|
|
|
Dear monotheists: We will attack your semitic god. By what method? By all methods.  There was a trading dhow on this flag for a good reason. SummaryChristians and liberals neither understand the threat environment nor do they have the inner motive energies that can be harnessed for the war against Islamism. A new type of European consciousness that completely rejects and opposes the semitic god, will have to manifest if Europeans are going to be able to continue to contribute meaningfully to the defence of global trade routes on which they and their partners depend in order that their societies can flourish, and for the defence of the European peoples in their homelands. Wealth is not an end in itself, wealth is a means to an end, in the same sense that a person driving a car needs to fill up at the service station before attempting their journey.
That sounds about right to me. Once upon a Time in EurasiaIt is said among traders and among contractors that we won’t laugh unless we’re profiting, and that we won’t cry until we’re completely bankrupt. It’s a good saying. Of course, this is only a rationalisation of a feeling that is completely natural in every way, one which in earlier times in human history would not have needed to be enunciated by anyone. These kinds of sentiments are taking people back to the past, even though they are very modern-sounding expressions. If you think about it you’ll realise that this is a motivational logic that applies in almost every honest expression of the relations of production. There are some modern phrases that lack the appropriate level of nuance, though. For example, when speaking of time scales growing longer or shorter, people will say that time is money. Money of course being an indication of a promise to do productive work. In agrarian times long past, the phrase ‘time is money’, would have had a slightly different meaning. Rather than speaking of how fast a task is completed, it instead would have been a reference to the appropriateness of the timing of the actions. It wasn’t about ‘punctuality’. It was about instinctively knowing when to act, being able to skip some of the rationalisation process through an intuition that is hardwired into one’s alleles. The people sensed when it would be most appropriate to take an action, and they did it. If it required leadership, then the leader sensed when to harness the motive energies of the people and then did so. The sense of ‘time’ was entirely different from the sense of ‘time’ that presently exists. Time was seen as a cycle that spiralled upwards on each of its turns. When a person would participate in seasonal festivals, re-enacting the same stages over and over as the wheel of the seasons turned, re-enacting the deeds of the past, that person would no longer be in ‘profane time’, but would instead be immediately and—literally—magically taken back to the ‘sacred time’, the foundational and primordial story around which that society ontologically is founded. And then came the Abrahamic monotheists to disrupt everything. They set human beings against their own senses and against their own intuition by emphasising a false distinction between mind and body. They created a separation between the people and the land that they evolved on. They were not the only ones to attempt this, but particularly in Europe and the Near East, it is impossible to talk about this issue without actually pointing out that Abrahamic religion is a central factor to the process of the alienation of people from themselves and their dispossession from their own land. The Christian church twisted the minds of the European peoples, turning the mechanisms of their own survival instincts against themselves. Islam also did the same from without, it attacked people for the sake of accomplishing the same purposes, and these are essentially the same phenomenon, all branching from Judaism. All the expressions of Middle Eastern monotheism spring up in the physical world from the after-effects of a desertification event that occurred in the Middle East and North Africa about 4000 years ago, an event which a priestly class seized upon so as to cement their control. Those population groups then tried by every means possible, to impose their warped social institutions and practices onto the neighbouring populations. Europeans struggled, for centuries, to succeed at living fulfilling lives not because of Christianity, but rather, despite Christianity. But at long last, the European continent has begun to shed the vestiges of Christianity. Since about the early 1970s, Christianity has been on a steady decline in Europe, less and less people are finding it to be convincing than ever. And for a moment, perhaps it appeared that this would be the end of the story. But it is not the end. It could not be allowed to end so easily, it seems. Instead, what has happened is that Islam has inflicted itself onto the continent as yet another wave of semitic religious assault. It is as though there is a malicious force out there which does not want you to be free, it’s as if there is something out there which wants to enslave you all. That is only intended to be a very loose description of what has been happening, consider it like a loose narrative which will be expanded on at a different time. It should however be enough—for now—to give a general idea of what viewpoint I’m taking here. Shaking the KaleidoscopeBeing able to conceive of this as a fight that has been going on for thousands of years is something that is crucial to being able to understand the most recent assault wave that is taking place. The European Union is presently in a situation where the breakdown of law and order in Libya and the failure to re-establish the rule of law in that territory has led to a 70% increase in the number of Islamic fundamentalist groups operating in that area. Furthermore, the inability of the European Union to impose border controls from the Libyan side of the border, and the complete disintegration of the system of border controls that Libya used to use to stem the flow of migrants from East and Central Africa across trafficking routes into Southern Europe, has led to a massive increase in migration heading toward the European Union. At the same time, various governments have enacted laws that act as financial incentives for economic migrants to try to risk their lives to enter the European Union illegally, and has in turn facilitated the expansion of already-existing trafficking networks who are able to make exorbitant profits from the trade in human beings. This has in turn enabled the traffickers to expand their operations and become more sophisticated. Migrants are also flowing from Syria and Iraq, along multiple routes that lead into Europe. Some of those people are fleeing persecution at the hands of ISIL because the leaders of the North Atlantic have not yet shown the political courage to commit themselves to ground war in Mesopotamia to undo the damage that has been done by the rise of ISIL. At the centre of all of this, is now ISIL, which intends to graduate into being able to carry out strikes inside Europe by sending its operatives to form terrorist cells, which would be included among the economic migrants and asylum seekers, and who would be able to acquire their weapons through weapons smuggling networks which have existed in Central Asia and the Balkans since at least the late 1980s and are still intact. As is clearly obvious, the threat involved for Europe is extremely severe. This is warfare against a foreign enemy that fights in new and inventive ways to harm the interests of peoples of around the world by attacking targets both foreign and domestic. As the line between foreign and domestic targets is blurred—after all, what is the functional difference between a trading house being attacked domestically, and a shipping port or an oil services office being attacked overseas—so too the line between foreign policy and domestic policy is blurred as a result of this, and as a consequence the line between policing and warfare becomes very thin. And furthermore, in a highly integrated set of national economies, intelligence collected by one country might be more useful to a partner country than it is to the country that actually collected it, meaning that policing and intelligence have increasingly become just as supranational as warfare has become under the NATO framework. Unfortunately, the domestic appearance of the conflict has led to many misunderstandings about what the fundamental nature of this conflict really is. Many people who are skeptical of the severity of the threat, like to argue that terrorism is ‘a tactic and not an enemy’, and that somehow this means that all of these could be handled as a police matter within individual member states of the European Union. They do this because they took the term ‘War on Terror’ literally, rather than as a piece of political rhetoric, and didn’t remember that what it actually is called is ‘Overseas Contingency Operations’. We are not actually ‘fighting terror’ in the sense that it is commonly understood. We’re protecting lines of supply and hard assets from interference by hostile Islamic state or Islamic non-state actors which happen to frequently employ terrorism as a tactic. The ‘War on Terror’ is an umbrella, it’s a toolbox which is tailored for dealing with the challenges of the post-Cold War environment and for tying off loose ends that were left untied. It’s a toolbox full of tools that can be used to manage disorder and keep it at bay. We are not at war with every single group in the world that happens to use terrorism as a tactic. We’re at war with those which threaten the interests of the North Atlantic and those of its global defence and trade partners. There are three things that make the war against Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-inspired groups, as well as ISIL in particular, different from criminal investigations into organised crime or measures taken by police to tackle domestic social problems. Firstly, the Islamists are not seeking purely to accrue gains for a syndicate. They have explicitly geopolitical objectives, namely, that they would like the states of the North Atlantic and their partners to abandon all of their enterprises in the Middle East. Their purpose is not solely to make money for a narrow clique of individuals, but rather, to in fact stymie the development of productive forces by accruing the power to deny us access to natural resources or to otherwise interfere with shipping. Secondly, these people have shown that they are willing and able to create events that are both violent and spectacular, and cause massive property damage to hard assets to such an extent that it cannot be categorised as crime but in fact is plainly visible to all as an act of war. This is something that they themselves are willing to acknowledge and even boast of. Thirdly, the Islamists are a completely foreign ideology which finds its safe havens outside the North Atlantic, and is a culturally foreign threat in the sense that Islam is not European, and Islamists consider themselves to be at war against European society on the most fundamental level. Still others have made criticisms talking about how it is ‘un-European’ to detain people for effectively indefinite periods in clandestine detention facilities, and even that having intelligence services being patched into the processing of asylum seekers, is ‘un-European’. We’ve also seen recently that many politicians seem happy to hang up signs marked “All Refugees Welcome”, as though anyone seeking to cross borders in the middle of a 14-year long war is supposed to be regarded as completely non-suspicious. What is the usual rationale that is taken toward detention of wartime combatants? The obvious purpose of wartime detention, has historically been to prevent the detained individual from returning to the battlefield to take up arms against us again. Normally, detainees are released after the formal cessation of hostilities. Therefore, given that this is a war, those who were detained at some point over the past 14 years, should be able to be detained for the entire duration of the ‘War on Terror’, which is to say, so long as Overseas Contingency Operations are being carried out against Islamic groups. Since it is difficult to determine when that time might actually come, it makes sense to me that an enemy combatant picked up on the battlefield in the ‘War on Terror’ can indeed rationally be held for what is effectively ‘indefinitely’, but that would only be because the enemy refuses to surrender, not because anyone in the North Atlantic necessarily has any explicit desire to detain someone without trial ‘forever’. The so-called ‘indefinite detention’ was just inherent to the logic of events which unfolded. One of the most unfortunate things is how people have not processed or understood the idea that making all of these things illegal would also reduce flexibility and make the North Atlantic entirely too predictable in its behaviour. Having some ambiguity can actually be a good thing sometimes. Failure to Understand the Threat EnvironmentNow we see liberals doing this:
And:
It’s clear that liberals are not capable of selecting policy preferences that are suitable to the threat environment that Europe faces, nor are they able to understand that this is fourth generation warfare and that security needs to be everywhere because the fighting is asymmetrical and the force composition of the enemy includes ‘civilians’. The enemy organises in Mesopotamia and seeks to control cells within Europe’s borders, and they also seek to radicalise 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants inside Europe through the internet. In the present social media environment, it is extremely difficult to monitor, much less control, the sheer volume of material that is out there for them to interact with or consume. There are three emergent phenomena among young jihadists in Europe that are becoming more prevalent since the start of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. The first phenomenon is that there is an increase in training and sophistication. Jihadists have been able to organise explosives training for European Muslims, they’ve been able to gain combat experience in the wars in Syria and Libya and Iraq, and have absorbed some of the best practices for urban combat as a result of having operated in that kind of environment. Many of them would by now have more hours of experience fighting gun battles than the police in many states in the North Atlantic tend to have. The second phenomenon is that there is shift to recruitment from the deprived areas of Europe which would usually be characterised by ghettoes and inner city gangs. For many of the recruits, their movement into the ranks of ISIL is just like graduating from one form of ‘gang activity’ to another, but of course only in the limited sense that they are already used to breaking the law and already have a disrespect for the societies that they are living in, and so can be quite amenable to carrying out violent acts toward police officers and civilians in European countries. The pre-Arab Spring pattern was one characterised by Islamists who had become radicalised. This recent phenomenon now adds to that criminals who have become Islamised and graduate into becoming enemy combatants. Their initial revolt against society would have been characterised as anti-social behaviour, but they have now become Islamised and seek to direct that behaviour toward a ‘larger purpose’. The third phenomenon is the broadening of prison gang recruitment outreach by Islamist groups. Given that many of the demographics that are emblematic of Islamic migration into Europe have a higher rate of criminal offending than the native population, it is only natural that prisons would become jihadist recruitment grounds. The narrative that they are being given is a combination of a guilt narrative and a victim narrative paired together. The recruiters would sympathise with the plight of the prisoner by telling them that they are members of a downtrodden group and that in order to survive they had been ‘forced’ to the margins of society to become criminals. At the same time, the recruiters would also impress on the prisoner that being a criminal is still ‘a sin’ because the Qu’ran and the Hadiths admonish Muslims to obey the law of the land that they are living in unless they happen to be engaged in jihad against that land. They are then offered ‘redemption’ on the condition that they would leverage the skillsets and contacts that they made in the criminal world to serve the ‘larger purpose’ of waging jihad. With all of those things in mind, the fact that someone would want to massively increase migration into Europe from the very same zones in the south where all of this is based, is truly breathtaking to consider. Angela Merkel and the rest of the liberal political class in continental Europe seem to have no problems whatsoever with taking over 800,000 new people all at once over an extremely short period of time, and they probably don’t intend to stop there. See for example:
And:
Counter-terrorism is a very tricky thing. It’s not really possible to always be able to find and break up terrorist cells just because you know that they are out there. Even being able to watch all of the signals all of the time, does not mean that the state can address all possible threats simultaneously. Being able to keep track of the relationships between people, and to decide who should be placed under total surveillance and when, is partly based on patterns, partly based on the experience of the case officers, partly based on luck, and the rest is fate. Think of this: To place someone under a wiretap requires a court order and that takes time to get. If you know who the attackers might be, you then have to prioritise who you’d want to place under 24/7 surveillance. Just to watch about five suspects, would require assigning several officers in several cars to that job. To make sure that everyone is properly alert and lively, a person might run these in four shifts over a 24 hour period. And then for all of those people, they would need support back in the operations centre to coordinate their actions, review intelligence and manage the wiretaps. And so you realise that you’ve actually got about a hundred people tasked to five suspects who you think might be planning an imminent attack. Money is going out the door to finance that effort. And you’ve chosen to watch those particular people rather than dedicating those resources to any other cluster of people who might be the cell that you are looking for. Or perhaps even the cell you didn’t know you were looking for until something began to look suspicious. Other intelligence collection requests are being postponed or missed while that is occurring. Now imagine how much more difficult that becomes in a scenario with mass migration from a place where ISIL is operating. The threat would be extremely severe, more severe than it ever has been. Yet liberal politicians are making this scenario play out before everyone’s eyes. Putting the Car into GearEurope is—whether it likes it or not—in the midst of military operations against an enemy that is determined to strike anywhere and at any time. Conduct of military operations must be guided by a set of established guidelines, referred to as doctrine. Often, doctrine is shaped significantly by factors other than the lessons learned during operations because the doctrine is also partly shaped by the political environment in which it manifested. Doctrine has increasingly been more a reflection of the influence of individuals with ideological biases and guilt complexes, budget constraints, and flagrant electioneering, rather than critical analysis, exercises, training, study or experience in the application of force. I would say that at least four things need to be established and/or strengthened in order to begin addressing the problem:
Regarding the refugees that are fleeing from Iraq and Syria in the face of ISIL aggression, it is obvious that having the whole of Mesopotamia fleeing into Europe to get away from ISIL is simply an international absurdity. If ISIL were to be defeated in Iraq and Syria within a reasonable time frame, that would do a lot to stem the flow of migrants into Europe, because that would be effectively tackling it from the demand side. There would be less of a demand for entry into Europe, if stable governance were restored in Mesopotamia. Strategic bombing against ISIL, while useful, does not actually restore stable governance and thus does not give people the confidence to remain in their homes and stop migrating out. Also, the compromise measure of embedding special forces into Iraq is not sufficient either, because you cannot just throw special forces into a country without any of the support and services that usually would accompany doing such a thing. And if someone is going to do that, then they might as well just resign themselves to the fact that they will end up with combat brigades in there eventually. So why not just plan for putting combat brigades back into Iraq from the start? The purpose in such a case, should not be to try to ‘put Iraq back together again’ in the way that it was arranged before ISIL arose. Iraq will never be the same again, but re-establishing some new kind of borders would probably help to stabilise the situation. Continuing to support the existence of Iraqi Kurdistan would also be helpful. Also meriting attention would be people like the Assyrians who would like to have their own homeland be recognised in the Nineveh plains. There are also energy interests involved, as Exxon-Mobil has been in negotiations with individuals in the area. Furthermore, should these groups be given faithful support by NATO countries, they would be very grateful. Additionally, the governments of those hypothetically independent states or autonomous provinces might be able to act as satraps that are far more reliable and amenable to European interests than the consistently duplicitous satrap called Israel ever will be. There are a lot of interests and angles of approach that can be summed together for a support of more North Atlantic involvement in ground combat against ISIL, and it would be nice if European people could impress upon the politicians that it is okay for them to show some political courage and support such measures. And that if they do not support such measures, they should be questioned as to why they refuse to support tough action against ISIL. There has also been a dearth of enthusiasm for intervention among European ethno-nationalists, when in fact intervention is quite clearly something that European ethno-nationalists ought to be championing. It’s not enough to just be against mass migration, to be completely parsimonious and coherent, you have to support the measures necessary to disintegrate and destroy the problem at its source. Motive EnergyAll of what I’ve said above would be completely useless if a person doesn’t have the historical understanding and most importantly the motive energy to carry through the war to its objective. After all, it’s one thing to show a person their material interests, and to exhort them to support war, but it’s another thing entirely to have a person who has that will to fight and act on those interests. After all, a person could always say “I’ll accept a loss here and withdraw, it’s not worth it to me”. Christians lack the motive energy for this war, and these examples are typical of that lack of motive energy:
And:
That weak and pathetic behaviour from Christians should not be surprising. Christianity is less motivated to fight, because for them, the disagreement with Islam is not fundamental. They don’t fundamentally disagree with the premise of Islam because for them it merely is an argument about the specifics of the tyrannical Abrahamic god’s requirements. Christians are never going to have any lasting and enduring will to fight against Islam, because they are actually servants of the same god in the first place. They complain of how ‘destructive’ the war is and how they ‘distrust’ people who sell weapons, but the whole world is constantly changing. Creation and destruction are both forms of change. Destruction is behind us and in front of us, so why shouldn’t we welcome death in the same way that we welcome life? The war against Islamism is not just killing without a goal, it is killing that has a goal of preserving those lives that we value. The development of productive forces—which requires that energy supplies be maintained and goods to flow unimpeded by adversaries—leads to societies in which more people are able to ascend Maslow’s hierarchy. When people move up the hierarchy they have more time and inclination to examine the life that they are living critically, to plan for the future, and to engage in more in-depth personal development. We’re in a pivotal era in human history right now, where, since 2001, the forces of retrogression have found themselves locked in combat against the forces of progress, and it is a fight that will have lasting global implications for human evolution. If some Arabs want to be regressive and stand in the way of human development, and if some Arabs want to act as a spearhead to break down ethnic genetic communities so that these blocks of political experience—political experience of the ages being one of the great intellectual treasures of nation-states—are eroded and destroyed, then it is absolutely right that people should kill any Arabs who behave in that way. Any group that feels that its destiny is to stand with ISIL, should be targeted, hunted down, and killed in the spacial battlefield. That would be progress. Fundamentally, one of the most important things that people must be encouraged to do is reject the god of the monotheists. Its fraudulent claims that it ‘created everything’, must be rejected. The opinion that it is ‘a belief worthy of respect and toleration’ also must be rejected. Once you can make those in Europe who are trapped in delusion aware that the god of the monotheists is a liar and a fraud, and that nature is not something that could have been consciously made by anyone, then you will be laying the groundwork through which people can support war coherently. Why is that so important? The reason is this: If people can be brought to understand the war in the realm of ideas, to understand that we are actually fighting against the power of the monotheistic god, to understand that this should be done deliberately and consciously, it has a real effect. It can cause transformations in people’s thinking that would lead to the complete inversion and thus destruction of Judeo-Christian society and morals, a destruction which needs to happen, along with the destruction of Islamic society and its prestige at the same time. Those who were ‘losers’ in the past 2000 years will be ‘winners’ in the new and inverted world that is to come. Human beings will cast off the chains that are interwoven with dead flowers so that they can seek the true flower, because they’d be casting off the conditions and the ideas which had made the monotheistic lying possible in the first place, through participating in actions—as a society—that are understood to be antagonistic against the semitic god. People should also be encouraged to show the viability and vitality of a new Europe, through their support for parallel civic organisations that strengthen national bonds of blood and proximity. These social organisations would be like a great constellation of stars shining like a thousand points of light over the continent, engaged in world service. By doing so, it would show that it is possible to run Europe without Christianity, without Islam, and without Judaism. Through that kind of approach, we would be fighting the war domestically, fighting the war overseas, and also fighting the war in the world we cannot see. If we are successful at creating that environment—and we will be—I think there will be a definite chance for a new Europe to emerge. Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Comments:2
Posted by neil vodavzny on Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:55 | # Is it true to say that Daniels is subjectivist, as I got a bit confused way back when? So, for example, you would be the polar opposite of Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy of individual achievement and reason over loyalty etc? So therefore, some right-wingers are mistakenly objectivist? 3
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:02 | # Yes, I am saying that right wingers are (overly) objectivist in placing objective facts over social loyalty. No, I do not propose subjectivism as the antidote to objectivism, I am far more of a relativist. Relativism of social, especially a racially social perspective is what is needed (in the case of Whites in particular) as correction to pejorative philsophical-historical trends: anti-social patterns of individualism and objectivism that go beyond social classification, outstripping its concerns; trends which are perverted, extrapolated by the Jewish notion of anti-“racism”, viz. anti-social classification for Whites.
Subjective interests are somewhat relative, and connected to the social, of course. However, subjectivism is too individualistic a position to be most useful at this point in history in compensation for the individulalism (saliently, of Lockeatine rights and Jewish inversion thereof) that has worked against our racial interests; and to be most useful against objectivism’s even more egregious oblivion, which plagues the relative interests of the social group. Being critical of objectivism in the sense that I mean it is much more broad than being against Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Even racial advocates make the mistake of getting mixed up in objectivism broadly speaking - they do most often, in fact: “race based on naturalism” etc. Well, nature does not care about your race. “Please shut up”, I’d like to say to these objectivists, might (of itself) makes righters, etc. I was discussing this with Kumiko and she fed back to me perfectly: “nature is objective, but you should not be.” We should care about our relative social paradigms if we are interested in preserving them - especially if we are racial advocates. 4
Posted by neil vodavzny on Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:47 | # “nature is objective, but you should not be.” This is interesting, as I got into a discussion with Vincent Fee-Woo of UVS website, which posits “cognitive paradoxes”. These are things like the sun setting in the east, when objectively earth orbits the sun; the constellations, when the night-sky we observe is millions or billions of years old. There are connections to astrology and other alternate sciences. I have a post http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS on paradoxical effect.htm There is an objective view of nature, but IMO there is also a subjective view of nature. This is contrary to orthodoxy, and Vincent’s site is completely unorthodox. Nevertheless, orthodoxy is taking the world into a den of iniquity, and us along with it. A subjective view of nature is bound to be more Right and less modern and IMO more realistic. Dynasty, or just breeding, gives you a subjective viewpoint (of the outside). 6
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:59 | # I guess I’ve imbibed enough liberalism in my life to take a pretty heterodox view of people’s spiritual beliefs. It is instinct which will compel support of the 14 words. Something entirely more powerful than the thin layer of other-worldly imaginings which give succor to many. belief in Santa Claus and his magic Elves + support for the 14 words = fine by me 7
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 01:18 | # Neil, interesting remarks (p.s., I’ve edited my own response to you to make it more clear) CC, very glad to hear it! (note: “except”... was a typo for accept.. sheesh) ..................................... Kumiko, coming back directly to the topic of your post, a thought emerges at this point:
It would be ideal to have these state apparati in our service - that is what makes your posts so exciting - but it will take a monumental effort to wrest them squarely thus. This post could represent a giant step in that regard.
8
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 12 Sep 2015 05:09 | #
Even if ‘Santa Claus and his magic elves’ happen to be literally part of a Middle Eastern comedy skit? Does this have any kind of limitation to it? Do you just automatically accept anyone who mouths the ‘14 words’ like some kind of mantra? 9
Posted by More on optimal Social Relativism as antidote on Sat, 12 Sep 2015 08:26 | # In further elaboration on Neil Vodavzny’s question and in warding off the “alternative right”‘s shenanigans: No, subjectivism is not the antidote to objectivism. Subjectivism is simply the other side of The Cartesian divide which ails Western peoples, sends liberalism into runaway and leaves us susceptible to Jews and other collectively organized antagonists. It is the acknowledgment of the engaged interaction of one’s Relative Social Group Perspective - our social paradigms and their interactive rules - that is the antidote to the Cartesian divide (of subjectivism and objectivism) and facilitates instead the management of a human ecology (such as a race) with social accountability, keeping it from runaway and being taken advantage of by antagonistic peoples who embrace the relative interests of their collective interests and who are not hoodwinked to participate in Western style objectivism or liberal subjectivism. 10
Posted by Crazy over you on Sat, 12 Sep 2015 09:40 | # Crazy over you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpNqB4dnT4
]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0OX_8YvFxA Even it up 11
Posted by Captainchoas on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:18 | #
Well, I was speaking rhetorically…
Sure. Taken much further and we would have arrived in the land of mental illness. That is where any serious political debate ends and the men in the white coats take over.
That depends on the quality of the person’s mind in question. If they are just another common dumbass (one of “the rabble”, as Nietzsche referred to the mass of the people) then their reciting simple slogans will have to do. 12
Posted by jawake on Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:13 | # There’s not a lot you can do, even on the national level, when the EU regulates migration/asylum policy. If any national politician actually rejected the EU Directive, they would find themselves in hot water. You can blame monotheism all you want, but it is EU Council Directive 2003/9/ec or Dublin 3 that is immediately responsible. Hungary will have to defend itself, and the EU has already challenged them. http://europeanmigrationlaw.eu/en/about_navigation#asile_119_0_0 13
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:57 | # You shouldn’t reject the directive, you should have national leaders that are willing to interpret it in a way that does not lead to having to actually accept hundreds of thousands of refugees from a region of the world that the North Atlantic is engaged in various conflicts with. Consider Directive 2013/33/EU, and Directive 2001/55/EC. The thing you will notice is that there are circumstances under which detention and removal is allowed, and one of the allowed reasons is ‘national security’, if anyone should choose to invoke it. Also, the asylum application procedures are determined by the members states and are reviewed by the legal apparatus of the member state. Just because someone arrives on the soil and files an application, does not mean that you have to give it to them. Another thing worth remembering is that in order for a person to apply for asylum in the first place, they must be standing inside the territory that your country controls. If they never make it to a position inside your borders, you don’t have to hear their application at all. It is not allowed for a person to seek asylum by making an application at a location outside of a member state. Furthermore, if an asylum seeker is inside one European country and crosses illegally into another, it voids the process unless the two member states concerned happen to agree that this kind of behaviour should be allowed. So I would conclude that these people are not having their hands tied by the language in the directives, so much as they choose to implement the directives in the member states in such a way that allows for mass migration, because the mentality and psychology of the national leaders and their constituents causes them to do so. Because they actually just want to implement the directives in a very permissive way. The language in the directives does not prevent them from stopping the wave of migration. They could stop it if they wanted to, and still be within the law. 14
Posted by jawake on Tue, 15 Sep 2015 01:01 | # This is a typical pro-EU argument. The EU has already required that member states institute a quota and it will eventually decide how many people will be taken in. Germany is setting an example because it considers itself the leader of the EU project; not because they are weak Christians who don’t have the stomache to fight. So what if the member states implement the directives in a way not to allow for mass immigration? If you make the pledge of a quota and it is shoved down your throat, the end result is that the migrants stay. Juncker: Migrant quotas must be ‘compulsory’ The European Commission wants all 22 EU member states to sign up to a quota policy - but several nations oppose such a move, including Poland, Slovakia and Hungary.Ministers will meet again next month to work out how many refugees each nation will take in, as Luxembourg foreign minister Jean Asselborn cautioned “it is premature for the Council to take a decision today”. They don’t want to make a decision because they know to shove it down Europe’s throat right now would be dangerous. But that doesn’t stop them wasting any time bringing proceedings against the countries that are “not allowing mass migration:” August 2015 And of course: He (Junkcer) said the Commission plans to set up a Trust Fund of €1.8 billion to help Africa tackle the root causes of migration, and called on all EU members to pitch in. 15
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 15 Sep 2015 05:36 | # Of course my argument is ‘a typical pro-EU argument’, but only in the sense that it’s also common sense. The idea that all problems are caused by the existence of the European Union makes no sense. The EU is simply a supranational body that exemplifies the broad talking-shop and broad policy preferences of all the European governments, who pool their sovereignties for the purpose of dealing with issues that are continental in scope. The reason that Germany is ‘setting an example’ in their attempt to import 800,000 migrants, is not because of the EU’s existence. The reason that they are ‘setting an example’ in their attempt to import 800,000 migrants is because Germany has been terminally ill since the year 1945, moreso than any other European nation barring Sweden. Does Germany strike you as a being a country that would be perfectly fine and healthy if not for the existence of the EU project? Or does Germany strike you as a country that has been very sick for a long time now? Whether they are inside the EU structure or outside of it, they would need to deal with the same core problems. This applies when talking about fighting in general as well. If you anti-Europeans had your way, perhaps the European Union might be abolished or something. That action would solve basically no problems whatsoever, because you’d still have the problem of the existence of liberalism and Christianity, just now you’d have the additional problem of lacking a customs union, lacking a banking union, lacking an energy union, lacking FRONTEX, and lacking the ability to leverage the economy of scale for industry and defence, and lacking the ability to coherently coordinate defence of the southern and eastern borders of the continent against hostile Russian manoeuvring. Abolishing the EU would not make anything easier for you. It would just make things even more difficult than they already are. 16
Posted by jawake on Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:02 | # You are arguing with a straw man and trying to overload the question. This is dishonest discourse and typical of Nationalism’s enemies. You want to force me into defending opinions I never expressed and thereby force me to point out all the problems with the “unions” you listed, hoping that you discredit me on this forum by: 1) Exposing my ignorance of all these systems and possibly my lack of a rationally developed critique of them; and which you have merely asserted are beneficial: 2) And asking me to defend the abolishment of the EU, a position I did not take, and then forcing me into a position where I have to provide some kind of detailed alternative which cannot possibly be conceived. You are arguing from the position of what is and therefore trying to make legitimate criticism of one policy-a policy which actually condemns the EU (or should) in Nationalist circles- seem nonsensical. This technique is typical of establishment funded apparatchiks or people who conceive of themselves as rational because they side with the perceived rationality of argumentation made from power. (I made a viable point and see that the article I linked to about the EU’s suggestion to make asylum quotas compulsory was included on the front page today.) My point is: The EU was NOT conceived as a regional entity to help Europeans enjoy peace and prosperity, but it was conceived under the auspices of globalization after much of Europe was destroyed and exhausted, in order to persistently demoralize Europe and subsequently extract a debt that the rest of the world feels it owes them. Because of its origins, the process by which the EU would be transformed into a regional entity that would be democratic- thereby exclusively beholden to Europe instead of whipping it- would be just as revolutionary and “destructive” as the abolition of the EU would be. 17
Posted by British wife's ragheadedness on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:47 | # British wife of ISIS jihadi killed in drone strike says ‘I will never love anyone but him’ A SICK widow of an ISIS jihadi who was killed in a drone strike in Syria has spoken gushingly of her love for the slain terrorist.
18
Posted by Croatia shows: it can be done on Sun, 20 Sep 2015 08:16 | #
19
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 20 Sep 2015 08:37 | # What? All of the Croats were arrested along with the migrants, and rightly so. They were drawn in and then sent back to whence they came.
“Asz nagz durbatuluk, asz nagz gimbatul, asz nagz trakatuluk agh burzumiszi krimpatul.” 20
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2015 08:40 | # I’m still glad that the Croatians were concerned enough and took initiative to get rid of them, but it is indeed, even better that the Hungarians handled the situation more properly still on a meta- read international level - by compelling the Croats to negotiate these matters correctly on an inter-European basis. However, my point was that the Croatians were showing that putting would-be migrants on transport and removing them from one’s country can be done. It also showed that European nations can still act with a degree of independence - one of my key points in connection to what you’ve said above in response to jawake’s suggestion that EU members had no autonomous say in accepting or rejecting immigrants. It is true, however, that merely and only shipping them so far as another European country is a bit like wiping one’s dirty hands upon someone else’s clean clothes. 22
Posted by M. Koehler III on Tue, 29 Sep 2015 01:15 | # Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Ali Agca took care of this shitpope. 23
Posted by Pope of Cucks on Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:23 | # He is truly the Pope of cucks
26
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:09 | #
Well, this is a late response, but while I maintain that it was not conceived for the purpose of destroying Europe, it is now doing precisely that because its leaders want it to, so it would seem that the entire edifice is going to have to be torn down and reconstructed for sake of Europe’s survival. 27
Posted by The Holocaust is Aging on Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:26 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: MR Radio: A conversation with Bill Baillie of European Outlook
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:57 | #
Wonderful piece, Kumiko. There is much to ponder, so I do not want to comment at length as yet until I digest this a bit more, particularly as you confront the standard WN with what is to us the unusually hawkish and suspiciously tantalizing position that military and security could be on our side as opposed to having us be pawns for Jews (and objectivists).