The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.
During an online poll at the national newspaper Aftonbladet, almost half of the readers voted “yes” to a question of whether a civil war is possible in Sweden.
I know online polls don’t always reflect the public opinion, but still… This is in a country where there is virtually zero debate about mass immigration, which continues at full speed.
My personal opinion is that Sweden is not the most likely candidate for the first civil war, simply because people need to fight back to create a civil war. It takes two to tango. The same for France, which is demographically speaking the worst country, and where a kind of war is waged by immigrants in the streets right now, but where nobody fights back. The Germans won’t go first, either; they are too tied down by their history.
My bet is still on Britain for the first full-blown Eurabian civil war, with the Netherlands as a close second, and possibly Denmark. Italians will fight back. I don’t know if the Spanish will.
In general, if you live in any Western European country, you should arm yourself very soon, one way or the other.
- - - - - - - - -
Sverige minner om Libanon
— Fjordman
PS: I’m still working on the essays for the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and France regarding Islamization, and will possibly write one for the former Communist countries in Eastern Europe regarding Multiculturalism and the EUSSR. If somebody has some suggestions for any of these texts, they can post them online at Gates of Vienna. If I like the text, it will be included in the book “Defeating Eurabia,” which will be made available online within the coming month. I may credit you as “blog reader X” if your contribution is used, but you must be willing to share it for free, as I do.
PPS: One of my texts from three years ago. Especially the final two paragraphs are still relevant: Is Swedish Democracy Collapsing?
134 comments:
Whoa, that's some scary stuff, Fjordman. A lot of people are predicting civil war in Europe, including me. I'm glad at this point that I don't live there - no offense to Europeans, but a civil war sounds pretty scary to me.
About your essays: how about one on Russia and Islamization? I think that has the potential to be quite interesting.
Fjorman, here is a post about a commenter Natalie and her ban form Little Green Footballs because she rated one of your comments
... Sweden is not the most likely candidate for the first civil war ...
Harsh as it may sound, if not, it should be.
Between the rape statistics, wholesale monitoring of email and telecom plus the basic anti-white-male stance of Sweden's government, it is one of the most treasonous of all European nations.
I shall put the following in exceptionally delicate terms:
Aside from civil war, one of the only other ways to turn this whole situation around will probably have to involve pro-immigration politicians suddenly suffering a variety of serious "illnesses". Who knows, after a dozen or two succumbed from ill health, the remaining politicians might prize their well-being enough to make sure that they avoided creating the circumstances wherein such life-threatening conditions tend to multiply.
Fjordman -
You may be right on this, though I know from personal experience--and I can't prove this, you'll just have to take my word for it--that before the French ended the draft, some small-town folks were using army connections to stock community "armories". It was explained to me that these would be used "if things got out of hand."
And this was years ago.
I wonder.
zenster -
It is one of the features of the current situation that one cannot help but notice: Islamists and their supporters are taken seriously because their followers dare to take direct action.
When they and their left-wing fellow travellers know the same fear, then we will be talking.
Until then, we all might as well be anime enthusiasts for the good we're doing.
I can see the same thing happening in all Western countries including the US. The socialists who insist on trying to run our lives, ruin our countries through mass immigration, and crush our economies under massive taxes and regulations have found a Western people far too passive and unwilling to fight lest they be called anything that ends in "ist". PC, multiculturalism and the oppression of guilt has to be shrugged off if we are to survive. I can actually see a future Europe where European leaders tell their populations that in the interest of peace it would be best to convert to Islam. I think in the near future I'll be working on splitting the US in to Liberal and Conservative halves. I can't live in a socialist state with the likes of Obama telling me how much electricity I can use, how much food I can eat, or what temperature I can keep my home.
Honestly, as one of the lone Europeans on this thread, I'd have to say I think you are all way off. The whole point of the European Union (like that of the United States) is to keep the UNION. Many Americans don't understand why so many laws and policies are being passed. The reason is that they are trying to tie all the member states together economically, politically AND ideologically- with the sole purpose of preventing armed conflicts from within their ranks. THAT is the REAL (but unspoken) goal of the EU. And so far, in spite of all its faults, it has succeeded. There has been no other time in recent history where Western Europe has not had international armed conflict or civil war for over 60 years.
Reality check.
"Reality check"? Ok, how's this: occasional conflict is a good thing for human beings and human societies. Eliminate it entirely, the subject dies. The success of the EU in neutralizing the nations is a major part of the problem.
Qualis Rex: Maybe I've misunderstood, but I took the term "civil war" in this context to mean more of a conflict between Muslims moving to Europe and Europeans who don't want to be Islamized. So is is necessarily a good thing that war has been prevented? I mean, I don't want innocent Europeans to die, but the West has got to fight back against Islam.
About the EU, I'm not really seeing your view. It seems to me that the EU just wants power and control and doesn't seem to have Europe's best interests at heart. And if the goal of the EU is indeed to tie Europe together economically, politically, and ideologically, I think that's silly and a tad idealistic. Different countries in Europe have varying cultural differences, different economies, and different politics. These differences aren't a bad thing, but if the EU wants them all to be the same, that is a bad thing.
KevinV: When they and their left-wing fellow travellers know the same fear, then we will be talking.
And not a second before. It's why I fear that the families of these elitist Eurocrats will need some cuffing about before any action is taken.
Until then, we all might as well be anime enthusiasts for the good we're doing.
Horse hockey! The Internet played a role in bringing down the Soviet Union and was instrumental in overcoming Dan Rather's explicit attempt to throw the 2004 presidential election. Not coincidentally assuring that Rather's smarmy @ss landed quite hard on the bricks as well.
All of us must work hard to change how our respective nations think. The Internet is a prime way of doing so.
Qualis Rex: There has been no other time in recent history where Western Europe has not had international armed conflict or civil war for over 60 years.
How about another reality check? Not in the past sixty years has Europe's collective governments been so close to surrendering up the entire continent to a form of brutal fascism which meets or exceeds that of the Nazis and communists.
Qualis rex--
You're not the lone European on this thread. I'm surprised costin hasn't said something about being from Bucharest...I think that counts as "European."
You haven't been reading us for long if you don't know how often some of our American readers ask plaintively why we aren't more oriented toward the US news...
We think that how Europe goes will affect us greatly.
When in Europe last year, the Baron met someone who asked when he (the B) was returning to VIenna. The man just assumed we were European...
...just as you are assuming that our readership is only American.
____
And yes, we do indeed see the EU as harmful. That point of view is not going to change unless the EU becomes more transparent, democratic, and responsive to the countries it has commandeered.
Read the EU speech laws, QR. They're a nightmare.
Rollory said - "Reality check"? Ok, how's this: occasional conflict is a good thing for human beings and human societies. Eliminate it entirely, the subject dies.
You're talking out of your hat and trying to sound scientific. There have been countless societies which have gone periods with no armed conflict and have thrived. It's usually people who have never been in war who think it's a "good thing". And their opinions mean little to me.
Natalie - having differences is not a bad thing. But when you have such drastically diverse ideals and morality (or lack thereof) as was found in 19th century Europe which as I mentioned has not coexisted for a period of over 60 years without armed conflict, one cannot blame the European Union for trying a different path other than what has been taken before. And as I mentioned, with all the issues and defects, so far it is working. If you don't agree, don't move there. Simple as that.
Zenster said Not in the past sixty years has Europe's collective governments been so close to surrendering up the entire continent to a form of brutal fascism which meets or exceeds that of the Nazis and communists.
Surrender? No. There are definitely problems and we need to resolve it. But we are nowhere near surrender. That statement shows a severe lack of knowledge or reasoning. No basis in fact. Just because we don't all shave our heads and put up signs and bumper stickers saying, "be a patriot, kill a Muslim!" does not mean we have surrendered. Not by a long shot.
I would place my bet on the Italians to revolt first, over the Brits. They are not going to let the Vatican and their innumerable art treasures fall into the hands of the Muslims. IMHO, There's something seriously wrong with the Brits. They might possibly be the sickest of all the Western countries, worse even than Sweden.
Just because we don't all shave our heads and put up signs and bumper stickers saying, "be a patriot, kill a Muslim!"
If real life had an /ignore command, you would have just bought your way onto my ignore list with this typically European pig-ignorant, thinks-he-knows-Americans-but-actually-knows-only-the-leftish-cliches-about-Americans-that-Euros-endlessly-drone-on-about-when-they-think-they-are-making-a-good-point comment.
For the record, I am half/half, US and Irish passports.
Kevin - I hold a US and EU passport as well. I was making a point, which obviously touched a nerve since you didn't "ignore" it and commented on it (at length).
I always find it silly when people feel the need to tell others they are being ignored. Do you really think your opinion is worth that much that I should care?
qualis rex-
You seem to forget there was a 44 year long Cold War (1945-1989) going on during the period you think was 'peaceful' in Europe, aided by the Red Brigade/Bader Meinhof type of simmering anti-Western terrorism. And the Pope was even shot during this glorious era of "no conflict".
Plus, it was the U.S. nuclear (and conventional forces) umbrella permitted the EU to ignore their vital survival duties (raising its own self-defense forces) and allow their armies to diminish to a post-WW I type of tempting impotence (to Mohammedan crypto-colonizers), which has now come back to bite them.
Having lived in Western Europe for several years, I found the general level of denial (about their open invitation to the entire impoverished, ignorant and hostile world to infiltrate the Continent, leech of its largesse, and demographically undermine the local cultures) to be tragicomic.
Now, the comic part is fading, leaving only the bitter aftertaste of the Great Experiment in Suicidal (tolerate-yourself-to-death) Multiculturalism.
I would bet the farm you're British, given the sneer at patriotism and the ignorant assumption that what patriotism means is "let's kill muslims!". Very British attitude.
Still, good point. Let me address the substance.
You are absolutely correct that the real motivation behind the creation of the EU was to entwine the member nations so as to make inter-European armed conflict unthinkable.
I think that it has to be admitted frankly by the EU's critics that this has by and large succeeded and that, given the history, this is no small achievement.
I also agree that "surrender" has been over-sold. I think it very likely that some of the European people will fight back at some point.
If the EU was truly a confederations of nations, allowed to protect their cultures and their historical existence, there would be no issue.
The problem is that it has so ruthlessly exacted this mandate that it is terminating the identity of the national units it is composed of since it has determined that any national feeling whatsoever leads directly to armed conflict.
In other words, you're right in that the EU has proven good at its mission. The problem is that is is too good.
KevinV said...
I would bet the farm you're British, given the sneer at patriotism and the ignorant assumption that what patriotism means is "let's kill muslims!". Very British attitude.
Then you lose the farm. And if it's anywhere near the value of your deduction skills, then I probably won't be seeing an early retirement.
Just to ease your suspicions, I lived in the UK for 3 years. I have "0" love for British society, the Anglican church or the government. When they mandated that crosses and any symbols of Christianity, including a "Merry Christmas" sign in a window are ilegal, I said good ridance. They get what they deserve.
Still, good point.
Oh, the validation! I feel all warm and fuzzy now.
You are absolutely correct that the real motivation behind the creation of the EU was to entwine the member nations so as to make inter-European armed conflict unthinkable.
Yes, I know I'm right. You score a big "duh!" for the day. Anyway, I see you think the use of flattery is good enough to take the place of an appology. I don't agree. So, when you decide to grow a pair, we can talk. For now, we're done.
Profitsbeard said... You seem to forget...
No, you seem to not read well. What part of ARMED INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT do you not understand? It's pretty clear. And you don't get to tell me about the Red Brigade or the attempted assassination of JP II. I was there.
So, my point stands. No international armed conflict. And that's a good thing. Not perfect. But good. Still a lot more to do and a long way to go. Still an enemy at the gates. Not saying there isn't. But no civil war imminent. Reality check done.
The way the pattern seems to be shaping up, according to my limited ability to see it leads me to suspect we might see a truly transnational "civil war".
Several nations, the US included, breaking down into open conflict nearly simultaneously.
The opposing sides will be same or similar in some, if not all, of the countries. One faction will be this perfect storm of every socialist utopianistic nightmare philosophy vomited up by the intelekshuls during the 20th century. Another faction will be the islamos. There'll be various factions in differing degrees of alliance between those factions. There will probably be much infighting between those factions until a dominant cult of personality forms it all up into one, more or less, cohesive, totalitarian whole.
The primary opposition to all of the totalitarian factions will be those who in the US traditions are identified as Jacksonian. The Jeffersonian types will also have a strong representation.
I think too many people have been watching re-runs of "Red Dawn" on FX...
No, Qualis, you're not a Brit, as you do not speak the language very well. Brits, although usually insufferable, can Talk the Talk in the Queen's English
( you cannot )
You're another clever twit who's about half as smart as you believe yourself to be. You use words as rhetorical tools rather than for clarity or an honest inquiry into an extremely important matter
I do not believe there will be a civil war in Europe because I am, as Dymph previously named me, a Pessimist. There will be blood ( the title of a recent bad American movie ), but not from a civil war
profitsbeard, you do indeed Talk the Talk, and expose Qualis as a useless wanker. The Cold War of 1945-89 was rife with conflict short of all-out war, including a virtual civil war in Italy in the late 70s and 80s, fascist rule ( and all the attendant killing and other brutality ) in Spain and Portugal until the mid-70s, the lads at the IRA and its various fragmented fanatics with their ingenious bombs ( and the lethal retaliation by Prot thugs ), and the countless thousands of killings of their own citizens by the stooge governments of the Warsaw Pact.
Anyone who holds that half-century in Europe up as any sort of paradigm is.......a fool like you
*yawn* did someone say something?
I see European trolls are just like our American trolls. Dumber than a box of turtle turds.
"From Cassandra to Jesus Christ, it is amazing how often the doomed choose to ignore those who warn them of their coming fate."
And yes, we are also preparing for a pending Civil War here in the States.
I came back from a war just to fight another one at home.
My son returned from Iraq 3 weeks ago and he, too, said that he might as well go back because if he is to be in a war, he would rather be in one "over there and not over here".
Qualis Rex: There has been no other time in recent history where Western Europe has not had international armed conflict or civil war for over 60 years.
The point is not that there has not been a conflict, because (as it has been pointed out) there has: half a century of Cold War. The point is that in these 60 years European nations have not had the responsibility for their own national defence. It's been "outsourced" to the United States. So easy to forget that there even was a conflict, Qualis Rex, isn't it?, when you are not even responsible yourself for your military defence? And yes, being "relieved", for 60 years, of the responsibility of your own national defence severely impedes your "reality check". Funny how large scale conflicts won't even register on your radar, when your mental universe is all screened off of the realities of military affairs.
Kevin V: You are absolutely correct that the real motivation behind the creation of the EU was to entwine the member nations so as to make inter-European armed conflict unthinkable.
I think that it has to be admitted frankly by the EU's critics that this has by and large succeeded and that, given the history, this is no small achievement.
The reason we have had peace within Western Europe since 1945 is because of the American troops stationed here, period. However, small people with small minds make propaganda that even smaller people with smaller minds buy. Look here, we made this dance, and therefore it rains...
Qualis Rex and Kevin V are perfect specimen to illustrate what 60 years of dodging the responsibility for your own military defence does to people's reality check. They have forgotten that the one that holds the trigger ultimately controls the region. That our peace and liberty is ultimately defended by militaries.
Then of course, Western Europe's military defence wasn't precisely "outsourced" to America, the deal was forced upon us (but also welcomed by many). But all that is for another discussion...
Qualis Rex --
I think you misunderstand the nature of the conflict.
It is armed, with many Muslims taking up various forms of arms, either knives, explosives, firebombs, and the like. When Muslim doctors ram their car into the Glasgow airport ON FIRE yelling Allah Akbar rest assured the conflict is ARMED.
It is INTERNATIONAL.
What do all the Muslims want? Why Sharia in Europe of course, ALL OF IT. Supported by every Muslim country and Muslim enclave in the West.
Now, great armies are not moving about. The Luftwaffe and the Eighth Air Force are absent from the skies. But just one borrowed nuke from Pakistan (home base of many/most of Britain's Muslims who demand now : "NO DOGS, EVER!") has more destructive power than both the Luftwaffe and American Air Forces.
You may not like this reality. You may find it politically incorrect. You may wish to explain away or ignore the demands of Muslims in Europe for Sharia, right down to every single cultural detail of no dogs, veiled women, no pork -- FOR ANYONE! But it is there.
As for who will fight, and who will not, most everyone will at some point fight, since they will have no other choice.
The ones who will FIGHT FIRST are those with the most to lose: criminal organizations who's members will be out of protection money when they lose territory to Muslims. Notice the first to fight were the Camorra in Naples?
The French WILL FIGHT. Because the Union Corse is the same if not as ruthless as the Camorra. When pressed enough, they will fight (they also have infiltrated the security services as have Muslims). It will be quite ugly. Worse than the OAS-De Gaulle fight.
The British ... will fight, but later, since their organized crime is much lesser. Less well, organized. More likely to move on than to decide "it's our neighborhood, we own it, they're OUR cash cows, not THEIRS." Nevertheless at some point organized crime in Britain will be either all Muslim or none of it Muslim. It's that simple.
The Irish will fight, because the IRA is one giant organized gangster brigade. THOSE boys are not looking to become notary publics, I can guarantee! As they say in Cajun Country. There's probably been fights already, just suppressed in the newspapers. Particularly with recession coming across Ireland like all Europe.
The Northern European countries will fight last because street fights require street fighters. Which means, basically in the modern world, criminals. Northern Europe's criminals are all Muslims.
Of course, the big danger for Muslims IS in Northern Europe. Once current elites are thrown out during some especially long-lasting and threatening (to national unity/security) riot or more likely series of riots, Northern Europeans in their efficient way will go about mass-terrorizing Muslims to make them self-deport. With the Army behind it.
Whereas in France and Italy, it will be mostly an affair of the criminal gangs plus conservative political influence. [Sorry for my cynical view, it's how I see it.]
Spain? It depends on the nature of the criminal gangs there. I suspect that Franco was too efficient in wiping out the deep rooted syndicates or absorbing them into Francoists where they became merely functionaries.
Nevertheless, if you want to see who will contest who "owns" the streets, look to criminals. They are the ones after all who get money from them.
In EUSSR - European Union of the Soviet Socialistic Republics, by Wladimir Bukowskji, the author outlines resemblance between the organization and lack of transparence of the USSR and the EU. I have been to a debate with the author, and one of the resemblance was multiculturalism. In the Soviet Union, being the aim to create the "homo sovieticus", all religious and cultural characteristics of peoples were weakened in favour of a sovietic "non-identity". It is according to a principle outlined by Marcuse (I think to remember, but don't know in which book): The communist revolution cannot take place unless the pathology becomes normality and the normality becomes pathology. Actually mass immigration brings in western countries criminality. But the medias tend to consider this criminality "business as usual", concentrating attention and public shame on, e.g. "racism" or "disproportionated self defence".
Qualitas Rex: Surrender? No. There are definitely problems and we need to resolve it. But we are nowhere near surrender. That statement shows a severe lack of knowledge or reasoning. No basis in fact.
I didn't say the Europeans were surrendering. Watch my lips move. I said that:
Not in the past sixty years has Europe's collective governments been so close to surrendering up the entire continent to a form of brutal fascism which meets or exceeds that of the Nazis and communists.
Not the European people but their governments. Given how Europe is largely disarmed, this is incredibly bad news. However, I have great faith that, after sufficient Muslim torment, Europe will revert to its favored charnel house mode.
Just because we don't all shave our heads and put up signs and bumper stickers saying, "be a patriot, kill a Muslim!" does not mean we have surrendered. Not by a long shot.
The voting record in most European countries does not support your statement. Pro-immigration Multiculturalists continue to be elected even as they swamp their populations with vicious, barbaric Islamic colonists.
There is a lack of understanding about the current political scene here in the UK and the EU and there are some very important points to be made that are affecting the political scene at this moment.
1. We in the UK have a strong nationalist party (BNP) that is growing. Italy has the Lega Nord and these nationalist parties are making a big difference. Nationalsim could well save us from the abyss. That is my hope anyway.
2. The credit crunch is now hitting the people who carry voting power in the UK, the middle classes. They are waking up to what the single party state has done for over 40 years and this will change the political landscape. People are sick of the corruption and high taxation and mass immigration. Times are changing, slowly but surely.
3. The EU wasn't created to stop war it was created to destroy nation states and impose totalitarian rule across Europe thus furthering the marxist goal of one world government, the so-called NWO. It is an abhorrence, a replica of the USSR and its aim is the destruction of white judeo-christian societies. And civil war is what they absolutely desire hence mass immigration. Marx realised that race and not class was the prime struggle and the marxist EU rulers know full well what the outcome of this will be: colonisation followed by conflict. You can guess what will happen when conflict breaks out - they are planning and gearing for it - the European Gendarmarie Force isn't about community policing that's for sure. The recent Irish vote has also thrown a spanner in the works and it will be interesting to see how the EU deals with nations like Poland who are refusing to ratify the Lisbon treaty.
I believe nationalism - strong nationalism - represents the best hope nations like the UK and Italy and possibly the Dutch have in avoiding a war.
The one question I have still concerns time, although slow, sure growth is essential maybe we are running out of time. The current credit crunch could well be the tipping point.
Things are getting very interesting indeed.
To summarise what I said on a previous thread regarding the EU: It was originally created to do two things: take the power of decision-making out of the hands of the people, and to prevent nations the ability to wage war. The reasoning was thus: the ability to wage war is a de facto intent to wage war, so removing that ability will prevent war; and since people tend to be conservative (little c), not liking change, and since the prevention of the ability to wage war requires the absolute control of all political and commercial institutions in the nations involved, and a great deal of change, the ability for the commoners to prevent the project had to be removed. You see, not many people realise that the EU was envisioned to prevent a repeat of the first world war. By the end of the second it was no longer necessary.
And so onto the lie that it has kept the peace for the last 60 years. When was the EU created? 1996. Prior to that we had the European Community, and prior to that we had the European Economic Community. In fact the majority of the structures that make up the EU didn't even exist until the early 80s. Before that the EEC was a customs union pretending to be a free trade zone. Yes, it's true that the Coal and Steel union between France and Germany existed in the late 50s, but that was between France and Germany. Nobody else was involved until the late 60s.
What you're doing is assuming that the EU was created to make peace. It wasn't. It was designed to prevent Germany invading France, which is why it started with that coal and steel union between Germany and France, and a few others. It was designed to protect France, which is why it encourages protectionist policies that seem to overwhelmingly favour the French. It was designed, as I said, to stop the events leading up to the first world war, where a multitude of often conflicting treaties brought so many countries into what should have been a minor spat between a few east-european countries. What it does is, it removes our ability to wage war. It removes our ability to defend ourselves by removing the ability to independently decide when to go to war, and it removes our ability to determine who should or shouldn't enter our countries. This has nothing to do with keeping the peace. Peace is kept by the gun, not by the lack of it, and war is prevented by being prepared to use that gun. As the saying goes, beat your swords into ploughshares and you'll end up ploughing for someone who didn't.
Our peace was kept by the americans, who were there for the last 60 years, not the EU, which wasn't.
Nearly forgot:
Some commenter stated "no armed conflict" for 60 years.
1. Conflict in the Balkans for 30 years a conflict created and funded by German intelligence, finished criminally by NATO.
2. Madrid and London. Along with scores of other planned terrorist attacks foiled or failed. Death threats and murderous attacks on politicians and key figures who dare criticise Islam - Van Gogh, Wilders, Hrsi Ali, Rushdie etc. and demands upon nations to prevent free speech, e.g, Danish cartoons, Holland with Wilders.
3. No go areas in British cities. Attacks and rapes on indiginous people by immigrants. I'm sure this is the same throughout the EU, certainly is in France, Holland, Italy and Sweden.
4. Colonisation by mass immigration - illegal under the UNDHR but continues apace through the EU but especially the UK.
5. Use of the tax weapon to force the indignous people to pay for their own destruction through social welfare that funds mass immigration.
6. The use of jihad - in all of its forms not just terrorism - to subjugate the indiginous people. So weapons used here against us are litigation, state thought control (racist, hater, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe etc.), promoting Islamic culture over indiginous culture, re-writing of history and historical guilt all of these are acts of war on our people because the aim is to achieve the same objective as war: conquest of a people and their land.
I could go on but because traditional warfare hasn't broken out doesn't mean there isn't an armed conflict going on. This is the age of asymmetric warfare, the battlefield and the weaponry and the tactics have vastly changed, but the desired end result is exactly the same.
Whisky, you wrote:
"Whereas in France and Italy, it will be mostly an affair of the criminal gangs plus conservative political influence."
Yours is an interesting theory, equating the capacity for defense in a civil war to the strength of criminal gangs.
However, if we apply this theory to France, I don't think it plays out the way you describe.
Your mentioned Corsica's criminal gangs. They are indeed powerful on their home turf. And Muslim belligerence on the island seems to be kept in check -- precisely because of that.
I'm not so sure about the rest of the country. Criminal activity -- and especially drugs -- seems to be under the hands of Arab gangs.
The automatic assumption of indigenous French when they see an Arab in an expensive BMW is: this is a drug dealer. The prison population is overwhelmingly Muslim -- 60% to 70% according to the Washington Post, since even investigating such figures is taboo to French media.
I'm not saying Corsican gangs have no influence on the mainland. There was an interesting development recently.
The gendarmerie, with the help of the air force, brought down a Corsican network of thugs who imported massive quantities of drugs from Morocco by helicopter. They used to fly non-stop to the middle of nowhere in the French coutryside, where the goods were picked up by fast cars and dispatched to the Paris suburbs, to be sold by presumably Arab dealers.
One of the gang leaders was the owner of a perfectly legitimate helicopter renting company in Corsica. He had also been the president of the Chamber of commerce of Ajaccio for a while -- until he was sentenced for embezzlement.
If we suppose this particular gang's organisation reflect the general scheme of things in France, then it's very doubtful Corsican thugs would fight Muslims in the streets of Paris, Grenoble or Lille.
One of the main reasons why Muslim "youths" physically harrass the police out of their city estates is to protect their drug dealing business.
The Corsican thugs, if we suppose they have a significant influence on this particular criminal market, also need "freedom of trade" at the retail level.
So we could very well end up with a Corsican fortress where Muslims would be cowed into submission, whereas they would be used as trading partners on the mainland. As such, they would of course be given free reign to police their own territory.
Most Corsicans assume their island is outside France anyway (except when it comes to claiming public funds -- don't we spot a common trend with Muslims there?).
As for conservative political influence teaming up against Muslims, this is highly unlikely.
French institutions, laws and political elite are heavily slanted to the left. Journalists with a knowledge of both countries say that the present president, vilified by the opposition as bordering the extreme-right, is actually to the left of American Democrats.
Subversive rules are written into the law. Headmasters of public schools are officially forbidden to check whether applying immigrants are legal residents.
What is certain is that the general population is slowly waking up to the Potemkin village aspect of the multi-culti mantra. One hundred people are browsing the anti-immigration site Fdesouche at any given time. Anti-immigration comments abound on the website of Libération, the extreme-left newspaper founded by Jean-Paul Sartre.
Whether this will outweigh, at some point, the very significant portion of the population who actively support and help illegal immigrants, not to mention the weight of the pro-Muslim elite and institutions, is anybody's guess.
[Hope that's not too long by the blog's standards; hey, I thought only French news sites had a limit on comments length...]
Two quick comments:
1. I think a civil war is possible in the next 50 years as native Euro populations decline and the numbers of Muslim immigrants and their children increase. I don't forsee this happening in the next couple of decades though. However, demographics don't lie and Europe is on a sharp decline since they're not having enough babies to replace the current population. This of course assumes that these Muslim immigrants and their kids won't assimilate, which currently does seem to be the trend, and that the Euros have the stomache to fight a war.
2. I personally think the political union aspects of the EU is a dumb idea which Europe will regret in years to come. Personal liberty and ethnic cultures will take a huge loss because of this. Yet, in the end it's not my continent so if the Euros want to march off a cliff that's up to them.
An irreversible historic tragedy is playing out.
One does not know whether to be angry at the Swedes or to mourn them for not stopping their own cultural capitulation and obliteration.
The "war" is going on.
The fact that we are blogging is a proof of this.
I'm new to this community and I'm still rather "moderate" in my opinions.
But the existence of this and other blogs made me realize that I was not the only one who was skeptic to the current development in Europe.
When I'm talking with my friends discussing politics it is quite obvious that they as well as my self are afraid of expressing ourselves. It's like We have all been infested with the PC virus and are afraid of being arrested and accused of "racism", "fascism" and "nazism" if we dare express our concerns regarding immigration, the lack of common sense "nationalistic" morale etc.
"But no civil war imminent."
I think Qualitas Rex has hit the nail on the head. I personally don't see any signs of that either, but I live in the US so what do I know? Maybe sometime down the road, but not soon.
The good news is the recent victories in Britain and Italy by "conservative" parties that signal a growing discontent with where Europe is heading. Europeans are discussing the Islamization / inmigration issue. It's still to be determined where this will lead, but if the electoral trends continue there is reason to hope.
My biggest fear is to what lengths the EUSSR will go to suppress dissent and impose it's will. Already bloggers and cartoonists are being persecuted, and the growing use of hate speech laws is having a chilling effect as sobriquet DK says. And that's were the front line of the war is now, freedom of speech. If Europeans can resist and reverse the decline in free speech, I'm optimistic about their future.
European Civil War is presently (and thankfully) not possible given the current political and economic climate.
Despite the encroaching totalitarianism from the EU and the increasing criminal, terroristic and subversive tactics of the Jihadists, most of the European people carry on rather normal lives, enjoying their bread and circus, and making adjustments where necessary.
But the numbers of people that realize they are losing their safety, heritage and freedom is increasing daily.
What is important is that Europeans use this present window of opportunity (albeit a rapidly closing one) to correct things democratically.
When the EU project is complete, the democratic options will have expired. Seeing no alternatives, the disenfranchised will begin to take the matters of justice and security into their own hands.
On that day the EU (like Nazism, Communism, and all Utopian pipe-dreams before it) will be unmasked as a ruthless tyrant and it will descend in a bloody furor upon the very people it claims to represent.
We must hope and pray it never comes to that.
Is this a modern day Trojan Horse, where the Muslinms slowly move into a "run down" neighborhood and work to make it "populated" all the while understanding that one day they will gain enough political power to change the current laws into their favor. Just like the Trojan Horse they wait till the locals are lulled into thinking that they are peaceful people and all is good, then one day the locals are awakend by the blaring of the call to prayer five times a day over a loud speaker. The locals call, write letters, or if posible actually reach their community representative only to find out that that local representative is no longer one of the old community and are told this is no longer the community you once knew, either accept it or move somewhere else. Then you realize the gut of the Trojan Horse has been opened and your way of life you expected some else to protect is gone.
Wake up and look around, just because it is not happening in your backyard it could be your neighbors and while you are sleeping your bacyard could be next.
Defiant lion, the Balkans were/are not part of the EU. You should ask for a map for Christmas. Oooops, I forgot, isn't Christmas banned in the UK now? And equating acts of non state-sponsored terrorism with armed international conflict is poor scholarship. Besides, the topic was intra-Western European armed international conflict. No one is disputing the Muslim acts of terrorism.
Graham - you brought up some interesting points. And yes, I also agree one of the aims of the EU is to take the decision making power from the people. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing (I have a definite Fascist streak at times). What is important is that it is always representative of the people. Some states in the EU do a better job representing their state's interest than others.
Regarding the "outsourcing" of Europe's military, I seem to remember the Falkland war. It was a tiny affair, but the US was not a proxy to it. Yes, Germany no longer has a powerful army (thank God for small favours) and Europe's military spending nowhere approaches that of the US. But then, look at the Euro to see where the EU's priorities are currently.
I sometimes wonder why the US obsession with bashing the EU. Currently I live in California, where there are no fewer than 100 (yes: a HUNDRED) mosques/majids/"Islamic centers" in a 60 mile radius. Maybe Americans are so obsessed with the EU to shift focus from the impotency to do anything about the growing problem right here?
Just a thought.
Brazen, I agree EXACTLY with what you said. And GREAT Icon by the way : ) Bouguereau is one of my favorite painters.
qualis rex,
if you look here you will see where this website is most read. More or less the proportions are: 1/3 Americans, 1/3 people from Denmark and 1/3, mostly with readers from Europe. So, most of the people reading this website are not actually Americans. that was no1.
no2: you praise EU for keeping the peace for 60 yrs now.
EU kept it's peace, among other things, selling Eastern Europe (I am for instance from Romania, which was one of the worst communist regimes in the world until 1989) and by, as one commenter here said, by "outsourcing it's defense" to the Americans.
no3:Now, considering the Islam and Jihad threats that most common Europe feels on its own skin, the biggest enemy of Europe is perceived as USA. Europe rots from within with its import of 50.000.000 muslims in a little more than one generation and with a birth rate that will lead to extinction, and at the same time is virulently and violently anti-American. (European mass-media and EU propaganda is to praise for this)
no4: in the short run Eastern European countries will have a lot to win from joining the EU, investments and funds for infrastructure and all... which is missing completely almost in countries like Romania and Bulgaria. But I tend to not feel grateful for all this help, because Romania for example, fought with the allies and to save their ass, we were given to the Russians.
So, this is in the short run. In the long run, for my generation (I was around 9 in the 1989 revolution) it will be very difficult to get used to Politically Correct crap. We were used to and grew in complete freedom of speech. Even if it didn't matter what we said, because the power was still owned by the communsits, we could say anything we wanted anytime we felt like.
This freedom is something that I miss when go in the West with all their Multicultural crap.
And, in a few years immigration will be poured in our countries. Working with the EU, Romania was declared an asylum country a few weeks ago. That officlialy means that from now on we could be flooded with immigrants.
n05: qualis rex, you say that EU was built for peace, and peace is what it made sure everybody has.
Did you read the article you comment to? Didnt you see that almost half of the Swedes expect a war in their country? And people from a few more countries from peaceful Europe are also expecting something like this.
I ask you: Where is the peace??
Costin - First, I said very clearly "as one of the lone Europeans on this thread". Not blog, not message board but THREAD, which means the place the current discussion is. And at the time I wrote that, I was "one of the lone Europeans" responding here. But thank you for the demographic breakdown of the readership.
Second - there is an American phrase "It takes two to tango". You are completely discounting the fact that Ion Antonescu freely brought Romania into the Axis on the side of the Nazis and Romania's role in the holocaust and the post-war rise of the Ceaucescu regime. Romania was pretty independent when it came to Warsaw pact countries (it already had relations with Germany and had no Soviet army after 1958) and could have easily switched sides. Why it did not was because of the large communist sentiment which had arisen as a backlash to the Nazi policies of Antonescu from the war. So, in the case of Romania, it was hardly "sold out" by Western Europe. Romanians sold themselves out (and fairly cheaply). So, it's obviously not in your best interest to be "grateful" to the EU, since it would mean you have to address the dark past of your own country. Much easier to play the victim, isn't it?
Lastly, I wouldn't worry about immigrants clamouring to get into Romania. There are still far more people looking to get OUT of it, than in. As far as peace is concerned, I mentioned in several posts already that there are still some severe issues. Mohammedan immigration and the lack of freedom of speach are probably the highest in my book, so on that we can agree. But if you seriously believe there is LESS freedom of speech now in the EU than under the communist dictatorship of Ceaucescu then you are living in some commie fantasy dreamworld. You are the only Romanian I have ever met that longed for the "good ol days".
Qualois Rex:
I will not join you in the gutter and resort to your childish sniping.
Try to read and apply some comprehension to what I have written instead of bigging yourself up. You are coming across as bitter and self-important and not as a scholar seeking to understand the reality of the current situation in Europe.
To answer your post:
1. No Christmas isn't banned in the UK, to state that it is is nothing other than a blatant lie.
2. I did not say "The Balkans are in Europe" I said that an EU member - Germany - was agitating a war on its doorstep. And not solely for its own interest. How can the EU be preventing war if its members are covertly agitating for it, the ramifications of which are being felt across the whole EU right now in various ways in the very region which brought the entire continent to war in 1914 - a conflict that didn't fully play out until 1945.
3. Non state sponsored terrorism? Are you sure? Because I know for a fact that the Saudis are funding most of it along with funding the spread of mosques and Islamic schools. Perhaps you don't understand the UK as well as may you think you do or how Saudi Arabia is conducting a war against the west by proxy. One could also fairly say that as the EU is encouraging mass immigration of muslims and paying millions of euros to Islamic states and causes such as Pakistan, Hamas/Hizbollah etc. then it is also sponsoring the Islamic jihad. They know what they are doing, make no mistake about it.
4. There is intra-western armed conflict you just do not understand how it works. Again, read some of the tactics being used against the indiginous people. The EU is being created against the will of the people. Marxist governments - as Fjordman, myself and others have posted many times here - are using force against their opponents including violence. Organisations such as Antifa, Common Purpose, UAF, Searchlight are financed by government and have government support.
The nature of the game has changed and more of us indiginous people are waking up to it. We are at war with European marxists and Islamic jihad funded by petro-dollar rich states like Saudi Arabia. Then there is also the use of drug and sex trafficking by the US sponsored new Islamic European state of Kosova. This in full knowledge of how the Albanians use sex trafficking, gun-running and drugs to further Islamic jihad.
It's all happening in the full knowledge of the European elites who are waging war on their own people. That it isn't a war in the conventional sense doesn't make it less of a conflict. These tactics are equally destructive to the nation state as conventional warfare and unless the native people of Europe wake upn to what is being done to them, the lights will go out in Europe once more only this time, they may never light the continent ever again.
Defiant Lion - funny, in once sentence you say: I will not join you in the gutter and resort to your childish sniping. then in the next: Try to read and apply some comprehension to what I have written instead of bigging yourself up.
Along with wishing for that map, you might also wish to ask for a dictionary so you can look up the word "hypocrite". *ahem*
No Christmas isn't banned in the UK
Yes, I realise. Also, look up sarcasm in the dictionary as you seem to be unaware of the concept. The year I left the UK in 2003, they had deemed it necessary to ban all crosses in public places (including hospital chapels). Prior to that, sings saying "Merry Christmas" were banned, as were all public symbols of Christmas, including a simple "star"...including SCHOOLS. One would surely think Chrismas were banned, wouldn't one?
Regarding Germany "agitating" or "creating" the dissolution of Iugaslavia, that's just bunk. Iugoslavia was an irregular and artificial construct to begin with. I'm really not in the mood to debate conspiracy theories right now. I'm sure you have a wonderful story of how aliens are abducting your chickens and teaching them nuclear technology, but you'll have to save that one for later.
Regarding KSA, I know first hand Saudis are sponsoring terrorism. But not the state of KSA as a matter of policy (like Lybia or Iran for instance). I realize the concept of a fine point may be lost on you, but you'll have to trust me on this one.
The only rational or intelligent thing I have heard from you is about the Albanians, on which we agree. But you seem to think there is a kabaal of international jihadists led by one group. This is simply not the case. There are in fact literally thousands of small groups. Yes, many receive funding and information from other ones, but it is simply not as simplistic as you are making it out.
"My bet is still on Britain for the first full-blown Eurabian civil war, with the Netherlands as a close second, and possibly Denmark. Italians will fight back. I don’t know if the Spanish will. ... In general, if you live in any Western European country, you should arm yourself very soon, one way or the other."
I won't predict the order in which civil wars start. However, I would say don't discount the Germans. Historically, when they do get themselves in an uproar (whether it's sooner or later) it generally gets pretty damned nasty. In a civil war of the approx. 90% ethnic Germans vs. the approx. 10% Muslims, I'd bet on the Germans. Come to think of it, even the French and Spaniards, as shown in their revolutions/civil wars, can get downright Anglo-Saxon in their willingness to duke it out.
But, as to your last line, yes, if I were a European, (while it may be extremely difficult to legally get a pistol) I'd stock up on "hunting", "sporting" rifles, shotguns and a large supply of ammunition. Kept cleaned and well secured.
What some people here fail to realise is that civil war is already under way in Europe. Consider the following facts:
- In a Paris city estate populated by Muslims, a group of rioters ambush a large number of police and shoot at them. About 80 policemen are wounded. Not a single shot is fired by the police.
- In a Muslim neighbourhood in Britain, a Muslim policeman threatens and expels two Anglican priests. Their crime: distributing Christian leaflets in the street. The Queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church.
- On top of the Everest, a nominally French young man has his photograph taken with two makeshift flags.
One consists in the number 93 scribbled on a piece of cardboard. This is the car registration number for the département of Seine-Saint-Denis just outside Paris, from which the young alpinist originates. The Seine-Saint-Denis area is were the kings of France were buried. It is also one of the strongest Muslim enclaves in the country. The second flag, proudly displayed on the pictures, is Algeria's.
Conspicuously absent is the French flag.
This is but a tiny sample. Feel free to add to the list.
Qualis Rex:
By childish sniping I was referring to your insulting of anyone who disgrees with you and bigging yourself up in the process. It wasn't an insult rather an observation of how you had treated others by talking down to them.
You're talkng nonsense about the UK. I am British I know far more than you about Christmas in the UK and no one would think Christmas had been banned. Songs wishing "merry christmas" haven't been banned. Just try looking at those sparkly things called "lights" that abound in the vast majority of towns and houses in December - including town halls. It is nowhere near as bad as you are making out.
Your knowledge of the Yugoslavia war is minimal. Educate yourself please from the people who were actually there. What I state about the Germans isn't a conspiracy but an acknowledged fact from the people directly involved. You can listen and be humbled by watching this:
Avoidable War 1
Avoidable War 2
I don't have a wonderful story about aliens but I know a cracker about a smart arse who didn't have a brain to match but I'm not in the mood to tell it ;-)
I wouldn't trust you at all not on this showing. The fine point my dear little american is that you stated state-sponsored terrorism didn't exist and now you say it does. Make your mind up. You also underestimate Albania's true policies but as the US is in bed with them I quite understand why.
You also mistake brevity for simplicity. Again, if you read what I posted about the various forms of jihad you may comprehend - there's that word again - that there are many groups and factions attacking the west. The issue is who sponsors it and the Saudis - along with other Islamic states - are supplying the bulkof the money.
You also miss the point about the EU's own state-sponsorship of terrorism, something that should not be ignored because they are doing it in full awareness of what the consequences are.
You insult people as irrational, unintelligent, conspiracy theorists, simplistic etc. instead of respecting and listening to serious issues being raised. Seems to me you want to prove something rather than discover the real truth about what we Europeans are facing right now. Maybe - just maybe - those of us here in Europe know just a little bit more about European issues than you do.
Deaf lion, I AM European. I was born and lived there for the first part of my life. I hold EU and US passports. I will be moving back to Europe (God willing) by the end of summer. So, while you calm your ego by the fact that you can dismiss my opinions on the subject as "American", rest assured, you are wrong (yet again).
Incidentally, don't they hang lights during Diwali? How about during Eid? Yeah? I thought so. This may be the reason all you get is "lights" during Christmas in the UK. I notice you were VERY conspicuously silent about the other symbols, because of course you know I was spot on there.
So, what have you personally done to bring back the "right" to put up a "Merry Christmas" sign in public areas? I'm pretty sure I know the answer here.
Robert - your points are taken, but I have one correction: the two men who were told to leave by the Muslim Community Support Officer, Naeem Naguthney were NOT "Anglican priests" (or even English) but American Evangelical Ministers. I make the distinction because Anglicans in general don't give a toss about religion, which is why their church is in it's death knells right now with the Grand Druid leading the way (and down the hatch, I say).
Well, Eastern Europe is (surprisingly) ahead of the Western Europe in terms of free speech and appreciation of the capitalistic freedoms, they found only eighteen years ago.
But the EU is working hard to crush that and replace it with the multiculti clap-trap that kills both freedom and free speech.
Costin is right. Antonescu joined the Axis only to get back the Romanian territories stolen by the Bolsheviks. Romanians were and are the most pro-American people in Europe, along the Polish people, for precisely the same reasons.
Europe and the US are in for big trouble, and the (hard) left must be confronted by all means, because otherwise, it will kill the western civilization, which was intended from the beginning.
We might face civil war, but that war will certainly involve the commies along the islamofascists...
Snooper, why do you think there will be a civil war here in America? I had never really considered that idea before. Europe yes, America no. Perhaps you'll elaborate?
Civil war in America is almost a given. Are political scene is beyond polarized with the right demonized in a way that is almost Nazi-esque. I read a op-ed once by a Cinnomon Stillweell where she published her hate hate mail and there was one guy talking baout rounding up conservatives for re-education camps.
This attitude isn't unique. Skye from Midnight Blue was assaulted by a "peace" protester a couple months back. She's a young woman this was a man. A vet's family was assaulted in some college town, and when I blogged that story I got hate mail, lots of it, implying that it was ok to beat a man's familiy in the streets if he was pro-War.
The left i really dominated by Fascist front groups for the Communist Party and World Worker's Party. These groups are spreading a ideology of violence against America and overthrow of our government. War is coming and this time rather than Union and Confederates it'll be Red State Blue state. But look around and see for yourself how hateful Americans are becoming of each other, it makes it obvious that something has to give.
"And so far, in spite of all its faults, it has succeeded. There has been no other time in recent history where Western Europe has not had international armed conflict or civil war for over 60 years."
It would have been 70 years if Neville Chamberlain had his way.
And Europe's relative peace, ignoring the breakup of Yugoslavia and other little matters, is a result of Pax Americana and the US security umbrella. I know you won't like me to say that, but it is true nonetheless.
Natalie said...
Snooper, why do you think there will be a civil war here in America? I had never really considered that idea before. Europe yes, America no. Perhaps you'll elaborate?
7/03/2008 2:24 PM
We haven't been this politically split since 1859 and look how that worked out. The Civil War of the 1800's was about States Rights and not slavery, contrary to popular teachings. We have the exact same thing now.
We have a run away Judiciary that enacts laws overriding States rights to rule themselves clearly in violation of our US Constitution . The 9th Circus Court in CA is a perfect example. The recent SCOTUS ruling in regards to Gitmo is another.
Several Texas laws were over turned by SCOTUS clearly in violation of the US Constitution and the Leftinistra will not allow anyone to challenge the run away courts.
The Leftinistra cannot pass their socialist agendas so they utilize the courts unconstitutionally to do their work for them.
Oklahoma recently issued Cease and Desist ORDERS to DC to butt out of their internal affairs and have since refused to send DC any more money.
Montana and Minnesota are drafting similar ORDERS. Texas, thank God, is next.
This is indeed what we are facing and fighting here and now:
http://www.anewtone.com/2008/01/list-of-45-something-you-should.html
I despise sarcasm on threads like this. It doesn't matter if I agree with the person being rude and denigrating or if I don't. I still don't like it. I come to this site to be educated, not to listen to a couple of people sniping at everyone else.
Please try to keep the debate polite. Try to avoid rude retorts like "buy yourself a dictionary; or a map." You can simply say "I take issue with your point" or, "I disagree with your position..."
If you think someone really does need the aid of a map, provide a link and explain your position in regard to geographic evidence you have provided.I would certainly link over to a map in order to understand your point of view. But, if you are rude, I don't really care what your point of view is.
Thank you.
Qualis Rex ->
I said I was 9 yrs old when the 1989 revolution was happening.
So really, truly, I remember from Ceausescu's era that, when i drew horns and a mustache to his face on some school book, my mother told me that I had to rip that page off so I (and all my family) wouldn't get into trouble.
So NO!. I dot long for Ceausescu! I was 9 during the revolution, I had no idea what it was happening.
But the whole point of this discussion is that I find the EU being like a soft Ceausescu regime. After 1989, up until now, the freedom of speech in Romania (in in the East for that matter) is much bigger that in the West. And the West is what we look up to. And what make me sad is that libertarianism and liberalism are eroding in the West. This is the reason why I read GoV.
About Antonescu and all, I know that Romania joined that Nazis when our interest was to do so.
I am not proud of it! But Romanians joined the Soviets when the Americans and the allies were fighting the Nazis.
I gree that Romania changed sides, and that Ceausescu was Romanian. But 90% of Romanians hated him up until 1989.
I don't like EU (and I am a SMALL minority) because it remembers me of Ceauescu.
I got used to the freedom of speech that I had AFTER 1989. That we still have now, but I see it as eroding in the following years.
I'm with Babs. I'm sick of the name-calling. If I had caught it when it started, I would have tried to nip it in the bud.
But I don't care who started it; it's time to quit.
Anyone who has a point to make can argue it without recourse to insult. The descent to personal insult is a sign that the argument can't be made on its merits.
A reminder: Rule #1 here about comments is that they be CIVIL.
I agree, name calling can only hurt us all...
Evrywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy
cause summers here and the time is right for fighting in the street, boy
But what can a poor boy do
Except to sing for a rock n roll band
cause in sleepy london town
Theres just no place for a street fighting man
No
Hey! think the time is right for a palace revolution
But where I live the game to play is compromise solution
Well, then what can a poor boy do
Except to sing for a rock n roll band
cause in sleepy london town
Theres no place for a street fighting man
No
Hey! said my name is called disturbance
Ill shout and scream, Ill kill the king, Ill rail at all his servants
Well, what can a poor boy do
Except to sing for a rock n roll band
cause in sleepy london town
Theres no place for a street fighting man
No
"And so far, in spite of all its faults, it has succeeded. There has been no other time in recent history where Western Europe has not had international armed conflict or civil war for over 60 years."
It would have been 70 years if Neville Chamberlain had his way.
Oh crap! I guess our litle Rex (Rex?) here went K.O.
Qualis Rex,
I AM European. I was born and lived there for the first part of my life. I hold EU and US passports.
How long was this first part of your life in Europe? There's quite a difference between 2 years or 37 years, here. And you see... when you say "I AM European"... well, essentially ALL Americans are European...
Also, do you come from a country? (I think generic EU passports are not yet in circulation).
And looking again at your formulation "I was born and lived there for the first part of my life", that's not the words of a European in exile. That's the words of an American wanting to present himself as a European, based on the fact of having been born in Europe (which all through history is an immensely common trait among Americans).
George, no, I admit it. The US and the Marshal plan (as well as the Soviet bloc) played an integral part of European stability. Now, stability under the Soviet bloc meant totalitarianisn with no rights or recorse to justice, but it was a stability (yes, a slow but stable deteriorating environment). Meanwhile, stability in Western Europe meant it was deneuement for an uneasy detent between fascists (Franco), Leftists (Labor), centrists (Christian Democrats) and..well, the French.
Now, these are the facts. I don't know why people are so uneasy with them. What is open for debate is whether stability (i.e. the absence of armed international conflict between member states) is better than 40 million European dead in WWII and 20 million in WWI.
Okay, Baron, it's your blog, but having a troll spew out invalid and unsound arguments to ridicule the adults on this thread is as much of more of an insult as me calling it a fool.
especially when it's an anti-Semitic troll who denies that Jews have been consistently victimized in the West and argues that "Judaism has presecuted Christianity"
I'm going to call that a crackpot Nut Job idea--or worse--every time I read or hear it.
There are insults, and then there are INSULTS
Someone else completed my point about the nature of the 'peace' in Europe during the Cold War: that it was a heavily-armed and very uneasy truce with constant local conflicts which cost many lives--and that it was enforced primarily by America and some Euro nations in alliance with the USA
I understand how determined the people of 'continental Europe' became after two World Wars which decimated their populations and ruined their economies. The New Overlords of Brussels know how to work that angle, and play upon the reasonable desire for peace.
The problem, of course, is their method: turning European nation-states into provinces of the EU SuperGovernment and allowing unchecked non-Euro immigration in an apparent effort to destroy the entire concept of nationality or national identity
Ireland is an island, but too close to Britain ( so whoever rules in that island will end up here, sooner or later, with Big Guns and New Rules ) Irish people, by a bare majority, rejected the Lisbon Farce, but cannot live some sort of autonomous existence
Whatever drags Europe down will take us with it.........
Conservative, I am Italian (I said that on 3 other threads already). I lived in Italy until I was 13, then 5 years in my early 20's. I also lived in the UK for 3 years, and Switzerland for 1. So, I'm pretty European, which is why I present myself as such. Yet, on the same token, I am American, in that I hold a US passport, have lived 10 years here (off and on) and this is where I currently reside.
Personally, I don't see what basis this has on the conversation. I only brought it up because another poster said "you sound like a Brit" or "you're probably an American" etc. Why does it matter? My points are my points and I am speaking from experience AND authority. Take it or leave it.
Will there be one or more civil wars in Europe? That depends on how one defines civil war. Being American I tend to use the lens of the American Civil War (or The War Between the States, or The War of Northern Aggression) as the model.
Our civil war was prosecuted by states. New York and Connecticut fought Alabama and Texas. Their were real armies on both sides. With modern munitions. There were lines on the map, and the troops moved back and forth to control territory.
Let us look at Europe. A true civil war is perhaps possible there if we take the EU to be the equivelent of the USA circa 1850. That is if Brussels becomes so tyrannical that England and Ireland decide to 'opt out' then you have set the stage for civil war. (Or course to those who don't see the EU as a real nation it would not be a civil war, but a war between traditional European nations: England vs. France and Germany.
Whether the EU would feel the passion to fight to keep people as members is unknown. My guess is they do not. So I see this type of true civil war as unlikely.
Let's look at an individual nation. Say the UK. The UK has a single army, there is not the tradition of either individually owned arms, or multiple military organizations (like the Independent Army of Scotland, or the Militia of Leeds). So again a true force-on-force civil war, in my opinion can not happen in the UK.
Let us imagine that things become very much worse for native Brits in their homeland. In electoral terms this could result in one of two things: a strong right or nationalist party takes control, as Britans, still the majority, abandon the foolish leftism of the Labour consensus. Now if (say) the BNP started roundups and mass expulsions of Muslims, shuttered mosques, forbid the wearing of hajib, cut off Al Jezera feeds and what ever other things it felt needed could the Muslim immigrants storm Westminster Abbey? No. Like all other Brit's they have tacitly agreed to live as disarmed subjects of the Government. They lack the material and probably the numbers (for the foreseeable future) to fight a war with the still reasonably muscular UK Army.
Flip this aroun the other way. The left and Muslim coalition gains power. The BNP lads are very angry. They can do little.
In either case ongoing terrorism is the most that can be expected. One reason that we now *have* terrorism is that it is the modern alternative to civil wars. As the ability to field an Army has gone from fairly universal to very difficult the dispossed, driven and angry are forced to resort to terrorism to express themselves.
In the era of our founding things were different. An Army was fundamentally a bunch of men with rifles. Washington raised an Army by asking for men to join. Many arrived with their own guns. Yes, Cannons were important, but there were simple, and could be readily constructed at any large foundry or requisitioned from existing forts.
Now imagine trying to get a rebel Army to have a single F-16. Not going to happen. It's not just stealing the plane, it's the fuel, the runways, the expertise, the weapons systems experts, etc.
So there is a fundamental disparity that favors "government" as the exclusive owner of the means of war, especialy in Europe, which makes a real civil war hard to imagine.
Short of this perhaps the streets become a pseudeo-battleground between warring factions. But now we are talking about, in all likelyhood in Europe, something more akin to Mods vs. Rockers than North vs. South.
Therefore my take is that there is almost no possibility of real civil war in Europe. The left is unlikely to relinquish their hold on power: though elections may still be held via mechanisms like the EU those elections are more and more symbolic, or for figurhead positions. Also the dumbing down via schools and media continues, the multiculturalist indoctrination is very effective, and therefore I don't think that a real nationalist take-over is likely or possible.
Therefore I am quite serious that the best hope for places like Sweden is 'boys in boots' to restore order and set limits for the new arrivals.
I lived in Williamsberg Brooklyn, NY many years ago. It had two main ethnic factions: Puerto Ricans, organized into small retail drug gangs, and the Hasidic majority. (There were still some other older ethnic whites, but most of the stores were run by Hasidic community.) Their was a main street that was the dividing line between the two groups.
The Hassidics suffered a continual wave of crime at the hands of the Puerto Ricans. Most of it was petty: shop lifting, graffiti, the occassional robbery. But it kept growing. Then there were some attacks on the Hassic woman.
The result was the most organized riot I have ever had the privilige to witness. It began with a rally of all the Hasidic men. At some points they were each given a stick. They marched through the Puerto Rican part of the neighborhood and broke almost every car window on their route. Methodically. The did not shout, or run, or even look very mad about what they were doing.
The message was definately recieved and crime (on the Hassidic side) decreased, through a mechanism that was never clear. Certainly the police understood they needed to pick up the pace on "petty crime" if they wanted to maintain their monopoly on the use of force.
Given what is going on in Europe I see some type of fraternal organization getting enough power to met out street justice and perhaps dampen the enthusiasm of the visitors to rape and pillage as a reasonable (and likely) outcome.
Much beyond that, a real restoration or a civil war. Not possible.
Qualis, it scares the crap out of me that you (suposing that you don't considering yourself a leftist) do not have any kind of National Identity.
Meanwhile, I do believe that the country that will tigger the "Multicultural Civilisation War" is France.
I also think that this "Anti-European World Wide War" started in South America and continues with the degradation of both Europeans racially and demographical speaking as well as European/Capitalist vallue systems and societies: We known that angry indian, Chavéz, Colombia will be the next to follow. The Northern Brazil is already voting Bolivarian... And speaking about Bolivar, Bolivia itself. The 10~15 Europeans left almost make a de facto Civil War to get independence but all they got was a star of David in their ID Cards. The great fight there is still being waged in Brazil.
Returning to Europe, it is extremly easy to make conections in order to buy weapons. I mean, real war weapons. Traffic is a mean. A too easy one... look at the Balkans, look at the "Favelas" of Brazil, look at Afghanistan.
It will be more difficult in Northern Europe but in the South, in the North Western Islands and in France, it will be damned easy to get weapons, not forgetting the Eastern Europe.
Jewish persecution of Christians:
2nd century - Bar Kochba revolt (Christians forced to "convert" and claim Bar Kochba as messiah or killed)
2nd and 3rd century - Jewish perecution of Christians in Smyrna and Alexandria cited by Origen
9th-10th century - Khazar (Jewish) kingdom persecution of Christians of Kiev-Rus tributary (does anyone here want to guess why Russians have historically hated Jews? Because for over 100 years of their early history, they were subjugated by them).
10th - 11th century - Felasha (Jewish) kingdom persecutes Christians, destroying all monasteries and churches in Axum, Ethiopia under Queen Yodit (Judith).
I'm not going into anything in semi-modern history. Just pointing out that there are two sides to every story, regardless of whether or not certain petty, biggoted people are too closed minded to listen to them,.
Zeke, a Civil War in Europe will be about a two or three groups of man with money, motivation and a small but strong and well trained army.
The wars at the Balkans are very good examples in my humble opinion.
Also, do you know how Mussolini made it to the government? He marched in Rome with a bunch of boys wearing black. The King and the populace frightened, invited them to power. It is this simple.
Airplains will not be needed. Will the Brittish or French government be able to bomb its own people? I doubt it.
My vision is, thirty percent.
If one in every three males of a given society share the same goal and can work together under a lider (Nationalism, for example), they will rule the place in which they are. With this thirty percent of a village, with a lider with the respective money and army, this men would control the village and if, the conditions of life (even if only spiritually) on that village can be improoved by this men, they will "rule" that village. This is more or less what happens in the "ethnic" neighbourhoods across Europe.
There is a no need for violence. Only manager skills and the support of half of the local population to not be gentle towards leftism/outsiders. The men would then colonise other village with the same method. This men can also attack on criminals while the police fails, they would have a small army to protect them.
I know it is flawd but my point is: It will resemble the Balkans, Feudalism but also gang-street-fighting, "Boys in Boots" as you said.
The European governments will not put their armies to act against their people. The European Union will.
For this to happen however, the rebels will need to controle some MSM. Maybe one or two newspapers (Brussels Journal) and many places on the Internet, even if only by commenting in other people's blog.
Also, if the police is not aloud to attack the immigrants, how will the policmen feel when ordered to attack only whites? Ethnic policeman will also have their differences with other policemen and the policemen have a fair injection of reality, though many of them are "to stupid" to think politically and at the long range.
Now I can not elaborate. But it will be a mix: Balkans/Feudalism/Boys in Boots.
Of course, with the support of at least some 30% of the population.
Qualis,
So you are from Italy. Nice. We all love Italy here. A country that gives us hope for the future.
But then again, back to your idenity. Your personal history is really a hodgepodge. Your parents have been dragging you around quite some bit, I can see. But it is in these situations that the attitude of the person in question becomes decisive. And in your case I'd say, the description of your time in Europe as "I was born and lived there for the first part of my life", are definitely not the words of a European in exile. So idenity-wise I think you have left the European continent behind in favour of the North American one. However, I would say that mentally you are rather "Canadian".
Personally, I don't see what basis this has on the conversation. I only brought it up because another poster said "you sound like a Brit" or "you're probably an American" etc. Why does it matter? My points are my points and I am speaking from experience AND authority. Take it or leave it.
Well Mr "Lone European", so this had no basis on this conversation?
Wasn't it so that you were not only the very first to bring it up and put it in the spotlight, but that you based the whole "authority" of your words upon this. But this rhetorical angle didn't fall out well for you, Qualis, did it? Out of the "lone European" there turned out to be much less of both the "lone" and the "European" than one would have expected, considering the rather bombastic entrance. You really didn't know where you had come, did you?
Also, the way you use the word authority makes me think of Cindy Sheehan. Authority is not built by touring Europe with a jazz band (as Charles Johnson). Neither is authority built by touring Europe from country to country as a child to diplomatic parents. Some people say that you cannot criticize the Koran if you do not know Arabic. That you have no "authority" to criticize the Koran if you cannot read Arabic, or at all to criticize Islam if you are not a Muslim. This usage of the word "authority" is all useless and should be scrapped (compare it also to how the word "respect" has degenerated).
Authority built on knowledge, studies and good arguments. As shown by Baron Bodissey, who is one of the founders of one of the Internet's most authoritative site regarding European affairs.
Qualis Rex:
I don't care if you are US/European whatever. You are posting inaccuracies about my country and I have corrected them and NOT ONCE have you responded to my corrections. Not content with that you carry on regardless and spout yet mnore inaccuracies.
Even though I am bored rigid with your non-acknowledgement of corrections I will try once again.
Do muslims hang lights from Christmas trees? Do they have snowmen and santa claus and Rudolph the red nose reindeer all lit up at Christmas as many towns and cities do? Do they have lit up angels, choir singers and cribs depicting the birth of Christ?
Take your time to think, no rush. But you are anything but spot on about MY country. Yes other groups celebrate and eid is huge in my own city but it doesn't overshadow Christmas and if you say otherwise you are a liar. I am English to the core and a proud member of the BNP amd I don't need people like you telling me what happens in England.
As for your "what have you done" how dare you question what I am doing. You are not my maker but rest assured I am doing a damn sight more than worrying about Merry Xmas lights. The struggle I am part of is way more than that.
That you have not responded to any of the issues I have corrected you on - including your personal insults towards me especially labelling me a conspiracy theorist about Yugoslavia which I have provided evidence to refute you shows me you are not genuine and honest in your debating and I for one will no longer debate with you. Your credibility is shot.
But if you continue to lie about my country I will correct you - again and again.
You really didn't know where you had come, did you?
I mean, there are contexts in which your sort of entrance would be entirely appropriate, even though they are rare. E.g. in that infamous pod radio show last autumn with the Sanity Squad, where Siggy the shrink was the expert on Europe. Siggy who thought that Vlaams Belang was a person, and other utterly clueless things about Europe. If you had entered in the middle of that and said "Here entereth the Lone European!" you would have been nail on the head, as the only American in the company with vital connections to Europe.
I have not read through the whole thread, but is there not another possibility of civil war in Europe -- Eastern (New) Europe vs. Western/Southern/Northern (Old) Europe?
The Easterners did not spend 40+ years fighting off one Marxist tyrant (the USSR) to be subjugated by another (the EU). Further, Eastern Europeans -- and we're talking primarily the Poles -- still have stronger religious beliefs, and I don't think they care for the full frontal assault on religion that the EU has waged, virtually uninterrupted from the fall of the USSR, which really was the EU's role model.
France and Britain have nukes, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic do not. But I believe they still have a will to fight and die for their freedom and their national culture.
Simon --
Okay, Baron, it's your blog, but having a troll spew out invalid and unsound arguments to ridicule the adults on this thread is as much of more of an insult as me calling it a fool.
First of all, I haven't identified Qualis Rex as a troll. He/she/it is a troublemaker, but, then any number of our regular commenters are troublemakers.
To assert that "Jews in Israel do such-and-such" is not in itself insulting. If you disagree with the assertion, say so, and cite facts to back it up, or offer an something as an opinion.
On the other hand, to assert, for example, that "Jews are subhuman scum" is a different matter. That's anti-Semitic invective and should be treated as such.
There are many assertions that cause people to react negatively, but not all of them are insults. "Americans are arrogant and stupid" is an insult. "American policy in Iraq is foolish and misguided" is not.
Calling people morons, idiots, turds, leftards, etc., is a way of avoiding refuting them. I can understand the impulse to insult; sometimes people do say stupid things, and refuting them is tiresome, time-consuming, and in the end unlikely to convince them.
Calling them stupid, however, will not convince them or anyone else of anything. It poisons the conversation and shuts down reasonable argument.
Qualis Rex has provoked an interesting discussion. That in itself is sometimes worthwhile.
Trolls are people who don't comment in good faith. They say what they say only to provoke, not to engage or discuss. They do it perhaps for the satisfaction of getting everyone else bent out of shape, or maybe for more devious reasons -- to sow trouble in the "enemy" camp, to bring the real nasty extremists out of hiding as lurkers and into the open, to discredit the blog as a serious forum, etc.
If you think someone is troll, ignore him/her/it. It a commenter breaks the rules, I'll delete the comment.
Baron B: Qualis Rex has provoked an interesting discussion.
While distracting from and eclipsing an even more interesting discussion. Namely the theme of the article of the thread.
Btw, what did you find interesting and useful in the themes brought up by Qualis?
Conservative Swede --
The point that Qualis Rex made that has some slight value is the same one that Nodrog often makes -- namely, that the EU is not all bad, has some use, is necessary to prevent nationalistic wars, etc.
It's an assertion I disagree vehemently with, but it's worth discussing.
Unfortunately, due to the slinging of insults, and the response to insults with more insults to the third or fourth generation, the thread has basically been ruined.
If it doesn't leave the "YOU SUCK!" swamp soon, I'll simply have to shut it to further comments.
This seems to happen a lot with Fjordman posts lately, which is a pity, because Fjordman's essays are the best we have, and the comment threads should reflect that.
But there's no herding cats; they go where they will.
Baron,
The point that Qualis Rex made that has some slight value is the same one that Nodrog often makes -- namely, that the EU is not all bad, has some use, is necessary to prevent nationalistic wars, etc.
It's an assertion I disagree vehemently with, but it's worth discussing.
It's important to discuss alternative and opposing opinions, but unlike you I fail to see the value of having to endlessly debunk positions based on false premises and common misconceptions. This steals time from other things, e.g. a discussion around Fjordman's article.
The EU does not prevent nationalistic wars. It's the American troops stationed here that has done that job. Can't you see that the idea of EU keeping the peace is a false premise, a chimera? Or is it that you consider false premises useful and interesting, while I do not?
OK, I get it. You are just trying to be polite... OK, so forget about it the whole thing.
QR,
It's deeply offensive of you to refer to me as Norwegian. It breaks the first two rules of GoV, and the Baron will most probably close down this thread now.
Qualis Rex --
"Uncharitable" does not begin to describe it.
I'm considering revising my view of you as a non-troll. If you persist in posting insulting comments, I shall delete your comments as soon as they appear, without reading them.
Conservative Swede is not only a long-term and valued commenter here, he has contributed immensely to the Counterjihad in ways that are too numerous to mention.
He may sometimes be provocative and abrasive in his inimitable Swedish way, but he follows our guidelines and values what we do here.
Insulting him at GoV is almost the same as insulting Dymphna or Fjordman. Don't try my patience.
CS --
I'm going to give it a bit longer. I certainly have no desire to keep babysitting this kind of crap.
As for the EU -- in my opinion it's evil and unredeemable, and I see no value in it whatsoever. But then I'm an ignorant American. I thought you knew that!
But I'm not averse to letting people argue about it.
Swede, no more you calling me Canadian. You can dish it out but can't take it?
Anyway, you say The EU does not prevent nationalistic wars. It's the American troops stationed here that has done that job.
OK, this is an easy argument to win. Since 1954 name 3 examples where the US troops in Europe have been called in to settle intra-European conflict from EU countries. This could be border disputes, water rights, troop build up etc. Any 3 examples.
No? Well, how about civil disputes, such as the Paris Riots in the 60's, the Red Brigade activity in the 70's, the Basque separatists in the 80's or the Nortern Ireland conflict throughout? Were the US troops called in to quell these events?
Because if you are right (which you are not) and the US troops were the only thing from keeping the EU nations from each other's throats, then they should have been called in time and time again.
Your response, Swede.
All this talk about civil war, both here and in Europe, is frightening. But it's good that we're discussing it. I mean, just pushing it under the rug so to speak won't make these issues go away.
Snooper and Rob Taylor, thanks for elaborating about the whole civil war in America thing. I had seriously never even considered that thought before, but both of you make great arguments, and I do agree now that it is a possibility.
Snooper made the point that America hasn't been this divided since before the Civil War. Shire Network News (the best podcast in the world) had a great interview with a person talking about this same topic.
Just for the sake of erudition, I think we (those of us commenting on this thread) may have some differences on what the term "civil war" means. As I said previously I always took it to mean native Europeans fighting against Muslims and their sympathizers. I don't think it's going to be a civil war like our American Civil War in the 1860s with armies and stuff. It seems to me that maybe others had different definitions of the term.
Baron, I'm not going to be your toadie. Swede called me Canadian, questioned my national loyalty etc. Yet you let his post stand. When I call him Norwegian, mine gets pulled. If you are going to have different rules for different posters who agree with you on certain points then please put that in your guidelines so it will at least be tranparent
I believe Denmark will fight back first, but there it will be the state that fights back. In the UK, how will anyone fight back? There are no weapons in private hands, unlike France and Denmark.
Qualis Rex,
You definitely won't be my toadie. You'll either reform your ways or be out of here; those are your choices.
I read what CS said, and he did not intend insult. You, on the other hand, intended insult. Repeatedly, with any number of comments.
Your first comment on this post as the "lone European on this thread" was already implicitly insulting in its tone, and things degenerated from there. Instead of rising above the gibes aimed at you, you made the situation worse.
You're new here, so I've been cutting you some slack. But time's up; your grace period just expired.
I believe in freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I won't act like a tyrant on these threads.
I ask people to abide by the rules, but the law was made for man, and not man for the law. When people push the envelope in bad faith, I start deleting their comments.
And yes, I'm the judge of what's "in bad faith". It's a judgment call, and I've just made it. You have descended into bad-faith commenting, and you'd be well-advised to quit doing it right now.
Qualis Rex,
You can not forget what was the Cold War.
First of all, Europe was divided. So, we'll only talk about the Western part. You may already know that (West) Germany was neutralised because it was only a third or a fourth of the Traditional main Germanic "Entity" - The Germanic federation (plus Prussia and Austria). Despite all this, Western Gerany became the most important economic power in Europe, and after the reunification (1989), it started right in 1991 to became a great political power, acting pratically alone to aloud the Northern ex-Yoguslavian states to gain independence, namely Croatia and Slovenia, which have traditionally been under Austrian authority, that is, the German sphere of influence. In 2004, two more countries, Poland and Czech Republic became part of the E.U., what only has empowered Germany even more. Our conclusion is that Germany was politically irrelevant untill 1989.
We can also not forget that France was totally destroyed by the war, the same to Italy, and the Netherlands and Belgium are, and have been after the creation of the CECA, hardly politically relevant, being crushed between France and Germany.
I've already mentioned that Italy had lost the war and that it was as destroyed as France.
Portugal and Spain were fascist dictatorships until 1974 and 1975, and ever since have been politically irrelevant and socially instable, trying to adapt to the new Socialist regimes.
Britain was better but was very "weak" to wage a war against an European country, but, maybe, the Nordic Scandinavian states which have become irrelevent due to both, it's love for softness and "neutrality" and a ridiculously low populational density.
There was no motifs to wage a War Qualis. Also, the European Powers were troubled with decolonisation which only ended in 1974. So, at best, you have margin to intra European conflict from 1974 onwards.
But you forget that no Western country (maybe with the exceptions of some Portuguese and Spaniard elites, which did not represented the peoples - and certainly the people of the Northern half of the countries (90% in Portugal and 70% in Spain) - but were instead Communist and hardcore Socialists like Chavéz) wanted to wage a war, because there was a real chance that the Communists would really advance over Western free European lands.
THAT WERE FREE DUE TO THE AMERICAN TROOPS HERE IN EUROPE, OTHERWISE THE SOVIETS WOULD ATTACK US ALL.
So, conflit could only happen after 1989 (twenty years!!). This conflits have happened in the East of Europe because there was no need to fight in the West.
I can give you many, many, twenty year periods of peace in Western Europe:
1918-1939
1871-1918 for example...
I hope I was able to show you that "Peace" in Europe is not because of the European Union, and even if the Cold War can be considered "Peace time", you can easily see why there was no war. Because it would have terrible consequences. I also hope to have shown you how America was so important to maintain peace in Europe.
Sorry for the lenthy comment, though.
--------------------------------
Baron, maybe you would be interested in discussing in another thread if Liberalism in the worst meaning of the word (Bastardization; making "normal" and "fashionable" the "frick shows" at MTV; the glorification of "agressive" femininism, etc.) is an irreversible consequence of Capitalism, and thus paired with it.
I say this because I remember the other thread from Fjordman about Capitalism, and I really would like to see how people react to such an idea (especially "Radical" Capitalists like Zenster).
Knowing that the blue U.S. states - and Holland of course - are considered the most liberal (and the more Capitalistic(?), I am thinking if New York City) I think it would produce a delightfull and interesting debate.
@Afonso--
Knowing that the blue U.S. states - and Holland of course - are considered the most liberal (and the more Capitalistic(?)...
Afonso, in the blue kingdom, Capitalism is a bad word, reserved to be hurled at Heartless Republicans who are trying to destroy the "safety net" of large government programs for the poor.
Conservative economists, on the other hand, consider capitalism an engine of prosperity for all, if only government doesn't regulate and tax it to death.
Please read The Acton Institute for a view of capitalism and the entrepreneur as a force for good. This is a site which bases its ideas on Catholic teachings...those besides the ones of Leo XIII, anyway.
If you would prefer a lighter, less intellectual approach, then I recommend "The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid", which is the website run by Donald Luskin, an economist who wrote a book with the same name.
Both of these are on our sidebar and both are well worth your time.
Meanwhile, the blues would be insulted to be thought of as capitalists. Especially corporations like Google.
Qualis Rex,
Two things are clear at this point:
1. You had, by accumulation, deserved a reprimand.
2. As is often the case when a reprimand is dealt based on accumulation. the occasion as such was a weird one.
My comment about being offended by being called a Norwegian was obviously a joke, and the Baron should know that. It was meant as a jest to ease up the tensions, so I was as surprised as you that that comment was deleted. Actually I object to the fact that the comment was deleted. There was nothing wrong with it (in comparison).
But even if I think it was done somewhat bluntly this time, the Baron has proved his point. So let's just get on with the discussions.
Swede I'm more interested in why you chose not to answer my post which clearly debunked your errant thesis on US troops being the reason there has been no international armed conflict in the EU. If you want to 'get on with the discussion' there's your opportunity. It's all laid out in my post @ 7:07 PM
Regarding the outsourcing of Europe's military defence and Falkland (which is a little exception, but which does not at all change the overall picture). Let's describe the whole thing more in detail:
After WWII four "policemen" were appointed to police Europe and the world. Constable Stalin was left in charge of Eastern Europe. America, Britain and France divided the responsibility for Western Europe. However, the influence and troop presence of Britain and France have dwindled since 1945. It's all in the hands of America now--which was shown clearly by the Yugoslavia affairs--and has in effect been so for many decades.
However, Britain and France, having once having been appointed as among the policmen, were at least until 1989 accepted to wage a war somewhere in the world, as in the Falklands or in Western Africa. If any other European country had tried the same, they would have been stopped by the "world community", i.e. America.
Am I clear enough now?
The original point being about how Europe has--through the stern suffocating motherly love of America--been deprived of it's right of it's own military defence. Thusly Europeans think and act as irresponsible teenagers in geopolitical affairs. The dodging of the responsibility of our own military defence has made Europeans blind to this side of reality, and most importantly today, in domestic affairs.
Robert -- my thought was more to Marseille and other southern cities where the Union Corse holds sway or has historically done so.
They certainly can't afford to lose Marseille. Being pushed out there means they'd have to get real work. Men have died to avoid that.
Interestingly, Britain just surrendered today with the Chief Justice opining that Sharia law should be used.
So, Muslims can kill the neighbor's dog, service dogs on the street, because they are "unclean." Well. It's Sharia. And the only way to avoid that ... is through organized crime protection. Save your family pet, pay the local thugs to intimidate the Muslim neighbors. Which puts a straight out street battle.
The political organizations in Britain save the BNP, who Melanie Phillips pointed out are anti-Semitic (but then, so are the Labor/Tory parties) are solidly pro-Muslim, as are the other elites. [Including the security services, while in France they are anti-Muslim and drawn largely from provincials.]
I think people misunderstand the French. The French are innately conservative. They like things not to change much, and will fight like hell to keep what they have, often outside of politics. Very ruthlessly. Even de Gaulle feared his people. The French LIKE a big welfare state, with someone functioning as the centralized king keeping everything running with Law and Order. They don't like change, foreigners intruding, and the countryside is still considering if 1789 was a good idea or not. When Napoleon gave peasants a bit of land he made them completely conservative. Not in ways applicable to America, but tied to the land, protective of whatever small plot they've got, and innately distrustful of all outsiders and change. While this has it's limits, there is much to admire. The French are generally an admirable people, as are the Italians.
BOTH are proud of who and what they are. They're not ashamed, particularly country people. Their food, culture, language, have contributed much to Western culture and the world. They have a right to be proud.
[With the way politically blocked by stupid elites, sadly it will fall onto French, Italian, and perhaps British criminals to start fighting back against Sharia in the West.]
Qualis Rex,
Swede I'm more interested in why you chose not to answer my post which clearly debunked your errant thesis on US troops being the reason there has been no international armed conflict in the EU. If you want to 'get on with the discussion' there's your opportunity. It's all laid out in my post @ 7:07 PM
As you see I have written about that topic without you even asking for it. And I'm didn't mainly write it with you in mind but for the other readers. One would have thought that you would have learned something from the reprimand that you got from the Baron, but you continue in your usual style: "chose not to answer my post" etc. It's not necessary. OK? This is a forum for serious debates, I advice you to act accordingly.
Because if you are right (which you are not) and the US troops were the only thing from keeping the EU nations from each other's throats, then they should have been called in time and time again.
Why?
What becomes clear when studying power relations, is that when there's absolute power there is quiescence. The presence of American troops has never been threatened or even questioned, so why should they have interfered? Political power is always backed by the ability to apply violence, but very rarely the violence is applied in a situation of absolute power. The mere presence of American troops does much of the job. This is the foundation. But on top of that there have been several ideological campaigns such as de-Nazification programs (not only in Germany!), Marshall plans etc, which together amounted to a "cultural revolution" of Western Europe. This to the point of the Europeans not even being mentally capable to question the setup with it's military defence outsourced to America.
The Europeans, however, were generally willing to accept this deal, based on the traumas of the two world wars. This adds to the equation of why this setup has been in place for so long. An illusion that has been upheld for some 60 years, and ultimately this illusion is defended by American troops.
You mention the Red Brigades in the 70's and the Basque separatists in the 80's. All internal affairs. Essentially policing efforts. Do you see any invasion of another country in that picture? No, I thought so.
Swede, you lose. You cannot come up with one, let alone three instances of a US military intervention in Western Europe since 1954. And if you cannot, this means the US was not the reason for the absence of armed warfare in Europe in recent memory. Indeed, there have been conflicts, such as the ones mentioned. And the US troops were nowhere to be seen, save on their airbases or flying into ski-lifts.
My point stands. The EU, for all its flaws, is responsible for the cessation of international armed conflict among member states. The US was certainly a force for stability in that it deterred the Soviet Union long enough for Europe to regroup, but it is precisely the EU laws such as Rome II for border disputes which is responsible for the outcome. Not the US. If the EU did what the US wanted, Turkey would now be a member.
Now, on to your next erroneous statement: "If any other European country had tried the same, they would have been stopped by the "world community", i.e. America." I will direct you to the fact that Portugal waged war in Angola from 1961 to 1975 with no armed "hand-slapping" from the US. Spain fought a war in Spanish Sahara from 1956 - 1975, once again with no intervention from the US. Since the fall of the Soviet bloc, the US' presence is redundant and more ceremonial than anything.
Anyway, I think I've proven you wrong enough times today. You might want to think about actually listening to another opinion, rather than being so dismissive next time.
What I describe above are the three stages of power, as described by power theorist Gaventa, to achieve absolute power.
Step 1: Military presence. Providing the ability to oppose the opposition with violence.
Step 2: Building your institutions. Providing the ability to oppose the opposition with non-violent means (which you prefer rather than violence).
Step 3: Conditioning the minds of the subjects so that they no longer see your power structures as intrusive/oppressive. This is the icing of the cake. Now there is no longer any opposition. The will of your power has eaten its way into the minds of the people you subjected and become institutionalized there.
The same formula was used e.g. when the Brits colonized India, or when Sweden annected Skåke (Scania). There are numerous examples. It's always the same pattern. Of course, step 3 is not always perfected, but even so, there are many layers of the cake.
Once stage 3 is in place there is quiescence. And untrained eye would describe it as a wonderfully peaceful place without any conflicts, without any power games.
And stage 3 is the very image of Europe of today.
Swede, since I answered your personal questions about me (i.e. citizenship etc) let me ask you this: how old are you? you don't have to give an exact age if you don't want. I'm just curious. Are you in University?
Qualis,
Spain and Portugal before 1975 was not in the zone of control of the "world community". You should know that.
You have a general problem with time perspective. Also here:
The EU, for all its flaws, is responsible for the cessation of international armed conflict among member states.
As has been pointed out, the EU was not even around for most of these 60 years. And certainly not during the critical years when the current order was built up.
And here:
If the EU did what the US wanted, Turkey would now be a member.
The EU is expanding towards Turkey. But even according to the plan, Turkey wouldn't have been admitted before Romania and Bulgaria. The EU nomenklatura is doing all in its power to get Turkey into the union.
Qualis,
I was born in the '60s and I have worked at a University, so I know what it's like from the inside.
Okay, Baron, Your Blog, Your Rules
I never used any of the terms you used. If you are going to take several paragraphs to get 'on my case', as the young folks say in the USA, get it right
I did apply two terms to the increasingly-troll-like 'Qualis' ( fool and wanker ) and I explained why I believe only a fool would argue as it did, and why I believe its views expose it as a wanker
Its comment that "Judaism persecuted Christianity" is absurd as well as ant-Semitic. The troll did not cite any examples until challenged, and then cited two kingdoms over a thousand years ago, and tossed in a remark justifying Russian pogroms
I've heard this ugly song before, Baron--and I recognize the troll's smarmy, arrogant, uber-Leftie antagonism towards everything that it dislikes and disapproves of
"Qualis"s intention is to disrupt and poison this vital conversation, not to actually debate or inform. I object to that, and voiced my objection.
A year or so ago, there was an English fellow ranting that Eisenhower was a tool of The Jews, and so was George Marshall, etc
I put forth my view that he was a Nut Job ( worse than Qualis, even ) and I recall being kicked in the shins about that, too
until next time,
Jerry Westerby, posting as.....
Simon,
I respect what you say (not counting any insults that you might have felt provoked to use), and I wasn't ascribing to you any of those examples. I tried to choose made-up insults, so as not to single people out.
My only contention was that QR could not yet be definitively termed a "troll". However, if you read my later comments you'll see that my patience has now been tried, and the shoe seems more and more to fit.
But I'll let CS work with him/her/it for now, and see what develops.
Estimado Fjordman:
I offer the following in terms of future essays with respect to the likelihood of a civil war or civil wars in Europe.
The writers for the web site www.stratfor.com a geopolitical think tank, wrote the most excellent book, The Future Of War. In it, they do a detailed history of war and an easy method for extrapolating. The salient points are, that real population wars are usually unexpected and a consequence not of isolation of culture but of greater interdependence and globalization, an idea which really began with Columbus.
I would be inclined to draw from the examples in this book as well as the thinking which parallels your own but from a parallax perspective. I think you would find it a great reference.
Your loyal reader,
vladtepesblog.com
Baron, interesting how you would let that entire post stand, which is full of insults to me. And not only that, you comment on it as well without doing a thing. Not only that, you join in by saying he/she/it (obviously I am sensient, so I must have a gender).
Well, here's me taking the high road. I guess someone here has to.
All right, lets have a look at this from another direction.
South America. In the late 19th and early 20th century several large wars were fought by various South American countries and colonies over various things. Very bloody wars. IN once instance nearly the entire male population of Paraguay was wiped out by one of these wars.
Now, why is it that, not counting the Falklands war, these countries haven't been to war for the last 90 or so years? How have they so managed to hold back their aggression without the overarching presence of a South American Union to stop them going to war? Why has Argentina not invaded Brazil for the oil? Why has Paraguay not been invaded for its gold and silver? Why has Uraguay not been wiped off the map? What's stopping them ganging up on Chile?
"However, Britain and France, having once having been appointed as among the policmen, were at least until 1989 accepted to wage a war somewhere in the world, as in the Falklands or in Western Africa. If any other European country had tried the same, they would have been stopped by the "world community", i.e. America."
Aloud me to object, Conservative Swede, but Portugal waged a war for thirteen years in its colonies. In the beginning the U.S.A. played with both parts; I guess that the Netherlands also fought a brief war in Indonesia...
Concerning the Portuguese colonial war, if we only had joined with our four to five allies despite the ONU (Rodhesia, Appartheid South Africa, The U.S.A., the United Kingdom, and maybe the Conservative Brazil of then), things would be really different, deaths would be less and we could have managed to maintain Austral Africa somehow European (even by softening the regime and increasing immigration to South Africa) and also to invade the RDC (Zaire) which had spread the rebellion.
The worst is that we did had means to atract both the U.S. and the U.K to cover for us in the ONU, claiming the rebels were Communist (which was true, they even recieved orders from the Portuguese Communist Party, then illegal) and promessing American bases in the Azores, Cape Verde and Southern Africa, that is, bases all along the Atlantic.
Civil war is when potentially deadly violence becomes systematic and spontaneous between different civilian groups within a country, unencumbered by the rules, accountability and restraint of a regular army.
We're already here in Europe. Only the violence is mostly one-way for the time being, exerted by immigrants upon the indigenous populations.
The big question mark is: when will the latter start responding? And what will happen then?
Zeke's description of Hassidic response to Puerto Ricans in Williamsberg Brooklyn is very interesting in that respect.
Archonix, I do think you gave a somewhat bad example.
South America has been very different from Europe. While Europe is composed of Nation States, South America is too multicultural and its society seems to be built upon castes. The whites being the rulers and whoever is less white being the most poor and powerless ones.
Since (even before) 1917 South America has fought Communism at the internal level. The society was, as a rule, extremely Conservative and Hispanic-derived;
You must not forget that great parts of their inhabitants had a very different culture than their elites. And they found Communism too apealing, as a liberation from the European Conservative norm, (somewhat) foreign to them.
By the thirties, the majority of South American Countries had Fascist governments. After the Second World War the United States had played well with its back yard but now things seem to have gone a little over the bottle...
Che Guevara was murdered in Bolivia and since then he has been seen by many Catholic Latin American priests as a Saint, if not Jesus himself.
Che Guevara wanted to unite all Latin America in a communist mixed race State (and when I say mixed race, I don't mean 40% predominantly black 40% pre. Native and 20% white, I mean, a state really 100% of the same mixed race, La Razza) that would fight the opression and world power of the United States. It's name was: Bolivaianism.
Bolivarianism is still there, and stronger than ever. While Cuba seems to get away of the long Communist darkness and maybe even be an active member of the European Civilisation, new States have turned Bolivarian:
Except Mexico, the Central American States have a great potential to turn Bolivarian (many do not due to past civil wars and a strong desire to be kept in a bad piece) but Costa Rica and Panama which are too dependent on "Western" investiments (and turism?).
In South America, Venezuela, Equador, Bolívia, have turned clearly Bolivarian; Peru and paraguay are now Bolivarian despite the fact that there was no "Bolivarian Revolution". Probabily, this will happen democratically in the next Peruvian elections;
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay have turn dangerously leftist and aloud mass immigration. This region is overwhelmingly white and somewhat rich and Socialism is more desired then Bolivarianism, though vast proportions of the population would desire Bolivarianism.
Two South American States are fighting Bolivarianism: Brazil and Colombia. The Brazilian president is a Bolivarian. And Brazil is the main power in the region. There is no Conservative European movement in Brazil.
Colombia is now an island of the West in the region, and has faced too many treaths (and actions) from its neighbours. They will definetly act in the next Colombian elections.
A discontent is growing in Colombia because its neighbour, Venezuela, has expirienced great Economic growth (and more destribution of wealth) and Colombia has not, Colombia used to be the more powerfull Economically speaking. That makes seem that Bolivarianism pay off.
The other side is that it costs freedom and the Colombians know this well. But, do the Colombian poor (40 to 60%) feel they are free?
All my point is that South America has being at peace because its elites (I mean, the Europeans) have had more in common with each other than with their own populations. The elites were to buisy holding the power in their hands away from the Communists (with American help). This has changed. It will be a mess. I just hope for a strong Conservative pro-European movement to rise to power the next 5 to ten years in Argentina because if not, European Civilisation will disapear (and I never had a chance to visit Buenos Aires) in that part of the world.
Sorry for the lenghty thread but nobody reads this any longer, do they?
Thank you Dymphna. I'll check it out...
OK, Qualis. Yes, I realize that you're either a he or a she. Tell me which one, and I'll use it. The "it" part was just silly. Hang around here long enough, and you'll notice that I enjoy being silly.
Your comments have taken a harsh, contemptuous, and confrontational tone towards other commenters from the git-go. Simon doesn't do that as a matter of course; hence he got a break.
If I wanted to be totally fair, I'd have deleted about 15 or 20 comments from this thread that have violated the rules (including many of yours). But I didn't, and then you got singled out there as an example. Tough break.
I don't have the time or the energy to find and delete all infractions. I try to keep the converation from degenerating into name-calling irrelevance, but it doesn't seem to work. People are determined to sling mudballs at each other, it seems, and nothing I can do will prevent it.
Except, of course, to close the thread, which I may yet do. I just got up not long ago, and now I have to sit down with a cup of coffee and read all this crap to see what kind of childish things were being done in my absence.
I used to be a Cub Scout leader, and that's what this reminds me of.
Afonso,
Archonix, I do think you gave a somewhat bad example.
Aha, so you are countering Archonix' example? So you want to claim that the peace in that continent is all thanks to the South American Union? (there's no other way to counter Archonix).
All my point is that South America has being at peace because its elites (I mean, the Europeans) have had more in common with each other than with their own populations. The elites were to buisy holding the power in their hands away from the Communists (with American help). This has changed. It will be a mess.
OK, maybe here's where you see the difference. South America is about to turn into a mess. While Europe is going to be peace and order for eternity, and definitely not going to become a mess in a near future. Is that your point?
Afonso, you have written a long comment, but there does not seem to be any point in it. Not any one that applies in this discussion anyway. Interesting what you write about Bolivarianism, however.
Conservative Swede,
What I ment is that it was irrelevant. The peace in South America was not because of a South American Union. Neither was it because of the non existance of a South American Union.
Conservative Swede, South America is more "simple" than Europe. In South America you have three ethnicities which are not really ethnicities, what we're talking about is race. In Europe ther's the Portuguese, the Catalans, the Scottish, the Welsh, the Russians and others.
In South America, all along the twenth century we've seen basically only two political currents: "Ethnical, anti American, Communism", that in my view is what Bolivarianism is and Fascism.
Chile is a great example, from Communist turned Fascist and in a neear future will become Communist again?
My point is that in South America, despite there were no Union, there was two supra-national unions: The Conservative Fascist one and the Bolivarian Communist one. The first being stronger untill the sixties and the later becoming ever since more powerfull...
If you pick the Bolivian example with Evo Morales, you can see in it a kind of "Third Worldisation", the real decolonisation (sorry, Americans, but it would be to expell the colonisers and their descendents and to give the power to the Natives) they never had.
All this is implicit in Bolivarianism. Because the Americas were never really decolonised in this way.
The Union is really a non-factor for peace in South America. I guess the NAFTA would be a better example, the African Union and such...
P.S.- Concerning the mess, my point is that Chavez and the FARC have already show that they are closer to use a real army against other States than the European Union or even the gangs of immigrants who can be easily stopped.
It's like comparing the "Favelas" of Rio de Janeiro to any situation in Europe. It's simple ridiculous. We will take a bit longer to have war machine guns and obuses being fired against police helicopters, or war Submarines in the name of non Statal identities such as the FARC.
Afonso,
You have a vivid mind, but also serious problems in following a very simple line of thought.
The peace in South America was not because of a South American Union.
Bravo!
Neither was it because of the non existance of a South American Union.
Impressive!
I do not know why I even bother. You haven't spent even a split second in trying to understand the point of what Archonix wrote. So far you have been mentally incapable of connecting into dialog. I hereby leave you to your own monologue. But you can't say I didn't try...
You have a good mind. But since you lack even basic discipline, I'm not sure it's going to be of any use.
Afonso,
Just in trying to help you. I feel as if I'm talking to a 6 year old, but here we go:
Archonix isn't really talking about South America, is he? So what is he talking about then?
Do you have any clue, or will we just get another long post about Bolivarianism?
Afonso --
That thwack with a wet towel that you received at the hands of Conservative Swede was meant to get your attention.
He's right when he says:
You haven't spent even a split second in trying to understand the point of what Archonix wrote. So far you have been mentally incapable of connecting into dialog.
[...]
You have a good mind. But since you lack even basic discipline, I'm not sure it's going to be of any use.
Your intellectual education is being sadly neglected because you do not LISTEN. You simply wait for a chance to interrupt and then you write huge, undisciplined screeds that make one's eyes glaze over.
My boy, you need an internal editor who re-reads your comment and deletes at least half of it. This is a case of "less is better" because as it is people scroll by the lengthy, interminable ones.
If you could limit your comments to 500 words, you would do yourself a favor and it would improve the comments section.
I am not saying that you shouldn't comment. I am asking you, one more time, to write with discipline.
Please consider this. Either that, or consider one of the ADD medications available for logorrhea.
And Qualis Rex thought he was the only one being picked on. I will say you are admirable, Afonso, in that you always bob back up again.
Ok, you people might be right...
For sure, I am not very "Prussian" in what discipline is concerned, though I do really admire that discipline.
My discipline is more "moral", or of vallues, "something" to be aplied in a certain situation rather than a physical and visible omnipresent discipline of the Prussian style.
I think I really missed the point and simultaneously felt it was a "somewhat bad example". I'll "humblely" try to emend it, meanwhile this thread is already dead.
Well, I don't really know about Afonso but I do speak from some personal experience of South America, having travelled in parts of it myself. These former colonies are old enough to have developed their own cultures and, yes, ethnicities. They may share common languages but they're already nearing the point of mutual incomprehension.
The Bolivar myth, the Che myth and the veneer of aristocracy and ethnic "purity" amongst the elite are all present but they aren't the exclusive factors. Each of these countries has a history as long as some european nations and they've been present and stable long enough to become nations rather than mere states.
My point, my single point, was that this collection of nations hasn't really been to war in the classic nation against nation sense for nearly a century. My point, in extension, was that the idea of a supranational government and "union" as a means to prevent war is demonstrated as simply unnecessary. My conclusion, there, was that the lack of war between often belligerent nations in south america demonstrates that the defence of the EU as "keeping the peace" is illogical. The reasons why that peace actually maintained itself was not at issue; the fact that the presence of the EU is not necessary to maintain a peace in Europe is.
But please, by all means ignore my point and ramble on about Bolivar again.
It's an excellent point, Graham.
Afonso--
No one else comes close to you in your use of sneaky rhetorical devices to wriggle out of your predicament. Thus, being called on to be more concise, and less prolix, you say with all "humility"
I am not very "Prussian" in what discipline is concerned
You're about as humble as minor royalty, Affie.
And when you say, this particular "yes, but" (you're full of "yes, buts") --
I'll "humblely" try to emend it, meanwhile this thread is already dead --
you fail to see that it was partly your meanderings that drove this thread sideways. We ought to name you "Mr. Off Topic"...
Dead, indeed. Now you can put your knife away.
C'mon Dymphna, now give him a break. He's lying down. And you shouldn't really be me-too'ing into these sessions. Pick your own moments to harass the kid. The message will surely get lost with the weight of two elephants on top of him. One is enough, even though I appreciate your support and enthusiasm.
Fjordman, glad to see you are alive, well and fighting. It has been almost 4 years since I wrote my "farewell" to you on your old blog
http://www.kactuzkid.com/fjordman.html
I spend most of my time on Muslim sites, asking questions, leaving comments and being deleted. Oh well.
As expected, things are worse. It is only a matter of time until blood (or more blood, that is) runs in the streets of Europe. Lots of blood. You cannot expect Muslims to change and much less hope that European leaders will open their eyes. They, the government, the media and schools are ignorant or blind to the evils of Islam.
There is only one way to avoid bloodshed: brutal honesty. If European leaders would call out Muslims and ask them about the hate and violence in Islam. If they would demand that Muslims explain why they say "Praise be unto him" after the name of a man that raided, murdered, plundered, enslaved, raped, tortured and even beat his wife. Shame Muslims into the truth. Be direct. Have no pity on their pc-feelings. Demand that they take responsibilty for the discrimination, lack of human rights and other abuses in Islamic countries without blaming everything on others. Demand that Muslims apologize for the hate and violence in the Quran and for 1300+ years of jihad against non-Muslims. Read the hadith to them ask ask if murder, torture, and all kinds of brutality are ok. Ask Muslims if they will renounce the hateful, vile verses in the Quran (example: infidels are lower than animals in the signt of Allah). And so on.
Muslims are never honest about Islam and their dear prophet. I know. I have done my research.
http://www.kactuzkid.com/fjordman.html
I doubt they (both European leaders and Muslims) have the courage or even brains to do this. So it means blood will flow and good people will get hurt.
Take care,
Old man kactuz
qualis rex's claim that the EU has ensured peace in Europe is astonishing.
It is the American presence has made war impossible between European states. That is also one of the main reasons for lack of adequate defence spending by EU states. The USA has been the unquestioned great power of Europe so obviously there have been no wars. A future in the EU will mean a Franco-German domination of Europe that will become increasingly unacceptable to the much of the rest.
Unfortunately, the American presence and US cultural influence are to some extent to blame for much of the multiculturalism in Europe. America, a multiethnic "nation of immigrants" is the West's hegemonic power. Europe is being remade in aemrica's image.
This thread is intense. Seriously.
I'm still a bit astounded that anyone, especially a European, could actually defend the European Union. The EU, as I said before, exists solely for power. It does NOT have Europe's best interests at heart. Most of the politicians in it are only in it for themselves, not the good of their countries. And how someone can honestly believe that it's not necessarily a bad thing for the EU to take decision making power from the people is really beyond me.
The main argument on this thread seems to be whether the EU has prevented major war between European countries. Even IF it has (and I don't think it has - it's more of a mentality developed after WWII), so what? The EU has done WAY more harm than good. A lot of those MEPs get away with not working as much as they're paid for - see this video. The EU has crippled Europe in the face of an onslaught of Islam and aims to create a totalitarian socialist state. Bye, bye Soviet Union; hello European Union.
Maybe I'm just used to America, but I LIKE my freedom. I like being free to make my own decisions. And I don't see how anyone who's experiencing life in the EU can actually like it (unless they're an MEP or something). I'd love visit Europe on vacation, but no, I don't plan on moving there anytime soon (no offence, Europeans).
You don' got to do nuthin', Baron--including over-reacting to a complaint by distressed lady, even though the "insults" were mild and everyone was mostly Playing Nice
natalie, there was no one actually defending the EU--just some Troll Noise from an increasingly moody and sensitive troll ( someone should tell Qualis that only words have gender, not people )
Qualis, who sounds more and more like Lady MacBeth
I don't know what the people of Europe want, and cannot speak for them. I cannot speak for four millions of Irish people in the Republic. But to me, it is inconceivable that people in a country which spent seven centuries gaining its existence as a nation-state would surrender its national identity and sovereignty. But Ireland came within some thousands of votes of chucking it in
I hope that the other nations of Europe which went through generations of horrors to establish themsleves--Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and others--will vote against the Lisbon Atrocity
If they don't, what Fjordman predicts might unfold
Afonso, my friend, just LOL.
I'm not mocking you, it's just i could not help but smile a little when what i warned you would happen, actually unfolded before my eyes!
But i'm also touched by the sensibility of the people you're arguing with. Dymphna and Conservative Swede saw trough you, and spotted your immaturity (as i told you someone would!)and nonetheless they are patient enough to paternly tap you in the back and still give you advice...
I know i'm an ignorant, when comparing myself to you or others here in knownledge, and i mostly limit myself to silently follow the discussions here, but you could do well, give it some more time...
but you could do well, give it some more time...
Afonso is already doing well, I'd say. His mind is an uncut diamond. Many times he can cut through things in a very clear-sighted way. But just the same, at other times he can be completely stuck. I'd say what is lacking is patience and discipline. Nothing Preussian. Just the simple halting for a minute and use the will power to focus the mind on something different than what happen to presently be dancing around at the top of his mind. Taking a step back, for getting perspective. Doing the ground work. Putting oneself in someone else's shoes. Simple things as that, and thusly the diamond will be cut.
Yes you did José, and just for that you are not aloud to say that you are "an ignorant, when comparing myself to you or others here in knownledge".
That "little" lesson about Portuguese multicultural deomgraphy I gave you the other day do not makes you an ignorant, that makes you a privileged who can still ignore the multiculturality around yourself.
I have shown you how some 20 to 25 percent of the people in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area (30% of the whole Nation) are "ethnics" - today I saw a figure to Berlin in which the numbers were 26% - but I must stress that this numbers are irrelevant.
People here still think "90% Germans against 10% muslims... we'll win!" but who will fight the war is the younger generation and that one is much more than 10% "ethnic"...
That's the danger. I advise you all to read Fjordman's essay, "The beheading of European Countries".
Well, José, let the sun rise in Algarve and have a nice day. I am dieying to go South, where the Atlantic borders Europe at its 24º Celsius...
Also, thank you Conservative Swede.
"I'd say what is lacking is patience and discipline". Probabily you're right, probabily you're right...
Afonso,
People here still think "90% Germans against 10% muslims... we'll win!" but who will fight the war is the younger generation and that one is much more than 10% "ethnic"...
That's a very good point. And an important one.
Also, thank you Conservative Swede.
Oh, don't mention it. I'm just trying to be fair and honest. I'm not treating you differently than Qualis Rex :-)
I think that the Spaniards will fight, but they will start late, as in 1936, when the left had openly declare its purpose to suppress them.
> Spain fought a war in Spanish Sahara from 1956 - 1975, once again with no intervention from the US. Since the fall of the Soviet bloc, the US' presence is redundant and more ceremonial than anything.
That is what you are told, the USA was formaly neutral, but always supported Morocco, a country much easier to manage than Spain. Phosphates, etc...
Robert Marchenoir:Zeke's description of Hassidic response to Puerto Ricans in Williamsberg Brooklyn is very interesting in that respect.
I could not agree with you more. There is something exceptionally chilling about a calm and methodical demonstration of unmistakable violence that only the most demented lunatic can ignore.
It will be demonstrations similar to the one Zeke mentioned that will finally get the attention of Muslims, be they in Europe or America.
My own prediction is that even one more 9-11 type atrocity in America probably will result in a Muslim Kristallnacht.
Afonso: Sorry for the lenghty thread but nobody reads this any longer, do they?
Way to go, sport! First you make a patently insincere "apology", then you bury an insult to this entire board in an ostensibly self-effacing comment. You are the only reason why people no longer read (or react) to your comments. It's almost grotesque to watch your sort of self-demolition.
Afonso: ... discussing in another thread if Liberalism in the worst meaning of the word (Bastardization; making "normal" and "fashionable" the "frick shows" [freak shows] at MTV; the glorification of "agressive" femininism, etc.) is an irreversible consequence of Capitalism, and thus paired with it.
I say this because I remember the other thread from Fjordman about Capitalism, and I really would like to see how people react to such an idea (especially "Radical" Capitalists like Zenster).
If you sincerely desire a valid response, I urge you to lay off founding your entire dispute on a blatant straw man argument. I refuse to try and outstink a skunk.
I have been distressed by this thread. We, and by that a community that recognises that something is terribly wrong with the migration of so many Muslims to western shores,chooses to snipe amoung themselves rather than debate in an intellectual way.
"You lose" is not a reasonable rebuttal to an argument. It is inflammitory and confrontational and, it only demeans the site...
11 years ago, my family moved from LA to the NYC environs. We could not believe how corse every day discourse was, which was the norm. We have now become accustomed to people saying outrageous things and, although I will not say that they no not whence their error is, I will say that it is OK in NY to be terribly rude to others. In fact, when we first moved here our collective jaws would drop over the language we encountered every day by simple shopkeepers. I was actually called a liar by a school official once! This transcends any kind of rational debate one might hope to have...
When I see the same thing happening on this site it makes me terribly sad. How many times has the Baron explained that home schoolers look to this site for education? At least a dozen times since I started reading and posting comments here. And yet, there are still some that need to take the debate to personal sarcasm.
Actually, I have often thought that the idea that minors were also reading the site was more of a shield than a hinderance. I do not want to engage in or read pesonnal attacks. While I recognise that it must take the patience of Job to allow a conversation to play out on the threads so that all points of view are expressed, I simply have no patience for those that wish to pollute these threads with their own hyperventilation...
The few things I have gleaned from the thread that might be useful going forward were the comments about the indiginous criminal element being the first to rise up against the Islamic onslaught and, the idea that only one out of three indiginous men need to rise up to stop the Islamic onslaught to their culture. Both those comments and follow on elaborations were worth consideration.
The fact that some just do not understand the idea that the U.S. has had a standing military in Europe for over 50 years and instead want to place the accolades of peace on a union that, to this day, is not ratified and can't possibly defend themselves from invasion while arguing it again and again is simply a waste of pixels... Add to that the vituperous nature of said defendants comments and, you have a failed debate...
I don't come here for mud slinging contests as much as some commenters would like to engage in such. I saw the thread going off the rails at about comment 25. I tried to stop it. Playing nice??? I don't think so. This is a serious problem that needs serious comment. Mud slinging need not reply...
Babs--
The thread was spoiled by three factors:
Commenter Qualis Rex was first. After being aggressive and ugly on the comment thread of every single post for a day or so, he's disappeared as suddenly as he arrived. One wonders if that was his whole mission -- to be a spoiler. He was deleted at least once. Can't remember if it was this thread or not.
The second factor? Initially everyone fell for his line. QR’s intelligent enough. My guesses: he has some legal training and likes to show off. He probably spent his childhood being hauled around Europe by Foreign Service parents.
Being a newcomer to the site, he bruised himself on his very first comment, jumping to ignorant, hubristic conclusions.This made him prime bait for those who like to fight back. That's just inherent when a spoiler squats in a long comment section. As soon as he was mercifully gone, things settled down.
Factor Three? Afonso, our young (18) Portuguese commenter, derails threads and then stands in the midst of the train wreck wondering what happened. In short comments he exhibits a keen mind. Unfortunately, he has a problem with logorrhea and can be whackily OT. I have deleted some of the longer ones, though the Baron, nicer than I, is reluctant to be unkind when Afonso tries so hard. While not a troll, some Attention Deficit Disorder problem keeps A. in kangaroo mode.
IOW, hindsight allows one to see where things went off the rails; by then it is too late.
I like Belmont Club's rules: three comments per person per thread. He used to have a serious problem with people staying up all night posting looong OT comments. Setting that limit solved it -- and he sticks by this himself.
Wretchard is a man of moderation, innately courteous and kind…interesting since he was an underground fighter against Marcos. Given that this is addressed to you particularly, I recommend you read him every day if you don't already. He’s an excellent military strategist.
Read what he wrote , linked below. You’ll be moved and left with a sense of wonder at his ability… this essay is memorable:
How Can I Tell You?
Richard Fernandez (Wretchard’s real name) is one of the treasures of the blogosphere. He is who we all want to be when we grow up psychologically: great integrity, thoughtful, responsive, and careful of others’ feelings. He is the antithesis of the kind of person you describe.
Too many “New York”-style commenters are lethal. How unfortunate they choose Fjordman’s essays to spoil.
I am close to my own limit of 500 words per comment. You deserved a detailed response, though.
_______
PS – use spell check!
Thanks Dymphna...
I want so badly for this forum to be productive. I get upset when it lands in the cellar. But then, I guess you are right that every so often an agitator comes around. Maybe that is a good thing as those that engage on a day to day basis get to square off against someone so out of the loop that they need to be replied to?
BTW, I don't know how to use spell check in a comments box. Anyone that is able to teach me how, I would certainly appreciate it!
Dymphna, you have my email address, maybe you could tell me how to do it (spelling was never my strong point.) Ha!
Dymphna,
I think you are unnecessarily hard on Afonso. He lacks some discipline, but he admits it and I think we will see some change (e.g. we have seen good signs of regret and patience recently). And his intentions have always been good. He cannot be compared with real thread-wreckers. On the contrary, Afonso has always been a valuable contributor here, in spite of his negative sides.
babs: BTW, I don't know how to use spell check in a comments box. Anyone that is able to teach me how, I would certainly appreciate it!
It is a sound practice to generate comments of more than one paragraph in MS Word or whatever word processing application that your computer runs. After completing your composition, merely use Control+A, Control+C and then Control+V to cut and paste the text into GoV's comments box.
This will enable spell check functions and serves the dual purpose of holding a copy of your comments elsewhere in case Blooger decides to send your contribution off to The Land of Lost Dryer Socks™.
Furthermore, your desire that GoV be a productive and useful site is truly admirable. While I may sometimes violate the 500 word comment limit, I attempt to compensate for that by providing a wealth of factual information rather than the anecdotal twaddle that other (cough) less mature (cough) members are so fond of indulging in.
PS: Dymphna, I do believe that QR claimed to be a lawyer over in the Brussels Slavery Thread. Be that as it may, he certainly displays every worst trait that has so badly blackened the legal profession's reputation.
Firefox and Opera both come with built-in spellcheckers for form fields now. Very handy.
Oddly enough, Firefox doesn't recognise Firefox as a word...
I’ve always understood the purpose of the EU is to create a Socialist Bloc to counter the superpower status of the Capitalist United States. But with the current crop of presidential candidates one wonders for how much longer the EU will regard the USA as being a worthy recipient of their counterbalancing concerns. It would seem that the United States is about to elect a president with strong Marxist tendencies and a slight Muslim history. Charlemagne has my sympathies, and as a Briton living in the US, I too dread an Obama presidency. The upbringing of Obama, the controversy surrounding his birth, his other name (Barry Soetoro), his Islamic education and his associates are quite different from what one would expect a presidential candidate who loves America and the American Capitalist system to have. Far too many Marxist mentors, American hating terrorist associates, Muslims and Liberation Theology Christians and far too much just plain dislike of the American system to make me feel comfortable with Obama. There is little in his background or programme that would advance Conservatism, Capitalism or even traditional Christianity (his Chigago church has as many Islamic publications for sale as Christian, his pastor Jeremiah Wright is an ex-Muslim (if that’s possible!). Might the EU find itself with an ally rather than a bloc to counter?
Regarding civil war in Europe, I’m not as sure as some here that it will take place. I do believe the UK will be the target nation for Islamist takeover, but I’m not so certain that they will fight to retain their identity. It has been too damaged already. The populace is unarmed and too few of them know what is happening to their nation. For the past 50 years or so, they have been educated to be ignorant and feel shame about their nation’s past. But in any case, does it really matter what the indigenous people think? From what I see and hear about my once harmonious and happy country, far too many Britons have been lulled into the ‘ignorance is bliss’ mentality, with heavy doses of welfare, soccer, reality TV, Sex n’ Booze, Eastenders (a complete demographic fantasy) having been poured into their poorly educated heads, so remote are they now from understanding the fact that England, Scotland and Wales are almost gone. A sorry end indeed.
Who’s to blame? The media as in the United States is controlled by the Left who are allied to the Islamists. They control what people know and to an extent what they feel about issues. Unless people are internet savvy , it is likely they are not getting as much information about Islamification as we get from just this one website. I am constantly amazed at the lack of interest, the ignorance and the laizzez faire attitude of my fellow citizens. It is quite likely that within the next 5-10 years accepting Islam will be seen by the Government as preferable to opposing it, especially as opposition to Islam is demonstrably Islamophobic and will cause Parisian style uprisings. Islamification in Europe and esp. the UK(The little Satan), will continue as it is now; year by year more and more concessions made, year by year more and more Muslims elected to positions of power in local and eventually national government. Once established laws can be changed civil war will not be necessary.
The interesting scenario will be the reaction of the United States (The Great Satan) to a British Caliphate that has access to nuclear weapons. That will make the difference to our world, hence my concern over the election of Barack Obama.
Time to roll the dough for crow
pie, for those who assume what
is happening in europe isn't.
One thing that never changes is
human nature, and when any given
group or individual is driven
into a corner, chances are very
good, they will fight.
You can take that to the bank.
Post a Comment