[Sp5]

I'm reading a lot of guys panicking like their hair was on fire or something. Some outright fascism being peddled, too.

Sure, immigration should be limited, especially in countries which have small populations with relatively fragile cultures and languages. But cultures like the Swedes and the Danes are not going to disappear in the next century or two. Democracy is working as it is supposed to: anti-immigrant parties are gaining strength, which will drive policy to cut back immigrants and change welfare and education.

In the long run, who knows? Unless there are disasters ending air travel and communications, we'll see more and more cultural globalization, more and more interbreeding. The Travel forum here is a kind of example. Small cultures may be eventually drowned in the globalist tide, which is dominantly Anglo-American now but may be something different a century from now. I never bought the idea of Scotty on Star Trek having such a strong accent. In the United Federation of Planets 200 years from now, everyone would probably sound like Kirk. Or maybe everyone will speak Chinese then.

Muslims are about 5 - 6% of Sweden. They are not going to take over soon. Even if they did "take over," they would be different by then, themselves changed by Sweden and Europe.

At the same time, the traffic between the Middle East, Europe and the US changes the Middle East, too. Recently in Iraq, I met an Iraqi who spoke to me in Danish, thought I was Danish. He was living in Denmark and was there to get married. He was pretty Westernized from my view. Islam is having a big conflict now, no doubt about it. But I'm living in that world, and I see "Arab Idol," Rotana music TV with Lebanese singers, and laundry soap commercials with mothers in hijabs having more influence than ISIS. Cairo is not that different from Catania.

There is a whole industry of propaganda devoted to demonizing Muslims. Part of it is true, part of it is motivated by Israel's interests, part of it is just regular jingoism and warmongering, part of it is fundamentalist Christians wanting a Crusade.

If all of your sources of news and opinion are from those websites, you get a warped view of the world. You never see drunk Muslims in bars; to you they're all fanatic jihadists.

Immigrants often have problems assimilating and there is often violence. See Gangs of New York, Godfather II, or Mexican gangs in LA today. It's not a phenomenon limited to Muslim immigrants.

For the tenth time, nuclear war, natural or man-made plagues and planet poisoning and resource depletion are a lot bigger threats than the "end of Western civilization" in any foreseeable future.

[Helmutnl]

This guy you knew in Denmark, how Westernized you'd say he was?

[Samseau]

^ Laughably shortsighted and incomplete analysis, Sp5. You would do well to read The Fate of Empires.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Quote:

One of the oft-repeated phenomena of great empires is the influx of foreigners to the capital city. Roman historians often complain of the number of Asians and Africans in Rome. Baghdad, in its prime in the ninth century, was international in its population - Persians, Turks, Arabs, Armenians, Egyptians, Africans and Greeks mingled in the streets.

In London today, Cypriots, Greeks, Italians, Russians, Africans, Germans, and Indians jostle one another on the buses and in the underground, so that it sometimes seems difficult to find any British. The same applies to New York, perhaps even more so. The problem does not consist in any inferiority of one race as compared with another, but simply in the differences between them.

- Pg. 15

"Diversity" has been a proven failure for thousands of years

[Quintus Curtius]

To me, Sp5, the immigration is really not the major issue.

Societies are not destroyed from without until they have rotted from within. The greater danger for Europe is its excessive "nothing matters" liberalism, its atheistic conception of humanity, its excessive personal license that masquerades as liberty, and its lack of military prowess. These things matter.

Immigrants only step into the empty shell created by rot.

And the West is being eroded and rotted by decadence. This is the problem. In my opinion of course, but it seems to be shared by many here and elsewhere.

Q

[scorpion]

(11-11-2014 05:28 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

I'm sick and tired of your Hitler apologia. All Hitler cared about was the glory of Hitler and murdering anyone who opposed his regime. National Socialism was a wicked ideology led and championed by a wicked man.

You can be a nationalist leader without being an egomaniacal mass-murdering psychopath.

And just so you're clear on my position here, I don't believe everything the allies did during the war was right. They did a lot of wicked things too. Like allying with Stalin, bombing Dresden, terror bombing, etc. etc.

Both Mussolini and Franco were less loathsome than that piece of trash, who was so craven that he shot himself rather than fighting for what he claimed to believe in. He had no problem sending millions of German boys to the front to fight and die but he didn't have the guts to shoot it out with the Soviets as they were closing in.

The fact that he was anti-Stalin and anti-Communist doesn't automatically make him a good person anyone should hold up as a hero.

He and the war he caused is as much responsible for the troubles Germany faces today as the cultural marxists are.

They brought in the Turks and other Muslims after the war because they lost a lot of their labor base.

He also made it easy for the left to turn nationalism into a dirty word.

To hell with Hitler.

I'm not trying to call you out here (nor trying to derail the thread), but this hysterical ranting about Hitler being an evil psychopath and National Socialism being a wicked ideology is betraying a lack of knowledge about Hitler the man, Weimar Germany and the reasons the National Socialists came into power in the first place. Hitler was not a comic book villain, nor was National Socialism some supremely evil philosophy of government. You are never going to come to an accurate understanding of WW2 if you still subscribe to an elementary school-level characterization of the most consequential figure of the 20th century and the movement he created. History is never black and white, a truism that extends even to arch-boogeyman Hitler, who's suffered more bad PR than anyone not named Satan (and the old Fuhrer might even have the Dark Lord beat on that count if we're honest).

I think people who dismiss Hitler as being uniquely evil only increase the likelihood that another Hitler-like figure will emerge in the future. Along will come an extremely charismatic, nationalist leader who rallies a downtrodden and dispirited nation, and the parallels to Hitler will be obvious. But since people have been so utterly desensitized to the Hitler = evil meme by the over the top propaganda, they will reject any comparison as fatuous. "Well yeah, our guy is a strong leader like Hitler, but Hitler was so evil, and our guy is good! So you can't compare them!" And that's why I believe another Hitler-like leader and another Nazi-like movement is inevitable within the next few decades. Paradoxically, by demonizing Hitler in such an over the top fashion, the liberal West has only provided cover for the rise of the next Hitler, who will appear a saint in comparison.

Anyway, I wrote a long post about Hitler in this thread about Mein Kampf awhile back: http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-27865-...#pid530062

[Krusyos]

[KC4]

This thread got horribly derailed. Look at the first page and these last few pages. Can we get back on point on what we should do to prevent situations like these no-gozones in Sweden and in other countries.

[Constitution45]

Its a very bizarre situation. I have found myself back in these professional circles of academics. These professors are like the priests of Neo Liberalism if you will and I hear their opinions on matters. We raised the issue with one of them, on birth rates of Europeans. Instead of bringing in foreigners from the third to replenish population, why don't the government create incentives to get Europeans to start having more kids. There are so many ways which you can bring populations up and not even have to resort to government subsidies. Surprisingly enough one of the lecturers said "well soon they will have to do that".

The truth is society always needs a patriarchal element from within. Thus why there is a so called desire to bring any workers from conservative countries with conservative values to "keep the economy afloat". The progressive elements merely want to import foreign patriarchies, in the meantime praising them for the same said qualities which mountains of academic literature has been written denouncing European patriarchies for doing so.

The issue isn't so black an white, one group of people isn't necessarily better than another group of people, nor intrinsically evil or good. However there are notable differences which are so entrenched in the culture, that only a ridiculous amount of wealth and prosperity can amend. Then there is the question of sovereignty, when a people, nation, culture and government are no long insynch with each other, then how you fool others into believing you have a democracy.

As for Islam, take it from me I live in a city that is a third Islamic and I have spent a considerable amount of time in the Middle East. There are a lot of positives that culture can bring, however the combination of Islam and this politically correct post modernity is not going to mix well. Sure young muslim men will go out drink and listen to rap music, but they don't and will never subscribe fully to this post modern culture, at best quite a few of them will take the advantages, well try to. I.e. party lifestyle, loose western women, drugs etc. But their culture has a strong backbone and patriarchal foundation that on the most part, they will revert back to when they have to.

I think the way the global economy is panning out, and this excessive internationalism which we have never properly seen before. Is going to really shake the majorities in these countries. The jet packing, start up, PUA's who want to live the James Bond lifestyle are going to find it incredibly easy and make the most of it. Unfortunately your everyday joe and even July needs to have some strong foundation or rock to keep them grounded. Post modernity will most likely swallow them up and Oprah, Ikea furniture or whatever other nonsense they use to keep themselves distracted is not going to be sufficient enough.

[dholland662]

This exploded.

As for the calls to ban left wing parties, this video advocates the same. It still allows people to advocate left wing views personally but prevents them from becoming public policy, and of course they can go to a left wing country if they wish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LduZfItthp8

In all honesty, as an exercise I wrote a constitution for a hypothetical country. Being libertarian leaning, I used the constitution to pass laws and regulations that may not occur naturally in a libertarian society. Such as border control, antifeminism (classified as anything that weakens the nuclear family), and banning any and all marxist ideology

[dholland662]

(11-11-2014 06:12 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

To me, Sp5, the immigration is really not the major issue.

Societies are not destroyed from without until they have rotted from within. The greater danger for Europe is its excessive "nothing matters" liberalism, its atheistic conception of humanity, its excessive personal license that masquerades as liberty, and its lack of military prowess. These things matter.

Immigrants only step into the empty shell created by rot.

And the West is being eroded and rotted by decadence. This is the problem. In my opinion of course, but it seems to be shared by many here and elsewhere.

Q

This. The flaw is that you can give people personal license... if you are willing to let them fail. Liberal Europe would rather give them money to live and continue with whatever self destructive lifestyle led them to that point

[Akula]

(11-11-2014 11:42 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 01:57 AM)Akula Wrote:  

Vicious in 3...2...1...

You seem to be WAY more involved in the half dozen threads of this type that's running on the board now while I'm not even participating.

You're projecting.

Sorry don't get your point. involved in a lot of threads but am trying to learn a bit about what natives think and have seen you show up in many threads on Sweden given your background, so thought you were going to chime in. Apologize if that was presumptious of me.

[dholland662]

Skimmed the thread.
Okay, the hamsterbaiting for the sake of immigrants is ridiculous. Why? Well immigrants objectively commit more crime in every European country, even more than the poor whites.

Finland has had no history of slavery or Jim Crow and the immigrants are still more prone to crime.

Not to mention that you're setting up the fact that the only way to dislodge you is going to be racial hereditarianism or some kind of facist takeover. And odds are the Europeans would win because they are better organized and smarter (muslim armies being notoriously poorly organized).
Similar to how Nigel Farage points out that this globalist agenda only increases the odds of another Hitler, constantly moving the goal post and why these immigrants really do need to be removed means the bar will have to be surpassed.

Is discussing race realism taboo here? Because this topic is begging for it.

[dholland662]

(11-11-2014 02:07 PM)mikado Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 01:55 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

mikado, I simply want Muslims to live in their own countries, where they can thrive under their own Islamic culture and legal system. Europe is not a place for Muslims or Sharia law. Europe is not a place where you should walk down the street and see dozens of women wearing hijabs, or packs of young Muslim men wandering around harassing non-Muslim women. Europe is the house that Western man built, and Western man has no obligation to tolerate guests that want to trash his property. It's as simple as that.

That unique Islam region you are advocating does not exist
Because we do not define ourselves by religion only, but also by our roots, the country we are living in.

I am as different from a Saudian as you are from an Asian. Even if we believe in the same God.
I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, as Senegalese and French Christian friends do. However we share a lot of values in common.
Why would I have to share a country with someone who have way different values than me?

Further, the harassment , as I said it already, is mainly not provoked by Muslims,but by people of Arab descent/ upbringing.
Why should all the other Muslims pay for that?

to finish:
Sharia is mainly advocated by Arab people (or others who had some terrorist influence, like Nigeria/Boko Haram)
The rest follow their laic country's law.
Why do you want us to believe that all Muslims want Sharia?

Which muslim immigrant group does not commit a lot of crime? Because last I checked the African crime rate is even higher than the Islamic one

[dholland662]

(11-11-2014 02:34 PM)mikado Wrote:  

[quote='scorpion' pid='876692' dateline='1415733805']
[quote='mikado' pid='876666' dateline='1415732847']

Our parents, grandparents, great grandparents have lived/fought for/ worked for the West, and have adopted its ideas. We GREW UP with these ideas. How can we just forget it all, when it has shaped our lives for so long?

It would be like asking Black people in the US to go back to Africa. It is just impossible to do it, just like that. Because there ancesters(and thus, them) were SHAPED by American values and history.

Again, your argument depends on "your people" (I dont know what you are so I'll just say that) are assimilated and integrated.
Provide me a source that proves that.

[Grange]

Why is nobody talking about the welfare state's role in this?

[Cattle Rustler]

(11-11-2014 11:41 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 11:29 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Quintus lay out your "Ban and Jail Leftists to Save Sweden" plan.

How would it go down? Who goes to jail? Death penalty for the leaders? Are mainstream leftist parties banned or only the fringe leftist ones? Who decides which future political parties are allowed to form, or what positions existing political parties may take? What about charities and non-profits? Will leftist voters face any punishment?

Very simple.

All of the national media must be galvanized by the state and its elites for a campaign to mobilize the national will. The public needs to understand that it is engaged in a battle for survival. It is under attack by internal and external threats. Extreme leftism, extreme feminism, and cultural Marxism must be shown as the insidious enemy it is.

There must be created a climate of unacceptability for ideologies that promote defeatism, atheism, excessive personal license. Each individual is part of a group and has responsibilities towards the group. You can't do whatever you want. Standards must be brought back that relate to personal appearance, hygiene, child rearing, and child bearing.

That's what dictatorships do.

It's 2014, not 44BC.

Good luck trying to bring back the "good o'le times", that's just

[dholland662]

(11-11-2014 10:09 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 11:41 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 11:29 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Quintus lay out your "Ban and Jail Leftists to Save Sweden" plan.

How would it go down? Who goes to jail? Death penalty for the leaders? Are mainstream leftist parties banned or only the fringe leftist ones? Who decides which future political parties are allowed to form, or what positions existing political parties may take? What about charities and non-profits? Will leftist voters face any punishment?

Very simple.

All of the national media must be galvanized by the state and its elites for a campaign to mobilize the national will. The public needs to understand that it is engaged in a battle for survival. It is under attack by internal and external threats. Extreme leftism, extreme feminism, and cultural Marxism must be shown as the insidious enemy it is.

There must be created a climate of unacceptability for ideologies that promote defeatism, atheism, excessive personal license. Each individual is part of a group and has responsibilities towards the group. You can't do whatever you want. Standards must be brought back that relate to personal appearance, hygiene, child rearing, and child bearing.

That's what dictatorships do.

It's 2014, not 44BC.

Good luck trying to bring back the "good o'le times", that's just

So do nothing? That is less viable.

[JWLZG]

(11-12-2014 03:02 AM)dholland662 Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:09 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 11:41 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 11:29 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Quintus lay out your "Ban and Jail Leftists to Save Sweden" plan.

How would it go down? Who goes to jail? Death penalty for the leaders? Are mainstream leftist parties banned or only the fringe leftist ones? Who decides which future political parties are allowed to form, or what positions existing political parties may take? What about charities and non-profits? Will leftist voters face any punishment?

Very simple.

All of the national media must be galvanized by the state and its elites for a campaign to mobilize the national will. The public needs to understand that it is engaged in a battle for survival. It is under attack by internal and external threats. Extreme leftism, extreme feminism, and cultural Marxism must be shown as the insidious enemy it is.

There must be created a climate of unacceptability for ideologies that promote defeatism, atheism, excessive personal license. Each individual is part of a group and has responsibilities towards the group. You can't do whatever you want. Standards must be brought back that relate to personal appearance, hygiene, child rearing, and child bearing.

That's what dictatorships do.

It's 2014, not 44BC.

Good luck trying to bring back the "good o'le times", that's just

So do nothing? That is less viable.

QC's Final Solution to the Islamic Problem is the first step, by fighting fire with fire, towards capitulating towards the enemy. So many of you on this thread have been lambasting Islam's inherent incompatibility with freedom of expression or thought, democracy; at polar odds with civilisation and a fundamental enemy of the West.

But by resorting to the curtailing of differing political thought and values, the enforcement of religion - to such extremes as imprisoning 'lefties' - how are you any different, and more assuming of the moral high ground, than freedom-hating Muslims you seek to destroy?

Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would surrender a share of security for a scrap of liberty deserved neither and would lose both. You may say that we are at war, but for good men to do something lest evil flourish doesn't necessitate extremes imposed upon society.

I'm sorry, but your proposals sound chillingly Orwellian. As much as the Right are wont to claim of totalitarianism as being the preserve of the Left , Orwell was certainly warning about the far-Right and far-Left.

To suppose that we can socially-engineer Western civilisation towards an anti-Left, Christian-revivalist groupthink runs exactly along those sinister lines, inasmuch as some here might entertain such romantic notions of it being a means for returning the West to the path of righteousness and its place as the standard bearer of world civilisation.

It's impossible to impose such conformity and come out of it the winner. Humanity will have its faults, even in the West. There is no imposing a belief in God as the sentinel of our moral fabric. It sure as hell was lost on the troops of a God-fearing Europe in WW1, butchered as they were in their millions over no-mans' land.

I believe that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of the West. I don't believe we hold a monopoly on it, of course, but it's that atmosphere that promotes differing thought, that stimulates ideas pushing the status quo, from which has sprung forth that wealth of progress and advancement that saw it lead the world and produce so many innovations in the past few centuries.
That it has risen from adversity time and again shows that while this facet of our civilisation can be used against us, it cannot defeat us.

I guess a number of us have something to lose in this conflict. I am not Muslim, but neither am I white, and have aspirations of living in Europe again. If this idea of ethnic cleansing -- which, bloodless or not, is what your idea is -- were ever to take hold, what is there to stop a slippery slope effect from happening? First the Muslims, then other non-white minorities in Europe -- what's to stop the nationalist fervour acting against them? Why-for should they have any place in Europe? Never mind that most of them integrate well, and value education, employment and community, as long as Europe is for the Europeans.
Such a sentiment isn't without precedent, by the way. In the aftermath of the Reconquista, not only were the Moors driven from Spain, but all Jews and other minorities. Those who remained were forced on pain of death to convert to Christianity.

While societies are in their every right to take reasonable means to defend themselves, I don't believe that any one civilisation deserves to hold moral hegemony over the rest of the world. I certainly don't believe that any one religion is inherently superior to others.
If the West should resort to any underhand means to preserve herself or her superiority, then she is no deserving of that moral ground she has touted. If she should fall, she has partly herself to blame for failing to enact fair means to defend herself.

[Samseau]

^ The only ones preferring security to liberty are the ones who will let Islamic thugs create no-go zones in his country rather than fight scum.

Quote:

If the West should resort to any underhand means to preserve herself or her superiority, then she is no deserving of that moral ground she has touted. If she should fall, she has partly herself to blame for failing to enact fair means to defend herself.

So if the west defends itself, it's immoral, but if it doesn't defend itself, the west is to be blamed for not defending itself?

Man, do you realize how brainwashed you are?

[berserk]

^ The US didn't achieve independence by free speech but by the barrel of a gun. The French Revolution that did away with god given nobility was also violent. All the Socialist revolutions were violent. Every Islamic revolution was violent. The Ukrainian Maidan was violent. The Arab spring was violent.

Where does the idea come from that pacifism is the essence of being Western? The freedoms enjoyed by people today were hard fought, against tyrants, fascists, marxists.

How does appeasement work for RSD? Gamergate? How does rational debate work? As long as the media is fully controlled by these ideologies, then how can you get the masses to back you?

It can quickly become keyboard warrior talk and sound a bit like doomsday preppers here, but the fact is that you need to be ready to be violent. It is the exactly same situation as facing a thug during a night out. You can rarely talk your way out of a beating, certainly can't plead for the thugs conscience. The way to avoid a fight with a thug is to make it clear to the thug, it is going to cost him too, if he wants to fight. Be prepared to fight, be able to fight, so you can avoid to fight.

[Samseau]

(11-12-2014 05:49 AM)berserk Wrote:  

^ The US didn't achieve independence by free speech but by the barrel of a gun. The French Revolution that did away with god given nobility was also violent. All the Socialist revolutions were violent. Every Islamic revolution was violent. The Ukrainian Maidan was violent. The Arab spring was violent.

Where does the idea come from that pacifism is the essence of being Western? The freedoms enjoyed by people today were hard fought, against tyrants, fascists, marxists.

How does appeasement work for RSD? Gamergate? How does rational debate work? As long as the media is fully controlled by these ideologies, then how can you get the masses to back you?

It can quickly become keyboard warrior talk and sound a bit like doomsday preppers here, but the fact is that you need to be ready to be violent. It is the exactly same situation as facing a thug during a night out. You can rarely talk your way out of a beating, certainly can't plead for the thugs conscience. The way to avoid a fight with a thug is to make it clear to the thug, it is going to cost him too, if he wants to fight. Be prepared to fight, be able to fight, so you can avoid to fight.

There is no choice but to be violent, because "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must."

Either you are more powerful than the next guy or he rules over you. That's it. The west has been built on overwhelming might and suddenly now people think you can compromise with others to get things done?

[Deluge]

All I'm going to say about this thread is that it's been great for figuring out who the real Leftists on RVF are, and welcoming them all to my ignore list.

[Sp5]

(11-11-2014 06:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

^ Laughably shortsighted and incomplete analysis, Sp5. You would do well to read The Fate of Empires.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Quote:

One of the oft-repeated phenomena of great empires is the influx of foreigners to the capital city. Roman historians often complain of the number of Asians and Africans in Rome. Baghdad, in its prime in the ninth century, was international in its population - Persians, Turks, Arabs, Armenians, Egyptians, Africans and Greeks mingled in the streets.

In London today, Cypriots, Greeks, Italians, Russians, Africans, Germans, and Indians jostle one another on the buses and in the underground, so that it sometimes seems difficult to find any British. The same applies to New York, perhaps even more so. The problem does not consist in any inferiority of one race as compared with another, but simply in the differences between them.

- Pg. 15

"Diversity" has been a proven failure for thousands of years

Ah, Glubb Pasha, Commander of the Arab Legion which did the best against the Israelis in 1948.

It's not even a matter of whether changes brought about by "diversity" are good or not, it's a matter of living with the inevitable changes. Stopping "diversity" in a globalized world is like trying to stop the sun from rising. We already have a globalized elite whose loyalty to nationality, state and religion is gone. The media is increasingly globalized in source and content. Commerce and finance, goes without saying they're globalized.

You folks are living in a dreamworld where you think the nation-state and a particularized national culture mit Blut und Boden could be dominant. That world is fading fast. Unless there are disasters and collapse (which some of you think would be a good thing), the trend of more connections with people in other places and the attenuation of national differences will accelerate. It's not like national differences will disappear in our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our great-grandchildren, but in 400 or so years the world will be a different amalgamation, if people are still around.

Sure, it's a good idea to limit immigration, as I said. But even without non-European immigration, the EU dooms the smaller cultures of Europe to the fate of the Cornish language in the long run. Free trade and free movement of people in the EU drives people to more common languages (English, French, German) and a common culture. They're putting some brakes on that movement of people with regard to welfare payments, but not stopping it. Erasmus and IT will bring an evermore integrated European elite.

In the rest of the world, the Chinese and Indians will get "hip" as their economies grow. They will become more affluent and travel and study around the world. Chinese and Indian products - manufactured and cultural - will become more innovative and predominant. This will change the rest of the world, as the rest of the world will change China and India. Everything is always a reflexive process, even if one culture or another is dominant.

(11-11-2014 06:12 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

To me, Sp5, the immigration is really not the major issue.

Societies are not destroyed from without until they have rotted from within. The greater danger for Europe is its excessive "nothing matters" liberalism, its atheistic conception of humanity, its excessive personal license that masquerades as liberty, and its lack of military prowess. These things matter.

Immigrants only step into the empty shell created by rot.

And the West is being eroded and rotted by decadence. This is the problem. In my opinion of course, but it seems to be shared by many here and elsewhere.

Q

Again, "shoveling sand against the tide" or self-correcting problems. It's true that Europeans seem to live mostly for personal comfort and pleasure. Work their 35 hour a week job and go on holiday in August. Within that, they seem to have strong family connections and are very law-abiding. Scientific research goes on to a high standard. Is it really so bad? It's the "pursuit of happiness" for its own sake. Your opinion may differ, call it "decadence," but that's just your opinion. Francis Fukuyama called it "the End of History," he said maybe the EU was closer to the ultimate human society than anywhere else.

What can you do about an "atheistic conception of humanity" in a rational world with the Scientific Method? What can you do when much of religion has been revealed to be just another corrupt human organization? You can't repeal rationality, you can't dictate faith.

Years ago, V.S. Naipaul spoke and wrote about what he called "our Universal Civilization" with a common core of values centered around the Golden Rule, the pursuit of happiness, scientific rationality and freedom. Isn't that enough? Why do we need a punishing God-figure? To scare the stupid? Naipaul wrote:

Quote:

Are we only as strong as our beliefs? Is it sufficient merely to hold a worldview, an ethical view, intensely? You will understand the anxieties behind the questions. The questions, of course, for all their apparent pessimism, are loaded; they contain their own answers. But they are also genuinely double-edged. For that reason, they can also be seen as a reaching out to a far-off and sometimes hostile system of fixed belief; they can be seen as an aspect of the universality of our civilization at this period. Philosophical diffidence meets philosophical hysteria; and the diffident man is, at the end, the more in control.

I'd rather be diffident than hysterically certain.

I'm not sure what you mean by "excessive personal license." One man's liberty is another man's license. This forum is devoted in many ways to personal license in a way our grandmothers would have found shocking. Sure, fringe perverts everywhere have been empowered by the internet and there are lots of annoying people, but I prefer freedom to the state telling me what I can't do.

The liberalism/conservatism thing is a pendulum, it swings back and forth. Maybe the moment of its swing is not fast enough for you, but swing back it will.

"Lack of military prowess." This is a consequence of peace and technology. Peace is not a bad thing. "Military prowess" in the Spartan sense is still around in Europe and obviously the USA in the numbers needed for present circumstances, in organizations like special operations forces, elite infantry, and fighter pilots. Will we have wars with large massed armies on foot again? Unlikely in a world with nuclear bombs, drones, evermore-accurate guided missiles, and soon-to-be killer robots and directed-energy weapons. So barring technological collapse, there will be no mass "military prowess" again. I'm in favor of things which could be the "moral equivalent of war" like space exploration or labor projects, but maintaining "military prowess" for its own sake is not only unnecessary, it has its own risks - coups d'etat, wars prompted by militarism.

I return to my example of Ireland from about 1970 on. Rapid economic growth, the connection of the populace to mass media, cheap air travel, and the globalized society wiped out a traditional society in less than a generation. It had nothing to do with leftism, cultural Marxism, or feminism in any significant sense. It was the operation of the market with its excitement of desires.

The revelation that much of the traditional society was a huge fraud (plethora of Catholic child abuse scandals and cover-ups, government corruption) also played a role in the collapse of the Ould Ireland. It's safe to say that a lot of what is pedestalized here as the "traditions of the past" was similarly corrupt, because a lack of transparency was a feature of the past just about everywhere.

So, do you want to stop the operation of the market, free expression, voting, or what? Or is it better to let people self-correct over time as they usually do through politics or in society? Patience, patience.

[dholland662]

On my phone so I will not respond to posts directly.
What I find interesting about this topic is the manosphere in my experience promotes the following things as viable in dealing with women when your life as a free man is on the line: deception, callousness, and relegating women as others.

These things are not encouraged but regarded as a necessity oftentimes.

But when the issue of race, diversity, and the decline of western civ these tactics are now too unseemly.
Even when used against what is really an invading and occupying force.

But all this does is promote the necessity of simply resorting to what I consider the nail in the coffin.

Because all of thime equivocation on this issue, and no I don't simply mean here, is because of the premise of egalitarianism. Same premise for feminism. The best way to undo feminism is hack at that root.
As is the case here. After searching rok I found an article that cited the innate intelligence of ashkenazi jews to make its point, so clearly the precedent is there.

The people being brought in to Europe don't simply lack a compatible culture, they themselves are incompatible.
And as has been shown in places like Malmo is that the more of a proportion they take up, the more like the places they came from those cities become.
Even in places that had no colonial empire, or a very short lived one, and no history of segregation.
And yet, the behavior of these groups is identical in each country.


And as a last point, what Quintus pointed out is not the nice way to do things. But nice guys finish last, and if Europe doesnt do that now when nice people are in charge they only increase the odds of another Hitler rising up and stirring up the Europeans who at that point will be very desperate indeed.
And that is not an idle comparison really, the Weimar Republic was actually very perverse and degenerate in ways not too dissimilar to our own age (look up what passed for art then).

Moreover, the war on western culture has gone on long enough. The immigration issue is simply the culmination. So one can't say Europeans have not been patient.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I'm certain that merely implementing some moderate measures (i.e. returning to immigration as it was around 1950-1990 or so) would be enough to roll back the tide and restore normalcy at this point. Demographically and economically speaking, it's still not too late. Just going back to enforcing some common sense laws would be enough. It worked for the last century, it would work again.

At this point, I simply can't support the extreme anti-Islam or anti-immigration policies being peddled here. We are not yet that far gone that just returning to a moderate approach wouldn't solve all of these problems. By shouting views like this, their proponents are just further destroying the possibility that a moderate approach will ever be implemented, because the public that could have otherwise been prodded into action by successive outrages and scandals will become soured on making any changes, viewing the alternative as even worse.

So the next time you hear an otherwise reasonable person supporting more unchecked immigration (and assorted politicians pushing it) because the only alternative they've heard of is expulsion of all Muslims, remember to thank Scorpion, Quintus and Blick.