Thursday, February 25, 2010

Solutions Implemented During Periods of Chaos

Yorkshire Miner, who contributes and comments here at Gates of Vienna occasionally, has translated the following article about a recent incident in the culturally enriched Vollsmose district of Odense, in Denmark:

Violent accident in Vollsmose

A 19-year-old man was seriously injured after driving into a tree. Neighbors and family in the area gave the police and ambulance personnel a difficult time.

A 19-year-old man at approximately 6 o’clock rammed a tree. This happened on Asaumvej by 105 in the Odense suburb of Vollsmose.

“He simply wrapped his car round a tree, and his injuries are very serious,” said a spokesman from Fynes police, who could not give any more information about the man’s condition.

The police and the accident inspection unit were working to find out the reasons for the accident, but their presence in the area was unwanted. A crowd of people gathered.

“The atmosphere was very bad there, and they themselves will determine what must happen,” said the spokesman to Extrabladet.dk.

“Completely unheard of”

“But we will find the cause of the accident. It is completely unheard of that we cannot work in peace at the scene of the accident,” said the spokesman.

The police are therefore present in force, not only at the scene of the accident, but also at Odense University Hospital where the man was brought.

“Yes, it is the family that is making the trouble; therefore we have many policemen in place to make sure that the doctors and nurses can work in peace,” said the spokesman to Extrabladet.dk.

Yorkshire Miner includes his own observations about the situation in Vollsmose, and the larger implications for Europe and the rest of the world:

These people are acting as if they own the place, which they in fact do. A de facto Islamic state exists, if not de jure. It does not bode well for the future.

Solutions to problems like this are usually only implemented during periods of chaos, or shortly after chaos, when the solutions fade into the general background.

The problem of the Sudetenland Germans in Czechoslovakia is a good example. The solution the Czechs chose in 1948 could not have been on the agenda in 1938; the chaos of the postwar years gave them the opportunity. Whatever the Czechs thought about the arrogant German minority, I am certain it is of minor importance compared to what the Danes think of these arrogant Muslims.

If you have to choose, ethnic cleansing is better than genocide. I suspect the Danes, like the Czechs, will choose ethnic cleansing — they are not a people who hate, but they can quickly develop a feeling of profound contempt.

My own feeling is that Europe is rapidly entering a period of disintegration following the fifty-year gestation of the E.U. If the Lisbon Treaty was the birth of the bastard, then the euro crisis with Greece is the beginning of the death throes. A lot of effort for little reward.
- - - - - - - - -
Historians in a hundred years’ time will most likely write about European imperial hubris, for that is what the E.U. is. What bothers me the most is not what happens in Europe, but what happens in America.

The rise of America as an imperial power during and after the Second World War is what protected Europe from complete anarchy. America stepped seamlessly into the shoes of the British Empire after the collapse of the British economy in 1947. The world was not allowed to watch the jackals devour the corpse. Instead of a free-for-all over the corpse of the British Empire, America took over its obligations to Greece and there were only a couple of short wars during the partition of India and in Palestine.

If America collapses, the consequences will not be so benign. The retreat from empire will leave Israel exposed, as well as the Middle East oil fields. Rabid dogs will fight over a bone, and what a bone!

The costs are rising exponentially: $100,000 for a Taliban corpse might eventually be too much for the Americans to pay, especially if they have to borrow from China to do it. $20,000 for a dead American in the War of Independence is what finally drove us Brits out of the U.S.A.

If America is to survive, the cost of killing your enemies has got to be brought down. I think it is about $10/head if you use atomic weapons. I am certain such sordid bookkeeping does not enter the American calculus, but whatever you do, you have to reduce costs.

America, as we were in 1945, is heavily in debt. Imperial overreach, in which your obligations far outweigh your ability to pay for them, is what brought down the British Empire. A bankrupt America would most likely mean a world war as it withdraws from its overseas obligations and bases to balance its books and pay down its debts.

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and there is no relatively benign power ready to step into a political vacuum left by a bankrupt America.

I will leave off now, as this is depressing me. We live in interesting times.

16 comments:

Zenster said...

The costs are rising exponentially: $100,000 for a Taliban corpse might eventually be too much for the Americans to pay, especially if they have to borrow from China to do it. $20,000 for a dead American in the War of Independence is what finally drove us Brits out of the U.S.A.

If America is to survive, the cost of killing your enemies has got to be brought down. I think it is about $10/head if you use atomic weapons. I am certain such sordid bookkeeping does not enter the American calculus, but whatever you do, you have to reduce costs
.

This is some very stark and irrefutable calculus.

War, as it always has been fought, is an existential affair. One kills an enemy in sufficient numbers until that enemy's continued existence is brought into question. Typically, at that point the enemy surrenders.

Unless one actually entertains the preposterous notion of America's military surrender to Islam then, at some point, the current conflict will escalate well beyond its current one-bullet-at-a-time status. Above all, the fact remains that this dynamic inevitably will be driven by Islam itself.

Be it due to Muslim terrorist atrocities or Islam's congenital overreach, there will occur some event that creates a tipping point. So far, the best definition of that presented is this:

AT SOME POINT IT WILL BECOME MORE TROUBLE TO LIVE WITH MUSLIMS THAN TO LIVE WITHOUT THEM.

Again, it is Islam that has always driven and continues to drive this dynamic. It constantly provokes and antagonizes the surrounding world of dar al harb, pausing only to catch its own breath or "play possum" during periods of decline.

Regardless, the tipping point will be arrived at. The mandate of jihad and the fanatical zeal imbued by Wahabbist and Salafist indoctrination have gotten out of control. What’s more, this loss of control, epitomized by Osama bin Laden, has taken place in a modern era of advanced technology and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Islam simply does not have the amassed military strength to achieve its avowed objective of global ascendancy and, try as the EU and America might, colonizing Muslim populations are too intrusive to be ignored. Depending upon asymmetrical warfare will eventually prove to be Islam’s downfall. Such reliance upon horrific and spectacular mass slaughter will eventually inure Western populations and leaders, permitting them to overcome their erstwhile squeamishness regarding overwhelming disproportionate retaliation.

When that tipping point comes, and Islam is doing everything in its power to hasten its arrival, those Muslims that survive will learn to curse Osama bin Laden and the entire notion of jihad.

Marian - CZ said...

With all due respect, the hatred of Czechs for Germans in 1945 was orders of magnitude higher that the contempt that Danes have for cultural enrichers.

Which is not strange, because the Germans attempted a cultural and partly physical genocide on them a few years before, and the memories of execution places full of bloodied bodies were neither forgotten nor forgiven.

In fact, for several years, the Czechoslovak newspapers wrote about Germans in lowercase (germans), while all other nations were still addressed normally. It was only the official "friendship" with DDR after the Communist coup that changed this.

Long forgotten today ... but, frankly, the cultural enrichers, so far, are nowhere near the level. They lack the capability and organization to project that much fear and power. If they acquire it, and if they are beaten in the ensuing fight ... well, the Sudeten history will repeat itself once more.

Guy DeWhitney: Heretic Crusader said...

I find this just a tad pessimistic. Many factors mitigate against the chaotic future you speak of, chief among them are the the interests of China and Russia.
Also, the monetary system is different today. Hard currency is not the foundation of money system.
I can imagine several situations that include the loss of American ability to project power but, do not end up in major war.
China (and the U.S.) forget that in a customer to seller relationship the ultimate power is in the hands of the customer, unless the seller has alternate buyers. But there are no other markets to compare with America in the world today, and there are not likely to be any in the near future.
Therefore, China is likely to continue to act in ways that they see as in their self interest, but this will include not letting THEIR source of oil vanish or their biggest customer fall completely apart.
And in the other direction China itself could suffer a collapse that leads to more than one country being formed. This would relieve the U.S. of debt pressure AND throw open the door for other nations to re-bid for all those billions and billions worth of contracts.
In any case it is far from time for such hand wringing in my opinion. Where the Lord closes the door, somewhere a window opens.
And to Zenster, unless " MORE TROUBLE TO LIVE WITH MUSLIMS THAN TO LIVE WITHOUT THEM" is your way of saying "Being actively, openly and unrelentingly made war upon by them" I have to say that you are probably as much of a potential evil in our culture as the Islamists.
Can you tell me what other people of history you feel would have been less trouble if exterminated so that we might better understand your position?

Zenster said...

Guy DeWhitney: Heretic Crusader:And to Zenster, unless " MORE TROUBLE TO LIVE WITH MUSLIMS THAN TO LIVE WITHOUT THEM" is your way of saying "Being actively, openly and unrelentingly made war upon by them" I have to say that you are probably as much of a potential evil in our culture as the Islamists.

Perhaps quoting a seminal piece regarding the tipping point might help. It is "The Three Conjectures" by Belmont Club's, Wretchard. His second conjecture closes with:

The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column ...

Even if Islam killed every non-Muslim on earth they would almost certainly continue to kill each other with their new-found weaponry ... Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction
. [emphasis added]

In its headlong rush towards global ascendancy, Islam is determined to push things to the tipping point. Regardless of whether it is America, Europe, Russia, China, India, Israel or even Japan, there is a non-zero probability that one of those nuclear-capable nations simply will not tolerate Muslim predation and conclude that it is simpler to live without Muslims.

While the USA may be overly humane in its treatment of Islam's threat, there is no basis to assume that other nations will ever be willing to invest the human and financial capital required to fight in a similar fashion. Especially so when nuclear weapons, enhanced radiation weapons in particular, will eliminate all further threat in such a decisive manner.

Let's face it, many other nations simply do not have anywhere near the scrupulous or fastidious approach to warfare that the United States so endearingly exhibits.

All of the above facts comprise the reason why I continue to predict a Muslim holocaust. Most pathetic of all is how the assassination of some 1,000 to 10,000 top Islamic politicians, financiers, scholars and clerics could, literally, stop jihad dead (so to speak), in its tracks and avert this looming holocaust.

Islam has always marched forth over the corpses of countless Muslims and clearly intends to do the same today in its new phase of global jihad. Guided by its own doctrinal lights, Islam has no other choice but to push things to the tipping point, come what may.

Incidentally, I personally advocate there "Being actively, openly and unrelentingly made war upon by them" with respect to fighting Islam. I still oppose first-use of nuclear weapons in that cause, even though my position is being steadily eroded by Islam's seemingly limitless barbarity.

Can you tell me what other people of history you feel would have been less trouble if exterminated so that we might better understand your position?

I refer you to the foregoing. I DO NOT advocate genocide, I PREDICT IT. My prediction derives from Islam's own predilection for genocide and its terrorist asymmetrical warfare. As Muslims seek to impose shari’a savagery upon the entire world, somewhere there is a nuclear-armed nation that will not "submit" and, as Yorkshire Miner observed, opt for an expedient and cost-effective way of ridding themselves of Islam’s threat.

I'll close with this:

IF ISLAM HAD ALL THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE WEST DID NOT, WOULD WE EVEN BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW?

Free Hal said...

Hello Yorkshire Miner,

Your analysis indicates very well why the line cannot be drawn between ethnic cleansing and genocide in this situation. People who look to violent ethnic cleansing will soon find themselves doing acts of genocide. Can you live with that?

First, the example of the Sudeten Germans. Like most ethnic cleansing up to now, one group chased another over the nearest border, carts in tow.

How will this work with Muslims in Denmark? Which border are they to flee across?

Your assumption is that they will, at the point of gun, board aeroplanes to the Muslim paradises from which they originated. But this is impossible: passenger flight is too delicate an infrastructure; Muslim countries will refuse to muslims expelled in a war; and many Muslims will probably choose the 69 virgins over the poverty and misery of Muslim countries coupled with the Islamic shame of having been expelled (which would you choose?).

The Sudeten Germans should have been easy. Germans were crushed materially and morally. Germany was a short hop across a long and winding border. The equivalent of shoo-ing people from West Yorkshire into North Yorkshire. But even that involved concentration camps and small massacres. Estimates of deaths range from 25,000 to 250,000.

Second: “I will leave off now, as this is depressing me”. Very depressing! If only for selfish reasons. But that’s no reason not to think it through.

This is the temptation for a lot of commenters: European Muslims are increasingly unpopular, and in a weak position; ethnic violence is historically common; it won’t end there; and then throw up their hands with a flourish about it all ending in tears.

What next? Feel vindicated for having seen the storm clouds early? Hunker down somewhere out of the way, to avoid the worst of the storm? Say “I told you so”?

The problem is difficult and dismal. But we should still deal with it as a problem. That is, look for all possible alternative solutions, and then choose the best one. Which means thinking things through to their ghastly conclusion.

The European liberal elite seek to compound the problem by silencing discussion of it. We should not play along with them just because we find the options dispiriting.

4Symbols said...

"I will leave off now, as this is depressing me. We live in interesting times."

I feel the same ... going to listen to Gustav Mahler's Symphony #2, Klemperer.

In hoc signo vinces

Robin Shadowes said...

What was so offending with the deleted post?

Baron Bodissey said...

Robin --

"Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum."

In more detail, from the rules page:

"2. Temperate: No exhortations to commit violence or foment insurrection, etc."

Anonymous said...

@ Free Hal

"What next?"

"The European liberal elite seek to compound the problem by silencing discussion of it."


The European liberal elite and the liberal elite of all AngloSaxon countries needs to be dealt with first or simultaneously. The traitors within are the root problem.

Free Hal said...

@ TC

You may well be right. OK so no more liberal elite.

What do you do then?

(please see the 2 points in my comment above)

Anonymous said...

Free Hal

"What do you do then?"

1) Stop all non white immigration
2) Cancel all social entitlement programs
3) Offer financial incentives for foreigners to return to their countries of origin
4) Return the unwilling via rail and sea to the Maghreb and Turkey
5) CLOSE the borders
6) Abolish asylum

They will not want to stay for long if their political enablers are gone.

This may seem hard to do now but in 5 or 10 years it will be impossible. It is the only way to prevent genocide.

Anonymous said...

Guy DeWhitney, the Chinese don't need the US. Americans don't pay for their products, in case you didn't realize. They just go into debt and when they have to pay that debt, they issue even more debt. It's like me giving you IOUs in perpetuity for your work. And the US has no ability to pay it's debts so the Chinese are stupid if they continue. It's in the Chinese best economic interests to let the US fall in flames. Then they'll be the dominant power and they could, for example, invade the Middle East and keep all the oil for themselves. Or colonize Africa - it's not like they don't need a place on which to dump excess population. If I was the Chinese leader, this is what I would do. The US is financed with a huge adjustable rate mortgage - this is what the public debt is. Also, it consists of short term t-bills, not long term bonds.

Free Hal, I will take ethnic cleansing and genocide over being displaced in my own country and on my home continent. Hell, my country has a history for doing both related to Islam and this is the only reason why we are a Christian nation and we still exist(hell, we even killed the Muslim populations of other countries like Bulgaria when we got over there). But we don't need to kill them or have them board air planes. You think that, ignoring all the ideological problems that make this impossible, Europe couldn't invade some Muslim country and dump all the Muslims there? Instead of the trains leading to Auschwitz, they will lead to some Northern African country where the replacing populations will be able to decide what they want to do. I'd much rather have my people survive and not consider myself englightened than die off while thinking about how good and inclusive I am.

Or we could just ban employing non-European people and ban welfare for non-Euroepan people and if they riot, crush the riots with the army. What will they do then? Obviously, a solution like this, which is similar to what TC said is better than genocide. We don't have to kill them or force them to leave. We just have to make it not profitable for them to stay here. But yes, this is the only way to avoid genocide. Either ours or theirs and I hope we will do this before genocide is inevitable.

Paardestaart said...

Our elites will stall and put off until it is too late..Maybe the west will not survive against a foe like islam, simply because it lacks the decisiveness and ruthlessness to do what must be done
They'll sooner let everything just fall apart, wheeling and dealing to save their own skin, and leave the population to settle their own fate
Then - if some vestment of peace and order should be established by the percentage of people who can adjust and who will put up a fight they'll step in again, and offer their adminstrative expertise..

Anonymous said...

Paardestaart, being free requires permanent vigilence. And yes, if we don't become ruthless, we won't survive. When it comes to survival, there are no good and bad guys. By the way, if something happens, the politicians will be in the same side as the Muslims in the eyes of the people and we will have some lynched politicians, probably.

Also, if we do manage to fix our problems, we will have a completely different mindset than the one we have now. And I'm really fed up with this the elite should save us mentality. It's the mentality of a slave, cleaning the horse of his master while going to war.

Islam isn't a great foe, it's actually a stupid, disorganized one. A small country like mine kicked the ass of a huge empire like the Ottomans for centuries while always being outnumbered and outgunned. Obviously, we did have balls, which is something that European men don't have nowadays. They'd rather bend over and accomodate all kinds of minorities than care about their own.

Paardestaart said...

I'm really fed up with this the elite should save us mentality

Problem is all elites tend to disarm their people - I don't know about your country but in mine the only ones who carry arms are murderers and thieves

That brings us back to what El Inglès wrote about how to defend ourselves.
Do we keep talking, or should we start getting ready to take matters in our own hands?

Anonymous said...

Paardestaart, in my country we had a small debate related to an attack in which the attacked shot the attackers related to gun rights and a lot of people want us to relax our gun rights laws(this after the debate that criminals will buy guns, like they can't do it now - I don't have a record and I could find out where to get an AK47 illegally if I really wanted one). I mean, this is stuff that our cops take from criminals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2P92-dPDJQ
Funny enough, there was a news feed on Tv about how you can buy a handgun for 80Euros in my city illegally. I really don't get the people who say criminals will get guns.

I just looked up the laws related to gun ownership and getting a permit for a handgun is fairly easy(even though getting one for rifles is harder). You have to just take some psychological tests, some gun using training and do some paperwork. The big problem here is that guns are super expensive due to how my government taxes them - I believe we have a 300% tax on guns, besides the 19% VAT. So even if you get a permit to buy a rifle, a $3000 rifle will get you to a ~$15,000 price tag. That would mean you'd have to work quite a lot, considering the post tax average wage here is about 500$.

Still, in my country, the problem is that the laws prevent the cops from taking action when they should and our police is sort of creamed(besides the special forces, which are badass). But they're not traitors like there. Here the cops wouldn't let the left supporters beat the EDL and arrest the EDL after that, for example.