[Gauß]

(11-12-2014 07:14 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

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.

Since this thread was started about Sweden I can say that your "common sense laws" would be branded as hateful, bigoted, racist, islamophobic etc here in Sweden. And at this time there is no chance any of them being implemented. Even returning to a "moderate approach" (let's say cutting immigration in half) wouldn't work cause you would still get the same response from the pro-immigrants. We have also tried the moderate approach for 10-15 years now to no prevail. Look where it's gotten us now.

Immigration and emigration in Sweden 1875-2013 (blue line immigration)


Your "common sense laws" solution wouldn't work here. What alternatives do we really have left?

[solo]

(11-11-2014 07:38 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 05:41 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

New swedish democrats politicians have no bullshit attitude:

Fantastic. Couldn't have delivered that better.
It has to pull no punches, and be delivered directly at the Left. His answer at the end was perfect - instead of playing within the dialogue framework the Leftist attempted to setup, he just called it out as 'you just said a load of jibberish and didn't rebut; I reiterate my points as they were made'.

That guy is probably my favorite politician. (The leftist he is debating with in that video isn't one of the worst though - he actually isn't hateful against Ekeroth or his other party like so many other politicians and journalists are). I wrote about SD and Ekeroth some more here: http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-40370-...#pid830607

I actually spoke to Ekeroth once, thanking him for his brilliant work in staving off crime, islamization/terrorism and feminism in Sweden. He is quite involved internationally, too. Here he is interviewed on American radio from 2009:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVMTPYWl0-s

This is not even close to his best work though, which you need to understand Swedish in order to appreciate.

At a philosophical level, one of my gripes with multiculturalism is that so few people realize what kind of ideology it is. For instance, many libertarians support it. But the present form of multiculturalism has nothing to do with libertarianism since it is forced down the throats of Europeans and carried out with the taxpayers' money, which is taken from them with the threat of force. Libertarianism (liberalism in its original and Europeans sense of the word) implies zero taxes. Everything else but zero taxes is different degrees of socialism if you ask me. (Personally I support a certain degree of socialism.)

I dislike the intellectual dishonesty of many libertarians who fail to realize they are supporting what is a maoist ideology. Multiculturalism in its present form has very little to do with liberty, since it is a positive right for the immigrants which requires an infringement of the negative rights of native Europeans.

One reservation with regards to these new European parties I have though is that I wonder if they are at all concerned with the wellbeing of indigenous and other populations in parts of the world where those are not White Europeans. I hope so. I would also like them to care a bit more about the environment and the biological diversity.

Anyway, I could discuss all the topics of this thread and others related to it for days. But I really need to cut down on this discussion because I've been doing to much of it in Swedish already. But yes, the solutions obviously involves the hardline, no-nonsense approach as seen in these conservative and nationalist parties. It's simple, really. If you respect the country you may seek asylum. If not, you're out of here.

[Feisbook Control]

(11-12-2014 07:14 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

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.

That puts the cart before the horse. People are responding to facts on the ground that were forced on them. When mass immigration began to Europe after WW2, the populations of European countries were not asked for their approval. It was foisted upon them by their elites. Then it was pushed at their children through the education systems.

It is naive to believe that there will be a moderate solution to this problem for one simple reason: the elite have never allowed a moderate solution to be placed upon the table. It has always been their way or "Nazism" -- a false dichotomy -- and they won't change now. UKIP is actually extremely pro-immigration from within the Commonwealth (including India), yet is denounced as a far right party. The Australian government gets a massive amount of flak for its supposedly fascist immigration policies. At some point, people stop caring what label they are tagged with. At some point, people realise that they're being played as fools. They eventually figure out that if to not buy what the elites are selling 100% makes them far right, then screw it, they might as well actually be far right because it's better than nothing, or the label is essentially meaningless. I believe this is what Scorpion was alluding to with his comment about this creating the perfect environment for the next Hitler.

Earlier in this thread, I wrote that I worried that the solution to this problem might destroy much of European history, and that things might go too far. The problem is though that the window for reasonable solutions is rapidly closing, and deliberately so from the left. When you have cancer, you end up trying something as radical as chemotherapy that causes damage to good cells too simply because it's the only available option left. I'm fairly resigned to the fact that we're going to lose Europe to either cultural Marxism and its useful idiots in Islam, or we're going to lose Europe to totalitarianism. That's why I pretty much wouldn't live in Europe if you gave me a house there. In some ways, it's not going to affect me anyway since I will live outside the West, and my children will be half-Asian. I do think it's sad to see such a beautiful thing as Western civilisation die, however. It's the same feeling I had in seeing those Buddhist statues in Afghanistan blown up a decade ago, or antiquities from the Middle East destroyed recently. Those things were not of my people or my culture, but we are all the lesser at losing them. I am anti-anti-civilisational.

The trouble is that both leftism and Islam run a typical "motte and bailey" strategy. The motte and bailey strategy works by engaging in extreme rhetoric to push the envelope inside the bailey. This is their bread and butter activity. When called upon that, the strategy shifts to hiding inside the keep upon the motte and making a perfectly reasonable statement, or something like "not all X are like that", and so on to paint their detractors as the extremists. When the danger has passed, those inside the keep upon the motte return to the bailey and resume what they were doing before, i.e. pushing the envelope.

Thus, the problem is always going to be that people will think it unreasonable to clamp down upon political or religious freedom, and they may catch a few of the extremists, but they won't solve the underlying problems and conditions without burning down the keep upon the motte as well, but that would be perceived as going too far. The motte and bailey strategy is an inherently passive aggressive strategy that seeks to use the good faith of the Western liberal tradition against itself by claiming that the Western liberal tradition is going against its own principles by defending itself against anti-liberal enemies. It places the Western liberal tradition in a position where it is damned if it defends itself, and damned if it doesn't. The West's enemies are in no way attempting to engage in good faith activities, nor have they ever been. As such, we need to wake up and not let them play that game with us.

Now, a few comments about Islam specifically. I think it is incorrect to claim that Wahabism and other Saudi forms of Islam do not speak for Islam in general for two reasons. The first is that, as I have stated many times before in other threads, they actually can claim the position of being holier than thou. For a Buddhist to claim holier than thou status, he would claim to be more like Buddha. For a Christian to claim holier than thou status, he would claim to be more like Christ. For a Muslim to claim holier than thou status, he would claim to be more like Mohammed. The simple fact is that Buddha and Christ were men of peace who preached peace and tolerance, so to be like them would be to be peaceful and tolerant. Mohammed was a warrior who preached war and intolerance. To be more like Mohammed would be to be more warlike and intolerant. Radical Muslims can always play this card, doubly so when they have a ton of money to fund it.

The second issue is one of authenticity. A Flamenco dancer from Spain is always going to be able to pull rank over a Flamenco dancer from outside Spain because Flamenco comes from Spain. The governing body of a more traditional martial art such as iaido, kendo or aikido is always going to be Japanese, and so able to pull rank, because iaido, kendo and aikido are Japanese. The Vatican is always going to be able to pull rank over Catholics around the world because Catholicism originates in the Vatican. Likewise, Islam originated in Saudi Arabia and its two holiest cities can be found there. As long as people still do the Hajj and pray in the direction of Mecca, sects based there and originating there are always going to pull rank, and that's exactly what they've been doing. They've been going out to the "provinces" and telling the yokels how they've got it all wrong and have deviated from the true path, and based upon the paragraph above, they're correct.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Quote:

Since this thread was started about Sweden I can say that your "common sense laws" would be branded as hateful, bigoted, racist, islamophobic etc here in Sweden. And at this time there is no chance any of them being implemented.

The fact that these laws have no chance of passing in a deeply sick society doesn't mean that they would be ineffective if passed. The medicine working or not working, and the patient being willing or unwilling to take it, those are two wholly different issues.

Certainly you have more of a chance for success by advocating for something moderate that a lot of people can believe in than by advocating extremism that repulses most people. Remember that you are not preaching to hardliners - they are already on your side - you are preaching to centrists and disappointed leftists. You don't want to scare them off with explanations how "Hitler had a great idea but just went about it the wrong way".

Just look at GamerGate. If its main voices weren't about an easy to support and sane topic like ethics in game journalism, but about something extreme like doxxing all SJWs, do you think it would have been able to gather this amount of popular support? Of course not. I might be wrong because I don't speak Swedish, but this Kent Ekeroth guy also doesn't seem to be espousing anything harsher than my proposed solutions. Imagine how little support he would get if he started ranting about Hitler instead of being calm and measured.

Now, it's easily possible that the society is so sick that even a moderate solution cannot attract enough popular support to overcome the leftist agenda, but why would you dig your cause's grave right from the start?

Quote:

It is naive to believe that there will be a moderate solution to this problem for one simple reason: the elite have never allowed a moderate solution to be placed upon the table.

I agree. The elites are too strong and too well entrenched. This will most likely continue until total societal collapse and civil war are reached.

In which case, why then do you care whether UKIP/SD gets 2, 5, 10 or 20% of the vote? In such an environment, there will be no such thing as a political party, only guns and slaughter.

Remember, we want UKIP/SD to get many votes in order to avoid collapse and civil war in the first place. By supporting UKIP/SD through extremist anti-immigration rhetoric, you are ruining their purpose and ensuring that war/totalitarianism won't be avoided, because the UKIP/SD that is too extremist will never get to parliamentary majority and this it will never get a chance to solve things peacefully before everything implodes.

[Deluge]

I'll add one more thing. A lot of guys here seem to writing in support a traditional religious conservative ideology, but I want to know if any of you are, or are willing to actually live this kind of lifestyle.

Obviously this is not a lifestyle suited to the most Western countries and most likely will not be in our lifetimes. So serious question, have any of you considered converting to Islam and immigrating to a conservative Arab country? Muslims love Western converts. You can still enjoy a very high standard of living and there's a lot of demand for educated Western professionals in the Gulf. If you move to Saudi Arabia you can have your cake and eat it too by having up to four wives. If you must have White pussy you could even bring in a Bosnian or Albanian woman to marry, or even marry a Russian Christian foreign bride (Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women).

If cannot give up Christian theology or living among White people you could even go join groups like the Amish, or one of those Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant or Catholic communities where they still have 9 or 10 kids. For Jews of course most major Jewish cities have Ultra-Orthodox Haredi communities, and any Gentile anywhere around the world can convert to Judaism and make Aliyah to Israel after 30 days and go join their Haredi's, most Israeli's speak English so you'd be able to survive fine while you learnt Yiddish/Hebrew. Any one of you could do these things right now if you wanted to.

Plenty of RVF's players have moved overseas (or within their country) learning new languages and exploring new careers along the way for a better sex life. Traditionalists, why not do the same?

[Saga]

(11-12-2014 09:01 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

Plenty of RVF's players have moved overseas (or within their country) learning new languages and exploring new careers along the way for a better sex life. Traditionalists, why not do the same?

I think you've posed your own paradox: 'traditionalist' implies affinity for the traditions of one's own community, not any traditions for the mere sake of having them. As far as I understand it, traditionalism is about upholding what is passed down, not selecting an unfamiliar society to immerse oneself in entirely. Of course the latter is a tendency that possesses its own rich history (and one which I find admirable and something I'll likely consider when I'm ready to settle down) but is quite clearly separate from traditionalism in thought as well as in practice.

[Deluge]

(11-12-2014 09:22 AM)Saga Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:01 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

Plenty of RVF's players have moved overseas (or within their country) learning new languages and exploring new careers along the way for a better sex life. Traditionalists, why not do the same?

I think you've posed your own paradox: 'traditionalist' implies affinity for the traditions of one's own community, not any traditions for the mere sake of having them. As far as I understand it, traditionalism is about upholding what is passed down, not selecting an unfamiliar society to immerse oneself in entirely. Of course the latter is a tendency that possesses its own rich history (and one which I find admirable and something I'll likely consider when I'm ready to settle down) but is quite clearly separate from traditionalism in thought as well as in practice.

Most of these guys say they're Christian. They can join Fundamentalist Christian churches and live that lifestyle while staying within the tradition and culture they're already in. Even if you're in a big expensive liberal city you wouldn't even have to move. I know a guy from Sydney whose from a Fundamentalist Catholic family of 9 kids, and it's not like these kinds of marriages are likely to end in divorce.

[Cyr]

(11-12-2014 09:01 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I'll add one more thing. A lot of guys here seem to writing in support a traditional religious conservative ideology, but I want to know if any of you are, or are willing to actually live this kind of lifestyle.

Obviously this is not a lifestyle suited to the most Western countries and most likely will not be in our lifetimes. So serious question, have any of you considered converting to Islam and immigrating to a conservative Arab country? Muslims love Western converts. You can still enjoy a very high standard of living and there's a lot of demand for educated Western professionals in the Gulf. If you move to Saudi Arabia you can have your cake and eat it too by having up to four wives. If you must have White pussy you could even bring in a Bosnian or Albanian woman to marry, or even marry a Russian Christian foreign bride (Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women).

If cannot give up Christian theology or living among White people you could even go join groups like the Amish, or one of those Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant or Catholic communities where they still have 9 or 10 kids. For Jews of course most major Jewish cities have Ultra-Orthodox Haredi communities, and any Gentile anywhere around the world can convert to Judaism and make Aliyah to Israel after 30 days and go join their Haredi's, most Israeli's speak English so you'd be able to survive fine while you learnt Yiddish/Hebrew. Any one of you could do these things right now if you wanted to.

Plenty of RVF's players have moved overseas (or within their country) learning new languages and exploring new careers along the way for a better sex life. Traditionalists, why not do the same?

Yeah I agree wholeheartedly with this. The world is a big place, and if you would genuinely prefer living a very traditional lifestyle, there are opportunities to do so.

[Feisbook Control]

(11-12-2014 09:01 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I'll add one more thing. A lot of guys here seem to writing in support a traditional religious conservative ideology, but I want to know if any of you are, or are willing to actually live this kind of lifestyle.

Obviously this is not a lifestyle suited to the most Western countries and most likely will not be in our lifetimes. So serious question, have any of you considered converting to Islam and immigrating to a conservative Arab country? Muslims love Western converts. You can still enjoy a very high standard of living and there's a lot of demand for educated Western professionals in the Gulf. If you move to Saudi Arabia you can have your cake and eat it too by having up to four wives. If you must have White pussy you could even bring in a Bosnian or Albanian woman to marry, or even marry a Russian Christian foreign bride (Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women).

If cannot give up Christian theology or living among White people you could even go join groups like the Amish, or one of those Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant or Catholic communities where they still have 9 or 10 kids. For Jews of course most major Jewish cities have Ultra-Orthodox Haredi communities, and any Gentile anywhere around the world can convert to Judaism and make Aliyah to Israel after 30 days and go join their Haredi's, most Israeli's speak English so you'd be able to survive fine while you learnt Yiddish/Hebrew. Any one of you could do these things right now if you wanted to.

Plenty of RVF's players have moved overseas (or within their country) learning new languages and exploring new careers along the way for a better sex life. Traditionalists, why not do the same?

I actually have considered this in various forms, despite being an atheist. I have considered pilgrimages or spending time in a monastery for various religions I don't believe in, including things such as Sufism. I have also considered whether it might be worth joining a religion for the sake of a community, my children in the future, etc. I might have said Catholicism a while ago, but the Pope seems to be going right off the deep end. Orthodox Christianity would probably be the next best bet. Mormonism is another, but it doesn't have nearly the weight of history behind it, which would be an important factor for me. I'm cynical about anything non-Christian simply because we've all known these guys who claim they're Buddhists or Hare Krishnas or some other such thing and they come off as being twits more than anything. It's a bit like seeing someone riding an ostrich -- I know it can be done, but why would you?

Conservative British social commentator Douglas Murray describes himself as a cultural Anglican. He was actually a practising Anglican until he began investigating Islam, and it was his investigation of Islam that turned him off religion as a belief system, yet he still considers himself a cultural Anglican. I could well accept that, I suppose, but would it accept me? I get the feeling I'd rock the boat with too many difficult questions about why it's necessary to kiss an icon or some such thing. A lot of the metaphysical stuff I just can't swallow, and I also have certain Nietzschean-esque reservations about organised religion being slave morality. More than that, I would be concerned about my children. Whilst I might be able to have a somewhat more nuanced position on all of that, any children raised in a faith may not necessarily be able to separate out the superstition and so on.

Another issue is that I don't think I would necessarily move to a place just for religion. That wouldn't be high on my list. I don't really have much desire to live in Russia, for instance, so I wouldn't move there just so that I could go to an Orthodox church. Likewise, I have no desire to ever live in Utah, or even go there, actually. Of course, there are certain religious groups where I currently live. The trouble is though that I also judge certain religions by their converts. To be honest, the average Taiwanese convert to Christianity I have met has been pretty bloody dull and boring at a philosophical level. Those I have met have invariably been incredibly naive people who had a big hole in their lives and now think finding Jesus (or more importantly, a group of non-judgemental people) has solved all of their problems. They're merry morons who would drive me up the wall after the second gathering.

[Gauß]

(11-12-2014 08:39 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:

Since this thread was started about Sweden I can say that your "common sense laws" would be branded as hateful, bigoted, racist, islamophobic etc here in Sweden. And at this time there is no chance any of them being implemented.

The fact that these laws have no chance of passing in a deeply sick society doesn't mean that they would be ineffective if passed. The medicine working or not working, and the patient being willing or unwilling to take it, those are two wholly different issues.

Certainly you have more of a chance for success by advocating for something moderate that a lot of people can believe in than by advocating extremism that repulses most people. Remember that you are not preaching to hardliners - they are already on your side - you are preaching to centrists and disappointed leftists. You don't want to scare them off with explanations how "Hitler had a great idea but just went about it the wrong way".

Just look at GamerGate. If its main voices weren't about an easy to support and sane topic like ethics in game journalism, but about something extreme like doxxing all SJWs, do you think it would have been able to gather this amount of popular support? Of course not. I might be wrong because I don't speak Swedish, but this Kent Ekeroth guy also doesn't seem to be espousing anything harsher than my proposed solutions. Imagine how little support he would get if he started ranting about Hitler instead of being calm and measured.

Now, it's easily possible that the society is so sick that even a moderate solution cannot attract enough popular support to overcome the leftist agenda, but why would you dig your cause's grave right from the start?

Quote:

It is naive to believe that there will be a moderate solution to this problem for one simple reason: the elite have never allowed a moderate solution to be placed upon the table.

I agree. The elites are too strong and too well entrenched. This will most likely continue until total societal collapse and civil war are reached.

In which case, why then do you care whether UKIP/SD gets 2, 5, 10 or 20% of the vote? In such an environment, there will be no such thing as a political party, only guns and slaughter.

Remember, we want UKIP/SD to get many votes in order to avoid collapse and civil war in the first place. By supporting UKIP/SD through extremist anti-immigration rhetoric, you are ruining their purpose and ensuring that war/totalitarianism won't be avoided, because the UKIP/SD that is too extremist will never get to parliamentary majority and this it will never get a chance to solve things peacefully before everything implodes.

I don't think you realize how severe the situation in Sweden actually is. I completely agree with your common sense laws and many other swedes would probably agree. Your common sense laws is basically the line that The Sweden Democrats (SD) and Kent Ekeroth espouses, still they are hated by all the other parties and all of mainstream media in Sweden and they are considered to be extremist by the "elite".

With the graph I wanted to show that 15 years ago an moderate would want an immigration cap to around 20000 immigrants per year. 10 years ago it would have been at 35000. 5 years ago it would have been at 50000. And today at 60000. Being an moderate in terms of immigration doesn't accomplish anything. That being said I don't know how we can't fix the situation and I don't necessarily agree with some of the others who has offered their solutions in this thread. Maybe we''ll just have to wait until Sweden crumbles under its own weigh and then rebuild something.

[lskdfjldsf]

Quote:

So serious question, have any of you considered converting to Islam and immigrating to a conservative Arab country? Muslims love Western converts. You can still enjoy a very high standard of living and there's a lot of demand for educated Western professionals in the Gulf. If you move to Saudi Arabia you can have your cake and eat it too by having up to four wives. If you must have White pussy you could even bring in a Bosnian or Albanian woman to marry, or even marry a Russian Christian foreign bride (Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women).

Just so I understand correctly, you're suggesting that because we want a more traditional society in the West, the way things used to be for the majority of our history, in OUR countries, we should consider converting to Islam and moving to the Middle East?

Yeah, we're fucked.

[Deluge]

(11-12-2014 09:57 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Just so I understand correctly, you're suggesting that because we want a more traditional society in the West, the way things used to be for the majority of our history, in OUR countries, we should consider converting to Islam and moving to the Middle East?

Yeah, we're fucked.

You missed the point entirely. I talked about converting to Islam because the countries that are most traditional today are in the Muslim world and their divorce laws favour men. Really divorce laws aren't even a factor in Fundamentalist communities because divorce is so rare.

There's a lot of guys championing traditional religious ideology on the forum, but I've never seen any of them talking about actually walking the walk.

[Lemmo]

(11-12-2014 09:53 AM)Gauß Wrote:  

I don't think you realize how severe the situation in Sweden actually is. I completely agree with your common sense laws and many other swedes would probably agree. Your common sense laws is basically the line that The Sweden Democrats (SD) and Kent Ekeroth espouses, still they are hated by all the other parties and all of mainstream media in Sweden and they are considered to be extremist by the "elite".

With the graph I wanted to show that 15 years ago an moderate would want an immigration cap to around 20000 immigrants per year. 10 years ago it would have been at 35000. 5 years ago it would have been at 50000. And today at 60000. Being an moderate in terms of immigration doesn't accomplish anything. That being said I don't know how we can't fix the situation and I don't necessarily agree with some of the others who has offered their solutions in this thread. Maybe we''ll just have to wait until Sweden crumbles under its own weigh and then rebuild something.

Yeah, they don't appreciate how little time they have. The US didn't dismantle its common sense immigration laws until 1965. 40-50 years later than natives can't control most elections and have abandoned many areas of the country. Obviously the problem isn't nearly as severe in Europe as the US, but it only takes a decade or two for it to reach that level, maybe less given how small many of these EU countries are.

[Saga]

(11-12-2014 10:02 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

There's a lot of guys championing traditional religious ideology on the forum, but I've never seen any of them talking about actually walking the walk.

That isn't walking this particular walk. Leaving aside the fact that it isn't really your tradition if you weren't raised in it, you're forgetting that traditional society rests upon both words: a society that's traditional. A church community (that more often than not engages in mostly modern religious services) isn't a traditional society any more than the local mall's martial arts dojo constitutes Japan.

[Lemmo]

(11-12-2014 09:01 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I'll add one more thing. A lot of guys here seem to writing in support a traditional religious conservative ideology, but I want to know if any of you are, or are willing to actually live this kind of lifestyle.

Obviously this is not a lifestyle suited to the most Western countries and most likely will not be in our lifetimes. So serious question, have any of you considered converting to Islam and immigrating to a conservative Arab country? Muslims love Western converts. You can still enjoy a very high standard of living and there's a lot of demand for educated Western professionals in the Gulf. If you move to Saudi Arabia you can have your cake and eat it too by having up to four wives. If you must have White pussy you could even bring in a Bosnian or Albanian woman to marry, or even marry a Russian Christian foreign bride (Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women).

If cannot give up Christian theology or living among White people you could even go join groups like the Amish, or one of those Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant or Catholic communities where they still have 9 or 10 kids. For Jews of course most major Jewish cities have Ultra-Orthodox Haredi communities, and any Gentile anywhere around the world can convert to Judaism and make Aliyah to Israel after 30 days and go join their Haredi's, most Israeli's speak English so you'd be able to survive fine while you learnt Yiddish/Hebrew. Any one of you could do these things right now if you wanted to.

Plenty of RVF's players have moved overseas (or within their country) learning new languages and exploring new careers along the way for a better sex life. Traditionalists, why not do the same?

Why would a "traditional" American, German, Italian, etc. want to abandon his culture and adopt an entirely foreign one, especially Islam? Kind of goes against the values of trying to conserve a culture and its institutions. The whole point of being opposed to immigration is that the state is basically making this choice (to abandon their culture and adopt another) for the individual. Traditions are culture specific. It isn't a matter of just finding a place that values "traditions" and moving there.

[Deluge]

(11-12-2014 10:14 AM)Saga Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:02 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

There's a lot of guys championing traditional religious ideology on the forum, but I've never seen any of them talking about actually walking the walk.

That isn't walking this particular walk. Leaving aside the fact that it isn't really your tradition if you weren't raised in it, you're forgetting that traditional society rests upon both words: a society that's traditional. A church community (that more often than not engages in mostly modern religious services) isn't a traditional society any more than the local mall's martial arts dojo constitutes Japan.

All these guys say they're Christian and all seem American. If they were raised a Protestant, they can go join a Fundamentalist Protestant church. If they were raised a Catholic, they can go become a Fundamentalist Catholic. These aren't bullshit liberal churches I'm talking about here, but Fundamentalist "Bible is the literal word of God" churches which don't practice contraception and where people get married very young and have huge families. 19 Kids and Counting is a good example. And I'm not even talking about immigration here but what their general vision for Western societies.

[TheWastelander]

What you're saying looks like an eloquent version of the common leftist insult that goes something like this: 'If you're against abortion/gay marriage/whatever deviant thing we like, you should just move to Afghanistan to be with the Taliban!'

[TheWastelander]

(11-12-2014 10:20 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

All these guys say they're Christian and all seem American. If they were raised a Protestant, they can go join a Fundamentalist Protestant church.

Already did.

[Deluge]

(11-12-2014 10:23 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

What you're saying looks like an eloquent version of the common leftist insult that goes something like this: 'If you're against abortion/gay marriage/whatever deviant thing we like, you should just move to Afghanistan to be with the Taliban!'

Didn't mean it to sound that way if it does, I meant to use the Middle East an as an analogy to what a lot of RVF players have done, i.e it's worth going out of your way to live the lifestyle you want to lead. I just want to know if people actually live the lifestyle they're promoting or whether they're just keyboard jockeying.

(11-12-2014 10:25 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:20 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

All these guys say they're Christian and all seem American. If they were raised a Protestant, they can go join a Fundamentalist Protestant church.

Already did.

Ironically you're not one of the Statists saying that lifestyle should be forced upon us by the barrel of a gun so I can't actually count you as an example of what I'm looking for.

[Lemmo]

(11-12-2014 10:20 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:14 AM)Saga Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:02 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

There's a lot of guys championing traditional religious ideology on the forum, but I've never seen any of them talking about actually walking the walk.

That isn't walking this particular walk. Leaving aside the fact that it isn't really your tradition if you weren't raised in it, you're forgetting that traditional society rests upon both words: a society that's traditional. A church community (that more often than not engages in mostly modern religious services) isn't a traditional society any more than the local mall's martial arts dojo constitutes Japan.

All these guys say they're Christian and all seem American. If they were raised a Protestant, they can go join a Fundamentalist Protestant church. If they were raised a Catholic, they can go become a Fundamentalist Catholic. These aren't bullshit liberal churches I'm talking about here, but Fundamentalist "Bible is the literal word of God" churches which don't practice contraception and where people get married very young and have huge families. 19 Kids and Counting is a good example. And I'm not even talking about immigration here but what their general vision for Western societies.

Most people with the means already do this, whether they describe themselves as "conservatives" or not. Look at any map showing the degree to which a city is segregated or demographic map of the US. It's called white flight. It means going to a place populated by like-minded neighbors and with schools, government and other institutions that are friendly to their desired way of life. It isn't about joining a small isolated religious sect. That's just a caricature as TheWastelander noted above.

[Krusyos]

(11-12-2014 10:02 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:57 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Just so I understand correctly, you're suggesting that because we want a more traditional society in the West, the way things used to be for the majority of our history, in OUR countries, we should consider converting to Islam and moving to the Middle East?

Yeah, we're fucked.

You missed the point entirely. I talked about converting to Islam because the countries that are most traditional today are in the Muslim world and their divorce laws favour men. Really divorce laws aren't even a factor in Fundamentalist communities because divorce is so rare.

There's a lot of guys championing traditional religious ideology on the forum, but I've never seen any of them talking about actually walking the walk.

And, in doing so, join the very thing that millions of European men over the centuries have fought and died to protect us against? No thanks. Doing that is the most despicable thing I can imagine.

My plan when I get sick of pussy chasing is to find a unicorn Polish girl, become a Polish citizen, join the Church, raise a family, and settle down to a life of farming, writing, and music. It is the most natural for me, as I identify as Polish-American.

I can only pray the Left doesn't assrape Poland for at least 30 years.

[Deluge]

(11-12-2014 10:27 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:20 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:14 AM)Saga Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:02 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

There's a lot of guys championing traditional religious ideology on the forum, but I've never seen any of them talking about actually walking the walk.

That isn't walking this particular walk. Leaving aside the fact that it isn't really your tradition if you weren't raised in it, you're forgetting that traditional society rests upon both words: a society that's traditional. A church community (that more often than not engages in mostly modern religious services) isn't a traditional society any more than the local mall's martial arts dojo constitutes Japan.

All these guys say they're Christian and all seem American. If they were raised a Protestant, they can go join a Fundamentalist Protestant church. If they were raised a Catholic, they can go become a Fundamentalist Catholic. These aren't bullshit liberal churches I'm talking about here, but Fundamentalist "Bible is the literal word of God" churches which don't practice contraception and where people get married very young and have huge families. 19 Kids and Counting is a good example. And I'm not even talking about immigration here but what their general vision for Western societies.

Most people with the means already do this, whether they describe themselves as "conservatives" or not. Look at any map showing the degree to which a city is segregated or demographic map of the US. It's called white flight. It means going to a place populated by like-minded neighbors and with schools, government and other institutions that are friendly to their desired way of life. It isn't about joining a small isolated religious sect. That's just a caricature as noted above.

Posters are explicitly saying they want to impose a traditional, state-enforced Christian society, not just a homogeneous one. I want to hear if these people are actually living that lifestyle, because I've never seen any indication of that from them.

Edit:
I should define what I think a "traditional, religious lifestyle" is. I'm talking being a member of a socially conservative church, going to that church regularly, getting married young and eventually having at least 2 children. I don't think this is a particularly stringent interpretation of a traditional religious lifestyle, indeed it was the norm not so long ago. I can respect anybody who advocates this lifestyle if they actually live it, indeed I grew up in a devout religious family myself and I know the benefits of it firsthand. However I have no respect for anybody who thinks this lifestyle or any other lifestyle for that matter should be enforced by through state-sanctioned violence when they don't even practice it themselves, it's pure Bolshevism not to mention keyboard jockeying. It's no better than Sweden's Cultural Marxist's promoting a multicultural ideology while they live in gated-off homogeneous ethnic Swedish areas.

There's a lot of very sensible ideas in this thread but also a lot of bullshit. I'll leave my commentary on it at that.

[Saga]

OK, so you're saying Christian men should go to churches that best reflect their viewpoints. I agree with you there, but I don't doubt that religious forum members are already doing that. How that translates into making a more traditionally-minded society I'm still not clear on.

(11-12-2014 10:32 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I should define what I think a "traditional, religious lifestyle" is. I'm talking...getting married young...

"Marriage statistics indicate that the mean marriage age for the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras was higher than many people realize. Data taken from birthdates of women and marriage certificates reveals mean marriage ages to have been as follows:

1566-161927.0 years
1647-171929.6 years
1719-177926.8 years
1770-183725.1 years"

Note in the link that this might often vary from decade to decade, but that the average would be even higher for men. Adjust this for differences in life expectancy and it's roughly equivalent to a man today marrying in his mid-to-late 30's or more. The idea that men getting married young is 'traditional' is, I think, a misconception of the 1950's...but the larger point is that the age at which a man decides to get married (if at all) doesn't denote anything of the sort.

[Samseau]

It's not the age of the man that matters, it's the age of a woman. You know, the wall, infertility past 35, etc. When we're talking about traditional societies, that's really just a codeword for feminine women.

There's a lot of naivete in this thread. Sp5, for example, thinks globalization is some kind of unstoppable force of nature. Even when I pointed out to him that globalization has happened thousands of times in the past and always results in failure, he continues to spout the same deterministic "End of History" globalization nonsense. "This time is different!" I think Sp5 is just too damn brainwashed by his legalistic background. Most lawyers I talk to fall into this trap. They believe in the rule of law will save the day and maintain order no matter how much society changes.

Facts are facts: Intelligent women aren't having children (too busy chasing careers), dumber men and females are becoming the norm (the ones who have children because they can't figure out how to put on a condom), and intelligent men are giving up on society. The dumber men and women of the future aren't going to be able to sustain our technology economy.

It's plainly obvious none of this globalization shit is going to last, unless we make machines that think for us. Good luck with that one. We've got robots but they are nothing more than farm animals made out of metal.

If the leftists maintain power until the point of collapse, then people will become fiercely national again (it's a survival mechanism) and those who cannot integrate will be eradicated.

[Vronsky]

(11-12-2014 06:36 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(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.

Probably the most enlightened post I've read so far on this thread. +1