web analytics

A Good War Over a Bad Peace?

By ATWadmin On October 31st, 2007 at 10:55 pm

Part of my occasional Seeing Things series.

eussrno1.gifI’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 ma
n 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 sons
And failing freedom, war’

Takuan Seiyo writes that "reality is a jealous mistress. Spurned, she will return to take her revenge", but I think Kipling said it best:

"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 t
error and slaughter return."

 

America: Conservatives Grade the Democrat Debate

By ATWadmin On October 31st, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Another Democrat Debate is over. The usual suspects lined up at their podiums to obfuscate the issues and attempt to evade the questions. No candidate was illuminating; none very entertaining. Nothing new here.

Rush Limbaugh made an interesting point this morning on the  radio.  He thinks that Hillary, despite her gaffes, won the debate by default.  None of her opponents successfully stepped up to the plate and challenged her; none lodged her from her perch as anointed Democratic nominee.  Rush pointed out that this says something about the Democrat’s roster of candidates.  It says that the candidates the Democrats are fielding are extremely weak.

Hugh Hewitt agrees with liberal MSM and  Roger Simon — Hillary lost the debate. From  Roger Simon of politico.com

 

PHILADELPHIA — We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.

 

It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued driver’s licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.

It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

The Unbearable Oppressiveness of the American Left

By ATWadmin On October 31st, 2007 at 5:37 pm

It used to be, on university campuses in the United States, that a Residential Assistant (RA) was an older student living in the student dorms; the RA was put in charge of keeping the noise down, ensuring the plumbing didn’t leak, and lending a sympathetic ear to stressed-out freshmen during exam week.

At the University of Delaware, however, the RA job description now includes intensive training regarding the ins-and-outs of “diversity,” and the reeducation –  the indoctrination into the Leftist world-view — of the new, incoming students, students unlucky enough to need room and boarding in the dorms.  From the University of Delaware RA training manual:

“In a white supremacist, capitalist,male supremacist and hererosexist system, all non-ruling class of whites are in some way oppressed by that system, but we are also privileged by it. When we organize against our own oppression, but not against our privilege – that is, against the oppression of people of color, we become oppressors of people of color. Inaction is complicity. Silence is consent. To cease being oppressors, we must act against oppression.” (To download the manual go to thefire.org; click “intensive training.”)

John Leo writes:

Students are pressured or required to accept an array of the university’s approved views. In one training session, students had to announce their opinions on gay marriage. Those who did not approve of gay marriage were isolated and heavily pressured to change their opinion….

…The indoctrination program pushes students to accept the university’s ideas on politics, race, sex, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism…The training is run by Kathleen Kerr, director of residential life, who reportedly considers it a "cutting-edge" program that can be exported to other universities around the country…She (Kerr) has been quoted as saying that the job of RAs is to educate the whole human being with a "curricular approach to residential education." In this curricular approach, students are required to report their thoughts and opinions. One professor says: "You have to confess what you believe to the RA." The RAs write reports to their superiors on student progress in cooperating with the "treatment."

In plain English…dorm students at the University of Delaware are indoctrinated with hooey.    I think  “The Cowboy Code ”  would  be of much greater value to today’s students.  What do you think?  Once unwritten, here’s the Code:

 

Don’t ask a man where he came from; judge a man by what he is today.

Defend yourself whenever necessary.

Look out for your own.

Don’t make a threat without expecting dire consequences.

Never pass anyone on the trail without saying "Howdy".
 
When approaching someone from behind, give a loud greeting before you get within shooting range.

Don’t wave at a man on a horse, as it might spook the horse. A nod is the proper greeting.

Riding another man’s horse without his permission is nearly as bad as making love to his wife.  Never even bother another man’s horse.

Always fill your whiskey glass to the brim.
 
Do not practice ingratitude.

A cowboy is pleasant even when out of sorts. Complaining is what quitters do, and cowboys hate quitters.

Always be courageous. Cowards aren’t tolerated in any outfit worth its salt.

A cowboy always helps someone in need, even a stranger or an enemy.

Be hospitable to strangers. Anyone who wanders in, including an enemy, is welcome at the dinner table. The same was true for riders who joined cowboys on the range.

Give your enemy a fighting chance.

Real cowboys are modest.  A braggert who is "all gurgle and no guts" is not tolerated.  

A cowboy doesn’t talk much; he saves his breath for breathing.

Cuss all you want, but only around men, horses and cows.

Complain about the cooking and you become the cook.

Be there for a friend when he needs you.

A cowboy is loyal to his "brand," to his friends, and those he rides with.

Never shoot an unarmed or unwarned enemy. This was also known as "the rattlesnake code": always warn before you strike. However, if a man was being stalked, this could be ignored.

Never shoot a woman no matter what.

Consideration for others is central to the code, such as: Don’t stir up dust around the chuckwagon, don’t wake up the wrong man for herd duty, etc.

Respect the land and the environment by not smoking in hazardous fire areas, disfiguring rocks, trees, or other natural areas.

Honesty is absolute – your word is your bond, a handshake is more binding than a contract.

Live by the Golden Rule.

What is the Point of the Queen?

By ATWadmin On October 31st, 2007 at 4:29 pm

A couple of days late due to me being away.

Christopher Booker’s Notebook, essential reading for a clear persepctive on the true nature of the EU, related the following tale in the Sunday Telegrah at the weekend. In 2003, when he was 19, Joe Mendy was on holiday with two friends in the Canaries. One evening, several Spanish policemen arrived, asking to be taken to their room. After a search the three young black Englishmen were taken to a police station and charged with counterfeiting four 50 Euro notes.

Two fake notes had allegedly been passed off in the town, one was found in the possession of one of the friends and a fourth was found in the room. The three men were held in custody for two days, subjected to racial abuse and given hardly anything to eat. When a court then told them to report back next morning, they returned to their room to find most of their belongings had been stolen.

Next day the court allowed them to return to England but told them they would be hearing from the Spanish authorities again. No more was heard until March this year. Officers of the Serious Organised Crime Agency arrived at Mr Mendy’s family home in Camden. His mother told them he was living in Liverpool, waiting to go to university. The officers gave her a number for him to call, which he did. When they didn’t call back, he rang them again and was told he would be hearing from Liverpool police.

The Liverpool police served him with a European Arrest Warrant. He was held in the cells overnight and driven to London. When he said he wished to appeal against the warrant, he was released on bail but in July his appeal was refused (he had been told such appeals are hardly ever upheld). He went to Heathrow, where he was arrested by Spanish police. On arriving in Madrid he learned that the Spanish courts were on holiday and was kept in jail for two months.

In September his Spanish lawyer told him that if he pleaded guilty he would only be given a small fine and a suspended sentence. But if he chose to maintain his innocence (there was not a shred of evidence against him), he could expect to remain in prison for a year until his case was heard. Reluctantly he paid 600 Euros and returned to England, having had to postpone for a year his entry to university.

To an almost empty House of Commons, when confonted with the case, a junior Home Office minister, Meg Hillier, said she could not discuss the case in detail. But she insisted the EU’s warrant was necessary to fight serious cross-border crime, and said "we must have faith in our European partners" that the system would work fairly.

Here is a classic example of the Queen and her government entirely ignoring constitutional constraint. Clearly the Queen and her government do not recognise the absolute supremacy of our Constitution. If they did, a Briton would not be treated in such a dreadful and arbitrary manner on the orders of foreign state agents while in his own country. The Serious Organised Crime Agency was created by the Blair government and, uniquely for any British police force, is not required to swear the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. We can see now why its staff are not required to do so; plainly, its allegiance is to foreign law and foreign powers.

So if that supremacy of the British Constitution no longer exists, then the supremacy of the Crown no longer exists, and if this be so, then Parliament, which draws its legitimacy from the Crown is now an unlawful assembly, and our courts are acting out a charade. The English Law they exercise now being in the nature of local by-law, subordinate to foreign law as agreed upon by Elizabeth the Useless, the woman who swore to govern the British people "in accordance with their laws and traditions" and who then betrayed us. 

WE CAN BE MUSLIM, BUT JUST FOR ONE DAY!

By ATWadmin On October 31st, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Talk about creeping dhimmitude! A school has been accused of MAKING teachers dress up as Asians for a day – to celebrate a Muslim festival. Kids at the 257-pupil primary Rufford primary school in Lye, West Midlandshave have also been told to don ethnic garb even though most are Christians. The morning assembly will be open to all parents – but dads are BARRED from a women-only party in the afternoon because Muslim husbands object to wives mixing with other men. Just two members of staff – a part-time teacher and a teaching assistant – are Muslim! The Head Mistress should be sacked for this disgraceful pandering to a religious minority.

WHY VANDALISM PAYS

By ATWadmin On October 31st, 2007 at 4:05 pm

church2_203.jpgI was pretty disgusted, though not surprised, to read that "youths" who smashed up the roof and windows of a Church in Belfast have been let off any possible prosecution. What is remarkable about this is that the incident was fully photographed, with very clear images recorded as to who was doing what. Yet the vandals will get off scot-free! I can fully understand why the rector of the Church which was vandalised, Rev Charles McCartney, has said he intends to appeal their decision. 

"If the prosecution service don’t do this, then it sends a message to the young men involved that there’s nothing the police can do," Rev McCartney. "It says to the local people there’s no point ringing the police, it also says to the police themselves ‘what’s the point in taking a case’.

That’s the point, there is no point! This is exactly the way things are meant to be. We have a Judiciary and a Police Service which is much more interested in helping those who have committed crime, wanting to understand them, to feel their pain.  They have little thought for those at the receiving end. If you want to stop them wrecking your church roof, put up barbed wire and then expect to be sued for damages.

OVER HERE -WHEN A MAN DOES NOT LOVE A WOMAN, PART DEUX

By ATWadmin On October 31st, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Snow Fright and the Six Stooges went at it last night in the Democratic Candidates’ Debate as reported here yesteday.  I don’t know if the highlight was Congressman Dennis Kucinich discussing the time he saw a UFO or John Edwards looking like he landed in one.  In any event, if a knockout punch was hoped to be delivered by Barack Obama, it clearly was not.  Senator Clinton was able to finesse her way through by not responding in kind.  Her only stumble -the doubletalk involving New York State’s demented governor Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. 

Obama said he was going to go "Yo Mama" on her, and he folded like a six week old slice of swiss cheese.  Edwards was far more obnoxious, and it showed.  Note to Edwards, if you are going to push snake oil, then you got to sell it with a real smile – not a fake one.  New Mexico Governor Richardson blew hot and cold, but he had the sense to defend Hillary by saying the attacks against her were uncalled for, and then repeating all the attacks.  The two adults - Joe Biden and Chris Dodd weren’t bad, but treading water doesn’t help their struggling campaigns.  Biden got off a nice shot at Rudy and the 911 game.  Kucinich with the protective shield afforded those who can not possibly win, was able to get off a few shots at the process itself.  

End of the day, Hillary did what she had to do – ignore the boys and make them cry.   She should have been more prepared for the driver’s license question – old Bill would have seen that one coming from a mile away.  But she did pretty well on her feet as even the questions were directed against her.  Conclusion:  Hillary’s staff should start thinking about running mates now.     

CRUSHING THE IPOD GENERATION..

By ATWadmin On October 31st, 2007 at 10:06 am

ipod.jpgDid you read that Young people aged 18 to 34 are paying half their earnings in tax as they help fund the pension and health care costs of an ever more prosperous older generation?

Nick Bosanquet, consultant director of Reform and professor of health policy at Imperial College London, argues that the need to control government spending and protect young people from having to foot so much of the bill has become ”a defining modern political issue" and crucial to the long-term health of the economy. The report is a severe embarrassment to the Prime Minister, who said when accepting the Labour leadership in June that his priority was to help "young people with talent and ambition wanting the best chance to realize their aspirations." Instead Reform argues that much of government fiscal policy is doing the reverse.

I disagree. I think government policy is exactly to enshackle the young generation. I think Brown and his cronies will be delighted at the news that so many young Brits are deep in debt. We have a Government in power which HATES the individual, and so the fact that half of the coming generation is consumed in repaying debt  will come as great news. Those in debt tend not to rock the boat. 

MISS MACBETH

By ATWadmin On October 31st, 2007 at 9:49 am

halloween_image.jpgHow appropriate that Cherie Blair chooses Halloween to drone on about "inequality"!

"Culture and religion cannot be used as an excuse for discriminating against women", she argues.

I agree but she is less than robust when it comes to dealing with the religion which above all others, most definitely discriminates against women. I’m talking about Islam. She is coy about the issue of the Islamic veil, at one point likening it to the garb worn by the Nuns that taught her.  She refuses to endorse the boycott of King Abdullah even though the regime over which he presides clearly discriminates against women.  It strikes me that Cherie is a typical self-loathing liberal who hates her own culture, seeing "inequality" everywhere, but when it comes to dealing with the real inequality in this world she’s just one more hollow vessel.

SAY BYE BYE TO THE RIGHT TO BUY!

By ATWadmin On October 31st, 2007 at 9:39 am

The thing about the political left is that it constantly seeks to find new ways to INCREASE the size of the State. This explains why the right of council housing tenants in Scotland to buy new-build homes is to end.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is also expected to tell MSPs that a new generation of council houses will tackle Scotland’s housing crisis. At the centre of the strategy will be the reversal of 30 years of "running down the role of local authorities", with new incentives to encourage the construction of a new generation of council houses.

In other words, the State in Scotland will ensure that IT controls new housing and that the liberation brought about by the Thatcher government will be brought to a terminal end. Tenants are required, not owners. We are being pushed back into state controlled housing and that means that the right to own one’s house has to be rescinded. This is why the entire "social housing" argument so beloved of ALL the devolved structures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is specious. It’s more accurate to call if "SOCIALISED" housing and you can be sure it will gain media approval. Anything that advances the size and role of the State is welcomed.