A young woman attended a rock concert in Paris and terrorist guerrillas attacked the civilians inside. She wrote her thoughts on the event in James Joyce style stream of consciousness, and the media picked it up. It seemed to express something that others also wanted to express.
Here is her text:
You never think it will happen to you. It was just a Friday night at a rock show. The atmosphere was so happy and everyone was dancing and smiling. And then when the men came through the front entrance and began the shooting, we naively believed it was all part of the show.
It wasn’t just a terrorist attack, it was a massacre. Dozens of people were shot right in front of me. Pools of blood filled the floor. Cries of grown men who held their girlfriends’ dead bodies pierced the small music venue. Futures demolished, families heartbroken. In an instant.
Shocked and alone, I pretended to be dead for over an hour, lying among people who could not see their loved ones motionless. Holding my breath, trying to not move, not cry — not giving those men the fear they longed to see.
I was incredibly lucky to survive. But so many didn’t. the people who had been there for the exact same reasons as I — to have a fun Friday night — were innocent. This world is cruel. And acts like this are supposed to highly the depravity of humans and the images of those men circling us like vultures will haunt me for the rest of my life.
The way they meticulously aimed at and shot people around the standing area I was in the center of without any consideration for human life. It didn’t feel real. I expected any moment for someone to say it was just a nightmare.
But being a survivor of this horror lets me shed light on the heroes. To the man who reassured me and put his life on the line to try and cover my brain whilst I whimpered, to the couple whose last words of love kept me believing in the good in the world, to the police who succeeded in rescuing hundreds of people, to the complete strangers who picked me up from the road and consoled me during the 45 minutes I truly believed the boy I loved was dead, to the injured man who I had mistaken for him and then on my recognition that he was not Amaury, held me and told me everything was going to be fine despite being all alone adn scared himself, to the woman who opened her doors to the survivors, to the friend who offered me shelter and went out to buy new clothes so I wouldn’t have to wear this blood stained top, to all of you who have sent caring messages of support — you make me believe this world has the potential to be better, to never let this happen again.
But most of this is to the 80 people who were murdered inside that venue, who weren’t as lucky, who didn’t get to wake up today and to all the pain that their friends and families are going through. I am so sorry. There’s nothing that will fix the pain. I feel privileged to be there for their last breaths. And truly believing that I would join them, I promise that their last thoughts were not on the animals who caused all this. It was thinking of the people they loved. As I lay down in the blood of strangers and lay waiting for my bullet to end my mere 22 years, I envisioned every face that I have ever loved and whispered “I love you” over and over again reflecting on the highlights of my life. Wishing that those I love knew just how much, wishing that they knew that no matter what happened to me, to keep believing in the good in people. To not let those men win.
Last night, the lives of many were forever changed and it is up to us to be better people, to live lives that the innocent victims of this tragedy dreamt about but sadly now will never be able to fulfill. RIP angels. You will never be forgotten.
You don’t come to Amerika for the usual tripe and drivel that is designed to make you feel better about your society failing by blaming scapegoats and inventing unicorn crusades to “fix” the wrong problems. You come here for the skinny.
There’s one word to describe the above:
This is not an attack on Ms. Isobel Bowdery, who realized her career was about to get a huge bump if she caught some fame, so she wrote down the right clichés in the right order expressing the right sentiments, illusions and pretenses. She is no different than a good student writing down what his teachers want to hear and handing it in.
But still the same, this is comical. It’s someone writing from Teletubby World where everyone is a happy little bubble, dedicated only to their own introspective personal drama, and the world is just a backdrop for that which never changes. It is the typical effete, narcissistic and oblivious outlook of late civilizations.
In Isobel-Teletubby World, society is not a struggle for anything. It exists for the citizens to do — to do whatever they want, of course! There are good people, and bad people, and the good people never hurt anyone or stop anyone else from doing anything. Nope, even when attacked in a theater where they outnumber the attackers 400 to 1, they will never step on someone else’s dream. No, it’s better to die in clumps and then engage in emotional self-expression on Facebook.
No one wants to use such strong language, but people in the West today are spoiled brats. They think the world exists for them to make the choices they want on an arbitrary basis, and that if it it does not, it is just mean. Upside-down frown goes here. They have a strong moral commitment to the idea that it should be a nice place where everyone nice can do whatever is nice and everything will be fine and maybe we will never die.
But that’s not real, or even all that interesting.
Nietzsche tells you to blame Christianity, and surely the good/mean fantasy dichotomy could come from that. Others blame commerce, and definitely the idea of life being like a shelf of products with arbitrary appeal fits in there. I tell you that what you see here is what happens when people no longer have a goal and have taken society for granted: the narcissism which is always lurking in each one of us comes out. This narcissism predates our passage from ape to human. It is the oldest sin, which is for an animal to assume that because he conceives of the world through his mind, it exists in his mind. If sin is error, this is the grandaddy of errors: a denial of reality.
And yet that denial is the idealized behavior in the modern West. For Isobel, the world does nothing but exist as a support structure for personal drama. It is a world of feelings that can be shared with other people (if they’re “good” — meanies don’t have feelings). It is brutally human to use our ego as a counter-attack against our smallness, and to not claim but treat the world as if it is a giant buffet for us to sample, which requires we imagine it has no significant consequences. Sure, we cannot murder or rape, and we must go to work and pay taxes, but most people avoid those crimes and do those activities anyway so that is not an imposition. To someone in that frame of mind, an act of terrorism seems like the hand of Satan reaching in to paradise for no purpose other than cruelty.
Most voters not only live in this nonsense world, but they created it by refusing to listen to any candidate who does not endorse it. Intellectually, it is baby food; like the half-lies of a salesperson who just needs to make enough fools buy his product for him to have that house in the suburbs. Morally, it is deceptive. We all know the world cannot be this simple, but we want it to be. As soon as we have the wealth and power, we insist that everyone else agree it is this way, so that we “feel” safe even if we are not.
What Isobel expresses is a consequence of this control, or the forcing of everyone else to act as if reality is not real and the fantasy world is the ultimate reality. Like domesticated animals, they do not fight back, but go trembling to their doom. They blame the instrument of their demise, not the illusion that led them to this point. Control creates a mirror image in citizens, much like their mirror neurons learn the world around them by mimicking its structure. People who are controlled come to rely on that control, in the Stockholm system way, but also blame that control for all their problems, which is why they like it. People enjoyed the Soviet Union because no one was ever accountable for their own behavior; the State was, because it had total control. That was why individualists supported it in the first place: much like regulation of an industry removes the onus from that industry to act responsibly, since they only need to comply to laws, total control removes responsibility for one’s actions and accountability for the motivation behind them. Under total control, everyone is a rodent acting in self-interest and no one ever is to blame.
Our method of control in the West is what Isobel expresses in her message: socialization, or people getting along with others. Teachers love it when everyone gets along, as do housewives and Republicans. They don’t want to see conflict, because conflict is “bad” because it interrupts our perfect solipsistic paradise. They want everyone to be nice and to exclude those who are “mean,” which translates to conflict never arising because we are in good conformity. No one will raise a controversial issue for risk of being not-nice. Everyone will agree everything is fine because they want other people to like them. The only things that can be attacked are those that people universally agree are mean, and those are uncontroversial, so people use them merely to signal their own nice-ness. It is a perfect world, a perfect illusion, and it is how societies generally self-destruct: they domesticate themselves, lose their ability to respond to reality, and then fall apart when reality intrudes.
Let us look at the big point that Isobel makes:
It didn’t feel real.
I’m sorry, is this planet earth? The one that has been wracked by wars from its earliest days, where Barbary Pirates roamed the seas and bandits lurked in wait throughout the countryside? The one where various ethnic groups are always murdering each other, frequently successfully, and the globe is a map of bones? Or even the place where drive-by shootings and knife fights are common? What about the periodic outbreaks of disease, the huge hurricanes, or the asteroid that will eventually, statistically speaking, eliminate all life here? The only way one can have such an outlook is to exist in a constant state of denial.
And yet Isobel is not the only one.
Lunatic socialist president Francois Hollande doubled down on the illusion by saying that France not only refused to awaken from the dream, but would enforce the dream on its citizens further in order to keep them asleep:
Hollande said the nation will honor its commitment to take in 30,000 refugees over the next two years, assuring the mayors, “France will remain a country of freedom.”
…“Some have wanted to link the influx of refugees to Friday’s acts of terror,” Hollande said, evoking calls by French and American conservatives to close the borders to fleeing refugees. But he declared the nation has a “humanitarian duty” to help migrants escape war-torn Syria.
Whatever happens, we must be nice. And if our policy is completely nonsense and stupidity, we’ll generate a whole lot of rules to bind it so that people feel better about it. Reality? That’s on another planet, man, no one is paying attention here anymore.
But this is typical. As Richard Fernandez points out, people would rather save the pleasant illusion that feel a small amount of pain by facing reality and acting on it:
The dilemma the West now faces is that it cannot survive on the basis of the platform which its elites have carefully constructed since WW2. They are being beaten to death with their own lofty statements. They must either continue to uphold the vision of open borders, multiculturalism, declining birthrates, unilateral disarmament and a growing state sector at all costs — in other words continue on the road to suicide — or retreat. As recent events at American campuses have shown, when faced with the choice of saving the Left and saving the actual world, the odds are that “the world” goes over the side first.
What needs to be done? This isn’t rocket science. It’s clear that cultures do not mix, but can only assimilate each other after a long period of conflict, which means that diversity is both suicide and genocide. The solution is to shut the borders, deport anyone who is not indigenous genetically to each country, and then resume what worked before the mass appeal madness of the liberal century, namely building up culture and the moral and intellectual quality of individuals instead of relying on liberalism and its illusions to be our substitute.
Our world is formed of three forces — diversity, democracy and pluralism — that are different faces of a single force, individualism. Individualism is the oldest evil of humankind because it always leads to narcissism; first, the individual says that his needs come before all else; second, when he is protected from accountability and consequences for his actions by the first postulate, he becomes narcissistic. Imagine a Hollywood star living alone in a vast mansion, with enough money that he must never face society, and you see the kind of spoiled, bored, empty and miserable brat that modern society creates out of its people. It does so with diversity, democracy and pluralism as methods of isolating the individual from accountability to reality.
As others have pointed out, reality-denial is a sin, and like all sins, it eventually becomes deadly, because like the asteroid it is statistically certain that over time, the piper will have to be paid — it is just not clear when. Like Malthus and other dire predictions of our illusion, its date of impact is unclear, but the inevitably is clear and just makes us more nervous and defensively vapid as time goes on.
Europe’s embrace of secular humanist multiculturalism as a belief system in place of religion and nationalism will not go away anytime soon, if ever. If it persists as the dominant Weltanschauung Europe is likely doomed. Change, if it comes, will emerge from popular opinion among the non-Islamic European masses, and the movements and parties that represent them, like the National Front in France, or Pegida in Germany. This is something that the elites will battle vigorously, possibly with both police and military forces. Civil unrest and the repressive measures that they may provoke may weaken Europe further, undermine democratic principles, and possibly make things even easier for Islamic radicals. But if European elites will tolerate popular change without imposing authoritarian crackdowns, Europe has a chance in this regard.
What no one will tackle is that this is a two-way relationship. Establish democracy, and the voters will demand illusion. Establish illusion, and you force people to engage in it exclusively. At that point they become domesticated animals, shaped by the hand that disciplines them, and when the control illusion fails, they simply fragment because they know no other way of life. This means that no one can even discuss the issue honestly because they are too busy emulating the past, and even that past is not what they think it is:
As Charles Cooke writes:
In the last two hundred years, there have been periods during which there were no immigration laws at all, and periods during which those laws were complex, and even evil. There have been periods during which outsiders flooded in, and periods during which the borders were all but closed. The system has been unpredictable: A Japanese expat heading for California in 1885 would have been welcomed with just an inspection; his grandson, applying in 1933, would have been summarily turned away. Romanticize it as we may, this area is just not as simple as we pretend it is. When a free-speech or Second Amendment advocate notes in absolute terms that this is a nation founded upon certain political precepts, he is correctly reminding his audience that the government is legally allowed to restrict his liberty in only a small number of ways. When an immigration advocate appeals to history, he is doing little more than begging the question.
What he doesn’t say here is that history runs in cycles, as de Tocqueville and Huntington noted, because democracy consists of pleasant-sounding ideas that unite people, but when they are applied, it turns out that reality is more complex than the universal homilies that attracted democracy. Mob rule is based on feelings, and then when those feelings produce disaster, there is a backlash. American immigration consists of repeated attempts to let in everyone, followed by disasters, at which point American law allowed people to either remove the immigrants or exclude them, at which point they self-deported. Europe has a similar history marked more by pogroms than democracy natterings, but the cycle remains the same. The domesticated sheep lunge after their feelings in order to show everyone how nice they are, and then it explodes in their faces and the remaining adults — a dwindling group over the years — take over and fix the mess.
The latest terrorist drama in Europe represents just another iteration of this pattern. In Isobel-Teletubby World, everyone is nice and pleasant and just wants to have a good time. But then some meanies appeared, and they have done something terrible and it is very sad, but that does not mean we should change what we are doing, because — unlike them — we are nice. Nice is sociable and should be rewarded through more socialization, and if another terrorist attack comes, it will feel just as unreal because we have shut it out of our minds, eyes slammed tight shut as we distract with mindless self-indulgence and hope for painless deaths.
A lot of people have suddenly realized that they should show solidarity with France. It’s nice of them to tune in. They so endeavor for two reasons.
Something genuinely horrible happened in Paris this Friday. Several hundred French civilians were deliberately targeted and slaughtered by Muslim radicals who indiscriminately (and with impeccable multiculturalism even), gunned people down in a spirit of true egalitarianism.
The political and governmental policies that made this possible are near and dear to the hearts of much of the Post-modern West. When Marco Rubio and Charles Schumer were contemplating bi-partisan comprehensive amnesty reform, Senator Rand Paul attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would screen people to avoid having terrorist organizations use a comprehensive amnesty reform as a Trojan Horse. Here’s the bi-partisan response his amendment got from the politico-corporate elite :
“Two, three years ago, I introduced a bill, or an amendment, to the immigration bill that would have provided for more scrutiny of people coming into our country: refugees, immigrants, students,” Paul said, when asked about his response to Friday’s attacks.
“They would have had background checks and they would have had a much higher degree of scrutiny. And the point I made in my speech was, I introduced this to Rubio and (Democratic Sen. Chuck) Schumer’s immigration bill and then Rubio and Schumer and all of the authors voted against any conservative amendments. And I think that was a mistake, not only for the bill, but also for our national security.”
So almost 200 mostly undeserving, very mundane people have been burned on the funeral pyre for the sake of open-borders, population replacement and a nice, big reserve army of the unemployed to reduce corporate labor costs. Therefore, a lot of guilty and disingenuous people want to put French flags in the background of their Facebook profiles and wear ribbons to commemorate the people who were sent to the slaughter because we were all so open-minded that our collective brains fell out.
So this new found appreciation of the French People is touching. So is the pedophile that does really vile things to the neighbor’s five-year-old. But that bit of snarky nastiness brings up a valid question: What if I really do empathize and grieve for the innocents blown up and gunned down in Paris? How do I legitimately show solidarity with those whose deaths I verily lament? JPW is very happy you so inquired. Here’s my Mizzou Manifesto’s worth of suggestions.
- Cease and Desist with Visa Programs such as H1B until the US Workforce Participation Rate hits 75% rather than the 61% it sits at now. If you don’t have the reserve army of the unemployed, you don’t have people who are we tell them twice and they ignore us, may God have mercy on their souls.
- Reject Immigration from places prone to radically anti-Western activities. As was earlier pointed out at this site, successful immigrants come as settlers that take over and replace prevailing cultures. If you want to disbelieve Mr. Warkin, ask yourself how well the Iroquois Nations did with assimilating General George Washington. They are looking to replace you, not join you or become like you. If they wanted to emulate you, they could do so while sparing the expense of long distance transit.
- Help France do whatever is necessary to speed members of ISIS to their next destination on the wheel of karma. Terrorists do not really perform acts of terrorism because of stress. They execute terrorist attacks because they believe it works like hell. The body count inflicted in the general vicinity of where these terrorists live must be high enough so that no one will continue to offer them shelter or succor. The economic butcher’s bill that a terrorist organization or society must pay for terrorist activities has to go a lot higher. Otherwise, terrorism will still be viewed as a tactically intelligent option for extracting bribes and concessions out of Western Democracies.
Adopting the JPW program for dealing with ISIS and all other JV squads suiting up to help the world burn would show far greater sympathy and remonstration with the grieving victims of French Terrorism than lots of French flags on Facebook and at NFL stadiums.
To prevent those who have died from dying in vain, we must set an example for the rest of the world by rejecting the ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity that so inspire ISIS to believe that terrorism is an obviously good tactic to deploy against the West. The question for our leadership becomes which is politically and morally easier; protecting our people or letting the politically and financially lucrative conditions that make innocent Westerners such fun and easy mass terror targets remain in situ?
How our society answers this question will tell you how much the elites who lead us really care about victims in France or in either of the Twin Towers.
As mentioned on this site four years ago, and eight years before that on the predecessor to this site, Israel will lead the way in restoring Nationalism, which is a world order where boundaries are defined by simultaneous shared ethnicity, culture and values of a population.
Now to the dismay of liberals everywhere, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formalized that statement. In a brilliant act of statecraft that flew over the heads of mainstream media, Netanyahu both re-legalized the defense of an indigenous ethnic majority by a state, and announced his plans for Palestine:
Mr. Netanyahu said in a speech to the Zionist Congress on Tuesday night that “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews.” The prime minister said that the mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, had protested to Hitler that “they’ll all come here,” referring to Palestine.
“ ‘So what should I do with them?’ ” Mr. Netanyahu quoted Hitler as asking Mr. Husseini. “He said, ‘Burn them.’ ”
While Holocaust historians and revisionists — neither of whom have a good record of getting the truth right the first time — will debate this into the ground, Netanyahu’s statement was subtle and profound. He looked carefully at the camera as he spoke the words clearly and strongly, aware that he was making history — even if the rest of the media and pundits have not caught on. Here are the implications of what he said:
(1) If you merely want to expel a foreign population, that is not really a bad thing, if you are doing it to defend your own people.
(2) Nationalism is necessary. It was necessary for Germany, and now it is necessary for Israel. It is the only way to preserve a native population.
(3) Palestine has been the darling of Europe both in the 1930s and in the present day, and both times have led to disastrous results.
The American media missed all of these implications in their desire to fight the last world war over again, mainly because it allows them to dog whistle the civil rights conformity signal to their audience, which unites them in a buzzing hive-mind.
Germany, wise to the ways of democracy which is essentially a popularity contest, tried to take away the narrative lead by immediately embarking on a guilt-drenched retrospective. Europeans have long known that there is no such thing as bad publicity and so a public self-flagellation gains power more than a denial. In democracy, it’s important to stay in the spotlight by any means necessary.
But look what else the article mentions, as if the synapses have almost sparked a circuit closed:
The controversy came amid weeks of spiraling violence in which Mr. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have repeatedly accused Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, of lying, principally about Israel’s actions at a contested holy site in the Old City.
Netanyahu realizes that Europe today, Israel today, Germany in the 1930s and Israel in Biblical times share a problem: being small, higher-IQ and thus wealthier societies beset by vast hordes of angry low-IQ and impoverished third world people. The Palestinians, who are essentially the Mexican indios of the Middle East, consistently outbreed Jews and are using the womb as a strategy for conquest of Israel through the power of democracy. No sane politician — no, leader — would allow that to happen to his people.
Israel needs the right to do what it was formed to do, which was protect the Jewish people against not just the Nazi-inspired murders — most of which happened in advance of the Nazis arriving — but the numerous pogroms that saw the Jewish people ejected from every country in Europe and the middle east as well as some in Asia. This requires Nationalism, which is the exact same political system which was demonized in the wake of WWII.
If we view Western history as a series of political statements resolved by war, we see the French Revolution as the domination of democracy; the Napoleonic Wars as the incompatibility of democracy and aristocracy; World War I as the war to unify Europe under democracy, and World War II as the war against resistance to democracy. Democratization brings class warfare and its logical extension, multiculturalism or mixed-race societies, as part of its need to achieve total equality.
With the end of WWII, it was assumed — at least in the West — that Nationalism was dead because it was incompatible with the class warfare and multicultural narratives of democracy, which favors the Left. However, now that we’ve had 70 years of glorious multiculturalism, it is showing its age with remarkably similar symptoms everywhere it is tried: displacement of first-world populations with third-world ones, lowering of national IQ and raising of crime rate, epidemics of rape and other subjugation violence against the native population, and massive expenditures to try to keep the third-world population succeeding alongside the more intelligent and capable first-world natives.
Diversity does not work simply because it destroys culture by destroying standards. When you have two or more groups, standards differ, and thus an “official” Government standard must be created that includes both, which prevents each group from establishing its own cultural mores and values. This creates a Balkanization effect where each group withdraws, which prompts liberal democratic Government to try to force them to merge, resulting in genocide by outbreeding of both.
But diversity doubly fails when it is third-world integration into the first world. It takes a population which is genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, and introduces a new population which is genetically hardwired for the exact opposite. This forces the first-world natives to become caretakers for the newcomers, exhausting themselves and turning their society into a battleground for the symbolic victory of diversity.
Netanyahu has had extensive experience with the Palestinians, who as a mixed-race (Caucasian, Asian, and some North African) population of third-world status have its typical traits: low IQ in the low 90s, tendencies toward lack of long-term planning ability, r-strategic reproduction, unruly social behavior requiring rule by warlords, and a tendency to blame first-world populations for the third-world population’s endemic poverty, disorder, crime, corruption, poor hygiene and impulsivity. With Palestinians within its borders, Israel can never properly exist, and it cannot protect the Jewish people who share a culture, languages, heritage/ethnicity and religion.
With his statements, which were as much symbolic as historical, Netanyahu has signaled the future for Israel: as a Nationalist state dedicated to the Jewish people and excluding all others. This means the Palestinians must go, and immigrant surges like the Mexican indios in the United States and “Syrian” Arab “refugees” in Europe cannot be tolerated. He has given Europe the go-ahead to quit multiculturalism and eject its non-indigenous people while rejecting all immigration, if European leaders are able to stop emulating the political successes of the past, look toward the future and accept Netanyahu’s nod.
WWII will go down in history as a war of confusion. The Nazis and Japanese fought it to preserve their own people against both immigration and incursions by mixed-race Communists, while the Russians, Americans and English fought it to achieve economic dominance. Broad conclusions which were convenient for the post-1930s liberal parties in the US and UK were drawn, but they are not supported by actual historical events. Netanyahu is now correcting those misperceptions so he can ensure the survival of his people, and all us other first-world populations should follow his example.
You’ve heard it before: “America is an immigrant nation.” Meaning, of course, that, since the founders of the American nation moved to this land, or their ancestors did, it is therefore unjustifiable to put up any kind of resistance to any kind of immigration now. Typical of modern critique-oriented thinking, where a single factor or dimension found in common between two different things is used to equate those things in order to levy false accusations of hypocrisy, this propaganda line intended as a trump card to neutralize thoughts in opposition to mass immigration implicitly rests on several shaky assumptions.
Assumption #1: Place of origin is irrelevant. Somehow the immigration fanatics want us to believe that people from Germany or England differ in no significant way from those from China, Somalia, or Afghanistan. Partly this is due to a mental defect that views recognition of human differences as necessarily implying a linear metric of worth: a Somali can only differ from a German if either the Somali is “better” than the German, or the reverse. But it’s also due to simple ignorance and naivete. They’re so uninformed about the world that they seem to truly believe that people all around the world are generally the same, apart from a few neat little quirks and culinary styles. Multicultural societies, everywhere they have been tried, have shown us what a farce this is. Without even asking the distracting question of who’s superior, we can see that diverse peoples don’t get along well, that diverse societies don’t work.
Assumption #2: Time of migration is irrelevant. Curiously enough, though leftists have an obsession with possibly the most abstract concept conceivable, change, and fling the word around so vigorously while campaigning that all context and meaning is thoroughly shaken off, they are happy to ignore real historical concrete change. Those Europeans who first migrated here didn’t come to a new nation, they built one. They didn’t encounter a welfare system they could exploit, or even pre-existing infrastructure from with they could symbiotically benefit. If they wanted a house, they needed to build one themselves. If they wanted a nation, they had to found it themselves–and that’s what they did. This is not the case for immigrants today, but again, somehow we are expected to believe there is no significant difference.
Assumption #3: Type of migrant is irrelevant. Since we can find some examples of immigrants who had a beneficial effect on the nation (either by founding it or by contributing some other way), and further, some examples of immigrants who generally weren’t a clear detriment, it must be that all immigration will fit somewhere in a range between those two, or so the thinking goes. This leads to an open borders system with no selection for individual quality, where dishonest, cruel, stupid, thoughtless, and careless people enter, and somehow a belief that they have good intentions will make it alright for them to be our neighbours.
There is a strong pattern here. The support for mass immigration — mass replacement, really — embodied by this slogan stems from ignorance, willful or otherwise. When we recognize these not-so-subtle nuances in the history of migration to America, we can see how misleading and inaccurate the slogan is, and we can substitute it for one that’s more honest and accurate: America is a settler nation.
Donald Trump, being a businessman, saw an economic market in ideas. Some were common and mostly wrong but partly right, and others were more correct. Generally, the more correct has less value because fewer recognize it, but as a crisis deepened — mass immigration threatening to wipe out the character and peoples of the US and EU — Trump saw the idea had ripened for public consumption.
As a result, he broke the taboo barrier on mentioning immigration, which was previously tied to race, which since WWII has been a sacred concept for leftists, mostly because it kicks open any door with a compliant post-Civil War US court system behind it. The left in its own theory refers to the racial issues as a subset of class issues, and treats them as it treated class warfare: a means of arguing that the powers above are unjust, and therefore must relinquish more control. The scope of what is relinquished always widens, and mainstream conservatives stay busy defending the economy against the truly outrageous socialist ideas. As a compromise to achieve that effect, they have ceded the field on all racial debates to leftist rhetoric.
Naturally this situation cannot endure. A slow retreat is still a retreat, and enemies only allow their opposites to retreat when it is advantageous. Even more, leftists have out-maneuvered the conservatives by attacking the core concepts of conservatism such as hierarchy, culture, purpose and noticing of reality. Racial class warfare is being used in order to attack these and not on its own merits, as one can tell when observing liberals rush home to gated whitopias at the end of each workday. And yet, so far conservatives have refused to attack the core of this doctrine, which is class warfare through wealth transfer and replacement of the stubbornly conservative Western European population.
Trump changed this. He announced a strong stand against illegal immigration and has been surging in the polls ever since. If the Republican establishment cannot find a technical reason to block him, he will be their candidate by virtue of having outpaced all of the others on this single issue alone. Trump has let the cat out of the bag however. Seventy years of being unable to talk about race in Western European nations has gone out the window. As some political scientists have it, Trump has widened the Overton Window:
At any one time, some group of adjacent policies along the freedom spectrum fall into a “window of political possibility.” Policies inside the window are politically acceptable, meaning officeholders believe they can support the policies and survive the next election. Policies outside the window, either higher or lower, are politically unacceptable at the moment. If you shift the position or size of the window, you change what is politically possible.
This means that a ripple effect is in motion: one taboo falls, and then taboos linked to it fall as well, because they have been proven to be less than impregnable. People have wanted to talk about these topics for over a half-century, but the leftist grip on media, academia and government has been so strong that such dissident voices were systematically marginalized. Their lives were destroyed by SJW-style gang tactics, and their works were hounded out of bookstores, colleges and from mention in the news. The left knew their strategy depended on keeping these ideas taboo and so they were militant about excluding them. Once one voice spoke up, however, the rip in the fabric of their information boycott has begun to tear.
Already people are speaking more loudly about not just illegal immigration, but immigration more broadly. The question that we have asked for almost a decade on this blog, namely whether diversity can work at all, has collapsed under the assault of the Putnam study, Ferguson, Boston, and common sense. The wisdom of our ancestors recites itself from the grave: no two groups can occupy the same space without destroying each other, even if by passive means, which the left is struggling to put into a separate category other than “genocide,” with minimal success. We are being replaced. This is being done to advance the leftist agenda of total ideological control. This is not an issue about “freedom,” but survival.
Some writers, Ann Coulter in particular, have further widened the Window by speaking more broadly about the problem of replacing Western Europeans with third world populations. She has come close to the sensible viewpoint adopted by nationalists worldwide which is that replacement is genocide, and the traits of the original population will not exist. If you mix America and Mexico, you get Mexico. In fact, if you mix anything together, you get a third world nation, almost all of which are mixed-ethnic, with Brazil being the most archetypal example. Americans are not lining up to move there; in fact the reverse is true: most Brazilians would come here if they could.
This leads to the question of what comes next. Thanks to brave people like Trump and Coulter, the question of whether we should just like back and let the illegal immigration wave sweep us into oblivion has been put on the table. But that troubling word “illegal” seeks to mask the real issue, which is that any third world immigration — in fact, any immigration from places other than the sources of our nativist Western European populations — will replace us and by doing so destroy us. We are facing genocide in the US and EU alike. This is the issue that conservatives are warming up to, but they move very slowly.
For seventy years we have approved immigration, anti-discrimination and affirmative action programs in the theory that the result would be the same America we knew and loved, but with tolerance for other peoples to live among us. Now we realize that they cannot live among us without self-destructing, and that genetics is destiny. If you fill a place with Mexicans, it becomes Mexico; if you fill it with Western Europeans, it becomes like Western Europe. We are destroying America by making it into Brazil, Mexico or any of a dozen other mixed-race countries who are struggling to survive despite typical third-world levels of corruption, filth, criminality and social disorder.
The new target for conservatives is self-preservation. We attempted diversity; it failed; we now see that this failure came about through structural means, i.e. a paradox in the concept of diversity itself that causes it to destroy societies, and cannot be cured by the usual formula of more subsidies, “education” and laws. We should no longer be using the word illegal to describe immigration, but immoral. Immigration, diversity and tolerance are part of the same leftist class warfare platform that aims to replace us. We are the target.
Most of the world would come to the US and EU if they could. On paper, in the short-term, it seems a smart move: go where the money, law and order, social order and hygiene are. But like the children’s tale The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg, having everyone come here — and they outnumber us twenty to one — will simply destroy those things and create more third world. Then the one example of how not to end up in third-world status will be dead and gone, and the entire earth will be covered in a uniform blanket of impoverished, low IQ, criminal and filthy humanity. If there are any among them who have not succumbed to that level, those will be the next targets of the angry mob. Crowdism manifests as liberalism in the first world, but in the third world, it approximates more closely its native state of the torch-carrying mob.
Donald Trump kicked open the door. Overnight, almost a century of liberal propaganda and control fluttered away and now we can breathe independently and talk about these topics again. Other doors must also fall, and if as liberals say we cannot have a democratic society that is not diverse, we have to paint the word DEMOCRACY on yet another door. Our task is simple. Either we overcome this wrong turn in history, or we die, and then everything else that offers hope to humanity dies as well. No task is more important than this, which is why the taboos were so strong — until now.
As Europe stands inactive as if dumbstruck by the invasion of migrants eerily presaged by every zombie film, one nation-state’s leader has attempted to take a defining stance. Angela Merkel made the following revealing statement:
“If Europe fails on the question of refugees, this close connection with universal civil rights … will be destroyed and it won’t be the Europe we want,” she said.
Her statement is correct but not in the way she intends. This mass influx of foreign humans — called “refugees” by those who wish to obscure the situation by invoking an emotional pity response — poses to Europe a fundamental question of values. Europe can either destroy itself and have universal civil rights, or can continue to exist by discarding that notion as the illusion it is. She said more than she meant to reveal.
Merkel thinks the question for Europe boils down to “should we be nice?” This follows the cold shadow of morality currently in vogue: that if our choice is socially popular through a conspicuous display of altruism, we have no need for analyzing its actual effects. In terms of winning votes for the next election, or selling cellular phone plans, she is probably correct. However, the true question that Europe and European-descended people everywhere must face is “should we exist?”
Choosing to meekly roll back under the advance of aggressive masses while quietly uttering apologies will negate the ability for European values to exist for the simple reason that it will physically negate Europeans. There will no longer be the Europe that Merkel wants because Europe will no longer be.
All other questions are secondary: Europe must decide whether or not it wishes to continue exist. To do so, it must escape the fetishism for universal civil rights that is a political outpouring of the perceived need for social popularity through altruism. It must realize that whether these ideas are foreign or not, they are bad and will result in the destruction of Europe by the destruction of Europeans. As with all other peoples, Europeans are a unique group with capabilities all their own, and when a mass wave of migrants pours in and effectively replaces that group, Europe ceases to be. If our addiction to universal civil rights is, as Merkel says, the seed of our destruction, we should get off that needle now and move on to something healthy instead.
All of us on the Right operate within a similar paradigm: realism, or measuring ideas by their consequences in reality and not intention, desires, feelings and judgments. Ann Coulter has been speaking up for the anti-immigration sentiment in this country appearing of late, and she makes a salient point about the recent popularity of Donald Trump:
Ann Coulter said that Donald Trump will continue to do well in the polls as long as he keeps talking about immigration.
“The voters keep saying, ‘We don’t want any more immigration,'” Coulter said. “That’s why Trump is so popular. So pick it up, Republicans.”
She is correct: the issue that divides Trump from the rest of the Republicans is that he, not being vested in the Republican party, is willing to oppose immigration. Coulter has called for a moratorium, which is a good start but falls short of the logical decision which is to restore America as a WASP-only nation of Germans, English, Scots, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Finns, and some French. These groups cluster around the Western European heritage that defines the archetypal “white” person and have more in common than they do not. Outliers, like the Irish, Eastern and Southern Europeans, do not share this heritage and have different needs from society.
Mexicans, who are mostly if not completely Amerind (in the case of indios and mestizos, are of Siberian descent like “First Nations” people and do not fit in well in this society. Their repatriation to Siberia would be the most sensible solution. Similarly, African-Americans would be happiest in Africa, which if they can reclaim it from wannabe colonialists from India, China and the Middle East, would be an excellent continent full of natural resource wealth and abundant rich land.
Why is immigration such an issue now?
To understand immigration in 2015 AD, we must look to 1965 AD when the Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the Hart-Celler Act was passed. This act changed American immigration patterns to their opposite; where formerly the United States allowed in mostly Western Europeans, it now put its focus on people from the third world. The reasoning behind this act was that Democrats knew from experience with African-Americans, Amerinds and Hawaiians that non-whites would never vote in any substantial numbers for Republicans. The Democrat solution was to replace the WASP nation of America with a third world population so that Democrats would remain in power forever.
Other than the recklessness and stupidity of this typical liberal social engineering, it possessed one other salient factor: it put Republicans on the defensive with accusations of “racism.” Any Democrat program was designed to benefit the new Hart-Cellar majority, and so any opposition to it, by the reflexive property, was “racist.” This insult has silenced Republicans for the decades since WWII — since it allowed easy analogies to Hitler — and has forced acceptance of every liberal program designed to cultivate and indoctrinate this new majority.
Mainstream Republicans are experts at getting along with the system, not doing what is right. They have gone along with the immigration platform under the assumption that some day, Republicans can become a less-Democrat Democrat party for the new sea of brown faces. Trump, who owes no allegiance to the political system, has made his political career so far entirely on the basis of being willing to challenge the demographic shift engendered by the Hart-Cellar Act, but it is unclear if he will go far enough.
Diversity does not work. This is not surprising, since diversity is paradoxical: combining multiple groups destroys culture, and creates a society dependent on near-totalitarian nanny state rule. This applies to diversity of race, religion, ethnicity and culture.
Within that framework, it is clear that the West is under assault by immigration from the other 90% of the world that, not having adopted the methods and genetics of the West, remains in third world levels of poverty, bad hygiene, dysfunction and radical individualism. One group of immigrants that seem to cause additional problems are the Muslims, who much like Jews and Gypsies draw criticism for perceived self-serving insularity.
Without commenting on the truth value of that, since other sources surely offer many opinions on the topic, the recent explosion of interest since the killing of Charlie Hebdo journalists over their satyrical drawings of the Islamic prophet Mohammed has gripped public attention. The left, willing to excuse any group that does harm to the West, ignore the violence; the right points it out. Some point out that this is not a new issue, dating back to the original Kurt Westergaard cartoon and provoking many subsequent cartoons.
Some on the right have begun forcing the issue by having contests to “Draw Mohammed” much as American activist Pamela Geller did in Dallas, Texas at which point two terrorist supporters opened fire and were killed. With this collision of cultures seeming as inevitable as the Crusades, in which young Europe responded to Muslim invasions with a massive military effort, a new “Draw Mohammed” contest has been convoked in the United Kingdom:
Support the “Draw Mohammed” Cartoon Exhibition in London!
In September 2015 Sharia Watch UK, Vive Charlie and Liberty GB will host the UK “Draw Mohammed” cartoon exhibition in central London. The event has been organised in honour of the cartoonists, bloggers and artists around the world who risk their lives in defence of free expression, and of those who have been murdered in this cause.
The organisers are delighted to announce that Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, will speak at the event.
Anne-Marie Waters, Director of Sharia Watch UK said: “It is vital, in this era of censorship and fear, that we stand together in defiance and demand our right to free expression. We will not, and cannot, succumb to violent threats. The outlook for our democracy depends on the actions we take today. We owe it to future generations to pass on the freedom we have enjoyed.”
To help make this event take place, we welcome your donations, large or small. Help us defend freedom of expression in Britain!
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO “DRAW MOHAMMED” AND THE FIGHT AGAINST SHARIA
Further details of the event will be published in due course. Media enquiries to email@example.com
Ms. Waters also gave an interview to Breitbart in which she opined on the reasons for such an event:
Why would you arrange a Mohammed cartoon exhibition?
Because I am Spartacus and it’s an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment. Those of who believe in free speech, democracy, and Western civilisation have simply got to stand up now; both to Islamists who seek to impose their religion on to our world, and to the government and media who refuse to effectively oppose them. The greatest threat to our democracy is this casual refusal to clearly state the importance of our speech, and the greatest threat to our speech is sadly coming from Islam. We have to stop expecting someone else to take the risk of standing up to the world’s bullies, we all have a duty now.
Don’t we have a duty to be sensitive to Islam?
No, we do not. We are under no obligation to be sensitive to anyone about anything, but when the folk demanding sensitivity generally have little to say about brutal violence carried out in the name of their religion, then I think they’ve got a bit of a cheek demanding anything. I’m not talking about Islamic State either, I’m talking about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other oppressive prison-states. We hear a lot from Islamic groups about freedom of religion, rarely in the context of Christians being executed in Pakistan however.
While these events seem transparently designed to provoke confrontation, as all but a few voices in media seek to conceal the problems created by diversity, integration, multiculturalism, internationalism and multi-racialism including Islamic integration into Europe and the USA, this event raises a necessary awareness about what is essentially a suppressed issue.
Currently in Europe, we are witnessing a flood of refugees. It’s hard not to sympathize with the refugees, as they flee the damages created by naïve Western liberal policies. Many of those same liberals demand of us Europeans to allow millions upon millions of these refugees into our countries.
What happens if we allow 10% of the population of Africa to immigrate to Europe? Africa now has 1.1 billion people. This means its population would be reduced to 990 billion people. In Europe, the population would rise by 110 million people, further overpopulating our continent and especially our cities.
What would happen to Africa? The 10% of people who flee Africa would in all likelihood be the smartest ten percent of the nation. They would be the most secular oriented people, the least superstitious, the wealthiest, the best educated, the most innovative share of the population. Europe on the other hand, would be faced with the struggle of assimilating an ever growing minority of the population, who live in segregated neighborhoods where they hardly ever meet any Europeans.
If Europe makes the most generous gesture of ignorant empathy imaginable, by accepting 10% of the African population into our continent, Africa would be worse off. It would still be a continent where albinos are used for witchcraft and pygmies are eaten to acquire magical powers. It would still be a continent where girls have their clitoris sliced of with a broken bottle and their breasts ironed flat by their mothers to make them less attractive to rapists. It would still be a continent where babies are raped in an effort to cure HIV. It would be the same Africa we know today, but without its smartest, wealthiest, best educated, most secular share of its population, as those people would have been the first to flee to Europe.
Leftism is an outgrowth of Christianity, maintaining its values, without its faith in God. Ultimately, leftists don’t want to end suffering, they want to be seen addressing it, so that they are seen as good people. Mother Theresa used to say that suffering brings the poor closer to Jesus. Similarly, importing immigrants delivers you an opportunity to spend your whole life addressing an endless deluge of pointless suffering. If we recognize the Christian cultural values that govern our policies as a continent, we recognize how we arrived at our suicidal and unproductive policies.
Conservatives respond to this stupidity, by feigning autism. Intelligent right-wing men try to blend into the crowd of libertarian/conservative Joe Sixpacks and proclaim that they couldn’t care less if some young girl is gang-raped by the local village brutes or some particular African country just entered the genocide season again this week, because they fear that humanizing the third world inevitably leads to our governments pouring its population out over our own nations.
Thus the right wing response to the endless list of atrocities splattered on our newspapers on a daily basis is to claim that this is “not our responsibility”. I don’t think this is a very legitimate point to make. Besides the fact that humans are very bad at feigning autism for very long, it’s hard to defend the suggestion that we have no responsibility in regards to Africa whatsoever.
Besides the fact that these were our colonies for centuries, nations we used to fuel our industrialization and win world wars, our intervention never really stopped, decolonization just made our interventions more damaging. Now we were earning money selling technology to nations that were not ready to cope with its consequences.
We find nations with fertility rates of eight children per woman and forests turned into deserts thanks to agricultural practices we introduced to them. Rates of soil erosion in Africa have increased twenty fold between 1974 and 2004, according to the Worldwatch institute. Free market capitalism allows our companies to continue operating in Africa, but without any sort of ethical oversight, thus turning their presence there into a limbo dance of tax dodging, estimated to cost some nations up to 13% of their GDP.
So what would be a rational yet compassionate response to the seemingly endless catastrophe? First we have to ask ourselves what makes Europe so attractive in the first place Africans don’t come to Europe because of the weather. Like it or not, they come to Europe, because Europe is full of white people.
If the average African knew what Argentine, Australia, Canada or any other nation full of white people looks like, they would be more than happy to move there too if given the opportunity. Most however, are only familiar with England, seen as the paradise worth traversing the Sahara desert and the Mediterranean sea for.
The yearning for white people doesn’t stop as soon as they are in Europe. Children in Dutch multicultural schools demonstrate in the streets, asking for more white kids to attend their school. As these children grow up, they may flee to Tumblr, where they will proclaim that they “do not need a white savior” along the lines of Rachel Dolezal, but every action taken and every policy endorsed demonstrates the opposite, a desire to have white people around.
Now, the idea that has to be considered here is that rather than inviting Africans to enter a Darwinian triathlon, where most people drown, suffocate or starve, while the toughest make it to Europe and win the privilege of getting to live as a perpetual underclass in a majority-white society, why not try the opposite? Why not encourage white people to migrate to Africa instead?
Now, note that I am not calling for forceful annexation or anything along those lines. I am also not calling for some sort of genocidal replacement. Rather, I would suggest that African nations and European nations should seek to enter voluntary agreements, where African nations receive foreign aid in the form of European immigrants. It would probably be best for these immigrants to maintain European citizenship.
Sending young people to Africa would be a blessing for Europe too. All the type of people stirring up trouble now by sheltering illegal immigrants, calling people racists and Islamophobes and attempting to restrict free speech would have something better to do with their days. Europe would have a decisive majority again, of people who want to preserve Europe’s original cultural identity.
White people in Southern Europe are dealing with youth unemployment rates of anywhere around fifty percent. These young people spend their days stacking degrees on top of each other and moving from internship to internship, learning irrelevant information in the hope of one day finding a real job. In Africa, simply knowing how to use birth control can be a valuable skill. If the average IQ in an African country is 85, an estimate higher than most studies even by left wing academics suggest, with a standard deviation of 15, any white immigrant with an IQ above 115 would be smarter than 97.5% of the local population.
In the long run, such policies would also save us money. Instead of paying for our citizens’ endless educational expenses and unemployment benefits, they engage in productive activities abroad. We could stop patrolling the Mediterranean sea and avoid growing influxes of immigrants in our home countries. The demographic that votes for left-wing open border parties voluntarily leaves our continent.
There is a valid argument coming from the fringes of the political spectrum, that Africa does not per definition benefit from “development”. This depends of course on what kind of African we speak of. Is an Aka pygmy living in the rainforest of Congo, where he climbs in trees to gather honey and uses bow and arrow to hunt for animals, better off working in a call center? Obviously not. It shouldn’t be incredibly hard to make a drug addicted orphan on the streets of Monrovia better off however.
We have no obligation to assimilate every single African into a Western lifestyle. We merely have to guide the process of development into a trajectory that is least destructive, based on the lessons we learned during our own industrialization. Currently, the process of industrialization in Africa is leading to rampant deforestation and the genocide and displacement of primitive societies. Nigeria lost half of its remaining forest between 2000 and 2005, African elephants are expected to go extinct within a decade. Clearly, doing nothing isn’t working. It should certainly be possible for us to reign in the worst outgrowths, that both opponents and proponents of development can agree should be avoided.
For Africa to have a future, Europe needs to have a future. This requires Europe to develop a sense of self-respect again. Our history books and our movies will happily discuss slavery, but nobody is interested in hearing how the British empire fought wars in Africa to bring an end to slavery, as it doesn’t fit into our mood du jour of self-flagellation. Then, when our people return to a state of sanity, us fortunate few can finally share the fruit we harvested from the tree of knowledge, without injuring its roots.
Liberals lie because liberalism is based on a pathology of lying called scapegoating. When your society is failing, find someone to blame and rise to power by claiming that you will take care of that entity you blamed.
The very essence of liberalism — promising altruism to others as a means of securing power and lack of rules that apply to oneself — is criminal and based in lying. Corruption is built into the system, as we can see when liberal voters shrug off high treason, bribes and destruction of evidence by Hillary Clinton.
People have not yet clicked to the idea that when you see anything with a liberal slant, it is based upon lies. Some things intended as lies are accidentally true, yes, but those are very rare cases, less than one percent. The rest is just straight-up lying.
Consider this article from the The New Yorker entitled “The Courage of Migrants”:
But in addition to being desperate, these new boat people are courageous, and not just physically. They have the heart to leave everything they know behind, to make themselves anew somewhere else. In this sense, they’re better than most of us. They deserve that recognition, if not a home as well.
The agenda here is to change the meaning of courage from its traditional meaning to running away. That is what migrants are doing: instead of having the courage to stay and fix the problems in their homelands, they are running away to Europe for free welfare. That is not how liberals spin it however. They reverse truth and then punish anyone who does not agree with this obvious falsehood.
Watch this meme spin out over the next few years. They will coordinate on this, un-officially as always, but remember how effective they were — and how accidentally they were discovered — in the infamous JournoList scandal:
Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Did you read that? Let me recap:
Thousands of journalists join a special elite mailing list and agree how they will spin the news. They agree on a strategy of calling conservatives “racists” in order to destroy their credibility.
If anyone on the right did this, it would be called a revolution. And yet it is standard operating procedure for the left, because their ideology primes them to place lie over truth and to fight anyone who does not agree with every means at their disposal.
That means: lie, cheat, steal, fake, forge, camouflage, insinuate, or anything else you want to do, because your cause is ideologically correct.
That stands in contrast to the best of conservatives, who want to be actually correct, that is, predicting cause->effect relationships such to avoid bad and promote good.
Watch for more life stories of heroic migrants in the future, with details of how they love their children, pet their dogs and enjoy watching Woody Allen movies. “They’re just like us, but better!”
As that happens, remember that courage means standing your ground and fixing your problems instead of running away from them. That is the opposite of the liberal definition because liberalism is based on running away from problems, blaming someone else and then conning them into paying for you anyway.