A Good War Over a Bad Peace?
Part of my occasional Seeing Things series. 
I've been thinking about Paul Weston's essays (parts 1 and 2) on civil war in Europe, and had a few thoughts on reading something recent. I begin to ask myself questions. What if Paul Weston is wrong? What if civil war is not inevitable? What if we die out, not with a bang, but a whimper?
What if civil war in Europe were a preferable alternative?
I was reading this piece at the excellent Brussels Journal and had a little thought when I read the following passage:
"Fjordman once wrote that the European elites have traded international warfare for civil war at home. The European peoples will not subject themselves to socialist Eurabia indefinitely. The people, betrayed by the actions of their own leadership caste, now find themselves culturally impaired, disarmed, overtaxed, gradually losing their civil liberties, tied-up-and-muzzled in the face of an unending stream of vile abuse, violence, petty crime, ingratitude, insensitivity, and exploitation by tens of millions of Third-World foreigners who should never have been allowed to settle in Europe in the first place. They will not be satisfied with sullen submission for much longer. Looking in vain for leaders, for political parties that have the courage to state that the Emperor's new clothes are just tattered figments of utopian insanity, simple-minded people may fall for fringe neo-fascist leaders who, almost alone, seem to see what the townsmen on the street see. It is the great luck of Europe's priestly caste that parties like the Vlaams Belang, SVP and BNP exist, for they too see and speak the truth, and provide an alternative that the common folks can join instead of supporting fringe movements that may expound the truth in some ways but spout lunacy ( e.g. "the Jews did it") in others. If civil wars and Hitler redux are to be avoided in Europe, it will only be because parties like Vlaams Belang have ascended to power and have given a voice and a vent to the suppressed aspirations and anger of many millions. So if Nazi skinheads applaud VB, therein lies the hope that violent sociopaths be transformed into content, enfranchised citizens. It's no different from MoveOn crazy fringe lefties showing at the Democratic Party's convention."The thought that occured to me on reading this was, has Paul Weston considered writing on not if Civil War in Europe is inevitable, but if it might be desirable? Mr Weston writes of a possibly inevitable bloodbath on the soil of Europe which, in his words, would make WW2 'look like a bun fight'. But, looking at the situation, I begin to wonder if a European civil war would be that bloody, or if having a European civil war would really be so bad.
Let me explain my reasoning. Takuan Seiyo makes an excellent point that "if Nazi skinheads applaud VB, therein lies the hope that violent sociopaths be transformed into content, enfranchised citizens". Well, I don't know if Nazi skinheads are violent sociopaths or not, but I do know that JFK was on to something when he said that 'those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable'. Certainly, there may be those who would say that the islamification of Europe is a peaceful revolution, but such people would do better bouncing off padded walls than attempting to discuss such matters. Islam is and always has been a baleful, malignant foreign influence in relation to Europe, and a takeover by such a force would not be a revolution, but would be an invasion. In point of fact, it is an invasion.
The problem is that the waters are muddied, and badly so. In a paragraph discussing the "the Western white elite's endless preoccupation with racism and perceived xenophobia", Takuan Seiyo makes reference to Charles Johnson (of LGF) making a 'kneejerk overreaction', presumably this is a reference to Johnson's lambasting of the BNP in a recent post on LGF. LGF is not, of course, the only counter-jihad blog which runs against the BNP, and that's the problem. Despite the plentiful evidence that multiculturalism is a failed abomination of a social science experiment, despite the massive evidence that the legacy and activity of the Frankfurt School's Gramscian marxism is destroying all Western nations from within, despite the fact that no mainstream political party will touch these issues with a bargepole, otherwise sensible people rant and rail against the BNP and similar parties. And why? Because of some perceived, alleged 'racism' or latent 'fascism'.
There are many issues which could be discussed here, not least of which the complete lack of definition of the terms 'racist' and 'fascist' in their contemporary usage, but that would detract too much from the main point here, so that will have to be 'another story, for another time'. The key thing is that, for a transient (and utterly useless) false sense of moral superiority, even the people with their eyes open to the Islamic threat will jump up and down shouting 'racist!', 'fascist!' etc, etc, ad nauseam. As tiresome and puerile as this is, it also creates a deeper problem. It ensures that the only political parties with their nation's best interests in mind will not be elected. For if even those awake to the islamic threat won't go to the booths for these parties, what chance that the populace at large will? No, the BNP, the Front National, Vlaams Belang, et al, are highly unlikely to be voted into power in the near future.
This is a massive problem. If the BNP, Front Nationale, etc don't ascend to power in the way Takuan Seiyo hopes for, then EUrabia is the inevitable consequence, and soon. Recent EU directives have called for millions more immigrants into Europe to make up for the declining native population (for some reason, providing incentives for the indigenous people to reproduce didn't occur to anyone), and the increased drive for legislation to 'promote tolerance' is observable everywhere, from legislation against incitement to 'homophobia', to legislation against 'incitement to religious hatred', to proposed legislation to force bloggers to pay taxes and need licenses for blogging . Not to mention existing abuses of legislation to arrest and convict a man of 'racially motivated disorderly behaviour' on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, with the only 'witness' of an offence alleged to have occurred in public telling the court " I could not swear to the words I did hear". Whether one subscribes to the Eurabia hypothesis, as I do, or sees the unfurling events as merely the catastrophic and 'unfortunate' results of decades of governmental incompetence, there can be no doubt that massive changes are afoot in Europe and the UK. Should these changes succeed in their aims, Europe will be unrecognisable very, very soon.
I find Paul Weston's view optimistic, myself. Recent events suggest, and suggest strongly, that the fighting spirit of the native European populace in Europe and the UK seems to have waned considerably since the War. How else can one explain the success of the immigrant rape wave of which Fjordman has written, or of the grooming of young girls in the north of England (by immigrant moslems), or of the takeover of Mälmo? More importantly, how else to explain the fact that the natives have not grown restless to the extent that the locals have rioted? Klein Verzet reported on one such incident, but we all know that a single swallow does not a summer make.
If current trends continue, the completion of the EUrabia project could occur as soon as 2017, and then all is lost. Faced with such a prospect, we can see that if the BNP and co do not ascend to power very soon, they will not ascend at all. Who can say with honesty that they believe the EUSSR/EUrabian superstate which is being fashioned today would allow the existence of such parties in its politics when it is already, in its nascency, instituting and implementing Thought Crime legislation at every opportunity?
A Eurabian EUSSR superstate would bring 'peace', no doubt. There are those who justify the EUSSR programme as being a unison of nations against a Nazi resurgence. But the old question appears here: peace at what price? At the price of our nations, our ethnic identities, our cultures, our very souls? No. That is too high a price for too false a prize. I refuse it, and encourage any and all readers to do likewise. Against that evil 'peace', I would rather see a good war. Or at least a civil war that isn't the institutional, condoned, and state-approved abominations of the EUSSR's Eurabia Project.
One of two things must happen, and that soon, either there must be a victory by a BNP-like party, or there must be civil war. One of those two must occur before 2025, or Europe is lost forever, and the UK with it. (Any British readers who think that the islamification of the continent will not affect the UK have not been paying attention and are consequently living in a fantasy) This would leave America alone, and if even half of them follow the line that they'd rather take the moslems over the Europeans, then America won't last very long either.
But fear and poverty of personality are powerful factors, and are likely to ensure that a BNP-like party will not achieve power in the short time they have left to do so. People would rather be liked than be right, after all, as Stanley Milgram accidentally demonstrated in his Obedience to Authority experiment. Lest we forget, today's authority (for most) is whatever ersatz morality the mass media manages to persuade the masses to internalise, and chief among the topics for internalisation is a 'kneejerk overreaction' to anything with even the faintest hint of 'racism' or 'fascism', as described but never defined by the mass media and the politicos who control them.
Under such circumstances, I begin to think that civil war in Europe and the UK is something to hope for, rather than fear.
Takuan Seiyo writes that "for the Western white elite's endless preoccupation with racism and perceived xenophobia, and its worship of tolerance as the supreme virtue is a deep psychosis ...the psychosis leads to a denial of reality; even reality as solidly established through 80 years of statistical research as racial differences of mean IQs, body types, comparative advantages etc. And reality is a jealous mistress. Spurned, she will return to take her revenge " and is right in this, but in my opinion is only beginning to scratch the surface in the expression of this truth.
The deeper reality is what these 80 years of statistical research reflect, that we are dealing here with races and ideologies separated by hundreds of years of different breeding, learning, and culture. The result is that the differing groups hail from backgrounds as different as if one group had come from Mars, another from Venus, and so on. But an illustrative example is in order. Readers will know from history (or perhaps personal memory) that for a while Germany (and her capital city, Berlin) was split into half, East and West, forming almost a microcosm of the Cold War being played out in the wider world. This split lasted about 40 years, if we take the division of Germany in 1949 as the start date and the formal reunification in 1990 as the end date, which is the blink of an eye in historical terms, yet even as recently as the early 2000s there were still distinct differences in attitudes between the 'Ossies' and 'Wessies'. This is after only 40 years of division, and that within a nation which had been together, with itself, for several hundreds of years. Reunification has not been easy for Germany, and may well not yet be complete.
Contrast that with the EUSSR project to melt all identities down by forcing them into the same pot and you see the greatest attempt in history to wipe out as many races and cultures as possible, which will result in either abortion by way of democratic action (a BNP, Vlaams Belang etc victory) or, worse, catastrophic failure or, which is much much worse, EUSSR success.
As discussed, a democratic resolution is unlikely, leaving us again with the two options of the EUSSR victory, or all-out civil war in Europe. Of the two, I prefer the latter. We must have, as Kipling said,
'Freedom for ourselves, and for our sonsTakuan Seiyo writes that "reality is a jealous mistress. Spurned, she will return to take her revenge", but I think Kipling said it best:
And failing freedom, war'
"As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will bum,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return."
Mr Smith
26 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (26)
You mean a Civil War to come out of European institutions.
Anything else could not even be called war
Great post, Mr. Smith. Meaty. I love the Kipling at the end.
Mr. Smith.
People often have a condensed view of past history.
For example the English civil war is seen as breaking out almost spontaneously in 1642 and dying down almost as quickly, but in fact it lasted nearly 10 years and had been rumbling on in fits and starts over most of the country ten years before that.
Back then it was about how Britain was run. There was no single issue to focus on.
For Paul Weston to imagine that the single issue of Islamification will cause civil war is wishful thinking. Civil strife yes; but that would be more chronic rather than acute and would proceed any civil war first.
In spite of constant news coverage,for MOST people, (at least in this country) Islam impinges itself very little in the day to day running of their lives. It's process is too slow to have any immediate impact.
However,.... what WOULD kick things off right now, would be likely to come from another direction, and cause society to polarize into a civil war; and that is a repeat of the 1973 oil crisis.
Then, over 30 years ago, the roads emptied of traffic in days and shops very slowly ran out of food.
Nowadays it would be super market shelves, and they'd empty over-night.
It really could become dog-eat-dog, and it is then that a civil war in a divided society, could start.
Europe is in a deep multicultural sleep of socialism and pacifism. You don't wake up from that.
"what WOULD kick things off right now"
War in the Balkans and Turkey , extending to the EU in the form of terrorism/unrest via immigrant communities ?
>>fringe movements that may expound the truth in some ways but spout lunacy ( e.g. "the Jews did it") in others. <<
Indeed, except today's lunacy is "the immigrants did it" or "the Muslims did it".
See above.
In considering the idiocy of Noel, one only need note that there are somewhere between 25 and 40 million muslims in western Europe, numbers increasing rapidly. Prior to the nazis, there were fewer than 10 million Jews. The Jews were assimilated: the muslims are not (cannot and don't want to). On the borders of Europe lie over 200 million muslims. This is no trampled minority: Europe's politicians are setting up muslims to take over and people such as Noel are the Quislings who will help.
>>the muslims are not (assimilated), cannot and don't want to)<<
Substitute "Jews" for "Muslims" and it may jog your memory.
"The Jews are taking over the country. They control the media, science and education. They have all the best jobs and control the wealth. They feel no alliegence to their host country, and are in fact part of a vast international conspiracy"
The kind of 1930's nationalist propaganda that appealed to the same people, in the same way and for roughly the same reasons, that Muslim-conspiracy theories appeal to today.
The Dog returning to his Vomit indeed!
Noel wrote, in an attempt to prove some point: "The Jews are taking over the country. They control the media, science and education. They have all the best jobs and control the wealth...."
Muslims can't do that Noel. Everything they need to know is in the koran: No science, no media, no education. They don't have the best jobs and they can't control the wealth because they cannot and do not create the wealth. The money they have is through a geological accident: the wealth they have has been created by others. There is no similarity at all between the advanced Jews and the backward muslims: not in numbers and not in outlook. The muslims cannot and will not assimilate, but the Jews murdered by the nazis were assimilated because Jews are part of the Judeo-Christian fabric of the west: islam is totally alien and incompatible.
Tell us, Noel, what is so good about islam.
"The Jews are taking over the country. They control the media, science and education. They have all the best jobs and control the wealth. They feel no alliegence to their host country, and are in fact part of a vast international conspiracy"
Noel Cunningham
If you actually read what you posted above you will see that it is extremist muslims who view their host nations and liberal democracies in that context and preach this directly from their 'pulpits', right down to insisting their brothers in arms feel no allegiance to their host countries.
Indeed, except today's lunacy is "the immigrants did it" or "the Muslims did it".
Yeah all those jewish suicide bombers in 1930's Berlin must have really contributed to the rise of anti-semitism in Germany...its apples and oranges Noel, a facetious strawman so often trotted out.
Yes, the Nazis unfairly demonised the Jews. But the 'Muslim community' in Europe with its unrelenting demands for unfair treatment and blatant willingness to threaten and/or commit violence in order to get it is an utterly different proposition from the Jewish communities of 1920's and 1930's Germany. In fact when you think about it perhaps there is a much clearer parallel between the above mindset and that of the Nazis themselves when you actually think about it.
Post It,
You are right. They do. And too many people take this behaviour of a few as reason to demonise an entire people.
Allan,
>>The muslims cannot and will not assimilate, but the Jews murdered by the nazis were assimilated<<
Some were, but many, probably the majority, were not. In any case, the point is irrelevant. The first victims were the orthodox Shtetl communities eastern Europe.
>> what is so good about islam.<<
Very little from my point of view. But obviously there is a lot good about it for countless millions of people all over the world. Some of these people are inevitably bad, but the vast majority are not.
>>they can't control the wealth because they cannot and do not create the wealth.<<
I'll presume you don't really mean that. Far be it from me to take advantage of a momentary lapse on your part.
DSD
>>suicide bombers in 1930's Berlin must have really contributed to the rise of anti-semitism in Germany.<<
Well, there was anti-semitism in probably ever European country between the world wars, mostly more widespread than in Germany. And there will always be an excuse handy enough when the general population is eager to find some scapegoat. Jewish numbers in communist parties was one excuse cited at the time; whereas the much higher number who fought in the respective national armies was ignored. Another parallel to today.
Noel, I wrote that muslims owe any wealth that they have to an accident of geology so I'm writng it again, for emphasis. I don't believe that this statement can be disputed so you have chosen not to do so - agreement by acquiescence, I presume.
Europe is in a deep multicultural sleep of socialism and pacifism.
indeed. how can any society survive with peace and tolerance.
I wrote that muslims owe any wealth that they have to an accident of geology
how can geology be accidental? was oil on the bus to europe, got off at the wrong stop and fell down a hole?
For the benefit of Daytripper.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident
ac·ci·dent /ˈæksɪdənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-si-duhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
2. Law. such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought.
3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
4. chance; fortune; luck: I was there by accident.
5. a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: an accident of birth.
6. Philosophy. any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else.
7. Geology. a surface irregularity, usually on a small scale, the reason for which is not apparent.
By sheer chance, the muslims sit on top of large amounts of oil. Prior to that oil being recovered by technology developed by others, they had sand, camels and islamic hate. Now they have cash - generated by others to buy a product which the muslims did nothing to create nor to produce - and islamic hate.
Oh, Daytripper: it's numbers 3, 4 and 5.
By sheer chance, the muslims sit on top of large amounts of oil.
or another way to put it is that the majority of oil happens to be under the land arabs inhabit. just because you hate them doesnt make it an accident. just an inconvenience.
For Daytripper: Accident
3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
4. chance; fortune; luck: I was there by accident.
5. a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: an accident of birth.
The fact that the muslims sit on top of large amounts of oil is an ACCIDENT. Just because your vocabulary doesn't stretch that far does not mean that the word is inappropriate.
No more or no less, Allan, than that the British Empire was an accident of geography, you will agree.
But in any case, I was more bemused by you claiming that someone, or a group, cannot control wealth because they do not create it. This more or less flies in the face of the little I understand about economics.
And is the claim that Arabs now own half the prime real estate in the UK not one of the constant gripes of the Right? That's wealth by any definition, and they are not going to lose it and I'm sure they know only too well how to control it.
Noel,
Let me get this straight, did I miss the sections of the Koran where Mohammed instructed the faithful to go and claim the Oily Places rather than the Holy Places? Of course its an accident, what other possible definition of it is there. If not for Oil being the only product the Arabs have managed to successfully export (apart from dates and Jew-hatred) they really would still be stuck in the 7th Century that they had barely progressed beyond when the West showed them how to exploit it.
DSD, without getting into myriad "what ifs" we could also wonder what the middle east would look like if the british then the US hadnt elavated islamists, wahhabists and the sauds to the positions of vast power and wealth they still retain. never mind the toppling of actual democracy in iran.
its very doubtful the architects could have forseen the results but that shouldnt stop us from coming to terms with such histories and determining their significance and relevance. personally i think their very significant and extremely relevant, as most people seem to think islamism just popped out of some vaccuum. design or "accident"? allan's the philosopher let him decide.
Joke:
Why have the A-rabs got all the oil, and the Oirish all the potatoes?
Ans: The Oirish got first choice.
shit...what happened there!
Sorry about that. I have a Chinese made computer. True!
Bernard, the problem's sitting in front of it.
Ooooh, nasty...