Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Cool War — Warm War — Hot War

This is the latest in a series of essays from the British author Paul Weston.

Cool War — Warm War — Hot War
Part 1

by Paul Weston

If there is one issue on which the liberal/left and I can agree, it is that neither party wishes to see another war in Europe. My personal feeling is that the suicidal belief systems of the Western elites will not only lead to war, but — as an added bonus — also serve as a virtual blueprint on how to subsequently lose it. Such a paranoid outlook, of course, is not shared with those of the spiritually enlightened left.

They are more in tune with the European Union’s motto, “United In Diversity” which in truth is more a phrase of liberal wishful thinking than one grounded in reality. There are several groups of people who would testify to this, notably the Serbs, Croats and Muslims of ex-Yugoslavia, the non-Muslim Africans in the Sudan, the Jews of Israel and their dwindling remainder in the Middle East, the Tutsis and the Hutus, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland or even the Flemish and Walloon populations of Belgium itself — to name but a few.

Arbeit Macht FreiIn fact, it would be hard to find a phrase exhibiting such an awe-inspiring example of utter historical ignorance coupled with sinister Orwellian doublethink, save perhaps for “Arbeit Macht Frei”, the “welcome” sign above the gates of Auschwitz concentration camp.

It should never be forgotten that the Nazi party were the one-time allies of the Communists, those moral-free “egalitarians” whose present day ideological progeny now run the European Union on unelected soft totalitarian fiat, unashamed that their motto harks back to the sloganeering of genocidal regimes, and unaware, apparently, that they are setting the wheels in motion for future genocidal conflict.

What the liberal/left palpably fail to realise, is that not only must our present policy of “United In Diversity” — manifested as it is, in mass immigration and multicultural relativism — inevitably lead to war, but that we are already at war on many fronts, and we are losing all of them.

A full scale war between Islam and the West, should it materialise, will be the “Hot War” that must logically follow the “Cool” and “Warm” wars currently being waged in Europe specifically, and the West as a whole.

The cool war is carried out on a number of fronts and is made up of the culture/civilisation war; the political/propaganda war; the demographic/immigration war; the territorial war; the faith war and the knowledge war. The warm war is made up of terrorism, jihad, and the end game of total war, described by James Burnham in his book Suicide Of The West as: “Political control over acreage.”

The Culture / Civilisation War
- - - - - - - - -
The culture/civilisation war has been ongoing for several decades, but appears to be reaching its peak in the attitude demonstrated not only by the vitriolic hatred shown toward the West by radical Islam, but also by the liberal elites of Western societies as well, who appear to perversely loathe their own people and their own culture.

On Sep 8 2001, the UN held a conference in Durban, under the heading: “The United Nations Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance And Xenophobia.” America, aware of the impending anti-Western hate mongering, declined to join them, but the best of the rest of the West were arrayed in force. America’s suspicion turned out to be remarkably prescient. The event turned into a hate fest.

The Cuban dictator Fidel Castro was introduced to rapturous applause as: “The leader of the most democratic country in the world” whilst Robert Mugabe, the altogether barmy President of Zimbabwe, taking a well-earned rest from the persecution of his white and black countrymen, was similarly cheered to the rafters in his denunciation of the white imperialist oppressor; his ovation only surpassed by that offered up for the Syrian Prime Minister’s denial of the Holocaust.

Britain’s Tony Blair, France’s Lionel Jospin, Canada’s Jean Chretien, and an aesthetically displeasing assortment of Europe’s great and good, beat their collective breasts in time with the rhythmic thudding of the anti-racist bongo drums, offering no counter-arguments such as the ethnic cleansing of whites from Zimbabwe, or the imprisoning of AIDS victims in the Cuban “socialist paradise,” choosing instead to raise their soft, bruised hands aloft and proclaim “Yes, you are correct. We are white, we are Western and we are GUILTY!

The UN’s Mary Robinson declared the event a great success. The oppressors and the oppressed packed their bags, paused briefly at the airport to exchange a little more brown hatred for white guilt, and went home. Forty-eight hours later, Muslim terrorists flew three hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, thus ensuring celebrations all over the non-Western world, indeed even within the West itself, where Muslims danced in the streets and liberal Western intellectuals crowed that America had finally been given the bloody nose she so manifestly deserved.

WTC on 9-11No doubt those noted anti-racists, Mugabe and Castro, danced until dawn, such vitriol and hatred for the first world from the third being nothing new. But even with 9/11 on top of the obscene appeasement in Durban, our liberal elites still refused to admit to themselves that their culture was any better than that of Islam’s. Nothing personifies this more than the controversy caused by the remarks made by (the then) Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who, in the wake of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist outrages, stated:

“We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights, and — in contrast with Islamic countries — respect for religious and political rights.”

Such a statement, at such a time, should not have been controversial. After all, how could Western Civilisation possibly be held as the moral and cultural equivalent of Islam — a religious and political ideology that orchestrated and celebrated the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah?

But controversial it turned out to be. No sooner had the words left his lips than a bevy of European politicians rushed to denounce his heresy. Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, said: “I can hardly believe that the Italian Prime Minister made such statements!” whilst Jean Christophe-Filori, the spokesman for the European Commission, added: “We certainly don’t share the view expressed by Mr. Berlusconi,” and to round off a positively surreal day of reality denial and anti-Western loathing, Italy’s centre left opposition spokesman, Giovanni Berlinguer, called the statement “eccentric and dangerous.” Faced with such an onslaught, Berlusconi was forced to retract his factually correct statement within a matter of days.

Such anti-Western sentiment is no longer merely confined to the mindset of our ruling elites. By successfully infiltrating the educational establishments, the liberal/left have captured the most important section of society that any wannabe totalitarian regime could wish for; the unformed minds of unquestioning small children, upon whom they could indoctrinate and brainwash to their hearts content.

The liberal/left culture war in our schools and universities has been carried out over at least four decades, and has been extraordinarily successful. Targeting children as young as three in order to “unlearn” racism, young Westerners have been persuaded that their history is one of national imperialism, Christian imperialism, white privilege, oppression, genocide and racial brutality. They have been brainwashed into believing that their country, race, religion, culture and history — or more succinctly, the very essence of their being — is not something to be proud of, but something to be ashamed of.

This is a powerful and potentially lethal form of disarmament. Wars have always been fought over four basic impulses: the acquisition of territory, the subjugation of a race or tribe, the subjugation of a religion and the subjugation of a culture. If young Westerners are as ashamed — as they say they are — of their country, race, religion, culture and history, then they will not be particularly keen to even verbally defend them, as is the case today, let alone to fight and die for them. As, no doubt, was the intention.

Palestinian childrenSome may say the removal of reasons to fight can only be a good thing, that it will lead to peace and prosperity for all men, for all time. But multiculturalism does not work that way. Whilst we are shamed into perpetual appeasement, the non-European and non-Christian groups within the West are taught the exact opposite. Their cultures and their religions are held up as paragons of virtue, they are taught to think and act as distinct racial or religious groups, whilst being encouraged to believe that any difference in civilisational success between their culture and Western culture is due solely to their historical and present day oppression by the prejudiced West.

As wars are traditionally fought by males, so another vital part of the culture war is to remove the natural aggression prevalent amongst boys and adolescents. To this end, young Western males are encouraged — nee forced — to lay down their toy guns, end their games of cowboys and Indians, cease taking part in competitive sport with its inevitable winners and losers, and instead to play with dolls, get in touch with their “inner selves,” develop their “self esteem” through the “medium of dance” and to express their “emotions” in “empathy workshops.”

Christina Hoff Sommers details this obscenely sexist social engineering in The War Against Boys, where she writes:

There are now conferences, workshops and institutes dedicated to transforming boys. Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, writes of the problems of boy’s masculinity. “We’ve deconstructed the old version of manhood, but we’ve not yet constructed a new version…” In the spring of 2000 the boys’ project at Tufts offered five workshops on “Reinventing Boyhood” where the planners promised emotionally exciting sessions: “We’ll laugh and cry, argue and agree, reclaim and sustain the best parts of the culture of boys, whilst figuring out how to change the terrible parts.

Christina goes on to quote the words of “gender experts” at a meeting made up of feminists from Harvard, Wellesley and Tufts:

“It may be too late to change adult men. Boys on the other hand are still salvageable — providing one gets to them at an early age.” As one keynote speaker said, “We have an amazing opportunity here, Kids are so malleable.”

Gloria Steinem is of the same opinion, once saying: “We badly need to raise boys more like we raise girls.”

This evil social engineering is now par for the course in the West — but it gets worse. When little boys rebel against this warped ideology of enforced feminisation, they are diagnosed with various psychiatric disorders and “ritalinned” to the eyeballs in an attempt to chemically achieve what brainwashing could not. In Britain, some 60,000 children, principally of course boys, now suffer this abuse.

Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is not usually known for the last man part of the title, but I think he was implying the last man to be the last “alpha male,” that patriarchal upholder of masculinity so despised by the perverse Marxist mindset that now controls our educational establishments. Whenever a potential alpha male rears his patriarchal little head, our quasi-Marxist educators reach for their psychoanalytical Rolodex and the keys to the drug cabinet.

This does not happen within the Muslim faith schools, the madrassahs and the mosques, where masculinity is pushed to the other extreme. Whilst little Western boys learn about the merits of femininity, and become, as Ann Coulter so wonderfully puts it — “girly men” — little Muslim boys learn about male dominance, violent jihad and the superiority of Islam over the infidel kuffar.

Palestinian militiaAs the little Muslim boys grow into adolescence, there are any number of mosques they can attend to further reinforce their ideology. It is no longer a secret that many of the 2,000 mosques across Europe are funded to the tune of 90 billion dollars by Saudi Arabia, that they promote extreme Saudi Wahhabism and actively encourage violent jihad against the West.

If the entire world was full of feminised men then perhaps we could, as the liberal/left persistently shrill, “give peace a chance,“ but in a continent of Western girly men and masculine Muslim Jihadists, it is obvious who has the upper hand. As feminists (male and female) continue with their social engineering of Western boys, whilst refusing to condemn the inculcated aggression of Muslim boys, one is led to conclude that this is not simply a case of typical short-sighted liberal stupidity, but a deliberate attempt to further negate the ability of Western males to recognise the threat before them, let alone stand toe to toe with the enemy.

One peculiar aspect along with the feminisation of boys is the concurrent “masculinisation” of girls and young women, who are no longer encouraged to become housewives and mothers. Instead, they are brainwashed into dressing in men’s clothes, entering the work place and embarking on careers; the proceeds from which should be spent on the latest “must have” baubles and trinkets so beloved of both magpies and women’s’ lifestyle magazines.

A little harsh, a little sexist some might say, but it is important that is said nonetheless. Western women have put careers before children, and as a result — for the first time in the history of womankind — we are no longer replacing ourselves. If we did this for long enough we would become extinct, leading one to believe, quite naturally, that such a deviation is unnatural. Masculinised women, as well as feminised men, have become denatured.

Does this denaturing of the Western people matter? Well, yes it does; it is of supreme importance. The driving force of all living organisms is reproduction and survival. Western women have ceased to reproduce at a replacement level, thereby giving the hard left just the excuse they needed to foment revolutionary change in the Christian, capitalist West — which they eagerly carry out via the importation of inalienably alien third world immigrants with a history of anti-Western aggression.

Whilst Western women have forgotten nature’s law of reproduction; Western men — brainwashed into dhimmitude and unable to comprehend invasion when they see it — have similarly forgotten what it takes to survive. If one asked an anthropologist the likely future for a species that spurned nature’s most fundamental requirement, he would answer with one word — extinction.

If the coming war was fought only by the products of our liberal establishment, then look out Vienna. Feminised men will find the singing of Beatles peace songs whilst performing androgynous dance moves singularly ineffective as a defence mechanism when confronted with scimitar wielding bearded fanatics. When our backs are to the wall, the feminists will look to the currently smeared alpha male types — if there are any left — for their defence.

And they had better hope that there are. Feminists have little appreciation of the “spoils of war” mentality Should Europe fall to Islam, the peculiar feminist theory that ALL penetrative sex is rape, would suddenly become not just a hazy memory, but a longed-for return to the good old bad old days, when Western men were still men and it was just the desert roaming camels looking nervously over their humps with an air of doleful resignation.

It is no bad thing to remove the impulse for war from the minds of Western man, but to do so whilst actively encouraging mass immigration from the third world and to simultaneously inflame their tribalism and resentment, smacks not simply of double standards, but the deliberate importation of one increasingly radicalised group at the expense of an indigenous population, brainwashed into appeasement.

What would have been obvious to previous generations of men, those who lived through or shortly after WWII, is no longer obvious to the brainwashed and feminised Western male. The inhabitants of European nation states have allowed an utterly alien culture to cross their territorial border, dismantle their culture, colonise their cities, rape their women, and blow their citizens up; all the while calling for the overthrow of the West. If European males think this is something to “celebrate” as liberal/left orthodoxy would imply, then we are in terrible trouble. Perhaps if I shout it loudly enough, they may hear me:

“You are not engaging in some mutual act of multicultural tolerance. Your country is being invaded!”

As a final note: what should be all too apparent is that the civilisational war against the West is not carried out by external forces, but by our own rulers, against their own people. This is of course, wholly unprecedented in the history of mankind.

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

To be continued.

I have only covered one small aspect of the assault, both from without and within, against the West. This may yet run to three or four articles.


. said...

When I see the EU slogan "Unity Through Diversity," I see a good cause - when applied to those of a European culture. What is often missing from the EU bashing that goes on here is that the EU was formed in response to several hundred years of ruinous warfare between various European nation-states, culminating in the catastrophes of World Wars I and II. A pan-European identity is an attempt to end the cycle, and it is working. I don't think this basic goal should be thrown away because of current problems.

The problem lies when the "diversity" is expanded to include non-Europeans, most notably Muslim immigrants. Unlike the U.S. or Canada, which are built upon the diversity of immigration and assimilation of those immigrants, whether they be from Britain, Germany, Ireland, Eastern Europe, Italy, Africa, the Middle East, India, or the Far East, "Europe" is a racial and cultural construct, and flushing this construct down the toilet in the name of "solidarity with the Third World," or a misguided attempt to remake Europe in a Northern American mold, is the mistake that Europe must avoid.

The answer to the problems with today's EU is to throw out its current leaders and replace them with a new set that want to preserve and enhance a European (not world-wide) diversity. The answer is not the destruction of the EU and a return to the destructive nationalisms that have plagued European history.

. said...

In my laundry list of sources of immigration to the U.S., I have a huge omission - Central and South America!

Homophobic Horse said...

Demasculinised girly men? I'd say that not since the medieval times have men been so irrepressibly violent. Just check out the town centre at night. It's awful. No respectable person goes into a British town centre after dark, no one. And it wasn't like this 10 years ago.

May I present my own line of thinking.

All of modern psychology is aimed at producing a state of mind called "decentralisation". This is opposed to "centralisation".

Centralisation is a state of mind where one has a goal, is fixed on that goal, and deploying all resources and effort at achieving that goal.

Centralisation example: Leading an Army into the unknown with the hope for victory. (All men like to fancy themselves as great warriors, as any sensitive person should have noticed, that's why they hate being called cowards, or rebuked for having poor moral qualities by feminists)

Decentralisation is an abject state of mind, ubiquitous, it accepts no responsibilities, makes no serious decisions, has no sense of importance and believes itself justified in its attitude by consensus of social agreement.

Example: Crowds of idiots gently swaying to ambient techno, playing with dolls, get in touch with their “inner selves,” develop their “self esteem” through the “medium of dance” and to express their “emotions” in “empathy workshops" and singing of Beatles peace songs whilst performing androgynous dance moves.

Obviously it is not in the interests of liberals for people to be possessed with an objective they may not benefit from or share - it's something they can't control. This applies to both sexes, though not equally. In schools for instance, girls are more tolerant of carrying out pointless tasks set by hostile authorities whilsts boys just want their freedom back. Which is why they play up and are then subjected to psychiatric assault. I remember, I was one of them.

But anyway, the anger that comes from being forced into a decentralised position can express itself in many ways. Boys get violent and petulant, girls starve and cut themselves. These behaviours fester away into adulthood. They are all evidence of displaced anger that can be attributed in part to state schooling. Most people will never figure it out, it's as though they suffer from PTSD but they can't remember what the trauma is.

But my main point is this: Gender is a red herring.

Pax Federatica said...

“You are not engaging in some mutual act of multicultural tolerance. Your country is being invaded!”

To which the EU Left would undoubtedly respond, "Country? What country? What is a country?"

Remember, the ideology we're talking about is the same one that aspires to a totally borderless planet, exemplified by the now functionally borderless Europe created by that ideology's prime movers. And as I've pointed out here on numerous occasions, the Westphalian model is on increasingly thin ice outside of Europe as well, with cultural globalization doing to the traditional nation-state as a (probably) unintended consequence what the EU is doing by design.

History Snark said...

Homophobic Horse;

You actually argue for one of the points of the article when you say

"Just check out the town centre at
night. It's awful. No respectable person goes into a British town centre after dark,".

Why don't people go there? Because of gangs of "Immigrant youths". They're violent because they've been taught that men should be men, their culture is superior, etc.

Meanwhile, the British men (and mind you, I'm an American, so I write based on what I read here and other blogs) are taught the opposite- again, as this essay argues- and also have respect for the laws which deny them the right to self-defense.

If law-abiding Brits were allowed to carry pistols like Americans are, the city centers would be somewhat safer. Shoot one thug, and he's gone. Also, perhaps his friends will learn from the mistakes of the dead thug.

Further, my understanding is that British police don't always bother arresting thugs, and when they do, the latter is released back into society in no time.

How does this deter anything? How does it teach a thug from, say, Pakistan, that he needs to respect the British people and the British laws?

Short answer, it doesn't.

So the criminals have more protection from their victims, and the victims are forced to hide behind locked doors.

Sounds like a clear example of feminised society versus unfeminised.

xlbrl said...

Your answer will result in an empty space which the poster formerly known as Gordon will be not formerly known as anything.
There will likely not be an election in Europe of non-suicidal government. That already would be largely illegal, and will become more so.
Part of the solution is indeed the eradication of the EU. That nations once caused or were vehicles to war does not in any way inform us that the lack of nations will not lead to war. You are assuming facts not in evidence, and ignoring evidence showing the lack of nationalism hastening suicide.
No matter how this goes down, it will not be orderly, predictable, managable, civilized, or otherwise to your liking. When hard times come on us, we will hold our noses and pick a side.

Homophobic Horse said...

My own home town centre is not made uninhabitable by hordes of bloody foriegners, although they are represented. Poles, for instance, are in the habit of carrying knives and the muslims frequently sport the famous mediterranean machismo. But I when I go there I don't see emasculated white men.. More like the opposite.

I had a conversation with some (female) media studies student (weasel). She, after having watched "Fight Club" decided that men are a "dying breed". A man who doubts his phallus (meaning vitality and fertility/desirability) might worry that it's true. It's objectively wrong. There are many, many, real life fight clubs. You could join one at your local sports centre. They're all above board and they have existed since almost ever.

This whole "feminising" of society idea.. I'm just baffled. I cannot see how it's even slightly true. I think it's promulgated by men with jaded hearts, wracked with self doubt.

I once knew a Communist man who claimed he was a feminist and was always relating to me feminist gender theories. Turned out it was just his idea of seduction (and not a good one). He would basically tell the girls "I know all men are horrible, but I, I am nice.. And gentle." That was kind of his phallus.

Also, the radical feminists who claim "all penetrative sex is rape" I say this, how many women do they actually even know? It's crazy.

Anonymous said...

"A pan-European identity is an attempt to end the cycle, and it is working."

There is no 'pan-European identity', and it's far from working; the reason why there's been no war between major European countries since WWII have little to do with the EU. There's been no war because there was a threat to every European nation from the USSR and there were many thousands of American troops stationed across Europe.

Almost no-one is going to volunteer to die for the EU, whereas plenty would do so for their country or their community. Most of the EU can't even talk to the rest of the EU in their native languages; you can't have a 'pan-European identity' when people can't even communicate.

The fanatics who pushed the destruction of European nations as a means of preventing war were, quite frankly, insane. The cure was far worse than the disease, and will ensure that the next major war in Europe is a civil war, which will be far worse than the European nationalistic wars of the 20th century.

"This whole "feminising" of society idea.. I'm just baffled. I cannot see how it's even slightly true."

Then I can only wonder where you live; the feminists and leftists have been deliberately attempting to destroy masculinity in all its forms for decades. The end result, as with most other idiot leftist schemes has in many ways been quite the opposite with, as has been pointed out, large parts of British cities becoming 'no go zones' thanks to the violent and feral children of both sexes being pumped out by single welfare mothers with no father to discipline them.

Wimbledon Womble said...

Diversity should not include tolerance of those who want to destroy, displace or deny you and your children to live according to your traditions. If immigrants assimilated to their host societies and did not try to destroy that society as soon as there was a quorum big enough to form a mosque, there would be no problem. Europeans and Americans are in agreement here, despite the recent LGF nasties. What right does anyone have to come into your home and tell you to leave or change or submit?

It simply boggles the mind what we are expected to put up with, yet Western civilization (a combination of what is at heart Greek/Roman and Jewish/Christian culture) is by every measure the most successful and advanced to ever appear on the face of the Earth. And it is the West itself that now is overseeing its own destruction.

Any immigrant, even a jihadi posing as one, is just doing what barbarians have always done: simply live, procreate, move, make war and fight in utter indifference to anyone else's laws. We cannot blame immigrants and we cannot even blame jihadis for what we are doing to ourselves. We are opening the doors uncritically to all of these anti-human elements. We are inviting into our home people who want to destroy us, when we could just as easily keep the door shut and locked.

So why are we doing this to ourselves? If it is not just leftist utopian globalists, it is also pro-business globalists. It is globalism and third-worldism and liberal guilt and the capitalist desire for cheap labor and all the rest.

This is not a conspiracy. Conspiracies usually do not survive long and break down when there are more than a handful of people involved. This is simply a massive confluence of different interests, mixed with an unhealthy dose of indifference and Western misguided idealism, the self-loathing of the bored and indolent, cynicism and nihilism.

Whiskey said...

WRT the feminizing of society, I have some dissents.

What I see is a raw struggle for power. On one side, women and Alpha Males. Who have compatible wishes, the women to mate with the Alpha Males and the Alpha Males with the women. Naturally women desire the most socially dominant/powerful man in any society.

Western society has modified/controlled this, offering quite a bit of independence (Muslim visitors in the 1600's Vienna were appalled by Women's independence and deference shown them; Crusaders in the Levant in the 1100's also shocked by what they viewed as degrading treatment of women). But this independence came at a price -- women had to make life-long choices of men, could not just switch off, or be part of a harem, in other words their choice in men were life altering (and/or ruining) event. In such an environment, ordinary men could hope to find a mate and have a family of their own. Their energies and innovation would go to their families and offspring.

Feminists HATE HATE HATE the ordinary man, and the family. They want (quite naturally and understandably) what is best short-term for women: maximizing opportunity for mating with the highest Alpha male.

Most young men are not "feminized" they merely are confused. Women (and feminists in culture) send the message that what is valued in men of being sensitive and such (which of course nothing but lies) and don't often realize until quite later that all that matters is status/power/dominance.

Hoff-Summers shows that dynamic at work -- of course feminists want to remove any possibility of beta males competing with the Alphas. This ties into the status obsession of feminists and the feminist fantasy of social control (which is quite effective on women and a failure among men).

For feminists and women, things have worked out alright in the short run. The opportunity (even a slight one) of mating with an Alpha male is better than the certainty of mating with a beta male. Of course the energy and resources of the aggregation of beta males at places like Salamis and Tours stands for itself. Alpha Male societies resemble that of Arabia or General Butt Naked (in Liberia, yes there is such an individual).

Part and parcel of feminists making war on the average guy, who they detest with a passion (and the antipathy is well understood and mutual).

Immigrants of course are merely shock troops against native working class men. I'm sure we'll see the Freikorps in some form again. These men are stuck. They have nothing to lose -- no families or wives or children. What better way to advance one's self than leading a struggle against alien invaders when the government leaves or abdicates all responsibility for public safety and order?

Napoleon illustrates how far even a humble man can go in such a way.

Alexis said...

As a final note: what should be all too apparent is that the civilisational war against the West is not carried out by external forces, but by our own rulers, against their own people. This is of course, wholly unprecedented in the history of mankind.

Your point is taken, although you may wish to read the history of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

During the 1800's, the kingdom's rulers allied with American Protestant missionaries against their own people. I perceive the conquest of Hawaii by its ethnic Anglo-American minority as a blueprint for how outside forces can conquer a society with the aid of that society's own central government.

Your predicament may be wholly unprecedented in the history of western civilization, though.

Bert Rustle said...

Kim du Toit has written (with some swearing) on
The Pussification Of The Western Male and his wife has responded
The Other Side .

X said...

pfkagordon, I'm sorry to say you've bought the lies about the EU.

This union was conceived in the aftermath of world war 1 as an answer to the byzantine alliances that created the circumstances for the Great War. It was decided that making countries dependent on each other for the materials needed to produce weapons would prevent them from fighting... however, in between the conception of the idea and its first implementation there was a little thing called world war 2, which completely changed the map of Europe and essentially made the whole idea of a european union unnecessary before it had even begun. In the years leading up to world war 2, trade between european nations began to grow at a staggering rate, and this trade was only mildly interrupted by the war. Following world war 2 this trade exploded. The free flow of goods and capital between nations was becoming so important that another war would likely be unthinkable to the newly mercantile nations of Europe... but they pressed ahead and created the Franco-german coal and steel union anyway.

By the time the EEC had come around there was little point in its existence. Trade was already free and its other justification as a regulatory body was - and still is - a lie, as most of the regulations that are passed out by the EU are really just translations of regulations created by various UN agencies and the ISO. Nevertheless it was sold as a free trade agreement, despite such a system already existing in the EFTA. In actual fact it was a complete customs union, political union designed to remove borders completely, not just for trade but for the movement of people as per Schengen.

The EU cannot claim to have prevented war. It grew to prominence after a long period of economic growth and prosperity. It only existed as the "union" since the signing of maastricht in 1996. It was a mere customs union prior to that, and an unnecessary one to boot.

This much-vaunted european unity never needed to be imposed from the top down because it was already growing from the bottom up through trade. The EU is an answer to a problem that hasn't existed for over 70 years.

It's an ironic thought but the EU, with all its claims of bringing the peace, may well be the cause of our next continental war as nationalist fervour is re-ignited in the face of continued stripping of national representation and determination in favour of a centralised managerial, unelected bureaucracy.

eatyourbeans said...

It may be that manhood will be a hard weed to kill. The USSR had 75 years in which to eradicate religion, and failed. We haven't the luxury of 75 years however.

dienw said...

You have made these points re the feminists and their desire to mate with the Alpha male and remove the Beta male from the competition. These are interesting points and common experience tends to confirm them: there are now several Christian blogs which discuss the problems "churchified" men have in getting partners; how such are simply not wanted by so-called Christian women.
Despite this, I still want to know your sources for your position.

Anonymous said...

I'm fascinated by the way sex, religion and politics interact in this debate. Islam is all about repressing sexuality in a way that creates Jihadists. The secular West is all about indulging in sexuality in a way that creates passive men. The West seeks the feminine model of accommodation while the Muslim Middle East follows the masculine model of kill, rape and conquer.

One doesn't have to read Gates of Vienna to see this, it's all around us, but the Liberal Left is blind. The Liberal Left -- to give one small example -- believes guns cause crime. Soon they will have to believe knives cause crime; and then baseball bats.

My take on this is that the Liberal Left are dreamers who believe that thinking makes it so. The Right, meanwhile, are realists who know that human nature requires a clear understanding of what's happening on the ground.

I've changed a lot in my thinking in the past 66 years. Unfortunately, my country, Canada, has as well, and in the wrong direction. Although we have a Conservative government, there are huge blocks of liverish Liberals ready to vote against it at the first opportunity.

Very touch and go at the moment; as are all things.

Homophobic Horse said...

Sexist post alert - warning, contains observations

Homophobic Horses meditation on women:

1. Women want to be wanted. This why they hate being called sluts.

1a. Even radical feminists feel this secretly. Their militations against patriarchy are frequently disingenuous. (I have seen this IRL)

2. Women are attracted to men who are bad for them.

2a. All alpha males secretly hate women, or at least have no respect for what they say and think, this is because they know how to manipulate them (see 1, 1a).

2b. "All men kill the things they love" wrote Oscar Wilde. Conservative Beta males find this statement nonsensical. Alpha males understand it perfectly.

2c. Women find vampires sexually suggestive and attractive.

2d. Men do not.

3. Anorexic women starve themselves to desexualise their bodies. This is because they have seen through the whole social facade and are sickened by it. They are also on the cusp of a higher conciousness, provided they don't kill themselves first or go back to normal. (A logical contradiction)

4. There are no creatures more unsuited to one and other then man and women.

X said...

Interesting but, really, you lost me at #2.

The way I see it,. women are attracted to men who have the highest chance of bringing hom the bacon. In the old days this was easy to spot; they brought home meat. These days we don't have that very easy visual clue to identify powerful men so they ahve to rely on second-hand indicators, which are nowhere near as reliable. A manipulator who can get his way to the top and achieve power isn't necessarily the most powerful man, but he appears more powerful because of his position.

I think your problem comes from your definition of an alpha male. You're assuming that an alpha will automatically be the one who appears on the top of the pile but, in today's society, very often you get people who would have been submissive males in a hunter-gatherer society appearing at the top. Politicians, actors, people with "presence" but not necesarilly the most stable or mature men. In a hunter-gatherer society it is most often the strong, but also emotionally and mentally mature male that rises to the top. Now by this I don't mean the modern feminist understanding of emotional maturity, which is anything but mature. I mean the sort of emotional maturity that comes with age and reason, the ability to set aside emotional baggage long enough to assess a situation and the ability to recognise which members of the "tribe" need care, which ones can stand on their own and which ones need to be thrown off a cliff.

I agree about the whole vampire thing. Never understood that...

I disagree about the anorexia. You are dead wrong. My cousin starved herself to death because of that disease - and that's what it is. A disease of the mind. In part she was reacting to sexualisation but the disease is far more encompassing than that. They believe it's about self-control, strength of character. It's a logical outcome of the neo-feminist movement to "resist" the patriarchal society's pressure on women to conform to an idealisation of beauty, but they take it to the point where they simple starve themselves to remove that beauty, to prove that they're stronger than the men who "force them to eat". They aren't on the cusp of any higher consciousness and I will thank you not to repeat that idea in my presence ever again.

Men and women are ideally suited to each other. This is quite obvious at any level, as both have complementary traits. From a biblical perspective man and woman, recognising their roles within a relationship, strengthen and complete each other. The key is that they need to recognise their roles within that relationship as a single, unified person. One flesh, as the bible puts it. Most relationships fall apart because both sides wish to retain their independence of the other, which causes them to be isolated at a fundamental level. They refuse to acknolwedge that the relationship between a man and a woman is by necessity absolute and all-encompassing. A house divided against itself cannot stand...

Which, I think has wider applications as well. :)

Homophobic Horse said...

"They aren't on the cusp of any higher consciousness and I will thank you not to repeat that idea in my presence ever again."

XD !!!

Higher conciousness is lowering the importance of social relations. Higher conciousness is not seeing other people as a source of significance.* Starving yourself hijacks this social system against itself. It is like an industrial music of the body.

I spoke to her about a week before she topped herself. I miss her greatly.

*Incidently this is why the liberal establishment and all of modern thinking hates nationalism. It lowers the value of the other people, and it can't be controlled, seeing as though membership of a nation is an inalienable quality that cannot be conferred on you or controlled by the mass of humanity and its liberal engineers.

ProFlandria said...

Poster Formerly Known as Gordon, I agree that "When I see the EU slogan "Unity Through Diversity," I see a good cause - when applied to those of a European culture." After all, there is diversity - and then, there is diversity. The nations of Europe have a long, and shared, common history. Some good and some bad, true - but it still provides the glue that may lead to mutual understanding. Importing huge numbers of people who do not share that common history, however, will end in putting the lie to the slogan. I also find it worrying that France, and to a lesser extent Germany, are the two nations whose tails seem to wag the European dog. However, when you say "What is often missing from the EU bashing that goes on here is that the EU was formed in response to several hundred years of ruinous warfare between various European nation-states, culminating in the catastrophes of World Wars I and II. A pan-European identity is an attempt to end the cycle, and it is working." I'm not sure I can support your view. Creating a pan-European "identity" may be possible, but are you then not creating a new nationalism - the concept which you claim was the bane of Europe to start with? I would rather say that there is nothing intrinsically dangerous about any nation-state as a form of societal organization; it is the manner in which states are governed that causes war. Kaiser Wilhelm ruled as a despot, rejected Bismarck's earlier caution in international affairs, and bullied himself and the rest of the world into a World War. Hitler ruled as a dictator, centralized all public functions including information dissemination and marched a largely blindfolded Gernman people and the rest of the world into another World War. The continental trauma of the first event, which was partly caused by the complex web of interconnecting pacts and agreements, caused the abject pacifism-at-all-costs which led us directly to the second one. In the first case, had Britain given a clear signal to the Kaiser that the violation of Belgian neutrality would mean war (as it had to by Treaty), the Kaiser would have blinked and WW1 would likely never have happened as it did. In the second case, if France had stomped on the first German patrols into the demilitarized Rhineland Hitler's generals would have "removed" him right then and there. My point is that a nation-state can be a guarantor of peace, as well as an instigator of war. The current evolution of the EU's powers without the buy-in of the nations' citizens is no less than the creation of a new nation-state, under less than ideal circumstances. And if current events are any indication, this state will not rule democratically.

Homophobic Horse said...

It's impossible to imagine a socialism without a Gulag, an Auschwitz, or an NHS that routinely euthanises patients it deems unworthy of treatment (and then subsequently blamed on hegemonic capitalist starvation of resources).

Profitsbeard said...

E Pluribus Unum, One From Many, makes sense.

Many from One(s) is madness.

Like having three people all trying to drive one vehicle, you achieve chaos.

"Diversity" is simply the anarchistic, anti-capitalist, post-communist attempt to "divide and conquer" the West in order to punish it for not being Utopian enough for their delusions.