The mission of Gates of Vienna is to resist to the Islamization of the West.
As is often pointed out — not least by the proprietors of this blog — the real enemy is not Islam, but the neo-Marxists who control the political systems, major charitable organizations, media outlets, and academic institutions throughout the Western democracies. Islam would not be a problem if we had not already been traduced by our political and cultural leaders.
Ordinary people in the West are just now beginning to wake up to what has been done to them. They are discovering that they have been lied to, disempowered, disenfranchised, and trapped in a soft-totalitarian welfare state. The end game of all this is their disappearance: they are being systematically replaced by Third World immigrants who are substantially less educated, less intelligent, cheaper to hire, and more easy to manipulate — or so it is hoped.
Sarah Maid of Albion has taken a look at what is happening, and makes a compelling case that none of it is by accident. Today she published the first part of a new essay, Genocide by Stealth. The beginning of her article is excerpted below:
If one were to set out to destroy a race or ethnic group, history offers a selection of options as to how this can be achieved.
You can starve them to death in their millions, as Stalin did, and as Lenin had before him. You can force them to march through the desert until they drop dead through hunger and exhaustion as was the Turks’ preferred method of dispatching some one and a half million Armenians, whilst the world was distracted by the first World War. Alternatively if you wish to speed up the process you can shoot them, bomb them, gas them as Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds, or merely hack them to bits with machetes, by which means the Rwandans slaughtered 800,000 people in a mere 100 days during 1994.
The problem with all those tried and tested means of eradicating large groups of people, is that it is almost impossible to hide what you have done from a world community, which, in the main, considers most forms of genocide to be morally unacceptable and a breach of international law.
The exception, of course, is the ANC government in South Africa, who have, so far quite effectively, managed to portray the racially motivated slaughter of members of an ethnic minority as being merely “crime related”, painting repeated acts of genocide as an unending series of “botched burglaries” or multiple “car-jackings gone wrong”. However, their success in hiding their own brand of blood stained ethnic cleansing, has been dependant upon the very special set of circumstances relating to South Africa, and, crucially, upon an outside world not wishing to know the truth.
As such the South African model is unlikely to translate as successfully beyond the dark continent’s southern region, and the violent slaughter of a selected ethnic group in any other part of the world, particularly the West, would be less easy to conceal.
However, although there is effectively only one word for genocide, it can come in many forms. To commit genocide, it is not always necessary to perpetrate acts of violence, or indeed murder. There are many definitions of genocide, all equally effective, albeit not all as speedy as the ones chosen in Rwanda.
If one was prepared to take time and if one was sufficiently ideologically committed to embark upon a genocidal enterprise, the conclusion of which one might personally not live to see, then it is entirely possible to achieve the gradual genocide by stealth of a vast target group without the perpetrators ever having to reveal their blood stained hands.
One need only create the conditions in which the target group will cooperate with its own destruction, and, with any luck, not awake to what is happening until too late.
Travel with me now gentle reader and I will explain to you why some believe that the greatest act of genocide in human history is currently being attempted, and how that act may already well on its way to being achieved.
First we need to understand what genocide is. Amongst the United Nations definitions of Acts of Genocide (1) you will find along with the acts of war and violence, the following two definitions which also constitute genocide:Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the targeted group
Deliberately inflicting on the targeted group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Bearing the points above in mind I invite you to consider where we, the native peoples of Europe have been brought to, in particular over the 65 years since the guns fell silent at the end of a war which our grandfathers were told they were fighting in order to save the future for their children.
Far from saving the future for their children, I would suggest to you that, since World War II, conditions of life have been introduced by those who hold power over us which are calculated to bring about the destruction, at the very least in part, of those very children, the native people of Europe. Meanwhile measures have been introduced intended to significantly reduce the number of Native European births.
Seen in isolation, much of what has happened appears quite harmless, in some instances even beneficial, however, when viewed all together a far darker picture begins to emerge:
A victim will the more willingly drink his poison if its made to taste sweet, and what was sweeter than a sexual revolution without the inconvenience of pregnancy. Forms of contraception have existed with varying degrees of effectiveness for hundreds of years, but never before has it been so easy to avoid getting pregnant. Many will argue that the avoidance of an unwanted pregnancy is beneficial, they will point to the shame and social exclusion of unwed mothers in the past, to prematurely aged women brought to early graves by repeated child bearing, to the financial burden which large families can cause and of course they are correct in some degree, albeit certainly not in the numbers they inevitably claim.
I will not deny that effective, and easily accessible, contraception has benefits for individuals, however, millions of indigenous European children, whom nature intended to be conceived, have not been conceived as a direct result of the contraceptive pill, and the benefits, if any, of that loss to us collectively as European people are less easy to quantify.
As I type this I can already hear the shrill squawks of derision from the trolls and intellectual pygmies at forums such as fstdt.net, who monitor this blog from time to time, and, no doubt, some more grown up readers will raise a sceptical eye-brow at the linkage of oral contraception to genocide. However, I would ask you to put your prejudice to one side and consider these things in context. This is but one aspect of many and, when so many coincidences lead in one direction it is hard to ignore a design.
The contraceptive pill, initially available to married women as a means of family planning, is now celebrated as a weapon of female liberation and heavily promoted within white western nations. It is, of course, also a means of not having children in the numbers which any race needs in order to survive.
Even when the pill fails, it is now, for the first time in history, easy and, in almost every western nation, legal to terminate unwanted pregnancies. As a result of laws passed at the same time that the contraceptive pill was being made widely available, across the West millions upon millions of unborn children have been killed, mainly, to a huge degree, for reasons of convenience rather than medical necessity (including what might be called the “dump the boyfriend, kill the kid” scenario)
Again as with contraception, abortion is portrayed as both a right and a further means of liberating women, in fact it is implied that to be opposed to abortion is to be anti-women. Indeed, popular culture regularly depicts those who are pro-life as being evil or unbalanced, meanwhile, people who are pro-choice/pro-death are portrayed as decent, rational and even rather heroic. As we all know when the media resort to propaganda, they have an agenda.
Is it just coincidence that the two greatest social changes, effecting human reproduction, in the second half of the 20th Century resulted in tens of millions of western children not being born? If so, then here is another coincidence.
There are, of course, other, less obvious ways of preventing births than merely preventing conception or by killing foetuses, you need only create an environment which discourages the target group from reproducing. As a result of successive deliberate economic policies during exactly the same historical period during which the changes described above were taking place, the vast majority of women are now forced to work, rather than stay at home and raise families.
They are, of course, told that being away from home anything up to twelve or more hours a day (and for most of us remote linking or bringing work home at night) is liberating, whereas, in fact, they have no option.
What has changed? It has far less to do with social attitudes than it has with the new economic reality. As recently as the 1960’s the average man’s take home pay was sufficient to support his home and his family, which was, on average, larger than a modern western family. That is no longer possible for anyone under executive level and only then if the husband commutes for hours each day.
This didn’t happen by accident, it didn’t happen due to natural progression, it was the result of deliberate political acts and government policy.
For instance, one of the reasons why men’s wages have not kept pace with the cost of maintaining a home and family is mass immigration, which has been cynically used to depress wages.
A recent study (2) in America estimated that by pushing down wages, immigration triggers a substantial redistribution of income from native-born workers to native-born owners of capital. It was calculated that this redistribution amounts to about 2 percent of GDP, or a whopping $250 billion annually at current levels. And it is the native elites who gain this sum at the expense of native workers, whose wages are kept artificially low.
Read the rest at Sarah’s Albion Blog.
69 comments:
Don't forget the Save The Planet slogan. Don't have kids! Or only one.
Lots of yuppies aren't having any children so they can save the planet. Who are they saving it for? Animals. Not people.
England used to export excess people. Now it imports. And still the lefties say "We are too crowded, don't have kids". While the gov't is importing replacements. It's the one job that immigrants ARE willing to do. Even those with bad backs who can't work at a regular job still procreate. (You know who.)
I read the entire post at Sarah's blog and found her perspective to be relevant.
One of her commenter's refuses to believe that a large-scale Western "white" genocide could be engineered by anyone other than indigenous "white" people committing "white suicide," but I wholeheartedly disagree.
For 1,400 years, Islam and the Koran have explicitly instructed all practicing Muslims to pursue and ELIMINATE all non-Muslims by any means possible.
Most "whites" are non-Muslims, and elimination equals genocide. Therefore, Islam itself provides a prime example where "non-white" people express clear written intent and implement clear actions that are designed to engineer the genocide of "white" people.
P.S. I fully acknowledge that Muslims also want to eliminate non-Muslim "people of color" in similar genocides.
Government policy to reduce births? Why, yes.
I think that you are spot on Sarah, the benefits system in the UK is like genetic engineering / selective breeding in reverse. The immigrants with huge families prosper, as do the lazy, ignorant indiginous baby popping low lifes. Meanwhile the industrious, self respecting, skilled backbone of the Nation - the ones who pay their way, the very people that you need in the country, if they can find work, are taxed out of existance. They simply cannot afford to have children. In the early 1950's, my Dad could earn enough money to keep our mum and 4 kids without any benefits. His annual Rates [ Council Tax ] = 1.5 times his weeks wages. Now my Council Tax = 5 weeks wages !!
Could not agree more. Indeed many of my comments are along the same lines. I have used the term sui-genocidal.
Our willingness to export our technological leadership to China is also part of it. Then we let Chinese buy resource and primary industry companies around the word but do not demand the same access in China.
Further, UN and EU in totality are part of the problem. The aim should be to eliminate both.
And so it goes.
I look forward to part II.
I understand full well and agree that genocide of Western Culture and civilization is well underway.
I've read and enjoyed this blog for over a year, there's only one thing I don't understand about it.
It's incongruous to have support for the Zionist state on your blog. That not only does nothing to support western civilization, it reduces it further. Zionists and Zionism is just another dangerous Semitic philosophy which has no place in Western Culture and is in and of itself uncivilizing.
@Pat H
How is Zionism uncivilising?
I, for one, hope this blog and Geert Wilders never wane in their support of the state of Isreal.
I also believe that it was, in no small part, genocidal antisemitism that got us into the PC/MC mess in the first place.
Pat is nuttier than a squirrels breakfast. Give up the word 'zionist' Pat. And start thinking kind thoughts about Jewish people. To begin that process, look up the number and type of Nobel prizes awarded to Israelites. Then look up the number and type of Nobel prizes earned by muslims.. Jews have been a real blessing to this earth.
In hoc signo vinces
"This didn’t happen by accident, it didn’t happen due to natural progression, it was the result of deliberate political acts and government policy."
The Thatcher socioeconomic policies of the nineteeneighties are prime example of the economic genocide of the British people.
How grotesque it is when compatriots attack indigenous families and single mothers on welfare Sarah's article may come close to touching on why I have long argued that welfare is being subverted by the left and the right as part of the creeping genocide and should actually be considered a strategic weapon in our defence.
The Thatcherite-Socialist inspired welfare reforms of IDS (Iain Duncan Smitm) are as much apart of the creeping genocide as mass immigration, the socialist credentials of David Cameron's conservative party would even give George Galloway a red face.
Those indigenous single mothers and their children on welfare are worth their weight in gold.
The Deep Ecology movement openly says that 90% of the human races needs to be killed.
And lets not forget that Planned Parenthood was started as part of the eugenics movement that planned to eliminate the hereditary illness and any race they considered inferior. The left usually never drops a goal, they just stop talking about it for a while.
4symbols said 'Those indigenous single mothers and their children on welfare are worth their weight in gold' Oh yes ? We really need more Tracey Connellys don't we ? Ofcourse no one is saying ALL single mothers are alike, however the truth is that there are tens of thousands of inadequate indigenous parents / families out there who are permanently on benefits and lowering the gene pool. Have you ever heard of benefit career mothers / parents ? Feral youth? These betrayed kids start school still wearing nappies, not knowing what a knife and fork is, they have no language other than profanities, they've never sat down for a meal - never had a proper meal. Add another twenty languages to the mix and a press that, as usual, don't report the whole story but just follow corporate line and blame the teachers for failing standards. It is not 'grotesque' to attack compatriots when they are a product of the fifth column.
"the real enemy is not Islam, but the neo-Marxists who control the political systems, major charitable organizations, media outlets, and academic institutions throughout the Western democracies. Islam would not be a problem if we had not already been traduced by our political and cultural leaders."
This preponderantly Elitocentric (or perhaps more accurately "Elitofugal") characterization of the problem is unfortunate, for its rationale has no place to factor in, and thus to explain reasonably, the millions of non-Leftist non-Elites (as well as innumerable (most likely a majority) non-Leftist Elites) throughout the West who more or less imbibe and regurgitate the PC MC template about Islam.
Given this explanatory vacuum, an analytical pressure is built up, forcing the analyst to explain that most curious and massive fact noted above in ways that tend to inculcate a strange alienation from the West one is supposed to be defending: either all those millions of fellow Westerners among us are sheep, or they are being coerced by a dastardly cabal of Elites who "really" control things; or usually, a less coherent mishmash of the two is implied. Either way, the West presented is a vast collection of idiots or cowed weaklings under the thumb of an evil minority, offset by another minority, the Elect who Know (but who have little or no power to effect change, thanks to those dastardly Elites). Often, the incoherence of the sweeping (but unverified) claim that "most ordinary folks share our view" is added in, which tends to contradict the Knowing Remnant implication of the worldview. The Gnostic features of this are recognizable, attenuated usually only to the degree that incoherent mush is admixed.
Another way to look at this would begin with the premise (based on copious evidence) that in fact the modern West is -- while imperfect (duh!) -- the most enlightened and intelligent civilization in the history of mankind. As such, it would be extraordinarily improbable that its citizenry are sheep, and that its power structures are being manipulated by some dastardly cabal. Other explanations then must be sought for the mainstream dominance of PC MC. As we explore those other explanations, we then become receptive to notice that PC MC has much good in it; and we begin to notice (unless we are that alienated from our fellow Westerners) how much PC MC exists in our own hearts and minds.
I.e., PC MC has become dominant and mainstream throughout the West not through some kind of despotic tyranny (crypto- or otherwise) -- for that is the way that non-Western (and, par excellence, Muslim) societies tend to be controlled -- but through a sea change in consciousness that has roots in the good virtues of the West.
Once we understand better the nature of the disease, we will be better equipped to figure out a way to manage it, and then hopefully a cure. Misdiagnosis here, as in medicine, can have disastrous consequences at worst, and at best, will slow recovery down and perpetuate the ill effects of the illness.
I speak these words of reason to those who are not so far gone on the road to Gnostic Revolution that they seem to be steeling themselves for some kind of Mad Max Apocalypse of the West.
Hesperado --
From my point of view, you are stating the obvious, but maybe it's not so obvious to everyone else. In that case, it's a good thing you're saying it.
There are, however, some treasonous actions that are reserved to the "elite" and not so widely shared by the rest of the population. Most people are indeed possessed by the same PC/MC demons as the oligarchs who run things, but they depart from PC in certain important ways.
Most notable is their staunch opposition to mass immigration: in all Western countries, ordinary people are opposed to mass immigration and demand less of it, and in almost all cases they are ignored by their leaders.
People keep electing treasonous leaders because they have no chance to vote for any other kind -- their only alternative is not to vote at all.
We've seen what happens to parties that try to change immigration policy -- they are demonized relentlessly, and suppressed using all possible means, legal and illegal. Vlaams Belang, Sverigedemokraterna, and the PVV are cases in point.
So there is some distinction between the cultural leaders and the masses they attempt to inmdoctrinate. This doesn't mean that the masses don't share the same suicidal ideology, just that it possesses them to a significantly lesser degree.
Hespeardo -
"As such, it would be extraordinarily improbable that its citizenry are sheep, and that its power structures are being manipulated by some dastardly cabal."
Including those who allocate 90% of their reading/viewing time (already-limited by their high workload) to Big Brother, X-factor, NFL, soccer or the latest Hollywood flick - with the remaining 10% reserved for the easiest-available MSM? Surely this large section of Western society represents the perfect environment for any manipulation?
Baron -
"Most notable is their staunch opposition to mass immigration: in all Western countries, ordinary people are opposed to mass immigration and demand less of it, and in almost all cases they are ignored by their leaders."
That may be - however to me there seems to be also a gulf in attitudes dependent on age - older people are overwhelmingly anti-immigration, while younger ones (especialy students) more prone to be in favour of more... Their minds young enough to be influenced by multiculturalism, egalitarian schools, MTV and "gifts" to children from the EU?
We are witnessing our own version of the book "Camp of the Saints" come to life. Prepare yourselves, it won't be pretty.
The war on the middle class has been particularly bad in the US. I agree that it is nothing new and it did not start with the Obama Administration.
This is my story, and the story of too many other hard-working older people:
Who are the 99ers?
@noiseytappet
It is not 'grotesque' to attack compatriots when they are a product of the fifth column.
And tell me who were the "elite producers" that brutalised the indigenous working class?
Bet your supremacy shines when you stand next to a subjugated mohammedan but fades rapidly when confronted by the brutality of the indigenous working class, just like the indigenous magistrate who serves his Mohammedan "equal" lunch at one and at 2 dishes out contempt and loathing for his white working class compatriots.
We may not yet have fully established the political starting point but for sure this was a top down project and the history books will record that.
Hate to inform you but your conception of the superior gene pool is the fifth column.
The indigenous working class welfare recipients and all will make the stand will your superiority complex allow you to stand with them?
"the real enemy is not Islam, but the neo-Marxists who control the political systems, major charitable organizations, media outlets, and academic institutions throughout the Western democracies."
Indeed. You see that in every Western country. One of the worst perpetraitors is still at it:
Tony Of Arabia Earns $43M As Advisor To Kuwait, While Getting Paid By Morgan Stanley And The UN
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/12/31/tony-of-arabia-earns-43m-as-advisor-to-kuwait-while-getting-paid-by-morgan-stanley-and-the-un/
@Hesperado,
I am so sorry, having to do a "Adam Keller"-like multiple comment on your well-reasoned post ;-)
So here goes, part I:
Allow me to break the statement you quoted down, and offer a view that differs somewhat in perspective from yours.
"the real enemy is not Islam, but the neo-Marxists who control the political systems, major charitable organizations, media outlets, and academic institutions throughout the Western democracies."
This statement is true, except for the part that isn't mentioned, the non-Marxist elitists that are equally "progressive" in their support for soft-totalitarianism, i.e. our modern welfare state. I think that the general label "progressives" covers more ground than the Marxist one.
"Islam would not be a problem if we had not already been traduced by our political and cultural leaders."
Forgot to mention in the first place, Islam is the other real enemy, irrespective of their progressive Western enablers.
As always, I see a great deal of truth in your assertions:
As for the lacking explanation for the millions of non-Leftist non-Elites (as well as innumerable (most likely a majority) non-Leftist Elites) throughout the West who more or less imbibe and regurgitate the PC MC template about Islam.
I regard them as the other side of the coin that features the supposedly vast amount of "moderate Muslims". Not relevant at all for their opinions if they have any, and only relevant, but extremely so, for their estimated numbers, providing the fertile ground and working space for fanatical activists to subvert what little freedom is left in our societies.
I would contend the following about moderate Muslims: what little light is shed on them, they are left to remain a vastly unobscured and dark subject matter. But perhaps here is an instant where sheep can be more dangerous than wolves. The proverbial "friendly Muslim neighbour, girl next door, shopkeeper", al these innocent Muslim people, they are the face of Islamization.
Same goes for "the lonely crowd" among the Western public: not relevant for what they "think" in public, regurgitating the PC MC propaganda fed to them by, yes indeed, the self appointed elites in the institutions mentioned earlier. But they are the face of PC MC in today's society.
So when you write:
"all those millions of fellow Westerners among us are sheep, or they are being coerced by a dastardly cabal of Elites who "really" control things [..]"
I'd say, both are true as far as the public arena of opinions is concerned. That doesn't mean that none of them when asked in private wouldn't want to be free (although many would, I'm afraid, settle for the "security" of the nanny state). So as for the millions fed on the all pervading MSM information diet, parroting the PC MC propaganda like zombies, why not think of them as sheep?
"Often, the incoherence of the sweeping (but unverified) claim that "most ordinary folks share our view" is added in"
I didn't see that addition, but I agree that the statement itself is sweeping and not supported by verifiable data. To this I add my own unverified claim that the problem, at the moment, seems exactly the opposite: most ordinary folk don't share our view, nor do they oppose it. My guess is that most of them simply don't wish to care. One of the premises of counterjihad actions is that this situation must and can be changed. That is something else than saying that John Q Taxpayer shares our view.
to be continued..
@Hesperado,
continued.. (hope to see earlier comment appear)
"Another way to look at this would begin with the premise (based on copious evidence) that in fact the modern West is -- while imperfect (duh!) -- the most enlightened and intelligent civilization in the history of mankind. As such, it would be extraordinarily improbable that its citizenry are sheep, and that its power structures are being manipulated by some dastardly cabal."
As such, indeed. But is it simply "as such"? I would agree that the West has evidently shown civilization at its best, but not always or in every period of history and never as a whole. I for one, have strong doubts about the "civilizational" force of modernity, same goes for the epithetic "enlightened", as far as the anti-Western cabal of self-appointed French elitists of old is concerned.
There are undercurrents in Western society that still uphold civilized values. These currents must be sought far removed (yet) from the power of the modern state, one of the most nefarious elements that modernity introduced to Western civilization (centralization of power by the welfare state).
"we then become receptive to notice that PC MC has much good in it; and we begin to notice (unless we are that alienated from our fellow Westerners) how much PC MC exists in our own hearts and minds."
I like the decidedly Chestertonian feel of this statement and I absolutely agree. It is the terror of "good intentions", real of feigned, that do terrible damage. I understand why you present it as an alternative explanation, but I really think it doesn't exclude the other one, at least not in my view.
One last thing that struck me as being totally absent from the above article, as well as in your statements, is money. It is always money that seems off the table when our freedom and civilization is concerned. So even when the author makes her central point:
"What has changed? It has far less to do with social attitudes than it has with the new economic reality."
The new economic reality is left completely untouched, but for scratching the surface of the nanny state sponsored mass immigration and its economic effects. A glaring and telling omission.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Gregory, I really hate statements like "to begin that process, look up the number and type of Nobel prizes awarded to Israelites."
I hardly care. The problem is who lobbied to open our borders. You will notice that quite a lot of them were of a certain ethnicity that won quite a bit of Nobel prizes. Or if you blame the Frankfurt school for stuff - check the ethnicity of the people in it.
I began reading "Replacing Ourselves", but stopped when I saw her first point was that birth control for childbearing, middle-class couples was equivalent to genocide. It's such a crazy accusation, I became uninterested in the rest of the arguments.
I agree that welfare policies and social engineering frequently channel resources to less-productive people. However, if a writer is so bereft of imagination that her first solution is to remove the personal choices of individuals and families, I have no common grounds with that writer.
I think you need to calm down and keep to the subject in hand, you make a lot of assumptions, put words into my mouth and apparently, can tell me what I am thinking.
Throughout our history the British working class have always been brutalized by those in authority, from the Landed Gentry, the Church, the Monarchy, the Armed Forces, the Government etc etc. All of these authorities have exploited and brutalized the very working class people who have kept them in their positions of superiority.
Have you ever heard of Serfdom, the Industrial Revolution, Child Labour, Work Houses, the Class System ? Conscription ? Firing Squads ? Baliffs ? Penal Colonies ? White Servitude ? Suffragettes ? The Jarrow March ?, Miners strikes ? etc etc.
I am proud to be working class, I can trace my family tree back to the Norman invasion and my namesakes have fought for King / Queen and Country in every battle since.
We knew our place and who the enemy was. Despite our ruling classes, the working class of this country have always been a proud, self sufficient, industrious, tolerant, skillful, honest and resourceful people.
That my friend is the superior gene pool.
Probably the best we were ever treated was in the 1950’s, when, with full employment, it was true – ‘we never had it so good’
There is no Mohammedan equal to the British working class, the Mohammedan is lazy, a parasite, he waits for allah to provide and above all, he is an intolerant war monger and there fore a danger to my likewise.
Since the end of world war 2, we in the West, have been sold out by a succession of political elite – some elected – some not. In my opinion, that was when the true value oil was realised.
All our subsequent problems have been a net result of this, or indeed part of the ongoing cover up.
The Arab has bought the West from our traitorous Elite and now wants to take up residence
The political elite may well be Marxists but they are rich with Arab oil money.
The only small problem is – the people of the West were never consulted and that is why our National Identities have been gradually destroyed over the last 60 years, just incase one day, a voice who speaks for us, comes along and says NO !
Finally do me a favour – don’t ever call the unemployable dross that have been encouraged to breed on benefits, ‘working class’, they are not
Re 4Symbols
I think you need to calm down and keep to the subject in hand, you make a lot of assumptions, put words into my mouth and apparently, can tell me what I am thinking.
Throughout our history the British working class have always been brutalized by those in authority, from the Landed Gentry, the Church, the Monarchy, the Armed Forces, the Government etc etc. All of these authorities have exploited and brutalized the very working class people who have kept them in their positions of superiority. Have you ever heard of Serfdom, the Industrial Revolution, Bailiffs ? Child Labour, Work Houses, the Class System ? Conscription ? Firing Squads ? Penal Colonies ? White Servitude ? Suffragettes ? The Jarrow March ?, Miners strikes ? etc etc.
I am proud to be working class, I can trace my family tree back to the Norman invasion and my namesakes have fought for King / Queen and Country in every battle since. We knew our place and who the enemy was. Despite our ruling classes, the working class of this country have always been a proud, self sufficient, industrious, tolerant, skillful, honest and resourceful people.
That my friend is the superior gene pool.
Probably the best we were ever treated was in the 1950’s, when, with full employment, it was true – ‘we never had it so good’
There is no Mohammedan equal to the British working class, the Mohammedan is a parasite who waits for allah to provide and above all, he is an intolerant war monger and there fore a danger to my kind.
Since the end of world war 2, we in the West, have been sold out by a succession of political elites – some elected – some not.
In my opinion that was when the true value oil was realised.
All our subsequent problems have been a net result of this, or indeed part of the ongoing cover up.
Thanks to oil, the Arab has bought the West from our traitorous Elite and now wants to take up residence The political elite may well be Marxists but they are rich with corrupt oil money.
The only small problem is – the people of the West were never consulted and that is why our National Identities have been gradually destroyed over the last 60 years, just incase one day, a voice who speaks for us, comes along and says NO !
Finally do me a favour – don’t ever call the unemployable dross that have been encouraged to breed on benefits, ‘working class’, they are not
Dear 4Symbols
Throughout our history the British working class have always been brutalized by those in authority, from the Landed Gentry, the Church, the Monarchy, the Armed Forces, the Government etc etc. All of these authorities have exploited and brutalized the very working class people who have kept them in their positions of superiority.
Have you ever heard of Serfdom, the Industrial Revolution, Bailiffs ? Child Labour, Work Houses, the Class System ? Conscription ? Firing Squads ? Penal Colonies ? White Servitude ? Suffragettes ? The Jarrow March ?, Miners strikes ? etc etc.
I am proud to be working class, I can trace my family tree back to the Norman invasion and my namesakes have fought for King / Queen and Country in every battle since.
Despite our ruling classes, the working class of this country have always been a proud, self sufficient, industrious, tolerant, skillful, honest and resourceful people.
That my friend is the superior gene pool.
Probably the best we were ever treated was in the 1950’s, when, with full employment, it was true – ‘we never had it so good’
Since the end of world war 2, we in the West, have been sold out by a succession of political elites – some elected – some not.
In my opinion that was when the true value oil was realised.
All our subsequent problems have been a net result of this, or indeed part of the ongoing cover up.
Thanks to oil, the Arab has bought the West from our traitorous Elite and now wants to take up residence The political elite may well be Marxists but they are rich with corrupt oil money.
The only small problem is – the people of the West were never consulted and that is why our National Identities have been gradually destroyed over the last 60 years, just incase one day, a voice who speaks for us, comes along and says NO !
From Hesperado’s article, “The Explanatory Vacuum”:
There is, rather, the much more complex sociological phenomenon of a worldview that has come about through a sea change in consciousness throughout the West on every level of society and affecting every gradation of the political spectrum, whereby good values and virtues have become intimately bound up in a complex nexus with certain irrational axioms: some of these axioms are merely amusing, others are annoying, others may be noxious to a limited extent, while others still have the potential for massive harm to our societies. In the latter category is the axiomatic bundle of Multi-Culturalism. [emphasis added]
The most significant sea change is this recent shift towards embracing irrationality. Whereas previous peoples − for lack of better explanations − may have used seemingly irrational myths or other models (e.g., geocentric solar system), there is now a fundamental willingness to adopt irrational thought processes.
It is difficult to imagine that the West’s intellectual progress made over this past century has been so thoroughly eroded by television, video games, social networking and other distractions. Only a far deeper malaise could cause the profound damage that is being done. One of the few candidates that adequately explains much of this irrationality and abandonment of reason is Magical Thinking™. Kelly O'Connell’s article is a must read for those who seek a better understanding of Liberalism’s fatal cognitive flaws.
Small wonder that a culture which so completely worships youth should have reverted to this childish mode of thinking. Less explicable is how a dominant artifact of this culture has been able to supplant the scientific reasoning which served to guide mankind through a handful of centuries since the Enlightenment. That artifact is pseudo-science and only by understanding the modern desire for “wishes to become horses” does it become clear that large numbers of people are no longer willing to do the mental homework necessary to innovate or be artistically creative.
The overall decline of creativeness can be linked to broader mechanisms like agri-business and modern medicine’s ability to facilitate the survival of many that normally would have perished rather quickly in even a slightly more primitive world. The West’s last manifestation of an ultimately capable person was the tenant farmer. Part agronomist, hunter, veterinarian, mechanic and meteorologist, this individual represented the coalescence of quasi-modern technology and traditional survival skills that have recently gone missing throughout much of the First World.
Hesperado: I.e., PC MC has become dominant and mainstream throughout the West not through some kind of despotic tyranny (crypto- or otherwise) -- for that is the way that non-Western (and, par excellence, Muslim) societies tend to be controlled -- but through a sea change in consciousness that has roots in the good virtues of the West.
A primary “virtue” that is driving much of this misplaced charity is altruism. Justifiably demonized by Ayn Rand and held up for inspection here in other threads, Christian charity has run amok and been allowed a degree of universality that simply does not apply. A basic illustration is Human Rights. Such inalienable rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can only be conferred upon those who do not seek to deprive others of them. Thus, Islam, with its violently supremacist doctrine, deserves no such consideration whatsoever.
Instead, Muslims routinely are given the benefit of the doubt where no such favor is returned. Just this one instance of wholly misplaced charity explains volumes of our current dilemma.
Sagunto,
I'd say your viewpoint more or less comports with Baron's and others. My impression is that this viewpoint reflects the majority in the anti-Islam movement.
In your particular response to my statement praising the West as "the most enlightened and intelligent civilization in the history of mankind" it seems you neglected to factor in one crucial word there: most.
I.e., I wasn't intending to say that the West is or ever was absolutely enlightened; only more enlightened than all other civilizations. Once we agree on that, the disagreement would focus on the degree of enlightenment and intelligence Westerners have generally speaking. I get the impression from the "Elitologists" (i.e., those who think "Elites" explain the West's relative Islamophilia) that they have a dim view of their fellow Westerners: They think a sizeable minority are evil Elitists, while they think the majority of ordinary folks are either stupid or apathetic sheep. If this general characterization is accurate, then the West is not the best civilization; and indeed, one wonders why one would want to defend it at all.
This is where incoherency comes in: the Elitologist can hold contradictory thoughts (or feelings) in a mush in his head:
1) the West is more or less a pathetic crypto-tyranny with evil greedy fat cats at the top controlling masses who are stupid and/or apathetic sheep
2) the West is great -- it has all this wonderful art, literature, philosophy, theology, science, technology (one wonders how all this wonderful greatness was produced if the West is a crypto-tyranny of an evil cabal controlling masses of sheep).
Some of the pressure of this paradox may be lessened (at least artificially) by recourse to the "good old days" theory: the West currently is a crypto-tyranny over masses of sheep, but back in the good old days, it was great. This theory, in my estimation, is almost as absurd as the aforementioned contradiction.
Now, I say all this (plus my previous comment above) not because I am trying to propose that Elites do not exist, nor that they do not enjoy a degree of power in Western societies, nor that their activities are not often injurious to the West given their tendency to be proponents of PC MC (and in some rarer instances, out-and-out Leftism). With very rare exceptions, however, I do not agree that Western Elites are evil. This accusation is flung around with disturbing glibness in the anti-Islam movement, and reflects a dark cynicism and a problematic alienation from one's own society. In fact, it is reasonable (and healthy) to trust that, for example, most politicians in the West are decent people -- of course imperfect with unremarkably human flaws and foibles -- but not evil.
[continued next comment]
[continued from previous comment]
My main point in this regard may be concisely (though, alas, simplistically) summed up by the following:
Whatever power Western Elites wield and whatever policies they are able to pursue that currently hinders the West from waking up to the problem of Islam, this power and these policies would not enjoy the traction they do enjoy, were the vast majority of ordinary people not sincerely, consciously and intelligently PC MC.
I.e., the West is great because the People have more power and are freer, than in any other civilization in history and on earth today. Thus, it's impossible for the West to be a crypto-tyranny "really" controlled by an evil elite. And again, I say this not in absolute terms, but in relative terms.
This statement, in turn, makes sense only if PC MC has lots of good in it; for sincere, decent, relatively intelligent populaces would not believe and assent to something in their hearts and minds were that worldview malignant.
The conclusion we are forced to come to -- that is, if we want to avoid assumptions based on dark cynicism about our own civilization -- is that the West's current myopia is far more complicated and confounded with genuine virtues that are part of the West's ongoing progress.
More later, when time permits.
Zenster,
I'll try to respond to your post later today. For now, I tentatively disagree with the degree of dimness with which you seem to view your fellow modern Westerners. On many levels, the 20th century has been an astounding explosion of progress and creativity -- in science, technology, social organization, ethics, rights, political freedom, legal philosophy and practice, the arts, and on and on. All this could not have been (and still continuing to be) possible were 20th century (and 21st century) Westerners childishly indulging in "magical thinking".
Again, I say this not in absolute terms that denies problems and flaws, but in relative terms that seeks to protect the West from diagnoses that err too far in the direction of pessimism and cynicism.
More later. And Happy New Year!
Hah! Good analysis, Hesperado. I find myself in complete agreement with you.
@Hesperado,
I share the crux of your central point wholeheartedly and therefore I oppose your rendition of my view as if I support this straw-man:
"They think a sizeable minority are evil Elitists, while they think the majority of ordinary folks are either stupid or apathetic sheep. If this general characterization is accurate, then the West is not the best civilization; and indeed, one wonders why one would want to defend it at all."
and you repeat a little later:
"I do not agree that Western Elites are evil"
And I endorse that statement, as I have earlier, when I quoted Chesterton as saying in a chapter from his book "Orthodoxy", called "The Suicide of Thought":
"I could not express myself more exactly than by saying that he [G.B. Shaw, the socialist] has a heroically large and generous heart; but not a heart in the right place."
[..]
"And this is so of the typical society of our time.
The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful..."
My thoughts exactly.
to be continued..
[continued]
I hope @Hesperado, that you find the time to address my point about the modern welfare state, end of the road to serfdom. The state that F. A. Hayek described in 1944, the "Servile State" that Hilaire Belloc warned us for in 1913, and the kind of society that Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw in 1835, and I leave you with a lengthy but worthwhile quote (be sure not to miss the point about the benign, soft and not altogether evil nature of our overlords):
"I therefore believe that the kind of oppression that threatens democratic peoples is unlike any the world has seen before. Our contemporaries will find no image of it in their memories. I search in vain for an expression that exactly reproduces my idea of it and captures it fully. The old words “despotism” and “tyranny” will not do. The thing is new, hence I must try to define it, since I cannot give it a name.
I am trying to imagine what new features despotism might have in today’s world: I see an innumerable host of men, all alike and equal, endlessly hastening after petty and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn into himself, is virtually a stranger to the fate of all the others. For him, his children and personal friends comprise the entire human race. As for the remainder of his fellow citizens, he lives alongside them but does not see them. He touches them but does not feel them. He exists only in himself and for himself, and if he still has a family, he no longer has a country.
Over these men stands an immense tutelary power, which assumes sole responsibility for securing their pleasure and watching over their fate. It is absolute, meticulous, regular, provident, and mild. It would resemble paternal authority if only its purpose were the same, namely, to prepare men for manhood. But on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them in childhood irrevocably. It likes citizens to rejoice, provided they think only of rejoicing. It works willingly for their happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, manages their most important affairs, directs their industry, regulates their successions, and divides their inheritances. Why not relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and the difficulty of living?
Every day it thus makes man’s use of his free will rarer and more futile. It circumscribes the action of the will more narrowly, and little by little robs each citizen of the use of his own faculties."
And about the before mentioned "sheep":
"After having taken individuals one by one in its powerful hands and after having kneaded them in accord with its desires, the sovereign reaches out to embrace society as a whole. It covers its surface with a fine mesh of uniform, minute, and complex rules, through which not even the most original minds and most vigorous souls can poke their heads above the crowd. It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and guides them. Rarely does it force one to act but it consistently opposes itself to one's acting on one's own. It does not destroy things but prevents them from coming into being. Rather than tyrannize, it inhibits, represses, saps, stifles, and stultifies, and finally it reduces each nation to nothing but a flock of timid and industrious animals, with the government as its shepherd."
Do you think that this modern form of evermore centralized government is confirmation or a deviation from indeed the most enlightened of all civilizations?
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Hesperado: … I tentatively disagree with the degree of dimness with which you seem to view your fellow modern Westerners.
Not dim, irrational. No flock of "sheeple" could land a man on the moon. Even with the slide in literacy and intellectual sink that is happening in America, we still have one of the highest national IQs of the global community.
That said, a large component of America's media and political leadership is instilling the most appalling sort of rubbish in our people's minds. Obama's entire campaign platform was based on platitudes of "hope and change" without any concrete policy framework.
If ever there has been a Western leader so totally guilty of encouraging mindless and inarticulated political goals, it is Obama.
I still maintain that in the process of abandoning the rigors of intellectually honest cogitation, people are willingly allowing themselves to dumb down and that is a massive danger. One look at how television programming consistently panders to the very lowest common denominator − and that so many people eagerly lap it up − tells the story.
In my previous post I had sought to echo the sentiments of Chesterson, which Sagunto has so graciously provided. With respect to that, I also concur that the very best aspects of human nature have been given too free a rein and − just as Muslims weaponize those best characteristics against us − so too do we now suffer the consequences of unrestrained charity and altruism.
Hesperado, my mother won a few international awards in her field yet she's a political idiot. While she's not a socialist and her dislike of 'minorities', both simply come out of the way things are here. If she would have grew up in the UK, she would have supported multiculturalism. The vast majority of people believe what they are told to believe. And this is true even for people who defy the consensus in their field. Outside their field of expertise, they are just as much sheep as anyone else.
You can even look at all revolutions, including the American one. Most people complied to the British and then followed the revoluntionaires. Just google some studies related to political opinions and you will reach what I'm saying.
Even I noticed this in myself each time I had a paradigm shift. Let's pick egalitarianism. I once believed in it and I did that because I was brought up to believe that equal opportunity and so on is sugar and spice and all things nice, for instance. And most people don't take countless hours from their life to undo what they were taught.
A few years ago I would have found what I currently support downright evil and would have voted against what I think in an election simply due to the fact that I would have saw my current views as evil. The biggest mistake is thinking that people are logical. You can even look at marketing - brand equity is the result of people not being logical, but emotional.s
In hoc signo vinces
@noiseytappet,
"Finally do me a favour – don’t ever call the unemployable dross that have been encouraged to breed on benefits, ‘working class’, they are not"
So is this your opinion of the indigenous service no longer required working class on benefits.
Tell me this where is this working-working class that has not at one time or another indulged in the welfare state be it education primary to university or health and housing.
UK economy rigged for failure.
Dont you get it all those working class mortgages and credit lines were nothing more than the bribes of a fat welfare cheques - golden welfare robbed out of the bank vault and when that money supply was exhausted they printed more.
At some point soon millions of your superior working class recipients of the Thatcherite golden welfare state are going to fall right back into the underclass (to join the millions already there) they were but state owned pawns, the mortgages and credit lines were nothing more than the bonds of indenture contracts.
Plumbers in palaces with more credit lines than the bank of England, that my friend is the reality of your superior gene pool.
And Hesperado is right related to MC PC coming out of our own nature - it's Christian ethics. Just replace the good old heretic with racist and make MLK a patron saint and voila.
The truth is that universalism and egalitarianism come from Christianity and are simply secularized belief out of a religion and MC is simply the logical extension of universalism.
You can even see this in what Zenster says and him taking rights as being universal.
noiseytappet, the only reason child labor doesn't exist anymore is because people are rich enough to afford keeping their children home. Even if it was legal to do it, people who would afford keeping their kids at home wouldn't send them to work.
rebelliousvanilla: You can even see this in what Zenster says and him taking rights as being universal.
What part of, "Such inalienable rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can only be conferred upon those who do not seek to deprive others of them."
… do you not understand?
Human Rights are not automatically conferred upon all and sundry. They must be earned, just as one must earn respect, love or money.
You persist in misrepresenting me as a universalist. PLEASE DESIST AT ONCE. All you do is damage your own already tattered credibility.
You contradict yourself. If a right is inalienable, you don't pick and choose who you give it to.
inalienable = unforfeitable: not subject to forfeiture;
And even if someone doesn't deprive or wants to deprive others of rights means that they should have them. That was the whole point I was making.
Continual charity given freely without any positive behavioral requirements of the receiver merely infantalizes and enslaves receivers.
Our Muslim-in-Chief Obama has publicly expressed his personal misbegotten interpretation of the famous Cain and Abel Bible passage to proclaim, "We are our brothers' and sisters' keeper." In fact, Obama's interpretation is pure Islam where Muslims use Sharia Law to "keep" and control and enslave both Muslims and non-Muslims.
False self-congratulatory Western altruism towards Muslims at home and abroad simply enables Islam to continue to enslave Muslims and non-Muslims here and there in a myriad of ways.
The withdrawal of all forms of Western support of Islam would force Muslims to make choices based on the true costs of their free will decisions to follow an evil ideology.
While it is unfortunate that the true costs would surely include greater poverty, starvation, higher infant mortality, etc., Muslims paying the true costs of Islam would surely inhibit Islamic expansion in a variety of useful ways.
All Western support of Muslim countries should carry explicit positive behavorial requirements of Muslims here and there.
Instead, we see Muslims who are supported by Westerners here and there making negative behavioral requirements of Westerners. Thus, Muslims coerce Western lawmakers to adopt "hate speech" laws that force Westerners to stay silent about an evil ideology and all of its attendant negative behaviors.
Although individual Westerners may benefit from strategic Muslim largesse that often appears to be a bribe, the fact is that Muslims control the oil that runs the European West - and Muslim control translates into Muslim coercion.
So the question is how long will the world permit an evil ideology supported by false charity and spread by oil money to impose its negative behavioral requirements on the world?
Muslims who control the OIC and United Nations use limited oil resources to divide and conquer the world in favor of Islam.
The solution is for the rest of the world to unite together to force Muslims to meet positive behavioral requirements.
It is possible for non-Muslims to encourage Muslims to adhere to positive behavioral requirements - but currently unlikely given that our current "presidential" impostor is Muslim by birth, prejudice, and preference and strictly adheres to the Muslim ummah agenda of imposing negative behavioral requirements (encapsulated in Sharia Law) on the entire world.
"You contradict yourself. If a right is inalienable, you don't pick and choose who you give it to."
That is absurd.
You are deliberately obtuse.
These rights solely apply to those who are citizens of the United States, not to Muselmanic headbangers who want to replace them with sharia, or to Obamunist revolutionaries who want to get rid of the constitution altogether.
You are the problem incarnate!
In hoc signo vinces
Might is right the rest is benevolence.
sheik, I agree that in the US that is the case, but I'd like to point out that a certain ethnic group you have there commits 53% of the murders while being 13% of the population. I suppose they don't respect the rights of others either and so on forever.
And according to the US constitution, anybody born on US soil is an American and has those rights - including Muslims that want to blow up cities or whatnot. I was merely trying to point out how ridiculous is having any type of universal rights, even among your citizen body, if you have civic citizenship.
Declaration of Independence (1776)
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The original American idea was that all men were created equal with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that derive to all men from GOD.
Note that the inalienable rights of men derive from GOD (rather than man-made religions defined and governed by collective humanity via Islam, science, atheism, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.) - which proves that our original American system of governance was indeed based on a GOD-believing (thus inherently Judeo-Christian) model.
You MUST believe in GOD to believe that GOD has conferred equality and inalienable rights to men.
The adamant belief in GOD forms the ENTIRE philosophical basis for all of the positive behaviors that enable men to form just governments that secure equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those who are governed by consent.
While man-made governance occurs by consent of the governed, the inalienable rights of equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness accrue by generous loving knowing fiat from GOD.
Throughout the world, only those Muslims who choose to publicly renounce Allah (who is distinctly different from GOD) and ALL of the negative behavioral requirements required by Allah through the institution of Sharia Law - thus only Muslim apostates - will be able to fully experience the inalienable rights of equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Indeed, because Sharia Law negates the GOD-given rights of equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all men, Sharia Law MUST be invalid even when adopted by a "vote" of majority Muslims in a democracy.
In contrast, please notice that neither GOD nor our Founding Fathers conferred instant automatic American citizenship with full lifetime residential rights, full voting rights, full Presidential leadership rights, etc., to all men in the moment that those men happened to step upon American shores.
P.S. Being a woman myself, I have used the word "men" as used in the Declaration of Independence....
ron15bf wrote: if a writer is so bereft of imagination that her first solution is to remove the personal choices of individuals and families, I have no common grounds with that writer.
Yes, MTE. I have a solution to this imaginary problem of reproductive rights vs. racial survival. Problem: liberated white women are too busy to have children, and some don't want to. Other problem: third world people can't feed themselves and are starving to death in large numbers. Solution: hire third world women to be surrogate mothers for white people. Yes, I know no one likes this except me, but it would work really well, if only people didn't react that way to a solution that would meet everyone's needs without forcing white women to have children.
@Hesperado,
I'm afraid I was a bit too eager to prove the straw man picture you painted of my views as a - now certified Elitologist, that a remark of yours slipped past my radar, and I quote the shorted version to underline the point I'm about to make:
"Whatever power Western Elites wield [..] this power and these policies would not enjoy the traction they do enjoy, were the vast majority of ordinary people not sincerely, consciously and intelligently PC MC."
I have serious problems with this statement. I my country, as well as France and Ireland, countries that were at least given the opportunity to vote (provided we voted "yes") on the EU constitution, the majority of ordinary people did exactly the opposite of what you claim. They said "no!" to the EU superstate and then what happened? The cabal of this political and indeed elitist class (the unelected EU commission) had the nerve to push on with their undemocratic project, with complete and utter contempt for the peoples of Europe they supposedly represent.
But why make a lengthy comment when we have Nigel Farage to speak truth to power.
The whole of the EU project itself suffices as a refutation of the above statement you made. I'm sorry to say but your assertion about political elites and ordinary people is just simply and plainly untrue.
Time permitting, I will get back to the issue of sound money (or sick nowadays) to take this discussion beyond the level of abstract logic and assertions, and economically underpin the quote I gave by Alexis de Tocqueville. As someone said not long ago: "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes it's laws".
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
In hoc signo vinces
@Egghead,
Declaration of Independence (1776)
"The original American idea ... " with respect not so original The Declaration of Arbroath 1320
@Sagunto,
Nigel Farage the turnkey of the conservative party's eurosceptic ghetto UKIP. Farage on immigration NO continental Europeans paticularly poles, Third World enrichers welcome.
@4Symbols,
The arguments presented by Nigel Farage, as well as Geert Wilders and others, about the progressive elitist cabal, pushing the EU superstate while railroading democracy and treating Dutch, French and Irish voters like sheep are absolutely correct.
If you have skills to present a well reasoned argument relevant to this debate, please show them and I'll be happy to answer.
Sag.
In hoc signo vinces
@Sagunto,
My original comment disappeared from memory this is what I stated -
Nigel Farage the turnkey of the Conservative Party's eurosceptic gehtto UKIP. Farage on immigration NO Europeans particularly Poles, all Third World enrichers welcome.
Farage is no counterjihad warrior or defender of Western Civilization. Farage is not even in the same reality as Geert Wilder he is a single issue political opportunist.
He is all that is wrong with Conservatism in the UK the backyard empire little England mentality, 'British jobs for British workers' - out with the Polish plumbers in with the Warristan waiters.
His loathing of the EU is based on selfloathing not political ideology.
4Symbols, I do agree with you about Farage. Besides his opinions on the EU, he is clueless on every single thing. The economy, immigration and so on. But what do you expect, UKIP says that a British person is someone who believes in democracy and whatnot. Well, if I can track down my ancestors to 5 centuries ago and they're all English and in the same time, if I don't believe in democracy, I'm not a British person?
And if a Pakistani that never stepped in England believes in democracy he is British? Civic nationality is a huge farce.
latté, how about undoing all the things that destroyed the European family? You know, retirement benefits, welfare, high taxes, public education, all the regulations on how to raise your children and so on? And let childless people starve. That's pretty much how you do it.
And ban immigration. The birth rate wouldn't be such a problem if immigration to Europe was zero and if only the ethnic people of each country were citizens - you know, how things were.
So yes, don't take away the reproductive rights, but don't bail them out of their decisions either. The way I see it, if we are to have retirement benefits, only people who have more than 3 children should get them. After all, otherwise they just leech on the children of others.
Sorry for my belated responses due to unavoidable commitments elsewhere.
In the meantime, I see the thread has mushroomed. I will first respond to earlier posts of Sagunto and Zenster, then try to read through the ensuing discussion.
I thank Baron Bodissey for his nice thumbs up earlier on.
Damn. In the 30 seconds since I wrote my promise to respond, I have received a large infusion of work to do at my "day job". Must postpone my responses for later.
RV, I think my voluntary, gentle, free-market approach would be easier, and more people would cooperate. That's why it's so good. Your suggestions could work, but why be so harsh and create so much resistance?
Culture has changed, and in some ways, for the better. Regardless of the fact that the changes in the family and women's reproductive rights have had bad effects, they are not all bad. I think women can keep their rights, especially if the responsibility of having children can be outsourced, just like most first world people won't spend their lives picking lettuce, so we outsource that, not fantasize about the good old days when everyone who lived in the country did back-breaking, repetitive labor, unless they were rich.
The strange thing about this artificial struggle between traditionalists and libertarian/feminists, is that no one except me is thinking of how to solve all our problems with technology and private enterprise. Otherwise pragmatic people want to win an impossible power struggle. Why not just avoid it, and create the babies white people want and need without the work so many women don't want to do? We're paying third world people to have their babies so they can replace us. Isn't that absurd?
latte island: As an educated middle class woman, I think that the idea to outsource childbirth on a large scale is a non-starter.
To start with, most Western women want to conceive, birth and raise their own babies - in a loving committed marital relationship.
In my experience, it is modern men who are often too immature and/or selfish to commit to marriage and a family.
Egghead, that's true, but it's not the whole truth. Every woman has a different reason, and I propose to give people a new option that they can use or not. I personally know committed couples who are desperate to adopt, and these people get exploited financially and emotionally by cynical overseas adoption agencies. There most certainly is a baby shortage, and getting a baby, even a disabled foreign one, is expensive and emotionally harrowing.
If couples, or singles, or anyone who wanted a baby, had an alternative to what's available now, the white birthrate would go through the roof exactly nine months after the first ads went on the internet. And for women who don't want to be stay at home moms, why not pay those surrogate mothers to be nannies, without offering them citizenship, of course.
My mom always had a housekeeper to cope with me and my brother. That's one thing from the past I'd bring back, because it worked and was voluntary, not coercive. I wonder, for someone like my mother, a career woman who also wanted children, was the availability of black and European women to do housework the factor that enabled them to have children? And remember, we are paying third world women anyway, they might as well do something for us. Childcare would be more affordable, if there were no welfare for able-bodied people.
I'm fond of Thomas Paine's thought that, "There is a bastard kind of generosity, which, by being extended to all men, is as fatal to society, on one hand, as the want of true generosity is on the other." It's the generosity that ensures that ER services must be available to foreigner invaders regardless of the cost to U.S. citizens or of even the closure of the very hospitals forced to service the foreigners. Similarly, it's the generosity that feebly confers the extraordinary gift of citizenship on the children of foreign invaders who give birth to them on U.S. soil. The Fourteenth Amendment was drafted in the 19th century before anyone ever contemplated that the inhospitable southern border would one day become the gateway for million upon million foreigners to walk into the country. Nonetheless, the Court's twisting it out of shape is meekly accepted, even embraced by, the moon calf citizenry.
The Immigration Reform Act of 1965 became the icing on the cake. The question apparently on the lips of every native born American son was, "Given that the idea of America is vindicated only by a constant supply of immigrants, what foreigners will add the greatest value to my neighborhood?" As we see from the result that flowed from that Act, the correct answer to that question was deemed to be, "Somalis, Mexicans, and Nigerians."
There was simply no principled way to gainsay this answer, at least not one readily labeled as "racism."
Lawrence Auster writes of the bedrock Western or American principle of absolute non-discrimination. That and the discussion here of altruism, human rights, and Christian charity proceed from the same basic idea – we are helpless to withhold our resources (and the protection of our laws) from any who request them.
In addition to this, there is the hubris of the intellectuals who confuse technical and scientific advance with mastery over creation and, seeing no limit to the powers of intellect informed by four years of advanced undergraduate study, assume that if there is resistance to elite plans for the betterment of man it must proceed from a deliberate obtuseness if not downright malevolence. They naively think that Tocqueville's soft tyranny can be safely contained by the benign technocrats and that modern rationality and technology have superseded the need for antiquated constitutions.
That's the "good" news.
The bad news, of course, is that there are people whose interests very much stand to be advanced by inundation of the native U.S. population. Some wish to effect irreversible political change to bring about a Marxist revolution.
Most Americans have little inclination, to study up on communist subversion and most seems not to sense the incredible danger of a people with a fundamentally incompatible culture and religion being set loose in Western lands. It's as though Muslim immigrants would be no worse than Swedish immigrants who might one day be emboldened, say, to insist that league night at the bowling hall be Wednesday instead of Friday.
All told, it's a deadly combination of misplaced charity, paper thin rationality, self deception, and devious political calculation. The allure of sexual liberation and the vapid, subversive drivel pumped out by Hollywood add another layer of misery and ensure that no warning will sound. Without fail, Islamic terrorists and subversives will all be morphed into neo-Nazis or greedy corporate CEOs.
What, me worry?
Sagunto,
Finally I'm back. I hope I'm not too late. (In the meantime, aside from my "day job", I became mired in a thread at Jihad Watch where -- although I have been unfairly banned from there by Spencer, a prodigious off topic about me has arisen and mushroomed; and since I am forbidden from participating there, I have found myself in the amusing and annoying situation of having to respond and comment from afar. Even more amusing and more annoying, all of the Jihad Watchers who are against me, so to speak (and that seems to be the vast majority, excepting only two), have chosen to discuss me over there, rather than at my blog: As I noted on my blog, if they are worried that by coming over to my little humble blog they will somehow boost my fame, they are not thinking -- for since Jihad Watch has thousands of more readers than my blog does, they are only serving to give me free advertisement.)
Anywho:
Sagunto, once we agree that neither of us are conspiracy theorists or Spenglerian pessimists brooding over an immanentized eschaton of impending doom for the West, we may still disagree on relative weight we place on the light or dark of the chiaroscuro of the modern West. All societies and all civilizations, at any given era, are "the best of times and the worst of times". One must therefore be judicious and careful about pronouncements of gravely foreboding trends whereby "everything is getting worse" (whose flip side of the coin is "things were grand (if not idyllic) back in the old days").
While De Tocqueville is not someone to sneeze at, it doesn't mean he may not have been indulging a bit in broad strokes of prognostication. Many of the dismaying qualities he divines may be found in all societies, and likely in the very society in which he was writing. To extrapolate from the perennial problems of any given society -- to leave the grounding of the wisdom of a Hesiod, for example, and take flight in an imagined future where the people will become virtual slaves to this, that and the other foible of human nature magnified and solidified by that imagination is, I think, the rub of the matter.
I therefore conclude, tentatively, with a perspective that, in a sense, uses Chesterton's perspicuity against him, so to speak (even as, in principle, it agrees with it): I dare say that exaggerating the bad (even the bad of the good, pace Chesterton) and minimizing or misapprehending the good of PC MC whilst simply -- and simplistically -- focusing on the ostensibly obvious bad, may prove to be a grievous error in judgment concerning where we are, where we are going, and what we should do to steer our good ship through the icebergs of Islam.
Believe me, I am no Pollyannish optimist. There have been quite a few moments over the past decade when deep inside, I felt tempted to give up hope. One such moment, for example, was in the immediate aftermath of the Ft. Hood shooting, when a leading General of the U.S. Military in effect pronounced that "protecting diversity" is more important than preventing such guerilla atrocities. But, I soldier on, and try not to give in to the temptation to find easy (or even complex) explanations through one scapegoat or another.
The Hesperado
rebelliousvanilla,
"my mother won a few international awards in her field yet she's a political idiot."
That's the paradox of modern Western PC MC: ostensibly, we have the fact of intelligent people thinking stupidly. This paradox should not be resolved one way or the other:
1) they are intelligent, and therefore knowingly support Islam, and thus logically have to be evil
or:
2) they are not really intelligent but just plain stupid.
That's why I coined my term Quantum Ignorance as a hopefully useful label for the phenomenon, which then needs to be adequately described, with an attempt at explaining at least in part how it evolved, and how it came to enjoy mainstream dominance throughout the entire West.
Conceptually and philosophically, it's an interesting balancing act we have to perform: We have to account adequately for the deformation or disease both in substance and in extent; but on the other hand, we can't succumb to the temptation to let the magnitude of the deformation lead us to the ostensibly logical conclusion of damning the West (throwing the baby out with the bathwater).
I.e., it has to be just bad enough to account for the harm we see being done, without it being so bad as to reveal an underlying evil that makes the West not worth saving.
(One way out of the latter dilemma, of course, is to posit some Knowing Remnant of Mad Max Apocalyptic Militia Revolutionaries who will hunker down then fight against the majority of Westerners around them + against Muslims, and hopefully survive in some enclave in New Zealand, perhaps (or maybe even win the Apocalyptic Civil War). Such a scenario is impermissible.)
Zenster,
"Not dim, irrational."
Sorry, I was referring to "dim" in the sense of "dark" -- i.e., that it seems you view your fellow Westerner, generally, in darkly cynical terms. I may be wrong, or may need to slightly adjust that impression.
You concede the unremarkable fact of the modern West's astounding progress --
No flock of "sheeple" could land a man on the moon etc.
Then you go on to a specific condemnation of Obama's regime:
That said, a large component of America's media and political leadership is instilling the most appalling sort of rubbish in our people's minds. Obama's entire campaign platform was based on platitudes of "hope and change" without any concrete policy framework.
This overlooks the facts of Obama's massive appeal and his election victory. These two facts indicate either that millions of American people are either
1) stupid
2) insane
3) evil
or...
My principle is to rule out 1, 2 and 3 and seek a more reasonable explanation. That reasonable explanation is complex, but in a nutshell would be that there has developed a worldview that has become dominant and mainstream, whereby good virtues and intelligence are re-routed culturally and psychologically such that millions of people sincerely, decently and intelligently -- with of course the usual caveat of "relatively speaking" -- believe that Obama and his vision for America is harmonious with those good virtues that are part of modern Western progress.
And they are correct, on one level. That precisely is the rub.
[continued next comment]
[continued from last comment]
Were they simply and wholly incorrect, we could start dividing up America, and the West, into a Manichean division of Good and Evil, roll up our shirtsleeves, and get to work on the upcoming Civil War. But I'm afraid it's not so simple; and worse, I'm afraid of what can and will be done by too many people convinced of such simplistic diagnoses and solutions.
And of course, I'm not faulting our side in this propensity; no doubt, the PC MCs and the Leftists often indulge in a prejudiced stereotype of their sociopolitical opponents (e.g., "Teabaggers" and all the attendant associations that trail from there like the tin can litter of a trailer trash bride-&-groom driving away from their Vegas wedding).
More broadly speaking about your particular example of Obama, while I agree he's abominable and abysmal, the complaints you level could be heard levelled at every President going back to Washington. While there are genuinely misguided and grievously wrongheaded agendas and policies going on with the Obama regime, one has to resist the temptation to elevate those ills of his regime into some kind of apocalyptic explanation by which we would measure a Solution that would finally solve the problem of evil (or at least solve the Hesiodian ills that have afflicted every society throughout all history).
Similarly, while this other statement of yours is broader in scope, it suffers, in my estimation, from a similar tendency to exaggerate the symptoms into something epochal on the road to apocalyptic:
I still maintain that in the process of abandoning the rigors of intellectually honest cogitation, people are willingly allowing themselves to dumb down and that is a massive danger.
One has only to realize that most people in the 19th century, for example, weren't much different in this regard -- or the 18th century, or 17th; etc. I.e., society has always had a relative ratio of a small minority concerned about intellectuality and cultural sophistication, compared with masses of people who worked (or idled) then used their free time for mindless (or at least un-intellectual) pursuits. Indeed, in former centuries, people were more exhausted by work, there was less free time, and less availability of education and tools for self-education.
I am not trying to argue that the 20th century was astronomically suoperior to the 19th; just that a tendency to excessively denigrate the 20th and solidify that denigration into some kind of archetype of a unique civilizational disease is erroneous. Indeed, there were many qualities of life superior in the 19th century West, compared with the 20th. But that's just to say that any two complex things one is comparing has good and bad, comparatively to bounce back and forth.
In more focused terms, I must say I found your condemnation of television to be simplistic (indeed, it has been Leftist or PC MC Wilsonians who have been the most critical of television -- particularly, of course, American television):
One look at how television programming consistently panders to the very lowest common denominator...
I think you are exaggerating the glass half empty here. One could adduce innumerable examples of the virtues of television, both in its qualities of comedy and drama, and in the amounts of information it has been able to provide. Needless to say, any appraisal that may praise television need not be based upon ignoring its many flaws. The point is, your view seems to be committing the mirror-image opposite fallacy -- of a wholesale condemnation.
The Hesperado
Hesperado, maybe the first half of the 20th century was better. The amount of work a household with the same number of children is going up, not down, to maintain a proper living standard.
I agree with your reply besides the continuation. And this is exactly why I hope the current 'West' will be completely destroyed. As an European, the 'West' threatens the survival of my people, so it is by default my enemy.
The only objection I have is that you have a romantic view of people. Most of them ARE mindless sheep.
http://contingencyplanning.com/articles/2008/03/04/researcher-says-95-percent-of-people-are-sheep-following-flock-in-disaster-scenarios.aspx
And there are tons of other studies that verify this one.
Hesperado, I suppose that you think Einstein was an idiot, since he was a socialist. And most people are stupid outside their field of expertise. And in terms of opinions and consensus - these are driven by a minority of people(like the study that I cited).
For instance, I openly admit that I am completely clueless about geography. If you were to travel with me and I had to take you somewhere and we got lost, you'd think that I'm either stupid or that I wanted you to get lost. lol
And I feel like giving up each time someone who is supposedly on the right supports civic citizenship. Or people who keep worrying more about the Jews than Russians or that use the word racism. Anybody who appeals to Trotskyite concepts like racism can't really be on the right.
Egghead, no offense, but if I was a man, I wouldn't want to commit to the modern woman either. First of all, the only things I could get from a woman as a man are house keeping and family. As long as a woman isn't willing to have a crappier car for the sake of doing those, committing to her is pointless. A man can get laid with women of the same age as he ages - so that's not really a reason to commit to someone. Actually, over all, women of today are not marriageable. I'm not saying that today's men aren't immature, since I have to find the mature ones, but they don't care about committing due to how most of us are.
latté, my solution is free market based. I merely remove the moral hazards created by governments. If I will have six children, I don't want them to pay any taxes to support old people. They should support only me and my husband in my old age. This just to give you an example.
Also, I crack up that you think we somehow live in a rich place. We used to be rich when we afforded keeping half of the population regardless of age at home. Women not working is a sign of economic success. Sure, the option to work is nice, but having to work is an economic failure. Anyway, it is simple - I don't want to fund anything of anybody besides of my family and forcing me to do that isn't free market based.
And the power struggle isn't impossible. Today's culture and prosperity will be destroyed. The latter is gone already - all it takes is creditors to ask their money back. And I will be joyous when Western culture will perish. I'd also like to suggest to you that people who want to have surrogate mothers can pay them to have kids now too. What you want though is to force others to pay others to have the children that you can't be bothered to have. It doesn't work that way.
RV wrote: What you want though is to force others to pay others to have the children that you can't be bothered to have
Not at all. I'll be more explicit. I want some entrepreneur, and this would be me if I had the money, to offer this as a service. It wouldn't be just one service, there would be a variety of options for people with various issues. And they would pay for it themselves. Such a business could do everything more cheaply and with less stress than regular adoption agencies, and offer women the option to have their own children even if they don't want the physical stress of pregnancy and childbirth, which can be a deal-breaker for some.
And the best part of all: while the surrogate mothers are pregnant with white babies, that prevents them from having their own. This is exactly why I've been thinking about this for quite a while, but I've only posted it the other day--because it's frankly racist and pro-eugenics, and even conservatives won't go as far as I do.
How many embryos from middle-class, high iq white couples are sitting around in freezers, while we pay semi-retarded hostiles to breed eight or more little ones we taxpayers have to support? If pro-white people would stop whining about feminists, and just pay some third world peasants to have white babies, there would be very little to complain about, demographically speaking. There is nothing to prevent every child in Africa and parts of Asia from being white within one generation, except for the squeamishness of almost everyone but extreme racists like me, and people who hate feminism so much, they'd rather everyone be black and brown, than concede that maybe it's okay for some women to work instead of having children, because they don't want to.
And so many internet people have this completely fake view of history that all this is recent. My grandmother had 6 children, and my mother and and her brother and sisters had two children each. This was before anyone heard of feminism. They were ordinary, upwardly mobile, not especially political. The women just decided, on their own, that they didn't want to be like their mother, who slaved for her family and didn't do anything else but go to shul (synagague). That's not political, it's just people wanting a better life. Young people, deal with it, it's not all feminist brainwashing, some people genuinely don't want to be like grandma.
And I'll add that this "culture war" meme will be the death of us all. Pay attention: some people are different. They're not brainwashed Marxists, they're just people who want to make their own decisions. Can everyone just mind their own business and solve our problems? News flash: there are a lot of people who don't hate Christians and don't hate men, but who want to do something other than be housewives. They are not the enemy. Repeat, they are not the enemy. Some of us are looking in the wrong place. Please, for the sake of white survival, stop obsessing about what your neighbors are doing. It's none of your business, and they are not necessarily out to get you. This white on white infighting is getting us nowhere.
I've had bad relationships too, but when I grew up, I stopped blaming other people. That's what some of us need to do.
latté, I actually don't care, but I will always root for the destruction of a society that puts comfort over anything, regardless of the ethnicity of the people inside it(especially one that is willing to demean the worth of life for the sake of comfort). It's the same as the idiots who are racially aware, yet support socialism on the basis of ethnic loyalty. I'd always ask those people what did they do for their ethnic group that makes them worth consideration.
In the same time, if we are to live in such a society, I want the complete privatization of every aspect of society - schools, health, law enforcement(and the complete obliteration of any big project in which people outside a neighborhood can decide what happens in the other one) and the like. All these are worth supporting only in a homogeneous place, both in terms of blood and creed.
And I'd like to know where would you get money for your stupid project. In case you didn't figure it out, we have a huge population of idiots who squandered everything that they earned and inherited and now think that they are entitled to retirement benefits and we have a ton of debt(you somehow think that people who owe on average 80% of GDP and this is with Enron accounting are rich - OECD nations being these people). I think it would be far cheaper to just kill all non-whites. Why not just do that instead? Not that I'm advocating, just curious.
By the way, I'm curious. Why does the survival of white people matter anyway? And to point it out, I don't see Muslims or nonwhites as my enemy. They didn't win any war to be citizens in our countries, for instance. I see every single person who enabled it as a traitor though. So no, it is exactly about what whites think and act like. And you still didn't point out how you want anything but force others to pay others, so that you have a comfortable life. On the other hand, I don't care. I can live in a gated community while everyone else works for slave wages too - which is the future.
There are no gates strong enough to keep determined Muslim mobs out of Western enclaves - which would be targeted as containing infidels.
In any case, the Muslims could just lob missiles over your gates as happens in Israel.
Okay, just one more little thing. Where did the third world population explosion come from? They didn't do it on their own. It was engineered by white do-gooders who gave them free food and medical care, without tying it to birth control. If every white woman had 10 children, it still wouldn't be enough to compete with the others. The key is to manage their fertility, not ours.
Egghead, the reason why Palestinians afford doing that is that they don't live in their own country on who Israel can declare war. On the other hand, if you refer to Muslims already in the West, you can easily build a wall around them and control everything going in and out through its gates as trade.
latté, the problem was us sharing technology with them and giving them aid. Still, i'd hardly care about how many Africans are in the world as long as they are in Africa.
Post a Comment