It's a welcome development, but I can't help wondering if it's a bit like trying to stop a Panzer invasion by wagging a riding crop. Thirty years ago, rejecting multiculturalism would have cost little more than listening to cries of "racist" from the usual quarters. Three decades of encouraging mass immigration of Muslims, many of whom prefer domination over assimilation, has caused so much damage that today we see a native population that isn't just uncomfortable, they are frightened for their survival as a culture and their personal safety. If these fears aren't addressed and the problems wrought by multicultural insanity met head on, then the final correctives will be very nasty.
As I've said, it isn't a choice between easy solutions and hard ones, it's between hard solutions and appalling ones. The longer we wait, the harder those solutions become until we face nothing less than Scylla on one hand and Charybdis on the other. I, for one, don't want to live to see a Europe that has put off the day until the only options left are a suffocating dhimmitude and a grotesque replay of the Reconquista on a continental scale.
Update: The Americans also have some coming to grips to learn, too.
Update: Australia runs in the opposite direction.
20 comments:
As Flanders and Swann said in the 1950s
"I trust we are all in favour of freedom of speech; provided of course it is calculated not to change our western way of life"
In Finland we have this wonderful thing called conscription.
Each and every Finnish able-bodied adult male is basically a dormant soldier, just waiting for the activation command.
So are an awful lot of Finnish women just as well.
The sign held by the "gentleman" in the upper right corner of the photo says it all. Which probably explains the romance so many of our "enlightened elite'" have with radical Islam, as well.
The multiculturalists love non-Western cultures, but hate the one which nurtured them. Largely because at heart, the multi-culti crowd are wannabee monarchists and autocrats who believe that they are just inherently better than everyone else.
As such, they view non-Western cultures, which (like it or not) have almost no tradition of democracy but a long one of tyranny, as inherently superior to ours. Especially because they believe that in such an "enlightened, mystical" culture, run on "feelings" rather than facts, they will be in charge. Because their utter lack of actual skills and contact with reality will be seen not as a defect, but as the mark of distinction they themselves perceive it to be.
Seen in this light, it is obvious that our "elite'" view the "immigrants" as Leninist "useful idiots" who, once they have overthrown our society, will realize that they are too stupid to run the Brave New World- but will somehow also be smart enough to recognize the superiority of the "enlightened ones", and beg them to run it for them, becoming their adoring acolytes forever. (I call this the Manson Syndrome- read "Helter Skelter" by Bugliosi to find out why.)
They do not understand that the Islamist tradition is that after a Triumph, those who helped the Islamists by betraying their own people are beheaded first. The Islamists do not believe in giving a proven traitor a chance to betray them in turn.
cheers
eon
This is the same Europe that only a few hundred years ago saw the Reformation and Counter-reformation, and within living memory, came frighteningly close to goose-stepping to Wagner and feeding on schnitzels, and calling it a good thing. There's a lot of good art and interesting history back in the Old World, I think, but also the potential for world-class savagery that would shock (most of) my fellow Yanks. And now if the EU ends up showing itself to be a short term, "unsustainable", in the fashionable speech, solution, the masks with the fixed grins will no longer be worn. On the other hand, the old Europeans are not breeding, and the new ones are.
Choice between hard and appalling indeed, though I'm not so sure if there'll be a choice, or as sometimes happens in history, people will just end up falling into events.
Sergej, man's natural state determines his behavior. You don't have to teach a child to be bad; and if that child is not taught to be good, he'll grow into a bad adult child, and that child will all too often want to rule over and enslave others, sometimes using religion as his excuse.
This brings up the question of the definition of good, and of religion. Our natural, man-made definition of good tends to be based on expediency rather than any higher standard. Also, man-made (for purposes of quick discussion; the true origin typically goes further than is convenient to discuss in this forum) religion, whether Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, or Catholicism (just a few common examples) are man's attempt to reach for the divine. Problem is, our arms are too short, and we wind up with rules and methods having a form of godliness, but denying its power. Religion does not equate to relationship with God; our natural separation from Him is a chasm we are unable to cross.
The only workable solution is acceptance of God's gift through His Son, unpalatable as that is to a world whose people want to be their own gods and make up their own rules, without accountability to One greater than themselves. And we see what the world did to God's Son, Jesus. The heart of man never changes in a good (that word again) direction on its own. Its sickness can only be cured by a spiritual heart transplant, and we can't perform surgery on ourselves.
Wesley: first of all, I cannot agree with you fully, because you are coming from (evidently) a Protestant point of view, and I am Jewish. I have met good and sincere people who were Catholics, and Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists (not all at the same time, of course). And also, Protestants and Jews. I can not say, "this path will certainly lead to the best for everyone". That's been said more than enough times without me, anyway, in the last hundred years or so.
I am merely looking at Europe now, and seeing an entrenched majority, and an unassimilated, hungry minority that is not planning to remain in the number two spot. Multiculturalism is a pipe dream, and I'm not sure it's tobacco being smoked in that pipe. The only time I can think of when a new way of living swept through a place and was accepted without signs of conflict is when the Bell Beaker artifacts spread through Europe. And that's likely only because information is incomplete. Information about the Christian conversion of Europe is less incomplete, and so, I do not cite that. As things are going, in 3000 years, there will be a break, right now, in the types of artifacts being found in Europe. Such things do not tend to happen peacefully.
Meanwhile at Outremer, the state of Israel is becoming more and more a theocracy.
Judaism has nuts. Christianity doesn't. The same stoic fanaticism and implacable intolerance which had the Israelites attack the mightiest war machine of the era - Seleucid Hellenist pike phalanx of the Maccabean era - lingers still on in Israel. All the time the difference between Iran and Israel diminishes in the respect of mixing religion with state.
On smiting the forces of Mordor, the legacy of Yehuda ha-Makkabi lives on. Where is Charles Martel when we need him?
Sergej, hadn't it been Jesus, most of the Europe would still be sacricifing goats (and human beings) to Wotan and practising cattle raiding, duels at beach, wanton rape and strandhögg. Not us Finns, though. Our Pagan religion was far less bloodthirsty than that of the Germanic peoples.
Then again, when the opponent is Islam, I sincerely doubt if Christianity in any form can be a counterforce. A strong Paganism deeply rooted on Indo-European traditions can be. It means that we have to do away the Christian concepts of good and evil and right and wrong and internalize the Pagan concepts. But when the enemy is Islam, I think it still will be the lesser evil.
Ironmistress,
Interesting that you should invoke Mordor because your argument of becoming pagans to fight Jihadists is exactly the one that Saruman used to justify his actions–and look where that got him. Become Nazis to fight Communists because democracies are too decadent? I hardly think so.
Our problem is not that Christianity is too feeble to defeat the Jihadists, our problem is that, like King Théoden, we have listened to the poisoned words of Wormtounge too long and have convinced ourselves that we are unfit for battle.
Gandalf, where are you now that we need you?
Interesting that you should invoke Mordor because your argument of becoming pagans to fight Jihadists is exactly the one that Saruman used to justify his actions–and look where that got him. Become Nazis to fight Communists because democracies are too decadent? I hardly think so.
It is called Realpolitik.
Nazi Germany aided Finland when she was attacked by Stalin and the Communist hordes in WWII. UK, instead, declared us war. The day of that war declaration was well chosen in the best British dry humour style - it was 6th December 1941, our Independence Day.
The world is not black and white. There are an awful lot of grey shades. (And red and chrome.) I would like to have seen an Elvish mercenary company amongst the forces of Saruman who'd think Humans are too effete regents, and an Orc deserter regiment who have had enough of the bullying of Sauron and who'd think the reign of Aragorn would be the lesser evil.
Politics make strange bedfellows. In the Finnish eyes, the WWII was not a fight between good and evil. It was a fight between black and red evil, where the good were only to choose which brand of evil they'd like to side.
Our problem is not that Christianity is too feeble to defeat the Jihadists, our problem is that, like King Théoden, we have listened to the poisoned words of Wormtounge too long and have convinced ourselves that we are unfit for battle.
Christianity is pretty much dead and buried. Unfortunately, so is Atheism too. The intoxication of Modernism has turned into hangover of Post-Modernism, where the motto is "Anything goes" and the official ideology is apathetic Nihilism and Hedonism.
Like Sir Basil Liddell Hart stated, struggle is far less material but mental - struggle between two willpowers, and a battle is lost ony when one side decides it is lost. That is why we need Paganism with the furor Teutonicus unleashed - it is the only force which can counter Islam anymore.
Heinrich Heine wrote a very interesting vision 1834. You may read an excerpt here.
Sergej, please don't believe I want you to agree with me! That likely would not be worth your time. I don't claim to have wisdom in myself. But speaking from my own admittedly anecdotal position, I can tell you that the changes made in me have led to understanding and quality of life that (I know!) I could not have achieved if left to my own devices. As always, though, I'd like to invite you to explore the Bible and talk to believers yourself. They'll tell you about relationship, not religion. But speaking of religion, the apostle Paul, who penned (stylused?) much of the New Testament, was Jewish, and so was Jesus. In fact, the inspiration for the Bible was given primarily to the Jews. So you are in very good company.
We certainly agree that multiculturalism is a pipe dream, and the burning substance is not tobacco! I've always chafed at the intellectually vapid slogan "our strength is our diversity". Strength is achieved when diverse people unify together in a common cause, not when they fracture because they're focused on how diverse they are. We're being moved away from the concept of a melting pot into a balkanized hodgepodge of the most unsavory elements of diversity, and I don't like being shepherded into a ditch.
Ironmistress: if you're going back to the Maccabees, you may as well recall some of the decidedly non-wimpy Christians of the last couple thousand years. Last few times strength was needed, I would say that it was not religion that made the difference, but the will to fight---confidence that there was something back home that was worth fighting for---and a lack of softness. Gaul was overrun by the barbarians once they'd gotten past the border legions, I think, because it had gotten into the habit of asking the local legion for help when things got tough, not because of Constantine. (And also, the Gauls were studying to become Frenchmen, so they had that going against them as well.) Christian Europe put up a good fight against both the Mongols and the Moors. Successful or not, doesn't matter; they fought. For that matter, Christian Switzerland, or Finland, would be a difficult place to invade even now.
Finland saw things as a choice between National and International Socialism. OK, I wasn't there. I might have chosen the one that kills by slow strangulation rather than fast poison; in my case, the family made it out to the West, eventually, which it could not have done if it were all dead. But I wasn't Finnish, or living in Finland, or even alive back then. But I still think you've set up a false dichotomy for yourself with this choice among non-solutions.
Ironmistress;
One of the basic excuses of the modern-day multicultural crowd for their "9/11 was all our fault" stance is the Crusades, which they and the Islamists view as "Western Christian aggression" against Islam.
They all of course are careful not to mention the nearly five centuries (c.700 AD to 1190 AD)of Islamic invasions of Christian states from Egypt to France, plus the Balkans, that convinced the Pope and various European monarchs that their squabbling barons and their private armies could be better used in taking the fight to the Islamists' homelands than continuing their personal spats in Europe.
The point is that those Christians were hardly wimps. In fact, a lot of them were barely housebroken.
David;
Your comparison is actually a bit eerie to me. Considering that just before I read it, I'd just finished watching "The Two Towers", directed by Peter Jackson, on DVD.
As for who constitutes Saruman in this comparison, I'd have to say every Western leader who has convinced themselves that if we just "give the Islamists what they want", they'll go away. Including turning a blind eye to their activities when they "immigrate" to the West.
As Kipling said, they can gather their Danegeld if they will, but they are fools to think it will rid them of the Dane.
cheers
eon
Ironmistress:
I take your point, but there is a difference between making an alliance with an enemy against a common danger. It is another thing to become that enemy. That is how Sauron gained many of his followers–many of them men, including the Voice of Sauron. That, again, is what Saruman thought:
"There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means."
Yet in practice those means became Saurman's ends. His desire to use the ring against Sauron corrupted him. Gandalf said it best when he pointed out that Sauron feared that someone would gained the ring and use it to take his place. Sauron never conceived that someone might want to remove him and not put anyone in his place.
That is what civlised men do. We remove tyrants so we may govern ourselves. We don't replace one master with another.
I am a free man under God. I fight to stay free and I will die free. I will accept nothing less.
Ironmistress:
I take your point, but there is a difference between making an alliance with an enemy against a common danger. It is another thing to become that enemy. That is how Sauron gained many of his followers–many of them men, including the Voice of Sauron. That, again, is what Saruman thought:
"There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means."
Yet in practice those means became Saurman's ends. His desire to use the ring against Sauron corrupted him. Gandalf said it best when he pointed out that Sauron feared that someone would gained the ring and use it to take his place. Sauron never conceived that someone might want to remove him and not put anyone in his place.
That is what civlised men do. We remove tyrants so we may govern ourselves. We don't replace one master with another.
I am a free man under God. I fight to stay free and I will die free. I will accept nothing less.
David, I agree that unless freedom is fought for it is quickly lost. It seems so many have lost the will to fight. There are many ways to fight; the realm of ideas seems of critical importance. Why is it that tyrants seem so agile in bending others to their will with trite slogans and divisive hatred? Such nefarious tactics should be answered and countered, yet so often we who love freedom remain silent.
Wesley, that is what conscription is for. It reminds that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and that duty of each and every man is to defend that freedom.
Ironmistress, you are correct in your quote of the great Thomas Jefferson that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", but when did we move from ideas to guns?
Ironmistress, I wanted to give you time to answer. But I understand your sentiment. Thomas Jefferson also observed that the tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I am not a professional soldier, 'though I do depend on them to defend me and my countrymen from external threats. But who protects us from internal threats?
Addendum to above: I don't mean protect us from street thugs who steal wallets and purses. That would be the police. I mean who protects us from thugs who steal our liberty yet claim to "represent" us?
Post a Comment