Hat tip: Steen.
[post ends here]
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
27 comments:
"We're sorry this video is no longer available."
Excellent. EXCELLENT!!! We'll immediately put it on our blog too! Thanks, Baron and Steen!
Please burn a copy - it must go viral!
Hokay, so now the link works.
Sweet merciful crap!!! Sweden doesn't have much time left. Orwell knew damn well what he was talking about when he emphasized how important controlling language and information were to those who lust after power. No matter what happens, things in Sweden are going to get extremely nasty very soon. The only question is whether it will be nasty for the Swedes or their Muslim colonizers. Look for Sweden to melt down before Britain.
very enlightening video... I didn't really realize how bad things are in Sweden.
Good God, that was depressing.
The link to this YouTube vid does not work.
Hope someone has burned it and can post it up.
There really is no point in debating these goons; you are just going to have to intimidate them into yielding if you don’t want to surrender- there is no point whining about it, no one is going to do it for you.
It works intermittently, keep trying.
Very revealing video. Just as revealing is the Youtube policy of having to "sign in" to adult content and then avow you are at least 13 years of age. The PC enforcers are working overtime.
Now this blog post of mine comes relevant:
Part 7: The New Party and how it was crushed
It tells you how the Antifa mob rule (which is just the violent wing of the leftist hegemony ruling this country) works in practice (in totally crushing a new party).
I thought that was a pretty pathetic video. If you can't hold out any hope for your country, shouldn't you just go away quietly? If you can't muster the spiritual strength to imagine a different future, a revived nationhood, why does anything you think matter anyway? Is there some value in detesting the detestable left just for the sake of detesting? It seems to me that becomes a house of mirrors pretty quick unless you are willing to say, they may be coming for me, but if they do, I'll be sure to take one of those black-covered anarchists with me! I'll do my part for civilization: a glorious, intelligent, meaningful self-sacrifice, so that even if Sweden has to die, there will be a moral lesson in it for the rest of humanity.
"But it's so racist!", the LGF'ers will surely howl. "You must deny the obvious! Your society and culture must be sacrficed at the alter of political correctness, for it is not, we will never be able realize our Coca-Cola TV commercial fantasy 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony'. How dare you let reality intrude upon the dream! How dare you stand between us and utopia, you bunch of big meanies! Now remember: "Be tolerant - or we will destroy you!"
Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick to death of the fraud. Thanks for posting the video. And thanks to the producer for making it. We need more people speaking up.
Regarding the four Somali rapists, the Swedish media never said anything incorrect. The four boys were described like this:
1. "Finnish Citizen". He's a a Finnish citizen.
2. "Somali citizen living in Sweden". All correct.
3 & 4. This is the interesting part. The two boys are simply described as "Swedes". This is also correct, and I'll explain why. You see, the nation of Swedes was officially dissolved by our state in the mid-'90s. So the only way to be a Swede since then is to be a Swedish citizen. Therefore writing "Swedish citizen" becomes redundant and doesn't differ from saying "Swede". Finland never dissolved their nation, so there "citizen" needs to be tagged on. Same with Somalia (that interestingly enough dissolved their state).
Swedes -- as in indigenous people historically living in this land -- officially do not exist anymore. Being a Swede is since then all politically defined, all an affair between the individual and the state. And the multicultural state takes their magic wand and bing!, it doesn't take them long to make new "Swedes" of all Somalis and others as soon as they set foot here.
Since the Swedish nation exist no more, who decides what is correct Swedish language? It's only the state that can decided then of course. And they have changed the language. And now these two Somali boys are Swedes, period.
If the media had written "Swedish citizen of Somali origin" that would also have been correct, but not more correct than simply writing "Swede" -- more informative however. And the silhouette profiles could have been made to give a clearer impression of what we are talking about. But would have been racist of course. It's bad enough that the silhouettes are black.
The Swedish media managed to combine being correct with avoiding being racist. So which one are you objecting to really? 1) being correct, or 2) avoiding being racist?
This video is clearly very unfair to the Swedish media who has acted as decently as it possibly could. Clearly being more racist doesn't make you more decent. And all we try to do is to be decent, correct and non-racist, right? Then nobody could blame us, right?
The antifa thugs are an interesting problem. One wonders what would happen if our side created a similar group to keep our thinkers safe.
The comments here leave me realizing what big effect that visual media has. The video is all old stuff (and not particularly exciting in my view), and I seriously thought that most people here would have had this view clear for them. So much has been written about it for several years. Haven't everybody been reading Fjordman?
I'm often left frustrated when communicating with people since they regularly base their arguments on illusory fantasies. I'm left feeling as if I was arguing with Marie Antoinette. And Marie Antoinette hasn't got a clue about what's happening in the real world. She lives in protected all-white middle-class communities. And even when she recognizes problems she will suggest cake-eating solutions.
But even Marie Antoinette can be influenced by visual media. I wish I mastered that art; writing only takes you so far. But I do not even know what is needed to tell. I honestly thought that everything in this video was so basic that knowledge about it could be assumed. I've lost contact with ordinary people, and do not know how to talk with them anymore. It's harder and harder for me to remember what their fantasies look like.
I'd like to add that while Sweden is worse off in many respects, this image is not at all unique for Sweden. We find the same power structures all over the West. Also in Denmark. The same power structure of media and leftist stormtroopers. Such leftist stormtroopers tried to kill SIAD demonstrators recently in Denmark. The difference in Denmark is that there exists a counter-weight to this power structure.
The problem is that when one attempts to understand the trends and motivations behind crimes, everything should be on the table if supported by facts and statistics. A sin of omission to protect an ideology is just as wrong and unethical as a sin of commission. People should be trusted to handle the full truth, not selected bits of it in an effort to control opinion or adhere to an ideology.
If patterns and trends exist, they exist. If they do not exist, then they do not exist. But perceptions denied will only feed consipracy theories and distrust. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
'Citizen of the world' sounds all well and good in the abstract until you notice the reality that a discomforting number 'citizens of the world' are still hacking on each other with machetes. When those figurative machetes start being weilded in formerly tranquil communities it should not be denied or downplayed. The reality is that innocent people are being harmed.
One has to have priorities. My compassion rests with the victims and victimes to be - it is not in defense of the perpetrators and I refuse to run interference for them. 'Not in my Backyard!' is a perfectly valid sentiment. I am not a subscriber to 'lowest common denominator' values.
The headline 'Youths Riot in Paris' comes to mind. All youths? In all of Paris? Am I at equal risk everywhere, all the time, from all youths ? Of course not. Making distinctions is a good thing. Discernment is a positive and life enhancing attribute. There is nothing racist, bad, or evil about a fact, if it is indeed a fact.
The objection is to the ideology driven gatekeeping that occurs in media.
Conservative Swede: the nation of Swedes was officially dissolved by our state in the mid-'90s. So the only way to be a Swede since then is to be a Swedish citizen.
I think I've spotted the problem here ...
It appears as though Sweden will be first among European nations to relearn the primary lesson of socialism.
PEOPLE MUST NOT SERVE THE STATE. THE STATE MUST SERVE THE PEOPLE.
The native Swedes are about to find out what happens when the common man becomes a mere cog in the state's apparatus. Long, long ago, George Orwell gave all of us a sneak peak. It goes beyond all reason how people have managed to ignore his predictions. It's as if the socialist governments use "1984" for an operating manual.
Conservative Swede
Read "Amusing Ourselves to Death." It explains how and why we have become a bunch of dopes. Yes, the visual media DOES have a disproportionate impact, and yes, it is SHOCKING that there are still those who visit this board who are shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, about the goings on in Sweden and even in their own countries.
Because the popular media and MSM are controlled by the left they can smugly rest assured that you and I and others of our ilk are merely a tempest in a teapot.
We remain as a people, woefully ill educated and ill informed. But hey, at least we get to f*** whom we wish how we wish whenever we wish. Now THAT'S freedom. Isn't it?
I failed to complete my point above in paragraph two that since the left controls the VISUAL media they can go ahead and spot us a couple of blogs and web pages. No matter, they STILL control the media organs most responsible for "informing" the sheeple.
I suspect in Sweden, for those visiting and even many living there, the critical nature of their demise remains largely unknown to all but the few who still care enough to educate themselves (fewer than 1% of the population).
Charles Martel,
Niel Postman is always interesting. I should read that book.
I can tell you that I never watch TV. I do not even have one. Maybe this is a reason why I and other people live in completely different mental universes. TV represents the Platonic Cave or the mandatory information unit at the homes in 1984.
Also I think that people won't understand the true nature of their own society until they themselves tried to transgress it's core dogmas. This is the moment when they meet the evil face of the staggering ostracism, coming from all directions, from people that supposedly have different opinions. It's not only true for people turning kafirs in the Muslim world, it's equally true for people turning kafircons in the West.
This is why I was not at all surprised to the this evil face of the staggering ostracism coming from Charles Johnson. I transgressed five years ago, and I've known already since then that people such as Charles Johnson couldn't be trusted. It's actually shocking too, that people were shocked by the reaction of Charles Johnson. He's a neocon, so it was all expected. Only kafircons can be trusted.
Zenster: "It appears as though Sweden will be first among European nations to relearn the primary lesson of socialism."
If we identify the problem as socialism, we haven't learned the lesson. The problem is much wider in nature. Wilson, Lenin and Mussolini should not be seen as enemies, but as rivals. Rivals about the proper interpretation of egalitarianism. Surely they did fight each other, quite as Sunnis and Shias, who are also rivals. The real and common enemy of Wilson, Lenin and Mussolini was the society that existed before WWI. The old ruling classes of Europe.
It was the American interpretation of egalitarianism that won the competition. The quasi-empire of America is today the guarantor of civilization-wide cultural leftism.
It was not only Roosevelt who had a soft spot for Stalin and called him Uncle Joe. This goes further back, Wilson's 14 points speech was full of praise for the Russians, i.e. Lenin. And this is the world order we live under today.
To Wilsonian Americans the Old Europe was evil, strange and alien. While communists such as Lenin and Stalin could be understood, even if they were fighting each other.
The European concept of national identity is a heritage of this Old Europe. European national identity is this kind of evil, strange and alien thing to Wilsonian Americans. Take a look at the views of the people at LGF. To them any affirmation of European identity is evil "fascism". These sentiments has it's roots far back in time in America, back to Wilson, but came in full bloom in the '60s. When the Swedish state abolished the nation of Sweden, it was a way to comply with these sentiments.
Once again there is the situation of rivalry. Based on the common idea of cultural leftism and egalitarianism there is a competition between a couple of model countries: America, Sweden and France. This is what Fjordman refers to as the ideological beauty contest. Sweden wants to win this ideological beauty contest, but realized that America had taken a much more wonderfully culturally leftist position with it's multicultural outlook. Up until the beginning of the '80s, Sweden had been overwhelmingly ethnically homogeneous. And there's no way to win an beauty contest of cultural leftism from that position. So starting from 1984 Sweden has been running faster than anyone else with mass immigration and multiculturalism. Today more Iraqi come into Sweden than into the whole rest of the West. In the '70s the model for everyone became New York. The chattering classes of Sweden were ashamed that our country didn't look sufficiently like New York. But now they fixed that too.
Conservative Swede: I can tell you that I never watch TV.
I shut mine down before the 9-11 atrocity and have never turned it back on for one second. At some point in the future I'll probably start some extremely selective viewing but the days of watching MSM news every evening are over forever.
I'm obliged to wonder how mush of the Wilsonian objection to Europe was based on rejection of monarchy as government. America's colorblind adoption of multiculturalism could just as easily be an over-emphasis upon pluralism. Even so, modern American politicians most certainly have a much more malign reason for supporting multiculturalism. Republicans seek to gut middle class earnings by allowing cheap labor to sneak across our borders. Far more evil are the democrats who intend nothing less than the obliteration of America's white Judeo-Christian culture to be replaced with a mish-mash of Transnational Globalistic "World Culture" that goes unspecified and unnamed on purpose. The democrats will do this by flooding society with wholly incompatible immigrants and even jihadis, just so long as their overall goals are being met.
Far less amusing is the way these democrat elitists manage to delude themselves about how they will somehow assume control of the barbarian hordes that they've allowed to crash the gates. These traitors are so dazzled by their own brilliance that they cannot see beyond the next turn where they are all lined up for Islam's chopping block.
Interestingly enough, the Economist (a free-market oriented British magazine) makes a claim in its most recent issue that Sweden (along with Ireland and others) is actually prospering economically because it allows more immigration, in comparison to more stagnant European economies that are putting down the immigration screws.
According to the Economist Country Survey, the Swedish economy has grown at 3.0% annually for the past five years, a faster growth rate than Norway or Denmark (but the same as Finland). And much higher than other Northwest European countries, except for Ireland, which also has a liberal immigration policy.
So perhaps there is another side to the doomsayer rhetoric about immigration into Sweden?
Zenster: "I'm obliged to wonder how much of the Wilsonian objection to Europe was based on rejection of monarchy as government."
The forms of government we had in Europe before the drastic change into a Wilsonian world order, and American style modern democracy, were mixed system, mixing democratic, monarchic and oligarchic elements. All wise political thinkers before WWI spoke in favour of a mixed constitution, such as Burke, Machiavelli or Aristotle (with his Politeia). Also the founding fathers of America, who explicitly stated that they wanted to avoid democracy in their constitution, they called it republic.
Spogbolt wrote an interesting post about Burke's view of a mixed constitution and the democratic component of it. Read here.
But for simplicity let's just speak of Monarchy vs. Democracy, for the sake of the argument. LN just sent me an email with this good quote by our Homohorsic Phobe:
"Socialists are also opposed to the nation state because it suggests that people have a territory to be ruled as they see fit. In a socialist society no one is permitted territory, it allows people to create and examine their own thoughts, which is something that cannot be controlled."
When things are privately owned they are taken care of and they thrive. When ownership is unclear, undefined or public things fall apart. Monarchy means that there is an owner of the country. In democracy there are only care-takers, who will be gone after a while and won't have to face the consequences of their actions. I recommend reading Hans-Herman Hoppe who presents this argument very well. Here's the introduction to his book Democracy: The God That Failed. Using the core argument used in favour of capitalism -- that private ownership is the best solution -- he argues that monarchy is superior to democracy. However, Hoppe is a paleo-libertarian, and later on degenerates into advocating an anarcho-capitalist system. But his argument regarding Monarchy vs. Democracy is nevertheless well presented.
The reason we have mass democracy today is since its America that is ruling our civilization. The change from mixed constitutions to pure democracy happened virtually overnight in Europe by the end of WWI (read about it in the Hoppe link above). To Americans, democracy appears as self-evident. They got their political system for free from the Brits (who built their institutions in so many places around the world). The election law of 1430 was applied in America just as in Britain, with the same land-ownership requirement. However, compare the tiny island of Britain with the vast landscapes of America. In practice every grown up man in America could get enough land to get the right to vote, so therefore universal suffrage came to be seen as the natural and self-evident thing among Americans. There was never any reflection about why the institutions they inherited from the Brits worked in the first place. Instead there was a fundamental animus against the Old Europe, the oppression the quakers and the puritans had escaped from, the colonial oppression of the Brits, and subsequently a condescending view upon Europe as a result of WWI and WWII. This didn't provide a context for Americans to ask themselves why the institutions they inherited from the Brits worked in the first place. Instead pride was taken in how things were done differently, and how America was more egalitarian.
Then this concept of American democracy has been spread around the world. Now our civilization is falling apart, because there are only "care-takers" but nobody really taking care of things, nobody really caring. No one responsible. Democracy is socialism applied to the highest level: the form of government.
Apart from the egalitarian and revolutionary identity, America has the identity of former colony in it's backbone. And this is the main reason why America has never been able to operate properly as an empire. It's an underdog mentality where other countries can never be invaded and taken over (as the Brits did), it's only allowed to "liberate" people -- this is the model of thinking. As Niall Ferguson pointed out regarding the Mexican problem. If it had been the British empire they would have invaded and taken over, long time ago. But Americans just can't do that. It's like that chip in the brain of the lead character in A Clockwork Orange: "Error! Illegal operation!"
In the 19th century we talked about Pax Britannica. In the 20th century we talked about Pax Americana. It's the same world order actually. It was created by the Brits and then maintained by the Americans. Take a look at piracy along the coast of Somalia, and you'll get an idea of what the whole world will look like when this Pax is gone. America is maintaining it, but could never have created it in the first place. The actions needed to create such an order would trigger the chip in the brain of Americans and render a "Error! Illegal operation!" And this is where the fundamental problems is, because you won't be able to maintain in the long run, without the ability to re-create.
So I'm kind of torn here. On one hand I support America in it's maintenance of this order, and fully see how it's ultimately defended by military means. And that peaceful trading etc. is far from self-evident. But on the other hand, I regret that it's America in this position, since it's not in it's nature to being able to uphold it in the long run.
Our best hope is that the revolutionary spirit, which is fundamental among Americans, can be turned against Wilsonian America itself (and some good old settlers mentality on top of that). A good understanding and acceptance of the historical differences between Europe and America, from both sides, will be necessary, if we are going to solve this. Americans, as well as Europeans, will need to reach far back in history (before WWI and further) to find the proper inspiration to face up to this threat. And the further we go back in history, the more we find a common identity.
Conservative Swede: So I'm kind of torn here. On one hand I support America in it's maintenance of this order, and fully see how it's ultimately defended by military means. And that peaceful trading etc. is far from self-evident. But on the other hand, I regret that it's America in this position, since it's not in it's nature to being able to uphold it in the long run.
I like your comparison to "A Clockwork Orange". Much like with psychologically reconditioned Alex de Large, some of America's own basic survival instincts have been bred out of it. There may well be a connection between our past lack of colonialism and the current reluctance over going to war. For most of history both required military action and—despite our nation's longtime role as Global Cop—America has a distinct dislike for expansionism. This disinclination for truly imperialistic aggression may well be what is sapping our national will to more vigorously oppose how Islam threatens our existing empire.
Thanks Zen,
But I was too much in a hurry to get the Clockwork Orange comparison right. It should say something ike this:
>>If it had been the British empire they would have invaded and taken over, long time ago. But Americans just can't do that. It's a mental blockage as strong as the one the main character in Clockwork Orange got through his therapy in by the end of the movie, which rendered him incapable even of the necessary action for self-defense. It's like a chip in the brain saying: "Error! Illegal operation!">>
I already sent it to you, but I want to share this article by Niall Ferguson with everybody here:
America: an Empire in Denial
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.