that civilization depends on men who use violence, but that civilization, once it is founded and secure and no longer needs violent men, ignores and derides the very men without whom it wouldn't exist." The bumbling city slicker (James Stewart) wasn't up to the job, the town had to be saved by the violent, marginal brute (John Wayne).

Auster again: "The image is not of restrained, upright men who just use force when absolutely required and within the rules, but of tough men, violent men, men who have something primal about them, men who can subdue Indians, men who can blow away the Liberty Valance types and rescue the softer, civilized Jimmy Stewart types, men who are ready, able and willing to kill barbarians and save society, men like Nelson, who used apocalyptic levels of violence to kill thousands of men and destroy Napoleon’s navy and prevent the invasion of England."

Whenever you find such men, hold on to them. You cannot afford to be picky when it comes to choosing here. Only princesses in fairy tales can afford that. Sure if you find another group living up to these qualities, and then we could compare them with the Hells Angels. But there is little point in lamenting the HA's lack of gentlemen style, if they are the only ones on the market, right?

So in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" James Stewart is the civilized city-dweller that can build civilization. But John Wayne is the brute who makes civilization possible in the first place!

Without the men like John Wayne, the James Stewarts are therefore useless. It's pretty pointless then to lament the John Waynes's lack of Jimmy Stewart properties, isn't it?

The Hells Angels fulfill this criterion. They are the sort of men who make civilization possible in the first place. Check! Anyone else around? Nothing seen. Regarding preserving our civilization, that's the job that should have been done by the James Stewart types, but they failed completely. Now we are waiting for it to fall down. Gangs like HA are good both for protection under chaos, and for making the basic foundation for a new civilization. I'm sure there will be more services like this available on the market in the near future.

I'm far more concerned about the revolving door between America's State Department and Saudi Arabian interest groups. It is nothing but thinly veiled treason.

It's the Dollar Hegemony (see Ron Paul clip above). So America's position as the world economical power rests on this. However, we expect the dollar to crash within five years. Then this motivation for sucking up to the Saudis will evaporate.

Zenster said...

I think Kenny summed it up pretty well in GoV's, "The Criminal Vanguard" thread.

Kenny: Individual thought and action isn't exactly encouraged, if what you're trying to achieve is contrary to the received opinion.

The HA are sufficiently outside of Europe's perceived norms that the government may crack down on them harder than the Muslims, in the short term.

Nowhere do I argue against the qualification of those who are willing to dispense rough justice, with respect to pushback against Muslims.

And, yes, saving Europe, PERIOD, is a laudable goal. I just wonder how much of Europe the HA would manage to save and whether the accompanying destruction would be that much less comprehensive as that of the Muslims and whether other forms of "non-electoral discontinuities" might prove more effective.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

The HA are sufficiently outside of Europe's perceived norms that the government may crack down on them harder than the Muslims, in the short term.

Any group that fulfills this criterion -- as described above about The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", i.e. the sort of men who make civilization possible in the first place -- will necessarily be outside of these perceived norms. So that's not exactly an argument against HA.

However, the governments are becoming weaker and weaker, and are losing control of the streets. While these sort of groups are growing stronger and stronger.

I just wonder how much of Europe the HA would manage to save,

Whatever town or city part that is protected by such a group will be saved, the rest will not. It's a concept the should go viral.

and whether the accompanying destruction would be that much less comprehensive as that of the Muslims,

Are you seriously suggesting that HA may cause as much destruction the Muslims??? What is it that you really mean by destruction here? I'm counting in number of raped girls, before anything else. What are you counting in?

whether other forms of "non-electoral discontinuities" might prove more effective.

The more instances of "non-electoral discontinuities" the better. Each of them should be applauded.

Baron Bodissey said...

Zenster --

For HA to assume the degree of power you note, there would have to so massive a failure of European civilization that it is also quite possible these outlaw gangs would have been crushed in the death throes of a collapsing EU.

A “massive... failure of European civilization” is exactly what is heading our way. The same is true for the USA. We have at most a quarter of a century until the demographic/pension crisis brings down the current system.

The problems with Social Security first became very public during the 1980s, when Reagan tried to reform it. The result was a commission, a little tinkering around the edges, and a raise in the payroll tax. That postponed the problems for a few more decades, long enough to see most of the then-sitting members of Congress safely dead.

The commission report, IIRC, emphasized that in the following quarter-century Congress would need to really fix Social Security.

Well, that quarter-century came and went and nothing happened. Same system, same denial, same train wreck, only 25 years closer. Except that now we have the birth-dearth to make the actuarial issue even worse.

The Social Security Trust Fund IOUs are still kept off-budget so as not to show the real size of the deficit. Our obligations for the year 2030 – just a couple of decades from now, a mere blink of the eye – are unimaginably huge, and we don’t have even the pretense of a way to deal with them.

We are, to coin a phrase, toast.

Even if all the Muslims packed up their camels and went home tomorrow, this would still do us in. Western Civilization cannot escape it. It is our Nemesis.

The Muslims are a symptom, not the disease itself.

MauserMedic said...

What the HA, and their like such as the Mongols, Sons of Silence, etc., are good for, is the same thing the the Mafia, Triads, and Русская мафия are good for: the pursuit of profit and power at the expense of others. Their battle against outsiders has far more to do with economics than culture. Having had some small exposure to these people, I've no illusions they will be any hope to those hoping to salvage a measure of the West unless it were to be medieval.

We would be far better off returning to the Minuteman concept, where productive members of the community, whose values are reflective of the local culture, organize as the basis of protection. Otherwise, one chooses between Eastern or Western feudalism. Neither is particularly desirable,and better alternatives are available.

It seems the concept of community-based responsiblity has disappeared from the European mentality at roughly the same time as the city-state; yet there's still a recognition of the concept within the United States. I would think it far more likely to see the implementation of local councils and militias within the rural and near-rural areas of the U.S. than acceptance of gang-based feudalism. For Europe, this option seems to have long passed.

Haakon said...

What both HA and islamo crazies know is that violence works.

Violence is not good or bad, it is the context that differentiates.

For example beating to death the perp who you interupt raping your daughter=good

Tossing your daughter off your balcony because you catch her with a cell phone with unknown call number in it = bad

Watching Eagle said...

Superlative article, Baron!

I had thought that the jihad was about terrorism until about a year ago. One day, I read about how London Mayor Ken Livingstone, known as “Red Ken”, embraced Sheikh Qaradawi, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ken Livingstone (practically a communist) said “Of all the Muslim leaders in the world today, Sheikh Qaradawi is the most powerfully progressive for change and for engaging Islam with western values. I think his is very similar to the position of Pope John XXIII. “

When Sikhs, Hindus, Orthodox Jews, Gays, Lesbians, and students protested what the Mayor had done, Ken Livingstone accused them of “being a Mossad plot to peddle a conspiracy theory to defame Islam.”[Londonistan, pg. 123]

When I read this, I knew-- Leftists were going to help Islamists implement Shariah in the West.

David Horowitz called this “The Unholy Alliance”. I will dub it “The Westbusters’ Alliance” of rational, theocratic Islamists and irrational, “secular” Leftists.

When you hate the West, who you gonna call? Call Westbusters!!

Baron is also exactly right about what he calls “Secular Orthodoxy”. The key denominator of these “virtual religions” (as I call them) is that they say “We will change human nature and institute utopia in our lifetimes IF ONLY we can control society with our ideas.” [They and their ideas become like the Greek gods, and policies and programs become the way to offer sacrifices to their gods. But their gods are things they have made in their fantasy world, and thus their ideas can never work]”. “Secular Progressivism” can be considered a “kinder, gentler” form of Fascism/Communism, but it won’t always be so “kind and gentle”. The Right’s paradigm is “we can just live our lives, and the world will take care of itself”, and thus, we have never really had a plan to eliminate leftist ideology. We had better discard this paradigm and build a plan to tear down all Leftist ideologies, if we are to survive. Remember, success is a journey, not a destination

Conservative Swede said...

MauserMedic,

We would be far better off returning to the Minuteman concept, where productive members of the community, whose values are reflective of the local culture, organize as the basis of protection.

I see two possible weaknesses with this concept:

1) Family fathers right now look after their house and their economy, and to not being known as "racists". People behave like comfortable civilized city-dwellers. The priority is strictly to look after their own business and stay out of trouble. So we won't see this sort of Minutemen in any significant numbers right now.

However, this is about to change. A dollar collapse and a world wide econimical breakdown will thoroughly change the priorities of these family fathers, at which point I expect to see such Minutemen rapidly increasing.

2) Another weakness will be their mentality. Auster again: "The image is not of restrained, upright men who just use force when absolutely required and within the rules, but of tough men, violent men, men who have something primal about them."

I expect these family fathers to be more of the restrained upright type. This does not make the concept unuseful. To the contrary, it will be very important because at this point there will be so many of them. But their mentality will make them mainly useful defensively, in protecting their local area,

We also need a strong offense. This will come mainly from the brigands, warlords, etc. The two types of groups will cooperate, as in the movie "The Seven Samurais". However, unlike as in this movie, the samurais will take control of the area where the Minutemen live (this is by the way how an aristocracy was born once upon a time).

Watching Eagle said...

Zenster said,

"Here, we must agree to disagree. Another attack that surpasses the 9-11 atrocity, especially a WMD attack, might spur such strong demand for retaliation that even Obama could not (again) abase himself before our enemies without risking impeachment or forcible removal from office."

Well, Zenster, I think you need to read some more about the Left. First, the Al-Hijra Muslims would condemm any WMD attack on the West (and maybe even call for the Perpetrators to be judged by Shariah), if they thought the West was offended. There is historical precedent for this. In the battle of Kosovo 1389 [Serbs vs. Muslims] the Turkish Sultan was killed. One son, the rightful heir, was the hero of the battle. After the battle was won, the other son seized the Sultanate and executed his brother (the hero of the battle). These people are ruthless and shrewd (not dumb primitives). Secondly, the Left considers Islamists their "comrades in arms" to tear down "Western Hegemony"

One final fact is that the Muslims funneled huge amounts of contributions "irregularly" to BHO. They have learned that they can simply by politicians.

Muslims will disclaim responsibility, Leftists will demand 'no war', the Leftist media will portray it (the WMD attack) as having nothing to do with Islam, and people will not have done their homework to understand what is going on. Why should Islamists risk blowing their prospects for conquest when Al-Hijra will give them the West in little more than 20 years?

Don't base the solution on the opponent making bad moves and the government of the West being smart.

You need to read Unholy Alliance, [David Horowitz], Londonistan {Melanie Philips], and The West's Last Chance [Tony Blankley]. Learn about the Modern peacenik Left.

P.S. readers, I may write a post showing what I would have said in 1943 if I believed what Leftists do about Western War (and Western Hegemony). Of course, I will only use plausible facts to construct my tirade. Tell me if you would like to hear it.

Zenster said...

MauserMedic: ... I've no illusions they will be any hope [help?] to those hoping to salvage a measure of the West unless it were to be medieval.

My point precisely. We need solutions that do not include the Louvre being looted or the Eiffel Tower being pulled down for scrap iron.

The Wobbly Guy said...

The fall of the West to Islamism will not be the end of civilization. Classic western culture such as its high art and culture are rapidly adopted by the Eastern civilizations of China (Sinosphere) and to a lesser extent, India. Guess how many chinese and Korean kids are learning the piano?

And while China's no role model for human rights and the rule of law (yet), I doubt it's going to succumb to PC and liberalism anytime soon. Other than lopsided demographics, which may actually be an advantage in a conflict, China's in a better fundamental position than the West. Ironic in that the supposedly communists are now probably the most ardent captialists in the world, backed by a fascist political environment. And I mean that in a good way.

What I foresee is a move from the West towards the East where they can carve out enclaves of sanity as Europe descends into chaos, then a re-colonization process after Islam faces its final reformation or destruction, probably at the hands of an enraged America, China, or India.

Start making plans to go East if you can.

DP111 said...

Baron B wrote: Some of the most respected dynasties in Europe were founded by lawless brigands.

Mohammed is a good example. He not only became a political leader, but amazingly, is a revered religious leader, to the extent of being a prophet.

HA could be a catalyst for a showdown, as people decide that it is better they side with "their own bastards" then alien bastards.

But these scenarios lead to civil war of the very worst kind - a civil war between communities, with the state putting out fires - it has to do this in a neutral manner, as it cannot break the liberalism foundation on which all Western states are now based (one can see that even now, in France or Denmark- the state is neutral).

This is really the worst of all scenarios - it will destroy not just the physical geography and architecture of Europe, but civilisation itself, and has to be avoided if at all possible. Removing Islam from Europe is a must, or the demographic beast will subsume Europe. That is obvious, and no lengthy analysis is required to show that. The trick is to achieve our goals without a civil war, and no pressure at all on Muslims to leave. They just leave voluntarily, with many of us wishing farewell to our Muslim friends. That way none of our precious liberal principles are sacrificed, no hard and guilty feelings, no domestic fuss between Westerners and Muslims, or worse still between "LeftistLibs" and "patriots", if you wish. In fact the whole enterprise is done with the best of intentions, and in the best possible taste.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

We need solutions that do not include the Louvre being looted or the Eiffel Tower being pulled down for scrap iron,

Yes and I want to wake up tomorrow and learn that prophet Muhammad was never born.

Unrealistic dreaming can be very nice, but is a problem when taken seriously. There is no cavalry around the corner, coming to our rescue, Zenster, in the way that you are expecting. I can understand that this is hard to accept, but that's just how it is.

Chechar said...

* we have never really had a plan to eliminate leftist ideology – Watching Eagle

Suppose for a second that a group of Hellish Saviors evolve into a sort of hellish sophisticate saviors (SS) who start to plan assassinations of every leftist involved in the unholy alliance. While this comment is descriptive, not normative, under an active SS’s black-list leftists would finally start to taste what does it feel to be on the side of Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn and the decapitated Westerners at Iraq and other places.

If you prefer to discuss in an invisible forum for outsiders what those Dane guys (who are not us of course) might do—I am not advocating vigilante justice, putting this blog at risk—let me know and I’ll open a thread in my website forum on this subject.

spackle said...

CS

In regards to "The Man who shot Liberty Valance". As something of a John Ford aficionado I agree with you (and Auster) wholeheartedly. These are common themes that run through most John Ford westerns. To see a Liberal version of Liberty Valance watch "High Noon" with Gary Cooper. I cant stand that film. What a wuss! One of my favorite lines from LV :

"This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Baron Bodissey said...

DP111 --

Removing Islam from Europe is a must, or the demographic beast will subsume Europe… The trick is to achieve our goals without a civil war, and no pressure at all on Muslims to leave. They just leave voluntarily, with many of us wishing farewell to our Muslim friends.

Ah, but there’s the rub. If this is to be done, it must be done by state actors. To what extent is this likely?

Denmark is the best-case scenario. But even the Danes have only gone partway. They have tightened immigration restrictions, gotten serious about deportation, revised the family-reunification policy, and cut welfare benefits for migrants. All of this is good policy, and it has slowed the rate of arrival to a trickle.

But the Muslims who are already in Denmark are outbreeding the natives. If there is no significant assimilation – and so far there is no sign that Muslims will assimilate en masse to Danish culture – then the problem still exists, and will be twice as bad in 15 years or so.

And Denmark is the best we can hope for in Europe. Italy has recently come online with good anti-immigration legislation (with the EU putting serious pressure on it to halt its “racist” actions), and Switzerland is showing modest signs of moving in the right direction.

But these good trends are more than balanced by Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands, which continue to open the gates to new arrivals and make it official policy not to assimilate them. The open borders of the EU mean that immigrants will keep pouring in and migrate internally to wherever the best welfare is handed out and the fewest restrictions imposed on them.

And now, despite the fact that object lessons are right there in front of them, Ireland and Finland, which have relatively small immigrant populations, have embraced Multiculturalism and instituted policies that encourage increased immigration.

Mass insanity is the only explanation I can think of for this behavior.

There’s no sign that most European governments will halt – much less reverse – Muslim immigration anytime within the next decade. And in ten years’ time, avoidance of civil war will be all but impossible.

DP111 said...

Baron B posted Mass insanity seems to affects the ruling elite.

No doubt. But what is the alternative if you are presented with a situation that you know will lead to a Muslim majority in say 100 years. This under the condition that Muslims behave themselves till the eventual take over. You cannot act against Muslims because they are well behaved -no terrorism, no criminal actvities. Yet once the take over opportunity arrives all hell breaks loose. You know that. What do you do?

You cant deport them as they have done nothing wrong, and are here legally.

1. You can increase Muslim immigration fast, very fast, which leads to opposition. The slow one is sure death, like the lobster in the pot.

2. Keep the Israel/Pali pot simmering.

3. And another.

Baron : "it must be done by state actors".

Yes.

There is too much disinformation right now. Geert Wilders is the key. Let us see what he says and does, if he gets elected.

Rollory said...

As long as creditors keep buying more Treasuries, the reckoning can be postponed. But eventually there will not be enough customers for T-bills, and the only way to pay off the previous ones will be to print more money. Since this will devalue the remaining debt, there will be a stampede out of the dollar and into something safer, something more likely to retain value, such as gold or commodities. This is a vicious circle, and will generate hyperinflation. The dollar will lose value until the currency in circulation reflects the real worth of the assets it denominates.

This is wrong. It is a common view but it is wrong. What it misses is that the rest of the world is in FAR WORSE shape than the USA is - yes, even though we do have such a screwed up situation. Europe's banks made ridiculous loans to Eastern Europe and their balance sheets are now worse than Citi's, they're operating on a "let's pretend" basis. Japan has been in a two-decade recession with no sign of relief and their banks are in bad shape too. China is a pure bubble economy, built on selling to us, and with an inverted demographic pyramid to boot - and what younger generations they have are very male-heavy (an indicator of approaching violence). They'll get old before they get rich. So the dollar ends up still being the safest place for now.

What is going to happen - what is starting to happen already - is massive deflation. Credit is vaporizing and cash is being hoarded. The combined effect of credit and the velocity of money on the total money supply are orders of magnitude larger than the effects of the printing they've been doing. Shrink the velocity of money (the rate at which it changes hands), destroy credit (make loans very hard to get and credit cards unattractive with drastically higher rates), suddenly there is hugely less money around. Even feeding lots of extra money into the system doesn't affect things much because the banks will just sit on it, due to the risky economic environment.

Now, hyperinflation is not impossible. They COULD just really rev up the printing presses and set up the money snowblowers in major intersections in cities across the country. The problem is that if they do that it instantly destroys the savings AND WAGE INCOME of 90% of the population of this country, which forces the entire economy into a barter system essentially overnight, which leaves us with Mad Max a couple weeks later. This isn't impossible, but it's way worse than the deflation scenario.

You can't have Weimar or Zimbabwe style hyperinflation without a wage-price spiral. There is no mechanism tying wages to inflation. Thus, hyperinflation is pretty unlikely. Unless the folks in charge are suicidally stupid. Which isn't impossible.

Karl Denninger at market-ticker.org has been covering this extensively for a long time.

Rollory said...

BTW, I should add that the inflation/deflation argument isn't really affected by the bond market issue at all. It _is_ essentially guaranteed that at some point in the near future - possibly within the year, likely within five years - foreign purchases of US debt will simply stop. That will be the point when FedGov has to decide whether to set up the greenback snowblowers (destroying the currency on the foreign exchange markets, destroying the American ability to purchase anything that isn't locally produced, and creating Mad Max nationwide within a couple weeks), or to go the Argentina route - default the debt, cut the federal budget by 60%, and live within its means.

Either way things will get chaotic and violent. If you live in a city, get out.

Baron Bodissey said...

Rollory --

I'm not "wrong", I'm simply grasping the ear of the elephant, whereas you have hold of the trunk.

The money supply is dangerously inflated by excessive debt as encouraged and implemented by the Fed to keep interest rates artifically low. This debt bubble cannot be sustained indefinitely.

It's true that we're in deflation now, and an initial deflation was widely predicted when the current crisis began. But you'll also notice that many analysts predict subsequent hyperinflation, which will begin as the recovery takes hold and the effects of all that debt kick in.

This has been a pattern in the past when bubbles collapse: first a period of deflation, then an even greater inflation in response to all the "stimulus" actions that governments inevitably impose to "fix" recessions.

China is not the only player, just one of the largest. If George Soros decides to dump dollars, it could also help start a run on the dollar.

We are screwed, but it's an open question as to exactly when and how the consequences will begin to unfold.

Rollory said...

Ok, you're right. Different parts of the elephant. I'm more focused on the near future, I don't think long-term predictions are reliable at all right now.

as the recovery takes hold and the effects of all that debt kick in

There's presumptions here I'm not convinced are valid. Any recovery is a decade or so off. The debt is very likely to be defaulted or repudiated in the meantime. Following the "standard" pattern requires some political continuity, which is by no means guaranteed.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Now, if government would leave the deflation alone, things would correct themselves. Painfully, but orderly. We would have to stop making money on money, reverting instead to making money the honorable way, production and trade.

The US federal government would have to default on its debt, too. A recessionary environment can never produce sufficient revenue to pay off that mountain of treasury bills.

That would be the honorable way.

What I think will happen, though, is that a major inflationary push will struggle to avoid the deflation. Obama and his Wall Street cronies are in a position to do so - and they're in the running already. Doing that is a recipe for utter disaster, the Mad Max scenario, for when it becomes too obvious, a stampede out of the dollar can happen fast.

But this is where things get complicated. Surely, Bernanke and the others understand this, and work with foreign creditors to avoid a complete meltdown. When government and the Fed are involved, things simply get unpredictable. That's deliberate from their side.

What I expect to happen is that an attempt will be made to introduce a new, shining world currency, under completely centralized control - possibly using the UN to grant it credibility.

I don't think I need to explain why we should utterly reject such a proposal, no matter how much The Elite will 'pay' us to take it.

For the US, I think the best solution would be for the states to take responsibility of the money supply, if necessary breaking a few laws here and there.

For Europe, it's a mixed bag. Money-printing of Euro is in high gear (€ 500 billion a year), and the hemmoraging of euros to producing countries (China, Arabs etc.) is continous. I expect the Euro to go under as well - but hopefully Germany will pull out first, triggering an orderly collapse.

Smaller countries, like Denmark, have a chance of getting through this in an orderly fashion, if interest rates are kept high and money-printing avoided - two things I do not see happening at the moment.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Actually, it's instructive to examine how Americas Great Depression unfolded:

During the 1920's, when the Fed was just created, it stimulated credit and lessened reserve requirements for banks - both significant inflation enablers. CPI increase, however, was moderate, due mainly to great productivity increases (assembly lines etc.)

In 1927, the Federal Reserve tried to 'help' Britain out of its inflation problem by creating more inflation in the dollar. Since at that time, dollars were not much use outside the US, the money created (purchasing UK debt) soon returned to the US, creating bubbles in housing and stocks.

It was obvious that this bubble needed a burst, but doing so in an orderly way wasn't easy. Raising interest rates worked - triggering the crash - but Hoover, the Fed and everyone else lost their nerves and did a lot of things to stifle the economy (they called it 'stimulate'), reigniting inflation and taking the US off the gold in 1933.

Since then (actually, since the creation of the Fed), inflation has been a regular component of the US economy. Stopping the inflation would deflate the power of High Finance and Big Government. Thus, heavy resistance can be expected.

Baron Bodissey said...

Thank you, Henrik. You're right on the money, as it were.

Rollory --

I often wonder about a default. It would be unprecendented for the US government, but then a lot of unprecendented things are happening these days.

When I mentioned a recovery, I didn't mean a real recovery. I meant the fake recovery that will be generated by all that stimulus money when it finally starts having a systemic effect. The prediction is that this will happen starting this fall, and the inflation will slowly begin to build not long after that, accelerating as confidence in the dollar erodes.

Inflation, rather than default, is our traditional way out of excessive indebtedness.

A real recovery is, as you say, years away. It may not be possible until the system collapses and a new one is built.

As for predictions -- the people who accurately predicted the current mess almost two years ago seem pretty savvy. I'll continue to read them. Successful prognostication always gains my attention.

Watching Eagle said...

Chechar, the key is not killing people, but "daisycuttering" all Leftist ideas. To "Daisycutter" means to shatter the ideas, by forcefully disproving them to thier believers. People go into shellshock and can't do anything anymore to spread their poison.

Ronald Reagan did just this against Soviet Communism (If he hadn't done it, the USSR would have probably conquered the West by now). We just need to do the same thing to PC MC "Secular Progressives"-- When they are sounding scared, you know that you are getting close to attacking them in a devestating way.

Don't despair, "Cultural Marxism" started out with fewer people than view this blog. Success is a journey, not a destination.

Anyway, I hope you will help me in writing my Social Hiearchy of Needs thesis by asking me the right questions. I will in turn teach you how to "Daisycutter" PC MC "Secular Progressivism" and place it in the 'dustbin of history", which is where it belongs.

P.S.-- I am a graduate student who hopes to bring forth a whole new school of economics that I hope will "Daisycutter" Marxism once and for all.

Watching Eagle said...

Actually, there IS a documentary that predicted the current ecomonic meltdown fairly accurately.

It is called "Demographic Winter-- the Decline of the Human Family" and is the best resource about how the Demographic situation in the West is causing economic decline.

When you fit what it says in with the Third Jihad, the reason for many of our problems becomes brilliantly clear.

Watching Eagle said...

Obstacles to Zenster's Theory

I write now to lay out briefly the obstacles to the fulfillment of Zenster's theory. I will discuss them in more detail in later posts, but I will give a quick synopsis here.

First, realize that much has changed in the past eight years, and the Islamists are getting more and more sophisticated. Secondly, you must study and understand the Western political dynamics of the war in Iraq (who said what and why) if you are to understand the development of 'The Third Jihad' [Islamists studied everything about it VERY INTENSELY]. Well, here are the obstacles.

1)hot-headed Islamists must disregard Islamic theological/political doctrine on jihad and choose to launch a WMD attack on America.

2)The American People must overwhelmingly see the enemy as Islam, not "the terrorists", despite the Muslim world calling for the terrorist group to be judged by Shariah (killed), despite the high level of entertainment and our short attention span, and despite the level best efforts of the Media and Leftists to convince us that "the Problem is NOT Islam, it's extremism"

3)The Military Brass and/or the U.S. Government must see the enemy as Islam, not "the terrorists", despite all the above factors.

4)If the idea of "Nuking the MME" begins to be seriously discussed, Western Governments must handle the MILLIONS of Leftist protesters that will flood the streets of Cities from Seattle to Stockholm, from Alameda to Athens; chanting "one, two, three, four, WE DON'T WANT A RACIST WAR!!!; two, four, six, eight, STOP THE BIGOTED HOLOCAUST HATE!!!" and much more I couldn't print on this blog. Furthermore, the Leftists will be joined by the Muslims.

More to the point, don't be surprised if the Western Leftists enforce gender segregation, have their women wear hijabs, and shout "we are all Muslims now!"[without of course meaning it, though there will be consequences for them later when the Muslims hear them say it] as a sign of "solidarity" for their "Muslim brothers and sisters"

The governments of the West will have to "deal with" these MILLONS of protesters (it will make Woodstock look like a single family picnic) in a way that will command respect of Islamists (maybe more like China does than we are accustomed to here in the West), and if the Western governments don't, there could be riots in all the cities of the West that could slow economic activity to a standstill. Not only that, but if the Islamists are not impressed with the firmness of the response of Western governments; even if Mecca (and other major cities of Dar-al-Islam) is Nuked, they won't think they have lost.

Western government's responses to the Leftist mega-protests/riots is more important to them (Muslims than whether or not Mecca is Nuked.

5) If the army/government, in spite of all this, still does Nuke the MME, we must prevent the Leftists from handing over the West to the surviving Islamists to "atone for our crimes against humanity", and from allowing the Islamists to implement Shariah and the Caliphate right away.

These are the obstacles that must be overcome, if Zenster's theory is to work. I am interested in his plan to overcome each obstacle.

In closing, I really would like to read books on Jihad and related topics that Zenster recommends. I will make a serious effort to find and read the books he recommends, and I will comment on them (though I probably will leave my comments out of my book).

Henrik R Clausen said...

Western Leftists enforce gender segregation, have their women wear hijabs, and shout "we are all Muslims now!" without of course meaning it...

There'd be a bitter irony in that: That was a favorite way for Muhammad to gain new converts. First the outward attitude, the statements, the covering of women etc. He said explicitly that it didn't matter that the heart was not in the gestures initially - it'd follow when memories of alternatives faded and everyone else did likewise. That worked.

As for the economy, there's a historically new situation in that we have an unprecedented amount of dollars all over the planet, being used in payments unrelated to the United States. It used to be that currencies would be pretty much restricted to the countries they originated in, and would end up there pretty quickly if spent elsewhere. That meant that in case of inflationary policies (Weimar 1921-1923, United States 1920-1929 etc.), the effects would come fairly fast, as the pressure would be clear and focused.

Now we have the dollar being the 'reserve currency' globally. How this will unfold is unpredictable, for we have no historical examples. What will be happening is that the values of the reserves everywhere will start to dwindle, which may turn into a slow, endless decline. Or we may see a rout, where the US is, within a short period of time, swamped with dollars that people elsewhere refuse to accept at legal tender.

Governments, IMF etc. won't be sitting idle, of course. But if public confidence collapses, there are only limited options for them.

I think repealing legal tender laws would be good.

Henrik R Clausen said...

In closing, I really would like to read books on Jihad and related topics that Zenster recommends. [...] and I will comment on them.

I think doing so here on GoV could be welcome. Baron?

Henrik R Clausen said...

"daisycuttering" all Leftist ideas.

Like making it clear that Socialism is Evil! It's the only ideology more lethal than Islam, in that it's different variants (international, national, Chinese, Cambodian etc. etc.) killed well over 100 million people. That's more than Islam managed - over 14 centuries!

Am trying to read Ludwig von Mises' big book on Socialism. Heavy reading, full of gems.

Conservative Swede said...

In the article above we hear one of the HAs saying:

“It is not our responsibility to solve society’s problems. We just react when something bad happens to our friends or families” Horn says.

And that's the only practical morality that truly works. While the self-sacrificial altruist types cause more trouble than they do good.

At a larger scale we have the same thing. With America seeing itself as the self-sacrificial altruists who's responsibility is to "save the world". As a contrast we have e.g. the Chinese attitude, which is parallel to the one of HA. I.e. in effect they react when something bad happens to their friends and family. While America goes in for the reason of "universal goodness", according to Christian ethics which is based on inversion of values.

The HA/Chinese attitude is not only more morally robust, it's vastly morally superior to the self-sacrificial altruism of the modern West, which is in fact deeply morally flawed. Because i) it's not sustainable, and ii) it's based on inversion of values. In the long thread I provided an example of what it will lead to: a planetary mass starvation, the cruelest and most brutal thing ever seen in the history of mankind. This makes this attitude deeply, deeply immoral.

A sustainable world order is not based on unselfish white horsemen "liberating" others for the sake of "universal goodness", but on a mosaic of groups, each reacting when something bad happens to their friends or families.

This is what the world looked like up until WWI. We had a situation of power balance. But the end of WWI meant the start of the American Age, and we got the Wilsonian World Order. Woodrow Wilson explained his concept as "There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but an organized peace." This is exactly the wrong idea. (See also here).

Since this organized peace is based on an illusion, what it causes are dangerous power vacuums. The Austrian Empire -- being seen as worse than Hells Angels by the social contract idealist nations such as America and France -- was murdered and dismembered. This created the power vacuum in which Hitler could expand. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn said: "Had Hitler possessed a sense of humor, he would have erected a giant statue of Wilson right in front of Munich’s Brown House."

So the idea of going into countries around the world, in order to save and "liberate" the peoples, without taking ownership of the land as a real empire, is deeply flawed and immoral. Simply because it doesn't work, and will eventually end up in horrific consequences.

Consider Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argument of how Monarchy is superior to Democracy. And this is even derived from the core principle of classic liberalism: the fact the private ownership is always superior to collective ownership! Democracy is in fact socialism applied to the highest political level: in how a country is ruled. Democracy means collective ownership of the state. A concept that is doomed to fail.

Roman said...

Henrik R Clausen said
(socialism) killed well over 100 million people. That's more than Islam managed - over 14 centuries!

Well, for Islam I encountered the figure of 270 million. Some Indian historians claim 80 million were killed in India alone during successive invasions.

Islam means peace and love indeed. In Orwellian sense.

Chechar said...

* Chechar, the key is not killing people, but "daisycuttering" all Leftist ideas… MILLIONS of Leftist protesters that will flood the streets of Cities from Seattle to Stockholm, from Alameda to Athens; chanting "one, two, three, four, WE DON'T WANT A RACIST WAR!!!; two, four, six, eight, STOP THE BIGOTED HOLOCAUST HATE!!!" - Watching Eagle

Actually, it is about killing people, and not only by intimidating through Islamofascistic methods the intellectual bastards who have betrayed our beloved culture; but by massacring the protesters from Seattle to Stockholm, from Alameda to Athens. If I were in power, after nuking Mecca I could easily rationalize the massacre of lefty demonstrators as getting rid of sedition in world war times. Or whatever. I don’t care. But we must start thinking outside the box of PC liberal morals.

1968 was one of the happiest years of my life. I was only a child and lived in Mexico City. Unlike its 1968 counterparts in Paris and in the US, Mexican president Gustavo Díaz Ordáz massacred the nasty lefty students demonstrating just before the Olympics games. My father was very concerned but I didn’t give a sh**t. In the following decades no single Mexican intellectual that I am aware of has approved Díaz Ordáz’s actions. I believe that the future will vindicate Díaz Ordáz’s image when the current paradigm starts to collapse. As Con Swede and I are discovering, the thoughtcrime police are inside us, and a good exorcism is necessary. Perhaps some GoV posters will start revaluating their (still liberal?) values in the near future. If a new paradigm is forthcoming, the new worldview certainly will demand such an inner change. There’s no escape. It is Siegfried’s pay back time. The transition from an armchair intellectual to a gun lover as predicted by El Inglés is one of his essays will become reality. Or are we chickens?


(By the way, do you remember the beautiful, ultra-feminine Sarah Connor in Terminator, dressed in pink as a waitress, and the warrior Sarah Connor in black suit in Terminator II, preparing herself for doomsday?)

Chechar said...

* …inversion of values… - CS

Con Swede, if you are trying to translate "Umwertung aller Werte" to English, Hollingdale suggest “revaluation of all values”.

Chechar said...

* Henrik R Clausen said
(socialism) killed well over 100 million people. That's more than Islam managed - over 14 centuries!


This is a statistical fallacy. What really counts is proportion and rates. And from epidemiological studies that take this on account, sociologists know now that even the 20th century West has been less murderous than other cultures.

Conservative Swede said...

Henrik wrote: Like making it clear that Socialism is Evil!

Let's also make it clear that the weaker version of leftism, that is democratic liberalism, is even more evil. Because it is in the process of killing societies, which is worse than killing people, and will of course lead to mass death and suffering of people across the planet at giant scale. Not only in the West, but in the mass starvation across the southern hemisphere it is about to cause.

Anyway, to continue what I wrote above. When the current world order falls apart, there will be immense power vacuums created across our planet. Especially in Europe, there will be no fabric of organized rivalries keeping it together. It will be a situation of land grabbing. The "Samurias" (such as HA) will enter and take control of different pieces of land.

As I mentioned above, this is how aristocracies emerged once in history across the world. The "Samurais", being the superior fighters, could grant protection to the people, which they were grateful for; but it came at a cost. This was the start of civilized societies. Instead of the unorganized chaos where villages were constantly suffering from attacks from various barbarians. History might very well repeat itself in this respect.

The world order of the American Age is a very vulnerable concept. Once America withdraws from its role as "world police" -- by being utterly demoralized and losing its self-confidence, by not having economical resources for it any more, by being forced to turn within due to domestic chaos -- the whole thing will fall apart. There is no fabric (of organized rivalries etc.) holding it up. In fact, such things (especially in Europe) have been utterly forbidden in this world order.

The American invention of the Internet was a much better one. Remove one node (or even several ones) and the system is still functioning. It's very robust. But the Wilsonian World Order is all depending on one node: America herself. Remove America from the equation, and there's only power vacuum, and utter chaos, left.

Conservative Swede said...

Just a remark on altruism:

I'm not dismissing altruism in general, only universalist altruism, which is inherently deranged. As I described in the long thread, Germanic people developed historically an ethnically based altruism, which served us well until the ideals of universalism struck us.

Germanic people and Christian ethics become a poisonous mix. It was the Germanic people who crystallized and refined the universalist altruistic principles out of Christianity -- letting the genie out of the bottle, as it were -- with Protestantism and subsequently Secularism.

Germanic people and Christianity simply do not mix well. It's the greatest tragedy of history.

Conservative Swede said...

Chechar,

"Inversion of values" is what Christian ethics does. It turned morality upside down: making the weak the good ones, the aliens the poor ones to be protected, and the strong the evil ones.

A “revaluation of all values” is what becomes necessary when living within a mind box of "inversion of values". I.e. to turn it upside down again, to get it right.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Altruism, based on your own resources, is pretty cool. It used to be quite a common tradition, not least in Christian circles.

'Altruism', based on resources extracted from others, is pretty evil. That implies grabbing the glory of altruism, yet having others do the hard work it's based on...

Conservative Swede said...

What I've been saying here -- about organized peace vs. organized rivalries -- gives the necessary background for understanding the discussions we had about Russia and China here at GoV last autumn.

The John McCain style side of the argument, with belligerent attitudes towards Russia and China, along with other people footed in the current belief system, claimed "You are naive to think that Russia/China is our new saviour!"

Of course nothing like that had been claimed. Which was pointed out a hundred times, but to no avail. The people caught in the current belief system, not only sees America as the "saviour". At an ever deeper level, the structure of their thinking make them look for a saviour in general. So if America is not our saviour, who is it then?

But the point about Russia and China is of course not that they would be "our saviours". That's Wilsonian thinking. And we don't need more of that delusion. The point is instead that they honour their part of the bargain for a world of organized rivalries. In taking care of themselves (not us, silly!) and creating political stability in their respective regions. When the West falls apart, thrown into dangerous power vacuums, Russia and China will remain politically stable. Exactly because they look after themselves, and their self-interests, and don't look for saving anyone else.

But the John McCain style belligerence against Russia and China, is based on seeing exactly this sort of "organized rivalry" as evil (which applies to HA too btw). People footed in the current belief system are stuck on the thought of "organized peace". Therefore they can only think in terms of "saviours". So whenever Russia or China is mentioned in a positive way, their thought patterns are structured such that they are only able to hear it as "Russia/China is our new saviour".

But there is no saviour, no white horseman, no cavalry, coming to save us. Not America, not Geert Wilders. We are on our own.

As the concept "organized rivalry" implies, Russia and China are not our friends. And that's the whole point! If they had been friends, wanting the best for us, they would have been deranged altruists. Thank gods, they are not! No they are our rivals. However, in fighting Islam, they are our best possible allies (once we've given up our current destructive belief system).

However, both are in essence empires/predators. And in the event of a massive power vacuum in Europe that we are not ourselves able to repair, we could count on any of the two invading us. Which will be far from nice. But still better than living under Islam, which they would be driving out.

And according to the principle of "organized rivalries", this is the responsible thing to do. Power vacuums have to be filled.

They way for us to go is to become a predator ourselves, and then maintain good diplomatic and trade relations with like minded predators. I.e. a world of organized rivalries.

Baron Bodissey said...

Henrik --

I think doing so here on GoV could be welcome. Baron?

Yes, of course. Perhaps its own post, if it's extensive enough.

Conservative Swede said...

Henrik,

Altruism', based on resources extracted from others, is pretty evil. That implies grabbing the glory of altruism, yet having others do the hard work it's based on...

To me this is universalist altruism.

What's the point of leaving resources with people who are not altruists themselves or who even have no empathy for their common men? Such as the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. Resources created by us in the first place, in any case. So it would not be evil but good and righteous by us to grab them back.

What is evil is the current setup. With the US sucking up to Saudi Arabia as a way to back the dollar hegemony and our present world order. Tons of oil money fed to the Muslims for many decades which meant the funding for the Third Jihad. Evil indeed! And idiotic too.

I think it is wrong to project our altruism upon Arabs etc. It's like projecting human features upon pet animals. It simply doesn't apply. These people are better off (for their own sake) as our subjects, than under their own brutal leaders. Take e.g. Sudan: the only time in history they didn't have slavery was under the British Empire. Zimbabwe was better off under Ian Smith, etc.

Free Hal said...

Hi Conservative Swede,

I’m replying to your message to me on the “Reversal is possible” debate (since closed), 7/28/2009 8:31. My apologies for taking so long to get back but things have been busy for a few days.

The problem I have with your, and for that matter the Baron’s, talk about western civlisation being dead and you can ‘Stick a fork in it’, is the vagueness of the term "western civlisation" – I think this creates a lot of opportunities for misunderstanding (e.g. your and my misunderstanding) and an excuse for some very sloppy thinking.

Perhaps I should be specific myself. By ‘western civilisation’, I mean what I take to be post-Renaissance enlightenment values of freedom, and freedom’s child self-responsibility, and the intellectual and scientific inquiry, and artistic expression that follow from those things.

By ‘freedom’ I mean primarily property rights (the right to own something and do whatever you like with it) which is the source of the personal freedoms (speech, belief, physical integrity). By self-responsibility, I mean the acceptance that whilst people may give out of kindness, no-one else has the duty to provide healthcare, TV, food, shelter for you. I would also go so far as to say that self-responsibility includes the idea that your worth is judged by your acts, motives, and effects – you can’t claim to have equal value to everyone else by virtue of the fact that you draw breath.

The reason I think it appropriate to call these freedom-base values ‘western’ is that I think they have underpinned post Renaissance and enlightenment Europe in a way that they haven’t done on other parts of the world. The enlightenment west seems to me unique in its belief in property and other freedoms. I don’t know anywhere else where those beliefs pervaded to the same extent. Not coincidentally, I don’t know anywhere else where there has been such consistent scientific and artistic genius – the music of Vienna, the art of 19C Paris, the literature of London, the Solvay Conferences (see also Fjordman on western science).

I think that the modern universalist entitlements of western democracy are so ludicrous and irrational as to be in lethal opposition to the ‘western values’ that I describe above. The enfeebling effects of this coercive duncery will collapse Europe, and the rest of the west.

I don’t think these values have anything to do with Christianity specifically, and I doubt Christianity in the west is going to recover. I see no evidence of Christianity reviving in Europe , or demonstrating the drive to do so. So if your definition of western civilisation means, as I think it does, the confluence of Christianity on Germanic peoples, then I agree with you that western civilisation won’t survive.

cont/...

Free Hal said...

cont/...

However, I do think the western values I have described above, which I think give rise to western enlightenment civilisation, will thrive. I think they will thrive because people want them: people want property, they want more of it, and will strive to find ways to get it because they like the things property provides – education, diet, status, shelter, health, intellectual stimulation. Freedom leads to prosperity – you can’t have prosperity without property rights and financial freedom. If people can create what they want, and keep the results, then they will be motivated to produce, but not otherwise.

I also think that free people, will have lots of property and will, therefore, have the means to be better at surviving and defending themselves. A large part of warfare comes down to finance, which maintains the ability to fight – see WW1 and WW2. Finance also buys allies – see Louis XIV of France or the UN dealings before Gulf War 1. Finance buys territory – see Alaska, Manhattan, and the Louisiana purchase.

I’m not saying the wealth automatically means survival, e.g. the rich west is fatally undermined by its addiction to absurd utopias and entitlements. But a society that wants to resist threats can’t do so without the material means.

I think that, when the west’s welfare states collapse, western populations will drop their somnolent universalism, and their entitlement utopias, very fast. And I think this will be accompanied by an aggressive self-assertion borne out of shame and self-contempt. If I am right that western PC nonsense springs from the collectivist beliefs that underpin welfare rights, then that nonsense will not survive long after the welfare system collapses.

So this is why I think that western values, as I describe them above, have the potential to survive.

The risk to those values is the risk that the violence and disorder that follows the breakdown of Europe’s fiscal and welfare systems could snuff out freedom. But I think there will be pockets of reasonable stability where order can prevail.

The issue for us is to work out what values we want to see following this breakdown, and to do what we can to promote them. Perhaps I’ve missed something, but I haven’t seen this in all this discussion of ‘western civilisation’ being finished. What I’ve seen in such talk to date is the wish to see society break down into violence, rather than discussion of what specifically people would like to see come out of it.

What would you like to come out of this breakdown? And is there any way that you can see to promote it?

Best wishes,

Hal

Conservative Swede said...

Hi Hal,

That's a very good reply from you. And it would take more words than I can write just now to answer it in all aspects.

Yes, we can speak of the Western Christian civilization in many ways: the values, the institutions manifesting the values, and the dominance in terms of power upholding all of above.

At the higher order level I speak of European civilization, of which the Roman-Greek and the Western Christian have been two specific instances/phases. European civilization won't go away as long as white people have not been exterminated. And most of the values you mention (in one garb or the other) are connected to white people, through evolution and thousands of years of culture. So as long as we survive, they are not going away.

So will we see a fall of our civilization, or just a major overhaul of our values and myths as with WWI and WWII? But these wars were rather Western civil wars than world wars. Different sides of Western culture, of strength and confidence, battling each other. But since 1989 there is no strength or confidence, nor direction. The universalist ideals of the Enlightenment have fully manifested themselves, and there is nowhere to go from there. And this time we are facing external threats from non-Westerners, at the same time as we are self-imploding. There's a whole different magnitude to this than to the great wars of the 20th century.

It seems that we agree that all the institutions of the current incarnation of the West will fall apart: UN, EU, NATO, America as the unchallenged superpower and "world police". And of course the welfare states. But will this necessarily lead to the end of Western civilization, or rather just a major makeover as with WWI and WWII? Bear in mind when considering this question, how, as I mentioned above, we are not facing another "Western civil war", but real external threats at the same time as we are self-imploding.

One criterion that has to be fulfilled in order to say that the Western Christian civilization has fallen, is that we experience the same kind of discontinuity as we had between the Roman-Greek and Western Christian civilizations.

Had not the Europeans of the time lost control of the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabs, I don't think we would have spoken of the Roman-Greek and the Western Christian as two distinct civilizations, but as one and the same continuum.

I see the same kind of thing happening now. Later this century the West will no longer be leading the planet. We will have fallen behind, with China as number one. This is a discontinuity that has never been experience by the Western civilization, and was never experienced by the Roman civilization, not until the day that it fell.

I think it is clear that the people won't turn away from the current belief system, with less than a major catastrophe. But this time the catastrophe is not something as benign as a "Western civil war", but something of a higher magnitude, and of real external threats (which we are not the least prepared for). If we had only been facing something as harmless as WWI or WWII, I wouldn't have been speaking of the end of the Western Christian civilization. If there only had been two strong sides of the West fighting each other to death, we wouldn't have been facing this discontinuity of our civilization.

But now it is our very belief system that makes us unable to fight and defend our civilization. And the threat is external, and when we lose, it means this discontinuity. Losing here means losing our dominant position, not that everything is lost.

Our current empire will fall, i.e. America, and not to another Western empire as before -- since this time there is no one standing in line -- but to external forces.

Conservative Swede said...

continued...

The reason that I welcome this is that I see it as inevitable. I cannot wait to come out on the other side, and once again have a thriving culture with all the achievements that you have mentioned and also cherish: freedom, art, science, etc. Without anything to struggle for, such achievements will not be made.

However, if we do not meet a major catastrophe within the next twenty years, we will be silently walking into our demographic eclipse. Something that could indeed mean the end European civilization and the values that you have talked about. The demographic forces in motion are so great, yes exponential. Not so much our declining birth rates, but the population explosion in the Third World that we are causing and the mass immigration and demographic Jihad in our own lands.

If this process continues we will end up in diaspora as the Jews. And without white people as a mere 2-3% of the world's population and without our own homeland, that's indeed the end of European civilization altogether, and we can say goodbye to the manifestation of all these values that you and I cherish.

It's the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes (population explosion etc.). So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization. Another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. If it would continue a few decades more it will mean the definitive goodnight for all of us.

So to summarize:
When I speak of civilization as in the Western Christian civilization, I speak of a concrete manifestation, an empire.
And when I speak of civilization as in European civilization, I speak of the existence and self-government of white people, and the values and life style that is integral in our beings.

But now we have come to a point where the former is the greatest threat to the latter.

In Aristotelian terms European civilization is the matter to the Western Christian civilization, which is the form. I.e. white people is the matter for the current Western Christian "empire". But now the form is suffocating the matter.

Chechar said...

* It's the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes. - CS

Why do you say this? Wasn’t everything relatively OK up to the 1950s, before the radical feminists almost took away our highest divine right from us: women? (sorry for the crudity of my words if gals happen to read this post, but from now on we must talk with zero super-ego in surviving matters). If lots of women would still be with us at home having lots of beautiful kids, as the Pope likes, the present problem wouldn’t exist, would it? Doesn’t the sexual revolution is to blame for the demographic winter? And isn’t Islamization of the West a mere by-product of our dwarfing ethnicity? Or maybe you see the 1960s revolution as the natural consequence of the Enlightenment values? If so why do you blame Western Christian civilization? Rome fell precisely because infanticide (the abortion of classical times) and contraception was practiced massively since times of Julius Caesar. Since Constantine and Theodosius the Church made enormous efforts to stop infanticide.

I agree that a major catastrophe is needed. That’s why, as I have iterated elsewhere, every morning I wake up with yearning dreams of mushroom clouds above cities to wake me up—and waking up the rest of the world. But couldn’t we reject the ’60s revolution without America necessary falling (e.g., after a nuclear exchange, or lack of exchange with idiots like Obama in charge, with Iran, or with Pakistan’s WMD falling in the wrong hands)?

Yes: I know you want to delve deep into the root cause. But I still think that solid arguments based on demographic winter show us that the West took a really wrong turn in the middle 1960s. In mean, the West was still healthy the year in which I was born! (maybe because you were borne after that you haven’t seen the healthy West with your own eyes). We tried to trick the god Eros through contra-conception and the liberation of women. We are suffering for having messed with the laws of Nature. Our present problems with a revived Islam are Venus’ revenge.

Curious, eh, that I am not a Christian (like Tannhäuser I look for the grotto of Venus) yet I admire conservative Protestants and Catholics on this issue?

Conservative Swede said...

Chechar,

You need to read more carefully, because you missed my point. I repeat what I said:

"The demographic forces in motion are so great, yes exponential. Not so much our declining birth rates, but the population explosion in the Third World that we are causing and the mass immigration and demographic Jihad in our own lands.
... It's the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes.
"

Our declining birth rates have a slow effect in comparison with the exponential growth that the population explosion and demographic Jihad means.

And it's exactly because of Christian ethics that people, like e.g. you, entirely look at our own birth rates (narrowly blaming feminism etc.), instead of focusing on the much bigger and alarming problem caused by us: the population explosion in the Third World.

For the very same reason as Christian ethics abhors infanticide, it causes the population explosion in the world. It's a deeply held doctrine within Christian ethics that every single human life across the planet must be saved if possible. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet. But the consequences of this mindset is catastrophic, not only to us but also to them, as I have already explained here.

But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I'm saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It's an utter taboo.

Wasn’t everything relatively OK up to the 1950s?

Sure it was. But the better our lives got, the more we destroyed, and the faster we destroyed it.

It was exactly in the '50s that this problem started. In the '50s people of European descent was 30% of this planet, today we are just a little more than 10%. Not by us decreasing (in fact we are more than in the '50s) but by the rest of the planet exploding in numbers, from 3 to 7 billion people -- all caused by us. The population of Africa is four and a half times higher than in 1950. And the population in Asia almost three times higher.

As I have already explained: With a highly developed industrial society, the Western people got a huge surplus of resources, and much more time at their hands. Since Christian ethics mandates what it does, they have since went around the world to save every single little life that they could. Using Western medicine, modern fertilizers, GMO crops, and all other means possible, in order to keep as many alive as possible. Thus the population explosion!

This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity. But it took all these centuries until we had an industrialized society the made it possible to enact. And because of that Christian ethics mandated that we caused this Third World population explosion. Something the could never have achieved themselves. Which makes our deed so deeply irresponsible in so many ways. Just because it's artificial. Which means i) they are not adapting their life style accordingly but continue and continue and explode in numbers, and ii) they are completely depending on us, which means their societies will totally break apart once our economic world order collapses (as I have already explained in this comment which I here link to for the umpteenth time).

That means that we will have to remove the industrial society, if we want to keep Christian ethics. Think over which one you appreciate the most.

Conservative Swede said...

continuing...

Chechar:
But couldn’t we reject the ’60s revolution without America necessary falling?
...
the West took a really wrong turn in the middle 1960s
.

Just before I wrote an answer to Free Hal, and I would say that he has a better grasp of the dire situation we are in than you display here. No this is not a matter of reverting the '60s revolution. It goes far deeper than that. You know, the '60s revolution wasn't brought to us by extraterrestrials. There is an internal logic to our civilization, and its ideals, that led to that. It wasn't an accident. Start looking at the French Revolution.

In general your answer is about rejecting the '60s and going back to older Christian values, rejecting e.g. abortion and contraception. But this is just a stronger version of the Christian dogma to save every single human life possible. If anything it would just make the Third World population explosion worse! The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form. And if you bring in more deeply Christian people, it will only make it worse.

If so why do you blame Western Christian civilization?.

Precisely for the reasons I stated above.

Chechar said...

* And it's exactly because of Christian ethics that people, like e.g. you [not like me - see below], entirely look at our own birth rates (narrowly blaming feminism etc.), instead of focusing on the much bigger and alarming problem caused by us: the population explosion in the Third World. - CS

I got you: and the time has arrived for brutally honest autobiographical confessions…

My sister told me something I had forgotten: that when I was eleven I said I wanted to gather all the “nacos”—the poor Indians emigrating and profusely breeding in our big city—and “machinegun’em all” (ametrallarlos a todos, the words my sister used in her recollection with the accompanying gestures).

You see: a child is not infected with thoughtpolice. Uncontaminated by PC thought, he is pure and knows exactly what is the disease of his surrounding culture: runaway demographics. And believe me: today’s Mexico City is the American “Amsterdam” of what used to be a very nice city during my childhood!

The population of Africa is four and a half times higher than in 1950... [by] using Western medicine… - CS

Another brutal confession: When I studied a thick biology text at college, the photo of a Western doctor in the book caught my attention. He was vaccinating dozens upon dozens of black children in Africa!

Instantly I harbored the thought to drop out. How on Earth would a sane person do that, I told to myself silently? That deranged altruism was, to my heart, like an industrial factory that produced hundreds of… poor people, like a clon army: future adults who’d have a miserable life anyway! “How the hell am I studying a hard science when the values of mankind are so, er, psychotic,” continued my soliloquy.

Of course, it’s impossible that the liberal mentality understands the mind of a post-Christian human: which is not even racist since I also felt really bad about Irish families having lots of kids condemned to poverty (a poverty not as bad as that in Africa, of course).

Isn’t it curious that neither Christians nor Neo-Christians—the secularists who still believe in Christian morals—can tolerate these sorts of feelings? You can imagine what would happen in a real-life forum if, as an adult, I confessed the fantasy I had at eleven, or my soliloquy at college…

Watching Eagle said...

Chechar, I said that you had to deal with the MILLIONS of Leftist peacenik protesters BEFORE you deal with the Muslims. Here's an idea-- why not threaten to Nuke Mecca IF the Muslims refused to judge these protestors by Shariah. After all, the Leftists would get their "fair share" of "diversity", and we would show that WE CARE about them not suffering under 'Western Hegemony'.

Yes Chechar, you are right about the Western Cultural Revolution and how it wrecked our functioning as a culture. CS, The world is underpopulated, and there will be no great starvation when Western Civilization collapses. We are facing a demographic winter, and the "secular progressives" are trying to mal-adapt the Human species.

We now turn to the issue of "how did we get here?" What happened was that over the enlightenment, there were philosophers that had a political and/or personal "axe to grind". They promulgated false premises that built up over time, since the West was experiencing great political and technological success. We are now at the breaking point from all these false premises. It will be impossible to GET RID OF THE EXISTING PARADIGM and CREATE A NEW ONE without examining, studying, and rejecting all the FALSE PREMISES that got us into this mess in the first place. And if we don't act to rid ourselves of all our false premises, the Eurabian Caliphate will be the new paradigm.

I will give a synopsis of one of the false premises:

Hobbes's social contract theory of the state.

Hobbes's 'axe to grind' was that the king had been deposed and executed because he had tried to get foreign armies to fight for him against the English. Hobbes wanted the kingdom to be restored.

The traditional view of government in the West, found in the Declaration of Independence, was that the government's job was to encourage right and punish and stop what was wrong. It also believed that government was the last resort institution to solve societies problems (the Individual, the family , and the Church/community were to solve problems first). Also, a ruler had to encourage good and stop evil to be legitimate.

Hobbes, with a book called "Leviathan", set forth the idea that the state was given a "monopoly of violence [force]" in exchange for "providing order".

Pretty self-serving-- the king has all the power, as long as society is "orderly". There are three major flaws in this "social contract" premise.

1)The state has a "monopoly of violence"-- Nazi Germany and the USSR came closest to this ideal-- look how well it worked. The whole idea of the 2nd. Amendment was to prohibit the state from having "a monopoly of violence" (which if the state has, it no longer has to establish its legitimacy by doing a good job). This premise leads to totalitarianism, because the state has the power to do anything it wants.

The American Revolution would NEVER have occurred if people had accepted this premise, for the colonial society was orderly.

Conservative Swede said...

Chechar,

Thank you for sharing. You are right about the purity of mind of the child. But at the same time it's true what Heinlein says about juvenile mentality, and how it needs to be scolded and fostered into an adult (see here were he's discussing the concept of juvenile delinquent). So we see both these aspects in your childhood memory about “machinegun’em all”.

So machinegunning left aside. The current system is designed to cause mass starvation. First the dollar bubble will burst, and soon after the population explosion bubble. At this point people will see that Christian ethics caused this whole thing, and it will be utterly discredited.

This narrow-minded dogma of saving every possible life, will instead have caused more death and suffering than if Christian ethics hadn't meddled with the situation in the first place. It's like a plan the devil had thought out. To give birth to billions of people that could then be killed in one single blow in mass starvation.

What this Christian dogma hasn't taken in consideration is that each society needs to be self-dependent. Because sooner or later there comes hard times. And if we have made them utterly dependent of us, what they will face then is death, since they cannot support themselves.

So what this Christian dogma will have caused is the death of societies. So much simultaneous death will kill also the societies. This would never have happened if this Christian dogma hadn't entered the picture in the first place. A constant degree of child deaths, while being self-dependent in the traditional way, would have been the best thing for these societies. And wouldn't have hurt them; and neither have hurt us.

I think that once it has happened, people will see this point clearly, and change their ways.

like an industrial factory that produced hundreds of… poor people, like a clon army: future adults who’d have a miserable life anyway!

Yes, the more money we send to Africa, the more poor people we get there. Quite as the more welfare money we hand out in our countries, the more poor people we get. We are essentially paying them to remain poor.

I also felt really bad about Irish families having lots of kids condemned to poverty.

Not at all. Here I disagree. Because the Irish can take care of themselves. And it's today the healthiest European country, in terms of economy and demography.

Watching Eagle said...

2)All individual violence is wrong and illegitimate.

This premise causes a society to be unable to defend itself from other cultures who reject this absurd premise. One major problem of the WC Revolution, was the plan of secular psychologists (I'm not including you, Chechar, but study this point) to socially engineer society to build Western society without violence or agression. This has resulted in a culture in the West that won't stand up for itself.

Violence can be good or bad, depending on the context.

One theory I have about why most crimes are committed by minorities is that Leftists rely on manipulation, economic coercion, intimidation, and brainwashing to achieve the goals of stopping crime. This works on Whites, who are prosperous and have more to lose. However, minorities come from non-socially engineered cultures, and have less to lose, therefore, the deterrent is insufficient.

An Islamist leader is thrown in jail for terrorist fundraising? "No problem," he says, it's just welfare by another name, I'll just lead my group from jail, with my laptop computer with a wireless connection. In the meantime, everyone in the Muslim community will honor me like Gandi or Martin Luther King!" Thus, our punishments are not effective.

3)A society must have a totalitarian government in order to have order.

This is also empirically FALSE. The old kings did not micromanage things, but they maintained order. Even the pagan Vikings had chiefs that maintained order in the society, but they didn't have a monopoly of violence and they didn't consider all violence on behalf of the populace as evil or illegitimate. (Commoners had their Seaxes [knives] and Axes).

The Monster state is a thing that didn't exist really is Western society until the 20th. Century, and there was more order before then. A totalitarian state eventually causes the breakdown of societal order.

Well, this is one false premise-- Hobbes's "Social Contract"-- that must be discarded if we are to get rid of our old paradigm.

A word about the Leftists-- reasoning with them is about as effective as reasoning with the Islamists. The right loses because we try to make rational academic arguments on policy. It is NOT about policy, it is about premises and being able to stir up excitement among the common people. Thus, protesting should be our first resort (instead of the last resort), and we should "daisy cutter" the Leftist premises in our struggle. It should also be a cause, and we should be 'happy warriors'. We must also find a way to fire back the names Leftists call others at them.

Conservative Swede said...

Watching Eagle,

CS, The world is underpopulated, and there will be no great starvation when Western Civilization collapses.

He he, which planet are you living on?

Henrik R Clausen said...

Certainly, Watching Eagle must be watching a different planet...

If people everywhere else would follow the example of declining birth rates, resources would be depleted at a significantly lower rate, agriculture could more easily cover our needs, and disease/famine would be significantly lower.

Birth rates in Muslims countries are at levels where it would look like they seek to destroy the Earth :(

Chechar said...

* Here I disagree… [Ireland] And it's today the healthiest European country… – CS

Oops! I forgot to say that that was another autobiographical recollection (of an old film with a scene of a poor Irish family inundated with kids…).

* A word about the Leftists-- reasoning with them is about as effective as reasoning with the Islamists. - Watching Eagle

Ha, ha! This is exactly my experience when trying to discuss with that scum.

Henrik R Clausen said...

The way to handle Islamists, as well as leftists, is to embarrass their incoherent thinking into oblivion.

Ehm. Seems we have some work ahead of us, still...

Conservative Swede said...

I don't know what's your criterion for "underpopulated", Watching Eagle. But I know that the liberals and socialists here in Sweden think that our country is underpopulated. They seriously speak of having 50 million immigrants into our country. Will the resources of our country be able to support all those people? Well, I'm sure they never thought of that, but only in terms of how many apartments that could be built in our vast unpopulated north. (And as we already agree there are other problems with such a scenario :-)

The population of our planet is exploding in numbers. 1800 we were 1 billion. 1930 2 billions. 1960 3 billions (at this point people of European descent were still 30% of the world population). And in less than 40 years this figure had doubled into 6 billions in 1999. And we are soon at 7 billions.

But does that mean that we are overpopulated? Well, we are certainly many times more on this planet now than we used to be. But maybe we can double a few time more? Into 14 billions and then 28 billions. There should be space to build houses to live for these people, right?

But the problem is the limited resources on our planet, for providing food and drinkable water, and for building houses etc. And the resources are indeed pushed to the limit in these days. Too many people for too little resources: that's what I call overpopulation!

You cannot have followed the debate about ethanol, Watching Eagle. You know this "green" fuel that was supposed to save us from the horrors of CO2 from fossil fuel. So what happened? Through state intervention the demand for ethanol steeply increased. The crops that are fermented into ethanol compete for the same cultivatable land as our food production. So when ethanol was pushed in, food production was pushed out. And since our cultivatable land was used to the limit it cause starvation. This was partly "solved" by devastating more rain forests in the Amazonas (another great "green" idea, and once again the typical consequence of the anti-CO2 freaks). Most of the ethanol production come from sugar cane. This since other crops takes more energy to ferment into ethanol than you get out of it (another absurdity of these phony-green ideas).

And not only is the cultivatable areas used to the limit. The food production on these lands is pushed even more, to its ultimate limit, by use of artificial fertilizers, GMO crops and pesticides.

It is interesting to see how people who were previously defenders of ecological agriculture, start turning around just because how this situation is pushed to the limit, and not enough to feed every single person born on this planet today. So they no longer defend ecological agriculture, but have turned around to favour more of artificial fertilizers, GMO crops and pesticides instead (i.e. the opposite of their previous position). In order to feed as many people as possible (although, as I have explained, the only thing they achieve is to make the number of people dying in mass starvation much higher when the bubble bursts). Ecological agriculture is considered a luxury for egoistic rich white people in this perspective. Something we should feel guilt over, and stop with in solidarity with the world.

So "feed the world" beats saving the resources of our planet (i.e. actually saving the planet), according to the moral grammar of our current belief system. Quite as multiculturalism and Islamophilia beats e.g. feminism (as they say "race beats gender"). Our moral grammar is full of such hierarchies, from which the priorities are derived, once the objectives and up in conflict with each other. To save every single possible human life, is one of our deepest dogmas.

Henrik R Clausen said...

They seriously speak of having 50 million immigrants into our country.

'Country'?

If that was to happen, 'Smoking crater' would be a more reasonable description.

Don't anybody humiliate these whackos for their obvious stupidity?

Conservative Swede said...

continuing...

As part of the climate alarmism (CO2-phobia) the media occasionally publish larger articles filled with before and after pictures, comparing areal photos of the '70s with photos today of the same area, supposedly telling the story of how "global warming by human CO2" has destroyed this planet.

But if you examine these photos, what they show is the effect of the population explosion. Forests have been devastated, lakes are disappearing or have turned into swamps, etc.

What about the ice caps of Kilimanjaro? Why are they disappearing? Well, what does it take to create ice? Two things: water and cold temperature. Because of the overpopulation the people have devastated so many rain forests around Kilimanjaro that the air humidity has gone down significantly. Thus the disappearing ice caps. It's a local phenomenon, not global. Globally the ices are doing fine, e.g. the ices of Antarctica are higher then since we started measuring them. But this sort of "local" phenomenon hit all across the planet, everywhere where the overpopulation is present.

But try to discuss overpopulation with these anti-CO2 freaks (i.e. 90% of the Westerners). Even when believing in their theory about "global warming by human CO2" it would be clear that this problem would be strongly connected to overpopulation. But to address that as a problem is an utter taboo for these people. The only thing they want to discuss are small personal, Christian community style, good deeds, such as taking the bus to work. I.e. they do not even take their own theory seriously. It's all a revivalist movement for a feel-good experience and bonding within the community, following the Christian grammar of our culture.

Conservative Swede said...

continuing...

So Watching Eagle, I think I have already answered it above, but I will nevertheless address specifically the second part of what you said: "there will be no great starvation when Western Civilization collapses".

Consider the very strained situation we have with the very scares resource of cultivatable land. Pushed to the utter limit with use of artificial fertilizers, GMO crops, pesticides and the technological help by an advanced Western society and its sophisticated infrastructure.

Now Western civilization collapses. What happens? The world will be set into chaos. Peaceful trade will be severely hampered by the presence of enemy ships and pirates across the oceans. The continents will be more isolated from each other, more isolated than connected as today. This is the first reason why the Third World country will end up being on their own for their food production.

They will no longer have access to artificial fertilizers, pesticides and other technological help the West. But many years of monoculture have impoverished these soils. So without artificial fertilizers and pesticides they do not produce well. They would need to quickly shift back to their traditional methods of agriculture. But of course the prevailing chaos is the worst possible situation to do so. And thanks to the "aid from the West", they have largely lost these old traditions. So it's even worse, since in many places there will not even be low tech agriculture, but complete failure. Whole harvests grown on lands, of years of monoculture, without using pesticides will fail due to vermin in many places.

And now I come to the second reason why these Third World countries will be on their own. Because we will have grave problems in the West too. Our current way of agriculture depends on the infrastructure (energy supply, transports, access to resources etc.) of a highly advanced society. But this will only partly be functioning withing a fallen Western civilization. And artificial fertilizers require oil, so we cannot count on that.

So people will be starving here too! I'm sire we will find ways to deal with it, but only barely. And I can assure you that the argument of "feed the world" won't bite on Westerners that are themselves on the brink of starvation. So the Third World are on their own also for this reason.

I expect a mass starvation -- combined with mass death of diseases (no more Western medicine) -- as a wildfire across the Third World (i.e. all the places depending on the West today). Something so horrible and apocalyptic that we have never seen anything like it before.

Conservative Swede said...

Henrik,

If that was to happen, 'Smoking crater' would be a more reasonable description.

Well, it doesn't stop there. In this debate they are overbidding each other. Once 50 millions was mentioned, someone said 100 millions, and then the next again 200 millions. (No I'm not kidding you, I can provide you with the links, in case you'd be in the need to make yourself puke, e.g. for food poisoning, one day).

And interestingly enough we have this phenomenon of doubling again, as a parallel to the doubling we see in the planetary population explosion.

And just a general note: People here at GoV focus on the immigration problem. But mass immigration are just local projections of this much larger and more fundamental problem of which I'm talking of here, i.e. the planetary population explosion and our attitudes towards it (which also caused it). It won't help to address the immigration problem, without addressing this global problem. I.e. it won't help to be a lonely, purely Polish, Poland if surrounded by Arabs, Pakistanis and Africans all along the border.

What is happening across the world is the large scale version of what is happening within our countries. Our relative numbers are diminishing, by theirs increasing exponentially, in both cases.

Don't anybody humiliate these whackos for their obvious stupidity?

No it's only anti-whackos like you and me that are humiliated. These people are celebrated as the most honourable prophets of goodness.

Jocke said...

My God ! What a fabulous work !

Hells Angels may not be the saviors of Western civilization as it is. The Western civilization as it was has been undermined and corrupted during the last 40-50 years. But they may be the triggers of Change (we can really believe in). What you say about having nothing to lose is really true. All of us who do see what is coming have too much to lose by letting go of our ordered life, so we weakly put our trust in those who don't.


"Part of the modern liberal ideal is the foolish notion that we can simply abolish by fiat millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. Just like that! We wish it all away. We’ll soon find out to our chagrin how mistaken we have been.
These absurd ideas will die with the liberal paradigm, and as a corrective, the successor civilization will reach back into our cultural history to find an alternative to the Enlightenment meme which is about to self-destruct."
Is it really true that the idea of abolishing evolution, culture and tradition is a liberal one ? Isnt't all that part of the Marxist-Leninist project that once when Communism fell as a state ruling ideology in Europe continued to undermine and corrupt western culture under the pretext of being truly liberal ideas ? Isn't there evidence enough that the enemy is a combined force of totalitarianism, Islamofascist-Marxist-Leninism, using extremely shrewd psy-ops strategies, an alliance formed already on the Universities in the late 60s and the 70s, as shown by the popularity of Frantz Fanons works in the radical chic élites of the time, and deepened by the support of the Palestinian terrorism.

Of course the revived West can only be built on an ideological base that is true to our cultural history and traditions, that is all traces of socialism must be rooted out of the system. Contradictory, perhaps, to suggest an other form of social engineering, but if total anarchy can be avoided, then there is an opportunity to once again turn back to policies that proved to work.

By the way, isn't the so-called gang wars in Denmark the ultimate test that proves the total failure of the multicultural ideology ? In the criminal underworld there are no limits to the market and no real barriers that limit the ways syndicates can combine and co-operate. Indeed in the early stages of globalization crime syndicates were the first to take advantage of the opening borders and lower costs of transportation and criminal groups were more racially mixed than any other groups in society - and it seemed to "work" perfectly well. That now, even in this area, tensions grow along a muslim/non-muslim border and the different gangs are becoming ethnically "clean" is the ultimate test that Multiculturalism will never ever work. The question is, was it ever intended to ?

Conservative Swede said...

When not looking so carefully the name of this thread reads as "Hello Sailors!". I think that's much nicer and not as scary as the "hellish" thing. And still we can say that the HA are hell-of-a sailors!

"Hello Sailors!" not only gives a positive greeting, but a softer and more inclusive tone, but with a rough tough edge to it. And still with the focus on male group bondige.

Afonso Henriques said...

I don't know if you're still reading this and I just feel an urge to make to comments:

1st, THIS IS SICK! What a vibrant discussion, man, I had to sign me up to University and still stood at home reading this... What a great discussion! It doesn't matter if I agree or not it just matters it was debated...

But I was still reading the other thread and, while not wanting to comment, felt an imense urge to comment because of what Conservative Swede has said.

Conservative Swede, I know your Germanic and it's true that you make a whole lot of sense in what you're say, no doubt.
But... the thing is you are "too" Germanic. You're not focusing on saving Europe but the Germanic peoples.

Maybe Germany is indeed the Aragorn, I doubt it but it's possible.
But we should work with what we get now and the best we have today its not Germans or Scandinavians and especially not New Worlders but Slavs.
If there's a change European wide, the Slavs are the ones with greater potential to lead it.
European Russia + Belarus + Ukraine *already* has whatever you and the others who agree with you want.
I actually think they are one step forward than us because they are already post-Communism (post-liberalism) and are also poor (know to survive).
And the rest of Eastern Europe is interesting as well.

Baron, Russia really needs to be discussed again otherwise some people will dream about a IV Reich while the Third Rome is still alive. ;)

And don't you people try to engage in dialogue with me because I won't be here.

Afonso Henriques said...

Just one more thing.

"Russia" is pretty ethnically pure.
Especially when taken together with Belarus and (at least Eastern and Southern) Ukraine. There a big region with the same people and culture is formed that really has the potential to actually lead European Civilisation. I'll call it "The Rus"

Russia *IS* an empire.
And, after this European Nation, divided by three (ridiculously) bogus States there is an entire empire.
The Rus is pretty ethnically pure and European. And you can find every kind of people there.

Then, you also have the Russian colonial Empire, the other regions of Russia. Some are purely Russian, others are inhabited almost entirely by non-Russians and non Slavs (Chechnya) and are still part of the Russian Empire.
In truth these are Nations subjected to the Russians.

Anyway, what I meant is that "multiculturalism" in Russia is the result of an European expansion, actually, an European "Colonial" Expansion that started in the XVI century. This, I'll dub it "Natural Diversity" because it is the European State that has encopassed new teritorry that is already inhabited by other peoples.

This can be contrasted with the deadily "Unnatural Diversity" that takes place in Europe, where non European immigrants are invited to invade, settle and de facto colonise what traditionally is European land. There's no European Expansion but an European Regression and the Diversity is not Natural, it is imported.

In the New World, I think diversity is always unnatural because virtually all Nations there with substantial numbers of Europeans were created by Europeans and European culture was the dominant. It is no longer.
So, while there was not such a direct importation of diversity, the promotion of it and the bashing of Europeanity (wether in the Canada or in Mexico, in the USA, Brazil, Australia or Argentina) has constituted an attack on that "Europeanity".

Chechar said...

* What a great discussion!... But I was still reading the other thread and, while not wanting to comment, felt an immense urge to comment… Conservative Swede… you are "too" Germanic. You're not focusing on saving Europe but the Germanic peoples. Maybe Germany is indeed the Aragorn… [but] Russia really needs to be discussed again otherwise some people will dream about a IV Reich - Afonso Henriques

Yes, yes indeed. In these two threads Con Swede has brought us the magic of making (at least me) long for a people, a reich and of course… a Führer!

Conservative Swede said...

Afonso,

But... the thing is you are "too" Germanic. You're not focusing on saving Europe but the Germanic peoples.

Wrong. What I have address is exactly how Europe can be saved (as I have spoken of frequently "European civilization"). But the only possible way is that everyone saves themselves (as I have discussed Russia and China as exemplary in this). You do not expect, Afonso, that the Germanic people should save your people? (No of course not, stupid me, you expect the Russians to do that, right?)

There are several reasons why have written more about Germanic people:

1. It's my ethnic group, and therefore my concern of course. Your part of the bargain would be to focus you concern on the Romance people. No one else is gonna save you, you know.

2. And being Germanic I know more about us, and have more to say about it.

3. But the overall important reason that I put so much focus on the Germanic people is that the Western Christian civilization is all about "Germanic people meeting Christianity". Germanic people is thus the key to understanding our current paradigm!

4. And for above reason the Germanic people is also in the most dire people, and in most need of help.

European Russia + Belarus + Ukraine *already* has whatever you and the others who agree with you want.

Russia has for them, what we need for us.

And the rest of Eastern Europe is interesting as well.

Much of Eastern Europe would prefer to be under a Germanic empire rather than a Russian one.

Baron, Russia really needs to be discussed again otherwise some people will dream about a IV Reich while the Third Rome is still alive. ;)

Well, of course if there comes a strong and confident Germany again, its detractors will call it the Fourth Reich. Thanks for that load of PC poison, Afonso. But you illustrate here perfectly what I have been saying, how Germany is the most mentally repressed country on this planet, bullied into complete self-denial.

And your way of calling Russia the "Third Rome" would indicate that... gasp... that you see Russia as your saviour? As a white horseman?

Look here, there are several ways in which Russia is useful:

1. They provide a good example for us, in how they take care of themselves. But the inference here is not that then they should take care of us, but that we should take care of ourselves!

2. They do their part of the bargain for a world of power balance, of organized rivalry, by providing military stability in their own region. Power vacuum is the most dangerous thing there is. And Russia is ensuring that not all of Europe will fall into power vacuum, when the American world order falls. But the inference is that we must keep our part of this deal, for our region, not to wait for a Russian invasion. Another inference of the concept "organized rivalry" is that Russia is not a friend. However a potentially very good ally, if we are strong. If we are weak they would colonize us (which is of course another way in which Russia could be said to be useful, in the very worst case scenario, since that beats being colonized by Islam).

3. A third way in which Russia is useful is that since it's one component of the coming world order already being in place, it can challenge the current American world hegemony, and catalyze its downfall. Simply by being there. When the current world order put the knife to the Russian throat -- in Georgia, in Ukraine, by missile defence systems, by talking of a NATO base in Sevastopol -- Russia simply wrung the knife out of their hands. This is useful since otherwise this deranged order would have been able to expand much further before meeting resistance (read: China).

But they are not our "saviour".

Conservative Swede said...

So you should focus on the destiny of the Romance people, Afonso. But the Portuguese and the Spaniards do not get along at all, unfortunately, so you will probably be ruled by the Arabs (they are eager to getting hold of your peninsula you know).

However, if strength is found among the Romance people, Germanic, Slavic and Romance people could cooperate well for a reborn and vitalized Europe.

Chechar said...

You seem to have a high opinion of Russia, CS. But Russians haven’t even digested what happened to them in the last century.

Have you read The Gulag Archipelago?

I ask you this because when I discuss with a commie who has not read it I realize that he has the head deeply buried into the sand. Of course: this is not the case with most GoV commenters, including all those who have commented in this thread. But knowing or ignoring Solzhenitsyn’s magnus opus is almost invariably a good marker for evaluating the maturity of an individual’s views on Russia.

Conservative Swede said...

a Führer!

Oh gee, have I been cursed with the torment of the Romance people, or what? Chechar and Afonso, you are the most PC infected people that I know. Your minds are so full of PC taboos, that it spills over, and you childishly spurt it out like little jackals.

And considering what it did to Afonso when I discussed Russia last autumn, and what it did to Chechar when I discuss Germany now, I'm discouraged from communicating any more my ideas to other people. I will withdraw for a longer hiatus while remaining silent. I have said what I need to say in this two threads. And the whole point of what I'm saying is that it's pointless trying to reason with people. What will happen will happen anyway. So this "book" ends like Tractatus Logicus-Philosophicus -- it's the end of philosophy.

Maybe one day I will start blogging seriously again, and then not only all childish comments will be erased, but all comments from childish type of people.

In the meantime I will live according to the motto: One cannot reason people out of something they cannot they haven't been reasoned into. Neither I nor anyone else can change people, the events in the near future will.

In case it hasn't been clear to anyone what I think of the Führer and his ideology read e.g. here and here.

PS. Afonso at least for his defence can say that he's just 18 years old.

Chechar said...

Chechar and Afonso, you are the most PC infected people that I know... - CS

Hey, boy: didn't you realize I was only kidding? LOL :-)

Chechar said...

That’s the problem with the internet. Isn’t it? All is text… How could anybody understand humor without our corporal gestures? Maybe if we finally drink that bear in Madrid will it be all too clear how black humor is my specialty… (Remember how Auster fails to understand Steyn’s black sense of humor?)

Zenster said...

Chechar: That’s the problem with the internet. Isn’t it? All is text… How could anybody understand humor without our corporal gestures?.

Chechar, more likely what you are referring to is inflection. Tone of voice and many important elements of vocal emphasis are deleted from most online text exchanges.

One thing that mitigates this issue is routine exposure to the content of a given individual's posting style. Another is the use of font Vaŗiâtì0ñ.

Perhaps now, you will finally begin to appreicate the immense amount of effort I go through in attempting to convey subtle emphasis versus declarative or emphatic pronouncements when I type.

Yes, many people use emoticons, something I famously abhor, but there are methods of appropriately conveying the core of one's message if only a person takes the time to correctly utilize those tools available.

Chechar said...

Yes: “infection” was the word I should have used (I still need to broaden my English vocabulary).

I am familiar with emotiocons, which I very rarely use outside GoV, but not with the use of fonts you talked above.

And now Con Swede probably went to bed (it’s very late here in Europe) without realizing I was kidding? Shut!: What can we do…?

Chechar said...

TYPO:

infection

replace:

inflection

Chechar said...

I am afraid I cannot mix again black humor in these threads with comments about Hitlerism, machine-gunning, racial purity or the Führer. How could people know when I’m kidding and when I’m serious? But then, weren’t these provocative, semi-humorous posts of mine partly responsible of what moved CS to speak out his mind in these two threads?

Anyway: in the book I will be publishing here I won’t mislead the readers with what now I see is incomprehensible humor (another chapter will be published next week).

And talking of humor (just as the video BB posted yesterday about Kant and Nietzsche in honor to CS), let me point to another YouTube video on… Michael Jackson and the Führer!

Conservative Swede said...

But then, weren’t these provocative, semi-humorous posts of mine partly responsible of what moved CS to speak out his mind in these two threads?

You still don't get it, do you? Your Hitlerisms are nothing but annoying, and have always been.

The only credit that you get is for discouraging me from writing any more for the time being.

I suggest that you go back to the first thread to see what inspired me to write. You came in late, and took a while to tune in. And once you did, we also got the Hitlerisms. I hope you had fun, because no one else did.

I liked Afonso also at first...

Watching Eagle said...

Well, first Jocke is exactly right. We have experienced social engineering, so we must have social reengineering to flush out all the Leftist premises. We must understand that when the Leftists are reeling, you have to strike them again and again until they are dead (politically speaking of course)! The right's paradigm is "we deserve to live our lives and things will take care of themselves." The problem with the right is when the Leftists panic, we drop the ball, thinking "can't we all just get along?" NO, WE CAN'T!!

Now Henrik and CS, first the environmental movement was never about 'saving the planet'-- It is all about power and control. The Leftists tried to accomplish their schemes "in the name of the Proletariat" and since THAT didn't work, they are trying to do the SAME things "in the name of the planet". The "environmental movement" is all about socialistic business bashing.

Now a growing economy presumes greater demand from more consumers. When a country has a cratering population, you will have a depressionary spiral; as people work less, save less, spend less, and invest less.

A growing population is associated with conquest and expansion, a shrinking population is associated with a dying society. The population control movement is just a dangerous people control movement, (and one I believe was designed to "wage war" on "Western Hegemony" (cut down the power of White Western culture).

In a free society, people become the scarcest resource (since it takes the longest to multiply them).

There are two different features of humans from other creatures. 1) Humans multiply their resources faster than they can multiply their numbers. 2) Humans do NOT have anything to keep them reproducing at least at the replacement rate, and thus, humans CAN BECOME MAL-ADAPTED.

Since necessity is the mother of invention, we will have nanobots that can one day fabricate steaks from hay if we need more meat, and maybe even something like replicators. We can feed 36 Billion people with existing technology now (and the world population is only 6.8 Billion).

Russia has one problem (a cratering population that is 16% Muslim). The Muslim population is rising steadily, and in 15 years, 50% of the Russian Army will be Muslim (sorry, Afonso).

Here is a quote from a Greek historian Polybius, around the time Rome conquered Greece (150 BC).

"In our own time the whole of Greece has been subject to a low birth rate and a general decrease of the population, owning to which cities have become deserted and the land has ceased to yield fruit, although there have neither been continuous wars nor epidemics... For as men had fallen into such a state of pretentiousness, avarice, and indolence [Pride, greed, and laziness] that they did not wish to marry, or if they married to rear the children born to them, or at most as a rule but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance, [they needed each child to have "a quality of life"] the evil rapidly and insensibly grew."

Sound familiar? It should, because that is what is happening now to the West. Those who don't breed, won't exist. At current fertility rates, Europe will lose 80% of its native population by 2100.

Watch the Demographic Winter to learn more (the trailer on You Tube is excellent.)

Chechar said...

Time to go to bed. It is 4:20 AM here.

Good night...!

Watching Eagle said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Watching Eagle said...

Problem: Hubris run Amok

Well, CS, I now turn to the issue of the problem of Western Civilization. Your comment about a mass starvation when the West collapses illustrates the problem of why the West is collapsing. I do NOT agree that Western Colonialism was all bad for the non-Westerners. However, we need to realize what colonialism did to Westerners.

By the 20th. Century, the technological and political success the West had achieved had gone to our heads, especially the heads of the "governing class" in the West. We conceived of ourselves as a "universal civilization", and our trends would dominate the culture of the world FOREVER. We (especially the governing class) believed our culture to be invincible, because we did not study history. Furthermore, as we soared above the rest of the world, we had not remembered that we once were like other cultures (economically and technologically) and tried to figure out what we had done right to cause the progress. We assumed that somehow, Westerners were innately superior [and always would be, no matter how we changed]. This allowed Westerners to swallow one insane premise after another.

Back to your claim about mass starvation. China and India already have all of the technologies you mentioned, and they are now inventing new ones. Moreover, China, India, and other (non-Muslim) nations of the Pacific Rim make much of this advanced stuff. Even when Western civilization collapses, we are NOT going to lose any of the technology for the forseeable future, so food production will not decrease. Sorry, but if Western Culture is to survive, we better have a more realistic and limited view of our own importance. Only then can we stop "being concerned" for the rest of the World, and be concerned about surviving OURSELVES.

"The battle for Western supremacy is over. The battle for Western survival is about to begin."

--Fjordman

Finally, about Christianity. Christianity was routed (culturally) during the Western Cultural Revolution [1963-1979]. "Secular Progressivism" replaced Christianity as the cultural base of the West since then. Therefore, you can blame Christianity for being routed (and it was because Christians had ceased to really provide answers and reasons to practical cultural questions, and fight for them well.), but don't blame Christianity for adverse changes in the West in the past 40 years without proving that Christians really did it.

By the way, Christianity in Europe endured two Jihads (without superior weapons), and not only reconquered all of Europe except Thrace, but also liberated the Hindus in India from Islamic rule.
By contrast, look how far coastal Tanzania and Indonesia are from Arabia. THAT is how far Islam spread in the first two jihads against non-Christian cultures. The germanic peoples never fought the jihadis as pagans. I would favor the Vikings, in a faceoff of Vikings vs. Muslims, but remember that determination is more important than fighting power.

The Vikings choose to leave 'Vinland' because they were being attacked by Native Americans, (even though the Vikings were winning most battles).

Bottom line: The West is different now (the problem), and Christianity has NOT caused the West's recent problems.

Watching Eagle said...

Concerning "secular progressivism" (really a virtual polytheism of hubris), this virtual religion has at its core a deep hatred for all that is "Western". What happened is that Communists blamed "Western Imperialism" for the failure of Communism to create a utopia. Also, Communists took the Nazi genocide and said that White Westerners (particularly Germanic peoples) had innate genocidal tendencies, which I have dubbed the "ROIB(Racist,Oppressive,
Imperialist, Bigoted) Monster". The Left believes that ONLY westerners have this "ROIB monster"; thus non-Western cultures can fight, and that's okay, but if Westerners try to defend themselves, "the 'ROIB monster' will rear its ugly head, and we [Leftist governing class members] will be culpable for 'genocide' and 'crimes against humanity', for which will lose sleep at night". This belief, which I dub "the pretzel conscience torture virus" is at the root of PC MC, and the true reason for Mass Immigration.

Japan doesn't have Mass Immigration for two reasons: 1)their "governing class and business community" does NOT have the 'universal civilization' attitude of hubris that the West developed, and 2)They don't believe that their culture is uniquely prone to genocide.

Thus, the enemy today for Leftists is "Western Imperialism/ Western Hegemony", and the real reason for aid to the third world is an attempt to drug the "ROIB monster" and curb the genocidal tendencies that ONLY Western culture has.

NEVER assume anything good about the Left, it's all about power for them. They either have ulterior motives, or the things they support are NOT good.


By the way, the collapse (economically) is likely to be simply that the economy does not improve (see Japan in the 1990's)
If you understand these things, you realize that "Secular Progressivism" is the deadly enemy of Western Culture, and must be destroyed, for us to set up a new paradigm.

If we do NOT set up a new paradigm ourselves, one will be set up for us:

"The empowerment of the black and white flag that bears a single charge" (The Eurabian Caliphate)

By the way-- I hope Zenster sends me his list of recommended books to read on Islam/Jihad and related topics.

Conservative Swede said...

Chechar,

I am afraid I cannot mix again black humor in these threads with comments about Hitlerism, machine-gunning, racial purity or the Führer. How could people know when I’m kidding and when I’m serious?

Since these things make you feel so good, I suggest that you put on Nazi regalia and walk out in the streets doing Hitler salutes, instead of littering this forum with it. You will get an immediate, and very clear, response to what people think of this "humour" of yours. It will be a teachable moment for you.

Anyway: in the book I will be publishing here I won’t mislead the readers with what now I see is incomprehensible humor (another chapter will be published next week).

The problem with your "humour" is not that it's incomprehensible. Everybody gets your "jokes". Quite as everybody gets the "joke" when you are walking in the streets doing Nazi salutes. It's just that nobody's laughing.

Unlike what you think there is nothing sophisticated about walking around in Nazi uniform shouting "Heil Hitler!", or similar acts in written form. It's not some special unusual form of incomprehensible black humour, too sophisticated for people in general to understand, as you clearly believe.

And have some photos of taken of your Nazi walk and put them on your website. Thus, your site will attract the people with your sense of humour. While you will surely get rid of all the boring types who don't understand your "incomprehensible" sophisticated "black humour".

But of course, you would never do that to your own site, to your books, to your own texts. Apparently you only think it's only funny as a way of destroying what others are doing; other people's sites, other people's texts.

But why am I writing this? I do not imagine that a person that is so utterly out of contact with good manners and basic respect for other people, will ever understand that there's something fundamentally wrong with his behaviour.

Chechar said...

I will leave others to respond.

I must follow my golden rule: people in the counter-jihad movement should avoid fighting with each other.

Good bye.

Kenny said...

Conservative Swede,

For the love of God man, what's wrong with you? Take a chill pill!

Conservative Swede said...

You mean you bail out before you have to say, that you understand that what you did was wrong, and that you are sorry for what you did? It's amazing that you haven't done so yet. Is that something that is impossible for you to do? Didn't even my last comment make you understand that your behaviour is wrong?

If you cannot see the error of your ways, I don't think you should talk too much about the golden rule.

people in the counter-jihad movement should avoid fighting with each other

Well then, if you care about that, then stop your habit of p*ss'ng people off with your Hitler dirt. Will you?

Conservative Swede said...

Kenny,

Who are you?

Free Hal said...

Hi Conservative Swede,

Thanks for your reply.

My impression is that you approve of European civilisation, which you see as based on white people. But that you disapprove of Western civilisation, which you see as the form or Empire, and see its destruction as inevitable and, therefore, desirable.

Conservative Swede: “And most of the values you mention (in one garb or the other) are connected to white people, through evolution and thousands of years of culture. So as long as we survive, they are not going away.”

The values describe (“freedom, and freedom’s child self-responsibility, and the intellectual and scientific inquiry, and artistic expression that follow from those things”) are western because they were founded in western countries and persisted here. Those values have influenced others – Japan, Korea, India – because of the material benefits of economic freedom.

I think most Europeans’ conception of civlisation (democracy, welfare, free TV) will break down. You seem to agree, and go further.

Conservative Swede: “I think it is clear that the people won't turn away from the current belief system, with less than a major catastrophe. But this time the catastrophe is not something as benign as a "Western civil war", but something of a higher magnitude, and of real external threats (which we are not the least prepared for).”

If we take “the current belief system” to be democracy and state provision, rather than western Christianity as you say, then I think you’re wrong. Because democracy and state provision will crumble when the money runs out. It doesn’t take a ‘major catastrophe’, or any ‘external threat’, although I agree that Islamic hostility adds unbearable pressure. Europeans, rendered decadent through state reliance, will then react with extreme and gratuitous violence. And with a contempt for democracy for creating the problems and failing to honour its welfare promises.

But I don’t think that is the epochal crisis that you welcome. I have the feeling that you welcome it because you like the idea.

Conservative Swede: “The reason that I welcome this is that I see it as inevitable.”

Just because something is inevitable doesn’t mean it should be welcomed. Your death is inevitable. News reports of nasty child-killings are probably inevitable. More aids infections are inevitable. I doubt you welcome these, or that you wish for more of them sooner.

I think this is another example of your vague thinking. Your mixture of generalised doom-saying, arid historicism, indulgent pessimism is a witches cauldron from which little benefit or clarity can come.

Conservative Swede: “I cannot wait to come out on the other side, and once again have a thriving culture with all the achievements that you have mentioned and also cherish: freedom, art, science, etc.”

cont/...

Free Hal said...

cont/...

Another vague assumption: after the inevitable collapse, there will be an inevitable resurgence, where the good things thrive and are cherished. Your thinking is reminiscent of the new-agers wafting about alien apocalypse in which the good people, i.e. they, will be saved and go forward into the sunlit uplands.

Conservative Swede: “However, if we do not meet a major catastrophe within the next twenty years, we will be silently walking into our demographic eclipse.”

Why? Have you considered methods which might not involve “major catastrophe”? Why not?

If something can be achieved without catastrophe then it should be. Everyone said it would take a major catastrophe to take down the Soviets, and then Reagan did it without a shot. I can’t help thinking that major catastrophe is what you would like to see. I’m sure you’re not the only one.

Conservative Swede: “So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization.”

Christianity hasn’t always encouraged self-hating feebleness. E.g. Poitiers, the gates of Vienna, the 800 year Reconquista. Persecution of Jews, expulsion of the Christian ‘Conversos’. Medieval Christianity was far from tolerant. I can’t help getting the following that you see the necessity for a major crisis because you want to see a major crisis.

I note that you answer my question about what you would like to see coming out of the breakdown by saying that what you want to see is inevitable. I presume from this that your answer to my second question, “is there any way that you can see to promote” the aim?, is “Nothing” since we’re dealing with inevitability!

My view is that the shift will come when European states go insolvent. They then cease to be able to enforce their will, or to pay the welfare benefits which most Europeans take as their rationale. In fact, I think the fiscal collapse will be too fast to manage in Europe. And the violent ethnic division that democracy has created will lead people to despise democracy as enfeebling. And I think people will cluster around warlords far worse than the Hell’s Angels for the protection without which life is impossible.

Although this is a major crisis in terms of the decadent welfare-democratic paradigm, I don’t think this is a catastrophe of the millenniaristic proportions you look forward to.

The key questions are (a) to resolve the violent division between immiscible cultures on European soil, in as orderly and peaceable way as possible (b) to provide people with a means of safety and law without them having to accept the protection of brutes like the Hell’s Angels for protection.

I think it is quite possible for people to do this privately, without the state, and without genocide.

Best wishes,

Hal

Kenny said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

Kenny, if you can't express your displeasure with Conservative Swede more civilly than that, please leave it out altogether.

Free Hal said...

Thank you, Baron!

Conservative Swede and I disagree on some things, but he avoids abuse.

Best wishes,

Hal

Dymphna said...

Watching Eagle--

You've had three comments in this thread of 500+ words. I eliminated the longest one.

Please do what other commenters do and divide your argument into smaller sections. Our readers who do not comment find long comments difficult to get thru.

You will notice that some commenters get around the word limit rule by dividing up their remarks into shorter statements.

Make a text doc and use the word count function if you're not sure. I do this myself as it serves to keep my comments from meandering. Sometimes I have to edit one to bring it within the limit.

As I said, other people simple divide and continue.

Kenny said...

Okay but man he ticked me off. If he won't show others respect, then he can't expect any in return.

Conservative Swede said...

Kenny, take a chill pill! ;-)

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

It's said that at the height of World War 2 a respected (but naturally unnamed) journalist donned the full regalia of a German senior officer and paraded up and down between Westminster and Picadilly for several hours without a single peep of recognition from passers-by. Allied officers even saluted him a few times when they recognised his rank. So inured were the people to the presence of uniforms that they developed a peculiar blindness to them because, after all, one uniform looked very much like another. You could have replaced the rulers of Great Britain with nazis and it's likely nobody would have noticed for several years.

Just occured to me. I have no idea why.

Kenny said...

Haha, I just might. In fact, I have some good tablets in the cupboard right beside me ...

Kenny said...

Although I happen to be watching a programme on TBN Europe just now about Israel, and it's not exactly conducive to a good night's sleep, I have to say.

Not that I'm in the habit of watching TBN Europe, but I was playing around with my latest toy, a VHS/TV input to DVD output affair, & spotted it on Sky just now.

It just goes to what's been said on this thread already, that the received opinion is so skewed it's extremely difficult to see how we can arrive back at a genuine, truthful understanding of the world without something catastrophic occurring.

Zenster said...

Free Hal, without going into lurid detail or trying to ignite another round of interpersonal flame wars, I commend you on your assessment. You have articulated my own objections about those who indulge in doom & gloom-saying better than I am able to and it's not often that I ever get to say that.

That said, would you please expand upon:

Free Hal: The key questions are (a) to resolve the violent division between immiscible cultures on European soil, in as orderly and peaceable way as possible (b) to provide people with a means of safety and law without them having to accept the protection of brutes like the Hell’s Angels for protection.

I think it is quite possible for people to do this privately, without the state, and without genocide
.

... how item a) is attainable "privately, without the state". I look forward to your answer. Incidentally, I favor both approaches as well. I, too, hope like Hell it is possible to avoid mass genocide. Unfortunately, as always:

ISLAM WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY!

Zenster said...

Watching Eagle, you requested my list of reading material. This isn't so much that sort of list as it is a resource bank that I rely upon for many of my most high impact quotes and historical pperspective. To wit:

1) I would begin with one of the most succinct condemnations of Islam made in modern history, this excerpt by Sir Winston Churchill, from "The River War", (first edition, Vol. II, pages 248,50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog,
there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities...but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled,the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
.

At over one century of age, few better descriptions exist regardless of author or period.

2) "Why Arabs Lose Wars" is an exceptional treatise by Norvell B. De Atkine which examines and shows why Arab society and Muslim culture in particular is so ill-suited to conducting real military war. It is but one more reason why Islam must be given a taste of the Total War it so loudly clamors for.

3) "The Role of the Mosque in Society"

Why a mosque is not a church.

4) Fjordman's, "Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims", is a seminal piece in drawing the battle lines with Islam.

5) Wretchard of Belmont Club fame presents "The Three Conjectures", which paints a chilling picture of just how quickly a nuclear armed Islam will bring about its own annihilation.

6) Another supremely lucid work is, "No Substitute for Victory - The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism" by John David Lewis, wherein he makes a compelling argument for overthrowing Iran in the Global War on Terrorism.

7) The FrontPage article by Serge Trifkovic, "Jihad's Fellow Travelers", is yet another excellent and well-reasoned trove of information. Trifkovic's money quote: (one of many)

"The elite class, rootless, arrogant, cynically manipulative, and irreversibly jihad-friendly, has every intention of continuing to "fight" the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win.".

[to be continued]

Watching Eagle said...

Dymphna, I am sorry about the length. I will try to cut my articles apart more.

Zenster, thank you for putting out some links. Finally, I have
something for CS:

Conservative Swede:

You said:

"So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization. Another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. If it would continue a few decades more it will mean the definitive goodnight for all of us."

It seems like you think that the "Christian Ethic" messed up the Germanic peoples. Well, Hitler also agreed, but his conclusions would likely give you pause:


“Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of Arabs...

Had the Arabs won this battle,[Tours] the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

“Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Here


Well, when I read that, I didn't really get it. But then it hit me today:

The Islamization of Germany wasn't that farfetched. Here's what I think Hitler really thought: Hitler meant, "Wasn't it a tragedy, and a CRYING SHAME that those eeevil SLAVIC (Polish) Christians defeated the mujahadeen at the Gates of Vienna, in 1683? Imagine how much brighter the future of the 'Germanic peoples' would be now if they had been living under the shariah for the past 200+ years! They would be the leaders of the Caliphate now!"

And let me give you an alternate reality of what could have been in 1683.

to be cont.

Zenster said...

8) The pivotal Gates of Vienna essay by El Inglés, "Surrender, Genocide or What?", is a pinnacle in successive works that seek to resolve Europe's cloudy and disturbing future.

9) The film, "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", (link to trailer), is a major educational work and must see documentary.

10) Few films provide a better glimpse of what the future conflict with Islam portends than, "Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in Israel". It is a micro-model of the macro situation we are now coping with.

11) Not many people sufficiently appreciate or comprehend the Soviet Union's role in breeding up the Islamic monster. "The Communist Roots of Palestinian Terror", provides excellent perspective on one of the Cold War's most persistent and vicious legacies.

12) Far more damning is "The (Russian) Roots of Islamic Terrorism", which details how Soviet Russia bears almost sole responsibility for bringing Islamic terrorism to life. This is communism's most hideous and ongoing crime against humanity.

13) "The Hitler - Arafat Connection" shows just how deeply Nazism is embedded in Islam's dreams of genocide against the Jews.

14) The Observer article, "Saudi Envoy in UK linked to 9/11" exposes how Saudi diplomat Turki al-Faisal
embodies the duplicitous nature of our relationship with one of America's most deceitful enemies.

15) "Triple Cross", (pdf) by Peter Lance, shows how the 9-11 atrocity happened and could just as easily have been avoided in what can only be termed a national disgrace for America's law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

16) A video clip showing the courageous ex-Muslim, "Wafa Sultan Debating an Islamic Cleric". She delivers one stunning rebuke after another in a flurry of body blows against Islam.

17) Al Qaeda's book, "The Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad" details how prosperity is bad for jihad and goes a long way towards explaining why Islam cares so little for the economic success of Muslims.

18) The Wall Street Journal takes a look at "Iran's Economic Crisis" and how Amahdinejad's self-sufficiency program, khodkafa'i, is destroying that nation. It is a keen insight into the Muslim mind and its crippling paranoia.

19) Ayatollah Khomeini's 1980 speech at Qom demonstrates how fear of death provides an inadequate deterrent to any Islamic nuclear attack. This quote's overall tenor sadly presages how probable it is that the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) will be immolated after terrorist nuclear attacks upon the West.

"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke,
provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
.

[to be continued]

Zenster said...

20) "Water Poverty" is an article that demonstrates what a veritable knife-edge the MME (Muslim Middle East) is poised upon in terms of water supply and how quickly Western nations could starve the entire region into submission or death.

21) "The Saudi Girls School Fire" is an incident so horrific in its barbarity that it continues to galvanize readers many years after the event.

Some of the pieces are rather lengthy. Read all of them and you will have a difficult time believing that our world has not already delivered to Islam the Total War is so dearly craves.

Watching Eagle said...

If this is true, it would explain some strange things: Why Hitler is a patron saint among Muslims. (In January of this year, Muslims chanted "Praises be to Hitler, Allah, and Muhammed", and mixed "Hiel Hitler" with "Allahu Akbar". Maybe this theory also explains why Hitler really had it in for the Poles in particular (revenge on Sobeiski-- 'the Poles prevented the empowerment of the 'Germanic Peoples' [Aryan Race]')

Here is what could have happened in 1683 IF Mustafa (the Turk commander) had not waited so long:

He could have captured Vienna easily while King Sobieski was trying to get permission to call out his army.

Next, consider the state of 'the Germanic peoples' country in 1683: They had lost 1/3 of their population in the 30 years war that had ended in 1648 (35 years ago), their religious ardor had begun to cool with the state churches, and, most importantly, they were a 'patchwork quilt' of fiefdoms (very disunited).

If the Turks had captured Vienna, the mujahadeen army was so large that they would have overrun Holland, Flanders, Austria, Prussia, and Jutland-- all the way to the North Sea.

The Caliph would have wanted fast Islamization (since he was trying to hold onto his new territory). SOME Germans would have converted to Islam, and the Turks would likely have replaced the whole nobility, possibly with German Muslims.

With German, Dutch, and Danish Jizya and mercenaries, the lands could be held. The situation for Muslims would have been improved further by the collaboration of Louis XIV (who ruled another 32 years after 1683). Conversion efforts would have gone into high gear, and the Shariah would have been implemented in the Sultanate of Germanistan. Islamization would progress among the Germanic peoples of Central Europe.

Only Poland, Sweden, and Russia would resist the Sultanate of Germanistan (a part of the Ottoman Caliphate). Considering how long it took for the Caliphate to be pushed out of the Balkans (with much Germanic help), Islam would likely have held Germanistan for a long time.

Watching Eagle said...

As a result, there would have been no music (Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, Brahms, Bach, Strauss, Haydn, and Schubert were all Germanic.), no kafir Germanic culture from the 1700's on, and the German people would have had the 'exotic customs' of Shariah indelibly woven into their culture. But still, Gerabic, oh, I mean, 'Germanic' peoples would be able to dominate other cultures without the hindrance of the "Christian Ethic", and they possibly would have moved the capital of the Caliphate to Vienna or Berlin. So Hitler apparently could have agreed with all of this (Race trumped everything for him).

Well, you don't agree with Hitler about all this being good, do you? Just be careful what you wish for-- it's not academic, Shariah rule is staring the 'Germanic peoples' in the face right now AGAIN.

Please do NOT confuse a viciously anti-Christian -- and more to the broader point, a vicious anti-Western Hate Cult (PC MC Leftism) with the 'Christian Ethic'.

The difference between Sweden and Denmark is that in Sweden, HA would already been cracked down on by the Swedish authorities. These Anti-Western Hate Cult (PC MC Leftist) Swedish 'leaders' will crush a Viking style (Germanic Culture-loving)paganism, just as fast as they crushed Christianity in Sweden, while they will welcome jihadis to 'defend' and 'lead' the "jackals" (They're already quite chummy with Hamas and the Hezbollah).

If the 'Christian Ethic' taught that the weak where always good, the strong were always evil, and that a Christian nation should empower non-Christian nations and allow itself to be taken over, all of Europe would already have been part of a Caliphate for Centuries by now.

It was only that European civilization was united by Christianity that the first two Jihads were defeated.

P.S. -- On thinking about where you are from (histogeographically), I understand where you are coming from (philosophically). I will discuss this in another post (probably the Gender Segregation one on Sweden).

Free Hal said...

Hi Zenster,

Thank you very much for your supportive comment, which I appreciate.

I will be delighted to expand on my comments about a) resolving the violent cultural division in Europe in a peaceful way, and (b) providing people with a means of security without them having to cluster around warlords for it.

I'm a little busy today, but will try to get around to it this afternoon or tonight.

Best wishes,

Hal

Conservative Swede said...

Epilogue:

Having written so much about the psychology of Germanic people. Here comes an addendum about Romance (Latin) people, or rather Romance men. And herein lies another tragedy.

Romance men are often like puppies that have never been properly trained, as described by Heinlein here. The dominant mothers who spoil their sons is the background for this. We see in these countries how men often never properly cut the umbilical cord to their mothers. Many of them still regularly eat at their mothers place, and have her do their laundry, even when they have turned thirty, forty or older. Even if they moved out (typically to a neighbouring block). In some cases even after marrying.

I believe this is another case of feminine power going out of bounds in a society. But while in Germanic countries the women urge to imitate the men, in the Romance countries they overemphasize their traditional role, waging their power in this sort of way. This affects the whole culture.

In both cases the feminine power gets boosted by long lasting peace and prosperity, and the cultural hubris that comes from too comfortable lives and a deep seated sense of invincibility. In such a situation the most essential virtues of men are no longer perceived as important, since the conception is that there is no longer anything to struggle for, or against. Thus the dominance of female power.

And in both cases it leads to declining birth rates. In the Germanic case since the women want to be men rather than mothers. In the Romance case since many of the men are literally unmarriable. So the result is the same, the causes too. The reason why it takes different expression in respective case goes deep in respective culture. Features that were once part of the cultural strength are now steeply out of balance, and destructive. The Germanic men end up being over-trained in the wrong way, while the Romance men are under-trained in the wrong way. And in both cases the educating hand of a real father-figure is lacking.

And the declining birth rates feedback this effect. The fewer sons, the more the dominant mother can spoil each of them. And today the fathers had been spoiled the same kind of way, making them ever weaker.

These Romance men, so spoiled in this culture of dominant mothers, will behave like "untrained puppies". They lack discipline and the ability to control their impulses. So if you take them for friends, eventually they will end up sh*tt*ng on your carpet. Quite as the untrained puppy, they are too confused to understand that they are doing something wrong. They will confuse the pleasure they are feeling themselves in doing so, with approval by the world around; even think that it's funny. They understand as much as what they do is taboo, but that merely adds to their thrill, encouraging them even more.

If a Germanic man would act like this, it would be with the intention of hurting you, or just because of being seriously screwed up. But these Romance men, quite as the untrained puppy, mean no harm with their action. They just belong to a sadly lost generation.

Conservative Swede said...

That concludes what I have been here to say.

But I will finish by recommending you all to watch a lecture by Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, which puts much of what I have been saying, about our not so far future, in perspective:

Video playlist here. 8 parts

Bartlett talks about what happens in our world, at the current population growth, with a system of economic growth, on a planet of limited resources, and where we are at now.

Bartlett doesn't bring up the aspect of ethnic self-interest, so he fails to draw the right conclusions (in part 8) with regards to this (but I'm sure the GoV readers will be able to draw appropriate conclusions). The exponential growth applies to more things than Bartlett is talking about (as we know here at GoV), but what he brings up is certainly enough to change the world we live in profoundly in a not so far future. All in all, there is much more to it than he even dares to mention, with regards to a situation of system collapse.

In parts 4 and 5 he loses tempo, I think, in talking a bit too long about oil. If you think so too, then skip to part 6.

Free Hal said...

Hi Zenster,

Thank you again for your comment.

Expanding on what I said about “(a) to resolve the violent division between immiscible cultures on European soil, in as orderly and peaceable way as possible and (b) to provide people with a means of safety and law without them having to accept the protection of brutes like the Hell’s Angels for protection”

Taking (b) first. People have to have order, to feel safe from attack and extortion, and to be able to trade knowing that they can get the other side to stick to their bargain.

If the state is gone, then the system of law isn’t available. People may turn to warlords for protection and adjudication, but they will prefer something more reliable, efficient, and less extortionate.

I propose a system of law which people can sign up to voluntarily. I don’t know why people find this so hard to grasp – unfamiliarity, I guess. If the state no longer functions, what other way to secure law and order is there? Like you might to do with a condominium, health care plan. Think of a state which you can opt in or out of. With enforcement mechanisms, forcing you to comply with the rules you opted into.

I refer to this as ‘private law’ or ‘legal pact’.

The immediate question is, “Why would anyone voluntarily restrict themselves like this?”.

Because of their need for safety, and to be able to trade by regulating contracts. By signing up to a set of rules like this, you are likely to put yourself amongst other people who have chosen to submit to similar rules of behaviour. You agree to standards of behaviour towards other people who agree to the same, and vice versa. The bulk of thieves and thugs are immediately excluded from your immediate environment.

Even if no-one else signs up to such a set of rules, you still benefit because other people can enter into contracts with you. People will prefer to do business with you – you can prosper.

“But what about the powerful man – he doesn’t fear crime, and doesn’t need to submit to a system of law to protect himself. Others will treat him decently out of fear. Why would he submit to such rules?”

The powerful gangster, who doesn’t fear crime, will need to submit to a set of rules in order to be able to trade. He might have enough power to intimidate people out of committing crimes against him or his family. But he will still need to observe civil law in order to get other people to enter into contracts with him. This will be more important for such a person, because his power will come from his wealth.

cont/...

Free Hal said...

cont/...

Wealth and power can best be preserved by participating in commerce. If he refuses to submit himself to law, and retreats inside his castle walls, he will find that others, more enterprising and modest than he is, will overtake him. He will become poor and, being poor, his physical power will slip away. Other rich people, who do want to trade, will force him to heel because violence creates instability, and instability harms their investments.

This is how stock markets, those barometers of stability, keep the peace. The myth is that democracy keeps the peace, but this is not so, as any history of 1930s Europe will reveal. Democracy can break down into violence, or usher it in. However, it is rare for societies with healthy stock markets to do so, and if they do the stock markets do not survive.

Again, you may find such an idea unfamiliar, given our tendency to depend on the state for everything from TV to child-rearing, let alone law. But if the state isn’t there any longer, what method is there other than to do it privately?

Now, turning to (a) resolving the violent cultural division in Europe in a peaceful way.

I refer to my self-government system again.

First, it ends the influx of welfare reliant migrants, by ending welfare.

Second, it forces people to integrate by forcing them to earn an unsubsidised living. Unlike, say, Malmo. You have to integrate if you want to make a living.

Third, it freezes out separatists, by forcing their co-religionists to integrate, and by forcing would be separatists to voluntarily sign up to a legal pact consisting of values they despise.

Fifth, it allows more uncompromising anti-terror measures because human rights limitations are unnecessary in a system you can voluntarily opt in and out of. If you don’t like one system then don’t sign up to it. Sign up to another. A free society can then aggressively pinch out such terrorists as are stupid enough to remain.

Seventh, it allows non-muslims to reject the presence of Islam. A self-governed people are free to live by any prejudice they like, unlike the citizens of a state. They can, for example, opt for a system where Islam, or lefthandedness, or supporting Luton FC, isn’t permitted, without oppression. If people choose to live by a set of rules that discern against you – you can simply choose another set of rules. It is a matter of personal choice.

Eighth, a province based on self-government under a private pact of mutual rights would have the ability to push back the boundaries of Islam, by buying up Islamic areas piece by piece, without violence. Residents of Islamic areas, deprived of welfare, will be keen to sell.

Best wishes,

Hal

Free Hal said...

Hi Zenster,

I thought I would also expand on the problem of disorder and violence that accompanies rule by Hell’s Angels and warlords.

As regards doom-saying, it is its elitism, and vagueness, and the circularity of its reasoning. See e.g. Conservative Swede’s contradictory belief that it is desirable because it is inevitable, and vice versa. There is no shortage of people with a weird intellectual attraction to violence, and it is dangerous.

The factors leading to the breakdown of democracy in Europe are threefold: fiscal (i.e. state authorities owing lots of money and going bust); decadent (i.e. welfare dependent populations having lost the means of resilience and flourishing); and ethnic (i.e. unbridgeable ethnic divide making democracy unworkable and leading to communal violence). The reckless obsession with welfare provision has much to answer for.

The reason I go on about ‘order’ isn’t because I’m a boring control freak but because people need it in order to live their lives. Without it, raising children becomes impossible, and about half the population become unemployed. The economic effects alone are terrible, as investors pull out, loans get called in, houses get repossessed, employers close down, and distribution networks grind down. Without order, the strongman next door can take your house, your stove, your bag of potatoes, your wife, or your daughter, or your life. The first people to get persecuted are usually the Jews.

If ordinary people can’t get order from the state, then they will look to other power-brokers, i.e. gang-leaders and warlords, to provide it. And they will look to the toughest, not the nicest. If you’ve ever been in a scary situation then you’ll know that what you look for in a protector isn’t a nice guy, but a tough guy. This is why I think the Baron is so right to highlight the Danish bikers as a significant development. Unofficial power brokers like this are likely to find they have an unexpected political appeal.

But it doesn’t end there, because each warlord relies on the common perception of his fierceness as against the neighbouring warlord: he has to be tougher than the next strong man on a horse. Otherwise, he can’t protect his constituency and they will, at the very least, desert to the stronger warlord. This is how brutes rise with such dizzying speed in collapsed societies.

cont/...

Free Hal said...

cont/...

And he has to demonstrate his fierceness from time to time, just as a business today has to demonstrate its quality of service. And what better way to do it than by magnifying the threat from a different group, people who look different or have a different culture. “You need me to protect you from them! I’m the man to give teach them a lesson they’ll never forget!” It is easy to use hatred to whip people into line behind you, and such violence always falls out along ethnic lines. This time will be no different. The violence snowballs, and anyone who thinks going down the Hell’s Angels line won’t end up with something much more violent and brutal, is a fool. And how easy European Islam makes it for such rhetoric, to put it mildly. “Your politicians were a bunch of cowards. They betrayed your lands to outsiders. I will get it back. I’m no coward – just see what I did to those long-haired bikers when they challenged my rule! Are you a coward?! Then join my retinue. Come under my protection. Fight with me. Or are you my enemy?” Judge for yourself how tempting this line will be after another 20 years of PC elitism has led to civil collapse, and what the results will be on a historically genocidal continent.

And this is where I disagree with your line that “Islam wouldn't have it any other way”. You may well be right, but I don’t think that’s a reason to do it that way:

-- That way leads to brutishness that we currently find hard to imagine. Think of 1990’s Yugoslavia, but 10 to 15 times more so.
-- Brutal chaos leads to poverty. There’s no point producing anything, even repairing your house, because it will probably be taken from you once you’ve made it. No investor invests in a warzone anyway.
-- I’m still proud of the longstanding English ability to resist the massacre and genocide which has affected other places, including Europe. As a beacon of decency and formidability, we have the right and duty to stand at the front.
-- Freedom cannot survive amid violent chaos. And without freedom you have little room for material development, scientific progress, artistic expression, or intellectual inquiry.

Zenster said...

Free Hal: Like you might to do with a condominium, health care plan.

Permit me to suggest what might be a more appropriate model: The typical American Volunteer Fire Department. I'm uncertain as to whether such voluntary units have the option of not responding to a non-member's fire, but the principle remains the same. Cooperate towards minimizing any risk posed by a common threat to the community.

The powerful gangster, who doesn’t fear crime, will need to submit to a set of rules in order to be able to trade. He might have enough power to intimidate people out of committing crimes against him or his family. But he will still need to observe civil law in order to get other people to enter into contracts with him. This will be more important for such a person, because his power will come from his wealth.

Your conclusions do not necessarily follow. A gangster's wealth does not devolve from amiable cross-contracting with the surrounding community. It comes from the willingness to use violence where it is usually forbidden.

Gangsters violate the social contract explicitly because the willingness to use violence expedites their ends far better than cooperative activity. That expeditious effect generates more wealth due to being able to dispense with the more traditional and time-consuming (i.e., costly) niceties.

If he refuses to submit himself to law, and retreats inside his castle walls, he will find that others, more enterprising and modest than he is, will overtake him.

Not if the gangster kills them.

Other rich people, who do want to trade, will force him to heel because violence creates instability, and instability harms their investments.

Wealth does not de facto confer force of arms. It may afford you those weapons but the training and competent use of said arms are another matter entirely.

You are harkening back to a Feudalistic system where Dukes and Barons provided Kings with standing armies in trade for land holdings in perpetuity and the right to collect taxes upon the serfs who worked those estates.

That model may not adequately overlay onto a residual state that is still attempting to collect taxes and control property rights as well.

Again, you may find such an idea unfamiliar, given our tendency to depend on the state for everything from TV to child-rearing, let alone law.

As a jack-of-all-trades who is versed in medicine and common law the "idea" is not at all "unfamiliar".

[to be continued]

Zenster said...

Second, it forces people to integrate by forcing them to earn an unsubsidised living.

How, then, to deal with a rampant criminal element when the bulk of your Malmö citizens are not well-armed or trained in violent conflict? They little more than fatted calves.

Here in better-armed America, it might have a chance of functioning, but in über-nanny state Europe I see little chance of such a system getting on its feet before the jackals tore it apart for elevenses.

If you don’t like one system then don’t sign up to it. Sign up to another. A free society can then aggressively pinch out such terrorists as are stupid enough to remain.

Only if that system of choice is available in your particular neighborhood. Relocating during such a time of crisis is thrice as dangerous. You must leave a familiar locale. Your new landlord has an unwarranted degree of power over you and, worst of all, in moving you must concentrate your material wealth and are thereby rendered as ideal prey to the jackals while you are in transit. No small matter amidst the ruins of a failed state.

Seventh, it allows non-muslims to reject the presence of Islam.

Only if the non-Muslims are able to reject Muslims with equal or greater force that that imposed by the Muslims themselves. There is little to indicate that this capability will magically spring out of the woodwork once the EU states begin to collapse.

A self-governed people are free to live by any prejudice they like, unlike the citizens of a state.

Only if they have the collective will and force of arms to enforce that prejudice (or preference).

If people choose to live by a set of rules that discern against you – you can simply choose another set of rules.

Tell that to non-Muslims who live in Hamtranck or Dearborn. I suggest you watch the linked video rather carefully. Remember, this happened in America and not some lawless EU Muslim no-go zone.

I will see about responding to your additional posts later on. Please understand that I am not trying to slam your proposal, I would just like to make sure that what you suggest has some real legs to stand on. I do not see that as of yet and would prefer that you revise and reassess your model so that it does. If viable and something beyond a return to simple Feudalism, it might be a valuable construct within which to evaluate the EU's coming meltdown.

Watching Eagle said...

First, the "Lack of Resources" thinking (along with worrying about irrelevant thing far in the future) is something that shows how the West's thinking has become misguided. The "environmental movement" is really a Leftist movement to deprive the Western economies of the resources they need to function. The 'population Bomb' concept is a cloak for eugenics, destroying the family, and state control of the individual. It is been proven false for the reason that humans develop new resources as the need arises faster than humans can multiply. Thus, humans, 'people power', are the bottleneck resource in the 21st Century.

CS wrote something that hit the nail on the head:

"In both cases the feminine power gets boosted by long lasting peace and prosperity, and the cultural hubris that comes from too comfortable lives and a deep seated sense of invincibility. In such a situation the most essential virtues of men are no longer perceived as important, since the conception is that there is no longer anything to struggle for, or against. Thus the dominance of female power.

And in both cases it leads to declining birth rates. In the Germanic case since the women want to be men rather than mothers. In the Romance case since many of the men are literally unmarriable. So the result is the same, the causes too. The reason why it takes different expression in respective case goes deep in respective culture. Features that were once part of the cultural strength are now steeply out of balance, and destructive. The Germanic men end up being over-trained in the wrong way, while the Romance men are under-trained in the wrong way. And in both cases the educating hand of a real father-figure is lacking.

And the declining birth rates feedback this effect. The fewer sons, the more the dominant mother can spoil each of them. And today the fathers had been spoiled the same kind of way, making them ever weaker"

Bingo! We have further proof that 'population control' is a dangerous idea for another reason-- human cultures can make humans become mal-adapted to NOT want to reproduce in sufficient numbers. We also see that it is very hard to reverse low fertility, except by changing the culture.

Western Civilization got to this point by experiencing political and technological success, so we thought we would no longer have to struggle for survival. Therefore, we (especially the 'governing class') have come to believe the old rules of discipline and responsibility no longer apply.

Watching Eagle said...

It is true that the Romance and Germanic peoples are different in how it plays out, but the causes are the same. People have bought the idea that large families and growing populations are bad. People have swallowed the idea that it is wrong to deny children what they want, so children grow up without knowing how to survive in the real world-- They mooch off their parents for long periods of time. The Leftists have also created a culture where it is acceptable not to be married and have children, and also parents do not get much of the benefits of the new workers directly, because the State has taken over so many traditional family functions (education, retirement, Health Care, etc.) Under such circumstances, society begins to collapse. Fertility decline below replacement levels mean death for a society by causing destructive changes in the culture. But the Leftists approve of all these things because they think the problem is "Western Hegemony".

They UN even is considering replacement migration for European countries Replacement Migration


Western Civilization needs to get back to applying the old rules of discipline and responsibility or we are toast.

Watching Eagle said...

I now address ideas of Free Hal and Zenster.

Free Hal, your idea is not bad, but the problem is that Leftists are NOT going to see reason-- They are going to perpetuate the paradigm longer. They will do this by importing large numbers of "Muslim migrants", and pay for them by cutting benefits on the native elderly.


I fear they will crack down on natives like HA, while welcoming new front groups [for Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc], that will lead the 'Jackals’ to "defend" 'migrants' against 'racism' (this is how the Military Jihadis will reinvent themselves). After all, it worked (fairly well) in Kosovo, Chechnya, and Iraq; why not in Sweden, France, and the UK?


I think even the terrorists are getting smarter, and realize that big (and possible WMD) attacks make Westerners MAD rather than scared (and are thus counter-productive to setting up the Eurabian Caliphate).

One other factor to enter in is that in 20 years, a whole new generation of White Children will have been brainwashed in PC MC, and consider Islam part of life in 'their country'.

Zenster said that he wanted to examine Islam and the modern West with regard to women compared to as things were on the American Frontier. Very GOOD. I would also expand such a discussion to include why the 'White Migrants' drove out the Native Americans-- the situation is apt to the one facing Western Civilization.

In closing, I will make one final point about resources. Most other cultures are concerned about expanding access to the resources they need (Including Islam). We need to realize that if a country allows Muslims to settle there and practice Islam "as they see fit", the ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD (Ummah), thinks that that country (and its resources) belong to Muslims.

Thus, they consider Europe (and its resources) to be theirs already [they 'own' it], and the Native Europeans to merely be 'occupiers' of unsettled territory.

We need to realize this mindset, for it is similar to how the U.S. considered its "territories" that were 'unsettled'[but 'occupied' by Native Americans]. We had better understand the Muslim mindset in these terms if we are to survive.

Zenster said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Free Hal said...

Hi Zenster,

Please pick what holes you like in my proposal. If I’m talking dangerous nonsense, I would prefer to know about it!

Zenster: “A gangster's wealth does not devolve from amiable cross-contracting with the surrounding community. It comes from the willingness to use violence where it is usually forbidden.”

This is why gangster societies are poorer than commercial societies. E.g. Somalia, Milosevic Yugoslavia, Chechenya, or mediaeval Europe of the robber barons. If you can get wealth by taking it from your neighbour, your neighbour has no incentive to produce it in the first place. Instead he will spend money on warfare rather producing wealth. There is, in general more money to be made speculating on the stock market than in extorting money from other rich people, because other rich people fight back, and a business is worth much less if someone can steal it than if no-one can. Which is why ambitious rich people invest rather than recruit private armies.

The technical side. A share in a company is an aggregation of its profit stream over, say, the next 10 years. In a gangster society, you can’t see further than 2 years ahead, so the company is only worth 2 times annual profit or less. So there’s much more money to be made betting on stock markets in commercial society than there is wresting businesses from rivals.

To illustrate: suppose one town is run under a system of commercial and criminal law, and another town is run by gangland rules.

In the lawful town, people will invest in their businesses and in their education. They will borrow and work. They will attract investment because investors know they can sell on again, maybe at a profit. That investment will create more buildings, drains, and roads.

The opposite happens In the gangster town. No-one will invest in a businesses, because if they’re successful someone will probably take it away. There probably isn’t a system for saying who owns what anyway. (“The Mystery of Capital” by Hernando De Soto is good on this). No investor will invest because he can’t sell on again, and he will probably get swindled. Businesses can’t expand, and they’re worth little because no-one’s investing. So the main incentive to build a business is gone. No gangster builds public buildings, roads or drains.

You’re right that the lawful town needs to defend itself from the gangland town. It will have the money to do so. And societies that get it together commercially tend to get it together militarily: 19C Britain, 20C America, 20C Japan, not to mention Germany. I don’t think this is just about money – it’s also about organising ability, discipline, the ability to set and pursue an aim. Money helps. In my example, the commercial town has the best weapons, intelligence, fighters, and allies that money can buy. The gangster town is probably trusted by no-one – e.g. the fraternal loathing on display at proceedings of the Arab league!

cont/...

Free Hal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Free Hal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Watching Eagle said...

Zenster,

In Response to your statement

ISLAM WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY!

I reply, Islam will have it ANY WAY that implements the Shariah and reestablishes the Caliphate.

Malaysia, Indonesia, Central Asia, and the Sahel in Africa were NOT conquered by war, but by Al-Hijra

Look at the links Unholy Alliance and

Trojan Horse

and

Shariah Expansion

The Islamists are quite content to play "cuddley lion cub" to implement the Shariah.

Conservative Swede said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Conservative Swede said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Conservative Swede said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Conservative Swede said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Free Hal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Conservative Swede said...

Free Hal,

I sense that I have hurt your feelings. If so, I’m a little sorry

Either you have a good sense of humour. Or you don't, but are funny nevertheless.

I should say that I doubt I’ll devote much more time to your comments.

No problem with me.

Over-egging it slightly, wouldn’t you say?!

Not at all. You actually failed completely to connect to all the core ideas of this discussion (as listed above) that has been discussed among the rest of us.

And since you are unable to connect to the ideas, you make it personal and emotional.

So unrealistically bleak a view of the world may account for your dark and wandering outlook, which I genuinely feel for. I can only say that you can break out of this, and happiness is possible!

I guess madness is possible...

Furor Teutonicus said...

Basically you are all time wasters. Time we have not got.

All this amateur "psycho babble" belongs to the enemy. WE need action, NOT sixth form midnight snack, mumbo jumbo about "political doctrine", and other "psychoanalitycal/sociological" RUBBISH.

Let get on with the job and stop acting like 70s 15 year old wannabee damn commies.

Von Brandenburg-Preußen.

Free Hal said...

Hi Furor Teutonicus,

"Let get on with the job..."

Yes I agree.

The first part of the job is to put forward specific proposals for action.

Others can then examine the plan and decide how good it is!

what is your proposal for action?

Best wishes,

Hal

Furor Teutonicus said...

Free Hal said...

Hi Furor Teutonicus,

"Let get on with the job..."

Yes I agree.

The first part of the job is to put forward specific proposals for action.

Others can then examine the plan and decide how good it is!

what is your proposal for action?


O.K.

First hello. I do not think we have spoken PERSONALY with each other, although we have seen each oter around the tthreads.

I was a member of the National Front in Britain in the 80s. THEY had the same problem as I am begining to see here.

It is UDELESS to discuss "political/sicial science for hours, and days and years, whil the problem grows out side of the windows.

We must bring the problem to the attention of, to quote a British politician "The man on the Peckham omnibus". In my case "The Berliner ringbahn".

This site serves a purpose.

It brings us all together, and it is a place where we can discuss what we need to do.

But more and more it is appearing to be a "show case" for whom knows more about soundso's ideas.

We should be talking of how we can educate Joe the window cleaner, Frank the taxi driver, or Mildred the Office cleaner to the problems od mass, and uncontrolled, immigration. AND how we can get them to ACTIVATE themselves to campaign against it.

I am NOT talking of "Stassi informers", just people that in all good heart realise that when someone comes to MY party, the follow MY house rules OR they know where the door is.

Lets talk about "passing the message" and NOT get embroiled in dark, smokey, back room of pub discussions about which philosophy we should be following.

The danger ios, that we are bieng over run, against out will, with foriegners with ways different to outr own, whom may later perform a little more "folk dancing". (A Big sloppy kiss for any one that reccognises the reference. :-) )

I am driffting away from my point.

But getting the message PAST thjese pages to the general masses is what is important. NOT talking about it for weeks/months/threads.

Von Brandenburg-Preußen.

Conservative Swede said...

Free Hal,

The first part of the job is to put forward specific proposals for action.

So far you haven't suggested a single practical proposal that could be implemented today. Essentially all that you say is that we should wait for the state to collapse, and then create an Anarcho-Capitalistic Utopia making contracts with each other in a free and peaceful way.

I, on the other hand, have given a list of practical measures to take, which each person can and should be implementing starting from today.

Furor T,

I also agree that there is too much talking and too little done. That's why you find that I have spent very little time discussing or blogging this year. I have focused on practical solutions instead. However, of course I want as many people as possible to be as well prepared for the future as myself. So the talking I'm doing is because of that.

One of the most important practical measures for people is the become mentally prepared for what's coming. This has been my main motivation for these two threads. As you can see, there are many people here that are utterly demoralized and on the brink of giving up. They are devastated as if we were meeting the end of the world. I find it useful to communicate when I'm able to offer these people a more constructive perspective. The 'Reversal is Possible' thread was a very good one in this sense. In this thread however, the bulk of the comments have come from people who are devoid of understanding my ideas. And yes that becomes a waste of time, it's bound to go around in circles.

Your idea of action is by changing the system from within through political parties. I don't think that you should expect too much results from this. However, your campaigning to create awareness among people (any sort of, any level of awareness) is very useful. So I wish you good luck with this. I also suggest that you take my practical proposals in consideration.

Free Hal said...

Hi Conservative Swede,

CS: "I, on the other hand, have given a list of practical measures to take, which each person can and should be implementing starting from today."

Your list of practical methods is:

"Get a gun and learn how to use it.
Move your savings from paper money to things of real value (e.g. gold).
Move to a safe place. I suggest a small town. Cities and lonely countryside won't be safe. Consider whether moving to another country could make it safer for you and your family when the sh*t hits the fan.
Make stable networks with people. Both at a distance and close. Both for discussing the issues and for concrete help when the sh*t hits the fan. Be aware of who are your real friends; who you can trust all the way.
For the ones with a good sense of irony: enlist as a volunteer for the Obama campaign. The sooner he can destroy the current order the better. Make sure to do above preparation first though."

Apart from the last, this is useful basic advice on how an individual can survive the collapse of civil order. It contains no proposal for saving western or European civilisation, or merely reducing the influence of Islam in Europe.

Best wishes,

Hal

Furor Teutonicus said...

O.K Conservative Swede. I probably agree 98% with you.

What I find to be a TOTAL pain in the butt, is that for every post I wish to send here, I have to open a new account.

EVERY TIME!

My bloody adding machine lost your E-Mail...or was it some ONE else----

Na. I just seem to be talking into a black hole. I get, MAXIMAL, one or two replys, and to answer every one, I must re register.

I will not give up. But I will admit it is tiresome.

Von Brandenburg-Preußen

Conservative Swede said...

Free Hal,

Apart from the last, this is useful basic advice on how an individual can survive the collapse of civil order.

And I see you have just come up with something practical that can be implemented today, and which is a very good idea. Of course it is not a new idea, as I already pointed out. And it's mainly good in the shorter run, as I discuss in that thread. Even though it of course has the potential to evolve into something more offensively violent in the longer run. However, neither my ideas are new, the are very old and very basic, and that's why it will work.

It contains no proposal for saving western or European civilisation, or merely reducing the influence of Islam in Europe.

Here we come back to the point where this whole discussion started in the other thread. Things will not be able to turn around until the current belief system breaks apart, and makes a 180 degree turn. The main thing we can do today is to thoroughly prepare for that moment. These preparations also help protecting ourselves from violence and hardships in any sort of context. So no matter what future scenario one envisions, they make sense.

I'd say that the breakdown of the current belief system is not that far away. I'd give it around a decade. And then some more time for a a more appropriate spirit to evolve.

I support the efforts of all people who have an entirely different view on things than I have. Every good effort in a good spirit is useful, mainly as a way of building mental strength.

PS. Furor T, I have sent you an email again.

Free Hal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Free Hal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Free Hal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Conservative Swede said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Conservative Swede said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Conservative Swede said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Conservative Swede said...

PS:

This is comment number 198. Last time we had a thread of over 200 comments, the comments after 200 didn't show up on the page (there are so many bugs in Blogger).

So if you want the last word, Hal, it's probably yours.

Zenster said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zenster said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 210   Newer› Newest»